The Government’s English Devolution White Paper confirmed faster devolution and the unitarisation of local councils, reshaping the future of local service delivery. Mo Baines, chief executive of the Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE), outlines the key challenges — from complex delivery models and workforce practices to fleet decarbonisation and neighbourhood service spending — and why early planning is critical for the new authorities.

The English Devolution White Paper announced in December 2024 was not unexpected. Turbo-charged devolution to new combined authorities, or the newly announced strategic authorities, was not surprising. A central plank of the new Government’s commitments to local government was the decentralisation of power from Whitehall to the Town Hall.

However, more surprising was the announcement of wholesale unitarisation of local councils, with many areas of England currently covered by two-tier arrangements of county councils and district councils, each with distinct duties and responsibilities.

Whilst there will be no ‘big bang’ and unitarisation will occur on a more measured basis with many areas yet to agree on what the new councils will look like – and the ultimate decision and agreement rests with the Secretary of State –, it does raise questions as to what might happen with many front-line services. County councils, not unsurprisingly, struggle with the cost of adult and children’s services. For merging districts, this raises concerns about the future of their already limited neighbourhood services spending.

So, what needs to happen now to secure those neighbourhood services? APSE has already started engaging with its member councils to explore these issues and to work through the stages necessary so that services will continue on day one of the new authorities, while also providing the foundations for long-term service improvements.

1. Complex Service Delivery Models

First of all, merging councils will need to consider what the differences are in delivery terms. Some councils may operate on a mixed market basis, with some parts of a service delivered in-house and other elements of a service contracted out. This complexity can be multiplied when service delivery models differ from council to council.

2. Differences in Working Practices

Secondly, it is certainly worth considering differences in working practices. In some authorities, services such as refuse collection have worked across a four-day week, allowing the fifth day to be used for scheduled maintenance on the refuse collection vehicle (RCV) fleet. Could such practices be applied across the new authority? Equally, consideration of task and finish arrangements or having staff working side by side with different policies applying will not work in the long term. APSE is advising member councils to start considering these issues now.

3. What about Physical Assets?

Another practical consideration will be assets such as depots. While reorganisation is often promoted as a way to secure efficiencies, these savings are unlikely to be fully realised in services that must be delivered locally. In such cases, efficiency cannot simply be achieved by reducing physical assets.

Indeed, the distances between depot facilities and the front-end operational delivery can be adversely effective. Optimal efficiency is the key here, not a headlong rush to play a numbers game in terms of asset rationalisation, which may look good on paper but will lead to inefficiency at the delivery end.

4. Local Authority Fleet

A fourth concern will be the use of local authority fleet and policies towards its decarbonisation. Different councils may be on a very different journey on fleet replacement. Some have taken a ‘wait and see’ approach to emerging technologies in areas such as RCVs, as concerns remain about the viability of new electric and hydrogen vehicles, as well as issues of the right infrastructure being in place. This could create tensions between the direction of travel on greening the fleet. An agreed approach between the merging councils will be critical to ensuring that resources are not wasted and are properly aligned to future-proof decision-making.

5. Neighbourhood Service Spending

Finally, neighbourhood service spending in many areas is now marginally increasing. This is because the years of austerity cut too deep, and councillors across the political spectrum have reflected on the ‘invest to save’ case to support those services experienced by residents daily. However, the future of neighbourhood services resource spend will be a critical debate in new councils, where the competition for resources will need to compete against adult and children’s services, not to mention housing, homelessness, and SEND provision. Therefore, APSE is suggesting upfront collaboration between neighbourhood services managers to understand the relative resource allocation across predecessor councils to explore what a realistic allocation will look like post-merger.

Whilst there can be opportunities for savings and efficiencies, post reorganisation, it is critical to assess and explore the current state of play so that any decision-making is informed by a proper analysis.