On August 29, 2025, it came to light that the UK government had failed to perform its own analysis on the cost implications of one of the most significant local government reorganisations in decades—a revelation that has stirred debate across Gloucestershire and beyond. As councils across the country, including those in Gloucestershire, scramble to meet a November 28 deadline for devolution proposals, questions are swirling about transparency, accountability, and the true price tag of merging councils into new unitary authorities.
The backdrop to this drama is the government’s bold December 2024 announcement: a sweeping plan to overhaul England’s local government structure by replacing the long-standing two-tier system with fewer, larger unitary authorities. The stakes are high, with the government touting the move as a way to streamline services and deliver substantial savings. But, as the BBC revealed through a Freedom of Information request, the Ministry of Local Government, led by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, never actually undertook its own cost analysis for this ambitious policy. Instead, it relied on a 2020 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), originally commissioned by the County Council Network (CCN), and an updated version from March 2025.
According to the PwC report, merging all 21 two-tier areas into single unitary authorities could yield £2.9 billion in savings over five years. The CCN’s own analysis suggested that if the government opted for 29 new unitary councils—each with a population exceeding 500,000—the savings could reach £1.8 billion over the same period. However, the picture changes dramatically if the reorganisation results in 58 smaller unitary councils, with populations as low as 300,000. In that scenario, the CCN warned, costs could balloon by £850 million over five years, with no long-term savings in sight.
Tim Oliver, chair of the CCN, summed up the delicate balancing act facing policymakers: “If delivered at the right scale, local government reorganisation could unlock billions in efficiency savings to be reinvested in frontline services.” But he cautioned, “We remain concerned over the potential costs of reorganisation where proposals seek to replace the two-tier system with multiple small unitary councils. CCN’s recent report showed that splitting county areas into unitary councils with populations as small as 300,000 will create hundreds of millions of new unsustainable costs for local taxpayers.”
Gloucestershire, with its rich history and an economy valued at £23.1 billion, has operated under a two-tier system since 1974. The county council oversees major services such as roads, libraries, schools, fire and rescue, strategic planning, and social care, while the six district councils handle local planning, bin collection, and housing. Town and parish councils, meanwhile, are not directly affected by the proposed changes.
The government’s vision, outlined in the Devolution White Paper last winter, is to create unitary authorities with populations of at least 500,000, and larger combined authority areas of 1.5 million residents, governed by directly elected metro mayors. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has argued that these changes will help communities “begin to take back control over the things that matter to them.” Yet, in Gloucestershire, political consensus is proving elusive. The county’s leadership has been in flux since the Liberal Democrats seized power from the former Conservative administration at Shire Hall, and civic leaders remain divided over which path to pursue.
Several options are on the table. One is the creation of a single ‘super council’ by merging the county and district councils, resulting in 110 councillors representing 659,000 people. A county-commissioned PwC report found this approach would save £209.3 million over ten years. Another proposal, championed by Cheltenham Borough Council and backed by Cotswolds District Council and five county MPs, would split Gloucestershire into two unitary authorities: Western Gloucestershire (population 349,000, 58 councillors) and Eastern Gloucestershire (population 310,000, 52 councillors). This model is projected to save £65.4 million over a decade.
Then there’s the ‘Greater Gloucester’ idea, led by Cllr Jeremy Hilton, the Liberal Democrat leader of Gloucester City Council. His plan would establish a city-based Gloucester council of about 52 councillors for 175,000 residents, alongside one or two unitaries for the rest of the county. Critics have pointed out that Hilton has yet to bring the proposal before the full council for approval, adding another layer of complexity to an already tangled debate.
Whichever model wins out, all would slash the number of councillors in Gloucestershire by 63%, from 295 to 185, yielding an estimated £490,000 in annual savings on basic allowances. To facilitate a decision, leaders from across the county have formed the Leadership Gloucestershire group, meeting regularly to hash out the pros and cons of each option.
But the restructuring doesn’t stop at the county’s borders. With Gloucestershire’s population falling short of the 1.5 million mark needed for a standalone combined authority, the county is exploring partnerships with neighboring areas. Possibilities include joining the West of England Combined Authority (currently Bristol, South Gloucestershire, and Bath and North East Somerset) or forming a new combined authority with Herefordshire and Worcestershire, or Swindon and Oxfordshire. These moves could unlock additional government funding for large-scale transport, planning, and adult education projects.
There’s no sugarcoating the immediate costs, either. The extra work required to craft detailed devolution proposals is expected to drain £3.6 million from Gloucestershire’s coffers this year, putting significant strain on council officers. And while the government would prefer a countywide consensus, any of the seven councils can submit their own ideas independently, potentially further fracturing unity.
As the November deadline looms, the government’s hands-off approach to cost analysis has not gone unnoticed. Sam Chapman-Allen, chair of the District Councils’ Network, called it “astonishing” that the government had not undertaken an independent assessment before embarking on the biggest reorganisation of councils in half a century. A government spokesperson, however, told the BBC, “The reorganisation will improve services and save taxpayers’ money,” adding that it was not necessary to commission separate in-house analysis at the public’s expense.
Tim Oliver of the CCN offered a final note of caution: “While it may be necessary for some areas to create more than one new council, it is absolutely essential that the government scrutinise and rigorously evaluate all proposals against their own statutory criteria, including ensuring new councils are the right size to achieve efficiencies, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks. Failure to do so could pile further strain on already under pressure care services at a time when many county and district authorities could see their funding reduced as part of the Fair Funding Review.”
Ultimately, it’s up to local areas to weigh their options, balancing financial implications with broader impacts. But as the government prepares to decide which proposals to advance in 2026, the lack of independent cost analysis hangs over the process, raising as many questions as it answers—and leaving residents wondering just how much control, and savings, these changes will really deliver.
