Local government in the East: what now?

In May, on a wave of popularity, Reform UK took control of three county councils in the East of England – Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. All three aim to block the government’s plans to abolish those councils in 2028, by judicial review in the courts. By 25 June they must decide whether to go ahead, and the government must decide whether to fight or effectively abandon a major policy plank: the reshaping of a local government system last reformed in 1974. What is happening now?

The plan

In 2024, the incoming Labour government announced plans to reorganise local government across the whole of England. Every area is to have a single ‘unitary’ council responsible for all the services currently divided between county and district councils. The changes are to be phased in, and Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk were all chosen to take part in the first wave. In May 2027 there will be elections for ‘shadow’ councils which will take over full responsibility in 2028.

Steve Reed MP — Steve Reed. Image by Chris McAndrew (CC BY 3.0)

After consultation with the current authorities and the general public, a variety of plans were put forward and, on 25 March, Steve Reed, the Housing, Communities and Local Government minister, announced his decisions. Essex is to have five unitaries, and Suffolk and Norfolk three each.

This is a large and very complex operation. Twenty nine councils, with over 40,000 staff between them, will be reorganised into eleven. In all three counties, the county council is one of the three largest employers.

In view of the workload, the government wanted to postpone the local elections planned for 2026. They argued that elections for councils which would only be in place for two years was wasteful and would disrupt the work on reorganisation.

However, Reform UK, who are opposed to the reorganisation in principle, announced that it would seek a judicial review of the decision to postpone the elections, and rather than fight it through the courts, the government withdrew the plan.

The process begins

In the resulting local elections, Reform took control of all three county councils, and all three are now asking the courts to prevent the changes from going ahead.

On 18 May Essex County Council began the process with a ‘pre-action protocol’ letter to Steve Reed, announcing its intention to bring judicial review proceedings, and outlining six objections to the plans. A pre-action protocol letter is required before a judicial review claim is issued. It gives the defendant – in this case the Secretary of State – the opportunity to reconsider the decision.

Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council have also submitted pre-action protocol letters. And South Norfolk Council, who support reorganisation but do not like the model being proposed for Norfolk, has also decided to seek a judicial review.

Essex’s case

On 8 June, the government legal department responded to Essex with a 14 page letter responding to their six claims, and inviting Essex to withdraw their application. We explained the grounds on which the court might rule in a previous article. The table shows Essex’s claim and the Secretary of State’s response.

Essex’s claims	Government response
1. Inadequate reasons. The decision letter didn’t clearly explain why the five unitary models beat the other proposals on the criteria.	There is no duty to give reasons, and the reasons given (community identity, urban anchoring, local support) were explicit in the letter.
2. Procedural unfairness. Consultees should have been shown the Ministry’s financial modelling before the decision.	The financial assessment was an internal exercise, produced after consultation closed. There was no obligation to consult on it.
3. Inadequate consultation. The consultation should have considered the (adverse) financial analysis	The analysis didn’t change the proposals, it just assessed them.
4. Misapplication of criteria. The five areas model for Essex does not properly meet the criteria.	This is ECC simply disagreeing with the SoS’s judgment, which is not a ground for judicial review.
5. Irrationality. The decision was irrational in process and outcome, being inconsistent with previous decisions elsewhere.	The SoS is entitled to weight criteria differently across areas and is not bound by the Surrey precedent.
6. Breach of Public Sector Equality Duty. No due regard was had to the impact on protected characteristics, particularly race.	An extensive equality analysis was carried out and provided to the SoS.

The last of these seems particularly surprising, given Reform’s policy of scrapping the Equality Act, which includes this duty.

What next?

So, when might proceedings actually begin, and how long would the process take?

Legally, a claim for judicial review must be brought within three months of the decision being contested. So, any of the authorities must bring a formal challenge before 25 June.

They now need to consider the Secretary of State’s responses and decide whether to proceed, and if so, whether to seek an injunction to prevent the Government from starting implementation work while proceedings are pending.

A judicial review usually takes six months or more, but given the impact on the reorganisation timetable, there is likely to be an ‘expedited’ hearing in this case. But there will still be months of uncertainty. For those staff who stand to lose their jobs if reorganisation goes ahead, this will be very difficult. And if key people decide to leave for new jobs somewhere else, it may affect the ability of the authorities to carry out the reorganisation work.

Costly

And this will not be cheap. South Norfolk has set aside £250,000 for legal costs, and similar sums are likely for the others. That is a significant expenditure for councils elected on a platform of cutting spending.

When Reform threatened judicial review over the postponement of the 2026 elections, the government backed down. They may do so again: they have a lot of other issues to tackle. But this was a major policy, to reform a local government system which has been in place for 50 years. If they lose this first wave, it puts the whole national programme at risk.

Within a month we will know whether any of the councils want to press their claims, and whether the government is up for the fight.