Local Government Reorganisation engagement toolkit

This toolkit is for you to consider if you’re a head of communications, head of policy, programme lead, head of engagement, head of HR, or member of a council’s leadership team going through Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), corporate management team (CMT), as well as chief executives and leaders.

Though engaging with the government and stepping up other public affairs activities is likely to be needed throughout LGR, this toolkit focuses primarily on local engagement. Public affairs and engaging with MPs are covered in other LGA resources.

All local authorities in areas subject to LGR were invited by the Secretary of State (SoS) to submit their initial proposals for reorganisation in their area by 21 March 2025. In many areas there are differing proposals put forward by different councils or groups of councils.

Councils have been asked to develop their final proposals for submission by 26 September for Devolution Priority Programme (DPP) areas or by 28 November for other areas (except Surrey which has a May deadline).

There is an expectation that these refined proposals will have had a level of local engagement in their development. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has stated ‘it is for councils to decide how best to engage locally and provide evidence of that activity in proposals’. MHCLG also said that proposals should state how they ‘meet local needs and are informed by local views’. The wording was as follows:

Proposals should show how councils in the area have sought to work together in coming to a view that meets local needs and is informed by local views.

1. It is for councils to decide how best to engage locally in a meaningful and constructive way and this engagement activity should be evidenced in your proposal.
2. Proposals should consider issues of local identity and cultural and historic importance.
3. Proposals should include evidence of local engagement, an explanation of the views that have been put forward and how concerns will be addressed.”

The views of a range of public sector bodies are important to consider. This could include:

• the relevant Combined Authority Mayor
• Integrated Care Board (ICB) and local NHS trust
• Police and Crime Commissioner / Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner / Fire and Rescue Authority
• higher education and further education providers
• National Park Authorities
• voluntary, community and social enterprise sector.

In June 2025, MHCLG released a summary of feedback on interim plans. Criterion 4 outlines a few points surrounding how local authorities can approach engagement ahead of LGR. Engagement is also mentioned in Criterion 6 and later under “Strong community voice”. However, this relates to how LGR proposals should consider community engagement plans for newly formed authorities, rather than ahead of LGR.

As well as official summaries on the Government’s website, there have also been pointers from the minister for local government, Jim McMahon, who said in a written statement: “Ideally, I would like areas to submit their final proposal as a single submission, underpinned by a shared evidence base, that includes all options being put forward by councils”. Staying up to date with the latest government guidance is key to being on top of LGR engagement.

Engagement to inform service design, key council decisions, or solutions to issues affecting people’s jobs or the area where they live is always good practice. Within the LGR process, the Government’s guidance is clear that councils submitting proposals should show evidence of engagement with stakeholders and communities. Being able to demonstrate how local ideas and views are incorporated into your proposal is crucial. The case studies at the end of this document demonstrate their individual cases of LGR and the role engagement played.

This engagement triangle provides some structural context to the form that you may wish to take for your engagement work: 

In addition, councils should have due regard to The Gunning Principles when designing their engagement approaches. These are: 

1. Proposals are still at a formative stage: A final decision has not yet been made, or predetermined, by the decision makers.
2. There is sufficient information to give ‘intelligent consideration’: The information provided must relate to the consultation and must be available, accessible, and easily interpretable for consultees to provide an informed response.
3. There is adequate time for consideration and response There must be sufficient opportunity for consultees to participate in the consultation. There is no set timeframe for consultation,1 despite the widely accepted twelve-week consultation period, as the length of time given for consultee to respond can vary depending on the subject and extent of impact of the consultation.
4. ‘Conscientious consideration’ must be given to the consultation responses before a decision is made: Decision-makers should be able to provide evidence that they took consultation responses into account.

No statutory consultation obligations have been set out, although there are some implications arising from LGR, such as the creation of new town and parish councils and any proposals which include splitting existing districts, which would require various formal processes.

It is important to be clear on the difference between engagement and consultation. From the outset you need to be clear that consultation is a specific and concrete term, and ‘engagement’ is a much broader and varied one.

Consultation can be defined as: “The dynamic process of dialogue between individuals or groups, based upon a genuine exchange of views with the objective of influencing decisions, policies or programmes of action.”

Engagement is broader. It’s about working collaboratively with communities to seek insights into what people think and feel, or asking for action or involvement.

Unless there’s scope for stakeholders and communities to influence a specific decision, then it should not be called a consultation. The LGA's guide to engagement contains more information on the difference between consultation and engagement, and which approach is most appropriate. Perhaps most importantly, whatever type of engagement you undertake, you must make it clear to stakeholders what they can influence and what they can’t – in short – why are you asking and what will you do with the findings?

If a council or group of councils decide to conduct a consultation on its LGR proposals, it is worth revisiting good practice in this area: the so-called Gunning principles. These principles are more applicable when consulting on different configuration options for LGR.

Below are some examples of how the Gunning principles can be applied to the context of LGR:

The formative stage aspect suggests that people should be given the opportunity to indicate a choice and opinion before the authority reaches a final proposal.

The sufficient time for engagement of this nature would ideally be from from eight to two weeks. However, the timeframe for LGR laid out by the Government will mean a shorter window is more realistic. It is noted that in more recent LGR consultations a shorter period varying from five to eight weeks has been considered acceptable. Given the tight timeframe for LGR, while avoiding summer holidays wherever possible, June and July are critical for those on the DPP, while those aiming for 28 November could look at ensuring at least part of their engagement timeframe takes place in September.

Regardless of the focus of your engagement, the complexity of the issue is such that easy-to-interpret, accurate information will need to accompany it. This could include:

• maps to show boundaries if configurations are being engaged on
• the financial implications including sustainability of the new council and impact on people’s council tax
• potential benefits and issues

• service implications.

This is vital as it ensures people have enough information to be able to consider the proposals and reach an informed view. In previous rounds of LGR this has included printed prospectuses, events and dedicated websites and microsites. 

Lastly, sufficient time needs to be made available for the local authority to have properly considered the results of the engagement before deciding on a final proposal. This means allowing for the democratic arrangements of all councils involved.

Before embarking on LGR engagement, a clear strategy is required. This needs to be signed off by your overarching programme board to ensure oversight and ownership at the highest level.

Your strategy should follow the 6 As approach and outline:

• Aims: what you are aiming to achieve (for example participation in your engagement activity) and what exactly the engagement will focus on.
• Audiences: who the stakeholders and communities are that you want to hear from.
• Approaches: how they will be engaged, including your methodology and the sampling approaches you’re proposing, along with how the views of those who are heard less will be sought and how to ensure the process is as accessible and inclusive as possible. Consider whether external support is needed and whether that creates an element of desired objectivity to the process.
• Analysis: Consider how you want reporting of the engagement findings to be presented. How visual do you want it to be? Are there some specific breakdowns that you require, such as by council area, or a particular demographic? Do you need a separate report for stakeholders?  
• Additional info: what communications content is required to support the engagement. This aspect has two strands: information to explain the engagement and promotional materials that encourage people to participate.
• Actions: a timeline for activity including regular response rate checks.

Be clear about the outcome you want to achieve from your engagement strategy. It is likely you will want to ensure a broad range of views are gathered from a diverse section of your communities, residents and stakeholders, to contribute effectively to the formation of a final submission. It is likely that you will want to:

• understand what your stakeholders value, support, oppose, and would like to change or retain
• gain insight into why they hold the views they do
• know more about the benefits stakeholders and residents want to see from LGR, as well as their fears and worries (so that these can be addressed as you design the new council).

Whether across your local area, individually or as a group of councils, you may have a specific model that you want to see implemented. Use this engagement process to establish which key stakeholders already support this, others who may be ambivalent and need persuading, and those who may be resistant.

You should decide what exactly you want public and stakeholder opinion on, especially if designing or commissioning quantitative research. Do you want general opinions about relative priorities around government criteria? Or discussion to help rule particular options in or out? What is the importance your residents place on local service provision, community identity and democratic accountability relative to economic growth, housing provision and council efficiencies?

There are a range of options you could consider, including one or more of the following:

• Focus on high-level government criteria – explore relative importance of one, some or all of the factors within those criteria, such as size of population, council sustainability and efficiency, and economic growth.
• Focus on issues related to various options under consideration – which might include more depth questioning around place identity, service provision models, and council tax levels.
• Any particular issues unique to your area, such as where boundary changes are proposed.

Straight-up engagement on specific options that are yet to be ruled out, seeking to understand people’s support for or in opposition to each one, and why.

Stakeholder and community identification is key to designing your methodology and supporting communications approach. Doing this well and early ensures the greatest participation in your engagement and so increases the ability to consider the impacts on them when final proposals are being prepared. Consistent with government advice, the council will want to show that it has made efforts to engage the widest group of stakeholders possible within the time constraints faced.

Stakeholder mapping

Aim to have a consistent approach to capturing your stakeholder data. Each council may already have a core set of stakeholders it engages with, this is your starting point. However, for LGR, and depending on the depth of engagement your councils choose, a far broader map of stakeholders may be required.

Stakeholder mapping is a forensic but essential process and involves looking at who has power to shape the decision over LGR and who is interested in LGR. It is particularly important if the authority plans to utilise external support on the engagement programme who may not know the local area.

A shared spreadsheet, for example, could capture data under the following headings:

• stakeholder organisation
• type – this could include:
  • public sector
  • political for example MP, elected member, parish councillor
  • education
  • business (break down by business group and larger employer)
  • environmental
  • community (of interest, of place)
  • third sector
  • faith
  • service user groups
  • protected characteristic groups
• contact details: name, role, email address, phone number
• relationship manager (who in your organisation, for your LGR programme, is the lead contact for this individual or organisation?)
• geographical area of interest (by county and or district, or broken down further, for example if town, parish council or boundary changes are part of your engagement)
• area of interest (for example economy, democracy, service provision, housing, skills, transport, supplier and others.)
• communications (how are councils engaging with this group or individual currently)
• influence (for LGR)
• interest (in LGR)
• priority for engagement.

A note about elected members

Elected members have a unique position as stakeholders who can directly influence the process. It is important to carry out your own assessment of how to approach engagement with elected members, as each authority will have a different context. 

Either way, it is important to equip members with full and accurate information to share as they go about their local government business and engage with their ward residents. They are a vital link to communities and can play a key role in encouraging residents and other stakeholders to take part in your engagement process.

Staff as a distinct audience during your engagement process

Given they are directly impacted by whatever proposal is eventually agreed, it is likely that there will be a dedicated aspect of engagement for staff.

Some points to consider when designing this are:

• Leadership visibility from your chief executive.
• An established rhythm of communications that is reliable, even when there are no updates, make that the update, and be honest about the answers you don’t have yet.
• Upfront statements of what you do know, for example “Most people’s jobs on day one will look and feel exactly the same, except you might have a new lanyard!”
• Commitment to involve staff in service design, they know the best bits to take forward and the niggles and inefficiencies that need to be ironed out. Where staff groups are shaping services, tell their story to evidence inclusion and trust.
• Remember organisational boundaries are porous, especially when considering social media. Therefore, any internal messaging must be congruent with external messaging, especially when changes can impact people’s employment and personal lives.
• Be open and honest with staff about possible job losses, do not sugar-coat and overpromise that everybody will have a job at the end of the process, if that is not the case.

A specific approach for both members and staff is important:

• to ensure that they understand how LGR proposals affect them as employees and councillors
• to enable them to encourage participation in engagement from friends, family and councillors
• to listen to their important views and insights which can be included as part of the engagement.

Having defined aims and audiences, you can design your methodologies. It is likely to be varied in order to encourage participation and sharing of views and as appropriate to the context. A mixed methodology would consist of both quantitative and qualitative engagement.

Quantitative engagement

This focuses on numerical data. It is used to gauge the scale and level of public opinion one way or another. Methodologies include surveys and polls. You can use closed sampling based on targeted distribution to a representative selection of residents, or open sampling where anyone can take part. Each approach has risks and benefits; the main risk with a closed, statistically valid sample is the criticism that some people who wish to participate feel excluded, and the key risk with an open sample is that it is potentially open to abuse, so governance processes will need to be established to prevent that (for example multiple responses from a single source). 

Either way, it is important to know in advance the number of responses needed to give a good grounding. Typically, you will want to receive sufficient responses to be 95 per cent confident within a minimum of more or less 5 per cent, but ideally within more or less 3 per cent, that the results, if asked to every person in your area, would be the same as those yielded through your engagement process.

Sampling tools are available to help you define these numbers by:

• county, district and ward
• demographics such as age and ethnicity
• protected characteristics.

Quantitative research is primarily ‘one way’, as it involves the provision of responses through a structured survey, with questions defined by you as the engaging body. It is good practice to ensure there is at least one opportunity for free or open opinion responses, although bear in mind that these take significant time to analyse.

Qualitative engagement

This focuses more on understanding the reasons and rationales behind people’s views. Approaches include focus groups, workshops, discussion groups and one two ones interviews. You will still need a topic or discussion guide, and to be clear with participants what is in and out of the scope of discussion, but there is increased opportunity for two-way dialogue and conversation-style engagement to delve deeper into people’s opinions. 

In essence, quantitative engagement uses numbers and statistics to measure the depth and breadth of participation and opinion, while qualitative engagement explores the nuances and reasons behind those opinions.

As a summary, quantitative engagement gives you insight into what people think, while qualitative engagement helps you understand why they think it.

The Government has been clear that proposals will need to show how they ‘meet local needs and are informed by local views’. There is therefore a need to demonstrate an understanding of local needs. Public engagement, as outlined in this section, is a way of demonstrating this understanding.

In previous rounds of LGR, authorities have usually used both quantitative and qualitative methods to show demonstrate engagement. A mix of both methods will help gauge public opinion. Quantitative methods such as surveys or polls help show the volume of support, preferences and gather some opinions. Qualitative methods such as focus groups and deliberative panels gather comments to help shape the detail of proposals.

Surveys will need to be robust in their methodology, representative and independent. This, combined with a tight timescale, would mean that engaging external support may be required, at least for the design and analysis of results.

Conducting a survey will be useful if a council or group of councils wishes to:

• narrow down the number of proposals by testing which has the most public support
• test which boundaries have the most local resonance
• explore the relative priority people attach to the implications of each potential option.

You need to assess risk and consider what actions you will take if a proposal which is preferred for other reasons does not garner strong public support.

As indicated above, surveys will need to be representative with adequate take-up to show legitimacy. A mixed method may be required. A large random sample postal survey or a quota survey could make sure that the authority shows that results are representative of the geodemographics of the area. An open completion survey (print and online) allows as many people as possible to take part but must be checked for multiple completions and may show biases. All surveys should collect the geodemographics of those completing.

Deliberative panels can be a good way of demonstrating depth in the public engagement considering differing LGR proposals. This could be done by a single council or a group of councils, considering different proposals. In this case a panel of members of the public would be recruited and meet several times to hear evidence presented by the council(s) and other experts. They would have the opportunity to ask questions and then come to their own conclusions. It is important in this type of panel process to have a neutral chair, potentially from a partner organisation or the voluntary sector.

Panels and surveys must be representative and formed in a fair, unbiased way. We have a guide with more information and best practice regarding a representative and fair panel of members of the public.

Focus groups may be more helpful where a council or group of councils have developed a set of proposals but wish to assess how they may be received by different segments of the public before finalising them or surveying wider public opinion. This allows the potential for holding focus groups in different geographic areas, for those with protected characteristics and or with hard-to-reach communities.

Political engagement

MPs in your area are absolutely critical to the successful implementation of LGR. They, too, will want to be seen as advocating for their residents and places, supporting outcomes that result in real benefits for the constituency they represent. Political engagement will need to take place alongside any other engagement work, and not follow it. You will need time to build relationships, and it helps MPs and other political stakeholders to understand the reasoning and processes involved with LGR in your area. Your own elected members will be extremely useful here, and able to support you with ensuring MPs are fully briefed.

Partner engagement

Deliberative workshops for stakeholders offer an opportunity to discuss proposals with partners, gather views and evidence, assess positions, and understand their influence.

This is also an opportunity to identify any issues which might cause concern to your partners and how best to address them. Demonstrating understanding and empathy will help encourage your stakeholders to engage positively with you and your local authority.

Having segmented your stakeholders, you should be able focus on issues specific to that audience.

For example, the business community may want to focus on growth, housing and skills; health partners may want to understand how proposals could improve delivery of health pathways, and links between social care and acute trusts.

For some key stakeholders it may be informative to conduct in-depth interviews. This may identify concerns or issues that need to be addressed but may not surface in larger groups settings.

Advisory committees or groups formed of key partners may also help the authority shape the detail of proposals and surface concerns that partners may not want to raise publicly. This ensures that these issues can still be addressed in the final proposals.

Whatever methods are used, ensuring that you have a sound way to capture the views of your stakeholders from these events will be important. This can include indicative counts of support as well as rich narrative comments which could be used within submissions.

Community and service-user engagement

There may be concern in the voluntary and community sector about how LGR could impact their funding and service delivery arrangements as well as the people they work with, often supplementary services for vulnerable members of society. This can also apply to service users, especially those who are reliant on services such as social care, home care visits, day care, respite care, extra educational support.

Many may feel anxious about LGR because of the potential to change arrangements that are currently working for them. However, where there is discontent about existing services, users may wish to positively engage to see if there are opportunities for improvement.

There is a difficult balance to be struck between reassurance and demonstrating the potential for improvement given that there is unlikely to be new funding available.

Towns and parishes

Identifying all the town and parish councils covered by the LGR proposals is important in order to work with their clerks and members to ensure that they are informed and engaged. Towns and parishes will be important in ensuring that local people are informed and encouraged to take part in your engagement.

Over recent years, town and parish councils have taken on many functions previously provided by other councils: both counties and districts. They will therefore also have a view as a service provider, tax-raising body and recipient of funding about how your LGR proposals will affect them.

You may wish to consider working with the National Association for Local Councils (NALC), or your local branch of the association, as some authorities have done in previous rounds of LGR.

Internal engagement

Staff will need regular updates and information on the intranet. There may not be much you can say beyond the wider messages of the engagement process. You may be able to provide reassurance that whatever the result of LGR in the area, staff will still be needed to deliver services. You will however have to communicate honestly and realistically that as part of this, there may be fewer staff delivering these services.

Members will also need regular briefings and updates. They might also have concerns over their long-term future and issues such as re-warding and reductions in the number of councillors.

Media engagement

Local media should be engaged in the LGR process as they can be important allies in helping drive a good response to your engagement process. National media often pick up stories from local media, so your successes locally can quickly become good national media coverage.

Consider holding factual briefings for editors or key contacts, such as local democracy reporters. Monitor local and regional media closely to track sentiment around LGR proposals, and issues that need to be responded to.

‘Levels’ of engagement

Given the complex nature of LGR, it is understandable that some areas are not yet aligned on the specific number and/or composition of new councils. If it were possible for a single engagement to take place with a set of supporting information that is signed off by all councils in the area, this would be much easier for the public to engage with and may encourage key stakeholders to share their time and input through the process.

However, acknowledging that this may not be possible, we would advise councils to focus on adding value to the process – what are the specific aspects of a proposal that you support or oppose and why? Why are these relevant and of interest to your partners, residents, stakeholders and communities? How can you encourage your residents and stakeholders to make their views known through the main process, and what additional value or information can you provide through your supplementary engagement?

In practice, this means cooperating with other councils where you can, to enhance and increase your engagement, while also focussing on areas specific to your council - its narrative, geography and functions. By doing this, you will demonstrate how you are cooperative and linked up, but also unique in your engagement, especially if you are adding value throughout the process.

This aspect has two strands: information to explain the engagement and promotional materials that encourage people to participate. You will probably want to pull this together under a distinct look and feel. For example, in Dorset the ‘brand’ was “Reshaping your councils”, supported by all council logos for recognition and credibility.

Narrative

All additional information starts with your LGR narrative. This essentially sets out a compelling story for why people should care about LGR and bother to share their views. It will provide an explanation about why LGR is happening, what the process is and how local people will be given their opportunity to have their say.

This may include some historical background on local government in the area and an explanation of why LGR is taking place.

Take a look at the narrative toolkits below for ideas on how to effectively shape the LGR narrative:

• Building a narrative for your council
• Corporate narrative toolkit.

Supplementary narratives

Where an individual or separate group of councils is conducting engagement that is additional to the overarching process for an area, it is likely you will want to prepare a more focused narrative that sets out the story of your council so far, your current position (strengths you want to preserve, what you’d like to improve) and future state – what you’re looking to achieve through LGR for your specific area. 

Engagement materials

These materials explain the content of the engagement. So that all participants in your engagement can form a considered view, the provision of accurate, compelling and accessing information is vital. This should not be leading people to one option or another but should be based on the evidence you have available already, that sets out the benefits and potential issues around each element you are asking people about. Consider all the information that people need to be able to form a view and provide it.

Create materials that answer the “what’s in it for me?” question from the perspectives of different audiences identified earlier in the process. Why should they care about LGR? What is the potential impact – positive or otherwise – on them, their lives, their organisations? You could frame this from the aspects of economy, skills, community, housing, service delivery, democracy and council efficiency and sustainability.

Engagement promotion

You will also need compelling promotional materials that encourage people to take part in the engagement. Be as comprehensive as possible, weaving your narrative throughout both elements of additional information. It should be a persuasive case for engagement, not necessarily for one option or another.

Accessible materials will need to be made available online, but consideration needs to be given to audiences who do not have easy access to online resources, and those with different accessibility and inclusion needs. For example, an ‘Easy Read’ version would be good practice for those with reading difficulty. Online resources need to be available as webpages accessible by screen readers, rather than as PDFs.

Local public exhibitions provide an additional method of engaging the public in the proposals and driving interested parties towards any survey mechanism. Public meetings may also be held to help inform the public and answer questions. Questions asked and answered at these sessions can then be added to websites.

Councils can make use of their own digital channels to produce engaging content explaining what LGR is and what the benefits of change might be. Use video storytelling to make your materials relevant – consider using voices from the community as well as the political leadership.

Ensure that you have regular updates on engagement levels. This way, you can step up or commission additional engagement promotion activity (such as hyper-local or demographic targeting online or a focus on certain groups via community or third sector representatives) to boost responses among those who are underrepresented at any point in the process.

Ensure clear reporting that is balanced. You may wish to focus on ‘findings’ rather than ‘recommendations’ – these are for the programme lead, chief executives and leaders to determine, based on all the evidence and insight, not just the engagement results. 

As a minimum, your analysis findings should set out:

• methodology and returns achieved, including those who are not well-represented
• areas of support and disagreement
• clarity where / if there is consensus
• priorities for next steps / new councils to achieve
• worries and concerns that are emerging as themes.

Use your comms plan template to start planning. You will need a detailed delivery plan, and in particular a clear critical path and visibility of key milestones and dependencies, alongside transparency around roles and responsibilities, particularly since it is likely to be colleagues from across different councils who deliver the plan. 

You should establish your reporting and governance lines, confirming the approach to member and senior officer signoff of your engagement plans and oversight of their progress.

Below are two examples of authorities that have already undergone LGR and how they approached engagement throughout the process. Each case study demonstrates elements of engagement best practice before, during and after LGR.

One note of caution is that these were all conducted under the previous Government’s rules for reorganisation of local government where consensus or broad agreement amongst the constituent authorities was a specific requirement.

In previous rounds of reorganisation, there had been an expectation that proposals would demonstrate a ‘good level’ of local support. What a ‘good level’ represented was down to interpretation but was usually been seen as a majority in favour.

In the current round, although the Government has asked councils to work together and where possible come to agreement, they have not made it a condition of reorganisation.

Lead up to unitary decision

In March 2018 a best value inspection report of Northamptonshire County Council found it lacked the governance and processes to manage its finances effectively. The Government appointed independent commissioners to take over the running of the council’s strategic financial planning, governance and scrutiny functions. The best value report also recommended that the existing two-tier system be replaced by a unitary system.  

At the end of March 2018, the Government invited the county council and seven district councils to submit locally-led proposals for new unitary structure by the end of August 2018 which gave a tight timeframe of five months for stakeholder engagement on proposals. 

There was also limited room for manoeuvre given that the Government identified that the status quo and a single county unitary were not options and new unitaries needed to be over 300,000 in population.

Understandably there was both reluctance and resentment from the district and borough councils initially as they felt they were being forced into a change created from the county’s failings. But through a range of early conversations and some key vision and principles work with members across the eight councils, the county council established some common aims and an understanding of the potential benefits and improvements that could result from the change. From an early stage the council took this collaborative approach, working as a set of organisations with common aims and shared governance and decision making under a single programme called Future Northants.

There were discussions about a ‘three unitary’ solution which would have seen a unitary Northampton with a population of 278,000. There was also a ‘two unitary’ option made up of West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire. But ultimately the criteria set by government, along with the size and the makeup of the areas, made a ‘two unitary’ solution the final choice.

Under the Future Northants banner, the relevant stakeholders for the reorganisation of local government were identified by pooling knowledge and resources from all the organisations into a single change programme and governance model. The county’s Independent Commissioners were engaged in all of the planning too.

The councils commissioned a market research company to undertake quantitative public consultation on the options through a survey and to also conduct qualitative consultation with the public and stakeholder groups through a series of forums with public, business, parish and town councils and health and wellbeing partners. Submissions were also welcomed. A website was established to support the consultation process hosting additional documents and information on the options.

Given the tight timetable, a five-week window for the Future Northants consultation was used although it is acknowledged that this was less than the ideal 8 to 12 weeks normally recommended.

The survey took the form of a quota sampled telephone survey of 500 residents and an open survey available in print and online focused around four core questions – whether change was needed, whether the number of councils should be reduced, whether unitary councils should be introduced, and whether respondents agreed or disagreed with the proposal for two unitary councils.

Overall, there was overwhelming support for change and for reducing the number of councils. The creation of unitary councils was supported in principle in all areas of Northamptonshire (except in Corby according to the open questionnaire). The representative residents’ survey found overwhelming support for two unitary councils across Northamptonshire as a whole, and in both the proposed West and North Northamptonshire areas. The open questionnaire found widespread support for two unitary councils in North Northamptonshire (except in Corby) and considerable opposition from respondents in West Northamptonshire.

Seven two-and-a-half-hour deliberative forums were held with over 80 residents. People were asked their initial views and their views at the end of the deliberative session where they were provided with information about the drivers for reorganisation and the options. Six out of seven backed the ‘two unitary’ proposal. Two forums were held with nearly 50 business representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and Federation of Small Businesses and they overwhelmingly backed the ‘two unitary’ option.

Working with Northamptonshire County Association of Local Councils (NCALC) two forums were held with town and parish councillors and clerks. A meeting was held with the Northamptonshire Health and Wellbeing Board however they did not come to a view on the proposals. In-depth interviews were also held with five board members. Meanwhile, the police expressed a preference for a single unitary.

31 submissions were received including eight from parish and town councils, seven from external local authorities (one of which represented the views of the CEOs of four district councils outside Northamptonshire), six from other community organisations, two from health organisations, one from the police and crime commissioner, two from district councillors and five from residents.

The proposal signed by seven of the eight authorities for a two unitary solution was submitted to the government on 31 August 2018. The Government conducted its own consultation on the ‘two unitary’ proposal in November 2018. 

On 13 May 2019 the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced the creation of two unitaries for West Northamptonshire and North Northamptonshire, with effect from 1 April 2021. 

Lead into shadow authorities 2019

It was crucial to ensure shared ownership of the unitary process by all eight councils and have a collective vision and narrative for the transition to the new authorities. This formed the basis of the Future Northants programme.

It was important to consider language throughout the process to help avoid assumptions and ensure the correct narrative moving forward – this was not a merger of councils or a takeover, but a fresh start. The focus given the tight timetable amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic was very much on the authorities being “safe and legal” on day one, with other aspects of establishing the new councils, such as wider transformation, to then follow.

To ensure there was no dominant partner, the different workstreams were each led by one of the chief executives, supported by mixed project teams from across all councils. A Prospectus for Change, an integrated plan for LGR and large-scale transformation of public services, was developed and key messaging agreed.

A shared toolkit was developed for internal messaging based on the benefits and fresh start narrative. Co-ordination and consistency of messaging and timing among the councils was key and there was a real role for visible leadership for chief executives to advocate to staff and provide reassurance.

This programme had a small but dedicated communications and engagement resource and channels, including a strong online presence moving towards transition. There was a reliance on the wider support of the existing council communications teams and their corporate communications channels, and this also aligned with the collective approach.

There was a clear communications and engagement strategy which was regularly reviewed at each stage in line with changing stakeholder needs. 

Shadow authorities 2020

There were some concerns within the community that replacing the two-tier system with a single unitary would cause a democratic deficit and dilute local representation, particularly on issues such as planning. However, generally the public concerns were more focused around whether they would continue to receive the same services on day one of the new unitaries and that there would be no disruption (for example. would they have the same social worker, bin collected on the same day?). Communications and engagement messaging for residents in the run-up to vesting therefore focused predominantly on business as usual and continuity of services on day one plus the benefits to them of bringing together all services under one roof.

There was a desire by some of the councils to deliver some devolution of activities to parish level, where there were 220 parish and town councils across Northamptonshire. In Northampton and Kettering there were no town councils so the respective borough councils decided that they would need one and went through the process to set one up.

Member engagement on the LGR journey was helped especially by those councillors who were twin (county and district) and sometimes even triple (parish and town) hatted. These members were particularly valuable in helping their colleagues gain a wider perspective and understanding of how the councils operated across Northamptonshire.

Cross-party task and finish groups on aspects such as vision, culture, branding, budgets and senior appointments all helped to ensure members were engaged through the process.

Residents and businesses were also engaged through focus groups to help shape vision, values and aspirations. Members of the public were engaged around issues such as logos and branding to encourage buy-in towards the council’s new identities.

It was critical to keep stakeholders informed and reassured throughout the shadow period and these were mapped and prioritised. MPs received regular briefings by chief executives and leaders.

The shadow authorities were established in May 2020. Shadow authority websites were set up and frequent asked questions provided so people could self-serve with information.

Regular newsletters and bitesize briefings were developed with a core of information which was then fine-tuned for the stakeholder group in question. This ensured both consistency and focus on different needs while being manageable for the communications and engagement staff.

It was important to ensure a steady flow of information even when there wasn’t so much to say to provide reassurance.

As well as ensuring the new authorities were ready from day one, attention also needed to be given to the communication of winding down the existing authorities and reassuring residents, businesses and suppliers that everything would just transfer on day one. 

Alongside safe and legal requirements there was a key focus on ensuring customer communications channels and branding were ready for day one of the two new unitaries, including new contact numbers, emails, websites and social presence. Rebranding was a substantial project in itself, with thousands of materials and equipment requiring the new council branding, so key aspects of this with high levels of customer contact needed prioritising for day one, such as building signage, corporate stationery and statutory documents. 

Post West Northamptonshire unitary creation in 2021

The first four years have been focused on working with stakeholders to establish, stabilise and further shape services brought together from the predecessor councils as well as working to build back wider public trust in local government following the previous county failings. This has required strong branding and messages that was developed with members and key stakeholders before going live and crucially a strong culture and value campaign for staff and the workforce.

In 2024 West Northamptonshire Council was the subject of an LGA peer review, which highlighted the significant progress at pace it had made in its first three formative years and the positive culture and upbeat energy of its staff. Having focused its energy on bringing together the many services, staff and complex systems and processes from the four previous councils ‘under the shadow of the county council’s failure and government intervention’, it said the council should now start looking outwards in its fourth year and embark on the next chapter for improving public services, with a key engagement focus on working more strategically with its partners and raising the wider profile of the new West Northamptonshire area.

Lead up to unitary decision

Discussion of the idea of moving to all unitary councils in the Dorset area started in 2015. An initial suggestion from Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch and East Dorset councils about coming together to form one unitary council then spurred wider discussions involving North and West Dorset District Councils and Weymouth and Portland Borough (which were already working together in a partnership arrangement), Purbeck District Council and Dorset County Council.

Prior to work in preparation for possible local government reorganisation, whole Dorset collaboration between all nine councils was very limited. A Dorset Leaders Group and a Dorset Chief Executives Group met infrequently, perhaps only twice a year.

When the Dorset Chief Executives group, led by the then chief executive of Dorset County Council, began to meet more frequently to see if they could come to some agreed proposals for local government reorganisation, the need for wider communications and engagement, finance, and Monitoring Officer support at Chief Executive Group meetings was recognised.

A programme board was established with communication and engagement representation and this ensured that appropriate budget was allocated for good engagement and that a consistent single narrative about the need for change was used. It also ensured quality assurance on the consultation work.

It is important to remember that proposals for local government reorganisation in Dorset were driven locally by councils and were not imposed by central government. This meant that the councils had to secure the support of the Secretary of State by presenting a coherent and convincing “Case for Change”. Communication and engagement support was vital in making that case and in the public consultation that preceded it.

A communication and engagement group drawn from across the councils helped co-ordinate the stakeholder work. This included “forensic” stakeholder identification and mapping. It was also important to identify what the established communication methods were with these stakeholders and who had the relationships as well as understanding the impact of reorganisation on them. This meant that stakeholders could be engaged early and throughout the process.

The councils moved to conducting a public consultation in 2016 on a range of options including retaining the status quo and three different ‘two unitary’ options. The consultation was conducted by an external market research agency and included a prospectus for change.

The field work was conducted over an eight-week period in September and October 2016 and included printed materials, a survey, interviews and a dedicated website.

The survey was conducted through a statistical sampled postal questionnaire to ensure that it had a representative response and through an open questionnaire available online and in paper copies in libraries.

There was also a series of roadshows as well as stakeholder meetings with businesses, voluntary organisations and town and parish councils.

The resulting report was 191 pages long detailing public and stakeholder feedback. This was then considered by each of the councils’ elected members.

In early 2017 six of the nine councils voted to move forward with submitting a two unitary proposal. The evidence base for the proposals drew on the results of the consultation, the views of stakeholders and leaders across the area.

At this stage the government was looking for councils to reach consensus in their area before agreeing to reorganisation and devolution. As three councils did not agree to put their name to the proposal the other six conducted a considerable amount of political engagement with the government and civil servants and MPs. This created quite a long delay before the Secretary of State’s position moved from a need for full agreement to a requirement for a “broad consensus”.

In November 2017 the then Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, said he was minded towards approving a ‘two unitary’ proposal and in February 2018 confirmed he was approving the abolition of the nine councils and replacing them with the two unitaries: Dorset and Bournemouth, Christchurch, Poole (BCP). Christchurch Borough Council brought a legal challenge in the High Court against the decision. The legal challenge was unsuccessful, but it did delay formal orders and shortened the time available to prepare for the two new authorities. 

The order confirming the two new authorities came into force in May 2018 at which point two shadow authorities were formed and joint committees through which the councils had been working together were disbanded.

The go live date was set for 1 April 2019 with elections in May 2019.

Creating the councils and being ready for vesting day

The councils had just over a year to create the two new unitary councils and dissolve the existing nine. The key priority was on ensuring that all services were safe and legal for the go live.

It was important throughout this period to keep stakeholders and residents informed about progress, provide reassurance about smooth transition and identify the timelines. It was also necessary to tackle any misinformation and have clear accountability for decisions.

Each authority developed its own communications and engagement strategy and new branding and logos which were launched in January 2019.

1 April 2019 onwards

A Community Governance Review (CGR) is the mechanism for changing parish and town council governance and boundaries and for introducing new parish councils. The Dorset area was already parished, aside from Weymouth. To coincide with vesting day the former Weymouth and Portland Borough Council used a CGR to create a new Weymouth Town Council but there was no need for a wider CGR.

Three or four years into the new Dorset Council, a full district council area CGR was carried out, resulting in changes to the number of town and parish councillors, changes to the boundaries of some town and parish councils (including the expansion of some council areas) and the abolition of some parish councils.

In Dorset Council there was a focus upon not introducing area-based structures in a way that replicated the identities of previous councils. So they consciously avoided planning committee areas based upon old district council geographies. Local identity has sat outside the council, in the town councils and parishes. In BCP a conscious decision was made not to form a Bournemouth Town Council and a Poole Town Council.

Please find some links below to resources and support that the LGA offers with regards to communication and community engagement:

• LGA LGR Comms and Engagement Network - for communications and engagement officers going through LGR to join and share best practice. Communications and engagement officers who have already been through and would be interested in sharing their experience are also welcome to get in touch.
• LGA communications and engagement support offer
• Community engagement resources
• Innovation in community engagement
• Consultation basics
• Engaging MPs toolkit
• LGA Engagement toolkit
• LGA Comms Hub
• LGA LGR finance essentials guide series.