The dilemma of local government reform: How to balance efficient services and local needs?

Following the English Devolution White Paper, local authorities across England are developing  plans that change the way local decisions are made and services delivered. In order to increase efficiency, many local authorities are developing business cases that shift service delivery towards unitary authorities that cover a wider area. To understand how these changes impacts residents views on local democracy we recently delivered online deliberative workshops with citizens in Sussex and Essex.

Deliberative workshops are longer discussions (3-5 hours) with a mix of different people. Participants are shown information about a complex topic – in this case local government change – and asked to develop their views through discussion with other residents.

In both areas we spoke to 30-40 citizens. In Sussex the conversation focused on devolution. This is where the government grants expanded powers to regional areas, bringing multiple local authorities together under larger ‘combined’ authorities. In Essex we focussed on Local government reorganisation (LGR), which is where existing two-tier local government structures are simplified into unitary authorities but no more power is devolved.

Regardless of the reform, our research found that people wanted better services and could see how larger, more coordinated authorities might deliver them. At the same time, they worried about losing local voice and responsiveness, and expected any reform to include new, more transparent ways of engagement.

Improving service delivery was a priority for residents in both Sussex and Essex. Participants were less interested in how local structures may change, and more concerned that it improves the services they rely on. After learning about the potential changes, residents in both areas thought that delivering services across a larger geography could improve quality through greater resources and efficiency.

In Sussex participants felt that pooling resources and expertise at a larger scale could lead to better planning and outcomes. In Essex, residents believed that reducing duplication across councils and creating a single structure could save money and improve service delivery. Although plans for specific services weren’t shared, participants mentioned areas such as waste management, highways, and social care, which they felt could be improved by management at a larger geographical area.

Reflecting local needs was seen as a core responsibility for local governments to maintain after the reforms are in place. A key risk identified by residents in Sussex and Essex was that larger authorities with fewer local councillors may mean that decision-makers are more distant from hyper-local issues.

In Sussex, participants worried that services may be delivered through a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach and so lose local variation. They emphasised the importance of retaining mechanisms for local influence, particularly in areas with distinctive identities. Similarly, in Essex, residents stressed the importance of responsiveness to local needs and had concerns about loss of local knowledge as a result of the reduction in local councillors. They expressed concern that a larger authority might lose sight of neighbourhood-level issues, such as community safety or the condition of local roads.

Residents wanted transparency and accountability if the system were changed. These projects show that knowledge of and trust in local authorities is low. Our deliberative work suggests that, when residents learn and think about local democracy, it does matter to them. The key things they want from any structure are transparent decision-making and clear lines of accountability.

In Essex, survey results showed that although many people did not strongly identify with existing council boundaries, they did want to know who represents them and how to raise issues. Focus group participants spoke about the importance of visible, accessible local representatives who can act as a clear point of contact. Similarly, Sussex workshop participants felt that structural change could be an opportunity to make decision-making more transparent. They wanted greater clarity about how priorities are set and who is accountable for outcomes. Rather than being passive recipients of services, they wanted to feel part of a system where their views can influence decisions.

Conclusion

These findings underline an important message for policymakers and local leaders: structural reform alone will not build public confidence. Any changes must be accompanied by clear communication about how services will improve, mechanisms to ensure local needs are heard, and transparent processes that help residents understand how decisions are made.