With new unitary councils set to be created across England, remapping our local government authorities, we’ve compiled a handy guide to the reorganisation plans submitted to the Government for the southern counties not included in the initial Devolution Priority Programme (DPP). These proposals comprise a range of different models for each area, representing the complex web of political control and local identity across these counties.
Background
The Government’s English Devolution White Paper set out the steps that all areas with two-tier local council structures must take to create new unitary councils. With the deadline of 28th November 2025 reached for all options to be put forward, the councils not identified for the DPP fast track have now submitted proposals to the Government for reorganisation. The three stages for LGR submissions have been as follows:
- Surrey: Following a ‘fast-track’ submission in May 2025, at the end of October the Government confirmed there will be two new unitary authorities (East and West Surrey). This followed a public consultation last summer on all the options that had been submitted.
- The six southern counties within the devolution priority areas (Hampshire, Essex, East & West Sussex, Norfolk & Suffolk) submitted reorganisation proposals at the end of September. Consultation on the options for these areas will run until 11 January 2025. We previously reported on these options here
- The five remaining southern counties with two-tier local government systems (Kent, Cambridgeshire, Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire and Devon) were required to submit proposals to Government by 28 November 2025. The proposals submitted will now be considered by Ministers before being consulted on early next year.
Here’s Cavendish’s quick round-up of all the options under consideration from the non-priority areas in the South:
Kent
Kent’s lower-tier council leaders are split between two main proposals: creating three or four new unitary authorities. The divide is largely East–West.
Option 3a – backed by Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge & Malling, Tunbridge Wells, and Folkestone & Hythe – proposes three councils: North, West, and East.
Option 4b, supported by Dover, Swale, and Thanet, favours four councils, adding a Mid-Kent authority. Both options simply merge existing districts without altering boundaries.
Meanwhile, Kent County Council, led by Reform UK and strongly opposed to LGR, backs Option 1a: a single, county-wide unitary for Kent and Medway. This would include three regional assemblies (North, West, East) under one authority serving 1.7 million people – far above the White Paper’s guideline of 500,000 per unitary. The Government is unlikely to adopt a model supported only by Reform UK.
Medway Council, Labour-run and experienced as a unitary for nearly 30 years, has teamed up with Canterbury and Ashford to push Option 4d: a four-unitary model that redraws some district and parish boundaries. Medway funded its own business case, with leader Cllr Vince Maple arguing there is a “very strong case for our submission”.
Finally, Option 5a, proposed by Dartford and Gravesham, suggests five unitaries. It adapts Option 4b by moving Medway’s southern area into a new authority with Swale. Dartford and Gravesham believe this best serves their part of the county.
Cambridgeshire
A sharp divide has emerged in Cambridgeshire between councils favouring larger strategic unitaries and those determined to preserve local identity.
Greater Cambridge (Option B) – Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire are united behind a single authority, citing shared housing pressures, infrastructure challenges, and an innovation-led economy. Joint polling shows strong public support, and both argue this model would give developers and investors a clearer framework for strategic planning.
Huntingdonshire (Option E) takes the opposite view, backing a standalone unitary to safeguard local identity and ensure decisions reflect its distinct needs.
Greater Peterborough (Option D) – Peterborough proposes a consolidated authority, pulling in parts of Huntingdonshire to boost strategic capacity and growth potential.
East Cambridgeshire supports Option B’s four-district grouping, seeing it as the best balance between rural representation and economies of scale. Fenland, critical of the entire process, reluctantly backs Option D as the “least bad” choice if reform proceeds—warning that current proposals risk creating inefficiencies rather than solving them.
Above the districts, Cambridgeshire County Council champions Option A: a two-unitary split (northwest–southeast) based on financial sustainability and alignment with health and service geographies—a technocratic, system-wide approach.
Oxfordshire
Three options have emerged for the Oxfordshire, two of which seek to bring the large rural area of West Berkshire (an existing unitary council) into the reorganisation.
On 27 November, Oxfordshire County Council submitted its proposal to bring all council services under one authority. Independent analysis suggests savings of £63 million annually. The County Council argues whole-county planning is essential for sustainable development and warns against including West Berkshire.
Leader Cllr Liz Leffman said: “Recent problems with local plans have made it harder to protect our communities from unwanted development. With One Oxfordshire, we can create a single, strong plan for the whole county, helping us build the right homes in the right places and protect what makes Oxfordshire special.”
Oxford City Council supports a three-unitary model: Greater Oxford Council (Oxford and its green belt); Northern Oxfordshire Council (Cherwell and West Oxfordshire) and Ridgeway Council (South Oxfordshire, Vale of White Horse, West Berkshire). Advocates say this better protects local identities and tailors services to diverse needs.
West Berkshire Council, alongside Cherwell, South Oxfordshire, Vale of White Horse and West Oxfordshire, backs a two-unitary model: Oxford & Shires Council (Cherwell, Oxford City, West Oxfordshire) and Ridgeway Council (South Oxfordshire, Vale of White Horse, West Berkshire). Supporters argue this approach balances local identity with economies of scale. Oxfordshire’s population is around 750,000 so a single unitary would considerably overshoot the government’s 500,000 target population.
Hertfordshire
Unlike other councils detailed in this blog, Hertfordshire is the only area to have ruled out a single unitary option, following the county council elections in May 2025. The decision was based on concerns that a council covering more than 1.2 million residents would be too remote from the county’s diverse communities.
Hertfordshire County and St Albans support a two-unitary model, creating new West and East Hertfordshire Councils.
In contrast, East Hertfordshire, Three Rivers and Watford back a three-unitary approach, splitting the county into West, Central and East Hertfordshire, though population numbers fall below the Government’s suggested threshold.
The most popular option among local councils is a four-unitary model, which would introduce West, South West, Central and East Hertfordshire Councils and involve some ward boundary changes in North Hertfordshire, Welwyn Hatfield and East Hertfordshire. This smaller-unitary approach has strong district support, likely due to continuity of roles, but MHCLG guidelines and the county council favour around 500,000 residents per unitary, making the two-unitary option most plausible, with three-unitary as a possible compromise.
Despite its popularity, the four-unitary option appears unlikely. Disagreements have sparked political fallout: a vote of no confidence is being pursued against North Hertfordshire Council leader Cllr Allen for not backing the wider council’s stance, while Dacorum’s leadership, which initially preferred two unitaries, ultimately agreed to support the full council’s preference for four.
Devon
Across Devon, three competing options for reorganisation have emerged.
Devon County Council supports a single unitary authority, with decisions shaped by new Neighbourhood Area Committees. The council argues this model is cheaper, empowers communities through local committees and provides one ‘front door’ for services currently split across tiers.
The second option, backed by most district councils and with input from the unitary Torbay Council, proposes three new unitaries under the so-called 5-4-1 model: five authorities grouped under Torbay and Southern Devon, four under Exeter and Northern Devon, and Plymouth as a standalone unitary. This approach retains boundaries around economic hubs and geographic areas to meet local needs and boost housing supply.
The third option, put forward by Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay, would create four new unitaries with revised boundaries, splitting some parishes in Mid Devon, East Devon, Teignbridge and South Hams. These would form Exeter, Plymouth, Torbay and a new Devon Coast & Countryside authority.
Option 2 has the broadest support among councils, seen as striking a balance between sustainability and local responsiveness. Option 3 has drawn criticism from the County Council leader as an attempt to “cling on” to power, a claim rebuffed by its proponents who argue the plan reflects Devon’s unique communities and landscape.
Next Steps
Following the submission to government on those areas listed above, it is expected that government will launch a public consultation in January 2026, that will run until March. It is likely that all the options put forward by the councils will be consulted on, as has been the case for Surrey and in the six DPP areas.
MHCLG will then issue a ministerial decision on the shape of the new unitary authorities in March 2026, to enable Shadow Authority elections in May 2027, with a ‘go-live’ date planned for April 2028.
In the short-term the changes to the structure of local government and the transition to new mayoralties and unitaries will bring considerable impact to housing and development. The process to date has distracted council leaderships and this is likely to continue, alongside the ongoing under resourcing of planning departments and the rise of populist party politics that are anti-development.
In the short term we are likely to see more challenges as a result of the changes to local government as planning teams are restructured, local plan geographies evolve and the new authorities find their feet. However, if implemented well, these changes could lead to better-resourced planning teams, more strategic decisions around housing and infrastructure delivery, and streamlined investment processes under mayoral leadership.