Many constituents have written to me about local government reorganisation. Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to get in touch.
Around 60 constituents have contacted me about this in recent weeks, and several of the concerns raised are similar. I’ve therefore put together the table below to address some of the frequently asked questions I’ve received.
I hope these responses are helpful and provide some useful information as the process continues.
| Question area | Primary theme of questioning | Response |
| Process/timing | When will a final decision be made, and is it too late to influence it? | Local government reorganisation has followed a defined statutory process, including consultation with the public and relevant stakeholders, which was first explained to councils across England in writing in February 2025. It was clear from the outset that, provided the correct process was followed, the final decision would be made by the Secretary of State. This was the decision announced on 16th July. Rushcliffe and Broxtowe Borough Councils have sought advice on whether there are grounds to challenge this decision. The response received from King’s Counsel (a senior lawyer appointed by the monarch) on 07/08/26 concluded that: (point 36) “In the circumstances, I do not consider there are viable grounds for judicial review. If a judicial review was sought it should seek the remedy of quashing the decision of 16 July 2026 and any consequential steps based thereon. This would take us back, in effect, to July 15 and the minister could proceed to deal with the matter, correcting any procedural error, and re-take the decision.” (point 37) “The risk as to costs is that the Secretary of State in defending the matter can expect to get costs from the losing Claimants, other councils as interested parties may also ask for costs but are not as sure of their award as the Secretary of State.” (point 38) “CONCLUSION: I consider an application for judicial review is far more likely to fail than succeed. On the present material it would be difficult to plead a viable case.” |
| Process/timing | Is there still a route to legal challenge or judicial review? | Initiating a judicial review is always an option – but the initial advice received by Rushcliffe and Broxtowe Borough Councils suggests that this wouldn’t be successful. As this article explains (https://westbridgfordwire.com/rushcliffe-and-broxtowe-legal-challenge-to-nottinghamshire-council-shake-up-unlikely-to-succeed/), King’s Counsel concluded that: there is nothing to suggest that the Government has materially changed its approach to local government reorganisation during the process; the Government’s decision considered boundary changes, finances, service delivery and consultation responses; the consultation would likely be determined to be legally sufficient. It is now a decision for the councils that participated in this process to decide whether the potential benefits of initiating a judicial review outweigh the likely costs. Councils control the money and staff that would oversee this process, not MPs. |
| Process/timing | Why does local government reorganisation have to go ahead? | Local government reorganisation is taking place in over 20 parts of the country (i.e. not just Nottinghamshire) where there are two tiers of local government. It is seeking to respond to growing local government debt which has ballooned from around £67 billion in 2010 to £155 billion this year. There are several factors which have caused this level of debt across local government locally and nationally – more demand on adult social care, more demand on children’s services and more homelessness due to rising property prices and rents, to name a few key ones – but there has also been a significant reduction in central government funding to local authorities over the past decade which means local authorities and council taxpayers have picked-up the bill for core local services. While local government reorganisation won’t solve this problem, there is evidence that it will help – the last Conservative government merged eight councils in North Yorkshire, for example and, according to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, this is delivering around £40 million savings per annum which can be reinvested in frontline services. I met with ministers before the decision was taken and argued that local government reorganisation shouldn’t be a term one priority for the Government given (1) the likely fallout, (2) the complexity of merging multiple authorities, (3) the slow speed of financial returns, and (4) the need for the same councils to help deliver the government’s wider agenda on council house building, tackling homelessness, regenerating high streets etc.. I lost this argument unfortunately. |
| Process/timing | Will you support a local referendum, citing the Plymouth mayoral referendum? | While I have expressed my disappointment publicly about the decision to split Rushcliffe, we should be clear that there were always three options on the table and only one was ever going to be selected – meaning there would always be lots of disappointed people. After the Nottinghamshire councils made their submissions, I met ministers three times to advocate for the existing boroughs and districts to be used as building blocks, and for Rushcliffe as a whole to be part of the more rural authority – but the decision was taken to split the borough along the A46 so the two authorities are more balanced (c.660,000 people in the more rural authority vs. 600,000 people in the more urban authority). Referendums have been talked about, but the Government doesn’t believe these are necessary given the local government reorganisation process was clearly articulated to everybody at the outset. I am cross that local government reorganisation wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the 2024 manifesto so that there could be no disputing the mandate for this change; and while I will raise a question about having referendums in writing when Parliament returns in September, I can’t see the Government allowing this. There have been no referendums on nationally-led local government reorganisation before (for example, on the creation of the East Midlands Combined County Authority under the last government); services will remain the same but be delivered by two new authorities rather than nine, so there should be no service degradation; and the fundamental issue of growing local government debt needs addressing somehow. Politically, for me and other Nottinghamshire MPs, it would of course be much easier to have a referendum across the whole of Nottinghamshire – but politics isn’t always about doing what’s easy or comfortable. |
| Process/timing | Why was the consultation ignored? | As I have explained above, the scale of local government debt is significant. It would be wrong for the Government not to think about ways of addressing this, given we – and future generations – will need to account for that debt at some point. I promoted the consultation through email and social channels, as did Rushcliffe Borough Council – but despite there being 1.1 million residents across the city of Nottingham and county of Nottinghamshire, only 11,483 people or organisations responded which was disappointing. “Doing nothing” was never a realistic option based on the original letter from the Government, but I did push for a delay until the next parliamentary session as I’ve explained above. I took this to the Chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party and pushed for this through to the announcement in July, as I don’t feel that the time and energy going into this process is the best use of time and energy in year 2/3 of a Government which has many, many problems to fix. However, ministers have decided differently and I understand and respect this. I should also note that Scotland, Wales and large parts of England already have unitary authorities, so this isn’t really new territory. Some of the key benefits should include: All local services being delivered by a single council, making it clearer which authority and which councillors are responsible when you need assistance. Over time, reducing costs by removing duplication between councils (e.g. going from nine to two chief executives), helping to deliver better value for taxpayers. Town and Parish Councils remaining in place, ensuring smaller communities continue to have a strong local voice and local representation. For reference, on the point about consultation, King’s Counsel stated the following in the guidance sent to Broxtowe and Rushcliffe Borough Councils on 07/08/26: (Point 27) “The next matter relates to the adequacy of consultation. It should first be noted that the statutory demand is for consultation about the proposal. There is no statutory demand for consultation about modifications. Further, the consultation occurs against a background of the Act and of local government reorganisation elsewhere in England. This means that a court would expect consultees to be alive to the various possibilities, e.g. boundary changes, whether or not they were, in precise detail, spelt out in the consultation.” (Point 30) “In the circumstances I consider a court would hold the consultation to be of sufficient length. I also consider that a court would proceed to say that the consultation was required was on the proposals, with consultees knowing or being taken to know that there could be modification. Further, a large amount of information was in the public domain, and the purpose of the consultation is to inform the minister who also received (see letter of 16th July) 2026 representations, requests for modifications and other information.” |
| Geography | Villages like Stanton on the Wolds, Rempstone, Keyworth, East Leake and Cotgrave have little connection to the city. | It is true that some Rushcliffe villages have very little in common with Nottingham city – although a number of them have been served by City-based services for many years (e.g. bus services). The flip of this argument is that Rushcliffe villages also have very little in common with the towns of Bassetlaw, Mansfield or Ashfield which is where most of the Councillors in the more rural authority will come from. I suspect most Councillors in these areas wouldn’t be able to put Keyworth etc. on a map, so there was always a risk that Rushcliffe would become the “forgotten south” in either authority. See below about Local Area Committees for more reflections on how rural voices can still be promoted in the new authorities. |
| Council tax / finance | I am worried that Rushcliffe’s low council tax and reserves will be used to plug City deficits. | Firstly, we should be clear that Rushcliffe residents already subsidise services across Nottinghamshire. The tax base (Band D equivalent properties) for each local area is currently as follows: Rushcliffe: ~48,486 properties (LINK) Newark and Sherwood: ~43,272 properties (LINK) Gedling: ~39,974 properties (LINK) Bassetlaw: ~39,026 properties (LINK) Broxtowe: ~36,201.43 properties (LINK) Ashfield: ~34,862 properties (LINK) Mansfield: ~31,111 properties (LINK) Despite Rushcliffe paying more council tax overall due to the number of Band D equivalent properties, today, a lot of this money is being spent elsewhere by Nottinghamshire County Council. In reality, funds will always be redistributed to where there is greatest need (social care, deprivation, education etc.). Turning to specific bills, for the 2026/27 tax year, the total Band D Council Tax in Nottingham City is £2,755.39 per year (including policing etc.). Of this, the City Council’s component is £2,342.08. For the 2026/27 tax year, the total Band D Council Tax in Rushcliffe is more complex to calculate because each parish / town has a different precept, but the average bill is £2,617.15 – so £138.24 lower. However, the new council tax base for the new authority will look very different because parts of Rushcliffe + parts of Gedling + parts of Broxtowe will join City properties in contributing to council tax income, but there will also be changes in income from business rates etc.. So while I expect council tax bills to be standardised across the two new authorities from the outset, there is still no clarity on what this will mean for individual bills and there’s every possibility that little will change (tens of pounds either way). Finally, turning to reserves, Rushcliffe Borough Council says it has £24.3 million reserves, and these will grow to £24.9 million by next April (LINK). A quick Google suggests that this compares as follow: Nottingham City, £42 million (LINK) Newark and Sherwood, £35.6 million (LINK) Mansfield, £34.6 million (LINK) Ashfield, £35.1 million (LINK) Rushcliffe, £24.3 million (stated above) Bassetlaw, £18.6 million (LINK) Gedling, £13.6 million (LINK) Broxtowe, £4.2 million (LINK) I would need to do detailed comparisons to be 100% sure, but this indicates that Rushcliffe is only “middle of the pack” when it comes to its reserves position. |
| Council tax / finance | What guarantees or legal ringfencing will stop Rushcliffe council tax/reserves being used to cover Nottingham City liabilities? | Both Nottinghamshire County Council – which receives c.70% of your council tax bill to provide c.400 services – and Nottingham City Council are in significant debt (£450 million to £500 million vs. £292 million respectively), with total local government debt in Nottinghamshire totalling £1.5 billion to £2.0 billion once you factor in the seven boroughs and districts. It is unfair when people talk about the City being in debt without also referencing other authorities’ debt. Rushcliffe is often presented as having no debt, which is correct, but it also doesn’t have any social houses and hasn’t done since 2003 (explained in more detail below). This is unlike most other Nottinghamshire authorities: Nottingham City, owns ~25,000 of its own council houses (LINK) Ashfield, owns ~6,700 of its own council houses (LINK) Bassetlaw, owns ~6,600 of its own council houses (LINK) Mansfield, owns ~6,400 of its own council houses (LINK) Newark and Sherwood, owns 5,500 of its own council houses (LINK) Broxtowe, owns ~4,400 of its own council houses (LINK) Rushcliffe, owns 0 of its own council houses (LINK) Gedling, owns 0 of its own council houses (LINK) In theory, the authorities with social houses could sell these assets to address their housing revenue debts. This would completely change the “debt narrative” locally and mean that only two authorities – Gedling and Nottinghamshire County Council – would be in any debt (although they could also sell-off other assets that they own). However, it would also significantly change how social housing is provided across Nottinghamshire. I am personally in favour of councils running their own housing services, and have always argued that housing debt should be treated differently to other debts. There is very little to no ringfencing on how council tax revenue can be spent across Nottinghamshire today, and I can’t imagine there will be in the future. As stated above, Rushcliffe’s reserves position is good but it’s not as strong as people might think, and it won’t be bringing significant social housing assets into the new authority in the same way that Broxtowe will be. |
| Council tax / finance | Will the Workplace Parking Levy apply across the new area, and where would revenue be spent? | These types of details will be worked through by the new authorities, primarily over the 12-month period from May 2027 (when the “shadow” elections for the two new authorities will take place) and May 2028 (when the new authorities will actually start functioning). But I think the general principle will be that the day one position for the new authorities should reflect as-is services for as many residents as possible. The two new administrations will be able to make adjustments from that point. |
| Council tax / finance | Will there be a single social housing pot across City and Rushcliffe, competing for the same limited stock? | As stated above, Rushcliffe doesn’t have any of its own social housing – the Council transferred all of its housing stock in 2003, meaning its former council houses are now owned and managed by housing associations (primarily Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH)). This differs to most other Nottinghamshire councils which continue to own their own housing stock: Nottingham City, owns ~25,000 of its own council houses (LINK) Ashfield, owns ~6,700 of its own council houses (LINK) Bassetlaw, owns ~6,600 of its own council houses (LINK) Mansfield, owns ~6,400 of its own council houses (LINK) Newark and Sherwood, owns 5,500 of its own council houses (LINK) Broxtowe, owns ~4,400 of its own council houses (LINK) Rushcliffe, owns 0 of its own council houses (LINK) Gedling, owns 0 of its own council houses (LINK) So no, there won’t be a “single pot” of houses for the new authority unless the MTVH properties are brought back in-house. I suspect the new more urban authority will continue to work with Metropolitan as a large housing association (and Jigsaw Homes Midlands for the Gedling ones) while managing the rest of its stock directly. The detail about how waiting lists etc. will be merged isn’t clear yet, and will be discussed and agreed in advance of the new authorities commencing work in May 2028. |
| Council tax / finance | No one has considered the cost of reorganisation itself. IT/systems integration alone could take years and cost far more than claimed savings. | All proposals were required to consider the cost of implementation, as this early document from Rushcliffe Borough Council demonstrates (section 3 is called “Financial model: LGR costs and savings”). Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) Options Appraisal, 14th July 2025 All options were projected to deliver savings within five years. Of course, the implementation will be complicated and I am sceptical about how quickly savings will be realised – but larger councils have been created elsewhere and saved money (e.g. North Yorkshire Council). |
| Structure / governance | Who decides the composition of the new councils? | Both new authorities will have 99 Councillors. In both cases, these Councillors will be elected in May 2027 onto a “shadow authority”. The two new “shadow authorities” will run side by side with the existing Borough and District Councils until May 2028 when they will formally replace the previous bodies which will cease to exist. This was confirmed as part of the decision on 16th July. |
| Structure / governance | How many councillors will the new authority have, and where will it be based? | We will have 17 Councillors in the west Rushcliffe area, and 5 Councillors in the east Rushcliffe area – so 22 in total. These 22 Councillors will oversee all services, rather than the split structure we have today (with 44 Borough Councillors and 10 County Councillors with different responsibilities (although several councillors do both roles)). There is no clarity yet about where the new authorities will be based geographically, but I would expect the main council buildings to continue to be used for a few years while services are being streamlined. |
| Structure / governance | What arrangements exist for local representation in West Bridgford, Bingham, East Leake, Keyworth, Ruddington and smaller rural areas – and would Town Councils (at extra cost) be the answer? | Most of Rushcliffe is already covered by Town and Parish Councils. This won’t change, although there is a campaign for a Town Council for West Bridgford so that there is parity across the patch. I believe both new authorities have committed to introducing Local Area Committees or equivalent. These are common in large council areas, such as Sheffield City Council. They encourage communities to share ideas, to direct local funding and to shape neighbourhood improvement plans. There could be three or more of these in Rushcliffe, depending on how they are set-up. Nottingham City Council already operates 8 Local Area Committees. |
| Structure / governance | Given the reorganisation is going ahead regardless, why not just have one single Nottinghamshire-wide authority rather than two new unitaries? | This could definitely have been an option, but none of the nine existing councils in Nottinghamshire put this option forward for consideration by the Secretary of State. |
| Assets | Will specific local assets (Lutterell Hall, Cotgrave Hub, parks, libraries) be legally protected from sale/disposal by the new authority? | I have heard talk of certain assets being put into “trust” as it were, but I am not sure that this will be allowed. It is true, however, that many local authorities have sold assets over recent years to try and make ends meet and residents are concerned about this pattern of activity. The main requirement, therefore, is to make sure that local government funding is increased. To that end, the Government has already announced that it will be increasing funding to Nottinghamshire by £230 million (30%) and to Nottingham by £154 million (40%) through to 2029, excluding inflation (https://westbridgfordwire.com/nottinghamshire-county-council-sees-30-government-funding-increase/). This should reduce the risk of assets being sold. |
| Local services | I am worried about declining service levels: libraries, leisure centres, social housing allocation, policing. | This is an interesting one. I have already covered off social housing above … the provision in Rushcliffe is different to most of the rest of the county where Councils continue to provide their own services. Police services are already joined up across the whole ceremonial county of Nottinghamshire, meaning there should be no major impact here (https://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/police-forces/nottinghamshire-police/areas/about-us/about-us/policing-in-nottinghamshire/). Nottingham and Nottinghamshire health has been integrated for many years (https://notts.icb.nhs.uk/). Again, the impact should be limited. On leisure centres, Rushcliffe Borough Council runs its services through Parkwood Leisure (through its operating partner Lex Leisure), whereas the City’s leisure centres are run directly by Nottingham City Council through its Active Nottingham service; Gedling Borough Council runs its own services; and Broxtowe’s services are run by Liberty Leisure Limited (LLeisure) which is a wholly owned Local Authority Trading Company set up and owned by Broxtowe Borough Council. This demonstrates how different service models are in existence today and will need to be reviewed across the board. There is no requirement for these models to change or merge immediately, but I would imagine a single approach will ultimately be adopted to drive efficiencies. Finally, on libraries, Nottingham City Libraries operates a network of 12 public libraries across the city, while Nottinghamshire County Council operates 60 libraries through Inspire Culture, Learning and Libraries, a charitable mutual society. Again, a single approach will likely be identified at some point, but I have no reason to expect service levels to diminish – they may just look and feel difference once changes start to be made. |
| Local services | What is happening with East Leake’s long-promised health centre under reorganisation? | There will be no change to this campaign, as any new health centre will be funded through either national funds or the Integrated Care Board which operates completely separately to local government. Nottingham and Nottinghamshire health has been integrated for many years (https://notts.icb.nhs.uk/) but this is merging with Derbyshire and Lincolnshire over the next few months as part of NHS reforms. |
| Local services | Will existing leisure centre access arrangements for borough residents be preserved, or will City residents get priority? | As I’ve said above, details like this can only really be finalised by the new authorities once they’re established. But every existing Nottinghamshire Council except Nottinghamshire County Council has a responsibility to run leisure services today, and I would imagine that most people will continue to access their current local provision unaffected. |
