Devolution and local government reorganisation

← all policy areas

The eleven Reform-led councils examined split by starting point: two-tier county councils resolved preferred unitary models to put to Government, while councils already reorganised into unitaries engaged instead on devolution geography.[1][2][3][4] None of them voted to postpone or cancel its own scheduled elections; the May 2025 county elections proceeded as planned.[5][6][7] The devolution vehicles these councils belong to were, in every case, inherited rather than newly agreed under Reform control.[8][9][10] No council opposed reorganisation outright; the nearest was a defeated motion that would have made support conditional on independently verified evidence.[11]

Key figures

4 Reform-led county councils resolved a preferred unitary reorganisation model to submit to Government
Derbyshire County Council
The council's preferred option then changed: at Full Council on 13 November 2025, on the motion of Councillor N Gourlay, a recorded vote (35 for, 17 against, 2 abstentions) resolved to support a single unitary council for the whole Derby and Derbyshire area as the option to submit to Government, superseding the July two-unitary position; Cabinet formally agreed this on 27 November 2025 and approved the 'Uniting Derbyshire' proposal document for submission to Government by 28 November 2025.
“Support the recommendation to Cabinet that the preferred option to be submitted to Government should be a single unitary council for the whole Derby and Derbyshire area” source ↗
Lancashire County Council
Cabinet formally agreed the council's position on 27 November 2025, resolving that the proposal for two unitary councils be adopted as the county council's preferred option for reorganisation and authorising the Chief Executive to submit it to Government by the 28 November 2025 deadline; Cabinet also asked for a broader public survey on service delivery preferences and requested Government extend the reorganisation timetable.
“The proposal for two unitary councils for Lancashire be agreed as the county council's preferred option for Local Government Reorganisation for Lancashire (as set out at Appendix 'A' of the report)” source ↗
Nottinghamshire County Council
On 20 November 2025, Full Council voted 46 to 11 to approve this two-unitary proposal as the Council's final proposal for local government reorganisation and recommended that the Leader submit it to Government under the statutory invitation.
“That the documents attached in Appendices A and B of the report be approved as the Council ’s final proposal for local government reorganisation in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire.” source ↗
Warwickshire County Council
On 14 October 2025 Warwickshire County Council resolved to submit a single unitary council for Warwickshire as its preferred model of local government reorganisation, moved by the Leader, Councillor George Finch, and seconded by Councillor Mike Bannister. The substantive motion carried 30 votes to 14 with 3 abstentions, after the Council rejected a Liberal Democrat amendment (14 for, 31 against) that would instead have backed two unitary authorities, a Green amendment (4 for, 41 against) and a single-member amendment (3 for, 30 against).
“That the Council supports the proposal of a single unitary council for Warwickshire as the optimum model of local governance.” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “preferred unitary model (statutory reorganisation invitation)”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-08.
4 Reform-led councils sit within an established mayoral combined authority
Durham County Council
County Durham is an existing member of the North East Combined Authority (NECA), a mayoral combined authority, under a signed North East Devolution Deal rather than being in the separate Devolution Priority Programme (which targets two-tier, pre-unitary areas). The council's Plan lists 'the North East Combined Authority's five commitments' and 'the Devolution Deal' among its governing reference documents, the March 2025 County Council meeting referred to 'the signing of a historic devolution deal' among the outgoing term's achievements, and a joint letter to the Secretary of State (in the Cabinet's 17 September 2025 MTFP16 report, after Reform took control in May 2025) was sent on behalf of County Durham and six other North East authorities together with the Mayor of NECA, showing continued participation in the mayoral combined authority.
“on behalf of the seven local authorities (County Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, Northumberland, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland) within the North-East of England and the Mayor of the North-East Combined Authority (NECA) which serves the same geography as these authorities” source ↗
Derbyshire County Council
Derbyshire County Council is a constituent authority of the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA), established under a previously approved Devolution Deal and the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024; Councillor Alan Graves holds the council's portfolio for EMCCA and is its strategic lead for devolution. No published Derbyshire minutes in the corpus refer to a 'Devolution Priority Programme' by that name; the council's documented devolution vehicle is its existing EMCCA membership.
“in line with the previously approved Devolution Deal and East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024” source ↗
Nottinghamshire County Council
Nottinghamshire County Council is a constituent authority of the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA), an existing mayoral combined county authority; the Council formally approved its priority areas for collaboration with EMCCA in 2025 and separately resolved to use its role as a constituent council of EMCCA to lobby the elected East Midlands Mayor on policy (e.g. a proposed tourism tax), predating and continuing alongside the current LGR process.
“RESOLVED 2025/015 That the range of priority areas for collaboration for the Council to develop and deliver with the East Midlands Combined County Authority, as set out in the appendix to the report, be approved.” source ↗
Lincolnshire County Council
Lincolnshire is a constituent council of the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority (GLCCA), whose inaugural meeting on 6 March 2025 adopted its Constitution, agreed the Greater Lincolnshire Devolution Deal and Devolution Proposal as policy, approved the mayoral title under section 42 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, and appointed a Combined County Authority Returning Officer for the election of a directly elected Mayor for Greater Lincolnshire held on 1 May 2025.
“3. That the title of the Mayor under s.42 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 be approved.” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “mayoral combined (county) authority”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-08.
2 Reform-led councils publicly opposed postponing their scheduled local elections
Lancashire County Council
On 20 November 2025 Lancashire full council carried, 63 for with 4 abstentions, a motion moved by County Councillor Tom Lord and seconded by County Councillor Luke Parker opposing any cancellation of the 2026 local elections, instructing the Chief Executive to seek assurance from the Secretary of State that elections would not be cancelled and to press for repeal of the power to cancel them.
“Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State seeking an assurance from him that local elections will not be cancelled, and request that steps are taken to repeal s.87 of the Local Government Act 2000, removing the Secretary of State's power to cancel elections without a debate and vote in Parliament.” source ↗
Staffordshire County Council
Staffordshire County Council's Reform administration opposed postponing elections rather than seeking any delay. In an update noted by Cabinet on 21 January 2026, the Acting Leader said he was disappointed that Cannock Chase and Tamworth councils had requested delays to the May 2026 elections due to the Government's local government reorganisation programme, and stated that he did not support delaying elections because it risked undermining democratic accountability.
“I do understand the pressures, but I do not support delaying elections. It risks undermining democratic accountability and the public’s trust that they can pass judgement when it matters most.” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “postponement of scheduled local elections”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-08.

Formal position on reorganisation: a per-council breakdown

Among the two-tier counties, two backed a single unitary. Warwickshire resolved a single unitary for the county as its preferred model, rejecting a Liberal Democrat amendment for two authorities.[2] Derbyshire reversed itself: it agreed a two-unitary north/south split in July 2025, then in November substituted a single unitary for the whole of Derby and Derbyshire, the 'Uniting Derbyshire' proposal.[12][1] Two other counties backed two unitaries. Lancashire recommended and its Cabinet adopted a two-unitary model as the county's preferred option.[13][14] Nottinghamshire reversed in the opposite direction: it began on a single-unitary preference, moved to a two-unitary urban/rural split, defeated an attempt to reinstate the single-unitary line, and approved the two-unitary proposal as its final submission.[15][16][17] Lincolnshire's support for a single tier of local government was carried in March 2025 under the outgoing Conservative administration, before Reform took control at the May election.[18] The already-unitary councils treated their own boundaries as settled and engaged only on devolution. County Durham, unitary since 2009, framed reorganisation as a process for other, still two-tier areas.[4] North Northamptonshire, unitary since 2021, unanimously preferred a wider South Midlands geography and lodged a joint Expression of Interest with West Northamptonshire for a Foundation Strategic Authority.[3][19] West Northamptonshire agreed the principle of devolution and an Expression of Interest to become a Foundation Strategic Authority, preferring a South Midlands footprint but falling back to a Northamptonshire-only arrangement once wider partners could not agree.[20] No formal reorganisation position was recorded for three councils: Kent's activity was its Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee reviewing scenarios rather than stating a preferred model, and Leicestershire's was an amendment noting the previous administration's refused delay request.[21][22]

Elections proceeded; the question of delay was raised only to resist it

The scheduled May 2025 county elections went ahead everywhere, and were the elections that brought the Reform administrations to power.[5][6][7] Leicestershire put on record that it was the previous administration which had asked to delay elections to join the fast-track reorganisation programme, a request Government refused.[22] Where postponement was engaged at all, it was to oppose it, and the two councils that did so framed it differently: one moved to strip the Secretary of State of the power to cancel elections without a Commons vote, the other cast any delay as a threat to democratic accountability.[23][24] A separate Lancashire request, that shadow elections for the new unitaries not run before May 2028, concerned the timing of future polls for successor bodies, not cancellation of the county's own elections.[13] Kent's reorganisation committee recorded concern about the democratic implications should elections be delayed, but resolved only to note the update.[21]

Devolution vehicles: inherited authorities, not new Reform ones

The mayoral-authority memberships all predate Reform control: County Durham sits within the North East Combined Authority under a signed deal, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire are constituents of the East Midlands authority, and Lincolnshire's combined authority elected its mayor on the same day Reform won the county.[8][25][9][10] Derbyshire is deepening that inherited arrangement, its Cabinet resolving to hand strategic and public-transport functions to the East Midlands authority by April 2026.[26] Only West Northamptonshire is recorded as having entered the Devolution Priority Programme itself, and that was agreed in January 2025 before Reform took office; under Reform it has since fallen back to a non-mayoral Foundation Strategic Authority.[27][28] Lancashire has an established but non-mayoral combined county authority and has declined to convert it into a mayoral one, agreeing only to explore the idea subject to each constituent council's approval.[29][30] The Northamptonshire pair are pursuing non-mayoral Foundation Strategic Authorities, while Warwickshire's aim is to fold any new unitary into the existing West Midlands mayoral authority rather than a priority-programme fast-track.[19][31]

No outright opposition, and the routes still unresolved

The one motion that would have committed a council to oppose any reorganisation lacking robust independently verified evidence was defeated, leaving that council's formal position one of proceeding.[11] West Northamptonshire's earlier bid to lock in a South Midlands mayoral geography was itself voted down while the administration awaited the Secretary of State's response, and by April 2026 its leader estimated the region had lost £300m of funding by not proceeding in 2025.[32][33]

References

1. The council's preferred option then changed: at Full Council on 13 November 2025, on the motion of Councillor N Gourlay, a recorded vote (35 for, 17 against, 2 abstentions) resolved to support a single unitary council for the whole Derby and Derbyshire area as the option to submit to Government, superseding the July two-unitary position; Cabinet formally agreed this on 27 November 2025 and approved the 'Uniting Derbyshire' proposal document for submission to Government by 28 November 2025.
“On the motion of Councillor N Gourlay, duly seconded and in accordance with Standing Order number 18.1, a recorded vote was requested and taken as follows:” Minutes, 13 November 2025 ↗
“Approve the Uniting Derbyshire Proposal document attached at Appendix 2 to the report for submission to Government by 28 November 2025.” Decisions, 27 November 2025 ↗
“Support the recommendation to Cabinet that the preferred option to be submitted to Government should be a single unitary council for the whole Derby and Derbyshire area” Minutes, 13 November 2025 ↗
“Agree that the preferred option to be submitted to Government be a single unitary council for the whole of Derby and Derbyshire area” Decisions, 27 November 2025 ↗
2. On 14 October 2025 Warwickshire County Council resolved to submit a single unitary council for Warwickshire as its preferred model of local government reorganisation, moved by the Leader, Councillor George Finch, and seconded by Councillor Mike Bannister. The substantive motion carried 30 votes to 14 with 3 abstentions, after the Council rejected a Liberal Democrat amendment (14 for, 31 against) that would instead have backed two unitary authorities, a Green amendment (4 for, 41 against) and a single-member amendment (3 for, 30 against).
“That the Council supports the proposal of a single unitary council for Warwickshire as the optimum model of local governance.” Decisions, 14 October 2025 ↗
“Councillor George Finch, Leader, seconded by Councillor Mike Bannister, moved the following motions:” Minutes, 14 October 2025 ↗
“Liberal Democrat Amendment to Reform UK Motion 3 For: Councillor Steve Albon, Councillor Sarah Boad, Councillor Cliff Brown, Councillor George Cowcher, Councillor Richard Dickson, Councillor Ben Edwards, Councillor Judy Falp, Councillor Lorraine Grocott, Councillor Keith Kondakor, Councillor Max Langer, Councillor Jennifer McAllister, Councillor James Norris, Councillor Kate Rolfe, and Councillor Mark Stevens (14)” Minutes, 14 October 2025 ↗
“Councillor Adrian Warwick (30) Against: Councillor Steve Albon, Councillor Sarah Boad, Councillor Cliff Brown, Councillor George Cowcher, Councillor Richard Dickson, Councillor Ben Edwards, Councillor Judy Falp, Councillor Lorraine Grocott, Councillor Keith Kondakor, Councillor Max Langer, Councillor Jennifer McAllister, Councillor James Norris, Councillor Kate Rolfe, and Councillor Mark Stevens (14) Abstentions: Councillor Nigel Golby, Councillor Luke Shingler, and Councillor John Waine (3) Resolved” Minutes, 14 October 2025 ↗
3. North Northamptonshire Council's own governing documents describe it as an already-constituted unitary authority (created in the 2021 Northamptonshire reorganisation), and the council's minutes record no proposal or vote to further reorganise its own unitary boundaries; its live formal position concerns devolution rather than a further unitary reorganisation.
“As a 'unitary' council, North Northamptonshire Council provides the majority of council services in North Northamptonshire and works with a range of partners to provide services in the best possible way.” Decisions, 29 September 2025 ↗
4. County Durham is already a unitary authority, formed in 2009 (replacing the former district councils including Chester-le-Street), and no vote or motion on adopting a new preferred unitary geography for County Durham itself was found. The council's Fair Funding Review 2.0 consultation response (Cabinet, MTFP16 report, 17 September 2025) frames the current wave of local government reorganisation as a process for other, still two-tier, areas: it describes government inviting 'many current two-tier areas' to bid to become single tier authorities, treating County Durham's own unitary status as settled rather than under review.
“He remembered his time on the former Chester-le-Street District Council prior to the unitary Council in 2009” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
“The Government are leading on an extensive reorganisation of local government, with many current two-tier areas invited to submit bids to reorganise into single tier authorities, which may change the original boundaries of local government.” Document, 17 September 2025 ↗
5. Nottinghamshire County Council's published minutes show no motion to postpone or cancel elections pending local government reorganisation. Instead, the scheduled County Council elections went ahead as normal on 1 May 2025 (the election that brought the Reform administration to power), and Full Council subsequently noted the outcome by resolution.
“RESOLVED: 2025/016 That the outcome of the County Council elections on 1 May 2025, as set out in Appendix A of the report, be noted.” Document, 10 July 2025 ↗
6. No motion to postpone or cancel Lincolnshire's scheduled elections pending local government reorganisation was found; the county council elections proceeded as scheduled on 1 May 2025, with the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board's 17 March 2025 meeting explicitly noted as its last before that poll and a newly constituted Council (new Chairman, reallocated committee seats under the political balance rules) meeting on 23 May 2025.
“the last Overview and Scrutiny Management Board prior to the 2025 County Council election” Minutes, 29 May 2025 ↗
“1 COUNCIL 23 MAY 2025 PRESENT: COUNCILLOR S BUNNEY (CHAIRMAN)” Minutes, 23 May 2025 ↗
“That the allocation of Committee seats (as detailed in schedule 1 of the order of proceedings) in accordance with the political balance rules be approved” Minutes, 23 May 2025 ↗
7. No motion to postpone or cancel scheduled elections pending reorganisation appears in Derbyshire County Council's published minutes; the scheduled county council elections went ahead as normal on 21 May 2025, with the Annual Council meeting that day welcoming a new intake of councillors and appointing a Leader for a full four-year term (2025-2029) even as Local Government Reorganisation work was already under way.
“The Chairman welcomed the newly elected members to the Annual General meeting” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
“RESOLVED: That Councillor A Graves be appointed Leader of the Council for 2025-29.” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
“PUBLIC MINUTES of a meeting of COUNCIL held on Wednesday, 21 May 2025 at Council Chamber, County Hall, Matlock.” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
8. County Durham is an existing member of the North East Combined Authority (NECA), a mayoral combined authority, under a signed North East Devolution Deal rather than being in the separate Devolution Priority Programme (which targets two-tier, pre-unitary areas). The council's Plan lists 'the North East Combined Authority's five commitments' and 'the Devolution Deal' among its governing reference documents, the March 2025 County Council meeting referred to 'the signing of a historic devolution deal' among the outgoing term's achievements, and a joint letter to the Secretary of State (in the Cabinet's 17 September 2025 MTFP16 report, after Reform took control in May 2025) was sent on behalf of County Durham and six other North East authorities together with the Mayor of NECA, showing continued participation in the mayoral combined authority.
“the signing of a historic devolution deal” Minutes, 21 May 2025 ↗
“the North East Combined Authority’s five commitments; the Devolution Deal” Minutes, 4 July 2025 ↗
“on behalf of the seven local authorities (County Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, Northumberland, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland) within the North-East of England and the Mayor of the North-East Combined Authority (NECA) which serves the same geography as these authorities” Document, 17 September 2025 ↗
9. Nottinghamshire County Council is a constituent authority of the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA), an existing mayoral combined county authority; the Council formally approved its priority areas for collaboration with EMCCA in 2025 and separately resolved to use its role as a constituent council of EMCCA to lobby the elected East Midlands Mayor on policy (e.g. a proposed tourism tax), predating and continuing alongside the current LGR process.
“RESOLVED 2025/015 That the range of priority areas for collaboration for the Council to develop and deliver with the East Midlands Combined County Authority, as set out in the appendix to the report, be approved.” Document, 17 July 2025 ↗
“Uses its role as a constituent Counci l of the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA) to influence against any plans to introduce a tourism tax affecting Nottinghamshire and call on the East Midlands Mayor” Document, 14 May 2026 ↗
10. Lincolnshire is a constituent council of the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority (GLCCA), whose inaugural meeting on 6 March 2025 adopted its Constitution, agreed the Greater Lincolnshire Devolution Deal and Devolution Proposal as policy, approved the mayoral title under section 42 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, and appointed a Combined County Authority Returning Officer for the election of a directly elected Mayor for Greater Lincolnshire held on 1 May 2025.
“RESOLVED That the appointment of Rob Walsh, Chief Executive, North East Lincolnshire Council as the Combined County Authority Returning Officer for the proposed election of mayor on 1 May 2025, in accordance with Article 10 of the Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) Order 2017, be approved.” Document, 4 June 2025 ↗
“3. That the title of the Mayor under s.42 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 be approved.” Document, 4 June 2025 ↗
“RESOLVED 1. That the Greater Lincolnshire Devolution Deal and the Greater Lincolnshire Devolution Proposal as policy be agreed.” Document, 4 June 2025 ↗
11. A Conservative-backed notice of motion moved by Councillor Teresa Cullen (seconded by Councillor John Wilmott), which would have had the Council oppose any reorganisation not backed by robust independently-verified evidence and run a fuller public consultation before committing to a final proposal, was defeated 35 votes to 19 (2 abstentions); the Council's formal position therefore remained one of proceeding with reorganisation, not opposing it.
“This Council resolves to: 1) Oppose any reorganisation of Nottinghamshire’s local government structures that is not clearly supported by robust, independently verified evidence of service improvement. 2) Conduct a full and comprehensive consultation, not restricted to just the three interim proposals, with the public and stak eholders in Nottinghamshire before committing to any final proposal ahead of the November 2025 deadline.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
“The Chairman declared that the motion had fallen. The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 4.35pm.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
12. On 9 July 2025 Full Council, on the motion of Leader Councillor A Graves, resolved by a recorded vote (39 for, 15 against, 4 abstentions) to support in principle a two-unitary north/south model as Derbyshire's preferred option for Local Government Reorganisation, and authorised four weeks of stakeholder engagement to develop a proposal on that basis.
“The report also sought support, in principle, for the preferred option of a two-unitary (north/south) model configuration” Minutes, 9 July 2025 ↗
“On the motion of Councillor A Graves, duly seconded and in accordance with Standing Order number 18.1, a recorded vote was requested” Minutes, 9 July 2025 ↗
“Agree in principle, the preferred option(s) of a two unitary authority model for the area on a north/south configuration” Minutes, 9 July 2025 ↗
13. Separately on 20 November 2025, when full council voted 45 to 29 to recommend the two-unitary Local Government Reorganisation proposal to Cabinet, County Councillor Azhar Ali OBE's amendment (accepted as friendly) added a request that the Chief Executive ask the Secretary of State that shadow elections for the new Lancashire unitary councils not take place before May 2028, to secure stabilisation of services such as adult social care and SEND first; this concerns the timing of future shadow elections for the new unitaries, not cancellation of the county's own scheduled elections.
“The substantive motion was CARRIED. Resolved: - That; (i) The proposal for two unitary councils for Lancashire (as set out at Appendix A), be recommended to Cabinet for endorsement at its meeting on 27 November 2025. (ii) Request that the Chief Executive separately writes to the Secretary of State to request that shadow elections for the new Lancashire unitaries do not take place before May 2028, to ensure stabilisation and improvements to key services i.e. adult social care and SEND are secured.” Minutes, 20 November 2025 ↗
“The following amendment was proposed by County Councillor Azhar Ali OBE: Request that the Chief Executive separately writes to the Secretary of State to request that shadow elections for the new Lancashire unitaries do not take place before May 2028, to ensure stabilisation and improvements to key services i.e. adult social care and SEND are secured. The amendment was accepted as friendly and added to the original recommendation to become the substantive motion.” Minutes, 20 November 2025 ↗
14. Cabinet formally agreed the council's position on 27 November 2025, resolving that the proposal for two unitary councils be adopted as the county council's preferred option for reorganisation and authorising the Chief Executive to submit it to Government by the 28 November 2025 deadline; Cabinet also asked for a broader public survey on service delivery preferences and requested Government extend the reorganisation timetable.
“The proposal for two unitary councils for Lancashire be agreed as the county council's preferred option for Local Government Reorganisation for Lancashire (as set out at Appendix 'A' of the report)” Minutes, 27 November 2025 ↗
“The Chief Executive be authorised, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to make any final amendments to the proposal and submit it to Government on 28 November 2025” Minutes, 27 November 2025 ↗
“a request be made that a broader public survey be undertaken to ascertain residents’ preferences and aspirations regarding future service delivery, thereby informing the development of a comprehensive proposal” Minutes, 27 November 2025 ↗
“A request be made to Central Government for an extension to the current timetable, to allow additional time for the formulation and implementation of proposals.” Minutes, 27 November 2025 ↗
15. On 20 February 2025 (Full Council), Nottinghamshire County Council resolved that an interim plan for local government reorganisation in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire be submitted to Government by 21 March 2025, with the Council's stated preference to endorse 'option C' (option 2), which would see the county area become a single Unitary Council alongside an unchanged Nottingham City Council boundary.
“That the interim plan for local government reorganisation in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire is submitted to Government by 21 March 2025. 2) That Council’s preference is to endorse option C as set out above (option 2, page 14 of Appendix C of the report).” Document, 22 May 2025 ↗
16. At an Extraordinary Full Council meeting on 2 September 2025, Councillor Sam Smith (seconded by Councillor Bruce Laughton) moved an amendment to reaffirm the Council's earlier preference for the single-unitary Option 2, but it was defeated by a recorded vote of 39 against to 16 for (3 abstentions); the original motion, based instead on the PwC options appraisal's Option 1b, was then carried by 43 votes to 11.
“The Chairman declared that the motion was carried and it was:- 5 RESVOLVED: 2025/028 That Council:” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
“This Council re -affirms its preference for Option 2, as approved by Full Council on March 20 th, which would see the current Nottinghamshire County Council area form a Unitary Council and the current Nottingham City Council boundary remain as it is.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
“The Chairman declared that the motion had fallen. Following a debate on the original motion, the original motion was put to the meeting.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
17. On 20 November 2025, Full Council voted 46 to 11 to approve this two-unitary proposal as the Council's final proposal for local government reorganisation and recommended that the Leader submit it to Government under the statutory invitation.
“That the documents attached in Appendices A and B of the report be approved as the Council ’s final proposal for local government reorganisation in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
“That Council recommends that the Leader of the Council submit the proposal to government in accordance with the statutory invitation as the Council ’s final proposal for local government reorganisation.” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
“The Chairman declared the motion was carried and it was:- RESOLVED: 2025/041” Document, 26 February 2026 ↗
18. On 21 March 2025 an extraordinary Council meeting carried a Conservative Group motion supporting a proactive move to a single tier of local government for Lincolnshire (including North and North East Lincolnshire) by 28 November 2025 and endorsed submission of the interim plan; the Independent Group's amendment to add a third option of three new unitary councils was moved and lost, and eight councillors (Armiger, Baxter, Boles, K Clarke, Cleaver, Dilks, Lee and Murray) asked for their votes against the Conservative motion to be recorded.
“Upon being put the vote, the amendment was lost. A vote on the original Conservative Group motion was then taken. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried.” Document, 23 May 2025 ↗
“The Conservative Group motion was moved and seconded as follows: That the Council considers the report to the Leader of the Council attached as appendix 1 to the report, feedback from OSMB and supports: 1) A proactive approach and development of proposals for a single tier of local government for Lincolnshire including North and North East Lincolnshire by 28 November 2025” Document, 23 May 2025 ↗
“Councillor D Armiger, A J Baxter, M D Boles, K J Clarke, R J Cleaver, P M Dilks, K E Lee and N M Murray requested that their votes against the Conservative Group motion be noted.” Document, 23 May 2025 ↗
19. On 18 March 2026 full Council resolved, unanimously (56-0-0, moved by Leader Cllr Martin Griffiths, seconded by Cllr Jim Hakewill), that its preferred geography for devolution is the wider South Midlands area, while agreeing a joint Expression of Interest with West Northamptonshire Council for a Foundation Strategic Authority as the practical near-term step, explicitly keeping open the ambition to join a larger Strategic Authority later; this is a devolution position, not a further local government reorganisation of the council's own unitary status.
“Councillor Martin Griffiths moved, and Councillor Jim Hakewill seconded the motion setting out the recommendations in the report. The motion was voted on, with 56 councillors in favour, 0 abstaining and 0 against. The motion was therefore carried.” Minutes, 21 May 2026 ↗
“Writes to the Secretary of State to express that this Council believes a Foundation Strategic Authority should be based on the wider South Midlands area as it presents the best opportunity for economic growth for both Northamptonshire and the wider area” Minutes, 21 May 2026 ↗
20. On 13 March 2026, Council (Councillor Arnull presenting, Councillor Petter seconding) resolved to agree with the principle of devolution and to submit an Expression of Interest to become a Foundation Strategic Authority, stating a South Midlands / South Midlands Plus geography remained its preferred option but, absent consensus among the constituent authorities, expressing interest instead in a Northamptonshire Foundation Strategic Authority with North Northamptonshire Council, with an explicit caveat of staying open to widening the footprint later.
“RESOLVED: Council: a) Agreed with the principle of devolution and its benefits and to progress towards establishing a Foundation Strategic Authority. b) Agreed to submit an Expression of Interest to become a Foundation Strategic Authority expressing a view that a South Midlands / South Midlands Plus is the best geography for a Foundation Strategic Authority.” Minutes, 21 May 2026 ↗
“that the Council should express an interest in establishing a Northamptonshire Foundation Strategic Authority - working with North Northamptonshire Council to formally respond to the EOI outlining the additional caveat of being open to opportunities to expand this footprint should the right opportunity subsequently become available.” Minutes, 21 May 2026 ↗
21. Kent County Council took no decision to postpone or cancel elections pending reorganisation. At its meeting on 23 March 2026 the Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee reviewed potential scenarios should the Government amend key LGR milestones, and members recorded concern about the democratic implications if elections were delayed; the committee resolved only to note and comment on the update.
“There was concern regarding the negative democratic implications that would be generated if elections were delayed.” Minutes, 23 March 2026 ↗
“RESOLVED that the Committee noted and commented on the update on local government re organisation.” Minutes, 23 March 2026 ↗
22. Leicestershire's May 2025 elections went ahead and the Reform-led council has taken no decision to postpone elections. An amendment on local government reorganisation moved by Mr D Harrison and seconded by Mr Boam at Full Council on 2 July 2025, carried by 35 votes to 13, put on record that it was the previous administration which had requested an election delay to join the fast-track LGR programme, a request the Government refused.
“The amendment was put and carried, with 35 members voting for the amendment and 13 members voting against.” Minutes, 2 July 2025 ↗
“the County Council under the previous administration changed its position when the Government refused a request to delay elections to join the fast-track LGR programme to unlock devolution.” Minutes, 2 July 2025 ↗
23. On 20 November 2025 Lancashire full council carried, 63 for with 4 abstentions, a motion moved by County Councillor Tom Lord and seconded by County Councillor Luke Parker opposing any cancellation of the 2026 local elections, instructing the Chief Executive to seek assurance from the Secretary of State that elections would not be cancelled and to press for repeal of the power to cancel them.
“Instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State seeking an assurance from him that local elections will not be cancelled, and request that steps are taken to repeal s.87 of the Local Government Act 2000, removing the Secretary of State's power to cancel elections without a debate and vote in Parliament.” Minutes, 20 November 2025 ↗
“Abstain (4) Brown Clifford Snape Snow The Motion was CARRIED.” Minutes, 20 November 2025 ↗
“It was moved by County Councillor Tom Lord and seconded by County Councillor Luke Parker that: The Secretary of State for Local Government, Steve Reed, has refused to rule out the cancellation of next year's local elections.” Minutes, 20 November 2025 ↗
24. Staffordshire County Council's Reform administration opposed postponing elections rather than seeking any delay. In an update noted by Cabinet on 21 January 2026, the Acting Leader said he was disappointed that Cannock Chase and Tamworth councils had requested delays to the May 2026 elections due to the Government's local government reorganisation programme, and stated that he did not support delaying elections because it risked undermining democratic accountability.
“I do understand the pressures, but I do not support delaying elections. It risks undermining democratic accountability and the public’s trust that they can pass judgement when it matters most.” Decisions, 28 January 2026 ↗
“I was so disappointed to hear that councils in Cannock Chase and Tamworth have requested delays to the May 2026 elections due to the Government’s programme of local government reorganisation.” Decisions, 28 January 2026 ↗
25. Derbyshire County Council is a constituent authority of the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA), established under a previously approved Devolution Deal and the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024; Councillor Alan Graves holds the council's portfolio for EMCCA and is its strategic lead for devolution. No published Derbyshire minutes in the corpus refer to a 'Devolution Priority Programme' by that name; the council's documented devolution vehicle is its existing EMCCA membership.
“in line with the previously approved Devolution Deal and East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024” Minutes, 16 October 2025 ↗
“Councillor Alan Graves who was the portfolio holder with responsibility for EMCCA and strategic lead for devolution” Minutes, 19 November 2025 ↗
“regarding the proposed transfer of the Transport function from Derbyshire County Council to the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA)” Minutes, 16 October 2025 ↗
26. Cabinet resolved on 16 October 2025 to transfer Derbyshire's strategic and public transport functions to EMCCA, agreeing that the council would cease to exercise those functions itself by 1 April 2026 at the latest, while officers told the Place Scrutiny Committee that EMCCA remained a partnership body and Derbyshire County Council 'would still exist in its own right', not being the highway or local planning authority.
“Agree that EMCCA will take responsibility for the exercise of strategic and public transport functions and that Derbyshire County Council will no longer exercise those functions on a date to be agreed, and from 1 April 2026 at the latest” Minutes, 16 October 2025 ↗
“EMCCA was not the highway authority and was not currently the local planning authority. It was a partnership but Derbyshire County Council would still exist in its own right.” Minutes, 19 November 2025 ↗
27. West Northamptonshire joined the Devolution Priority Programme before the Reform administration took office: the 26 June 2025 Council minutes record that Council agreed on 9 January 2025 to submit an Expression of Interest to Government under the Devolution Priority Programme for a South Midlands Strategic Mayoral Authority (with North Northamptonshire, Bedford, Central Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes), meeting the population threshold set out in the Government's Devolution White Paper.
“notes that this proposal was agreed by Council on Thursday 9 January, at which point it was resolved to submit an Expression of Interest to Government under the Devolution Priority Programme” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
28. By 13 March 2026 West Northamptonshire had not secured a mayoral or combined authority: Council resolved instead to submit an Expression of Interest to become a (non-mayoral) Foundation Strategic Authority, opting for a Northamptonshire-only footprint with North Northamptonshire Council after the wider South Midlands partners could not reach consensus, while formally noting the Expression of Interest was not a legally binding acceptance of establishing the authority.
“Noted that an expression of interest is not a legally binding acceptance of establishing a Foundation Strategic Authority” Minutes, 21 May 2026 ↗
29. Lancashire already operates a non-mayoral Combined County Authority: the Lancashire Combined County Authority (LCCA) was formally established in February 2025 following a Level 2 Devolution Deal Lancashire signed with Government in November 2023, and held its inaugural meeting the following month.
“November 2023 - Lancashire signs a Level 2 Devolution Deal with the Government – a Level 2 deal is equivalent to the powers and functions devolved under a Combined Foundation Strategic Authority” Minutes, 29 July 2025 ↗
“February 2025 - the Lancashire Combined County Authority (LCCA) was formally established following agreement of the Statutory Instrument and held its inaugural meeting in March 2025” Minutes, 29 July 2025 ↗
30. The council has not agreed to convert the LCCA into a mayoral combined authority. In February 2026 the LCCA recorded that the three constituent council leaders had written to the Minister for Devolution confirming their governance review was complete and reaffirming only a collective willingness to explore mayoral devolution, noting any formal proposal would depend on agreed investment and delivery assumptions and would still require approval from each constituent council.
“the leaders of the three constituent councils had written to the Minister for Devolution confirming that the review had been completed in accordance with the agreed Autumn 2025 timetable. The letter acknowledged that the authorities held a range of views but reaffirmed a collective willingness to engage positively in exploring the prospect of mayoral devolution for Lancashire.” Minutes, 17 February 2026 ↗
“It was further noted that any formal proposal would depend on a set of agreed assumptions, including expected investment levels, delivery timescales, and the need for consultation with residents and stakeholders. Approval would also be required from each constituent council.” Minutes, 17 February 2026 ↗
31. At the same 14 October 2025 meeting Warwickshire County Council also resolved, by 26 votes to 14, that full constituent membership of the West Midlands Combined Authority (an existing mayoral combined authority covering Coventry, Birmingham, and the Black Country) would be the best arrangement for any new unitary authority in Warwickshire to meet the government's devolution requirement, rather than a Devolution Priority Programme fast-track (no evidence in the corpus that Warwickshire was named in the Devolution Priority Programme).
“That the Council accepts that full constituent membership of the West Midlands Combined Authority would be the best arrangement for any new unitary authority or authorities in Warwickshire to meet the Government’s requirement of full devolution.” Decisions, 14 October 2025 ↗
“Reform UK Motion 2 (Substantive) For: Councillor Michael Bannister, Councillor Jo Barker, Councillor Dale Bridgewater, Councillor Wayne Briggs, Councillor Scott Cameron, Councillor Darren Cheshire, Councillor Luke Cooper, Councillor James Crocker, Councillor Andy Crump, Councillor Yousef Dahmash, Councillor Judy Falp, Councillor George Finch, Councillor Neil Garland, Councillor Robert Gisbourne, Councillor Dan Glover, Councillor Stuart Green, Councillor Edward Harris (Chair), Councillor Sam Jones, Councillor Dale Keeling (Vice-Chair), Councillor Christopher Kettle, Councillor Keith Kondakor, Councillor Jan Matecki, Councillor Stephen Shaw, Councillor Anne-Marie Sonko, Councillor Jennifer Warren, and Councillor Adrian Warwick (26) Against: Councillor Steve Albon, Councillor Sarah Boad, Councillor Cliff Brown, Councillor Stan Carvell, Councillor George Cowcher, Councillor Richard Dickson, Councillor Ben Edwards, Councillor Nigel Golby, Councillor Lorraine Grocott, Councillor Max Langer, Councillor Jennifer McAllister, Councillor James Norris, Councillor Stephen Pimm, and Councillor Kate Rolfe (14)” Minutes, 14 October 2025 ↗
32. On 26 June 2025 a backbench motion reaffirming West Northamptonshire's commitment to a South Midlands Strategic Mayoral Authority (with North Northamptonshire, Bedford, Central Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes) and confirming support for a directly elected regional mayor was moved by Councillor Lister and seconded by Councillor Cole, but was lost on a vote after the Reform administration said it would not support it while awaiting the Secretary of State's response to the BLMK (Bedford/Luton/Milton Keynes) proposal.
“Upon a vote, the motion was lost.” Minutes, 26 June 2025 ↗
“Councillor Lister proposed and Councillor Cole seconded: “1. That this Council: a) reaffirms its commitment to regional devolution as a means of securing enhanced powers, resources and investment for the benefit of West Northamptonshire residents; b) confirms that the South Midlands geography, comprising West Northamptonshire, North Northamptonshire, Bedford, Central Bedfordshire,” Minutes, 26 June 2025 ↗
“The administration would not be supporting the motion while it waited for the Secretary of State’s response to the BLMK proposal.” Minutes, 26 June 2025 ↗
33. As of 30 April 2026, West Northamptonshire's Leader told the Northamptonshire Police, Fire and Crime Panel that both Northamptonshire authorities preferred a Foundation Strategic Authority based on the wider South East Midlands area (not the separate East Midlands Combined County Authority geography), and that not proceeding with devolution in 2025 was estimated to have lost the region 300 million pounds of funding; no mayoral or combined authority had been agreed for West Northamptonshire by this date.
“Both authorities preferred a foundation strategic authority based on the wider South East Midlands area. Devolution needed to be pursued. Not proceeding in 2025 was estimated to have lost the region £300m funding.” Minutes, 30 April 2026 ↗