Local Government Reorganisation – What is it?

Change is coming to local government, with the government planning to replace district and county councils with new unitary authorities delivering all your council services. After an extensive deep dive into the proposals, this is a summary of what we think is going on. IMPORTANTLY! This is not definitive and this whole thing is bloody complicated! So this is based on information available on-line. It may contain in-accuracies and we would be grateful for any comments and are happy and willing for any of this to be challenged.

What’s going on around here?

The government is holding a consultation on the possible options for Devon – and you are being asked to tell the government what services matter most to you, and what you need from a new unitary authority.

South Hams District Council (SHDC) will be scrapped as part of the process. The consultation will run for seven weeks, closing on Thursday 26th March and as a democratic process requests people have their say. This is the link to the consultation: https://www.devonlgr.co.uk/

What LGR Is and Why It’s Happening

Local Government Reorganisation is a dramatic alteration of the management and governance of our region.

The UK Labour Government has asked Devon’s councils to submit proposals for reorganising local government. The stated aim is to simplify the current system, reduce duplication, and create a more coherent structure for delivering services.

Right now, most of Devon operates under a three‑tier system. We have a County Council a District Council and a Town Council.

Plymouth and Torbay already operate as unitary authorities (single-tier) – The Government have asked for proposals, and five different models have been submitted. Each proposes a different way of reorganising Devon’s councils into fewer, larger units. The proposals vary, but they all revolve around merging district and county functions into fewer, larger councils.

This means that Totnes will be merged into larger unitary authority who are responsible for all the services like Waste Collection, Planning applications, social care and education. The claim is that this will bring more consistency across the county with potential cost savings but with all larger organisations runs a risk of reduced accountability and responsiveness.

Expensive?

The costs of dissolving SHDC and re-organisation will be significant but it’s expected that long-term savings will make this move lead to lower running costs in future. All proposals promise eventual savings from removing duplication (two HR teams, two finance teams, etc etc.), but: There are upfront costs: IT integration, redundancy, rebranding, estates rationalisation.
The political fight is partly about who controls the savings and where they are reinvested—urban centres vs. rural fringes, growth corridors vs. peripheral communities. For South Hams and Totnes, the risk is that it becomes a net contributor to a larger unitary’s finances (especially given property values and council tax base), while not necessarily being the main focus of reinvestment.

There are several proposals as to how this happens but SHDC may be merged with any or all of West Devon, Teignbridge, Plymouth, A larger South Devon unitary or part of a Single Devon-wide unitary. From the research here at the Totnes Pulse, the details are sketchy on which proposals affect the South Hams in which way but all involve structural change.

Less representation

We are lucky to have brilliant, effective, concientious councillors working locally. These changes will mean that there will almost certainly be fewer councillors having to  represent larger areas and there will be changes in how priorities are set locally which means hyper-local needs are less likely to be addressed in the manner we currently enjoy. This will almost certainly have a major impact on decisions made within the Totnes area.

In summary the Local Government Reorganisation is:

• Structural: It changes the architecture of local government.
• Transformational: It reshapes how services are delivered.
• Political: It alters representation and local democratic structures.
• Economic: It aims to reduce duplication and improve efficiency.
• Contested: Different councils have different visions for the future.

And the South Hams is effectively the rope in a tug of war between proposals The winner will shape the new map and culture of power.

In short

• Devon County Council want 3 unitaries – Devon, Plymouth & Torbay – (We would probably absorbed into “Devon”)
• South Hams District Council also want 3 unitaries but differently grouped with more localised control – (We would possibly become “Torbay & South Devon”)
• Plymouth City Council & Torbay Council want to tweak existing boundaries – (we could end up in either)

Political motivations: who wants what, and why?

Firstly – Devon County Council’s logic: consolidate power and “tidy up” the map

Motivation: Preserve and upscale county influence. DCC’s proposal for a large “Devon Unitary” (covering East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon, North Devon, South Hams, Teignbridge, Torridge, West Devon) keeps the county’s political centre of gravity intact, just in a new legal wrapper.
They are presenting a narrative of efficiency and coherence. Their case for change leans heavily on “complexity”, “duplication”, and “confusing for residents”—classic language used to justify centralisation.
Political subtext: County members and leadership retain a big strategic platform over most of Devon.
District-level political cultures (often more locally idiosyncratic, sometimes more oppositional) get diluted inside a much larger unit.
For South Hams, that means: decisions about planning, housing, climate, and local priorities are set in a Devon-wide frame, where South Hams is one slice among many.

---

Secondly – District councils’ “Reimagining Devon” logic: don’t get swallowed, reshape the map
Seven districts—including South Hams—jointly submitted “Reimagining Devon: Believe in Better”, also arguing for three unitaries, but with different boundaries and governance flavour.

Motivation: Protect district DNA. The districts’ proposal is about carrying forward their way of working—more local, more place-based—into the new unitaries, rather than being absorbed into a county-designed mega‑council. Create units that feel like “real places”. The language in the district business case leans on “communities”, “identity”, and “reimagined local services”, signalling a pushback against a single dominant county logic.
Political subtext: District leaders want a seat at the design table, not just at the implementation stage. They’re trying to lock in structures where their areas—South Hams included—are part of a Southern Devon/Torbay‑type unitary that feels more coastal/rural and less dominated by Exeter‑centric county politics.
For South Hams, that’s an attempt to ensure it’s grouped with areas that share more similar economies and identities (Torbay, West Devon, Teignbridge, etc.), rather than being a peripheral district in a huge “Devon Unitary”.

---

Central government’s motivation: fewer moving parts, easier deals

From the consultation framing, White Paper, and language, central government’s drivers are pretty consistent:

Fewer councils = fewer negotiation partners for devolution, funding, and performance management.
Standardisation and scale: easier to roll out national policies and track outcomes.
Cost and resilience narrative: long‑term savings, “modernisation”, and coping with demographic and financial pressures.
Politically, that means Westminster wants tidier maps and bigger units, and is letting local players fight over which version of “tidy” wins.

So who are the winners and losers in terms of local influence?

Winners: If the Devon County Council proposal wins, a powerful “Devon Unitary” provides a large, strategic platform over most of the county. The impact in South Hams: Local priorities are filtered through a county‑shaped lens; South Hams becomes one of many competing voices. There would be larger urban centres and growth hubs like  Exeter, Plymouth, Torbay, and major transport corridors tend to attract strategic investment in any big‑unitary model. South Hams’ more rural and coastal communities risk being seen as secondary, unless explicitly protected in the governance design. In terms of professional senior management tiers in the new unitaries, fewer councils, but bigger, fancier roles: chief executives, directors, and senior officers in the new structures who gain wider scope and budgets. Probably best not to mention wage packets at this stage.

Losers: District councillors and hyper‑local political cultures. When South Hams District Council disappears, its councillors either: stand for election in much larger wards in the new unitary, or exit local government altogether. The local aspect of representation—parish‑level nuance, local knowledge of specific towns and villages—gets weaker at the main decision‑making tier.
Communities on the periphery of new regions -if Totnes is in a large “Devon Unitary”, it risks being a geographical and political edge area. If it’s in a “Southern Devon/Torbay” unitary, the gravitational pull of Torbay and larger towns could still overshadow smaller South Hams communities.
Local voluntary and community sector voices – They’ll have to navigate bigger, more centralised bureaucracies to influence decisions or secure funding and existing relationships with South Hams District officers and members—often quite personal and informal—will be disrupted. Financially Totnes has a strong council tax base, high property values and a vibrant independent economy. In a large unitary, Totnes’ revenue contribution is pooled with rural deprivation areas, coastal towns with higher service demand, urban centres with major infrastructure needs and therefore Totnes risks becoming a net contributor to a wider system that may not reinvest proportionally.

So what happens here in Totnes?

No matter which proposal wins, Totnes loses its district‑level council. That means:

We lose South Hams District Council, its cabinet, committees, planning authority, housing authority, environmental health, licensing, waste collection, etc. and we are absorbed into a unitary authority. The exact shape, as above, depends on which proposal is chosen:

If Devon County Council’s proposal wins, Totnes becomes part of a very large “Devon Unitary” covering: East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon, North Devon, South Hams, Teignbridge, Torridge, West Devon. In other words Totnes becomes a small node in a huge administrative map.

If the district councils’ “Reimagining Devon” proposal wins, Totnes becomes part of a Southern Devon/Torbay‑type unitary, likely including: South Hams, West Devon, Teignbridge, Torbay (in some variants). This is still a large authority, but may be more culturally and economically coherent for Totnes.

A big implication is planning

Totnes has a long history of strong local planning activism, resistance to inappropriate development, community‑led housing and environmental initiatives.  Under a large unitary, planning committees cover much wider areas and local nuance is harder to defend. Totnes’ distinctive planning ethos risks being overridden by broader “strategic growth” priorities.

…and political:

Totnes’ local politics often diverge from county‑level politics with a more left leaning attitude. In a large unitary the dominant political group (likely not Totnes’ preference) sets the agenda
Totnes’ ability to elect councillors aligned with its values becomes structurally weaker.

…and the Totnes Town Council becomes a lot more important:

With district functions gone, Totnes Town Council becomes the only hyper‑local democratic body and the main defender of local identity. It will be the primary channel for community activism but it does not gain new powers unless the new unitary voluntarily devolves them.

Identity and cultural implications for Totnes:

The town has a strong alternative culture with a history of community‑led initiatives. There is a distinctive economic ecosystem and a politically engaged population. LGR affects this in several ways:

Risk of cultural dilution- In a large unitary, Totnes’ distinctiveness becomes:

• Less visible
• Less politically influential
• Less central to strategic planning

Potential loss of local policy innovation – Totnes has often been ahead of the curve on:

• Climate action
• Community energy
• Local food systems
• Social enterprise
• Participatory democracy    –   Large unitaries tend to standardise, centralise and prioritise scale over experimentation

Opportunity for stronger localism—if fought for – it could secure:

• A formal “Totnes area board”
• Delegated budgets
• Local planning panels
• Community asset protections   –   But none of this is guaranteed.

Full details and consultation are here: https://www.devonlgr.co.uk/