Local Government Reorgnisation ‘pause’ for Derby and Derbyshire heavily criticised

The Derbyshire LGR decision map. Image from One Derbyshire Two Councils.

A Government “pause” on scrapping Derbyshire’s 10 councils and replacement with new ones has been heavily criticised with questions asked about the cost of the proposals.

Today (September 7th) the Labour Government has announced a pause to local government reorganisation – that would see Derbyshire’s 10 councils and replaced with two for the north and south – following “legal advice”.

Angela Raynor, Secretary of State for housing, communities and local government, said she was asked to “look again” at the council reshuffle by new Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

Following that request, Ms Raynor says she “wanted to satisfy herself that the process was robust and legally sound”.

Ms Raynor did not answer when asked what the length of the “pause” would be, only specifying it would be carried out “at pace”, or if councils would be compensated for the costs already incurred from local government reorganisation – already amounting to more than £300,00 in Derbyshire, with £16 million to be set aside.

She said she understood the “frustration” and was “disappointed” herself.

Speaking in Parliament, Labour’s Amber Valley MP Linsey Farnsworth said she, her constituents and the borough council leader had all opposed the chosen reshuffle announced in July by central government – which cuts the borough in half between two north and south councils.

Ms Farnsworth said she had concerns that borough council officials would not have the capacity to carry out the changes while also providing existing services.

Conservative shadow housing minister David Simmonds said councils had been “shamefully let down”, and dubbed it a “betrayal of local democracy”.

Locally, Alan Graves, Reform UK leader of Derbyshire County Council said the move meant £16 million of taxpayers money – to pay for the first stage of £66 million setup and disaggregation costs for the new councils, will have been parked and not spent for nothing.

He said: “Derbyshire’s ten councils have already set aside more than £16 million this year for a scheme the government cannot even manage to finish. That is real money. It should be fixing our roads and supporting vulnerable children, not funding Whitehall’s indecision.

“We said all along that this reorganisation was being rushed and mismanaged from the top down. Today’s pause proves it. Our staff, our residents and our councils deserve a straight answer, not another round of guessing games.

“Derbyshire cannot keep paying the price for Labour’s dithering. Reform UK will keep holding this government to account until residents get the clarity and the value for money they deserve.”

A release from Reform UK in Derbyshire detailed the party had “opposed the way this reorganisation has been imposed on Derbyshire, warning that a rushed, top-down process risked exactly this kind of legal and financial mess”.

It called for a halt to further spending on the reorganisation “until it can set out a lawful, workable and lasting plan, and to properly consult Derbyshire’s councils and residents on what happens next.”

Conservative county councillor Nigel Gourley said: “I welcome the fact that the plans have now been halted. Any future reorganisation must ensure that rural communities do not pay for administrative simplification with weaker local representation.

“For Chapel & Hope Valley, the proposed reorganisation would have meant two new councillors replacing six borough councillors and one county councillor.

“That would have created a real democratic deficit, particularly for the rural communities of the Hope Valley, Peak Dale, and Wormhill, where councillors need to represent widely scattered villages and very different local concerns.”

Ms Raynor confirmed that the current local council elections will now take place instead, with no detail released on appointing members to the planned new councils or how this will affect the official launch of the new authorities – scheduled for April 1st, 2028.

In July, the Government announced that Derby and Derbyshire’s 10 councils – including the county, city and eight district and borough authorities – will be scrapped and replaced with two new councils along a north and south divide, with Amber Valley split in two.

The split will see Bolsover, Chesterfield, Derbyshire Dales and North East Derbyshire councils abolished and, with the upper half of Amber Valley (21 parishes), will form the northern council.

Meanwhile, Derby, Erewash and South Derbyshire councils will be scrapped and will form the southern council with the lower half of Amber Valley (14 parishes).

The Amber Valley split chosen by the Government includes Belper, Denby, Duffield, Horsley, Horsley Woodhouse, Kedleston, Kilburn, Kirk Langley, Mackworth, Quarndon, Shipley and Smalley being pulled into the southern council, while all other areas of Amber Valley will be in the northern council.

That option had been proposed by Chesterfield, Derby, Erewash and High Peak, the most preferred by any of the current councils.

The move is said to be out of an “abundance of caution” to shore up the decision-making process behind each of the 14 areas announced in July, including Derbyshire.

This to ensure that those decisions are safer and more secure to resist any potential judicial challenges over the reshuffle option reached by the Government,

At the time of the July announcement, opposition parties had suspected that the Labour Government had given undue preference to the council reshuffles backed by Labour-led councils.

In Derbyshire, the chosen council reshuffle was supported by Chesterfield, Derby, Erewash and High Peak, all of which are Labour-led, but Labour-led Amber Valley, Bolsover, North East Derbyshire and South Derbyshire opted for other layouts not backed by Government.

The reshuffle of Derbyshire’s councils is to cost £66 million to setup new authorities and disaggregate the existing bodies.

The councils say the expected annual savings from local government reorganisation, from year three onwards, would be £44 million.