Staffordshire council shake-up paused as Government orders full review

Plans to replace Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent’s ten existing councils with two new unitary authorities have been placed on hold while the Government carries out a full review of its Local Government Reorganisation programme.

The announcement was made in Parliament on Monday, 7 September, less than two months after ministers confirmed that Staffordshire would be divided into new North and South authorities.

Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary Angela Rayner said the review followed “updated and privileged legal advice”. She has asked councils to pause work on implementing the decisions announced in July while ministers reconsider both the process and the proposed structures.

The Government has not said that Staffordshire’s North–South model has been scrapped. However, it is no longer a settled outcome and will now be examined as part of the review.

What had been planned for Staffordshire?

Under the decision announced in July, all ten county, city, district and borough councils across Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent were due to be abolished.

They would have been replaced by:

• A North Staffordshire authority covering Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands, with a population of approximately 494,800.

• A South Staffordshire authority covering Cannock Chase, Stafford, East Staffordshire, Lichfield, Tamworth and South Staffordshire, with a population of approximately 682,800.

• 
  

The new councils would take responsibility for every local authority service, including highways, education, social care, planning, housing, parks and waste collection.

Elections to temporary “shadow councils” had been planned for May 2027, before the new authorities formally took over on 1 April 2028

.

That timetable is now in serious doubt.

What did the Government announce?

In her statement to the House of Commons, Angela Rayner said she wanted to be satisfied that the process was robust, complied with the law and reflected the priorities of the new Government.

She told MPs:

“In the light of legal advice, I want to satisfy myself first that the right process is in place, that it is robust and, of course, that it complies with the law.”

She also said she wanted to test whether the proposals met “the priorities of the new Administration and the new Prime Minister”.

Decisions affecting Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk have been formally withdrawn. Staffordshire is among 14 other areas where decisions have instead been paused and placed under review.

Rayner described it as a “rapid review” and insisted that the Government remained committed to local government reform.

However, no firm completion date has been published.

The Government’s letter to council leaders instructed authorities to “cease work on implementing” the July decisions until the review is complete. Local Government Minister Jim McMahon said this would reduce the risk of councils carrying out work that could become unnecessary if ministers eventually “change course”. The full ministerial letter can be read on GOV.UK⁠.

Will local elections now take place in 2027?

The Government has said elections scheduled for May 2027 will proceed using existing council boundaries.

This means residents are currently expected to vote in elections for the existing district, borough and city councils, rather than for the proposed North and South Staffordshire shadow authorities.

During questions in Parliament, Rayner later added that existing-council elections would take place “unless” the Government was ready to hold elections to new unitary councils by then.

For now, however, the formal instruction sent to councils is that the existing elections should go ahead.

In Staffordshire, this would include scheduled elections at Cannock Chase, East Staffordshire, Lichfield, Newcastle-under-Lyme, South Staffordshire, Stafford, Staffordshire Moorlands and Stoke-on-Trent.

It remains unclear how long those elected councillors would serve if reorganisation later proceeds on a revised timetable.

What was said about Staffordshire in Parliament?

Several Staffordshire MPs spoke during the Commons statement.

Stoke-on-Trent Central MP Gareth Snell said the area had “ducked and dived” through announcements during the process. He argued that devolution—and the transfer of additional powers and funding into Staffordshire—was more important than where new council boundaries were drawn.

Rayner responded that the Government still wanted every part of England to have, or be establishing, a strategic authority by the end of 2027, with strategic authorities operating everywhere by the end of 2028.

Newcastle-under-Lyme MP Adam Jogee welcomed the pause, saying people in the borough had wanted to be listened to. He asked ministers to concentrate on establishing a new mayoral authority, which he said had broader cross-party and community support.

Burton and Uttoxeter MP Jacob Collier thanked officers and councillors at East Staffordshire Borough Council and Staffordshire County Council for their work. He called for LGR to be treated separately from mayoral devolution and requested a meeting between ministers and Staffordshire MPs.

Rayner agreed that devolution could continue “at pace” and said a minister would be willing to meet them. The full Commons debate is available through Parliament⁠.

South Staffordshire MP Mike Wood described the planned southern authority as “unnecessary and unwelcome”. He said creating a council stretching from Iverley to Rocester would damage local representation and called for the proposal to be abandoned rather than merely paused.

Staffordshire County Council criticises late decision

Staffordshire County Council leader Martin Murray strongly criticised the timing and lack of detail.

He said:

“This is an eleventh-hour decision from Government, made with little warning and even less detail.”

Councils and officers across Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent had worked “flat out” to meet the Government’s timetable, he added.

“To pause now wastes time, drains capacity and undermines confidence. The timetable is broken. Government must stop wasting our time and energy, give councils straight answers and put devolution first.”

Murray said the county would continue pressing for a strategic authority covering Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, giving the area a stronger voice and additional locally controlled powers. Staffordshire County Council’s statement is available here⁠.

Why has the programme been paused?

The Government has not published the legal advice it received, saying legal advice is confidential.

Several councils elsewhere in England had begun, or were considering, legal challenges over how ministers selected their preferred reorganisation options.

Questions had been raised about whether the decision-making process followed the published criteria, the evidence used to assess proposals and whether ministers had adequately explained why some options were chosen over others.

Rayner told Parliament that the Government’s legal representatives had notified the courts after the four March decisions were withdrawn.

She rejected allegations that boundaries had been selected for party-political advantage and insisted that she was reviewing the programme in good faith.

Is the North–South split still going ahead?

At present, nobody can say with certainty.

The North–South decision for Staffordshire has been paused and is being reviewed, but it has not been formally withdrawn. Ministers could:

• Confirm the original North–South arrangement.

• Alter the proposed boundaries.

• Choose one of the other options previously submitted.

• Request new or modified proposals.

• Delay reorganisation to a later date.

• Change the wider approach to LGR.

• 
  

The Government has not yet published the review’s detailed terms, explained whether residents will be consulted again or provided a date for a final decision.

Therefore, claims that the North–South model is definitely proceeding unchanged—or that it has definitely been cancelled—go beyond what has officially been confirmed.

What happens to devolution?

Local Government Reorganisation and devolution are connected, but they are not the same process.

LGR concerns which councils provide local services. Devolution concerns transferring powers and funding from Westminster to a strategic authority, potentially led by an elected mayor.

All ten existing councils previously expressed interest in creating a Foundation Strategic Authority for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent.

Rayner told Parliament that the LGR review would not prevent devolution from moving forward and that having unitary councils was not a prerequisite for establishing a strategic authority.

For residents, council services continue as normal. Bins will still be collected by district and borough councils, while services including highways, education and social care will remain with Staffordshire County Council unless and until Parliament approves a new structure.

The Government has promised to update Parliament at the “earliest opportunity”, but Staffordshire’s future council boundaries and the timetable for any eventual reorganisation are once again uncertain.