Staffordshire County Council's Cabinet met to discuss and approve the council's proposal for local government reorganisation (LGR) to be submitted to the government. The Cabinet agreed to submit the proposal, associated appendices, and any final amendments to the government by the deadline of 28 November 2025. Councillor Ian Cooper, Leader of the Council, noted that the council was being forced to consider LGR by central government, and that the council would also be writing to the Prime Minister to object to the reorganisation.

Local Government Reorganisation in Staffordshire

The main item under discussion was the proposal for local government reorganisation in Staffordshire, which the government requires the council to submit. Councillor Martin Murray, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Economy and Skills, stated that the council does not want LGR, but that it is being forced upon them by the government. He said that the real prize is genuine devolution, with funding and power shifting from Westminster to Staffordshire. He added that if the council does not engage with the process, changes will be imposed upon them.

Councillor Murray presented the business case for the council's preferred option, which is an east-west split of the county into two unitary authorities¹. He stated that this option is backed by evidence and is the most likely to deliver the best outcomes for the county and the city of Stoke-on-Trent. He emphasised that the east-west option provides parity and equity, ensuring that neither new council is disproportionately burdened or disadvantaged. The full business case was available in the Public Reports Pack for the meeting.

Councillor Murray stressed that the decision ultimately rests with the government, but that the council must work with the evidence to propose the most viable option. He recommended that the Cabinet approve the proposals for LGR in Staffordshire, including the proposal for local government reorganisation and associated appendices, for submission to the government. He also recommended delegating authority to the Director of Transformation, in consultation with the Leader and Deputy Leader, to make any final amendments that do not change the substantive nature of the proposal.

The Cabinet voted to approve the recommendations.

Concerns about local services

Councillor Janet Higgins, Cabinet Member for Education and SEND, asked for assurances that local services would be maintained under any new structure. Councillor Murray responded that all local services would continue, regardless of the shape or size of any new authority. He stated that only the higher-level executives and senior management would see changes. He specifically addressed concerns that residents of Lichfield would have to travel to Stoke-on-Trent for services, calling such claims absolute folly and political scaremongering . He also mentioned the expansion of community hubs, such as Castle House in Newcastle and Consul Community Hub in South Staffordshire, to ensure local access to services.

Consultation

Councillor Hayley Coles, Cabinet Member for Communities and Culture, raised concerns about whether Staffordshire County Council had consulted with enough people, especially in light of Lichfield's claim of consulting over 16,000 residents. Councillor Murray responded that the council had conducted a full and impartial engagement process, consulting with the public, businesses, stakeholders, and communities across the county. He criticised Lichfield's consultation as an online political lobby movement, influenced by selected maps and proposals. He also addressed petitions against including Stoke-on-Trent in any new structure, defending the city and its businesses.

Use of PwC

Councillor Peter Mason, Cabinet Member for Strategic Highways, asked whether the council was right to continue using PwC² after the previous administration had instructed them to do the work, and whether the council had received value for money from them. Councillor Murray defended the decision to continue using PwC, noting that they had already done the key work and that they were the same consultancy firm used by the government for the whole process. He acknowledged that the consultancy had cost just over £200,000, but that the government had only provided £367,336 for the whole of Staffordshire to conduct the consultation process. He also noted that the Staffordshire County Council had only received £97,956 of that money. He concluded that while the whole process was not great value for money, it had to be done, and PwC was the right choice to make.

Financial Implications

Councillor Andrew Mynors, Cabinet Member for Connectivity, inquired about the financial implications of the eight options considered, particularly whether a smaller unitary authority, like option four, could have been financially viable. Councillor Murray explained that the criteria required a pure business case, unbiased and without any political agenda. He noted that the Local Government Association (LGA) had acknowledged confusion caused by the softening of the 500,000 population target for unitary authorities. He argued that smaller unitary authorities would not be financially sustainable due to the costs of transition and long-term running costs.

Long-term costs

Councillor Alex Hunt, Cabinet Support Member for SEND, raised concerns about the long-term costs of smaller unitary authorities, particularly in relation to adult and child care, and SEND³ services. Councillor Murray responded that the cost of SEND services has more than trebled since 2017, and that the County Councils Network (CCN) has predicted that 18 councils could become insolvent by 2027 due to these costs. He argued that smaller unitary authorities would struggle to cover these costs, potentially leading to cuts in vital services or bankruptcy.

East-West Split

Councillor Nicholas Lakin, Cabinet Member for Children and Young People, asked for confirmation that the east-west split was the best option for Staffordshire. Councillor Murray confirmed that the east-west option was the best long-term financial option, according to the business case. He noted that even artificial intelligence (AI) analysis supported this conclusion. He also highlighted that the leader of the opposition, Councillor Philip White, had acknowledged that the west-to-east option was the best-case scenario.

Accuracy of financial mathematics

Councillor Lodge raised concerns about the accuracy of the financial mathematics in other proposals, particularly Lichfield's three unitary authority model. Councillor Murray agreed that there were disparities in the financial calculations of certain proposals. He noted that Staffordshire County Council had updated the PwC data to reflect current economic conditions, ensuring the accuracy of their numbers. He criticised Lichfield's report as a political piece of work, focused on local campaigning rather than a financial cost-saving approach.

Focus on pertinent issues

Councillor Hunt suggested that now that the hard work on LGR had been done, the council could focus on more pertinent issues within the county, such as SEND and adult social care. Councillor Cooper agreed, stating that the decision on LGR rests with the government and will be decided in the future.