The Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee of Kent County Council met on Monday 23 March 2026 to discuss the ongoing Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) process. The committee received updates on national developments, implementation preparations, governance, and risks associated with LGR, and considered Kent County Council's response to the government's consultation on the matter.

Local Government Reorganisation Update

The committee received an update on national LGR developments, including the Surrey Structural Changes Order (SCO) coming into force on 10 March, which serves as a model for other areas. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has established an LGR Advisory Group and held listening meetings with councils to discuss their proposals. The government has also announced £63 million in additional capacity funding for 21 local areas undergoing reorganisation.

Several potential scenarios were discussed if the LGR timetable changes:

• Scenario 1: Vesting Day delayed to April 2028, but decision delayed to Autumn 2026. This would compress the implementation timetable and require the SCO to be drafted and approved in an exceptionally short timeframe to maintain the May 2027 shadow unitary elections date.
• Scenario 2: Vesting Day moved to April 2029. This would provide an additional 12 months for preparation, potentially leading to better decision-making, but could cause uncertainty around the May 2027 shadow unitary elections and Vesting Day falling close to a general election. If Vesting Day is April 2029 and elections are in May 2027, shadow council members would serve for two years.
• Scenario 3: Vesting Day pushed beyond the next General Election (August 2029). This scenario poses a significant threat, as a new government could halt or redesign the programme, leaving Kent and Medway in a state of limbo with substantial sunk costs.
• Scenario 4: Government abandons LGR policy. This would have differential impacts depending on the stage reached, but would leave financial pressures unaddressed and require managing sunk transition costs.

Councillor Harry Rayner raised concerns about the potential for senior technical officers to be recruited by new Surrey authorities, impacting service continuity at Kent County Council (KCC). Mr. David Whittle, Director for Strategy, Policy, Relationships & Corporate Assurance, acknowledged these workforce concerns, noting that while most councils have a similar timetable, the specific situation in Surrey might present challenges.

Councillor Michael Brown sought reassurance that any decision to move away from the LGR process would be brought back to the full council for member input. Mr. Whittle confirmed that an off-ramping decision would indeed require member input.

Councillor Jeremy Eustace inquired about the financial implications if the LGR policy were abandoned, particularly regarding sunk costs. Mr. Whittle explained that an MOU had been agreed for the apportionment of sunk costs, and while some government funding was available, any costs beyond that would likely need to be absorbed by individual authorities.

Update on Kent and Medway LGR Implementation Preparation

This paper detailed the collaborative work between all 14 local authorities in Kent and Medway during the interim period between business case submission and the anticipated ministerial decision. This work is being undertaken through an Enhanced Discovery Phase, focusing on back-office preparation such as data consolidation and aligning information, which is required regardless of the final decision.

The five business cases submitted were:

• Business Case 1A: A single unitary council for Kent and Medway, supported by Kent County Council.
• Business Case 3A: A three-unitary option, supported by several district councils.
• Business Case 4B: A four-unitary option, supported by Dover, Swale, and Thanet District Councils.
• Business Case 4D: A four-unitary option with boundary changes, supported by Medway, Ashford, and Canterbury City Councils.
• Business Case 5A: A five-unitary option with boundary changes, supported by Dartford and Gravesham Borough Councils.

The report highlighted that pre-vesting day costs are estimated at £11.9 million, to be funded by existing legacy councils. HM Government has provided £514,410 in funding, with an anticipated further £4-4.5 million from a national allocation. It is not anticipated that additional resources will be required from KCC budgets for the 2026/27 financial year, but this may change for 2027/28 if further government funding is not forthcoming.

Councillor Harry Rayner expressed concerns about the woolly language regarding funding dates and the expenditure of funds not yet received. Mr. Dave Shipton, Interim Sn151 and Head of Financial Strategy, confirmed that no definitive date for receiving funding had been seen, but estimated costs for 2026/27 to be minimal. Mr. Tim Woolmer, Head of Strategic Partnerships, added that existing funding would underwrite the cost of the Programme Director post.

Councillor Mark Hood voiced concerns about the potential for additional borrowing, which he felt contradicted the administration's previous statements. Mr. Shipton clarified that the borrowing would be from reserves and would be repaid by successor authorities, distinguishing it from borrowing for capital infrastructure.

KCC Service Preparation for Local Government Reorganisation - Service Complexity Assessments

This paper outlined the Service Complexity Assessment (SCA) process developed by KCC to understand the complexity of transitioning its services to new unitary authorities. The SCA process aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of each service or function, identifying potential risks and complexities. This work is crucial given the potential disruption to countywide services if KCC services are disaggregated into multiple unitaries. The process will involve collecting information on service demand, delivery models, budgets, staffing, assets, and legislative requirements. The aim is to complete SCAs for front-facing services by July 2026, ready for the expected government decision.

Local Government Reorganisation: Governance Overview

This report detailed the legal and governance framework for LGR, primarily set out in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. It explained the role of Structural Change Orders (SCOs) in codifying proposals into legislation and the potential models for implementation: the Joint Committee and Shadow Authority Model, and the Continuing Council Model. The report also discussed Section 24 Directions, which allow the Secretary of State to set parameters on decisions made by outgoing authorities to protect the financial sustainability of new authorities, and technical and consequential matters that may require supplementary legislation.

Councillor Harry Rayner raised concerns about potential disparities in the number of electors required to elect a councillor in Medway compared to the rest of KCC, questioning the fairness of elections to shadow authorities. Mr. Tristan Godfrey, Senior Governance Manager, explained that this would be part of discussions on the SCO content and that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England might conduct a review after authorities are established.

Councillor Mark Hood suggested that civic and ceremonial matters, such as the role of the Lord Lieutenant, Cinque Ports, and aldermen, should be considered as a separate workstream. Mr. Godfrey confirmed that the SCO could cover such matters and that MHCLG was open to making necessary legislative changes.

KCC Draft Corporate Risk – Local Government Reorganisation

This paper presented the draft corporate risk for LGR, proposed for inclusion in the Council's Corporate Risk Register. The risk captures key concerns from a KCC perspective, including insufficient capacity to deliver the transition within available resources, lack of clarity regarding legal responsibility and funding models, and potential disagreements over future service design. The report highlighted risks related to assets and property, communications, data quality, finance, governance, human resources, IT, legal and regulation, policy implementation, and service continuity.

Councillor Mark Hood asked about the specific risks to assets and property. Mr. Mark Scrivener, Head of Risk & Delivery Assurance, explained that this related to who would own what and how assets would be divided. Mr. David Whittle added that the risk register would be broader and deeper than initially presented.

Councillor Harry Rayner raised concerns about the management of EU border-related pressures, particularly for Unaccompanied Asylum-Seeking Children (UASC), and the financial and operating constraints on KCC. He also highlighted the potential impact of global events on budgets and the speed of disaggregation. Mr. Whittle assured that UASC services were flagged in the business case and that conversations with MHCLG were ongoing. Mr. Dave Shipton noted that impacts on KCC's budget from the economic situation would be reported to the Policy and Resources Committee if necessary.

Councillor Michael Hood expressed concern about the uncertainty surrounding assets and property due to the unknown number of future unitary councils, and the need to ensure successor councils have adequate property assets.

Councillor Jeremy Eustace suggested the creation of a publicly facing risk dashboard to track KCC and programme risks. Mr. Tim Woolmer agreed that a dashboard would be created, and that a decision on public accessibility would be made collectively by the 14 councils.

Councillor Jamie Henderson raised concerns about the potential bankruptcy of new unitary authorities and the implications for pre-vesting borrowing. Mr. Shipton explained that if an authority issued a Section 114 notice, partner authorities or government commissioners would intervene, and that pre-vesting borrowing would transfer to successor authorities. He also noted the complexity of disaggregating KCC's debt across multiple new authorities.

Councillor Harry Rayner questioned whether debt incurred on Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) was being included in calculations, noting it was a significant figure. Mr. Shipton stated he could not confirm at this stage as it was subject to a statutory override.

KCC's Response to the Government LGR Consultation

This report presented KCC's response to the government's statutory consultation on LGR in Kent and Medway. KCC's response strongly supports option 1a, a single unitary council for Kent and Medway, arguing it is the most sensible geography and economic area, financially sustainable, and capable of delivering high-quality services. KCC's response also outlines concerns with multi-unitary proposals, highlighting risks of financial unsustainability, service fragmentation, and concentrated pressures on East Kent. The response also addresses the justification for boundary changes in options 4d and 5a, arguing they are unnecessary and would create additional costs and disruption.

Councillor Alister Brady and Councillor Mark Hood stated they would vote against noting the report, not to disagree with the act of noting, but to express their disagreement with the content of the consultation response. Councillor Harry Rayner also expressed a similar sentiment, wishing to record his disagreement with the proposals. The Chair clarified that noting the report did not imply universal support for the proposals.

Work Programme

The committee noted the work programme for the Devolution and Local Government Re-organisation Cabinet Committee, with future meetings scheduled for 14 May 2026 and 15 July 2026.