News & views

26 June 2025

At Leicestershire Business Voice’s (LBV) June 2025 event, members and guests heard from guest speakers: City Mayor Sir Peter Soulsby; Cllr Dan Harrison, Leader of Leicestershire County Council; and Cllr Pip Allnatt, Leader of Melton Borough Council, who also spoke on behalf of the Leaders of the Leicestershire District and Borough Councils, and Rutland County Council. The discussions focused on the theme of ‘devolution and local government reorganisation.’

This event was aimed at starting a conversation with our city, county and district leaders to ensure that the voice of business is heard as devolution plans continue to develop.

Understanding the context

In recent months, the discourse surrounding regional devolution has intensified across England, with Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland emerging as focal points in the national conversation. The government’s initiative to streamline local governance structures has prompted a series of proposals, each aiming to redefine administrative boundaries and responsibilities in the region.

Although the push for regional devolution is not new, it has accelerated since the government’s English Devolution White Paper was released. This paper promotes the creation of single-tier unitary authorities from two-tier local government systems in an attempt to improve service delivery, accountability and efficiency. Local authorities were invited to submit interim proposals in response, with initial submissions made before 21 March 2025 and final plans due by 28 November 2025.

Yet, beyond the policy framework, devolution is a deeply personal issue for many. It is a debate about governance, but also about identity, about the connection between residents and their representatives, and about the future of local services. The stakes are high, and opinions are strongly divided.

Divergent visions for the region

The proposals on the table reflect a spectrum of visions for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. At one end is Leicestershire County Council’s proposal for a single unitary authority encompassing the entire county, excluding the already unitary Leicester City. Advocates argue that this model would deliver significant cost savings and streamline decision-making by eliminating administrative redundancies. Yet critics fear that such centralisation could distance decision-makers from the communities they serve, leading to a loss of local representation and accountability.

In contrast, a second proposal, backed by Rutland County Council and the seven district and borough councils of Leicestershire, envisions the creation of three separate unitary authorities: North Leicestershire and Rutland, South Leicestershire, and Leicester City. Supporters suggest that this model offers a more balanced approach, maintaining a degree of local control while still benefiting from a more efficient governance structure. However, opponents warn of potential fragmentation, with overlapping responsibilities and inconsistent service standards.

A third option, though less formally developed, has also been floated: the prospect of Rutland aligning with neighbouring authorities in Greater Lincolnshire, creating a unitary authority that includes North Kesteven, South Kesteven and South Holland. This idea is a reminder that regional identities are not always firmly fixed; they are shaped by shared history, geography and evolving community ties.

The proposal from Leicester City Council involves extending the city boundaries to include adjoining suburbs. This aims to resolve the city’s boundary constraints, identify a sensible geographical boundary for Leicester, meet the city’s need for housing and employment land, and deliver a sensible economic area.

Balancing the benefits and drawbacks

Each model has its strengths and weaknesses. A single unitary authority might offer greater consistency in service delivery, clearer accountability and reduced costs, but the risk of creating a remote, centralised administration cannot be ignored. Conversely, multiple authorities might preserve local representation and adaptability, but they may struggle with coordination and experience higher administrative costs.

For Rutland, the choice is particularly complex. As a small county, it faces the challenge of balancing its independence against the potential benefits of joining a larger partnership. The prospect of becoming part of Greater Lincolnshire raises major questions about identity, service provision and democratic representation, for example.

Legal and administrative considerations

Legally, the process of regional devolution is governed by statutory requirements, including public consultations, impact assessments and compliance with existing legislative frameworks. It involves the dissolution or restructuring of existing councils, the transfer of statutory duties and the redistribution of assets and liabilities. Legal challenges may also arise, particularly if stakeholders or local communities oppose the chosen model.

The transition must also ensure the protection of employment rights for council staff, continuity of service delivery, and the safeguarding of contractual obligations with third-party providers. Complexities around property ownership, service delivery agreements and financial liabilities will need to be carefully navigated to avoid disputes.

Public sentiment and local identity

Beyond the technicalities, the devolution debate touches on the deeply held sense of identity that many residents feel towards their communities. For some, the idea of a single county-wide authority threatens to erode the distinctiveness of individual towns and villages. For others, the promise of streamlined services and more efficient governance is an opportunity to be embraced.

Businesses are particularly concerned about the impact of any reorganisation on local economic conditions, regulatory environments and support services.

LBV is acutely aware of these diverging perspectives. Its role is not to advocate for any specific model, but instead to ensure that the voices of businesses and residents alike are heard as the consultation continues.

Looking ahead

As the region approaches the 28 November deadline for final proposals, ongoing dialogue among stakeholders is not just beneficial – it is essential. Whether one favours a single authority, multiple unitary councils, or a cross-regional alliance, the outcome will shape the region’s governance landscape for years to come.

For residents, businesses and public officials alike, now is the time to engage with the consultation process, share perspectives and seek clarity on how their communities will be impacted.

Regional devolution is not merely an administrative exercise; it is a question of how people are governed, how their voices are heard and how their communities are shaped for the future.