Rutland Reorganisation Plans Spark Democratic Concerns and Local Opposition
By Local Democracy Reporter
Oakham Town Council, the county town provide assistance for many of the
banners they did not respond to the consultation.
Proposals to overhaul local government structures in parts of the East Midlands have prompted strong reactions from communities in Rutland and Leicestershire, with concerns raised over democratic accountability, local identity and future governance.
In a detailed response, Alicia Kearns set out objections to elements of the Government’s Local Government Reorganisation plans, arguing that residents’ views have not been adequately reflected in the process.
Rutland: Dispute Over Process and Public Consent
The proposed changes would see the abolition of Rutland’s existing council structure as part of a wider move toward larger unitary authorities.
Alicia Kearns stated that the process began without public consultation when Rutland County Council’s leadership wrote to central government in early 2025 requesting reorganisation. She claims this request did not reflect the views of residents, many of whom were unaware of the proposal at the time.
Public meetings held in Oakham and surrounding areas drew significant attendance, with many residents expressing a preference either to retain Rutland’s independence or to align with neighbouring districts in Lincolnshire, particularly around Stamford.
Survey responses and correspondence cited in the statement suggest limited support for integration into a Leicestershire-based authority, with concerns focusing on reduced local representation and the potential loss of a rural-focused administration.
Options for Reorganisation
Several competing proposals have been put forward:
A North Leicestershire and Rutland model, supported by Rutland County Council, which would form part of a three-unitary structure.
A South Lincolnshire-based proposal, linking Rutland with districts including South Kesteven, which Alicia Kearns says has strong public backing.
Alternative plans from Leicestershire County Council and Leicester City that would create a single, larger authority incorporating Rutland.
Alicia Kearns described the North Leicestershire and Rutland option as the “least bad” among those formally submitted but reiterated opposition to larger single-authority models, citing concerns over representation and governance.
Identity and Ceremonial Status
A further issue raised is the potential loss of Rutland’s ceremonial county status, which could result from structural changes unless legislative amendments are introduced.
Rutland, which regained independence in 1997 after being merged with Leicestershire in 1974, has a long-established identity. A petition signed by more than 7,000 residents has called for protections to ensure that status is retained.
Housing and Development
The proposals also include significant housing targets across new authorities, with developments planned in and around Rutland. Concerns have been raised about whether rural areas may be required to accommodate housing demand from Leicester.
Alicia Kearns argues that development opportunities within the city itself should be prioritised before expansion into surrounding areas is considered.
Harborough Villages: Opposition to Boundary Changes
In neighbouring Leicestershire, proposals to expand Leicester City’s boundaries into parts of Harborough district have also proved controversial.
Villages including Thurnby, Bushby and Scraptoft are among those potentially affected.
According to Alicia Kearns, residents have expressed strong opposition to the plans, with a petition attracting more than 12,000 signatures. Critics argue that the proposal prioritises economic growth and housing expansion for the city without clear benefits for rural communities.
Awaiting Government Decision
The Government has yet to confirm which reorganisation model it will adopt. The proposals form part of a broader national policy aimed at simplifying local government structures and improving efficiency.
However, the debate in Rutland and surrounding areas highlights ongoing tensions between administrative reform and local identity, with questions remaining over how best to balance efficiency with democratic representation.
A final decision is expected following further consideration of submissions from councils, MPs and residents.
The full Letter for Local Goverment Reorganisation in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Consultation Response.
As the Member of Parliament for the County of Rutland, and the Harborough Villages in Leicestershire, my response is split into two sections, each focused on one area. I have submitted a separate response on the Lincolnshire proposals, on behalf of the residents I represent in Lincolnshire.
RUTLAND
Local Government Reorganisation has been forced on Rutland without the consent of its residents, and on an unrealistic timeline that has not allowed for proper democratic engagement. There was no outcry from Rutlanders for reorganisation. On the contrary: throughout this entire process, the consistent and overwhelming view of residents has been either to remain an independent Council, or to join with South Kesteven and the surrounding areas of South Lincolnshire. That preference has been expressed repeatedly, in large numbers, and through multiple channels yet, it has been systematically disregarded by the leadership of Rutland County Council.
Residents’ Views and Democratic Deficit at Rutland County Council
In January 2025, without any public consultation, or even discussion with other Councillors or me as the Member of Parliament, the Leader of Rutland County Council wrote to Government asking for Rutland to be reorganised, stating it was something Rutlanders wanted. That letter signed Rutland’s death warrant as a Council and County, because reorganisation automatically means losing our Council, but also our status as a Ceremonial County. It was also disingenuous: there had been no engagement of any sort with residents, and there was no democratic consent for the request for Rutland to be re-organised, let alone for us to be prioritised nationally for re-organisation. The council’s own subsequent consultation would demonstrate that residents do not support the direction the leadership has pursued. It is therefore unsurprising that the Council Leader has never published this letter, requiring me to obtain it from other Councils who has co-signed.
Following this letter, and the Government’s decision, I held multiple public meetings in Rutland to hear directly from the communities I serve and to ensure they were informed, as most had no idea as there was no proactive effort by Government or Local Councils to engage the public. In January 2025, over 120 residents attended the first meeting at Victoria Hall in Oakham - with a further 100 wanting to attend, necessitating a second meeting the following week. At those early meetings, the overwhelming concern was the abject failure of the Council to inform residents of their request to Government, the unexpected announcement of Government that reform would be imposed, and in preserving Rutland’s identity and its name. Second to this was the desire to protect our connection to our Lincolnshire neighbours rather than being absorbed into a Leicestershire structure, again.
At my subsequent public meeting, over 180 residents attended, with a further few hundred having requested to attend. A straw poll at the close of that meeting showed that all bar eight attendees wanted to merge with Stamford and South Kesteven. Only two attendees preferred the North Leicestershire and Rutland model, and six were undecided. At a separate meeting in Stamford, Lincolnshire, the result was similarly decisive: all bar nine attendees supported a merger of South Lincolnshire and Rutland. Equally, South Kesteven District Council’s own survey identified a desire for Rutland to join their proposed new model.
However, in the “any other comment box”, residents made clear their preference for merging with South Lincolnshire. Approximately 45% of respondents specified support for a union with South Lincolnshire - it should be noted that this is 45% expressing a shared opinion despite not being even asked the question or given the chance to provide it as a direct response. Around one third spoke unfavourably of joining with Leicestershire, and a quarter expressed strong opposition to a single or two-unitary model with Leicestershire and Leicester. Only 10% of respondents supported the North, City, South model. The council leadership proceeded to back it regardless.
I have also received thousands of pieces of correspondence from Rutland residents on this issue. The message is consistent: residents do not want to be merged with a Greater Leicestershire council. This is our history and past. They feel a stronger cultural and geographic affinity with Stamford in Lincolnshire, not with Leicester. They fear a Leicester-dominated mayoral structure overriding rural priorities, absorbing their council tax revenues, and driving through unwanted housing development. Residents are clear they do not want local services, and local democracy, taken further away from our communities. They also want a rural council which understands our rural way of life, and can deliver the services we need.
The Cabinet of Rutland County Council had a choice throughout this process. It could have instructed council officers to develop its own proposal. Instead, they left our fate in the hands of others, an unforgivable abdication of their duties and responsibilities to Rutland
They could have developed options to keep Rutland as it is – an independent Council – just as the Isle of Wight has done, and has successfully secured the continuation of their independent Council. Or, they could have worked on a model where Rutland linked with Stamford. They did neither, and when offered the chance to support a proposal developed by South Kesteven District Council to bring Rutland and South Lincolnshire together, they dithered, delayed and failed to provide any meaningful support for the proposal. This resulted in Rutland being removed from the proposal as South Kesteven District Council could not risk their proposal collapsing or being weaker due to an involuntary and ineffectual partner.
Councils up and down the country, including District Councils, developed and submitted their own proposals. Rutland’s Cabinet chose not to do so.
Instead, The Council has relentlessly spent the last year pursuing a merger with North Leicestershire and not putting meaningful work into developing any alternatives.
The then Leader of the Council, Cllr Gale Waller, had announced that she alone as Leader would make the decision on reorganisation (see interview with Rutland and Stamford Sound).
The Conservative Group of Councillors on Rutland County Council consistently pushed the cabinet to collaborate with South Kesteven District Council to develop a viable Rutland and South Lincolnshire proposal. Conservative Councillors were, shamefully, barred from tabling their own motions, stopped from speaking on amended motions, and denied a meaningful vote on reorganisation. The Group was forced to lay an amendment passed at a special meeting of Rutland County Council to force the Leader to conduct public engagement on local government reorganisation with local people, and to force a vote of all Councillors (which the Council made sure was non-binding). Without this motion, there would have been no public engagement.
Even then, the “indicative” vote included no option to merge with Stamford or South Lincolnshire, despite this being the overwhelming preference of residents. The North, City, South model was pushed through with the cabinet justifying its actions by claiming it had no agency in the process - a claim that is demonstrably untrue. Councils are responsible for developing and submitting their own proposals. Rutland’s leadership chose not to exercise that responsibility.
The charitable interpretation is that the leadership lacked the will, interest or ability to develop its own proposals and instead relied on others to submit proposals that included Rutland and then elected to choose between them. The less charitable interpretation, is that the Leader had pre-determined a preference for the North Leicestershire and Rutland model, to which she had contributed significant time and resource, and had no intention of giving residents any say, repeatedly stating it was the sole prerogative of the Council Leader.
Rutland County Council’s Cabinet could, even at the point of final submission, have told the Government that residents’ preference was to join with South Lincolnshire, either by meaningfully supporting South Kesteven’s proposal, by developing its own proposal to merge with SKDC, or simply by refusing to back any other option and stating residents’ position clearly to Government. It did none of these things. The Cabinet and Leader withdrew the South Lincolnshire option from all-Councillor discussion entirely.
I have raised throughout this process whether Rutland could be granted an opt-out from reorganisation. Rutland is one of the most efficient councils in England. It has not failed and is the number one Council in the country for adult social care. The Government’s own stated reason for reorganisation – the efficiencies possible in adult social care, are demonstrated to demonstrably be wrong by Rutland. The case for Rutland’s abolition as an independent authority simply has not been made.
As any rational person can conclude from this brief summary of the actions of Rutland County Council, there has been a complete democratic deficit throughout the process of local government reorganisation.
The Proposals for Rutland
Four proposals have been put forward that affect Rutland. I address each in turn.
The North Leicestershire and Rutland proposal. Rutland County Council and the seven Leicestershire district and borough councils. It would create three new unitaries: North Leicestershire and Rutland (comprising Charnwood, North West Leicestershire, Melton and Rutland), South Leicestershire (Blaby, Harborough, Hinckley and Bosworth, and Oadby and Wigston), and Leicester City on its existing boundaries. This is the Cabinet’s preferred option.
I do not support this proposal as the right outcome for Rutland, and nor do residents. However, I accept that, of the three options now formally submitted that include Rutland, this is the least bad option in which we are formally included. It would at least place Rutland within a structure that retains some rural character and keeps it separate from a single mega-council with all of Leicestershire which is wholly unacceptable to me and to residents. If the Government is proceeding with one of the three formally submitted proposals, I urge it to select this one over the alternatives offered by Leicestershire County Council or the Mayor of Leicester.
The South Kesteven, North Kesteven, South Holland and Rutland proposal would create three unitaries across the greater Lincolnshire area, with Rutland joining its natural Stamford-facing neighbour to the east. This is the option most strongly supported by residents across all of the evidence: my public meetings, thousands of pieces of correspondence I’ve received, the survey I conducted, the street stalls I held, and Rutland County Council’s own survey. The inclusion of Rutland does involve crossing Health and Blue Light service boundaries, but this is justified given Rutland’s economic orientation, its parliamentary boundaries, and the reality of where residents already access healthcare which sees us travel to Stamford, Peterborough and Corby. The Government should consider this proposal seriously and should allow Rutland County Council to belatedly join it.
I also co-submitted an amendment calling for a referendum given the significant implications of reorganisation for our communities. Sadly, the Government rejected it.
The Leicester City and Leicestershire County Council proposals would both result in Rutland being absorbed into a single Leicestershire unitary council. Both must be firmly rejected. Rutland’s population of 41,000 means it would go from having an entire council and autonomous decision-making to a handful of councillors on a mega-council. These options would represent the worst possible outcome for Rutland’s democratic representation and rural identity, and repeat the mistakes of the past when we were previously forced to become part of Leicestershire.
Any suggestion that Rutland should be split in half, with the West joining Leicestershire, and the East with Lincolnshire, are misguided and historically, and culturally without any basis. This would be utterly rejected by our communities.
Overall, I have been careful not to express a personal preference throughout this process. During my public meetings and until 2026, I did not express a preference so as to allow our communities to lead my response and for me to focus on presenting their wishes. My personal preferred new rural authority, which would be much bigger than current Councils, but small enough to remain representative, would have been made up of Melton Borough Council, Harborough District Council, Rutland County Council, South Kesteven District Council, and South Holland. This could have been expanded to include North Kesteven District Council and Charnwood Borough Council.
Rutland’s Ceremonial Status and Identity
Rutland was forcibly merged with Leicestershire in 1974 and only regained its independent unitary status in 1997. That restoration was a democratic achievement that should not be casually undone. Local Government Reorganisation as currently proposed would remove Rutland’s Ceremonial County status. The Government has refused to support my legislative efforts to resolve this simply and permanently via an amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and we seem to repeatedly have to re-argue the case that reorganisation will cause this detrimental outcome. I urge the Government to support that amendment and ensure Rutland’s Ceremonial County status is maintained in spite of these reforms being imposed on the county. To suggest that we should wait for the outcome of reorganisation to have our ceremonial county status fixed, would be a grave risk and mistake. The Government has a second chance to resolve this unfortunate circumstance with the amendment I have laid again, with the help of Baroness Berridge, in the Lords.
Rutland is a proud and ancient county, recorded in the Domesday book and with a Lord Lieutenant since 1559. We have a strong connection to the monarchy, symbolised by the statue of Her late Majesty the Queen in Oakham, which was built last year, the first in Britain since her passing. However, without legislative changes to the Lieutenancies Act 1997, Rutland will lose its ceremonial county status. I do not believe that the Government intended to put our ceremonial county status at risk, but the consequences of their reforms to local government have done exactly that. That Rutland County Council’s Leader and team failed to identify that this was the outcome of their asking for reorganisation, is beggar’s belief.
Despite our small size, 7,141 people signed the petition in just last six weeks. That is over 17% of Rutland’s population, and more than one in six Rutlanders. It is the biggest wet petition delivered to Parliament in the 21st century, and I hope that demonstrates to the Government how strong the feeling is in our community and county. In addition, there are hundreds of posters up around our communities calling for Rutland’s Ceremonial County Status to be signed – from pub windows, to local shops, and enormous banners across our roads and streets. Rutland’s motto is “Multum in Parvo”, much in little, and we are asking for just a little, which would mean so very much to us.
Here are just some of the hundreds of posters put up by the local community, Town Councils, shop owners, pubs, schools, parish councils, farmers, and private homes. Schools also ran campaigns.
(Transcriber's note: Page includes photos of "SAVE RUTLAND" signs in various locations)
Mitigating Those Plans Submitted
To mitigate the most serious concerns of residents relating to Local Government Reorganisation, there are six tests the Government should seek to meet involving Rutland:
Ceremonial County Status Must Be Protected, in full
No Single Leicestershire Super-Unitary
Council Tax Equalisation
Smaller Council Wards
Rutland Must be in the Name of the New Council
Rutland Consequential: Rutland Must Get a Fair Share
Housing Concerns
Additionally, there are significant concerns Rutland Council has agreed Rutland will offer to provide significant new housing as part of the North Leicestershire and Rutland, without any democratic engagement with residents. The proposal sets out that 96,864 new homes will be built in the new authority, including significant growth at the Woolfox site along the A1 - up to 5,000 homes, meaning 10,000 to 15,000 new residents in that location alone. In addition, it states that a further significant number of homes will be built at what is currently the site of St George’s Barracks. The proposal also states there is an existing culture of collaborative working on Local Plan delivery in Leicestershire and Rutland, including working proactively with Leicester City to accommodate unmet housing need. A recent Freedom of Information request revealed Leicester City Council has around 1,000 empty residential properties, and there are substantial vacant former textile factory sites that have been lying empty for more than five years and could be regenerated into homes. Leicester City should be required to demonstrate it has exhausted development within its own footprint before any expansion into Harborough is considered.
I do not consider it acceptable for Rutland or Leicestershire to be required to take on Leicester City’s unmet housing need. There is more than sufficient space within Leicester City itself.
Conclusion: Rutland
The Government should take the following positions on Rutland:
The South Kesteven, North Kesteven, South Holland and Rutland model is the option supported by a clear majority of Rutland residents and should be given serious weight by Government even if it is not a formally submitted proposal.
If proceeding with one of the three formally submitted proposals, the North Leicestershire and Rutland model is the least bad available and is preferable to either of the single Leicestershire unitary options.
Both the Leicestershire County Council and Leicester City proposals, which would absorb Rutland into a single Leicestershire mega-council, must be rejected.
Rutland’s Ceremonial County status must be protected. The Government should support the relevant legislative amendment at the earliest opportunity, and our name should feature in the name of the new Council.
There must be Council Tax Equalisation. Our Council Tax should reduce down to meet whichever area we join with.
Rutland must not be required to accommodate Leicester City’s unmet housing need under any reorganisation model.
A local referendum should be granted to allow Rutland residents a formal say on their future before any final decision is taken.
THE HARBOROUGH VILLAGES
The Proposed Expansion of Leicester City
The proposal to expand Leicester City Council’s borders to incorporate parts of Harborough - including villages within my constituency - must be firmly rejected by the Government.
Residents’ overwhelming priority is to prevent any takeover of our communities by Leicester City, and the vast majority do not wish to be served by one, mega, all-Leicestershire Council.
It is therefore no surprise that over 12,000 residents signed a petition against the expansion of Leicester City. I have held several public meetings on Local Government Reorganisation and receive thousands of pieces of correspondence on this issue. I cannot recall a single individual from the Harborough Villages express support for their incorporation into Leicester City Council. This proposal does not have the support of Leicestershire County Council or any of the district or borough councils affected.
My constituency extends all the way to the Leicester City border. The Mayor of Leicester’s proposals would see the city absorb Thurnby, Bushby, Scraptoft and Stoughton - everything to the border with Houghton on the Hill within my constituency. The Government’s recent statements that Local Authority areas should not be split up, which would see the whole of Harborough area go into the City, is utter madness.
The proposal represents a single-minded focus on the city’s interests with no meaningful analysis of the impact on residents in Leicestershire. The stated rationale is increased business rates, council tax revenue, and space to build new homes. The Mayor wishes to expand Leicester’s borders significantly and has stated a target of 32,000 new homes.
This is a huge land and tax grab by the City Mayor, we know the City will not and cannot represent our rural interests. Residents have been horrified by the proposal, and no effort has been made by the Mayor to explain what benefits his taking over of our rural communities would bring for them, only the benefits to the City as he seems them. He also claims initial stakeholder engagement has been positive, but the MPs and communities of the areas he is proposing to absorb were not consulted and we do not support his proposal. I am deeply concerned by council leaders and mayors claiming community engagement has taken place when it manifestly has not.
A petition I launched with two fellow Leicestershire MPs had over 12,000 signatures opposing the Leicester City Land Grab.
The expansion of Leicester City would require significant boundary reviews with no clear benefit. The proposed boundary changes appear arbitrary. The principles that inform local government boundaries require cohesive geographies that reflect where people live and interact, local history, and the nature of communities. Forcing rural villages into an urban council against the expressed wishes of their residents contradicts these fundamental principles. There is no democratic, geographic or community case for these villages to be part of Leicester City.
There is no financial case for this expansion either. The Local Government Funding Settlement announced this year will increase funding to Leicester City Council by 37%. That is a substantial increase, more than adequate to address the council’s financial needs. The Mayor’s claim that expansion is necessary for financial sustainability does not withstand scrutiny.
Leicester City has also seen a reduction in their housing targets under this Government. Additionally, as stated above in the Rutland response, a recent Freedom of Information request revealed Leicester City Council has around 1,000 empty residential properties, and there are substantial vacant former textile factory sites that have been lying empty for more than five years and could be regenerated into homes. Leicester City should be required to demonstrate it has exhausted development within its own footprint before any expansion into Harborough is considered. There is more than sufficient space within Leicester City itself.
The Local Authority areas surrounding Leicester City, including Harborough District Council, already build homes on behalf of the City Council to ensure its targets are met. There is no need for formal incorporation of surrounding areas to facilitate cooperation on housing delivery. It is vital these areas maintain a separate decision-making body, so that any housing development cooperation with Leicester City is genuinely collaborative, rather than determined solely at the whim of city authorities.
The Preferred Model for Harborough
I am sceptical that Local Government Reorganisation will bring any meaningful benefits to Harborough communities. It has been forced on them with an extremely short and arbitrary timeline and without their consent. However, given the Government’s decision not to allow opt-outs or local referendums, the least bad option for Harborough residents would be a model that keeps Harborough separate from Leicester City and preserves a meaningful degree of rural representation. This would also best represent residents’ wishes to be protected from a mega, all-Leicestershire Council and from a Leicester City takeover.
The North Leicestershire and Rutland, South Leicestershire and City proposal - with Harborough as part of the South Leicestershire unitary - is preferable to any configuration that involves absorbing Harborough villages into Leicester City. Although it should be noted that during the Boundary Commission’s most recent review, residents of the Harborough Villages expressed very strong wishes to remain connected to, and affinity with, Rutland. As such, they would ideally have been positioned in my preferred new rural authority, made up of Melton Borough Council, Harborough District Council, Rutland County Council, South Kesteven District Council, and South Holland. This could have been expanded to include North Kesteven District Council and Charnwood Borough Council.
Conclusion: Harborough
The Government should take the following positions on the Harborough Villages:
The proposed expansion of Leicester City Council’s borders into Harborough must be rejected. There is no democratic, financial, geographic or community basis for it.
Leicester City should be required to demonstrate it is making full use of its existing footprint - including bringing forward development on empty properties and vacant commercial sites - before any consideration of boundary expansion.
The North Leicestershire and Rutland, South Leicestershire and City model, with Harborough in the South Leicestershire unitary, is the least bad available option for Harborough residents if reorganisation proceeds.
Alicia Kearns MP
Member of Parliament for Rutland and Stamford
Alicia Kearns response to the Lincolnshire Reorganisation Plans Criticised Democracy and Rural Impact
By Local Democracy Reporter
Proposals to restructure local government across Lincolnshire have drawn criticism from Alicia Kearns, who has raised concerns about democratic accountability, rural representation and the evidence underpinning the reforms.
In a formal consultation response, the MP outlined opposition to aspects of the Government’s Local Government Reorganisation programme, arguing that it has been imposed on communities without sufficient public engagement or clear justification.
Concerns Over Lack of Evidence and Consultation
Alicia Kearns states that the reorganisation has been introduced on a compressed timeline, limiting opportunities for meaningful public involvement. She argues there is “no convincing evidence” that the changes will deliver promised savings or service improvements.
The Government’s own criteria for reorganisation—focused on failing services or structural inefficiencies—are also questioned. According to the response, neither South Kesteven nor Rutland meet those thresholds, prompting questions from residents about the necessity of the changes.
The MP also cites findings from the House of Commons Library suggesting that evidence on cost savings from larger unitary authorities is inconclusive, with international examples showing mixed results.
Democratic Representation and Local Engagement
A central theme in the response is the potential impact on democratic representation. Larger unitary authorities would likely reduce the number of councillors, increasing the distance between residents and decision-makers.
Alicia Kearns highlights concerns raised at public meetings, where residents pointed to practical implications such as reduced influence over local services, including transport, libraries and planning decisions.
Research referenced in the response suggests that larger councils may lead to lower electoral turnout, reduced public trust and weaker engagement between communities and their representatives.
Strong Preference for Localised Governance
Public consultation carried out by the MP indicates strong support for maintaining local governance structures. More than 80% of respondents across the constituency reportedly identified “keeping councils local” as their top priority.
In Stamford and surrounding areas, there was also a clear preference for maintaining links between Stamford and Rutland, reflecting shared economic and community ties.
Residents expressed concern about being absorbed into larger administrative structures, particularly those dominated by urban centres such as Lincoln, which they fear may not reflect rural priorities.
Preferred Model: Four Unitary Authorities
Alicia Kearns identifies a proposal developed by South Kesteven District Council and North Kesteven District Council as the preferred option.
This model would create four unitary authorities across the region, including a combined authority covering South Kesteven, North Kesteven, South Holland and Rutland. The MP argues this structure best reflects existing communities and minimises disruption to local democracy.
Survey data cited in the response indicates that around 75% of respondents in South Kesteven support this configuration.
Alternative Option and Opposition to Lincoln-Centred Model
As a secondary option, Alicia Kearns points to a proposal involving Boston Borough Council, East Lindsey District Council and South Holland District Council, which would divide Lincolnshire into northern and southern units.
However, she emphasises that residents strongly oppose being merged into a structure centred on Lincoln, citing concerns about governance being driven by urban priorities and financial pressures within the city.
The response also criticises the quality of the Lincoln City proposal, suggesting it should not be considered a viable option.
Call for Further Scrutiny
In concluding, Alicia Kearns calls on the Government to publish an independent cost-benefit analysis before making any final decision. She also urges ministers to ensure that transition costs expected to fall initially on councils are fully funded.
The MP maintains that any final structure should prioritise the needs of rural communities and avoid grouping them with large urban centres where possible.
Awaiting Decision
The Government is expected to review submissions from councils and stakeholders before determining the final structure for local government in Lincolnshire.
The debate reflects wider national questions about how to balance efficiency and scale with local identity and democratic accountability, particularly in predominantly rural areas.
Alicia Kearns response for Lincolnshire
As the Member of Parliament for Rutland and Stamford, please find below my response to proposals on Lincolnshire. I have also submitted a separate response on the Leicestershire and Rutland proposals, on behalf of the residents I represent in those two counties.
Local Government Re-Organisation has been forced on communities in Lincolnshire without our consent, and on an unrealistic timeline that has not allowed for proper democratic engagement. There is no convincing evidence that it will deliver the savings or improvements in services that have been promised, especially once Mayoralties are imposed as an additional layer of Government.
I have received thousands of emails from residents regarding Local Government Reorganisation, conducted a constituency survey which received responses from constituents across Rutland, South Kesteven and the Harborough Villages, and held a public meeting at Stamford Arts Centre, as well as three in Rutland, to hear directly from residents. The findings relevant to Lincolnshire are set out below. Local consultations across the area saw over 83% of respondents state keeping councils local as their most important consideration.
The Case Against Reorganisation
It is worth recording what the Government’s own stated criteria for reorganisation were. The White Paper specified that reform would apply to two-tier areas and to unitary councils where there is evidence of failure, or where size or boundaries may be hindering the ability to deliver sustainable, high-quality services. Neither condition applies to South Kesteven or Rutland. My constituents rightly ask: what problem is this reorganisation actually solving for us?
The evidence base for the Government’s approach is also contested. When I asked the House of Commons Library to examine the case for larger unitary councils, they concluded it is not clear from available evidence whether unitary councils do save money compared with a two-tier system, and international experience suggests merged councils sometimes save money and sometimes do not. The Government has commissioned no independent assessment of why populations of 380,000 or 500,000 have been selected as thresholds. That is not a credible basis for the most significant restructuring of local democracy in fifty years.
There is also a structural concern that the Government’s framing obscures. The stated rationale involves simplifying local governance, but in practice the creation of new mayoral combined authorities means a layer of government is being moved rather than removed, from district level to a new strategic authority above the county. This shift concentrates significant powers, particularly over planning and housing, in larger, more remote structures with different priorities from rural communities.
The process itself has also fallen short. There has been no space for genuine public deliberation, no independent cost-benefit analysis published, and no mechanism for residents to express formal consent or opposition through a referendum. I asked a written question about public consultation and was told only that it is for councils to decide how best to engage locally. I co-laid an amendment for a referendum, and this was rebuffed by Government. Previous reorganisations have allowed for referendums. Yet now, the final decision rests with the Secretary of State, and no council - let alone the public - has a formal right of consent.
Keep Democracy Local
A theme that ran through the public meeting with particular force was the question of democratic representation. Under any of the proposed larger unitary models the number of Councillors would fall substantially, and with it, the ability of local people to have their concerns heard on the issues that matter most to them: which bus routes are funded, which libraries stay open, which planning decisions are approved, and which roads are prioritised.
Research on local government restructuring consistently finds that increases in the population or geographical scale of councils have a negative impact on democratic participation - including electoral turnout, public trust in Councillors, levels of engagement, and contact between citizens and their representatives. Remote decision-making is already a frustration at constituency level. Magnifying that remoteness will not make local government more responsive. It will make it less so.
The academic literature is clear: the search for an optimum council size has proved as elusive as the search for the philosopher’s stone. International studies have found no consistent or conclusive evidence that larger councils are more efficient, more effective, cheaper, or better at providing public services than smaller units. Most of the supposed advantages of economies of scale lose their force when councils work together to obtain purchasing advantages and administrative savings - without the need for expensive and divisive reorganisations. Respondents consistently questioned what problem reorganisation is supposed to be solving.
Views of Residents
My survey found that 75% of South Kesteven respondents favour the South Lincolnshire and Rutland model - a unitary council bringing together North Kesteven, South Kesteven, South Holland and Rutland. At my public meeting there equally was a preference for bringing Stamford and Rutland together. This preference is rooted in shared rural identity, proximity between Stamford and Rutland, and concern about being governed by a remote authority with different priorities which fails to recognise our rural way of life. Equally it represents a very strong desire not to be merged with Lincoln City.
The fear of being absorbed into a larger Lincolnshire structure dominated by Lincoln City runs throughout residents’ responses. Residents want to remain connected to the communities they already identify with – Stamford and Rutland - rather than be subsumumed into a distant administrative structure. Especially one that is so poorly run, with significant financial failings. There are also concerns about how Lincoln may seek to outsource its housing issues to rural Lincolnshire.
In addition, the quality of Lincoln City’s proposal was astoundingly poor. This should rule out the proposal entirely.
The Preferred Option: Four Unitary Councils
South Kesteven District Council worked on a proposal to create a new local authority combining South Kesteven, North Kesteven, South Holland and Rutland. Despite this option being popular in both South Lincolnshire and Rutland, Rutland County Council’s leadership declined to formally collaborate with the proposal. The Government should allow Rutland County Council to belatedly join this proposal and consider a joint submission for a unitary council covering South Kesteven, North Kesteven, South Holland and Rutland. It is the clear will of residents.
The Government should select the proposal by South Kesteven District Council and North Kesteven District Council for four unitary councils. This would fulfil the necessary criteria for reorganisation whilst maintaining local governance and democracy. It represents the most popular option in both South Lincolnshire and Rutland, and would create a local authority most closely aligned with residents’ lives and community connections. This proposal offers the most logical division for Lincolnshire under the criteria set out for Local Government Reorganisation, with the smallest relative impact on local democracy.
The three-unitary model aligns with my parliamentary constituency, with the existing Local Enterprise Partnership geography, and with the real communities and identities of the people it would serve. The inclusion of Rutland does involve crossing some Health and Blue Light service boundaries - but this is justified given Rutland’s economic orientation and our way of life, as well as the reality of where residents already access healthcare, including Stamford, Peterborough and Corby. The rejection of this model by Lincolnshire County Council should not be treated as dispositive by the Government.
Alternative Option
If the Government will not support the option for four unitary councils, the proposal by Boston Borough Council, East Lindsey District Council and South Holland District Council for a South Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire division represents the next best option. This at least keeps rural southern Lincolnshire together and avoids the most damaging configurations for South Kesteven communities.
We do not wish to be merged with Lincoln City, and that is the overwhelming preference of the Lincolnshire residents I serve.
Conclusion
Any model that groups rural communities with urban centres would be detrimental to the interests of residents in Stamford and South Kesteven. Given the unique requirements of rural communities and the genuine challenges of delivering services across rural areas, any final division should keep rural and urban communities separate where at all possible. The Government should also publish an independent cost-benefit analysis before any final decision is made, and ensure that the costs of transition - which will initially fall on councils themselves - are clearly set out and properly funded.
I therefore urge the Government to support the four-unitary option set out by South Kesteven District Council and North Kesteven District Council, with Rutland County Council added to the final unitary council alongside South Holland District Council. This is what my constituents want. It is what the evidence supports. It is the option most likely to preserve the local accountability and democratic representation that residents of South Kesteven and Rutland value and deserve.
Alicia Kearns MP Member of Parliament for Rutland and Stamford
For More News, Jobs, What's On, Discover Oakham and More Visit:
https://oakhamandrutlandnews.co.uk/
.png)
.png)
..png){kind=spacer}
.jpg)
.jpg)
