Local Government Reorganisation plans would see city, county, district and borough councils merged into one
Jon Cooper – Local Democracy Reporter and Lee Garrett Content Editor
10:10, 18 Nov 2025
Derbyshire County Council is set to propose the one single council plan(Image: Local Democracy Reporting Service)
Derbyshire County Council is set to propose one single council for Derby and Derbyshire as part of Local Government Reorganisation plans after claiming it will be more cost effective and avoid a geographical split unlike the city, borough and district councils’ ‘One Derbyshire, Two Councils’ proposal.
The Labour Government is aiming to set up single, unitary authorities across England with an elected mayor in two-tier authority areas like Derbyshire as part of Local Government Reorganisation plans by merging city, county, borough and district councils.
Derbyshire’s eight district and borough councils and Derby City Council have agreed their overall preference for two unitary councils – one in the north and one in the south – to replace the county’s current ten councils and each has set out their personal preferences under the ‘One Derbyshire, Two Councils’ format while Derbyshire County Council has voted in favour of one single unitary council.
Alan Graves believes one council will boast the most benefits for all(Image: Local Democracy Reporting Service)
Reform UK County Council Leader, Cllr Alan Graves, said: “It’s clear that creating a single unitary council covering the whole of Derby and Derbyshire is in the best interests of all residents and businesses in the area.
“Creating one new council would save millions of pounds every year compared to the current system of Local Government and options for creating two unitary councils.
“It would also cost less to set up and would be less disruptive as major county council services such as adult care and highways would not need to be separated out over two areas – which would be more costly as our financial analysis shows.”
The former Conservative county council administration originally voted for one single unitary authority and after the current Reform UK administration came into power after the May elections it had initially preferred the concept of two unitary councils.
However, following a county council meeting on November 13, 35 county councillors voted in favour of creating one council, 17 voted in opposition, and two abstained after the council had considered concerns from residents, businesses and partners about the two council option and splitting the county.
The county council claims that one single unitary council will create more savings of at least an estimated £144 million over six years and £45.1m every year afterwards compared its own previous two-council proposal.
Green Party Derbyshire County Cllr Rachael Hatchett has previously raised concerns any plan that would split Amber Valley is not welcomed and Conservative Cllr Nigel Gourlay fears a two council split could see Ashbourne ripped out of the Derbyshire Dales while Cllr Steve Bull has stressed that Ashbourne residents do not want to be considered as a suburb of Derby.
Conservative Cllr Wayne Major has also raised concerns that market towns and villages have different needs and he questioned how services would be split across the north and south under LGR while fellow Conservative Cllr Alex Dale fears a two-council proposal leans towards a Derby-centric model.
Liberal Democrat Cllr Tom Snowdon has described LGR as ‘a con by the Labour Government’ to try and consolidate and influence Local Government with claims of savings which he fears will not happen.
However, Derbyshire County Council has outlined what it believes are the benefits of reducing ten councils to one single unitary council for Derby and Derbyshire.
It claims a single council option is the most cost-effective by comparison with its considered option for two councils which had included a saving of at least an extra £100m over the first six years and at least an extra £20m every year thereafter.
The county council claims there are a number of benefits under a single council including: Larger savings to support long-term running of essential services; One budget, one responsibility and clearer accountability; Simpler, fairer, and more responsive services; Continuation of essential services particularly those with high demand and costs such as adult social care, children’s social care, highways and transport, public health, and waste disposal; Easier to work with public sector partners like the NHS, police and EMCCA; Greater efficiency; Supports economic growth by linking housing, transport, skills, and business needs; Greater ability to attract investment, jobs, and regeneration; And it protects boundaries and identity.
Cllr Graves added: “Derbyshire and Derby City share a proud identity, strong communities, and a forward-looking spirit.
“Our rich history is part of what makes this area the place we all know and love and one council would unite Derbyshire and retain our proud and deep-rooted identity instead of splitting the county in two.
“By introducing area committees and local teams based in towns and neighbourhoods as part of a single unitary council system, we believe this would strike the right balance between reflecting the individual needs of communities and delivering services in the most efficient and effective way while keeping the county whole.”
The county council argued that a two-council system will create a number of disadvantages including: A geographical split that lacks public support; Difficult to set up while causing disruption with essential services split in two; Difficult boundaries for Derbyshire Dales and Amber Valley; Risks diluting Derby city’s identity and undermining its delivery expertise; And smaller areas of Local Government have less flexibility to meet housing demands.
Derbyshire’s Derby city, district and borough councils’ ‘One Derbyshire, Two Councils’ proposal includes four variations with differing options, dubbed A, A1, B and B1, selected by each of these councils relating to different sizes, populations and north-south boundary lines.
NE Derbyshire, Bolsover and Derbyshire Dales opted for A1 for NE Derbyshire, Chesterfield, Bolsover, High Peak, Derbyshire Dales and part of the Amber Valley to be in one northern unitary council, and Derby City, Erewash, South Derbyshire, and part of Amber Valley to be in a southern unitary council.
Chesterfield, High Peak, Erewash and Derby City opted for B1 with Chesterfield, NE Derbyshire, Bolsover, Derbyshire Dales, High Peak and a slightly different part of Amber Valley to be in the northern council while the southern council would include Derby City, Erewash, Southern Derbyshire and a slightly different part of Amber Valley.
Amber Valley has opted for option A for Chesterfield, NE Derbyshire, Bolsover, High Peak, Derbyshire Dales and Amber Valley in the northern council and a southern council area including Derby City, South Derbyshire and Erewash.
South Derbyshire has opted for option B for Chesterfield, NE Derbyshire, Bolsover, Derbyshire Dales and High Peak in the northern council and the southern council would include Derby City, Erewash, South Derbyshire and Amber Valley.
The district, borough and city councils claim the proposed ‘One Derbyshire, Two Councils’ forecasts greater accumulative savings of up to £167m by the sixth year, and despite estimated savings of just £4.4m in its first year these are expected to rise to £44m per annum in its sixth year.
They have argued one unitary authority for Derbyshire will not work because of the size of the county but a system with a north council and a south council will maintain the historic areas of the county and provide better opportunities to work in partnerships especially with the EMCCA.
They have also argued one, single unitary authority would create an inefficient delivery of services, would stifle economic and housing growth and create a disparity between Derbyshire and Derby in terms of population and tax base.
The city, borough and district council leaders claim two new unitary councils will keep the councils connected to local residents and their needs, provide effective value for money services, preserve local identity and protect Derbyshire’s historic boundaries and meet the Government’s criteria for reorganisation.
They also argue two unitary councils will provide high quality and sustainable public services, work together to understand and meet local needs, create opportunities for stronger community engagement and neighbourhood empowerment, improve efficiency, capacity and financial resilience and support devolution.
Chesterfield Borough Council Leader, Cllr Tricia Gilby(Image: Local Democracy Reporting Service)
Chesterfield Borough Council Leader, Cllr Tricia Gilby, said: “It is a proposal that aims to recognise and protect Derbyshire’s distinct cultural, geographic and economic identities by developing two new partner unitary councils that are big enough to be financially resilient and deliver at scale, yet close enough to understand and respond to local needs.”
Derby City Council leader Nadine Peatfield has said she understands and sympathises with councillors who are concerned about the possible changes but she insisted LGR was happening ‘whether we agree with it or not’.
Derbyshire County Council’s Cabinet is due to meet on November 27 to formally approve its final one unitary council proposal before this is submitted with Derbyshire’s other nine councils’ proposals to Government before a deadline on November 28.
The Government is expected to carry out a statutory consultation on all submitted proposals early in 2026 and it will review all council proposals before making a final decision on how Local Government is best reorganised in Derbyshire in the summer of 2026.
Under the Government’s current timetable, elections to the new shadow authorities would take place in 2027, and the new unitary councils would start to operate by April 2028.
The UNISON union has stated that LGR in Derbyshire must be about levelling up communities and strengthening public services with proper funding and protection for employees and not about cutting costs or putting jobs at risk.
It fears LGR will bring huge upfront costs, major disruption and the risk of losing experienced staff at a time when councils are already under intense financial pressure.
The union says any reorganisation must come with guarantees that no workers will lose out and that services will be protected for the residents who rely on them.
UNISON Derbyshire branch secretary Martin Porter said: “There was a lot of impassioned talk in the council chamber about this issue, but nobody mentioned the council staff who have worked through years of austerity and seen first-hand what happens when funding dries up, services get stretched and communities suffer.
“Any reorganisation in Derbyshire must be about levelling up, not down. It should strengthen local democracy, make public services better for residents, and protect the people who deliver them every day.”
UNISON says ministers and local authorities should focus on long-term investment in councils, so communities can thrive and essential services, from social care to waste collection, are properly funded and staffed.
The Government has argued LGR will include elected mayors with more powers on planning and transport and that the changes will create savings, create greater efficiency, improve public services, and support economic growth.
But critics are concerned about the loss of councils – with Derbyshire reduced from 447 councillors to 162 – the loss of local control with a risk of greater Government influence, the removal of local decision-making, tax increases, powers being taken away from communities and doubts about whether the plans will create savings.
