Larger councils no cheaper or better at delivering services, Local Councils Network research claims
- Details
The largest councils are neither cheaper to run nor better at delivering services than their smaller counterparts, new research from the Local Councils Network (LCN) has suggested.
The analysis, published on Friday (16 October), found that larger councils do not spend less per head, and that council size has no meaningful bearing on financial stability or council tax bills.
The research comes after the Government last month announced a review of its decisions on local government reorganisation.
The LCN said the move had sparked concerns among some local leaders that Whitehall could revert to its 2024 ‘guiding principle’ that most new councils should have a minimum population of 500,000.
According to the LCN, local leaders fear this could result in the creation of councils that are too far removed from their communities.
The research, which examined 98 single-tier English councils outside London, found that spending per head does not decrease as council size increases above a population of 208,000 residents – the smallest size under consideration for new councils.
Comparing service spending across councils of different sizes, the analysis found that those with populations above 500,000 spent an average of £1,200 per head, while those serving between 208,000 and 500,000 residents spent £1,165.
Although, it also showed that existing unitary authorities with up to 208,000 residents spent an average of £1,240 per resident.
The LCN suggested that factors such as deprivation, the number of single-person households and the number of pupils with special educational needs were more reliable indicators of spending than population size.
Elsewhere, the research found no meaningful difference in how frequently smaller and larger councils require Exceptional Financial Support from the Government, the amount of support required, or the frequency of Section 114 notices.
The analysis also found little relationship between council size and service performance.
Of 86 indicators in the Government's Local Outcomes Framework, none showed a clear correlation between larger council populations and better performance.
For 75 indicators, there was no clear relationship between council size and performance, while larger councils performed worse on the remaining 11.
Areas where smaller councils performed better included carers' satisfaction with social services, school attendance among pupils with education, health and care plans, and the proportion of council homes meeting the Decent Homes standard.
The LCN's chair, Cllr Richard Wright, said there was "no long-term benefit" to creating large so-called 'mega councils'.
He said: “If reorganisation is to proceed, the creation of community-focused smaller councils offers local leadership that ensures services are tailored to the unique needs of each town, city and rural area.
“No evidence exists to suggest the biggest councils perform better than smaller ones – quite simply, there is no long-term benefit to the Government imposing mega councils when local people don’t want them.
“If anything, the largest councils appear to perform worse on service quality and no better financially, than councils which are of a more average size.
“Taxpayers won’t welcome any shake-up imposed from above that takes councils far from their communities while offering no benefit in terms of reduced council tax bills, greater efficiency or improved services.”
Cllr Wright added: “It’s also the case that smaller, community-focused councils complement the regional scale of the mayoral strategic authorities which form the core of the Government’s devolution vision.”
Adam Carey
Jobs
Senior Legal Adviser (General Counsel Advice)
Locums
Directory
Events
