I wrote the following as a draft for Huntingdon Town Council’s response to HMG’s consultation on local government reform in Cambridgeshire. It went through unamended except that I hadn’t included the answer on the question specific to Option D; it was added in as an amendment.
I know that not many people will read it and it will probably have very little, if any, impact on the decision made. I am nonetheless quite proud of it as a piece of work. For one, I believe it is valuable for towns and parishes to be engaging in the process. Secondly, Making the case for the Town Council’s preferred Option E while avoiding accidentally supporting our least preferred Option D, and putting it in language that would, I hope, appeal to decisionmakers was a challenge (and an enjoyable one).
Introduction
The government is consulting on the four proposals submitted by principal councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough for local government reorganization (LGR) as required by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. This paper sets out Huntingdon Town Council’s response. The consultations can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/local-government-reorganisation-in-cambridgeshire-and-peterborough/proposals-for-local-government-reorganisation-in-cambridgeshire-and-peterborough. This webpage also links to the supporting papers for each option.
In accordance with existing Huntingdon Town Council policy, it favours Option E and disfavours Option D. The arguments are made to be convincing to civil servants and ministers, particularly from HM Treasury, and so focus on economic and development issues that align with priorities set out by HM Government rather than the arguments we find convincing in Huntingdon.
Each of the four proposals has its own consultation. There are seven questions to be rated from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ and a free text box for comments, followed by a confirmation that there is no information identifying individuals in the comments. The consultation for Option D has an additional rating and free text box because it involves splitting Huntingdonshire in two.
The four options are presented in the consultations in the order B, A, E, D. This paper follows that order.
Summary of Responses
The following table gives an overview of the responses to the questions in the four consultations.
| Option B | Option A | Option E | Option D | |
| Q1 | Somewhat agree | Neither agree nor disagree | Strongly agree | Strongly disagree |
| Q2 | Somewhat agree | Somewhat agree | Strongly agree | Somewhat disagree |
| Q3 | Neither agree nor disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Strongly agree | Somewhat disagree |
| Q4 | Somewhat agree | Somewhat agree | Strongly agree | Somewhat disagree |
| Q5 | Neither agree nor disagree | Somewhat disagree | Strongly agree | Somewhat disagree |
| Q6 | Somewhat agree | Somewhat agree | Strongly agree | Neither agree nor disagree |
| Q7 | Somewhat disagree | Somewhat disagree | Strongly agree | Somewhat disagree |
| Q8 | See B8 | See A8 | See E8 | See D8 |
| Q9 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Strongly disagree |
| Q10 | See D10 | |||
| Q11 | Yes |
Response to B8
The key test in assessing these proposals should be as to which governance model is most likely to deliver growth, infrastructure, and housing that are aligned with national government priorities while mitigating delivery risk and minimising reorganisation delays. Meeting this test requires alignment with economic geography, new authorities with the ability to deliver, minimising disruption to the delivery of existing services and developing new programmes (including local plans), and ensuring financial sustainability over the long term. A consistent theme throughout this response is that governance arrangements should be aligned with the geography of growth.
Q1 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal suggests councils that are based on sensible geographies and economic areas?
Option B proposes two authorities, retaining Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire together within a Greater Cambridge unitary while combining Peterborough, Fenland, Huntingdonshire and East Cambridgeshire within a North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough authority. Retaining the Greater Cambridge geography reflects existing economic relationships and matches the area for the proposed Urban Development Corporation.
However, the proposed North Cambridgeshire authority would be very large in both population and area and would combine several distinct economic systems, including the Peterborough urban economy, rural Fenland, market towns and the A14 logistics corridor. We note that the supporting papers for this option do not recognise that Huntingdonshire is a key site for growth, including the nationally important Project Fairfax defence cluster.
Combining such different economic geographies risks weakening strategic focus on areas that will support economic development.
Q2 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will be able to deliver the outcomes they describe in the proposal?
For the reasons given above, we see the proposed Greater Cambridge as a viable authority based on sensible economic geography.
However, the proposed North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough authority would have significant challenges in delivering on the proposal. North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough would be large and diverse in terms of economy, population, and geography. This makes developing policies that will be effective, not least for planning, very difficult.
The proposal also highlights projected savings and a relatively short payback period as evidence of financial viability. While efficiencies of scale may exist in certain services, experience from large public organisations suggests that increasing size also brings organisational complexity. Very large authorities may struggle to maintain the level of place‑based leadership required to deliver development opportunities associated with specific growth corridors such as the A14 logistics route and defence‑related development around RAF Wyton.
Q3 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils are the right size to be efficient, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks?
The proposed Greater Cambridge unitary is of a practicable size, would be coterminous with the proposed Urban Development Corporation, and is proposed in all but one of the options. This does suggest that it would be efficient and be able to both improve capacity and withstand financial shocks. However, the geographic spread and population size of the proposed North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough authority present real challenges. It is by far the largest authority proposed by any of the options. Its size means it covers a region that will be more diverse than any proposed authority from any other option; this necessarily means it will be less efficient and less able to improve capacity, if at all and the difficulties in providing services will weaken its ability to withstand financial shocks.
Q4 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will deliver high quality, sustainable public services?
The proposed North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough authority would have a population approaching or exceeding 600,000 people according to the proposal. While larger authorities can benefit from economies of scale, organisational complexity increases with size and governance can become more distant from local communities. This raises questions about whether the proposed authority would maintain the level of local strategic focus required for economic development and infrastructure planning. The diverse needs of the authority will make it harder to provide public services sustainably.
We do believe, for the reasons given above, that the proposed Greater Cambridge Authority will meet these goals.
Q5 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal has been informed by local views and will meet local needs?
The consultation materials present limited and sometimes anecdotal evidence of public support. Different proposals reference different engagement exercises, making it difficult to determine the extent of public backing for any specific model.
We repeat our concerns that the North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough authority will not be able to produce policies or deliver services that are efficient and meet the needs of the very diverse parts of the authority. This necessarily means local needs will not be fully met.
Q6 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing the councils in this proposal will support devolution arrangements?
Option B proposes a two-authority structure beneath the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority. While this may appear administratively simple, in practice such a structure risks creating a governance model in which each of the two constituent authorities effectively holds a veto over regional decision-making. With only two councils represented, disagreement between them would be more likely to slow or stall the work of the Combined Authority. Regional partnerships tend to function most effectively when they include several local authorities able to provide leadership and contribute perspectives. A structure with three councils distributes influence more evenly and reduces the likelihood that a single disagreement could delay progress on strategic issues such as infrastructure investment, housing delivery or economic development.
There is also a structural question about how a combined authority operates when it sits above only two constituent councils. The Combined Authority was designed as a mechanism for coordinating the work of multiple local authorities across a region. When the number of constituent councils falls to two, the governance structure begins to look unusually layered: a mayoral combined authority sitting above two large unitary councils, each covering very substantial populations and geographic areas. This risks creating an arrangement that appears unnecessarily bureaucratic, with overlapping strategic functions between the combined authority and the two councils beneath it. This remains the case with conversion to a strategic mayoral authority.
Accordingly, a two council model for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough must be seen as disadvantageous for growth.
Q7 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal enables stronger community engagement and gives the opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?
The geographic size and economic diversity of the proposed North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough authority mean that it will be effectively impossible to design policies or implement services in a way that is both efficient and responds to local needs. This necessarily means disempowerment of neighbourhood. In simple terms, any given settlement’s voice is more diluted in a larger council and so weakens community engagement. However, for the reasons given above, we do believe that the proposed Greater Cambridge Authority would offer that community engagement.
Conclusion
Option B retains some sensible geographic groupings, particularly around Greater Cambridge. However, the proposed North Cambridgeshire authority would combine multiple distinct economic systems within a very large administrative area. This may make it harder to provide focused leadership for housing, infrastructure and economic growth.
Response to A8
The key test in assessing these proposals should be as to which governance model is most likely to deliver growth, infrastructure, and housing that are aligned with national government priorities while mitigating delivery risk and minimising reorganisation delays. Meeting this test requires alignment with economic geography, new authorities with the ability to deliver, minimising disruption to the delivery of existing services and developing new programmes (including local plans), and ensuring financial sustainability over the long term. A consistent theme throughout this response is that governance arrangements should be aligned with the geography of growth.
Q1 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal suggests councils that are based on sensible geographies and economic areas?
Option A proposes two authorities covering Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. While the proposal emphasises alignment with certain public service boundaries such as Integrated Care System partnerships, the proposed geographies combine several different economic systems within single authorities. In particular, the proposal attaches East Cambridgeshire to a Cambridge‑centred authority, potentially placing rural economies and market towns within governance structures primarily shaped by the Cambridge innovation economy.
Q2 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will be able to deliver the outcomes they describe in the proposal?
The Option A proposal emphasises improved coordination between local government and health systems and references support from health organisations. While alignment with health service geographies may provide benefits in certain policy areas, the proposal does not clearly demonstrate how governance structures would align with the geography of major growth corridors. Development opportunities associated with Huntingdonshire and the A14 corridor may become subordinated within a much larger authority dominated by other economic priorities.
Q3 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils are the right size to be efficient, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks?
The proposed authorities would be large and would contain diverse settlement patterns ranging from major urban centres to dispersed rural communities. While large authorities may provide administrative capacity, they may also struggle to maintain strategic focus across such varied geographies.
Q4 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will deliver high quality, sustainable public services?
Sustainable service delivery depends not only on administrative scale but also on the economic characteristics of the authority. Combining areas with very different economic profiles may create competing priorities when allocating resources between urban growth centres and rural communities.
Q5 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal has been informed by local views and will meet local needs?
The consultation evidence for Option A appears mixed and somewhat limited. While the proposal notes support from several institutions, broader public engagement evidence appears less extensive.
Q6 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing the councils in this proposal will support devolution arrangements?
As with other two‑authority models, Option A would concentrate regional governance among a small number of councils. Effective devolution arrangements may benefit from a broader distribution of local leadership across multiple authorities.
Q7 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal enables stronger community engagement and gives the opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?
Authorities covering very large and diverse areas may find it more difficult to maintain strong democratic engagement with residents. Governance structures aligned with recognisable places may encourage greater participation and public understanding of local government.
Conclusion
Option A prioritises administrative consolidation but does not clearly align governance with the geography where housing, infrastructure and economic growth must occur.
Response to E8
The key test in assessing these proposals should be as to which governance model is most likely to deliver growth, infrastructure, and housing that are aligned with national government priorities while mitigating delivery risk and minimising reorganisation delays. Meeting this test requires alignment with economic geography, new authorities with the ability to deliver, minimising disruption to the delivery of existing services and developing new programmes (including local plans), and ensuring financial sustainability over the long term. A consistent theme throughout this response is that governance arrangements should be aligned with the geography of growth.
Q1 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal suggests councils that are based on sensible geographies and economic areas?
Option E proposes three authorities reflecting distinct economic geographies across the region. Huntingdonshire functions as a bridging labour market between Cambridge and Peterborough, with significant commuting and economic flows in both directions. The Option E proposal highlights Huntingdonshire’s role as an emerging growth area and emphasises development opportunities including the RAF Wyton redevelopment and associated economic activity.
Q2 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will be able to deliver the outcomes they describe in the proposal?
Option E aligns governance with the geography where housing and infrastructure growth are expected to occur. The proposal emphasises major development opportunities in Huntingdonshire, including defence‑related investment at RAF Wyton and growth associated with new settlements and transport infrastructure. Maintaining a single authority responsible for these areas may improve coordination between planning, infrastructure and economic development.
Q3 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils are the right size to be efficient, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks?
The proposed authorities under Option E fall within population ranges similar to several existing unitary authorities in England. While Huntingdonshire would be smaller than some of the proposed authorities in other options, the district is expected to grow in population and economic significance over the coming decades.
Q4 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will deliver high quality, sustainable public services?
Option E maintains existing service geographies and planning frameworks, which may reduce disruption during the transition to new governance arrangements. Maintaining institutional knowledge and existing delivery relationships can support continuity in service delivery and development planning.
Q5 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal has been informed by local views and will meet local needs?
Evidence of public opinion across all proposals appears mixed. However, local anecdotal evidence within Huntingdonshire suggests support for governance arrangements that align with the district’s economic and community identity.
Q6 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing the councils in this proposal will support devolution arrangements?
A three‑authority model provides a balanced partnership structure within the Combined Authority and may distribute leadership capacity more evenly across the region.
Q7 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal enables stronger community engagement and gives the opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?
Authorities aligned with recognisable communities and economic geographies may encourage stronger public engagement and local accountability.
Conclusion
Option E aligns governance with the geography of growth while maintaining continuity in service delivery and planning frameworks. This approach may provide the strongest foundation for supporting housing delivery, infrastructure investment and economic development.
Response to D8
The key test in assessing these proposals should be as to which governance model is most likely to deliver growth, infrastructure, and housing that are aligned with national government priorities while mitigating delivery risk and minimising reorganisation delays. Meeting this test requires alignment with economic geography, new authorities with the ability to deliver, minimising disruption to the delivery of existing services and developing new programmes (including local plans), and ensuring financial sustainability over the long term. A consistent theme throughout this response is that governance arrangements should be aligned with the geography of growth.
Q1 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal suggests councils that are based on sensible geographies and economic areas?
Option D proposes dividing existing districts, including splitting Huntingdonshire between different authorities. Dividing established administrative areas risks fragmenting service geographies and complicating governance arrangements.
Q2 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will be able to deliver the outcomes they describe in the proposal?
Splitting existing districts may introduce additional delivery risk during the transition period. Major development programmes require stable governance structures capable of coordinating planning and infrastructure delivery.
Q3 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils are the right size to be efficient, improve capacity and withstand financial shocks?
The proposed Mid Cambridgeshire authority would have a population comparable to Huntingdonshire under Option E but would be created by dividing existing administrative structures. This may create additional complexity in establishing effective governance arrangements.
Q4 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed councils will deliver high quality, sustainable public services?
Creating a new authority by dividing an existing district may create transitional challenges for service delivery and organisational stability.
Q5 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal has been informed by local views and will meet local needs?
Evidence of public support for Option D appears limited within the consultation materials.
Q6 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing the councils in this proposal will support devolution arrangements?
Although the three‑authority structure could operate within the Combined Authority framework, the creation of a potentially weaker authority may complicate regional collaboration.
Q7 – To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal enables stronger community engagement and gives the opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment?
Dividing closely linked settlements such as Huntingdon and Godmanchester across different authorities could create complications for neighbourhood planning and local governance arrangements.
Conclusion
Option D introduces additional complexity by dividing existing districts and creating new governance structures that may face significant transitional challenges.
Q9 – This is a proposal that is accompanied by a request that the Secretary of State considers boundary change or that affects wider public services. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal sets out a strong public services and financial sustainability justification for boundary change?
We do not agree that this proposal sets out a strong justification for the boundary changes in regard to public services or financial sustainability.
The division of Huntingdonshire into the 2 proposed unitary authorities introduces additional complexity, cost, and likely delays to implementation. Splitting an existing district in this way creates disruption to services and governance. The proposal does not demonstrate that these impacts are justified. The financial case, specifically, is weak. The modelling indicates a payback period of over 50 years for this type of reorganisation. This is far from a reasonable timeframe for demonstrating value for money and undermines the claim that this proposal will improve financial sustainability.
The proposal also risks weakening public service delivery by dividing local areas. Huntingdon and Godmanchester form a single built-up area and have historically functioned as one town. Placing them in separate authorities would create practical challenges for services, including school catchments, highways, waste collection and planning.
Conclusion
This proposal fails to demonstrate that the benefits to public services or financial sustainability are sufficient to justify the additional cost and disruption
caused by the proposed boundary changes