One Council or Five? Kent & Medway’s Local Government Overhaul

Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) is a plan to overhaul how councils are structured and run in Kent and Medway. In plain terms, it would replace the current two-tier set-up—Kent County Council (KCC) for county-wide services and 12 district/borough councils for local services—with new “unitary” authorities that handle everything. Medway already operates as a stand-alone unitary . The UK government has formally invited Kent and Medway to propose how a reorganisation could work. In practice, this could scrap existing councils and replace them with single-tier authorities responsible for all local services.

The Options On The Table

Kent’s councils have produced five competing blueprints, ranging from one mega-council to five smaller authorities. Each would abolish the current county and district tiers and replace them with new unitaries.

• One Unitary Council (“One Kent”) — Backed by KCC, this would merge all of Kent and Medway into a single authority serving about 1.93 million people. To counter fears of over-centralisation, KCC proposes three local area boards for North, East and West Kent The pitch is “One Kent, One Council”—a bold, practical and financially responsible way to deliver better services and stronger communities.

• Three Unitary Councils — Splits Kent/Medway into three large unitaries:

a North Kent authority (Dartford, Gravesham, Medway, Swale), West Kent (Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge & Malling, Tunbridge Wells), and East Kent (Ashford, Canterbury, Dover, Folkestone & Hythe, Thanet).

• Four Unitary Councils — Two variants.

Option 4b creates North, West, Mid and East Kent unitaries from whole existing districts (e.g., “Mid Kent” = Ashford, Swale, Folkestone & Hythe; “East Kent” = Canterbury, Dover, Thanet).

Option 4d (supported by Medway) redraws some boundaries—even splitting districts—to balance populations.

• Five Unitary Councils — Favoured by a group of district leaders (notably Gravesham and Dartford) on the premise that smaller councils stay closer to communities. The five would align with distinct sub-regions such as North, West, East, Mid and South Kent, reflecting “natural places and identities”.

All five models are now set out as business cases. Ministers must decide whether reorganisation proceeds and, if so, which model or variant to implement. The change would be historic in scale: 14 existing councils (KCC, 12 districts and Medway) could be replaced by new governing bodies.

Money: Savings, Costs, And Council Tax

A central claim for LGR is that it saves money by eliminating duplication. Fourteen councils mean duplicated management teams, IT systems, procurement and contracts; unitary councils could consolidate these. The KCC-led case says a single Kent Council would deliver “the highest net recurring benefit of £69 million per year, cumulative £457 million” over a decade. Multi-unitary options also project multi-million-pound annual savings once the transition settles. One summary points to eventual yearly savings of roughly £65–£75 million, but only after significant up-front investment. Those up-front costs are large: circa £100–£130 million for rebranding, IT, staff restructuring and other one-offs, with a payback period of 10–14 years in optimistic scenarios.

Officials also tout fairer funding distribution. A single county-wide authority would set one rate of council tax across the county, using a broader tax base to even out disparities. KCC argues residents could pay less than under multi-unitary options thanks to economies of scale and cross-subsidy. Any model would need gradual council tax harmonisation; rates in higher-tax areas could be frozen while lower-tax areas rise within government caps.

Independent research challenges the rosy projections. A District Councils’ Network (DCN) report—“Bigger is not better”—reviews 300+ pieces of research over 50 years and finds no consistent evidence that larger councils are inherently more efficient or cost-effective. Transition costs and organisational complexity can swallow predicted savings, and leadership quality, funding powers and grants matter more than sheer size.

KCC’s case adds that redundant assets could be sold and that a single council could borrow more cheaply while avoiding uneven inheritance of debts. The DCN urges caution: splitting debts and reserves among new councils is fraught with difficulty, and projected capital receipts are uncertain. In a one-council scenario, a single authority would absorb all debts; in multi-council scenarios, who gets which assets and liabilities would have to be negotiated.

Democracy And Representation

LGR would reshape local democracy. Abolishing districts abolishes district councillors—hundreds of locally elected representatives would vanish and be replaced by a smaller number of unitary councillors. Kent today has 300+ combined county and district councillors; under one council that might drop to ~100 or fewer (exact numbers would be decided later). Even with five councils, totals would likely be far below today, meaning many more residents per councillor.

The DCN notes England already has large populations per council and relatively few councillors per head compared with peers; larger units could increase that disparity and depress participation. The danger is residents feeling more remote from decision-makers, covering huge wards that bundle very different communities.

Mitigations exist on paper. The four- and five-council models aim to keep units “community-rooted.” Even the one-council plan includes three Area Assemblies for North, East and West Kent. But sceptics cite Wiltshire, where post-2009 local area boards remain largely advisory, with limited powers beyond grants and community conversations.

The counter-argument is clarity: one council clarifies accountability—no more “who does what.” Pro-LGR voices also expect stronger leadership and better chances of devolution deals (and perhaps mayors), which could bring extra funding and powers.

Parish and town councils would remain, but they have limited powers and budgets, and not every area has one (many urban areas do not). The proposals do not yet show how grassroots governance would be strengthened beyond promises of “engagement”.

Services And Everyday Life

Reorganisation touches daily life: bins, planning, libraries, social care. The promise is more joined-up delivery: housing (a district function) and social care (a county function) under one roof; strategic planning across larger geographies; unified digital portals.

The path to those benefits is risky. A joint Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) flags “potential disruption to services, digital exclusion, fragmentation of care pathways, and workforce impacts”. During transition, services may be interrupted, people may struggle with new systems and staff may face upheaval.

Short- to medium-term disruption is a real worry. Mergers or splits require re-writing contracts, recombining departments and integrating IT. The EqIA warns of temporary interruptions due to staffing changes, IT issues or delivery model reconfiguration. For vulnerable residents, a missed home-care visit or delayed payment is serious harm. “Long-standing care relationships” can be disturbed if staff are reassigned or procedures change.

Loss of local knowledge is another risk. Standardising policies can improve consistency but erase niche programmes. If new unitaries adopt different eligibility criteria or funding levels, residents could see changes in the support they receive. The EqIA cautions that variations across new councils could create a postcode lottery unless carefully managed.

There’s also a scale trade-off. County-wide services such as adult social care, public health and highways benefit from scale; splitting them could weaken specialist capacity (e.g., county-wide disability teams), risking disruption or reduced quality if smaller councils cannot afford equivalent provision. Reformers reply that smaller units can be nimbler and more locally attuned.

Equality And Accessibility Risks

Older and disabled residents are most at risk. Around 22% of Kent’s population is over 60, above the national average. The EqIA lists “service disruption for older adults, disabled people and carers” and “digital exclusion for older and disabled residents” among top risks. A rural older person could suddenly find transport routes, day services or contact points changing mid-transition.

Digital transformation can exclude. Without inclusive design and assisted options, online-by-default systems may shut out those without skills, devices or connectivity. The EqIA stresses alternative access routes and assisted digital services, including telephone and face-to-face support, accessible forms and translated guidance.

Rural geography matters. If service hubs centralise, remote communities face longer journeys; the EqIA notes transport limitations in places like Folkestone & Hythe, with older populations spread across rural and coastal areas. Outreach, mobile teams and local service points would be needed.

Minority ethnic communities may lose trusted relationships if liaison roles or culturally specific programmes are disrupted. Continuity of interpreters, translation, outreach and tailored provision must be maintained to avoid unequal access. Health and social care integration is another pressure point; more councils mean more interfaces for NHS partners, with real risks of “fragmentation of care pathways” if protocols aren’t watertight.

Unpaid carers and low-income households are also vulnerable. Confusing communications or delayed benefits administration hit these groups hardest. The EqIA urges simple language, consistent signposting and clear timelines.

People, Jobs, And Unanswered Questions

A conspicuous gap is the workforce plan. Mergers usually trigger restructures—and redundancies, especially in management and back-office roles. The business cases offer generic reassurances but few specifics. The EqIA itself acknowledges “workforce uncertainty across age, gender and caring responsibilities”. Older workers may fear being edged toward retirement; younger staff worry about progression; carers may be affected by changed locations or hours. The documents talk about inclusive transition planning and retention, but detail is thin.

Division of assets and debts is another unresolved issue. A district with healthy reserves will want to know whether they’re ring-fenced or pooled. Areas with big debts will ask if liabilities are shared. KCC argues a single council avoids uneven legacy debt by keeping everything in one pot. If multiple unitaries are created, the splits could be complex and contentious.

Council tax harmonisation is politically sensitive. Different districts levy different rates today. Harmonising means some bills will rise and others may be capped until neighbours catch up. One report anticipates a gradual process that could see Folkestone & Hythe’s above-average rate frozen for years while others increase. That may please bill-payers locally, but it can squeeze services if inflation and social care costs keep climbing. Documents warn that harmonisation within government cap limits could leave councils with high-cost populations carrying unsustainable statutory obligations unless funding pressures are addressed.

Public Reaction And Fears

A county-wide consultation in September–October 2025 drew 2,100+ responses. The headline: residents prioritise service quality and continuity above all. Disabled residents, in particular, emphasised accessibility and were worried about disruption. Stakeholders also raised concerns about fragmentation and equity between places.

There’s an emotional layer. District councils—some with centuries-old civic identities—are part of local pride. Abolishing them can feel like erasure. Canterbury residents objected to the idea of losing a distinct council identity; Medway, a unitary since 1998, emphasises its urban character and backs models that keep a Medway-anchored unitary rather than folding into a county-wide body. Local businesses tend to be cautiously supportive if regulation is simpler, but fear transitional confusion—for example, planning and licensing applications going astray.

The DCN report voices wider anxieties about “false arguments” driving reorganisation, noting past restructures often over-promised savings and improvements. The core lesson: structure alone doesn’t fix underlying problems and can distract from leadership, finance and service design.

Not everyone objects. Some residents see logic in streamlining: “why 13 councils when one would do?” Proponents cite places like Cornwall and Durham, which went unitary in 2009 and kept services running. Critics counter that promised savings and engagement lagged. Ultimately, residents care about practical outcomes: bills, bins, roads, housing, social care.

Scrutiny, Devolution And The Road Ahead

Scrutiny is intense. Journalists, opposition councillors and community groups are testing assumptions. The official line is that unitaries would be “more efficient and resilient” and improve delivery and engagement. There is potential for positives—one planning authority could mean coherence, one social care department could simplify NHS partnerships—but the evidence is mixed and sometimes contradictory.

The DCN’s counter-case emphasises continuity and subsidiarity. Two-tier counties have proved “remarkably resilient since 1974”, and over 80% of England’s population still lives under two-tier arrangements. Rather than scrapping the model, DCN argues for better collaboration, combined authorities for strategic issues and allocating responsibility “to the most local level possible”—a principle they say county-wide unitaries cannot meet.

Supporters of LGR reply that “do nothing” is not viable. KCC and others point to looming financial pressures—especially adult social care—and constrained budgets. Combining forces, they argue, offers scale for efficiencies and a stronger hand for investment and devolution. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (July 2025) encourages unitary reorganisations in exchange for more powers. Kent and Medway do not want to miss out on deals if neighbours move first.

Ministers will weigh the business cases and may run a formal consultation on a preferred model. If green-lit, implementation could be phased over a couple of years; some speculate that by 2027 or 2028 new councils could be in place. Obstacles remain: political buy-in is not unanimous and public views vary sharply.

Bottom Line

If LGR proceeds, the transition plan will matter as much as the destination. Success will require equality considerations “at every stage,” transparent communication about what changes to expect and when, and a realistic appraisal of costs and benefits rather than rose-tinted projections. Residents have been promised stronger, simpler local government, but they’ve also been warned of serious risks. Navigating between those poles is the real test of leadership.

In summary: the options—from one to five unitaries—promise efficiency and clearer accountability, yet evidence from elsewhere urges caution. Bigger is not automatically better, and local democracy can suffer if councils become too distant. Financially, there are as many question marks as pound signs. For residents, especially the vulnerable, the priority is simple: don’t make things worse.

The Shepway Vox Team

Journalism for the People NOT the Powerful