The UK government’s dual programme of local government reorganisation and expanded devolution marks one of the most significant shifts in public administration in decades. For local authorities it represents both a challenge and a chance to fundamentally rethink how services are delivered, a balance explored further in our guide to navigating the risks and opportunities of LGR and devolution.

These reforms, as outlined in the English Devolution White Paper, aim to simplify structures, transform service delivery and strengthen financial sustainability by cutting duplication and reducing fragmentation.

From my own experience working in Canada during local authority consolidations and central-local government power shifts, clear governance lines, simple funding flows and unambiguous service responsibilities are essential. The reorganisation of Toronto and surrounding local authorities in the late 1990s showed that while integration offered efficiencies, overlapping authorities and partial devolution created confusion and political tension that took years to resolve. The UK’s proposed model risks similar challenges unless the balance between local accountability and regional strategy is made more intuitive to local residents and those delivering services.

3 critical areas for successful local government transformation

If these reforms are to deliver genuine transformation rather than merely redrawing boundaries, three practical areas will be critical to success: how services are shared and delivered, the governance arrangements that underpin decision-making and the digital and data systems that make change visible.

1. Shared services and operating models

When authorities merge or boundaries are redrawn, duplication becomes the silent cost driver. Separate finance systems, HR teams and procurement processes can continue to operate in isolation for years, undermining efficiency and delaying promised cost savings. At the same time, the need to protect statutory services and frontline delivery can make integration seem like a risk rather than an opportunity. To prevent this, early mapping and redesign of shared services is essential, not just to save money but to create an operational backbone that supports incoming authority structures.

The amalgamation of Toronto and its surrounding local and regional authorities underscored the importance of designing shared services deliberately from the outset. Delays to the integration of back-office functions such as payroll, procurement or IT eroded savings through duplication and workforce fragmentation. Conversely, where a single shared services model was implemented early, authorities were able to reinvest resources in frontline delivery more quickly. The lesson is clear: without integration at the operating level, structural reform risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

The Institute for Government’s recently released Dual Delivery report highlights the need for dedicated joint delivery teams across outgoing and incoming councils for this exact reason. True integration is not a narrow back-office exercise but the foundation on which both immediate continuity and long-term transformation depend. By acting as an integrator, we can help local authorities look beyond legacy silos and design a model that supports the ambitions of devolution.

2. Governance and decision-making

However strong any new operating model is designed to be, it can’t succeed without a governance structure that matches the new strategic landscape. The introduction of strategic authorities, as outlined in the recent English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, fundamentally shifts where power sits, and provides clarity on roles, accountabilities and decision rights. Governance design should therefore consider both technical and cultural aspects, and will involve establishing interim and final arrangements that enable collaborative leadership across councils with differing histories, political contexts and policy priorities.

Toronto’s transition into a unified ‘megacity’ revealed how essential well-designed governance structures are. Where responsibilities were unclear, particularly between the city and the provincial government, tensions emerged. This impeded service co-ordination, slowed policy alignment and undermined public accountability. Without consistent mechanisms for joint decision-making across formerly independent local authorities, trust eroded quickly. For the UK, governance must be both technically sound and publicly intuitive if it is to enable, rather than stall, local government reform.

3. Digital and data integration

Structural changes are invisible to local residents unless they are matched by digital and service transformation. Merging authorities often inherit a patchwork of IT systems and data standards that can undermine operational performance and public trust.

A comprehensive digital maturity assessment and a unified data governance framework are essential for removing operational risk and enabling seamless resident experiences. During Toronto’s amalgamation, legacy IT systems, ranging from revenue systems to resident portals, continued to operate in silos for years, undermining both efficiency and transparency. In some cases, the inability to integrate digital platforms delayed access to services and performance data. These lessons show that digital strategy cannot be deferred – it must be a central part of the reform narrative.

Integrated platforms and shared data models should be positioned as the public face of reform. Where residents see simpler, faster access to services and consistent information across channels, they begin to trust the value of structural changes. Without it, even well-designed reform risks being invisible or actively resented.

Why these areas matter

Shared services, governance and digital integration are not just technical enablers, they are the essential foundations for broader reform. Key priorities such as finance alignment, workforce planning and local resident engagement all hinge on these elements being addressed early. Tackling them effectively creates stability, delivers early wins and builds the political and public confidence required to sustain complex change.

Past lessons from the 1990s unitarisation wave in England and Canadian local and regional authority reform show that transitional costs are often underestimated. Without disciplined programme management, anticipated savings may never materialise. Dual reform delivery amplifies these risks, making it critical for local authorities to establish dedicated programme teams, apply realistic financial modelling and enforce strong governance to safeguard service quality through transition.

How RSM can support local government transformation

The opportunity isn’t just implementing technical fixes but rather shaping the future of local government and resident outreach. If you’d like to learn more about how organisational transformation can build resilience and efficiency into your local authority, get in touch with Shawn Parry today.

Related articles