LGR: Backdoor centralisation or needed reform?

The Government’s plans to ‘simplify’ local government could reshape how councils are run and how communities are represented. At the heart of the debate lies a simple but fundamental question: will these reforms genuinely improve the planning system, or will they unsettle the very structures that give local people a voice?

The overlooked element: abolishing the Committee system

One of the less publicised proposals is to abolish the Committee system of council leadership. This model, still used by a handful of authorities such as the London Borough of Richmond, allows councillors across parties to take part in collective decision-making. In contrast, the Leader and Cabinet system concentrates executive power in the hands of a small group, usually dominated by the ruling political party.

For supporters of reform, the Cabinet model offers efficiency, clarity of leadership, and quicker decision-making. For critics, it risks sidelining opposition voices, reducing transparency, and weakening the sense of shared ownership over council decisions.

Why this matters for planning

The structure of local governance directly shapes how planning decisions are made. Committee systems can create more space for deliberation, scrutiny, and local consensus — sometimes at the expense of speed. Cabinet systems, by design, streamline choices, but may leave residents feeling that major decisions are being made behind closed doors.

In an era when public trust in planning is already fragile, even subtle shifts in how councils are run could have big implications for legitimacy and accountability.

Efficiency vs. democracy

The argument for reform is framed around efficiency and cost-saving. Yet efficiency is not the same as effectiveness, and local government is not a business to be streamlined at all costs. Local councils are democratic institutions. Their strength lies in reflecting the messy, contested, and often slow nature of community decision-making.

The question is whether this drive for efficiency is being pursued at the expense of communities deciding how they want to be led. Faster decision-making may be desirable in principle — but if it comes at the cost of local democratic choice, what is really being gained?

A moment for debate

The reforms are still taking shape, and there is a real opportunity for practitioners, councillors, and communities to ask hard questions now. Does centralising leadership make councils more accountable? Or does it narrow the channels through which residents can influence their future?

The answers matter, not just for governance structures, but for the health of local democracy and the credibility of the planning system itself.

#LocalGovernment hashtag#PlanningReform hashtag#CommunityEngagement hashtag#PlanningSystem

How it could look?: Councillors and Ministers engage in a heated debate over territorial maps, each pointing fingers and raising voices in a lively council chamber.