Nottinghamshire County Council has allocated up to £500,000 for a potential legal challenge to the Government’s council reorganisation decision, warning that the plan remains in place despite a national pause.
A report to Cabinet on 22 September asks councillors to give leader Councillor Mick Barton authority to begin proceedings after receiving external legal advice, in consultation with the council’s senior legal and finance officers.
The proposal would preserve the council’s ability to challenge the decision made on 16 July to replace Nottingham and Nottinghamshire’s nine existing councils with two unitary authorities. It does not mean a court challenge has been approved or launched.
The report says the council’s chief finance officer has already authorised an allocation of up to £500,000 from contingency to cover potential legal costs.
The estimated combined costs of the council and the Secretary of State would be between £450,000 and £500,000 if proceedings reached a full hearing. The report explains that the unsuccessful party would usually be ordered to pay the successful party’s legal costs. If the council won, it would seek to recover its costs from the Secretary of State.
The proposed delegation follows the Government’s announcement on 7 September that it would review the national local government reorganisation programme after receiving updated legal advice.
Decisions taken in March covering four areas were formally withdrawn. However, the report says the 14 decisions taken in July, including Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, were only paused and placed under review.
It states that the Nottinghamshire decision “still stands and is capable of implementation at the end of the review” unless it is withdrawn, replaced or superseded.
The council says this distinction means it needs to protect its right to bring a legal challenge while awaiting further clarification from the Government.
Under the July decision, a Greater Nottingham Council would cover the existing city alongside parts of Broxtowe, Gedling and Rushcliffe. A Nottinghamshire Council would cover Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Newark and Sherwood, and the remaining parts of those three boroughs.
The selected model, known as Option 1bii, was Nottingham City Council’s preferred proposal. It would place 15 Broxtowe wards, 15 Gedling wards and 17 Rushcliffe wards within Greater Nottingham, with the remaining wards joining the county-based authority.
The county council and Rushcliffe Borough Council had supported a different two-council arrangement. Their proposal would have kept Rushcliffe wholly within the county-based authority and placed all of Broxtowe and Gedling alongside Nottingham City.
During consultation, the county council raised concerns about dividing three boroughs between the new authorities. These included the absence of a validated assessment of the council tax base at ward level and differences between the financial methodology used for the city’s preferred model and that used for the other proposals.
The county council also questioned assumptions underpinning the financial case and the effectiveness of public engagement. These are concerns set out by the authority, rather than findings made by a court.
According to the report, the Secretary of State said all three submitted proposals met the reorganisation criteria. The chosen option was considered to perform well on economic geography and supporting Nottingham’s development, and on tailoring services to urban and rural communities.
The county council wrote to the Secretary of State on 23 July seeking fuller reasons for the decision and disclosure of supporting documents.
On 11 August, the Government responded that it had treated the request under the Freedom of Information Act. It confirmed that relevant information was held but refused the request because locating, retrieving and extracting it would exceed the applicable cost limit.
The council then sent a formal pre-action protocol letter on 27 August, setting out a possible legal challenge and giving the Government an opportunity to respond before proceedings.
It requested a reply by 10 September. The Secretary of State subsequently said a response would be provided by 24 September because of the availability of key personnel.
The report says external legal advisers will need to assess that response before advising whether there are arguable grounds for judicial review and whether a claim should be issued.
It explains that a claim must be brought promptly and within three months of the grounds arising, identified in the report as the decision on 16 July. Officers say there would be insufficient time to bring another report to Cabinet after receiving the Government’s response and legal advice.
Any challenge would examine whether the decision was reached lawfully, rationally and in accordance with the published criteria and guidance. Disagreement with the chosen boundaries would not, by itself, provide grounds for judicial review.
The report also cautions that a successful challenge would not necessarily produce a different reorganisation model. A court could require the Secretary of State to reconsider the decision, but the Government could reach the same conclusion again.
For residents, the national announcement means elections in May 2027 will take place on existing local government boundaries, according to the report. The previous timetable had envisaged elections to new shadow authorities.
The Government has asked councils to stop work on implementing the July decisions. The county council says it will nevertheless continue necessary and proportionate general preparation for local government reform, including planning for service transitions and maintaining existing services.
The Cabinet recommendations would not directly change residents’ services or council boundaries. A further report would be brought to Cabinet on reorganisation and any legal proceedings if required.
