A new opposition group made up of former Labour councillors has rejected Nottingham City Council’s preferred plan to redraw boundaries – but the authority’s leader argues it is “fairer, more coherent, and more sustainable”.
All nine councils in Nottinghamshire have been discussing and drafting plans for a boundary shake-up, under the Labour Government’s proposals for local government reorganisation as announced in December 2024.
The ruling Labour Group at Nottingham City Council endorsed its own boundary change proposal at a meeting of Full Council on Monday (November 11).
• ‘We need to set a boundary for the next 50 years’ , say city council leader
City leader Cllr Neghat Khan said the current boundaries “do not reflect the real Nottingham”.
Tight city boundaries – drawn in 1997 – have been cited as one of the reasons for the council’s financial difficulties, with around 80 per cent of all homes sitting in the tax brackets that bring in the least amount of money.
Many people who use the city for work and leisure also do not live within its boundaries.
“We can’t let outdated boundaries or political convenience dictate our future,” Cllr Khan said.
“From the start, we’ve said that any proposal must be based on local identity and sensible geography.
“[Our option] creates two balanced councils, one for the north and east and one for the south-west, using ward boundaries rather than outdated district lines. It is fairer, more coherent, and more sustainable.
“Crucially, 51 per cent of people who work in Nottingham live outside the current city boundaries. They use our infrastructure but have no say in how it is run. Our proposal includes 71 per cent of the inner-Nottingham travel-to-work area, compared with 65 per cent and 66 per cent in other options.”
At the moment, council services in Nottinghamshire are delivered under a two-tier structure. Nottinghamshire County Council runs services such as social care, education, and road maintenance, while several smaller district and borough councils are responsible for more localised services, such as waste collection and leisure centres.
Nottingham City Council operates as a unitary authority, providing all council services within the city boundary.
Under the shake-up, all nine councils would completely cease to exist as they are now and new unitary councils with a higher population of residents would be created.
The Government says it is hoped this would streamline services, prevent overlap, and save taxpayers’ cash.
All councils must submit their proposals to the Government for review by the end of November.
However a newly-formed group – made up of city Labour Group defectors – has argued the Government has “no mandate” to force councils to make the changes.
The Nottingham People’s Alliance, led by Mapperley ward councillor Kirsty L Jones, voted down the boundary change plan during the meeting.
Cllr Jones said the move was about “democracy being weakened” – and said she feared the shake-up could result in lack of accessibility to – or cuts to – services.
“Only five per cent of respondents to the consultation expressed no concerns relating to LGR,” she said.
“The Labour Government has no real mandate to force this through. It was not clear in the manifesto, residents on the doorstep were not asking for local government reorganisation.
“Resources and money used for LGR could have been put towards local government services instead, ending our austerity.
“This doesn’t devolve power, it centralises it instead. It also reduces the public access to elected representatives and therefore their democratic influence.”
Two main options were being considered by the other Nottinghamshire councils before the city’s boundary change option – known as option Bii – was proposed.
These are known as options 1b and 1e.
Under option 1b a new unitary authority combining Nottingham, Broxtowe, and Gedling would be created, with a second unitary authority for the rest of Nottinghamshire.
Option 1e would mean a new unitary authority including Nottingham, Broxtowe, and Rushcliffe, would be formed, with a second for Nottinghamshire.
Cllr Ethan Radford (Lab), the council’s deputy, said some political parties had been using the debate “as an opportunity to divide, scare, and mislead in vain attempts to protect personal kingdoms.”
“They have pushed a rhetoric that is built on fiction and is inherently anti-Nottingham,” he added.
“While we as a council seek to unite and bring communities together, they continue to say things about this city as to be ludicrous.”
Cllr Steve Battlemuch (Lab) used the case of Nottingham Forest Football Club as another argument in favour of expanded city boundaries.
“[Nottingham Forest] were dealing with the city over the land, and Rushcliffe Borough Council and Nottinghamshire County Council over various issues relating to planning and transport,” he said.
“We shouldn’t have a system where we are dealing with the major sporting institution in the city, and we have got three different councils going in to talk to them. It is absolutely bonkers.”
While not endorsed by the Nottingham People’s Alliance, the boundary change option was endorsed by the city Labour Group and the Nottingham Independents and Independent Group.
The decision on which model to implement in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire will be taken by the Secretary of State in the summer of 2026 following formal consultation.
• Rushcliffe leader says he’ll ‘keep fighting’ against city boundary change plans
