Contents
Introduction
Local government in Oxfordshire is at a crossroads. Faced with mounting financial pressures, rising demand for services, and the need for more efficient, accountable governance, reform is no longer just a possibility — it is inevitable.
With the central government encouraging streamlined structures as part of its wider devolution agenda, the key question now is not whether Oxfordshire should change, but how.
This moment represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to redesign how local government works across the county — the most significant potential reorganisation in over 50 years. The last major reform came in 1974, following the Local Government Act 1972, which fundamentally reshaped local authority structures in England.
For Oxfordshire, that meant a redefinition as a non-metropolitan county and a major boundary change: the county was expanded to incorporate the area between the River Thames and the Berkshire Downs — land that had previously been part of Berkshire.
At the same time, the City of Oxford, which had previously held county borough status, was brought back under the administrative control of the County Council. The reforms also introduced the current two-tier structure, dividing responsibilities between a county council and five district councils.
Now, more than five decades later, the structure put in place in 1974 is under pressure. The growing complexity of delivering social care, housing, transport and environmental services – along with financial constraints and the push for devolution – have all highlighted the limitations of the existing system.
Three competing proposals are now being considered to replace the two-tier local government system in Oxfordshire with a unitary model, where responsibilities are consolidated into single-tier authorities. Each offers a different vision for how services are managed, how communities are represented, and how resources are deployed.
This article explores the three main proposals for reforming local government in Oxfordshire currently under serious discussion:
- A single county-wide unitary authority, preferred by Oxfordshire County Council
- A two-unitary model – Oxford and Shires Council and Ridgeway Council – supported by five district councils
- A three-unitary model with a standalone Greater Oxford Council, proposed by Oxford City Council
Each proposal responds to shared challenges – demographic growth, climate adaptation, inequality, housing demand, and financial sustainability – but in very different ways. We examine the rationale behind each model, population viability, the criticisms each faces, and how they compare in terms of governance, identity, and local accountability.
The outcome of this decision could shape how Oxfordshire is governed for the next fifty years — just as the 1974 reforms did. What happens next will define the relationship between communities and councils for generations to come.
Option 1. One Oxfordshire: A County-Wide Unitary Authority
Proposed by:
Proposed Name:
Oxfordshire Council
Overview:
The County Council’s preferred proposal is for a single unitary authority to replace all existing councils in Oxfordshire – including the County Council and the five district councils (Cherwell, Oxford City, South Oxfordshire, Vale of White Horse, and West Oxfordshire). This new authority would manage all local services, including highways, adult social care, planning, waste, and housing.
Rationale:
The County Council argues that a single authority simplifies governance by cutting duplication and reducing costs, estimating potential savings of up to £20 million annually. With the County Council already providing approximately 85 per cent of services on a countywide basis, it would provide a single point of accountability for residents and businesses and allow for improved strategic planning across housing, transport, and infrastructure.
Population consideration:
One notable challenge with this model is the population size. The new authority would serve over 700,000 people – well above the UK Government’s preferred upper threshold of 500,000 for new unitary councils. While this threshold is not absolute and exemptions can be granted, it may influence the formal approval process. The County Council maintains that the benefits of scale and strategic coherence justify seeking such an exemption.
Criticism:
District councils have expressed scepticism, arguing that this model concentrates power and risks weakening local engagement. They also question whether the claimed savings are achievable without compromising service quality. Concerns exist about diminished local identity and a “one-size-fits-all” approach to diverse local needs.
Option 2. A Two-Unitary Model: Oxford and Shires Council & Ridgeway Council
Proposed by:
Cherwell, South Oxfordshire, Vale of White Horse, and West Oxfordshire councils
Names:
- Oxford and Shires Council (created by merging Cherwell District Council, Oxford City Council, and West Oxfordshire District Council) and
- Ridgeway Council (created by merging South Oxfordshire District Council, Vale of White Horse District Council, and West Berkshire Council).
Overview:
This model would replace the current two-tier system with two new unitary councils. The Oxford and Shires Council would serve the northern areas, while the Ridgeway Council would cover the south and include West Berkshire.
Rationale:
Proponents say the two-council model balances scale and locality by aligning with existing community identities and travel-to-work patterns. They argue that the councils would be large enough to be financially sustainable yet small enough to maintain a close connection with the local communities they serve. Including West Berkshire in the Ridgeway Council is proposed to generate cross-boundary efficiencies.
Population consideration:
Supporters contend that this two-council approach hits the “sweet spot in terms of population”. Both authorities would have populations around or exceeding 500,000, meeting government size guidelines while remaining small enough to maintain closer connections to local communities and preserve local identity and accountability.
Criticism:
The County Council criticises this model for lacking coherence, particularly regarding the inclusion of West Berkshire, which is outside Oxfordshire’s administrative and ceremonial boundaries. Other concerns that have been raised include financial viability, governance complexity, and the challenge of integrating West Berkshire’s existing governance structures.
Option 3. A Three-Unitary Model: Oxford City, North Oxfordshire, and South Oxfordshire
Proposed by:
Oxford City Council
Names:
- Oxford City Council or Greater Oxford Council (formed form an expanded Oxford City Council boundary),
- Northern Oxfordshire Council (formed by merging Cherwell District Council and West Oxfordshire District Council),
- Southern Oxfordshire Council or Ridgeway Council (formed by merging South Oxfordshire District Council, Vale of White Horse District Council, and West Berkshire Council)
Overview:
This proposal creates three unitary authorities, including an expanded Oxford City Council with new boundaries to capture urban fringe areas. The northern and southern authorities would be rural-focused and include West Berkshire in the south. Surrounding villages such as Kidlington and Botley could fall under the new Oxford boundaries which would expand onto green belt land including the so-called Kidlington Gap.
Rationale:
Supporters argue Oxford’s unique urban challenges justify its own authority, enabling the city to more effectively tackle housing, air quality, and transport issues. The model also allows the northern and southern unitaries to focus on rural and smaller town priorities, while integrating West Berkshire in the south to improve regional coherence.
Population consideration:
The projected populations for the new authorities are as follows:
- Greater Oxford Council: approximately 240,000 today, rising to 345,000 by 2040
- Northern Unitary: approximately 265,000 today, rising to 340,000 by 2040
- Ridgeway Council: approximately 430,000 today, rising to 545,000 by 2040
The government has made clear that 500,000 is a population guideline, not a strict limit, and cases for exceptions will be considered, particularly when there are strong reasons related to identity or service effectiveness.
Criticism:
Opponents worry this model risks fragmentation, complicates service delivery, and may increase costs. There are concerns about expanding Oxford’s boundaries and the potential for widening inequality between urban and rural areas. The feasibility and political acceptability of boundary changes remains uncertain.
Comparative pros and cons of the proposals
| Aspect | Option 1: Single Oxfordshire Council | Option 2: Two Unitary Councils (Oxford & Shires, Ridgeway) | Option 3: Three Unitary Councils (Greater Oxford, North, Ridgeway) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost Savings | Significant savings due to scale (£20m estimated) | Moderate savings, less than single council | Less savings, potentially higher costs due to complexity |
| Strategic Coherence | Strong, county-wide strategic planning | Good balance, some risk of inconsistency between two units | Weaker overall coordination, risk of fragmentation |
| Local Identity | Risk of loss of local identity and representation | Better local accountability, retains community identity | Strongest local identity and tailored governance |
| Population Size | Over 700,000 (above preferred threshold) | Each ~500,000, hitting preferred size guidelines | One below and two near/above guideline, exception cases possible |
| Complexity of Implementation | Simpler boundaries, one authority | More complex; integration of West Berkshire challenging | Most complex, boundary changes and new structures required |
| Inclusion of West Berkshire | Not included | Included in Ridgeway Council | Included in Ridgeway Council |
| Urban vs Rural Focus | Mixed, but risk urban areas like Oxford lose voice | Urban and rural balanced within two units | Oxford gets urban focus; rural areas managed separately |
| Political Acceptability | Supported by County Council, opposed by districts | Supported by five districts, opposed by County | Supported by Oxford City Council, opposed by others |
Tell us what you think
As Oxfordshire considers the biggest shake-up to local government in over 50 years, we want to hear from you. Which proposal do you think best serves your community? Should the county speak with one strategic voice, or should it empower more locally attuned authorities? Is efficiency more important than representation? Should the city of Oxford have the autonomy to address its urban challenges separately from its rural neighbours?
Take our short survey and share your views on the future of local government in Oxfordshire. Your feedback will help shape the public conversation.
The post Local government in Oxfordshire: Weighing the three unitary council proposals appeared first on The Oxford Magazine.
from The Oxford Magazine https://ift.tt/L5brdIG
via IFTTT
Comments
Post a Comment