17 Jul7 2025 update

The proposed local-government reforms have produced some eye-catching attempts for councils to re-draw their boundaries in pursuit of political, demographic or generally expansionist motives. One such has been the attempts by Reading to suggest thast the eastern parts of West Berkshire should more properly be theirs: this in pursuit of the idea of a “Greater Reading”, whatever that means. This phrase was used a couple of months ago and the idea at least seems still alive now.

As I’ve suggested before, any attempt to re-draw boundaries on what are claimed to be more “logical” criteria, as Reading argues, is itself illogical as all adminsitrative boundaries are (with the exception of those caused by the sea, like with the Isle of Wight) illogical. If we’re going to reform our system of local government – and, God knows, it’s badly needed – we need to do it with what we have already, not waste time on trying to re-draw the map. I’d say just the same if West Berkshire were proposing to annexe, say, Marlborough or Highclere.

WBC’s Leader Jeff Brooks is correct in describing this renewed attempt as an “unhelpful and unsolicited attempted land grab.” You can read the full statement here.

There are other factors at work here. All the new unitaries need to be of at least, or about, 500,o00 people. The Ridgeway plan (involving West Berkshire, the Vale and South Oxfordshire) would be about 470,000, so within touching distance of this. Losing the eastern areas to Reading would knock this back to more like 450,000. A possible merger between Reading, Wokingham and Bracknell would be about the same size as Ridgeway. The eastern march of West Berkshire would also make all the differnece to this aspiration.

As with all these matters. what really matters is what Angela Rayner thinks. If she has any sense, she’ll agree that re-drawing existing boundaries now would hopelessly slow down the process. If we’re going to do these changes, we have to get them done fairly quickly. One division is as good, or as bad, as another.

3 July 2025 update

With every week that passes, more and more questions are being asked about the effect that local government re-organisations will have and how this will work. Given that nothing’s been decided, there are very few answers.

In this area the Ridgeway Council option is the favoured option for the three councils involved. However, as we’ve mentioned before and as the article linked to below considers, this is not the onoy possibility. This is the over-riding uncertainty: clearly it’s impossible to plan a merger when you donlt know who you’re merging with. The decision will be taken by Angela Rayner. if she’s already decided, she’s not telling.

Assuming that Ridgeway does happen, the questions include how many councillors there’ll be, how the officers will be re-deployed, where the HQ will be, what will happen to the reserves that each one holds (or doesn’t), how the local plans and other policies will be harmonised and to what extent the new authority will, morally or legally, need to take on any obligations or promises made by its predecessors.

I remember reading an article in the early 1990s about how the infrastructure of Berlin was re-connected when the Wall came down. It all seems a bit like that.

A further complication, if one needs one, is that the Ridgeway deal would involve merging two different kinds of authorities: a unitary (which looks after all local services) with two districts (which only look after some). This might be analagous to the U-Bahn, sewage or electricity systems of the two parts of Berlin being at different guages, depths or voltages (perhaps they were); or, in some cases extending these servives into parts of the city whioch previously had them dealt with by another body..

One aspect of this that was discussed at the 1 July 2025 meeting of WBC’s Scrutiny Committee was how the various services that Oxfordshire currently provides would be divided up. Taking social care as an example, the Vale and SOx accounts for about 25% of Oxfordshire’s population so the simple way would be for 25% of OCC’s social-care resources and staff to be deployed to Ridgeway (if that’s what happens).

However, supposing these two districts were responsible, to pick random examples, for 50% of the county’s residential-care services and 15% of its occupational therapy needs: how would the divisions work then? Complicated maths like that could result in some complicated cake-slicing.

Councils can’t win at present. If they pay no mind to such questions they risk standing accused of being under-prepared or having the decisions taken by others. If they spend time and resources on them it could be argued that they’re wasting time on hypotheticals or concentrating on their own preferred outcomes to the exclusion of the others.

Personally, I think it’s right that councils should have a preference, and express it, and prepare for it to come to pass. These are important changes and residents need to understand how this will affect them and how they can influence the decisions. The discussions will help prepare for whatever outcome is decided.

26 June 2025 update

I dropped in to the WBC event in Hungerford Library on 25 June regarding the proposed creation of a new Ridgeway Council involving the Vale, South Oxfordshire and West Berkshire councils. This move, demanded by current government reforms, is very much the favoured option of all three current authorities. I agree. As I mentioned before, I think it’s fine that an elected body should express its preference.

The real issue for West Berkshire is that although Oxfordshire has been given £285,046 by HMG towards the cost of rationalising its arrangements, the Berkshire authorities have been given nothing (though WBC has been given some of Oxfordshire’s money). This tells us two things: first that the government regards breaking up the two-tier system as more important that enlarging the unitaries, which seems sane; and secondly that, if West Berkshire didn’t assert its interests it was going to be left behind. A merger with the two authorities to the north seems sensible and I think all three have done exactly the right thing. Whether Angela Rayner is convinced remains to be seen.

“I’m proud of the fact that West Berkshire Council has moved fast to join the Government’s proposals requested from Oxfordshire through the Ridgeway consultation,” WBC’s portfolio holder for local government reorganisation Justin Pemberton told us on 26 June. “Whilst Berkshire was not part of the initial tranche of local government reorganisation activity, this is about securing the best deal for our residents, businesses, and visitors. We’ve been consistent that the proposed Ridgeway Council’s geography, history, economy, and demography of settlements meets many of the government’s requirements around what these new unitary authorities should look like.

“We wnated to ensure had the opportunity of finding the best possible solution, and were part of that discussion, rather than having solutions imposed upon us which were less suitable.”

While the districts in Oxfordshire seem to agree with this stance, Oxfordshire CC does not. According to this recent statement, there are three options it’s considering:

• A single unitary council for Oxfordshire – Oxfordshire Council (responsible for all services for Oxfordshire residents). This is our preferred option.
• Two unitary councils:

• • Oxford and Shires Council(External link) (previously referenced as North Oxfordshire Council) created from the existing district councils of Cherwell, Oxford City and West Oxfordshire.
  • Ridgeway Council(External link) created from the existing district councils of South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse and the unitary council of West Berkshire.

• Three unitary councils – with a unitary city on expanded boundaries (referred to as Greater Oxford) as well as northern and southern unitaries, also including West Berkshire.

The second and third options both involve WBC but the first one doesn’t. If Oxfordshire CC favours this then this might be a tough nut to crack. However, it seems that the districts feel otherwise. Many sense that Oxford City, bceause of the university, has or believes itself to have an influence out of all proportion to its population. There are signs that the outlying areas of the county are fed up with being seen, at best, as the front lawn or development dumping ground for the Varsity city. West Berkshire views the prospect of Reading and Swindon as potential soulmates with similar distaste.

As we mentioned in the April report of the Wantage Chamber of Commerce meeting, and as recently proved by this e-newsletter rececived this week, the southern parts of Oxfordshire are keen to see themselves as a separate destination. West Berkshire would fit well into this model, being demographically and geographically quite similar.

There are two other advantages that Ridgeway poses for WBC. The first is that it (like Reading and Swindon) is virtually broke whereas the districts, with no social care or education to deal with, are quite flush. The second is any of Swindon, Reading or Oxford would come with a lerge bloc of Labour members and big local party machines. The current largely rural yellow/green/blue tustle in the three Ridgeway areas is what everyone is used to.

This recent special email from WBC on the subject explains its take on these and other issues. It includes a map on how the area might look, information about forthcoming public events and a link to a consultation which gives local residents the opportunity to have their say by 16 July. This includes the next Communiuty Forum on Tuesday 15 July, details of which can be found here.

• Ridgeway Council

As we’ve mentioned several times before, the current favoured option for the Vale, South Oxfordshire and West Berkshire councils is that they all form a menage à trois under the new married name of Ridgeway. The first two have been effectively living together for several years anyway, which would make the union less complex than it might be. There will therefore be only two, not three, comms departments, housing registers, CEOs, local plans, HQs and other similar matters to fuse together.

Still a great deal of work to do, however, not the least of which will merging the work of the unitary WBC – which has experience at running social care and children’s services but, as a result, no money – with two comparatively cash-rich districts which has previously had these services provided by Oxfordshire. (One thing that won’t be needed is a logo as someone’s already come up with that.)

Taking all this into account, and the uncertian deadline, WBC’s claim in it’s latest communiqué that “we’re ready for Ridgeway” seems optimistic almost to the point of hyperbole. “We’re as ready as we can be given how little time we’ve had to reflect on this and that we don’t know what Angela will think about its” night be more accurate: though, of course, a lot less snappy.

I think the plan has much to recommend it. There are other competing visions, including mucking in with Swindon to the west or with Reading and Wokingham to the east. Both of these would involve WBC being dominated by a large settlement. The same fate would overtake the Vale and SOx if the proposal, which has also been mooted, for a single unitary comprising the whole of Oxfordshire, including the city, goes ahead.

The Ridgeway plan preserves some level of independence from such over-bearing influences as all three districts are predominantly rural with a handful of large-ish towns. If Ridgeway did come into being, Newbury would be the largest settlement. That wouldn’t, however, automatically mean that HQ would be set up there: another thing that needs to be agreed.

Nor would this new authority quite meet the 500,000 population threshold the government has set, being about 25,000 shy of this. However, there are signs that Whitehall is prepared to regard this as an aspiration, not a fixed rule. If – and it’s a big if – the government can really get 300,000 net new dwellings created each year then the allocations in these three districts would see the population reach half a million fairly quickly in any case.

This recent special email from WBC on the subject explains its take on these and other issues. It includes a map on how the area might look, information about forthcoming public events and a link to a consultation which gives local residents the opportunity to have their say by 16 July.

I’m not sure what, if any, legal force this consultation will have. It might just be something that the councils have to do. I’m not convinced that this will accomplish much more than provide a range of conflicting views which may well cancel out; nor whether WBC will act on any of the suggestions. It’s quite clear what its preference is (correctly so, in my view) and it’s hard to see it changing its mind.

The most important opinion, and which is currently unknown, is Angela Rayner’s. She might be swayed by evidence of overwhelming support for the proposal: so, if you agree with it, it would be worth taking part. If you don’t agree, she might take that into account as well.

So, my advice is to engage with the consultation and, if you can, to attend the in-person events which have been organised across the three districts: see above for links concerning these.

Brian Quinn