As the plans for reorganisation unfold, something else is quietly unfurling at the hyperlocal level.

Places where district-scale governance will soon disappear are reaching for the idea of establishing new parish, town, and community councils. It seems clear that, at least for some places, the current plans will pull representation and decision-making too far from communities.

Across England, hyperlocal governance is patchy, inconsistent, and often disconnected from both bottom-up community activity and the wider public sector

Just as clear, though, is that places seeking to establish new parishes may find themselves perplexed by the limitations of that model. 

So, amid all the disruptions and change, another opportunity is now also here: to rethink how England delivers hyperlocal governance.

And – to be clear – in much of the country, there is no genuine community-scale governance happening at all. 

In many places, there is no one formally representing our neighbourhoods. In others, long-established town or parish councils may be present, but with widely varying levels of effectiveness and capacity. Across England, hyperlocal governance is patchy, inconsistent, and often disconnected from both bottom-up community activity and the wider public sector. 

That inconsistency increasingly looks like a strategic weakness in our local government system. This is another missing tier, another map that should be filled in.

In our latest report - Local, Actually - we argue that a strong, consistent hyperlocal layer is now essential. This is not about nostalgia for a particular kind of community politics. It is about creating a smarter, more resilient and more democratic model for how public services are designed and delivered. 

The report proposes a new framework for hyperlocal government. At its centre is a new idea: ‘Neighbourhood Councils', operating at the larger footprint of around 20,000 to 50,000 people. 

In places where parishes already exist, they will be encouraged to partner together as ‘Combined Neighbourhood Councils' – clustering to pool resources and take on more ambitious responsibilities in a process that mirrors the establishment of Combined Authorities at the regional scale. 

The crucial shift is that these entities would have the scale, capacity, and legitimacy to manage local assets, convene community partnerships, and become the default holders of funding pots that are meant to reach communities directly. 

For local authorities, this would entail a new set of responsibilities. Councils would take on a duty to help identify, enable and support the development of Neighbourhood Councils across their area, with a particular focus on the many historically unparished and urban communities that currently lack any formal hyperlocal governance. 

But this cannot be another unfunded mandate. Councils should be resourced properly to carry out this role. Mapping community activity, supporting mobilisation, and enabling the creation of new democratic bodies requires investment, time and skilled staff. The Community Governance Review process must also be redesigned to be fit for purpose: more accessible, more responsive to community energy, and more integrated with strategic goals.

The aim of all this is not to romanticise parish councils. Most local government officers and elected members will have seen the full range of what this tier can be: from high-functioning partners delivering services and driving local growth, to bodies that are underpowered or poorly run. That variation is part of the problem. A more universal framework, backed by clearer standards, professionalisation, and appropriate thresholds for scale and maturity, would give officers and local authorities a better and more reliable set of local partners to work with. 

The opportunity here is to take part in the creation and shaping of a brilliant new array of local collaborators, and a reliable bridge to communities in the area.

If neighbourhoods are going to play a direct role in the future of local government, we need to help build the structures that will let them thrive. The revolution sweeping through the system can either mean the further alienation of our communities, or provide the potting-soil for a renaissance of the neighbourhood. We would choose the latter.

 

Dr Simon Kaye is policy director of independent think-tank Reform