The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has launched a statutory consultation on proposals to reorganise local government in the area currently administered as Worcestershire.
The consultation follows an invitation from the Secretary of State for councils in the area to submit proposals for unitary local government. Two alternative schemes have now been put forward and are under consideration.
The Proposals
One proposal, submitted by Worcestershire County Council and Wyre Forest District Council, would create a single unitary authority covering the whole of the present administrative county area.
The alternative proposal, submitted by Bromsgrove District Council, Malvern Hills District Council, Redditch Borough Council, Worcester City Council and Wychavon District Council, would create two new unitary authorities:
A North Worcestershire authority (Bromsgrove, Redditch and Wyre Forest)
A South Worcestershire authority (Malvern Hills, Worcester and Wychavon)
The government consultation seeks views on both options before any final decision is taken.
Administrative Change Must Not Distort Historic Geography
The Campaign for Historic Counties has submitted a formal response to the consultation.
We have made clear that we do not take a position on whether one or two unitary authorities should be created. The shape of administrative bodies is a matter for government and elected representatives to determine in light of governance and service delivery considerations.
However, we have emphasised a vital principle: administrative restructuring must not obscure or misrepresent England’s historic counties.
The area currently administered as “Worcestershire” does not correspond to the historic and geographic Worcestershire. Significant parts of geographic Worcestershire lie outside the present council area, while that council area also includes places in Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Shropshire.
This is not a matter of opinion but of established historic fact.
ONS Guidance Is Clear
In our submission, we drew attention to the Office for National Statistics’ Index of Place Names User Guide (2024). The guide records historic counties separately from administrative geography and recommends them as a “stable, unchanging geography” for historic, traditional or cultural use.
The ONS material therefore distinguishes historic counties from council, lieutenancy and statistical geographies without treating those layers as interchangeable.
Any new unitary arrangement must therefore avoid language or branding that implies that administrative bodies replace, redefine or extinguish historic counties.
Our Submission
In responding to both proposals, we have asked that:
- The continued existence of historic counties be formally recognised.
- Official documentation, mapping and public communications clearly distinguish council areas from historic counties.
- The use of the name “Worcestershire” does not imply that the authority represents the full historic county where it does not.
- Communities whose geographic county differs from the council area are accurately and respectfully represented.
Local government may be reorganised; historic counties are not.
A Broader Principle
Reorganisations of this kind have occurred repeatedly over the past half-century. Each time, there is a risk that administrative convenience becomes conflated with historic geography.
The Campaign for Historic Counties will continue to monitor developments closely and to ensure that the enduring counties of England are properly recognised in official policy and practice.
We encourage all who value their county identity to engage with the consultation process and to make clear that administrative reform should recognise England’s geographic counties accurately.
For more information, visit RealCounties.com