As Huntingdonshire District Council prepared to make its once-in-a-generation decision on local government reform, the Government must reflect on a crucial point: rigid adherence to preset, arbitrary criteria risks forcing through sub-optimal options that neither command public confidence nor reflect local democratic will. Where there is a clear, cross-party consensus for a specific option—as there is for Option E in Huntingdonshire—the Government should show flexibility rather than contorting the map to tick Whitehall-designed boxes.
Local government structures are not mathematical equations. They are lived systems of identity, representation, and service delivery. Yet too often, reorganisation exercises prioritise administrative neatness over local reality. Huntingdonshire now finds itself staring down options that split communities, saddle residents with other authorities’ financial burdens, or bolt us onto regions that simply do not want us. These are not outcomes chosen organically by residents or councillors—they are the by-products of criteria being applied too rigidly.
Option E—creating a standalone Huntingdonshire unitary authority—is the only proposal that genuinely reflects the district’s identity, economic potential, and strategic significance. It has attracted cross-party interest precisely because it works on the ground. And yet, because it does not neatly slot into the Government’s preferred size-and-scale template, it risks being overshadowed by options that technically “fit” the criteria but are manifestly inferior.
Option D is the clearest example of what can go wrong. This Labour-driven idea—originating not from local demand but from Labour’s party machinery—is designed less to deliver good governance than to prop up Peterborough’s chronic financial instability. Under the guise of “reorganisation,” it would slice Huntingdonshire in two and absorb the northern half into a Greater Peterborough authority burdened by towering debt and some of the highest social-care pressures in the region.
The numbers tell the story. Peterborough’s debt-financing costs would hit 11% under Option D—the highest of any proposed unitary—while Huntingdonshire, on its own under Option E, would sit at just 4%. Peterborough ranks itself as high-risk across nearly every financial resilience measure; Huntingdonshire does not appear as high-risk in a single one. Why should our residents inherit these liabilities simply to prop up a failing city council.
Option C, meanwhile, risks reducing Huntingdonshire to an overlooked periphery of a Cambridge-centric unitary. Cambridge City has made no secret of its want to pair with South Cambridgeshire, and South Cambridgeshire alone. Huntingdonshire would become a reluctant third wheel—useful mainly as a place to allocate housing targets while investment gravitates toward the city. This may suit a spreadsheet model. It does not suit residents in Sawtry, Ramsey, Warboys, or St Ives.
The question for Government is simple: if local democracy coalesces around a proposal that meets the spirit of reorganisation, even if not every single letter of the guidance, why should that be discounted? Option E may be smaller than some Whitehall templates anticipate, but it is economically viable, strategically vital, and grounded in strong historic identity. It also aligns with national priorities far more effectively than the alternatives. Huntingdonshire is home to one of the UK’s most significant defence and intelligence infrastructure, centred on RAF Wyton and RAF Molesworth. With new Defence Industrial Strategy investments flowing into the district and with the US Government committing more than $500 million to its own facilities here, continuity and local focus are essential. These are not responsibilities that can be casually transferred to a newly formed authority.
Local government reform succeeds only when councils and communities feel ownership over the outcome. Imposing a model that fulfils bureaucratic criteria but fails local people is not reform—it is restructuring for its own sake. The Government should recognise Huntingdonshire’s unique economic role, its strategic national importance, and its strong local identity by allowing Option E to move forward.
Labour must stop forcing “sub-optimal” local government reforms on Huntingdonshire
