Following earlier local government reorganisation (LGR) particularly in London, Scotland and Wales, between 1995 and 1998, the UK Parliament approved a phased LGR in 25 English counties, resulting in the creation of 46 new unitary authorities (UAs).
Between 2009 and 2021, further LGR led to parliamentary approval of a further 14 new UAs. Over the same period, in some instances seeking to pre-empt future changes, district authorities have started to share services and collaborate on a range of planning issues.
The most recent restructures took place in Buckinghamshire, Dorset and Northamptonshire in 2021 and in Cumbria, North Yorkshire, and Somerset in 2023. Future change to unitary authorities is being considered by councils in other areas including Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Warwickshire, Essex, Nottinghamshire and Hertfordshire.
Example: North Yorkshire Council (showing former districts)

Larger authorities or district combinations have the same planning responsibilities as their (normally smaller) predecessors but the work volumes for open spaces, PPS and indoor and built facilities needs assessments and strategies, particularly when commissioned concurrently, have multiplied.
As one of the few practices with the experience and capacity to deliver across all three disciplines and where high-volume coverage is required, KKP works extensively with the new larger UAs plus a range of partnering authorities. These include, over the last few years:
Unitary authorities |
Partnering districts |
Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole |
Central Lancs (Chorley, Preston and South Ribble) |
Buckinghamshire |
Cheltenham & Tewkesbury |
Cheshire East |
Malvern Hills, Worcester & Wychavon |
Cheshire West & Chester |
North Herts, East Herts & Stevenage |
Dorset |
Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall & Wolverhampton (Active Black Country) |
Durham |
|
North Yorkshire |
|
Shropshire |
|
West Northamptonshire |
|
Wiltshire |
|
The key lessons are as follows:
For the first process after UAs are formed it is worth making allowance for the significant variation in the depth, recency, format and quality of the data held already for indoor and built sports facilities (IBF), playing pitches (PPS) and open spaces (OSS) and the potential need to spend additional time checking and aligning said information. It may also be necessary to make allowance to re-draw GIS shapefiles for certain amenities/spaces as some of the legacy districts may not have had the resource or the desire to accurately detail all relevant sites in their jurisdiction.
Allocating time and resource (from your consultant and/or internally) to get this right the first time of asking will, albeit that it may take longer in the first instance, save the new UA, or partnering authorities, time in the longer term.
Given the scale of the new UAs, working on the basis of sub/analysis areas previously applied to inform district-based planning processes is not always appropriate. This is in part because of the revised local geography and in part because the way in which services are organised and allocated going forward may vary. New councils are often keen to see some movement away from previous boundaries to better reflect growth areas; this is the case in North Yorkshire where we are currently developing new sub areas with and for its PPS/IBF.
West Northants – proposed analysis areas

In the case of IBF needs assessments/strategies, the variety of management and legal arrangements and timescales, the relative ‘security’ of the incumbent operators and the possibility that they may be in competition with each other for future contracts can lead to a variation in their willingness to share management data and play a full part in the facilities planning process. This can, self-evidently, affect the quality of the intelligence upon which strategy findings and recommendations are based.
Buckinghamshire

In theory, this is less of an issue for PPS but variations in the nature and format of the former authorities’ datasets and the quality and depth of their prior needs assessments/strategies can make this more complex. These differences can also be an issue to be tackled when commissioning open and green space strategies – while there is normally a degree of uniformity, the greater latitude for creation of standards can necessitate early- stage attention to ensure consistency of definitions and grading criteria.
It is rare that new UAs cross NGB administrative boundaries but, because of their scale, this too can slightly complicate elements of the PPS process. Areas of Bournemouth, Christchurch & Poole, for example, are within both the Hampshire and Dorset county FA areas and the Hampshire and Dorset & Wilts RFU constituent body areas – engagement with both is, thus, required to ensure a successful outcome.
It is important and worthwhile, if/when commissioning consultants to support/deliver needs assessment and strategic planning for UAs of this scale to:
- Consider the economies of scale and reporting cohesion which may be gained by commissioning indoor and built sports facilities and/or PPS and/or open/green spaces needs assessments/strategies concurrently and from the same practice.
- Take account of the length of time likely to be needed to deliver work at this scale.
- Work closely with your area Sport England planner.
- Where possible and as is advised in Sport England Guidance, work through Stage A of the process (prepare and tailor the approach) and gain input and agreement from national governing bodies of sport (NGBs).
- Within your procurement, approach the market to discuss your intentions, timescale and the scale of the work required, with companies likely to be able to, and interested in tendering – to get some idea about their capacity, workload and potential interest.
- Set budgets at a level which ensures that competitive tenders from valid practices are submitted.
Chris MacFarlane is director, principal consultant and lead planner at Knight, Kavanagh & Page. He is available for interview. Please contact KKP via (0)161 764 7040 or email christopher.macfarlane@kkp.co.uk
Notes for editors
KKP is a leading UK-based multi-disciplinary national and international sports consultancy practice. It offers specialist advice and impartial, objective and creative support to a wide range of clients. This commission builds on our extensive track record in this field – which includes national and local indoor and outdoor built sports facilities, playing pitch strategies and open spaces planning.
More detail about KKP’s work, clients and projects is available at www.kkp.co.uk