The landscape of local government is shifting. As local authorities move through Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), the choices made today will set the tone for public services for the next generation.
At the heart of these changes lies a crucial question for our sector: how can leisure, or more appropriately, active wellbeing be reimagined to better serve communities and support broader societal goals sustainably?
In SLC’s initial article in this series of four on LGR, we explored how local authorities were positioning themselves in the face of reorganisation. We observed three distinct camps: those embracing the moment as a chance to drive change (use it or lose it), those with well-developed plans primed for implementation (oven ready), and those adopting a cautious approach, waiting for more clarity before committing (wait and see).
This second article of the series aims to move the discussion forward. Whichever category your local authority may sit within, key strategic decisions lie ahead. These decisions, made by shadow unitary authorities, will be critical to shaping the future of active wellbeing services across their new geographies.
We explore five key considerations they will likely need to take into account to develop a sustainable, forward-thinking approach to active wellbeing services.
- What key strategic priorities will drive whole-place outcomes?
As new unitary authorities emerge, there will be an opportunity to define a clear, forward-looking strategy for active wellbeing. This strategy should reflect local needs and align with wider regional and local health priorities.
Strategic priorities should align with the wider preventative goals of the new authority and its partners in health, education, and community services. This means asking not only what the local authority can deliver, but what it should cease to do and enable others to do. How can active wellbeing services support:
- Reducing health inequalities?
- Challenges regarding rising health care costs from an ageing population?
- Community resilience or play a role in reducing antisocial behaviour?
- Addressing the mental health crisis facing many young people?
- Workforce development in localities?
The focus should not be on managing leisure services alone. Instead, active wellbeing must be positioned as a key contributor to broader outcomes, including improved health, reduced inequality, economic growth and community resilience.
A robust active wellbeing strategy should also include an investment plan. This must address immediate priorities as well as long-term ambitions. It should help identify which assets and services are central to future provision and which are no longer fit for purpose.
By aligning strategic goals with the wider system, local authorities can better demonstrate the value of their services. This is critical for securing long-term support and ensuring active wellbeing remains integral to the new unitary authority’s target operating model.
This is not about creating a standalone strategy. It is about embedding physical activity and wellbeing into every conversation. From planning to public health, adult social care to education, and from regeneration to economic growth.
Where local authorities are “oven ready”, now is the time to validate existing priorities against the new emerging geographical and political landscape. For those in “wait and see” mode, this is the moment to begin shaping the vision, using local insight and partner engagement to seize and shape opportunities.
- What services to retain, decommission or transform within an affordability envelope?
Local authorities will likely face difficult decisions about which services to retain, transform or decommission. This does, however, present an opportunity to redesign services around relevance, value, and long-term sustainability.
Ideally, legacy authorities will have reviewed their core services in advance of LGR. This includes identifying which functions remain relevant and optimising them for assimilation into the new organisation. However, in practice, inherited service portfolios are often complex, politically sensitive, and quite often, poorly understood by those responsible for their commissioning.
Transformation will require a full and honest appraisal of what will work and what no longer does. Many facilities and services may be outdated, underused, or financially unsustainable. Others may be vital but need radical redesigning to deliver better outcomes.
Early, evidence-based decisions are therefore crucial. These new unitary authorities will face immediate financial pressures. Taking decisive action early can prevent prolonged uncertainty and allow new delivery models to bed in. But these decisions must be based on sound evidence, engagement and a realistic understanding of the financial constraints.
A major risk is acting without reliable data. In many cases, financial and performance information is inconsistent, incomplete or missing altogether. This undermines confidence and slows decision-making. Authorities must invest in improving their data to support robust analysis and build the case for change.
LGR presents a rare opportunity to make bold changes. A moment to move beyond inherited inefficiencies and focus on what your communities truly need. For those in the “use it or lose it” category, this is a unique chance to reset the baseline, not replicate the past.
- What management model will best suit the authority in the medium to long term?
This process should include a structured management options appraisal to identify an optimal longer-term management model (or models). This will need to take into account what is being inherited from legacy councils. The choice of long-term management model will help shape how services are delivered and evolve. Whether opting for an in-house model, a local authority trading company (LATC), trust model, or outsourced partner, each approach has significant implications relating to cost, affordability, flexibility, innovation, and social value.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Authorities must evaluate what model will best support their strategic priorities while offering resilience in a complex financial climate. In any case, the decision should consider:
- Alignment with wider authority objectives and public health goals
- Financial sustainability, certainty and resilience
- Governance and accountability mechanisms
- Capacity for innovation and service transformation
- Ability to attract external investment and funding.
For “oven ready” authorities, the task may be about refining or formalising existing preferred models. For others, now is the time to ask searching questions about whether the inherited model(s) truly serves the needs of the new authority. For “wait and see” authorities, interim arrangements may suffice temporarily, but clarity and direction will be needed sooner rather than later.
- How to identify and address gaps in provision?
LGR provides a unique opportunity to assess provision across the wider unitary footprint, engaging with and identifying which communities are being left behind, and understanding why. Gaps in provision may include:
- Geographic, such as rural areas with limited access to specific types of services
- Demographic, where certain age groups or communities are under-served
- Thematic, including a lack of support for long-term health conditions or limited cultural and recreational diversity, in an otherwise well-served area.
The new unitary authorities must therefore take a data-led, community-informed approach to understand who is not accessing services and why. This means resident insight through community engagement supported by using tools such as health profiles, participation data and deprivation indices.
It also requires a willingness to confront legacy inequalities. Some places or groups may have been overlooked for years. LGR offers the scale and flexibility to do something different and more equitable.
Partnership and collaborative working will be critical. Co-designing services with health, education and voluntary sector partners can create more inclusive and responsive interventions. However, the structures of funding, governance and restrictions on how budgets can be pooled could act as a brake or an accelerator to this process.
Meeting need effectively may require the reimagining and adaptation of traditional facilities, assets and services to complement place-based approaches that respond to the specific context of each community. This includes outreach, mobile provision and digital platforms – all of which can deliver support in more agile and cost-effective ways.
Crucially, success depends on collaborative partnership working across sectors as part of a wider systems approach. Importantly, aligning resources and expertise around shared outcomes.
Real transformation will not come from scaling or replicating traditional ‘leisure’ service models. It will come from co-designing active wellbeing provision and enabling opportunities that reflect the realities of local communities and their varied needs.
- How and when to demonstrate improvement in local services?
The newly emerging unitary authorities must make a deliberate decision about how and when communities will begin to notice improvements in services following reorganisation. This is both a strategic and political choice and one that will influence public perception of the new authority from the outset.
For many residents, LGR will feel distant from their day-to-day lives. Unless local services start to noticeably improve or deteriorate, the reorganisation may be seen as irrelevant. It is only when people experience tangible, local changes that they will begin to form an opinion of the new structure and its leadership. Active Wellbeing services present a tangible opportunity to show progress early.
This creates an important early challenge: how to deliver visible, positive change in a short timeframe, while also developing and embedding longer-term transformation. These early wins must be meaningful but achievable. Examples might include:
- Reactivating underused facilities
- Introducing new wellbeing programmes or community outreach initiatives
- Making it easier to access services through simplified pricing, concession schemes or improved online booking
- Extending existing popular services into previously underserved areas
- Creating a new brand identity.
These changes, while relatively modest, can demonstrate intent and help generate goodwill and momentum.
However, short-term wins are not enough on their own. They must sit within a broader roadmap of service improvement that shows a clear, consistent trajectory over time. New unitary authorities should develop medium- and long-term delivery plans that outline when, where and how more substantive changes will occur – such as capital investments, workforce alignment, or new delivery models.
North Yorkshire Council provides an example of this forward planning through the creation of Active North Yorkshire – a sport and active wellbeing service.
Clear communication is critical throughout. Authorities must be transparent about what is happening now, what will change later, and why some things will take longer. Being honest about constraints, including financial pressures, infrastructure needs and organisational complexity, can help manage expectations and build trust.
Elected Members of the new unitaries will want to show early impact and it will require strong leadership from senior officers to socialise the benefits of a longer-term approach that will deliver lasting benefits.
It is equally important to measure and share progress. Improvements in participation, equity of access, wellbeing outcomes, and service satisfaction should be tracked and communicated. These metrics are vital in demonstrating return on investment, securing continued funding and building public confidence.
Ongoing community engagement and empowerment is also essential. Involving residents in shaping and co-designing services not only improves outcomes, it increases buy-in, accountability and trust in the new authority.
Ultimately, the most successful new authorities will be those that balance quick, visible improvements with transparent planning for longer-term change. Especially those that actively bring their communities with them on the journey.
LGR is a disruptive process, but it is also a platform for bold reimagining. For leisure and active wellbeing. This is the once in generation opportunity to move from the periphery of local authority priorities to the heart of what local government can offer in building healthier, happier, more connected places.
The decisions made now about strategy, provision, delivery, gaps, and impact, will shape not just services, but lives.
Whether you’re ready to act, cautiously preparing, or still seeking clarity, the imperative is clear: use this opportunity to reimagine what’s possible.
In the next two articles as part of SLC’s series on LGR, we will explore:
- Challenges and opportunities for newly formed unitary authorities in embedding active wellbeing to optimise the benefits.
- Lessons learned from recent new unitary local authorities in bringing legacy arrangements together into a single service model.
- Challenges and opportunities associated with embedding prevention and proportionate universalism into a new active wellbeing service.
- What legacy local authorities and shadow authorities can start doing now to ensure active wellbeing services are positioned at the heart of the new organisation and deliver early visible impacts for communities.
We’re very keen to hear from local authorities about some of the challenges and opportunities that LGR presents for their leisure and active wellbeing services. Feel free to contact us for an informal chat at info@slc.uk.com or call 01444 459927.