Norse CEO Justin Galliford argues that partnership LATCos can give emerging unitary councils a practical route to protect services, unlock early savings and keep their long-term transformation choices open.
For the new unitary councils now forming shadow authorities, the immediate priority is clear: to be safe and legal on vesting day. That is no small task. Leaders must bring together former authorities, align workforces, oversee democratic transition and maintain essential services, all while continuing to meet rising public expectations. Yet LGR will ultimately be judged not only on whether councils make it through day one, but on whether they use reorganisation to create better, more resilient and more affordable services.
That is why the choices made now matter. On day one, new unitaries are likely to have little choice but to keep existing delivery arrangements in place, with integration, harmonisation and rationalisation coming later. Adult social care and children’s services will rightly absorb significant political and managerial attention, leaving limited capacity to redesign other services immediately.
The risk is that short-term decisions taken under pressure could lock councils into models that are harder and more expensive to change later. Services such as waste and environmental, FM and property offer real scope to reduce duplication, improve consistency and secure economies of scale. But that work may take several years after vesting day. Councils therefore need an interim model that protects service continuity from day one while allowing transformation to begin, benefits to be captured earlier and future choices to remain open.
The conventional options all carry drawbacks. Procuring an outsourced arrangement would be difficult and would likely mean entering long-term contracts before the new authority fully understands its future operating model. Existing agreements are unlikely to end at the same time and may have different specifications and service frequencies. Traditional insourcing would increase costs and demand resources and management capacity that are unlikely to be available. A wholly owned trading company could provide flexibility without adding cost, but creating one from scratch requires commercial expertise, governance design and upfront investment at precisely the point when councils are most stretched.
So what is the answer? I believe a partnership LATCo deserves serious consideration. It gives councils short-term control and flexibility without requiring them to build a trading company from the ground up. A company co-owned by the unitary authority and an established LATCo can be created quickly, with limited council input, while drawing on existing operational capacity, commercial knowhow and governance experience. That means work to standardise services, identify savings and improve performance can start sooner.
Crucially, this does not require councils to prejudge their final destination. A relatively short timeframe — say five years — gives the new authority space to complete wider integration, test what works and develop its long-term service strategy when it has the right evidence and leadership capacity. At that point, all options remain open: retaining the partnership company, taking full ownership of the LATCo, bringing services fully in-house, or procuring an outsourced contract from a stronger and better-integrated starting point.
At Norse, we have formed joint venture partnerships for more than twenty years. The model is well established and widely recognised as a way to combine commercial capability with a public service ethos. Through external trading, we have created additional revenue streams, shared profits with our partners and supported the local communities in which we operate. For councils facing the scale and pace of LGR, the case for a partnership LATCo is not ideological; it is practical. It offers a route to maintain stability, create early momentum and avoid closing down the choices new unitary authorities will need most.
