County councillors expressed "profound concern" at the Government's decision to split Hertfordshire into four unitary authorities under local government reorganisation (LGR) – and backed calls to seek legal advice that could lead to a judicial review.

Last Thursday (July 16), it was announced that the county council (HCC) and the 10 district and borough councils would be replaced by new authorities: Eastern Hertfordshire, Central Hertfordshire, North West Hertfordshire and South West Hertfordshire.

Subject to parliamentary approval, from April 1, 2028, the four new unitary authorities will be responsible for delivering services currently provided by the 11 existing councils, including social care, education, highways, fire and rescue service, libraries, trading standards, waste collection, parking, planning and leisure.

Elections to the new authorities will take place in May 2027, which is when the next district and borough council elections were due to be held. These elected councillors will help set up the new councils and operate in a "shadow" capacity ahead of the new authorities being established 11 months later

At a meeting of HCC on Tuesday (July 21), councillors called on the Government to review its decision "in light of the significant financial, operational and governance risks identified by Hertfordshire councils".

Leader of the county council Cllr Steve Jarvis (Lib Dem, Royston West and Rural) had already said that the council was exploring ways to challenge the Government's decision.

On Tuesday, the council formally called on him to seek independent legal advice on whether the Government's decision-making process "gives rise to arguable grounds for judicial review".

It said that "should there be reasonable prospects of success" the council should support or participate in these proceedings, either independently of with other Hertfordshire councils.

The debate around the LGR announcement was based on a motion proposed by the ruling Liberal Democrats but including a significant amendment by the Conservatives. It was backed by a majority of the council, with 65 voting for, six against and one abstention.

According to the motion, "dismantling" of Hertfordshire's 11 existing councils to create the four new unitary authorities is "unnecessary" and "high risk". It risks creating authorities that are less financially resilient, with reduced ability to respond to growing demand for social care and to the delivery of other statutory services.

Estimating transitional costs to be up to £150 million, the motion highlights the "risk to organisational resilience" of having to recruit four new senior leadership teams.

It calls for the Government to publish "in full" the financial modelling, business case, impact assessment and evidence upon which the decision was based – alongside the criteria used in determining four unitaries as the preferred model.

The motion also includes a call for HCC to work "constructively" with the 10 district and borough councils in the interests of residents.

In backing the motion, councillors agreed that HCC should continue to seek "a meaningful devolution deal" for the county.

Presenting the motion, Cllr Jarvis said that what had initially been set out as devolution of power and money away from Whitehall and Westminster had altered into a rearrangement of local government.

He said the decision to move to four unitary authorities was "undoubtedly the biggest change", involving "the largest amount of disaggregation of council services", and called it an "enormous distraction from the day-to-day business of the council".

"My preference would have been that they said 'Let's forget the whole idea'," said Cllr Jarvis. "But if they weren't going to do that, I would prefer they had done it in the way that caused least disruption.

"I have asked the director of law to seek advice on whether or not there is an opportunity for challenging this decision. But assuming that it goes ahead, we will need to make sure we support the council staff to do the absolute best possible job in terms of delivering what the Government may make us do."

In proposing the amendment – which included the call for legal advice and a possible judicial review – leader of the Conservative group Cllr Richard Roberts suggested now was the time to question the Government's decision making.

But he also stressed the need to work to ensure that if Hertfordshire was to be split in four, that councillors made sure it worked for the county.

"I think it's right we look at the decision that's been made," said Cllr Roberts (Con, Kings Langley). "And then, picking up the really key point, we all have to get behind whatever the considered result is.

"If we are to break up Hertfordshire into four parts, we have to make that work. The challenge of making it work is huge.

"Breaking up probably £2 billion to £3 billion worth of assets and services, redistributing those, has to be done with care in the interests of residents, in the interests of Hertfordshire, in the interests of our economy."

Cllr Saul Jacob (Reform UK, Borehamwood South) said the LGR plans for Hertfordshire were "ill conceived at best" and "a disorganised mess at worst".

Signalling that his group would back the motion, he told the meeting: "Decisions of this scale should be based upon transparent evidence, and is not; robust financial analysis, and there is frankly not; and meaningful engagement above all with local communities, and there isn't."

Leader of the Green Party group Cllr Kirsty Taylor-Moran (Ware North) said the four-way split would be "quite catastrophic for one unitary authority financially". But it had now been imposed on them and they needed to focus on the next steps, she added.

On the amendment, Cllr Taylor-Moran said: "I think it risks taking us in the wrong direction.

"Following Reform UK and diverting public funds to fight a symbolic battle in court was not what residents want or have asked us to do. They want us to focus on delivering the services we are here to deliver and fixing problems like the potholes and special school waiting lists.

"Judicial review is really expensive. It's time-consuming and uncertain, much like I think LGR is. I don't expect our complaints to be listened to any more than consultationresponses were taken on board by this Government anyway. And I think it will just delay getting to business."

Labour group leader Cllr Nigel Bell (West Watford) said that the Government's decision gave the clarity the council had asked for.

He said that the four-unitary option would be "closer to the people" and gave an opportunity for councillors to be more locally accountable.

There was "no point" in going for a judicial review which would require expenditure, said Cllr Bell. Now that they had the decision, they needed to work as best they can to make it work.

The six councillors who voted against the motion were the four Labour members plus Cllr Taylor Moran and Cllr Peter Colley (Restore Britain, Bedwell). Cllr Rachel Carter (Green, Hertford St Andrew's) abstained.