Reform UK-led Kent County Council (KCC) is considering a legal challenge over the government’s massive shake-up of local government.
The KCC leadership says a judicial review is in the offing following the Secretary of State Steve Reed’s announcement in July to adopt option 4b.
This would see Kent’s existing 14 local councils being scrapped and replaced by four new large unitary authorities in west, north, east and mid-Kent
Leader Linden Kemkaran’s preferred option 1a, which would have seen a single council as an umbrella to three regional assemblies, was dismissed.
Leader of the KCC Liberal Democrat opposition, Cllr Antony Hook, accused Reform of trying to cause a “distraction” and warned about the cost of High Court action.
Recommendations in the papers before the Devolution & Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) cabinet committee, which meets on September 8, ask members to: “Note that the option of a potential legal challenge remains under review and that a related judicial review long stop date, should it become appropriate, would be by mid-October 2026, subject to the standard requirement to act promptly.”
Although Mr Reed made the decision on July 16, he was sacked soon after and Cllr Kemkaran has written to his successor Angela Rayner, who spearheaded the LGR project when it was launched in December 2024.
Cllr Kemkaran believes there are four grounds for making the challenge: the assessment of option 1a by the government; that the financial methodology is open to challenge; the decision made no reference to border or transport resilience and concerns about Kent’s role in caring for unaccompanied asylum seeking children.
Conservative group leader Harry Rayner, who sits on the committee, says he suspects the decision is being made by Reform’s London headquarters, not in Kent.
He added: “The decision will almost certainly be taken centrally.
“Almost every county council governed by Reform in the country is either taking or considering a judicial review over LGR.
“It may be that they will engage a KC [King’s Counsel] to act on behalf of all the authorities under its control. But I suspect they will lose in the long run.”
KCC can claim the government misunderstood or misapplied the law [illegality]; that the decision was unreasonable [irrationality] or the procedure was unfair [procedural impropriety].
The papers state that a successful judicial review would not mean the adoption of option 1a.
The documents read: “The remedies available to the court if a claim succeeds are limited.
“Members should have no expectation that a successful challenge would result in the court itself selecting Option 1A, or any other option, in place of Option 4B.
“The court has no power to substitute its own judgment for that of the Secretary of State on a matter properly within the Secretary of State’s discretion.”
Cllr Antony Hook, branded the move a “costly distraction” the taxpayers of Kent “simply cannot afford”.
“A legal challenge is not an appeal on the merits of the decision; the courts cannot simply impose Reform’s preferred single-unitary model,” he said.
“LGR has happened in other parts of England so legally it is a well-trodden path for government. Even if a challenge succeeded on a procedural issue, the people of Kent could well end up with the exact same Option 4B outcome, but only after wasting well over £100,000 of public money and a lot of staff time.
“Reform committed heavily to Option 1A, a frankly ridiculous proposal that clearly ignored the idea of local community the Government’s specified criteria from the start.
“Unfortunately, that intense focus cost the people of Kent the opportunity to constructively influence the debate and shape a better devolution outcome.
“Instead of spending public money on a prolonged legal fight, the council needs to start being more practical.
“We need to channel strained resources into making the transition to the four new unitary authorities work for residents.”
KCC was approached for a comment. On the challenge the council said it “is not possible to give any meaningful cost”.
