Tonight, Peterborough City Council will meet to consider the future shape of local government across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, as part of a region-wide reorganisation prompted by the Government’s English Devolution White Paper and the Community Empowerment Bill.

The aim is to replace the current two-tier system with unitary authorities by April 2028, streamlining council structures and extending devolution.

Rina Mistry, head of performance and intelligence, is recommending to the joint scrutiny committee that it:

She said the five options are “underpinned by a strong commitment to collaboration and rigorous evidence-gathering across all councils in the region.

“All seven councils—Peterborough City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, and the five district councils—worked together to build a shared evidence base, drawing on local knowledge, operational experience, and robust data.”

She added that a “collaborative and methodical approach ensured that the five options presented are credible, future-ready, and tailored to the unique needs and ambitions of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough”.

Five options on the table

Financial and Community Impacts

The two-unitary models promise greater financial efficiencies, with estimated annual savings of £12.1m and a six-year payback period.

The three-unitary models, while offering stronger local leadership, come with higher costs (£41m implementation) and a much longer payback period (over 50 years). All options require significant investment for transition, including legal, ICT, and staffing costs, which must be funded locally.

Community engagement has been extensive, with over 2,400 residents and 767 staff participating in surveys, and a social media campaign reaching 900,000 people. Key concerns include trust, local identity, council complexity, and representation. Residents are broadly supportive of reform but want assurances that changes will improve services.

At present, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough operate within a mixed system: Peterborough is already a unitary authority, whereas the remainder of Cambridgeshire is managed by a two-tier system— Cambridgeshire County Council alongside five district councils.

The Government seeks to abolish these two-tier arrangements, replacing them with unitary councils. Where existing unitary areas are deemed too small, these too are included in the reorganisation

What Happens Next?

Scrutiny committee members will review the evidence and indicate their preferred option for Cabinet consideration. The chosen proposal will then be submitted to the Secretary of State by 28 November 2025. The decision will shape the future of local government in the region, balancing efficiency, financial sustainability, and community empowerment.

Once submitted, proposals will be reviewed by the Secretary of State. Implementation is subject to consultation—typically involving the public and other councils—though not every proposal will necessarily be consulted on.

Following consultation, the Secretary of State may choose to implement a proposal, with or without changes, via a legal instrument known as a ‘structural change order’.

This sets out the implementation timeline and interim governance arrangements. Interim arrangements usually include the formation of ‘shadow councils’ approximately one year before the new structure goes live.

Elections are held for these councils, and elected members spend the shadow year preparing to assume the functions and assets of the outgoing authorities. It’s common for members to serve concurrently on both the existing and shadow councils.

During this transition period, shadow councils typically have powers to restrict certain decisions by the outgoing councils, particularly: • capital spending above a defined threshold, and • contracts exceeding a set value that extend beyond the go-live date or are capable of extension.

It's as discussions on the topic get underway

The future of local government in Peterborough is being discussed today, with councillors making their views known on major changes for the city.

Thirty-three councillors and a dozen co-optees will attend a joint meeting of the scrutiny committees to share which option they back ahead of proposals being sent to the government next month.

They will be presented with a report containing a comprehensive overview of the five main options for LGR in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, which will shape how the region’s councils look going forward.

We're often considered to be other cities poorer brother

Council Leader, Shabina Qayyum, said:

"A lot of counsellors are vouching for the Greater Peterborough option."

"Obviously, it's an option that looks at our unique identity compared to our neighbours geographically, in terms of our socioeconomic makeup, in terms of our needs from a deprivation perspective, and in terms of our health outcomes perspective."

"So all of those needs are being taken into account, and actually being in a larger authority may swamp that identity."

"We're often considered to be other cities poorer brother, and that narrative actually makes us feel overlooked with respect to culture and heritage in terms of funding when it comes to poverty and adult social care and public health."

"There are lots of people who don't want to see change in the way of boundaries and who wouldn't want to be swamped in a monster authority whereby their identity is lost? So that's the type of feedback that I've been given."

There are lots of people who wouldn't want to be swamped in a monster authority

From April 2028, the current seven councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, including Peterborough City Council, will no longer exist and be replaced by larger unitary councils.

It is part of the government’s plans to transfer more powers and funding from national to local government and move away from the current two-tier system of district and county councils in England.

The five proposals to be considered by Peterborough councillors include three two-unitary authority options and two three-unitary authority options.

Members of the joint scrutiny commitee must recommend to full council and subsequently cabinet a preferred option, supported by a rationale.

Ultimately, the government will decide which proposal is implemented.

First for all the latest news from across the UK every hour on Hits Radio on DAB, at hitsradio.co.uk and on the Rayo app.

Residents faced a rise in council tax bills as part of a major overhaul of local government.

From April 2028, the current two-tier system of district and county councils in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will be replaced by new unitary authorities under the government's Local Government Reorganisation programme.

It aimed to streamline services and devolve more powers and funding from Westminster to local areas.

At a joint scrutiny meeting on Tuesday, councillors heard that the reorganisation would lead to council tax harmonisation, meaning areas like Peterborough, with the lowest Band D council tax rate in the county, would likely see increased rates.

Two options were being considered for the new council structure:

Option A would create two unitary authorities: one covering Peterborough, Fenland and Huntingdonshire, and another covering East Cambridgeshire, South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City.

Option D would form three authorities: Peterborough and West Huntingdonshire; Fenland, East Huntingdonshire and East Cambridgeshire; and South Cambridgeshire with Cambridge City.

Each new authority would have to sync up its bills within seven years.

What does it mean for my tax bill?

On day one of the new unitary councils, households would pay different amounts of council tax depending on which area they lived in.

If Option A is chosen, Peterborough's Band D council tax could rise by £216.

Under Option D, the current total of £1,749.42 could increase by about £31.52, or 1.77%, bringing the total to £1,780.94.

Meanwhile, residents in West Huntingdonshire could see their bills fall by £85.56.

Deputy chief finance officer Emma Riding told councillors that harmonisation should ideally happen as soon as possible.

"I know 1.77% is an increase, but it's not a significant increase," she said.

"It is about doing the right thing for sustainability in the future, and that's the way you're going to have to look at it when the time comes for making a decision."

Savings and costs

The financial implications of each model were also discussed.

Option A was projected to deliver £12.1m in annual savings with a payback period of six years.

Though it comes with one-off implementation costs of £34m and one-off transformation costs of between £11m and £16m.

Option D would generate £1.4m in annual savings with a payback period of 50 plus years.

It would come with one-off implementation costs of £41m and one-off transformation costs of between £7m and £12m

Positives and negatives

A report put to councillors said Option D was the "most locally responsive and identity-driven" but faced financial vulnerability.

On the other hand, Option A was "balanced in scale and financial efficiency" but may not fully address the distinct needs of deprived northern communities.

The Local Democracy Reporting Service said councillors also raised concerns about where the new headquarters would be located, with no decisions yet made on civic centres or service hubs.

All 60 Peterborough councillors will vote on the preferred option on 12 November, with cabinet members confirming the final decision on 18 November before it is submitted to the government on 28 November.

Peterborough residents will see their council tax bills rise as a result of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).

From April 2028, the current seven councils in and , including , will no longer exist and be replaced by larger unitary councils due to LGR.

It is part of the government's plans to transfer more powers and funding from national to local government and move away from the current two-tier system of district and county councils in England.

At a joint meeting of Peterborough City Council's scrutiny committees on October 28, it was heard that Peterborough residents' council tax bills would rise as a result of the changes.

Members of the joint scrutiny meeting decided that Option A and Option D for LGR should be taken forward for further consideration by full council and subsequently cabinet before a final preferred option is submitted to government on November 28.

Option A – Unitary 1 (Peterborough, Fenland and Huntingdonshire), Unitary 2 (East Cambs, South Cambs and Cambridge City)

Option D – Unitary 1 (Peterborough and West Hunts), Unitary 2 (Fenland, East Hunts and East Cambs), Unitary 3 (South Cambs and Cambridge City)

The government will ultimately make a final decision on the option to take forward.

On day one of the new unitary councils, households will pay different amounts of council tax depending on the predecessor district/city area they are located in.

Each new authority must harmonise bills within seven years, with options for the new unitary councils to consider as to how quickly this occurs and how these single rates are calculated.

Peterborough currently has the lowest council tax rate for Band D properties in the county, meaning harmonising would likely see a rise in bills.

If Option A is taken forward with a high level of harmonising, Peterborough's Band D council tax bill could rise by £216.

If Option D is taken forward, the current Peterborough Band D bill of £1,749.42 could rise by £31.52 (1.77 percent) to a total of £1,780.94. In contrast, residents in the proposed West Huntingdonshire area of Option D could see their council tax bills decrease by £85.56.

At the joint scrutiny meeting, Cllr Gavin Elsey of Peterborough First asked if any council tax rises in the two years leading up to the implementation of LGR would be taken into consideration.

Deputy chief finance officer, Emma Riding, confirmed these decisions would be made further down the line and that some figures could change.

Speaking about the proposed Option D council tax changes, she said: "There are some options with council tax harmonisation in terms of you can do it over a number of years, although that is not advised.

"The advice is that you do it as soon as possible. I know 1.77 percent is an increase but it's not a significant increase."

She added: "It is about doing the right thing for sustainability in the future and that's the way you're going to have to look at it when the time comes for making a decision."

Potential headquarters

A number of councillors asked officers if any thought had been given as to where the headquarters/main hubs would be for the proposed authorities, with some concerned they may have to travel significant distances to attend meetings.

Adrian Chapman told councillors they were "not at that point yet" and it was still a "matter to be determined".

Monitoring officer Neil McArthur added: "No decisions have been taken and I don't think there are even hypotheses about where you would have a civic centre in any of those models."

Co-opted member Nick Sanford, former Mayor of Peterborough, thought it was "surprising" no thought had been given on the matter.

He said: "OK you can set up service hubs, but there is inevitably going to be a need for people who are using council services to travel to where the headquarters is."

Number of councillors for each option

The expected number of councillors there would be in each proposed unitary authority was confirmed at the meeting.

Option A would see the northern unitary of Peterborough, Fenland and Huntingdonshire have 155 councillors while the southern unitary would have 115.

Option D would see the Greater Peterborough unitary of Peterborough and West Hunts have 79 councillors, while the Mid Cambs unitary would have 104 and the Greater Cambridge unitary would have 87.

There are currently 60 councillors on Peterborough City Council.

Savings and costs of each option

Financial data collated by finance officers and external advisors revealed that a two unitary model like Option A would generate annual savings of £12.1 million with a payback period of six years.

It would come with one-off implementation costs of £34 million and one-off transformation costs of between £11 million and £16 million.

Meanwhile, a three unitary model like Option D would generate annual savings of £1.4 million with a payback period of 50 plus years.

It would come with one-off implementation costs of £41 million and one-off transformation costs of between £7 million and £12 million.

Peterborough City Council officers informed councillors that Option A would be the "most balanced and sustainable option for the region", provided local identity and engagement were actively protected.

All the projected savings would be split between the authorities.

Positives and challenges

It was heard that Option A, which would include two unitary authorities, would provide greater financial benefits with a shorter payback time while Option D, which would include three unitary authorities, would offer better local responsiveness and sense of identity.

The report before councillors said Option D was the "most locally responsive and identity-driven" but faced financial vulnerability.

On the other hand, it noted that Option A was "balanced in scale and financial efficiency" but may not fully address the distinct needs of deprived northern communities.

All 60 Peterborough councillors will choose between Option A and Option D at a full council meeting on November 12.

A final decision on the preferred option will then be confirmed by cabinet members on November 18 before a submission is made to government.

A man who launched a “vicious” and “sustained” attack in Peterborough city centre has been jailed for more than seven years.

Gavin Bainbridge, 47, was involved in an argument with the victim and a friend at a pub in Broadway at about 8pm on Monday, July 14.

The victim, a man in his 60s, pushed Bainbridge to remove himself and his friend from the situation so they could leave the pub.

Bainbridge followed them before punching the victim multiple times to the face and biting him on his chest.

The victim tried to walk away, but Bainbridge followed, repeatedly punching him and then throwing him to the ground as he continued the attack.

The man’s friend tried to intervene, pleading with Bainbridge to stop, but he continued punching and kicking the victim as he lay on the ground.

When the friend persisted, Bainbridge punched him and swore at him, before returning once again to attack the victim on the ground, kicking him until he lost consciousness.

Members of the public intervened, police arrived, and Bainbridge was arrested.

The victim was taken to hospital where he received treatment for two broken ribs, a split lip, black eye, cuts to his face and three bite marks to his chest.

Bainbridge, of Mortlock Avenue, Cambridge, admitted assault causing grievous bodily harm with intent, assault by beating and common assault of an emergency worker, after he spat at and kicked an officer in custody.

On October 16, at Cambridge Crown Court he was jailed for seven years and three months, with an additional four years to serve on licence on release.

DC Hannah Worthington said: “This was a vicious and sustained attack that left the victim with serious injuries. It could easily have been even worse, such was the level of violence used.

“As well as the immediate physical injuries, the victim reported struggling with his mobility after the attack. It also had a significant psychological impact on his life.

“I’m pleased Bainbridge was apprehended at the scene and has now received a substantial custodial sentence.”