East Cambs Rejects Greater Cambridge Merger in 2026

Key Points

• East Cambridgeshire District Council leader Cllr Anna Bailey has reiterated that the district must not be “absorbed” into a larger Greater Cambridge authority as part of local government reorganisation across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
• The debate comes amid government‑driven plans to replace the current two‑tier system with new unitary councils covering all local services in the area.
• Ministers invited all councils in two‑tier areas, including Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, to submit reorganisation proposals, leading to multiple structural “options” being developed, consulted on and sent to government.
• Options under discussion have included configurations that would create a single Greater Cambridge unitary for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, and various models for the rest of the county, some of which would merge East Cambridgeshire with neighbouring districts and Peterborough.
• In a council‑run survey on local government reorganisation, high proportions of East Cambridgeshire residents expressed satisfaction with their local council and opposition to being merged into a larger authority, with 94% saying they wanted to be more engaged on the issue.​
• According to an East Cambridgeshire District Council press release, 94% of respondents said they valued the council’s local knowledge and did not see benefits from merging with other councils to provide services “on a larger scale”.​
• As reported by officers for East Cambridgeshire District Council, a special council meeting was scheduled to consider a preliminary submission on how the district should approach unitary proposals with other Cambridgeshire and Peterborough councils.​
• A wider public engagement and Ipsos MORI research across Cambridgeshire found strong support for decisions being taken locally and for councils to remain closely connected to their communities as part of any devolution or reorganisation deal.
• Option B, backed in public statements by East Cambridgeshire alongside other councils, would create two new unitary councils: a Greater Cambridge authority for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, and a North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough authority including East Cambridgeshire, Fenland, Huntingdonshire and Peterborough.​
• In promoting Option B, Cllr Anna Bailey has argued that East Cambridgeshire would sit in a North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough council that is “large enough” to meet social care needs and investment demands, without being overshadowed by the science‑and‑tech‑driven Greater Cambridge economy.​
• A separate “Option E” business case developed by several councils proposes three new unitary authorities, grouping Peterborough, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire into a “North Unitary”, Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire into a “South Unitary”, and leaving Huntingdonshire as a standalone central unitary.​
• That Option E document warns that alternative arrangements risk “loss of identity” for areas such as Huntingdonshire if they are carved up between larger units; similar concerns have been echoed locally in East Cambridgeshire about being subsumed into a Greater Cambridge‑centred body.
• A BBC News report on council preferences for merger options highlighted that East Cambridgeshire leaders feared being “overshadowed” by Greater Cambridge, even as they accepted the need for simpler, more efficient unitary structures.​
• Cambridge City Council leader Cllr Cameron Holloway and South Cambridgeshire District Council leader Cllr Bridget Smith have publicly praised Option B for creating two “appropriately sized” unitaries that are “local enough to care” while managing growth around Greater Cambridge.
• The Cambridgeshire County Council’s public information on devolution and reorganisation confirms that, by late November 2025, the seven councils had submitted multiple options to government, with ongoing discussion about financial sustainability, service quality and democratic representation.
• East Cambridgeshire District Council’s communications stress that residents value the district’s distinct rural character, local decision‑making and tailored services, and fear these could be diluted if absorbed into a Greater Cambridge mega‑council.
• Proponents of the larger‑scale Greater Cambridge arrangements argue that a single council covering the fast‑growing city‑region could better manage housing, infrastructure and economic development linked to the area’s science and technology sectors.
• Supporters of models that keep East Cambridgeshire out of any Greater Cambridge council say two or three unitaries for the county strike a better balance between efficiency, democratic accountability and protection of local identities.
• Consultation on the future shape of local government in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough remains ongoing, with councils urging residents and stakeholders to respond before proposals are finalised and before legislation is brought forward for changes expected to take effect by 2028.

Cambridge (Cambridge Tribune) March 17, 2026 – East Cambridgeshire’s political leadership has drawn a firm line against any move that would see the district absorbed into a Greater Cambridge mega‑council, insisting that local government reorganisation must protect the area’s identity, rural character and independent voice while still delivering simpler, more efficient unitary structures.

Why is local government being reorganised in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?

The current debate is rooted in a national push by central government to replace remaining two‑tier systems in England with unitary councils responsible for all local services in their areas. As reported in a joint letter from council leaders published by Cambridge City Council, the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution wrote to all leaders in February 2025, inviting them to work together on reorganisation proposals that meet criteria such as efficiency, sustainability and strong local engagement.

According to that joint letter, signed by leaders from Cambridgeshire County Council, Peterborough City Council, Huntingdonshire District Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, work has been under way “at pace” to consider “various unitary scenarios”. The leaders stressed that any chosen model must reflect historic community identities, economic geographies and local democratic representation, and committed to ongoing discussions with residents, MPs and partners such as the police, NHS and fire service.​

Public‑facing information published by Cambridgeshire County Council confirms that by 28 November 2025, four main options for local government reorganisation had been submitted to government, following analysis and engagement across the seven councils. Supporting documents explain that the government expects plans to demonstrate simplified structures, financial resilience and improved service outcomes, while showing that residents’ views have been taken into account.

How does Option B seek to protect East Cambridgeshire from a Greater Cambridge “mega‑council”?

A key proposal shaping the current debate is “Option B”, which would replace the existing county and district councils with two new unitary councils: a Greater Cambridge council covering Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, and a North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough council bringing together East Cambridgeshire, Fenland, Huntingdonshire and Peterborough. In an official East Cambridgeshire District Council press release on the ongoing consultation, Option B is promoted jointly by Cambridge City Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council and East Cambridgeshire District Council as the structure that best reflects “existing economic geographies” while maintaining balanced leadership between north and south.

​

In that statement, as reported by communications staff for Cambridge City Council, Labour leader Cllr Cameron Holloway said the proposal would allow “modern, responsive councils that reflect the real strengths of our communities and economies”, stressing the chance to design services that work “not just for today, but for the future”. South Cambridgeshire leader Cllr Bridget Smith is quoted supporting two unitary councils that are “appropriately sized for success while remaining sufficiently local to care”.

As reported by communications officers for East Cambridgeshire District Council, Conservative council leader Cllr Anna Bailey described Option B as “the strongest and most ambitious proposal”, arguing it would create “two financially sustainable councils that each play to their strengths”. She said Greater Cambridge, with its “world‑leading science and technology sectors”, would attract investment to support housing and infrastructure, while a North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough unitary including East Cambridgeshire would be “large enough to meet social care demands, support regeneration and attract investment”, yet still driven by its rural nature to “work closely with local communities”.​

What does Option E and other models propose for East Cambridgeshire?

Alongside Option B, councils have developed an “Option E” business case which takes a different approach to balancing local identity and efficiency. According to that document, produced by officers and consultants for the participating councils, Option E would create three new unitary councils: a North Unitary covering Peterborough, Fenland and East Cambridgeshire; a South Unitary for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire; and a stand‑alone Huntingdonshire Unitary in the centre.​

The Option E paper emphasises that this three‑unitary model aims to give “scale where scale is needed” to withstand future financial and service pressures, while keeping councils close to their communities. It warns that some alternative configurations including ones that would split Huntingdonshire between different unitaries pose “significant risks” and could lead to a “loss of identity” where long‑standing community ties are broken, a concern that resonates with arguments from East Cambridgeshire leaders about the dangers of being absorbed into a larger Greater Cambridge body.

A BBC News report on how Cambridgeshire councils have set out which bodies they want to merge with notes that Option B is preferred by Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire for the southern area, while East Cambridgeshire has expressed anxiety about being “overshadowed” by the Greater Cambridge city‑region if placed within a single large council dominated by the urban economy. The same report describes five options overall, reflecting different ways of grouping the seven existing councils into new unitary structures, all of which are now being assessed by government following local submissions.

How have East Cambridgeshire residents responded to merger plans?

As reported by communications officers for East Cambridgeshire District Council, the authority carried out a survey of local residents to gauge their views on potential local government reorganisation and possible mergers. The council’s press release states that residents gave a clear message that they “love” their council and

“cannot see any benefit with merging us with other county and district councils to provide services on a larger scale”.​

In the same release, councillors highlighted that 94% of respondents said they wanted to be more engaged on the issue of reorganisation, with many commenting on the value of the council’s local knowledge and experience in making decisions tailored to the district. Council leader Cllr Anna Bailey is quoted saying:

“The people of East Cambridgeshire have spoken and what they have said is loud and clear”,

using the feedback to reinforce her argument against being subsumed into a larger Greater Cambridge authority.​

The press release adds that a special council meeting was scheduled to discuss a preliminary submission to government on how East Cambridgeshire intends to help develop unitary proposals with other Cambridgeshire and Peterborough councils, ensuring that residents’ concerns are built into negotiations. The council has framed this process as part of a wider effort to ensure that any new structure both delivers financial savings and protects service quality, while maintaining a strong district‑level voice.

How does wider research inform the debate?

Beyond East Cambridgeshire’s own survey, research commissioned by district councils across Cambridgeshire has helped shape thinking on devolution and reorganisation. An Ipsos MORI phone survey carried out for the five district councils in Cambridgeshire, summarised in a published report, found that around six in ten residents supported their council becoming part of a combined authority, while a significant minority opposed the idea.

The same research showed strong backing for decisions being made locally, with high percentages agreeing that strategic choices on housing, development and major funding allocations should be taken close to communities rather than at distant levels of government. In the Option E business case, officers note that this evidence, together with stakeholder engagement, has been used to design models that “support devolution arrangements” while enabling “stronger community engagement and genuine neighbourhood empowerment”.

These findings have been cited by councillors across the county when arguing against over‑large “mega‑councils” that could feel remote from residents. East Cambridgeshire’s leadership has pointed to them as further justification for insisting the district should not be folded into a Greater Cambridge unitary dominated by the city’s growth agenda, but instead should form part of a configuration where its rural needs remain visible.

Why does East Cambridgeshire oppose being absorbed by Greater Cambridge?

Although much of the debate has taken place in formal council documents and press releases, public comments by East Cambridgeshire District Council leader Cllr Anna Bailey have become a reference point for opponents of a Greater Cambridge mega‑council. In a column highlighted by the Ely Standard, trailing the message that “East Cambridgeshire must not be absorbed by Greater Cambridge”, Cllr Bailey set out her view that the district’s residents have consistently rejected merger proposals that would dilute their distinct identity and local representation.

As reported by East Cambridgeshire District Council, Cllr Bailey has argued that residents appreciate the council’s ability to understand local issues, from rural transport and planning to environmental management, and fear that a much larger Greater Cambridge entity would inevitably prioritise the needs of the urban core. In the Option B press release, she emphasised that the North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough model “will be large enough” to deliver major services such as social care and regeneration, yet will have a rural character that encourages close working with communities.

A BBC News article on councils’ preferred mergers notes that East Cambridgeshire has voiced concern about being “overshadowed” by Greater Cambridge, even as it accepts that simpler unitary structures could bring advantages if designed correctly. According to that report, Cllr Bailey sees the two‑unitary or three‑unitary models that keep East Cambridgeshire out of a single Greater Cambridge authority as the best ways to balance efficiency with continued local influence.

How do supporters of Greater Cambridge respond?

Proponents of a single Greater Cambridge authority for the city and its immediate hinterland argue that such a structure is needed to manage the pressures of rapid growth. In statements published by Cambridge City Council, Labour leader Cllr Cameron Holloway said a unified council for the Greater Cambridge area would make it easier to coordinate housing, transport and infrastructure planning linked to the area’s world‑leading science and technology sectors.

South Cambridgeshire District Council leader Cllr Bridget Smith, quoted both in local authority communications and in BBC News coverage, has described Option B’s Greater Cambridge council as “appropriately sized for success while remaining sufficiently local to care”. She and other supporters contend that bringing together Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire under one authority would simplify decision‑making and strengthen the region’s ability to attract investment, without necessarily harming neighbouring areas if those are placed in equally robust northern unitaries.

From this perspective, fears of a “mega‑council” absorbing East Cambridgeshire are framed as concerns that can be addressed through careful boundary design and partnership working. However, the insistence by East Cambridgeshire’s leadership that the district must not be folded into Greater Cambridge shows how sensitive the question of identity and balance remains in the wider reorganisation debate.

What happens next in the reorganisation process?

Communications from East Cambridgeshire District Council and its partners make clear that the consultation on local government reorganisation is still under way and that residents’ views are being actively sought. In the Option B press release, Cllr Cameron Holloway urged people to “understand the Local Government Reorganisation process” and the potential benefits, calling on residents, businesses and partners to help shape a system that “works for everyone not just for today, but for the future”.

Cllr Anna Bailey similarly encouraged residents to “look closely at all the options and share their views”, stressing that there were just “two weeks” left in the current consultation window when the March 2026 statement was issued. The council’s earlier press release on its own survey stated that residents’ feedback would inform East Cambridgeshire’s submissions to government and its position on different unitary scenarios.

When could structural changes take effect?

While precise timelines depend on ministerial decisions and legislation, public‑facing material from Cambridgeshire councils suggests that any new unitary arrangements are expected to be in place by around 2028. A video message shared on East Cambridgeshire District Council’s social media channels, summarised in its description, explains that from April 2028 local people will “no longer have two‑tier” local government, with services instead delivered by new unitary councils, including a council for Greater Cambridge and another for North Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

The County Council’s devolution and reorganisation pages state that, after options were submitted in November 2025, government will assess them against national criteria before consulting formally and bringing forward the necessary orders in Parliament. Until those decisions are made, East Cambridgeshire’s leadership is expected to continue pressing its case that, whatever model is chosen, the district must not be absorbed into a Greater Cambridge mega‑council but should remain part of a structure that reflects its rural identity and preserves a strong local voice.