About a third of councils in England eligible to hold polls in May have asked for their elections to be postponed, the BBC found. Twenty-one local authorities formally applied to defer ballots ahead of a Thursday deadline, while 34 said they will proceed and eight had not decided. Ministers told 63 councils last month they would permit delays where there were “genuine concerns” about running elections alongside a major local-government reorganisation, and approvals are expected in the coming days.
Key takeaways
- 21 councils have asked to postpone their May 2024 elections; 34 will hold them as planned and 8 remain undecided.
- The request window applied to 63 councils told last month they could seek a delay if delivery was problematic alongside government reforms.
- Authorities requesting postponements include East and West Sussex, Suffolk, Exeter, Preston and Peterborough councils.
- Smaller councils requesting delays include Cheltenham, Hastings, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Ipswich and Redditch.
- Most councils asking for delays are Labour-led; three are Conservative-led and one is Liberal Democrat-led; some are under mixed/independent control.
- The government plans to replace many two-tier county/district systems with single ‘unitary’ councils, folding some current councils into new units in 2027–2028.
- Officials say holding full elections for councils that may exist only briefly would be costly and divert resources from frontline services.
Background
The government has set out a programme of local-government reorganisation that will replace the two-tier model used in many English areas—separate district and county councils—with ‘unitary’ councils responsible for all local services. Ministers described the change as the largest reorganisation in a generation, saying it will remove duplication and simplify delivery. As part of that process, they told 63 councils last month they could request postponements of their scheduled May polls if there were “genuine concerns” about delivering an election alongside the restructure.
The consequence of the reorganisation is that some councils due to hold elections this year will be subsumed into new unitary authorities in 2027 or 2028. That has prompted concerns that councillors elected in May might serve only around a year before the new arrangements take effect. Local leaders and electoral officers have flagged practical pressures—staffing, voter management and administrative workload—while national politicians have framed the issue in electoral and partisan terms.
Main event
By the Thursday deadline, 21 councils had notified ministers that they wanted to defer their ballots; ministers are expected to approve the requests shortly. Among the larger authorities seeking postponement were West Sussex County Council and East Sussex County Council, as well as Suffolk County Council, Exeter City Council, Preston City Council and Peterborough City Council. Several smaller district and borough councils also applied, including Cheltenham, Hastings, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Ipswich and Redditch.
Council leaders cited the logistical strain of combining a major structural reform with routine electoral processes. Officials warned that running elections for councils that will soon be dissolved or reorganised could be expensive and divert personnel and funding from frontline services such as social care and highways maintenance. At least one council meeting where a postponement was discussed—the Redditch council meeting—saw protests and required a police presence to manage tensions.
The party control of councils requesting delays is mixed: most are Labour-led, but three are Conservative-led and one is Liberal Democrat-led, and some are under no single-party control. That mix has complicated the political response: ministers and opposition figures have traded criticism over whether postponements are a pragmatic response to capacity problems or a partisan attempt to avoid electorates at a difficult time for the government.
Analysis & implications
Operationally, postponing elections for about a third of eligible councils would ease short-term administrative pressure by allowing electoral services to focus on fewer simultaneous polls. Electoral teams argue that preparing and staffing multiple polls during a period of structural change increases the risk of errors and could raise costs through overtime and contingency arrangements. Those practical benefits must be weighed against democratic norms: delaying polls reduces voter choice at scheduled moments and can extend current councillors’ terms beyond voters’ expectations.
Politically, the moves have been seized on by parties across the spectrum. Government ministers frame the postponements as a pragmatic response to avoid “short-lived” councils and wasteful spending; opponents contend the decision undermines democratic accountability and accuse ministers of political calculation. The presence of Conservative- and Liberal Democrat-led councils among those seeking delays complicates a simple narrative that it is only one side trying to avoid ballots.
For residents in areas moving to unitary government, the reorganisation will concentrate local responsibilities into single bodies by 2027–2028, which could streamline decision-making but also shift political balances. The gap between current electoral cycles and the new authorities’ start dates raises questions about continuity, mandate legitimacy and how transitional budgets and services will be managed. Central government approvals of postponements will be watched closely as a test of how reform and routine democracy interact in practice.
Comparison & data
| Category | Number of councils |
|---|---|
| Requested postponement | 21 |
| Will hold elections as planned | 34 |
| Undecided / not yet confirmed | 8 |
The table above summarises the BBC’s findings: 63 councils were eligible to seek a delay, of which 21 applied. This represents roughly one-third of the eligible set. The figures highlight geographic and political variation: larger county councils and smaller boroughs both appear among applicants, and party control is mixed. Comparing these numbers to previous reorganisations is imperfect—past structural changes did not always align with scheduled local elections or involve such a centrally managed permission process.
Reactions & quotes
Ministers and party figures have framed the issue sharply—but with differing emphases. Local Government Secretary Steve Reed argued in a national paper that running elections for councils likely to be abolished shortly would be wasteful and divert resources from frontline services. That view has been used to justify allowing postponements where delivery is genuinely problematic.
“Running a series of elections for short-lived zombie councils will be costly, time consuming and will take scarce resources away from front-line services.”
Steve Reed, Local Government Secretary (writing in The Times)
Opponents said postponements risk eroding democratic accountability and accused ministers of avoiding electoral tests. Reform UK’s deputy leader suggested some authorities sought delays out of partisan fear, while a Conservative shadow minister said elections should proceed to respect voters’ rights.
“Authorities wanting a delay are terrified my party would win.”
Richard Tice, Reform UK deputy leader
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey argued the power to delay elections should not rest solely with ministers and raised human-rights concerns about extended terms without fresh mandates.
“Ministers cannot simply delay elections at the stroke of a pen; allowing councillors to serve up to seven years without a democratic mandate is unacceptable.”
Sir Ed Davey, Liberal Democrat leader
Unconfirmed
- Whether ministers will approve every request—official approvals are expected in coming days but not yet confirmed for all 21 councils.
- The precise cost savings from postponing these elections remain unquantified and dependent on each council’s circumstances.
- Claims that particular parties sought delays purely for electoral advantage are contested and not independently proven.
Bottom line
The decision by 21 councils to request a postponement of May elections exposes a tension between practical electoral administration and democratic timetables as England undergoes major local government reform. Operational concerns about staffing, cost and the logic of electing councils that may be abolished within a year are real drivers for many local leaders.
At the same time, the requests have become politicised, and any ministerial approvals will be judged for both their administrative rationale and their democratic impact. Observers should watch which requests are authorised and how transitional governance and service delivery are managed as unitary reorganisations proceed toward 2027–2028.