Local government reorganisation is one of those issues that can feel distant until you stop and look at what it could mean in practice.
Stone reader Mark Brindley has put together a detailed guide to the proposals currently being considered for Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, and why the outcome could matter for services, representation and council finances here in Stone. His article is published below in full.
What local government reorganisation actually means for Stone – a plain-English guide to the numbers
In brief: The government is abolishing every council in Staffordshire and replacing them with a smaller number of new unitary authorities by 2028. Five competing proposals have been submitted, each placing Stone in a different grouping with very different financial profiles. The biggest variable is Stoke-on-Trent’s £420 million debt and ongoing emergency financial support – and the government has confirmed that council debt will not be written off as part of reorganisation. Stafford Borough, by contrast, holds nearly £60 million in reserves and has never needed a bailout. Which proposal the government picks will determine who inherits what – and what that costs you.
Estimated reading time: 13 minutes. A full appendix of sources is included at the end for anyone who wants to check the numbers.
There is no shortage of things to worry about right now. The conflict in Iran, energy prices, the cost of living, the broader direction of UK politics – all of it competing for attention. In the middle of all that, something significant is happening closer to home that will affect how services are delivered in Stone, how much council tax you pay, and who makes decisions about your community for the next generation.
Every council in Staffordshire is about to be abolished. By April 2028, the county council, Stafford Borough Council, and every other district and borough authority in the area will cease to exist, replaced by a smaller number of new unitary councils responsible for everything from bin collection to children’s social care.
Five competing proposals have been submitted to the government. A decision is expected this summer. I wanted to understand what each proposal actually means for Stone – the financial implications, the risks, and the questions we should all be asking before a decision is made over our heads. What follows is what I found.
What’s actually happening
In February 2025, the government invited all two-tier council areas in England to submit proposals for reorganisation into single-tier unitary authorities. The stated aim is to simplify local government: instead of a county council handling roads, social care and libraries while a borough council handles bins, housing and planning, one council would do everything.
Ten councils across Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent were invited to respond. They were asked to work together and submit a single, agreed proposal. They couldn’t agree. Instead, five competing proposals were submitted in November 2025, each reflecting the priorities – and self-interest – of the councils that drafted them.
A statutory public consultation is running from 5 February to 26 March 2026 – meaning residents still have a short window to respond before it closes. The government will then assess the proposals against six criteria and make a decision in the summer. If the changes go ahead, shadow councils would be elected in May 2027, with the new authorities going live in April 2028.
Where Stone ends up under each proposal
This is what matters most for residents. Depending on which proposal the government picks, Stone could find itself in very different administrative groupings with very different financial profiles.
Proposal 1 – Stafford Borough’s plan (two councils, north-south split): Stone stays with Stafford in a large South Staffordshire authority covering Cannock Chase, East Staffordshire, Lichfield, South Staffordshire, Stafford, and Tamworth. Stoke-on-Trent joins a separate North Staffordshire council with Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands. This is Stone Town Council’s preferred option and keeps existing links with Stafford intact.
Proposal 2 – Staffordshire County Council’s plan (two councils, east-west split): Stone goes into a West Staffordshire authority with Cannock Chase, Newcastle-under-Lyme, South Staffordshire, and Stafford. Stoke-on-Trent is grouped into the eastern authority. Stone avoids Stoke, but the groupings are less intuitive geographically.
Proposal 3 – Staffordshire Moorlands’ plan (two councils with boundary splitting): This is the one Stone’s councillors are most alarmed about. It proposes pulling parts of Stafford Borough – potentially including Stone – into a North Staffordshire authority alongside Stoke-on-Trent, Newcastle-under-Lyme, and the Moorlands. Stone Town Council has described itself as “totally opposed” to this option.
Proposal 4 – Lichfield, South Staffs, and Tamworth’s plan (three councils): Stone goes into a South-West Staffordshire authority with Cannock Chase, South Staffordshire, and Stafford. Stoke is grouped with Newcastle and the Moorlands in the north. Three smaller councils rather than two larger ones.
Proposal 5 – Newcastle-under-Lyme’s plan (four councils): Stone joins Cannock Chase, South Staffordshire, and Stafford in one authority. Newcastle-under-Lyme stands alone. Stoke merges with the Moorlands. This creates the most councils but the smallest individual units.
The government’s own guidance states that new councils should aim for populations of 500,000 or more. Only the two-council proposals comfortably meet this threshold. The three- and four-council models may struggle to justify their viability against this criterion – although it’s worth noting that the Lichfield, South Staffordshire and Tamworth proposal cites analysis from the District Councils’ Network which found no evidence that larger councils are more financially stable, and that councils above 350,000 population actually spend more per resident than smaller ones. The government’s guideline is just that – a guideline, not a rule – and there is a genuine debate about whether bigger automatically means better.
What the financial numbers actually show
Before looking at Stoke’s position specifically, it’s worth seeing how the five proposals compare on the numbers that matter. Not all proposals provide the same level of financial detail – some are far more transparent than others – but what’s available is revealing.
The Stafford Borough-led north-south proposal (Proposal 1) estimates annual savings of £29.9 million with a payback period of 1.4 years. The County Council’s east-west proposal (Proposal 2) estimates a transition cost of £31.9 million, net annual benefit of £28.4 million after five years, and a payback of 3.6 years. The Moorlands’ modified boundary proposal (Proposal 3) cites implementation costs of £215 million, a payback of 3.9 years, and cumulative net benefit of £306.2 million over ten years. The Lichfield-led three-council proposal (Proposal 4) estimates combined annual savings of around £36.3 million across the three new authorities, with payback under four years. Newcastle-under-Lyme’s four-council proposal (Proposal 5) provides no specific financial figures in its executive summary.
Two things stand out from this comparison. First, every single proposal – without exception – identifies Stoke-on-Trent’s Exceptional Financial Support status as a critical factor in determining whether reorganisation succeeds or fails. Second, Newcastle-under-Lyme’s submission states explicitly that any option involving merger with Stoke-on-Trent creates an “immediate and potentially long-term challenge” for neighbouring residents, both financially and in terms of service delivery. When a council puts that in writing in an official government submission, it warrants serious attention.
Total usable reserves across all existing Staffordshire councils stood at £99.58 million at the end of 2023/24. How those reserves are distributed between the new authorities – and how quickly they could be consumed by inherited pressures – is one of the most important questions residents should be asking.
Understanding Stoke’s financial position – and why it matters for all of us
Many Stone residents have deep roots in Stoke-on-Trent. The two communities share history, family ties, and an identity shaped by the Potteries and the industries that once defined this part of the Midlands. Understanding Stoke’s financial position honestly is essential to understanding what reorganisation means for everyone.
Stoke-on-Trent has had a harder road than most. The decline of the ceramics industry and wider manufacturing hollowed out the local economy over decades. Stoke is among the 20% most deprived local authorities in England, with around a quarter of its children living in low-income families. Life expectancy in its most deprived areas is more than eight years lower than in the least deprived. When successive governments cut local authority funding – Stoke lost roughly £68 million per year in central government grant between 2010 and the present day – the places that were already struggling were hit the hardest.
One consequence of this deprivation has been enormous pressure on children’s services. Stoke-on-Trent currently has the highest rate of children in care of any local authority in England: 191 per 10,000 children, compared to a national average of 71. Over 1,000 children are in care at any given time, at an annual cost of approximately £62 million. This is not a story of negligence – Ofsted judged services inadequate in 2019, but by 2022 the rating had improved, and in early 2025 the Department for Education lifted its statutory intervention, recognising consistent progress. Stoke’s five-year improvement plan, built around early help and family support, is starting to yield results. There are 100 fewer children entering care this year than last.
But improvement takes time, and the financial scars remain deep. Stoke-on-Trent City Council has required Exceptional Financial Support – effectively emergency government loans – for three consecutive years: approximately £42 million in 2024, £17 million in 2025, and £10.5 million in 2026. The council carries approximately £420 million in total debt, with annual borrowing costs of around £8 million. Its budget is currently overspent by £6.3 million, driven primarily by the cost of children’s social care placements.
The council’s leadership describes the trend as improving, with the need for emergency support “tapering off.” That may well prove true. But here is the critical point for every resident in Staffordshire: buried in the government’s consultation document is a single line that states there is no proposal for council debt to be addressed centrally or written off as part of reorganisation.
That means whichever new authority inherits Stoke-on-Trent also inherits its debt, its overspending pressures, and the ongoing costs of a children’s services system that, while improving, is still years away from operating at national average levels. In any proposal that groups Stone’s area with Stoke – most notably the Moorlands’ plan – residents across the new authority would share that financial burden through their council tax.
This is a question of timing and risk. Nobody is suggesting that Stoke should be abandoned or punished for challenges that were largely created by forces beyond any single council’s control. But merging a financially stressed authority with healthier neighbours before its recovery is secure risks dragging everyone’s services down rather than lifting Stoke’s up. Residents on both sides of any proposed boundary deserve a clear, honest answer to the question: what will this cost, and over what timeframe?
What Stafford Borough brings to the table
It is worth understanding what Stone residents currently benefit from, because it could be at stake.
Stafford Borough Council’s most recent accounts (year ending 31 March 2025) paint a picture of a well-managed authority. Total usable reserves stand at £59.8 million, up from £51.6 million the previous year. The council holds £49.4 million in cash and cash equivalents. Earmarked reserves grew by £4.2 million in the year to £40.9 million. Net revenue expenditure came in £446,000 under budget. The council has no external borrowing and has never required Exceptional Financial Support.
None of this happened by accident. It reflects years of disciplined budgeting, active income generation through business rates growth and investment, and a conscious decision to build reserves against future uncertainty – including the very reorganisation now being imposed.
In a merger, those reserves become part of the new authority’s balance sheet. If Stone ends up in a financially healthy grouping – as the Stafford Borough north-south proposal envisions – that prudent management continues to benefit residents. If Stone were pulled into a grouping that includes significant inherited debt and ongoing structural deficits, those reserves could be consumed addressing someone else’s legacy costs rather than investing in Stone’s future.
The Southern & Mid-Staffordshire proposal, backed by Stafford Borough, estimates annual savings of £29.9 million from reorganisation, with a payback period of just 1.4 years. It covers a population of 656,000 – comfortably above the government’s 500,000 guideline – and crucially, it keeps Stoke-on-Trent in a separate North Staffordshire authority, allowing both areas to address their distinct challenges without one compromising the other.
What this means for your council tax bill
This is where the numbers come home. A Band D property in Stone currently pays approximately £2,108 per year in council tax (2024/25 figures). That breaks down roughly as follows: £1,545 to Staffordshire County Council, £174 to Stafford Borough Council, £29 to Stone Town Council, £274 to the Police and Crime Commissioner, and £87 to the Fire and Rescue Service. The borough council’s share – the part directly affected by reorganisation – is less than 10% of your total bill.
But here’s what makes the picture more complicated than it first appears. Stoke-on-Trent’s total Band D council tax is approximately £2,078 – actually lower than what Stone residents pay, despite Stoke’s financial crisis. That sounds counterintuitive until you understand why: as a unitary authority, Stoke doesn’t pay a separate county council precept (its single council covers everything), and it has been keeping its own rates low by plugging budget gaps with emergency loans rather than raising council tax. Those loans – nearly £70 million over three years – have to be repaid.
In any merger, council tax rates across the new authority will eventually need to be harmonised. If Stone ends up in the same authority as Stoke, residents on both sides face uncertainty. Stoke’s artificially low rate would likely need to rise to reflect the true cost of services once EFS is no longer available. But the cost of servicing Stoke’s debt – currently around £8 million per year – would be spread across the entire new authority’s tax base, including Stone’s.
Nobody can give you a precise figure for what your council tax will be under each proposal, because the new authorities don’t exist yet and the detailed financial modelling hasn’t been published at that level. But the direction of travel is clear: proposals that keep Stone separate from Stoke protect residents from inheriting debt repayment costs. Proposals that merge the two areas create a harmonisation challenge where the eventual bill depends on political decisions that haven’t been made yet – and that you currently have no vote on.
What the government says it’s looking for
The government set six criteria for assessing proposals. It’s worth understanding them, because they’ll determine which plan gets selected:
1. Sensible geography and economic areas – do the boundaries make sense for how people actually live and work?
2. Right size for efficiency – can the new council deliver services cost-effectively and absorb financial shocks? The 500,000 population guideline matters here.
3. High quality, sustainable public services – will the change actually improve services or just rearrange the deck chairs?
4. Informed by local views – have residents actually been consulted meaningfully?
5. Support for devolution – does the structure work with wider regional governance?
6. Community engagement and neighbourhood empowerment – will people feel more connected to their council, or less?
For Stone, criteria one and two matter most. The town has strong existing links with Stafford – administratively, economically, and in terms of identity. Proposals that maintain that connection score well on geography. Proposals that split Stone away from Stafford, or merge it with Stoke-on-Trent, would need to demonstrate a compelling reason for overriding decades of established relationships.
On financial sustainability, any proposal that places Stone alongside Stoke’s ongoing financial pressures needs to answer a straightforward question: how will the transition be managed without degrading services or pushing up council tax for residents inheriting costs they didn’t create? That case has not yet been made in sufficient detail.
What Stone residents should be thinking about
The consultation remains open until 26 March 2026 – next week – and can be accessed via the government’s online survey. Even after it closes, the decision won’t be made until the summer. Public pressure, particularly from community voices, local businesses, and town and parish councils, can still influence how the final decision weighs competing priorities.
Here are the questions worth asking – of your councillors, your MP, and anyone claiming to represent Stone’s interests:
Which proposal keeps Stone’s council tax affordable? Not in year one, when transition costs are absorbed, but in years three, five, and ten – when the structural costs of inherited debt and social care pressures show up in your bill.
Which proposal protects the services Stone residents rely on? Bin collection, road maintenance, planning decisions – these are delivered at different tiers today. Consolidation creates efficiency in theory, but in practice it often means decisions made further away by people who don’t know your area. When a pothole on your road is competing for attention against priorities in towns thirty miles away, who wins?
What does this mean for Stone’s high street and local businesses? Borough councils collect business rates and retain a share locally. They set the Local Plan that determines what businesses can operate where, what developments get approved, and what investment the town centre receives. In a larger authority, Stone’s high street would be one of many competing for regeneration funding and planning attention. The rates themselves are set nationally, but the local economic development strategy – who gets prioritised, where investment goes – is a council decision. That council is about to change.
Who decides whether more houses get built on Stone’s doorstep? The 240-home planning application on the edge of Stone is a live example of a decision currently made through Stafford Borough’s Local Plan. In a merger, planning decisions move to a larger authority with a consolidated plan covering a much bigger area. Stone’s ability to influence housing development on its own doorstep could be diluted if the town is a small part of a larger authority with different priorities and targets.
Which proposal gives Stone a meaningful voice? In a two-council model covering 500,000+ people, how many councillors will actually represent Stone? Will the town’s concerns register against the combined weight of larger urban centres? Town and parish councils will remain, but their influence depends on the structure above them.
What happens to Stafford Borough’s reserves in a merger? As detailed above, the borough holds nearly £60 million in usable reserves built up through years of careful management. In any merger, those reserves enter the new authority’s general fund. Residents should be asking what protections exist to ensure that money continues to serve the communities that built it up, rather than being absorbed into inherited deficits from elsewhere.
These aren’t abstract questions. They’re questions about your money, your services, your high street, and your representation. The answers will be determined by a decision made in Whitehall this summer. The least we can do is make sure Stone’s voice is heard clearly before that happens.
Appendix: Sources
Every factual claim in this article is sourced from publicly available documents. Readers are encouraged to verify and explore the data for themselves.
### The reorganisation process and proposals
1. Government consultation document (all five proposals, criteria, timeline, and the statement that council debt will not be written off centrally):
MHCLG, “Proposals for local government reorganisation in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent,” published 5 February 2026.
2. The five proposals in detail (individual council submissions and business cases):
Staffordshire & Stoke-on-Trent Local Government Reorganisation Hub.
https://staffordshirestokelgr.org.uk/
3. Stafford Borough Council’s preferred option and business case (4.3MB PDF):
Stafford Borough Council, “Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation.”
https://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/devolution-and-local-government-reorganisation
4. Staffordshire Moorlands’ Enhanced North Staffordshire proposal (which could pull Stone northward):
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, “Devolution and Local Government Reorganisation.”
https://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/article/8291/Devolution-and-Local-Government-Reorganisation
5. Staffordshire County Council’s East-West proposal:
Staffordshire County Council, “Local Government Reorganisation.”
6. Government’s timeline – decision expected summer 2026, new councils live April 2028, shadow elections May 2027:
Staffordshire Moorlands District Council (citing MHCLG): “The Government will make a final decision about which model of local government reorganisation will be implemented during summer 2026.”
https://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/article/8291/Devolution-and-Local-Government-Reorganisation
### Stone’s position and local opposition
7. Stone Town Council’s opposition to the North Staffordshire proposal and preference for remaining with Stafford:
A Little Bit of Stone, “Stone council warns of confusion under North Staffordshire proposal,” 4 March 2026.
https://alittlebitofstone.com/stone-council-warns-of-confusion-under-north-staffordshire-proposal/
Also reported by Express & Star, “Staffordshire councillors ‘totally opposed’ to proposal to split town in local government reorganisation,” 6 March 2026.
8. Electoral Calculus characterisation of Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge as “Strong Right”:
Electoral Calculus, New Seat Details – Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Stone%2C+Great+Wyrley+and+Penkridge
### Cross-proposal financial comparison
9a. All five proposals flag Stoke-on-Trent’s EFS status as a critical factor. Newcastle-under-Lyme’s proposal states any option involving Stoke creates “immediate and potentially long-term challenge” for neighbouring residents. Total usable reserves across all existing councils: £99.58m at end 2023/24 (from SMDC proposal). DCN analysis cited by Lichfield/South Staffs/Tamworth: no evidence larger councils are more financially stable; councils above 350k population spend more per resident:
Data extracted from all five executive summaries submitted to MHCLG, November 2025. Available via the LGR Hub:
https://staffordshirestokelgr.org.uk/
9b. Proposal-specific financial data:
– Stafford Borough-led N/S (Option A): £29.9m annual savings, 1.4-year payback – from “Delivering a Stronger Staffordshire” executive summary
– County Council E/W: £31.9m transition cost, £28.4m net annual benefit after 5 years, 3.6-year payback – from SCC proposal executive summary
– Moorlands modified N/S (Option D): £215m implementation costs, 3.9-year payback, £306.2m cumulative net benefit over 10 years – from SMDC proposal executive summary
– Lichfield/South Staffs/Tamworth (3 unitaries): ~£36.3m combined annual savings, payback under 4 years – from LST proposal executive summary
– Newcastle-under-Lyme (4 unitaries): no specific financial figures provided in executive summary
### Stoke-on-Trent’s financial position
9. Exceptional Financial Support – three consecutive years, totalling approximately £69.5 million (£42.2m in 2024, £16.8m in 2025, £10.5m in 2026):
Stoke Nub News, “Stoke-on-Trent City Council approves budget including £10.5m bailout,” February 2026.
Stoke Nub News, “Government approves Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s £10.5m bailout,” February 2026. Previous EFS amounts confirmed: “Stoke-on-Trent City Council has previously requested £42.2 million of EFS to cover the financial years 2023/24 and 2024/25, and £16.8 million for 2025/26.”
10. Stoke-on-Trent total debt of approximately £420 million (£399.9m with PWLB):
Public Sector Executive, “Council leaders defend Stoke-on-Trent’s £420m debt as ‘good borrowing.'”
11. Current overspend of £6.3 million, driven by children’s social care placement costs £15.2m over budget:
Stoke Nub News, “Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s overspend increases to £6.3m,” February 2026.
12. Over 1,000 children in care, annual cost approximately £62 million:
The Lead, “Government cut Stoke-on-Trent Council to the bone then offered ‘payday loan.'” Cites 1,200 children in care and £62 million annual spend.
https://thelead.uk/government-cut-stoke-trent-council-bone-then-offered-payday-loan
13. Stoke-on-Trent has the highest children-in-care rate in England – 191 per 10,000 children, compared to a national average of 71 per 10,000:
Department for Education, “Children looked after in England including adoptions, Reporting year 2024.”
14. Government confirmation that Stoke-on-Trent has received in-principle Exceptional Financial Support:
GOV.UK, “Exceptional Financial Support for local authorities for 2026-27.”
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptional-financial-support-for-local-authorities-for-2026-27
15. EFS repayment mechanism – council must sell assets to repay; borrowing costs of approximately £8 million per year:
Stoke Nub News, “Stoke-on-Trent City Councillors clash over £10.5m loan,” January 2026. Director of resources confirms “pipeline of £60 million in potential capital receipts” and borrowing costs of “around £8 million a year.”
https://stoke.nub.news/news/local-news/stoke-on-trent-city-councillors-clash-over-ps105m-loan-284920
### Stafford Borough Council’s financial position
16. Stafford Borough Council Statement of Accounts 2024/25 – total usable reserves of £59.772 million, earmarked reserves of £40.893 million, General Fund working balance of £3.393 million, cash and cash equivalents of £49.440 million, net assets of £103.109 million, no external borrowing, net revenue expenditure £446,000 under budget:
Stafford Borough Council, “Statement of Accounts 2024/2025.” Balance Sheet (p.18), Movement in Reserves Statement (pp.16-17), Usable Reserves note (p.52), Narrative Report (pp.7-8). Certified by Deputy Chief Executive (S151) on 23 February 2026.
Available at: https://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/council-finance
17. 2025/26 forecast outturn showing an estimated £1.6 million surplus; purchase of Civic Office reducing base budget by £776,000:
Express & Star, “Stafford Borough Council approves 2.99% tax rise – despite calls for lower amount,” 15 February 2026.
18. 2025/26 budget requirement of £16.294 million; Band D council tax charge of £178.75:
Stafford Borough Council, “Council Finance – Council Tax 2025/2026.”
https://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/council-finance-council-tax
19. Car parking and garden waste charges frozen for 2026/27:
A Little Bit of Stone, “Stone car parking and garden waste charges set to be frozen for next year,” 16 January 2026.
### Southern & Mid-Staffordshire LGR business case
20. Annual savings of £29.9 million, payback period of 1.4 years, population of 656,000 across 279,400 households:
“Delivering a Stronger Staffordshire: A proposal for a Southern & Mid-Staffordshire Unitary Council,” Executive Summary. Submitted by Cannock Chase District Council, East Staffordshire Borough Council and Stafford Borough Council in partnership with Stoke-on-Trent City Council, November 2025.
Available at: https://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/devolution-and-local-government-reorganisation
### Council tax – current rates and harmonisation question
21. Stone Band D council tax breakdown 2024/25 – total £2,107.72 (County £1,544.64, Borough £173.56, Parish £29.18, Police £273.57, Fire £86.77):
Stafford Borough Council, Statement of Accounts 2024/25, Collection Fund notes (pp.74-75). Council Tax Base and Council Tax Levels section.
22. Stafford Borough’s Band D charge for 2025/26 – £178.75 (2.99% increase); borough element less than 10% of total bill:
A Little Bit of Stone, “Stafford Borough Council plans 10p per week tax increase for residents,” 17 January 2025.
Also: Stafford Borough Council, “Only ten pence a week on borough council tax for Stafford residents.”
https://www.staffordbc.gov.uk/news/only-ten-pence-week-borough-council-tax-stafford-residents
23. Stoke-on-Trent Band D council tax 2025/26 – approximately £2,078; described as lowest in Staffordshire:
Stoke Nub News, “Stoke-on-Trent City Council approves budget including £10.5m bailout,” February 2026.
Also: homenicom.co.uk, “Stoke-on-Trent Council Tax Bands & Rates 2025/2026.”
https://homenicom.co.uk/area/stoke-on-trent/council-tax
24. Staffordshire County Council 2025/26 council tax increase of 4.99%:
Staffordshire County Council, “Your Council Tax 2025-26.”
### Stoke-on-Trent context – deprivation, children’s services improvement, and structural causes
25. Stoke-on-Trent among 20% most deprived districts; approximately 24% of children in low-income families; life expectancy 8.2 years lower for men in most deprived areas:
CHAD Research / Keele University, “Health Inequalities” (citing Public Health England 2020 health profile for Stoke-on-Trent).
https://www.chadresearch.co.uk/health-inequalities
26. Ofsted judged children’s services inadequate in 2019; DfE statutory direction issued; direction revoked February 2025 following consistent progress:
GOV.UK, “Reports on children’s services in Stoke-on-Trent City Council.”
27. Commissioner’s report identifying root causes – deprivation, political instability, financial strain, failed implementation of recommendations:
Community Care, “Stoke to keep children’s services as report concludes alternative arrangements too disruptive,” 4 November 2019.
28. Five-year improvement plan “Room to Grow”; early help through restorative practice; 100 fewer children entering care this year; interim DCS: “It took five years to reach the unenviable position… and it will probably take five years to return to the norm”:
CYP Now, “Local Spotlight update: Stoke-on-Trent City Council,” March 2025.
https://www.cypnow.co.uk/content/practice/local-spotlight-update-stoke-on-trent-city-council
29. Most recent Ofsted inspection – overall “Requires improvement to be good”; children in care services rated “good”:
Stoke-on-Trent City Council, “City council renews commitment to improving lives of vulnerable children,” July 2025.
### Children in care – national and regional context
30. England average rate of children in care: 70–71 per 10,000 children under 18. Stoke-on-Trent: 191 per 10,000 (highest in England). Richmond-upon-Thames: 25 per 10,000 (lowest):
Department for Education, “Children looked after in England including adoptions, Reporting year 2024.”
31. West Midlands has the third-highest regional rate of children in care in England:
Health Equity North / Child of the North APPG, “Children in the North at greater risk of entering care,” April 2024. Notes regional rates: North East 113, North West 94, West Midlands third highest.
https://www.healthequitynorth.co.uk/children-in-the-north-at-greater-risk-of-entering-care/
32. Latest national data (year ending March 2025):
Department for Education, “Children looked after in England including adoptions, Reporting year 2025.”
### Reform UK and Staffordshire County Council
33. Reform won 49 of 62 seats on Staffordshire County Council in May 2025, taking control from the Conservatives:
A Little Bit of Stone, “New era for Staffordshire as Reform wins big and Jill Hood retains Stone Urban,” 2 May 2025.
34. Reform’s local Stone councillors (Sean Bagguley – Stone Rural North; Andrew Mynors – Stafford Trent Valley) and leadership appointments:
A Little Bit of Stone, “Stone Reform UK councillors part of new proposed council leadership team,” 13 May 2025.
35. Ian Cooper elected Reform group leader and council leader; £734 million annual budget:
A Little Bit of Stone, “Reform UK councillors back Ian Cooper as leader in Staffordshire shake-up,” 12 May 2025.
All sources accessed March 2026. Links were live at the time of writing. Readers are encouraged to consult original documents – particularly the government consultation and individual council submissions – to form their own view.
This article was submitted by A Little Bit of Stone reader Mark Brindley and is published in full as a contributed piece. The views expressed are his own.
3 comments
Derek
Very useful analysis – thank you.
Shirley Birch
This is a very comprehensive account of why many people in Staffordshire do not wish to be joined with Stoke on Trent. The people of the Staffordshire Moorlands should read this carefully and then ask again why sone of our councillors are so determined to bring about ‘option 3’ for the Moorlands.
Joshua
I don’t agree with all the proposals. They will reduce accountability. Central government is imposing the reorganisations just because they want to. I would go back to the how the local government was before 1972. It would be one county council based on historical boundaries with smaller districts for cities, towns and rural areas.