Hertfordshire is facing a fundamental question about how it’s governed. After ruling out a single county-wide unitary authority as too large and too distant from residents, three credible alternatives have been proposed to replace the current two-tier system. Each represents a different answer to the same underlying tension: how do you balance efficiency with identity, savings with service and scale with local voice? 

A unified approach with a strong economic case 

Leaders across all 11 councils, supported by their officer teams, are united in submitting a joint proposal to central government, demonstrating a shared commitment to delivering the best outcomes for residents, businesses and communities within Hertfordshire, whatever the final decision. 

Hertfordshire is a strategic economic hub within the UK, with a combined economy of £50 billion GVA. Leaders are highlighting the county’s potential and seizing the opportunities arising from devolved local powers. The county is also seeking the potential for a Mayoral Combined Authority for Hertfordshire, which would help unlock further investment, deliver good-quality growth and ensure that prosperity is shared across all communities. 

The three proposed unitary models align with the government’s expectations for stronger, more strategic local leadership, streamlined governance and better coordinated public services, as set out in the English Devolution White Paper. They are designed to drive the delivery of new homes, including affordable housing, jobs, infrastructure, and opportunities for the people of Hertfordshire. 

The efficiency question 

Option A proposes splitting the county down the middle. The western authority would cover Dacorum, Hertsmere, St Albans, Three Rivers and Watford, serving around 626,000 residents. The eastern half would take in Broxbourne, East Herts, North Herts, Stevenage and Welwyn Hatfield, with a population of roughly 611,000. Each would have 117 councillors. 

This is the financially strongest option. It carries the lowest transition cost, delivers the fastest payback and generates the most substantial savings. No boundaries would need to change. But with populations approaching two-thirds of a million, these authorities would be among the larger unitaries in England. The question becomes whether under this model these authorities can remain closely connected to their local communities. 

The connectivity question 

The three-unitary model of Option B attempts to answer a different question: can Hertfordshire be reorganised in a way that respects existing patterns of connection and movement? 

The west would still contain Dacorum, Three Rivers and Watford. A new central authority would unite Hertsmere, St Albans and Welwyn Hatfield. The east would include Broxbourne, East Herts, North Herts and Stevenage.  

Option B acknowledges the functional reality of the Watford area, and Bushey North and South would move from Hertsmere into the western authority, creating a stronger geographic unit where economic and transport ties already exist. The western authority grows to around 392,000 people, the central shrinks to 356,000 and the east holds at 488,000. Financially, this sits in the middle with moderate one-off costs and a reasonable payback period. 

It’s been identified as the best compromise between financial strength and preserving the shape of how people actually live, work and move across the county. 

The identity question 

Option C starts from a different premise: that local identity matters more than administrative convenience. 

The northwest would combine Dacorum and St Albans. The southwest would group Hertsmere, Three Rivers and Watford. A central authority would cover North Herts, Stevenage and Welwyn Hatfield. The east would bring together Broxbourne and East Herts. 

This option also shifts Royston, Northaw and Cuffley eastward to create more balanced populations across the four units, ranging from 290,000 to 321,000 residents. Councillor numbers would vary from 75 to 89 per authority. 

This model maximises local accountability and keeps decision-making closer to communities. But it also the most complex to implement and saves less financially. Interestingly, this approach is reportedly backed by the largest number of existing authorities, despite its financial drawbacks. The question here is whether preserving local character is worth the added cost and complexity. 

The viability question 

At its core, this is a choice between competing visions of what makes local government work. What complicates the picture is timing. The local government finance settlement is due in early December, after the deadline for submissions. That settlement could shift the financial assumptions underlying all three models. Councils are effectively choosing a path before they know the full terrain. The question becomes whether any of these models can withstand changes to the funding landscape that haven’t yet been announced. 

What happens next 

Hertfordshire will submit a single proposal containing all three options. The final decision rests with central government, which will choose between them or potentially propose something different entirely. Each option reflects genuine trade-offs rather than obvious flaws. The choice will ultimately come down to what government believes Hertfordshire needs most: financial resilience, local identity or the difficult balance between them. What’s clear is that the current system is considered unsustainable and change is coming. The only question is what shape it will take, who will decide that shape and whether it will prove durable in a funding environment that remains uncertain.