Explained: What is a Unitary Authority and can Havering become one again?

With the debate about “leaving London” gathering pace, one phrase keeps getting thrown around as if it answers everything.

“Unitary authority.”

It sounds neat. It sounds simple. It sounds like a return to something we supposedly had before. But like a lot of things in this debate, it is being used in a way that creates more confusion than clarity.

So let’s strip it back, grounded in facts.

Havering Was Once A Unitary Authority

Havering became a London borough in 1965, when Greater London was created. From that point on, it has always been part of London. Even after the Greater London Council was abolished in 1986, Havering did not suddenly become independent or leave London. It effectively operated as a unitary authority, but still within London.

So what does that actually mean?

A unitary authority is simply a council that runs all of its local services itself. There is no county council above it and no district council below it. One organisation is responsible for everything. That includes schools, social care, housing, roads, waste collection, planning and local services. In areas like Essex, those responsibilities are split between different councils. In a unitary authority, they are brought together.

That is broadly how London boroughs already work. The key difference is what sits above that local level.

In London, boroughs operate alongside a city-wide layer. Today, that is the Greater London Authority, led by the Mayor of London. That layer is responsible for things that work across the whole city, like transport, policing oversight, fire services and strategic planning. Boroughs handle the local detail, while London-wide bodies handle the bigger system.

When the Greater London Council was abolished in 1986, that top layer did not disappear completely. Its powers were redistributed. Some went down to boroughs, others went to central government or joint boards. But Havering was still firmly inside London, still part of London-wide systems, and still benefiting from them.

That meant continued access to London transport, policing, fire services, and schemes like the Freedom Pass.

And, yes, we even kept London weighting, but we were still IN London.

The structure shifted, but the fundamentals did not.

So yes, Havering had more direct control over some local services during that period. But it was never a standalone authority outside London, and it never had to operate without the London-wide systems it depended on.

The End Of Unitary Authorities

The setup people point to from the late 1980s did not last. It was replaced.

Across the country, the government moved away from that patchwork approach of abolished top tiers, shared boards, and central government stepping in to fill the gaps. It was messy, unclear, and not designed to last.

In London, this led to the creation of the Greater London Authority in 2000, bringing back a clear, strategic layer with responsibility for transport, policing oversight, and other London-wide services.

Elsewhere, the same principle applies. Where regions have combined authorities or mayoral systems, they have clear governance structures. Where areas are unitary, they operate independently but without access to another region’s systems.

The direction of travel has been towards clarity and defined structures, not the kind of halfway arrangement being suggested now. That matters because it means the model being talked about here is not something that exists today. It is something that would have to be created from scratch.

So, becoming a unitary authority like we used to be is not an option. No current UK model of local government offers what is being proposed. We'd have to have the government create a new system.

Even getting to the point of change isn’t free. Government reviews, consultations, boundary work, and legislation. That all costs money, even before anything actually happens on the ground. But the real cost comes after. Every recent reorganisation has run into tens of millions locally. So the idea that Havering could go through a major structural change without serious cost simply doesn’t stack up.

What about complete independence?

So this means that the only real way to leave the control of the GLA and the Mayor is complete independence. And that comes with consequences. You do not step outside the system and keep all the benefits as if nothing has changed.

Once you are out, you are out. No automatic access to London-wide transport. No automatic access to London-wide funding. No schemes designed specifically for London residents. You gain control, but you lose integration. That is the trade-off, and it is the only version of this that actually exists.

The ever-changing goal.

The Leave London campaign’s position is not fixed. It has shifted as this debate has moved on. We have been told Havering should “rejoin Essex” and that “we are not east London, we are Essex”. We have heard calls for “restoring our independence from City Hall” and “breaking free of the Mayor of London”. Now, as the consequences are being questioned, the language has changed again, with proposals for Havering to become a “self-governing unitary authority, within London”. The core idea has not changed, but the way it is presented has.

And that matters. Because each version sounds slightly more reassuring than the last. A clean break becomes independence. Independence becomes a unitary authority. And a unitary authority is presented as if it means everything can stay the same.

But it doesn’t. The reality has not changed, only the description of it has. And that is why this debate needs to be grounded in facts, not shifting language.

Slowly but surely, the independence being promised disappears, until we are basically just remaining in London.

So which is it?

Are they campaigning for us to "Rejoin Essex", "Leave London", "Gain independence" or "Remain in London, as a unitary authority"? Because if it's the latter, then it's even more of a fantasy than first thought.

Rosindell used to want to RUN the GLA!