Cllr Liam Walker: Why I Now Support Two Councils for Oxfordshire

As a County and District Councillor I want to be open about why I have changed my view on the future of local government in Oxfordshire. Many of my colleagues will have different views but for some time I supported the idea of a single unitary council for the whole county. But after listening to residents, studying the proposals in detail, and reflecting on the reality of how our current county council operates, I am firmly of the view that two councils — not one — will deliver better representation, better accountability, and better outcomes for our communities.

My reassessment stems from a combination of practical experience and concerns shared by residents I have spoken with: issues of size, responsiveness, workload pressures, and a pattern of the county council failing to respect community views time and time again.

I have come to the realisation that bigger isn’t necessarily better — in fact, it can be the opposite. A single county-wide council might look neat on paper, but in practice it risks becoming too large and too remote to effectively serve the diverse communities of Oxfordshire.

The reality is that the current county council, even at its existing size, already struggles in important operational areas. That experience has led me to question the idea that making the organisation even larger would improve things. If anything, it heightens the risk that residents become even further removed from decision-makers.

One of my strongest concerns is that the current county council model cannot always cope with the demands placed on it. As your councillor, I see first-hand that officers — who work extremely hard — are often overwhelmed by caseloads that are simply too big.

I regularly experience delays in responses from some departments, not because officers don’t care, but because they are already stretched thin. Residents tell me the same: unanswered emails, long waits for updates, and frustration at slow progress on straightforward matters.

Adding even more responsibility to an already overstretched organisation, as a single unitary council would do, does not make sense. It risks slowing things down further, weakening oversight, and reducing the quality of service delivery. For me, this has become a defining issue.

If an organisation is struggling at its current size, scaling it up even further does not fix the problem — it magnifies it.

I have repeatedly raised my frustration that the county council does not always listen to — or even properly consider — the views of residents, town or parish councils, and businesses. Time and time again, residents have felt ignored or overridden on key issues affecting their towns, their villages and their local services.

When a council becomes too big, the connection between decision-makers and the people they serve is weakened. I worry deeply that one “mega-council” would only increase the distance between residents and those in charge.

The two-council proposal — one serving the north of the county and one serving the south — in my view offers a more realistic, more local, and more accountable alternative.

Benefits include:

• Better representation: Two councils mean councillors and officers working more closely with communities they genuinely understand.

• Improved responsiveness: Smaller authorities are more agile and can respond faster to local concerns and service pressures.

• Manageable workloads: Dividing responsibility reduces the risk of single departments becoming overloaded and non-responsive.

• Local identity respected: Our rural villages and market towns have very different needs from urban areas. Two councils allow those differences to be properly recognised in policy and spending decisions.

• Stronger accountability: When councils are of a manageable size, it becomes easier for residents to know who to contact — and easier for councillors to secure answers.

• A better fit for service delivery: Many frontline services benefit from being run within communities that share common challenges and priorities, not across an entire county with huge variation.

I want a system that works for people — one that listens, responds, and remains connected to the communities it serves. Above all, I want a structure that does not overload councillors and officers, delay services, or dilute the voice of rural residents.

The two-unitary model strikes the right balance: efficient but not distant, strategic but still rooted in local identity, and big enough to be resilient but small enough to remain responsive.

So as we go through this challenging and unknown next stage I want residents to know I will continue to champion a system that truly puts residents first. I will support a two-council model that protects local identity, reduces pressure on overstretched services, and ensures residents’ views are genuinely respected.

I’ve changed my mind because I’ve listened — and because I’ve seen up close the challenges our current model faces. Now we have a chance to build something better: a more responsive, more accountable, and more locally-rooted model of government for Oxfordshire.