AN EXTRAORDINARY meeting is being held by Redditch Borough Council on January 8 to decide whether to put in a request to cancel the authority’s May 2026 local election.
During the meeting, the council will take one of two actions – to go ahead with the scheduled election in May or to submit a request to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The correspondence would request the election be postponed.
The proposal comes in light of the Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). A decision is due to take place in the summer of 2026. That would see all district councils and the county council abolished with a vote to establish the new authority is scheduled to be held in May 2027.
Redditch Borough Council submitted its proposal for the Local Government Reorganisation on November 27. The council voted to support the north and south LGR Proposal which would see two unitary authorities formed – one for north Worcestershire (encompassing Bromsgrove, Redditch and Wyre Forrest) and one for the south of the county, covering Malvern Hills, Worcester City and Wychavon.
The alternative proposal put forward by Worcestershire County Council and Wyre Forrest District Council is that there should be one countywide unitary authority for the whole of Worcestershire.
In their report, officers point out Redditch is the only council in Worcestershire to have elections next year, before the LGR takes shape. The cost of holding the election to the taxpayer would be at least £192,000.
If the council planned to postpone the election, it would have to submit its request before January 15.
The extraordinary meeting was organised in light of a letter from Alison McGovern MP, Minister of State for Local Government and Homelessness, to councils due to hold elections next year.
Redditch Borough Council leader, Coun Sharon Harvey, said: “We have been invited, along with the other Councils which have elections in May to submit our views.
“It is important that both options be considered by all members on Thursday and our collective decision sent to the Government.”
But some, including councillors, have branded the proposal to postpone the election as ‘undemocratic’ and have called for the poll to go ahead as planned.
Protest planned
And, ahead of the extraordinary meeting, a peaceful protest is planned to take place.
The protest would be held at 6.30pm on January 8 at Oakenshaw Community Centre, where the meeting is due to be held at 7pm on that day. It is open to all residents, whatever their political persuasion, who believe the election should go ahead.
Campaigners say the move undermines democratic accountability and removes residents’ ability to hold councillors to account.
Emma Marshall, who has organised the protest, claims residents are being misled about both the necessity and consequences of the proposal.
She said: “We are being told this is only a temporary, one-year change, but that disguises what is actually happening.
“Nine councillors will have reached the end of their democratic mandate. Cancelling the election allows them to remain in post without renewed public consent.”
Ms Marshall said it directly affected residents’ ability to hold their elected representatives to account.
“Each of us loses the opportunity to pass judgement on our councillors in a meaningful way.
“This is being presented as a technicality, but it removes one of the most basic checks in local democracy.”
Supporters of the cancellation have argued elections would only result in councillors serving a short term.
But Ms Marshall said: “Short terms have never been a reason to cancel elections before.
“In 2023, councillors were elected knowing they would serve just one year due to boundary changes.
“That didn’t stop elections then, so why should it now? This argument simply does not stand up.
“Once elections start being cancelled for reasons of finance or administrative convenience, it becomes far easier to justify cancelling them again in future.
“This really is the thin end of the wedge.”
She expressed her concerns that the move to postpone the election was backed by Labour councillors who ‘had the numbers to push through the motion’.
“That raises serious questions about whether this meeting is anything more than a rubber-stamping exercise.”
‘Cost has nothing to do with it’ – Marshall
And she questioned the financial logic.
“We’re told this is about saving money, yet an Extraordinary Council meeting still carries costs – room hire, officer time, paperwork, and staff overtime.
“This decision appears to have already been made, yet the public is shut out while costs are still incurred.
“Elections do cost money, but democracy is not optional. It’s a fundamental right.”
Organisers said this was the ‘last opportunity for residents to demonstrate opposition and appeal directly to councillors before the vote was taken’.
“This isn’t about party politics — it’s about whether local people still have a say in who represents them.”
Reform UK backs protest
Coun David Taylor, who represents Reform UK on Worcestershire County Council, said: “It’s frankly astonishing that the Labour‑run Redditch Borough Council even needs a meeting to decide whether to hold elections in May 2026. ‘Extraordinary’ is the correct title for the agenda.
“There is no credible reason to delay a democratic vote. Not one.
“The only thing they’re trying to avoid is the verdict of the voters.”
He claimed ‘Redditch Labour knew it was on course to lose seats, lose authority, and face the backlash for how the party had performed nationally’.
“Let the people decide.”
- WHAT do you think? Do you think the local election should go ahead and it is undemocratic to cancel it? Or do you think it makes sense? Email: [email protected] with your views.
