14th October 2026
The banks have closed branches across the Highlands and customers have adapted. With Highland Council facing serious financial pressures, is it time to rethink permanent offices and take council services directly to the people who need them?
There was a time when going to the bank meant visiting a branch. You paid bills, transferred money, spoke to a member of staff and sorted out problems across a counter.
Then the branches began to disappear.
Across the Highlands, as elsewhere in Scotland, customers have had to adapt to telephone banking, mobile apps, online payments and shared banking hubs. The changes have not been painless, particularly for people who struggle with technology or live far from the remaining facilities. But banking has not ground to a halt because the old branch network has largely disappeared.
That raises an awkward question for Highland Council.
If banks can move much of their business online, why should the Council continue to maintain an extensive network of offices where people can walk in to make enquiries or obtain assistance?
The Council faces difficult financial choices. Every pound spent maintaining buildings, heating reception areas and staffing counters is a pound that cannot be spent on roads, social care, schools or other services. It is reasonable to ask whether the current arrangements still represent the best use of public money.
Perhaps the answer is not simply to close offices, but to develop a different model: digital services for routine business, a smaller network of shared community hubs and a mobile council office that visits towns and villages on a regular timetable.
The banks have already conducted the experiment
Banks have demonstrated that a large organisation can serve many customers without requiring them to visit a branch. Routine transactions can be completed online at any time, while telephone support and other arrangements deal with more complicated problems.
Council services are different in important respects. A bank transfer is often straightforward, while a housing problem, social-care case or complicated benefits enquiry may require detailed discussion and professional judgement.
But many council transactions are also routine. Paying bills, checking application progress, booking appointments, reporting problems and submitting information do not necessarily require a visit to an office.
If these services can be made simple and reliable online, why should the Council need to provide a staffed reception for every one of them?
The banking comparison does not prove that every council office should close. It does, however, challenge the assumption that face-to-face access must remain the normal arrangement for all services.
The question is whether Highland Council can deliver the same service, or a better one, at a lower cost.
Digital first, rather than digital only
There is a difference between making online services the default and abandoning people who cannot use them.
Some residents lack digital skills, reliable internet access or the confidence to deal with complicated matters through a website. Others may need help because of disability, language difficulties or the nature of their case.
Those needs should be recognised. But they do not automatically justify maintaining a full network of conventional offices.
The Council could instead provide a smaller number of shared service hubs, make better use of suitable community facilities and offer appointments for cases that genuinely require personal assistance.
A resident who needs help completing a form might be able to use a computer in a local hub with support from a member of staff. Someone with a complicated housing or social-care problem could arrange an appointment with the appropriate specialist.
Routine business could be handled online, while telephone support would remain available for those who need it.
There is, however, another possibility that deserves serious consideration.
Why not take the office to the people?
Highland is a huge geographical area. Requiring someone in a small village to travel to Wick, Thurso or another service centre can turn a simple enquiry into a significant journey.
Instead of maintaining a permanent office in every location, why not operate a mobile council office that travels between communities on set days?
The vehicle could be a suitably adapted minibus or small motorhome, equipped with secure internet access, computers, a private area for conversations and facilities for people with mobility difficulties.
Staff could help residents complete online applications, deal with routine council enquiries, understand council-tax bills, submit housing forms, report local problems and arrange appointments with specialist departments.
The vehicle would operate to a published timetable, so residents would know when it was coming to their community.
For example, a service might visit Wick and nearby communities on one day, Thurso and surrounding villages on another, and smaller settlements elsewhere in Caithness and Sutherland on subsequent days. The precise route would depend on demand, journey times and the locations of existing facilities.
This is an illustrative proposal, not a timetable already agreed by the Council.
More complicated cases would still be referred to the relevant department. Confidential discussions could be handled through secure arrangements, with telephone or video appointments used where appropriate.
The important principle is simple: rather than expecting every resident to travel to the Council, the Council could bring a limited face-to-face service to residents.
Would a mobile office actually save money?
That is the question the Council would need to answer with figures.
A mobile office would not be free to operate. There would be the cost of buying or adapting the vehicle, staffing it, paying for fuel and insurance, maintaining equipment and ensuring reliable communications.
The potential savings would come from reducing the cost of permanent buildings, reception facilities and duplicated services, where those costs could genuinely be removed.
If the Council continued to maintain every existing office while also running a mobile service, it might simply add another expense. The proposal would need to be part of a wider redesign of customer services.
It should therefore compare the cost of three options: retaining existing offices, replacing some with shared community hubs, and operating a smaller permanent network supported by digital services and mobile visits.
The figures should include one-off closure costs, ongoing running costs, staffing changes and any income from selling or leasing surplus buildings.
The Council should also measure the cost per enquiry resolved, rather than simply counting visitors through a door.
Rural Highland needs a different solution
A system that works in a city may not work in a rural council area where distances are considerable and public transport can be limited.
That is precisely why a combination of digital services, shared hubs and mobile provision could be worth testing.
Some residents would use online services almost exclusively. Others might need occasional help at a library or community facility. A mobile office could serve places where a permanent staffed counter would be difficult to justify.
Not every community would need the same arrangement. A busy town might justify a shared hub, while a smaller settlement might benefit more from a scheduled mobile visit.
Mobile libraries have demonstrated the basic principle of taking a public service to dispersed communities. A mobile council office would apply that idea to customer services.
The Council should also consider whether its existing buildings could be used more efficiently, perhaps by sharing space with other public services or community organisations.
The objective would be to preserve access to essential services without automatically preserving every building and every existing working practice.
But where is the business case?
Councillors should be asking some straightforward questions.
How much does it cost to operate each customer-service office? How much is spent on rent, maintenance, heating, electricity, cleaning and reception staff? How many enquiries does each office handle, and how many could be dealt with online?
Which buildings could be sold, leased or used for other purposes? Where would a shared hub work better? Which communities would benefit from mobile visits, and what would those visits cost?
The Council should also explain how it would protect people who cannot reasonably use digital services. A mobile office needs wheelchair access, privacy, secure handling of personal information and a reliable timetable. Residents must still have a way to obtain help if the vehicle is unavailable or they cannot attend on the scheduled day.
A pilot scheme in selected communities would allow the Council to test the idea before committing to a wider change. It could publish the number of people helped, the proportion of enquiries resolved, the cost of each visit and feedback from residents.
That would give councillors and the public something more useful than an argument about whether offices should stay open simply because they have always been there.
Time to challenge the old assumptions
Closing offices can be unpopular, and residents understandably worry about losing local contact with their council. But the building and the service are not the same thing.
The purpose of a council office is to help people access council services. If that can be done more cheaply through online systems, telephone support, shared hubs and mobile visits, the Council should be prepared to examine the alternatives.
Equally, a confusing digital system that leaves residents struggling is not an improvement simply because it costs less on paper.
The banks have shown that people can adapt when organisations change how they deliver services. Their experience is not proof that every council office should close, but it is a reason to challenge the assumption that traditional arrangements must continue indefinitely.
Highland Council should publish the cost of its current network and compare it with a more flexible model. If substantial recurring savings can be achieved while maintaining access to essential services, those savings deserve serious consideration.
The public should not be asked to accept cuts to frontline services while expensive administrative arrangements remain untouched simply because changing them would be uncomfortable.
The question is not whether every council office should close tomorrow. It is whether Highland Council can justify the cost of keeping each one open when digital services, shared hubs and mobile offices might offer a more economical alternative.
In a period of financial pressure, that is a question councillors should be prepared to answer with figures, not sentiment.
And perhaps the most useful question of all is this: if the Council can take a library on wheels to a rural community, why should it not explore taking some of its customer services there as well?
If the council cannot make enough savings will there be even higher council taxes coming?