Agenda item

Executive Summary	Following the publication of the English Devolution White Paper in December 2024, Norfolk's acceptance onto the Devolution Priority Programme early 2025, and the submission of Interim Plan proposals in March 2025; the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution invited Norfolk’s councils to submit final proposals for local government reorganisation (LGR) in Norfolk by 26 September 2025.   North Norfolk District Council, Breckland District Council Broadland District Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, the Borough Council of Kings Lynn and West Norfolk and Norwich City Council have prepared a submission for a three-unitary model for LGR in Norfolk, in accordance with the decisions taken by those authorities in submitting interim proposals to Government in March of this year.   This report summarises the detailed development of the three unitary proposal over recent weeks, the current position and next steps. The final proposal – “Future Norfolk – People, Place and Progress – the Power of Three” is annexed to this report. It has been developed collaboratively, under the oversight of the respective Leaders and Chief Executives and in line with the Government’s guidance and with the support of consultants Inner Circle Consulting who were procured jointly by the six authorities to support the development of a strong proposal for submission to Government.
Options considered	North Norfolk District Council’s position with respect to LGR was considered and agreed at Full Council on 19th March 2025.  This report takes forward the decision agreed at that time.   At this point there are two options open to the Council:   Option:1: Continue in collaboration with partner authorities and submit the proposal for three new unitary authorities for Norfolk as detailed in the reports in the Annex - Future Norfolk – People, Place, Progress – The Power of Three to the Secretary of State (as per recommendation).   Option 2: Agree not to submit the proposal to Government (not recommended).
Consultation(s)	Internal consultation has included: Leader Chief Executive Section151 Officer Monitoring Officer Communications Manager   During the development of the proposal key stakeholders were engaged and a public survey conducted across Norfolk to assist with evidence and informing the proposal.  Norfolk’s Members of Parliament were also consulted on the proposal.
Recommendations	That Council:   Notes the content of this report and supporting documents detailing the proposal Endorses the final proposal for a three-unitary model for local government reorganisation in Norfolk Delegates to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, the approval and submission of the final proposal to the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution for consideration in accordance with the Government’s prescribed process
Reasons for recommendations	To respond to the statutory invitation from the Secretary of State to submit a final proposal for local government reorganisation in Norfolk.   This proposal for a three unitary model for local government in Norfolk offers a compelling and credible pathway to public service reform that is strategically aligned, financially sound and rooted in local identity. It positions Norfolk to deliver better outcomes for residents, strengthen democratic leadership, and contribute meaningfully to the Government’s wider devolution and public service transformation agenda. It is believed that, of the options available, this proposal has the potential to deliver lasting benefits for communities across Norfolk, and to support a model of governance that is fit for the future.
Background papers	“Future Norfolk: People, Place, Progress – The Power of Three” final proposals for a three unitary council model for Local Government Reorganisation in Norfolk

 

 

Wards affected	All
Cabinet member(s)	Cllr. Tim Adams, Leader of the Council
Contact Officer	Steve Blatch – Chief Executive

 

 

The Chair invited the Leader, Cllr Adams, to introduce this item.

 

Cllr Adams began by saying that it had taken months of hard work to reach the point of publishing the business case, ready for submission to Central Government. He thanked members, parish councils, statutory bodies and the 5,500 residents who had helped steer the development of the proposals. It was the most responses to any of the consultations on the various proposals that were being put forward.

 

He said that the engagement at the parish council briefings had led to the galvanisation of the approach on boundaries.

 

There had been significant commitment from officers and he thanked them too.

 

There would be further consultation on the most appropriate model with residents over the winter period, subject to an announcement by the national government. He went onto say that the three unitary proposal had been backed by the most councils, councillors and MPs with support from across the political spectrum. This was the only proposal to achieve this level of support and consensus. It was a genuine collaboration that had achieved such a positive outcome.

 

Cllr Adams then spoke about his concerns regarding LGR, which he had expressed previously. It required significant resources and he was concerned about the ‘fallow’ years following the adoption of the chosen model. He reminded members that LGR was being imposed on councils, it had not been asked for and local authorities were being asked to submit proposals but not opinions. That said, he believed that the three unitary proposal was the best opportunity to keep local government in Norfolk, local. It was the most detailed proposal of the three being put forward. It shared a vision of transformation, development of services, outlined options around council tax and proposals for social care and coastal management.

 

The proposal was for three unitary authorities for Norfolk which respected the geographical distinctiveness of such a large county which included rural areas a city and a long coastline, whilst keeping businesses and residents at the heart of the proposal. It achieved the strongest achieved the strongest possible identity and representation across all areas of Norfolk with appropriate numbers of councillors. It also achieved the original government ambition of a city unitary council and unlike other proposals removed the inbuilt tension and polarisation of funding distribution across the County. Crucially it met the Government tests for size and scale.

 

The proposal included an 8-year financial business case that would ensure the three authorities would be financially viable from day one, with a plan to deal with the County Council’s debts and a focus on early intervention and prevention across services to reduce demand. Again, crucially, the proposals would ensure that local decisions were made by local people.

 

Cllr Adams said that there was no desire to follow in the footsteps of several existing over-sixed councils and Norfolk deserved to learn from such experiences. He went onto say that the record for Norfolk County Council (NCC) securing investment in Norfolk had been poor and this needed to be changed. It was likely to continue if a larger, single authority was created. The district councils would simply be absorbed into a larger council and NCC’s record of overspending would continue unchecked.

 

A single unitary would be too large and remote and harmonisation of council tax would be hard. The proposal for two would be poorly linked with the functional economic geography of the county and would have inbuilt tension between the city and rural areas. He added that this proposal relied on significant service cuts in year one.

 

Cllr Adams said that the three unitary model could deliver the smoothest aggregation of services and harmonisation of council tax arrangements, whilst working towards the big strategic goals and delivering on the reform of services. He added that East Norfolk had a valid mission ahead including the achievement of the energy coast, protecting and growing the economy and securing more interventions around public transport and developing a skills profile for the east, whilst addressing deprivation around social care, children’s issues and housing. It was an opportunity to redesign services and develop data driven decision-making in a geography that was achievable. 

 

He thanked Members for their patience whilst this matter progressed and it was now a case of awaiting the Government’s decision.

 

Cllr Adams proposed the recommendation. Cllr W Fredericks, seconded the proposal and reserved her right to speak.

 

The Chair opened the debate:

 

Cllr C Cushing began by saying he was appalled by the local government reform process and the blatant disregard that central government had shown to rural areas. He was particularly shocked that there had not been any commissioning of an up-to-date analysis of the impact of the costs for LGR. Ultimately, the proposed changes would result in higher council tax bills, poorer service provision and a lack of democratic representation. He believed that an independent body should have been tasked with coming up with the proposals for LGR in each area and that would have avoided the current situation of the County Council being pitched against the District Councils.

 

Cllr Cushing said that he had two fundamental concerns – whether the new authority would be financially sustainable and how it would work in terms of democratic representation. This was where he felt the proposal for a three unitary model was fundamentally flawed. He referred to the invitation to tender which stated that the objectives of the procurement were to deliver a structured and convincing proposal for a three unitary model. He said that this meant that no other options were considered and it was essentially pre-determined, with no objectivity.

 

Cllr Cushing then referred to the allocation of council tax spend, saying that over 90% was spent by NCC on adult social care, children’s services, education and highways and less than 10% by the district councils. He was really concerned that this proposal grossly underestimated the complexities and cost of splitting out the County Council responsibilities across three unitaries.

 

He went onto say that in terms of democratic representation, there were currently 399 district and county councillors across Norfolk. Under the three unitary option it would go down to 200 and under the one unitary option proposed by NCC it would be 168. He believed that this would result in an appalling democratic deficit across the County. England was already the most under-represented country in Europe in terms of local government. This would make it even worse and it was probably a deliberate ploy by the Government. It would remove hundreds of rural councillors, most of whom did not represent the Labour Party.

 

Finally, he spoke about the size of the unitary divisions. He said as he understood it the initial election would be done on the County Council divisions which had an electorate of 8,500 for two elected members. In the Fakenham and the Raynham wards, where there were currently 5 councillors, this would be reduced to just two, meaning that they would be doing their roles on a full time basis. This discriminated against a lot of people standing for election due to the time commitment required. For the reasons stated above, Cllr Cushing said that he was not supportive of the three unitary model and would not be voting for it.

 

Cllr S Butikofer began by saying that did not support the proposed changes to local government, however, the process had begun and there was no option but to proceed with it. She thanked officers for their work in pulling the proposal together and said that she hoped the figures were more reliable than those used by Central Government. As Chair of Governance. Risk & Audit Committee (GRAC) she had written to the Auditor General requesting that they look into the figures that the Government had used. Cllr Butikofer then spoke about the partnership working across the districts and the coming together to deliver the best possible outcomes for local communities. She said that she believed this was the best model and that there was a need to do more at source and at an earlier stage. She said that she was also concerned about the number of councillors representing the area but it was a flaw in the unitary model and members needed to be realistic about this. In conclusion the best had been done to deliver the best outcomes and she would be supporting the proposal.

 

Cllr C Rouse said that he believed the proposal set out a good vision, albeit not one that members would have chosen. It was the only proposal that supported Norwich as an economic hub which was important for the wider county.

 

Cllr C Ringer said that he agreed with Cllr Cushing regarding the democratic deficit, however, he differed in that he would support the proposal. The two options were to either support a three unitary model or not submit a proposal at all. NCC would just absorb the districts if they achieved their ambition for a one unitary model and a tow unitary model would just rip the county in half. He went onto say by voting against the three unitary model and not submitting anything to Government, then Cllr Cushing would allow them to achieve what he feared – a labour vision of unitarization that he so opposed. This was by far the least worse option and he urged all members to support it.

 

Cllr L Shires said that she wanted to touch on Cllr Cushing’s concerns about financial stability going forward. The financial projections in the business case predicted three very financially stable councils, however, no one knew what the Government had planned. There was no certainty and the forecasts could only be based on what was currently known. She thanked the Finance and Revenues Teams who had worked across Norfolk in providing information to make sure every proposal started with the same information. Cllr Shires said that it was important to emphasise that any authority in the future would not be able to operate without proper funding and local government reorganisation was not the solution to the problems local communities faced. This proposal was a forward facing council structure across three areas and put residents at the heart of the work that they will do. This would provide better outcomes for residents and save money in the long-term. She would be supporting the proposal.

 

Cllr J Toye said that he wanted to thank officers for their hard work on this. He said that in his view, one unitary would have the worst demographic representation and the two unitary model shifted all the power to the right of the county, dividing communities. The three unitary model, however, had been delivered by collaboration across the political spectrum, providing the best option possible. Members had agreed on supporting the three unitary model in March. This meeting was not about selecting the preferred model but supporting the submission for three unitaries.

 

Cllr J Punchard acknowledged the comments so far and accepted that it was the best of a bad deal, however, he said it would be remiss of him not to represent the people who had elected him and share their views that Fakenham did not sit within the east but was a better fit with the west of the county. He agreed with Cllr Toye’s comment about power shifting to the right in terms of finance and said he felt that North Norfolk would be dragged down by propping up the less financially viable eastern side of the district. He agreed with Cllr Cushing’s comments about reduced democratic representation and being a councillor would essentially become a full-time job, which would not attract the wide variety of people that currently sat in the Chamber.

 

Cllr V Holliday said that she felt that there was a certain amount of pre-determination in the proposal and that it was a flawed process. It would have been helpful for members to have a comparison of the three submissions that were being put forward. There had been minimal input from opposition members into the proposal that was being considered. She said that she agreed that a smaller unitary would have greater representation but with this proposal, she was struggling with the viability of disaggregated statutory services and she couldn’t find the evidence base for the two new service models. She concluded by saying that what was presented was hypothetical and she was struggling to understand this fully.

 

Cllr L Withington began by saying that no one wanted local government reform but there was no choice. Currently, adult social care, children’s services and SEND were all broken under NCC and a single unitary model would have difficulty in generating change. Cllr Cushing’s comment about 10% of council tax income going to the district councils was interesting because the services and support coming from the district councils was considerably more than 10%. It was therefore clear that district councils were very efficient at providing extensive services at a reduced cost. It was important to remember that the three unitary model was being proposed by District councils and was based on the way that they wanted to work. NNDC already worked to achieve ‘demand avoidance’ through early prevention work and it was at the heart of everything that NNDC did and was also at the heart of the three unitary model. It also aligned with the 10 year NHS plan and fitted with the command areas for the Police. Like others that had spoken, she recognised the demographic deficit in the unitary model, but said that this proposal ensured that councillors were as closely connected to local communities as they could be.

 

Cllr N Housden said that when he was first elected, he referred to the Raynhams ward as the ‘wild west’ because it had been forgotten. Its location at the far west of the North Norfolk district meant that democratic representation would fall further and the west side would be forgotten as all the resources and key elements would be pulled to the east. He said that it was important to fight for the west of the district or it would be left behind and dragged backwards instead of forward.

 

Cllr H Blathwayt said that many councils had already gone through the process of unitarisation and those that were mainly rurally based had shown that large geographic areas did not work as there was too much separation between the various geographical points both socially and economically. It was therefore important to have the smallest amount of geographical area represented as possible. One county unitaries in rural areas were not working and were therefore unlikely to work in Norfolk. He said that there was also the issue of devolution and Members had to decide how best they could represent their voters to the Mayor when they were elected. The new Mayor would find it harder to ignore three unitaries. Cllr Blathwayt said he would therefore be supporting the proposal.

 

Cllr M Gray said, that like most Members, he did not support the LGR process. However, by submitting this proposal, there was no guarantee that the Government would choose it. Even so, there was a clear choice for Members. They either opted to take no action and be ‘done to’ or stand up and represent their electors and make a choice and that was what was being asked here. Not choosing anything was a non-option and should not even be considered.

 

Cllr N Dixon said that in his view there were three flaws in the process. Firstly, central government had issued an edict that this exercise should be completed in a very short period of time. It was unrealistic to carry out a lot of complex work for something that should potentially last for decades. He acknowledged that efforts had been made to gather information to present to the government in line with their requirements but realistically speaking it was never going to produce an outcome that Members would all feel comfortable with. Secondly, the group of six second tier councils issued a commissioning brief which he believed on predetermination and bias when it should have been based on an open-mind approach and several comparative options should have been presented to Full Council so that Members could assess and evaluate the different models. As it stood, he felt unable to assess if the three unitary model was the best option for Norfolk residents and businesses.

 

He went onto say that all the models being promoted were skeletal in form and more was needed for members to make a realistic assessment as to whether they were viable, deliverable and sustainable in the long term. They all carried considerable risk around evidence and its credibility and accuracy and whether the evaluation process had been carried out without optimism bias. He said that from his knowledge of the other options being promoted, the three unitary model provided the greatest risk and he could therefore not support it.

 

Cllr W Fredericks then spoke as seconder of the proposal. She asked what Members would be backing if they were not going to support this proposal. They had been given every opportunity to engage and put forward suggestions and ideas but nothing had been forthcoming. She said that Members had seen what happens when a council held all the money – £1bn in debt and still not delivering the services that were required. In North Norfolk, the District Council was providing services because the County Council didn’t/ NNDC did the preventative work and saved NCC millions of pounds a year. If a proposal was not submitted then the Government would impose a structure. She said that she was extremely proud of the Leader, Cllr Adams. He had worked tirelessly, along with the Chief Executive to bring this forward. This was the only proposal that made any sense. Opposition members could choose to abstain as they had done during the pandemic and for every big decision that the Council had taken in recent years. She said that she was proud of the work that had gone into this proposal because it highlighted how much the Council cared about its residents. If Members felt their ward was neglected then they should step up and bring those problems to the Council so they could be looked at.

 

This proposal was the best opportunity and the best chance.

 

The Chair then asked Cllr Adams, the proposer of the motion, to close the debate.

 

Cllr Adams thanked Members for contributing to the debate. He said that for the most part, views were very balanced and well expressed. He said that he agreed with Cllr Cushing on the number of councillors, the lack of an up to date cost analysis by central government and that an independent body should have undertaken the work for possible unitary models.

 

He reiterated that a three unitary model was better placed to respond to localised demand. NCC was essentially bankrupt and District Councils had led on place-making, strategic planning and securing and in NNDC’s case, improving the north Norfolk economy. He said that he could not see that a single unitary model would improve financial sustainability. It would be more of the same but bigger. The two unitary model would just divide the county.

 

Cllr Adams said that 85% of council tax income went to NCC but they did not provide 85% of services. The three unitary proposal was more detailed on social care than its rivals. A lot of consideration had been made in respect of statutory services and it was the only model that proposed any change in terms of how they were approached.

 

There had to be a plan in place to deal with the County Council’s debts. Even if the process was stopped, it needed to be addressed.

 

In terms of the Fakenham boundary, he said that there had been a steer from the local community on this. Feedback from the parish briefings indicated that people felt Holt, Wells and Fakenham were indistinct in terms of service provision. The deep rurality that existed in the far west of the District meant that there was a natural boundary there and those in the Raynhams looked towards Fakenham rather than Kings Lynn. He assured Cllr Housden that he would work with him to ensure that the Raynhams were on the map as LGR progressed. All of the District’s market towns should be on the radar.

 

Cllr Adams said that this was the only proposal that was genuinely cross-party and it was heartening to see a consensus develop from Kings Lynn, Norwich, Great Yarmouth and Breckland to secure a visible and accountable local government over this geography. A lot of work had been done over the financial proposals. Like many members, he was concerned over the ‘fallow’ period that would follow the adoption of the preferred Government model. Following the Government consultation, the District Councils in the east of the County would need to work together and give thought as to how to set the framework.

 

In conclusion, he thanked everyone for their contributions. Residents were concerned about their involvement in the process and the future of services and he wanted to reassure them that their views had influenced the development of this proposal.

 

Cllr M Gray requested a recorded vote.

 

The Monitoring Officer confirmed the following outcome to the recorded vote:

 

27 in favour, 4 against, 3 abstentions.

 

It was therefore RESOLVED

 

1. To note the content of the report and supporting documents detailing the proposal
2. To endorse the final proposal for a three-unitary model for local government reorganisation in Norfolk
3. To delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Leader, the approval and submission of the final proposal to the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution for consideration in accordance with the Government’s prescribed process