Rationale for scoring: 1 unitary authority

• 1 unitary authority: strongly disagree
• 2 unitary authorities: strongly disagree
• 3 unitary authorities: strongly agree

Size does not guarantee efficiency or resilience

The proposal assumes that a very large authority will automatically deliver efficiencies and withstand shocks. This scale will introduce bureaucracy, slows decision-making, and creates distance from communities and will undermine responsiveness and agility.

Financial resilience claims are overstated

The business case suggests that size will protect against financial shocks, yet the model is heavily reliant on optimistic savings projections and workforce reductions. These savings appear premised on cutting district-level staff and management, which risks hollowing out local capacity rather than strengthening resilience.

Dilution of local voices

A council of this size will inevitably reduce democratic representation and weaken local influence. Fewer councillors and centralised governance mean communities will have less say in decisions that affect them, contradicting the principle of localism.

Concentration of risk in one organisation

Placing all services and financial responsibility into a single authority creates a single point of failure. If the council faces financial or operational difficulties, the entire county is exposed, with no fallback or alternative governance structure.

Evidence from other large unitary councils do not support a single county unitary approach

In Somerset its single large unitary council failed to deliver the full savings promised in its business case, achieving less than half of the £18.5m forecast within the first two years. Reasons for this included underestimating the time and complexity required for transformation and unrealistic assumptions about cost reductions. The council now faces a £190m budget shortfall by 2029 and has required exceptional financial support from government.

No evidence of improved capacity or transformational change

The proposal does not demonstrate how the new council will build additional capability beyond what currently exists. There is no clear plan for investment in skills, systems, or infrastructure to match the scale of the organisation, nor a credible roadmap for cultural or operational transformation.

Bigger does not mean better for Norfolk's challenges

Norfolk's significant challenges of ageing population, rural isolation, coastal deprivation and urban deprivation all require tailored, place-based solutions. A single, oversized council risks diluting focus and creating a one-size-fits-all approach that fails to meet diverse local needs. Services would still need to be delivered locally and there would be no capacity to deliver preventative services exacerbating social issues and demand based services in deprived areas like Great Yarmouth.

Some services such as waste disposal would fit a single unitary option but many others such as reducing the number of NEETs, reducing demand for SEND and improving discharge from hospital require localised support and an understanding of communities.