Rationale for scoring: 3 unitary authorities

9) This proposal is accompanied by a request that the Secretary of State considers boundary change. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposal sets out a strong public services and financial sustainability justification for boundary change?

1 unitary authority: not applicable
2 unitary authorities: not applicable
3 unitary authorities: strongly agree

Unlocks Greater Norwich's growth potential

Adjusting boundaries allows Norwich to expand beyond its constrained current boundaries, incorporating key suburbs and economic hubs in Broadland and South Norfolk that already identify as being part of the city. This enables the city to grow uninhibited, supporting housing delivery, infrastructure, and its role as Norfolk's economic engine.

Aligns with functional geographies

Moves away from arbitrary historic lines to create councils that reflect real communities and economic patterns of the residents they support.

Improves service delivery

Boundary changes allow each unitary to design services around local needs rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all approach.

Financial sustainable

Modelling shows all three councils would be viable from day one, with cumulative savings of £220m over eight years and recurring annual savings of £49m. Ensuring that all have tax bases of a suitable size that will continue to grow and support them in the longer term.

Avoids structural weaknesses

Prevents importing Norfolk County Council's financial fragility into a single authority, reducing risk and improving resilience.

Supports housing and infrastructure growth

Logical boundaries enable coordinated planning for homes and transport that meet the needs of the local communities and address significant social demographic challenges.