Consultation outcome

Greater Essex devolution consultation response

Updated 17 July 2025

Introduction 

The government ran a statutory public consultation on the proposal to establish a Greater Essex Mayoral Combined County Authority which would include the areas of Essex County Council, Southend-on-Sea City Council and Thurrock Council. The consultation ran for 8 weeks.

The purpose of this consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing a Mayoral Combined County Authority across this area. The results of this consultation form part of the assessment by the Secretary of State of whether the statutory tests to establish the proposed Greater Essex Mayoral Combined County Authority (GECCA) have been met. The statutory tests are as follows: 

The statutory tests are as follows: 

a) is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all the people who live or work in the area

b) is appropriate having regard to the need

         (i) to secure effective and convenient local government   

         (ii) to reflect the identities and interests of local communities   

c) that a public consultation has been carried out and no further consultation is necessary

Consultation process

The government undertook an 8-week public consultation from 17 February to 13 April 2025 to engage and seek responses from a diverse range of interested parties. This included:

• councils
• public sector bodies
• parish and town councils
• local businesses
• voluntary sector groups
• local residents

Consultation responses could be submitted through an online form, or in writing by email or post. 

To promote awareness of the consultation, the government undertook a series of engagement and promotional activities, including:  

• issued a press notice at the start and towards the end of the consultation for local and regional media  
• the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution visited Chelmsford on 4 March and met with local leaders  
• a social media advertising campaign promoted the consultation on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and LinkedIn – across these platforms, Communications reported 1.76 million impressions and 5,641 video views
• physical assets were distributed (4,000 flyers, 200 posters and 100 hard copy consultation documents)

Officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ran an in-person event on 31 March in Chelmsford. Officials from MHCLG attended a further 6 stakeholder run events to provide information on the consultation:

• Rochford Wellbeing and Recovery Conference

• NHS South East Alliance Healthy Neighbourhoods Partnership Group meeting

• the Tilbury forum

• a meeting of interested businesses hosted by Southend Council

• a meeting of interested voluntary and community groups hosted by Southend Council

• Thurrock Residential Developers Partnership

The 3 prospective constituent authorities also promoted the consultation. Essex County Council, Southend-on-Sea City Council, and Thurrock Council initiated the ‘Devolution Explained’ campaign in February 2025, a multi-channel approach, including organic social media, newsletters, and local authority websites, to disseminate consistent and clear information across the region.

Thurrock communications teams reported 29,000 impressions from their various social media channels.

Southend Council reported 30 posts published across council’s Facebook, X and LinkedIn channels to promote the consultation, as well as explainer information about devolution. They reported an online reach of 25,212 and overall impressions of 36,192.

Essex County Council confirmed 30 posts across Facebook, X, Instagram, LinkedIn and Nextdoor resulting in 218,756 social media impressions across all social media channels. They also provided updates from a dedicated Sustainable Growth team to approximately 150 key business and education contacts at key milestones, encouraging engagement with the consultation and suggest letters of support are submitted to MHCLG, which added significantly to the positive responses from organisations.   

Number of responses

Overall, the consultation in Greater Essex resulted in 4,070 responses from individuals and organisations including: 

• 3,958 from members of the public and 112 from a range of organisations including the prospective constituent and other local councils, businesses, the voluntary and community sectors and academic institutions  

• 4,040 of the responses were received online, whilst 30 responses were via post  

Summary of responses

Respondents in Greater Essex expressed diverse opinions on the establishment of a Mayoral Combined County Authority (MCCA). Many saw potential benefits in strategic planning and economic growth, particularly through improved adult skills funding and collaborative economic initiatives. The importance of strategic planning for housing, infrastructure, and transport was highlighted, with key corridors like the A133, A120, and A12 being crucial for connectivity and economic development. However, concerns were expressed about the risk of fragmented support and slow investment. Local authorities, public sector organisations and residents were united in seeking reassurances that a Combined County Authority would deliver regional benefits rather than further bureaucratic obstacles.  

Respondents in favour of the proposal noted that it would provide opportunities to:

1. Improve local decision making and accountability: Respondents in favour noted that the proposal could help shape policies to reflect local needs more accurately.

2. Promote economic growth and inward investment: Respondents in favour believed that a mayoral combined county authority could boost the regional economy by attracting new investment, improving transport, and supporting local business development.

3. Align and coordinate infrastructure and planning: Respondents in favour welcomed the chance to align planning, transport, and development strategies under a single vision, improving long-term infrastructure delivery across Essex.

4. Improve public service efficiency: Respondents in favour noted that a strategic approach to public service delivery would cut duplication, improve standards, and address inconsistencies across local authorities.

5. Improve environmental outcomes: Respondents in favour supported GECCA’s potential to address climate and environmental challenges through better coordinated green investment and land use policies.

Respondents who disagreed with the proposal expressed concerns about:

1. Political and administrative complexity: Respondents who disagreed expressed concerns that the proposal could be costly and add confusion or bureaucracy without clear benefits.

2. Lack of local representation: Respondents who disagreed feared that decision making would be centralised by a small number of political actors, marginalising smaller towns and rural areas.

3. Waste of public funds: Respondents who disagreed were concerned the authority could require significant setup and running costs, reducing resources available for frontline services and local investment.

4. Loss of community identity: Respondents who disagreed raised concerns that the proposal would dilute historic and community identities, weakening place-based decision making.

Summaries of responses by questions are at Annex A.  

Responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders and organisations, as outlined at Annex B. This included:

Prospective constituent councils

Prospective constituent councils observed that the proposal would improve local decision-making and service delivery. All parties strongly supported the proposed geography, citing for example, economic growth and transport benefits. One party, while recognising the broader benefits, raised concerns about the proposed governance and 3:2:2 membership distribution, which they felt did not proportionately represent the population distribution. Suggestions for alternative voting configurations, such as 2:1:1 or 4:2:2, were made to ensure fair representation.

District councils

District councils saw the potential benefits of service coordination but expressed concerns around potential funding pressures and fair representation, emphasising the importance of local perspectives remaining central to decision-making.

Town and parish councils

Town and parish councils believed the proposal may provide an opportunity for strengthened parish and town council influence but raised concerns about diminished local influence over planning, services, and funding decisions, particularly for rural and smaller communities, and risks of local identity not being safeguarded.

Businesses

Businesses recognised benefits such as streamlined governance and increased investment, seeing opportunities to modernise perceptions of Essex and attract inward investment but raised concerns about the potential for duplication and excessive bureaucracy.

Academic institutions

Academic institutions emphasised the long-term potential for collaboration in areas such as education, skills development, and sustainability. They thought the proposal could bring opportunities for strategic investment in growth sectors and local service improvement, while underlining the importance of maintaining robust democratic processes.

Charities and voluntary organisations

Charities and voluntary organisations emphasised the importance of protecting local identity and ensuring meaningful representation for smaller communities. While some acknowledged the potential benefits of improved coordination in areas such as transport and service delivery, concerns were expressed around local needs being overlooked. They stressed that any advantages from enhanced collaboration or more consistent investment would only be effective if built on authentic, locally-led involvement.

Government response  

The government is grateful for the time and effort respondents took to respond to the consultation and provide informative views on the proposal.

We were pleased to see many of the key benefits of devolution were acknowledged by respondents. Our firm belief remains that devolution across England is fundamental to achieving the change the public expect and deserve, including: growth, more joined-up delivery of public services, and politics being done with communities, not to them. Mayoral devolution lets Mayors use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive growth; their standing and soft power to convene local partners to tackle shared problems; and their platform to tackle the obstacles to growth that need a regional approach. It means they have skin in the game and are accountable to their citizens.

Devolution allows for better coordination and more locally-made decisions across transport, skills and employment support, housing and planning, the environment and climate change, business and research support, and better join up of public services. Policies across skills, innovation, and infrastructure are much more effective when used to complement each other. We have already seen the difference that can be made when local leaders and Mayors work together in the interests of the local population. It creates the right mix of local intelligence and capacity with strategic vision.

We noted the concerns expressed on powers being moved further away from local people and communities, into a new layer of local government. This goes fundamentally counter to our goal for devolution: power being transferred away from Westminster and London, and into the hands of local actors which understand the need of local communities best. Devolution gives communities a greater say in decisions that affect them. When policy is made at a national level, even the best intentions can fall short and invite public objection if the communities who should benefit are left powerless in the decision-making process. Devolution means policy can be tailored to local situations, based on a deep understanding of England’s regional economies.

The government will continue to encourage prospective constituent councils to engage with a wide variety of stakeholders across the area to ensure the needs of communities are reflected in the GECCA’s decision-making. Alongside actively listening to feedback on governance, we will continue to stress the importance of close engagement with those stakeholders that understand the needs and priorities of local communities, which could include district, town and parish councils. The GECCA will have responsibility for appointing non-constituent and associate members to provide particular experience and expertise and this could include district council representatives, business voices, charities and academic institutions. Non-constituent members are representatives of an organisation whilst associate members are named individuals who can provide particular experience or expertise. Additionally, to enable effective working with the public, private and voluntary sectors, we will explore a wide-ranging legal power for Strategic Authorities to deliver in their areas of competence. We will also explore enabling Mayors to promote economic, social, and environmental aims and convene stakeholders with a corresponding duty on public authorities to respond.

In response to concerns that the creation of GECCA and the election of a mayor may add further bureaucracy, in a region like Greater Essex, devolution would initially sit on top of the existing two-tier structure of local government (with county and district councils). Separately but alongside devolution, the government is also facilitating a programme of local government reorganisation for two-tier areas, with the intention of moving to a single tier (with unitary councils). Fewer politicians, with the right powers, will streamline local government to focus on delivering for residents with clear roles and responsibilities for the future constituent councils and the combined county authority. As this consultation focusses on devolution only, we encourage respondents to engage on issues relating to local government reorganisation through discussions with all local councils currently involved in the process, and through any future local consultation on the matter as relevant.  

The government continues to firmly believe that a vital element of successful devolution is the ability for local residents to engage with and hold their devolved institutions to account. Our intention remains to continuously improve the accountability system for devolution to ensure leaders and mayors are more accountable to the public for delivering change. This will include, but is not limited to, the requirement to have an oversight and scrutiny committee, an audit committee, and a ‘Mayor’s Question Time’ for the public and the media to hold the Mayor to account. The current system of accountability and scrutiny is guided by the English Devolution Accountability Framework and Scrutiny Protocol, and the White Paper set out government’s intention to further improve accountability.

The government also noted concerns around funding and investment, including to manage transition costs. A Mayor will unlock the benefits of devolution, securing vital investment which respondents expect would boost the regional economy of GECCA. Mayors will be expected to drive growth in their areas by adopting Local Growth Plans, supporting businesses to thrive and grow and achieving real strategic economic planning. Through devolved funding, local communities are given the power to use their local knowledge to drive progress forward in their area, drive place-based economic regeneration, and increase local control over areas such as transport functions and devolution of Adult Skills Funding. The government is already working with prospective constituent councils on our capacity funding offer to help mitigate concerns around transition costs, we are providing £1million of mayoral capacity funding for the financial year 2025-26. This funding is intended to help the GECCA to set up and deliver its priorities effectively. We will also confirm the 30-year investment fund the area will receive as a core part of the devolution offer.

Next steps

Subject to the assessment on the statutory tests, the government will continue to work with Essex County Council, Southend-on-Sea City Council and Thurrock Council to establish the GECCA.

If the constituent councils consent, the necessary secondary legislation will be laid in Parliament. If approved by Parliament, the Combined County Authority would be established in time for the first mayoral election to take place in May 2026. 

Annex A: Responses by questions

Note: the percentages presented in the tables below are rounded to the nearest whole number. Due to this rounding, they may not sum up to 100%.

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing a Mayoral Combined County Authority over the proposed geography will deliver benefits to the area? 

Respondents in support of the proposal said it would help coordinate services, deliver strategic investment, and reduce fragmentation. Some organisations saw potential for strategic investment, regional innovation, and alignment with skills and sustainability goals, and the constituent councils in particular were keen to highlight assets such as trade gateways, Freeports, and international airports, alongside its diverse mix of rural, urban, and coastal environments.  

Those who disagreed said it could centralise power, reduce local accountability, and weaken community identity, especially in places like Southend, Thurrock, or rural Essex. Some believed the proposed geography was too large and diverse to be governed effectively as a single unit. District councils raised questions about fair funding allocation, particularly in economically strained areas and other organisations voiced general concerns about strategic focus versus regional priorities. Other organisations were positive but emphasised the importance of obtaining more details on implementation and funding.

Table 1: responses to question 1

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	50%	17%	25%	6%	3%
Academic	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
Business	59%	9%	32%	0%	0%
County Council	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	50%	20%	20%	10%	0%
Elected representative	0%	0%	100%	0%	0%
Other	57%	18%	14%	11%	0%
Parish Council	25%	31%	31%	0%	13%
Town Council	50%	0%	50%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	44%	17%	22%	11%	6%
Public	19%	7%	71%	0%	2%

Government response

For strategic decisions to drive growth, we need strong institutions at the right scale. The evidence is clear that to drive improved economic outcomes, we must devolve core levers over growth – like transport, skills, employment support and strategic planning – and align these across functional economic areas in which people live and work. Our firm belief remains that devolution across England is fundamental to achieving the change the public expect and deserve: clear leadership that achieves joined-up delivery of public services.

The 3 upper-tier local councils (Essex County Council, Thurrock Council and Southend-on-Sea City Council) already collaborate on several areas and share a Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (PFCC). The Greater Essex Business Board has recently been set up by the 3 upper-tier local authorities to drive collaborative economic growth across the region, and the councils have collaborated on a shared Local Skills Improvement Plan (LSIP) and local Growth Hub provision. This is an effective foundation for more joined-up thinking and makes it more likely that services deliver for citizens.

Places have distinct economic networks where people and companies interact, which can be much bigger than individual towns or councils. Aligning economic policies at this scale can help deliver productivity, because specialisms develop over the wider economic area separate to the individual towns or councils within it – such as a sector specialism needing a new research institute, or regional transport network to connect to new homes. Many public services are also delivered across large areas.

Devolution cannot maximise opportunities to bring levers together unless devolved governance covers wider public service footprints too, so services like health and skills can be brought together – meaning residents get more services for their taxes. Where that alignment can be introduced, this will bolster the capacity of the state to deliver. This government firmly believes that directly elected mayors create visible leadership and greater accountability to deliver on the diverse needs of their local residents. 

GECCA would be able to appoint a maximum of 7 non-constituent and associate members who can support the delivery of their work programme through their position, such as a district council, local NHS trust, the Police and Crime Commissioner, or a local registered provider serving as a non-constituent member. Associate members are named individuals who can provide particular experience or expertise – for example, on active travel, or local businesses – and represent community voices at the highest level of the CCA.   

The government has been clear that it is vital all local authorities are engaged and actively involved in improving their areas, working across all levels of government for the interests of the local community.

Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed governance arrangements for the Mayoral Combined County Authority? 

Those who agreed said the MCCA could simplify leadership, reduce duplication, and improve coordination. Many felt a single point of leadership would enhance strategic planning and accountability across the county. Some praised the prospect of local representation through an elected Mayor, provided checks and balances mechanisms were retained. Overall organisational respondents welcomed the potential for clearer leadership and streamlined regional governance, anticipating benefits such as more coordinated planning, consistent decision-making, and county-wide policy alignment.

Some respondents cited the need to clarify the governance arrangements that GECCA will operate. Others who disagreed highlighted a lack of certainty around the functions and accountability of non-constituent members, and the role of the Mayor in relation to existing local authorities. Smaller local authorities also voiced concerns their presence in any new structure could be diminished, whilst businesses were more optimistic about efficient decision-making.

Table 2: responses to question 2

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	33%	23%	37%	6%	2%
Academic	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
Business	45%	14%	36%	0%	5%
County Council	25%	0%	75%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	10%	20%	60%	10%	0%
Elected representative	0%	25%	75%	0%	0%
Other	36%	21%	32%	11%	0%
Parish Council	19%	38%	44%	0%	0%
Town Council	50%	25%	25%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	28%	33%	22%	11%	6%
Public	17%	8%	71%	1%	3%

Government response

Directly elected Mayors create visible leadership and greater accountability. Mayors have become vital local leaders, delivering on the promise of change in their area to drive growth, more joined-up delivery, and earning trust. Evidence from existing Mayoral areas in England shows that Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed, have the standing to convene local partners and tackle shared problems, have a platform for tackling the obstacles to growth that require a regional approach, are accountable to their citizens and represent their area on the national stage.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act established the Combined County Authority model to reflect the scale of delivery needed for devolved functions, such as strategic transport, which upper-tier local authorities are typically responsible for. By ensuring strategic decisions are made at the upper-tier level, with fewer constituent members, it allows for more streamlined decision-making to reduce bureaucracy. This streamlining also aligns with our longer-term ambitions to establish a single tier of local government to underpin Strategic Authorities, and any future unitary structures emerging from the local government reorganisation process will replace upper-tier authorities as constituent councils in the Greater Essex area.

However, acknowledging the essential role district councils will play in delivery and the invaluable local perspective they can bring to the CCA until the local government reorganisation process has concluded, we expect effective levels of collaboration to be demonstrated between constituent members and district councils - for example through non-constituent membership - especially where the district council covers the primary city or economy in that county.

Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will support the economy of the area? 

Those who agreed said it would help unlock inward investment, enable long-term strategic planning, and reduce duplication in economic development initiatives. Some organisations saw potential for strategic investment, regional innovation, and alignment with skills and sustainability goals, while questions were raised about fair funding allocation, particularly in economically strained areas. The prospective constituent authorities were keen on the attractiveness to further private investment of long-term planning and stable funding, and the benefits of adopting a Local Growth Plan.

Those who disagreed said it could waste resources, disadvantage local enterprises, or unfairly shift investment to certain areas. A strong theme was that well-managed areas could be financially penalised by funding those in debt (especially Thurrock). Many expressed concern about promised growth. Smaller local authorities flagged concerns about equitable distribution of economic benefits, whilst some businesses were concerned about the feasibility of public sector delivery on funding and major projects.  

Table 3: responses to question 3

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	51%	18%	24%	6%	2%
Academic	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
Business	55%	9%	32%	0%	5%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	60%	20%	10%	10%	0%
Elected representative	0%	0%	100%	0%	0%
Other	57%	14%	18%	11%	0%
Parish Council	19%	44%	31%	0%	6%
Town Council	50%	25%	25%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	50%	17%	22%	11%	0%
Public	20%	10%	67%	0%	3%

Government response

The government acknowledges that GECCA would need funding certainty to be able to plan for the long-term and get maximum impact from their spending. The 30-year investment funds will remain a core part of the Devolution offer to the area. The government will also provide support through Mayoral Capacity Funding to help with the costs of establishing GECCA. Council finances remain separate from the GECCA, such that council debt cannot be spread through the Combined County Authority.

The government wants to build an economy that works for everyone, and to do this we need a new way of governing. To truly get growth in every corner of the country and put more money into people’s pockets, we must rewire England and end the hoarding in Whitehall by devolving power and money from central government to those that know their area best.

Mayors will be equipped with a range of new powers and greater control of local funding across planning, infrastructure, transport, skills, business and energy, with strong and effective partnerships in place with councils and other partners to deliver the missions we have set out to transform the country. Alongside this, Mayors will have a statutory duty to produce Local Growth Plans, setting out a long-term vision for growth in their region over the next decade and a roadmap for how this can be achieved. 

Existing Strategic Authorities have demonstrated their ability to deliver major projects using the powers available under mayoral devolution. For example, South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority brought the Supertram network back into public control after 27 years, and already is seeing drops in fare evasion, increases in usage, and improvements to customer experience such as a ticketing app and improved cleaning. Greater Manchester Combined Authority started taking control of its bus services in 2023, and as a result punctuality has increased (above 80% from 69%) and ridership is up.   

Question 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will improve social outcomes in the area? 

Those who agreed said devolution could deliver more equitable service delivery, help tackle deprivation and recalibrate support across the region. Some noted that benefits would depend on implementation, funding, and leadership. Organisational responses to the proposed MCCA’s impact on social outcomes were optimistic, particularly regarding its potential to reduce inequality and better align services. Several supportive views were conditional, calling for greater clarity on how social priorities would be set. Localised approaches and community involvement were considered essential to success. The constituent local authorities were keen to highlight the benefit of coordinated services on overall social outcomes, such as taking on Police and Fire Commissioner duties and taking a place on Integrated Care Boards. Businesses were cautiously optimistic, keen to see examples of successes in this field previously and conscious that better collaboration could lead to desired outcomes

Those who disagreed doubted the evidence of benefits, and argued that larger, more remote structures could make it harder to address specific local needs. Town and Parish Councils shared concerns that smaller, local challenges would be overlooked in a strategic outlook from a Mayor.

Table 4: responses to question 4

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	44%	17%	29%	6%	5%
Academic	75%	0%	25%	0%	0%
Business	41%	9%	41%	0%	9%
County Council	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	50%	30%	10%	10%	0%
Elected representative	0%	0%	100%	0%	0%
Other	57%	14%	14%	11%	4%
Parish Council	19%	31%	44%	0%	6%
Town Council	50%	0%	50%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	33%	22%	22%	11%	11%
Public	15%	12%	69%	0%	4%

Government response

Devolution means policy can be tailored to local situations, based on a deep understanding of England’s regional economies. Devolution enables more decisions to be made by those who know their areas best, leading to better outcomes and a more efficient use of resources. 

The Framework lays out the government’s expectation of close collaborative working between local authorities, which it sees as crucial to improve areas for the benefit of local communities. Future opportunities for devolution and partnership working would also be explored with the proposed Combined County Authority, informed by the local expertise of constituent authorities.

When policy is made at a national level, even the best intentions can fall short and invite public objection if the communities who should benefit are left powerless in the decision-making process. Devolution gives communities a greater say in decisions that affect them, encourages the delivery of efficient, effective, and equitable local services, and to help the public hold their leaders to account for delivering change.

The proposed mayoral combined county authority would have a specific duty in relation to health, which would ensure that health is and will remain a key priority in the exercise of its functions. The government has committed to ensuring all areas with Mayoral devolution have a long-term investment fund. Some examples of how existing combined or combined county authorities have used their powers and funding to improve social outcomes include the homelessness taskforce ran by the West Midlands Combined Authority or the Foundational Economy Innovation Fund which was established to help sectors such as health and social care, early education and childcare become more resilient. 

Mayors will also be able to appoint and renumerate commissioners to lead on key functions, giving them more flexibility in how they choose to deliver for their area. They will not be members of the Strategic Authority, and the roles would be expected to reflect areas of competence.

Other Combined County Authorities have taken specific steps to retain focus on communities concerned about being overlooked. For example, the North East Combined Authority (NECA) has specifically designated a member of the leadership Cabinet with a Rural portfolio to ensure equality of attention across all areas of the region. Mayors will also be able to appoint and renumerate commissioners to lead on key functions, giving them more flexibility in how they choose to deliver for their area. They will not be members of the Strategic Authority, and the roles would be expected to reflect areas of competence.

Question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through a Mayoral Combined County Authority will improve local government services in the area? 

Those who agreed said that economies of scale, reduced duplication, and better coordination would be likely. Several responses pointed out existing inefficiencies and inconsistencies in service provision. Others believed standardising approaches across the region would improve quality and efficiency. Many organisations recognised the potential benefits in the proposed changes. Positive views emphasised the opportunity for more consistent and streamlined services, cost savings through shared procurement, and enhanced long-term financial resilience. The county council and the unitaries shared a goal of more streamlined and sustainable public services that moved to a preventative rather than reactive model. Smaller councils accepted the benefits of strategic leadership across services, but were concerned GECCA would introduce a new layer of bureaucratic oversight.

Some organisations were unsure about whether the proposed arrangements would lead to better local services. Concerns focused on the scale of the geography, risks of strategic decision-making losing sight of local needs, and a lack of clarity on how smaller or rural communities would be served. Others raised fears over increased costs, diluted representation, and inefficiencies that could further strain already overstretched services. Those who disagreed also said it would create more bureaucracy, increase costs, and reduce service quality. Many questioned why funding could not be used directly to improve services instead of creating new structures. Businesses were overall more cautious, citing previous negative experiences with established local authorities, whilst charities and the voluntary sector expressed concerns over local needs being eclipsed by a larger strategic authority.

Some respondents provided responses relating to local government reorganisation rather than devolution when asked about local government services.

Table 5: responses to question 5

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	40%	21%	28%	6%	6%
Academic	75%	0%	25%	0%	0%
Business	36%	23%	32%	0%	9%
County Council	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	50%	30%	10%	10%	0%
Elected representative	0%	25%	75%	0%	0%
Other	57%	18%	14%	11%	0%
Parish Council	13%	19%	56%	0%	13%
Town Council	50%	0%	50%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	22%	28%	22%	11%	17%
Public	16%	10%	70%	0%	3%

Government response

This government is committed to resetting the relationship with local and regional government, empowering local leaders and Mayors to make the right decisions for their communities, and working together to grow an inclusive economy, reform public services and secure better outcomes.

The government has a clear ambition to rebuild and reform local government as the foundation of devolution, by getting the basics right and resetting the framework to ensure the sector is fit, legal and decent. As such, local government reorganisation is taking place in parallel to devolution across Greater Essex. However, they remain separate processes and this consultation focussed on devolution only.

Evidence shows that, under the right conditions, devolution can help solve key challenges with respect to local government services:

• on growth, devolution to capable local leaders at strategic scales has been linked to higher productivity, meaning more money in people’s pockets
• when it comes to trust in politics, directly elected Mayors are the most recognisable local political figures, and people think more power should come down from national government
• in other developed countries that introduced greater devolution, people were more satisfied with public services

Greater devolved powers need to go hand in hand with the necessary evidence and data – both to design and deliver efficient, effective, and equitable local services, and to help the public hold their leaders to account for delivering change.

The proposed GECCA is distinct from the local government reorganisation process which is being undertaken separately. GECCA will not lead on delivery of local services such as waste, social care and libraries. Instead, it will take on additional devolved powers, functions and funding, which previously have been held by central government, as set out in the devolution framework.

Question 6: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through a Mayoral Combined County Authority will improve the local natural environment and overall national environment? 

Those who agreed said it would enable county-wide environmental planning and better coordination of sustainability policies. Amongst organisations, the feedback reveals a strong demand for any new governance structure to be underpinned by a robust environmental strategy, grounded in both national objectives and local realities. Those in favour highlighted the opportunity for cross-boundary environmental planning, especially for complex issues like decarbonisation, flood resilience, and biodiversity recovery. Some organisations pointed to strategic benefits in integrating active travel and green space access into planning frameworks, especially for disadvantaged areas with limited green infrastructure.

Those who disagreed said it could weaken environmental protections, or that it would be ignored in favour of development and growth. A recurring theme was the concern that local ecological knowledge and landscape sensitivities would be lost in a single governance model. Many were concerned that the MCCA would not prioritise environmental sustainability over housing and infrastructure growth targets.

Table 6: responses to question 6

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	37%	20%	28%	7%	9%
Academic	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
Business	27%	18%	41%	0%	14%
County Council	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	40%	20%	20%	10%	10%
Elected representative	0%	0%	100%	0%	0%
Other	46%	18%	11%	18%	7%
Parish Council	25%	19%	44%	0%	13%
Town Council	50%	0%	50%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	22%	33%	22%	11%	11%
Public	13%	16%	66%	0%	5%

Government response

The government is clear that the proposed GECCA would be crucial partner in achieving our clean power mission and support efforts to protect the natural environment and biodiversity of not only the local area but the whole of England. This includes through joint work with Great British Energy through the Local Power Plan to support the roll out of small-medium renewable energy projects at the local level.

The government also recognises the unique strategic role that GECCA could play in planning our future energy system by operating across a functional economic area. To give it a meaningful role in planning our future energy system, the National Energy System Operator will engage with them as it develops Regional Energy Strategic Plans and provide a transparent route for local insights to inform energy system planning.

GECCA would also play a crucial role in preparing for the future and tackling climate change and nature emergencies at the local and regional level. Local, place-based environmental leadership is an essential part of this. Over time, we envisage it would be appointed the Local Nature Recovery Strategies responsible authority.

The government recognises the vital role of Mayors and Strategic Authorities in preparing for the future and tackling climate change and nature emergencies at both local and regional levels. Together with Defra, we will continue to explore opportunities to deepen devolution and foster partnership working with Mayors to strengthen their role in climate adaptation and in responding to the impacts of climate change. We would also explore how it could provide greater local leadership in responding to the impacts of climate change, and a better route for rural communities to be considered in local policy decision making. GECCA can provide greater local leadership in responding to the impacts of climate change, and a better route for rural communities to be considered in local policy decision making. This could be through the Mayoral Council, or the Council of Nations and Regions, giving GECCA a significant voice in influencing national policy.

Some of our existing Mayoral combined or combined county authorities use the investment fund to support environmental targets. For example, in York and North Yorkshire, the Combined Authority launched the Carbon Negative Challenge Fund to support ambitions to become England’s first carbon negative region.

Question 7: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined County Authority will support the interests and needs of local communities and reflect local identities? 

Those who agreed still noted that delivery would depend on clear local engagement mechanisms and ensuring smaller or more rural areas were not overlooked. In responses, the county council did raise again their concern about the proposed governance, but the county council and unitaries emphasised the need for closer engagement with district and town authorities, stressing that local knowledge and democratic legitimacy should be embedded in decision-making. This complemented the needs and concerns of smaller local authorities who were concerned over the impact of a strategic authority on local community priorities. The constituent local authorities also recognised devolved powers as a way to shape decisions around local values and needs, and ensure policies reflected community diversity

Those who disagreed said it could weaken local identity and centralise power, while others felt concerned they had not been consulted more directly. Most organisational respondents expressed concerns that a larger authority would overlook distinct local identities and diminish local influence. There was scepticism that a mayoral structure would be responsive to diverse community needs, particularly in rural or smaller areas. Many worried about diluted representation and the risk of decision-making being driven by the needs of denser regions at the expense of more disparate rural areas. Businesses appeared split, positive on a ‘regional’ identity across GECCA but concerned smaller and more local values would be overlooked.

Table 7: responses to question 7

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	27%	26%	36%	8%	3%
Academic	50%	25%	25%	0%	0%
Business	32%	27%	36%	5%	0%
County Council	0%	75%	25%	0%	0%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	0%	50%	30%	10%	10%
Elected representative	0%	25%	75%	0%	0%
Other	43%	18%	18%	21%	0%
Parish Council	6%	25%	63%	0%	6%
Town Council	50%	0%	50%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	22%	22%	39%	11%	6%
Public	13%	9%	75%	0%	3%

Government response

By pushing more power out of Whitehall, this government is undertaking major structural reform to deliver better democratic and economic outcomes for people and places across England. With more power devolved in England, people will see priorities for their area set locally, with policies tailored to needs and circumstances.

This could include easier commutes through a single transport system, skills and employment provision that are more relevant to local jobs, more houses that are matched with new infrastructure or support from public services that talk to each other and understand what support people need.

GECCA would be able to appoint a maximum of 7 non-constituent and associate members who can support the delivery of their work programme through their position, such as a district council, local NHS trust, the Police and Crime Commissioner, or a local registered provider serving as a non-constituent member. Associate members are named individuals who can provide particular experience or expertise – for example, on active travel, or local businesses – and represent community voices at the highest level of the CCA.

The government has been clear that it is vital all local authorities are engaged and actively involved in improving their areas, working across all levels of government for the interests of the local community.

Annex B: Consultation respondents 

Respondents using the Citizen Space response form were asked to self-report on their respondent type.

Respondent	Responses
Academic	4
Business	22
County Council	4
Unitary Council	2
District Council	10
Elected representative	4
Parish Council	16
Town Council	4
Voluntary and community sector or charity	18
Other	28
Public	3,958