Consultation outcome

Norfolk and Suffolk devolution consultation response

Updated 17 July 2025

Introduction 

The government ran a statutory public consultation on the proposal to establish a Mayoral Combined County Authority which would include the areas of Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County 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 Norfolk and Suffolk Mayoral Combined County Authority (NSCCA) have been met.

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:  

• issuing 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 Norfolk and Suffolk on 27 March and met with local leaders

• a social media advertising campaign promoted the consultation on Facebook and Instagram. Across these platforms, a collective 1.01 million impressions and 5431 video views (4.49% view through rate) were reported

• physical assets were distributed (3,300 flyers, 200 posters and 100 hard copy consultation documents)

Officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) ran an in-person event on 3 April in Ipswich. Officials from MHCLG attended 4 stakeholder events to present on the consultation: 

• Suffolk Information Partnership meeting 

• Empowering Partnerships Board meeting 

• Suffolk Association of Local Councils meeting 

• Norfolk Business Board meeting 

The 2 prospective constituent authorities also promoted the consultation:

Suffolk County Council  

Suffolk County Council promoted the consultation on suffolk.gov.uk throughout the live period. They promoted the link to the consultation and details of consultation event at Novotel Hotel in Ipswich to their county councillors.

They also promoted the consultation link shared with a comprehensive list of local stakeholders, including businesses, community groups, education and public sector.

Finally, there was extensive and repeated internal communications to Suffolk County Council employees encouraging them to complete the consultation. Across Facebook and X, 61,000 saw Suffolk County Council’s posts about the consultation and 1,200 clicked on the links.  

Norfolk County Council

Norfolk County Council promoted the consultation as the lead piece on their website throughout the consultation.

They promoted the consultation in their news magazine, ‘Your Norfolk’, which was delivered to 440,000 households. They also promoted it in their digital bulletin, ‘Your Norfolk Extra’, which reached 6,000 subscribers – the devo story was the most opened article in those editions (approx. 4,000 people read it).

Number of responses

Overall, the consultation in Norfolk and Suffolk resulted in 3,115 responses from individuals and organisations including: 

• 2,966 from members of the public and 149 from a range of organisations including the prospective constituent and other local councils, businesses, the voluntary and community sectors and academic institutions 

• 3,085 of the responses were received online, whilst 30 responses were via email or post

Summary of responses

Opinions were divided across respondents and themes set out in the consultation. While many respondents considered that the proposal could allow for greater strategic coordination over key infrastructure such as housing, some expressed concerns on the ability of the proposed NSCCA to reflect the varied identities of towns, cities and rural communities across the area.  

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

• Improve local decision-making and accountability. Respondents in favour welcomed further devolution of powers to local leaders. They noted that a directly elected mayor could improve transparency and accountability and that local decision-making could lead to more responsive policies, better tailored to local needs. 

• Improve economic growth and investment. Respondents in favour believed the NSCCA would attract funding and stimulate job creation. They noted that a unified regional voice would enhance the region’s competitiveness, arguing that a stronger voice would allow the area to more meaningfully shape major policy decisions and attract investment in areas such as Great Yarmouth, Lowestoft, and King’s Lynn. 

• Improved strategic planning and service delivery. Respondents in favour noted the proposal could reduce duplication across services and improve efficiency. Respondents noted this could result in better coordination in areas such as transport and housing.   

Respondents who disagreed with the proposal expressed concerns about: 

• Lack of local representation. Respondents who disagreed expressed concerns that rural and smaller communities could be sidelined, with decisions made centrally by distant or politically dominant authorities. 

• Political and administrative complexity. Respondents who disagreed expressed concerns about the NSCCA being an additional structure that could create confusion or dilute accountability. 

• Uncertainty about benefits. Respondents who disagreed expressed doubts over whether the NSCCA would deliver genuine improvements and expressed concerns that the proposal would add costs on residents without guaranteed returns. 

• Distrust of centralisation. Respondents who disagreed were concerned that power would become concentrated in urban centres, leading to decisions that fail to reflect the region’s diversity and rural priorities. 

• Financial risks and costs. Respondents who disagreed highlighted the financial burden of setting up the NSCCA, feeling that funds could be better used by existing councils and services. 

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

Both proposed constituent councils unanimously supported the proposal for NSCCA, highlighting key benefits such as increased funding and powers enabling Norfolk and Suffolk to achieve local ambitions in infrastructure, housing, skills, and economic development.

They noted the proposal would support economic growth facilitated by coordinated investment in key sectors, promising job creation, innovation, and resilience. They noted that the presence of a directly elected Mayor could provide the area with a stronger regional voice and influence, enhancing visibility and investment.

They noted that, to ensure success, the proposals would need to clarify functions, maintain local focus, engage broader stakeholders, align efforts with existing structures, and streamline decision-making processes.  

District councils

Respondents emphasised the need to ensure that the unique needs of smaller communities were fully recognised within the governance of the NSCCA. While some welcomed the opportunity for better coordination and investment, concerns were raised about the potential for decision-making to become too remote from local residents. Respondents felt that local identity, service responsiveness, and accountability must be preserved and strengthened rather than diluted.

They stressed that future success would depend on clear mechanisms to maintain district representation and ensure that all parts of Norfolk and Suffolk benefited fairly from regional strategies. 

Town and parish councils

While respondents noted that regional collaboration could support funding opportunities and service improvements, they raised concerns about the risk of losing local identity and of smaller towns and villages being overlooked in favour of urban centres.

Respondents stressed that the success of the NSCCA would be contingent on ensuring that consultation and decision-making remained genuinely community-led. 

Academic institutions

Respondents highlighted the opportunity for stronger partnerships between higher education, local authorities, and businesses to drive innovation, skills development, and economic growth. They welcomed the potential for a more strategic, joined-up approach to regional planning, particularly around sectors such as green technology, digital industries, and healthcare.

However, respondents cautioned that research priorities must not be distorted by short-term political or economic pressures. Evidence-led, long-term vision was seen as essential to ensure that policy making remained forward-looking, sustainable, and grounded in robust expertise. 

Charities and voluntary sector

Respondents stressed the importance of protecting vulnerable groups and ensuring that tackling social inequality remained a central focus of future governance. They recognised opportunities for improved partnership working, greater access to funding, and better coordination of services across the region. However, concerns were raised that smaller voluntary organisations could be side lined if governance became too centralised or bureaucratic.

Respondents called for future structures to embed community voices deeply within decision-making processes and ensure that investment and services were shaped by, and responsive to, the needs of all communities. 

Business and business groups

Respondents generally welcomed the prospect of the NSCCA to help drive economic development, improve infrastructure, and attract new investment into Norfolk and Suffolk. Opportunities to build on the region’s strengths in energy, technology, agriculture, and tourism were widely highlighted.

However, there was caution that new governance structures must not add unnecessary bureaucracy or delay decision-making. Respondents stressed the importance of involving the private sector in shaping economic strategies and ensuring that policies remained practical, flexible, and closely aligned to the needs of businesses.

There was a clear call for creating an environment that would enhance competitiveness and support both urban growth centres and rural enterprises across the region.

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 transferred away from Westminster and London and into the hands of local actors which understand the need of local communities best. Devolution means policy can be tailored to local situations, based on a deep understanding of England’s regional economies, giving communities a greater say in decisions that affect them.  

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 NSCCA’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 NSCCA 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 the NSCCA and the election of a mayor may add further bureaucracy. In a region like Norfolk and Suffolk, 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 focuses 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.  

Our intention is to work with local leaders and councillors to bring more recognition, change and growth to their area, including through ensuring the Mayor has strong visibility and a firm democratic mandate to ensure accountability to local people. This will include, but is not limited to, the requirement to have an oversight and scrutiny committee, an audit committee, and a ‘Mayors Question Time’ for the public and the media to hold the Mayor to account. 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. 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. 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. 

The government also noted concerns around funding and investment, including to manage transition costs. 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 will provide £1 million of mayoral capacity funding for the financial year 2025-26.This funding is intended to help the NSCCA 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 shortly.

Next steps  

Subject to the assessment on the statutory tests, the government will continue to work with Norfolk County Council and Suffolk County Council, to establish the NSCCA.  

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 who agreed with the proposal noted it would reduce duplication, bring strategic coordination, and allow the region to speak with one voice. Respondents viewed Norfolk and Suffolk as having shared challenges, especially across infrastructure and rural service delivery, and felt joint planning could help tackle these. Prospective constituent councils were in favour of the proposed MCCA geography, viewing Norfolk and Suffolk as a logical and connected region with shared transport corridors, natural assets and economic sectors. The proposed NSCCA geography was welcomed for its potential to strengthen regional influence. Some district councils believed that the scale of the area was appropriate for decision making on a strategic scale. Businesses in favour of the proposed geography welcomed the potential for a single strategic voice to provide a focus for engagement and noted the benefits of coordinated planning across Norfolk and Suffolk. 

Those who disagreed with the proposal expressed concerns around the size, differences and regional distinctions across Norfolk and Suffolk. Respondents, including some district councils, raised concerns about the risk of losing of local focus, especially for rural areas. Town and Parish Councils who disagreed with the proposed geography expressed concerns that smaller parishes would be overlooked within such a large geographical area. Businesses who disagreed with the proposals noted a risk that increased distance from major urban centres would lead to reduced influence.

Table 1: responses to question 1

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisation	51%	19%	23%	2%	4%
Academic	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Business	45%	10%	45%	0%	0%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	69%	25%	0%	0%	6%
Elected representative	75%	0%	25%	0%	0%
Other	57%	22%	17%	4%	0%
Parish Council	14%	43%	29%	0%	14%
Town Council	40%	33%	20%	0%	7%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	70%	0%	22%	9%	0%
Public	25%	9%	65%	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. 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.  

The area already aligns with two police forces and fire rescue authorities for Norfolk and Suffolk. Where mayoral geographies align with police force and fire and rescue geographies, Mayors will be, by default, responsible for exercising Police and Crime Commissioner and Fire and Rescue Authority functions. This should drive more joined-up thinking and make it more likely that those services deliver for citizens. Many public services are also delivered across large areas. Devolution cannot maximise opportunities to bring these 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.  

The government recognises that rural areas face different challenges to those faced by existing urban CAs. The powers in the devolution White Paper, and the associated funding, for example the investment fund, can be applied to meet local priorities in rural areas, and represent the floor, not the ceiling of the government’s ambition for devolution.

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

Respondents in favour of the proposal said the MCCA could bring clear leadership, more democratic accountability, and better coordination than the current system. Many appreciated the idea of strategic leadership through an elected Mayor as a single, visible point of accountability, enhancing the regions voice at the national level. Prospective and constituent councils were particularly positive towards the proposed MCCA governance model, with the promise of clear leadership and robust decision-making processes. They believed another strength was seen to be the inclusion of various stakeholders and the establishment of transparent accountability mechanisms.  

Respondents who disagreed argued that a directly elected Mayor could reduce local representation, and introduce a new, costly layer of bureaucracy, that there could be issues with political bias, poor accountability, or that the mayor wouldn’t reflect the diversity of the region. Some also objected to the postponement of local elections, viewing it as undemocratic. District councils, alongside Town and Parish Councils generally disagreed with the proposed governance arrangements, highlighting their exclusion as undermining local representation. A wide variety of respondent highlighted the need to see more information on how the proposed CCA would engage with local stakeholders.

Table 2: responses to question 2

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisation	36%	18%	40%	3%	4%
Academic	57%	14%	14%	0%	14%
Business	32%	10%	55%	0%	3%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	19%	12%	69%	0%	0%
Elected representative	75%	0%	25%	0%	0%
Other	43%	26%	22%	9%	0%
Parish Council	14%	21%	54%	0%	11%
Town Council	27%	33%	33%	0%	7%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	57%	17%	17%	9%	0%
Public	22%	10%	65%	0%	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.  

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. 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. 

In relation to concerns around election delays, there is a well-established precedent for postponing elections as part of local government reorganisation, including in the cases of North Yorkshire, Cumbria and Somerset elections, and Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire district council elections, under the previous government. The bar to postpone elections has been extremely high. We agreed to requests from 9 local councils, including Norfolk and Suffolk, to postpone elections due in May 2025 until May 2026.   

These councils made the strongest possible case that this will help them to deliver both reorganisation and devolution to the most ambitious timeframe.

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? 

Respondents who agreed with the proposals said a Combined County Authority could tackle shared barriers to growth (e.g. transport, housing, digital infrastructure), attract investment, and help deliver a long-term regional economic strategy. Respondents also mentioned the opportunity to align training and education more closely with the needs of the local economy. Prospective constituent councils said the MCCA would be able to support the economy, with the ability to enhance key sectors such as clean energy. District Councils also shared the belief that the proposed MCCA would support the economy of the local area.  

Those who disagreed said it would waste money through additional administration layers, fail to understand rural needs, and concentrate investment in major towns, with warnings that rural economies would lose out. These concerns were particularly prominent amongst Town and Parish Councils. Many respondents whilst believing in the proposed MCCA’s ability to support the economy, they wanted to ensure that any MCCA would engage with stakeholders around strategy and implementation.  

Table 3: responses to question 3

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisation	52%	19%	21%	3%	5%
Academic	86%	14%	0%	0%	0%
Business	42%	10%	48%	0%	0%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	88%	12%	0%	0%	0%
Elected representative	75%	25%	0%	0%	0%
Other	57%	26%	13%	4%	0%
Parish Council	14%	36%	25%	8%	18%
Town Council	40%	27%	27%	0%	7%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	70%	9%	9%	9%	4%
Public	25%	11%	61%	0%	3%

Government response

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.  

The government acknowledges that the NSCCA 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, and this provides flexibility for the NSCCA to address the particular needs of Norfolk and Suffolk as a diverse and rural area. 

These powers, responsibilities and funding are critical to enabling mayoral strategic authorities to take a holistic approach to growth, tailored to the needs of local residents, businesses and other key stakeholders.  

Government will also provide support through Mayoral Capacity Funding to help with the costs of establishing the NSCCA.

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? 

Respondents in favour of the proposal said that devolved power could lead to more locally informed decisions, better service planning, and reduced inequality. Prospective constituent councils and district councils agreed with this view, however district councils did raise the potential loss of local connection. Respondents also highlighted the potential benefits of unified leadership and coordination, highlighting the opportunity for more consistent service standards and improved collaboration across geographic boundaries. There was strong belief that a regionally tailored approach could outperform centralised models. Respondents hoped this would lead to long-term investment in health, education, and community wellbeing. 

Respondents disagreeing said they were concerned about solutions being imposed across areas with diverse social needs. They argued it would not lead to real change and could worsen inequality by centralising decision-making and failing to address rural deprivation. Across a variety of respondents, including Town and Parish Councils, local businesses, and charities and voluntary organisations, the success of the proposals was viewed as highly dependent on how effectively local knowledge and participation would be embedded.  

Table 4: responses to question 4

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisation	34%	28%	28%	3%	7%
Academic	57%	43%	0%	0%	0%
Business	35%	19%	42%	0%	3%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	31%	25%	38%	0%	6%
Elected representative	50%	50%	0%	0%	0%
Other	43%	35%	13%	9%	0%
Parish Council	7%	29%	39%	4%	21%
Town Council	20%	47%	27%	0%	7%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	52%	17%	17%	9%	4%
Public	19%	13%	64%	0%	4%

Government response

Devolution means policy can be tailored to local situations, based on a deep understanding of England’s regional economies. Devolving powers in areas such as transport, skills, employment support and strategic planning, and aligning these across functional economic areas in which people live and work, can deliver social as well as economic benefits by, for example, putting health and wellbeing at the centre of place-based decision making, through the specific duty in relation to health in the devolution white paper, which would ensure that health is and will remain a key priority in the exercise of its functions. 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. 

Additionally, the government has committed to ensuring all areas with Mayoral devolution have a long term investment fund, which can be applied to meet local priorities in rural areas. 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. The North East Combined Authority has also 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? 

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

Respondents who agreed with the proposal said it could reduce waste and duplication, increase efficiency, and simplify access to services by integrating efforts across councils. Some respondents noted that while existing councils do some things well, a combined approach could improve coordination, especially in transport, housing, and social care. Some respondents suggested that the MCCA might bring strategic oversight to key areas such as transport, housing, skills and energy, and that joined up working could lead to better outcomes for residents. 

Respondents disagreeing with the proposal said it could remove local control, reduce responsiveness, and add bureaucracy. Some believed there was a risk that services would be consolidated or cut, particularly in rural and remote areas. A number doubted that the proposed structure would lead to practical improvements in local services. Concerns were raised that a larger administrative area could result in decisions made by people too distant from their communities, with reduced understanding of local needs. 

Table 5: responses to question 5

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisation	34%	23%	35%	4%	4%
Academic	71%	14%	0%	0%	14%
Business	39%	13%	48%	0%	0%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	19%	12%	62%	0%	6%
Elected representative	75%	0%	25%	0%	0%
Other	48%	22%	17%	13%	0%
Parish Council	7%	32%	46%	4%	11%
Town Council	13%	53%	27%	0%	7%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	43%	26%	22%	9%	0%
Public	20%	10%	67%	0%	2%

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 Norfolk and Suffolk. 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. 

We recognise that there may be confusion between devolution and local government reorganisation. Local government reorganisation, in Norfolk and Suffolk’s case, is the creation of a single tier of local government where there has previously been two tiers. Devolution is the creation of strategic tier of local government, that looks to bring together two or more local authorities, to make decisions over a strategic geography. Whilst they are linked, 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  

The proposed NSCCA is distinct from the local government reorganisation process which is being undertaken separately. The NSCCA 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? 

Respondents in favour of the proposal said that regional environmental strategies could address issues like climate change, energy resilience, and water quality more effectively than fragmented approaches. Prospective constituent councils considered the natural environment a priority, believing that the MCCA’s national influence could help support and augment local efforts to tackle climate change and protect natural assets. Academic institutions strongly endorsed the potential of a coordinated environmental approach through the MCCA, particularly if grounded in research, welcoming the focus on clean energy and the benefits it would bring to the environment. Transport providers observed transport was the largest source of carbon emissions in the region and a notable contributor to poor air quality. They believed transport framework powers within the Mayoral Authority provided an opportunity to accelerate Norfolk and Suffolk’s path to reducing carbon and air quality emissions from transport alongside local growth ambitions. 

Respondents disagreeing with the proposal said the proposed MCCA could damage conservation efforts or be used to push through unpopular housing schemes. These respondents expressed concern that environmental priorities would be sacrificed for growth. Doubts were raised about whether the proposed structure would have the necessary resources or commitment to address environmental challenges effectively. A variety of respondents including those in favour of the proposal emphasised the need for clarity around roles and responsibilities, with charities and voluntary sector organisations specifically raising concerns around the lack of statutory commitment to the environment.  

Table 6: responses to question 6

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisation	39%	21%	26%	6%	9%
Academic	86%	14%	0%	0%	0%
Business	35%	19%	42%	0%	3%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	56%	19%	25%	0%	0%
Elected representative	75%	0%	25%	0%	0%
Other	43%	22%	17%	17%	0%
Parish Council	11%	21%	43%	4%	21%
Town Council	33%	33%	7%	7%	20%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	39%	22%	17%	9%	13%
Public	18%	18%	59%	0%	5%

Government response

Local, place-based environmental leadership is essential and the government is clear that the proposed NSCCA 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 the NSCCA could play in planning our future energy system by operating across a functional economic area. In doing so, 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. Over time, we envisage the NSCCA would be appointed the Local Nature Recovery Strategies responsible authority.  

In addition, the government is committed to establishing heat network zoning in England. Zoning coordinators within the proposed NSCCA would be able to designate areas as heat network zones, enabling the most appropriate level of local government to assume the role of heat network zoning coordinator and play a key role in the delivery of heat decarbonisation. 

Existing Combined Authorities have used devolved powers and funding to support their environmental objectives. For example, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority launched a Carbon Negative Challenge Fund to support York and North Yorkshire’s ambition to become England’s first carbon negative region and have committed £7m funding to Net Zero project across their area.  

Future opportunities for devolution and partnership working will also be explored with the proposed NSCCA. The NSCCA can provide greater local leadership in responding to the impacts of climate change, and how rural communities will be considered in local policy decision making. This could be through the Mayoral Council, or the Council of Nations and Regions, giving NSCCA a significant voice in influencing national policy.

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? 

Respondents in favour of the proposal said that the MCCA could reduce regional inequality, increase funding, and amplify the voice of smaller areas, but only if implemented with attention to local differences. Some responses saw the opportunity for stronger coordination to strengthen local identity. Prospective constituent councils were positive and said local identities would be supported by the MCCA, based on its understanding of local issues and ability to act as a high-profile advocate for the region. The collaboration between Suffolk and Norfolk over the past decade was seen as a foundation for further strengthening local identities. 

Respondents disagreeing with the proposal said this proposal would undermine local identity, disempower residents, and make the region more homogenous. Respondents were concerned about the lack of district council and parish representation. Many responses stressed the importance of retaining local engagement and place-based delivery, dependent on genuine involvement at all community levels, warning that benefits would only be realised if the authority remained responsive. Many respondents, including town and parish councils, district councils, academic respondents and charity and voluntary organisations, all question in different ways whether the proposed MCCA could stay connected to local people.  

Table 7: responses to question 7

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisation	31%	18%	46%	2%	3%
Academic	86%	0%	14%	0%	0%
Business	32%	13%	55%	0%	0%
County Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
District Council	19%	6%	75%	0%	0%
Elected representative	50%	0%	50%	0%	0%
Other	35%	39%	17%	9%	0%
Parish Council	4%	18%	68%	0%	11%
Town Council	20%	27%	47%	0%	7%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	48%	17%	26%	9%	0%
Public	17%	9%	71%	0%	2%

Government response

A vital element of successful devolution is the ability for local residents to engage with and hold their devolved institutions to account – and local identity plays a key role in this. Norfolk and Suffolk have a long history of working together, including previously through the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership, and more recently in 2024, through the development of a new joint Local Visitor Economy Partnership. Local identity is one of the clear criteria for sensible geographies government published in the English Devolution White Paper. 

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. 

As mentioned earlier, identity can represented in the selection of non-constituent and associate members for the combined county authority, that can represent different regions and sectors, alongside scope for the public to hold the Mayor to account, not just via the ballot box, but with the Mayors Question Time.

Annex B: Consultation respondents 

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

Respondent	Responses
Public	2,966
Academic	7
Business	31
County Council	2
District Council	16
Elected representative	4
Parish Council	28
Town Council	15
Voluntary and community sector or charity	23
Other	23