Government Delays Mayoral Elections – What it Means for Devolution and the East of England

The Government has announced a two-year delay to the next wave of mayoral elections — including those planned for Greater Essex and Norfolk & Suffolk — pushing the first vote from 2026 to May 2028. Instead, ministers will proceed with the legal establishment of the new Combined County Authorities (CCAs) “as soon as possible,” accompanied by partial investment funding to allow early delivery of local priorities.

While the stated rationale is to ensure “strong foundations” — notably the completion of local government reorganisation and the creation of new unitary authorities prior to mayoral devolution — the decision has prompted frustration across the political spectrum, with candidates, councils and business groups warning that the delay risks slowing local momentum and undermining confidence.

Funding Allocations and the New Devolution Framework

Despite the postponed elections, investment funds are being released. Based on population size:

• Greater Essex CCA: £41.5m

• Norfolk & Suffolk CCA: £37.4m

The six priority areas in the national Devolution Priority Programme will also receive £3m per year for three years, plus an additional £1m once statutory instruments are laid. This early funding is designed to allow areas to “start delivering on key local priorities” ahead of mayoral elections.

In parallel, the Secretary of State has confirmed a new two-stage route to devolution. Areas without a strong track record of collaboration must first establish non-mayoral “foundation strategic authorities” before progressing to mayoral status. This is a significant shift from earlier models that placed immediate emphasis on mayoral governance.

Local Government Reorganisation: A Fragmented Picture

The delay is partly justified by the Government’s desire to complete structural reform before devolving powers. But across the East of England, consensus remains elusive:

Cambridgeshire: Districts and the county have submitted mixed responses, with no agreed boundary proposal. The county council and all districts except Fenland DC have sent the government a joint response but with no specific proposals for new council boundaries. Fenland has sent a separate letter objecting to the concept of reorganisation but again making no specific proposals.

Essex: All fifteen councils have put their name to one submission agreeing to keep working together, but disagree on structure. A five-unitary model has strong support, but the county argues that larger unitaries may deliver efficiencies. Those backing the five unitary model point to there being three cities and two large towns in Essex which could act as the urban anchor for each new council. However, the county has pointed out the potential costs of disaggregating services. Possible Essex unitaries include: Basildon & Thurrock; Expanded Southend; Mid Essex; North Essex; West Essex.

Norfolk: The County Council and the seven districts have submitted separate interim plans. The county prepared its own document, using the County Councils Network analysis, to set out the case for a county unitary. This says one unitary would lead to annual savings of £29m and “less disruption”. Meanwhile the districts jointly commissioned Deloitte to produce an assessment of the options, which scored the three unitary model best against criteria. Each district has voted separately on these options to state their own preference. Kings Lynn & West Norfolk, North Norfolk, Great Yarmouth, Norwich, Broadland and Breckland all support a three-unitary model. South Norfolk is the only supporter of a two-unitary option.

Suffolk: There are two rival submissions, one from the county council for a single unitary. The other jointly from Ipswich BC, Babergh and Mid Suffolk DCs, East Suffolk and West Suffolk Councils calls for both two and three-unitary models to be further explored without being specific about their preferred boundaries.

Hertfordshire: The county council and ten districts have submitted a single response but this shows disagreement between the county's preferred county-wide unitary model and districts promoting two and four unitary models, with a further two options for three unitaries.

This fragmentation not only complicates the Government’s timetable but raises questions about whether structural reform is an essential prerequisite for mayoral devolution — particularly when many areas already have functioning partnerships.

Political Reaction

The announcement has been met with cross-party criticism.

• In Essex, Conservative candidate Louise McKinlay described the delay as “putting party before country,” arguing that Essex is “ready now.”

• The District Councils’ Network called the move a “backwards step,” accusing ministers of undermining trust by postponing elections less than a week after councils submitted reorganisation proposals.

• Reform UK candidates accused the Government of “running scared,” citing lost investment opportunities and disrupted campaigns.

The political temperature reflects real uncertainty for areas that have spent months preparing for devolution arrangements that now appear more distant.

Implications for the East of England

The East of England is one of the most active regions in the national devolution agenda, and the delay has material consequences:

1. Slowed Strategic Momentum

Many local authorities and business leaders hoped that mayoral leadership would accelerate work on:

• infrastructure bottlenecks (A47, Ely Junction, rail connectivity)

• skills shortages

• housing and spatial planning

• net-zero and energy cluster development

With elections now delayed to 2028, the region risks losing strategic coherence at a time when national investment is being targeted at regions capable of rapid delivery.

2. Uncertainty for Investment and Growth Initiatives

The East hosts major growth assets — including the Cambridge innovation ecosystem, Norwich Research Park, Freeport East, the energy coast, and the UK’s most productive agricultural land. Delayed governance could stall the creation of integrated economic plans attractive to investors.

3. Opportunities to Strengthen Local Foundations

On the positive side, the Government’s “foundation strategic authority” model may allow the East to:

• rebuild trust between two-tier authorities

• develop joint delivery mechanisms

• consolidate fragmented economic, transport and skills bodies

For counties like Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex — where councils disagree on structural options — the extra time may help align political and administrative positions.

4. Risks to Skills, Transport and Housing Devolution

The region faces acute challenges:

• labour shortages in health, logistics, agriculture, construction

• growing pressure on affordable housing

• rural and coastal deprivation

Delays to mayoral powers — especially over transport, skills commissioning and spatial planning — postpone the integrated decision-making needed to address these issues.

5. Early Funding is Helpful but not Transformational

The early release of CCA investment funds will help kick-start pilot projects, but the amounts (£37–41m each) are relatively modest compared to long-term regional needs. Without mayoral leadership, there is a risk that funding becomes piecemeal rather than strategic.

Summary

The Government’s decision to delay mayoral elections reflects a desire for structural clarity but introduces new risks for regional momentum — especially in the East of England, where economic opportunity and institutional complexity coincide.

If managed well, the interim period could be used to build stronger collaboration, clarify unitary options, and shape foundational institutions capable of supporting effective mayoral devolution in 2028.

But if local and national partners fail to use this window constructively, the East risks lagging behind other regions in unlocking the full benefits of devolved powers, long-term investment, and place-based economic strategy.