One Suffolk: A bold blueprint for reform?

The current two-tier structure for local government in Suffolk – comprising the county council plus five district/borough councils – has been in operation since April 1974. This is now undergoing a new round of reorganisation, driven by the government's devolution plans, which will involve electing a mayor for Norfolk and Suffolk in May 2026. The proposals for the new structure include:

• A single unitary authority: Proposed by Suffolk County Council. 

• Three unitary councils: Put forward by the district and borough councils.

  
  

One Suffolk

Cllr Matthew Hicks (Leader, Suffolk County Council), presents the 'One Suffolk' case at an event in parliament on 30 October 2025

This week, at an event in parliament, Suffolk County Council outlined their case for a “One Suffolk” model: a single unitary authority for the whole county, aligned with a mayoral devolution deal and designed to deliver streamlined, strategic local government.

Under this vision, all services – from education and adult social care to planning, transport and economic development – would be delivered by a single, large council. The business case estimates savings of over £100 million in the first five years and significant efficiencies thereafter.

‘One Suffolk’ outlines the benefits for residents and businesses, including:

• Unified strategic leadership: With one council and a directly elected mayor, decision-making becomes clearer and single-point. Residents and businesses would have one “go-to” organisation, reducing duplication and confusion.

• Economies of scale and cost-savings: The One Suffolk business case indicates that merging services can reduce overheads, leverage purchasing power and reinvest savings into frontline services – freeing up funds for infrastructure, skills, housing and growth.

• Stronger economic voice and delivery: A single authority gives Suffolk a stronger voice in national and regional funding discussions (for example, as part of the upcoming Norfolk-and-Suffolk Combined County Authority). It would enable more coherent investment in key sectors – ports & logistics, agri-food, clean energy – and reduce fragmentation.

• Consistent service quality: Residents across the county – whether in Ipswich, Lowestoft, the rural hinterland or coastal communities – would benefit from consistent standards, joined-up infrastructure planning, and unified accountability for performance.

• Business friendly environment: For companies operating across Suffolk, a single authority reduces complexity in regulatory, planning and licensing processes – making it easier to invest, expand and grow. It promises a single local relationship, a single council tax and business-rate interlocutor, and a clear strategy for regional growth.

The “three unitary” alternative

The five district and borough councils have proposed a different model: three unitary authorities, each covering a defined sub-region of Suffolk.

• Central and Eastern Suffolk

• Western Suffolk

• Ipswich & Southern Suffolk

Proponents argue that the “Three Councils for Suffolk” plan will preserve more local identity and proximity, thus enabling decision-making closer to communities. They suggest that a three-unitary structure better reflects Suffolk’s rural and diverse geography.

Their case rests on several core arguments:

• Closer local democracy and representation: Smaller unitary authorities are argued to provide more accessible governance, stronger local identity and better alignment with rural, coastal and urban communities alike.

• Tailored local services: With distinct councils for different parts of Suffolk, the model promises services that reflect the unique characteristics and needs of each area (coastal, agricultural, industrial).

• Local voice within the combined authority: Having three constituent unitaries is argued to give a stronger “voice” into the Mayoral Combined Authority region (Norfolk & Suffolk), as each local area retains its own authority rather than being absorbed into a large single unitary.

• Cost-savings and service reform: The business case states the three unitaries would deliver savings of at least £34 million per year, with £20 million reinvested into services.

• Empowering local communities and parishes: The model emphasises devolving decision-making down to towns, parishes and communities, and strengthening democratic oversight and accountability.

Reflections

The three-unitary proposal presents an approach focused on localism, responsiveness and democratic proximity. It argues that Suffolk’s varied geographies and communities are best served by three tailored authorities rather than a single, large body. It emphasises community empowerment and stronger local leadership—making the case that decentralised unitaries can deliver services more responsively and effectively for both residents and businesses.

However, advocates of One Suffolk argue that the three-unitary model has significant drawbacks:

• Potentially higher overheads with three sets of senior executive teams and support structures – countering the aim of cost-efficiency and streamlined governance.

• Fragmented, duplicated and inconsistent service delivery across the county – with businesses and residents involved in cross-boundary activity and multiple authorities.

• Limited strategic heft to influence major decisions the impact the wider county, particularly for investment, skills, infrastructure and devolution.

• A cleaner alignment between One Suffolk and a mayoral combined county model.

Both models make claims to savings, and both deploy community consultations citing resident support. However, One Suffolk clearly emphasises the arguments for economies of scale in the delivery of vital services such as social care and children's services, although there are many examples from around the country where the administration of services is successfully and efficiently shared across local authority boundaries.

Significantly, neither of the current proposals meets the Government’s indicative population threshold of 500,000 for unitary authorities—a figure that is, in any case, somewhat arbitrary. The average population of existing unitary councils in England is around 265,000, suggesting that flexibility already exists in practice. A more balanced and locally coherent alternative would be to establish two unitary authorities, each serving approximately 385,000 residents—one for the east, centred on Ipswich, and one for the west, centred on Bury St Edmunds. This arrangement could not only satisfy the Government’s criteria for size and scale but would also align more closely with functional economic geographies and travel-to-work areas. Furthermore, it would create the opportunity to align local government and health boundaries, ensuring coterminous service delivery and a stronger foundation for future public service integration and reform.

A key criticism of both current proposals is their limited focus on productivity growth and the county’s major economic assets. Suffolk’s strategic growth potential lies in its eastern economic corridor, encompassing Ipswich, the Port of Felixstowe, and Sizewell, which together form a nationally significant cluster for energy, trade, and innovation. Supporting this area through targeted investment and the creation of larger, denser urban centres—particularly a Greater Ipswich—will be essential to driving long-term growth. At the same time, it must be recognised that the west of the county is generally more prosperous, while an eastern unitary would face greater financial pressures due to higher levels of need and a lower tax base. However, this balance of risk and reward is precisely what a well-designed devolution and fiscal equalisation framework is intended to address—ensuring that all parts of Suffolk share in the benefits of sustainable, inclusive growth.

On the face of it the One Suffolk proposal offers a transformative opportunity: a unified, strategic authority capable of delivering efficiency. For residents, it promises simpler service delivery and consistent standards. For businesses, it offers one strategic partner and streamlined engagement particularly when it comes to planning.

As the business case and consultations progress, the decision rests on whether Suffolk opts for scale with strategic capacity (One Suffolk) or local proximity (three unitary authorities). Yet the over-riding impression is that the motivation for these two opposing models is primarily political and not economic. The inability to reach agreement about which model best serves the common good has held the county back for too long, while other parts of the country have moved ahead. This is a recipe for discontent. Here is a plea for less, but better politics. The path chosen will shape the future for decades. It is vital that the county gets this right.