Rush to reorganise Essex councils’ risks damaging services for the most vulnerable and denies democracy.

Essex County Council is pushing ahead with plans to abolish itself and all 14 other councils in Essex and replace them with an elected Mayor of Essex and new “Unitary Authorities”. 

The plans, from the Conservative-led County Council, have been attacked by the Liberal Democrats for being rushed and posing a real threat to the quality of public services that everyone relies upon.

Essex County Council (ECC) is responding to the “English Devolution White Paper” published by the Labour Government. White Papers are when Governments produce proposals before new laws. A new law to put these changes into effect is expected later in 2025.

The White Paper contains two different sets of proposals, which the Liberal Democrats say should be treated separately but are being squashed together and rushed through. The proposals cover:

• Devolution (which should be about the transfer of powers and money from the Westminster Government to local areas) and
• Local Government Reorganisation, which means getting rid of Essex County Council and local Councils like Chelmsford, Colchester, Brentwood and Rochford, could make local councils more remote.

Liberal Democrats say devolution should be genuine (with real power and money transferred from Westminster), and reorganisation should be done only after proper consultation on what is best for residents. The Liberal Democrats proposed an amendment to delay the rush to change so that the impact on vital services could be considered. 

County Councillor Stephen Robinson (LD – Chelmsford North) said: “There is a real danger that both of these changes are just reorganising the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

“The ‘Local Government ship’ has already hit not one but three icebergs – massively rising costs of adult social care, children’s services and homelessness. Where is the government's support for stopping the ‘Local Government ship’ from sinking? The recent budget did not make things better and probably made the future worse for all councils.

“Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution if it brings real power closer to residents, ensuring that decisions for our communities are made by local people. Genuine local control over funding must follow the devolution of powers so that councils can properly fund community services and vital infrastructure.

“This model of devolution – supported by Conservatives and Labour – means places that want new powers have to have an elected Mayor. Liberal Democrats oppose putting so much power in the hands of one person. There is no real accountability during their four years, however bad or dangerous they become. 

“It is a real shame that the Labour Government is little different from the Conservative one – neither care what residents want, want to force change through, and want to avoid an election for as long as possible.

“However, the Government is determined to press ahead, so we need to be realistic. Our amendment does not oppose the plans; it merely proposes that we take the proper time to consider what is right for Essex and that this Council does so by working with all 14 of the other councils in Essex, not just Southend and Thurrock – who, incidentally, are both smaller in population than Basildon, Colchester and Chelmsford. I so move.”

Lib Dem Leader Cllr. Mike Mackrory added, “We propose a pause until the second phase to enable viable alternative structures to be put in place and give officers enough time and space to ensure that our most vulnerable residents in the care of Children’s Services and Adult Social Care will be appropriately considered. 

“We also believe that the residents of Essex must be given the chance to be consulted – not ignored - and to vote on 1^st May this year. Delaying elections - and extending the life of this Council by three years - denies that democratic right. It is a democratic outrage. If this is such a fantastic idea, why are the Conservatives scared of an election? Is it because they know they will lose their majority?”

Brentwood Councillors speak out

Cllr Barry Aspinell (LD – Pilgrims Hatch) said, “We believe in the importance of LOCAL government, being accessible to residents and community identity. Large unitary councils will not deliver that. 

There is NO hard evidence that reorganisation will save money. The suggested savings were in a report commissioned by county councils, who, as upper-tier authorities, are biased, and the savings they suggest are LESS than the amount of money that councils have been taking out of their budgets every year for the last five years or more.

“There is also plenty of evidence that it will COST a LOT of money in the short-term, as new staff are appointed and reorganised, plus prolonged disruption to local services during transition and beyond. 

“When people say there will be fewer politicians, that is the opposite of the truth. District councillors primarily consist of local people who are NOT full-time politicians. They serve as part of broader service to the local community and have other jobs. 

“The danger of these large, new councils is that they WILL lead to more full-time politicians because the areas they represent and the workload is so high that only someone who does it full-time can cope. That is the complete opposite of representative.”

Councillor Aspinell added: “Brentwood Borough Council is a member of the District Councils Network, which has been pointing out the flaws in these arrangements since they were announced following the election of the Labour government. 

“Requests for devolution and subsequent discussions on reform were limited to upper-tier authorities like Essex County Council; District Councils were not directly invited to participate. We should take the proper time to consider what is right for Brentwood.” 

He added: “Labour’s plans barely mention residents, with just a short section on community empowerment. It argues for councils to serve a fixed population of 500,000 or more, something confirmed by Angela Rayner yesterday. The government says only councils of that size can coordinate the work needed to deliver the growth and efficiencies that Labour seeks. It is a technocrat’s dream.” 

“Some existing unitary authorities are thriving, with much smaller populations. The focus should be on creating cohesive and sustainable authorities that truly reflect the communities they serve, rather than adhering to arbitrary numbers that could undermine this goal.”

“I favour genuine devolution, moving powers and money from Westminster and Chelmsford to local areas. I have consistently sought devolution of powers from the County Council to fix our roads and sort out the disgraceful state of the High Streets in Brentwood and Shenfield. I have been brushed off by the Tories at Essex County Council each time. 

Local government is about giving people real influence over the places they live and care about. It matters to them, and it matters to us.  Reorganisation means eliminating local Councils like Brentwood and our partners in Rochford. It will make local councils bigger and more impersonal, more remote, less democratic, and less visible. It will also place additional strain and workload on our Brentwood and County Council staff.

 “Essex’s proposals will also postpone elections for up to three years, including one in Brentwood South, which has been unrepresented for many months because of incapacity. The Tories propose leaving Brentwood South residents without a voice until 2028 when their views should matter most.” 

“Being realistic, the Government is determined to make these reforms happen. As Leader of Brentwood Borough Council, I will argue for the best possible outcome for Brentwood’s residents, building on the strength of our Joint Administration. I will discuss the results of Friday’s vote with my fellow Liberal Democrat Councillors and decide how best to respond as a Council.”

Councillor David Kendall (LD – Brentwood West) said: 'I'm disappointed to hear that, thanks to a stitch-up by both the Labour and Tory parties, Essex residents have been denied a vote for three years.” 

“The Liberal Democrats supported the elections going ahead in May, allowing residents to exercise their democratic right to choose who represents them and to express their opinions. Anything else smacks of their being scared to face the people and proves that both parties will do anything to hang onto power in Essex.”

Other Councillors also criticised the moves. 

Cllr Mark Cory (Wivenhoe St Andrews) added: “The plans to reorganise local government are being forced through at pace. Unitary Councils make sense in principle to Lib Dems, removing the confusing two-tier system. However, large, unwieldy, less-local democracy is not good for residents. The Conservatives' plans endanger local democracy, postpone elections for years, and extend the life of Essex CC for an extraordinary THREE years.

“It is also essential that the issue of debts taken on by near-bankrupt Thurrock are resolved without impacting on the rest of Essex.”

Cllr James Newport (Rayleigh North) said: “We should not force new councils to conform to a fixed population of 500,000 or more. Many existing unitary authorities are thriving, with populations in the 250,000 to 300,000 range. They are effective, efficient, and - most importantly - locally accountable. Insisting on such a large number risks creating administrative monstrosities that lump together areas with little in common, erasing the unique sense of place and identity that our communities cherish.

“Local government must remain truly local. If we ignore this, we risk creating systems of governance that feel distant and detached—unable to respond effectively to the distinct needs of our residents. The focus should be on creating cohesive, sustainable, and reflective authorities of the communities they serve—not adhering to arbitrary numbers that threaten to undermine that.”