Brentwood Borough Council has voted to support a five-authority model for local government reorganisation (LGR) in Greater Essex, favouring a structure they believe best preserves the borough's cultural and historical links. The decision came after a debate where councillors weighed the benefits of different proposals, including three- and four-authority models. This decision will be submitted to the government by the deadline of 26 September 2025.

Local Government Reorganisation in Greater Essex

Brentwood Borough Council has formally expressed its support for a five unitary authority proposal for LGR in Greater Essex. Councillor Barry Aspinell, Leader of the Council, moved the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Mrs Vicky Davies, Deputy Leader of the Council, which was then approved by a majority vote. The council was responding to an invitation from the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, Jim McMahon OBE MP, to develop proposals for reorganisation following Greater Essex's selection for the Devolution Priority Programme. This programme aims to replace the two-tier system of local government with unitary authorities and create a new Greater Essex Mayoral County Combined Authority (MCCA).

Councillor Barry Aspinell explained that the five unitary proposal is the best fit for Brentwood, sharing cultural and historical links. Councillor Mrs Vicky Davies seconded the recommendation, outlining the benefits to Brentwood, including democratic accountability, retaining its identity and being financially viable.

Other options considered by the council included:

• A three unitary authority model, which would place Brentwood with Maldon, Chelmsford, Harlow and Epping.
• A four unitary authority model (developed by Rochford), which would place Brentwood with Chelmsford, Maldon and Rochford.
• A four unitary authority model (developed by Thurrock), which would place Brentwood with Harlow, Epping Forrest and Thurrock.

Arguments for the Five Unitary Authority Proposal

The report presented to the council outlined several reasons for supporting the five unitary authority proposal:

• Each new authority would serve between 326,000–510,000 residents, providing councils that are closer to the community, supporting local communities and local decision making more so than the other larger proposed unitary configurations.
• It reduces the risk during transition to the new unitary authorities because fewer systems, services and staff will have to transition into each new authority, and it maximises the continuity of current high-performance services while creating the foundations for accelerating transformation and public service reform.
• The proposal is being supported by the greatest number of local councils involved in its inception.
• In terms of devolution, the five unitary authority proposal sits well alongside the new Greater Essex Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA), with each new unitary council being a constituent member with one vote. This separation of roles allows strategic planning and funding to be led by the MCA, while local services will be managed by the new unitary councils. The proposal also preserves the existing town and parish structure to most effectively promote community engagement.
• Due to lower pay harmonisation costs associated with the Grant Thornton financial modelling of this 5UA proposal, the risk adjusted savings are higher at £104.835m, as opposed to £81.227m expected from a 4UA structure, and £25.801m from the 3UA.

Arguments Against the Five Unitary Authority Proposal

Councillor Will Russell, Leader of the Conservative Group, expressed his gratitude to those involved in the LGR, but stated he could see no benefits in dividing Essex and wished the sovereignty of the borough to remain. He could not support the recommendation.

Councillor Keith Barber, Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group, gave his reasons why he could not support the recommendation, which included loss of sovereignty, the will of residents and financial implications.

Councillor Philip Mynott, Chair of Planning, shared the concerns of fellow members, but stated that in terms of planning, the five unitary option worked best.

Other Councillors' Comments

Councillor Dr Tim Barrett, Chair of Housing, Health & Community Committee, outlined some of the benefits of the proposal, including enhanced housing choices allowing flexibility for social tenants and residents; the ability to build more social housing; the creation of better leisure facilities and a coordinated authority for joined decision making.

Councillor Roger Hirst spoke in support of LGR but to retain the civic pride afforded to Brentwood. He stated that quality of service is paramount and this could be obtained by supporting the three, four or five unitary models, and that he was in favour of both the four and five Unitary proposals.

Councillor David Kendall, Chair of Finance and Resources Committee, spoke about the finances and Brentwood's current strong financial position, and stated he was in support of the five Unitary proposal.

Councillor Mellissa Slade expressed she felt the process had been rushed and hoped for a review of boundaries, however, stated the five Unitary option was preferred.

Councillor Ben Rigby, Chair of Audit and Governance Committee, spoke in support of the five Unitary proposal and stated this was the best option for Brentwood in terms of scale, identity and location.

Councillor Keith Parker thanked members and officers for the report, however, stated he could not support the recommendation.

The Vote

Following further debate, a recorded vote was requested by Councillors Aspinell, Davies, Gareth Barrett, Kendall and Rigby.

The results were as follows:

• For: 25
• Against: 6
• Abstain: 4

The motion was therefore approved.