Leader's blog - 7 March 2025
PwC's Flawed Report Won't Fool Anyone—Essex Needs a Smarter Solution
PwC's latest report, funded by CCN, is a masterclass in "client journalism"—a glossy exercise in telling the customer exactly what they want to hear. This is precisely why, in Essex, we agreed in December that we wouldn't rely on discredited firms like PwC to shape our future. Their track record is clear: they churn out pre-determined conclusions that collapse under scrutiny.
Their latest report is no different. It lacks any real analysis of how local government actually works. Just as they did in Somerset, PwC offers a grand theory, while councils on the ground deal with a completely different reality.
The core of their argument is the flawed assumption that merging councils into fewer, larger unitaries—each with populations of 500,000 or more—automatically leads to efficiency, cost savings, and better governance. But experience tells us the opposite.
Bigger Councils Are Not Better Councils
The idea that massive councils deliver savings ignores the reality of how local government actually functions. Large bureaucracies do not become more efficient—they become slower, more expensive, and less accountable.
• Decision-making slows as councils become too unwieldy to respond quickly to local needs.
• Accountability diminishes as councillors represent more residents across a wider geographic area, making meaningful engagement impossible.
• Costs spiral in ways PwC never factor in, as larger organisations require more middle management, not less.
This is not theoretical—it's been tested and failed:
• In Northamptonshire, the transition to two unitary councils cost more than expected, and the promised savings never fully materialised.
• In Wiltshire and Cornwall, unitary mergers led to higher service pressures, increased costs, and weaker local representation.
• In Scotland and Wales, unitary models have struggled with long-term financial pressures, proving that simply consolidating councils does not guarantee financial sustainability.
PwC's report conveniently ignores these failures, opting instead for broad assumptions and vague estimates that lack any serious financial breakdown. It is exactly what we expected: a political document designed to fit a narrative, rather than a genuine analysis of what works for local government.
A 5-Unitary Model is the Right Long-Term Solution for Essex
Essex is not a static county. It is one of the fastest-growing parts of the country, with major infrastructure and housing expansion already underway. Any new governance model must be fit for the future, not just a short-term cost-cutting exercise.
A 5-unitary model, rather than the flawed 3-unitary model PwC is pushing, ensures that:
1. Services remain local and responsive—councils will be the right size to understand and react to the needs of their communities.
2. Growth is managed effectively—smaller unitaries can plan infrastructure and development with precision, rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.
3. Democratic accountability is preserved—councillors will continue to represent areas at a meaningful level, rather than being stretched thin across huge regions.
Essex's future should not be dictated by a consultancy with a track record of failure. PwC may think they can write Essex's future, but local government reform should be about what works for residents—not what looks neat on a spreadsheet.
The 5-unitary model is the only option that delivers a sustainable, accountable, and growth-ready future for Essex. That's why we will continue to make the case—whether or not the county council chooses to engage
Published 7 March 2025