Suffolk's leaders were divided in voting to join the Government's fast-track devolution programme.

Although most agreed with and supported devolution across the county, which could see Suffolk's districts and boroughs replaced with unitary authorities, many were afraid of what it would mean for the upcoming May local elections.

Suffolk County Council said it needed to ask the Government to delay the elections in order to focus on delivering devolution at pace — ultimately only Government can approve the delay.

Others, argued elections could still be carried out alongside devolution plans and called a decision to delay them 'anti-democratic'.

Before the meeting, councillors in opposition stood outside the council offices to air their views.

After a fiery two-and-a-half hours of debate, councillors voted to join the programme with 43 votes for and 15 against.

The decision was later unanimously carried through formally by the council's cabinet members, who held the executive power.

This means the council will today apply for the programme with the Government, with more details expected over the coming weeks and months.

Although the devolution deal was on the table as the main topic of conversation, the debate focused mainly on whether or not the council should ask to delay the elections to allow for work to move at pace.

Cllr Matthew Hicks, the council's leader, said voting against the proposals would mean the same as 'seeing Suffolk being left behind'.

He added: "Change is long overdue, the structure that made sense 50 years ago does not make so much sense today — it's about putting our county on the best possible footing for the next 50 years.

"This debate is absolutely about seizing the opportunity to transform Suffolk and deliver the best possible outcomes for our communities."

Cllr Andrew Stringer, the leader of the main opposition GLi group, said he supports devolution but not delaying the elections — this was the broad case made by those arguing against supporting today's decision.

He added: "I've never seen a document in any chamber that was potentially more important to the people of Suffolk than this one.

"I cannot [support] it because it is so anti-democratic — you don't know what you've got until it's gone."

Addressing this, Cllr Hicks stressed the choice to postpone the elections would ultimately be with the Government.

He added: "It's there in black and white, plain to see, participation in the priority plan is a package deal, it's not an a la carte menu — there's no pick and mix."

"History shows us that our best interests are at the front of the queue, at having that opportunity to structure the way things might move forward."

Under Government plans, the new local authorities will represent at least 500,000 people, with certain exceptions where they might make practical sense.

The new authorities would then have extra reach and responsibilities, with power over transport infrastructure, health improvement and blue light services.

Councillors have argued devolution will ensure council services are streamlined and residents can better hold authorities accountable.

Cllr Beccy Hopfensperger said: "We now have another bite at the cherry, a chance to show ambition to again step to the plate and control our destiny before it's enforced on us."

Cllr Richard Rout said: "This is an opportunity to streamline local government and make it more efficient and more effective for our residents, and that's what they want."

Despite the benefits, however, for certain councillors, pushing the elections to a later date was a deal breaker, particularly as many details on what Suffolk's deal would look like were still missing.

Cllr Simon Harley said: "To vote for this is to vote for an unknown quantity, there are reams of high-level aspirations in the [Government paper] but no detail regarding the consequences of breaking the existing structures and cancelling elections to boot."

Cllr Christopher Hudson, who deferred from the Conservatives to Reform, added: "We look as if we're escaping from the electorate, as if we were scared — that is the abiding feeling that many of the people whom I speak to on the doorstep and elsewhere see."

After two and a half hours of debate, councillors voted in support of joining the fast-track programme with 43 votes for and 15 against.

Elsewhere across the border, Norfolk councillors have also voted to join the priority programme and delay their own elections.