Roger Giles from Ottery St Mary submitted this simple comment:

Andy Burnham ditched Steve Reed. He should ditch the stupid and damaging proposals that Steve Reed pushed through.

As an Independent town (1991), county (1993) and district councillor (1995), Roger was a tireless and effective scrutineer of local politics. He was joined in 2009 by Claire Wright following a similar trajectory.

Roger retired in 2019 after 24 years as a district councillor.

Between them, Roger and Claire, demonstrated what independent scrutiny can do to hold local majority politicians to account with Claire making early use of social media in her blog.

Between them they created an atmosphere in which the blog: Sidmouth Independent News (SIN) started in 2012 making regular posts critical of East Devon District Council.

And out of SIN, at the end of 2013, flew Owl with East Devon Watch.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to these pioneers.

Cllr. Julian Brazil, leader Devon County Council is reported as saying:

“We have to submit a pre-action letter that outlines our intention before the end of July,”

“We have until 16 October to make the decision and formally launch the Judicial Review; if we haven’t done anything by then, we would be out of time.”

He appears to have widespread cross-party support. 

Devon councils eye legal challenge over reorganisation

Bradley Gerrard www.southhams-today.co.uk

The first preparatory steps for a possible legal challenge against government attempts to carve up Devon are underway.

Devon’s biggest council is expected in the coming days to submit Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the government department that has overseen the overhaul of local government.

Councillor Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge), the leader of Devon County Council, said council officers were preparing the requests to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) that has led to the once-in-a-generation overhaul of how councils work.

“After those, we have to submit a pre-action letter that outlines our intention before the end of July, and then we have a cabinet meeting in September , and that’s when we will take a formal decision about the Judicial Review,” Cllr Brazil said.

“We have until 16 October to make the decision and formally launch the Judicial Review; if we haven’t done anything by then, we would be out of time.”

The development comes as Green Party councillors on Torridge District Council have also urged for there to be a Judicial Review given they believe the outcome of LGR for Devon “treats rural communities with contempt”.

“This is the worst of all worlds for Devon’s small towns, villages and rural communities,” a joint statement from the district’s Green councillors said.

“The government either just doesn’t care about rural communities or simply doesn’t understand that the challenges they face differ from urban areas.

“The cities do nicely out of this. They’ve snatched parishes from surrounding areas for housebuilding and other expansion.

“Meanwhile, the left-over small towns and rural communities have all been dumped into a huge and unwieldy authority with 455,000 residents but a geography that makes no sense.”

The Green Party members said because the mooted Coast and Country council would stretch from Hartland to Axminster and Combe Martin to Salcombe, with no major towns, it would create significant challenges.

“To drive across this new authority would take well over two hours even if you assume no delays and no roadworks. That’s as long as it takes to get from Westminster to Bristol,” the statement added.

Cllr Brazil said he hoped to gain support for the Judicial Review from all councillors on Devon County Council,, which is facing abolition as part of the local government reorganisation plans.

Councillor Michael Fife Cook (Reform UK, Yelverton Rural), said that he was “on the same page” as Cllr Brazil on this issue.

“From day one I thought [LGR] was a ludicrous idea and we all know why Labour has embarked on it, and that’s because Labour is still frightened of the Tory shires even though they don’t really exist,” he said.

“This LGR outcome for Devon is all political to help Exeter and Plymouth, although I think Labour will lose Plymouth to Reform UK at the next elections anyway.

“To me, I became a councillor to make things better for people and to try and work with everyone, but LGR cuts across politics. It is damaging to Devon and for how we can provide services for young and old, and the cost [of the reorganisation process] will be an absolute fortune.”

Cllr Brazil hoped the Judicial Review would not be needed, because of faith that the new prime minister, Andy Burnham, would put the brakes on the council overhaul in Devon.

Last week saw Steve Reed MP tell Parliament that Devon’s 11 councils would be scrapped in favour of four new large unitary councils.

The proposal states that Exeter, Plymouth and Torbay will subsume parts of existing neighbouring districts, while the remainder of the county would be comprised of a so-called coast and country council.

Critics have claimed the proposed changes benefit the Labour-led cities of Exeter and Plymouth, with fears the ‘rest of Devon’ council, which will be around 110 miles from north to south, will struggle to survive without an obvious economic centre coupled with a sparse and rural population.

Supporters claim the changes will boost economic growth, that having one council covering all services in its administrative boundary will be simpler than the two-tier system where district and county authorities oversee different services in the same area, and that it will mean power closer to the electorate.

Cllr Brazil has previously said that given the estimated cost of reorganising Devon’s councils – which has been put at between £50 million – £70 million – the cost of a Judicial Review would be value for money.

He also stated that he had the delegated authority to order a Judicial Review even if there wasn’t widespread support for such a move.

However, while most county councillors acknowledge the two-tier system isn’t perfect, many have expressed displeasure with the way the reorganisation has been handled by Westminster.

The government pitch in its local government reorganisation plan is that removing a tier (district councils) from local government will save money. 

The Labour Chair of Commons’ local government committee, Florence Eshalomi, is reported as saying the government “still haven’t provided” the evidence that it will provide significant savings.

This is also the claim of Devon County Leader Julian Brazil.

If removing a tier can make savings we should be able to find evidence from what our two existing Combined Authorities (Plymouth & Torbay) are charging for providing their unified services compared to the two tier districts. (Cllr. Tudor Evans asserted this on last week on BBC Spotlight, “taking out a tier is bound to make savings”).

Simples!

Except the evidence doesn’t support the case – especially on debt where Devon residents living in Combined Authorities have a debt burden two to three times greater than those living in lower tier districts administered by upper tier Devon County Council.

Council Tax

Let’s look at some Band D council tax charges for 26/27. [All data taken from the relevant authorities web sites]

In Plymouth City Combined Authority the charge is £2,441.85.

In Exeter City, two tier authority it is  £2,495.36 (including the bit that goes to the upper tier Devon County.)

Not a lot of difference.

In Torbay Combined Authority for Torquay & Paignton it is  £2,456.99, a bit more than Plymouth.

But in Torbay, Brixham & Town Council it is  £2,556.06 which is more than Exeter.

Why two different charges within the same Unitary Authority? 

Well what the government describes as a two tier system is actually a three tier one. 

When the Torbay Combined Authority was formed, Brixham decided to retain its old town council to provide localised services and community amenities that aren’t managed by Torbay Council. This includes maintaining local allotments, the harbour area, public toilets, and other specific community projects. The extra c £100 is levied to pay for that.

Something similar is likely to be wanted by all those towns and parishes being grabbed by Exeter such as Crediton, Dawlish and Exmouth.

The average East Devon band D charge is £2,595.46 which, of course, includes the town or parish levy. So stripping out the levy of around the £100 mark takes the charge back to something close to Plymouth/Torbay.

So Owl asks the question: is there any significant difference between these and where is the evidence for savings to be made by reorganisation?

There are possible explanations for this lack  of difference.

Councils may be pricing their council tax take to a similar perception of what the “market can bear” and the lack of difference disguises the significant improvement in services that can be provided in an urban setting. However both Plymouth and Exeter are cities with universities, major hospitals and extensive public transport networks. One is a Unitary, the other is in a two tier arrangement. They charge much the same.

Counter intuitively, another explanation could be that district councils are actually an efficient way of administering services in distributed rural areas and counties an efficient way of administering central services at scale?

Is this the inconvenient truth?

(For comparison; Band D Council Tax in Manchester is  £2312.04  and for London Boroughs, it ranges from the cheapest, Wandsworth: £1,020.35, to expensive Kingston upon Thames: £2,609.20.)

Now to debt and profligacy – Surely this will make a clear case for Combines Authorities?

Local Authorities have been underfunded for years and are swimming in debt.

Owl now examines how our local Combined Authorities of Plymouth and Torbay compare against two examples taken from our two tier system: the City of Exeter with its share of Devon’s debt, and East Devon with its share of Devon’s debt. An appropriate basis for comparison is not the total debt but the debt burden apportioned per head of their respective populations.

The basic data and combined data are shown in the table below.

Authority	Debt £m	Burden per person £
	Combined Authorities
Plymouth City	£936m – yes nearly 1 Bn!	£3,120
Torbay	£383m	£2,750
	Two Tier Authorities
Devon	£518m	£620
Exeter	£165m	£1,196
East Devon	£84M	£550
	Two Tiers aggregated
	Exeter + Devon slice	£1,816
	East Devon + Devon slice	£1,170

(All figures approximate)

First observation is that people living in combined authorities have a much higher debt burden hanging over their heads than those living in Districts under County Hall administration. By a factor of two or three in the case of East Devon.

The precise burden will vary district by district.

The second observation is that the urban areas of Plymouth, Torbay and Exeter seem to borrow more heavily than their rural counterparts.

Worth remembering that Exeter’s Labour MP, Steve Race, said that it had been “increasingly unsustainable for Exeter to remain a poorly funded district council, with most spending decisions taken by Devon County Council”. I.e. Exeter wants more cash!

Where is the Magic Money Tree to be found to fill Exeter’s begging bowl?

In the pockets of all those living in Teignbridge, Mid Devon and East Devon who have been swallowed up by avaricious Exeter! – Owl

Devon’s residents have been “betrayed” in a fundamental overhaul of how Devon’s councils will be reorganised and which services they will be responsible for, it has been claimed.

Bradley Gerrard www.devonlive.com

The government has today confirmed its local government reorganisation plans for Devon, which will see four new councils created in the place of its current 11.

Those changes will see Plymouth City Council subsume parts of some of the South Hams, while Exeter has been granted permission to swallow up parts of Teignbridge District Council, as well as East Devon and Mid Devon district councils.

Steve Reed MP, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, told the House of Commons the changes would bring decision-making closer to communities, and that the move to unitary councils would be easier for residents to understand.

He added that altered boundaries for the new councils would better reflect how populations live and work in those areas, and that his proposals would ensure places like Plymouth and Exeter meet their growth potentials.

Councillor Julian Brazil, the Liberal Democrat leader of Devon County Council, believed the outcome was “shocking” and expressed incredulity that Devon’s two Labour councils had been given permission to take the best parts of their neighbours to create new councils.

“It is shocking and Devon has been betrayed,” he said.

“The government has said it looked at all the proposals but that the Secretary of State has gone with the one suggested by Exeter and Plymouth.”

He added: “I wonder what [those councils] have in common with the government,” pointing to the fact both cities are run by Labour administrations, the same party in power at Westminster.

Exeter’s Labour MP, Steve Race, said it had been “increasingly unsustainable for Exeter to remain a poorly funded district council, with most spending decisions taken by Devon County Council”.

“”Creating a unitary authority for Exeter will secure local democracy, provide the opportunity to improve local services, and create sustainable economic and jobs growth,” he said.

“Under a new unitary authority on boundaries that include Exeter’s wider economic footprint, Exeter will be better placed to unlock new opportunities for jobs, housing, innovation, and investment, while ensuring we advocate for the transport and infrastructure we need as more people choose to call our city their home and their workplace.”

Mr Race added it would bring decision-making closer to communities rather than the confusion of the current two-tier system.

“It will also finally give those people living in the surrounding area, who already work and socialise in Exeter, a say in the way our city is run,” Cllr Race added.

Councillor David Wulff, the Liberal Democrat leader of Mid Devon District Council, called the changes a “political city land grab”, claiming it would create a “two-class Devon”.

“I am deeply disappointed that the government has squandered a genuine opportunity to deliver meaningful reform of Devon’s councils, strengthen local accountability and bring decisions closer to the residents and communities they affect,” he said.

“Instead, it has chosen a remote, centralising model that weakens local identity and leaves rural communities with less influence over their own future.

“The government claims that this exercise is about removing two-tier local government. In reality, it is creating two classes of council: enlarged city authorities handed additional population, development land and tax base, and a sprawling rural authority left to provide more expensive services across the remainder of Devon.”

He added Crediton was a “proud and historic Devon market town”, noting that “it is not an Exeter suburb, and it should not be treated as a balance-sheet asset to be transferred to City Hall”.

“Rural Devon is not a piggy bank to be raided whenever an urban authority needs more taxpayers, more land or a stronger financial base” Cllr Wulff said.

“Yet that is what this decision appears to do. Westminster and the city halls are asking rural communities to surrender their taxes and shoulder the financial risk of a reorganisation designed around the needs of expanded urban authorities.”

In Parliament, Steve Reed MP, the secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, said the changes were the “most ambitious” overhaul of local government undertaken, and that the aim was to “devolve power out of Whitehall”.

“Devolution is about strong local councils delivering good public services and supporting economic growth while being closely connected to the communities they serve,” he told the House of Commons.

“The current two-tier system of local government is confusing, it slows down decision-making and blurs accountability.

“In many areas, the existing boundaries don’t match the services provided or public identities of those areas.”

He confirmed the proposal to change Devon’s make-up into four new unitary councils, with an expanded Plymouth, an amplified Exeter, bigger Torbay, and the rest creating a so-called ‘coast and country’ unitary.

He namechecked Plymouth as a city of “nationally significant growth location”, suggesting the changes could help fulfil its potential in areas such as housebuilding.

Mr Reed also named Exeter as a beneficiary of his proposals, once again stating it would help the city grow and enable the government to “get the homes built that we need”.

Mr Reed stated areas undergoing local government reorganisation will receive more than £1 million per new unitary created to support the changes.

His opposite number, James Cleverly MP, the Conservative shadow secretary, claimed the rationale for the changes was “blatant” and that they had been “driven by party politics”.

He highlighted the changes in Devon as those “put forward by Labour in Exeter and Plymouth”.

“Many communities will be left in limbo while Labour councils have been allowed to redraw the map ahead of future elections they will be engaged in,” he said.

“If the Secretary of State wanted to avoid accusations of gerrymandering, then why create such a gerrymandering set of boundaries?”

Mr Cleverly asked Mr Reed if any analysis had been conducted on the potential for judicial reviews.

Cllr Brazil said the costs of a judicial review paled into insignificance compared to the amount of money to enact the overhaul.

“I’m almost certainly minded to judicial review this,” he said.

“When you look at the costs of local government reorganisation for Devon possibly hitting £80 million versus the £250,000-£500,000 cost of a judicial review, the latter would be money well spent.”

The changes, which need to be approved by Parliament, will see the two-tier system in Devon eradicated.

That will mean that instead of the district and county council system that exists in much of Devon now – where different services are overseen by different councils – bigger unitary councils will be created.

Unitary councils are responsible for all the services within their boundaries, such as happens within Plymouth and Torbay now.

Under the changes confirmed by Parliament, Plymouth will subsume 13 parishes currently in the South Hams, while Exeter will nab 15 from Teignbridge, 28 from East Devon and six from Mid Devon as part of a new expanded council, while Torbay will expand its boundary to take on 22 parishes in total from Teignbridge District Council and South Hams.

The remaining bits of the county – predominantly the northern and mid areas, will be pushed together into a so-called coast and country unitary.

This is not a good start to Andy Burnham’s vow to give Britain the circuit breaker it needs.

This looks like more of the same old cronyism and sneaky gamesmanship of Whitehall knows best.

Labour demonstrates it doesn’t understand or care about the countryside, it’s a party of townies. – Owl

Making the LGR announcement “on the last day of term”, does not show “local government the respect it deserves”. – Labour Chair of Commons’ local government committee, Florence Eshalomi. She also said the government “still haven’t provided” the evidence that it will provide significant savings.

DCC Leader, Julian Brazil, who was interviewed by Ewan Davies on BBC Radio 4 “PM” last night (about 1710), confirms his council plans to launch a judicial review. Read on.

Three counties consider LGR judicial reviews

www.lgcplus.com

At least three counties are considering legal action against local government reorganisation decisions announced today.

Devon CC leader Julian Brazil (Lib Dem) told LGC his council plans to launch a judicial review and will be sending a letter of intent soon, calling the proposed geographies of the new unitary authorities “ridiculous” and the decision “shocking”.

He said the council has filed freedom of information requests to MHCLG to determine the rationale behind the LGR decision.

He accused the government of “blatant gerrymandering” as the business cases from Labour-run Exeter and Plymouth City Councils were chosen. This option will reorganise 11 councils into four unitaries.

According to Cllr Brazil, previous judicial reviews had been defended by the government under the terms of “place making,” an idea he described as “murky, foggy and grey”.

Cllr Brazil argued that this argument is not suitable for the decision in Devon and Torbay due to the nature of the county. He said that “the people in Exeter and Plymouth probably have no idea what rural Devon looks like”.

Despite this, Cllr Brazil said that he is “not against LGR and the destination” but is concerned about the “journey to get there”.

In contrast, Torbay council leader David Thomas (Con) suggested his authority would not take legal action, saying: “This isn’t the result we wanted but I recognise that government has made their decision and here in Torbay we will embrace this change.”

Hertfordshire CC leader Steve Jarvis (Lib Dem) said the “worst option” was chosen and promised to “explore ways in which we can challenge the government’s decision”.

Cllr Jarvis said: “It will cost the council taxpayers of Hertfordshire more and projections show that one of the new councils will be running in deficit from the day it is created”.

However he said his team will “continue to work with other Hertfordshire councils to prepare for reorganisation and to make our case for a mayor as strongly as possible”.

Reform-led counties

A Reform UK source told LGC “several Reform councils are not happy” with the LGR decisions, and they would not be surprised if “several” opt for legal action but the decision to “spend taxpayers’ money on legal action obviously will require some proper analysis”.

They said Reform leaders see the LGR outcomes as a “political decision rather than a practical one” and shared fears that models put forward by Labour-led cities were favoured over the counties’ preferences.

Reform leader of Leicestershire CC Dan Harrison has publicly declared his intention to “take legal advice on launching a challenge to government”.

He branded the government’s decision to go ahead with Labour-led Leicester City Council’s plan to expand the city as a “disastrous day for democracy”.

Cllr Harrison, who backed plans to combine the county’s footprint with Rutland CC and keep Leicester at its current size, said: “I’m furious, shocked and bitterly disappointed.”

He said: “We’ve always been clear an expanded city would be costly and disruptive. Financially and strategically, this is madness and it’s not the right decision for Leicestershire. ​”

He added: “Our professional officers will get on with the job. But this is reckless and we’ll continue to fight for those residents who’ve been let down by the government today. ”

Reform leaders not taking action

However, the leader of the Local Government Association’s Reform group Stephen Atkinson suggested his council Lancashire CC would not pursue legal action.

Cllr Atkinson (Ref) said he has “serious concerns” about the “scale and complexity of delivering such a significant reorganisation,” but will “work alongside” councils in the areas to “deal with the reality in front of us”.

He had previously spoken out against LGR and wrote to the government calling for the plans to be delayed. Today he reiterated his concerns that “larger authorities risk moving decision-making further away from communities”.

But he shared a commitment to work “constructively” with the 14 other councils during the transition into four new unitaries.

However, in a letter seen by LGC, Burnley BC leader Afrasiab Anwar (Ind) told the communities secretary Steve Reed the decision to put his borough with Blackburn is a “serious error of judgement”.

He said the proposed Pennine Lancashire authority “would inherit exceptionally high and deeply entrenched levels of deprivation, bringing together communities that are among the most deprived in England”.

He added: “Unless its creation is accompanied by a substantial, long-term and needs-based government funding settlement, there is a serious risk that reorganisation will entrench disadvantage rather than help overcome it.”

Meanwhile Kent CC leader Linden Kemkaran (Ref) said her team will “take the time needed to review the detail and understand exactly what it means for Kent, including how the new arrangements would be implemented and the timescales involved”.

Lincolnshire CC leader Sean Matthews (Ref) said the creation of a new Lincolnshire unitary authority and the expansion of Lincoln into a separate unitary will be a “significant change”.

He added that it would be a “long-term piece of work to implement” and he would work will all councils “to get the best outcome for residents”.

While Derbyshire CC leader Alan Graves (Ref) did not back the government’s LGR decision for a north/south split for the county, he described the move as a “fresh start and an opportunity to do things differently”.

Cllr Graves said his team is “focused on working with our district, borough and city council colleagues to plan how services will be delivered by two councils in the future”.

Staffordshire CC leader Martin Murray (Ref) said the proposed north/south divide of his county “follows the government’s rules, has clear strengths and is financially viable in the long term”.

He added: “We will work professionally with neighbouring councils to make the change happen safely, with residents’ needs at the heart of the process.”

Working together

The six councils in Warwickshire, nine councils in Nottinghamshire and seven leaders in Worcestershire sent joint statements despite holding differing views ahead of the government’s decision.

The joint statement from North Warwickshire, Nuneaton and Bedworth and Rugby BCs, Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick DCs, and Warwickshire CC acknowledged the “different views on the best structure”.

But they said they “have a history of working well together” and will “remain committed to continuing to work together constructively and responsibly as we move into the next stage of this process”.

Worcestershire CC and the six districts in the county declared the “debate is now over,” and have chosen to “come together to express our commitment to work collectively to make these new arrangements a success for residents, businesses and communities across the county”.

This statement was signed by the leaders of Bromsgrove, Malvern Hills, Wychavon and Wyre Forest DCs, Redditch BC, Worcester City Council and Worcestershire CC.

Meanwhile a similar sentiment was shared in the joint statement by Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Mansfield, Newark & Sherwood and Rushcliffe DCs, Broxtowe and Gedling BCs, Nottinghamshire CC, and Nottingham City Council.

It said: “All nine councils have worked hard to meet the deadlines set by central government and to provide submissions that we believe are best for the residents we serve. We will continue to work together to ensure services continue and that residents and businesses remain our priority.”

Despite this, Gedling BC councillor and MP Michael Payne (Lab) called on the communities secretary Steve Reed to “hold off” on the decisions in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham that would result in his borough being split between the two new unitary authorities.

In the commons’ today, Cllr Payne said it was “bad policy making” to “split communities” against “their will,” adding “I cannot and will not support” the decision.

Concerns over timing

Chair of the Commons’ housing, communities & local government committee Florence Eshalomi (Lab) said the timing of the LGR announcements “on the last day of term”, does not show “local government the respect it deserves”.

Speaking to the Local Government Association’s councillors’ forum this afternoon, she said the consultation for these areas ended in March, so “the government would have known what they were doing before” the “last day of term”.

Ms Eshalomi said the government “keeps saying” LGR will end the “duplication” of services but the government “still haven’t provided” the evidence that it will provide significant savings.

Ms Eshalomi added that the funding the government has promised to cover LGR today is “still not enough”.

She said that LGR will not change the financial position “overnight” so the sector needs to “manage expectations and be realistic” during the transition.

Ms Eshalomi shared her worry that many councils are still “reliant on” exceptional financial support and issues over local government finances “continues to grow”.

Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay will all expand to take on council services in surrounding areas in the biggest changes to local government for more than 50 years.

The changes are being announced in Westminster later as part of a national local government reorganisation.

Devon County Council leader, Julian Brazil, said the county had been “betrayed”.

Miles Davis, Devon political reporter and Chloe Parkman BBC

Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay will all expand to take on council services in surrounding areas in the biggest changes to local government for more than 50 years.

Towns like Ivybridge and some villages in the South Hams will form part of a Greater Plymouth Council with Exeter set to take over the running of coastal towns like Exmouth and Dawlish while Torbay will expand in all directions.

The rest of Devon – from Holsworthy in the west to Seaton in the east – will be bundled together to form one new council responsible for everything from waste and recycling to libraries and housing.

The changes are being announced in Westminster later as part of a national local government reorganisation.

All of the district and county councils across the country are being abolished to make way for unitary authorities as part of the government’s plans for the reorganisation of local government.

In Plymouth and Torbay, all council services are run by unitary authorities that are already in place – Plymouth City Council and Torbay Council.

Elsewhere in Devon, this means instead of a two-tier system where council services are split between district and county councils, there will be unitary authorities – each responsible for all services and decisions on issues from bin collections and fixing potholes to social care and planning.

Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay all backed the plan to have three urban councils and one covering rural areas.

Devon County Council leader, Julian Brazil, said the county had been “betrayed”.

“This is a deceitful decision,” he said. “People in Devon, their council tax will be going up and their quality of services will be going down.

“It’s also going to cost tens of millions to implement.

“That money is going to be spent on breaking contracts, making people redundant and then rehiring them.

“We’re almost certainly going to take it to judicial review.”

In a joint bid, Plymouth and Exeter said the plans would give Plymouth “the scale” to unlock “growth and opportunity” and would make Exeter a “stronger urban centre, able to coordinate development across its natural economic area”.

The bid said the plans would “unlock the potential of our two cities and the three towns in Torbay to turbocharge economic growth and prosperity for the nation and drive the dynamism of our coast and countryside communities”.

Torbay wanted to retain its current boundaries but will now expand to take in parishes from Kingswear to the south and Teignmouth to the north.

All of the district councils wanted to see three unitary councils, known as the 4-5-1, deal with Plymouth as a standalone authority and the rest of Devon split in two.

Devon Leader’s view on the potential of devolution. – Owl

www.devon.gov.uk dated 3 July

A county-wide mayoralty for Devon could unlock billions of pounds in investment and boost the local economy by at least 10% over the next decade, according to Devon County Council Leader Councillor Julian Brazil.

Earlier this week, Councillor Brazil said Devon is ready to hold a mayoral election by next May, potentially making it one of the first new Mayoral Combined Authorities created under a future government committed to expanding devolution.

He said a mayoralty would give Devon greater powers to drive economic growth, improve public services and secure long-term investment. Analysis of existing mayoral combined authorities suggests that coordinated investment and productivity improvements can help regions outperform national growth trends.

Councillor Brazil said modelling indicates a Devon mayoralty could attract up to £3 billion in funding for key services and economic development over ten years.

As well as serving the needs of residents in the county’s two cities in Exeter and Plymouth, Devon would also become the largest rural mayoralty in England.

“Devon is ready to deliver a mayoralty at pace and with ambition,” he said. “We have the scale, the partnerships and the determination to unlock major economic growth for both our urban centres and rural communities. This is about bringing investment home to Devon—creating well-paid jobs, delivering homes for young people and ensuring our whole county can thrive.”

He added that Devon is ready to work with the next Prime Minister to make the proposal a reality.

Greater powers through devolution

The proposal follows plans to devolve more authority over housing, education and welfare from central government to local leaders.

While much of England already falls within mayoral combined authorities, the South West remains one of the few regions without one. Existing mayoral areas benefit from additional funding and greater control over transport, planning and economic development, allowing decisions to be tailored to local needs.

With a population of 1.25 million, Devon would rank among the larger mayoral areas in England, giving it significant influence in attracting investment and coordinating growth across urban, rural and coastal communities.

“Devolution must not stop at the big cities,” Councillor Brazil said. “Too often, rural and coastal communities are overlooked in national policy. A Devon mayoralty would ensure our voices are heard at the very centre of government.”

Billions in potential investment

A Devon mayoralty could unlock the billions of pounds over a decade through devolved funding and locally generated revenues, with additional private-sector investment potentially worth billions more.

Potential sources of funding include central government devolution settlements, retention of business rates growth, major transport and infrastructure programmes, new revenue-raising powers, public-private partnerships, inward investment, and strategic development initiatives.

Supporters say these funding streams would help deliver regeneration projects, transport improvements and wider economic development across the county.

Councillor Brazil added that a Devon mayoralty would accelerate the delivery of affordable and council housing, unlock and coordinate growth across council boundaries. It could also support the creation of Mayoral Development Corporations while balancing the needs of growing cities such as Plymouth and Exeter with those of rural communities.

For younger residents, a mayoralty would help expand apprenticeships and technical training, strengthen links between education providers and employers, create higher-skilled jobs and improve access to affordable housing.

Councillor Brazil also said that greater decision-making powers would also allow Devon to work with neighbouring counties to bring South West Water under public control, a strategy Mr Burnham has said he is keen to explore.

“We all know the state of the waters around the South West and the only way to stop the pollution, the poisoning of our water supply and to bring an end to water companies being run for the benefit shareholders and executives is to bring them back under public control,” said Councillor Brazil.

“Our water companies need to be run for the public good, not to make wealthy people even wealthier and big corporations even bigger.”

Devon councils united in drive for mayoralty

Devon County Council and Torbay Council already work together through the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority, established to secure additional funding and powers. Councillor Brazil said this partnership provides a strong platform for further devolution.

Last year, all eleven council leaders in Devon signed a joint letter supporting devolution last year, demonstrating broad political backing for greater local powers. [Now Plymouth is considering joining – Owl]

Councillor Brazil concluded: “With the right leadership and the right powers, we can accelerate growth while protecting what makes our county so special. This is a moment of opportunity for Devon.”

Yesterday Owl wrote that as a result of failing to join the Devon & Torbay Combined County Council, Plymouth “has, so to speak, been left high, dry and voiceless in the devolution stakes.”

A day is along time in politics.

www.plymouth.gov.uk

Plymouth is to explore greater influence over transport, skills and investment decisions, by agreeing to develop a proposal for the city to join the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority.

The decision, which will be taken at Cabinet on 20 July 2026, does not commit the Council to membership. It allows officers to work with the Combined County Authority and National Government to develop a detailed proposal, which would be considered by councillors later this year.

Last year, the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority became a Foundation Strategic Authority, strengthening local control over funding and decision-making and ensuring that more decisions affecting the area are made by local leaders. It is led by a board of council leaders and does not have a mayor. Joining would not create a mayor for Plymouth or change the services the Council provides to residents.

Membership would give Plymouth a seat at the table on decisions that already affect the city, including transport investment and adult skills funding. It would also strengthen the peninsula’s collective case for investment, growth and opportunity.

The move follows a letter sent by Council Leader Councillor Tudor Evans OBE to Government on 13 February 2026, confirming Plymouth’s willingness to explore Foundation membership. It is separate from, and does not depend on, the ongoing process of local government reorganisation in Devon.

Any proposal brought forward for councillors to consider will need to demonstrate clear benefits for Plymouth’s residents, communities and businesses.

Councillor Tudor Evans OBE, Leader of Plymouth City Council, said: “Decisions about transport funding and adult skills for our area are already being made around a table that Plymouth is not sitting at. This is about ensuring our city has a voice where those decisions are taken and making the strongest possible case for Plymouth.

“No decision has been made about membership. Cabinet has asked officers to develop a full proposal so councillors can consider the evidence, understand the opportunities and make an informed decision later this year.

“Our focus will be on one simple question: whether joining would deliver real benefits for Plymouth’s residents, businesses and communities.”

Councillor David Thomas, Chair of the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority, said: “From the start we have worked on the principle of start well, scale well, and Plymouth choosing to explore membership is a sign of the momentum we are building. Our area is stronger when its rural, coastal and urban communities pull in the same direction.

“Plymouth is a vital part of the economy of this peninsula. We already work together on programmes like Connect to Work and we would welcome the opportunity to develop this proposal jointly, so that decisions about our shared future are made here, by the people who know this area best.”

Here are some relevant quotes from Andy Burnham:

“The time has come to build the broadest possible coalition of people to lift Britain back up to where we all want it to be.

“What hope can we have that it will be different this time. This is the question I would be asking as a voter right now. It’s the one I want to answer as clearly as I can today….

…..”The Greater Manchester way is based on strong partnership between all sectors: public, private, community, voluntary, academic, faith and our trade unions.

“We ask everyone to face the same way and then pull in that same direction together. Let me give you an example.

Like Owl you may be totally confused about what significance FSAs, MSAs and EMSAs have in the context of English devolution, where we are and what to expect next.

In this Post Owl will attempt to clarify things.

Alphabet soup: FSAs, MSAs and  EMSAs are stepping stones on the pathway

It is no secret that tensions exist within Whitehall over implementing the Government intention to devolve power to English regions, These revolve around relinquishing power whilst retaining parliamentary accountability. 

These tensions are evident not only in the complexity of the nuanced terminology but also in the way the picture is evolving from legacy deals, bespoke agreements now colliding with Rayner’s local government reorganisation. There appears to be a lot of “ad hocery” going on as Whitehall tries to bolt it all together.

A good example of this can be seen under “Cornish Exceptionalism “at the very bottom of this post.

Devolution is now expected to move up a gear as a result of statements made by Andy Burnham that rewiring Britain is one of his main aims. So things could all change again.

The Greater London Authority (GLA) and the new mayoral strategic authorities share the same overarching classification as “Strategic Authorities” but (of course) the GLA operates under a different governance frameworks to the rest. So let’s forget about the GLA and start at the bottom.

Foundation Strategic Authority (“FSA”) 

This is where we are in Devon with the recently created “Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority. This is an FSA and therefore only given limited powers and funds. It is the first rung on the ladder and it is envisaged that most FSAs will “build local capacity and partnerships as a stepping stone towards mayoral devolution“.

FSA’s do not have Mayors. Their job is to set out a vision for growth and develop a Spatial Development Strategy in their area, and develop partnerships, essential to move to the next step. Who those partners might be is subject to the eventual reorganisation outcome in Devon. [FSAs also need to prove they are financially trustworthy].

Interesting to note that Plymouth did not show any collegiate spirit and join this enterprise but continues plotting to expand into the National Park and the South Hams.

As a result it has, so to speak, been left high, dry and voiceless in the devolution stakes.

• Lancashire Combined County Authority is the only other current FSA

Devon is ahead of many of its immediate neighbouring authorities, e.g. Dorset, Somerset & Wilts.

FSAs exercise 23 out of a possible 60 functional devolved powers (23%). See table at the end of this post to see what powers are devolved within nine policy areas. Possibly an important one for Devon is devolution of the core Adult Skills Fund.

Mayoral Strategic Authority (“MSA”)

All existing mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities have been automatically classified as MSAs – unless they are selected to become EMSAs (see below)  having demonstrated the necessary governance, delivery and compliance credentials.

Funding for MSAs will be determined through periodic spending reviews covering areas such as local growth, place, housing and regeneration, non-apprenticeship adult skills, and transport.

They have elected mayors and exercise about 80% of full power.

Think of these as a sort of probationary phase.

Here is a list of current MSAs:

• York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority
• East Midlands Combined County Authority
• West of England Combined Authority
• Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority
• Tees Valley Combined Authority
• Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority
• Greater Lincolnshire Combined Authority
• Cheshire and Warrington Combined Authority
• Cumbria Combined Authority
• Sussex and Brighton Combined County Authority
• Hampshire and the Solent Combined County Authority

Established Mayoral Strategic Authority (“EMSA”)

This is the highest tier of devolved regional government under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026. The EMSAs benefit from the most funds and powers under the Act’s standardised three-tier devolution framework, including in respect of transport and local infrastructure, skills and employment support, housing and strategic planning, economic development and regeneration, environment and climate change, health, public service reform and public safety.

They have elected mayors and the key powers they have are:

• Access to a multi-departmental, long-term integrated funding settlement**
• Ability to set the strategic direction of any future programme to support affordable housing provision in their area
• Support to establish a public sector land commission
• Devolution of Growth Hubs funding

Here is a list of current EMSAs.

• Greater London Authority (GLA)
• Greater Manchester Combined Authority
• West Midlands Combined Authority
• West Yorkshire Combined Authority
• North East Combined Authority
• Liverpool City Region Combined Authority
• South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority

Governance & Accountability

The introduction of a mayoral system whilst simultaneously eliminating District Councils under Rayner’s LG reorganisation has raised questions about democratic control. “One Mayor to Rule them All” published by the Constitution Society warns that we are moving away from a parliamentary system towards a presidential one for local government.

So far the existing Mayoral Strategic Authorities are run with the elected Mayor chairing a cabinet. The cabinet’s function is to provide “checks and balances” through the power of veto over some aspects of the Mayoral budget. The cabinet comprises the leaders of the constituent local authorities. The Mayor is permitted to appoint key non-elected Members from business and have powers to appoint private-sector experts to specific delivery bodies such as commissions or to chair advisory boards.

It is a legal requirement for strategic authorities to have an Oversight and Scrutiny Committee and an Audit Committee, and some authorities also hold ‘Mayor’s Question Time’ sessions for the public and media to hold Mayors to account.

The snag with this model is that, as districts are abolished, the democratic pool from which the cabinet is chosen shrinks. Inevitably, ratepayers will be represented by fewer and more remote elected councillors.

For example, the Greater Lincoln Combined Auhority, which is closest in area and population to Devon, is currently an MSA. With the elimination of all its seven district/borough councils it is in the process of moving from a “cabinet” comprising the leaders of these to a “board” comprising two representatives each from the three combined local authorities which have replaced districts and up to six additional members.  

Devolution Framework summary table

You can see from the table there are 60 functional devolved powers grouped under nine funcitonal headings.

Of these: FSAs exercise 23 (38%); MSAs exercise 50 (83%) and EMSA’s all of them.

• Funding and investment; 
• Strategic leadership; 
• Transport and local infrastructure; 
• Skills and employment support; 
• Housing and strategic planning; 
• Economic development and regeneration; 
• Environment and climate change; 
• Health, wellbeing and public service reform; 
• Public safety

Key 

(**) refers to functions for which funding will be included in Integrated Settlements for Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities 

(^) refers to functions which apply to Combined and Combined County Authorities only 

Detail	Foundation	Mayoral	Established
Funding and investment
Access to a multi-departmental, long-term integrated funding settlement**			X
Long-term investment fund, with an agreed annual allocation		X	X
Removal of gateway review from investment fund, after Gateway One complete			X
Ability to introduce mayoral precepting on council tax^		X	X
Consolidation of local growth and place funding in a single pot**	X	X	X
Strategic leadership
A statutory duty to produce Local Growth Plans		X	X
Membership of the Council of Nations and Regions		X	X
Membership of the Mayoral Data Council		X	X
Transport and local infrastructure
Local Transport Authority and public transport functions, including bus franchising and responsibility for an area-wide Local Transport Plan	X	X	X
Simplification and consolidation of local transport funding**	X	X	X
Removal of certain Secretary of State consents, e.g. on lane rental schemes		X	X
Duty to establish a Key Route Network on the most important local roads^		X	X
Mayoral Power of Direction over use of constituent authority powers on the Key Route Network^		X	X
Priority for strategic rail engagement (including mayoral partnerships) with Great British Railways	X	X	X
Statutory role in governing, managing, planning, and developing the rail network		X	X
An option for greater control over local rail stations		X	X
A ‘right to request’ further rail devolution			X
Priority for support to deliver multi-modal ticketing			X
A clear, strategic role in the decarbonisation of the local bus fleet	X	X	X
Active Travel England support for constituent authority capability^	X	X	X
Formal partnership with National Highways		X	X
Skills and employment support
Joint ownership of the Local Skills Improvement Plan model, with Employer Representative Bodies	X	X	X
Devolution of the core Adult Skills Fund	X
Devolution of non-apprenticeship adult skills functions through a consolidated skills funding pot**		X	X
Central convening of youth careers provision including greater flexibility for Careers hubs		X	X
A clear role in relation to 16-19 education and training		X	X
Responsibility for developing local Get Britain Working Plans	X	X	X
Devolution of supported employment funding**	X	X	X
Co-design of future employment support that is additional to core Jobcentre Plus provision		X	X
Delegated delivery or commissioning of employment support that is additional to core Jobcentre Plus provision			X
Alignment of Jobcentre Plus boundaries with Strategic Authorities			X
Housing and strategic planning
A duty to produce a Spatial Development Strategy	X	X	X
Strategic development management powers (once the Spatial Development Strategy is in place)		X	X
Ability to raise a Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy to fund strategic infrastructure (once the Spatial Development Strategy is in place)		X	X
Ability to make Mayoral Development Orders		X	X
Ability to establish Mayoral Development Corporations		X	X
Homes England compulsory purchase powers (held concurrently)	X	X	X
Devolution of wider grant funding to support regeneration and housing delivery**		X	X
Ability to set the strategic direction of any future programme to support affordable housing provision in their area			X
Strategic Place Partnership with Homes England		X	X
Support to establish a public sector land commission			X
Economic development and regeneration
Partnership working with Department for Science, Industry and Technology and UK Research and Innovation to explore opportunities for closer long-term collaboration in strengthening local research and innovation capacity	X	X	X
Develop joint innovation action plans with Innovate UK to shape long-term strategies and investments		X	X
Embed UK Research and Innovation lead points of contact for enhanced collaborative working on innovation with Mayoral Strategic Authorities that are committed to work collaboratively on innovation		X	X
Responsibility as the accountable body for the delivery of Growth Hubs	X	X	X
Devolution of Growth Hubs funding**			X
A Strategic Partnership with the Department for Business and Trade focused on domestic growth, exports, investment, and delivery of local growth priorities.		X	X
Partnership working with Department for Culture, Media and Sport Arm’s Length Bodies to maximise culture, heritage, and sport spending in place	X	X	X
Environment and climate change
Devolution of retrofit funding this parliament subject to a successful transition period (see 3.7)**			X
Heat network zoning coordination role	X	X	X
Coordinating local energy planning to support development of regional network energy infrastructure	X	X	X
Green jobs and skills coordination role	X	X	X
A strategic role on net zero in collaboration with government, including on Great British Energy’s Local Power Plan and Warm Homes Plan	X	X	X
Responsibility for coordinating delivery and monitoring of Local Nature Recovery Strategies^	X	X	X
Health, wellbeing and public service reform
A bespoke statutory health improvement and health inequalities duty^	X	X	X
Mayors engaged during the Integrated Care Boards chair appointment process		X	X
Mayors as members of local Integrated Care Partnerships, and consideration for position of chair or co-chair		X	X
A role in convening partners and driving cross-cutting public service reform, including looking at areas such as multiple disadvantage	X	X	X
Public safety
Mayors accountable for the exercise of Police and Crime Commissioner functions where police force and mayoral boundaries align^		X	X
Mayors accountable for the exercise of Fire and Rescue Authority functions where fire and rescue service and mayoral boundaries align		X	X
A clear and defined role in local resilience, working with the Local Resilience Forum to embed resilience into broader policy and delivery^	X	X	X

Cornish Exceptionalism

Based on their claim to independent nationhood, Cornwall secured an exceptional, Cornwall-only bespoke devolution agreement that avoids the need to merge with Devon or accept a regional mayor. This arrangement establishes Cornwall as a “Single Foundation Strategic Authority “with devolved powers over adult education, transport integration, and green energy.

The Cornish view is that they should be treated as a devolved nation on a par with Wales.

But this could lead up a blind alley.

Sources

Many but these are the principle ones:

English Devolution White Paper

Mayoral Strategic Authorities – Frequently Asked Questions

In the same Spotlight interview that Devon’s Lib Dem Leader warmly embraced Burnham’s plans to give local leaders more control over economic development, investment and public services, Cllr Tudor Evans went decidedly “off message”.

The leader of Plymouth City Council, Labour’s Tudor Evans, said he thought it was “likely” that plans for an expanded Plymouth and an expanded Exeter would be approved but councils needed to take the approach to a directly-elected mayor one step at a time.

Evans said: “Can we find out first what powers are actually on offer, what money is on offer and what powers the mayor would have, as opposed to the local authorities the mayor would have to rely upon to deliver so much of their programme.”

Owl, who watched the live broadcast, was left with the distinct impression that Cllr Evans prefers to be a “big fish in a small pond” and is uncomfortable with the notion of playing second fiddle to any “Strategic Authority Mayor”.

Exeter City Council Leader Cllr Phil Bialyk claims Burnham’s commitment to local growth, housing, and stronger communities reflects the ambitious Exeter expansion plans he has championed for many years.

As for it being likely that plans for an expanded Plymouth and an expanded Exeter will be imposed soon against local discord, who knows? Rewiring Britain is Andy Burnham’s big idea so it is likely that most existing ideas from the “ancient regime” will be swept off the table.

Here is a quote from Andy Burnham’s keynote Manchester Speech:

The Greater Manchester way is based on strong partnership between all sectors: public, private, community, voluntary, academic, faith and our trade unions.

We ask everyone to face the same way and then pull in that same direction together.

Don’t bank on quick decisions; he will want to start from a clean sheet- Owl

He wants Devon to be first in the queue but criticises Rayner’s local government reorganisation plans in the National press.

A week ago BBC Spotlight featured interviews with local leaders on Burnham’s plans to shift decision-making power away from Whitehall. Creating a ‘Number 10’ in the North and giving local leaders more control over economic development, investment and public services.

In that interview Julian Brazil, Leader Devon County Council, warmly welcomed the general idea and said he wanted Devon to be first in the queue to get a directly-elected mayor and was firing off a letter to Burnham to make the request.

Brazil said: “I think it would make a massive difference, I’ve always said this country was far too centralised.

“The money we spend from government, we spend a lot more efficiently than central government can because we’re closer to the ground and we know what needs doing.

“Why would they know – it’s London – what do they know about Devon? Not a lot from what we can see.”

His view was shared by Torbay Council’s Conservative leader, David Thomas.

Deputy leader of Reform at Devon County Council, Neil Stevens, said he would not “back devolution blindly”. “You need to show us the cost, you need to show us the detail and you need to show us if it’s going to add any layers of bureaucracy.”

Toby Parkins, the interim CEO of Cornwall Chamber of Commerce said: “We saw that at the end of the Shared Prosperity Fund mayoral authorities actually received a funding package and Cornwall didn’t.

Parkins added that the introduction of a mayor could lead to “better decision making as opposed to an old style of council where they’re doing things the way they’ve always done them”.

However, Julian Brazil followed this up with a further interview in the Times this week expanding on his criticism of Angela Rayner’s plans to reorganise local councils by scrapping district councils:

Leaders in Devon claim plans to reorganise local authorities carry a huge upfront bill and may disrupt social care, children’s services and growth:  Fiona Hamilton www.thetimes.com

Andy Burnham is being urged to scrap Labour’s complex plans to rip up local authorities after analysis showed they could cost up to £1.5 billion.

The prime minister in waiting has been told that the funding could instead be used to support about 480,000 young people into work across England or to shore up key areas, such as social care and child services.

Labour has claimed its overhaul of local government, under which it plans to abolish the “two-tier” system of county councils sitting on top of district councils, will increase efficiency. However, critics warn it involves high upfront costs and massive restructuring and funds could be better spent on improving services.

A fresh analysis by Devon county council showed that the reorganisation, the biggest of local government in half a century, would cost at least an estimated £718.5 million but could be as much as £1.5 billion. The council analysed business cases and cost evaluations related to the 21 areas that were preparing for reorganisation.

Julian Brazil, the council leader, has been a vocal critic of the reorganisation. He told The Times: “The best-case scenario in Devon alone is £50 million, but other options we’re looking at a cost of £80 million. For that we could get 16,000 young people into work. Does Andy Burnham want to get young people into work or does he want to arrange the deckchairs? It’s a no-brainer.”

Devon county council claimed that much of the cost of the reorganisation would go to consultants and redundancy settlements for senior staff.

The reorganisation programme, set out two years ago by Angela Rayner, the former deputy prime minister, has been mired in controversy. Councils have warned of escalating costs and the government is braced for a series of legal challenges.

In June Steve Reed, the local government secretary, was accused of gerrymandering after he overruled senior officials to side with Labour MPs in drawing boundaries for new councils, picking options that critics said would benefit Labour. The government has rejected the allegations.

Devon county council warned that the estimate of £1.5 billion could increase further if ministers adopted more expensive structural models than those proposed locally.

Brazil said the money would be better spent on improving the prospects of young people who were not in employment, education or training (Neets). An equivalent investment in the Youth Guarantee model would support about 480,000 young people into work across England, half the number of Neets.

Brazil has also said that reorganisation could fragment the authority’s children’s services and disrupt improvements.

“At a time when families are struggling and councils and the government are stretched, we should be investing every pound in frontline support, especially for our young people, not pouring it into an expensive structural shake-up that risks damaging services,” he said.

“We could transform lives, strengthen our economy and give hope to a generation, rather than spend it on bureaucracy that hits local services and people in the pocket.”

Brazil said he was supportive of Burnham’s message of supporting young people, more power for regions and boosting the economy through private-public partnership. He found Burnham’s vision to be “encouraging and optimistic”, he said, adding: “At last a Westminster politician understands the relationship between local and national government.

“This is a real opportunity for him to put his money where his mouth is. Let us work out how best to deliver the services for local people and at what level.”

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “This is speculation as no final decisions have been made.

“We are providing £63 million to councils to support with up-front costs of local government reorganisation, which will create long-term savings by reducing waste, and will speed up the construction of new homes and infrastructure, as well as boosting regional growth to put more money in peoples’ pockets.”

In a bizarre coincidence the National Audit Office issued its latest report on Devolution in England just three days after Andy Burnham’s “Rewiring Britain” speech.

This report cuts to the heart of the problem: the Treasury isn’t going to let go without a struggle.

It’s all about establishing a satisfactory accountability link between the parliamentary funding vote and how the cash is spent.

Here it is in “Mandarin: speak”:

“The accountability mechanisms for central government funding are well established and important. But there is a clear tension between departments’ responsibilities and the ambition of the English Devolution White Paper that central government should end the top-down micromanagement of decisions and approaches by local leaders and replace it with a principle of locally accountable autonomy.

“This tension will need to be resolved, and local accountability arrangements substantially strengthened and tested, before the devolution of funding and accountability can be considered to be working effectively to support improved outcomes for local people.

The consequences are loads of red tape.

“At the same time, the reporting burden on MSAs to demonstrate what they have delivered with much of the Integrated Settlement funding they receive is currently greater than initially envisaged. And the way the current framework will address underperformance has not yet been tested. As a result, there are questions about future capacity, both within local and central government bodies, as new MSAs are brought on board and engage with government departments over their Integrated Settlements and Outcomes Frameworks.

The press release describes the progress made and stumbling blocks found in clearer language.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) has made good progress in its devolution aims. To maximise the benefits, future scaling-up of the system will require MHCLG to ensure local bodies and government departments are able to manage the changed responsibilities, a new report from the National Audit Office has found.¹

The December 2024 English Devolution white paper stated the need for central government to stop micromanaging local leaders’ decisions and allow local bodies to operate with more freedom.²

One of the key elements of English devolution has been the creation of combined authorities.³ These bodies are now referred to as Strategic Authorities – Foundation Strategic Authorities for non-mayoral bodies, and Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs) for mayoral bodies – through which it aims to allow local government more autonomy.

Our report found that the government is making good progress in its plan for full coverage of Strategic Authorities across England, having created two Foundation Strategic Authorities and 18 MSAs by June 2026.

MSAs that meet set criteria may be designated as ‘Established’ MSAs and permitted extra freedoms, most notably receiving central government funding through an Integrated Settlement.⁴ This approach offers greater simplicity and flexibility of funding. So far, central government has announced £15.9 billion of Integrated Settlement funding covering the period 2025-26 to 2029-30.⁵

The Integrated Settlement approach is largely well regarded by MSAs and sector groups. MSAs are starting to take the opportunity to be more creative and to think in a longer-term way about the programmes they deliver. These arrangements have the potential to deliver better value for money as they are rolled out more widely. Some MSAs are already requesting additional powers, responsibility and funding, indicating there is an appetite for more expansive arrangements.

However, some more newly established MSAs may struggle to maximise the benefits of their Integrated Settlements in the future, if they do not build experience and capacity in government programme delivery. MHCLG is taking steps to provide relevant support through holding annual conversations with MSAs, making capacity funding multi-year and more reflective of an MSA’s current capacity and level of maturity, and providing extra funding for staffing and administrative costs.

As MSAs take on more funding and responsibilities, strengthened local scrutiny arrangements will be vital. To aid this, Local Scrutiny Committees will examine mayoral decisions and actions, and undertake thematic inquiries. Effective local scrutiny will also require a strong local audit system. But in recent times, the system has often failed to provide timely assurance, due to longstanding issues in the market including capacity, and the need to audit increasingly complex accounts to higher standards.

Currently, MSAs that receive an Integrated Settlement are accountable to central government, primarily through an agreed Outcomes Framework.⁶ Some MSAs reported that the measures in their Outcomes Framework were too heavily shaped by national priorities, detracting from the aim of Integrated Settlement funding to focus on local requirements. MSAs also expressed concern that the number of measures that departments wanted to include in Outcomes Frameworks was disproportionate. These arrangements are new and therefore as yet untested as performance tools.

There is a risk that, as more MSAs are established, capacity constraints within MHCLG and other departments might cause them to seek Outcomes Frameworks that are more template-like, with similar measures applied across many MSAs. While this would clearly reduce administrative burdens, it could also weaken the focus on local needs and circumstances.

The National Audit Office has recommended that, ahead of the next Spending Review, MHCLG should work to actively manage the risks involved in scaling up the MSA system. It also recommends that MSAs should ensure they have robust arrangements in place to support local scrutiny and accountability.

In letters to the Times, correspondents from Devon & Cornwall offer different views:

Andy Burnham’s rewiring

Sir, Alice Thomson is right that politicians only seem to come to Cornwall to get sunburned and point at a fish, but we should be careful what we wish for (“Ignore southwest and PM will face a revolt”, Jul 1). Over many centuries, one of the attractions of living on the Celtic fringe has been that the government doesn’t often reach this far. If Andy Burnham really does manage to extend the government’s influence as far as Cornwall, then I worry that he will extend its interference as well. Maybe we should keep our heads down.
Peter Champness
Lostwithiel, Cornwall

Sir, I live in east Devon and know that the southwest is always last in line for any government grants. Transport to the peninsula is dire, as is the pollution of our rivers and seas. Plus, fewer of our young people go to university. To rectify all this we need our own Andy Burnham.
Nicola Daniel
Budleigh Salterton, Devon

Central Ilfracombe has stunning beaches but the lowest life expectancy of any rural town in the country, lower than Toxteth or Merthyr Tydfil.

“The job of No 10 North will be to make power flow into the Midlands, into the South West, into the East of England and, yes, into London as I said before, as much as the North East, Yorkshire & the Humber and here in the North West.”…..

“It will be given a mission to strive for equivalent living conditions in all parts of Britain – borrowing from the German Basic Law” – Andy Burnham.

Alice Thomson, in her column in the Times on Wednesday, writes that If Andy Burnham ignores the South West he will face a revolt. He gave the region one call in his speech but shouldn’t forget that Labour won more seats in the southwest — 23 — than any other party. 

Her worry is that the southwest will be called upon to subsidise the north when in fact they need the funds just as urgently.

Thomson spent the past few years on the South-West Social Mobility Commission and found the area always seems to lose out

Parts of Devon and Cornwall have lower life expectancy, more child poverty and less state help. Here is her:

Catalogue of Deprivation.

Burnham has now promised to extend the original route to Manchester. Yet the southwest still only has Brunel’s ageing train line to Cornwall that is regularly flooded.

The north already has two major railway lines running up the east and west coast, while HS2 will cost the country £100 billion just to reach Birmingham.

The only motorway stops at Exeter.

Investment in transport stands at £308 per head against a national average of £474.

De-industrialisation was seen as a northern tragedy but Cornwall lost its tin mining and is struggling to compete over lithium.

Plymouth, in Devon, is only now reviving its docks, helped by the defence engineering company Babcock and a need to re-arm the UK.

Central Ilfracombe has stunning beaches but the lowest life expectancy of any rural town in the country, lower than Toxteth or Merthyr Tydfil.

Poorer children in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall have some of the worst educational outcomes in the country from early years to GCSEs.

Fewer children than any other region go on to higher-level apprenticeships or universities, and young people are more likely to be in unskilled work.

Only 17 per cent of disadvantaged children go to university compared with 45 per cent in London. Teachers in Cornwall have the lowest salaries in England.

The area has missed out on levelling-up funding rounds despite having fewer nurses, GPs and dentists per head than the north and a more elderly population with complex health needs.

South West Water recorded the highest level of sewage discharges in 2025, according to the Environment Agency, with 46,164 spills lasting 407,006 hours.

The area’s infrastructure is creaking yet attracts little attention. Whitehall’s local growth fund spends £134.40 per head for the region compared with £210.80 given to the Northern Powerhouse.

We need to think about Mayors!

Extensive analysis of existing Mayoral Authorities by Owl shows Devon is qualified to get its own Mayoral devolution.

As we wait to get an inkling of what economic policies might feature in “Burnhamism”, we are getting strong signals that he favours increasing devolved powers to regions. And this almost certainly means to Mayoral Authorities. 

Local leaders will be under pressure to accelerate their plans to create these in order to qualify for devolved funding as early as possible.

This post considers how Devon fits within the existing pattern of Strategic Mayoralties.

Would we need to combine with others? 

Not necessarily.

The central ideas behind the ill fated Local Enterprise Partnerships were based on economic rather than geographic groupings and they were to be business [read developer] led. Partnerships between Devon and Cornwall, and between Devon, Somerset and Dorset were explored in the scramble to create these partnerships in the South West. Their progress and ultimate failure is extensively reported in the Watch. They were unaccountable and no serious money was devolved.

The latest “regional strategic grouping” to be reported by Owl [see here] concerns the “Great South West Partnership.” This, once again, is a partnership between business and councils.

The problem is to find a balance between groupings big enough to consider, and implement, regional strategy yet small enough to be locally accountable. 

Strategic mayoral authorities need to sit above two more lower level combined authorities.

A potential rapid route to achieve this within Devon has already been explored and mapped out through the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority (DTCCA). This is seen as a flexible way to make progress in circumstances where Plymouth continues to pursue its own pathway.

Owl’s analysis shows that, IN COMPARISON with all the 14 existing combined Mayoral Authorities, there is no pressing case to create an authority extending beyond Devon’s boundary. DEVON IS BIG ENOUGH ALONE TO BE GIVEN ITS OWN POWER.

The table at the bottom of this post lists all 14 existing authorities, their size in terms of both population and area, who the Mayors are, their political affiliations and their route to power. The last line in the table records the data for Devon including Plymouth and Torbay for comparative purposes.

Population.

There are six mayoral authorities with populations smaller than Devon’s. The smallest is Tees Valley with a population of 713K . The combined authority of Tees Valley encompasses five local council areas: Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees. It has a population more than two and a half times bigger than Plymouth.

On a rational basis Plymouth will struggle to succeed in “going it alone”. Banking on its Labour affiliations may not carry weight with “collegiate” Burnham.

Area

There are only three Mayoral Authorities larger in area than Devon: Greater Lincolnshire; North East, and York and North Yorkshire. 

What existing Strategic Mayoral Authority most closely resembles Devon?

This looks like Greater Lincolnshire which is very similar in respect to population and area. This oversees the ceremonial county of Lincolnshire, divided into Lincolnshire county council and the unitary areas of North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire.

Mayoral party affiliations and Background

Of the 14 mayors: 10 are Labour; 2 Conservative and 2 Reform. Half were former MP’s in their areas, two were councillors and one was  a former Police and Crime Commissioner.

Tabulation of Strategic Mayoralties

Mayoralty	Population (m)	Area Sq Miles	Mayor	Party	Background
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough	0.9	1,309	Paul Bristow	Con	Former MP
East Midlands	2.2	1,850	Claire Ward	Lab	Former MP
Greater Lincolnshire	1.1	2,687	Dame Andrea Jenkyns	Reform	Former Con MP
Greater Manchester	3.0	493	[Andy Burnham} By election pending	Lab	Former MP
Hull and East Yorkshire	0.6	957	Luke Campbell	Reform	Boxer
Liverpool City Region	1.6	349	Steve Rotheram	Lab	Former MP
Greater London Authority	9.0	610	Sir Sadiq Khan	Lab	Former MP
North East	2.0	3,000	Kim McGuinness	Lab	Former PCC
South Yorkshire	1.4	1,345	Oliver Coppard	Lab	Spad
Tees Valley	0.7	307	Lord (Ben) Houchen	Con	Cllr
West Midlands	4.3	348	Richard Parker	Lab	Pwc Consultant
West of England	1.1	368	Helen Godwin	Lab	Bristol Cllr
West Yorkshire	2.4	783	Tracy Brabin	Lab	Former MP
York and North Yorkshire	0.8	3,208	David Skaith	Lab	Businessman
DEVON	1.3	2,590	N/A	N/A	N/A

Leader Julian Brazil has ‘high appetite for risk’ on dragging the water firm over the coals but wants neighbours to join.

Bradley Gerrard www.devonlive.com

Devon is trying to enlist support of neighbouring councils as it investigates ways it can take legal action against the county’s water firm.

South West Water is being targeted by Devon County Council for potential litigation in relation to ongoing concerns about sewage discharges and water quality.

Even though the company was recently fined £1.9 million over the cryptosporidium outbreak in Brixham in 2024, Councillor Julian Brazil (Liberal Democrat, Kingsbridge ), the leader of the council, claimed that the regulator Ofwat, the Environment Agency, and successive governments – including the coalition which featured his national political party – had “done nothing about” ongoing issues.

“We’re hoping to find the best way of taking legal action, and that other councils will follow suit, particularly Cornwall – hopefully other councils will join us,” Cllr Brazil revealed to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

South West Water said it “recognised concerns about water quality” but that it was investing £760 million to tackle storm overflows, with spills down in number and duration in the past year.

Cllr Brazil said there was “absolutely an appetite within the council and the Devon community” to take action, which he hoped would be echoed by other authorities, noting that he believed people would “understand why we would be prepared to spend an amount of money on taking legal action”.

“Lawyers are always slightly more reserved but my risk appetite is quite high for taking action as I just think everyone is fed up.”

At present, two potential avenues are being explored for the possible legal action; firstly Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972, which allows local authorities to take action for the good of their residents; and the Water Act 1981, which Cllr Brazil claimed had “never been used” in the context he was hoping it could work for Devon.

“The Local Government Act is quite broad, and so if something is distressing to your residents or economy, then you are in a position to take legal action,” he said.

“And the Water Act, again, is quite far-reaching but it has never been used.”

Speaking just days after alerts had been issued to urge against people swimming in water areas around Dartmouth, including Warfleet Creek, Dartmouth Castle and Sugary Cove, due to a pollution incident at the Mayor’s Avenue pumping station, Cllr Brazil said he had not conversed with the water firm’s new boss, Keith Haslett.

But he stated he felt the success of a water company should not be judged on money, because there was “something so fundamentally wrong about that”, and therefore sympathised with efforts to bring water back into public ownership.

A spokesperson for South West Water said: “We recognise concerns about water quality in Devon and we continue to work proactively with councils to discuss our local plans and deliver improvements.

“We’re investing £760 million to tackle storm overflows and have reduced spills by 17 per cent in the last year, with spill duration down by 25 per cent. We know there is more to do but the data shows the plan is working.

“We are looking forward to the opportunity to discuss our multi-million-pound plans to improve water quality at Devon County Council’s water summit. We appreciate the opportunity to help shape the event and continue to engage constructively with the council.”

The pressure from the county council comes as some of Devon’s parliamentarians have also been increasingly scrutinising the firm.

David Reed, the Conservative MP for Exmouth and Exeter East, has picked up the issue of whether the water firm can truly cope with the expected increase in housing development in his constituency in the coming years, and expressed anger over a bonus payment to SWW’s former boss Susan Davy.

Mr Reed said Pennon, which owns SWW, had reversed its earlier decision to withhold Ms Davy’s bonus and approved a £270,000 payment along with a further £87,000 for 2025-26 in spite of her being in charge during the cryptosporidium outbreak in Brixham in 2024 for which it recently received a record fine for a drinking water offence of £1.8 million.

“As a Devon MP whose constituents are SWW customers, I want to raise this directly with you,” Mr Reed wrote in a letter to the firm.

“I understand Pennon’s position is that these payments were funded at group level rather than by SWW directly [but] I would be grateful if you could confirm this clearly and explain how you will ensure SWW bill payers have not contributed to this award, either directly or through inter-group transfers.”

Pennon Group has defended the payouts because they were reinstated after guidance from Ofwat on how new rules on executive bonuses would be applied.

Ofwat introduced fresh powers this year to block bonuses in certain cases, including serious pollution incidents, and said it had already stopped £4 million being paid across the sector.

Pennon said the payouts were funded at group level and not directly by customers.

Mr Haslett, the chief executive of Pennon, has said while he had “only been CEO for a few weeks” it was “very clear we must learn lessons” and “continue to rebuild trust with the customers and communities we serve”.

“I am already focused on driving improvement in the way we operate, how we communicate and support our customers during operational incidents, and driving a step-change in our performance for our customers and the environment,” Mr Haslett said.

A Cornish MP responds to the reinstatement of Susan Davy’s bonus.

A CORNISH MP has written to Pennon Group chief executive officer Keith Haslett demanding urgent clarity over the reinstatement of a bonus payment awarded to former CEO Susan Davy.

Mark Stevens www.cornish-times.co.uk

Anna Gelderd, MP for South East Cornwall [Labour}, is calling for full transparency from the company and assurances that any bonus payments made to senior executives are completely separate from customer bills, as concerns continue to grow among residents over water company performance, sewage pollution and environmental standards.

The letter comes after widespread reporting that Susan Davy was awarded a £270,000 bonus despite a series of major issues affecting customers and communities, including sewage discharges across South East Cornwall and the cryptosporidium outbreak in the Brixham area.

The reports have prompted a strong public reaction, with many residents questioning whether senior leadership rewards reflect the challenges faced by customers who continue to experience concerns over water quality, pollution and the reliability of services.

In her letter to Mr Haslett, Ms Gelderd raised concerns that have been shared with her by local residents across her South East Cornwall constituency. Many people have told the MP that they expect their water bills to be used to provide essential services, maintain and improve infrastructure, and protect the environment, rather than contributing towards bonuses for former company executives.

Ms Gelderd has also asked what measures Pennon Group is taking to restore public confidence following repeated environmental and service failures. She highlighted the importance of rebuilding trust between water companies and the communities they serve.

Commenting on the situation, Ms Gelderd said: “People in South East Cornwall should not be paying for the bonus of a former water company CEO who repeatedly failed to deliver for its customers. Local residents already face some of the highest water bills in the country, while our waterways continue to suffer from sewage pollution.

“Enough is enough. That’s why I have written to the new chief executive officer of Pennon Group, Keith Haslett, to demand explanations over whether customer bills have paid for this bonus, and if pollution incidents are taken into account when deciding bonuses.”

Since being elected, Ms Gelderd says she has consistently raised concerns about water quality and sewage pollution affecting Cornish waters – and her work has included organising a beach clean at Seaton Beach to collect important data for the Marine Conservation Society, regularly challenging water quality issues in Parliament, and meeting with Water Minister Emma Hardy MP to discuss the impact of sewage pollution on local communities.

She has also directly challenged senior leadership at South West Water over environmental performance, customer impact and the need for improvements.

Ms Gelderd’s campaigning has contributed to the River Fowey in Lostwithiel being designated as a bathing water site, strengthening protections for local waterways and increasing recognition of the importance of protecting Cornwall’s natural environment.

She has also said she will continue pressing for accountability from water companies and campaigning for long-term improvements to the health of Cornish rivers, beaches and seas.

How can this possibly be? 

South West Water has no plans in the pipeline to cut pollution (E.coli and phosphates) in river Otter, the river it uses as a “Free open sewer” to carry Honton overflows to the sea.

Has the woman no conscience? And OFWAT still no TEETH!- Owl

Water boss receives £270,000 bonus despite parasite outbreak

www.telegraph.co.uk 21 June

Former chief executive, who claimed to suffer from ‘sleepless nights’ during scandal, accepts payout

A company that pumped parasite-infected drinking water to thousands of homes in south-west England has paid a £270,000 bonus to the boss who oversaw the scandal.

Susan Davy quit last year as chief executive of Pennon, the listed group that owns South West Water, after a series of crises prompted the company to halt her bonuses.

But these payouts have been reinstated by the board.

The bonuses were initially withheld after a cryptosporidium contamination incident affecting 17,000 homes in Brixham, Devon, in May 2024. The crisis lasted 54 days and led to more than 140 people falling ill.

At the time, Ms Davy apologised to consumers, and claimed the incident led to her suffering “sleepless nights”.

However, she has accepted a £270,000 bonus for 2024-25 and an £87,000 bonus for 2025-26.

This came on top of a base salary and benefits of £561,000 for 2024-25, and £473,000 for the nine months she worked last financial year.

Together with pensions and share allocations, she earned more than £1m in 2024-25.

In its annual report, Pennon said: “The [Brixham] incident has already been reflected in directors’ remuneration, through the cancellation of the annual bonus for relevant directors in respect of the 2023-24 financial year”.

In a footnote, the company said it had initially withheld the payouts to Ms Davy while waiting for guidance from Ofwat over how the regulator would implement its newly acquired power to ban bonuses.

In March, Ofwat set out the triggers for scrapping bonuses, which include a water company being responsible for a “Category 1” pollution incident.

The Brixham incident was not Category 1. But South West Water last year had a chemical spillage at its Menagwins plant in Cornwall that reached this threshold.

The company said this meant Ms Davy’s bonuses related only to her performance across Pennon’s other companies, Bristol Water, Bournemouth Water and SES Water.

In July, South West Water was fined £1.8m for the Brixham incident after pleading guilty to supplying water unfit for human consumption and offering a “full and unreserved apology”.

Judge Stuart Smith of Exeter Court described it as “a major public health incident”.

He said the harm had been “wide-ranging and profound”, and “disruption to daily life was extensive”, claiming that South West Water had shown a “systemic failure of governance”.

After the fine, Keith Haslett, Ms Davy’s replacement as chief executive, said: “We must learn lessons from this incident and work hard to rebuild trust with the customers and communities we serve.”

An Ofwat spokesman said its new rules had blocked £4m of bonuses to water companies in its first year of operation.

“Rebuilding public trust in the water sector is vital and central to our rules on executive pay,” the spokesman said. “We are currently reviewing companies’ remuneration decisions and will not hesitate to take action where we find breaches of our rules.”

Pennon said that, in accordance with Ofwat’s new rules, the latest bonuses would be funded at group level rather than by the individual water companies, “and will therefore not be funded by customers”.

Cllr Julian Brazil expanded on his view just a week ago, believing decisions were imminent – Owl understands the Government has gone into “radio silent” mode on the subject.

Devon County Council Leader urges Government to heed expert advice ahead of decision on county’s future 

www.devon.gov.uk

Devon County Council is calling on the Government to heed the advice of its own officials across Whitehall departments as it prepares to make a crucial decision on the future structure of local government across the county.

Councillor Julian Brazil, Leader of Devon County Council, has warned that recent events in Essex highlight the risks of ignoring expert financial and operational assessments when determining how councils are reorganised.

In Essex, government ministers chose to pursue a five-unitary authority model despite advice from officials from across Whitehall, and including the Treasury, that an alternative structure would be more financially sustainable.

Government documents and correspondence reveal that civil servants assessed a three-unitary option as meeting the Government’s criteria “more strongly than the other proposals” and as the only model likely to be “financially viable within five years”.

Despite this, ministers opted for a different approach. Essex County Council has since warned the decision risks undermining services and has launched legal action, stating that ignoring expert advice could “jeopardise the future of services to our most vulnerable adults and children”.

Councillor Brazil says the issues in Essex must serve as a clear warning as ministers close in on a decision on local government reorganisation in Devon.

Councillor Brazil said:

“The situation in Essex demonstrates exactly why it is vital that Government bases its decisions on robust, evidence-based advice.

“When expert recommendations are ignored by ministers, there is a real risk that the structures created are not financially sustainable and cannot deliver for the people who depend on them most.”

Devon County Council has consistently argued that only proposals which are resilient, financially viable and capable of safeguarding critical services should be considered. The authority’s preferred option is for a single, county-wide unitary council, alongside existing arrangements in Plymouth and Torbay, which it says would provide the scale and stability needed to protect frontline services and remain resilient to financial shocks.

By contrast, alternative proposals under consideration could see the county split into several smaller unitary councils. The council warns that such models risk creating organisations that lack the financial strength and operational capacity to deliver essential services.

Councillor Brazil added:

“We know from the evidence that smaller, fragmented authorities can struggle to remain financially viable over the long term. If Government chooses a model for Devon that does not stand up to that test, it is Devon’s residents who will pay the price.”

The Leader has previously voiced serious concerns about the potential impact of reorganisation on vulnerable residents, particularly if existing social care and children’s services are broken up.

“Breaking up vital adult and children’s services into smaller, less resilient organisations carries significant risk,” he said. “If this happens in Devon, some of the most vulnerable people we care for — both adults and children — could face a much more uncertain future.”

“An independent Commissioner has already recognised the progress being made in Devon’s children’s services and warned against disrupting that improvement. We cannot afford to put that at risk.”

The council’s leader also warned that poorly designed reorganisation could lead to reduced service quality, increased costs, and instability at a time when demand for social care and support services is already rising.

Councillor Brazil added:

“We estimated the cost of restructuring Devon’s local authority structures to be between £50m and £80m, depending on which proposal the Government selects.

“With no financial support for this huge task being offered from central government, this could impact our services to local people and there is not even any guarantee that the proposal selected by government will result in cost savings for the resulting councils or their residents.

“The government’s choice must be guided by what is sustainable financially, what protects vital services, and what is in the best interests of Devon’s communities — not by short-term or political considerations.

“We urge ministers to learn the lessons from Essex and to follow the clear advice of their own officials.”

The Government is expected to make its decision on the future structure of local government in Devon within weeks.

Today the FT reports that Andy Burnham is drawing up plans for an aggressive programme of devolution, as the likely successor to Sir Keir Starmer prepares for a vital speech on the economy with one eye on Labour MPs and the other on the bond markets.

Burnham has signalled that he wants to shift more power from Westminster to local communities if he becomes prime minister, citing the success of Manchester’s economy as a sign of what can be achieved by granting greater autonomy to local areas.

However, opposition is mounting amongst 18 County Councils over the way Starmer’s government is proceeding. See below – Owl

Sam Fleming, George Parker www.ft.com (Exttract)

One ally of Burnham said: “You can expect the speech to touch on building an economy that works for everyone in every place. Communities across the country with a huge contribution to make that have been looked past by Westminster for too long.”

One idea his advisers have discussed is designating a government department with responsibility for finding powers that could be hived off from Whitehall and devolved to regional authorities.

The move would come on top of a plan already being drawn up inside the Treasury to give localities greater power over their own finances as they benefit more from the fruits of growing their economies.

Burnham has been taking advice from Andy Haldane, former Bank of England chief economist and an FT contributing editor, as well as Lord Jim O’Neill, former Goldman Sachs chief economist and ex-Treasury minister, and Richard Hughes, former chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, among other economists. Some may join him in government.

One ally said: “Andy wants to create regional engines of growth.” Another said: “There are some clear policy strands emerging, including more devolution to localities — including fiscal devolution — and the need for more creative thinking on infrastructure spending.”

A spokesperson for Burnham did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile is the only way Essex?

The Reform controlled Essex County Council confirmed on 19 June that it intends to submit a judicial review on proposals for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in Greater Essex.

The Government-led proposal would see the existing 15 councils in Greater Essex replaced with five, all-purpose, unitary authorities rather than the three unitary proposal made by the council.

There are also media reports that Norfolk County Council rejects the Government proposal to replace it by three unitaries instead of the one they proposed. Norfolk County Council has a Reform majority of 40 seats out of 84.

Owl has already reported (4 June) Julian Brazil, the Liberal Democrat leader of Devon county council, saying that the reorganisation proposals preferred by Labour were the “archetypal gerrymander”, adding: “They are trying to expand Labour cities as big as they can get in order to maintain some kind of control.” As he added his signature to the letter signed by the 16  Councils still awaiting decisions.

What did the Labour 2024 Manifesto say about English Devolution?

The 2024 Labour Manifesto shifted away from the proposals announced in its Power and Partnership plan published earlier that year to expand devolution across the whole of England by asking all councils not currently in a combined authority or county devolution deals to “join together on sensible economic geographies and take on a new suite of powers”. The earlier “devolution everywhere’ approach did not made the manifesto, which promised only to “widen devolution to more areas”. [Owl emphasis]