“Alongside my colleagues, every councillor and every member of the public I have spoken to, I am struggling with this whole process – the upheaval, the rush, the cost, and some of the poorly thought-through decisions from Government.”

Cllr. Denise Bickley

Last week, Devon County Council’s Cabinet considered the proposed warding arrangements for the new unitary authorities as part of the Government’s plans for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR).

Alongside my colleagues, every councillor and every member of the public I have spoken to, I am struggling with this whole process – the upheaval, the rush, the cost, and some of the poorly thought-through decisions from Government.

I am not against LGR in principle.

There may be benefits to doing things differently.

But it needs to be carefully planned and designed around the communities it is intended to serve.

I simply do not believe this process is allowing enough time for that.

The proposed warding arrangements are a good example.

Here in Sidmouth, the proposal would divide our area between Sidmouth Town, with one unitary councillor, and Sidmouth Rural, Sidbury and Newton Poppleford and Harpford, with three unitary councillors.

That is four unitary councillors covering an area which currently has one Devon County Councillor alongside seven East Devon District Councillors.

Newton Poppleford and Harpford currently fall within a different County Council division, represented by Cllr Jess Bailey.

So the proposals change not just the number of councillors, but the communities being represented together.

Good local government is not simply about drawing lines on a map.

It is about whether boundaries make sense to residents, reflect established communities and provide effective local representation.

But for me, there is an even more important issue: we must not allow LGR to disrupt the progress we are making for Devon’s children and families.

The last 15 months have allowed me to get deeply involved in assisting the transformation of our services in SEND.

I am confident that, in an incredibly difficult national picture, we are making positive progress according to all our performance indicators and the Department for Education advisers we work closely with.

But that progress is not yet fully embedded.

Could I say every parent is feeling the difference yet?

Of course not.

SEND is complex, involving education, health, social care and other services, and sustainably changing outcomes takes time and enormous group effort.

I refer back to the report of the Government’s own Children’s Commissioner, Nigel Richardson, who warned that breaking up Devon’s existing children’s services arrangements could risk stopping improvement in its tracks, or even reversing progress.

That could hardly be clearer.

We must not allow arbitrary administrative boundaries to get in the way of positive outcomes for children.

I believe there could be benefits from reorganising local government – but only if we do it properly.

Instead, we are being asked to proceed at extraordinary speed, whether or not we believe the Government’s plan will deliver the positive outcomes it expects.

We have no realistic option but to engage with the process.

But that does not mean we have to back it blindly when we fear it is dangerous.

Cabinet therefore decided to note, but not endorse, the response on the interim warding arrangements, because of the democratic deficit we believe these proposals create.

We thanked officers across all Devon’s current councils for the huge amount of work they have undertaken under immense pressure and within ridiculous timescales.

Whatever happens with LGR, we must protect the progress being made in Children’s Services, protect and nurture the relationships that are strengthening, and make sure organisational change does not come at the expense of our children, families, and communities.

Listed alphabetically. Source.

Listed alphabetically, grouped according to current District affiliation (East Devon in bold at the bottom).

Source

South West Water’s storm overflows were reported as discharging for 299 hours, or 1.8 weeks.

(Cllr. Ed Tyldesley LibDem County Councillor for Chulmleigh and Landkey writes 24 August on facebook)

That is 664 separate spill events across 184 sites, despite just 16.5mm of rain across the South West. For context, a normal August week receives between 15 and 25mm of rainfall – so last week was bang on average.

South West Water have already told me that their live monitoring data can sometimes contain false readings and that individual activations need to be investigated.

Well, investigate them then!

Because we are now left with two possibilities:

Either South West Water’s own data is correct, and sewage was discharged into our rivers and seas for 299 hours in a single week.

Or their legally mandated monitoring system is so unreliable that hundreds of apparent sewage spills are being reported to the public which may not actually have happened.

Neither is remotely acceptable.

If the monitors are wrong, fix the monitors.

If the discharges are real, fix the sewage network.

What South West Water cannot keep doing is publishing these extraordinary figures and then shrugging their shoulders when people ask what happened.

I have been back and forth with Pennon Group this past week and have been stonewalled at every turn. When I ask for an explanation, they ask which spill I’m specifically asking about whilst missing the point – I’m concerned about every spill!

In North Devon alone, WaterWatch recorded 50 spill events across 27 sites, including discharges into the Little Dart and River Mole.

We pay some of the highest water bills in the country. We should not have to choose between a sewage system that cannot cope and a monitoring system we cannot trust. Based on last year’s figures, South West Water will have made roughly £2.4 million in profit last week.

Enough excuses. Enough dividends. Enough bonuses.

Put the money into the infrastructure.

Fix the leaks.

Fix the sewage works.

And stop treating our rivers like a toilet – Read on there is much more below the image – Owl

A week ago Cllr Tyldesley wrote:

Another week, another round of environmental vandalism..

·No rain, but 200 hours of sewage discharge!

Over the last week, the South West has received almost no rain. But South West Water saw their storm overflow systems activated for a total of 206 hours!

The data below has kindly been provided by WaterWatch and shows that even though there was no reason, the SW region saw 353 activations of their storm overflow systems. It beggars belief how they can even call it a “storm” overflow system when it is used even in the driest weeks in record.

Last week we saw 106 hours after just 3.5mm of rain, people were horrified and wanted answers. I’ve had a response from SWW:

“WaterFit Live provides near real time data for all our storm overflows, this shows whether the overflow is active and for how long. This information helps customers and stakeholders understand how the wastewater network is operating and supports greater transparency around storm overflows. We are required to provide data in near real time, and we are currently not able to validate this before it is published. This means occasional false readings can be published. These false readings may occur due to factors such as leaves, twigs, bubbles, or foam. These can all trigger an Event Duration Monitor (EDM) and indicate an overflow is operating when it is not. A full validation is undertaken on a monthly basis, and the data is amended to reflect these false readings.”

I wrote back to express my dissatisfaction that I’d just been sent a stock response and received the following:

“Storm overflows may activate for a number of reasons and therefore each activation needs to be investigated on a case-by-case basis and as such I am unable to provide you with a definitive answer to your question.

However, should there be specific activations that are of concern please come back to me and I will be happy to investigate. It is also worth noting that we review the data from our EDMs and publish our first assured data on our website monthly in arrears. In addition, we are required to produce a further regulatory return on a calendar year basis which is submitted to the Environment Agency. This calendar year return goes through a further quality assurance check before being published on gov.uk on the link below.”

I am concerned with every single one of these activations!

To be blunt, it is not our problem if the legally-mandated monitoring data contains some false readings. The public have a right to trust the data and if SWW think there are inaccuracies then they need to spend some of their hundreds of millions of pounds of annual profit improving their reporting system. As far as I’m concerned, these numbers are accurate and should be treated exactly as they appear – South West Water have dumped raw sewage into our rivers for 206 hours in the driest week of the year.

Fix your leaks. Fix your reporting system. Stop paying out massive dividends and executive bonuses. Stop putting our bills up. And stop destroying our natural environment for your profit. 

Owl asks: WHAT HAS SIMON JUPP*  EVER DONE  FOR US (with apologies to the BBC)

* Former MP for East Devon now Director of Corporate Affairs for the Pennon Group, owner of South West Water

The new warding arrangements have been released for “Greater Exeter”.

Looks to Owl as if Exeter Leader Cllr. Phil Bialyk has overplayed his hand, being too greedy in his land grab.

Despite Exeter keeping all its wards and councillors, parity rules mean Exeter councillors will be outnumbered 36 to 50 by councillors from old Devon Districts and likely to be led from outside the city walls.

Here is the map of the new warding arrangements:

The key take-away from all this is that Exeter has had to make no change, retaining all its 36 councillors and ward structure with three councillors per ward elected on a rotational basis. Indeed it looks as if the whole of the Devon carve up has been designed to satisfy Exeter.

The remaining 50 seats (to retain parity) will have to be divvied up between the 22 wards carved out of the surrounding districts, an average of two and a bit councillor each.

Are you ready for a hybrid electoral system?

Are we going to have a hybrid electoral system where:

Wards with three councillors elect one councillor in each of the three active years, with no election in the fourth (fallow) year. (Exeter) 

And the rest where:

Wards with two councillors elect one councillor in two of the active years.

Wards with one councillor elect their single representative in only one of the active years?

How is this going to work?

Owl doubts that it will pass muster with the electoral commission.

Details

From former Mid Devon

3 new wards

• Yeo
• Crediton Lawrence
• Crediton Boniface

From former Teignbridge

6 new wards

• Dawlish North East
• Dawlish South West
• Chudleigh
• Kenton & Starcross
• Kenn Valley
• Tedburn St Mary

From former East Devon

13 new wards

• Exe Valley
• Broadclyst
• Cranbrook
• Whimple & Rockbeare
• West Hill & Aylesbeare
• Clyst Valley
• Woodbury & Lympstone
• Budleigh & Raleigh
• Exmouth Brixington
• Exmouth Halsdon
• Exmouth Withycombe Raleigh
• Exmouth Town
• Exmouth Littleham

From former Exeter City – no change

12 Wards

• Exwick
• Duryard & St. James
• Pennsylvania
• Mincinglake & Whipton
• Pinhoe
• St. Loyes
• Heavitree
• Newtown & St. Leornard’s
• St. David’s
• St. Thomas
• Alphington
• Priory

Despite all this gerrymandering Exeter councillors will still be outnumbered 36 to 50 from the rest.

Local government reorganisation – Rural rump councillors to represent 60% more electors than their counterparts in Expanded Exeter.

Here are the stark numbers (Source)

Exeter

• Electors: 188,449
• Members: 86
• Ratio: 1:2,191 [Rounded 1:2,200]

Devon (Coast and Countryside)

• Electors: 359,906
• Members: 103
• Ratio: 1:3,494 [Rounded 1:3,500] i.e. 1,300 (or 60%) more electors than an Exeter councillor.

Whilst there are strict rules to retain parity between wards within a single authority, there are no rules governing the need for parity between separate authorities.  However, parity will still have to be maintained between parliamentary constituencies.

So one effect of creating unitary authorities is to enable the government to make major shifts in representation between rural and urban areas.

But is it fair?

Is this the real reason Andy Burnham only met Exeter Council Leader Cllr. Phil Bialyk on his “visit” to Devon? 

Special DCC meeting (LGR) cabinet

The government has required councils affected by reorganisation to respond by 17 August. (In a hurry during the holiday season.)

At a special meeting of the (LGR) cabinet convened by Devon County on 14 August:

The Leader MOVED the following motion which was duly SECONDED by Councillor Buczkowski;

            That Cabinet

(a) note, but due to the democratic deficit it creates, do not endorse the response to be submitted by Devon County Council to Government, by the 17th August 2026, regarding interim warding arrangements for the proposed successor authorities arising from Local Government Reorganisation in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay and Exeter; and

(b) that it be further noted that final decisions on councillor numbers, initial electoral arrangements and the content of the Structural Changes Order rest with the Secretary of State and Parliament.

The MOTION was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

Footnote

Elsewhere Owl has written that it looks as if the whole of the Devon carve up has been done to satisfy Exeter.

The City  has had to make no changes to its wards or representation, retaining all its 36 councillors and ward structure with three councillors per ward elected on a rotational basis. Compared to Plymouth and the rest of Devon it has a generous allocation of councillors.

The result is not only inequity. This generosity has wiped out any chance of making savings by significant reductions in councillors.

Many Devon MPs have launched petitions and have pledged to raise the government’s decision on Local Government Reorganisation when parliament resumes in September. CPRE is urging those who oppose the government plan to write to Angela Rayner as well. – Owl

Devon “betrayed” by Local Government Reorganisation decision Devon CPRE, August e-bulletin

‘Gerrymandering’, ‘a stitch-up’, ‘betrayed’ and ‘shafted’ were just a few of the headline reactions to the government’s announcement of their preferred plan to reorganise our two-tier local government system into a single ‘unitary’ model.

The decision sent down from the Secretary of State on 16 July divides Devon into four Unitary Authorities: an expanded Plymouth, an expanded Exeter, an expanded Torbay and… the leftovers, quaintly titled ‘Devon Coast and Countryside’. This will be the largest single authority by area in England, and its biggest town will be Barnstaple.

The upshot is that 777,000 Devonians will live – and pay their Council Tax – in the three new metropolitan areas, while the remaining 455,00 will bear the financial responsibility for 2,500 square miles of rural and coastal Devon, a single authority that stretches from Lynton to Salcombe, and from Hartland to Axminster.

Plymouth will subsume 13 parishes currently in the South Hams, while Exeter will take 15 from Teignbridge, 28 from East Devon and six from Mid Devon. Torbay will expand its boundary to take on 22 parishes in total from Teignbridge District Council and South Hams.

As Devon County Council leader Cllr Julian Brazil put it:

“The sentiments sound fine. Devolution, democracy, efficiency. But the reality is everything we’re being forced to do will achieve exactly the opposite. Decisions will be taken further from the people, decided by distant, faceless officials, censored by an ever more controlling centre.” He described the plan as a ‘Labour stitch-up’ and estimated that it would add £250 a year to household bills – mainly Council Tax – in the vast new Coast & Countryside Authority.

In our own statement, we pointed out that there are areas of rural Devon which have some of the lowest incomes in the entire country. Livestock-grazing farmers, of which Devon has a preponderance because of our world-beating pastureland, have seen their average incomes drop to less than £23,000 in recent years.

We said: “This plan clearly demonstrates, yet again, that Westminster has no understanding whatever of what happens outside the cities, of the precarious economics of rural England in general and Devon in particular, and cares even less. Already they have summarily and suddenly turned off the agricultural subsidies that many Devonian farmers depend on, and hit them with Inheritance Tax on theoretically-valuable land that yields their families barely subsistence-level incomes.

“Devon depends heavily on landscape-based and coastal tourism – yet at the same time we’re a top target for the government’s new uses for our agricultural landscapes, like massive solar farms and now, it appears, gigantic data centres and containerised battery ‘parks’ on our fields. Just the sort of things that we’re already hearing are causing people to think twice about moving here, let alone coming here for their holidays. And the beneficiaries are huge corporate businesses and offshore investors, not the people whose land is being taken.”

We understand that Devon County Council is one of three that have decided to take the matter to a Judicial Review. In the meantime, we urge anyone who thinks that taking all of the conurbations, the vast majority of the industry and three fifths of the population out of Devon, leaving the remaining 40% of taxpayers to try and fund the largest authority in the country, is a terrible idea to write to:

The Rt Hon Angela Rayner, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF.

Numbers matter – fill her mail box

Barnstaple staffing “challenging” because of its “remoteness”

“Senior managers of the NHS Trust explained that recruitment had proved challenging over the past few years, due to the hospital’s size and location – being one of the most remote in the country.“

Yet under current government devolution plans, Barnstaple will have to be the administrative centre for half a million Devonians living up to a two hour hard drive away in places like Kingsbridge, Sidmouth and Axminster. So how easy will this be to get off the ground by 2028? – Owl

27 July Notification of potential and temporary suspension of births at North Devon District Hospital

6 August Temporary suspension of births at North Devon District Hospital from Tuesday 11 August announced (Extract)

The Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust has confirmed that, despite extensive efforts to maintain services, births at North Devon District Hospital (NDDH) will be temporarily suspended from Tuesday 11 August 2026 due to unsafe levels of medical staffing.

7 August Cllr Jess Bailey, Chair of Devon Council Health and Adult Care Committee and Devon Leader Julian Brazil announce a special scrutiny meeting will be convened on Monday 17 August.  (Extract)

A number of subject matter experts will be invited to give evidence to the committee, whose role is to scrutinise public health and health services in Devon.

Committee chair Councillor Jess Bailey said:

“The staffing issues behind this closure have clearly been developing for some time, yet it was announced with little notice. We will seek assurance from the hospital trust that a robust plan is in place to ensure it is reopened as soon possible.

“The unit will have been closed for six days by the time the committee meets, so some of the impacts on families, the safety of new mums and the effectiveness of the trust’s mitigation plans should be understood by then.”

Council leader Councillor Julian Brazil said:

“Some remote parts of North Devon are a two-hour drive from Exeter – and that’s when there is no traffic or road closures.

“For a council which has put improving the lives of children and families as its top priority, this closure is extremely concerning. It is not a decision which would be countenanced in other parts of the country and we should not accept second-rate NHS provision here.”

11 August Maternity unit closes

Same day National Headlines: Doctors at remote Devon hospital get ‘crash course’ after maternity unit shut (Extract)

Doctors at one of England’s remotest hospitals have been given a “crash course” in birth emergencies after its maternity unit was shut and as fears grow that the safety of women and babies may be put at risk.

17 August Maternity unit closure ‘an absolute disgrace’, says Devon County Council leader. (Extract)

He was speaking at a special meeting of the scrutiny committee which was being held as a result of the suspension of services. The meeting was chaired by Cllr Jess Bailey and lasted four plus hours. Video here.

Councillors heard from senior management of the Health Trust for Exeter and North Devon who explained the decision was taken after a consultant left after a family bereavement, and a locum doctor also left.

The trust decided the remaining team of six was no longer a safe level to operate an effective roster.

Some councillors at the meeting were alarmed to hear that the service was so “fragile”, given it had taken the loss of two positions to create this situation.

Senior managers of the NHS Trust explained that recruitment had proved challenging over the past few years, due to the hospital’s size and location – being one of the most remote in the country.

But Councillor Ed Tyldesley pointed out that West Cumberland in Cumbria was a similar size hospital and was able to rotate staff more successfully with a neighbouring hospital in Carlisle.

18 August The medical director of an NHS trust that has suspended births at a maternity unit has resigned in protest over the decision. (Extract)

Dr Karen Davies said she was leaving her job at Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (RDUH) because she could not “support the way the trust has handled, and is handling, the maternity situation” at Barnstaple hospital.

Responding to Davies’ resignation, Vanessa Purday, chief medical officer at RDUH, said the trust “has a responsibility to make decisions based on clinical risk, patient safety and the available evidence”.

Purday added: “The decision to temporarily suspend birthing services was reached through established clinical, executive and system governance processes when safe staffing could no longer be assured.”

The trust’s chief medical officer said every available option was considered and the safety of women and their babies was the “overriding consideration”.

Davies wrote in her resignation letter: “We have known for several years that there have been concerns about fragility, as well as safety and culture, in the northern maternity unit.”

She said she was concerned a proposal for additional support which “could have produced a plan to avoid closure” was not brought in.

She added she had not taken the decision to bring her retirement forward lightly and several colleagues had asked her to stay.

“But ultimately I have to accept that my repeated warnings and concerns over the last two years have not been heard and have not been acted upon,” her letter said.

Where do we go from here?

Andy Burnham had a short stop over in the Met Office HQ in Exeter last Friday evening. He was given a presentation on the role weather forecasting played during the 1944 D-Day landings, accompanied by Exeter City’s Labour leader Phil Bialyk.

He then spent most of Saturday meeting people and council leaders in Cornwall where he invited LibDem Council Leader Cllr Leigh Frost, and the six Cornish MPs, to a meeting in No 10 North to progress devolution talks.

Is he aware of the problems in Devon?

North Devon has just had its maternity services suspended in Barnstaple and the largest town in Devon as a whole, Exmouth. is losing its Post Office.

Does he care? – Owl

Andy Burnham presented with Cornish pasties amid Devolution promise

A LAST-minute visit to Cornwall by the new Prime Minister saw the leader of Cornwall Council ensure a promise to try a pasty was kept in a recent letter exchange – with Andy Burnham presented with a feast of one of Bodmin’s best-known manufacturers of pasties.

Aaron Greenaway www.tavistock-today.co.uk

Cllr Leigh Frost, the leader of Cornwall Council and the member for Bodmin St Petroc wrote to the Prime Minister upon his taking of office, wishing the Labour leader well and seeking to meet with him to discuss further devolution for Cornwall.

In a response dated August 11, Mr Burnham sent a response to Cllr Frost, making clear his commitment to that conversation as part of wide ranging plans for the United Kingdom. He added that he had asked the Ministry of Housing, Community and Local Government (MHCLG) to follow up with the Cornwall Council leader on the points raised.

The Prime Minister added that he hoped to find himself a pasty in the near future with Cllr Frost later declaring that when that happens, the pasties will be on him.

However, in the event that happened just four days after the letter with a last-minute visit on Saturday (August 15) to the Duchy by Mr Burnham, who had come to visit farming businesses as part of efforts to expand a support fund for British farming.

As well as presenting the Prime Minister and his team with a basket of Barnecutts pasties, the Cornwall Council leader took the opportunity to discuss the issue of devolution.

If granted, it would potentially bring more powers and responsibility to Cornwall beyond that already granted – with concerns that the unique requirements of the Duchy mean that the models being pursued elsewhere, such as large combined authorities with a mayor would not be appropriate.

Cllr Frost said that his first meeting with Andy Burnham was a positive one and that he thought the Prime Minister was genuine in his ambition to devolve powers from Westminster to local authorities around the United Kingdom.

Speaking afterwards, Cllr Frost said: “‘It was great to meet the prime minister here in Cornwall, we discussed the opportunities that are in front of Cornwall, and ensuring the right devolution deal to help us grab those opportunities. The Prime Minister has said that he won’t impose a devolution on any place that doesn’t want it.”

Referring to the insistence that Cornwall is not forced to merge with Devon as part of a ‘Devonwall’ combined authority or have to introduce a mayor, Cllr Frost continued: “I made clear our red lines.”

The successful meeting, in addition to introducing the Prime Minister to the true taste of a Cornish pasty, saw an invitation extended to Cllr Frost and the six Cornwall members of parliament – comprising of four Labour MPs and two Liberal Democrats – to a meeting at the newly established Number 10 North which will be overseeing the rollout of devolution across the United Kingdom.

Cllr Frost added: “The Prime Minister has invited the six Cornish MPs and myself up to Number 10 North to progress this”.

It was billed as a “Listening Tour” of the regions. It ended with Andy Burnham and Cllr. Phil Bialyk, Labour leader of Exeter City Council, tête-à-tête in the Met Office HQ listening to a presentation on the D-Day weather forecasts.

Owl has asked a correspondent with Whitehall experience to imagine how this might have happened.

“Escaping the Westminster Bubble, a listening exercise in the regions”

Prime Minister this weekend you are visiting Devon as part of your renamed “cost of living” tour.

We have devised a plan which we believe, subject to your approval, finesses the potential pitfalls identified below.

Local Sensitivities

A particular sensitivity to be aware of is the strongly held belief amongst the native population that the historic notion of “County”, its boundaries and identity, matter. 

This weird notion is one they share almost as strongly as their neighbours in Cornwall. There is scientific genetic evidence to support claims of unique identities for these two counties.  However, we cannot let these old fashioned ideas of identity get in the way of pursuing our metropolitan growth agenda.

Which leads me to highlight a related issue: contention surrounding former Minister Steve Reed’s decision to embrace the Exeter, Plymouth and Tobay idea of creating three Unitary Urban Authorities.

The consequence is that  the remaining half a million people in Devon have been consigned to an administratively unmanageable rural rump authority. That it is causing unease is not entirely surprising. It was the devolution proposals with only minority support and least favoured by some three quarters of the population during consultation.

The LibDem led Devon County Council, with cross party support, has started a legal challenge.

Note that outside Exeter and Plymouth, Labour representation is thin on the ground.

The question is: do you reach out and meet these differences head on, try to find common ground and consensus so policy changes can be made more lasting and political toxicity reduced, as you argued in your Manchester speech?

Perhaps you would prefer to duck this for the moment?  We can always plead shortage of time and claim that you are focussed on “cost of living” issues?

Though, maybe in the light of your visit to fire stricken Stourbridge, your ordering of a national telephone fire alert and ban on BBQs, we should now rebrand it as a “Policy Roll Out” tour.

An announcement of £65m for farmers would sit well with this when you visit a Cornish potato farm, scheduled for Saturday.

Correspondence

Nicola Daniel, a local, wrote online to you last week asking if you had read her letter in the Times. [The press office popped a note into Monday’s red box.] She suggested you visit Ilfracombe, which has the lowest healthy life expectancy of any rural town in the country. Central Ilfracombe ranks as one of Devon’s most economically deprived neighbourhoods, with roughly 30 per cent of town centre residents facing income hardship.

Devon is a very large county with poor transport connections and Illfracombe is isolated on the north coast. So even if you were inclined to take up this challenge we can argue insufficient time.

The Solution

Our proposed solution is that you travel to the Met Office HQ Exeter where you can be accompanied by a friendly face, Exeter City Council Labour Leader Phil Bialyk. There you will meet Met Office staff in a controlled space rather like a Whitehall department. Home from home as it were. We have given them a heads up on this and they have prepared a presentation on how vital the met forecast was to the D-Day landing decision (June 6 1944).

Admittedly it will not be very rural but such a visit would reinforce your plan to regenerate the regions by similar government office relocations. (Your predecessor, Tony Blair, relocated the Met Office from Bracknell to Exeter in 2003.) The main thing is for you to be able to say you visited Devon.

Press access will be controlled so we do not expect the editor of the Exeter Observer to be present. We wouldn’t want him raising the Centre for Cities 2026 report that found Exeter had experienced declining living standards alongside below-average economic growth in the ten years to 2023, placing it among the worst performers in the country alongside Aberdeen, Birkenhead, Burnley, Dundee, Ipswich, Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Wigan.

The devolution policy you inherited “bets the farm” on Exeter’s economic vibrancy driving growth, not on it being a bit of a basket case.

The Met Office operates one of the most powerful and massive supercomputing systems in the UK.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MENTION AI. The data processing undertaken by Met Office staff is likely to be amongst the first to be replaced by AI. There is enough doom and gloom within local academic circles subject to University retrenchment.

Local Customs

Finally, since you will be travelling to both Devon and Cornwall it would be safest if you declined any offer to eat a “cream tea” These counties fiercely contest whether the cream or the jam goes on the scone first. We don’t want an Ed Milliband bacon sandwich moment, should you get it wrong.

Extensive photo coverage will be provided by PA .

Ironically. this special meeting of Devon County Council finished at about the same time as Andy Burnham entered “lockdown” in the Met Office Exeter HQ to conduct his “visit” to Devon.

At the end of July Owl was out of contact for a while and missed reporting that the government had decided on the number of councillors each of the four Devon Unitarv Councils will have (see below). Given the projected populations for each, Owl’s immediate impression is that the councillor numbers for Exeter look a bit high compared to Plymouth and Torbay.

Chris Collman www.devonairradio.com

People in rural Devon could have fewer councillors representing larger areas under plans for the county’s new councils, Cabinet members heard this week.

Devon County Council has agreed its response to Government proposals on electoral arrangements, raising concerns about fair representation and the need to protect local communities as local government reorganisation moves forward. 

At a specially convened Cabinet meeting, members noted the council’s submission on interim electoral arrangements for the four new councils that are set to replace the current Devon County Council, eight district councils, Plymouth City and Torbay Council. 

The Government has already chosen a four-council model for Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, subject to parliamentary approval. Ministers have also proposed how many councillors each new authority should have. 

The response has been sent to Government ahead of a national deadline and focuses on the temporary warding arrangements that would be needed for elections in May 2027. The warding work was carried out collaboratively by council officers from across affected local authorities. 

Devon County Council’s Cabinet members discussed how the new arrangements could affect local representation, particularly in rural parts of Devon, and the need to make sure communities continue to have a strong local voice. 

Under the proposals there would be: 

• 86 councillors in Exeter Council 
• 68 councillors in Greater Plymouth Council 
• 64 councillors in Torbay and South Devon Council 
• 103 councillors in Devon Council 

The council’s scrutiny committee previously raised concerns about whether some councillors, particularly in rural areas, could end up representing larger populations and wider geographical areas than others. 

Devon County Council Leader Councillor Julian Brazil praised officers for working on an extremely challenging timetable.  

He said: 

“Because this has been forced on Devon at pace the democratic deficit is shocking. In one area, a councillor could represent around 1,400 residents, while in another it could be more than 4,000. That difference in representation is unacceptable and an affront to local democracy. 

“We will be the ones who must pick up the pieces if these arrangements create confusion or weaken local accountability. I am not opposed to local government reorganisation, but the process must deliver real benefits for our communities. If councils were given the time and flexibility to move at a sensible pace, we would have a much better chance of achieving those benefits.” 

Members also highlighted the importance of protecting community identity and ensuring that council boundaries reflect how people live, work and access services. 

The report makes clear that the arrangements currently being discussed are temporary and designed to allow the first elections to take place. A full independent review of electoral boundaries would follow once the new councils are established. 

The Government is expected to use submissions from councils across Devon, Plymouth and Torbay to help shape the legislation needed to create the new authorities ahead of their planned launch in April 2028. 

Councillor Jacqi Hodgson, Leader of the Green and Independent Group, said: 

“Changes to the management and delivery of public services should build better systems, not destroy. These proposals will destroy the systems we have in place.   

“The outcome of the public consultation has been essentially ignored, which is a disgrace.   

“The failure to take account of the public’s clear views and then carve out the economic areas, the cities, leaving a misshapen rural area that has been stripped of its coherence, will undermine the future of all of Devon.” 

Conservative Ashburton and Buckfastleigh Councillor Stuart Rogers said:

“I am reassured that Devon County Council is challenging the Government on the transparency of decision-making and the pace of this process. 

“Local government reorganisation risks fragmenting services that support some of our most vulnerable residents. The process is moving too quickly and threatens to undermine some of the careful work that has been undertaken to improve services and outcomes in recent years. 

“I am committed to supporting my town and parish councils throughout this process to represent their concerns and get answers for rural communities who feel left behind.” 

When is he going to visit the “real” Devon?

Andy Burnham’s surprise visit to Devon was curtailed as he spent time visiting those affected by wildfires in the West Midlands. The most extensive report of his visit can be found on Exeter Labour’s facebook page:

We were delighted to welcome Prime Minister Andy Burnham to Exeter today, where he visited our world-leading Met Office, accompanied by Leader of Exeter’s Labour Council, Cllr Phil Bialyk. It was a visit that reflects the Prime Minister’s commitment to deliver growth in every postcode, including here in the South West.

Recognising Exeter’s contribution to climate science and innovation comes at a crucial time for the country as we face severe wildfire risks. The Met Office is at the forefront of understanding our changing climate, using world-leading science, data and modelling to help predict extreme weather and understand the risks it poses to communities. That expertise is particularly important as we face the growing risks of extreme heat, drought and wildfires.

Following the awful fires our city has faced in Mincinglake Valley Park and Barley Valley Park, we echo the Government’s advice to stay safe and not use disposable BBQs, fire-pits, incinerators or fireworks. We also extend our thanks to Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue for their quick response to both fires.

It is reported that Andy Burnham made a fleeting visit to Devon yesterday. He chose the comfortable government agency Met Office in Exeter which Tony Blair relocated from Bracknell in 2003.

Exmouth, just 11 miles away, would have been a more typical place to discuss the problems of rural living where a population of 36,000 will lose their Post Office on September 28th.

From a correspondent:

Dear East Devon Watch

The impending closure of Exmouth town centre Post Office raises some important issues for our local MP and the government to consider.  The High Street is in decline and this is in no small part due to the closure of banks  and  Crown  Post Offices which support the local community.  The impending closure of the Post Office in Exmouth is a disaster for the town centre which has lost five banks over the last eight years.   The Post Office was cited as a viable alternative banking service when Santander closed its doors in 2025.

These services that the Post Office delivers via its network are services of public and economic interest (SPEI). They include:

• access to postal services
• universal access to basic cash and banking facilities
• universal payment facilities for public utility services
• provision of services on behalf of central and local government

The government requires the Post Office (POL) to deliver these SPEI across specific access criteria. This includes maintaining a network of at least 11,500 branches, and ensuring that 99% of the UK population to be within 3 miles of their nearest post office outlet. This is a larger network than the commercial optimum for the company.

Due to this, the government has been providing POL with a subsidy to support the post office network and the delivery of these SPEI since POL was established as a result of the Postal Services Act 2011. The Department for Business and Trade, the sole shareholder of Post Office Ltd.  is proposing to award POL a grant of up £180 million to support the continued delivery of the SPEI across the UK, over 3 financial years: 2026 to 2027, 2027 to 2028 and 2028 to 2029. This subsidy has been awarded to allow POL to continue to meet the operational costs of delivering government policy.

The impending closure of the Post Office  in Exmouth Town Centre which serves a population of 36,000 will have a serious negative impact on the wellbeing of the community and the town centre businesses.  The outlying post offices are not easy to reach by bus for residents who don’t live close to them.  The central post office by contrast provides an more accessible service to all residents.

The decline and fall of the Exmouth Post Office goes back to its change in status to a limited company in 2011 when the Department of Business and Trade supported a more commercial approach to its operations with many crown post offices closing and being franchised to private retail outlets.

In 2019, the  Exmouth Town Centre Post Office was franchised to WH Smith despite many objections raised by local residents including myself. I wrote to the then local multi millionaire MP Hugo Swire who was dismissive of my concerns that WH Smith could close down and the post office service with it as it was not a thriving enterprise on the High Street and was diverting its resources to travel hubs and away from High Street operations.  I don’t suppose he has to spend much of his time queueing at Post Offices to conduct his business.

Despite objections from many residents to this franchising of services to a private organisation, the Post Office went ahead and transferred Post Office operations to WH Smith. Unsurprisingly, most of the Post Office staff resigned rather than transferring to WH Smith’s payroll.

When TG Jones took over from WH Smith, the future of the Post Office was even more precarious.  TG Jones is owned by Modella Capital, a private equity firm which buys up failing businesses and either rationalises operations or closes the company completely, sometimes making a nice profit from selling off the merchandise from the shops they have taken over.

The Post Office has betrayed the customers who rely on a local post office to provide a range of services both to residents and local businesses alike.  When the banks were closing in Exmouth – we have lost five banks in the last eight years – the Post Office was cited as an alternative for residents to use.  Exmouth Post Office is always busy; It is not convenient or easy to reach the sub post offices on the outskirts of Exmouth for residents who don’t live in close proximity to them. There are many businesses and residents  including elderly and disabled, who rely heavily on a town centre service.

The Post Office should be providing a stand alone service instead of trying to shoe horn the post office into another high street store. Since WH Smith took over, the service has been patchy  with unannounced closures and shorter opening hours when staff have been diverted to working in the store instead of on Post Office Work.  A dedicated post office building with  reliable opening hours is essential for the town’s residents and businesses. There are empty properties on the High Street which could be used. 

The status of the Post Office from public service to a Limited company has been a disaster for the people of Exmouth and for many other communities throughout the country.  However, given that it is still under government control and receives handsome subsidies from the Government to operate, it should focus on serving the communities who rely on face to face Post Office Services.

Katherine Wilcox

DevonLive is reporting that Andy Burnham is visiting Devon today.

The writer of the Times letter has contacted Owl saying she hopes so.

She also says she followed up the letter with an email to the Prime Minister as follows:

Dear Prime Minister,

I hope your office drew your attention to my letter published in The Times on Monday  10/08/2026, concerning my wish that you visit Ilfracombe, Devon, on your tour of the country.

I note that you have visited Bath in the South West but this is an area totally sophisticated in contrast to the rural towns and villages of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset, many of which, like Ilfracombe, are struggling.

I also beg you to reconsider the proposed devolution solution for Devon as I cannot see how this could possibly help revitalise Ilfracombe, concentrating all efforts into Plymouth and Exeter. It leaves the rural rump, half a million people, spread over a huge area with no central focal point.

Nicola Daniel.

Ahead of his visit he released the following message:

Local businesses are the beating heart of our communities, bringing life to the places we call home.We are helping pubs, social clubs and live music venues by cutting their business rates, but I’ve always said there is more to do.I’m listening to small business owners so we can work together to deliver jobs and growth in every postcode.

Anyone seen him? – Owl

Andy Burnham’s tour

Sir, I hope that on his journey around Britain, Andy Burnham will visit Devon and specifically Ilfracombe, which has the lowest healthy life expectancy of any rural town in the country. Central Ilfracombe ranks as one of Devon’s most economically deprived neighbourhoods, with roughly 30 per cent of town centre residents facing income hardship. Nearly four in ten children grow up in poverty. I also hope he will look at his devolution proposal and ponder how this could possibly help Ilfracombe.
Nicola Daniel
Budleigh Salterton, Devon

Letter to the Times 10 August

“It is difficult to understand why councils were asked to work to one set of principles only for the outcome to move so far away from them….”

“Local government should be shaped around communities, not communities shaped around local government…..”

From her weekly column in the Sidmouth Herald a week ago:

Local reorganisation and what it means for Sidmouth (31 July)

Denise Bickley www.sidmouthherald.co.uk (extract)

Last week’s Herald [24 July] was full of everyone’s views on the Government’s decision on Local Government Reorganisation in Devon, so I thought I would add mine this week.

Like many people, I am disappointed by the direction the Government has chosen to take.

Throughout this process, I have argued that any changes to local government should strengthen local democracy, not weaken it.

Decisions should be made as close as possible to the communities they affect.

I am concerned that the Government has placed too much emphasis on drawing new boundaries and too little on whether those new councils will genuinely serve the people who live within them.

What is particularly frustrating is that councils were originally asked to develop proposals based on authorities of around 500,000 residents while working with existing boundaries wherever possible.

The direction now being taken appears to achieve neither of those aims.

It is difficult to understand why councils were asked to work to one set of principles only for the outcome to move so far away from them.

Devon is one county with many different communities.

Any new structure should recognise those differences rather than force together areas with very different priorities and identities.

Local government should be shaped around communities, not communities shaped around local government.

As one of the three Cabinet Members with responsibility for Children’s Services, I am particularly concerned about the timing of these changes.

We are making real progress in improving services for some of Devon’s most vulnerable children and young people.

That progress is encouraging, but it is not yet fully embedded, and any disruption at this stage could put those improvements at risk.

Since the Government’s announcement, Devon County Council has begun exploring the legal options available, including the preliminary work required for a possible Judicial Review.

While that process takes its course, my focus remains on protecting Sidmouth’s interests and ensuring that residents’ voices continue to be heard throughout the reorganisation.

There will no doubt be more developments in the months ahead, and I will continue to keep residents informed.

I was elected in May 2025 with the expectation of serving a four-year term until 2029, so naturally I am disappointed that Local Government Reorganisation means voters will be asked to elect a shadow authority as early as next May.

However, my focus remains firmly on the job I was elected to do.

I very much hope to earn residents’ support to continue the progress we are making – particularly in improving Children’s Services – while ensuring Sidmouth continues to have a strong voice and is never overlooked in the new council.

Deadline for submission of new boundaries is 17 August!

[When two-tier areas transition into single-tier unitary authorities, initial interim warding arrangements and councillor numbers are typically built using existing district or county boundaries. A comprehensive electoral review is then conducted by the Commission post-establishment. The electoral Commission provides guidance on such things as how many councillors are needed and warding arrangements e.g. that number of electors between wards should have a variance of no more than 10%,. This guidance can be found here.]

This will be highly a contentious and devisive process because historically Labour Exeter faces having the new “Greater Exeter unitary authority” being lead by, and here Owl plucks a feather from the wind, maybe a LibDem from Chudleigh!

There will be temptations all round to gerrymander and accuse others of doing the same – Owl

Bradley Gerrard – Local Democracy Reporter www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

Friction is emerging as Devon races to put forward proposals for new boundaries that will define the distinct areas in which residents will be able to vote.

At East Devon District Council, a group of members from different political parties have collaborated to push for an emergency meeting to discuss the issue.

The pressure has been mounting because elected representatives from the independent group of councillors and their Conservative peers fear a lack of involvement in a process that will be of fundamental importance to their voters.

Councils have been put under severe pressure by the government to provide proposed new ward boundaries in a period of just weeks, and East Devon said it was trying to operate under a “very challenging timetable” and that it was “committed to keeping members informed”.

As part of the wider local government reorganisation process, which has confirmed four new unitary councils for Devon, the county now has to redraw its electoral wards.

These are the individual areas that councillors can stand in, and within which residents can vote.

Current wards in Exeter include St David’s and Haven Banks, Alphington, or Exwick, while in East Devon, they include Axminster, Cranbrook, and Ottery St Mary.

Devon County Council has larger ‘divisions’ which include Exmouth, Ilfracombe, and Salcombe.

But every single political ward and division in Devon will now have to be redrawn.

“The Boundary Commission would take years to change these wards, with multiple consultations, but it’s being done in weeks with a pen,” said Councillor Jess Bailey, who sits on both Devon County Council and East Devon District Council.

A statement from the independent and Conservative members on East Devon District Council, led by Councillor Melanie Martin and Councillor Colin Brown, respectively, said the local government review process was being “rushed through, without proper discussion or consultation”.

“Decisions are being made behind closed doors and are not transparent,” the statement said.

“Councillors represent residents and they are not being involved in the important changes to the rewarding of wards for the 2027 elections.

“This is not democracy or the way councils should operate.

“We accept there are tight timescales set, but there is time to engage with councillors and so members have asked for an extraordinary full council meeting so this can be properly debated.”

The government has given Devon just weeks to submit new ward boundary proposals, with an ideal deadline of 17 August.

The council could ask for a delay, but even that would only buy it a few extra weeks at most as the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) seeks to push on with its reorganisation bid.

A spokesperson for East Devon District Council said the warding arrangements currently being considered as part of local government reorganisation were “interim proposals being developed within a very challenging timetable set by MHCLG”.

“We will be briefing members on the proposals through various internal mechanisms as part of that process,” the spokesperson added.

“We are committed to keeping members informed and engaged whilst we deliver the complex programme of local government reorganisation.”

Separately, Councillor Melanie Martin (Independent, Budleigh & Raleigh), the leader of the independent group of councillors at East Devon, said councillors needed to be involved in the process of drawing new wards.

“How do we respond to communities if the new warding boundaries have a negative impact on our towns and villages?,” she said.

“It’s not enough to say ‘I’m sorry but we weren’t invited to be part of the process, but you can have your say at a boundary review in five years’ time’.’

“We are the elected representatives of our communities and should be involved.”

It’s understood the process of the ward boundary review is being led by Devon County Council chief executive, Donna Manson, with input from senior officers from the county’s other 10 existing councils.

The government’s plan is to overhaul the make-up of Devon’s councils, moving to four large unitary councils that will replace the current 11 authorities.

In essence, Plymouth is expanding into the South Hams, Exeter is expanding into its neighbours, while Torbay will also grab parts of the South Hams and Teignbridge.

The remainder of Devon will become a predominantly rural and coastal council.

From a correspondent:

In a notice at the entrance to the Weggis Farm, in Oak Road, Higher Metcombe, Ottery St. Mary, the East Devon District Council says that a proposal to demolish barns and an existing bungalow, and the construction of six four-bedroom houses is not in accordance with development plans for East Devon.  

Critics of the proposal point out that the site, which  lies outside a defined village Built-Up Area Boundary, is in the countryside which means that developments should be resisted unless, for example, there is a clear local need that could not otherwise be achieved. Building dwellings on agricultural land would mean the loss of land that, according to various regulations,  should be employed for differing agricultural purposes if the original use can no longer be sustained.  

Local residents have expressed concern at the impact on the already stretched local infrastructure, the lack of public local transport and the dangers of walking along busy roads that lack pavements and have a poor safety record. The impact on the rural environment is another important factor.  

To learn about this proposed development go to East Devon District Planning Applications, then search. Key in 26/1209/FUL. This offers the opportunity to read or make comments.  

None of these concerns have been addressed by the government, they are ploughing on regardless with a ridiculously tight timescale – August 17 for boundary changes.

Yesterday in a post entitled: “Thumbs Down” for greater Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay, Owl pointed out that no group of consultation respondents supports the expansion of Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay and dumping the remaining half million Devonians in relative rural poverty. In fact it is the least favoured option with three quarters of respondents having negative views on it.

This companion post looks at the more subjective comments to emerge from the 69 page summary and analysis of the Devon, Plymouth and Torbay consultation.

The consultation questionnaire was a highly structured tick box exercise. However, many of the questions allowed free text comment. The straight forward analysis of these is uninformative due to the repetitive nature of replies between questions suggesting that respondents felt constrained in what they could say.

What is informative is the use of AI to identify themes hidden in the margins of these comments. These five emerge.

Loss of Local identity and representation.

Financial risk and doubts about efficiency.

Urban–rural inequality and imbalance.

Service delivery disruption and fragmentation.

Governance structure, size, and complexity.

Now to look at these in more detail.

The themes identified by the AI tool amongst comments on options

Loss of Local identity and representation. Concerns were raised that local identity and representation could be weakened, making decision-making feel more distant from communities. Additional concerns were raised that proposed groupings do not reflect real communities or local ties, grouping areas together in ways that feel artificial which could break existing links, especially in rural areas, leading to poorer representation and services that are less suited to local needs.

Financial risk and doubts about efficiency. Concerns were raised about financial risks and whether the new unitaries will improve efficiency or value for money. The responses suggested that any changes may increase costs, create more bureaucracy, and bring high transition expenses. Additional concerns suggested that proposals are financially unsustainable, especially for rural areas, with risks of higher council tax, duplication of services, and unfair distribution of funding. Overall, there are strong concerns that the reorganisation could lead to higher costs, greater financial instability, and fail to deliver the efficiencies it promises. 

Urban–rural inequality and imbalance. Concerns were raised in relation to combining urban and rural areas, that this could create imbalance, with cities having more influence and rural communities being left behind. Additional concerns suggested that some options could lead to large, centralised authorities that weaken local identity, reduce representation, and make decision-making feel remote, especially in rural and coastal areas. Responses suggested that some options offer a better balance but there is a strong concern that most would widen the gap between urban and rural areas, leading to rural communities being underrepresented, underfunded, and losing their identity and voice. 

Service delivery disruption and fragmentation. Concerns were raised that changes could disrupt services and reduce their quality, especially for vulnerable and rural communities, that reorganisation may cause short-term disruption to important services and may not fix existing problems. Additional concerns raised were that some options could lead to services being split or duplicated, making them harder to manage and less consistent, although there may be some opportunities to improve local focus. Responses suggest that there is a strong concern that reorganisation could fragment services, create differences in service quality between areas, and make it harder to deliver reliable support—particularly in areas like social care.

Governance structure, size, and complexity. Concerns were raised across all the proposals that very large or split authorities could be difficult to manage and may not work well for local communities, that proposed councils are too big and complex, making it harder to respond to different local needs. Additional concerns included proposals could lead to fragmented systems with duplicated roles and unclear responsibilities. Responses also expressed doubts about whether leadership and governance structures would be strong enough to deliver effective services. Further concerns were raised that changes could bring disruption, more bureaucracy, and long adjustment periods, with plans and accountability not always clearly set out. Responses suggested a strong concern that reorganisation could create complexity and confusion rather than improving how services are run, especially in rural areas. 

Summary of paper and emailed non-named consultee responses 

Emailed and paper responses noted the importance of local identity and democratic accountability; concerns about more remote decision-making and increased councillor workloads; and the need for councils to be financially sustainable and appropriately sized. Respondents also considered whether proposed geographies reflect functional economic areas and service footprints, in particular those options that expanded Plymouth’s boundaries and the subsequent parish arrangements. Service delivery and integration, transition risks, and the extent of engagement were also raised, alongside potential benefits such as clearer accountability, better service alignment and stronger strategic coordination.

Boundary changes (a consultation topic in its own right)

From the responses Boundary changes emerge as the single most contentious topic.

Three proposals involved boundary changes in addition to organisational ones: the 3 Unitary District Council one with modifications around Plymouth and both the 4 Unitary Plymouth and Exeter and 4 Unitary Torbay proposals.

Summary of Local Government Boundary Commission (The Commission) Response 

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England provided observations on the evidence provided to support the boundary change request within the 4 Unitary (District Councils Modified), 4 Unitary (Plymouth and Exeter) and 4 Unitary (Torbay) proposals, drawing on its Principal Area Boundary Review expertise. It considered the evidence in the proposals as it related to the identity and interests of local communities, and the promotion of effective and convenient local government. The Commission observed that, across all proposals, while efforts have been made there was relatively little detail to support the specific boundary changes that were put forward.

[Looks like a no-no to Owl and yet August 17 is set for authorities in Devon to submit new boundaries – expect fireworks]

The themes identified by the AI tool across all the boundary change options were as follows:

Negative impact on rural areas and representation. Concerns were raised across all three proposals with boundary change that they may disadvantage rural areas by reducing representation and prioritising urban interests, that they eroded local and cultural identity. There were also concerns that boundary changes would group together dissimilar communities, leading to poorer, less tailored services for rural areas and weakening the ability of local people to influence decisions.

Scepticism about financial sustainability and efficiency claims. Concerns were raised across all three proposals with boundary change that boundary changes had high implementation costs, increased bureaucracy and inefficiency, with doubts over their ability to achieve long-term financial sustainability. There were also doubts that expected savings will be realised, alongside fears of rising costs, growing debt and constrained resources. Concerns were also raised that boundary changes would fragment existing partnerships and disrupt services, particularly across social care, health and education, potentially reducing service quality while increasing both complexity and costs. 

Lack of strong justification for boundary change. Concerns were raised across all three proposals with boundary change that the boundary changes lacked clear, robust, and evidence-based justification, especially regarding improvements to public services or financial sustainability.

Political and financial motivations of Councils (political motivations in relation to the 4 unitary options but favouring urban areas across all options). Concerns were raised in two out of the three proposals with boundary changes that the boundary changes were being driven by political motives, including urban council self interest and efforts to expand tax bases, rather than delivering genuine public benefit. Respondents raised concerns about boundary changes favouring urban areas and disadvantaging rural communities, that decision-making is not impartial and does not reflect the needs of the whole area.

Boundary changes increase complexity, disruption, and inefficiency. Concerns were raised across all three proposals that boundary changes would create administrative complexity, disrupt established services, duplicate efforts, and lead to inefficiency and unnecessary costs. 

Summary of paper and emailed non-named consultee responses

Many respondents did not express a clear view specifically on boundary change, instead focusing on wider issues. Where views were given, they were mixed. Some respondents supported boundary changes where these were seen to better reflect economic geographies or create more balanced and sustainable unitary areas, but many raised concerns or opposed specific changes, particularly where proposals involved splitting districts, expanding urban areas into rural communities, or creating large and uneven geographies. Key issues included the potential loss of community identity and local representation, the risk that rural areas would be overshadowed within urban focused structures, and challenges around travel distances, accessibility, and service delivery across large or dispersed areas. Respondents also highlighted concerns about the complexity and deliverability of some proposals, particularly those involving multiple boundary changes or new governance layers, although a small number identified potential benefits such as improved alignment with functional economic areas and stronger strategic coordination. 

Despite all these comments ex Minister Steve Reed ploughed on without addressing any of the issues.

A timely warning from Tees Valley.

Scott Hunter Editor, Tees Valley Monitor, [one of Owl’s northern cousins] writes a letter to the Guardian

Devolution has become the flavour of the month (The Guardian view on England’s centralised state: Andy Burnham must unbundle it, 31 July). The case is well argued and the need for such reform fits neatly into the situation we find in the Tees Valley – chronic underinvestment, lack of economic growth, depopulation, and so on.

But the Tees Valley has had a devolved authority for 10 years and the benefits of devolution have not landed. The Tees Valley authority was issued a best value notice in April 2025, though there’s nothing to show for it.

The new-age proponents of devolution, by ignoring how Tees Valley became its basket case, are missing something vital. Devolution is discussed in economic terms in relation to the regions, and as political upheaval in relation to Westminster and the Treasury.

What’s missing is acknowledgment of the political upheaval that it brings to the regions, and it is the weakness of that that the Tees Valley exemplifies. The mayor is the sole elected person in the authority. Leaders of local councils form the authority cabinet but do so in addition to their day jobs. Does the public know? No, because the only combined authority news in the local press comes from the authority’s own press releases. It’s not hard to find people on Teesside who believe that there’s been a jobs bonanza here.

But the problem of political weakness within the authority remains. Devolution cannot succeed until this problem is addressed.
Scott Hunter
Editor, Tees Valley Monitor