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

From the relevant environment website.

Permit Numbers: 003174/FU/02, 201965, 200124 and 200126

Clean and healthy coastal waters matter to the people, wildlife and businesses that depend on them. We are now consulting on applications from South West Water Limited (SWW) to change its environmental permits for a new long sea outfall near Exmouth.

SWW has invested in improvements to its wastewater treatment system in Exmouth. One of the important changes is a new long sea outfall, around 300 metres south of Straight Point.

The new outfall moves treated wastewater, and storm sewage during periods of heavy rainfall, further offshore rather than into Exmouth Bay. We know this change alone is not enough. SWW will still need to meet their obligations as set out in the Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP). But this is a positive step. It should reduce how often storm overflows affect Exmouth Beach bathing water and help improve water quality in the area.

Reducing the risk of pollution in Exmouth Bay
On 15 July, we issued SWW with a Local Enforcement Position (LEP). If SWW meets the conditions of the LEP, it can begin using the new outfall. We will not normally take enforcement action for operating outside its environmental permits while those conditions are met. This change should help reduce the risk of pollution reaching Exmouth Bay sooner rather than later. You can read more in our article further down on this page.

To make this arrangement permanent, SWW must obtain changes to its environmental permits. On Tuesday 4 August, a public consultation is open on those applications.

What is an environmental permit?

An environmental permit sets legally binding conditions that an operator must meet.

The environmental permits would set out how SWW must manage discharges from Exmouth Wastewater Treatment Works and other parts of its network. They would also set requirements for monitoring, reporting and demonstrating compliance.

SWW must show that its proposals meet environmental standards, comply with Environment Agency policy, and protect people, wildlife and designated sites, including shellfish waters, bathing waters and conservation areas. Its applications explain how it will manage and reduce environmental risks.

Before we make a decision, we must be satisfied that these measures are robust, proportionate and capable of protecting the environment.

How do we assess permit applications?

Our job is to make sure permit applications meet the requirements of environmental law and protect the environment and human health.

We will assess how the proposed discharges could affect the environment and protected waters, including Exmouth, Sandy Bay and Budleigh Salterton bathing waters, and Sandy Bay and Lyme Bay shellfish waters.

The discharge would consist of secondary treated sewage effluent, disinfected using ultraviolet (UV) treatment at Exmouth Wastewater Treatment Works. During periods of heavy rainfall, it may also include settled storm effluent.

We use technical evidence to assess whether the proposal meets environmental standards and legal requirements. This includes considering its potential impact on people, wildlife and protected waters.

Where appropriate, we also seek advice from other organisations to help inform our assessment.

What should you include in your consultation response?

Please focus your response on the changes SWW has applied to make to its water discharge permits, and the potential effects on water quality and nearby protected sites.

We can only consider comments that relate to these proposed permit changes.

We cannot take account of comments about:

• wider infrastructure changes proposed by SWW in Exmouth
• matters that fall within the Local Authority’s planning responsibilities
• parts of the permits that SWW has not applied to change

Keeping responses focused on the proposed permit changes will help us assess the application fairly and make decisions based on the relevant environmental evidence.

What happens next?

The consultation will close on 22 September at 11:59pm.

We’re working with Exmouth Town Council to hold a public engagement event in early September, held at the Town Hall. This will be an opportunity to speak with us directly, ask questions about the consultation and get support if you need help taking part. We’ll tell you more about this event soon.

When the consultation closes, we will review every comment we receive alongside the technical evidence submitted with the application.

Our permitting officers and specialist advisers will then assess the application and reach a draft decision.

If we decide to refuse the application, SWW will have the right to appeal.

If we are minded to issue the permit variations, we will hold a further consultation on our draft variations and draft decision documents. This will give you an opportunity to comment on the proposed permit conditions and see how we have considered the feedback received during this consultation.

We will keep interested parties informed as the process progresses. We will also consult again if any of the application documents change significantly.

How can you take part?

You can comment on these permit variation applications from 4 August 2026.

The application documents will be available to read through our consultation portal, Citizen Space, once it opens:

Citizen Space Consultation: South West Water Limited, 003174/FU/02, 201965, 200124 and 200126: environmental permit variations consultation.(External link)

We can only consider issues that relate to the environmental permit variations and our regulatory responsibilities. Our decision must be based on technical evidence, and we are bound by the Regulator’s Code(External link).

Consultation deadline

We must receive your comments by 11:59pm on 22 September 2026.

You can respond through Citizen Space or contact us using the details below.

Email: pscpublicresponse@environment-agency.gov.uk(External link)

Post: Environment Agency Permitting and Support Centre, Land Team, Quadrant 2, 99 Parkway Avenue, Sheffield, S9 4WF

No group of respondents supports expanding Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay and dumping the remaining 455,000 Devonians in a rural rump. In fact it is the least favoured option with three quarters of respondents having negative views on it.

Why, then, was this option chosen by ex Minister Steve Reed in what is described as a re-balancing of power from a culture of “Whitehall knows best”?

Are we to have no say in this devolution?

Surely we need a rationale for ignoring a consultation quite so comprehensively?

Owl has been looking at the 69 page Devon, Plymouth and Torbay – Summary and analysis of consultation responses .

This reveals that whether you look at all the respondents or just look at specialist consultees or responses from organisations; splitting Devon into 4 unitaries based on massive expansion of Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay is the least favoured option.

This summary and analysis is a difficult read particularly in making sense of the options. There are lots of data but little in the way of overall analysis.

Looking at the big picture, there are only three distinctly different concepts of how to eliminate the second tier district councils. Yet these three concepts produce five proposals. 

One concept comes from Devon County Council, Proposal 1.

A second comes from the eight districts, Proposal 3 (with proposal 2 as a variant)

The third comes jointly from Plymouth City, Exeter City and Torbay,, Proposal 4 (with proposal 5 as a variant).

The reason that there are two additional proposals reflects discord within proposers over boundary changes within the concept of their basic premise. Proposals 2 & 3 reflect a relatively small change relating to the Plymouth boundary adjacent to Dartmoor National Park. Proposals 4 & 5 reflect a rather bigger one relating to whether or not Torbay’s population should be expanded by 65%.

The Devon County 3 Unitary proposal keeps Plymouth and Torbay unitaries but rolls everything else into a single new Unitary.

The District Council 3 Unitary proposals keep Plymouth as a unitary but absorbs Torbay with three districts into a new Southern Devon Unitary. Exeter and the remaining four districts then form a new Northern Devon Unitary. The modified proposal tweaks Plymouth’s boundary around Dartmoor.

The Plymouth and Exeter 4 Unitary proposal expands Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay (by 65%) to form 3 unitaries with the fourth (Devon Coast & Country) covering everything else in a horseshoe from Kingwear to Seaton. The Torbay modification is to agree with Plymouth and Exeter except for the Torbay expansion.

The table below takes the average response across the multiple choice questions to provide an overall view of whether all respondents viewed a proposal positively or negatively. 

Overall, the responses demonstrate a preference for the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal, keeping Plymouth and Torbay unitaries but rolling everything else into a single new unitary. 43% of respondents to the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 44% of respondents provided negative responses. 14% were responses of neither agree nor disagree or don’t know. The 3 unitary (District Councils Main) proposal, keeping Plymouth as a unitary but dividing the remaining authorities into “Southern Devon” and “Northern Devon” unitaries, was the second most popular with 39% of respondents providing a positive response. The 4 unitary proposals, Plymouth and Exeter with the Torbay varient, were the least popular with 69% and 73% of respondents providing a negative responses.

Individuals living in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay 

The responses from individuals living in the area of Devon, Plymouth and Torbay demonstrate a preference for the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal. 43% of respondents to the 3 unitary (Devon County Council) proposal provided positive responses to the questions and 44% of respondents provided negative responses. 12% were responses of neither agree nor disagree or don’t know. Preference in order is for 3 unitary (Devon County Council), 3 unitary (District Councils Main), 3 unitary (District Councils Modified), 4 unitary (Plymouth and Exeter) and then 4 unitary (Torbay). 

The responses from named consultees and organisations, however, demonstrate a preference for the 3 unitary (District Councils Main) proposal. But the two 4 unitary proposals remain at the bottom.

In due course Owl will publish extracts from the text comments raising all the issues about loss of local identity, urban/rural inequality, financial viability, service delivery disruption and fragmentation etc.

On the evidence put forward to support the necessary boundary changes the Local Government Boundary Commission for England 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.

Despite this Steve Reed pressed on with his agenda. – Owl

Devon leader Julian Brazil (Lib Dem) said the council did “not want to be in this position” but had to consider “all options available” to protect residents’ interests.

“I didn’t come into local politics to increase taxes and deliver worse services; that’s exactly what this decision risks doing,”

Caitlin Webb www.lgcplus.com

Devon CC has become the latest authority to begin legal proceedings against the government’s decision on local government reorganisation.

The county issued a pre-action protocol letter to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government yesterday as the first step towards seeking a judicial review.

Devon leader Julian Brazil (Lib Dem) said the council did “not want to be in this position” but had to consider “all options available” to protect residents’ interests.

“I didn’t come into local politics to increase taxes and deliver worse services; that’s exactly what this decision risks doing,” he said.

“The government has chosen a model that prioritises urban expansion while failing to address the concerns of Devon’s rural residents or the core services we deliver.”

Cllr Brazil said he was “not opposed to local government reorganisation” but objected to the government’s chosen model because it did not “give sufficient weight to the needs of rural and coastal communities across Devon nor the most vulnerable we are here to serve”.

Last month the government announced it would reorganise 11 councils in Devon and Torbay into four unitaries, which would result in an expansion of Exeter City Council boundaries and Plymouth City Council.

He renewed his call for prime minister Andy Burnham and communities secretary Angela Rayner to reconsider the decision taken by the previous administration.

“We do not want to be in this position, but we have to consider all options available. We must do everything to protect the interests of Devon residents and if that means a judicial review, then so be it,” he said.

The council argued the government’s preferred structure could leave local taxpayers facing implementation costs estimated at £80m and says it places too much emphasis on urban areas despite Devon being one of England’s largest rural counties.

Alongside the pre-action letter, Devon has submitted five freedom of information requests seeking details of how ministers reached their decision, including whether officials or advisers raised concerns about the chosen model before it was approved.

The authority’s cabinet is due to consider its legal options, including whether to proceed with a judicial review, at its September meeting. The government has 14 days to respond to the pre-action letter issued on Monday.

The latest move adds to growing legal opposition to the government’s reorganisation programme.

Last month, Hertfordshire CC agreed to prepare a potential legal challenge after ministers opted for a three-unitary model for the county rather than the county council’s preferred proposal.

Councillors voted in favour of the authority to taking legal steps, including obtaining specialist advice and issuing pre-action correspondence if required, at a full council meeting.

This plan called “Clyst village” is next door to the proposed new town of 8,000 homes called Marlcombe, BUT IS NOT IN THE LOCAL PLAN.

“Greater Exeter” combined authority looks like being a honey pot for developers who are arguing that this proposal could be a “quick win” for new homes (and a good win for them} – think GESP on steroids! 

Remember GESP? The former Greater Exeter Strategic Plan, promoted by “build, build, build” East Devon Tories was largely driven by unrealistic university expansion assumptions now challenged by falling overseas enrollment. Pulling out of this was one of the first things the new coalition did when it took control of East Devon in 2020. – Owl

A map showing where the 2,000 homes could be in East Devon if approved.

Bradley Gerrard www.devonlive.com

A bold plan for a major development of 2,000 new homes along with a new primary school and road junctions has been revealed in East Devon.

The scheme, whose local Exeter-based developer has dubbed it ‘Clyst Village’, is targeting land between Crealy Theme Park on the A3052 and Clyst St George on the A376.

Besides the scale of the site, controversy could be sparked by its location, which is not identified in East Devon District Council’s existing local plan.

Furthermore, the council prefers land between the A30 and A3052, east of Westpoint, for its proposed new town of Marlcombe.

While Marlcombe remains at an early stage in its planning, its eventual realisation is a fundamental factor of East Devon’s emerging local plan, which it is hoping to submit to government later this year and which will identify where the principle of development is acceptable between now and 2042.

Marlcombe has been recognised within a national programme for the next generation of new towns, although no final confirmation has yet been given on whether it will progress further in that government-run scheme.

The prospect of Clyst Village’s 2,000 homes alongside Marlcombe’s prospective 8,000 would add huge numbers to the district’s housing figures.

The juxtaposition with Marlcombe is directly referenced in the application by Stuart Partners Limited.

“Clyst Village acknowledges that the delivery model for Marlcombe is uncertain and requires significant external funding, meaning delivery is highly optimistic,” planning documents state.

“Clyst is capable of delivering faster, thus plugging an expected delivery gap.”

Like many councils, East Devon is behind on its government-mandated housing targets and a large development could help ease that problem.

However, the application is purely an outline one at this stage, and so would not deal with the layout of development, the exact location of homes and the appearance of buildings, at this stage.

Those factors would be the focus of a subsequent application if the outline one is approved.

Besides the proposed homes, the developer wants to build a new primary school, neighbourhood centre, open space, and employment land.

Significantly, the scheme proposes a new access onto the A3052 that it says will connect to the existing highway but also “support future connectivity to development to the north”, and that detailed designs for a junction on the A376 would also come forward as part of a response developed collaboratively with the council to public transport and active travel improvements.

East Devon District Council said the land was not allocated for development in its existing local plan.

“In preparing the draft new local plan, the council favoured land between the A30 and A3052, east of Westpoint, for the proposed Marlcombe new town,” it said in a statement.

“The application now received seeks to promote the Crealy and Clyst St George site as a village that would be separate to proposals for Marlcombe.

“Land does not need to be allocated in a local plan for a planning application to be submitted.

“The council is legally required to consider all valid planning applications on their individual planning merits, taking account of relevant planning policies and other material considerations.

“No decision has been made on the application. The council has not formed a view on whether planning permission should be granted or refused.”

‘if the government want to do it they will have to pay for it’

Torridge blocks £400k for ‘damaging’ Devon council merge

[Torridge District Council: political balance, 36 councillors, no overall control:  LibDem 12, Independent 11, Con 5, Green 4, Lab  2, non-aligned 2]]

Alison Stephenson www.devonlive.com

Frustrated Torridge councillors have rejected putting £400,000 aside for local government shake-up costs because they don’t like the decision made by ministers to create a massive Devon council.

They have decided that the money, which is part of the district council’s £2.6 million surplus from 2025/26, should be spent on local residents before the district council is dissolved in 2028 instead.

The government recently decided that four unitary councils responsible for all local services will replace the existing 11 councils of different types and differing responsibilities in Devon in the biggest shake-up nationally in 50 years.

Plymouth, Exeter and Torbay will expand into neighbouring areas with a huge coast and countryside authority covering the rest of the county from Ilfracombe in the north to Salcombe in the south and over to Sidmouth in the east.

This proposal put forward by Devon’s Labour-led city councils received just 20 per cent of public support.

Critics claim the decision is “political” and will benefit the cities with the “rural rump” of Devon left with a sparse population and no economic centre stretching 110 miles north to south.

Torridge District Council (TDC) along with other district and borough councils in Devon, except Exeter, supported the 4-5-1 three unitary authority model, with Plymouth as a standalone authority, a northern/central authority including Exeter, North Devon, Torridge, Mid Devon and East Devon and a southern authority covering Torbay, Teignbridge, South Hams and West Devon.

They said it better met the government’s own criteria on size and kept existing boundaries in the main intact.

At a TDC full council meeting on Monday Cllr Thomas Elliott (Con, Two Rivers and Three Moors)) said: “I was under the impression that the government was going to pay the costs. Surely it would be better if we spent that money on local residents rather than something that is being forced upon us from higher up.”

Cllr Chris Bright (Lib Dem, Great Torrington) proposed they remove the £400,000 from the list of recommendations by officers on what to spend the surplus money on.

It was to pay for professional support and transition costs before the transfer of the council’s functions to the new Devon unitary authority on April 1 2028

“We all know it is going to be damaging to our area, if they (the government) want to do it they will have to pay for it,” he said.

His proposal was supported by 15 votes to 14.

Chief executive of TDC Steve Hearse said the £400,000 was an indicative figure and it was likely to cost more.

The government says each area undergoing local government reorganisation will receive more than £1 million per new unitary created.

But in Devon the costs have been estimated by local leaders at between £50 and £70 million.

Devon County Council is considering a legal challenge against the government’s decision on how Devon should be carved up.

Torridge councillors agreed to put the council’s surplus cash towards supporting leisure and projects within the community regeneration partnership, planned maintenance, stabilising the budget and reducing future borrowing.

Do the leaders of Exeter and Plymouth represent a Labour tail wagging an “anything but labour” Devon dog?

Just how divisive are sacked Communities Secretary {of just 10 months) Steve Reed’s partisan Devon reorganisation turning out to be? – Owl

In spite of the argument and adjournment, Cllr. Paul Arnott’s proposed amendment of adding in that a mayoral authority should preferably be secured by May 2027 was passed.

Bradley Gerrard, www.devonairradio.com

Frustration boiled over at a committee aimed at working out the best and fastest way for the county to secure the formal status of a mayoral strategic authority.

A recording of the meeting on YouTube shows the board’s chair, Councillor David Thomas (Conservative, Preston), the leader of Torbay Council, attempting to interject between a back and forth between two other members.

Cllr Thomas increasingly loudly yells “Councillor Arnott” three times in a bid to get the East Devon District Council leader, Councillor Paul Arnott (Liberal Democrat, Coly Valley) to stop speaking, and shortly after declares the meeting adjourned.

When the board returned, Cllr Arnott apologised that he had “pushed the boundaries too far”.

The friction in the room emerged as Cllr Arnott claimed that Plymouth was “doing all it can to prevent mayoral elections next May”, and that he was getting tired of the “tail wagging the dog”.

“The resolution set out here is going to be completely unacceptable to me if there is more inertia built in,” he said.

He and Councillor Phil Bialyk (Labour, Exwick), the leader of Exeter City Council, had traded comments about the process of securing a mayor, with Cllr Arnott claiming Plymouth was trying to ensure the timeframe for securing a mayor benefitted it ahead of others, while Cllr Bialyk suggested that efforts could be made for extra cash even without formally having a mayoralty.

The majority of Devon’s politicians acknowledge that having a mayor could be beneficial for the county, because such an office can help attract additional government cash for major projects, such as housing and transport.

The head-to-head happened at the board meeting of the Devon & Torbay Combined County Authority (DTCCA), which is a version of a mayoral authority but without a mayor.

Its members want to alter its constitution so that the county actually has a mayor.

But anger emerged at the board meeting over the belief Plymouth was potentially in a position of power to slow the process down.

Plymouth is not a member of the DTCCA, and while it is currently discussing joining, some at this week’s committee meeting argued efforts should be made to secure a mayor as soon as possible without waiting to see what Plymouth decided to do.

Officers did stress that it may be possible to secure extra funding even before a mayor was actually in place, and gave examples where this had happened in other areas of England.

However, Cllr Arnott felt strongly that the board’s resolution to set a “clear route map to progress, at pace, towards mayoral strategic authority status across the Devon and Torbay geography”, should include the date of May 2027.

He said he wanted this date to encourage Plymouth to join the DTCCA as soon as possible.

In spite of the argument and adjournment, his proposed amendment of adding in that a mayoral authority should preferably be secured by May 2027 was passed.

In July, Plymouth City Council’s cabinet agreed a decision to develop a proposal to allow it to join the DTCCA, something which will now go to its full council meeting for ratification.

The cabinet agreed that remaining outside the DTCCA would “leave Plymouth outside the powers and funding of the strategic authority and expose the city to being left behind as the national framework deepens”.

The notion of securing its own mayor was also rejected.

In an ideal world, Plymouth would prefer a South West Peninsula mayoral strategic authority, however, there has been little shared ambition between Devon and Cornwall to have one mayor overseeing the two counties.