Local and central government are set for a showdown after council leaders objected to Westminster's plans to potentially force authorities to reorganise into new, much larger unitaries and mayoral areas.
The Government’s devolution white paper stressed that while ministers wished to collaborate they would resort to central government diktat if necessary.
‘In order to ensure that citizens across England benefit from devolution, and to ensure the effective running of public services, we will legislate for a ministerial directive. This will allow the creation of those Strategic Authorities where local leaders have, after due time has been allowed, not been able to make progress,’ the white paper states.
Cllr Louise Gittins, chair of the Local Government Association - a cross-party association representing council leaders of all the major parties - objected to the idea, stating that while its members are open to change, 'we remain clear that local government reorganisation should be a matter for councils and local areas to decide’.
She added that ‘devolution is not an end in itself and cannot distract from the severe funding pressures that are pushing local services to the brink’.
The Government set a benchmark of creating new councils with a population of 500,000 or more but added that ‘there may be exceptions’.
According to former chairman of the LGA, Lord Gary Porter, this could mean ‘only 11 councils in the whole country [England] will escape being part of the LGR [local government reorganisation] conversation based on their size'.
Strategic reforms - too far or not far enough?
Council officers also raised concerns but conceded the potential for better strategic infrastructure delivery.
Ann Carruthers, president of the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT), noted that: ‘By creating strategic authorities that align with the areas where people live and work, we can develop more holistic, effective approaches to critical challenges such as housing, transport and economic development.
‘The potential to devolve more powers to local leaders, particularly in strategic planning and infrastructure development, represents a significant step towards more responsive local governance.’
Florence Eshalomi, chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, raised questions about public accountability within the framework of such radical governance changes.
She said: ‘The proposed devolution reforms pose important questions around local representation and raise concerns that there will be a loss of voice for residents. Residents who choose not to adopt a mayoral model should not be disadvantaged.
'The Government should also set out what they will do to deliver proper accountability during the local government reorganisation and ensure that local communities receive the continuity of service they need.’
Meanwhile, Jonathan Werran, chief executive of local government think tank Localis criticised the lack of major financial reforms outlined in the Government’s plans.
He said: ‘What was unveiled [in the white paper] is a form of “contactless devolution” in which the HM Treasury view of how local government in England should function for the sake of the wider UK state has prevailed.
‘The Treasury mind has killed off the hopes of any trifling but welcome revenue a tourism tax could bring our localities and instead resorts to greater business rates retention as the only game it is taking to town.’
He noted the benefit of the move towards multi-year settlements for local government and the suggestion there would be an end to competitive bidding pots.
Yet despite the offer of integrated financial settlements for established mayoral strategic authorities, Mr Werran lamented the ‘failure to countenance fiscal decentralisation and afford our strategic authorities the genuine devolutionary ability to raise and spend funds locally for growth measures’.
The most positive reaction seemed to come from the County Councils Network (CCN). With the planned removal of the second-tier district councils, county authorities may have finally put to bed the long-running strategic conflict between lower-tier planning authorities and upper-tier transport and highway authorities.
Cllr Richard Clewer, housing and planning spokesperson for CCN, said: ‘The return of strategic planning is the culmination of many years of County Councils Network advocacy and could represent a seismic shift in planning across England. We have long argued for a formal and enhanced role for county councils in the system, where both housing and infrastructure are more effectively joined up.’
However, even CCN raised one concern: ‘We want to work with government to shape proposals whereby mayors can ‘call in’ specific planning proposals. We need to ensure this new power adequately strikes the balance between mayors’ strategic responsibilities and the local voice within the planning system.’
Perhaps just a sense that CCN, at least in the mayoral areas, may have bitten off more devolution than they have the power to chew?
