Agenda item

To receive a report from the Chief Executive regarding Devolution in our area and adjacent areas.

The Committee had before it and NOTED a *report from the Chief Executive.

The following was highlighted within the report:

·         The report had been requested by the Scrutiny Committee in order to keep them as well informed as possible.

·         Things were moving at a pace with regard to the Government’s ‘devolution’ intent.

·         The distinction between devolution and reorganisation of local government– the White Paper on English devolution talked about the Government’s intent for new strategic authorities to have populations of 1.5million people, to cover multiple local authority areas and to be headed by an elected Mayor. As part of the devolution White Paper the Government also made mention of a simplification of local authority structures beneath those Mayoral authorities – that was the reorganisation of local government. They were interlinked but two very separate things.

·         The timelines for those in Devon were that the Councils would need to submit initial plans on or before 21 March 2025 with final submissions to go to the Government on or before 28 November 2025.

·         It was unknown at this stage how many different propositions would be sent to the Government.

·         On the devolution piece, the Government had now signed off the new Statutory Instruments to create the Devon Torbay Combined County Authority. The first board meeting of that Combined County Authority (CCA) would take place on 19 March 2025. The CCA was a non-mayoral authority, but was a new partnership entity between Devon and Torbay. All of the districts as part of that would work together in partnership and collaboratively.

·         It was expected that the Council would hold an Extraordinary Council Meeting prior to the 21 March 2025 deadline for all Members to have their input and say on whatever went forward at that point.

Discussion took place with regard to:

·         Following formulation of the CCA the authority had secured an initial capital allocation of £16 million for some pilot projects and Mid-Devon had been the beneficiary of some of that, so it had been positive. In terms of its most immediate role, the CCA was likely to get control and influence over adult skills and education funding, which was previously channelled through the Skills Funding Agency, a national body. So it was hoped that there would be local say and influence over where that funding was applied and how best it was utilised, which should be better for local people and local businesses. Over the three years of funding, it was likely to amount to £53 million.

·         Another work stream was in relation to building a shared investment pipeline for local housing, where Homes England were working with authorities across that Combined Authority area to identify all of the various opportunities that could be brought forward with a view to building a shared investment pipeline. That would benefit all housing authorities across the area, because, if you have a multi-year investment pipeline where Homes England had agreed what would be put into various schemes, then considerably less time would be wasted on bidding on a scheme by scheme basis as at present.

·         The local government reorganisation would take into account numerous things and population would be one. It would not be just housing and the different banding valuations, it would also include where business rates were generated. All proposals would need to be put through a sort of financial assessment because the proposed authority would need to demonstrate to the government that they were financially sustainable.

·         500,000 people was the starting point for the new unitary authorities, but the Government had said that there might be exceptions and some may not get to 500,000 people.

·         The Government had asked local authorities to reflect on synergies with other authorities, perhaps the Police, perhaps Health. The proposals should consider geographically, how the new unitary authority would align with other such administrations.

·         The reason for the timeline from 18 December 2024 to 21 March 2025 being so short was that the Government wanted to push Local Authorities into making decisions as they were mindful that otherwise it could take a long time. There was also the question of postponing the May 2025 County elections to consider. The time line for the Council now was the submission of the final plan at the end of November 2025 with elections to a shadow authority in 2027 with a view to it becoming a legal entity on 1 April 2028.

·         The Cost of making changes had been estimated to be between £30-£50 million. There was likely to be some capacity funding, however, the Government had indicated that they were not going to fund all of this and that the cost of transition was to be borne locally and either funded through reserves or by selling off assets.

·         The Leaders had held discussions which had included Plymouth and Torbay Councils. There was no point in working up a proposal that only worked for one part of those involved, it had to work for all.

·         Those Councils who were better off would have to integrate with those who were less well off, there was no expectation that the Government would write off existing debt. Legacy debt would be shared across the new Councils. The new institutions would need sufficient robustness to handle the debt. Efficiencies might need to be made to cover the debt.

·         As and when any proposal went to the Government from the Council, it was suspected that the Leader would commence it with a statement that this authority did not support Local government reorganisation.

Note: *report previously circulated.