Hello traveller. Welcome if you’ve been here a while, or if you’re new. I’ve had a spike of new subscribers over the past week. You’re lovely. It is appreciated.
January 10th (Friday) was the deadline for English local authorities not currently under a devolved Combined Mayoral Authority (CMA) to put themselves forward for consideration in a fast-track plan.
I’ll set out, in a moment, why some people are very excited about this and some are as anxious as hell.
For paid subscribers (from as little as 40p per week. Superbargain!) there is a special prize quiz about mayors at the end of this email. Phew.
First. A few parish notices.
I’ll be in conversation with some special guests for ‘How To Be Creative When The World Is Falling Apart’. An informal roundtable at Worthing’s Colonnade House on 22nd January.
I’m hosting four Ideas Exchanges on 13th/14th February as part of Basildon’s Creative Tech Fest:
I would be delighted if you’d join me for one or more of these.
Devolution in England: opportunities, concerns, and what it means for three towns
Devolution in England is stirring up both excitement and big anxiety.
In plain terms, it means shifting more power from Westminster down to local authorities so that everyday decisions about transport, housing, education - and more - can be made closer to home. While many argue this local focus can spur growth and boost democratic engagement, skeptics worry about fewer councillors representing larger populations, and fragmented and inconsistent services region-by-region.
Several local authorities across England have now confirmed or discussed their intention to be part of the next tranche of devolution deals in 2025, with research by the Local Government Chronicle identifying 17 councils poised to join the government’s “devolution priority programme.”
Within this group, 12 counties are either debating or have already signalled they will seek permission to postpone local elections in May this year in order to concentrate on reorganising councils into larger unitary authorities. These include high-profile counties such as Kent, Surrey, Devon, East/West Sussex, Norfolk, Oxfordshire, Suffolk, Hampshire and Warwickshire, as well as Essex, where plans for merging up to 15 local authorities into three or four larger units are under active consideration.
Several unitary councils, among them Thurrock (which is grappling with significant financial pressures), have also voted to request an elections delay pending further clarity on devolution plans. Meanwhile, some counties like Hertfordshire and Staffordshire have indicated they will not seek postponement, stating they either need more time or prefer to proceed with scheduled elections.
Although this fast-track approach could accelerate the path to unitaries, a growing number of district councils and local activists have voiced concerns that swift reorganisation — combined with postponed elections — risks diluting local democracy and public consultation.
Election cycles aside - why does this technical-sounding restructure of local government matter. And what does it mean?
As is customary on A New England, here’s a look through the prism of English towns and cities. What does local councils re-organising under devolved Combined Mayoral Authorities mean for three random southern towns — Canterbury (Kent), Trowbridge (Wiltshire), and Lewes (East Sussex)?
First, the opportunities.
Local leaders and residents often know what their communities need better than London does. By allowing towns like Canterbury to design tailored transport schemes — such as improving bus routes for commuters and redesigning traffic flow — devolution could ease congestion and stimulate local business.
Similarly, Trowbridge could work with neighboring rural areas under a combined authority, making it easier to coordinate funding for social care or to modernise libraries.
In Lewes, which is known for its independent spirit and unique cultural heritage (have you ever seen a costumed Buccaneer rolling flaming tar barrels down the street on 5th November?), additional powers might help preserve its historic character while also attracting new arts funding.
Across all three places, having a local or regional mayor can bring a singular voice to champion local interests — be that better rail connections, affordable housing, or environmental programmes.
Still, there are plenty of concerns.
One worry is that county-wide reorganisation might combine several district councils into a “super-council,” with fewer elected representatives.
If Canterbury, for instance, becomes part of a new unitary structure, residents might fear that local democracy becomes more distant.
In Wiltshire, plans to unify or break up existing councils may spark debates over how social services, rubbish collection, and planning applications are managed. Delays in local elections—floated as a possibility in some areas—add fuel to critics’ arguments that democracy could suffer when large-scale changes are rushed.
Meanwhile, in Lewes, some residents are uneasy about a potential shift to a metro mayor model, undoubtedly strengthening Brighton as the economic centre-of-gravity in Sussex, worried about overshadowing the town’s unique identity with one-size-fits-all strategy.
So what to think about?
Community involvement: Decisions about reorganising councils or adopting a mayor should involve the people directly affected. Public consultations, open forums, and transparent dialogue are going to be key - but given the Jan 10 th deadline, there is a feeling that the focus is on speed and momentum at the moment.
Local identity vs. larger scale: ~A small city like Canterbury’s sense of identity may differ from outlying coastal towns; the same applies in Wiltshire’s mix of large market towns and smaller villages. Any ‘big tent’ approach must allow local variations to flourish, especially when there is not the easy economic and political alignment as we’ve seen previously in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.
Financial realities: While some see cost savings in creating bigger councils, others argue transitional costs can be steep. Areas like Trowbridge need clarity on budgeting — whether new structures genuinely help or hinder local finances.
Long-term vision: Political changes can be messy in the short term, but if a town like Lewes gains the power to shape its own transport, housing, and environmental priorities, the region might find it was worth the upheaval.
Ultimately, devolution should offer a chance for towns and cities to better shape their own destinies, but the path forward requires careful navigation of local identities, democratic engagement, and economic reality. Devolution, if done well, can strike the right balance between local voices and efficient governance. But given the capacity and resources of local government in 2025, that feels like a big if.
Lessons from established Combined Mayoral Authorities
Several English regions already have Combined Mayoral Authorities – offering some idea of what new areas might expect in a few years:
Greater Manchester: Since adopting its mayoral structure in 2017, it has introduced more integrated transport planning under the ‘Bee Network’, drawing together buses, trams and cycle lanes. Powers over spatial planning have also encouraged a co-ordinated approach to housing, while health and social care devolution has allowed local leaders to shape services more closely to community needs.
West Midlands: Home to an elected mayor since 2017, the region has seen a push for better connectivity between Birmingham, Coventry and Wolverhampton – including extending the West Midlands Metro, investing in new railway stations and revitalising local high streets. The mayoral authority also has powers to champion skills training and economic regeneration programmes across the wider metropolitan area.
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough: Here, the Combined Authority has used devolved powers to invest in affordable housing, adult education and improved transport links. Schemes to expand park-and-ride capacity and upgrade roads, especially around Cambridge’s technology and science hubs, highlight how local-led priorities can boost economic growth.
Though each region has its unique challenges, these examples demonstrate that streamlined decision-making – combined with the ability to pool budgets and align strategies – can produce tangible improvements in transport, housing and public services. For Canterbury, Trowbridge and Lewes, something similar could surely happen, provided they manage public consultation well, protect local identities and remain transparent about how funds are used.
What happens next and expected timelines
Over the coming months, formal expressions of interest from councils across England will be considered for the so-called “fast-track” devolution programme. This may include asking for local elections to be postponed in certain areas, so that the reorganisation can unfold without the distraction—and cost—of separate electoral campaigns. Government ministers have stressed tight deadlines, with some counties and unitary authorities facing a matter of weeks or even days to opt in.
If accepted onto the fast-track scheme, councils will have to develop detailed proposals on how they plan to consolidate services and, in many cases, merge districts into new unitary authorities. These proposals will cover everything from how housing applications are handled to who oversees crucial public services like social care. Over the next year or two, consultations with residents and local stakeholders will be key.
By 2026, regions that choose a mayoral route might hold their first mayoral elections. This could see a new leadership figure championing large-scale infrastructure projects and investment deals. Meanwhile, shadow or transitional councils — essentially, temporary structures to smooth the shift from multiple layers of local government to one — could begin operating. If all goes to plan, final unitary authorities or combined authorities might be up and running by 2027 or 2028.
In practice, though, these timelines can shift. Legal challenges, public pushback, or unexpected political changes (for instance, in Westminster) can lead to delays. Budget constraints are another wild card—there’s often a significant upfront cost to reorganising councils. Nonetheless, many local leaders see a unique window of opportunity: done in a careful, consultative manner, devolution could create more dynamic and accountable governance for England.
Failed State
I’m currently reading Sam Freedman’s brilliant book Failed State: Why Britains Doesn’t Work and How We Fix It. The second chapter is on local government and plans for devolution - and, with caveats, he sees the mayoral model as progress. He begins by examining centralisation, where power is concentrated within a central government. He acknowledges several advantages:
Efficiency in decision-making: Centralised systems can implement policies swiftly without the delays that often accompany multi-layered governance.
Uniform policy implementation: Ensures consistency across regions, which is particularly beneficial in areas like national security, economic policy, and infrastructure development.
Resource allocation: Central governments can mobilise resources on a large scale, addressing national emergencies or large infrastructure projects effectively.
However, Freedman thinks that the obsession with central control over the last century of UK governments has been a root cause of the mistrust of politics we see today:
Disconnection from local needs: Centralised authorities may lack intimate knowledge of local issues, leading to policies that are ill-suited to specific regional contexts.
Bureaucratic overreach: Excessive centralisation can result in cumbersome bureaucracy, reducing responsiveness and adaptability.
Political alienation: Regions may feel disenfranchised or ignored, fostering resentment and decreasing overall political engagement.
I agree with Freedman's central thesis that neither extreme centralisation nor complete devolution is ideal. Instead, he advocates for a balanced approach where power is strategically distributed to harness the strengths of both systems while mitigating their weaknesses. Key recommendations include:
Clear delineation of powers: Establishing well-defined roles and responsibilities for central and regional governments to prevent overlap and ensure accountability.
Robust coordination mechanisms: Implementing frameworks for collaboration and communication between different levels of government to maintain policy coherence.
Equitable resource distribution: Ensuring that all regions have access to necessary resources, reducing disparities and promoting balanced regional development.
Adaptive governance models: Creating flexible governance structures that can evolve in response to changing societal needs and challenges.
Will the English electorate get excited about time and energy being spent on devolved governance and a new tranche of mayors? No. Will they reward political structures and see tangible results if it works? Yes. They already are in Manchester, Teeside and the West Midlands.
Surely, worth a go?
Special prize quiz.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to A New England to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.