East senior account executive for DevComms Aleksis Butler weighs the pros and cons for the East of England of the Government’s plans for devolution.
Labour’s newly-unveiled white paper, Power and Partnership: Foundations for Growth, outlines an ambitious vision to transform local governance across England.
For the East of England, these proposals promise a significant opportunity to address longstanding challenges while creating a more unified, effective system tailored to the region’s unique and diverse needs.
At its core, the white paper makes devolution the default mode of governance. It moves beyond the uneven landscape of the past, where large parts of the country were left untouched by devolution, to an approach that aims for equitable local empowerment.
Regions adopting a mayoral structure could gain the most extensive powers over housing, transport, skills, and local growth strategies. For areas like the East of England, where governance remains fragmented, this represents a chance to align policymaking more closely with local priorities.
With counties such as Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex governed by a complex network of 51 councils, Labour’s vision for a streamlined system is particularly relevant.
The proposal to replace the two-tier model with unitary authorities of at least 500,000 residents could deliver efficiencies and reduce duplication.
Currently, housing projects are managed at the district level, while transport policy is overseen by county councils, often leading to delays and misaligned priorities. A unified structure could provide clearer accountability and swifter decision-making.
Yet, these reforms also present unique challenges. Norfolk and Suffolk, with a combined population of 1.7 million, may require the creation of three unitary authorities, potentially crossing historical county boundaries. Such moves risk alienating communities with strong ties to their traditional identities.
The East of England also grapples with stark contrasts between its urban centres and rural areas. Cities like Norwich, Ipswich, and Colchester are more culturally diverse and politically progressive, often with differing priorities from their rural surroundings. These urban-rural divides could complicate resource allocation and policymaking within newly unified authorities.
Councillors in rural areas have voiced concerns about being overshadowed by their urban neighbours. For example, in Central Bedfordshire, Conservative councillor Sue Clark warned that rural voices risk being drowned out under a combined authority with Milton Keynes and Luton.
She also expressed fears that Central Bedfordshire could become ‘the housing estate of Milton Keynes’, losing control over planning decisions to a centralised mayoral authority.
A procedural question also arises: Should unitary authorities be established before regions transition to mayoral combined authorities, or should both processes occur in tandem? In areas like Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, where governance under CAPCA (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority) has faced criticism, clarity on sequencing will be critical to avoid further delays.
Local enthusiasm for these reforms is not uniform. Hertfordshire County Council has expressed scepticism about the need for a devolution deal, questioning whether the potential benefits outweigh the upheaval it might bring. This reluctance reflects broader concerns about losing autonomy, the disruption of established governance structures, and the additional administrative burden of implementing such changes.
The case of Hertfordshire also highlights the risks of a fragmented approach, where some regions may opt out of Labour’s vision entirely. Bedford and Luton, which already operate under independent governance structures, further illustrate the diversity of governance models in the region. Reconciling these differences while securing buy-in from all stakeholders will be crucial to ensure the reforms deliver meaningful benefits
Perhaps the most significant challenge is fiscal autonomy. While the reforms promise a robust transfer of powers, they stop short of granting local authorities the ability to raise revenue independently.
At present, metro mayors and combined authorities rely on government grants and levies on constituent councils, leaving them vulnerable to shifting national priorities. Without mechanisms to raise taxes or offer fiscal incentives, local leaders remain constrained in driving transformative growth.
This issue is particularly acute in the East of England, where rural deprivation contrasts with the pressures of urban expansion.
For instance, CAPCA has faced criticism for its limited ability to fund major transport projects or tackle housing shortages effectively. Investors assessing the region’s growth potential will want to know whether local authorities can offer meaningful incentives and deliver change. Until the answer is unequivocally ‘yes’, the transformative potential of these reforms will remain limited.
Labour’s Power and Partnership white paper offers the East of England a framework to address its challenges through accountable and cohesive governance.
However, structural reform alone cannot guarantee success. As councils continue their considerations, key questions remain: How will the new system be funded? Can local leaders match their expanded responsibilities with real fiscal power? And will Labour balance local autonomy with national equity?
© Thames Tap (powered by ukpropertyforums.com).
Sign up to receive our weekly free journal, The Forum here.
