COMMENT As a planning consultant in Oxfordshire, I see devolution as a benefit in principle, and the Levelling Up white paper proposed a new framework for devolution for England. Unlike previous deals, this extends the opportunity beyond city areas and sets a deal for “every area of England that wants one”, underpinned by four principles: effective leadership, sensible geography, flexibility and accountability.
Devolution can create savings, support the climate change agenda and help maintain regional aspirations for economic growth. In theory, it should also improve project working and the delivery of infrastructure and new homes. Years of spending cuts have forced local authorities to make efficiencies and the pandemic has only deepened these needs.
Sharing services (and directors) is nothing new in Oxfordshire, with two districts (South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse) maintaining a harmonious relationship – even if the county council and Cherwell are seeking a split. The opportunities are understood, but there are also risks that may stand in the way of successful devolution.
Strategy, then delivery
With the Science Vale, Knowledge Spine, Oxford City Deal and the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal, economic and development strategies have crossed borders here for at least a decade.
These strategies have brought collaborative and expectant rhetoric, success in science and tech investment and, eventually, an increase in housing delivery. In an uncommon achievement which is a strong endorsement of joint working, Oxford’s unmet housing needs, after a painful inception, were eventually spread among the surrounding districts.
After strategies comes delivery. A joint venture called the Oxfordshire Growth Board drew two-tier local authorities closer together, resulting in better aligned infrastructure improvements, housing delivery expectations and trajectories.
This cross-border success resulted from the Growth Board’s requirement for an approach whereby politicians and officers have the freedom and responsibility to grapple with “regional” challenges.
But Oxfordshire’s steps towards devolution have not been 100% positive. Criticised as being a “quango” because its members were not directly elected, the Growth Board was accused of lacking transparency and accountability.
There is a long and bitter history of attempts to create a formal unitary authority in Oxfordshire: political divides and changing loyalties have obstructed meaningful discussions, specifically between Labour in the city and Conservatives in the county and districts.
Narrowing politics
So will the proposals in the White Paper open up the possibility of another attempt at creating a joint authority? There are indications that politics are narrowing, there is common ground on environmental issues, the Future Oxfordshire Partnership (which replaced the Growth Board) has a new joint vision, and the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 is a possible vehicle for more formalised joint governance.
Turning to the four principles believed to underline effective devolution, the Growth Board had “effective leadership” (although sometimes it struggled when it rotated between local authorities). But what of “sensible geography”? There are clearly similarities between the rural hinterlands, but the city has different needs and priorities. A Polo mint-shaped unity authority, with the hole in the middle occupied by the City, would fail to meet this principle. But the narrowing and collaborative politics could improve the chances of effective county-wide devolution.
“Flexibility” (a term which would benefit from a clearer definition) can be met in Oxfordshire through continued partnership-working on a range of topics and has already been fostered through development planning at the Growth Board.
Finally, “accountability”. What could give greater accountability to existing joint working – craved by so many – than a formal unitary authority? Surely this would also support closer working between planning and infrastructure departments if all the decisions were made by the same organisation. Or maybe that is wishful thinking.
Oxfordshire is, I suspect, typical of many regions in that there exists the foundation for co-ordinated joint working and potentially devolution, but from pressing and highly nuanced local priorities, such as adult social care, to the potentially destabilising impact that such talks would have on political egos, there are many barriers to be overcome.
Peter Canavan is an associate partner at Carter Jonas
