Most English councils appear to be tying themselves in knots to devise geographies over which they can enjoy devolved economic development and planning powers, but in one location silence reigns.
In the Thames Valley neither councils nor the local property industry have much interest in devolution. Rich as it is, is the region missing a trick?
Money pours into the Thames Valley attracted by its hi-tech industries, proximity to London, Oxford and Heathrow, good communications, a pleasant environment and prosperous towns. Few think devolution would make this money pour any quicker.
Another factor against devolution is the Thames Valley’s shape and history. It is a long thin area, usually considered to have its eastern boundary at the point where it meets greater London.
But heading west, where does it end? There are multiple interpretations. Some say Newbury, but Swindon has economic links, too. Should Oxford – indisputably on the Thames – be included? What about Basingstoke, or Aldershot?
Local government boundaries don’t help. Berkshire County Council was abolished in 1996 and replaced by six unitary councils forming a narrow band along the river.
This means a short trip north or south crosses the boundary, and the adjacent counties have little interest in devolution arrangements that might further entangle them in having to meet Berkshire’s need for housing land.
Nor do the Berkshire councils wish to combine with each other to seek a devolution deal for which they see little need, though they collaborate to seek efficiency savings in their day-to-day operations.
So is the lack of devolution activity a problem?
James Finnis, head of South East office agency at JLL, says: “You have to define the Thames Valley and no one defines it the same way.
“I understand why places like the Northern Powerhouse have felt the need for devolution, but is the Thames Valley missing something by not having it? I would query that.”
Finnis says: “Could the local authorities work together more effectively? Yes, there is always room for that, but there are the highest quality office developments going into Reading, Maidenhead and Slough, and it does not need the state to stimulate anything. Some town centres perform better than others, but they all perform pretty well.”
Michael Knott, director of Barton Willmore’s Reading-based planning team, also cannot see that devolution would make much difference compared with many areas in the north. “This is a strong economic area and the Thames Valley is an engine room of the national economy,” he says.
Chris Hiatt, director of developer Landid Brockton, which has 553,000 sq ft of offices under construction in Slough and Reading and just over the London boundary in Uxbridge, says: “I can’t say devolution is at the forefront of my mind. They are economically successful locations in any case.
“As developers we are very confident about the region and its infrastructure and we would not be investing more than £100m if we felt negative about it.”
Berkshire housing market assessment new homes needed per year 2013-36
Reading
541
West Berkshire
537
Wokingham
680
Bracknell Forest
535
Windsor & Maidenhead
657
Slough
875
South Buckinghamshire
339
However, Tim Burden, a director at planning consultant Turley, does have some concerns. “Unlike other places, it is not clear who you call to do business with in the Thames Valley,” he says.
“The [Thames Valley Berkshire] local enterprise partnership has stepped up the profile quite well, but what is the Thames Valley? I think it’s between Wycombe and Basingstoke and Newbury and London.”
He adds: “There is a risk that we are not getting the strategic co-operation needed on planning. Some of the councils stick very much to their own borders to meet housing need and are not willing to meet regional demand.” (see box).
Burden says the Thames Valley has growth potential “even though there is a perception that it is already pretty prosperous”, but sees a danger that the Northern Powerhouse will better attract both government and inward investment.
“People looking to invest in the UK might say, ‘I’ve heard of the Northern Powerhouse, let’s have a look at that’ and not know of the Thames Valley. There is also very little unemployment here so there is less in the way of an available workforce, too.”
Local government leaders have little time for devolution. Labour’s Tony Page, deputy leader of Reading Borough Council, says: “The economy is not such an issue as in the north and I don’t think what is on offer [on devolution] adds up to a great deal.
“It is just delegation, there is no financial devolution to raise money through issuing local bonds, which would be commonplace anywhere else in Europe and if invested in infrastructure and housing would provide an attractive rate of return to savers at the moment.”
Page says the six Berkshire councils work together well despite party differences, and have no desire for what he calls the “silly gimmick” of an elected mayor, which the government has insisted upon for most devolution deals.
Paul Bettison, Conservative leader of Bracknell Forest Borough Council, is equally unenthusiastic.
“The council leaders absolutely don’t want to recreate Berkshire County Council and if you take that option out it’s not obvious there is an off-the-peg solution we could agree,” he says.
“The economy is healthy anyway and I don’t know what devolution would add.”
For many places, devolution promises a route to faster economic growth. The councils in the Thames Valley though appear in the happy position of presiding over areas that are doing fine without it.
Bucks and Berks battle it out to solve housing shortage
Berkshire is growing and much of it is densely populated, so housing land is an issue.
The strategic housing market assessment for Berkshire published last February included neighbouring South Buckinghamshire District Council, a narrow part of which cuts off Slough from Greater London.
This concluded there was a need for 339 new homes a year in South Buckinghamshire, an area full of wealthy and articulate people well able to argue against new development, in particular against the North Slough urban extension, which the town hopes to see built in its neighbour’s area.
This led South Buckinghamshire to instead join the Buckinghamshire housing market area plan with its northern neighbours, leaving densely populated Slough with no obvious place to meet its housing demand.
A report by Slough in August noted that South Buckinghamshire’s decision was “significant because in theory South Bucks can now look northwards to meet any shortfall in housing in the district”. South Buckinghamshire declined to comment.
Barton Willmore director Michael Knott says: “Berkshire councils have reasonably up to date local plans in place and there is some co-ordination, but they need updating.
“South Buckinghamshire originally joined the Berkshire housing market area joint study, but then decided to work with Buckinghamshire instead and now has joined with Chiltern and Wycombe to say housing demand should be met in Aylesbury Vale, which does not have such difficult [land] constraints.
“Slough clearly cannot meet demand within its boundary and is surrounded by green belt, so it’s very difficult to see what it can do.”
Knott says he is more optimistic about Reading, where it is talking to West Berkshire, Wokingham and South Oxfordshire about land for homes.
Slough and Reading cover dense urban areas with tight boundaries from which they cannot expand to meet their own housing demand, says Turley Associates director Tim Burden. “They look to neighbours to pick that up, but they are unwilling,” he says.
In Reading, the council’s deputy leader Tony Page says the local authority cannot find land for housing demand in its boundary but says: “I’m also optimistic, more than I was a couple of years ago, that we can work to find land within a Greater Reading area.”
