Levelling Up White Paper: Will London-style devolution work elsewhere in the UK?

Peter Canavan, Partner at Carter Jonas, explores the challenges of delivering the London-style devolution promised in the Levelling Up White Paper elsewhere in the UK.

The Levelling Up White Paper, which will soon become the focus of a new Levelling Up Bill, proposes a new framework for devolution for England. Unlike previous devolution 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.

As a planning consultant in Oxfordshire, I see devolution as a benefit in principle. It 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 and Cherwell are seeking a split. The opportunities are understood, but there are also risks which may stand in the way of successful devolution.   

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. Joint Green Infrastructure Strategies, and Green Belt Reviews have also been delivered and there is no reason why the pressing issues of carbon neutrality and climate change adaptation cannot follow the same successful joint strategy path.

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. Indeed, in 2016 a potential convergence of all the authorities failed and the latest assessment of the potential for a unitary authority was met with cutting derision from local authority leaders.    

So will the proposals within 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’s wishful thinking.

Oxfordshire is, I suspect, typical of many regions in that there exists the foundation for coordinated 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 politic egos, there are many barriers to be crossed.

Photo by James Coleman