Where will transport fit in the new structure for local government?

HERALDED as the biggest shake up of local government since 1974, December’s English Devolution White Paper came with the promise to change things in a big way- and do it fast[1]. Though hatched by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner in her Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it seems set to radically re-shape the framework for transport decision-making below central government level, despite there having been apparently little input to it by the Department for Transport itself.

The White Paper sets out the intention of the Government to create a new tier of local government in the form of Strategic Authorities (SAs), with most transport tasks firmly in their remit, much as the Mayoral Metropolitan Combined Authorities work now. Initially, there will be three categories:

• Foundation Strategic Authorities (FSA), which are those strategic authorities without a Directly Elected Mayor and comprised only of constituent local authorities.

• Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSA) those comprised of a Directly Elected Mayor and constituent local authorities.

• Established Strategic Authorities (EMSA) which is the same as an MSA but has been established for a minimum period of 18 months and meets a number of qualifying criteria to be considered as ‘established’.

The expectation set out in the White Paper is that local areas will come together to agree the geography and boundaries of the proposed SAs, and over time all of them will move to becoming Established Mayoral Strategic Authorities. The Devolution Framework set out in the White Paper lists the devolved powers and functions available to each type of SA covering areas such as transport, infrastructure, skills and employment support, housing, strategic planning, economic development, environment, health and public safety. There is meanwhile a strong theme of public service reform running throughout the White Paper, with SAs being the mechanism to drive forward a local programme of public service reform and integration.

Current English devolution landscape

These new Strategic Authority arrivals will mean major change on how transport is planned and run, but this part of our local and regional democratic governance is not, however, an area that has stood still over the last few decades. Piecemeal changes have been generating an alphabet soup of acronyms and often confusing mixed mash of responsibilities amongst sometimes four levels of authority up from parish councils to Sub-national Transport Bodies. Commentators complain of “hyperactive incrementalism”, described as “the tendency for frantic ministerial activism to produce minimal substantive change[2]”, compared unfavourably to 19th century cavalry charges.

The White Paper came out almost exactly twenty years after Labour’s last big experiment in regional devolution, the referendum for a North East assembly in 2004 as part of then Deputy PM John Prescott’s regionalism (and transport) agenda. Yet that was roundly rejected by the local electorate, fearing it would be a white elephant focused on Newcastle, and without real power. We did, however, get the restoration of London wide local governance with the Greater London Assembly and an elected mayor for the capital, in charge of Transport through TfL, under that Labour administration.

Since then various attempts have been made to create new institutions at smaller scales, many of which made little progress or were even reversed a few years on. The coalition government’s Localism Act 2011 turned out to be one step forward, two steps back as austerity ate into local budgets. The biggest impact was made in the creation of elected mayors in conurbations like Greater Manchester - the first in 2015, through an agreement between the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, and Greater Manchester’s 10 district council leaders and a similar arrangement in the West Midlands. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 then gave UK Government Ministers powers to devolve powers and responsibilities to other new combined authorities. Following devolution agreements in six areas of England, the first Combined Authority Mayor elections took place for these six combined authority areas on 4 May 2017: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City, Tees Valley, West Midlands and the West of England. As well as having specific powers, the metropolitan mayors chair the Combined Authorities and lead the areas’ transport bodies. There are now directly elected mayors in place in twelve areas – eleven of them Labour- and going beyond the initial mainly urban-focused geographies to include the East Midlands and York and North Yorkshire. All are in line to receive enhanced powers under the White Paper plans, as well as being the model for other types of non-metropolitan areas to copy.

Home base for the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner in launching her White Paper was a gathering of the current set of Combined Authority mayors - all but one of them Labour

Launching the new White Paper Devolution minister Jim McMahon said that “While devolution can be hard to understand sometimes, the aims of this programme are simple: it puts more money in people’s pockets, leads to quicker, better, cheaper transport, designed with local people in mind[3]”. This seems, even granting political polemic, rather an over simplification, maybe trivialisation. Certainly those are important objectives, but recent polling by the Good Growth Foundation suggests the public views better transport and more devolution as respectively the most and least important means of improving local economies[4] (see chart). Whether new mayors will be able to improve transport quickly and significantly as funding pressures ratchet up remains to be seen.

In any event, it is not a given that devolution should just focus on economic growth, notwithstanding the Government’s current apparent obsession with that topic. Localism and community empowerment comes with many dimensions and the challenges in rural areas will be very different to those in our biggest cities, not least for transport. Moreover a key question should surely not only be about how transport should fit within this bold vision for sub-national government, but whether the vision fits well with how transport planning and delivery work most effectively in reality, and so can best be organised?

The White Paper’s launch was greeted by a mix of positive headlines about reducing Britain’s overcentralisation , and negative ones berating the fact that the new units for the allocation of power could see many people living 50 miles from their town hall.

Indeed academics have pointed out that “British local governments are already unusually large, and these new mega-authorities will be exceptional in the international context[5]”. The magic numbers conjured up by Rayner are that all primary units should cover a population of around 500,000 people , and upper level bodies 1.5 million. Currently there are numerous districts, and even some counties with well under 200,000 residents.

So the twin processes of devolving power from Westminster, while combining councils into bigger more remote units, could be seen by some as cancelling each other out. Likewise while unitarisation at the base level means integrating local highway and planning authorities, at the same time some functions (including wider transport responsibilities) will be taken over by the new larger Strategic Authorities.

The pace of change is another challenge. McMahon called for devolution to be ‘co-produced’ by the government and existing local bodies, something that has not happened with the White Paper itself, and will be a political challenge for the English Devolution Bill due later this year to enact the new arrangements.

With councils required to share initial proposals for unitarisation this March and final bids by the autumn, communities are unlikely to feel they have had much say. Indeed, the initial fast track route offered through the ‘Devolution Priority Programme’ has seen changes in nine areas already put in train, with local elections due this year in the existing authorities now to be postponed, not without controversy. This might start to feel like a game of musical chairs played to a relentless and unforgiving beat.

It may, for example, seem impressive, or concerning, depending on your viewpoint that joint work between Kent County Council, the unitary Medway Council and the county’s twelve second tier districts quickly led to an agreement to respond to the White Paper with a proposal committing the whole ceremonial county to elections for a new MSA in May 2026 and implementation of local government reorganisation by either April 2027 or April 2028. In the event, it was not one of the areas now chosen for the fast track route.

Yet there is a bigger issue that is hardly being grappled with at all. If we want to avoid coming back to cut the cake again in a few years, surely we should be designing structures and boundaries for the future, not just amending them from the historical geography of the past? The same government that is calling for functional economic areas to be the basis of the new authorities is also touting the benefits of public transport reform to widen these areas. But what is a suitable geography for that challenge – and to meanwhile look after long term transport ( and land use) planning, whilst being something that the transport users can effectively relate to in terms of where they catch buses, park their cars and ride their bikes?

Some argue that a function-specific agency approach for transport provision is better, such as the Verkehrsverbund, or integrated transport association ,model in German speaking countries, and similar bodies in some other countries. These have been focused on both metropolitan areas and their hinterlands to offer cordinated services, fares and ticketing across all modes (see map below of these in Germany).

The shape of local transport in Germany as delivered by the Verkehrsverbund associations

Despite their very different sizes, Cambridge, Bristol and Newcastle stations had similar numbers of rail trips last year: upgrading regional rail to south east standards would be transformative for economic geography, for a number of regional centres. But drawing the appropriate boundaries to suit planning, scheduling, fare capping, marketing, network management and system upkeep will be a very big challenge.

The Centre for Cities suggests that high skill ‘travel to work’ areas should be a logical focus. But does that risk being old thinking too in our rapidly changing technology-driven world? AI is expected to affect professional classes disproportionately, so these ‘commuter’ geographies may be the ones likely to change the most - not to mention the switch towards working from home. Similarly what might have made sense for the past in terms of generating efficiencies to service provision may prove a poor yardstick as councils transform. At the very least can we not acknowledge these uncertainties, if not give greater weight to non-economic considerations, whether historical or environmental.

While the current set of high profile metro mayors grabbed the limelight (or the selfie flash) with the DPM on the devo day launch in December, any thoughts of fostering democratic activity at the most local community level, also known as parish, village, town and neighbourhood, was largely left in the dark. Although the White Paper promised “devolution at every scale”, and MHCLG is the responsible government department for parish/local councils, indeed created the system of neighbourhood plans to be drawn up by them, there was simply a vague exhortation of “new opportunities for communities to have a say in the future of their area”. Was the economic case, rather than the democratic case, believed to be lacking in order to prioritise this level? Might even the all powerful efficiency-seeking Treasury have had a say in this?

How the White Paper sees the future structure of English government

The lack of standardisation of what already exists at this lower level, or even an easy way to find out where responsibilities lie, is a real problem. For instance, the Local Government Ombsudsman notes that these Town or Parish councils can take responsibility for street lighting, litter, bus shelters, car parks, footpaths and so on, but that since arrangements vary you need to ask each one what they are actually responsible for. These issues are often critical to ensure the transport network is accessible at grass roots level and feels safe for all sections of the public. With districts disappearing, and local government centralising as funding is squeezed, the appeal of a genuine community contact capacity and chance of raising the precept provided for at town and parish level to be spent hyper-locally will surely increase.

The growth in Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) is often at a similar hyper local scale, filling a gap in council provision in more commercial areas and often engaging in public realm if not transport issues.

BIDs have set up cycle freight, travel planning and freight consolidation schemes, harnessing their local knowledge and connections extremely effectively. The creation of a Mayoral Development Corporation for pedestrianising London’s Oxford Street, and another for regenerating Stockport town centre in Great Manchester, is bringing another kind of actor onto the stage. Development Corporations up to now have focused on greenfield and brownfield sites, but the Oxford Street proposal seeks to pioneer using transport powers and the Stockport one has linked projects like a new interchange, active travel routes and sustainable housing schemes.

With all this going on there is surely great potential here for the transport sector to learn to relate appropriately to a range of both upper and lower levels. In the health service GP practices are hyper local, while other parts of the NHS scale up to regional level to provide more specialist facilities. Other retail and service companies meanwhile fine-tune their offer more locally. So should the rail, bus and highway authorities not make much greater use of this level of engagement with individual communities, such as through travel planning and experimental layouts or user testing of new services or better linkages regarding asset maintenance of lampposts, potholes, stations or bus stops.

Some hard graft process thinking would be helpful here to provide suitable models. The DfT could lead on the creation of plan templates and data standardisation, for a new level of transport plans suiting the inputs villages, sparse rural parishes, towns or suburban communities, and their relationship with the full statutory Local Transport Plans (LTP).

Ways to coordinate between town councils that are stepping up and BIDs, as well as lighter touch options to secure funding and input into community solutions in smaller areas, driven by local energies, would be a smart approach. Ways to blend finance, including a BID levy on rates, a town precept on council tax and community infrastructure funding would surely be well worth exploring too.

MHCLG has issued an “invitation” for proposals to reorganise to authorities across England. It requires an interim plan for rationalisation, or “common-sense reorganisation” by March, with full proposals by September or November[6]. Just to be clear, this is pitched as a “completely separate process to any consultation undertaken on mayoral devolution in an area”, which would take place in parallel.

Yes, it is confusing. Not only at the lowest level, but at higher ones too – including what will happen to the existing seven Sub National Transport Bodies , one that is statutory – Transport for the North - and the others like England’s Economic Heartland, Western Gateway and Transport for the South East

The mayors at Downing Street: the Prime Minister and his deputy seem to me keen to work directly with the political leaders of various parts of England

The government is, meanwhile, not only seeking unitarisation of two-tier principal authorities, district, borough and county, but also the rationalisation of existing small unitaries to at least 500,000 inhabitants. An information request by the District Councils Network revealed officials lacked any evidence such as for financial savings to justify that threshold, but there may be other benefits, such as around recruitment and capabilities in an era of accelerating change. Though smaller sizes remain an option to “reflect the full range of local circumstances[7],” with large yet sparsely unitaries like Herefordshire having fewer than 200,000 people, they are still likely to face pressure for some consolidation.

The affection for retaining traditional identities, and avoiding being swallowed up – the ‘Save Rutland’ and ‘Stop Avon’ issues- is maybe still to rear its head…

The White Paper’s accompanying guidance calls for proposals to be based on “sensible economic areas”, “sensible geography…to increase local housing supply” and the “right size to achieve efficiencies”, all of which must be built on robust evidence, including of costs/benefits. With funding levels only just being confirmed to March 2026, one wonders what long-term assumptions will be made about what services will still be delivered as belt tightening is set to continue? The word “engagement” appears often, perhaps in implicit recognition how difficult that will be given the timetable, as well as a call for “genuine opportunity for neighbourhood empowerment”.

Another concern is the lack of any pro-active integration of this consultation with the development of transport policy. There is a mention of the need to “avoid unnecessary fragmentation of services” but there are few transport services directly provided by local authorities, though that might change with bus reform. What might be the lowest practical level of government for transport and will it vary by mode? Was the DfT asked for its view on this – and if so we can wonder what it was.

Would the answer be different it we took a determinedly more integrated approach? Not just of transport services as the DfT is currently consulting about for its planned Integrated National Transport Strategy, but one that considered the need to join up major housing and other land developments with suitably planned public transport upgrades, rather than just run existing services better? Scale might help with raising funds, including for ‘special purpose’ development or delivery bodies which could be backed by the local authorities, though more likely the strategic ones.

If anything the MHCLG-led rush for change risks more disintegration. Despite saying that “Bringing decisions about transport closer to people is key to improving the transport networks we rely on every day”, the White Paper proposes moving responsibility for “local” transport plans from local to sometimes very broad strategic authorities, even though the former will remain the highways authority.

Strategic Authorities might be seen as the motor of devolution, but themselves will be far from the perfect fit for transport in all its guises. Though the push for unitarisation to strip out a layer of local government took the most headlines, the biggest change is arguably how the creation of a complete set of strategic authorities across England will play out. These bodies, in some cases an evolution of existing combined authorities, will be given “sweeping new powers, putting them on the fast track to deliver growth, opportunities, transport and housing for local communities”. While existing Combined Authorities have required unanimity, leading to “Stexit”, Stockport’s withdrawal from Greater Manchester’s spatial plan, and Hampshire from Solent Transport , the new strategic authorities are promised will be governed by majority rule.

It should be noted that the expectation set out in the White Paper is that local areas will come together to agree the geography and boundaries of any proposed SA, but that where local agreement cannot be reached, additional powers will be granted to Ministers through the forthcoming English Devolution Bill to mandate their geography if necessary.

And will their geography for practical purposes really stack up? Can the sprawling suggested south coast entity of East and West Sussex counties, plus Brighton and Hove, really have an effective Mayor, let alone one that is felt to represent rural as well as urban? And is the East Midlands really a cohesive transport identity- or better treated as a loose collection of quite significant self contained towns, with a good record on their individual transport performance?

There appears to be a fundamental tension here between governance, economics and feelings. Or perhaps, more significantly , how things are seen from Westminster and Whitehall, and from out in the land. One study concluded that “it is the structure of subnational governance that should be the key tool for intervening in regional productivity[8]”. By contrast an exploration of public perceptions found it “telling that mayors and combined authorities were never raised by our focus groups. Even Bexleyheath participants, who have had a Mayor of London for 25 years, did not mention their regional leadership or the Greater London Authority. Far more salient were their immediate local council services[9]”. That seems surprising given the prominence of TfL or indeed the Met Police.

While there will initially be three categories of strategic authority, with the lowest not including a mayor, the direction of travel seems clear with the mayoral model effectively the only game in town. A town mayor is a familiar concept, but how might the mayoral leadership model be seen in dispersed rural areas, especially if they are based on new geographies? Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authorities was one of the first to have a mayor, but has faced a series of controversies. These ranged from a best value inspection to transport scheme reversals as political control shifted within the individual councils and the mayoralty. For now, some areas will begin with foundation strategic authorities without a mayor.

The White Paper calls for “sensible population size ratios between local authorities and any strategic authority”, though there is surely a question too about the number of local authorities in each strategic one, which in the present system ranges from two in York and North Yorkshire to the 33 boroughs in Greater London. The Centre for Cities argues that since rural areas have smaller economies, partly due to more limited public transport, insisting on larger authorities risks making them less effective to grow those economies. It could align with public service footprints, like those of police forces, though there are already those who argue they would benefit from consolidation too.

The White Paper has little to say about the level above Strategic Authorities, beyond talking fondly of cooperation by Northern mayors. Yet it is this level, that of Sub-National Transport Bodies, that only gets a single mention, that can be most crucial for transformative transport infrastructure like the Transpennine and East-West rail projects. Likewise little is said about the interplay between levels when there are differences of opinion or priority.

Next time I will turn the spotlight on these relationships and ask how devolution may really play out for transport in all its different dimensions ?

References and Links

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-devolution-white-paper-power-and-partnership-foundations-for-growth/english-devolution-white-paper
   

2. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/centres-institutes/city-region-economic-development-institute/publications/2025/emerging-themes-and-issues-in-english-devolution
   

3. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/devolution-revolution-six-areas-to-elect-mayors-for-first-time

4. https://www.goodgrowthfoundation.co.uk/mind-the-growth-gap

5. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/centres-institutes/city-region-economic-development-institute/publications/2025/emerging-themes-and-issues-in-english-devolution
   

6. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-government-reorganisation-invitation-to-local-authorities-in-two-tier-areas
   

7. https://www.districtcouncils.info/no-evidence-exists-to-support-mega-councils-government-admits/

8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2152436 Tilley 2023

9. https://www.goodgrowthfoundation.co.uk/mind-the-growth-gap