According to Devon County Council Leader John Hart ‘the County Council will approve the Deal at its Cabinet in March and it will be ratified at a Full Council shortly afterward.’

Before that, he explains, there is to be a consultation and ‘District Councils and residents will both have the opportunity to comment on the proposals during the consultation period’.

From his words he would appear confident of the outcome – ‘the County Council will approve the Deal’ and ‘it will be ratified at a Full Council shortly afterward’.

Nor is his confidence necessarily misplaced. The ‘Deal’ was originally brought forward in February 2022 by the then leaders of Torbay Council, Devon County Council and Plymouth City Council, who at the time were all under Conservative control. Since then Labour has come to power in Plymouth and the council there has withdrawn from the Deal, with new leader Tudor Evans branding it ‘unreasonable and unrealistic’.

But given the political make-up of Devon County Council, where the Conservatives enjoy a comfortable majority of 12 on the 60 member Council, few can doubt how that vote will go. However matters are less clear-cut in Torquay. There the Conservative Group are now in a minority and will require the support of either the Lib Dems or some or all of both the Independent and Prosper Torbay Group to proceed.

Consequently Torbay residents can still influence the outcome by making their opinions known to their elected representatives.

Regrettably that is not the case here in the South Hams. Even if residents take the trouble to express their views, both to our District Councillors and through the promised consultation, we effectively have no say. The ‘Deal’ can be imposed upon us whether we like it or not. For neither we nor our District Councillors are to be given a vote.

And even were all the seven South Hams members of Devon County Council to oppose the ‘Deal’, they will be easily outvoted. That also remains the case after the ‘Deal’ has been ratified. To again quote Cllr Hart: ‘District Councils will be offered two seats on the governance board of the CCA and will be able to vote on general matters.’ And here you might wonder whether there are different categories of ‘matters’, say between ‘general’ and ‘other’ or ‘specific' matters, and if there are, in such instances, would our two members be disenfranchised?

Unfortunately, although Cllr Hart has assured the Society that the new layer of local government, a Combined County Authority, created by the ‘Deal’ ‘will not duplicate the work of local councils. It is not taking on any functions from District Authorities, including South Hams District Council’, it is very hard to remain confident that this will not change in the immediate future.

Here it is noticeable that The Guardian has quoted Sir Keir Starmer as saying ‘combined authorities would get more control over housing and planning, skills, energy and transport of the kind currently held by London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester’, while Section 18(1) of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act makes it clear that ‘The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for a function of a county council or a district council that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a CCA’s area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area.’ For now any such change can only be made with the agreement of the councils affected, but that too could yet change.

According to Cllr Hart one advantage of the ‘Deal’ will be the ability ‘to shape Homes England funding which can support the delivery of housing and economic growth. As responsibility for affordable housing sits with Districts, this is one example of a benefit.’ It might also be thought to explain why Sir Keir Starmer would like to give CCAs more control over housing and planning in order to block out the blockers, in the process removing those controls from our directly elected local representatives.

Separately, and from inception, the Authority is to take over the Local Transport Authority Functions held by Devon County Council and Torbay Council, in the process assuming responsibility for producing an integrated transport plan for Devon and Torbay. ‘Ironically’, as Cllr Hart points out, ‘we work together on this already’, so it is open to question what, if anything, the new authority will be able to add.

That said, we are told extra taxpayer money from central government is to be made available to the new Authority, and the exact amount may become known within the next few weeks. Hopefully the final sum will be additional to the £16m that has already been awarded ‘to support a programme of Net Zero activity, including support for green skills, support to businesses, green homes and infrastructure’.

Unfortunately, along with any benefits the new Authority might bring, costs too will come. Section 16(1) of the Act states ‘The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision: (a) for the costs of a CCA to be met by its constituent councils, and (b) about the basis on which the amount payable by each constituent council is to be determined.’

Inevitably part of those costs will fall on South Hams residents. So we also need to be told precisely what those costs will be. According to Cllr Hart the operating budget is ‘being developed… and it will be funded from the devolved funds awarded by Government, and through an initial revenue grant of £1m from Government to support its set up and operation over the next two financial years’.

In other words we should remain concerned that unless more money is forthcoming, any costs in addition to the initial revenue grant will have to come from the £16m already awarded to support Net Zero activity. Equally and as yet, beyond the £16m and the two tranches of £1m, no further funds are guaranteed. Given the current state of the public finances, it is entirely possible nothing more will be on offer. Were that to be the case all future costs would have to fall on residents.

Crucially and in conclusion no mandate exists for this ‘Deal’, and no vote is to be offered to residents to say whether or not they wish to be participants. To be taken in without consent is both unacceptable and profoundly undemocratic.

Going ahead is also unwise. Until all costs are known, all future functions and responsibilities are clarified, and future funding for at least the duration of the next parliament is committed, any decision should be delayed.

Otherwise, and for many years to come, we could all be picking up the bill for what will possibly prove to be an unnecessary layer of local government and getting very little, if anything, in return.