Consultation outcome

Cheshire and Warrington devolution consultation response

Updated 17 July 2025

Introduction

The government ran a statutory public consultation on the proposal to establish a Cheshire and Warrington Mayoral Combined Authority which would include the areas of Cheshire West and Chester Council, Cheshire East Council and Warrington Borough Council. The consultation ran for 8 weeks.

The purpose of this consultation was to gather evidence and information on the effects of establishing a Mayoral Combined Authority across this area. The results of this consultation form part of the assessment by the Secretary of State of whether the statutory tests to establish the proposed Cheshire and Warrington Mayoral Combined Authority (CWCA) have been met.

The statutory tests are as follows: 

a) is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all the people who live or work in the area

b) is appropriate having regard to the need

         (i) to secure effective and convenient local government   

         (ii) to reflect the identities and interests of local communities   

c) that a public consultation has been carried out and no further consultation is necessary

Consultation process

The government undertook an 8-week public consultation from 17 February to 13 April 2025 to engage and seek responses from a diverse range of interested parties. This included councils, public sector bodies, parish and town councils, local businesses, voluntary sector groups, and local residents. Consultation responses could be submitted through an online form, or in writing by email or post.

To promote awareness of the consultation, the government undertook a series of engagement and promotional activities, including:

• issuing a press notice at the start and towards the end of the consultation for local and regional media
• a visit by the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution to Elsmere Port on 13 February which included meeting with local leaders
• a social media advertising campaign promoted the consultation on Facebook and Instagram. Across these platforms, a collective 1.65 million impressions and 9,213 video views were reported
• distributing physical assets (2,000 flyers, 200 posters, and 100 hard copy consultation documents)

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ran an in-person event on 26 March in Crewe. Officials from MHCLG attended a further 4 stakeholder run events to provide information on the consultation:

• Cheshire and Warrington Business Board
• Warrington Annual Property Review
• Cheshire Association of Local Councils
• Cheshire West Voluntary Action

The 3 prospective constituent authorities also supported the consultation. They issued 3 media releases using their designated shared website, and utilised various social media sites. The authorities also distributed printed assets provided by the government across council buildings (Town Halls, community centres, libraries, leisure centres etc) and community sector hubs, and held business engagement events.

Number of responses

Overall, the consultation in Cheshire and Warrington resulted in 1663 responses from individuals and organisations including:

• 1,574 from members of the public and 89 from a range of organisations including the prospective constituent and other local councils, businesses, the voluntary and community sectors and academic institutions
• 1,648 of the responses were received via the Citizen Space platform, whilst 15 responses were via email or post

Summary of responses

Opinions were divided across respondents and themes set out in the consultation. While some described the proposal as an opportunity for reform and further regional empowerment, others were concerned about the potential for diminished accountability and deeper inequality.

Respondents in favour of the proposal said that it would provide opportunities to:

• Improve the local economy: Respondents in favour said the proposal could attract further investment into the region and allow for investment decisions to be shaped by local priorities.
• Improve local governance: Respondents in favour said the potential for more decisions to be made locally by people who know the region, enhancing local accountability. Respondents said the potential for more strategic leadership driving economic growth, improving infrastructure or enhancing skills strategy, as well as raising the region’s profile on the national scale.
• Improve public services: Respondents in favour anticipated that the proposal would enable better public transport and connectivity and enhance local public services.
• Promote local identity and collaboration: Respondents said the proposal would build on and further reinforce the existing track record of joint working across the area.

Respondents who disagreed with the proposal expressed:

• Concerns about bureaucracy and costs: Respondents who disagreed raised concerns around additional layers of bureaucracy, with fears that the proposal will add another layer to an already fragile infrastructure.
• Geographical and structural issues: Respondents who disagreed expressed concerns that the area being considered was too big. They expressed concerns that market towns and rural areas could be disadvantaged compared to larger towns and cities.
• Financial and resource concerns: Respondents who disagreed expressed concerns that funding the Combined Authority would increase costs and taxes on local businesses and individuals and, take resources away from other local government institutions.
• Confidence in delivery: Some respondents demonstrated a lack of confidence in the local government sector’s ability to deliver, with these concerns extending to the proposed CWCA, with concerns on its value for money and ability to deliver tangible benefits.

Summaries of responses by questions are at Annex A.

Responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders and organisations, as outlined at Annex B. This included:

Prospective constituent councils

Respondents supported the proposal, citing stronger local control and long-term funding as key benefits. They expected devolution to improve decision-making and transport connectivity while attracting investment, maintaining that an elected mayor was essential for raising the region’s profile and influencing policy nationally. They stressed that success depended on fair governance and clear coordination with existing bodies and that investment needed to be distributed fairly across urban and rural areas.

Town and parish councils

While some respondents acknowledged that greater coordination could support rural investment and improve service delivery, they also expressed some concerns about the potential loss of local voice and the risk of smaller communities being overlooked in favour of larger urban priorities. They emphasised that maintaining local distinctiveness and ensuring genuine local engagement was important.

Academic institutions

Respondents welcomed the prospect of closer collaboration between academia, local government, and businesses. They also stressed the importance of maintaining an evidence-based approach to regional strategy, ensuring that policymaking was guided by robust data, research, and expertise.

Charities and voluntary sector

Respondents said that the proposal could provide opportunities for improved funding streams, stronger partnership working, and better-aligned service delivery. They emphasised that protecting vulnerable communities and improving social outcomes should remain at the centre of any new governance arrangements, as well as protecting the role of smaller charities and localised initiatives.

Business and business groups

Respondents welcomed the potential for better strategic leadership to drive economic growth, improve infrastructure, and enhance skills development across Cheshire and Warrington. Opportunities around transport connectivity, inward investment, and promoting the region’s economic profile nationally were frequently highlighted. However, concerns were raised about the risk of new bureaucratic layers slowing down decision-making and the importance of maintaining agility in responding to business needs. There was widespread agreement that success would depend on focusing sharply on competitiveness, innovation, and ensuring that businesses were treated as central partners in shaping future strategies.

Government response

The government is grateful for the time and effort respondents took to respond to the consultation and provide informative views on the proposal.  

We were pleased to see many of the key benefits of devolution were acknowledged by respondents. Our firm belief remains that devolution across England is fundamental to achieving the change the public expect and deserve, including growth, more joined-up delivery of public services, and politics being done with communities, not to them. Mayoral devolution lets Mayors use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive growth; their standing and soft power to convene local partners to tackle shared problems; and their platform to tackle the obstacles to growth that need a regional approach. Mayors will be expected to drive growth in their areas by adopting Local Growth Plans, supporting businesses to thrive and grow and achieving real strategic economic planning. It means they have skin in the game and are accountable to their citizens.  

Devolution allows for better coordination and more locally-made decisions across transport, skills and employment support, housing and planning, the environment and climate change, business and research support, and better join up of public services. Policies across skills, innovation, and infrastructure are much more effective when used to complement each other. We have already seen the difference that can be made when local leaders and Mayors work together in the interests of the local population. It creates the right mix of local intelligence and capacity with strategic vision. 

We noted the concerns expressed on powers being moved further away from local people and communities, into a new layer of local government. This goes fundamentally counter to our goal for devolution: power transferred away from Westminster and London, and into the hands of local actors which understand the need of local communities best. Devolution means policy can be tailored to local situations, based on a deep understanding of England’s regional economies, giving communities a greater say in decisions that affect them.

The government will continue to encourage prospective constituent councils to engage with a wide variety of stakeholders across the area to ensure the needs of communities are reflected in the CWCA’s decision-making. Alongside actively listening to feedback on governance, we will continue to stress the importance of close engagement with those stakeholders that understand the needs and priorities of local communities, which could include town and parish councils. The CWCA will have responsibility for appointing non-constituent and associate members to provide particular experience and expertise and this could include business voices, charities and academic institutions. Non-constituent members are representatives of an organisation whilst associate members are named individuals who can provide particular experience or expertise.

Additionally, to enable effective working with the public, private and voluntary sectors, we will explore a wide-ranging legal power for Strategic Authorities to deliver in their areas of competence. We will also explore enabling Mayors to promote economic, social, and environmental aims and convene stakeholders with a corresponding duty on public authorities to respond.  

In response to concerns that the creation of the CWCA and the election of a mayor may add further bureaucracy, our intention is to work with local leaders and councillors to bring more recognition and growth to the area, while ensuring the Mayor has strong visibility and a firm democratic mandate to ensure accountability to local people.  

The government continues to firmly believe that a vital element of successful devolution is the ability for local residents to engage with and hold their devolved institutions to account. The current system of accountability and scrutiny is guided by the English Devolution Accountability Framework and Scrutiny Protocol, and the White Paper set out government’s intention to further improve accountability. Our intention remains to continuously improve the accountability system for devolution to ensure leaders and mayors are more accountable to the public for delivering change. 

The government also noted concerns around funding and investment, including costs of the new institution. Through devolved funding local communities are given the power to use their local knowledge to drive progress forward in their area, drive place-based economic regeneration, and increase local control over areas such as transport functions and devolution of Adult Skills Funding. The government is already working with prospective constituent councils on our capacity funding offer to help mitigate concerns around transition costs. We will provide £1 million of mayoral capacity funding for the financial year 2025-26. This funding is intended to help the CWCA to set up and deliver its priorities effectively. We will also confirm the 30-year investment fund the area will receive as a core part of the devolution offer shortly.

Next steps

Subject to the assessment on the statutory tests, the government will continue to work with Cheshire and Warrington to establish the CWCA. If the constituent councils consent, the necessary secondary legislation will be laid in Parliament. If approved by Parliament, the Combined Authority would be established in early 2026, with the first mayoral election to take place in May 2027.

Annex A: Responses by questions

Note: the percentages presented in the tables below are rounded to the nearest whole number. Due to this rounding, they may not sum up to 100%

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree that establishing a Mayoral Combined Authority over the proposed geography will deliver benefits to the area?

Respondents in favour of the proposal said it would create greater regional unity, stronger local autonomy, and better strategic coordination. Many respondents praised the idea of bringing Cheshire together again, after previous reorganisations had divided the county. Organisations said the potential for alignment of existing partnership areas and enhancing coordination across local authority boundaries.

The prospective constituent councils expressed unanimous support while highlighting several key factors essential for success. They said that the area is currently recognised for its integrated geography, characterised by strong economic, transport, and social connections. These councils were strongly of the view that this geography would enhance the region’s national standing and ensures equitable recognition alongside other devolved areas. Some town and parish councils emphasised positive outcomes from successful joint initiatives and said that enhanced collaboration could help build trust within their communities.

Respondents disagreeing with the proposals expressed concerns on the geography being too large, too diverse, or not effectively matched to operate as one region. Many felt their towns or rural communities were ignored under existing structures and were concerned that the problem would worsen. Some organisations also echoed concerns around the geographic diversity of the region leading to reduced accountability for local communities. Some businesses commented on the distinct identities and needs of Cheshire and Warrington and how these could potentially be overlooked in a larger framework. Town and Parish councils who disagreed with the proposal, expressed concerns regarding inadequate resources and support, indicating that these limitations hinder effective local governance.

Table 1: responses to question 1

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	62%	10%	20%	7%	1%
Academic	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Business	64%	4%	28%	0%	4%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Elected Representative	57%	14%	29%	0%	0%
Other	65%	15%	12%	8%	0%
Parish Council	11%	33%	33%	22%	0%
Town Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	67%	0%	20%	13%	0%
Public	32%	6%	60%	0%	2%

Government response

For strategic decisions to drive growth, we need strong institutions at the right scale. The evidence is clear that to drive improved economic outcomes, we must devolve core levers over growth – like transport, skills, employment support and strategic planning – and align these across functional economic areas in which people live and work. Places have distinct economic networks where people and companies interact, which can be much bigger than individual towns or councils.

Aligning economic policies at this scale can help deliver productivity, because specialisms develop over the wider economic area separate to the individual towns or councils within it – such as a sector specialism needing a new research institute, or regional transport network to connect to new homes.

Many public services are also delivered across large areas. Devolution cannot maximise opportunities to bring levers together unless devolved governance covers wider public service footprints too, so services like health and skills can be brought together – meaning residents get more services for their taxes. Where that alignment can be introduced, this will bolster the capacity of the state to deliver. This government firmly believes that directly elected mayors create visible leadership and greater accountability to deliver on the diverse needs of their local residents.

Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed governance arrangements for the Mayoral Combined Authority?

Respondents in favour of the proposal said they appreciated the clarity, direct accountability, and local leadership the CWCA would bring, and liked the model of a directly elected mayor as a single voice to negotiate with central government and to lead regional development efforts. Organisations said the potential for improved collaboration and joint working between the authorities, supporting coherent long-term planning. Many also felt there was potential to enhance the region’s profile, providing a stronger voice into central government. Businesses supportive of the proposal argued that having a mayor would provide a single strategic voice, promote coordination and enhance local accountability.

Prospective constituent councils expressed strong agreement with the governance proposals, particularly pointing to the fact that, alongside the mayor, all of the councils would have equal representation in governance structures to ensure effective and transparent decision-making and maintain balance and accountability.

Respondents disagreeing with the proposals expressed concerns that decisions would be made even further away from residents, and fears of political bias or party dominance. Some organisations expressed concerns that an additional governance layer could duplicate existing structures and create bureaucracy. A number of town and parish councils also shared this concern.

Table 2: responses to question 2

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	52%	16%	24%	7%	2%
Academic	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Business	56%	8%	32%	0%	4%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Elected Representative	57%	14%	29%	0%	0%
Other	50%	23%	19%	8%	0%
Parish Council	11%	22%	33%	22%	11%
Town Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	47%	20%	20%	13%	0%
Public	30%	8%	58%	0%	4%

Government response

Directly elected Mayors creates visible leadership and greater accountability. Mayors have become vital local leaders, delivering on the promise of change in their area to drive growth, more joined-up delivery, and earning trust. Evidence from existing Mayoral areas in England shows that Mayors can use their mandate to change to take the difficult decisions needed, have the standing to convene local partners and tackle shared problems, have a platform for tackling the obstacles to growth that require a regional approach, are accountable to their citizens and represent their area on the national stage. 

The CWCA should work closely with a wide range of stakeholders across Cheshire and Warrington to support the delivery of its work programme. This can be done formally in the CWCA’s governance structure through the appointment of non-constituent and associate members, who provide outside expertise and experience. The appointment of these members will be a matter for the CWCA. Future opportunities for devolution and partnership working would also be explored with the proposed Combined Authority, informed by the local expertise of constituent authorities.

Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined Authority will support the economy of the area?

Respondents in favour of the proposal said the MCA could help unlock investment, attract funding, and enable stronger growth strategies. Some said a combined authority could negotiate better deals with central government and drive projects like transport improvements. Organisations echoed these comments, expressing optimism that coordinated efforts across the geography could attract new investment, improve infrastructure, and enhance economic development. Constituent councils said the proposal could attract growth in key sectors, benefiting both rural and urban areas.

Respondents disagreeing with the proposal expressed concerns that the proposal would struggle to deliver benefits, add costs, or concentrate investment unfairly. Some organisations expressed concerns about the risk of waste due to increased bureaucracy and the potential duplication of existing initiatives. Some businesses had concerns around the existing financial burden, raising worries about financial mismanagement and inefficiency.

Table 3: responses to question 3

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	62%	10%	20%	7%	1%
Academic	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Business	60%	8%	28%	0%	4%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Elected Representative	71%	14%	14%	0%	0%
Other	62%	15%	15%	8%	0%
Parish Council	11%	22%	44%	22%	0%
Town Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	73%	0%	13%	13%	0%
Public	33%	8%	57%	0%	3%

Government response

The government wants to build an economy that works for everyone, and to do this we need a new way of governing. To truly get growth in every corner of the country and put more money into people’s pockets, we must rewire England and end the hoarding in Whitehall by devolving power and money from central government to those that know their area best.  

Mayors will be equipped with a range of new powers and greater control of local funding across planning, infrastructure, transport, skills, business and energy, with strong and effective partnerships in place with councils and other partners to deliver the missions we have set out to transform the country. Alongside this, Mayors will have a statutory duty to produce Local Growth Plans, setting out a long-term vision for growth in their region over the next decade and a roadmap for how this can be achieved.  

The government acknowledges that the CWCA would need funding certainty to be able to plan for the long-term and get maximum impact from their spending. The 30-year investment funds will remain a core part of the devolution offer to the area. The government will also provide support through Mayoral Capacity Funding to help with the costs of establishing the CWCA.   

It will be for the CWCA to decide how to invest across local priorities. Council finances remain separate from the CWCA.

Question 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined Authority will improve social outcomes in the area?

Respondents in favour of the proposal said it could address could lead to greater social inclusion, more equitable investment, and stronger regional support systems. Most organisations supported the proposals, recognising the opportunity to coordinate efforts to address entrenched issues such as health inequalities, skills development, and transport connectivity. Constituent councils said that the proposal would enhance skills development and increase access to employment opportunities, as well as addressing health inequalities and improving social inclusion through integrated planning, improved transport, and affordable housing. Some business argued that the mayor could lead targeted investment in deprived areas and that joined-up services could enhance social care and accessibility.

Respondents disagreeing with the proposal expressed concerns that the proposal would make be ineffective in addressing or worsen inequalities, especially between urban and rural areas. Some organisations also raise that regional coordination alone may not be sufficient to improve outcomes, especially for rural areas. Parish and town councils noted the importance of addressing issues around isolation and poor access in rural areas.

Table 4: responses to question 4

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	48%	21%	20%	7%	3%
Academic	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Business	44%	32%	20%	0%	4%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Elected Representative	57%	29%	14%	0%	0%
Other	50%	23%	15%	8%	4%
Parish Council	11%	11%	56%	22%	0%
Town Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	47%	14%	20%	13%	7%
Public	27%	11%	58%	0%	4%

Government response

Devolution means policy can be tailored to local situations, based on a deep understanding of England’s regional economies. It enables more decisions to be made by those who know their areas best, leading to better outcomes and a more efficient use of resources and giving communities a greater say in decisions that affect them. When policy is made at a national level, even the best intentions can fall short and invite public objection if the communities who should benefit are left powerless in the decision-making process. 

Devolving powers in areas such as transport, skills, employment support and strategic planning, and aligning these across functional economic areas in which people live and work, can deliver social as well as economic benefits by, for example, putting health and wellbeing at the centre of place-based decision making, through the specific duty in relation to health in the devolution white paper, which would ensure that health is and will remain a key priority in the exercise of its functions.

Existing authorities have used their devolved powers and funding to improve social outcomes. For instance, the West Midlands Combined Authority have established a homelessness taskforce, York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority have set up a Vibrant and Sustainable High Streets Fund and Carbon Negative Challenge Fund, and North East Combined Authority (NECA) has specifically designated a member of the leadership Cabinet with a Rural portfolio to ensure equality of attention across all areas of the region. Mayors will also be able to appoint and renumerate commissioners to lead on key functions, giving them more flexibility in how they choose to deliver for their area. They will not be members of the Strategic Authority, and the roles would be expected to reflect areas of competence. 

Question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through a Mayoral Combined Authority will improve local government services in the area?

Respondents in support of the proposal said it would streamline delivery, reduce duplication, and allow more consistent service standards across Cheshire and Warrington. They noted the potential for improved transport services, more joined-up local service delivery and wider public spending efficiencies. Prospective constituent councils noted the proposals would allow more cohesive public service delivery across the area. Some town and parish councils believed that the MCA could help streamline services across different tiers. Businesses noted that the proposal could help further integrate service delivery and spending could better reflect local priorities.

Respondents disagreeing with the proposal expressed concerns around increasing complexity, cost, and reduce responsiveness to community needs. Some respondents were negative about the existing councils’ current service performance. Some organisations also noted there was a risk of added bureaucracy and doubts around leadership capability. Prospective constituent councils noted that additional responsibilities needed adequate funding to ensure effective implementation. Some town and parish councils commented that the Mayoral Precept could potentially add to existing local council tax burdens, and that services might become more centralised.

Table 5: responses to question 5

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	49%	20%	21%	7%	2%
Academic	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Business	40%	36%	20%	0%	4%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Elected Representative	57%	29%	14%	0%	0%
Other	54%	19%	19%	8%	0%
Parish Council	22%	0%	44%	22%	11%
Town Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	47%	13%	27%	13%	0%
Public	26%	10%	61%	0%	3%

Government response

This government is committed to resetting the relationship with local and regional government, empowering local leaders and Mayors to make the right decisions for their communities, and working together to grow an inclusive economy, reform public services and secure better outcomes. In other developed countries that introduced greater devolution, people were more satisfied with public service.

Evidence shows that, under the right conditions, devolution can help solve key challenges with respect to local government services: 

• on growth, devolution to capable local leaders at strategic scales has been linked to higher productivity meaning more money in people’s pockets 
• when it comes to trust in politics, directly elected Mayors are the most recognisable local political figures, and people think more power should come down from national government 
• in other developed countries that introduced greater devolution, people were more satisfied with public services. 

The government will provide support through Mayoral Capacity Funding to help with the costs of establishing the CWCA.

Question 6: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through a Mayoral Combined Authority will improve the local natural environment and overall national environment?

Respondents in favour of the proposal felt that prominent issues like biodiversity, climate resilience, and green space protection need strategic, cross-boundary planning, which the CWCA would help enable. Constituent councils said the proposals could facilitate integrated local energy planning to achieve net zero targets, and that shared responsibility will improve flood, land, and water management. They also saw devolution as highly beneficial for biodiversity and nature recovery, focusing on adapting environmental strategies to balance rural land use and economic needs. Some charities and voluntary organisations said that larger-scale planning could better integrate environmental, transport and land strategies with the potential to expand local natura, sustainability and climate initiatives. Academic institutions saw clear benefits in leveraging devolution to promote environmental education, innovation and place-based sustainability.

Respondents disagreeing with the proposal felt that the MCA could become a talking shop that delays action, and expressed concerns on whether a regional authority would understand or prioritise the needs of rural landscapes and farming communities. Some organisations expressed concerns about the absence of statutory powers, the potential for duplication of efforts, and whether environmental ambitions would receive sufficient prioritisation. Some businesses expressed concerns that economic and housing development may take precedence over environmental protections. There were some academic institutions who questioned whether environmental targets could be met without sustained investment and clear delivery plans.

Table 6: responses to question 6

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	55%	19%	17%	7%	2%
Academic	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Business	44%	28%	24%	0%	4%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Elected Representative	57%	29%	14%	0%	0%
Other	69%	12%	8%	8%	4%
Parish Council	33%	33%	11%	22%	0%
Town Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	40%	13%	33%	13%	0%
Public	23%	16%	55%	0%	6%

Government response

Local, place-based environmental leadership is essential and the CWCA will play a crucial role in preparing for the future and tackling climate change and nature emergencies at the local and regional level. this. Over time, we envisage it would be appointed the Local Nature Recovery Strategies responsible authority.

The government is clear that the proposed CWCA would be crucial partner in achieving our clean power mission and support efforts to protect the natural environment and biodiversity of not only the local area but the whole of England. This includes through joint work with Great British Energy through the Local Power Plan to support the roll out of small-medium renewable energy projects at the local level.  

Future opportunities for devolution and partnership working will also be explored with the proposed CWCA. The CWCA can provide greater local leadership in responding to the impacts of climate change, and how rural communities will be considered in local policy decision making. This could be through the Mayoral Council, or the Council of Nations and Regions, giving CWCA a significant voice in influencing national policy.  

An example of devolution enabling areas to be more proactive on the environment is York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority launching its Net Zero Fund in 2023 and committing £7 million funding to Net Zero Projects across the region. The fund, which came as part of the region’s devolution deal, has enabled organisations to take climate action, from decarbonising building emissions to boosting sequestration activities across the rural areas of the region. Earlier this year, through devolved funding, York and North Yorkshire Mayor, David Skaith announced the £10 million Carbon Negative Challenge Fund, which aims to accelerate York and North Yorkshire’s transformation to become England’s first Carbon Negative Region.

Question 7: To what extent do you agree or disagree that working across the proposed geography through the Mayoral Combined Authority will support the interests and needs of local communities and reflect local identities?

Respondents in favour of the proposal noted that a strong local voice could restore civic pride and strengthen regional identity, including through tourism promotion. Organisations noted the potential for local and regional identities to be promoted nationally through the new CWCA. Prospective constituent councils noted the CWCA could promote local culture, heritage and tourism, while investment in infrastructure could facilitate better connections among diverse communities and places.     

Respondents disagreeing with the proposal noted a risk of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach being adopted. Some organisations also expressed concerns that decision-making may feel more remote and disconnected from community priorities, with parish councils emphasising the importance of valuing historical and cultural ties. Some businesses called for measures to ensure that distinct rural identities are integrated into governance structures.

Table 7: responses to question 7

	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Prefer not to say	Don’t know
Organisations	52%	13%	25%	8%	2%
Academic	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Business	48%	20%	24%	4%	4%
Unitary Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Elected Representative	57%	29%	14%	0%	0%
Other	58%	15%	19%	8%	0%
Parish Council	22%	0%	56%	22%	0%
Town Council	100%	0%	0%	0%	0%
Voluntary and community sector or charity	40%	7%	33%	13%	7%
Public	25%	9%	62%	0%	3%

Government response

A vital element of successful devolution is the ability for local residents to engage with and hold their devolved institutions to account – and local identity plays a key role in this. Local identity is one of the clear criteria for sensible geographies government published in the English Devolution White Paper.

By pushing more power out of Whitehall, this government is undertaking major structural reform to deliver better democratic and economic outcomes for people and places across England. With more power devolved in England, people will see priorities for their area set locally, with policies tailored to needs and circumstances.

As mentioned earlier, identity can be represented in the selection of non-constituent and associate members for the combined authority, that can represent different regions and sectors, alongside scope for the public to hold the Mayor to account, not just via the ballot box, but with the Mayors Question Time.

Annex B: Consultation respondents

Respondents using the Citizen Space response form were asked to self-report on their respondent type.

Public	1,574
Academic	3
Business	25
Unitary Council	3
Elected representative	7
Parish Council	9
Town Council	1
Voluntary and community sector or charity	15
Other	26