Council infighting 'puts Oxfordshire devolution bid at risk'

Council leaders originally hoped to submit devolution proposals to the Government next month but recent infighting may now have scuppered this plan.

The proposals drawn up by the six biggest councils would have asked for major new powers and funding for housing, further education and transport projects including Oxford Rail Station's redevelopment or a scheme to make the A40 a dual carriageway east of Witney.

This would have been controlled by an elected mayor and combined authority, in a model based on a successful bid by Cambridge and Peterborough – worth £800m.

But it has been eclipsed by the row about Oxfordshire County Council's calls for a new 'super council', with other authorities accusing it of trying to "kill off" the devolution bid.

On the 'One Oxfordshire' website explaining its proposal for a county-wide, unitary authority – which would replace existing councils – the county council claimed devolution was "dead".

It added: "Devolution will not deliver infrastructure investment, only unitary will."

A spokeswoman yesterday insisted the county council was "happy" to work on a devolution bid, but added: "The real question is whether central government continues to have the appetite for such devolution proposals, which have fallen apart across the country.

"Government remains keen to see the One Oxfordshire proposals. That’s why we say a unitary council with a substantial investment fund is the most likely way to meet the county’s infrastructure needs."

But the comments were described as "sabotage" by Oxford City Council leader Bob Price, who claimed they made "a self-serving argument".

Mr Price told The Oxford Mail: "It is only two weeks since county council leader Ian Hudspeth and the district council leaders confirmed our agreement to work quickly to produce a devolution proposal for submission to government in early March.

"Now the county council is claiming 'devolution is dead'.

"While Cambridge is forging ahead with a billion-pound deal, the county council has turned its back on the opportunity to secure investment for the housing and transport needs in Oxfordshire.

"Devolution would have been the quickest way to get funding but this just demonstrates, yet again, a picture of a county that is not able to work together.

"They have sabotaged it."

James Mills, leader of West Oxfordshire District Council, said claims the Government had abandoned its devolution agenda were "clearly untrue".

He added: "It is wrong to conflate the issue of a unitary council with devolution. Devolution is about new powers and money, local government reorganisation is about reducing overheads.

"Oxfordshire was in a good position to submit a devolution bid to the Government. For the county council to say it does not want to progress the work done and kill it off at this stage is very disappointing."

It was revealed last week that Mr Hudspeth and Vale of White Horse District Council leader Matthew Barber, a supporter of the super council plan, both suggested delaying work on a devolution bid until the Government's position was "clear" in leaked email exchanges.

But the Department for Communities and Local Government yesterday rejected claims it was no longer interested in devolution, pointing to six mayoral elections in May as "evidence of this".

A spokesman added: "The Government recognises the enthusiasm for devolution in Oxfordshire, and it’s only right there is discussion and debate about the best way forward.

"However, ministers are clear that where significant powers are transferred they must be accompanied by strong governance, clear accountability and wide local support."

The county council – supported by Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire district councils – says £20m a year could be saved by replacing Oxfordshire's six biggest councils with a single authority.

It also claims such an organisation could set up a new £1bn 'infrastructure fund', paid for by borrowing, property sales and possibly bond schemes.