Wessex Devolution - Is This the Right Model for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole?
When BCP Council introduced Town Councils, residents were told they would bring decision making closer to local communities. The Conservative Group opposed those proposals because we believed they would create another layer of local government, increase bureaucracy and place additional costs on residents. Our position was straightforward, good local government should be accountable, efficient and avoid unnecessary layers wherever possible.
Today, the Liberal Democrat led administration is supporting a Wessex Combined Authority, bringing together Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire under a directly elected Mayor with responsibility for a range of strategic issues, including transport, economic development, investment and skills. Residents are entitled to ask one simple question.
If Town Councils were introduced to bring decision making closer to local communities, how does sharing responsibility for strategic decisions within a regional authority covering such a large and diverse area achieve the same objective?
That question lies at the heart of this debate.
Understanding the Proposal
The proposed Wessex Combined Authority would not replace BCP Council. Local services such as waste collection, planning, social care and many day to day council responsibilities would remain with BCP. However, responsibility for a range of strategic issues would sit with the Combined Authority and a directly elected Mayor.
This is one of the most significant changes to local government in our area for decades. Before decisions of this scale are taken, residents deserve to understand exactly what is being proposed and what it could mean for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole.
One Region – Very Different Communities
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole is one of the South West's largest urban areas and one of the UK's leading coastal destinations. Our economy, transport network and public services support millions of visitors every year. We face unique opportunities and challenges around transport, housing, regeneration, community safety and managing an internationally recognised coastline.
Many other parts of the proposed Combined Authority are predominantly rural. Their priorities are equally important, but they are different. A regional Mayor and Combined Authority will inevitably have to balance those differing priorities.
Residents are therefore entitled to ask whether BCP's distinctive urban and coastal needs will always receive the attention they deserve, and whether our voice will be sufficiently strong within a much larger regional partnership.
Was Wessex the Best Strategic Fit?
There is another important question that deserves careful consideration. Was Wessex really the most natural strategic partnership for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole?
BCP has long established economic, transport and employment links with the Solent area. As major coastal urban centres, Bournemouth, Southampton and Portsmouth share many of the same opportunities and challenges, including tourism, higher education, skills, transport connectivity, regeneration, inward investment and supporting a modern service based economy.
Strategic partnerships are often strongest when they reflect how people actually live, work and do business. Many residents commute eastwards, businesses trade across the Solent economy and key transport corridors already connect BCP with Hampshire. It is therefore entirely reasonable to ask whether the Solent option offered a stronger strategic fit for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and whether residents were given a clear explanation of why Wessex was ultimately preferred.
Residents are not simply being asked to accept a new governance structure, they are being asked to accept that this is the right governance structure. Decisions of this significance should be supported by clear evidence demonstrating why this option was chosen over the alternatives.
Investment Should Follow Need
Supporters of devolution rightly point to the prospect of significant Government investment. Everyone wants better transport, stronger infrastructure and greater economic opportunity. However, funding should follow need not constitutional reform. If Government believes our communities require greater investment, that investment should be made because those needs exist, not because councils agree to adopt a particular model of governance.
Residents should never feel that essential investment is dependent upon accepting constitutional change.
What Will This Cost?
Alongside the potential benefits, residents deserve clarity about the costs. Questions remain about the cost of establishing and operating the Combined Authority, the size and cost of the Mayor's office, whether additional senior officers and administrative support will be required, whether a future mayoral precept could be introduced, as happens in some other mayoral combined authorities, how many representatives BCP will have around the Combined Authority table and whether those arrangements will provide a strong enough voice for more than 400,000 residents.
Good governance should also provide value for money. Residents deserve to know whether these proposals will genuinely simplify decision making or create additional layers of governance and administration.
Accountability Matters
Good government is not measured by how many organisations it creates. It is measured by whether residents know who makes decisions, who they can challenge and who they can ultimately remove through the ballot box. That principle has guided the Conservative Group's position throughout.
When Town Councils were proposed, we questioned whether another layer of local government would improve accountability. We ask exactly the same question today.
Will these proposals make it easier or harder for residents to understand who is responsible when decisions affecting BCP are made? Before powers are transferred, residents deserve a clear explanation of which responsibilities will move to the Combined Authority, how BCP's interests will be protected and how local communities will continue to influence decisions affecting their area. Once governance arrangements of this scale are established, they are unlikely to be easily reversed. That is why getting this decision right matters.
The Debate We Should Be Having
This debate should not simply be about the size of a funding package. Nor should it become a debate about being "for" or "against" devolution. The real question is whether this particular model strengthens local democracy, improves accountability and gives Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole the strong local voice it deserves.
This is not simply a political decision. It is a constitutional change that could shape how our area is governed for decades to come.
Before those decisions are made, residents deserve clear information, open debate and confidence that the chosen model genuinely strengthens local democracy, protects BCP's interests and delivers better outcomes for the communities we all serve. That is why the Conservative Group believes these proposals deserve careful scrutiny and why we believe residents should be at the centre of this important debate.
Written by Jo Keeling, Deputy Chair - Political
