Supporting constituent councils within a mayoral combined authority context

I am delighted to introduce this report which offers timely learning for councils navigating the complexities of working within a mayoral combined authority (MCA).

The LGA has taken a peer-led approach to this work: peers understand the current challenges faced by local government and they bring credibility, trust and mutual respect to the improvement process. I would like to thank the peer team, including both council and MCA colleagues, who have led an important piece of work on behalf of the sector. I am also grateful to everyone who supported this project, including those with experience of MCA working that have contributed their time, knowledge and reflections.

The Government’s commitment to expanding devolution and the establishment of strategic authorities across the country means that constituent councils are entering a new era of collaboration and opportunity. This peer report recognises that the success of devolution depends on the strength and adaptability of the constituent councils as well as on the structures and powers of combined authorities. I hope councils will find in this report insights to support better outcomes for their communities, whether they are part of an established MCA or preparing to join a new strategic authority.

The Local Government Association is committed to continuing its work on devolution, including supporting constituent councils and building on its relationships with MCAs and Mayors. This peer report is an important part of this project; it provides both practical learning and highlights the value of shared purpose and collaborative working.

Joanna Killian

Chief Executive, Local Government Association

The landscape of local governance in England is changing rapidly. As mayoral combined authorities (MCAs) continue to evolve and expand, the role of constituent councils within these arrangements becomes increasingly important. The cross-party political and chief executive peers on the team were all intrigued by the opportunity to apply a peer review model to a wider policy and development issue, and feel that this approach could be applied to other issues in due course.

I would like to thank, on behalf of the peer team, all those who contributed their views to this project. Our findings have been informed by the perspectives and insights of more than 70 leaders working in or with the sector. This includes council leaders and chief executives, MCA chief executives, MCA scrutiny chairs, civil servants, sector bodies and national organisations. Their openness and commitment to shared learning have been instrumental in shaping this report.

Both the LGA and peer team are keen to continue this work, including by testing and building upon the findings of this report and the accompanying toolkit. This work is envisaged as the first step in a broader programme to support constituent councils and MCA working. We hope it serves as serves as a foundation for further dialogue and partnership working.

Jonathan Tew

Chief Executive of South Tyneside Council, on behalf of the peer team

In December 2024 the Government set out a strong direction of travel through the publication of the English Devolution White Paper. This includes a drive for the creation of strategic authorities across all of England with a preference for elected mayors. Six areas have now been confirmed in the Devolution Priority Programme and are working towards mayoral elections in May 2026. The White Paper also details new powers for mayoral strategic authorities which will shift the landscape for current and future combined authorities.  

The Government’s focus on devolution is welcome and provides an opportunity to give local areas a stronger voice, a greater presence in decision making, and more control over levers to support growth and our communities. Constituent councils highlighted many benefits from working within an MCA. This includes the collective strength of an MCA to secure additional business investment, the ability to unlock new public funding, and an improved capacity to coordinate policy across a place compared to central government.  

This paper focuses on devolution; however, the White Paper also sets out expectations for local government reorganisation (LGR), which will bring the biggest change to local government structures in 50 years. This wider context of LGR, along with the sustained pressure on councils from increased service demands and reduced budgets, makes it a period of significant change for the sector. While this report does not focus on these wider elements, the learning should be understood in this broader context. Further clarity on the future state of governance is expected from the English Devolution Bill.

The current mayoral combined authority model has been in its current form since 2014, which makes even the earliest MCA just over a decade old. Many publications have considered MCAs and how they operate; however, the specific role of constituent councils within MCA areas is relatively unexplored. This report reflects an initial phase of work which seeks to address the existing gap by considering what is needed for constituent councils to function effectively within an MCA context. It is not possible to understand devolution without the perspective of MCAs and so this project has sought to include the views of MCA chief executives and scrutiny chairs, alongside those of councils.  

This work is focused on constituent councils and therefore did not explore the role of the mayor. However, in interviews, the distinct leadership role of mayors was a consistently important theme. Directly elected mayors have a personal mandate, which supports visible public leadership and the convening power of the role. In addition, mayors have an increasingly national and international influence. The peer team heard about the differences in mayoral approaches and priorities as well as a shared understanding of the distinct benefits of this role, including in terms of access to Government and investors. A key challenge is how constituent councils working alongside MCAs can maximise the benefits. The peer team recognise that consideration of the mayoral role did not sit in the scope of this initial project and that further exploration and wider engagement is needed. It is proposed that the next phase of this work builds on these initial discussions, including to seek the perspective of mayors.  

The findings from this work also illustrate the complex nature of the relationship between MCA organisations and their constituent councils. This includes the inherent tension for councils in needing to balance both local and regional priorities, which often require alignment when operating within an MCA. While each constituent council has decided to pool some of its control to form an MCA – and is represented on the MCA’s Cabinet – it also has a legitimate support and challenge role. In addition, MCAs are themselves democratically led organisations with increasing powers and responsibilities, which intersect with those of councils. Councils and MCAs work towards the same aim – to improve outcomes for residents – however, they are distinct organisations with often different and sometimes overlapping responsibilities, which requires collaboration and compromise. In practice, this sometimes means the brokering of agreements both between councils and between councils and the MCA.

Significantly, the constantly shifting operating environment of councils and MCA organisations means that there are often moments of transition. MCA working needs to navigate changes in local and regional leadership (political and officer), changes in national policy as well as evolving local and regional needs and opportunities. In practice, this requires responding to events effectively, whether that be scheduled elections or unforeseen challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Councils and MCA organisations reflected on the need to develop together to address a changing context and the substantial continued effort that this requires. The initial creation of an MCA is just the beginning of a significant process and working arrangements will continue to develop.

To inform this report, the peer team engaged with a broad range of stakeholders including council leaders and chief executives, MCA chief executives and scrutiny chairs, senior civil servants, sector bodies and national organisations. Peers gained insights from a diverse range of experiences and perspectives. Despite differences of views, there was a very strong underlying message across stakeholders of both the transformative benefits of MCA working and the need for councils and MCA organisations to actively lean-in and work hard to achieve them.  

Purpose and approach of this project

This report aims to provide learning from current constituent councils on how to maximise the benefits of working within an MCA. It is based on findings from interviews with senior leaders working in or with the sector. The core question underpinning this work is: what are the skills, tools, support and resources that constituent councils require to enable them to work effectively within an MCA context?

The learning is aimed at those councils working towards a new mayoral strategic authority as well as organisations within existing MCA areas. The findings of this project are structured around seven themes: relationships and collaboration; narrative and strategic direction; governance and structure, leadership; communications; planned capacity; and place alignment.

This LGA project has been undertaken using a peer-led approach. The peer team includes cross-party councillor representation as well as senior officers from councils and MCAs. The team is grateful to everyone that contributed their time and insights to this project. The findings of this report reflect the views of the peer team. The LGA and peers are keen to continue this work, including by testing and building on the findings of this report.  

Peer-based learning and support is central to the LGA’s sector support offer, which is funded by UK Government and provides a range of tools, resources and development opportunities to support improvement. This includes peer challenge, peer mentoring, graduate schemes, leadership courses and a network of regional teams. The findings of this peer report will also be used to inform the LGA’s programme of support.

Terminology

The term mayoral combined authority (MCA) is used throughout this report and includes mayoral combined county authorities. Combined authority (CA) is used to refer to combined authorities with or without a mayor. In some instances, the term region is used when referring to an MCA area, although it is recognised that this may not reflect all MCA areas. When referring to the future state of combined authorities, including the new institutions to be set up, the term strategic authority is used.

The current system of devolution is asymmetric with parts of England without any devolution agreements and the remaining areas with differing ‘deals’ with government. Individual MCAs therefore have different sets of competencies, although there has typically been a strong focus on economic development, business support, strategic transport, adult education and skills.

The current mayoral combined authorities are:

• Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority
• East Midlands Combined County Authority
• Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority
• Greater Manchester Combined Authority
• Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority
• Liverpool City Region Combined Authority
• North East Combined Authority
• South Yorkshire Combined Authority
• Tees Valley Combined Authority
• The West of England Combined Authority
• West Midlands Combined Authority
• West Yorkshire Combined Authority
• York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority.

A further six areas are on a ‘fast track’ to becoming a mayoral strategic authority through the Devolution Priority Programme (DPP) with the aim to deliver mayoral elections by May 2026.

This report focuses on the experience of mayoral combined authorities but there are also two combined authorities without a mayor: Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority and Lancashire Combined County Authority. In addition, there are a small number of devolution agreements for a single council area, these include: Buckinghamshire; Cornwall; Surrey; and Warwickshire.

The Greater London Authority has an elected mayor and holds devolved powers, but its operating model predates and is very different to that of mayoral combined authorities. There is no formal relationship between the GLA and London boroughs, and therefore London has not been covered within the scope of this report on constituent councils. There is nevertheless learning from London that could be useful for future thinking on the relationship between strategic authorities and councils.  

The English Devolution White Paper sets out plans for all areas across England to have a strategic authority. All existing combined authorities will become strategic authorities. Combined authorities without mayors will be ‘foundational’ strategic authorities (SAs) and existing mayoral combined authorities will be mayoral strategic authorities (MSAs). There is a strong preference for areas to have an elected mayor with other strategic authority arrangements seen as a stepping stone. Mayoral strategic authorities that meet certain criteria will be designated as an ‘established’ MSA, which will unlock further devolution including an integrated financial settlement.  

The English Devolution Bill will detail the functions and powers for different types of strategic authority and support greater standardisation across areas. This will be a markedly different approach to areas needing to negotiate and implement a bespoke devolution deal with government. The White Paper is organised according to seven areas of competence to be exercised by strategic authorities:  

• transport and local infrastructure  
• skills and employment support  
• housing and strategic planning  
• economic development and regeneration  
• environment and climate change  
• health, wellbeing and public service reform  
• public safety.

This future, more standardised, state of devolution will not be fully realised in the short term and there is a significant gap between current arrangements and the longer term vision set out in the White Paper. 

MCA working often has a strong focus on long-term outcomes and some councils noted the challenge of pointing to immediate impacts. It was generally easier to highlight benefits where the MCA oversees visible transport infrastructure, such as buses or trams. Other obvious signs of impact typically related to capital projects including regeneration schemes, housing developments or town centre improvements. Additional key areas of benefit, although significant, are often less immediately visible to communities, including improvements in skills and business support.  

There was a general understanding that every constituent council area would benefit from being part of an MCA but that the specific benefits may differ across councils and occur over different timeframes. This principle supports councils to consider the full range of benefits and take a long-term view. Nevertheless, it remains a challenge for constituent council leaders to manage the practical reality that, for an MCA to work effectively, other councils may receive greater or more obvious benefits at particular points in time.

The direction of national policy will continue to be a key driver of prioritisation and benefit realisation for MCAs. This often requires mayors and leaders to carefully manage different needs and trade-offs. For example, the Government's sponsorship of Single Pot funding arrangements should allow for rapid progress in some policy areas and outcomes, but potentially at the expense of others. Understandably, constituent councils may not fully align with each other, or the MCA, on the prioritisation of funding allocation decisions. More generally, some councils noted that Government is increasingly using MCAs as a convenor for issues where functional responsibilities – such as for building remediation or aspects of homelessness support – sit with councils or other organisations.  

Both councils and MCA organisations often distinguished between an MCA’s areas of functional competence – such as transport and skills – and the priorities of directly elected mayors which can extend beyond formal powers. The directly elected nature of mayors, and their personal mandate, was recognised by many as significant in supporting the visible public leadership and convening power of both the role and MCAs. It also means that the priorities of MCA working, and the focus of collective decision making, can vary significantly across areas to reflect differing local and regional priorities.  

It was also clear to the peer team that the attitude, skills and ambition of local and regional leaders influences the extent to which benefits are realised. Some stakeholders highlighted that partners in their area have missed some of the opportunities afforded by devolution, included by failing to adequately resource their priorities, allowing relationship dynamics to obscure progress or extending interim arrangements. There are also tremendous case-studies of where exceptional progress has been made. These examples of differential impact across areas are perhaps less obvious from the local viewpoint of a resident, however they are more apparent when looking from the national vantage point, such as that held by ministers and senior civil servants.

The following section looks in more detail at the learning and experiences of councils within existing MCA areas, structured around the following seven themes:

• relationships and collaboration
• governance and structure
• narrative and strategic direction
• leadership
• communications
• planned capacity
• place alignment.

Relationships and collaboration are a central element for working effectively within the combined authority landscape and featured heavily in the learning from discussions. The following section considers this in more depth.  

Councils and MCAs have distinct but complementary roles. It was openly acknowledged that eliminating points of contention between a council and an MCA, or between councils within an MCA, is neither desirable nor achievable. An element of tension is in-built into the combined authority model as councils have a responsibility to consider the needs of both their local area and the broader MCA footprint. Senior leaders within councils and MCAs stressed the importance of: creating a shared ambition and narrative to underpin the collaboration; operating with mutual respect (individually and organisationally); and building trust. These factors support effective working across an area and helped to manage differences when they occurred.

Unsurprisingly, the importance of a clear understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of constituent councils and the MCA was identified as essential for effective collaboration. However, it was also acknowledged that organisational boundaries cannot – and should not – always be rigidly defined or consistently maintained, particularly where responsibilities intersect, and joint working is required. Some areas suggested that part of effective collaboration was both a clear understanding of roles but also a recognition that respective boundaries will need to be adjusted and refined as the situation and priorities change.  

While the importance of effective relationships is commonly understood, creating an environment for them to develop and sustain requires significant commitment. It was frequently highlighted that this needed to be prioritised from the outset, with regular meetings as collective peers an important building block. This typically included, for example, the chief executives of the constituent councils and MCA meeting regularly in person alongside corresponding arrangements for political leaders. One MCA area highlighted the benefit of having independently facilitated discussions to help explore and define the nature of the collaboration prior to discussions on policy issues or programmes. Other areas found benefit in formalising or articulating strategic ways of working through documentation such as partnership plans or charters. Significantly, areas that had good working arrangements found time and space to come together to enable private and in person discussions. This supported councils, and MCAs, to maintain positive relationships and a unified public position, including to government, investors and residents.  

There was a clear understanding that relationships needed to be built and modelled at a senior level but also, for them to be truly effective, they needed to be embedded throughout organisations. Some areas highlighted the difficulties encountered when a constituent council service, relevant to MCA working, did not have strong relationships with its equivalents in the other constituent councils or within the MCA organisation, or operated with an ‘us and them’ dynamic. It was typically felt that there was value in council and MCA officer groups – such as for finance, transport, and economic development – meeting collectively and routinely to share information and perspectives. Other approaches to support working relationships across the constituent councils and the MCA, included co-location, mutual visits and some dedicated staffing support for partnership working.  

Party political alignment is a relevant factor than can inform MCA relationships and collaboration. However, many council leaders also reflected that party politics can take a step back when working in an MCA environment and that political alignment, where it exists, does not in itself guarantee positive relationships. It was noted that within an MCA, place characteristics can sometimes play a more significant role than that of political party, with rural areas or urban areas often finding natural alignment. Irrespective of political groupings, it was evident that a significant level of investment was needed from council leaders to build and maintain effective political relationships across the MCA footprint. Council leaders typically highlighted that this commitment needed to be complemented by corresponding work within their council to ensure members are engaged and understand the value of MCA working. This balancing of local and regional relationships was a key area of focus for leading councillors within constituent councils.  

Councils and MCAs highlighted the negative delivery impact of relationship difficulties and the importance of sustaining a strong collaborative approach. In particular, both councils and MCAs identified the importance of effectively managing moments of transition. This included when key individuals (politicians or officers) leave as well as changes to local or national priorities or unexpected events. The peer team heard that there is no room for complacency with MCA partnership working and the situation can change quicky. These transition points often acted as moments of reset and required increased effort to build and maintain relationships and a collaborative culture. Some councils highlighted that they have benefited from a strong shared history of organisational collaboration, including prior to the creation of the MCA, however this may not be the case for some future strategic authority areas. A track-record of joint working can support enduring positive relationships, but it does not guarantee them: fostering effective relationships requires significant and sustained officer and political commitment.

The governance structures of existing MCAs vary significantly, including the voting arrangements for decision making and whether the MCA makes use of lead portfolio holders drawn from the constituent councils. The peer team noted a range of different approaches and did not identify a single best model. Peers heard of the advantages of council representatives (typically the leader or deputy leader) being a portfolio holder within an MCA cabinet, including feeling embedded within the MCA and empowered with direct responsibility for leadership of a priority area or function. Other councils, and MCAs, preferred a non-portfolio model as it encouraged each council to work with the mayor and MCA across all functions and not to be constrained to a particular theme.

For councils within an emerging strategic authority area, there is now a wide range of different approaches to voting arrangements to learn from – with varying uses of veto powers, majority voting and unanimous thresholds across MCAs. However, the current variation of arrangements across MCA areas is likely to reduce significantly for future years as the English Devolution White Paper sets out plans for greater standardisation. This will mean a majority vote, which includes the mayor, will be required to approve decisions for most functions.  

While it is important for constituent councils to consider the local impact of prospective strategic authority governance arrangements, the peer team found that concerns about specific elements, such as voting arrangements, were typically a much greater concern for councils prior to entering an MCA agreement. Councils in longstanding MCA areas found that voting arrangements were, in practice, typically not a point of contention either between councils or between a council and the MCA. This reflects the significant work typically undertaken ahead of, and outside of, formal governance, including in determining collective priority areas of focus, establishing trust and considering the underlying principles for how specific decisions will be made.  

The peer team heard of the importance of a collective willingness (across councils and the MCA) to make governance arrangements work. There was a recognition that councils need to secure tangible local benefits from working in an MCA and that using formal MCA governance solely to assert a council rather than an MCA perspective was likely to be counterproductive. Both councils and MCAs highlighted the importance of informal governance and the ability to have honest, and early, conversations prior to formal processes.

A common theme across councils and MCAs was the importance of transparent criteria and a clear framework for MCA decision making, particularly on how investment funding is allocated. The criteria are best devised at an MCA-level, informed by the local challenges and opportunities, and supported by an evidence base for benefit maximisation. The peer team noted that investment decisions should be informed by a clear account of the regional economy, its strengths and weaknesses, and the interventions that will have the greatest impact. Given MCA working should operate strategically and be evidence-based, it was felt that an allocation to each council on an equal share or per capita basis was often not the best approach to optimise outcomes. Instead, some councils and MCAs reflected that such arrangements can be indicative of a narrow or transactional view of collective working.

Scrutiny is an important part of MCA governance and is primarily undertaken by constituent council members. Peers identified two central observations relating to councillors operating in an MCA scrutiny context that are often not sufficiently recognised. The first is the fundamentally different role for councillors on an MCA scrutiny committee: their purpose is not to focus on their own council’s performance but to consider the larger MCA footprint. It is therefore important that councillors have access to information, in an appropriate form, to understand the issues and support effective scrutiny. The second is the nature of MCA decisions that are often strategic and long-term, sometimes over a 30-year planning horizon. Both factors require a different mindset and skills compared to a more traditional council scrutiny role. These differences may become more marked as MCAs move towards single settlements with greater flexibility to move funding and outputs.

There were also several logistical challenges highlighted for councillors’ participation in MCA structures that may benefit from further exploration. There is a significant time commitment on councillors, particularly where meetings are held across a much larger geographical footprint. Councillor allowances for both scrutiny and other MCA roles vary and, for some, the current level was a barrier to effective participation. In some instances, scrutiny allowances are lower than for other MCA committees with a corresponding perception that this reflected a lack of parity of esteem. It is understood that allowances for MCA work may be an area for greater Government standardisation.  

A key lesson for councils, particularly those entering an MCA arrangement for the first time, is to think through how the council will coordinate its involvement into MCA governance. MCAs are complex, multi-faceted organisations with significant informal and formal governance structures. Some councils highlighted that, without careful coordination, both officers and councillors can miss key discussions or not be sufficiently prepared on MCA decisions. Most commonly, problems occurred when there was no clear structure or expectation for information sharing and council coordination relied upon busy individual officers and councillors to join-up with multiple parts of their council. For example, some councils highlighted the important tacit knowledge held by councillors undertaking MCA scrutiny and audit duties that is often not captured by the council.

Councils used a number of methods to support a more coordinated approach, including a dedicated group to oversee the council’s strategic MCA engagement or a lead officer to support information sharing and coordination.  The peer team also noted a range of council practice in terms of sharing the outcomes from MCA governance: from straightforward circulation of MCA decision notices to those councils that ensured there was more tailored information for councillors and officers that highlighted the specific local implications.

A key lesson from the interviews is the importance of a clear understanding of what each council wants to achieve from its participation within an MCA. Council clarity on its own strategic objectives helps to shape the development of a shared regional agenda and support MCA decision-making and trade-offs. The peer team noted the importance of councils not thinking about MCA participation primarily in transactional terms, such as grant funding directly secured from the MCA. There was a strong consensus – across councils and MCAs – that such an approach reduces the value and remit of MCA working and constrains an MCA’s ability to secure wider benefits.

The peer team noted that an MCA area works effectively when it has a common vision and seeks to be more than the sum of its constituent parts. Effective working relies upon an acknowledgement of mutual interdependence between councils and the MCA. This should be informed by a collective and evidence-based understanding of the local and regional economy. The peer team heard of the value of an independent and externally credible economic assessment for the council and MCA area. It was frequently reflected to the peer team that a zero-sum approach – where one council’s success is seen as another’s failure – can undermine the MCA and limit its ability to operate effectively at a regional and national level.  

The peer team heard that there was often a pattern of twin agreements or deals to establish an MCA: the agreement councils collectively signed up to with government and a, sometimes informal, agreement with each other. For an MCA to be effective, there needs to be both a ‘give’ and ‘take’ approach. This sometimes means a council securing funding for a local project, but it also requires actively supporting others within the region and recognising the sometimes less visible benefits from improved regional outcomes. It also means that there may be times when it is not possible to secure local funding to achieve these wider regional outcomes. While recognising both councils and MCAs require early wins to demonstrate progress, a priority on local short-term benefits was cited as a cause of difficulty. MCA outcomes are often long-term, and councils will, by necessity, benefit in different ways and over different timescales. The importance of a clear framework and common understanding of strategic direction – based on evidence – was emphasised. At a practical level, some councils highlighted the value of an MCA forward plan which helps to provide a shared understanding of local and regional benefits and when they will be realised. It was also acknowledged that the original agreements, made when establishing the MCA, may need to be revisited as new leaders join the arrangements or at other transition points. 

It was noted that organisations securing a devolution agreement for the first time will not have the benefit of the previously voluntary deal making process, which encouraged focused discussions within and across constituent councils on the purpose and shape of the devolution agreement. The more standardised devolution approach increases the importance of councils proactively prioritising work across their area to consider the common strategic direction and priorities of participation prior to a strategic authority’s creation. This should be shaped by data, including an understanding of the local and regional economy. Some councils highlighted the previous deal-making process with government included a strong focus on economic assessments.

At a practical level, many councils felt that they benefited from articulating their contribution to MCA working and outcomes whether this was though a published strategy or an internal plan. It provides an opportunity for a council to set out, in a coherent and data-led way, the council’s assets, opportunities and key asks. This work has also helped to ensure that councils are taking a disciplined approach, and a one-council view, in setting a narrative and priorities for MCA participation.  

Alongside a clear narrative and strategic direction, both councils and MCAs highlighted the benefits of a council being pragmatic and delivery ready. This would typically include a solid and an independently produced evidence base for investment and clear pipelines of deliverable projects. Some councils highlighted that they did not secure some of the benefits that could have been achieved in an MCA’s early years as they did not orientate their organisation to make the most of the MCA’s structures.

Strong leadership from both councillors and officers was consistently identified as a key factor underpinning effective working within an MCA. Councils highlighted that leadership was needed to develop strategic relationships, operate successfully on a regional footprint, and foster a culture of MCA collaboration within their own organisations. Significantly, the peer team noted the differential impact leadership has made – both positively and negatively – in maximising the benefits from MCA arrangements.

The value of collaborative and convening leadership styles was emphasised. Council chief executives and leaders articulated the importance, as well as the challenge, of providing MCA leadership alongside a demanding council role. In practice, this meant at times using a council leadership role to advocate for a wider regional perspective or supporting a collaborative option which sees another constituent council receive more obvious direct benefits. The risks involved in this were well understood across the board, particularly for council leaders. Significant effort is needed to articulate the benefits of a thriving MCA in achieving outcomes that would otherwise not be achieved with a sole council focus.

A key reflection from councils working within an MCA was the importance of both political and officer leaders ensuring they bring their organisation with them, so the value of MCA working is recognised and is seen to be a core part of council business. A number of council leaders, for example, reported the importance of establishing dedicated time with cabinet colleagues, their political group and all councillors to discuss the role and benefits of MCA participation and specific initiatives. Similarly, council chief executives highlighted the importance of officers across the organisation understanding both the value of MCA working and the collaborative leadership and commitment required to make it operate effectively.  

System and place leadership skills are an important component of constituent council working. The peer team noted that councils leading effectively in an MCA environment understood the underlying challenges across the region and recognised the interconnections, beyond their council area, across the MCA. This includes acknowledging the respective leadership strengths of the constituent councils and MCA. It was also highlighted that a wide range of councillors and officers need to demonstrate system and place leadership skills, not just the leader and chief executive. Some councils highlighted the need for further development support in this respect.

The distinct leadership role of regional mayors was an important theme from the interviews. Directly elected mayors have a personal mandate, which supports visible public leadership and the convening power of the role. Mayors are also benefiting from increasing national and international influence. The peer team heard of differences in mayoral approaches and priorities and of a shared understanding of the distinct benefits of this leadership role, including in terms of access to government and investors. A key challenge is how constituent councils working alongside MCAs can maximise the benefits. Some of the political leadership and management differences between mayors and council leaders were also highlighted. This included that leaders are elected from, and have responsibilities to, a political group on the council.  The peer team recognise that further political engagement is needed and it is proposed that the next phase of this work builds on these initial discussions, including to engage and seek the perspective of mayors.

A final theme from discussions on leadership was the value of focusing on place over party politics in maximising the benefits for an area. Both councils and MCAs are politically led organisations and this will of course shape their vision, priorities and approaches. Peers heard of the relative strength of those councils and MCA areas that prioritised evidence-based place decisions and recognised that they are competing nationally and internationally as well as working within a region. It was also noted that government and investors are often aware of the outcomes achieved through collaborative and cross-party leadership within MCAs.

The peer team found that strong internal communications to officers and councillors on the role and benefits of the MCA was important in improving awareness, particularly amongst those not directly involved in MCA arrangements. This work – while requiring some communications resources – was seen as valuable in supporting overall buy-in to working in an MCA. Practical examples of this for councillors included using full council seminar sessions on key programmes, monthly written briefings after each MCA Cabinet and standing items on councillor group meetings. Councils also noted positively where the MCA seeks to reach out to engage councillors directly, including through information sessions, councillor briefings and as part of council scrutiny meetings.

Public communications was an issue with a range of views across councils and MCAs. The long-term nature of many MCA initiatives often contributed to low public visibility of MCA working, particularly in the early years. It was acknowledged that public understanding of respective council and MCA responsibilities was generally low, although high-profile public transport infrastructure – including buses and trams – was often perceived to be the responsibility of the mayor or MCA. It was also typically felt that communicating the respective roles on MCA initiatives was not a priority, such as a distinction between an MCA’s commissioning role and a council’s delivery focus.  

More generally, many councils felt that they could do more to communicate the importance and successes of MCA working. One difference across councils’ communications activity was the extent to which information was specifically tailored to the local implications of the MCA’s work. Councils and MCAs with more developed communications approaches also emphasised the importance of shared communications priorities to help ensure work was complimentary rather than duplicative. This was supported by clear agreements on how the organisations will collaborate on communications, including coordinated planning. For example, having an agreed approach and effective information sharing was seen as particularly important for regional and local events, especially those involving politicians. The peer team noted instances where the MCA was unaware of a relevant council-led communications event and vice versa.

The peer team noted an increasing focus on community engagement. This included, for example, MCA areas considering how best to have conversations with communities on inclusive growth and exploring new open forums to support accountability. Some interviews highlighted that community engagement within the MCA context was an area for further development. A key challenge was making engagement approaches relatable, particularly when focused on long-term strategy issues rather than visible service changes. The peer team thought this was an area to explore further, including sharing practices that connect councils’ community infrastructure with MCAs’ strategic remit.

Council capacity is an important element to consider when operating in an MCA context. It was highlighted to the peer team that MCA working typically requires different and additional resources and skills.

The level of officer capacity required to engage with an MCA organisation is significant, and some councils acknowledged that they did not adequately plan for the time or resources needed. Other councils highlighted that an initial upfront investment to engage with the MCA put them at a relative advantage and so they were more able to get the most out of the arrangement from the beginning, including local benefits. Councils managed the capacity requirement in different ways such as: expectations on existing staff time to be spent on MCA activity; one-off consultancy support; and additional investment in council policy and growth functions. Leaders and chief executives reported spending a significant proportion of their time on MCA working, this was often at least one day per week.

Both councils and MCAs acknowledged the difficulties of dedicated additional resourcing for MCA work at a time of severe financial challenge for councils. In some areas, the growth of MCA organisations at a time of council contraction was noted as a source of unease. Shared workforce challenges across both councils and MCAs were also recognised, including a general shortage of capacity in key areas such as planning, regeneration and skills. Some councils highlighted the risk of MCAs exacerbating workforce challenges with staff leaving to work on a larger footprint and the benefit of wider regional, or even national, workforce planning was emphasised.

The peer team noted examples of councils and MCAs working effectively together to make best use of capacity. This includes, for example, work on child poverty where the MCA’s data, evidence and convening capacity is complemented by the council’s delivery capability to address this complex challenge. In another area, the MCA is working with the constituent councils to create a leadership academy to provide a common induction for staff with a strong focus on system leadership and how to affect more complex transformations. Other examples of coordinated approaches to address capacity challenges included the use of secondments (from councils to MCAs and vice versa), MCAs building functional capacity to be deployed across council areas, and joint working on key projects.  

Council leaders highlighted the need to manage the capacity challenges facing councillors when working in an MCA context. The level of time spent by council leaders, and other executive councillors, on MCA business was significant but varied. This was partly shaped by the needs of the council as well as the MCA governance model, including whether there are councillor portfolio holders on the MCA’s Cabinet. Council leaders used a range of approaches to manage capacity challenges, such as to identity a cabinet member to lead on overall MCA coordination or delegating more council responsibilities to a deputy leader. Most significantly, council leaders highlighted the political skills required to manage the duality of their role with a need to manage both local and MCA priorities, which may be in contention.  

Council leaders also highlighted the benefits of additional support to councillors operating in an MCA environment. This assistance ranged from help navigating the governance and legal requirements of an MCA organisation, to support with working on a larger footprint and engaging in non-council functions. There is a potential role for both the constituent council and MCA in providing this support, particularly given the interdependence between council and MCA business, and a need for all councillors to have a good understanding of how the MCA operates. The peer team noted different practice in terms of councillor support and development for MCA working. While recognising important local and regional differences in governance, there is potential for further assistance and greater sharing of good practice in this area.

An issue raised by some councils was the specific challenge of supporting a new MCA to establish sufficient delivery capacity to support a mayor from election. It was reflected that time between the Combined Authority Order and mayoral election could be quite limited, which often had a practical implication on constraining the staffing establishment of the MCA. In instances where the MCA was developed from a predecessor organisation – such as a Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) or Transport Authority (TA) – this often directly shaped the available skills and capacity of the MCA. This capacity challenge was often addressed by using interim staff, which provided immediate assistance, but areas reflected that moving to permanent staffing appointments sooner rather than later typically better supported delivery.

It was suggested that greater government clarity on the critical path for the creation of each combined authority would be beneficial, including the timescale of the Statutory Instrument.

It was also highlighted that some councils may wish to consider the benefits of taking some action at risk ahead of the relevant Combined Authority Order, while recognising that the elected mayor will want to lead on overall structure and key appointments. In the new process for strategic authority set up, these issues will need to be considered carefully, particularly as areas forming a strategic authority may not be building from predecessor LEP or TA arrangements.

‘Place’ is a fluid concept for MCA working, with the scale and geography of authorities varying considerably. Although typically based on functional economic areas, some MCAs have also effectively created new regions with established identifies to differing degrees. Councils reflected that many MCAs to date have been based around city region geographies, including a single core city. Core cities are often considered to have a particularly significant role within an MCA given their scale in terms of population and investment flows, and their historically closer working relationships with government. There were also views, amongst some councils, that there had been disproportionate focus on core cities. There is a delicate balance to be struck between harnessing the global brands and scale of the core cities and building on the full range of economic strengths and opportunities in the wider MCA area. As a result, there have sometimes been tensions between councils, including when agreeing on MCA investment priorities and funding allocations. The peer team also identified some similar competing perspectives between urban and more rural councils, which often crossed party political lines.

Peers also considered how the economic footprint of MCA areas vary, with some councils facing into two or more functional economic areas, which can create challenges. Housing and labour markets can also differ within an MCA, which can also further alter the place footprint. The need to be able to operate at different spatial geographies was a challenge for both councils and MCAs. With new strategic authorities likely to cover more disparate geographies, including more rural and polycentric areas, learning how to operate effectively both within and across MCA footprints is likely to be more important.  

The dynamic across different types of council areas within an MCA is one the peer team would like to explore further. There is potential learning from existing city regions and more recent MCAs, including those that have not been designed primarily around a functional economical geography, shared identity or pre-existing organisation. This will be particularly important as the new strategic authorities are developed and agreed.  

The Devolution White Paper confirms the intention for strategic authorities to be based primarily on economic and transport grounds but with their functions extended to public service reform (PSR), including giving mayors responsibility for police and fire services (which is already the case for some MCAs) and a new duty to tackle health inequalities.

There was recognition amongst some councils of the potential benefits of an MCA-convened approach to PSR. This includes a facilitating role in bringing councils together as well as a single voice to government that could support discussions with relevant departments. The peer team noted examples where this was part of collective working with shared political and officer leadership. Councils also reflected that there were other times when they collaborated without the involvement of the MCA. This was typically in instances where it was not clear how the MCA could add additional value or to ensure that there was no distraction from a core MCA focus on growth. More broadly, the peer team also noted some mixed sentiments about MCA involvement in the PSR agenda, including a concern that, in some circumstances, it would mean giving council powers and funding to MCAs, without clear evidence that this would lead to better outcomes.

These discussions on public sector reform reflected a range of considerations, including:

• differing views about the spatial level at which reform and integration of services can be best achieved
• the current level of local and regional alignment or coterminosity with other public service footprints, for example with health
• the historic level or track-record of regional working on public service reform – both between councils and with the MCA  
• local and regional capacity and appetite to focus on public service reform over other competing priorities.

The peer team felt there was benefit in exploring public sector reform and its implications further. This includes considering where the scale of MCAs may support ambitious reform and help mitigate risks while building on the unique reach and expertise that councils have. 

The following case studies are from across mayoral combined authorities and constituent councils that were the focus of this project. They highlight the work and outcomes that are achievable through operating within a mayoral combined authority area.

The peer team engaged with areas that varied in many respects but all councils recognised the value MCA working can bring. There was a strong consensus that what can be achieved collectively within an MCA is greater than the sum of its parts. While all current constituent councils have come together voluntarily, prior to any mandate, there was a clear message that working together across an MCA footprint is a positive way to improve outcomes for communities.

It was also acknowledged that MCA working is neither easy nor straightforward. There are inherent tensions for councils participating within an MCA. It also requires significant capacity and commitment to support the required relationships, develop a clear narrative, and make governance arrangements work. Strong local leadership is needed to ensure each council is maximising the benefits of MCA working and communicating its benefits.  

This project aims to identify key learning from constituent councils, which reflects the realities and complexities of working within a combined authority environment. This report, and the accompanying toolkit, is envisaged as a first step in a more comprehensive programme of activity. It is also recognised that this work will need to be done collaboratively with both councils and combined authorities, including actively engaging with mayors.

This peer project has identified valuable insights on how the LGA can build on its current engagement and working relationships with MCAs, which will be explored further. In addition, proposed next steps include working with the sector to develop further and co-design the LGA’s support offer for combined authority working. There is also interest in exploring issues highlighted – but not addressed fully – in this report. This includes examining the common experiences of different types of councils within an MCA environment, as well as sub-regional working and connections across MCA areas. These ‘place’ issues will become more important as new strategic authorities are created at speed. New mayoral strategic authorities areas are likely to cover more rural areas and different economic footprints than previously. Public sector reform is also key area of focus for councils, MCAs and central government and there is value is working together to consider the learning so far.  

This project aims to provide initial learning for constituent councils. A key theme of this report is the importance of managing ongoing change within a mayoral combined authority context. As the number of mayoral strategic authorities increases, and their powers extend, it is important that the sector continues to reflect and build upon effective working arrangements.

This toolkit is designed for both constituent councils within an existing combined authority and those seeking to establish a strategic authority. It can be used by councils to:

• review their current status
• undertake a gap analysis
• assist in setting a future state.

The key learning points from this peer project have been developed into prompt questions for councils to consider.