This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Combined authorities and combined county authorities article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Wales isn't included in the legislation, so a South Wales authority isn't currently possible. MRSC ( talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave for another to edit/improve (as I don't want to wreck), but should point out:
- Tees Valley CA now exists as of April 1
- the East Anglia and Greater Lincolnshire authorities do not yet exist and should be in the proposed section
Municipalist ( talk) 11:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The map in the existing combined authorities section wrongly shows North Somerset as part of the West of England combined authority. 78.146.219.231 ( talk) 08:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand that somewhere underpinning the combined authorities was European funding, and Brexit will end that, putting the future of the combined authorities in doubt. I admit, however, that I haven't got a clue! DrArsenal ( talk) 22:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Combined authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
What is the difference between West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Leeds City Region. I am confused J mareeswaran ( talk) 05:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
J mareeswaran ( talk) 05:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)The Leeds City Region Leaders Board was legally constituted as a Joint Committee in April 2007. It brings together the elected leaders of the eleven partner authorities to take strategic decisions on behalf of the city region. The Leaders’ Board is made up of the Leaders of each of the 10 district Authorities, as well as North Yorkshire County Council.
The map didn't distinguish these two properly, and implies that there is one single CA covering the whole of the metropolitan County of Tyneside, Northumberland and County Durham.
There needs to be s thick black line running along the River Tyne and continuing asking the Northumberland/Co. Durham border.
L.J.Skinner wot| I did 09:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I have expanded/updated the section on proposed CAs. I've updated some developments of current proposals, and moved the "failed" proposals into a similar table. It is difficult to find references for some of these however, and distinguishing between dormant proposals and "failed" ones can be difficult - One Yorkshire for example has been rejected by the govt, but still has support from some councils. I've left it in the failed table for now but it could be one to keep an eye on. Some of the phrasing may be jumbled so I welcome editing there, and semi-regular edits will be needed to ensure that it remains up to date.-- BryceIII ( talk) 19:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The Local Government Chronicle has published a fairly exhaustive list of proposed deals, and what's happening by county. This will be a vital source in updating the list of proposals, but may be appropriate to change from the current format to a county-by-county list? I suggest doing a single list rather than having a separate "unimplemented proposals" box, but using info already collated-- BryceIII ( talk) 08:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
When the table is sorted, for example by population, the table breaks and all the rows for each Local Authority unravel. The issue is caused by incorrect use of the rowspan parameter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark63424 ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The section should list the three levels of powers that can be offered to combined authorities depending on whether certain criteria are met.
Level three deals require the adoption of a mayor – either as directly-elected leader of a county council, or as chair of a combined authority – but offer the most expansive powers, including the ability to absorb the functions of Local Enterprise Partnerships and – where the geography aligns – of the Police and Crime Commissioner. All six deals announced in 2022 are at level three of the devolution framework. The East Midlands deal will create the first CCA; the York and North Yorkshire and North East deals will create new MCAs; and the Norfolk, Suffolk and Cornwall deals will involve a directly-elected council leader. Level two deals can be concluded with county councils or combined authorities that are not led by a directly-elected mayor. They offer fewer powers – notably not including control of transport spending or a long-term investment fund. Level one deals are far more limited, offering only a limited “strategic role in delivering services”.
No level two or level one deals have yet been concluded.
[1] ChefBear01 ( talk) 14:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
@ User:A.D.Hope I note that you reverted my change to state that only county-councils and unitary authorities may be constituent members of a combined county authority; this is actually supported in the citation of the Local Government Lawyer source, namely:
Constituent councils are those which have been part of the group of county councils/upper tier councils who have made the proposal for a Combined County Authorities to the Secretary of State. Members appointed by constituent councils are voting members of the Combined County Authority. Non-constituent members are individual members of the Combined County Authorities who are nominated as members by a body designated by the Combined County Authorities. Non-constituent members are non-voting unless the voting members resolve otherwise. [...] There are provisions within the LURB through which district and borough councils can be represented on the Board of a Combined County Authorities.
The article does go on to say that DLUC doesn't favour having all districts represented on a CCA board via non-constituent or associate membership, and that it has the power to make regulations to that effect. But such regulations haven't, as far as I'm aware, been made and therefore it would be possible for district councils to be (or rather, designate) members (but not constituent members) of a CCA, if one is created before regulations limiting that option are made.
This is something that should probably be set out further in the body of the article, but I think including the word "constituent" in the lede is appropriate.
Alternatively, we could avoid the word "member(s(hip))" altogether; technically CCs and UAs aren't "members" of a CCA (and local authorities aren't "members" of a CA), they are "constituent councils" who appoint members of the C(C)A. This is also supported by the article quoted above.
Thoughts? M2Ys4U ( talk) 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Combined authorities and combined county authorities article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Wales isn't included in the legislation, so a South Wales authority isn't currently possible. MRSC ( talk) 00:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll leave for another to edit/improve (as I don't want to wreck), but should point out:
- Tees Valley CA now exists as of April 1
- the East Anglia and Greater Lincolnshire authorities do not yet exist and should be in the proposed section
Municipalist ( talk) 11:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The map in the existing combined authorities section wrongly shows North Somerset as part of the West of England combined authority. 78.146.219.231 ( talk) 08:14, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand that somewhere underpinning the combined authorities was European funding, and Brexit will end that, putting the future of the combined authorities in doubt. I admit, however, that I haven't got a clue! DrArsenal ( talk) 22:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Combined authority. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
What is the difference between West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Leeds City Region. I am confused J mareeswaran ( talk) 05:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
J mareeswaran ( talk) 05:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)The Leeds City Region Leaders Board was legally constituted as a Joint Committee in April 2007. It brings together the elected leaders of the eleven partner authorities to take strategic decisions on behalf of the city region. The Leaders’ Board is made up of the Leaders of each of the 10 district Authorities, as well as North Yorkshire County Council.
The map didn't distinguish these two properly, and implies that there is one single CA covering the whole of the metropolitan County of Tyneside, Northumberland and County Durham.
There needs to be s thick black line running along the River Tyne and continuing asking the Northumberland/Co. Durham border.
L.J.Skinner wot| I did 09:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I have expanded/updated the section on proposed CAs. I've updated some developments of current proposals, and moved the "failed" proposals into a similar table. It is difficult to find references for some of these however, and distinguishing between dormant proposals and "failed" ones can be difficult - One Yorkshire for example has been rejected by the govt, but still has support from some councils. I've left it in the failed table for now but it could be one to keep an eye on. Some of the phrasing may be jumbled so I welcome editing there, and semi-regular edits will be needed to ensure that it remains up to date.-- BryceIII ( talk) 19:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The Local Government Chronicle has published a fairly exhaustive list of proposed deals, and what's happening by county. This will be a vital source in updating the list of proposals, but may be appropriate to change from the current format to a county-by-county list? I suggest doing a single list rather than having a separate "unimplemented proposals" box, but using info already collated-- BryceIII ( talk) 08:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
When the table is sorted, for example by population, the table breaks and all the rows for each Local Authority unravel. The issue is caused by incorrect use of the rowspan parameter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark63424 ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The section should list the three levels of powers that can be offered to combined authorities depending on whether certain criteria are met.
Level three deals require the adoption of a mayor – either as directly-elected leader of a county council, or as chair of a combined authority – but offer the most expansive powers, including the ability to absorb the functions of Local Enterprise Partnerships and – where the geography aligns – of the Police and Crime Commissioner. All six deals announced in 2022 are at level three of the devolution framework. The East Midlands deal will create the first CCA; the York and North Yorkshire and North East deals will create new MCAs; and the Norfolk, Suffolk and Cornwall deals will involve a directly-elected council leader. Level two deals can be concluded with county councils or combined authorities that are not led by a directly-elected mayor. They offer fewer powers – notably not including control of transport spending or a long-term investment fund. Level one deals are far more limited, offering only a limited “strategic role in delivering services”.
No level two or level one deals have yet been concluded.
[1] ChefBear01 ( talk) 14:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
@ User:A.D.Hope I note that you reverted my change to state that only county-councils and unitary authorities may be constituent members of a combined county authority; this is actually supported in the citation of the Local Government Lawyer source, namely:
Constituent councils are those which have been part of the group of county councils/upper tier councils who have made the proposal for a Combined County Authorities to the Secretary of State. Members appointed by constituent councils are voting members of the Combined County Authority. Non-constituent members are individual members of the Combined County Authorities who are nominated as members by a body designated by the Combined County Authorities. Non-constituent members are non-voting unless the voting members resolve otherwise. [...] There are provisions within the LURB through which district and borough councils can be represented on the Board of a Combined County Authorities.
The article does go on to say that DLUC doesn't favour having all districts represented on a CCA board via non-constituent or associate membership, and that it has the power to make regulations to that effect. But such regulations haven't, as far as I'm aware, been made and therefore it would be possible for district councils to be (or rather, designate) members (but not constituent members) of a CCA, if one is created before regulations limiting that option are made.
This is something that should probably be set out further in the body of the article, but I think including the word "constituent" in the lede is appropriate.
Alternatively, we could avoid the word "member(s(hip))" altogether; technically CCs and UAs aren't "members" of a CCA (and local authorities aren't "members" of a CA), they are "constituent councils" who appoint members of the C(C)A. This is also supported by the article quoted above.
Thoughts? M2Ys4U ( talk) 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)