A proposed new single council for Warwickshire is to continue pushing for its own devolution package rather than link up with a bigger strategic authority. 

That was the big takeout from a meeting held at Shire Hall on Thursday in which Warwickshire County Council leader Cllr Izzi Seccombe distanced herself from wider or new alliances. 

Responding to government plans to streamline local government and increase devolved powers in England and Wales, Cllr Seccombe made the political decision earlier this month to request Warwickshire be part of the first wave of reorganisation. It would lead to the abolition of all six current county, district and borough councils to form one new unitary authority to deliver all services.

Briefings suggest the new Labour government wants all areas that are not covered by unitaries to convert by April 2028 – it is anticipated those in the first tranche will be fully operational in April 2027. 

It has sparked a wide debate but another key element is how devolved powers – government decisions that get passed to local leaders – will be handled.

Warwickshire has been granted a lighter devolution deal in the past year but generally, the preference is through strategic authorities, usually bigger bodies like the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA), that bring together councils to work on things like transport, bigger infrastructure and regional housing plans. 

The assumption in many quarters was that the new Warwickshire council would unlock more central funds and power by becoming a full member of the WMCA – all six current councils are non-constituent members without voting rights – a formalisation that appeared to be scotched by West Midlands mayor Richard Parker (Lab) when interviewed by the BBC.

That has led to questions over where Warwickshire would fit, and whether a new entity could come together with neighbouring or nearby councils at this time of change for many of them .

The government's executive summary of its devolution white paper details two types of strategic authority, one of which does not involve having a directly-elected mayor, but adds: "The government's strong preference is for partnerships that bring more than one local authority together over a large geography. 

"In exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State will have the power to designate an individual local authority as a foundation strategic authority (non-mayoral) only. Our ambition remains for all parts of England to ultimately have a mayoral (and eventually established mayoral) strategic authority."

Members of Warwick District Council have been presented with a range of potential realistic options for strategic authorities, some of which would involve two unitary authorities for Warwickshire – Warwick and Stratford districts being covered by a council in the south with North Warwickshire, Nuneaton & Bedworth and Rugby boroughs coming together in the north.

Cllr Seccombe faced a number of questions on this matter and explained her rationale for sticking with a county-wide plan and a less formal relationship with the WMCA.

Conservative colleague Cllr Andrew Day, formerly the leader of Warwick District Council, sought answers on whether there had been any guidance on what the bigger strategic authorities should look like, "or is it a bit like musical chairs where the last authority could be left standing on their own?". 

He asked: "Is that really the game we are playing?"

Cllr Seccombe said: "It is very clear they want to use functioning economic geography and I think that has to be the guiding light that all of us need to take forward in our considerations.

"They do also mention health geography. I have always said in discussions with you and anyone else that we are absolutely bound together on this footprint that we have – Coventry and Warwickshire. 

"Despite the demise of LEPs (local enterprise partnerships), we always saw the value of what we have worked up together, so we continue with growth hub which delivers continued support to our businesses. 

"The government has not indicated any blueprint to my knowledge, or indeed my chief exec's. My view is that I would like to be hands on the tiller on that – all of us, not my hands alone – so that we can make sure we get a model for Warwickshire.

"As things move forward, they might define something that is simpler or easier that is perhaps not exactly what we want."

Responding to a query from district councillor Hema Yellapragada, Cllr Seccombe later confirmed "there is not any discussion at this point" about full membership of the WMCA.

"I am currently looking at a model of a strategic, unitary, non-mayoral authority," she clarified. 

"I believe we have a relationship with the West Midlands Combined Authority that is fundamentally of benefit to all six councils and that, I think, should continue. 

"I go back to the principle of functioning economic geography with Coventry, functioning health geography with Coventry. There are certain areas that bind us into the WMCA, particularly this (Warwick district) council as well, around the gigafactory and all that is emerging through that.

"If we looked at another model, which you have before you in your possible recommendations, I think you need to consider what impact that might have on that particular relationship. 

"I pose back a question. Would that mean you still remain a non-constituent member of the WMCA and yet you look at forging ahead on a different devolution footprint?

"That is potentially not impossible but it does have its own challenges, it means you are looking in two different directions and that could compromise the position of the council. 

"I think there are areas that would need a lot of work before getting to that point. In our opinion, the county council's opinion, the model of business we have now works well. 

"Of the six councils engaged with the WMCA, certainly this one has financial interest in remaining with the WMCA and I know there are others benefiting, so there is risk to the continuing funds with those. They need detailing before we get further."