Devolution and the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority Consultation Report

19 August 2016

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 Consultation approach ...... 2 The consultation survey ...... 2 Consultation methods ...... 2 Ensuring accessibility for all ...... 3 Communicating the consultation ...... 3 Bristol City Council Activities ...... 4 Bath & North East Somerset Council Activities ...... 5 South Gloucestershire Council Activities ...... 6 Media Coverage ...... 6 Description of respondents ...... 7 Responses by Ward ...... 7 Responses by interest ...... 11 Demographics of respondents ...... 12 Results – General views on the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority ...... 14 Responses from residents, business and other sectors ...... 15 Responses by Equalities Groups ...... 15 Views on Transport proposals ...... 24 Views on Housing proposals ...... 29 Views on proposals on adult education, skills and employment ...... 33 Responses received by email ...... 39 Additional comments ...... 40

Annex A – Consultation Survey …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………41

Annex B – Example of leaflet ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………49

Annex C – Summary of media coverage……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………53

Executive Summary

The consultation on the scheme for the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority was open over a six week period between 4th July and 15th August 2016.

2,011 individual residents, businesses, voluntary and community organisations and other stakeholders participated in a survey. 14 organisations and individuals provided a response by email.

471 responses were received from Bath and North East Somerset, 685 from Bristol and 531 from South Gloucestershire. A further 66 responses were from 13 other local authority areas and the remaining 258 had missing or incomplete postcodes.

The majority of respondents (55%) expressed support for the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) and proposals on decision making, place, people and business, although a minority expressed disagreement with proposals.

There were differences in views in the different council areas. Bath and North East Somerset had similar numbers of respondents agreeing (44%) and disagreeing (45%) with the proposed MCA, South Gloucestershire had more respondents agree (50%) than disagree (37%), and Bristol had 70% of respondents in agreement (with only 20% disagreeing).

There were also clear differences in views with age, with younger respondents more likely to be in favour of proposals compared to older people.

47% of respondents agreed that a mayor would provide increased accountability and transparency for decisions affecting the region, 38% disagreed and 14% were unsure.

There was more support for transport and housing proposals compared to adult education and business proposals, although the shift in views was due to respondents being unsure rather than disagreeing with business and adult education proposals.

This document sets out the approach taken to the consultation, including details of activities undertaken to ensure that as many people as possible had the opportunity to participate. A summary of the responses gives demographic information about the respondents and then provides both quantitative and qualitative analysis of the responses. This has been organised to reflect the survey structure and covers decision making, transport, housing, adult education, skills & employment and business. There is also a section focused on more general comments.

Consultation approach

The purpose of this consultation was to seek views from the public on the establishment of a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) as a means of exercising devolved powers from Government, in comparison with current arrangements.

The aim was to do this in a way that emphasised inclusion and sought responses from as wide and diverse an audience as possible – using plain English to aid communication with all.

A consultation proposal was developed and submitted to B&NES, Bristol and South Gloucestershire Councils for consideration and was approved by all three councils on 29 June 2016.

The public, including residents, businesses, voluntary and community organisations, and other stakeholders, were then invited to participate in a consultation which was open over a six week period between 4 July and midnight on 15 August 2016.

A survey was used as the primary tool for collecting views on the governance scheme, the results of which make up the majority of this report (page seven onwards).

The consultation survey

The survey was designed to both inform individuals about proposals for the West of England MCA, as well as gain individuals’ views on proposals. It was divided into four sections:

• Decision Making • Place (Transport & Housing) • People (Adult Education & Skills) • Business

Each section provided some ‘plain English’ information about proposals in that topic area, followed by one or more statements and an opportunity to agree or disagree and provide comments (see Annex A for a copy of the survey).

In addition to questions about specific proposals, a question was included to ascertain people’s general views on the proposed MCA.

Demographic and equalities information was collected, as well as type of respondent e.g. whether they were a resident, business, elected member, housing association, voluntary and community sector or education sector. IP address information was also collected to monitor multiple responses from the same device.

The survey was hosted on SmartSurvey: http://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/WofEdevolution/ and this link could then be embedded in a range of other online channels.

Consultation methods

The survey was primarily made available online at www.westofenglanddevolution.co.uk (with a supporting audio version) as well as hard copies shared in public libraries, citizen service points, one stop shops and

2 other local hubs. This website also provided plain English information about the proposals, including copies of the Scheme and Strategic Governance Review documents.

Links were also made available from each of the council websites, as well as their consultation platforms, the Bristol Consultation Hub (https://bristol.citizenspace.com/), the South Gloucestershire website (www.southglos.gov.uk/consultation) and the B&NES website (www.bathnes.gov.uk/WofEDevo).

A consultation email address ([email protected]) was publicised alongside the survey and was used by several organisations and individuals to provide comments for inclusion in the consultation.

Ensuring accessibility for all

From the outset, there was a commitment by all councils to use clear, plain English language throughout the consultation process to aid understanding by all.

The survey was made available in paper and audio versions, plus all publicity materials included a telephone number for individuals to request alternative formats, such as large print, braille or other languages.

Over 3,000 paper copies of the survey were made available in libraries, One Stop Shops and Citizen Service Points across the three councils, along with hard copies of the Scheme and Review documents. A further 800 paper surveys were made available at drop in events.

117 completed paper copies of the survey were received.

Plain English leaflets containing a summary of proposals were also developed and distributed via libraries, events and email. Materials were provided to local councillors for use when talking to residents about the consultation.

In addition, over 100 equalities and community organisations were emailed to advise them of the opportunity to take part, and to request they share information about the survey with their members.

Finally, it is worth noting that the proposed scheme itself specifies that the Mayor and the Combined Authority would be subject to the Public Sector Equalities Duty, created under the Equalities Act 2010.

Communicating the consultation

Whilst the three councils largely took a joined-up approach to communicating the consultation, there were some activities that were carried out locally to reflect individual requirements or communication with local networks / groups.

Shared activity to promote the consultation included the following:

• Joint microsite launched at www.westofenglanddevolution.co.uk including a dedicated twitter feed @WofEDevo • Posters and a plain English leaflet developed, for use in all areas. An example is included as Annex B. • Joint press release to launch the consultation on 4 July 2016, plus additional local news updates during the six week period. 3

• Joint social media plan developed, which also launched on 4 July 2016 and ran throughout the six week period via both @WofEDevo, plus each council’s own Twitter feed. • Internal communications delivered within each council, including staff newsletters / e-bulletins, contacting staff-led groups to advise them of the consultation.

Public events were held at the following locations:

• The Guildhall, Bath - Tuesday 19 July 4.00-6.00pm • The Community Space, Keynsham - Monday 25 July 7.00-9.00pm • Chew Valley School, Chew Magna - Monday 8 August 6.00-8.00pm • The Somer Centre, Midsomer Norton - Tuesday 9 August 6.00-8.00pm • Bath City Centre - Saturday 13 August 11.00am-4.00pm • Whitchurch Village Hall - Weds 10 August 7.00-8.00pm

These events consisted of a short information session, followed by an opportunity for questions. Approximately 140 people attended these events where we made paper copies of the survey available – along with supporting information.

Drop-in sessions were held at the following Bristol libraries:

• Bristol Central Library - Tuesday 2 August 3.30-5pm; • Bristol Central Library – Tuesday 9 August 5.45-6.45pm; • Junction 3 Library, Easton - Wednesday 3 August 3.30-4.30pm; • Henbury Library – Monday 8 August 11.00am-12.00pm; • Filwood Library – Monday 8 August 1.30-2.30pm; • Fishponds Library – Tuesday 9 August 10.00-11.00am.

We used these drop-in sessions as an opportunity for informal discussion about devolution, to encourage people to complete the survey, and to hand out information about the consultation to other library users.

The consultation was also promoted at regional events including:

• VOSCUR - Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Sector Briefing on the Devolution Deal – 3rd August 2016. This was attended by Cllr Holland (Bristol) and the Leaders of B&NES and South Gloucestershire Councils, supported by officers. • Business West - breakfast seminar on Devolution for business members – 22nd July 2016. This was attended by the Mayor of Bristol and Leaders of B&NES and South Gloucestershire Councils, supported by officers. • LEP Construction Sector - Sector Member briefing on the Devolution Deal and Consultation – 9th August 2016

Bristol City Council Activities Specific activity at Bristol City Council included the following:

• Survey link added to Bristol Consultation Finder https://bristol.citizenspace.com/bristol-city-council/a-west- of-england-mayoral-combined-authority • Website homepage feature for one week and homepage button link from second week of consultation • Article in Bristol’s ‘Our City citizen newsletter – linked through to Q&A online newsroom with 155 unique visitors recorded http://news.bristol.gov.uk/spotlight-on-devolution---have-your-say/ 4

• Survey link added to all internal and external email signatures • Email contact with more than 100 equalities and community groups, sharing survey link. These groups are primarily those that receive grant funding from BCC, but also include community groups such as the Black South West Network, Babbossa and Building the Bridge Muslim Partnership Advisory Group. • Email to Bristol City Council staff-led groups to promote the consultation. The Rainbow Group arranged for a special bulletin from LGBT Forum to its members (reaching a wider LGBT community than just BCC staff) and the BME group sent details to its membership internally. • Email and phone contact with Neighbourhood Partnership Co-ordinators who were able to cascade information to their local groups, reaching up to several thousand voices in the community. • Email contact with the members of the Bristol City Council Citizens Panel. • Contact with the Bristol Youth Council to invite them to participate. • Email update to more than 3,000 registered businesses, via business rate team. • News item included in ‘Items of Interest’ the bulletin on the BCC Economic Development team which is sent to around 300 people and an estimated 2,300 people when taking into account those people who forward the bulletin on to their contacts

Bath & North East Somerset Council Activities Specific activity at Bath & North East Somerset Council included:

• A B&NES specific WofE Devolution leaflet was produced and distributed to One Stop Shops, libraries, and key community locations across B&NES • A series of pull up banners placed in One Stop Shops to promote the consultation and provide a space to complete hard copies of the survey • Online through the Council website (homepage carousel and devolution webpage), Leaders Blog and social media (including Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and a YouTube video promoting the consultation) • E-connect newsletters (distributed to around 9,000 local residents) • Emails to local networks and groups to promote the consultation (including Interagency Networks, Area Forums, Public Services Board, B&NES Council Top 100 managers) • Internally through Chief Executive’s blog to staff, email to Top 100 staff and Staff Matters e-newsletter to promote the consultation and staff events across the Council • Responded to media queries, including the Leader’s “hot seat” interview on BBC Radio Bristol, and made a particular effort to promote the dates of the consultation • Public Notice in Chew Valley Gazette to promote meetings

Councillor Warren, Leader of Bath & North East Somerset Council, attended the following events to discuss devolution and raise awareness of the consultation:

• Avon Local Councils Association (ALCA), Tuesday 19th July, 7.30pm • Keynsham Town Council, Tuesday 19th July, 8.30pm • Westmoreland Residents' Meeting, Monday 1st August, 7.00pm • Midsomer Norton Chamber of Commerce Q&A , Thursday 4th August, 7.00-9.00pm • Whitchurch Parish Council, Wednesday 10th August, 7.00-8.00pm

South Gloucestershire Council Activities Specific activity at South Gloucestershire Council included the following:

• Article in residents’ newsletter South Gloucestershire newsroom: http://sites.southglos.gov.uk/newsroom/business-and-economy/devolution-deal-for-the-west-of-england- have-your-say • South Gloucestershire Partnership – briefing and engagement session on the Devolution Deal, 5th July 2016. • Email contact with multiple Equality and Community Networks and Partnerships including CVS, The Care Forum, Over 50s Forum, LGBT Bristol, South Glos Equalities Forum and South Glos Disability Action Group. • The survey was distributed through the council’s own Survey Group ‘Viewpoint’ to around 1,000 individuals across South Gloucestershire. • From a business perspective, the consultation was promoted on the insouthglos.co.uk business website three times (20th May, 12th July and 26th July). It was circulated twice to 2,000 businesses on our opt-in email SG bulletin. It has also been promoted several times to around 200 business leaders who subscribe to a weekly news mailshot.

Media Coverage The media was one of the primary channels for promoting this consultation to the general public during the six week period. Coverage has been secured in the following channels, some on multiple occasions. ‘Opportunities to see’ are estimated to be in excess of 2.9m across the three council areas. A fuller summary of media coverage is included at Annex C.

Bristol Post Bristol 247 BBC Radio Bristol BBC Points West Sam FM Breeze Made in Bristol (shared across South Gloucestershire) BCFM Ujima Radio Bristol Business News Bath Business News Rife Magazine The Week In The Voice series The Gazette series Bradley Stoke Journal Bath Chronicle Somerset Guardian Midsomer Norton and Radstock Journal

Partner channels included VOSCUR, Business West, The Care Forum and Parish & Town Council Newsletters

Description of respondents

In total 2,011 responses were received. 87% of respondents gave a full or partial postcode to enable matching to local authority area. The remaining 13% are categorised as ‘missing postcode’.

Number of % of responses % of total Population population Bath and North East Somerset 471 23% 184,874 0.25% Bristol, City of 685 34% 449,328 0.15% South Gloucestershire 531 26% 274,661 0.19%

North Somerset 33 2% Wiltshire 15 1% Other LAs 18 1% Missing postcode 258 13% Total responses 2,011

Table 1: Responses by local authority based on postcode given. Other LAs include Cardiff, Forest of Dean, Lewisham, Mendip, Monmouthshire, Newport, Sedgemoor, Stroud, Swindon and Winchester. Population estimates source: ONS 2015 Mid-Year Population Estimates.

Figure 1: Number of responses from each West of England council

Responses by Ward

Responses were received from residents living across all wards in the three council areas, as can be seen in the response by ward maps. The maps do not include the 258 respondents with missing or incomplete postcodes.

Responses by interest

Responses were received from individuals with different interests, including 215 responses from business, 128 from the voluntary and community sector (VCS), 52 elected members, 30 from trade unions, 27 education providers and 15 from housing associations. 112 individuals completed ‘other’, these included local authority employees, Parish and Town Councillors, individuals working in the area and retired individuals.

Figure 2: Number of respondents from business, the voluntary and community sector, education, housing and other sectors, shown as percentage of total responses

Demographics of respondents

Respondents included all ages, although there were very few respondents under the age of 25 or over the age of 75. Responses from males and from individuals aged 45 to 65 are disproportionately high compared to the general population for those groups in the West of England region. The proportion of respondents from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, disabled people and females are low compared to their respective population groups.

Estimate of total % of ‘West of residents in ‘West England’ Number of % of of England’ residents respondents respondents Age Under 18 178,093 21% 3 0.1% 18-24 103,723 12% 46 2% 25-44 248,033 29% 469 23% 45-64 205,070 24% 838 42% 65-74 67,693 8% 391 19% 75+ 64,405 7% 121 6% Prefer not to say - - 143 7%

Gender Female 437,450 50% 696 35% Male 429,567 50% 1127 56% Prefer not to say - - 129 9%

Ethnicity White British 733,683 85% 1622 81% Other White 35,048 4% 79 4% Mixed / Dual heritage 22,003 3% 18 1% Black / Black British 34,672 4% 18 1% Asian / Asian British 29,278 3% 16 1% Other ethnic group 5,425 1% 8 0.4% Prefer not to say - - 250 12%

Disability Yes 140,963 16% 157 8% No 726,084 84% 1589 79% Prefer not to say - - 265 13%

Table 2: Estimates of the West of England population by age, gender, ethnicity and disability and number of respondents for comparison Population estimates source: 2011 Census Office for National Statistics © Crown Copyright 2013 [from Nomis] Disability estimates are based on 2011 census responses ‘Day to day activities limited a lot’ / ‘Day to day activities limited a little’ ‘West of England’ residents are estimated by combining estimates from South Gloucestershire, Bath and North East Somerset and the City of Bristol council areas.

Figure 3: Number and percentage of respondents by age, gender, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation

Results – General views on the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority

The majority of respondents agreed that ‘on balance’ the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) would benefit the region. However, there were differences of opinion in different council areas, with 70% of respondents in Bristol in agreement with the proposal, 50% in South Gloucestershire and 44% in Bath and North East Somerset.

% % Don’t % Don't Agree Agree Disagree Disagree know know Missing Total Bath and North East Somerset 208 44% 214 45% 31 7% 18 471 Bristol, City of 481 70% 139 20% 52 8% 13 685 South Gloucestershire 265 50% 198 37% 60 11% 8 531

North Somerset 23 70% 7 21% 3 9% - 33 Wiltshire 11 73% 3 20% 1 7% - 15 Other LAs 10 56% 5 28% 3 17% - 18 Missing postcodes 111 43% 108 42% 26 10% 13 258 Grand Total 1,109 55% 674 34% 176 9% 52 2,011 Table 3: Responses by local authority area to the question ‘On balance - do you believe that a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit the West of England Region?’

Figure 4: Responses to the question ‘On balance - do you believe that a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit the West of England Region?’ The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 52 respondents did not answer this question

Responses from residents, business and other sectors

The majority of respondents from businesses, VCS, elected members, trade unions and education providers ‘on balance’ agreed with the proposed Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA), whereas only 47% of the 15 respondents from housing associations agreed. Individuals from business were more in favour compared to other sectors, with 73% agreeing that a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit the West of England Region.

Figure 5: Responses to the question ‘On balance - do you believe that a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit the West of England Region?’ The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number in that category of respondent. CVS=Community and Voluntary Sector. 9 respondents from these sectors did not answer the question.

Responses by Equalities Groups

Age Younger respondents were more likely to agree with the proposals compared with older respondents, although in all categories more people agreed than disagreed. Those individuals who did not provide their age were more likely to disagree.

Figure 6: Responses by age to the question ‘On balance - do you believe that a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit the West of England Region?’ The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 52 respondents did not answer this question.

Gender There was little difference in the proportions of men and women agreeing and disagreeing with the proposed MCA. Again, those who did not provide their gender were more likely to disagree.

Figure 7: Responses by gender to the question ‘On balance - do you believe that a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit the West of England Region?’ The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 52 respondents did not answer this question.

Ethnicity

The majority of respondents in each ethnicity category agreed with the proposed MCA, with the exception of the 8 respondents within the ‘any other ethnic group’ category, of which 5 disagreed. As with other personal information, those respondents who did not provide information on ethnicity were more likely to disagree.

Figure 8: Responses by ethnicity to the question ‘On balance - do you believe that a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit the West of England Region?’ The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 52 respondents did not answer this question

Disability

157 respondents described themselves as disabled. This group had mixed views about the proposed MCA and were less likely to agree compared to those without a disability, although more agreed than disagreed.

Figure 9: Responses by ethnicity to the question ‘On balance - do you believe that a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit the West of England Region?’ The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 52 respondents did not answer this question.

Views on Decision Making proposals

Respondents from Bath and North East Somerset again show different views to those in Bristol and South Gloucestershire. Respondents in Bristol were more frequently supportive of proposals compared to Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire to some extent. In all areas, there was less support for the mayoral aspect of the Combined Authority, particularly in Bath and North East Somerset. Analysis of respondents’ comments in the next section provides further insights into the reasons for responses.

Q1.1 A West of England Mayor would provide increased accountability and transparency for decisions affecting the region.

Figure 10: Responses by local authority area to Q1.1. The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 14 respondents did not answer this question.

Q1.2. The West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would strengthen the ways the West of England councils work together

Figure 11: Responses by local authority area to Q1.2. The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 21 respondents did not answer this question.

Q1.3. The West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would improve strategic decision making, leading to more economic growth.

Figure 12: Responses by local authority area to Q1.3. The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 25 respondents did not answer this question.

Comments on decision making

764 respondents provided comments on Decision Making proposals, 39% were ‘on balance’ in support of the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA), 48% disagreed and 9% responded ‘don’t know’. A further 4% who provided comments did not answer the question. The most common comments about decision making included objections about having a mayor, the additional cost and bureaucracy of another layer of government and the impact of this on decision making, and comments about it being good for the region. 49 respondents also voiced concern that North Somerset was not included and the impact of this on regional strategy and collaboration. See Table 2 for the frequency of different categories of comments.

Comments coded as ‘waste of money’ and concerns about an ‘additional layer of government’ tended to go hand in hand and were expressed from all council areas.

Another tier of expensive bureaucracy that would not improve current collaboration

One hundred and three respondents from across all areas explicitly expressed that they did not want a mayor, particularly in the light of the recent vote Bath & North East Somerset have had with a majority voting against a mayor. 28% of those who commented that they did not want a mayor, were on balance in support of the MCA, 61% were not in support and 5% were unsure. Suggestions about mayoral arrangements commonly included having a Chair instead of a Mayor.

Bath has already voted against having its own mayor, and we don’t want one imposed on us thank you very much

By adding another totally unnecessary post we would not be improving decision making and if chairmanship is required then this could rotate through the 3 authorities in a similar fashion to EU chairmanship. 20

Other common negative comments about the structure of the MCA for decision making came from all council areas and Bath and North East Somerset in particular. The MCA was described as undemocratic, often because it was too removed from local voice and placed power in the hands of a few people.

Power and decision making will become more distant from people and reduce the democratic processes of this country

There is an in-built democratic deficit here as the role of the non-elected LEP within or next to the proposed CA is not defined or open to change. I want more transparency and more accountability.

Bath and North South Other LAs East Glouceste / missing Total Somerset Bristol rshire postcodes A dditional layer of government / waste of money 211 64 66 50 31 No mayor 103 48 25 15 15 Concern about decision making 62 10 22 24 6 Concern Bristol centred / concern about rural areas 49 23 5 9 12 Needs North Somerset 49 3 16 18 12 Good for region 48 9 26 7 6 Concern return to Avon 43 10 10 16 7 Good for regional planning 40 5 14 16 5 Lack of information / questions 40 6 12 12 10 Undemocratic process 35 19 6 6 4 Suggestions - mayor 30 14 10 2 4 Different needs in different areas 29 16 7 3 3 MCA undemocratic 29 16 6 4 3 Already working 27 15 2 7 3 Concern too much power with one or few 26 11 5 7 3 Good for regional strategy 21 4 10 2 5 Good for decision making 19 3 6 8 2 Bath already voted 18 17 1 Consultation process 15 1 10 2 2 Scepticism about motives of central government 13 6 4 2 1 Suggestions - accountability 12 7 3 2 Good for collaboration 11 2 6 1 2 Good for transport delivery 11 7 1 3 Concern about costs 10 6 4 Concern promises will not materialise 10 3 4 3 0 Concern too removed from local voice 10 6 3 1 Suggestions - devolution 10 5 2 3 Table 3: Codes with 10 or more respondents commenting on Decision Making

Alongside these comments were concerns about decision making being Bristol centred with the needs of Bristol potentially given more weight than those in other areas, and that rural areas would suffer as a result.

I am concerned that as happened under Avon, Bristol would dominate the area at the sacrifice of B&NES and South Gloucestershire.

Those in support of the proposal commonly expressed that it would be good for the region in terms of improving regional strategy for transport and housing and increasing regional power in a national and international context.

I believe it will be particularly beneficial to support good decision making on housing and transport, the two most critical issues for the area. It is disappointing that North Somerset have excluded themselves, and this will cause problems, but I still support the proposal for the remaining three.

About time we had a formal structure to take decisions across a more strategic areas

We need to challenge the Northern powerhouse and London centric conversation to provide a west alternative.

Several respondents also felt that the proposals for devolution do not go far enough, with some respondents suggesting changes to the structure of the MCA and powers given to the mayor and others suggesting an alternative approach to devolution.

A Mayor is no substitute for proper devolution, including revenue raising. Take Central Government's CONTROL out of the equation. The top down approach should be reversed. - England poorly served compared with Scotland and Wales.

Power of casting vote of W of England Mayor needs to be STRONGER

Business and VCS 78 respondents from business and 57 from the voluntary and community sector commented on proposals for Decision Making (see Table 4). Views were as diverse as they were for respondents as a whole with some expressing support and others concern about an additional layer of government, a mayor and the impact of changes at this time.

Any plan that would bring more money to the combined West of England area has to be a good thing. We always seem to miss out to Manchester and other areas North of England. - A west of England Mayor would have a greater voice to champion the West Country area.

This time of political upheaval is not the time to make changes like this. There is too much uncertainty about the outcome and impacts of Brexit. Masterly inactivity is the wise approach at this time.

It adds an additional layer of bureaucracy and complexity and is being imposed without the public having given their prior consent.

Comments from Business (78) Comments from VCS (57) Additional layer of government / 14 Additional layer of government / 13 waste of money waste of money No mayor 11 No mayor 8 Good for region 8 Concern about decision making 5 Suggestions - mayor 7 Needs North Somerset 5 Good for regional planning 6 Table 4: Codes with 5 or more respondents from Business and the Voluntary Community Sector commenting on Decision Making

Views on Transport proposals

There was a similar pattern of responses across the council areas for questions on transport as with other questions, with the majority of respondents from Bath and North East Somerset disagreeing with statements about transport, but overall the majority of respondents agreeing the Mayoral Combined Authority would bring road and rail benefits to the region. Of the four statements on transport, there was most agreement that the MCA would enable longer term planning and allow for ambitious schemes.

Q3.1. It would enable longer-term planning and allow for more ambitious schemes with a greater impact through guaranteed funding each year.

Figure 13: Responses by local authority area to Q3.1. The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 25 respondents did not answer this question.

Q3.2. It would support the introduction of smart and integrated ticketing.

Figure 14: Responses by local authority area to Q3.2. The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 32 respondents did not answer this question.

Q3.3. It would integrate public road and rail transport across the region making it easier to access employment.

Figure 15: Responses by local authority area to Q3.2. The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 28 respondents did not answer this question.

Q3.4. It would integrate public road and rail transport across the region to speed up and reduce the environmental impact of longer journeys.

Figure 16: Responses by local authority area to Q3.4. The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 31 respondents did not answer this question.

Comments on transport

640 respondents made comments on transport proposals, 43% of these were ‘on balance’ in support of the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA), 45% were against and 9% were unsure. The most common comments included suggestions the proposals could be achieved without the MCA, lack of confidence in government structures to deliver, suggestions that it would assist the delivery of transport improvements, requests for further information about the details of proposals, concern about how it would work without North Somerset and concern for rural areas (see Table 5). The frequent requests for further information tie in with the relatively high number of ‘don’t know’ responses for all questions on transport and particularly for the question on smart and integrated ticketing.

Two types of commonly occurring comments were made against the MCA - those suggesting that the proposals were achievable without the MCA and those that were scepticism that the MCA will make a difference. The former includes respondents who suggested that the transport proposals are possible to achieve and the latter includes those who are not hopeful that change can be achieved. A number of respondents also expressed a lack of confidence that transport and decision making would improve based on previous experiences.

Smart ticketing doesn't need a mayor! Transport problems are complex and could be approached without devolution.

Pie in the sky! - This cannot be currently achieved in Bristol or Bath let alone the whole region. 26

Concerns about North Somerset were raised in relation to transport, often citing the location of Bristol Airport in North Somerset.

The Airport and links to it are an unfortunate glaring omission. The Combined Authority must work closely with North Somerset to build on the success of the airport.

Bath and South Other LAs / North East Bristol, City Gloucesters missing Total Somerset of hire postcodes Achievable without MCA 90 34 18 20 18 Lack of confidence 55 5 18 24 8 Good for transport delivery 51 9 23 11 8 Lack of information / questions 46 15 16 11 4 Good for regional strategy 45 6 18 13 8 Scepticism MCA will make a difference 39 11 12 10 6 Needs North Somerset 36 7 17 3 9 Concern Bristol centred / concern about rural areas 26 16 1 7 2 Suggestions - rail 25 6 10 4 5 Concern about decision making 21 4 7 7 3 Suggestions - buses 21 6 6 5 4 Additional layer of government / waste of money 19 6 3 6 4 Hope for change 18 5 6 5 2 More powers needed 17 3 9 3 2 Overdue 16 6 7 1 2 Prefer national responsibility 13 5 3 4 1 Suggestions - public transport 13 3 7 2 1 Depends who is in charge 11 3 5 2 1 Suggestions - roads 11 6 3 1 1 Already working 10 2 3 3 2 Good for collaboration 10 - 4 5 1 Suggestions - cycling 10 4 6 - 0 Good for integrated / public transport 9 - 6 2 1 Consultation process 8 3 4 - 1 No influence over private companies 8 3 4 1 0 Concern return to Avon 6 1 2 2 1 No mayor 6 3 - 3 Good for region 5 1 - 3 1 Suggestions - consultation 5 1 1 2 1 Suggestions - environment 5 3 2 - -

Table 5: Codes with 5 or more respondents for comments on Transport

Concerns about emphasis being placed on Bristol rather than Bath and rural areas were again commonly raised by respondents from Bath and North East Somerset.

This proposal would allow for the large urban areas and infrastructure to improve i.e. Bristol and the M4/M5 however the rest would suffer due to lack of funding

Many respondents were supportive in their comments, with 51 expressing that the MCA would be good for delivering transport improvements and 16 commenting that transport proposals are overdue. Transport and housing were important issues for many respondents and several expressed their hope for improvements in transport and many had their own suggestions for improvements.

This is long overdue. Integrated public transport in the West of England is way behind other cities and other EU destinations too. It is not ambitious and just struggles to keep up with the basics. It needs to revolutionise, think outside the box and be a leader. I believe a combined authority can help deliver this.

Introducing an integrated ticketing system for buses should be high on the list of priorities. I need to use 3 different bus companies to get to & from work - First Bus, Wessex and now Severnside!! Therefore I cannot get a day rider like most people and my travel expenses will therefore be so much higher than anyone else in Bristol. How is that fair?

Business and Voluntary and Community Sector

There was a mix of comments from business and VCS, mirroring respondents as a whole (see Table 6).

Transport needs tackling at a regional level, not local. Traffic issues don't stop at the boundaries of the city. Joined up working on transport across authorities is a very good thing

I fail to see why the Combined Authority would be any better able to achieve these aims than the existing authorities, especially as it would seem these are aims already put forward...

Comments from Business (69 respondents) Comments from VCS (53 respondents) Good for regional strategy 8 Achievable without MCA 8 Achievable without MCA 7 good for transport delivery 7 Lack of information / questions 6 good for regional strategy 6 Lack of confidence 4 lack of information / questions 5 Needs North Somerset 4 suggestions - public transport 4 Table 6: Codes with 4 or more respondents from business and VCS commenting on Transport

Views on Housing proposals

Overall there was support for the Mayoral Combined Authority’s role in the delivery of housing, but again there were differences across councils with 48% respondents from Bath and North East Somerset disagreeing with the statement on housing (see figure 17). A number of respondents did not know whether the MCA would improve planning processes, particularly in South Gloucestershire and Bristol.

Q5.1. It would improve planning processes and decisions so that the right houses are built in the right places.

Figure 17: Responses by local authority area to Q5.1. 21 respondents did not answer this question.

Comments on housing

590 respondents made comments on housing proposals. Of those who made comments, 40% were ‘on balance’ in support of a MCA, 46% disagreed and 11% were unsure. Most frequent comments were expressions of concern for greenbelt areas and the spread of housing from Bristol into rural areas. Another frequent comment, more often from Bath and North East Somerset, were suggestions that planning decisions should remain local.

Local council and communities know better what is needed and required far better than someone sat in an office outside the local authority.

The green areas separating Bristol and Bath are a prime development targets for Bristol to facilitate economic growth at the expense of Bath

Most definitely NOT. What is required in Bath will not be the same as in South Gloucestershire and most definitely not the same as in Bristol. How can a combined process work with such varied areas. Deprived areas will not get the help they need, already too many of these areas are not being looked after so how can one person who does not know the areas change that? To help deprived areas you need local people to help as only local people really know what is needed.

Total Bath and Bristol, South Other LAs

North East City of Glouceste / missing Somerset rshire postcodes Concern about green belt / spread to rural areas 56 15 15 16 10 Achievable without MCA 51 22 10 10 9 Prefer local decisions 43 24 8 8 3 Lack of information / questions 35 10 14 5 6 Scepticism MCA will make a difference 32 11 8 11 2 Suggestions - additional infrastructure 28 7 10 6 5 Concern about decision making 25 1 11 9 4 Concern Bristol centred 21 10 1 9 1 Suggestions - locations 21 4 7 10 - Good for regional strategy 20 5 7 6 2 Suggestions - affordable housing 20 2 7 9 2 Good for housing delivery 19 1 7 5 6 Good for regional planning 19 7 6 4 2 Suggestions - social needs 19 5 8 4 2 Lack of confidence 17 4 3 5 5 Needs North Somerset 17 3 8 2 4 Concern local communities will be vulnerable 16 7 4 3 2 Hope for change 16 4 8 1 3 Additional layer of government / waste of money 14 2 2 6 4 Affordable housing needed 13 3 5 5 - Concern Bristol extending boundaries 13 8 1 2 2 Concern business / profit focused 13 4 5 3 1 Suggestions - planning 12 1 9 2 - Lack of confidence in planning system 10 3 3 3 1 Suggestions - consultation 10 2 4 2 2 Concern Bristol problem forced on other areas 9 3 - 4 2 Concern too much power with one or few 9 7 2 - - Different needs in different areas 9 3 3 3 - Too much housing already 9 1 4 4 - Good for collaboration 8 1 4 3 - concern about costs 7 1 - 5 1 Concern return to Avon 7 - 3 4 - More powers needed 7 - 4 1 2 Suggestions - environment 6 3 2 - 1 Suggestions - housing 6 2 2 - 2 Concern about compulsory purchasing powers 5 2 1 1 1 Depends who is in charge 5 - 3 2 - Distrust of politicians 5 1 2 1 1 Good for affordable housing 5 2 - 1 2 Suggestions - consultation 5 1 1 1 2

Table 7: Codes with 5 or more respondents for comments on Housing

Other objections to the Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA) included similar ones to those raised in relation to transport, such as the plans being achievable without the MCA. There was also lack of

30 confidence that the proposals could be achieved, such as lack of confidence in the planning system and/or in the MCA to deliver housing.

Who knows - currently planning applications seem to be approved for areas not designated for building so I am very sceptical about the whole process.

No evidence provided that the proposed CA will have any more clout than existing unitary authorities when it comes to tackling the housing crisis.

There were also many comments in support of housing proposals, in particular the MCA being good for regional housing strategies and having the powers to ensure delivery of housing and affordable housing in particular.

It should be able to focus on leveraging strategic public sector land assets to deliver surplus land for housing and growth, and with a leadership team committed to the delivery of the devo deal there should be better collaboration on strategic planning

It should be able to look at the region as a whole instead of the current practice where the constituent authorities work in isolation.

There were also many suggestions for housing including housing locations, affordable housing, and consultation within the planning process.

Housing Associations 15 respondents were from Housing Associations. 5 (33%) agreed with housing proposals, 9 (60%) disagreed and 1 was unsure. Eight individuals provided mixed comments, as can be seen in the table below.

Comments from Housing Associations (8 respondents) Good for housing delivery 2 Affordable housing needed 1 Concern about green belt / spread to rural areas 1 Concern business / profit focused 1 Good for regional strategy 1 Lack of confidence in planning system 1 Lack of information / questions 1 Table 8: Comment codes from Housing Associations

Business and VCS There were mixed comments from Business and VCS respondents with some suggesting that a MCA is not necessary to deliver the housing needed. Some business respondents viewed the proposals as good for regional strategy, others would prefer planning decisions to remain local. Six business respondents and two VCS respondents emphasised the importance of providing additional infrastructure and building communities, alongside housing.

We need houses but we also need schools, shops, employment etc. Let's not have another Bradley Stoke

Comments from Business (61 respondents) Comments from VCS (56 respondents) 31

Achievable without MCA 7 Achievable without MCA 6 Prefer local decisions 7 Concern about decision making 6 Good for regional strategy 6 Good for regional strategy 4 Suggestions - additional infrastructure 6 Concern about decision making 5 Additional layer of government / waste 4 of money Table 8: Codes with 4 or more respondents from comments from business and VCS on Housing

Views on proposals on adult education, skills and employment

There was less support for proposals on adult education, skills and employment compared to other areas, with 47% of all respondents agreeing with the statement on skills and training provision. This shift was due to an increase in ‘don’t know’ responses, rather than an increase in respondents disagreeing (see Figure 18). . Q7.1. It would ensure skills and training provision are more accurately tailored to local needs

Figure 18: Responses by local authority area to Q7.1. The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 21 respondents did not answer this question.

Comments on adult education, skills and employment

Of the 426 people who made comments, 35% were ‘on balance’ in support of a MCA, 52% disagreed and 11% were unsure. 33 respondents’ comments included requests for further information about the details of the proposals, such as how the MCA would implement the proposals.

How is this delivered? What additional provision is required over the existing expertise which current authorities do not have? Does this activity have regional consequences, where are its real boundaries?

As with transport and housing, some respondents suggested that a MCA would not be needed to deliver these proposals and respondents made suggestions for adult education, training and business. Others expressed concerns about the long term finance required to deliver the proposals and that it may be too much for the MCA. There is already an LGA in place for the region that has achieved a great deal. This could continue to function without further integration or the need to impose a regional mayor.

This funding would disappear due to other 'more pressing' financial needs. This new body is not required to meet this purpose.

Decisions about education should be in the control of a local education authority and one person cannot possibly appreciate the diverse needs of skills and employment in such a large area

Alongside concerns, there were also a number of positive comments towards the proposals, including that the adult education proposals would be good for business and for linking adult education with employers’ needs.

A skilled workforce is essential to attracting inward investment. Bringing decision-making closer to the West of England would ensure skills and training provision are fully aligned with the city-region's economic strengths and inward investment strategy.

Bath and North South Other LAs East Bristol, Glouceste / missing Total Somerset City of rshire postcodes A chievable without MCA 42 17 10 9 6 Suggestions education 37 15 10 6 6 Lack of information / questions 33 11 16 3 3 Local decisions preferred 23 11 9 2 1 Additional layer of government / waste of money 20 10 4 4 2 Concern Bristol centred 19 6 2 9 2 Lack of confidence 19 6 8 1 4 Scepticism MCA will make a difference 18 9 4 1 4 Different needs in different areas 16 3 6 6 1 Prefer national responsibility 14 3 5 4 2 Concern about long term finance 12 4 5 3 0 Suggestions - training 11 4 4 2 1 Suggestions - apprenticeships 10 1 5 3 1 Good for region 9 3 4 2 Hope for change 9 1 2 2 4 Concern about costs 8 2 4 2 Good for regional education and training 8 2 5 1 0 Concern about decision making 7 1 3 1 2 Consultation questions 7 2 2 3 0 No mayor 7 4 2 - 1 Suggestions - business 7 2 4 1 0 Concern will only benefit minority 6 2 3 1 0 Good for local regional decisions 6 3 - 2 1 Good for skills 6 - 1 2 3 Needs North Somerset 6 1 2 - 3 Requires appropriate expertise 6 - - 3 3 Good for regional strategy 5 - - 2 3 Suggestions - jobs 5 - 2 1 2 Suggestions - skills 5 - 2 2 1 Suggestions - strategy 5 - 2 3 0 Suggestions - support 5 - 4 - 1 Table 9: Codes with 5 or more respondents for comments on Adult Education, Skills and Training

Education providers Of the 26 respondents who were education providers and completed the question, 15 (56%) agreed that the proposed MCA would ensure skills and training provision are more accurately tailored to local needs, 6 (22%) disagreed and 5 (19%) were unsure. 10 respondents provided a range of concerns and suggestions, as seen in the table below. 34

Comments from education providers (10 respondents) Scepticism MCA will make a difference 2 Suggestions - business 2 Suggestions - education 2 Concern Bristol centred 1 Consultation questions 1 good for regional collaboration 1 good for regional education and training 1 lack of information / questions 1 Suggestions - collaboration 1 suggestions - finance 1 Table 9: Codes of comments from Education providers

Business and VCS

A number of businesses and VCS suggested that the proposed MCA was not necessary for tailoring adult education and skills to local needs. There were also a number of suggestions made about adult education specifically, such the importance of adult education for social reasons as well as employment.

Education should also encompass developing and expanding interests that may not be anything to do with jobs or employability. For example a diverse group of people coming together in an evening class can be the highlight of the week for someone in an unfulfilling job or be the opportunity to go out for someone otherwise unable to.

Comments from Business (47 respondents) Comments from VCS (41 respondents) Suggestions - education 6 Suggestions - education 6 Achievable without MCA 4 Achievable without MCA 5 Lack of information / questions 4 Suggestions - training 4 Table 8: Codes with 4 or more respondents from comments from business and VCS on Adult Education

Views on proposals for Business The majority of all respondents were in support of business proposals, particularly respondents from Bristol but, again, the more respondents from Bath and North East Somerset disagreed compared to other areas that the MCA would support innovation in key growth sectors or boost productivity and growth. As with proposals for adult education, skills and training, a relatively large number of respondents were unsure, and this was echoed in open comments where 43 respondents requested further information.

Q9.1. It would support innovation in key growth sectors.

Figure 19: Responses by local authority area to Q9.1. The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 44 respondents did not answer this question.

Q9.2. It would boost productivity and growth through improved sharing of specialist knowledge and services.

Figure 20: Responses by local authority area to Q9.2. The percentage labels show the number of responses as a percentage of the total number of respondents in that council area. 58 respondents did not answer this question.

Comments on Business

Of the 389 respondents who made comments on business, 37% were ‘on balance’ in support of a Mayoral Combined Authority (MCA), 50% disagreed and 10% were unsure. The most frequent views on business proposals were around the proposals being achievable without a MCA, such as respondents suggesting that the proposals are being done already and that an additional layer of government would be irrelevant to business.

I cannot see what a Mayor can achieve. Steps are already being taken to create local employment space. It is now up to businesses themselves to take action not another tier of local government.

I've ticked agree but you don't need the WEMCA to achieve this just the money that goes with it!

Other common concerns include Bristol receiving funding at the expense of other areas, due to focus on business.

Attention must be paid to the needs of the rural economy and those living in the countryside as well as the conurbations. Whilst mainly SME's rural based businesses are a major part of the region's economy and their needs (such as good broadband and other communications) must not be neglected.

Bristol would command bulk of funding

Comments in support of the proposals included suggestions that it would improve collaborations, raise the profile of the region and encourage investment and growth.

Collaborative working and ensuring the skills are retained within the region will mean that the combined authority can work with businesses to ensure economic growth.

Needed to make sure the region maintains and hopefully improves its competitiveness domestically and internationally.

Bath and South Other LAs North East Bristol, Glouceste / missing Total Somerset City of rshire postcodes A chievable without MCA 56 28 9 13 6 Lack of information / questions 43 12 17 5 9 Additional layer of government / waste of money 37 28 3 5 1 Concern Bristol centred 16 9 - 5 2 Irrelevant to business 15 5 5 4 1 Lack of confidence 15 4 4 5 2 Hope for change 13 2 7 2 2 Concern emphasis on business / growth 12 2 5 2 3 Good for economy / growth 12 4 4 1 3 Good for regional profile 12 1 5 4 2 Needs North Somerset 12 3 5 2 2 Scepticism MCA will make a difference 12 4 3 1 4 Suggestions - business 12 1 8 3 0 Good for business 9 1 1 4 3 Consultation process 8 1 4 2 1 Suggestions - infrastructure 8 2 3 2 1 37

Concern about interference in business 7 - 3 4 0 No mayor 7 4 - - 3 Concern about brexit / uncertainty 6 2 3 1 0 Depends on decisions made 6 3 1 2 0 Good for jobs 6 2 4 - 0 Good for regional strategy 6 1 3 1 1 Concern about costs 5 1 - 4 0 Concern wealth will not be shared 5 1 3 1 0 Good for access to money 5 2 1 - 2 Good for collaboration 5 - 3 2 0 Suggestions - transport 5 - 3 1 1 Table 10: Codes with 5 or more respondents for comments on Business

Business and VCS

There was support from business respondents for business proposals, with 69% of the 215 business respondents agreeing that the MCA would support innovation in key growth sectors; 17% disagreed and 12% were unsure. Similarly, 62% agreed that the MCA would boost productivity and growth, 20% disagreed and 17% were unsure. Of those that made comments, some had questions about the business proposals, some noted benefits to the profile of the region for attracting investment and others did not see that the MCA was necessary for achieving proposals.

It would raise the profile of the region as a centre of the key technologies - this is very important to the ongoing growth and success

All of these things would happen regardless if there is a will to do it!

Comments from Business (59 respondents) Comments from VCS (35 respondents) lack of information / questions 7 Achievable without MCA 4 Good for regional profile 6 Additional layer of government / waste 5 of money Achievable without MCA 4 Hope for change 4

Respondents from VCS had very mixed comments on business proposals, with no common themes except four questioned whether the proposed MCA is necessary for business proposals. Some expressed support, and suggested the MCA would be good for local jobs and some raised concerns, such as there being too much emphasis on business rather than social issues.

Responses received by email

Responses were received by email or letter from 14 organisations, Parish Councils and/or individuals.

There were 6 responses fully supportive of the Mayoral Combined Authority and proposals. In addition, 1 response was supportive of the majority of the proposals but was opposed to the requirement for a regional Mayor.

There were 4 responses objecting to the Mayoral Combined Authority and proposals. Grounds for opposition were largely due to the requirement for a regional Mayor and perceived erosion of transparent decision making.

2 of the responses voiced concerns around North Somerset having decided not to join the combined authority, and the potential impact this could have on residents who rely on links with Bristol and surrounding areas.

1 response offered advice and guidance for the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority, but declined to take a position on the appropriateness of the proposals.

Additional comments

At the end of the survey there was an opportunity for respondents to include any further comments. One hundred and eighty four respondents provided additional comments, often reiterating responses they had given previously. These comments are listed by code in the table below.

Bath and South Other LAs North East Bristol, Gloucester /missing Total Somerset City of shire postcodes A dditional layer of government / waste of money 86 25 20 26 15 No mayor 52 32 9 2 9 Undemocratic process 43 20 9 6 8 Concern about costs 41 9 7 17 8 Lack of information / questions 37 4 12 12 9 Needs North Somerset 36 9 18 3 6 Concern return to Avon 35 6 9 15 5 Achievable without MCA 33 16 3 9 5 Concern about decision making 26 3 7 11 5 Consultation process 18 2 9 5 2 Go ahead 18 4 9 2 3 Concern Bristol centred 17 5 11 1 Bath already voted 15 12 3 Suggestions - mayor 15 7 4 1 3 MCA undemocratic 14 10 2 1 1 Agree but no mayor 13 5 3 3 2 Concern too much power with one or few 12 8 1 1 2 Scepticism about motives of central government 12 4 3 4 1 Good for regional profile 11 1 4 4 2 Lack of confidence 11 5 4 2 Agree with proposal 10 1 4 4 1 Concern about Brexit / uncertainty 10 8 1 1 Good for region 10 4 1 4 1 No to MCA 10 5 4 1 Table 11: Codes with 10 or more respondents for additional comments

Comments on the consultation process Comments on the consultation process were raised by 18 respondents within additional comments. Comments ranged from wishes that the consultation had been on the deal rather than the Scheme to requests for further information, complaints about questions and requests to have a vote.

What an odd survey, asking people questions about a system that is not yet in place. Hence most of my responses are Don't know.

40 West of England Devolution - Have your say Consultation Survey | 2016

You can also take part in this consultation online at www.westofenglanddevolution.co.uk West of England Devolution | Consultation Survey 2016

Have your say about devolution for the West of England.

Bath & North East Somerset Council, Bristol City How will my views play a part? Council and South Gloucestershire Council have agreed to move forward with a £1 billion devolution deal from This public consultation is your chance to have a say on Government that would see the creation of a West of the creation of a West of England Mayoral Combined England Mayoral Combined Authority. It would devolve Authority. The results will be considered by the Secretary new powers, funding and responsibilities from central of State for Communities and Local Government who will Government to the region. As a result, more decisions take account of the views of the public when deciding could be made locally, rather than nationally, about whether the West of England devolution deal should go spending on regional transport, adult education and ahead. The deal will then be subject to final endorsement skills, for example. at a local level.

We believe a West of England Mayoral Combined You can also take part in this consultation online at Authority would benefit the region in four key areas: www.westofenglanddevolution.co.uk where you can access supporting documents and background • Decision making information. • Place (transport and housing) • People (adult education and skills) If you are unable to take part online or using this paper • Business survey, please call the Consultation Team on 0117 922 2848 and we will discuss the best way for You can answer questions about each of these four areas you to participate. This may include making materials in the pages that follow. available in another format, such as large print, braille or another language. An audio version of the survey can be There are two documents available at your local library, found online at: www.westofenglanddevolution.co.uk Customer Service Point or One Stop Shop for reference if you would like more detail: A Strategic Governance Review which is a review of how things are currently managed here in the region; The Governance Scheme which outlines in detail how a Mayoral Combined Authority would work. A FREEPOST address is provided at the end of this document or you can pick up a pre-paid envelope at your local library.

2 | West of England Devolution | Consultation Survey 2016 Decision Making

A West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would receive powers from central government - it would not take powers from existing local authorities without agreement. • It would be chaired by a West of England Mayor who the public would vote for in May 2017. • The members of the West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would be the West of England Mayor, the leaders of Bath & North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire councils and the Mayor of Bristol. • The West of England Mayor would be given powers over spending, previously held by central Government, on the region’s transport, housing, adult education and skills. • They would not replace Bristol’s directly elected Mayor or the leaders of Bath & North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire councils. To make decisions, a majority of the members of a West of England Combined Authority, including the West of England Mayor, would be required to be present and voting. The West of England Mayor would: • Have one vote, as would the other voting authority members. • The West of England Mayor would have to consult combined authority members on his/her strategies, which those members may reject if two out of three agree to do so. • Members of a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would also be able to amend a West of England Mayor’s spending plans if two out of three agree to do so. • Decisions made on the Joint Spatial Plan would require a unanimous vote. • Certain financial aspects would require unanimous agreement of the three councils. • The Mayoral Combined Authority must have the agreement of an individual authority where a planning or transport matter (for example) is likely to impact on that authority’s specific geographical location. • A West of England Combined Authority, including a West of England Mayor, would be scrutinised and held to account by a West of England Overview and Scrutiny and Audit committee(s).

Do you believe the proposed West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit decision making in the region? Circle ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’ or ‘Don’t know’ below.

A West of England Mayor would provide increased accountability and transparency for Agree Disagree Don’t know decisions affecting the region

The West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would strengthen the ways the West Agree Disagree Don’t know of England councils work together

The West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would improve strategic decision Agree Disagree Don’t know making, leading to more economic growth

If you would like to add anything about the potential effect of a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority on decision making in the region, please share your comments here:

| 3 West of England Devolution | Consultation Survey 2016

Place - Transport

The proposed West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would be given further powers over transport, including the ability to franchise bus services and responsibility for a Key Routes Network of roads. It would also have the power to implement Clean Air Zones to help achieve air quality standards.

Do you believe the proposed West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit the region’s transport? Circle ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’ or ‘Don’t know’ below.

It would enable longer-term planning and allow for more ambitious schemes with a greater Agree Disagree Don’t know impact through guaranteed funding each year

It would support the introduction of smart and Agree Disagree Don’t know integrated ticketing

It would integrate public road and rail transport across the region making it easier to access Agree Disagree Don’t know employment

It would integrate public road and rail transport across the region to speed up - and reduce the Agree Disagree Don’t know environmental impact of - longer journeys

If you would like to add anything about the potential effect of a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority on transport, please share your comments here:

4 | West of England Devolution | Consultation Survey 2016

Place - Housing

A West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would be given stronger strategic planning powers to speed up the delivery of new housing, including:

• the delivery of the Joint Spatial Plan, • enhanced compulsory purchasing powers, • powers to determine cross-boundary infrastructure applications as a combined authority, • setting up Development Corporations put in place to facilitate building of houses on strategic sites.

The adoption of the Joint Spatial Plan will be subject to a unanimous vote of the combined authority members.

Do you believe the proposed West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit the region’s housing? Circle ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’ or ‘Don’t know’ below.

It would improve planning processes and decisions so that the right houses are built in Agree Disagree Don’t know the right places

If you would like to add anything about the potential effect of the proposed West of England Mayoral Combined Authority on housing, please share your comments here:

| 5 West of England Devolution | Consultation Survey 2016

People

A West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would have increased powers for spending on people’s education, skills and employment in several ways:

• It would have control of the entire Adult Education Budget by 2018 • It would be responsible for the Apprenticeship Grant for Employers which incentivises employers to offer apprenticeships • It would work with central government on the design of local careers and enterprise provision, such as the Careers and Enterprise Company and the National Careers Service. • It would work with the Department of Work and Pensions to develop the new National Work and Health Programme designed to focus on those with a health condition or disability and the very long term unemployed.

Do you believe the proposed West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit people in the region? Circle ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’ or ‘Don’t know’ below.

It would ensure skills and training provision are Agree Disagree Don’t know more accurately tailored to local needs

If you would like to add anything about the potential effect of a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority on people’s education, skills or employment, please share your comments here:

6 | West of England Devolution | Consultation Survey 2016

Business

A West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would have increased control and resources for business including:

• Integrated and locally relevant inward investment and trade services, led by Invest in Bristol & Bath • Support for developing the West of England Growth Hub • Increased support for the Bristol & Bath Science Park and the Junction 21 Food Enterprise Zone, • More local control over alternative funding sources, such as the Apprenticeship Grant for Employers.

It would also be a member of the Local Enterprise Partnership ensuring a close working relationship with the business community. Do you believe the proposed West of England Mayoral Combined Authority would benefit business in the region? Circle ‘Agree’, ‘Disagree’ or ‘Don’t know’ below.

It would support innovation in key Agree Disagree Don’t know growth sectors

It would boost productivity and growth through improved sharing of specialist knowledge Agree Disagree Don’t know and services

If you would like to add anything about the potential effect of a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority on business, please share your comments here:

On balance - do you believe that a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority Agree Disagree Don’t know would benefit the West of England Region?

Is there anything more that you would like to say about the proposed devolution deal or West of England Mayoral Combined Authority?

| 7 West of England Devolution | Consultation Survey 2016

Some questions about you so we can understand who has taken part

What is your postcode?

Please tell us who you are (tick all that apply)

Resident Elected Member Business Education Provider

Trade Union Voluntary Community Sector Housing Association Other

How would you describe yourself?

Your age? Under 18 18 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44

45 - 54 55 - 64 65 - 74 75 +

Prefer not to say

Your gender? Female Male Prefer not to say

Your ethnicity? White British Other White Black / Black British

Asian / Asian British Mixed / Dual Heritage

Any other ethnic group Prefer not to say

Are you disabled? Yes No Prefer not to say

Do you have a religion Yes No Prefer not to say or belief?

Transgender Yes No Prefer not to say

Are you lesbian, gay or bisexual heterosexual (straight) Prefer not to say

Thank you for sharing your views on on devolution and the proposed Mayoral Combined Authority for the West of England.

Please return completed surveys to:

Freepost RTKJ-SGBZ-ULSH Consultation & Intelligence Team (Parkview) West of England Devolution PO Box 3176 BRISTOL BS3 9FS

8 | West of England Devolution - Have your say A £1 billion devolution deal for the West of England is on the table. This is new money and new powers for the area – and we want to hear your views.

Better roads and transport Improved careers advice and training More local jobs More affordable homes Have your say about Devolution for the West of England Bath & North East Somerset Council, Bristol City Council and South Gloucestershire Council have now agreed to consult on a £1 billion devolution deal with Government. This would be run by the three councils and a regional mayor to oversee the additional money and powers handed over from national Government.

What does this mean for you? This means more money and powers locally for things like:

• Ne w transport solutions to • Ne w investment, economic tackle congestion and improve growth job creation and more journeys. apprenticeships. • Road maintenance. • Incr eased support for the Somer Valley Enterprise • Bett er integrated Bus and Rail Zone, Bristol & Bath Science network to make it easier Park, the area around to travel. Temple Meads Station and • Pr ogressing the MetroWest Severnside. rail project. • Super-f ast broadband, • Ability to franchise bus particularly in rural areas. services to support rural • Impr oved careers advice and and urban communities. training for young people • Lo w-cost housing to meet and long-term unemployed. local needs. • Impr oving air quality with Clean Air Zones. How will it work? What does it mean • Mor e funding and powers for your Council? from Westminster to the West of England – with greater • This does not mean a merger of local control over how that the three councils and is not a money is spent, and the ability return to the former Avon County to deliver key infrastructure Council. Each council would projects more quickly. retain its own identity, powers and responsibilities – continuing • Thr ee councils working to make decisions and run local together as a West of services for its own area. England Combined Authority • The West of England Mayor to oversee the devolved wouldn’t replace Bristol’s directly arrangements. elected Mayor or the Leaders of • The public elects a West of Bath & North East Somerset and England Mayor (in May 2017) South Gloucestershire councils. to be accountable for the • An equal say in the investments investment and new powers, and improvements as a result working with the Leaders of of spending this Government the councils and the Mayor of money. Bristol. • Y our Council will have a veto over • The Combined Authority planning matters in your area. would work more closely with the business community. Why should you get involved?

Your say is very Please take part in the consultation important. This deal – your views will be sent to the is about stability and Secretary of State responsible for investment over the next local government and devolution to 30 years – it will affect consider. The final decision will be you and your children. taken locally on whether to accept the deal for this area.

How to have your say: Please complete the consultation survey to ensure your voice is heard. The consultation runs from 4 July 2016 until 15 August 2016. This consultation is being run on behalf of B&NES, Bristol and South Gloucestershire Councils. You can take part in the consultation in a variety of ways: • Online: www.westofenglanddevolution.co.uk • Telephone: 0117 922 2848 • P aper copies will be available from local libraries and Citizen Service Points There are also opportunities to ask questions and find out more at public consultation events taking place across the West of England – check local media and the website for details: www.westofenglanddevolution.co.uk

Annex C – Summary of Media Coverage Friday 20 May • BBC Radio Bristol (REACH 51,000) - Localised to South Gloucestershire, Cllr Matthew Riddle was interviewed on his regular phone-in slot. Devolution was covered with a look ahead to what happens if all three councils accept, public consultation mentioned.

Thursday 9 June • Bristol 247 – First of two blogs (one before and one after the EU referendum result) 'Devolution is frankly the only game in town' (REACH 26,683).

Wednesday 29 June • Bristol City Council press release Bristol votes to move forward with West of England devolution deal. • ITV - Councils back West of England devolution deal (REACH 450,038). • Bristol Post - £1 billion metro mayor and devolution debate (REACH 22,667) • Bristol 247 – Second of two blogs (one before and one after the EU referendum result) ‘Bristol must take charge of it’s own destiny’ (REACH 26,683). • Made in Bristol (REACH UNKNOWN). • North Somerset Times - Councils agree to £1bn devolution deal without North Somerset (REACH UNKNOWN) • Bristol Cable - Notes from City Hall: Metro Mayor marches onwards (REACH 561) • South West Business - Devolution deal given green light (REACH 7,160).

Thursday 30 June • BBC Radio Bristol (REACH 51,000) and BCFM (REACH UNKNOWN) - Interviews with the mayor, referencing the upcoming consultation. • BBC News Bristol - West 'Metro Mayor' backed by Bristol, BANES and South Gloucestershire (REACH 1,887,544). • Made in Bristol - SGC officer James Cooke interviewed after the three councils voted to move forward with the deal. Consultation was discussed and promoted. (REACH UNKNOWN). • Bristol 247 - Tessa Coombes: Time to embrace the devolution deal (REACH 26,683). • Insider Media - Approval for £1bn West of England devolution deal (REACH 51,000). • Bristol Business News - Property industry welcomes West of England’s £1bn devolution deal (REACH 1,926). • Sam and The Breeze FM - Councils back devolution deal (REACH 7,966). • Transport Xtra - Talks on ‘metro mayor’ to secure devolution deal for Avon move forward (REACH 2,353). Friday 1 July • Bristol Post - 900,000 to have say on devolution deal for the west (REACH 22,667) • Public Sector Executive – Councils move forward with next step of £1bn West of England devo deal (REACH 1,402) • The Engineer Online - Technology and devolution: the mutual enablers (REACH 19,082).

Monday 4 July • Bath and North East Somerset Council press release - Bath & North East Somerset residents invited to have their say on the creation of a West of England Mayoral Combined Authority • Commercial News Media - West of England devolution welcomed by Colliers International (REACH 693). Tuesday 5 July • Public Sector Executive – Clark committed to devolution with `much bigger role for local' post-Brexit (REACH 1,402). (No link available).

• Gloucestershire Gazette - Consultation launched after bitterly-opposed devolution plans are approved in South Gloucestershire (REACH 4,982). • Bristol Post Consultation launched on devolution deal which could unlock £1billion in funding for Bristol region (REACH 22,667).

Thursday 7 July • Made in Bristol - Cllr Matthew Riddle interviewed, promoting the benefits of the deal and the live consultation. (REACH UNKNOWN). • The Week In East Bristol and North East Somerset - Devolution article pages 4 & 5 (REACH UNKNOWN).

Friday 8 July • Bristol Business News - Bristol Business Blog: James Hinchcliffe, lead political analyst, JBP Associates. Devolution - not Brexit - will give the West independence (REACH 1,926).

Wednesday 13 July • Bath Business News - EU referendum campaign hit Bath's economy even before result, survey reveals (REACH 4,463).

Friday 22 July • Local Government Chronicle - Fundamental change will come from place-shaping (REACH 2,932).

Monday 25 July • Bristol Post - Is Bristol about to get a London style public transport system? (REACH 22,667).

Friday 29 July • Bristol City Council - Information sessions being held on creation of West of England Mayoral Combined Authority (REACH 22,667). • Bath Business News – West of England devolution deal: Make your views known, Bath businesses are told (REACH 4,463). • Bristol Business News - West of England devolution deal: Make your views known, Bristol businesses are told (REACH 1,926).

Monday 1 August • BBC Radio Bristol – information sessions covered on news bulletins. (REACH 51,000). • Sam FM and the Breeze - Pre-record interview with Cllr Helen Holland – used on news bulletins. (REACH 7,966).

Tuesday 2 August • Bristol Post - Find out what a combined authority will mean for you (REACH 22,667). (No link available).

Wednesday 3 August • Made in Bristol TV – Interview with Cllr Helen Holland, aired on Wednesday 3 August (#BristolNews 6pm 03.08.2016 Part 1, from 9:18 onwards). (REACH UNKNOWN). • Bristol 24/7 - Why you should care about devolution (REACH 26,683)

Friday 5 August • Campaign for Better Transport - Help to improve local transport - back West of England devolution plans, urge campaigners (REACH 2,021)

Saturday 6 / Sunday 7 August • BBC Radio Bristol - Cllr Helen Holland pre-record on Friday 5 August used as part of a package which went out over the weekend. (REACH 51,000).

Monday 8 August • Rife Magazine – Devolution Consultation (REACH UNKNOWN).

Friday 12 August • Ujima Radio – Cllr Helen Holland, live interview on The Word (REACH UNKNOWN) • Bristol Post - We're Backing Bristol: How the city's transport infrastructure is being modernised (REACH 22,776).

Bristol Voice community publication series Mayor’s column, August (five editions covering Southville and Bedminster; Windmill Hill, Knowle and Hartcliffe; Fishponds; Westbury and Henleaze and Filton) included link to westofenglanddevolution.co.uk. (REACH UNKNOWN).

The Bradley Stoke Journal August edition provided links to the South Gloucestershire Council devolution consultation page and the devolution microsite. (REACH UNKNOWN).

Bristol City Council – social media • Bristol City Council published a selection of Tweets and Facebook posts in addition to Re-Tweeting content from the main @WofEDevo account. • The top-level outcome of the campaign are as follows: - Tweets put out by BCC: 38; - Impressions (amount of times users see a Tweet on their timeline or by searching): 11,1095; - Engagement (total average times a user interacted e.g. click, RTs, replies, Likes etc): 1001; - Re-Tweets: 148; - Likes: 41; - URL clicks: 405; - Hashtag clicks: 75.

South Gloucestershire Council –social media • Facebook post on consultation published on 27 July reached 2,373 people, 78 people clicked on the link and there were 33 reactions including seven likes, seven comments and 17 shares. • Facebook post on consultation published on 10 August reached 958 people, 34 people clicked on the link and four reactions including one like, one comment and two shares.

Bath & North East Somerset Council – social media

From @Bathnes 32 Tweets and Retweets from the devolution Twitter page, Total Reach 880K 146 Retweets , 37 Likes

From @WofEDevo: 29 individual/unique image Tweets and video between July/Aug, Total reach 47.4K 137 Link clicks, 111 Retweets. 17 Likes

Devolution Video The Devolution video had 359 direct plays on YouTube and Twitter. The Video had 9121 impressions on twitter. Means it appears in timeline