England’s latest round of local elections has reset leadership across councils and mayoral areas, sharpening the focus on how devolution can drive more joined up services. The debate now turns to what integration looks like in practice and how far local powers and budgets can stretch.
Leaders across England’s regions enter the new term with a common test: turn devolution promises into better, simpler services for residents. The central question is not only who runs town halls and mayoral offices but also how these institutions will align transport, skills, housing and public health to deliver visible results. Devolution deals offer tools, but the shape of integration depends on local choices, relationships with Whitehall, and the funding certainty needed to plan. With Integrated Care Systems in place across the NHS and more combined authorities covering larger geographies, expectations have risen. The next phase will hinge on practical steps that bring fragmented programmes together, reduce duplication, and make accountability clearer to the public.
The elections took place across England in early May, with contests for councils and mayoral offices in city regions and counties. The policy focus now rests on how these results will inform the next wave of devolution deals and service reforms.
Mandates and powers after the May polls: new and returning mayors now hold fresh mandates to set priorities for their city regions. Combined authorities can shape local transport networks, adult skills provision and economic development. County and unitary councils hold core public services, including social care and public health. That mix creates scope for shared plans that link jobs, housing, transport and prevention. Where leaders align objectives and timelines, they can set out integrated delivery plans that bring separate funding streams to a single set of outcomes.
The Levelling Up White Paper set out a broad devolution framework in 2022, with a menu of powers that areas can draw down as they form combined authorities or negotiate county deals. Some places have sought deeper arrangements that allow single settlement budgets and more flexibility. Others have emphasised practical cooperation through joint boards and shared service agreements. The diversity of models reflects local geography and institutional history. After the latest elections, attention will turn to whether areas choose to widen their remit or focus on delivery within existing powers.
Health and care: integration through place and prevention. Health and social care integration runs through the new governance landscape. Integrated Care Systems became statutory in 2022, with 42 systems now covering the whole of England. These bodies bring NHS organisations and councils together to plan services for their populations. While mayors and combined authorities do not run the NHS, they can influence the wider determinants of health through transport, housing quality, skills, and economic inclusion. Close working between ICS leaders and elected local leaders can align prevention goals with practical measures on active travel, air quality and access to training.
Public health responsibilities sit with upper tier councils, and local election outcomes can therefore change the leadership that directs prevention work. The opportunity lies in linking public health plans with place based regeneration, school readiness programmes and employment support. Clear data sharing rules, joint commissioning frameworks and shared outcome measures will be critical. Where areas agree common targets and timelines, residents should see simpler services and faster referrals between teams.
Local transport: franchising, fares and network planning Transport often anchors visible integration. Under legislation in place since 2017, mayoral combined authorities can bring buses under local control through franchising, with a single brand, network planning and fare policy. Some areas already move in this direction, while others use enhanced partnerships with operators to improve reliability and access. Integrated ticketing that works across buses, trams, local rail and active travel routes can reduce friction for users and make public transport a more realistic choice for work, education and healthcare access. Local leaders increasingly see transport as more than infrastructure. It becomes a mechanism for improving opportunity and reducing inequality.
The latest election cycle may influence the pace of these decisions. Newly elected administrations could accelerate bus reform, prioritise fare simplification, or focus on targeted investments that connect housing growth areas with employment centres. Success depends not only on powers but also on the ability to coordinate with operators, neighbouring authorities, and national agencies. Long term funding certainty remains a recurring concern, particularly where authorities want to commit to infrastructure programmes that extend beyond a single political term.
Skills, housing and local growth strategies
Adult education and skills funding form another important part of the integration agenda. Devolved areas already control elements of adult skills budgets and can align training provision with local labour market demand. This creates opportunities to connect education policy with economic growth strategies and major infrastructure projects.
Local leaders increasingly frame skills as part of a wider system rather than a standalone service. Housing growth areas may require construction skills pipelines. Industrial investment may require partnerships with colleges and employers. Public transport improvements may increase access to education and training. The challenge for local government is to connect these elements into a shared plan that residents can understand and access.
Housing policy also sits at the centre of integration debates. Councils influence planning decisions, regeneration, and affordable housing delivery, while combined authorities often support strategic development across larger areas. Coordinated approaches can help avoid situations where homes are delivered without transport links, health provision, or employment opportunities nearby. Place based planning aims to reduce these gaps by aligning investment decisions across sectors.
Funding, accountability and delivery capacity
One of the strongest themes emerging after the elections is the question of capacity. Greater local control can improve responsiveness, but it also increases expectations. Authorities need analytical capability, programme management, procurement expertise, and strong governance arrangements to manage integrated services effectively.
Funding structures remain complex. Different services often operate under separate allocations, reporting requirements, and timescales. Local leaders continue to argue that longer settlements and more flexible budgets would allow better planning and reduce duplication. Single settlement models are frequently discussed because they could allow local areas to move resources toward prevention rather than reacting to problems after they escalate.
Accountability also becomes more visible as powers expand. Elected mayors provide a clearer public figure for regional leadership, but outcomes still depend on cooperation across councils, NHS bodies, transport operators, and central government departments. Residents ultimately judge integration by experience rather than governance diagrams. Simpler journeys through public services, easier access to support, and visible improvements to neighbourhoods are likely to matter more than institutional design.
The next phase of English devolution will therefore be measured less by the number of deals signed and more by what local institutions deliver together. The local election results have refreshed political mandates, but the harder task now begins. Areas that connect transport, health, skills, housing and economic planning into practical programmes may demonstrate the strongest case for deeper powers in future rounds of reform. Those that struggle to coordinate across institutional boundaries may find that expectations rise faster than outcomes.
