Mayoral Strategic Authorities seeking Established status have been given a wonderfully simple challenge by Government: prove you can manage money, programmes, risks, resources and governance before anyone allows you to manage more money, programmes, risks, resources and governance. The map has circled confidence in biro and is now waiting for its references.
Guidance published on 6 May 2026 sets out what authorities should include in proposals for Established Mayoral Strategic Authority designation. They must show the capability and capacity to take on Devolution Framework functions, handle the responsibilities of an Integrated Settlement and demonstrate a track record of delivering major programmes.
This is not quite a treasure hunt, although applicants will need to assemble evidence covering financial and cost management, delivery, governance, resources, risk and outcomes. Transport, adult skills and housing are offered as possible programmes that could demonstrate competence. The paperwork is therefore asking whether an authority can build a bridge before allowing it near a bridge shaped budget.
The guidance also asks authorities to confirm matters including their period of existence, the presence of a directly elected mayor, a published Local Assurance Framework and the absence of certain unresolved reviews, interventions or material accounting concerns. The map has been told that this is not a personal attack. It has nevertheless hired a solicitor and requested an annex explaining the solicitor.
There is a pleasingly circular logic here. Local government is invited to take on significant new responsibilities and funding freedoms, provided it first produces robust evidence that it already understands significant responsibilities and funding. A fictional departmental clipboard has called this progress with the training wheels still attached, then requested a risk register for the training wheels.
For each selected programme, applicants are expected to explain its objectives, budget, timeline, governance, financial controls, risks and results. Completed programmes should show why they succeeded and what benefits were realised. Ongoing programmes must explain how well they are going so far, which is the administrative equivalent of reviewing a cake while it is still mostly flour.
The demand for evidence is sensible. Public money should not be released on the strength of a confident map and a mayoral nod. Yet the process has made local devolution look like an audition for the right to complete a larger form. The map has submitted its application, attached every annex it could find and been rejected because it cannot prove that it has the capacity to locate the paper clip.
Source: GOV.UK.
