Agenda item - Update on Greater Brighton Devolution Bid

navigation and tools

Find it

Agenda item

Update on Greater Brighton Devolution Bid

Report of the Chair, Greater Brighton Officer Programme Board (copy attached).

Decision:

That the Greater Brighton Economic Board :

1) Note the overall progress of the Greater Brighton Devolution Proposals since the 14 January 2016 Ministerial challenge session and the updates from the five work stream.

2) Note the draft proposals for:

- The outline of the Strategic Transport Partnership which is subject to further discussion with 3SC

- The Brighton Mainline (BML) Task Force

- The Greater Brighton City Region (GBCR) Digital Strategy

- The approach to creating a new digital infrastructure

- The drive to implement university led, innovation driven growth

3) Agree the approach and timetable for consideration of governance issues

4) Note the timetable for the next six months

5) Note that further resources will be needed to complete and implement the Devolution Deal – to be proposed for decision in the separate overall GBEB budget paper.

6) The Board requests that as the devolution work progresses every effort is made to further reduce the amount of duplication and overlap with the 3SC proposals in order to ensure best use of resources for the tax payer and that the results of this work is referenced in future reports.

Minutes:

34.1 The Board considered a report of the Chair, Greater Brighton Officer Programme Board that provided an update on progress with the Greater Brighton Devolution Deal since the previous meeting held on 26 January 2016.

34.2 The Chair congratulated officers for the significant amount of work undertaken on the matter in a limited timeframe.

34.3 Nick Juba asked when a clearer picture of timescales may be known.

34.4 Nick Hibberd stated that the emphasis to meet for further discussion was on the Greater Brighton Officer Programme Board and that would be done following further discussion with Board partners.

34.5 Phillip Carr stated that he was in regular communication with Nick Hibberd and the wider Officer Programme Board regarding the devolution bid process. Those meetings and discussions would narrow the focus on what the requests of any devolution deal would be and also provide clarity on the offer that may arise from central government. A devolution deal would be drafted in the near future and the focus would then be on ensuring that all parties were satisfied with the content and proposals.

34.6 Andrew Swayne noted paragraph 3.6 detailed an announcement of a further £3.8 million Local Growth Funding split into £1.8 million of Growth Deals with LEP’s and £2 billion allocated through the Home Building Fund. Andrew Swayne asked for further detail on that and if that would mean that several schemes would have separate funding streams.

34.7 Paul Castle clarified that a different process would apply to the £2 billion allocation that would be allocated through the Homes & Communities Agency and paid to developers. The role of the LEP was currently being explored in that process.

34.8 John A. Peel noted that the document explored the idea for a regional transport board and asked if there was any indication what sub-region that would cover.

34.9 Nick Hibberd stated that discussions were continuing on the most logical and beneficial geography and work was underway with the 3SC’s to influence that debate.

34.10 John A. Peel stated that in his view, the involvement of Croydon area and ‘Gatwick triangle’ would help the proposal enormously.

34.11 Councillor Theobald noted the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recently assigned £100,000 to explore options for Brighton Mainline 2 (BML2). Councillor Theobald noted that visitor numbers to the city had increased and were continuing in that upward trend and represented a very challenging situation that needed resolution.

34.12 Geoff Raw stated that the need for BML2 was clear and Jonathan Sharrock would play an important role in supporting conversations with Network Rail on the matter.

34.13 John A. Peel stated his agreement with that observation and he was aware that Jonathan Sharrock saw BML2 as a key issue for the LEP.

34.14 Andrew Swayne stated that BML2 was part of a wider discussion on the GBEB and 3SC bids relating to how there would be a joined up approach from the two in working together on key strategies and not duplicating the work of respective officers.

34.15 Councillor Wall stated that whilst he was assured in reading the report update, it was clear that there was still a lot of work to do and the Board would need to consider the fuller detail and when that was complete. Councillor Wall stated that the four local authority Board Members were considering 12 projects and that demonstrated the scale of ambition across the region. Councillor Wall noted that the Board needed to be very cautious amongst that ambition as there was potential for overlap and duplication in officer time and use of public money. Preventing that required ensuring that the GBEB and 3SC’s were sharing information as much as possible and planning together.

34.16 Councillor Morgan stated that he welcomed the comments made by Councillor Wall and it was essential to avoid any duplication. Councillor Morgan added key aspect of the partnership would be increased transparency from the 3SC’s.

34.17 Nick Hibberd noted that there was a Memorandum of Understanding between the GBEB and 3SC’s that demonstrated shared understanding. In terms of partnership working, there were regular catch-ups between the respective officers that included weekly meetings and a number of joint meetings on issues such as transport. Complications were sometimes caused by the two groups working at a different pace and existing efforts would be re-doubled to limit duplication in work.

34.18 Councillor Wall stated that there were synergies between the work of the GBEB and 3SC’s but also separate pursuits as the scale of the 3SC’s was completely different. Councillor Wall added that whilst the GBEB was good at delivering schemes, the 3SC’s had potential to a bigger level that was a clear reason to work better together and in a more cohesive fashion to avoid duplication. Councillor Wall moved the following motion to add a recommendation as shown in bold italics as follows:

The Board requests that as the devolution work progresses every effort is made to further reduce the amount of duplication and overlap with the 3SC proposals in order to ensure best use of resources for the tax payer and that the results of this work is referenced in future reports.

34.19 Andrew Swayne stated that he agreed with the comments made regarding duplication but cautioned that the 3SC’s was a wide-ranging and complex partnership and it the flexibility and agility of the GBEB could not be compromised.

34.20 Councillor Theobald asked if a similar request to that in the motion tabled would be made of the 3SC’s.

34.21 Councillor Wall stated that the date of their next meeting had not yet be confirmed but he would raise with his colleagues on the 3SC’s at the meeting.

34.22 The Chair stated that he could write to the Chair of the 3SC’s and ask them to consider the same resolution.

34.23 Councillor Humphreys stated that he supported the issue of effectiveness and delivery and believed that both the GBEB and 3SC’s should agree the resolution. Councillor Humphreys added that there would be a need for an indicator of that efficiency.

34.24 Councillor Wall felt that the demonstration of efficiency would be clear in the reports submitted to the GBEB.

34.25 Prof. Davies queried the need for a further resolution as he understood that the terms of co-operative working were enshrined on the MoU between the GBEB and 3SC’s.

34.26 Councillor Wall stated that he did not feel the issue was as simple and a line in the sand was needed as the GBEB and 3SC’s progressed as entities. Councillor Wall added that such as resolution would also demonstrate political buy-in.

34.27 Kathryn Hall stated that some of the proposals of the report such as a Transport Body and BML2 had not been discussed with partners on the 3SC’s and the resolution would be a tightening up of issues and procedures.

34.28 Councillor Theobald stated that whilst he supported the motion, it should certainly be agreed by both the GBEB and 3SC’s.

34.29 Trevor Beattie stated that he agreed with the observation made in the motion but there needed to be flexibility between the GBEB and 3SC’s as both sides would move at a different pace.

34.30 Councillor Smith seconded the motion.

34.31 The Chair put the motion to the vote which passed.

34.32 The Chair put the recommendation as amended to the vote which were agreed.

34.33 RESOLVED- That the Greater Brighton Economic Board: