Decision Maker: Council
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Resolved:
1.
That Council agrees the response below should form the basis of
South Ribble Borough Council’s response to the
consultation:
“South Ribble
Borough Council recognises that devolution has the potential to
secure significant benefits for Lancashire, bringing decision
making and accountability closer to residents. Other areas of the
north west, most notably Greater Manchester and Liverpool City
Region, have already benefited from their devolution
deals.
Effective
devolution should encourage strong economic growth and increased
productivity, alongside better health and wellbeing and
strengthened public services.
Unfortunately, the
proposals currently being consulted on
are unlikely to lead to those benefits and so South Ribble Borough
Council cannot support them. The council has some specific concerns about the proposals. These
are set out below, refencing the relevant section of the
consultation being referred
to:
a)
The proposals for management of future rounds of the UKSPF in
section one fail to recognise the success of the current
round that is currently managed by
district councils. Changing it to a more remote body with limited
infrastructure to manage successful community schemes will make
future success less likely. South Ribble Borough Council believes
that responsibility for future rounds of UKSPF should remain with
district councils.
b)
The provision of £6 million of capital investment to
Samlesbury Enterprise Zone and £6 million to the Blackburn
Technology Innovation Quarter (section one) is welcome
investment in the county but are small scale and limited in
geographic impact. The council believes that the upper tier
authorities proposing the creation of the CCA need to more clearly explain how future investment will be
secured and prioritised, identifying how investment will benefit
the whole of the county area.
c)
The devolution of adult education and the core Adult Education
Budget at section two is welcome, but the proposals beyond
that are currently vague and undeveloped. The partners involved in
the CCA need to more clearly explain how skills of a large and
diverse county area will be served by
programmes that are developed.
d)
The proposals at section three demonstrate the importance
for partners who are constituent members in recognising the nuances
and needs of local areas, as it makes special arrangements for
Blackpool Transport Services. This is important in a county the
size of Lancashire but fails to recognise the particular needs of other areas such as South Ribble
where the borough as a distinct area is not represented. The
proposal includes reference to Network North funding. The
announcement from government on Network North included the A582
improvement scheme and the council would like clarity on how this
scheme will be supported by the
CCA.
e)
Expanding eligibility criteria for Cosy Homes in Lancashire through
an additional £2 million of funding at section four
is supported, but it must be recognised
that the scale of funding is extremely small across the whole
county.
f)
The proposals across sections five, six and seven do not
appear to add anything that is not already in place across the
council. While opening the potential for further discussions with
the government and its agencies may be positive, it is not possible
to support something with no detail. As with the other sections of
the proposals, South Ribble Borough Council would welcome
devolution in these areas, but the current proposals need to be
stronger and more ambitious to realise Lancashire’s
potential.
g)
Section eight sets out the governance arrangements for the
CCA and devolution deal. South Ribble Borough Council does not
support the governance arrangements proposed. They fail to
recognise the important role of district
councils in understanding and representing local communities. While
the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act sets out the rules for
membership, the constituent members could provide full voting
rights within the CCA constitution to encourage district
engagement. In addition, the CCA partners should clearly set out a
more comprehensive plan for ensuring that the new arrangements will
not just make local government in Lancashire even more complex and
confusing for residents, businesses and
communities.
2. That the Chief Executive be asked to share the council’s response to the consultation with local MPs representing the borough.
Report author: Chris Sinnott
Publication date: 19/01/2024
Date of decision: 17/01/2024
Decided at meeting: 17/01/2024 - Council
Accompanying Documents: