Venue: Shield Room, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland, PR25 1DH
Contact: Coral Astbury, Democratic and Member Services Officer Email: coral.astbury@southribble.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Will Adams, Jane Bell, James Flannery, George Rear, Caleb Tomlinson and Ian Watkinson.
Councillors Jane Bell and Caleb Tomlinson did attend virtually on Microsoft Teams. |
|
Declarations of Interest Members are requested to indicate at this stage in the proceedings any items on the agenda in which they intend to declare an interest. Members are reminded that if the interest is a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct) they must leave the room for the whole of that item.
If the interest is not a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, but is such that a member of the public could reasonably regard it as being so significant that it is likely that it would prejudice their judgment of the public interest (as explained in the Code of Conduct) then they may make representations, but then must leave the meeting for the remainder of the item. Minutes: The following declarations were received:
Councillor Michael Green declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest as a member of Lancashire County Council (LCC) Executive.
Councillor Matthew Campbell declared a personal interest as an LCC employee.
Councillor Matthew Tomlinson declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest as an elected member of LCC.
Councillor David Howarth declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest as an elected member of LCC.
Councillor Paul Wharton-Hardman sought clarification from the Monitoring Officer on Councillor Michael Green’s eligibility to take part in the debate and vote on the agenda item. In response, the Monitoring Officer explained he had given Councillor Green advice and was satisfied that Councillor Green had explained his thought process and would be making a decision with an open mind. |
|
Lancashire Devolution Deal PDF 119 KB
Report of the Chief Executive. Additional documents:
Decision: 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 ... view the full decision text for item 71. Minutes: The Leader of the Council, Councillor Paul Foster presented a report that presented a summary of the proposals to create a combined county authority (CCA) and a devolution deal for Lancashire, and to agree the principles of a response to the consultation.
The Leader thanked officers for a detailed and clear paper and outlined some of the background to the devolution deal.
Members were advised that should the deal go ahead, the authority would lose funding from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) which would put projects such as the Penwortham Masterplan, Worden Hall and Park Improvements, community engagement and activities and business support at risk.
An amendment was proposed by Councillor Karen Walton on behalf of the Conservative Group and seconded by Councillor Margaret Smith that sought to remove paragraph 25 and replace it with the following,
“We support the Combined
County Authority and ask that when they get to negotiating the
final deal, request that: 1.
There is a formal mechanism for consulting
with the 12 District Councils and that the 2 representatives
appointed to the Board are mandated to implement the stated
objectives. 2. The future United Kingdom Shared Prosperity fund is left to the District Councils to distribute.”
The following members debated the amendment, Councillors Karen Walton, Margaret Smith, David Howarth, Mary Green, Paul Foster, Phil Smith and Matthew Tomlinson.
A number of points were raised including the lack of involvement in the devolution deal for district council’s, the parliamentary time frame for adoption and the desire that UKSPF funding should remain with the district councils.
A recorded vote was undertaken on the proposed amendment and subsequently,
Resolved: (For: 15, Against: 29) that the amendment be lost.
For: Councillors Bretherton, Buttery, Campbell, Coulton, Forshaw, Gleave, Mary Green, Michael Green, King, Mullineaux, Rainsbury, M Smith, P Smith, Walton and Watson)
Against: Councillors Alty, Ashton, Bedford, Bylinski Gelder, Farnworth, Foster, Gabbott, Gleeson, Hancock, Hindle-Taylor, Howarth, Hunter, Jackson, Lillis, Lomax, Martin, Peet, Pillinger, Pritchard, Roberts, Sharples, Shaw, Stevens, Stringfellow, M Tomlinson, Turner, Unsworth, Wharton-Hardman and Williams)
The debate resumed to the substantive motion and the following member spoke: Councillors David Howarth, Jacky Alty, Keith Martin, Matthew Farnworth, Paul Wharton-Hardman, Connor Watson and Paul Foster.
Members compared the deal to those of Liverpool Combined Authority and Greater Manchester Combined Authority and there was some disappointment at the level of proposed devolved powers and funding. Some members felt that there should have been more consultation by LCC with the district authorities and it would be difficult for elected representatives of Blackburn with Darwen or Blackpool to understand issues affecting residents in South Ribble.
A recorded vote was undertaken on the proposed recommendations and subsequently,
Resolved: (For: 30, Against: 14)
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 ... view the full minutes text for item 71. |