Meeting documents

Councillor Mrs Paternoster

Cabinet Member for Growth Strategy

To consider the attached report.

Contact Officer:  Tracey Aldworth (01296) 585003

(a)          Decision(s)

(1)          That the Buckinghamshire Growth Strategy 2017-2050 be noted.

(2)          That the Council’s response to the document be as follows:-

·         AVDC is disappointed and surprised about how this issue has been approached and is concerned that despite having raised a number of valid issues, the document was still commissioned in the manner presented.

·         AVDC believes that the document does not have any formal status and therefore will not be referenced in any of AVDC’s planning work.

·         AVDC does not believe that the other planning authorities in Bucks recognise the strategy.

·         AVDC believes that this document cannot be considered as a real strategy and questions its validity/value, given its broad and unsubstantiated statements.

·         AVDC is firmly of the view that the LEP needs to work better at identifying mission critical investments that need to be secured from Government.  This document does little to provide any clarity on the priority asks and offers that AVDC would seek to achieve within the context of a central area growth deal.

·         AVDC’s priority will be to work with the other that are willing to work in partnership across the central area in order to move a growth deal forward and would expect  that both LEPs will actively engage with this, rather than pursue separate growth conversations which it is understood the Government would like to avoid.

(b)          Reason(s) for Decision(s)

In response to the invitation to comment.  The Chief Executive of the Bucks/Thames Valley LEP attended the meeting and gave a brief presentation on the strategy.  Cabinet Members tested him rigorously on the assumptions made in the strategy.

(c)        Alternative Options Considered

Not to comment.  However, Cabinet felt it essential to express a view within the context of the actions being pursued by this Authority to seek a sustainable and robust growth strategy for the Vale.

(d)       Relevant Scrutiny Committee

Economy and Business Development.

(e)        Conflicts of Interest / Dispensation(s)

None.

Cabinet received a report on the Buckinghamshire Growth Strategy 2017-2050 that had been prepared by the Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (BTVLEP).  A response had been sought from AVDC to the document.

In August 2017, BTVLEP had commissioned consultants SGD Economic Development to prepare a growth strategy to submit to the Government.  This work appeared to have been commissioned in response to the Department for Communities and Local Government’s request in relation to the National Infrastructure Commission’s work on the Oxford to Cambridge Corridor and that the central part of the corridor needed to work up the initial investment priorities and pressures as the other parts of the corridor were well advanced with their work.

Related pieces of work had also been carried out by the Oxfordshire authorities in relation to the Growth Deal and an investment plan had been prepared by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.

AVDC had been contacted on 10 August 2017 to participate in the BTVLEP work and asked to respond in 4 hours with any comments on the proposal.  Prior to this contact there had not been any in depth conversation about the scope of the brief and how this work would fit in with the other statutory and non-statutory strategies prepared by the local authorities.

Comments about the scope of the work had been made before the due time but officers had clearly indicated they did not believe this was something that could be properly commissioned in the time available.  Officers had also clearly indicated that the focus of AVDC and other partners needed to be on preparing the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) bids, that were due in at the end of September, as well as working on the growth deal for the central area in a collective group rather than having competing bids across the corridor area.

Members were informed that the consultants had undertaken their work mainly through a desk top exercise and a review of existing documents, with some meetings with officer representatives from the other authorities.  The report had been published in September and had been considered and endorsed by the BTVLEP Board on 22 September 2017.  The document was attached as an appendix to the Cabinet agenda.

The report had also been agreed by Buckinghamshire County Council at the Cabinet meeting held on 23 October 2017.  The strategy was set out in two timeframes 2017-2030 and 2030-2050, and detailed the following ambitions:

·                    Deliver up to 105,000 new homes over the lifetime of the strategy.

·                    Address housing, infrastructure and skills constraints on growth.

·                    Enable the constituent parts of the Buckinghamshire economy to work together, strengthen the economic eco system and capitalise new regional growth opportunities.

·                    Increase the value of the local economy from £15bn per annum to £35bn per annum by 2050, a £4.5bn increase over a business as usual scenario.

·                    Ensure that economic prosperity drives future growth in Buckinghamshire.

Mr Richard Harrington, Chief Executive of BTVLEP attended the meeting to provide an overview of the key elements of the Strategy and to answer any questions.

Cabinet questioned Mr Harrington robustly on a number of issues/assumptions contained in the strategy document, including:-

·         The impossibly short timescale in which it had been produced.

·         The unsubstantiated assumptions made in the strategy

·         The non-acceptance that in reality there was not an economy based solely on Buckinghamshire.

·         The omission of any reference to the impact of Heathrow Airport.

·         The fact the  document had no real relevance to the Council’s Local Plan.

·         The references to growth potential of Wycombe and Chesham, ignoring the fact the preparation of VALP has already demonstrated that this Authority would need to meet the unmet housing needs of these areas.

·         The weaknesses evident in the assumptions made by Experian  about economic growth forecasting.

·         The impossibly high housing growth figures, which did not appear to take account of empirical data around housing provision numbers achieved in previous years.

·         The absence of investment priorities.

·         The apparent lack of detail required by the Government to determine contributions towards economic and housing growth.

Members felt that this Council could not support the document in the light of the concerns raised above, and accordingly it was,

RESOLVED –

(1)          That the Buckinghamshire Growth Strategy 2017-2050 be noted and Mr Harrington be thanked for his presentation.

(2)               That this Council’s response to the strategy be as follows:-

·        AVDC is disappointed and surprised about how this issue has been approached and is concerned that despite having raised a number of valid issues, the document was still commissioned in the manner presented.

·        AVDC believes that the document does not have any formal status and therefore will not be referenced in any of AVDC’s planning work.

·        AVDC does not believe that the other planning authorities in Bucks recognise the strategy.

·        AVDC believes that this document cannot be considered as a real strategy and questions its validity/value, given its broad and unsubstantiated statements.

·        AVDC is firmly of the view that the LEP needs to work better at identifying mission critical investments that need to be secured from Government.  This document does little to provide any clarity on the priority asks and offers that AVDC would seek to achieve within the context of a central area growth deal.

·        AVDC’s priority will be to work with the other local authorities that are willing to work in partnership across the central area in order to move a growth deal forward and must expect that both LEPs will actively engage with this rather than pursue separate growth conversations, which it is understood Government would like to avoid.