Meeting documents

Members will examine the role and responsibilities of Local Enterprise Partnerships and the structure and boundaries in Buckinghamshire.

Martin Tett, Leader

Stephen Walford, Senior Manager PLACE     

Papers:

·         Information paper - LEP

·         LEP Options Paper

Members are asked to consider the options and agree the next steps.

Martin Tett, Leader and Stephen Walford, Senior Manager PLACE were welcomed to the meeting.

Mr Tett began by explaining that the report sets out the background of the LEPs in terms of the partnership with the County Council. Buckinghamshire County Council has been anenthusiastic member of the Thames Valley LEP since its inauguration in 2011, on an equal basis with the four colleague District Councils.

The membership of the Board is balanced with the private sector.  There is a private sector chair which concurs with the Government objective of being business led. Membership includes all five Buckinghamshire Councils and a strong business representation from the private sector. The Thames Valley LEP competes very well with the other LEPS in the country.  It is highly regarded, works well and punches above its weight in terms of the Bucks economy and by being a lead influencer.

During discussions, the following questions were asked.

The Chairman said the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is very much of the opinion that the LEPs are advisory partnerships rather than Authorities in their own right with budgets.  How does Bucks develop its priorities which then feed in to the LEPs priorities?  Mr Walford explained that there has been a discussion at officer level with the Districts and County. The LEPS are not necessarily to replace what the Authorities are trying to do but to add value. There has been some tension in particular around land use planning where a lot of economic growth is intrinsically linked to land use planning and development.  LEPs have been created to try to accelerate economic growth.  A lot of funding that is being channelled through LEPs has been taken from monies that Local Authorities would have received. There is not much in terms of new monies.

In terms of priorities, from a County Council perspective transport priorities will be determined by Cabinet Member decision.  There was the requirement last year to set up a Local Transport Body to look at transport priorities. The County Council, LEP and District Councils have produced a list of priorities for the Strategic Economic Plan based on deliverability.  One key items of feedback from Government was how the Strategic Economic Plan is being brought forward in terms of delivery.  This is intended to be a six year delivery programme from 2015/2016 to 2020/21.

The diagram of the LEP structure, roles and responsibilities does not include the Local Transport Body (LTB).  It would be useful to know how the LTB relates to the Thames Valley LEP and South East Midlands LEP (SEMLEP). Mr Walford explained that the LTB isn’t included in the diagram as there are continuing discussions about the use and validity of the piece of governance going forward.  There was a requirement to set up the LTB which was based in the geography of Buckinghamshire. The Government wanted to funnel the part of the Transport Major Scheme money that wasn’t competitive i.e. that part that was going to be allocated out, via the LTBs to become the governance for that investment.  This was £8.3m for Buckinghamshire. At the end of 2013, the decision was made by Government that the funding would go via the LEPs not the LTB. There is the question of duplication of two government structures and what is most appropriate governance going forward.

Paragraph 3.8 of the report refers to Aylesbury Vale District Council being a member of both LEPs.  What opportunities and challenges does the dual membership raise? Mr Tett advised that there is no guidance that prohibits any District from being a member of two LEPs.  There are approximately 15 Districts across the country who are part of more than one LEP. LEPs were always meant to be economic entities, based around business related criteria. Almost universally across the country they are predominately related to local politics.  Aylesbury Vale chose at an early stage to remain within in the original Milton Keynes/South Midlands sub region.  The problem this presents going forward is increasingly some Government ministers see the LEPs as vehicles for engines of economic growth money and successors of the Regional Development Agencies where Government would channel money into. Initially money was allocated down to LEPs predominantly on a population basis so for Aylesbury Vale the money would have been effectively divided between the Bucks LEP and SEMLEP. This is roughly £1.2m Growing Places fund, £2.5m of the EU monies and £3.3m Public Works Loan Board money would have come to Buckinghamshire but it went to SEMLEP. One of the challenges moving forward from an allocation methodology to a competitive methodology, is that LEPs will compete with each other for the same pot of money.  There is the always the risk of conflict when an Authority is a member of more than one LEP given this competitive.

The level of funding that has gone to the SEMLEP has been mentioned.  What can be done to overcome future ‘invisible lines’ and how can the LEPs work together as partners? Mr Tett explained that in terms of EU monies, because Aylesbury Vale is a member of the both LEPs, a governance process has been arranged whereby SEMLEP sits on the body that adjudicates on the distribution of that funding. In terms of transport funding, Buckinghamshire County Council is the highways authority.  If there is a bid from another LEP, discussions would need to take place between the LEPs to agree the priorities, amounts of monies and timelines etc to make sure that money does eventually come into Buckinghamshire. This is an added complication to the process.

An agreement has recently been reached that SEMLEP would no longer bid for Buckinghamshire highways monies.

Mr Walford added that is a matter of timing in a competitive environment. Once the plans are finalised there can be a move forward in partnership as the competitive element will be taken away. 

There were some gaps in the timing of the formation of the LEPs (3.1 of the report). Is it not too late to say the relationship needs to be rearranged? Mr Walford explained that LEPs are only competitive in terms of they all bid for the same pot of money. Local Authorities are used to competing with and working alongside each other. This situation was challenging as it was specifically about transport schemes where another body was looking for funds to implement them which could not be implemented without agreement from the Local Transport Authority.

Mr Tett added that the Transport Authority is Buckinghamshire County Council. To have another body bidding for Buckinghamshire transport monies is an added complication of conflict. The understanding of the agreement reached with SEMLEP is because there is an allocation basis in the north of the county where non-transport monies are effectively divided 50/50, any other infrastructure project in that area would be funded 50/50 by both LEPs.

The LEP appears to be moving away from the Government aims i.e. democratic overview. What is the view on the transport needs in the county and how can the LEP address this? Mr Tett said to his knowledge Government has never said that the LEPs were set up as a democratic overview.  They were seen as a vehicle of economic development and regeneration. Buckinghamshire are probably in the minority of LEPs in having all of the Local Authorities as equal members. Many other LEPs only have representation from 1-2 District Councils. As the Bucks LEP is a fairly small size, there are not governance issues some other LEPs have.  There is no overarching Select Committee above the Bucks LEP. The democratic overview comes from its membership.

In terms of the roads, there is the aspiration as a County Council to improve the connectivity between Aylesbury and Wycombe.  Money has been set aside for the development of various schemes across the country but the biggest problem is about obtaining the capital funds to implement them. In order to generate the4 scale of local funding contributions required, the only realistic way of obtaining the monies would be from a very large scale housing development.

The County Council has economic development within their portfolio.  The LEP are also trying to address economic development.  Are there any issues between the two areas and the responsibilities? Mr Tett explained that the County Councils and District colleagues have a responsibility within economic development.  The County Council chooses to discharge this function by effectively commissioning an organisation called Bucks Business First.  Bucks Business First is comprised entirely of business representatives. It discharges a commissioned, economic development function. The LEP is a partnership between Local Authorities and businesses.  It looks more strategically at and puts money into economic development.

How do the priorities of the LEP reflect the priorities of the County Council, is the County Council getting the maximum value for money from the LEPs and what is the vision for the Medium Term Plan and priorities? Mr Walford explained that the LEP’s priorities reflect the priorities of the County Council virtually wholesale.  The LEPs take technical advice from the County Council with the intention of adding value not simply replicating what the County Council does. The LTB set out its initial priorities last summer and gave the priorities to the LEP.  The County Council can choose to use its own resources to develop the transport schemes it wants to deliver. It is down to the County Council to decide what schemes it wants to promote. There is also the element of local match funding to take into consideration. In terms of the Medium Term Plan, the initial priorities are set within the MTP but there is the requirement and there will be the opportunity to update the priorities going forward.

Mr Tett added that the LEPs bring forward a business perspective on what is important for businesses. In addition to the infrastructure, the LEPs are also very focussed on skills across the county.

Paragraph 3.6 of the report outlines various transport priorities and schemes.  Is there a list of future priorities, are the priorities driven by Bucks County Council and what is the process for bidding for money? The list of schemes that the LTB prioritised is available as a matter of public record.  The papers can be circulated to members of the Committee.

Action: Stephen Walford

Mr Walford said the anticipated process for obtaining monies would be that a scheme is contained with the Strategic Economic Plan and the LEP submits this plan to the Government for review. The DfT’s major scheme business case requirement is that for any transport schemes over £5m, the scheme promoter needs to put together a major business case which meets the DFT criteria and evidences the scheme is best value for money and that public money is being used in the best possible way.

This process could also lead to a log jam and a delay in schemes being put forward. Mr Walford explained that takes a certain amount of time to put a business case together which is the same for land permissions and acquisitions etc together which is why the emphasis and feedback so far has been to concentrate on delivery for 2015/16. Work is currently taking place on a number of business plans in advance of 2015/16 which will enable Bucks to demonstrate that they are well placed to hit the ground running.

The LEP seems to be a very successful venture.  How long is the funding from Bucks Business First for? Mr Tett advised there is an annual funding agreement in place with BBF and the money to fund this is from the base budget. There used to be additional funding within the base budget for commissioning in-house economic development. As part of budget cuts this money is no longer available. There needs to be smart working around about what and how services are commissioned.

What are the positives/negatives of BBF being chaired by a business person? It is good to have a business person chair the BBF in terms of letting business people decide what is really important in terms of driving jobs and growth is a better way of doing things.

Local Government works in a particular way with particular wants and needs.  Businesses work in a different way. Are there any levers, nets, processes that the Local Authority can release back to the business community i.e. the Strategic Plan, in terms of asking businesses for their views and help on delivering regeneration and growth without the constrictions? Mr Tett explained that in the era of Mr Heseltine it was about getting money from Central Government released to Localities in large amounts. Local Authorities thought this was a good idea until the money came from their own budget. The end result is little or no money coming from Central Government and local money being recycled locally.  There needs to be an understanding of the views and lobbying about planning. Districts are reluctant to let go of the tight controls that are currently in place for planning go which businesses find very frustrating.

Mr Walford added that in general, the LEPs are going to set out the types of freedoms and flexibility they want in order to unlock economic growth. The reticence of central departments to release budgets is understandable. There is still a lot to be done in terms of bureaucracy and the process to unlock this future investment.

How is the future development of the Bucks LEP seen?  It would seem logical to bring Aylesbury Vale out of the SEMLEP into the Bucks LEP.  Are there the means to do this? Mr Tett explained there is a similar situation with Cherwell from Oxfordshire being in SEMLEP. This issue has taken a phenomenal amount of time, discussions and negotiations. Bucks LEP has sought to persuade Aylesbury Vale that it would be in their best interest to be part of a common pool that serves Bucks. Aylesbury Vale’s view is they want to maximise investment into Aylesbury Vale and this is best achieved by ‘double-dipping’. The rationale for this is understood. LEPs were set up by definition to be a wider geography and to have a pooling arrangement for the money.  Mr Tett added that to his knowledge there is no evidence that SEMLEP has invested significantly in Aylesbury Vale.  Hopefully the new 50/50 mechanism might correct this.

It is good to hear there is an understanding of trying to avoid duplication from the LEPS and LTBs etc.  Clarification is needed of the overlaps that still exist and the funding challenges that have emerged from the changes made by Local Government.

Members of the Committee were referred to the Options paper which outlines the options for the Committee to consider how to take forward further work on the LEPs and agree the next steps.  Suggested options could include;

1.    That the Committee agree that Members have received sufficient information to understand the role of the LEPs locally and that there is no value to be added in carrying out further work at this time

2.    That the Committee would like to further develop their knowledge and understanding of LEPs and their role in Buckinghamshire by undertaking a short inquiry examining the role of the LEPs in more detail.

Members of the Committee agreed that an inquiry into the role of the LEPs is not needed at this stage as LEPs would be taken into consideration as part of the EU/external funding review.

Action: Chairman/ETL Working Group

An update on the LEPs should be given to the Committee in 6 months.

Action: Stephen Walford