Decision - SUB-NATIONAL REVIEW OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1.     That the main points of the consultation response, as set out in Section 7 of the report, be approved.

2.     That the Acting Director, Cultural Services be authorised to discuss and if possible agree a similar joint response with East and West Sussex County Councils.

1.     Sustainable and appropriate economic development will form a key part of the Council’s Local Area Agreement. The consultation on the Sub-National Review gives an opportunity for the Council to influence government policy in this area.

2.     The proposals for implementation of the sub-national review fall short, in the view of officers, in several ways. Most importantly, the local authority voice is weakened with the abolition of SEERA and arrangements proposed do not provide an adequate replacement.

3.     There are many items in the proposals with which we can agree. In particular, the general devolutionary thrust of the paper is welcome, and gives the city a chance to exercise a greater degree of control over the funding it receives for economic development. It should also encourage closer working with neighbouring authorities, which is a sensible and logical approach.

4.     Some important elements of economic development and planning remain at regional level, however, and it is in this area that the LGA and many local authorities have expressed strong concern. The abolition of SEERA removes a strong local authority voice in regional planning, and leaves SEEDA as the principal regional player on both planning and economic development.

5.     Given the central importance of planning and economic development to local authority work, it is disappointing that the government’s proposals do not give local authorities more leverage over SEEDA. The local authority forum that government propose is a consultative body with no veto power, and final authority will rest with the Secretary of State.

6.     Officers would support a response that backs the position of the LGA, and suggests that SEEDA become a central/local shared agency. This is also the proposal of Cllr Keith Mitchell, current Chairman of SEERA.

7.     Officers anticipate that the government will not support the LGA’s approach, so the proposed response also seeks to ensure that any local authority representation (whether a forum or some other mechanism) is properly representative of the economic profile of the local government community in the region.

8.     The proposed consultation response would therefore:

·       support those elements of the implementation proposals that are devolutionary

·       disagree with the proposal that RDAs should remain business/ government-led quangos

·       propose instead that RDAs should become central/local shared bodies, with 50:50 representation of central and local interests on the board

·       say that any form of local government representation should be properly representative of the economic and planning interests of local government in the region, rather than on a strictly numerical basis.

9.     From informal conversations, officers understand that East and West Sussex County Councils broadly share our position. To strengthen our consultation response, officers would like to seek agreement from both authorities to submit a joint response along the lines proposed above. If officers are unable to secure agreement, an individual response from the City Council will be issued.

1.     No alternative options were considered as we are responding to a national consultation exercise.