Agenda item - Sub National Transport Body

Report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture (copy attached).

1)           That Committee agrees Brighton & Hove City Council should join a shadow Sub National Transport Body for the South East, known as Transport for the South East (TfSE);

2)           That Committee delegates authority to the Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture to agree a shadow constitution for TfSE, following consultation with the Leader of the Council and consultation with Leaders Group, on behalf of Brighton & Hove City Council;

2.3       That Committee notes that a further report will be brought back to Committee within the next 12 months to report on the shadow arrangements and update the Committee on the proposed detailed constitutional arrangements including membership, voting and emerging priorities.

51.1      The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that sought approval for Brighton & Hove City Council to join a shadow Sub National Transport Body for the South East known as Transport for the South East (TfSE) and develop a Transport Strategy. If approved, further report would be brought back to Committee in the next 12 months to report on the shadow arrangements, provide detail on the proposed constitutional arrangements and consider possible membership of a Sub National Transport Body (SNTB).

51.2      Councillor Theobald stated that the proposals reminded him in a negative sense of the now defunct South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA). Councillor Theobald stated that the membership of SEERA meant that many of their meetings were overly focussed on large authorities such as Hampshire and those north of London and there was little benefit to Brighton & Hove. Councillor Theobald noted that the proposed SNTB membership would be similar in make-up and size to that of SEERA, comprising of authorities as far away as Southampton, Portsmouth and Berkshire and shared little in identity or interest. Councillor Theobald felt that the council’s endeavour was better placed elsewhere.

51.3      The Assistant Director- City Transport stated that the proposals were not a council driven initiative and clear signals had been received from the Department for Transport (DfT) that its preferred future model was for regional groupings and dealing with bigger strategic issues. The proposal from the South East 7 (SE7) comprised a reasonably coherent group with shared borders and common issues. There were potential advantages to being part of a wider transport body such as increased funding and being able to deal with issues in a larger way than as a single authority. Proposals for a SNTB were at an early stage and it was opportunity to be part of the informal process of establishment in order to have influence on any potential SNTB.

51.4      The Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture noted that the Cities & Devolution Act that had recently come into force placed emphasis on regional constructs. DfT had given a clear indication that it wished to see large scale geography for such bodies and that there be few of them. The Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture agreed that the focus for the council should be the Brighton, London, Gatwick corridor, the A23, the A27, railways and links coastal links east and west. Officers felt that in order for that focus to be maintained and to have sufficient influence in the future, it was important to be part of the shadow arrangements for the SNTB.

51.5      On behalf of the Conservative Group, Councillor Janio moved an amendment to recommendation 2.2 as shown in bold italics below:

2.2   That Committee delegates authority to the Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture to agree a shadow constitution for TfSE, following consultation with the Leader of the Council and consultation with Leaders Group, on behalf of Brighton & Hove City Council

51.6      The Chair seconded the motion.

51.7      Councillor Deane stated that she was hugely concerned by the concept and with the current trend of insistence by policy-makers of creating infrastructure to an enormous scale, such as HS2, and such projects were invasive to the quality of people’s lives. In becoming part of the SNTB, Brighton & Hove City Council risked being drawn into such projects to its and residents detriment and she could not support the proposals.

51.8      Councillor Miller stated that whilst he could understand the logic of replicate the Transport for London (TfL) model, he did have concerns about the proposals undermining the devolution process for the Greater Brighton region and losing focus through duplication. Councillor Miller asked why the Greater Brighton region could not become a wider transport authority in itself.

51.9      The Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture clarified that Brighton & Hove City Council were the only transport authority within the city region and under the devolution proposals, it was understood that the SNTB would have the remit for major transport decisions and that would be the same for partner organisations on any potential SNTB. The Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture stated that the observations made on the broad geography of the SNTB were correct but officers were used to working across regions and every effort would be made to avoid duplication.

51.10   Councillor Wares noted that a report would be reported to the committee in 12 months and enquired whether the authority could decide not to join the SNTB if it was not in its interests.

51.11   The Chair confirmed that it would be possible to make a decision not to formally join the SNTB should it not be in the council’s interest to do so.

51.12   Councillor Greenbaum stated that she was unsure on the proposals as there was a lack of precedence or comparator. Councillor Greenbaum noted that there may be positive strategic outcomes in joining the SNTB but she was concerned that there may be some cost to the council, specifically in its sustainability ambitions.

51.13   The Chair stated that a decision was being made on joining a shadow arrangement and she was sure similar concerns had been raised by other authorities across the country.

51.14   Councillor Janio stated that this appeared an effort to regionalise and devolve central government funding and there may be a downside to the authority not joining as it may exclude it from funding applications.

51.15   The Assistant Director- City Transport stated that there was a risk that not joining could be a detriment to future funding applications and DfT had made it clear that it expected all or most authorities to join such an arrangement. The Assistant Director- City Transport stated that all favourable and unfavourable outcomes would be looked at and reported clearly back to committee before any formal arrangement was arrived at.

51.16   RESOVLED-

1)           That Committee agrees Brighton & Hove City Council should join a shadow Sub National Transport Body for the South East, known as Transport for the South East (TfSE);

2)           That Committee delegates authority to the Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture to agree a shadow constitution for TfSE, following consultation with the Leader of the Council and Leaders Group, on behalf of Brighton & Hove City Council;

3)           That Committee notes that a further report will be brought back to Committee within the next 12 months to report on the shadow arrangements and update the Committee on the proposed detailed constitutional arrangements including membership, voting and emerging priorities.