A copy
of a report to be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on 20th
July is attached for the consideration of the Commission.
Minutes:
The Scrutiny
Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive to be presented to the
Cabinet at its meeting in July 2021 regarding the consultation draft of the
Economic Growth Strategy prepared by Cambridge Econometrics on behalf of the
Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP). A copy of the
report and the draft Strategy marked ‘Agenda Item 11’ is filed with these
minutes.
The Chairman
welcomed Mr P. Bedford CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Covid Recovery and Ways of
Working and the County Council’s representative on the LLEP Board, to the
meeting.
Arising from discussion, the following points were made:
(i)
The Strategy would be an important document
given the significant impact of the pandemic on businesses in the area.
There was currently no single strategy for the subregion which set out clearly
the sectors priorities or vision for the local economy and members agreed that
the Strategy would help fill that void;
(ii)
The observations detailed in paragraph 32 of the
report were strongly supported though some felt the Council’s response should
be more robust;
(iii)
A Member questioned the lack of reference to the
planned Freeport and how this might affect jobs and skills requirements in the
area. It was noted that the establishment of a Freeport was predominantly
being led by the relevant local authorities and private landowners, not the
LEPs, and the Chief Executive confirmed that reference to this could be added
to the Council’s response to the draft Strategy;
(iv)
A Member raised concern that the impacts of
Brexit and how these might be managed to support local businesses had not been
addressed in the draft Strategy. It was suggested that these could
fundamentally affect trade nationally and locally for some time to come and so
should be referenced;
(v)
There was currently a mismatch between the
number of jobs available in Leicestershire and the number of people available
locally who were appropriately skilled to fill those positions. A member
raised concern that this would likely result in an increase in demand for
housing in areas already under pressure. It was agreed that this emphasised
the importance of skills and training and the need to ensure that when
vacancies arose, measures were in place to support local people not in work to
access those positions. It was suggested that the Strategy should demonstrate a
closer alignment to the Leicester/Leicestershire Strategic Growth Plan to 2050;
(vi)
A member suggested that whilst the Strategy
referred to inclusivity this did not seem to capture businesses in rural areas
which had been significantly affected by Covid. A request was made for
this to be strengthened and, in particular, for reference to be added to the
‘Sustainable’ leg of the Strategy Framework set out in paragraph 28 of the
report which currently only referenced ‘sustainable places, city and town
centres’;
(vii)
A particular concern was raised about the
negative affect the City Council’s Transport Strategy and workplace parking
levy proposals (currently the subject of public consultation) might have on
those commuting to work in the City from rural areas of the County and how this
could disproportionally affected young people in lower paid jobs. Members
emphasised the need for the Economic Growth Strategy to take an overarching
view of the wider implications of such local policies to ensure these
dovetailed to support those seeking work across County, City and other regional
boundaries. This was considered necessary to facilitate the growth
planned across the region;
(viii)
Concern was raised that the Strategy was too
repetitive and backward looking and not sufficiently clear about future plans
and the allocation of resources. As the Strategy would run to 2030 it was
suggested that this need to be much more forward looking;
(ix)
A member suggested that the Strategy was too
high level with no clear tangible outcomes identified. It was emphasised,
however, that the Strategy covered a wide geographical area which had a vast
and diverse local economy with each area having its own strengths and
priorities. It was also highlighted that much depended on other national
and local plans which were yet to be determined (e.g. HS2, Devolution White
Paper and Planning legislation). This therefore limited the degree of
clarity that could be included and inevitably led to some
generalisations;
(x)
Members acknowledged that the Council’s
observations set out in paragraph 32, provided a fair summary of many of the
issues now raised and if addressed, would strengthen the Strategy and ensure
this was more reflective. Members agreed that the development of an
action plan, as proposed by the County Council in its response, would be vital
in providing the necessary detail and clarity sought;
(xi)
A member stressed the importance of partnership
working and the need to ensure there was shared ownership of the Strategy
across the region by all private and public sector representatives on the LLEP
Board to improve the economic viability for the area.
RESOLVED:
That the comments
now made be presented to the Cabinet at its meeting on 20th July for
consideration.
Supporting documents: