Agenda item

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive which advised of progress in transferring the responsibilities of the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP), a strategic body which had existed since 2011 to drive forward the growth of the Leicester and Leicestershire economy, to the two upper tier local authorities (the County Council and Leicester City Council).  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 8’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion, the following points were made:

(i)               It was questioned how the new arrangements would support partnership working, particularly with district councils that were responsible for economic development.  A Member commented that other authorities had established an economic growth board which continued to involve all partners but had noted that this was not the planned approach for Leicester and Leicestershire. The Chief Executive reported that district councils along with all other stakeholders would continue to be fully involved, both through the new Business Board, yet to be established, and through involvement in a number of subgroups.  They would also be involved in discussions regarding the proposed new economic strategy for the area.  However, as the Government had transferred LLEP responsibilities and decision making to upper tier authorities, it was considered appropriate for the district councils’ role to be advisory along with other key stakeholders.  The Government clearly wished to do things differently and it was not therefore considered appropriate for the current LLEP Board arrangements to be recreated.

(ii)              A Member raised concern that the City Mayor and the Leader of the County Council would not be members of the proposed new Business Board but would ultimately be the decision makers.  It was suggested that their attendance was critical to ensure they heard the full discussions that took place, the different views shared by each stakeholder, and the advice provided before making a decision.  To receive a summary of this from a third party would not provide the nuisance of the discussions that could be important.  The Chief Executive explained that it was intended that both would meet regularly with the Chair of the Business Board and that their regular attendance at the Business Board was being considered.

(iii)            The timeline for the establishment of the new Business Board was yet to be agreed but its first meeting was expected to be held in late June.  Recruitment and Membership of the Board would likely follow a similar process as had been adopted to appoint LLEP Directors previously.  Opportunities would be advertised widely.  Key business bodies, like the Chamber of Commerce, would also be invited to nominate a representative to join the Board.  Some Members suggested that as businesses would no longer have any decision making powers, their interest in the Board might be reduced.  

(iv)            The present LLEP reserve balance of £10m would continue to be held by the City Council as the administering authority for the partnership.  How this would be spent was yet to be determined but would be informed by the new economic strategy which the Government required the City and County Council to submit within 6 months of receipt of funding.  It was noted, however, that priority activities already agreed would still be funded from the reserve.

(v)             It was expected that Government funding would continue for specific activities previously carried out by the LLEP, such as the Careers Hub and Growth Hub that would transfer to the County and City Councils.  However, it had not yet been confirmed how much would be received.  The three key functions of the LLEP that would be transferring were business representation, strategic economic planning and the delivery of government programmes.  Where the Government asked it to deliver a specific programme on its behalf it was expected that this would come with funding to support this.  

(vi)            Performance against agreed outcomes within the new economic strategy would in future be captured as part of the Council’s overall annual performance report.  This would be presented to the Scrutiny Commission for consideration in the normal way.  The Commission might also wish to consider seeking an annual report on the activities delivered under the new arrangements similar to how it considers the activities of the Place Marketing Team which is also a joint partnership with the City Council.  This could be done once arrangements had been finalised.

(vii)          It was confirmed that key decisions, for example to approve a new economic growth strategy, would need to be formally approved through the County and City Council’s normal decision making processes which would include reporting to the Cabinet following consultation with Scrutiny as appropriate.  

(viii)         The new arrangements had currently absorbed the LLEP sub structure and groups, such as the Investment Panel, and the continuation of these groups was yet to be considered.  A Member suggested that member involvement through a similar Investment Panel that oversaw investments, and the performance of loans should continue.

(ix)            The County and City Council had inherited the LLEP communications approach and external support for this would continue over the next two months.  Discussions were being held with the City Council to agree the approach for the future.  It was recognised that the Board would be supporting a large, diverse business community and its communications approach would therefore be critical.

(x)             In the event of a devolution deal being agreed, it was noted that these responsibilities and new arrangements would transfer to the Combined Authority.  Members commented therefore that the current arrangements might only be temporary.

(xi)            A Member commented that as no planning powers would be transferred to the City and County Council, it would still be dependent on all planning and licensing applications going through district councils.  However, as they would no longer be part of the Business Board except in an advisory capacity, it was suggested that this might hinder progress.

(xii)          To ensure consistency for businesses and how they were supported, operational economic development activity previously delivered through the LLEP continued with the bulk of the former LLEP officer team still in place, hosted at the City Council.

The Lead Member, Mr Bedford CC, commented that whilst the delay by the Government in announcing its planned approach had caused some frustration, overall a pragmatic approach had been adopted by partners who still had an appetite to be involved and build on what had already been achieved by the LLEP across Leicester and Leicestershire.  He thanked the LLEP Directors and officers for their perseverance and support throughout the transition process.

RESOLVED:

That the update on the transfer of the responsibilities of the LLEP to the County and City Council be noted.