Minutes:
(1) The Leader updated the County Council on events since the previous meeting.
(2) He stated that he would attempt to cover three main subjects in his allocated time: the growth deal and the future of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs); the changing role of County Councils; and the implications for KCC of the Care Act.
(3) In relation to the growth deal, Mr Carter stated that the recent announcements on the amount of funding for the South East region had left the relevant local authorities and the business community feeling rather deflated and disappointed and that following the huge amount of effort that had been put in over the previous 2 and a half years, there was an expectation that there would be a significant deal over a 4 to 5 year period; but in reality, the funds that had been announced would only cover 1 to 2 years with an expectation of further money in the future. He stated that there was enormous disappointment that the money had gone to the North and Midlands, supporting North, North-East and Northern Metropolitan Authorities whilst the South East LEP had received a less than average settlement.
(4) He stated that there was an emerging view amongst local authorities and the business community that the South East LEP was too large and that the relevant authorities should be asking the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Mr Pickles, to review the existing boundaries, following the Secretary of State’s comments that he would give consideration to such requests if existing boundaries were not working effectively. Mr Carter stated that, during one of the fringe events at the recent Local Government Association (LGA) conference, delegates expressed the view that more control was needed by local authorities on setting priorities for their own areas. Mr Carter stated that KCC was grateful for what it had been given under the growth deal and that it was good news for Ashford and other areas of Kent, but there remained huge disappointment at the announcement overall.
(5) Mr Carter spoke about the discussion held at the County Councils’ Network (CCN) meeting the previous day about the changing role of County Councils and the importance of helping the national political parties to set the agenda in advance of the Parliamentary Elections in 2015. Mr Carter stated that there were four main areas of significance in relation to the changing role of County Councils: 1) their role in achieving economic growth and prosperity; County regions not just City regions and the enormous role County Councils played alongside the business community through the LEPs; 2) their role in integrating health and social care budgets; spending the budgets for public health more wisely and working more effectively with health partners to achieve better outcomes for communities; 3) the changing role in Education in relation to the overarching responsibility for standards in all schools whatever form they took; and 4) their role as providers of the community infrastructure needed for economic prosperity and better outcomes for all, which included school planning, transport improvements and an accommodation strategy with partners, particularly health, to ensure that we have the right physical assets in the right places.
(6) Mr Carter briefly mentioned the huge challenge the authority faced to implement the provisions of the Care Act and the concern being expressed in a number of places as to whether the financial pot is big enough to meet the new requirements, including the unquantifiable and unknown consequences of the legislation. He echoed the comments of the CCN in lobbying for a sensible formula for the allocation of funds to local authorities with care responsibilities.
(7) Mr Latchford, the Leader of the Opposition, responded by saying that the announcements on the transport investment programme, particularly the Manston Parkway railway station and the growth deal were extremely welcome and he offered his congratulations to those who had been involved in achieving these outcomes for Kent.
(8) Mr Latchford stated that the current situation with regard to Manston Airport continued to be of huge concern, not just to Kent but throughout South-East England. He mentioned the outcome of the Thanet District Council (TDC) meeting the previous week and the emergency TDC Cabinet meeting later that day that he would be attending.
(9) Mr Latchford stated that there was a funding gap of £4.3m in relation to the new rules on school meals, which he described as “the back of a fag packet policy”.
(10) He welcomed the exciting proposals for the Paramount Park development, which was due for completion in 2019 and would generate 27,000 much needed jobs for the local area. In relation to the Ebbsfleet Garden City, however, Mr Latchford was critical of the decision to set up an Urban Development Corporation (UDC) to determine planning applications in the area, which in his opinion undermined democratic accountability and he urged the Leader to ensure that the views of the public would be able to be represented.
(11) With regard to the Care Act, Mr Latchford stated that he had attended the briefing the previous day and that Opposition Group Leaders had only been given until a week the following Monday to submit their views.
(12) Finally, Mr Latchford stated that the Department for Transport had announced a delay until 2016 in connection with the determination of the Lower Thames Crossing, which he thought was extremely regrettable and would make it harder for KCC to plan the most appropriate transport network going forward.
(13) Mr Cowan, Leader of the Labour Group, stated that the recent announcements on the growth deal was welcome news for Kent although he added his concern to that expressed by others that the funding would not be as much or for as long a period as the Authority would have liked. He sought further information from the Leader, however, as to how elected Members were involved in deciding the priorities for the South East LEP area.
(14) In relation to the Transformation programme, Mr Cowan stated that he remained extremely concerned about the lack of Member involvement until everything was virtually cut and dried. In particular, he mentioned the potential bidders currently being sought to operate services in Human Resources, Information Technology, Finance and Schools’ services, which amounted to some £810m in contract value terms. He mentioned the tight timescale for the transformation programme and criticised the lack of Member involvement in that decision-making process.
(15) Finally, Mr Cowan stated that the Leader had recently said on three occasions that more resources had to be made available to local government to deal with the new burdens and responsibilities being placed on them, e.g. the Care Act, and he assured the Leader of his Group’s support in his endeavours to attract more money for KCC from central Government.
(16) Mrs Dean, Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, began by stating that Mr Carter should have been more careful about the promise of the biggest growth deal settlement for setting up the largest LEP. She also gave examples of where regional structures had been set up in the past and failed because they are unworkable and local people don’t understand them.
(17) In relation to the future of County Councils, Mrs Dean stated that she had not been present at the CCN discussion but had listened to Hillary Benn’s speech about the future of local government under a Labour Government and was impressed by the content; however, she warned that what is said before a Parliamentary Election is not what is often delivered after the Election. She offered her support to Mr Carter in continue to lobby Government for a more transparent formula on local government funding.
(18) In relation to education, Mrs Dean supported the comments made by Mr Carter about the role of County Councils in taking responsibility for standards across all schools in their area but educational standards were not the only aspect that contributed to children becoming good citizens.
(19) Mrs Dean supported Mr Cowan’s comments about the lack of backbench and opposition Member involvement in decisions on transformation and expressed her hope that the all-Member briefing on transformation later in the day would be valuable.
(20) In relation to the Care Act, Mrs Dean stated that she could not support the comments made by Mr Latchford about the lack of information and lateness of the briefing; she said that there had been many briefings on the Care Act and the support for carers that would result from the implementation of the Act was welcomed. She added that she shared Mr Carter’s concern about how much the implementation would cost and who would pay for it.
(21) Mr Whybrow, Leader of the Independents Group, stated that he was also underwhelmed by the growth deal announcement, both in relation to the amount of money and with regard to those schemes that had ended up at the top of the priority list. He urged for there to be more involvement in the future for elected Members in determining funding priorities. He described some of the schemes as being the “developer’s friend” in that they had the effect of facilitating huge developments in places such as Ebbsfleet and Ashford. He said that there were good things to come from the LEP but there appeared to be certain disconnects between, for example, building a road and the jobs that are meant to follow. He mentioned the comparatively low sum of money of £22m for training across the entire South-East LEP area, compared to £69m on Kent road schemes in the first year alone. He was also critical of the fact that there were no schemes in Kent to support walking and cycling. He encouraged the County Council to take advantage of the opportunity on a quarterly basis to review the schemes and to pursue changes as appropriate, but he stressed that KCC Members should be involved in making decisions to re-balance the priorities insofar as they related to KCC’s area.
(22) In response to the Opposition Group Leader responses, Mr Carter stated that he would save his remarks on Manston until the debate later in the agenda.
(23) With regard to Paramount Park, Mr Carter stated that he had met with Stephen Norris and the Paramount team earlier in the week and that he thought the future for the Swanscombe Peninsula was extremely bright. He added that not only had the Paramount team got the funding in place for the planning application but they were very close to securing the finances necessary to deliver the project.
(24) With regard to the UDC, Mr Carter stated that both he and Mr Kite were Members of the shadow UDC and it would be interesting to see how it developed going forward.
(25) With regard to the LEP priorities, Mr Carter stated that the LEP Board had had lengthy discussions on the priority order but that he wanted to be assured that there was no disconnect from the governance of KCC in relation to these decisions.
(26) Mr Carter stated that he agreed with Mrs Dean about the opaqueness of funding arrangements from central Government and mentioned a piece of work that had been undertaken by the Corporate Director of Finance and Procurement, which had identified that KCC was some £16m light in its RSG allocation to support the £1bn of borrowing for school expansions and transport schemes already delivered, which was a massive differential and made an already difficult job of balancing the County Council’s revenue budget even harder.
(27) In relation to the Care Act, Mr Carter stated that it was indeed good news for families and vulnerable individuals but the question remained where is the money coming from to pay for it, without causing an additional burden on the Council Tax payers of Kent
RESOLVED: That the Leader’s report be noted.