Issue - meetings

Purpose of report:

To provide the Committee with an opportunity to engage with and contribute to the council’s approach to developing and securing a devolution deal for the county. This report and accompanying Annex 1 set out the context behind this work, some of the potential key areas of focus for a deal, and the council’s approach to developing the proposal collaboratively.

Cameron McIntosh left the meeting at 10:07am

Witnesses:

Tim Oliver, Leader of the Council

Rebecca Paul, Deputy Cabinet Member for Levelling Up

Michael Coughlin, Executive Director Partnerships, Prosperity and Growth

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. Vice-Chairman inquired if the devolution deal would provide Surrey County Council (SCC) any meaningful powers and whether any such deal would be fully funded to allow delivery. The Leader of the Council informed that a Level 2 deal would not guarantee any new or additional funding. Two aspects that might bring some funding within a Level 2 deal were around skills and adult learning – funding was currently provided through Local Enterprise Partnerships Scheme (LEPs). A Level 2 deal would provide the County Council the powers and responsibility to address the SCC’s key focus areas of growing a sustainable economy, tackling health inequality, enabling a greener future and empowering communities.

2. A Member asked for clarity around the specific powers that would be devolved. The Leader of the Council said that potential devolved powers identified by the government had been set out in the ‘Devolution Deal for Surrey’ paper with areas for further devolution to be discussed more broadly with the districts and boroughs.  

3. A Member noted that the government had confirmed there would be no financial assistance to authorities to offset the powers devolved. The Leader of the Council said that devolution of the LEPs and adult education functions could bring with them pre-existing funding already available to them, this would be the only additional funding available through a Level 2 deal.

4. A Member queried if the SCC would submit a devolution bid if the districts and boroughs were not in agreement. The Leader of the Council noted that districts and boroughs had no right of veto, however following the positive engagement that had taken place following a programme of visits to various districts and boroughs to explain the deal, no opposition had been raised so far and the aim was to reach a unanimous approach.

5. The Member asked if Surrey County Council expected to take over any of the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding that were currently district funded sources. The Leader of the Council noted the SPF’s priority of supporting economic development and SCC needed to consider this within functional economic areas on a county wide level to achieve the greatest possible financial benefit. CIL funding was a matter for government to change or offer guidance on but the Leader of the Council noted the importance of using CIL to support the infrastructure and mitigate the impact of housing developments.

6. A Member asked for clarification regarding the transfer of LEP, SPF and CIL funding and enquired what would happen if all the districts and boroughs voted against a county deal. The Leader of the Council explained that examples of pots of money that may be included in a county deal had been provided to districts and boroughs and would follow conversations between all three tiers of government  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29