Agenda item

Purpose of report:

 

This report provides an update on the activities taken forward to deliver on the economic opportunities set out within Surrey’s Economic Strategy and to help address the economic challenges following the COVID-19 pandemic. An update is also provided on the Government’s proposed Levelling Up and Devolution White Paper and anticipated County Deals. 

Witnesses:

 

Tim Oliver, Leader of the Council

 

Michael Coughlin, Executive Director Partnerships, Prosperity and Growth

Rhiannon Mort, Head of Economic Infrastructure

 

The Leader of the Council summarised the Economic Growth report for Members.

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

1.    A Member asked where were the Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) and without them how could success be measured. An Officer said that they were clear about the metrics used to demonstrate the progress. They were aware from historic performance data that the Surrey economy was slowing compared to other parts of the UK. Indicators had been chosen to measure a targeted position by the end of the strategy period. They added that measures would be reported annually for the Surrey economy and that they would be captured within an appropriate timeframe to track progress towards the targeted position by 2030.

 

 

2.    A Member asked if it could be explained why the only KPI without a figure against it was carbon reduction. The Leader of the Council explained that the carbon reduction KPI would be reported through the Greener Futures Board and confirmed that all considerations under Economic Growth would reflect a resulting carbon impact.

 

3.    A member asked if the figure from The Greener Futures Board could be taken and reflected in Economic Growth. This was agreed.

 

 

4.    A Member asked if officers could identify specific KPIs and funding streams could be used to monitor delivery and ensure that relevant themes and opportunities were successful.

An Officer said that the table of KPIs set out target positions for 2030 and the delivery programme had been established. When a new project was launched, the delivery focus would then identify specific KPI around delivery points.

 

5.    A Member said that it would be productive to be able to point local businesses in the right direction about relevant activities in their area.

Leader of the Council said KPIs presented to the Growth Board could be shared with the Select Committee.

 

6.    A Member asked when the next round of County Deals could be expected?

The Leader of the Council confirmed that discussions had taken place with DLUHC officials in relation to pilot County Deals following the government’s announcement on 15 July 2021 The publication of the Levelling Up White Paper and announcement of pilot areas had been delayed and was now expected in January 2022. It was anticipated that Surrey would not be selected as a pilot area, despite the county’s draft County Deal being well received.

 

 

7.    A Member asked if more information about the proposed co-operation with Hampshire County Council could be provided to Members?

Leader of the Council said that Surrey had a good relationship with Hampshire and expected to continue these efforts. Discussions with the leadership at Hampshire were ongoing and looked to create an Economic Prosperity Board. The Board would provide a co-ordinating and alignment function without holding responsibility for local decision-making which would remain with the constituent authorities.

 

8.    A Member asked, with County Deals in mind, what the likelihood of a Mayor being elected?

The Leader of the Council responded by saying that he thought this was for the Council to decide but he did not see any value in electing a Mayor and this had been reflected in his conversations with the government.

 

9.    A Member asked how much money did Surrey receive from LEP funding in terms of infrastructure development and would this funding be provided to Surrey going forward?

It was noted that Surrey had received £62 million from the LEP’s since 2000 but the Council would need to access funding from the government and continue to access the current funds available to deliver larger infrastructure investment.

 

10.  A Member said that they were concerned that the East of the County would be left behind, how could we ensure that it benefits from the changes?

Leader of the Council said that the need to support and invest in the east of the county was recognised, not just in terms infrastructure but in terms of developing and supporting business growth. This subject had a strong advocate in Claire Coutinho, Member of Parliament for East Surrey who was a very strong advocate and sat on the Growth Board.

 

11.  A Member asked what specific measures was the Council taking to ensure the effective and smart use of its existing assets like council streetlights to increase 5G coverage in Surrey?

An Officer said the rollout of broadband across Surrey had been successful, but it compared less favourably in terms of 4G and other technologies. There was a current bid which would enable Surrey to capture all the assets, the street furniture, and the infrastructure that we have that could accommodate 5G masts. This would benefit Surrey to proceed in a coordinated way when we approach commercial providers. In terms of funding, a bid had been submitted to the government in November and the outcome was expected in January.

 

12.  A Member asked for the Committee to be updated with the progress so that they in turn, inform residents and small local independent businesses.

 

13.  A Member asked if details of the Innovation Loan Fund could be shared when they were made available?

Leader of the Council agreed to share the details when they were available.

 

14.  The Chairman asked at what point should we be concerned that a pilot scheme under County Deals funding was not going to happen?

An officer explained that there were currently six or seven projects that could be delivered regardless of any changes to County Deals through partnership money. It was hoped that the levelling up white paper would be permissive in that it recognised the place and better understands its requirements. The Council was working well with partners to deliver its agenda.

 

15.  A Member asked if there was any progress on the scheme to reimagine town centres through the Surrey inward delivery program?

An officer confirmed that these were in fact two separate pieces of work. The inward investment programme will promote Surrey nationally and internationally as an excellent place to work, live and in which to invest. With regard to High Streets/town centres, work was going on in partnership with the relevant District and Borough Councils in five key locations to  support their evolution and development  as centres of a wider range of activities, which included residential re-imagining libraries and incorporating business and learning hubs.

 

Recommendations:

 

In welcoming this report, the Select Committee recommended:

 

1.         Enhancement and alignment of the publicly available Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) by the service to better support the Surrey County Council’s strategic priority outcome of ‘Growing a sustainable economy from which everyone can benefit’ – some of the KPIs should have a shorter timescale to assess and monitor progress with a definition of what is meant by ‘sustainable growth’;

2.         A timely assessment of the implication for the economic growth and greener futures agendas should Surrey not be chosen for a pilot County Deal;

3.         A more explicit focus on how the County’s ambitious Economic Growth Strategy is an integral component of its equally ambitious Climate Change ambitions (the economic growth is consistent with climate change, greener futures and net zero ambitions of the Council);

4.         Identification, awareness and reporting of who is responsible for     delivery and monitoring (Paragraph 29 of the report) the impact of the           performance.

5.         A further report to the Communities, Environment and Highways    Select Committee to include updates on:

 

a.    Detailed information following the publication of the Levelling Up White Paper;

 

b.    LEP review and future course of action;

 

c.     Specific information and clarity about the delivery and monitoring aspects, including publicly available key performance indicators to assess and monitor progress;

 

d.    How the Council holds economic ambitions and priority objectives and climate change ambitions and priority objectives in balance, to ensure a sustainable economy for Surrey.

 

e.    Feedback and lessons about the highways/regeneration pilots (e.g. Horley, Staines, Farnham etc.)

 

f.      5G roll-out and communication with local stakeholders including Members and small businesses;

 

g.    Progress on discussion with Hampshire County Council and on Economic Prosperity Board;

 

h.    Any other relevant update relating to County Deal, LEP review, economy and growth, including response to aforementioned points 1-4;

 

Request for information/action:

 

i. Request for the Cabinet to share reports presented to The Growth Board to the Select Committee.

 

ii. Officers to share details of the Innovation Loan Fund when they are ready.