Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
56 Greater Cambridge-Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership
PDF 464 KB
Minutes:
Decision of Executive Councillor:
The Leader of the Council resolved to
i) To endorse the outline proposal made to government on the 3rd September for the establishment of a Local Enterprise Partnership, and that a final decision on participation would be subject to the involvement being consistent with the councils partnership protocol.
ii)
To
receive the views of scrutiny members on issues, which need to be
considered and / or addressed, should the proposal be accepted.
Any alternative options
considered and rejected: N/A
Scrutiny Considerations:
The committee received
a report regarding the proposed Greater Cambridge-Greater Peterborough Local
Enterprise Partnership.
Clarification was
sought on proposed boundaries and whether it represented natural economic
boundaries. The Leader responded that the proposal was designed to fit with the
guidance offered by central government. It was agreed that “travel to work”
areas were not a representative definition of economic areas.
It was suggested
that Cambridge and Peterborough lacked a common identity.
Concern was
expressed that the proposal were a “fig leaf” to cover the removal of funding.
It was also suggested that the regional growth fund would be focussed on the
areas of greater deprivation elsewhere in the country.
Advice was sought
from the Chief Executive on the implications of the proposal not being
endorsed. The Chief Executive advised that withdrawal would not be in the best
interests of the City and its businesses, and that the Council should continue
to be involved and seek to address the issues raised through negotiation with partners.
The Leader endorsed the response from the Chief Executive.
Cllr Ward proposed
an amendment to make involvement in the LEP conditional on the involvement
being in accordance with the principle of partnership working. The committee
resolved by 5 votes to 0 to recommend the amendment to the leader. The Leader
accepted the recommendation.
Clarification was
requested on the status of the recommendation 2.1 if the submission had altered
since September 3rd. It was confirmed that a further decision would
be required, as the proposal submitted on 3rd September was only an initial
submission.
An explanation was requested
on the likely membership and governance format, and whether there was any
flexibility. The committee were advised that no decisions had yet been made and
the details of membership could be defined in the White Paper.
The
Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations by 5 votes to 2.
The Leader of the Council agreed the recommendations.