Agenda item

At its meeting on 2 September 2015 the Executive Committee considered a report detailing the latest position of the Gloucestershire Devolution Project and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that it noted the progress undertaken by Leadership Gloucestershire in respect of the devolution agenda and that it supports, in principle, further devolution development work together with Leadership Gloucestershire partners.

27.1           At its meeting on 2 September 2015 the Executive Committee had considered a report which detailed the latest position of the Gloucestershire Devolution Project and had recommended to Council that it noted the progress undertaken by Leadership Gloucestershire in respect of the devolution agenda and that it supported, in principle, further devolution development work together with Leadership Gloucestershire partners.

27.2           The report that had been considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 13-29.

27.3           The recommendation from the Executive Committee was proposed and seconded. During the discussion which ensued, a Member questioned whether the Council had received a reply from the Government to its submission. In response, the Chief Executive explained that no formal answer had yet been received. Information had been received from the Civil Servants that there was potentially some interest but at this stage that was the only feedback received. The Government was currently looking at the submissions and further work was likely to be needed on the bid from Gloucestershire in the next few weeks. The general response from the Government was that it would be focussing predominantly on city and urban areas at this stage but that a small number of Shire authorities would go forward. Overall it was felt that the initial feedback from Civil Servants was quite encouraging and, on that basis, the workstreams within the devolution project were continuing. Another Member questioned when the bid was likely to involve figures rather than just words and, in response, he was advised that this would be part of the detailed negotiation. Currently the bid stated that Gloucestershire was interested in devolution but, since the project team did not yet know what the Government was prepared to put forward, it was unable to really tie down any detailed figures.

27.4           In terms of the expression of interest document, a Member questioned who it was intended for and how it had been distributed. In response, the Chief Executive explained that it was a statement of intent that had been put forward to the Government in July. A second document had been circulated to Members and submitted to the Government since that time; both were publically available on the Council’s website. In respect of the affordable homes figure, the Chief Executive advised that this was subject to change and was likely to be adjusted slightly following the Joint Core Strategy Examination. The Government would probably wish to see how the Council would adjust the tenure and housing mix so that the right type of housing was built at the right time. This would also be the case for infrastructure but this could only happen with support from the Government as it was not all within the gift or affordability of the Council.

27.5           A Member referred to the use of the word ‘subsidiary’ within the document and questioned whether the Borough Council would speak to the County Council to see what it would devolve to the Borough. In response, the Chief Executive explained that the principle of subsidiary had been accepted by Leadership Gloucestershire and, whilst there had been no detailed discussions as yet, the County Council was open to ideas. It might also be the case that the Borough Council may wish to consider further devolution to communities but this had not been explored in any detail at this stage.

27.6           A Member questioned whether there was any evidence that the New Homes Bonus funding would continue going forward as this may help fill the gap in the budget. In response, the Chief Executive explained that nothing was certain at this stage. The New Homes Bonus funding was a significant support to the budgets of many Councils but Tewkesbury Borough Council was looking to try and reduce its reliance on it going forward. In response to a query as to how devolution would affect the NHS, the Chief Executive advised that the funding for health within the devolution project did not include hospital funding. The project included the commissioning budget for the clinical commissioning group and it was hoped that this would allow more flexibility within the community and achieve prevention rather than treatment.

27.7           In referring to the establishment of a Devolution Working Group, which had been agreed by the Executive Committee, the Leader of the Council advised that this would take the form of a Group of nine Members; seven Conservative Group Members, including the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council; one Liberal Democrat; and one Independent. If either the Liberal Democrat Group or the Independent Group wished to give their place to the non-aligned Member this would be acceptable.

27.8           Having considered the information provided, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the progress undertaken by Leadership Gloucestershire in                          respect of the devolution agenda be NOTED and that the                                        Council supports, in principle, further development work                                          together with Leadership Gloucestershire Partners.