 |
MINUTES OF THE 78th MEETING OF THE
SOUTH EAST ENGLAND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD ON 15 JUNE 2006
INNOVATION CENTRE, HASTINGS
Present:
James Brathwaite (Chairman), Rob Anderson, Liz Brighouse, Poul Christensen, Rob Douglas, Imtiaz Farookhi, Sarah Hohler, Keith House, John Peel, Peter Read, Bill Wakeham, Phil Wood
In attendance:
Pam Alexander, Jeff Alexander, Paul Lovejoy, John Parsonage, Duncan Straughen, Rolande Anderson, Simon Walker, Donal Galligan, Liz McSheehy (for item 5)
Item 1 Welcome and apologies for absence
- Apologies had been received from Peter Jones and Mary McAnally.
- The Chairman thanked Seaspace staff and the Surrey and Sussex Area Team for the tour of Hastings and all their recent hard work. Rob Douglas added that it was helpful for the Board to see developments on the ground to help make links with papers.
Item 2 Minutes of the last meeting (5 May 2006)
- The minutes of the last meeting were agreed as a correct record of proceedings.
Matters arising
- Duncan Straughen is awaiting finalisation of 2005/6 accounts and will report to the Board in July with a comparative analysis of RDA administrative spend.
- John Parsonage is following up the Chairman’s letter to the Forestry Commission arguing for retention of the national research centre at Alice Holt by meeting the centre’s director.
- Paul Lovejoy informed the Board that the Local Government White Paper was still expected to be published in the Autumn and appeared to be moving away from proposing formal reorganisation of local government.
- The Chairman invited those Board members with Local Authority affiliations to update the Board on developments in their parts of region. Sarah Hohler informed the Board that Kent County Council were already working closely with districts (and Medway Unitary Authority) and reported that there appeared to be no real appetite for Local Government reorganisation in Kent.
- Keith House noted that reorganisation in Hampshire could be valuable if it encouraged closer working.
- Liz Brighouse emphasised that the goal of reorganisation should be better service delivery and not administrative change for its own sake. The focus should be on the customers of local govenment, ensuring reorganisation outcomes primarily serve them.
- Rob Anderson stressed that collaboration between Local Authorities in Berkshire had improved, but conceded that they were driven by a desire for efficiency gains rather than better service delivery.
- Pam Alexander noted that the ‘Diamonds’ work in the Regional Economic Strategy had been affected by differences between urban authorities and County Councils. The Chairman reiterated that local government reorganisation will have an impact on one of SEEDAs leading partner groups.
- Rob Douglas updated the Board on the reorganisation of the Learning & Skills Council (LSC). The non-executive structure was now being developed, with legislation to be changed to make the statutory local LSC a regional body with representation from each of the areas. Local Councils would not retain any statutory status, and it will be for the Regional Board to decide on how Local Councils should be supported by non-executives.
- John Parsonage had met with Henry Ball on 14 th June and was involved in ongoing discussions. There was an anxiety expressed that business involvement with the LSC might be diluted under the new arrangements, and John Parsonage was keen to see involvement of LSPAs with area teams.
- Pam Alexander gave the Board an update on the Queensborough & Rushenden link road. SEEDA had been able to identify £12 million of the £19 million needed and as a result would be able to find a way of making the project work.
Item 3 Declarations of interest
- Liz Brighouse in respect of item 12, Oxford City Learning Communities, as a member of Oxfordshire County Council.
Item 4 Independent Performance Assessment (IPA) draft report
- Duncan Straughen presented to the Board the underlying story that was being put across in the IPA, setting out the development of the Agency since 1999 with a focus on SEEDA as a learning organisation and continuous improvement.
- The Chairman noted that the process is less complex than the Local Government Comprehensive Performance Assessment, and highlighted that SEEDA already reports against external targets to Government.
- Rolande Anderson commented on the importance of the timing, as the evidence gathered would link into the Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 (CSR07) process and underlined the significance of telling a dynamic story of learning, success and improvement to deal with the scepticism inherent in any CSR process.
- The Board noted that SEEDA should anticipate the views of partners and brief the National Audit Office (NAO) on them beforehand.
- Phil Wood highlighted that SEEDA should link the IPA improvement plan into the Regional Economic Strategy (RES) delivery plan and to specifically make partners’ ownership of RES actions highly visible to them, perhaps through tailored documents.
- Bill Wakeham commented that we should emphasise the planned elements of the development of the Agency. The need to flag up the acquisition of new responsibilities without the additional funding to deliver them e.g. Lambert agenda, was also pointed out.
- Rob Douglas pointed out the need to address the future balance between regeneration/lifting underperformance and supporting success – that we should define where SEEDA will be going next, not just more of the same.
- Peter Read felt that the focus should be on improvement. He noted that views of SEEDA always depends on whom one asks, as SEEDA is more visible to some businesses than others.
- Imtiaz Farookhi commented on the need to evaluate the extent of alignment between SEEDA’s strategy and other regional and partners’ strategies, whilst ensuring that SEEDA has the capacity to deliver our ambitions.
- The Chairman concluded the discussion by highlighting the change and improvement in the Agency over the 6 years. It was agreed that the Board would be updated on any progress in July.
- The Board NOTED the progress being made on the IPA self assessment.
Item 5 Area Update: Surrey & Sussex
- Liz McSheehy updated the Board on SEEDA’s work in Surrey & Sussex.
- Rob Douglas queried whether the Higher Education Institutions were as involved as they should be in the Gatwick Diamond, and also posed the possibility of promoting Guildford as a Science City. It was also pointed out that the figures presented showed only 11% of SEEDA’s funding going into supporting success in Surrey.
- John Parsonage mentioned that the University of Sussex was struggling with budgets which had taken focus away from the possibility of a University Centre Crawley, but that SEEDA was working with the Local Authorities to develop the idea and rebuild momentum. It was also highlighted that SEEDA’s Coastal strategy was suffering from the absence of a Ports Strategy from central Government.
- On the issue of investment in Surrey, Jeff Alexander conceded that it was low in terms of area-specific spend but pointed out that Surrey businesses benefit from several large regional programmes where activity is particularly concentrated in the county.
- The Board NOTED the progress made in Surrey & Sussex.
Item 6 2012 Olympics Regional Action Plan
- In the absence of Mary McAnally it was agreed to defer the 2012 Olympics paper to the July Board meeting.
Item 7 CSR07: SEEDA perspective
- Paul Lovejoy informed the Board of the accelerating pace of the CSR07. It was highlighted that SEEDA will need to defend the need for investment in the South East, as there is a tendency to see RDA budgets in terms of what needs to be done to bring the North and Midlands up to national averages. The RDA evidence base on Single Pot budget expenditure had just been submitted (with accompanying narratives). Work was also underway to clarify RDAs’ priority outcomes from CSR07 across the Chairs’ five priorities and engagement had begun with HM Treasury (HMT) on the Sub National Review. This would examine the role played by RDAs, local government and the voluntary and community sector in economic development and regeneration. It was highlighted that the South East’s story would focus on supporting success, critical mass interventions and working with existing structures.
- Paul Lovejoy reassured the Board that the IPA and CSR07 were not being carried out in isolation and that results would feed into the evidence base informing HMT.
- Liz Brighouse pointed out that we should use this process as an opportunity to highlight the barriers to overcoming regeneration issues e.g. a lack of synergy between Whitehall funding streams in the regions and at a local level.
- Rolande Anderson highlighted that the visits HMT officials were currently making to the region to hear stories about successes in integration of funding streams to deliver outputs offered a good opportunity for SEEDA to tell their story.
- The Board NOTED the developments in the CSR07 process.
Item 8 SE Plan: Enquiry in Public submission
- The Chairman requested the Board’s views on the approach set out in the paper presented by Paul Lovejoy paper, explaining that SEEDA now needed to submit a formal response.
- Liz Brighouse expressed her concern over the process, especially as SEEDA’s position was already clear, as it could result in a public disagreement with the Assembly’s position.
- Keith House pointed out that the process of registering objections was simply part of the process of testing the draft Plan, and that the Board had made it’s position with regard to housing growth and aviation policy plain on previous occasions.
- The Chairman reiterated the need to guarantee the accuracy of SEEDA’s figures and forecasts. Paul Lovejoy agreed to re-run the modelling to ensure positions were robust and publicly defensible.
- The Chairman also highlighted that the aviation position has national implications that need to be acknowledged by all and that SEEDA as landowners needed to make sure they took account of sub-regional employment land needs in its developments.
- The Board APPROVED the position set out in the paper.
Item 9 Financial & Operational Review
- The Chairman noted the successes on all the key indicators and congratulated the team on their work.
- The Board NOTED the financial review.
Item 10 Projects
- Duncan Straughen informed the Board that the Project Advisory Board (PAB) would be scrutinising the project list more closely.
- Poul Christensen expressed his irritation at SEEDA picking up a £100,000 funding gap due to DEFRA pulling out of the Hampshire Rural Delivery Pathfinder project. The Chairman noted the need to address SEEDA’s high level relationships with DEFRA.
- Peter Read informed the Board of the issues around the quality and the capacity of the delivery partner in respect of the plans for Dover Town Centre. Pam Alexander added that SEEDA was aiming for a more ambitious but more expensive project, rather than contribute £3 million for marginal improvements to a sub-standard scheme. The project was taken off the table at Major Projects Committee (MPC) for further work and will return in due course.
- Peter Read reiterated MPC’s desire to continue getting out to view projects it is considering, a motion that the Board concurred with in respect to site visits for the entire Board.
- The Board NOTED the summary of projects.
Item 11 Chairman’s Report
- The Chairman gave the Board an overview of his recent meetings. A particular highlight was the Prime Minister’s meeting with the RDA Chairs, especially the positive messages on energy and the need for a balanced mix (including nuclear). The heavy load of work on Chair of Chairs issues was also mentioned, which had been focused mainly on CSR07.
- The Chairman also drew the Board’s attention to the London Array and that Swale Borough Council’s planning committee had turned down the proposed plans.
- Chelsea Flower Show was singled out as a good demonstration of the size of the horticultural sector in the South East and the Chairman mentioned the possibility of using Andrew Colquhoun to head up an Agricultural sector consortia. The Board were also informed of SEEDA’s desire to have a show garden at Chelsea Flower Show in 2007.
- The Board NOTED the Chairman’s report.
Item 12 Agency Report
- Jeff Alexander drew to the Board’s attention for their diaries the Open Public Meeting on 31 st October, the House of Commons Reception in November and the dinners that were being arranged for MPs from each party early in 2007.
- Also highlighted was the success in tourism in terms of excellence and blue flag awards, and the recent Sunday Times supplement on what the South East has to offer.
- In referring to Sir Brian Bender’s visit to the region, John Peel highlighted the very good work that Qinetiq are doing, and noted that Sir Brian was happy to come out to the region more frequently.
- The Board NOTED the Agency report.
Item 13 AOB
- None.
SEEDA BOARD SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
5 MAY 2006 MEETING
Action: Item 2, Matters Arising, paragraph 7
Duncan Straughento provide a comparative analysis of cross-RDA administrative spend for 2005/6 and report back to the Board on administration costs.
To bring to the July Board.
23 MARCH 2006 MEETING
Action: item 11 – Major Projects
Paul Lovejoyto provide further information on other CHP projects.
A CHP carbon equation for the South East is being worked up and will be reported to the Board in the Autumn.
26 JANUARY 2006 MEETING
Action: item 13 –Projects; paragraph 69
John Parsonage to provide further information on Project 4, the South East Proof of Concept Fund (outputs from SEPOC to date).
Full report to come to the September Board.
27 OCTOBER 2005 MEETING
Action : Item 3, Matters Arising, paragraph 3
Paul Lovejoy to bring a paper to the Board on public sector reorganisation in the South East.
To come to the September Board.
|