(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Bryning)
Cabinet received a report from the Head of Regeneration and Policy with regard to joint working arrangements with Lancashire and Cumbria District and County Councils to handle forthcoming major infrastructure projects relating to the upgrading of the national grid and nuclear new build proposals.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
|
|
Option 1:For the City Council to engage individually with the process for the forthcoming major infrastructure projects. |
Option 2:For the City Council to support working as a consortium of local authorities engaging in the major infrastructure process in the manner described in the report. |
Option 3: For the City Council to decline to engage with the projects. |
|
Advantages |
Engaging in a consortium will be a complex task involving a new governance arrangement and senior officer time. To engage in the process alone might be simpler administratively. |
This would enable the City Council to share skills and resources with other local authorities to manage the process. It can use its expertise to concentrate on local and strategic considerations whilst not having to micro manage the project. Negotiations undertaken by a grouping of local authorities will inevitably be stronger than as individual Councils. |
In the current climate where the Council has no spare capacity to engage effectively in these projects taking no part could avoid senior officer time being consumed on the projects. |
|
Disadvantages |
The City Council could not handle cases of this magnitude with its existing staff resources. Considerable amounts of work would be outsourced and the task of coordinating inputs with communities and agencies outside the district would be large. |
There will inevitable be some aspects of detail over which the local authorities might disagree. |
The City Council’s reputation would be harmed and the communities on both sides of the arguments would feel un-represented. |
|
Risks |
The risk of a largely parochial and uncoordinated set of responses to the major infrastructure projects would be high. The reputation of the local authority would be harmed if it were unable to engage strategically in the inquiry process. There would also be little opportunity to secure economic benefits for the district linked to growth of this nature because the council would not be seen as credible. |
This option has less risks so long as the local authorities provide a united front. Without such a front the developers could find advantages in dividing opinion. |
None of the potential benefits arising from the schemes would be championed for the local community by other bodies. Considerations for the Local Impact Statements could be inaccurately put forward without challenge. |
Officer Preferred Option (and comments)
Option 2 is the preferred option for the reasons set out.
Councillor Bryning proposed, seconded by Councillor Blamire:-
“(1) That Cabinet support the creation of operational working and governance arrangements between Lancashire and Cumbria Local Authorities to prepare for engagement in projects submitted to the Infrastructure Planning Commission for the national grid upgrade and new nuclear build.
(2) That the Head of Regeneration and Policy continues to negotiate operational arrangements for the creation of a working consortium of Lancashire/Cumbria local authorities on behalf of the City Council, with nominations for Members to sit on appropriate governing panels delegated to the Leader once a call for them has been made.”
By way of amendment, which was accepted as a friendly amendment by the mover and seconder of the original proposition, it was moved by Councillor Robinson:
“That any future cost implications to the City Council be reported back to Cabinet.”
Councillors then voted on the proposition, as amended:-
Resolved:
(6 Members (Councillors Ashworth, Blamire, Bryning, Kerr, Langhorn and Robinson) voted in favour, 2 Members (Councillors Barry and Fletcher) voted against, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal as amended to be carried.
(1) That Cabinet support the creation of operational working and governance arrangements between Lancashire and Cumbria Local Authorities to prepare for engagement in projects submitted to the Infrastructure Planning Commission for the national grid upgrade and new nuclear build.
(2) That the Head of Regeneration and Policy continues to negotiate operational arrangements for the creation of a working consortium of Lancashire/Cumbria local authorities on behalf of the City Council, with nominations for Members to sit on appropriate governing panels delegated to the Leader once a call for them has been made.
(3) That any future cost implications to the City Council be reported back to Cabinet.
Officer responsible for effecting the decision:
Head of Regeneration and Policy.
Reasons for making the decision:
The decision fits in with the corporate priorities and will enable the Head of Regeneration and Policy to represent the City Council’s interests in continuing negotiations with the developers. The requisite number of Members allocated seats in any governance arrangements will subsequently need to be chosen.