Content

That the council agrees that the response set
out at paragraphs 23 to 25 should form the basis of Chorley
Council’s response to the consultation.
That the Chief Executive be asked to share the
council’s response to the consultation with local MPs
representing the borough.
 
Proposed response
23. Chorley Council recognises that devolution
has the potential to secure significant benefits for Lancashire,
bringing decision making and accountability closer to residents.
 Other areas of the north west, most notably Greater Manchester and
Liverpool City Region, have already benefited from their devolution
deals.
24. Effective devolution should encourage
strong economic growth and increased productivity, alongside better
health and wellbeing and strengthened public services.
25. Unfortunately, the proposals currently
being consulted on are unlikely to lead to those benefits and so
Chorley Council cannot support them.  The council has some specific concerns about the
proposals.  These are set out below,
refencing the relevant section of the consultation being referred
to:

a.      The proposals for
management of future rounds of the UKSPF in section one fail to
recognise the success of the current round that is currently
managed by district councils.  Changing
it to a more remote body with limited infrastructure to manage
successful community schemes will make future success less likely.
Chorley Council believes that responsibility for future rounds of
UKSPF should remain with district councils.

b.      The provision of
£6 million of capital investment to Samlesbury Enterprise
Zone and £6 million to the Blackburn Technology Innovation
Quarter (section one) is welcome investment in the county, but are small scale and limited in
geographic impact.  The council believes
that the upper tier authorities proposing the creation of the CCA
need to more clearly explain how future
investment will be secured and prioritised, identifying how
investment will benefit the whole of the county area.

c.      The devolution of
adult education and the core Adult Education Budget at section two
is welcome, but the proposals beyond that are currently vague and
undeveloped.  The partners involved in
the CCA need to more clearly explain how skills of a large and
diverse county area will be served by programmes that are
developed.

d.      The proposals at
section three demonstrate the importance for partners who are
constituent members in recognising the nuances and needs of local
areas, as it makes special arrangements for Blackpool Transport
Services.  This is important in a county
the size of Lancashire, but fails to
recognise the particular needs of other areas such as Chorley.
 The borough of Chorley borders Greater
Manchester, and so any devolution deal and CCA need to clearly
recognise the importance of cross-border travel to be successful.
 In addition, the borough has
experienced significant growth over the last 15 years.  As an area of growth, it has significant needs to
strengthened public transport, such as an additional railway
station in Coppull and strengthened bus services.  The current proposals do nothing to address this
and so needs to be strengthened.

e.      Expanding
eligibility criteria for Cosy Homes in Lancashire through an
additional £2 million of funding at section four is
supported, but it must be recognised that the scale of funding is
extremely small across the whole county.

f.       The
proposals across sections five, six and seven do not appear to add
anything that is not already in place across the council.
 While opening the potential for further
discussions with the government and its agencies may be positive,
it is not possible to support something with no detail.
 As with the other sections of the
proposals, Chorley Council would welcome devolution in these areas,
but the current proposals need to be stronger and more ambitious to
realise Lancashire’s potential.

g.      Section eight
sets out the governance arrangements for the CCA and devolution
deal.  Chorley Council does not support
the governance arrangements proposed.

         
They fail to recognise the important role of district councils in
understanding and representing local communities.  While the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act sets
out the rules for membership, the constituent members could provide
full voting rights within the CCA constitution to encourage
district engagement.  In addition, the
CCA partners should clearly set out a more comprehensive plan for
ensuring that the new arrangements will not just make local
government in Lancashire even more complex and confusing for
residents, businesses and
communities.