Agenda item

To assist Members, the following documents are attached:-

·                     Copy of the report of the Director of Environment - Portfolio of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise & Leisure

·                     Copy of the Record of Decision

·                     Copy of the Call In Letter

That having considered the decision, the Committee was satisfied with the explanation received and so the decision could be implemented.

The Chairman referred to the call in of the decision of the Cabinet, from its meeting held on 19 March 2013 on the New Deeside Partnership Structure.  A call in notice had been received signed by five Members of the Council.  To assist Members with their deliberations on the issue, the following documents had been circulated with the agenda:

(a)    A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet on 19 March 2013.

(b)    A copy of the Cabinet Record of Decision, Record No. 2817

(c)     A copy of the call in notice signed by Councillors P.G. Heesom, R.J.T. Guest, R.B. Jones, M.J. Peers and C.S. Carver

(d)    A copy of the Procedure for dealing with a called in item.

The Chairman invited the call in signatories to address the Committee via a spokesperson or individually to which the decision makers could respond.

Councillor R.B. Jones described the report as flawed and said that it did not consider the implications for Flintshire County Council as a whole, in concentrating on the Deeside area alone.  He thought that there was not sufficient detail about financial implications, anti-poverty, environmental impact nor equalities impact on Flintshire and said that concentrating resources in one area would lead to a lack of resources elsewhere within the county.

Councillor P.G. Heesom stressed that the call in was not driven by anti-Deeside sentiments.  He said that problems faced in the Deeside area were not unique to that area and that the whole county suffered similar issues.  He said that the report contained little evidence to back up claims and that there were wider issues to address in Deeside such as the road Access to North Wales from England and the importance of new job opportunities for Flintshire residents.  He felt that a holistic approach was needed to re-generation.

Councillor M.J. Peers said that the report was not specific about how much funding would be available to the Deeside partnership, where it would come from and for how long funds would be available.  He was concerned about extra demands on officer time and resources, and commented that the report only focussed on structures and that Cabinet needed to step back and re-visit the report from a Flintshire wide perspective.

Councillor R.J.T. Guest said that the proposed structure was misleading in suggesting that existing groups were not going to continue to be involved.  He said that there was no detail of any Welsh Government funding in the report and felt that many areas of Flintshire encountered difficulties and that this report was divisive.

When asked by the Leader to go through the main points of the Cabinet report, the Economic Development Manager said that the new structure would remove unnecessary tiers and was not an additional group but merely a rationalisation of what currently happened.  He reported that certain issues needed to be discussed across a wider area such as congestion issues, and therefore needed a wider partnership.

The Director of Environment said that the report built upon an Executive report entitled ‘Deeside Moving Forward - Turning the Tide - a strategic approach to regenerating Deeside’ published in 2011 which focussed on Deeside and its areas of deprivation as well as its area of opportunity within the adjacent industrial park.  It was the intention of the Cabinet report to bring together and streamline a series of structures into one cohesive whole which could make better decisions.  There was no intention to undermine the work of the town centre partnerships.  The Director of Environment referred to a Cabinet report from December 2012 which set out a range of funding streams available to Deeside area such as ERDF, NRA, Taith which added up to £11 million pounds.  He concluded by saying that any concerns about diverting money to Deeside were unfounded.

The Leader of the Council said that the new structure would be more strategic and efficient in that it would avoid duplication.  He then referred to the Executive report dated 15 March 2011 entitled “Deeside Moving Forward - Turning the Tide - a strategic approach to regenerating Deeside” which referred to the area as being the largest area of deprivation in North Wales.  The Leader of the Council acknowledged the work of the previous administration in accessing Housing Renewal Area funding and said that it was time to look forward to the opportunities afforded by the Enterprise Zone which would benefit all North East Wales.  He reiterated that the focus was about targeted spending of money, specific to Deeside and not about diverting funding from other areas.

The Chairman then invited questions from Members.

Councillor V. Gay asked how much money had been spent in the Deeside area.  The Director of Environment said that he could not comment on this, but had information on grants that were available in future, such as £2.3 million for Deeside Neighbourhood Renewal and £3 million ERDF which was available across all the town partnerships.  The Leader of the Council reported that there was £12.2 million of regeneration funding available to Flintshire, of which 17% or £2.1 million was designated to Deeside, which was almost in proportion to the population of Deeside which represented 20% of the population of the county.

Councillor C.J. Dolphin sought clarity on the new structure diagram.  The Director of Environment explained that seven committees were to be reorganised into four; Deeside Partnership; People sub group; Places sub group; Deeside Forum.

Councillor H.J. McGuill asked about the funding for the Deeside Newsletter, its circulation, costs in terms of officer time and resources.  In response, the Leader said that he thought that the funding for the Neighbourhood Renewal leaflet would come from grant sources and he offered, following the meeting, to find out the source of funding for the marketing budget and inform Committee Members.

Councillor Gay proposed Option 4 of the call in procedure to refer the matter to full Council.  This was duly seconded by Councillor R. Lloyd.

Councillor D. Butler said that he was in agreement with the report and proposed Option 1 of the call in procedure to accept the report.  This was duly seconded by Councillor A.I. Dunbar.

On being put to the vote, Option 4 was not carried, with four votes for and nine votes against.

On being put to the vote, Option 1 was carried by nine votes for and four votes against.

RESOLVED:

That having considered the decision, the Committee was satisfied with the explanation received and so the decision could be implemented.