Submission from County Councils Network (FDC13)

Summary

 

 

 

 

 

-         Inhibiting a fully national recovery – a sustainable recovery cannot be restricted to particular regions or any one of the four main industrial groupings. Counties account for more than half of all Gross Value Added (GVA) generated outside of London. Effective fiscal devolution to county regions will allow CCN members to better support diversified growth across the UK; excluded areas may not have access to the necessary levers to kick start growth, particularly in low growth sub-regional areas that require high levels of support.

 

-         Disproportionate growth opportunities - Cities already enjoy greater effective freedoms, flexibilities, growth incentives and localised Whitehall budgets than their county peers. Extending further powers and funding to cities while excluding counties from the process could exaggerate this situation to the extent of defining access to decision-making power by where a voter lives, ignoring local needs and growth potential.

 

-         Growing socio-economic inequalities – Fiscal devolution is an important way of tackling the socio-economic challenges created by fiscal austerity, including the impact on deprived communities and the demand-led pressures of a rapidly ageing population. Extending further powers and funding to cities while excluding counties could exaggerate the socio-economic and demographic challenges facing counties.

 

-         Constraining county capacity to support growth by misaligning incentives and misplacing powers - Restricting access to growth related schemes creates striking discrepancies, including in the youth contract, business rate retention and Revolving Infrastructure Funds.

 

 

 

 

  1. Introduction

 

1.1             CCN welcome this opportunity to respond to the Communities & Local Government Select Committee investigation into fiscal devolution to cities and city regions. CCN member councils believe fiscal devolution is essential to reviving the national economy and are committed to supporting the recovery.

 

1.2             CCN seeks to provide an alternative perspective on fiscal devolution and local growth, challenging the ‘city’ focus of government policy on fiscal devolution and indeed the title of the committee’s inquiry.

 

1.3             Our evidence to the committee suggests that some county economies and communities are benefiting from fiscal devolution to Cities and City regions. However, to capitalise on the growth enabling potential of counties we believe the role of counties in fiscal devolution and local growth needs to reassessed, with future proposals more ambitious and not confined to certain areas.

 

1.4             The evidence presented in the submission is part of an on-going CCN work programme focusing on ‘counties driving growth’, which includes plans to support an independent inquiry into what powers and flexibilities ambitious local growth deals for counties should include and how they would be implemented. CCN believe it is crucial to the outcomes of the committee’s inquiry that CCN are granted the opportunity to provide oral evidence.

 

  1. Evidence for Fiscal Devolution

 

2.1             Fiscal devolution has long been a key priority for CCN. Our network has been a leading advocate for increased fiscal devolution and the promotion of local growth opportunities, not just for counties, but for all types of local authorities.

 

2.2             There is now a wide-range of compelling evidence to support the case for increased fiscal devolution across academic studies, think-tanks, business, industry and local government, including Lord Heseltine’s recent review of economic growth.

 

2.3             CCN acknowledges the progress made by the Government on fiscal devolution and local growth, including City Deals, the Regional Growth Fund and Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). The Government’s commissioning of, and response to, Lord Heseltine’s review of economic growth continued to demonstrate some commitment to local growth and fiscal devolution, including the introduction of the Local Growth Fund (LGF) and Growth Deals.

 

2.4             The 10 CCN member councils involved in City Deals are demonstrating how they can use additional powers to invest in infrastructure and local economies. Examples are provided in Appendix 1.  

 

2.5             Although there has been welcomed progress, CCN believe that there is further scope for fiscal devolution in England, particularly in areas not already benefiting from City Deals. It is clear from our engagement with member councils involved in the Second Wave of City Deals that Deals were considerably less ambitious than those offered to the Core Cities in the First Wave, with significantly less powers, funding and flexibilities available to areas. As one CCN member council told us, ‘our City Deal is unfortunately rather devoid of any fiscal devolution measures’. 

 

2.6             We share the LGA’s view that the LGF fails to grasp the ambition set out in the Heseltine Review, with the limited £2bn p/a funding simply a reallocation of existing council resources or already-devolved funding.[1] Limited Whitehall funding and subsequent guidance leads us to the conclusion that Growth Deals do not represent the same fiscal devolution opportunities accorded to the Core Cities and City Regions. This undoubtedly creates disadvantages for many CCN member councils.

 

2.7             CCN maintain that fiscal devolution has been narrowly focused on the Core Cities and City Regions. Whilst this is not a zero-sum game between cities and counties on who is better placed to implement fiscal devolution, there continues to be an uncritical acceptance of the view that groups of authorities serving large urban areas are more suited to devolution than counties. CCN strongly dispute this. Given the growth potential of county economies, and strategic economic role of our member councils, there is no barrier to broadly symmetrical devolution across England, potentially allowing more independence for, and innovation from, county councils and unitary counties in England. CCN therefore believe that alongside a more ambitious approach to fiscal devolution, there needs to be a thorough re-appraisal of the role of counties in promoting growth and implementing fiscal devolution. 

 

2.8             Independent Research by Shared Intelligence has initially scoped the background to a proposal for ‘County Deals.’ The research argued that the Government’s current approach to fiscal devolution creates a real danger that the full growth potential of the county areas not involved in the Second Wave of City Deals will not be exploited to the full. Shared Intelligence recommend that a first wave of ambitious local growth deals covering county areas should be negotiated. This would test how this type of deal might be developed and negotiated in the different types of economic geography and institutional configurations that exist in county areas.[2]

 

2.9             Economically, there is little justification for the exclusion of counties from fiscal devolution. Counties are not simply ‘hinterlands’ bordering Cities. Statics show they outperform the Core Cities and metropolitan boroughs on a number key indicators (tables provided in Appendix 3), potentially providing a better return on investment for Government funds and improved economic outcomes;

 

-         CCN member council areas generate over half of all GVA outside of London (ONS, 2012);

-         County areas contribute more GVA per head of population than many of the Core Cities (ONS, 2012);

-         Counties have the same proportion of workers in knowledge intensive jobs as the country as a whole (ONS, 2012);

-         Counties account for more than half the jobs in key sectors such as manufacturing, construction and motor trades (ONS, 2012);

-         Average employment in the public sector amongst CCN members has reduced for nine quarters in a row between Q1 2011 & Q1 2013, whilst average employment in the private sector amongst CCN members has grown for nine quarters in a row between Q1 2011 & Q2 2013 (NOMIS, 2013)

-         CCN member areas have a higher rate of new business registration compared to the Core Cities and metropolitan boroughs (ONS, 2012);

-         CCN member areas have the highest rate of active enterprises amongst all local authority types (ONS, 2012);

-         CCN member areas have the largest number of new enterprises created amongst all local authority types (ONS, 2012);[3]

 

2.10         There is evidence from across CCN member councils that broader based and more ambitious fiscal devolution policies could enable counties to better invest in local economies and promote growth; however policy is currently preventing them from achieving their potential. Examples are provided in Appendix 2.

 

2.11        In the coming weeks CCN will be building on the research undertaken by Shared Intelligence. CCN will support an independent inquiry into ambitious growth deals for counties. This will explore how the next phase for fiscal devolution can grasp the potential of county economies and exploit the county role in securing improved economic performance from fiscal devolution, including through the LGF. In designing bespoke fiscal devolution proposals for counties, CCN believe further devolution policies must consider the following points;

 

2.10.1              CCN support a number of fiscal devolution proposals from across the sector. In principle we believe that these are equally applicable to cities and counties. CCN’s inquiry will explore the potential implementation and benefits of proposals, including;

 

 

2.10.2           Counties can provide strategic leadership for fiscal devolution and local growth plans, based on existing historic boundaries, but with clear remits linked to growth and devolved powers from government. Their scale and capacity enables CCN member councils to play a genuinely strategic role in local economic development and maintain capacity to better co-ordinate and invest devolved budgets. City Deal’s in two-tier areas have fundamentally relied on the capacity of county councils to design, negotiate and now implement deals. Devolution shouldn’t focus moving powers and funding to the lowest level, rather devolving to the right level where it can make a real difference, including shifting services to a national level if appropriate.  

 

2.10.3               Counties have long established organisational relationships, co-ordinating and convening local partners and other organisations within and across their entire geographical boundaries. For LEPs to support their economies effectively, investing and coordinating devolved budgets it is essential that they have a close and effective relationship with county councils and unitary counties. With LEPs lacking capacity, counties are dedicating considerable resource to facilitate the development of City Deals and Growth Deals. For instance, Warwickshire County Council provided significant technical support and capacity to the CWLEP to help them provide the evidence base to support their City Deal bid.

 

2.10.4           At time of considerable reductions in funding, fiscal devolution should bring with it strong incentives to grow and appropriate local retention arrangements. There are two important observations here;

 

1)     The Government must ensure that all Whitehall departments fully engage with the local growth agenda. Our member councils suggest that engagement varies widely across departments, with the Treasury, Cabinet Office and DCLG supporting fiscal devolution, whilst departments such as BIS, DWP and DfE clearly less committed. It is little surprise that only £850m of a potential £17bn worth of skills funding was included in the LGF.

 

2)     Current growth incentives, such as CIL, NHB and Business Rate Retention, and any further localisation of funding or taxation powers, should reflect the resource contribution of counties and their superior role in promoting growth. Schemes currently provide very little incentive for counties to grow. The growth dividend needs to be captured and distributed more fairly, acknowledging the county role in delivering growth and the higher resource commitment to City Deals and Growth Deals. In two-tier areas, the share of CIL and NHB gives too much weight to the planning function of district authorities. Local shares in two-tier areas need reviewing and future proposals should not repeat this misalignment.

 

2.10.5              An important factor in the City Deals process was Whitehall resource commitment and depth of the engagement with Ministers and civil servants. For instance, Suffolk County Council used the engagement process to considerably widen the scope of their City Deal to cover the majority of Suffolk and secure additional funds, such as a £4m underspend from the Youth Contract. The Government has indicated that each LEP will have a senior sponsor in Whitehall and that local growth teams will be created to work with clusters of LEPs on Growth Deals. Independent Research by Shared Intelligence, supported by CCN engagement with member councils, suggests that government will only be capable of maintaining extensive engagement with a relatively small number of councils. Whitehall must commit appropriate support and target resources to ensure Growth Deals do not further disadvantage county areas excluded from the City Deals process.

 

2.10.6              There needs to be sufficient critical mass for a devolved area, this applies to population (minimum thresholds), services (scope and linkages) and resources (budget), if it is to make a significant impact. Counties can provide this critical mass, whether independently or in partnership with neighbouring authorities.

 

2.10.7    Planning for growth needs to be seen as a more strategic issue, not as it is currently more of an administrative process focused on development control with little/no consideration of implementation, jobs and infrastructure. Combining strategic planning with infrastructure planning and funding, including through aligning incentives such as CIL and NHB,  would enable initiatives such as Northamptonshire or Surrey County Council’s Revolving Infrastructure Fund to flourish with local geographies taking the lead to drive growth, rather than being reliant on government for funding through bidding.

 

2.10.8               Economic geography is clearly a consideration, but devolved geography should also complement existing functions and roles if there is to be a focus on delivery rather than governance, and should avoid creating further layers.  This is relevant to both LEPs and strategic authorities.  Existing areas of LEP overlap should be removed as Lord Heseltine recommended.

 

3                   Impact on Excluded Areas

 

3.1              As asserted above, a concentrated policy focus on the economies of the Core Cities & City Regions has left many county economies to be left unsupported by existing government initiatives on fiscal devolution. This has considerable national and local consequences. The potential impact for excluded areas can be summarised under the following subheadings;

 

3.2     Disproportionate growth opportunities - Cities already enjoy greater effective freedoms, flexibilities, growth incentives and localised Whitehall budgets than their county council peers. This is a situation the CCN has demonstrated is economically counterproductive as well as manifestly unfair. As our independent research concluded, counties not involved in City Deals are already at a considerable disadvantage in negotiating and implementing successful Growth Deals before 2015/16.[9]  Extending further powers and funding to cities while excluding counties from the process could exaggerate this situation to the extent of defining access to decision-making power by where a voter lives, ignoring local needs and growth potential.

 

3.3              Growing socio-economic inequalities – Fiscal devolution is an important way of tackling the socio-economic challenges created by fiscal austerity, including the impact on deprived communities and the demand-led pressures of a rapidly ageing population. Greater independence, particularly over funding, can allow counties and their partners to grow economies and use locally raised revenue to fund social care and support services for deprived communities. LGA projections on local authority funding already indicate how important fiscal devolution is for the future financial sustainability of these types of county council services. Projections show the average county council will have only 27% of its budget available for services other than social care (49%), children services (16%) and waste collection (7%) by 2019/20 compared to 35% for a single-tier authority. The LGA argue that expanding the freedoms given to cities under City Deals is essential to enabling counties to avoid such a sharp reduction in ‘other service’ expenditure and managing the 10% increase in social care expenditure.[10] Extending further powers and funding to cities while excluding counties could exaggerate the socio-economic and demographic challenges facing counties.

 

3.3     Inhibiting a fully national recovery – Expert opinion, including the OECD, is united in the view that a sustainable recovery cannot be restricted to a particular region, indeed the OECD recommended a “clearly defined rural policy and governance framework” for growth as important for a sustainable recovery.[11] Effective fiscal devolution to county regions will allow CCN members to better support diversified growth across the UK; excluded areas may not have access to the necessary levers to kick start growth, particularly in low growth sub-regional areas that require high levels of support.

 

3.4             Constraining county capacity to support growth by misaligning incentives and misplacing powers – Restricting access to growth related schemes creates striking discrepancies. In Essex for example, county exclusion from the Youth Contract negotiations has meant that eleven of twelve Essex districts have a higher percentage of 18-24 year old JobSeeker’s Allowance claimants claiming for longer than six months than Brighton, Reading or Oxford, yet the latter can access funding while the former cannot. Likewise, counties cannot reinvest the proceeds of growth back into their economies as they currently retain little of the proceeds of growth via routes such as Business Rate Retention or NHB (see point 2.10.4). Moreover, Northamptonshire and Surrey’s Revolving Infrastructure Funds could flourish further through self-sustaining growth if the government provided the necessary powers and flexibilities accorded to the Core Cities.

 

4                   Economic Geography, Governance & Accountability

 

4.1             CCN welcomes the general acknowledgement by Government that local government is the central element in the success of any potential governance arrangements surrounding devolved funding. 

 

4.2              CCN finds David Marlow’s definition of distinctive functional economic areas (FEAs) helpful in defining economic geography. We contend that in many cases the functional regional economic area is coterminous with County boundaries and that fiscal devolution should reflect this reality.  Given the overlap between functional economic areas and county boundaries, combined with Counties experience in leading strategic growth, CCN contends county councils should to be the primary accountable body for potential devolved funding within their boundaries.

 

4.3              CCN acknowledges that governance has been a source for tension previous subnational bodies devoted to growth, reflecting the needs to ensure transparency, accountability and effective decision-making. These bodies have often been subject criticism regarding their complexity, their opacity to local stakeholders, their difficulty in delivering equal influence to all partners and the composition of governing executives, all of which feeds into a lack of effective leadership.

 

4.4             To an extent, some of this criticism continues today regarding the operation of LEPs and City Deals, though both are continuing to improve and adapt. In their initial form some LEPs did not adhere to their regions’ economic geographies, stifling their capacity to meaningfully support and direct growth. Centre for Cities described the SELEP as “too big” and hence having “fallen at the first hurdle.”[12] CCN member councils have particular experience of evolving and reshaping their LEPs relationships to create high performing partnership with inclusive governance arrangements, experience that indicates the importance of actively incorporating business leaders into delivering effective economic leadership. It’s notable that many successful LEPs, such as the Northamptonshire LEP, have built these relationships on the foundations established by county councils. In general CCN agrees with the conclusion of Shared Intelligence’s independent research that the effectiveness of LEPs is directed related to the quality of the relationship with the relevant council(s).[13]

 

4.5             The active involvement of business stakeholder in decision making has been identified by CCN members as essential to the success of growth planning and LEP, to both lift the discussions beyond political negotiations and feed business insight into the discussions. David Marlow identified three models of LEPs, as subnational agencies distributing funds, as local growth sounding boards and as a local growth leadership forum; the third option being the most effective and desirable form. CCN acknowledges the central place business stakeholders in achieving the third form of LEP, and the effectiveness of Business Forums attached to the executive boards of LEPs in facilitating business participation in decision-making.  

 

Holding ‘devolved areas to account’

 

4.6             CCN contends that at their core, devolved financial arrangements should retain accountability to local people through the central involvement of local authorities, who would retain a central strategy setting role regarding any devolved power. We acknowledge that a one size fits all approach to these governance arrangement will be unwelcome.

 

4.7             Acknowledging this diversity, there are two broad challenges facings bodies delivering local growth; the first is providing open and transparent governance of complex arrangements to enable accountability and the second is ensuring governance arrangements come to clear, transparent and binding decisions for all partners. Every cohesive local solution needs to address these challenges.

 

4.8             The accountability of local devolved financial arrangements will be tested by both routine discussions, such as those associated with resource allocations, and particular challenges, such as imposing local interventions. Accountability can also be improved by linking back to a distinct package of measures or programmes developed and articulated by the partnerships. As Leicester & Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership, described and CCN agrees, LEPs need to ‘front up and show they can be united and co-ordinated in matters of economic development… Government feedback has emphasised the need for a step-change in governance, for the arrangements to be able to make binding decisions, and for clarity on accountabilities.’

 

Economic Geography and Set Up

 

4.9             CCN welcome moves to strengthen the flow of devolved growth funding to the decision makers with the local knowledge to make best use of it.  The devolved areas should fit as far as possible the Functional Economic Areas of local economic activity. Although we agree with the Centre for Cities’ assertion ’in defining the geography of the arrangement, it is important not to be confined by the existing governance structures and to make sure the areas accurately reflect the economic realities of a local area,’ as previously discussed, CCN contends that in many places the Functional Economic Areas are largely coterminous with county boundaries. When this coterminosity does not exist, CCN contends it is most effective to be guided by the geographies defined within existing Growth Plans in establishing new arrangements. 

 

4.10         Given that County council areas are more likely to be functional economic areas than just a city,  a single district or borough it enables us to be more strategic, identify spill-over effects (both positive and negative) of developments/interventions and maximise the impact of investment. Any new arrangements to devolve fiscal power need to reflect county capacities within growth.   However, counties recognise they are not complete FEA’s and we are not islands. There is interaction and movement across county boundaries and therefore a need for any new arrangements to acknowledge strategic links across county areas (often in different regions, which hitherto have often been overlooked with regional economic development & growth arrangements).

 

4.11         CCN notes that in order to succeed in setting up any planned devolved area, cross departmental support for the initiative must be forthcoming from Whitehall. As Raising the Capital notes, ‘Public expenditure reviews currently work in such a way as to inhibit any deviation from individual departmental priorities or, indeed, overall Treasury control.’ CCN supports this conclusion of the report and echoes concerns voiced by the Centre for Cities regarding the cultural shift this would necessitate; “The culture of centralisation developed over decades will not be easy to change, and government departmental silos simply throw up more barriers to joining up policy in the cities where it is delivered.”

 

About: The County Councils Network (CCN) represents 37 English local authorities that serve counties. CCN membership includes both upper tier and unitary authorities who together have over 2500 councillors and serve 23 million people (46% of the population) across 85% of England.  CCN develops policy, shares best practice and makes representations to government on behalf of this significant proportion of the country outside the big conurbations. CCN is a member-led organisation which works on an inclusive and all party basis and seeks to make representations to government which can be supported by all member authorities.

 

January 2014


Appendix 1

 

Staffordshire County Council – Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire's City Deal offer to government covered an array of key areas including energy, employment sites and enterprise/innovation. A key element is the development of a local skills offer which will ensure that, subject to getting a City Deal, the local workforce are able to access opportunities within the jobs market and share in the benefits of growth. A key element of this is the work (announced by Secretary of State Vince Cable at last years LGA Annual Conference) we are doing jointly with the Skills Funding Agency to pilot a local approach to encourage providers to adapt their offer, and create the right conditions to ensure a dynamic and adaptive skills system fully supports both the anticipated City Deal and the wider LEP approach to local growth. In total the Deal expects to deliver a 50% increase in the area’s GDP and creation of 50,000 new jobs.

 

Warwickshire County Council - the Coventry & Warwickshire City Deal has a number of unique features that fundamentally rely on the capacity and scale of the county council to deliver. The deal looks to bring together all business support services for the advanced manufacturing sector within one “clearing house”.  This will include co-location of support services, including UKTI (for trade & exporting, and inward investment), and the Manufacturing Advisory Service, plus other local support.  A key strength of the county within the deal is their strong economic intelligence and analysis function to understand the issues and provide an “honest broker” role. This places the county well to help shape and inform the skills market – something that is central to the Coventry & Warwickshire City Deal.

 

Lancashire County Council is using its capacity and scale to underpin the key aspects of the Preston & Lancashire City Deal, including the £450 million Infrastructure Delivery Programme. Alongside the allocation of their NHB share, £39.4m transport capital funds and £0.8m of capital receipts, the county is underwriting the £100m cash flow imbalance within the overall deal. None of the other participants in the Deal have the financial scale or strength to undertake this role, meaning the county is shouldering the lion's share of the financial risk. The Deal projects outcomes of 20,000 new jobs, 15,000 new homes and generation of new economic activity worth £1bn over the next 10 years.

 

Appendix 2

 

Essex County Council’s ‘Deal for Growth ‘ formed an integral part of the council’s Whole Place Community Budget Pilot and followed their innovative ‘City Limits’ research.[14] The Deal proposed a number of policy ‘asks’ to Whitehall departments to enable the council and its partners to create a £1bn revolving infrastructure fund; redesign local skills services through the devolution of funding and powers to make provision employer driven and developing a payment by results model for providers; and reinvest the proceeds of growth, including the reinvestment of a proportion of localised NNDR growth across Essex, and the retention of 100% of NNDR growth in key locations. If the Government was to meet the county’s policy asks Essex estimate that the Deal would yield an additional 60,000 new jobs and 25,500 new homes to Essex, Southend and Thurrock.[15]

 

Northamptonshire County Council’s ’10 Point Plan to Kickstart and Unleash Local Dynamism and Economic Potential’ sets out the Council’s ambitious local growth agenda. The County Council worked closely with its LEP to devise an extensive plan for fiscal devolution with a ‘growth offer’ and asks from Government including; the ‘Single Capital Pot’ to align with existing governance and accountable body activities; 75% of the uplift in tax receipts generated by their INV-ENT business support fund to be retained locally for reinvestment in innovation and business growth; and better investment of devolved funding on skills through the Northamptonshire Skills Board. The partnership estimates that devolution of the necessary powers, freedoms and centrally retained funding could result in 70,000 new jobs over the next 15 years and the potential for 80,000 more homes. This would enable Northamptonshire to exceed its projected £20bn contribution to the UK economy by 2020. [16]

 

Surrey County Council has been running a successful programme to increase apprenticeship take up and to reduce the number of young people not in employment, education or training which had been cut by 50% in the last 3 years. The county is developing a proposal through the Public Service Transformation Network programme to increase participation for all young people which could be supported through devolution of some functions, particularly those of the National Careers Service; greater integration and localisation of some existing employment support programmes and an arrangement to allow the council and local partners to share in the savings in welfare benefits arising from increased participation. In particular the proposal would involve integrated information, advice and guidance for young people from Year 8 onwards including on apprenticeships which would form part of a more flexible and expanded set of vocational pathways for young people aged 14-19; specific Young Apprenticeship pathways for young people aged 14-16 for earlier entry to apprenticeship programmes; and increased apprenticeship opportunities developed with employers as part of an improved education and training offer.

 

Buckinghamshire County Council has argued that localised Youth Contracts would allow better support for young people and NEETs. In Buckinghamshire many are currently excluded from the national programme, whilst half the fund (£50m) is allocated to the Core Cities & City Regions. Additional powers, flexibilities and responsibilities for counties could allow Buckinghamshire to establish apprenticeship hubs and incentive schemes for small businesses to take on apprentices, or to establish a local skills funding model, giving more local control over how Skills Funding Agency resources are allocated and spent by providers to deliver an increase in intermediate technical skills training.[17]

 

 


Appendix 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3.6             

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

[1] Local Government Association. On the Day Briefing: The Government’s infrastructure plan (2013)

[2] Shared Intelligence. Counties & Economic Growth (2013)

[3] Shared Intelligence. Counties & Economic Growth (2013) & LG Inform modelling of ONS & NOMIS statistics 2013.

[4] London Finance Commission. Raising the Capital (2013) & LGA. Rewiring Public Services: Business Rate Retention (2014)

[5] LGA. Rewiring Public Services: Economic Growth (2013)

[6] Localis. Clearing the Hurdles (2013)

[7] Tri-borough Partnership. Doing the Deal: the Case for a new approach:  Public Service Reform Deals (2013)

[8] NLGN. Growing Your Own: Skills and infrastructure for local economic growth (2012)

[9] Shared Intelligence. Counties & Economic Growth (2013), p. 12

[10] LGA. Future funding outlook of AnyCounty Council (2013) & LGA. Future funding outlook of Single-tier Council (LGA)

[11] OECD. United Kingdom: Policies for a Sustainable Recovery  (2010)

[12] Centre for Cities, Cause Célèbre Or Cause For Concern (2011), quote from Dover Express, 11th/11th/11

[13] Shared Intelligence. Counties & Economic Growth (2013)

[14] Essex County Council. City Limits: why devolved economic powers should be made available in county areas (2012)

[15] Essex County Council. Deal for Growth (2011) http://www.wecb.org.uk/uploads/FINAL%20OP%20and%20BCs/Deal%20for%20Growth_20121031_Final2.pdfn

[16] Northamptonshire County Council. Our 10 Point Plan - Northamptonshire County Council (2013) http://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/en/councilservices/Environ/economic/Documents/PDF%20Documents/10%20Point%20Plan_Digital%20FINAL.PDF

[17] CCN. Counties: Driving Economic Growth (2012)