Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

Amendment 162 would have the effect of making non-unitary district councils principal local authorities in respect of the duty, as well as unitary district councils and county councils. Amendment 163 would require a county council to act jointly with the district council for that area in preparing an economic assessment. These amendments would in effect place a joint duty on the county council and district councils in its area. We believe that there are clear advantages in having one body in the lead. This makes it easier for local authorities and partners to engage and decide on the scope and use of data and methodology, and to provide clearer lines of accountability. County councils are already the responsible authorities for developing local area agreements in two-tier areas, working closely with partner authorities, including district councils. Given that local economic assessments will be expected to inform LAAs’ negotiations, it is appropriate for the county council also to lead the preparation of the economic assessment. It is also our view that local economic assessments should reflect the local economic geography as closely as possible. For example, in shire areas economic areas tend to match county boundaries more closely than district council boundaries, which tend to be too small. In that context, it makes greater sense to place the duty on the county council. Devon would be a good example of where the wider functional economy is matched closely to the county boundary. Here the county council leads on sub-regional economic development across the county. I can assure Members of the Committee that we do not, in any way, under-estimate the vital role districts play in supporting local economic development and regeneration. It is true that the Bill, as drafted, places the duty to prepare an economic assessment on county councils in two-tier areas. However, it also includes a requirement on those councils to consult and seek the participation of district councils within its area and to take account of the evidence gathered by the district council in the course of its role as planning authority that may affect the development of the area. It also includes a requirement for district councils to co-operate with the county council. The Bill requires both tiers to work closely together in preparing their local economic assessment. It strikes the right balance between ensuring that district councils are fully involved and the need to avoid unnecessary burdens. It also provides district councils with an enhanced role in recognition of their important contribution to the assessment. To place a joint duty on district councils and county councils would potentially increase the costs for district councils, which would be an inefficient use of local authority resources. Also, many district councils are not as well resourced as county councils to carry out this type of function. Amendment 163A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would require the county council to have regard to any other material that the district council decides to provide beyond the material produced by it in pursuit of its local planning role. There well may be other material held by the district council that would be of use to the county council in preparing its economic assessment. However, it is neither desirable nor necessary to place an open-ended requirement for the county council to have regard to any material that the district council decides to provide. Beyond the planning function, it is better to leave it to the county council and the district councils to sort out what material may be of use to the county council in preparing its economic assessment. Amendment 163B would require the district council to co-operate with ““reasonable requests”” from the county council. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary, as the obligation to co-operate does not require the district council to do anything unreasonable. We are not suggesting that the county council has the power to direct the district council to do anything. We are confident that the county council and district councils can decide between themselves how they could best work together, as they already do in many other spheres. We do not believe that it is necessary for the Government to further prescribe on this issue. I hope that these assurances I have given—about the requirement on county councils to seek the participation of district councils, on the duty for districts to co-operate, and on our valuing the important role that districts play—address the concerns of Members of the Committee, and that they will understand why I do not think that these amendments are necessary.