Agenda item

Green Recovery Fund

Decision:

No decision was taken by the Combined Authority Committee on the recommendation included in the submitted report.

 

Minutes:

This report was submitted for consideration by the West of England Joint Committee and the West of England Combined Authority Committee (agenda item 9). 

 

The report set out a recommendation for the Combined Authority Committee’s consideration and a separate recommendation for the Joint Committee’s consideration, as follows:

 

Recommendation for the Combined Authority Committee:

- To earmark from the existing Combined Authority Investment Fund headroom £20m for a Green Recovery Fund.

 

Recommendation for the Joint Committee:

- To note the fund’s objectives and framework.

 

 

The Chair moved the recommendation for the Combined Authority Committee as follows:

‘To earmark from the existing Combined Authority Investment Fund headroom £20m for a Green Recovery Fund.’

In moving the motion, the Chair stressed that this proposal was in line with and would deliver his manifesto commitment to create a Green Recovery Fund of this scale.   He emphasised that retrofitting of properties to reduce emissions would be a key element of the proposal.  The fund was also designed to lever in additional resources and opportunities. He was determined that the region should be at the ‘cutting edge’ of green delivery, with the region showing that it was a national leader, well placed to take advantage of government funding opportunities.

This motion was not seconded.  The motion therefore fell.

 

Councillor Guy indicated his support for the principle of a Green Recovery Fund but advised he was not able to second the current proposal.  The fund in his view needed to be bolder, more ambitious and at least three times bigger than the £20 million proposed in the report, i.e. at least £60 million.

The Chair commented that the item would be brought back for discussion at the October meeting, adding that officers will explore how the £20 million fund could be increased as he was keen to ensure that the proposal is as ambitious as possible.

Councillor Savage referred to the fact that he had circulated to committee members a potential new recommendation for consideration by the Combined Authority Committee.  He indicated that it was not necessary for him to formally move this new recommendation, noting that committee members were in agreement about the need to create a more ambitious Green Recovery Fund.  He asked for a verbal assurance from the Metro Mayor that there will be collaboration between the Combined Authority Chief Executive and the unitary authority Chief Executives on the refreshed proposal in advance of the October committee meeting.

In response, the Chair stated that the authorities will need to work very closely together to achieve the ambitions around this fund, including increasing the size of the fund.

Councillor Cheney commented that from Bristol’s perspective, there was a lack of clarity in the current report about how the Green Recovery Fund would be financed, including information about how funding this priority may potentially affect the funding of other priorities.

The Chair confirmed that a further report on the Green Recovery Fund would be brought back to the October meeting, linked in with the latest Investment Fund report.

 

 

The Joint Committee then noted the proposed fund’s objectives and framework.

 

Councillor Davies commented that from the Joint Committee’s perspective, it was important to place on record support for Combined Authority committee members’ ambitions for the size of the Green Recovery Fund, also noting the importance of clearly identifying the funding sources and any priorities that may no longer be funded as a result of this. He added that if the aim was to demonstrate the scale of ambition, it was incumbent upon the Combined Authority, in conjunction with the constituent councils, to bring forward a report and plan for action for consideration at the October meeting.  It was essential to clearly articulate both the ambition and what will be done, and what may not be done because of the priority afforded to the green recovery.

 

 

The Chair then closed the meeting at 5.33 pm, and again thanked Watermore Primary School for hosting the meeting.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: