WORCESTERSHIRE LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP BOARDTuesday 17th June 2014 3.00pm - 5.00pm

Coomber Electronics, Brindley Road, Worcester

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Apologies

2. Minutes from the Board Meeting 20 March 2014 (5 mins)

3. Matters Arising - Action List- Correspondence (5 mins)

4. SEP Negotiation Update - Gary Woodman (20 mins)

5. Governance Proposals Finalisation – Gary Woodman (20 mins)

6. EU Strategy Update – Gary Woodman (10 mins)- GBSLEP Cross Border Protocol- EAFRD Update

7. Subgroup Reports and Outputs- National profile and promotion – Jan Bailey- Business Growth - Roy Irish- Worcestershire Growth Hub – Dean Attwell- Apprentice Awards Event – Gary Woodman- Agri- Tech Board Terms of Reference – Gary Woodman- Cyber Security – Steve Borwell-Fox (20 mins)

8. LEP Business Recruitment Process - Gary Woodman (5 mins)

9. Budget – Gary Woodman (10 mins)

10. WCC – Future Operating Model – Simon Geraghty (5 mins)

11. Chair’s Report (inc WM LEP Chairs and LEP Network) (5 mins)

12. Executive Director’s Report – Gary Woodman (10 mins) 13. Any Other Business 14. Dates of Meetings in 2014

- 24 July 2014 at Coomber Electronics - 25 September 2014 (LEP Board Away Day) - Worcestershire County Cricket Club

1 | P a g e

MINUTES OF WORCESTERSHIRE LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIPBOARD MEETING

Thursday, 20th March 2014 3.00pm – 5.00pmYamazaki Mazak Ltd, Badgeworth Drive, Worcester

PRESENT:Peter Pawsey (Chair) (PP) Chairman, Robert West and Director Midland HeartCllr Simon Geraghty (SG) Deputy Leader, Worcestershire County CouncilCllr David Hughes (DH) Leader, Malvern Hills District Council (rep Southern DCs)Carl Arntzen (CA) MD, Worcester Bosch ThermotechnologyCllr John Campion (JC) Leader, Wyre Forest District Council (rep Northern DCs)John Callaghan (JCal) Principal, North East Worcestershire CollegeAlan White (AW) MD, Malvern Hills Science ParkDean Attwell (DA) MD, Oakland InternationalSteve Borwell-Fox (SBF) MD, Borwell Ltd

IN ATTENDANCE:Gary Woodman (GW) Worcestershire LEPClaire Bridges (CB) Worcestershire LEPClare Marchant (CM) Worcestershire County CouncilDavid Crook (DC) BISWendy Stock (WS) Note taker Worcestershire LEP

APOLOGIES:Marcus Burton (MB) MD Yamazaki MazakLuke Willetts (LW) Worcestershire LEPJohn Hobbs (JH) Worcestershire County Council

1. Welcome and Apologies

Peter Pawsey (Chair) welcomed the Board and he noted that there were apologies from Marcus Burton, Luke Willetts, John Hobbs and Steve Borwell-Fox attended as an alternative for Marcus Burton.

2. Minutes from the Board Meeting 26th February 2014

The Minutes were signed off as a true record by the Board.

2 | P a g e

3. Matters Arising

The Action Points from the February Board meeting were reviewed:

The new name of Worcestershire College was currently under consultation as this was the preferred name. Approved by the Board.

It was confirmed that Recruitment of Board and Business Board members was at the top of the Agenda of the Appointments and Remuneration Sub Committee.

DA to submit a useful contact list and notes from the 39 LEP Chairs Meeting in London on 21st January.

4. SEP Sign-Off - Ref. SLGF Bid

GW talked through the Worcestershire SEP Programme Delivery Framework Document "World Class Worcestershire" that was circulated at the meeting. The three Key Objectives were:

Create a World Class business location Provide individuals with World Class skills Develop World Class competitive and innovative

businesses

He then briefly described in more detail the Programmes and related projects under each objective.

With regard to the sectors, although three had been identified, following a review by the Independent Panel, it is now recognised that various sectors have a spatial dynamic to the County and this will be reflected in the final Draft.

AW asked if he submitted a bid under one of the Innovation Programmes, who would handle this? GW said that this would probably be dealt by the European programme under the Single Growth Fund. GW confirmed that each project would be guided, prioritised and brought together by the LEP Executive Team and AW commented that early rejection of a proposed bid would be welcomed if not suitable. GW confirmed that projects with feasibility for 2015/16 would be welcomed but also those with a more longer term vision such as geo thermal energy for years 2017/18/19 would be considered with a set of project recommendations.

PP concluded that extra resources may be considered for the LEP Executive Team as the LEP role changed from facilitator project developer rather than at a strategic level – strategy writing.

GW reviewed the revised Asks of Government document that was circulated as follows:

3 | P a g e

Short Term Asks1. A new Worcestershire Parkway station which would

improve access journey time and frequency to London and improve cross country connectivity to Birmingham and Bristol.

2. Improvements to A46 key strategic route to remove growth constraints and support economic growth in the area around Evesham and Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire.

3. Single point of contact for public sector estates issues and strategic coordinated release of land to assist with regeneration opportunities though a Joint Property Vehicle (JPV) proposal.

4. Ask DCLG to instruct the HCA to continue working with the WLEP and proactively support the Worcestershire Game Changer Programme by:- surrendering its residual financial interest in the Malvern Hills Science Park development to Worcestershire County Council by April 2015. SG said that he wished it to be noted that he had a declared interest and said there was a strong case about expanding and delivering growth faster. AW stated that 80% net profit had been achieved and HCA could be used to facilitate growth further.- committing to transfer to HCA land in the Redditch Eastern Gateway to Redditch Borough Council be June 2015.

5. Additional funding from BDUK of £2.93 million to bring further residential and business coverage of superfast broadband, particularly in rural areas of the County with known positive GVA outcomes.

6. Ask DECC to jointly commission with WLEP a feasibility study on a geothermal heat pilot in Worcestershire by September 2014. CA asked for it to be noted that he had a declared interest in low temperature heating using geothermal technology.

7. SFA to be asked by August 2015 to ring-fence 10% of existing FE spending in Worcestershire to be jointly commissioned with WLEP to accelerate investment in skills.

8. Ask BIS to instruct SFA to provide trailblazer status to WLEP to develop employer-led Level 4 apprenticeship frameworks in STEM by April 2015 with links to centre to excellence.

9. Ask BIS to instruct SFA and DfE to extend eligibility for National Careers Service to an integrated service in Worcestershire for 14 - 24 year olds across schools, FE/vocational education and training and HE, by April 2015.

10. BIS, CLG and DEFRA align national regulators and govern- ment interests to collaborate with WLEP businesses, local 11. Partners and regulators in the Worcestershire Agri-Food,

Horticulture and Forestry Sector as a UK Examplar for simplified business regulatory self compliance enabling growth.

4 | P a g e

12. To ask Cabinet Office to enable micro and SME businesses to compete for government procurement for cyber security contracts by flexing procurement regulations. PP mentioned the recent local news article re: Warwickshire University on cyber security but SBF said that there were very few British Nationals available to work on cyber security. PP said that cross-LEP working on Cyber would be important.

13. To ask the DfT to endorse the work agreed with the HA re M5 Jnc 6 and "indicatively" prioritise funding for both M5 Junc 6 and the Carrington Bridge dualing elements of the A4440 Worcester Southern Link.

14. Ask the Treasury to back WLEP to establish the Worcestershire Strategic Fund. GW/PP asked DC about the likelihood of this happening and he indicated that the response would be 'no' unless there was a convincing enough argument made for it to be accepted.

Transport Asks

GW reviewed a separate document containing a list of Transport and Infrastructure Schemes for Worcestershire LEP as follows:

2015/16 Schemes Worcester Technology Park (off-site work) - £5m. Malvern Hills Science Park (Phase 4 off-site works) -

£3.75m. Hoo Brook Link Road - £6m. Southern Link Road and Ketch roundabout (next phase

Norton roundabout) - £7m. Evesham Vale Park - £3m. Kidderminster - Comberton Hill and Rail Station - £4.2m. Flood Resilience Programme - £3.5m Sustainable Transport - Worcester Pedestrian Bridge and

Evesham Pedestrian Bridge

2016/17 Schemes Redditch Eastern Gateway - £2m. Pershore Northern Relief Road - £4.6m. Worcestershire Parkway - £14m. Southern Link Road A4440 (Phase 3) - £30m. A46 - Evesham - £10m Worcester Technology Park. Redditch Eastern Gateway - Construction of First

Specification Building Kidderminster Employment Area - Enterprise Centre Housing Delivery Programme - series of key transport

infrastructure schemes to enable accelerated development of housing sites across County - £7.5m

Public Realm Improvement Programme

Longer Term Asks where Funding Certainty Required

5 | P a g e

M5 Junction 6 - £50m. Southern Link Road - Carrington Bridge dualling to Powick

roundabout - £60m. Need to consider inclusion of Tourism projects - e.g. Safari

Park, Worcester riverside.

CA asked that beyond the nuts and bolts details around Asks and Projects, how much money was being bidded for and GW stated that it represented around 2.5% (£47m) of the England pot.

SG thanked the Executive Team for their hard work in producing such a comprehensive list that was so well articulated.

CA asked whether this shopping list had been turned into delivery plans. CM confirmed that housing numbers had formed part of the proposal and done so incrementally. PP confirmed that this had been an evolving process with a good business led workshop session held at the offices of Worcester Bosch to which 60 businesses had attended as well as other engagements which had come together with a lot of coordinated help. GW confirmed that delivery plans would now be developed.

CM stated that a period of negotiation and informal lobbying has been planned. There will be a Tier 1 Glossary document and a photoshoot planned with local MPS at Westminster with PP, DA and SG attending.

CM said that there would be a LEP ‘SEP send-off ‘ day on Monday 31st March.

ACTION: GW

ACTION: GW

5. Governance Review Update

PP confirmed that there was no paper produced and this issue has had to be put on a 'back burner'. SG confirmed that discussions had taken place with Local Government partners and some proposals were acceptable but other areas require more discussion. Plus the size, formal function of the LEP, needs to be assessed in light of the government negotiations. SG confirmed that this was a work in progress and the current focus was the SEP submission.

GW to continue to progress the recruitment of business members to the Board and Business Board

ACTION: GW

6. Independent Panel Findings

GW discussed the key panel findings: Key measures defining success and outcomes.

6 | P a g e

7.

Excellence and excellence driven and how does the innovation wrap around it

Accelerate economic growth narrative Key sectors delivering GVA Business Case Studies A clear narrative around game changer sites Clear decision making process

SG stated that the Panel Findings had been very helpful in selling the SEP and top level summary document and that it had been good to be challenged. It was confirmed that no other LEP had engaged an Independent Panel in this process.

The Board agreed that the Independent Panel had sharpened the final SEP document and WLEP need to ensure it strongly communicated the success of this process in the negotiation.

Away Day

PP said that the Away Day that had been planned for the LEP Board and Business Board on the 22nd May but failed to recognise another event on the same date "Strictly Worcestershire" and that it was too soon to progress with new Board appointments. Therefore, PP recommended deferring this to 24th July to include a formal introduction of new Board members. Agenda items - GWPP said that agenda items would be built around setting an agenda for the LEP for the next 2/3 years. ACTION: GW

8. Budget

Francis Christie joined the meeting by telephone to note the position of spend on the LEP Budget and agree the LEP Budget for 2014/15. These were formally agreed by the Board.

9. FAR&A Committee

Francis Christie (FC) reviewed the activities of the FAR&A Committee during 2013 in which it met on four occasions to:

1. Review/approve the WLEP budget for 2013-4.2. Review its Terms of Reference and plan how it could meet

its other responsibilities. The WLEP Board now need to take ownership for defining and managing the following at Main Board level: Define the priorities for the Business Plan for 2014/15. Monitor LEP adherence to the Budget and approval of

changes to the plan. Monitor the allocation and conduct reviews of funding

commitments like the Growing Places Fund and ensure that due diligence has been undertaken.

PP informed FC about the proposed establishment of an Audit,

7 | P a g e

Finance and Risk (AFR) Sub-Committee and an Appointments and Remuneration (A&R) Sub-Committee (building on the work to date of the FARA Sub-Committee) and making the work of the Committee more manageable. This is part of the governance paper is not formalised and signed off at the Board Meeting. A copy of the Governance paper and finalised arrangements will be passed to FC when ready.

FC asked the Board to adopt the two draft policy papers produced by the FAR&A Committee - WLEP Complaints Paper and WLEP Risk Management Policy and Management Procedure and this was agreed. GW to implement and advertise policies.

The Risk Policy would be changed to include the identification of Risks and the Building of a Risk Map as one of the exercises in the agenda for the WLEP Away Day in July and this was agreed.

ACTION: PP/GW

ACTION: GW

ACTION: GW

10. Any Other Business

CA stated that the ESB had commissioned a survey with KPMG to FE Colleges and asked for formal Board approval to obtain some released date from AMION. The Board approved this; however, reservations were expressed about how this study had been carried out.

DA reported on the outcomes of the recent Business Board Meeting that had taken place:

Renewal of Business Board members whose terms of office were due to finish.

In-depth discussions about the future role of the Business Board and a refocusing on its purpose and direction.

The challenge in motivating and reinvigorating Business Board members.

Concerns over poor feedback received from Worcestershire Business Central and DA's subsequent email to Business Board members asking for their views about its future.

These points led to a lively Board discussion where frequency of Business Board Meetings where debated, County involvement, openness, and relationship building issues were also discussed. PP thanked everyone for the enlightening discussions.

PP informed the meeting that there would be a LEP Network Conference in London next week and that the National Management Board had held their first meeting this morning. There was an appointment of a '3 day a week' Chief Executive with two sub-committees for Audit and Remuneration and an accountable body. There was a string of major businesses wishing to contribute.PP to keep the Main Board informed.

ACTION: GW to supply data

to KPMG

8 | P a g e

11. Dates of Meetings in 2014

LEP BOARD:

22nd May – Coombers (subsequently changed to 17th June).24th July – Worcester Cricket Club25th September - Coombers20th November – Mazak

9 | P a g e

Item 3: - Action List

From March Board meeting

The development of SEP project delivery plans for delivery in 15/16 re LGF Deal. Delivery of the SEP ‘send off’ event and Executive summary document Implement the recruitment of the business members to the Board and Business

Board LEP Away Day to be booked on the 24th July 2014. Proposed governance arrangements to be forwarded to Francis Christie and

discussed at the FARA committee Adopted of the Complaints and Risk Management Policy these would be implement

and displayed on the LEP website GW to supply Amion Phase 1 data to KPMG re the study on FE and HE.

10 | P a g e

Item 3 : Correspondence

(Please see attached).

11 | P a g e

Item 4 : Strategic Economic Plan – Progress Update

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to:

a) To note the progress on Local Growth Fund negotiations with central government following submission of Strategic Economic Plan.

b) Approve the process for a call for 16/17 projects.

1.0 Context1.1 Worcestershire Local Enterprise Board (WLEP) submitted their Strategic Economic

Plan (SEP) to central government on 31 March 2014, following extensive stakeholder engagement and LEP Board approval.

1.2 The final SEP pitched for £280m of Local Growth Fund (LGF) monies over the duration of the plan (10 years), with the vision of creating 25,000 jobs in Worcestershire and increasing Gross Value Added (GVA) by £2.9 billion over the same period.

1.3 The LGF negotiation process between WLEP and central government is competitive and will be under-pinned by the SEP.

2.0 Emerging Process Following Submission - Ranking 2015/16 Projects2.1 Following submission on 31 March 2014, initial feedback from the Department of

Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) was positive with encouraging messages received on the strategy and associated narrative.

2.2 Following this initial feedback, the majority of focus since submission has been on the proposed projects and associated information.

2.3 Early in April, WLEP was requested by BIS to produce a prioritised list of the schemes which were pitching for LGF monies in 2015/16 only. Due to the tight timescales for submission of this information, the production of the ranked list was produced by the Quad (made up of Peter Pawsey (Chair), Dean Attwell (Vice Chair, Business), Cllr Simon Geraghty (Vice Chair, Local Government) and Gary Woodman (Executive Director)) and can be seen at Appendix A.

2.3 The following criteria were used to rank the projects: Delivery in 2015/16 Jobs Created Housing Units Strategic Fit Private Sector Leverage

2.4 It should be noted that there are some tactical decisions within the list that WLEP are aiming to play out during the negotiation with Government.  The BIS request was to produce a priority list for schemes delivering in 2015/16 only, the Quad therefore had to factor this into account through the scoring and ranking process.  WLEP is therefore acutely aware of the anomalies between this and the 10 year SEP narrative.  These concerns have been expressed to BIS, and are shared nationally

12 | P a g e

across the LEP network, over the change in the process. It has also been made clear that the submitted list does not have LEP Board approval.

2.5 On 7 May 2014, BIS Local met with Greg Clark, Lord Heseltine and other Ministers for discussion about Worcestershire's SEP and projects.  WLEP expressed unease over BIS Local representing our projects into Government, as it was believed each project needed a degree of detail and 'selling'.  Following this meeting further questions and information has been requested by BIS and the other Government departments on each of the 2015/16 projects.

2.6 During April and May, WLEP have continued to respond to requests for further information from BIS on each of the 2015/16 schemes. The key focus of their queries on each scheme is listed below:

Value for Money (including calculation of Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR)) Delivery Arrangements for project Risk Management methodology and key risks Purpose of the LGF monies pitch and what it will buy Key Milestones associated with delivery Evidence of Demand (where applicable)

2.7 On 13 May 2014, WLEP met with the Department for Transport (DfT) to discuss transport priorities and schemes in 2015/16.  The LEP have also attended a briefing from the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) on the FE capital process within the Local Growth Fund. It was decided to wait for feedback from these meetings before distributing the ranked list to partners and stakeholders, as WLEP have used both meetings to test some assumptions made locally in the prioritisation process.  These sessions have been as positive as possible but without any commitment from Government.

2.8 The 2015/16 project information continues to be provided by WLEP and partners in response to queries/deadlines raised by BIS and government departments.

3.0 Asks of Government3.1 Despite the main focus being on LGF projects since submission, there has also been

work undertaken in central government to review the Asks of Government included as part of the SEP submission. WLEP submitted 14 Asks of Government with 12 considered to be short-term requests, i.e. deliverable from 2015/16 with the remaining two being medium-long term.

3.2 One of the Asks was to ask the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) to jointly commission with WLEP a feasibility study on a geothermal heat pilot in Worcestershire, by September 2014. BIS Local have discussed this with DECC, and they agree that the academic literature suggests the geology in the Worcester area offers some potential for direct heat use (supplying heat to district heating networks). As a result, DECC believe one of the best options to enable WLEP to take this forward would be to submit a bid to the next Heat Networks Delivery Unit (HNDU) funding round which opened on 12 May 2014. This application will now be completed by WLEP.

3.3 Further conversations between WLEP and government are scheduled to discuss the wider Asks of Government with a view to identifying which ones are viable and have traction with government for taking forward as part of the Local Growth Deal.

13 | P a g e

4.0 Selling the SEP4.1 Recognising that submission of the final SEP document alone is unlikely to be

enough to secure a successful Local Growth Deal for Worcestershire, WLEP and partners have dedicated a lot of time and resource to developing and implementing a communications and lobbying plan to 'Sell the SEP'.

4.2 This is to ensure as much appropriate influence is brought to bear in support of the Worcestershire SEP as possible and to implement a plan to sell the SEP to stakeholders alongside the period of negotiation with Government to July. The key objectives are:

to try and get as much of the money we need; build the reputation of Worcestershire as a world class business location for

investment; build awareness of what is in the SEP; and to share what the local benefits are e.g. in terms of jobs and opportunities.

4.3 To support this work, a number of tools have been produced including the SEP Summary document, a short SEP film, a SEP postcard summarising key facts and benefits, a PowerPoint deck of slides to ensure consistent messaging, along with regular communications and messages via social media campaigns on Twitter and FaceBook.

4.4 The 'Selling the SEP' group are also coordinating events held by WLEP, Worcestershire County Council, District Councils, Hereford & Worcestershire Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and Worcestershire Business Central amongst others to maximise lobbying opportunities.

4.5 Key stakeholders have been identified and are regularly communicated with to ensure consistent, accurate messages are provided. A communication plan has been developed and is being actively managed to identify opportunities to raise Worcestershire's profile, including media briefings as appropriate and key stakeholders e.g. MPs.

5.0 Programme Framework and Risk Management5.1 Once the negotiations have taken place, decisions have been made, and the Local

Growth Deal announced, attention and resources will quickly need to turn to delivery.

5.2 In order to prepare for a quick transition to delivery, work is underway to establish a programme delivery framework which will provide a consistent gateway management process for all projects. This will ensure consistent standards for management and reporting of schemes and will adhere to national best practice.

5.3 A Risk Register for the SEP and EU programme has been developed to identify, at a strategic level, some of the potential barriers to successful delivery of the SEP and EU programme, and how these could be mitigated.

5.4 The top three risks are identified below: WLEP Governance Arrangements – failure to address governance concerns

may undermine Local Growth Deal negotiations WLEP receive a low Growth Deal for 2015/16 – need to manage expectations

with stakeholders accordingly or may lose momentum

14 | P a g e

WLEP Capacity to Deliver SEP and EU Programme - a significant risk both in terms of reputation and future funding is around the successful delivery of the 2015/16 programme for both LGF and EUSIFS.

6.0 2016/17 LGF Project Development6.1 It is important that consideration is given to projects pitching for LGF monies in

2016/17 at the earliest opportunity to ensure a proactive approach and avoid the collation of information from various sources; a process which has proven time consuming and inefficient for the 2015/16 round.

6.2 The adoption of the programme framework, referenced above, will provide some structure to this and the experience garnered from the 2015/16 round will serve to better inform the process next year. It is therefore recommended that a plan for developing 2016/17 project proposals is established in August to enable a more proactive approach.

6.3 It is therefore proposed that a call to partners for 16/17 projects with a proforma of information needed to be submitted.

7.0 Timeline and Next Steps7.1 Whilst the Local Growth Deal process remains fluid and is evolving at short notice,

the latest information from BIS Local is that central government intend to announce Local Growth Deals by the end of July 2014 i.e. LGF financial settlement and a response on the Asks of Government.

7.2 The key milestones associated with the SEP, looking ahead, are as follows:

Mid-June - Respond to outstanding queries from government on the 2015/16 projects

End of July – Finalise programme framework proposals End of July – LEP Board to agree revised governance arrangements End of July – Local Growth Deal announcement August onwards – Consider development of 2016/17 LGF projects

15 | P a g e

Appendix A

Number Project1. Worcester Technology Park2. Southern Link Road3. Malvern Hills Science Park4. Hoobrook5. Parkway6. Flood Alleviation7. Redditch Eastern Gateway8. Evesham Vale – Park9. Enterprise Centre10. COVE11. Broadband12. Worcester City13. JPV14. Redditch Engineering15. Kidderminster Railway16. CoE Tech17. Geo Therm18. Housing Growth19. South Worcester College20. Innovation21. Business Finance22. Pedestrian Bridge23. Growth Hub

16 | P a g e

Item 5 : LEP Governance Review Finalisation - June 2014

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The LEP Board is recommended to agree to the proposals in Section 2. of this Report which seeks to finalise the Governance Review. The key changes recommended are to:

- increase from 9 to 11 members which will involve an extra business member and 1 Board member from the Higher Education;

- have the power to co-opt up to 2 extra business members should outstanding candidates emerge in future. This would require the approval of 75% of the Board in order to enact the co-option;

- formalise the process and positions of alternates to the Board;

- Agree the process of appointing the FE representative to the Board

- confirm its agreement to extending the appointment of the Chair for a period of a further year until May 2015; (Board members have a closed session on this item)

- confirm the role and remit of the sub groups as outlined in 2.1.8;

- agree to the remodeling of the Finance, Audit, Risk and Appointments Committee as outlined and consider the Board position of the FAR Chair on the LEP Board;

- agree the legal structure of the LEP having regard to the concerns previously raised by the LEP Board members; and

- agree the working arrangements to be recommended to the Leaders Board for consideration on 7th July.

This Review also recommends the following changes to the Business Board in particular to address the needs of the SEP.

(i) With the exception of its Chair, the Business Board will no longer appoint its members to the WLEP Board. The Chair of the Business Board will formally report on sub group activity and issues to the WLEP Board.

(ii) It will assume responsibility for business sector development activities. The established sector sub-groups (Manufacturing, Agri-Food, Defence and Cyber Security, Visitor Economy and Regulation and Enterprise) will report into the Business Board, which will meet bi-monthly. Members of the Business Board will be expected to sit on the Sub-Groups although the Sub-Groups will continue to be able to co-opt representation from sector specialists.

(iii) Two of the Business Board meetings in any year will involve a wider forum involving all members of the Sub-Groups so that there is an opportunity for wider engagement, debate and cross-fertilisation of ideas.

(iv) The Business Board will call on and draw from officers and specialists to inform debate and discussion from the wider partnership.

17 | P a g e

2. The Board is asked to endorse the recommendation to task its Executive to work with officers from WCC to finalise a Memorandum of Understanding between WLEP and WCC regarding the Accountable Body arrangements in line with Section 2.2.3 of the Review.

3. The Board is asked to note the required incorporation into WLEP’s structure and governance of a Local Management Committee (LMC). This will be multi-sectoral and will cover the whole programme cycle encompassing preparation, development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all EU funded programmes and projects. The Board is asked to commence the process of appointing members to the LMC working with CLG that will provide its secretarial function.

4. The Board is asked for confirmation that the Executive team should consult with partners on how best to address the need in the new governance arrangements for cross cutting delivery plans on the two main themes of environment and inclusion. This is mainly to comply with EU requirements but is also expected in the SEP context.

5. The Board is asked to agree the timetable and process for the finalisation and sign-off of the final governance arrangements at the 24th July 2014 Board meeting.

1.0 Context

The Governance Review

1.1 The Governance Review (the Review) was commissioned by WLEP at the beginning of 2014 with the assistance of AMION Consulting so that it could prepare itself for the extended roles and responsibilities that followed the completion of the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), the consequential Local Growth Deal and in respect of the local management of the European Structural and Investment Funds.

The Board has commented on various options and principles that have arisen as the Review has progressed at its meetings between January and April 2014. This Board dialogue has been supplemented by discussions between the Chair, Executive Director, particular Board members and the Business Board and further consultation with and research by AMION Consulting that have led to the recommendations now included in this Report for final confirmation of the Board.

The Review has also needed to address the developments involved in the European Structural and Investment Funds and, in particular, the need to establish a Local Management Committee (LMC) into the LEP Governance structure. It should be recognised, that there is no ideal or recommended structure being imposed on the WLEP.

18 | P a g e

Summary of arrangements before the Review

1.2 The partnership arrangements that have been adopted to manage WLEP to date are shown in Figure 1 below. These are now proposed to be amended as set out in Section 2 of this Report.

Figure 1: WLEP current governance structure

2.0 Proposal2.1 Operating arrangements and composition2.1.1 Role of LEP Board

The Worcestershire LEP Board is collectively responsible for the strategic vision and direction of the LEP, for financial oversight, for directing the activities of the partnership and for ensuring accountability.

The responsibilities of the Board will include:

Setting strategic priorities and approving the LEP’s Business Plan and Strategic Economic Plan to deliver its long term vision.

Agreeing its annual budget and monitoring its performance in terms of finance and project delivery and ensuring its probity.

Providing strategic leadership on the Worcestershire economy, lobbying and influencing government, its agencies and other relevant organisations to ensure that the county’s needs are met.

Board membership

2.1.2 At previous Board meetings the acceptance that there is a need to extend the renewal period of Board members from 2 years to 3 years. This is recommended in order to align with best practice and allow for rotation. This means that individual

19 | P a g e

Board member terms of office are to be varied so that at most, two Board members retire in any one year.

2.1.3 Board membership should increase from 9 to 11 members which will involve an extra business member and 1 Board member from the Higher Education sector to recognise the increasing need for extra capacity of WLEP Board provided by the current demands of this increasing role and remit of the Board.

2.1.4 The Higher Education/Further Education position on the Board was appointed by the Employment and Skills Board of the WLEP. It is proposed that the FE Principals will nominate a representative and alternate.

2.1.5 The Board is proposed to have the power to co-opt up to 2 extra business members should outstanding candidates emerge in future. This would require the approval of 75% of the Board in order to enact the co-option.

As part of this change, it is recommended that the current arrangements for all of the Alternates is formalised and approved by the Board.

Chairman

2.1.6 The Board is asked to confirm its agreement to extending the appointment of the Chair for a period of a further year until May 2015. Business Board

2.1.7 The SEP introduced a need for private sector input and innovative thinking into the growth-related interventions in the Worcestershire economy. However, it was clear from the consultations undertaken by AMION Consulting with Board members and stakeholders that the role of the Business Board needed to change. In particular there was duplication of agendas between the Business Board and the WLEP Board and the Business Board lacked a clear remit. Moreover, under the current arrangements, as WLEP Board members were nominated by the Business Board, business executives may be dissuaded from applying for a WLEP Board position in the future because of the time commitment that would be involved in serving on both Boards.

This Review recommends the following changes to the Business Board in particular to address the needs of the SEP.

(i) With the exception of its Chair, the Business Board will no longer appoint its members to the WLEP Board. The Chair of the Business Board will formally report on sub group activity and issues to the WLEP Board.

(ii) It will assume responsibility for business sector development activities. The established sector sub-groups (Manufacturing, Agri-Food, Defence and Cyber Security, Visitor Economy and Regulation and Enterprise) will report into the Business Board, which will meet bi-monthly. Members of the Business Board will be expected to sit on the Sub-Groups although the Sub-Groups will continue to be able to co-opt representation from sector specialists.

(iii) Two of the Business Board meetings in any year will involve a wider forum involving all members of the Sub-Groups so that there is an opportunity for wider engagement, debate and cross fertilisation of ideas.

(iv) The Business Board will call on and draw from officers and specialists to inform debate and discussion from the wider partnership.

20 | P a g e

Leaders Board

2.1.8 The well established Leaders Board has been successful in bringing forward Countywide issues and resolutions across the local government partners for a significant period of time. However, it is recognised that the relationship between the Leaders Board and the WLEP needs strengthening and formalising in order to aid communication and co-ordination, particularly, in reference to strategy development, project sourcing, sourcing of match funding and making recommendations to the WLEP Board as appropriate.

2.1.9 In order to formalise this relationship (and reflected in the Growth Deal Guidance) some local authorities have established a Joint Committee to provide a combined decision mechanism in support of its LEP1; some have been reorganised into combined authorities. The Review has confirmed that the local authorities are content to relate to the LEP though its Leaders’ Board and its Executive Liaison Group and see no added value from a Joint Committee. However, it is proposed that the Leaders’ meeting is split into a Part A/Part B meeting with one half focusing on economic growth which is to include the LEP Chair/Director.

WLEP Sub-Groups

2.1.10 The role and scope of the existing four Strategic Objective Sub-Groups (sometimes referred to as the Policy Sub-Groups) are recommended by the Review to continue, subject to widening their scope and role from April 2015 onwards to align with the requirements of the SEP as set out below. The four Sub-Groups are recommended as:

- Profile Promotion and Investment

- Planning, Development and Infrastructure

- Business Growth (formerly Access to Finance)

- Employment and Skills Board

The remit and membership of the Access to Finance Sub-Group will be widened and be re-named the Business Growth Sub-Group (to include Access to Finance) in order to better align with the activities in the SEP and EU strategy. Representation from all sectors should be involved and included within each Sub-Group.

Ideally, each of these Sub-Groups would be chaired by a WLEP Board member – but the necessary time commitment for such a Chair role may be considered to be excessive, having regard to the voluntary nature of the commitment from Board members. Therefore, it is recommended that WLEP should adopt a more flexible approach and that Board members are identified to take responsibility for a Sub-Group but they do not necessarily have to take the Chair role.

The Board will assume responsibility for approval of the projects that emerge from the SEP and EU Strategy. However, following this initial period, it is the intention that the Sub-Groups will respond to the direction of the Board in project sourcing, project

1 Through its Cabinet, Councils can, if they wish, establish joint arrangements with one or more local authorities and/or their Executives to exercise functions which are not executive functions in any of the participating authorities. Such arrangements may involve the appointment of formal Joint Committees. The Local Government Acts 1972 and 2000 and the Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2000 enable local authorities to make both use of joint arrangements with other authorities and to delegate to other local authorities.

21 | P a g e

selection, sourcing of match funding and monitoring of project and programme performance, reporting to and making recommendations to the WLEP Board as appropriate. This two-phased approach will initially give the Board an understanding of the nature and scope of WLEP’s new responsibilities so that is can ensure that the delegation of the processes to Sub-Groups in a second stage from April 2015 will be effective and properly overseen by the WLEP Board.

This adjustment and two-phased change is intended to ensure that the Board develops its competence in SEP–related project interventions giving it the ability to properly delegate detailed tasks to sub-groups and continuing to oversee the various strands of work involved in the allocation of public funding to projects.

Finance, Audit, Risk and Appointments Sub-Committee

2.1.11 Consultations by AMION Consulting confirmed the importance to the overall governance of WLEP of the existing Finance, Audit, Risk, and Appointments (FAR&A) Sub-Committee of the Board.

In order to enhance its governance role having regard to the need to align WLEP with the SEP, it is recommended that this Sub-Committee is remodelled into two activities as follows.

(i) An Audit, Finance and Risk (AFR) Sub-Committee should be formed (effectively from the FARA Sub-Committee). It is usual that the Chair of this Sub-Committee should be a Board Member of WLEP and therefore propose that this change is made by the Board.

It should meet quarterly to:

- monitor the overall financial commitments and performance of the WLEP and, subject to further consultation, monitor the Accountable Body arrangements in line with MoU to be completed (see 2.2.1 below);

- monitor its audit arrangements in conjunction with the Accountable Body;

- assess and report on the mitigation of the key risks faced by WLEP in delivering the agreed interventions, particularly, in respect of the funds allocated to it; and

- ensure that WLEP manages appropriately any potential conflicts of interest.2

(ii) An Appointments and Remuneration (A&R) Sub-Committee should be formed, to be chaired by the Chair of WLEP Board to meet as necessary to oversee Board and Senior Executive appointments and remuneration issues. The appointment of a new Chair would require a separate process to be determined by the WLEP Board, when necessary.

2.2 StructureThe unincorporated arrangements to remain

2.2.1 WLEP is an unincorporated association of partners with an interest in the economic development of Worcestershire operating, in legal terms, through its Accountable

2 In line with WCC’s Disclosing Interests Guidance: February 2014 which covers disclosable pecuniary interests and other disclosable interests.

22 | P a g e

Body, Worcestershire County Council (WCC). This is unlike some LEPs, which have chosen to be legal entities in their own right e.g. by incorporation. Appendix 1 sets out some of the options that WLEP could consider including the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. It is important to note in this context that WLEP’s area of representation coincides with that of WCC, which is the vehicle through which LEP-targeted public funds are accounted.

WLEP Board decides on and is responsible for the allocation of the LEP-targeted resources for which WCC is accountable as the accountable body – this is a legal entity that is able to enter contracts, receive and be accountable for public funds received.

In the context of this review and in respect of the widening of WLEP’s role derived from the SEP, four concerns have been voiced by Board members which have been addressed by this Review as set out below:

the WLEP becoming simply another layer of bureaucracy in the decision making process. This Review has re-shaped the WLEP sub-groups to be able to focus on SEP priorities. As noted in section 2.1.8 above, it is recommended that following an initial period (the balance of 2014/15) when the Board involves itself in project development and fund allocations, sub-group responsibilities will be grown to absorb the increasing workload. This is not work that could be handled easily by any other public or partner body as the Government will hold WLEP to account for the outputs from the investments made.

WLEP Board members assuming personal liability, or guilt by association, in the allocation of public monies. A decision of the WLEP Board will normally be put into effect through its Accountable Body, provided that it is within the law and the remit of the LEP, and is otherwise a proper and effective use of public funds. WCC remains accountable for the public money spent and so needs to satisfy itself on propriety and, it itself, must make the formal decision and act lawfully in doing so. An appropriate ratio of public sector membership of the WLEP Board ought to ensure that any issues of legality/propriety are properly voiced and understood by the WLEP Board. The quid pro quo for this is that, short of criminal activity or deliberate unlawful act, members of the WLEP Board should be effectively indemnified against any personal liabilities associated with allocation of public funds for which WCC is the accountable body.

the issue of veto in the event of impasse between the WLEP Board and WCC. As a partnership, appropriate public/private sector ratios and voting rules should ensure the worst possible outcome is stalemate – which would indicate that the proposed project should not proceed. Moreover, a decision of WLEP to pursue an initiative which flew in the face of WCC or any member local authority policy would be frustrated because the democratic position must prevail.

the WLEP not having sufficient freedom of movement in relation to its day to day operational spending. This only really arises from the fact that the WLEP Executive Director (currently Gary Woodman) is not an employee of the WCC and so cannot be a budget holder by delegation from the accountable body. This is resolved by giving this task to WCC's embedded project manager (currently Luke Willetts). In addition, by including one of WCC's appropriate Finance Officers (as already happens) as an advisor to the WLEP's Audit,

23 | P a g e

Finance and Risk (AFR) Sub-Committee, compliance with WCC's accounting rules should be assured.

Periodic review of legal status

2.2.2 The WLEP and its operation within the existing Worcestershire mechanisms and positive ways of working have stood Worcestershire in good stead so far and anything implemented from now on, should build on this.

However, there is a clear concern from Central Government during the SEP negotiation, that corporate governance needs to be robust enough to ensure that any fractions/tensions moving forward can be resolved quickly without destabilising delivery of projects, therefore, the Review recommends that currently a strengthening of existing arrangements is required.

A periodic review of whether an incorporated structure or Joint Committee should be adopted ought to be undertaken – but the first review should not be until after the next General Election in 2015 when any new government policy on LEPs is known.

Formalising the Accountable Body role

2.2.3 A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that sets out the role of the Accountable Body and the Council services that are required to support the WLEP is recommended by the Review. It is also recommended that the AFR Sub-Committee will oversee the operation of such a MoU (see 2.1.9 above). The agreement will embrace, inter alia:

staffing and systems to enable the payment of invoices for the LEP and the collection of any income due to it;

advice on what information (both technical and financial) is required in order to assess the legality and eligibility of projects put forward for funding;

the appraisal of projects put forward for consideration and advice on its eligibility having regard to the regulations surrounding the particular funding line;

the monitoring of the investments made using resources allocated by the WLEP, to include:

- progress reports on investment proposals supported by the Partnership;

- monitoring reports on the status of the funds allocated to the Partnership, including the status of the revolving investment fund established using the Growing Places Fund;

- audit functions with regard to the use of any public funds that are allocated in accordance with Partnership priorities.

the preparation of monthly and annual management and financial accounting information for WLEP and for its AFR Sub-Committee; and

attendance at the WLEP AFR Sub-committee meeting and WLEP Board meetings as appropriate.

Managing European funds

2.2.4 In order to fulfil the EU Code of Conduct on Partnership in the framework of

European Structural and Investment Funds, the WLEP will incorporate a Local Management Committee (LMC) in its structure and governance which establishes close co-operation between partners which represent the most relevant stakeholders. The LMC remit covers the whole programme cycle encompassing preparation,

24 | P a g e

development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all EU funded programmes and projects. Recruitment of representatives involved in the planned use of ESI funds will follow the established open and transparent WLEP process which simultaneously aligns with EU and CLG expectations.  The LMC should comprise appropriate local-national representatives in the following segments:

 

public bodies - local authorities, national representatives.

higher educational institutions, research centres, providers.

economic partners - business organisations representing industry/sectors and a balance of large, SMEs micro-enterprises and social enterprises, trades unions.

social partners representing civil society - environment partners (LNP), non-governmental organisations, community-based, voluntary organisations and bodies representing excluded groups and which promote social inclusion, gender equality and non-discrimination.

CLG has indicated that it will provide one representative to take a place on the LMC. This representative will provide consistent advice and guidance, as with the 38 LMCs in the other LEP areas, as well as a strong two-way channel to the national Programme Monitoring Committee and its various national thematic sub committees. The CLG representative will also provide the secretariat function for the LMC.

Overlapping geography

2.2.5 The North Worcestershire District Councils are part of both the WLEP and the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP areas and therefore, collaboration across the two LEPs has been accepted by both LEPs as key to ensuring the effective and efficient investment in the overlapping area. Consequently, WLEP and Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP have forged a Joint Panel where Chairs, Board Members and Executive Officers exchange views and participate in respective workshops and Sub Groups on a regular basis. North Worcestershire Districts are represented on both LEP Boards, as well as through officer level involvement in parallel mechanisms which are currently overseeing the development and delivery of both SEPs and ESI Funds Strategies.

Summary of new Governance Arrangements

2.2.6 These are illustrated in Figure 2 below. It shows the changes aimed at securing the necessary wide support for the delivery of SEP-related growth projects, the change in focus of the Business Board and the re-defined Finance Audit and Risk sub-Committee. It also shows that the new arrangements build constructively on the existing structure.

25 | P a g e

Figure 2: WLEP revised governance arrangements

3.0 Delivery/Actions3.1 The WLEP has written to BIS outlining the positive current working between all

partners within the WLEP, also outlining the current governance review and approach being taken to address any concerns related to the SEP negotiation. See Appendix 2.

3.2 The Board is asked to confirm and make decisions on the recommendations at the 17 June 2014 Board meeting.

3.3 These decisions are then to be considered by the Leaders Board on 7th July 2014, with recommendation back to the WLEP Board for consideration.

3.4 The LEP Board on 24th July will complete the governance review and sign it off. This will include further actions for implementation:

(i) The Board to agree to the compilation and completion of a Memorandum of Understanding between WLEP and WCC that sets out the Accountable Body services and arrangements.

(ii) The Board to commence the process of appointing members to the LMC working with CLG that will provide its secretarial function.

(iii) The Board is asked for confirmation that the Executive team should commence consultations with partners on how best to address the need in the new governance arrangements for cross cutting delivery plans on the two main themes of environment and inclusion.

26 | P a g e

Appendix 1 – Legal structure arrangements and optionsForm of organization Advantages for WLEP Disadvantages for WLEP Action

1. Combined Authority

The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 provides powers to create combined authorities which may exercise any function of its constituent councils that relates to economic development and regeneration, and any of the functions that are available to integrated transport authorities. Five combined authorities have emerged.

Combined authorities may also take on the functions of Economic Prosperity Boards. These are an alternative structure in the 2009 Act which allows the combined authority to take on the economic development role of their constituent local authorities.

An Economic Prosperity Board could provide a new opportunity for the joining up of economic regeneration efforts across the County through a legal entity wholly within the public sector administrative environment. Through such bodies, their constituent councils potentially have greater flexibility and influence than each council working independently would have.

A statutory review of current governance arrangements and options must be undertaken, and a scheme outlining their proposals submitted.

The Secretary of State must then consult, including with the authorities that would be covered by the combined authority, and must be satisfied that the establishment of a combined authority would offer a range of benefits. This could take some time and deflect attention away from economic development activities.

The Leaders’ Board is to consider re-shaping itself by splitting its meetings into a Part A/Part B meetings with one half focusing on economic growth which is to include the LEP Chair/Director.

The Leaders’ Board on 7th July is to confirm that the proposed re-shaping of the Board offers the advantages of an Economic Prosperity Board without the need to formalise a combined authority structure.

2. Enterprise Boards

Ireland’s Enterprise Boards were formed and given statutory status with a remit to stimulate economic development and to cultivate an ethos of local

Their longevity in Ireland means that the brand is well established (since 1993). It has a clear focus on enterprise support, including some financial assistance available

Enterprise Boards are embedded in Ireland’s economic development policy. The combination of central and ERDF funding would not be available in this form in England

N/A

27 | P a g e

entrepreneurship. Their role is primarily a local one within a broader national strategy. They resemble the Business Link model in England (which was ended in 2010).

to targeted enterprises. without legislation.

Form of organization Advantages for WLEP Disadvantages for WLEP Action

3. Company Limited by Guarantee

An option selected by other LEPs has been to register as a company limited by guarantee; a common legal structure for voluntary and social enterprises.

Like commercial companies, a company limited by guarantee is subject to company law, and must compile a Memorandum and Articles of Association and register and file annual returns at Companies House. A company limited by guarantee does not issue shares and is not permitted to pay dividends. Furthermore, in the context of social enterprises, its Articles would normally include an objects clause which defined the specific social objectives of the entity, and could also include an ‘asset lock’ which prevented members withdrawing value from the company for their own

The LEP would have an independent status in law and be governed by its Board of Directors and by The Companies Act.

It could contract in its own right, employ staff, enter into property interests and potentially raise finance.

Some Board members could be put off by the formality of a limited company and a directorship.

It takes considerable time and effort from all parties to create and incorporated vehicle and its constitution. With an election due in 2015, there may well be further change to LEPs and their role which could frustrate the significant effort that would be needed to create a bespoke incorporated entity at this time.

The Growth Deal does not impose an obligation for WLEP to incorporate.

It would be appropriate to review again in 2015/16 after the General Election whether incorporation is then appropriate and whether there is then a need to change the LEP structure and governance arrangements to reflect the current policy environment.

28 | P a g e

benefit.

There are other options for LEPs to achieve corporate status. These include incorporating as a community interest company, an industrial and provident society, or as a cooperative.

4. An unincorporated association acting legally through an Accountable Body.

WLEP has adopted this form of organisation to date.

An unincorporated association is straightforward and inexpensive to establish. There is no need to register it with Companies House or submit annual returns. The ‘members’ of the association can define their own rules of operation.

Unincorporated associations have no separate legal status and unincorporated status would be unsuitable for a LEP that had an ambition to:

raise finance, apply for grants or open bank accounts;

take on employees;

enter into significant contracts; and/or

take on a lease or purchase property.

Unincorporated associations do not offer an inbuilt mechanism to ensure LEP accountability to local stakeholders, which would apply under the Companies Act’s reporting requirements.

WLEP undertakes wide-ranging consultation with partners as a priority function.

Its unincorporated association status has served it well so far and it has not been constrained in taking any actions so far. It has managed to create good partnership working and communication which is essential whatever the form of organisation.

29 | P a g e

Appendix 2 – Letter to BIS related to the Governance Review

9th June 2014

David CrookAssistant DirectorDepartment for Business Innovation & SkillsBIS West MidlandsLower Ground FloorVictoria Square HouseVictoria SquareBirminghamB2 4AJ

Dear David

WLEP Governance Review

I am writing to you to outline the significant progress that the Worcestershire LEP is making regarding its governance review. The WLEP has commissioned Amion to provide support to the LEP on reviewing its current arrangements and bring forward a range of options for the Board and Local Authority Leaders Board to consider. The aim of this review is to bring forward robust arrangements for the operation of the partnership and the process of buying in the partners to its decision making process.

The Worcestershire LEP has been very successful in co-ordinating, consulting and bringing the partnership together behind the strategic economic plan. There has been an extensive process of involvement across the County to gain input from individuals and organisations from the private, public and third sector, including bodies such as the Local Nature Partnership, Business Membership Organisations and Third Sector bodies. .This means that the WLEP has a cohesive voice and view on the projects, programme and priorities that need to be delivered to provide growth and jobs in the County. The local government family are an active partner within the WLEP and performing a critical role to support, enable and deliver the environment which allows all partners to have a voice and input to the decision making process, with the willingness to support any difficult decision that the WLEP has to make.

A summary of items that the Board will consider at its meeting on 17th June are:

Corporate Structure – The WLEP still considers at this point in time that legal status is not required for the partners, although this will be kept under review. The LEP Board role and remit is being redefined to ensure an open and transparent decision making process. The structure of the WLEP Board and its relationship with the Leaders Board. Options will be considered at the Leaders Board on the 7th July.

Composition – strengthening the Board to increasing its Members from 9 to 11 to include Higher Education and Further Education on the Board.

30 | P a g e

Defining the role and remit of the Business Board in light of the Strategic Economic Plan, particularly reflecting sub groups in order to support the WLEP to develop projects and programmes which address the strategic direction.

Build on the work of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee to provide rigour to the WLEP process and ensure due diligence.

Recommending changes to the Business Board to ensure that a wide business voice is representing the views of the private sector and provide an insight to the needs that can make growth happen.

Formalise the relationship between the Leaders Board and WLEP Board to ensure that difficult decisions are binding and differences in priorities are discussed but do not impact on delivery and performance. This includes the development of an agreement between the accountable body and the LEP.

Finally, the establishment of a Local Management Committee to provide oversight of the EU funds.

The output and conclusions of the Board meeting will be then considered at the Leaders Board, in order to consider the formal arrangements of the local government partners to facilitate and enable growth and jobs.

The WLEP Executive are also establishing project management governance, which provides more formal arrangements related to contracting, legal agreement between the accountable body and project delivery organisation, monitoring risks, timelines and milestones of projects on a Gantt chart. This will ensure that the LEP projects are able to be managed, monitored by the LEP Board, whilst providing accountability for the monies awarded under the Single Local Growth Fund.

WLEP has continued to develop its governance and method of working since 2011 when it was established. Much progress has been made and with greater confidence in the WLEP partners are able to discuss, decide and deal with any disagreement. I am therefore confident that Worcestershire LEP can deliver and accelerate growth in its area.

We believe that following meetings with you and other BIS Local colleagues these changes will make the WLEP governance structure robust and therefore request feedback from BIS on our approach before we implement such changes.

Yours sincerely

Gary WoodmanExecutive DirectorWorcestershire LEP

31 | P a g e

Item 6 : EU Strategy Update - Related to GBSLEP protocol/EAFRD UpdateWLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to note the current position in respect of the development and implementation of the European Strategic Investment Funds programme

Agree a draw down contract from Amion consulting for £50,000 related to technical support and strategic updates

1. WORCESTERSHIRE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS STRATEGY

1.1 The Board will recall that the final European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIFS) was submitted to Government on 31st January 2014. On 21st March 2014, WLEP received an update from the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) seeking clarity and further information on a number of aspects including consultation, governance, cross border working and opt ins.

1.2 The issues of Governance are examined elsewhere on the Agenda.

1.3 One specific issue to bring to the Board's attention relates to the Research, Technology Development and Innovation (RTDI) programme included within the ESIFS. DCLG had expressed the view that £5.8m was insufficient investment in RTDI to achieve our ambitious vision. Our response was that rather than artificially increase this allocation, we believe that other funding areas such as Fund of Funds has the flexibility within a regional model to support the development of the RTDI.

1.4 During the next few weeks, the EUSIFS will be amended to reflect these discussions in order to establish a final common reference point for the WLEP and DCLG.

1.5 The EUSIFS identified that the WLEP would engage with the regional LEPs, and others as appropriate, to develop a Smart Specialisation for High Value Manufacturing. Supported by the West Midlands European Service and the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, the first meeting of a panel to scope the work will meet on 24th June 2014.

1.6 In addition, WLEP is investigating the option of developing a similar Strategy for the Agri-tech Sector.

2. NATIONAL UPDATE2.1 The Partnership Agreement which forms the contract between the European

Commission and the UK Government was submitted to the European Commission on 17 April 2014. Initial feedback from the Commission indicates further work is needed to build the case for investment in broadband infrastructure, flood defences and transport. Formal comments from the Commission are expected in early July 2014.

2.2 The responses received on the European Social Fund (ESF) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) referenced above will be reviewed by the Government and will inform the final Partnership Agreement.

2.3 The next Growth Programme Board will be held on 25 June 2014. The draft Smart Specialisation Strategy for England will be finalised during this meeting and will be submitted with the Operational Programme; the deadline for submitting both is the 17th July.

2.4 It is therefore proposed that Amion Consulting who supported the WLEP through the development of both Strategies to be retained for technical support as and when required. This procurement process has been agreed with the accountable body.

32 | P a g e

WLEP and GBSLEP Protocol

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe WLEP Board is recommended to:

a) approve the formal arrangements for the agreed WLEP and GBSLEP Protocol Agreement which will establish the joint strategic responsibilities, principles and working practices for both LEPs in North Worcestershire

b) agree the co-signature of the Protocol Agreement by the WLEP Chair on behalf of the WLEP Board and with the GBSLEP Chair and GBSLEP Board

1.0 Context

1.1 During the Government's EU Structural Investment Fund Strategy (EUSIFS) and Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) process, LEPs have been asked by Government to establish an agreed strategic direction and working mechanisms for over-lapping areas. North Worcestershire, comprising Wyre Forest, Redditch and Bromsgrove districts, falls into both the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP and Worcestershire LEP. WLEP and GBSLEP representatives have participated in each other LEP's workshops, events and Sub Groups on a regular basis and there has been continuous and extensive liaison between LEP Boards, Executive Teams and local authority officers in North Worcestershire since both LEPs' inception.

2.0 Protocol Agreement

2.1 Both LEPs, through respective Chairs, Executive Teams and Boards, have been in regular discussions during the development of respective EUSIFS and SEP documents. As a consequence, a Protocol Agreement and explanatory text has been incorporated within both Final SEPs submitted on 31 March 2014 (see Appendix A).

2.2 The Protocol Agreement meets Government's expectations in principle and both LEPs are now expected to counter-sign and implement the Protocol formally. This will meet the particular request by the Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG) for an explanation of how EU funds in the overlapping area will be managed prior to Government sign-off of both LEPs' European Structural and Investment Fund Strategies (ESIFs). This agreement will establish collaborative working on joint projects primarily but not exclusively funded by European Structural Funds, Local Growth Fund, and Growing Places Fund and allied leverage of public and private sector resources.

2.3 The WLEP Board's approval is sought for this next stage of the process and the approval of the GBSLEP Board is being sought in parallel. The Protocol Agreement forms a model for any future alliances or agreements in working with other LEPs across the National LEP Network on joint initiatives or programmes.

3.0 Protocol Delivery

3.1 The Joint LEP Panel arrangements are confirmed as follows:

a) The regular WLEP representatives on the Joint LEP Panel will be (WLEP Board pubic sector nominee) and (WLEP Board private sector nominee) and Gary Woodman, Executive Director. The permanent representatives from both LEPs will ensure consistency and

33 | P a g e

alignment in the pursuit of both SEPs and EUSIFS ambitions for the overlapping area as well as the remainder of both LEP areas;

b) The Joint LEP Panel will be chaired on a rotating annual basis between WLEP and GBSLEP, alternating between the business sector lead of one LEP acting as Chair with the other LEP business sector lead acting as Vice Chair;

c) The Joint LEP Panel does not have delegated authority to take decisions on behalf of both LEPs but will make recommendations to the WLEP and GBSLEP Boards and, in turn, through respective LEP governance mechanisms, to respective EU Local Management Committees;

d) The Joint LEP Panel will meet three times per year and in 2014, to get the new arrangement established, the meetings will be held in July, September and December. More evenly spread dates will follow through annually from 2015 onwards; The Joint LEP Panel may also conduct its business virtually/electronically if appropriate; Joint LEP Panel meetings will be held in North Worcestershire venues:

e) The Joint LEP Panel will be called for any additional Extra-Ordinary meetings depending on the significance of the issue arising and subject to agreement between both LEP Chairs;

f) The Joint LEP Panel will fulfil the strategic objectives and priorities of both LEPs' SEPs and EUSIFS by combining knowledge, evidence, interventions, programmes, initiatives and maximising resources to best mutual effect in development and delivery;

g) The Joint LEP Panel will invite specialist representation and contributions according to agenda items for consideration i.e. transport specialists from both areas if considering infrastructure schemes; rural development expertise from both LEPs and Defra if considering EAFRD or LEADER Programme funding and proposals; Chair of Sector or Objective Sub Group; District Council representative on local impact of schemes;

h) The first Joint LEP Panel meeting will agree all practical arrangements for implementing the Protocol Agreement including strategic alignment of both SEP/EUSIFS; programme/project development, funding, delivery and appraisal; performance management; calls for initiatives; alignment of other national programmes/respective Opt-In Programmes; joint working with government departments; and reporting proposals to both GBSLEP Board and WLEP Board for ultimate decisions;

i)The Joint LEP Panel will agree shared lead and support responsibilities across common programmes i.e. EAFRD and WLEP Lead on rural development with GBSLEP support;

j) The Joint LEP Panel will work with Wyre Forest, Redditch and Bromsgrove authorities to ensure complementary outcomes of respective delivery, programmes and priorities by local authorities and LEPs together;

k) The Joint LEP Panel will work with Wyre Forest, Redditch and Bromsgrove authorities to determine open and inclusive "bottom-up" engagement mechanisms and channels to sustain local involvement in the development, delivery and performance management of future LEPs' SEP and EUSIFS and other programmes, projects and proposals;

l) The Joint LEP Panel will report agreed practical arrangements, delivery proposals and progress to respective LEP Boards after each Joint LEP Panel meeting and to fit respective governance arrangements;

34 | P a g e

m) The Joint LEP Panel will explore potential cross LEP alliances through National LEP Network and Government Department channels;

n) The WLEP and GBSLEP Executive Teams will perform a shared secretariat function in support of the Joint LEP Panel and to ensure consistency with respective LEP governance, SEP and EUSIFS responsibilities. North Worcestershire Economic Development & Regeneration (NWEDR) will provide additional support to ensure combined effective use of all resources, stakeholder mechanisms, impacts and outcomes;

o) The Protocol principles and working arrangements will be reviewed periodically by both LEPs and, if necessary, adjusted to reflect changing strategic priorities as respective SEPs and EUSIFS are implemented and/or UK/EU funding opportunities.

4.0 Partners and Engagement

4.1 The Joint LEP Panel will be using main and recognised channels and mechanisms to engage and work with local stakeholders. For instance, the local business community can be reached through the North Worcestershire Economic Development and Regeneration Service (NWEDR) and business for e.g. North Worcestershire Business Leaders. In parallel, the Joint LEP Panel will also use respective LEP mechanisms to engage wider business communities as well as third sector and public sector interests when needed such as HW Chamber of Commerce, FSB, CROWN Social Enterprise network, third sector networks. The Joint LEP Panel will also use individual LEP partners' networks and stakeholder channels such as the local authorities' Portfolio holders and own for engaging citizen, community and voluntary interests

Contact Claire Bridges WLEP Tel: 07970 919194

35 | P a g e

Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP and Worcestershire LEP Protocol

With the North Worcestershire area (comprising Bromsgrove, Redditch and Wyre Forest districts) being part of both the WLEP and the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP areas, collaboration across the two LEPs is fundamental in ensuring the effective and efficient investment in the overlapping area. Both LEPs have complementary offers and the common aim is to reinforce each LEP's ambitions as well as establish maximum advantage for local businesses.

Working Together

The WLEP and Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP have forged a mutually constructive working relationship since their inception where Chairs, Board Members and Executive Officers exchange views and participate in respective workshops and Sub Groups on a regular basis. North Worcestershire is represented on both LEP Boards, as well as through officer level involvement in parallel mechanisms, which have overseen the development and delivery of both SEP and ESI Fund Strategies. This arrangement has already proved invaluable in supporting initiatives of joint interest such as aligning co-funding through Growing Places to support the Hoobrook Link Road Scheme in the Wyre Forest District Council area which opens up significant employment and housing land opportunities.

The primary concern of both LEPs is to stimulate economic growth and create jobs. In doing this they recognise that businesses must be able to access prompt, assured and consistent support services, help and advice whichever sign posted route they pursue. It is the confirmed intention of both LEPs that the operating landscape for businesses is simple, co-ordinated and effective and responsive and there is a mutual LEP commitment in delivering results and achieving real impacts to meet business needs.

Both LEPs have established excellent engagement with business networks and representative organisations across the private sector in Worcestershire. It is also significant that both Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Herefordshire and Worcestershire Chamber of Commerce have established a formal agreement and are working together collaboratively alongside both LEPs which means that private sector interests are represented in a consolidated way.

A Protocol Agreement has been developed and agreed by both LEPs as illustrated below. It will join up common programmes and initiatives to strengthen business and job opportunities as well as respecting unique LEP offers which would meet diverse needs in specific localities in either LEP. The agreement will also ensure that there will be neither duplication or gaps in services and offers by both LEPs' activities. The agreement provides a robust framework within which barriers to growth will be removed, innovations nurtured and mutually beneficial outcomes realised which is testament to our good working relationship. The formal agreement will be countersigned by both LEP Chairs following final approval at the next GBS LEP and WLEP Board meetings.

36 | P a g e

Protocol Agreement Aim: WLEP and GBSLEP working together to achieve economic growth and job creation in North WorcestershireProtocol Principles: The framework for respective LEP commitments to North Worcestershire are based on the following principles:

co-ordinating strategic ambitions, sectoral and delivery priorities where possible;

synchronising business support by aligning LEPs' local programmes and services to provide consistent responses and delivery to businesses as much as practically possible;

working jointly through local business engagement mechanisms with North Worcestershire;

joint liaison with government on initiatives of mutual interest;

agreeing the most appropriate mechanisms for preparing funding bids;

agreeing respective "LEP leads, LEP Support" roles for common programmes;

as each LEP's separate negotiations with the major National Opt-In Programmes are confirmed, establishing alignment, co-ordinated and consistent support and signposting where possible;

managing resources and programmes to maximum mutual effect;

where there is commonality across the LEPs, agreeing a consistent programme and project development appraisal process and criteria for ESI, government or local funding purposes; and

agreeing an appropriate performance management system which incorporates efficient monitoring, review and reporting of programme and project delivery to both LEP Boards

Working Mechanisms:

A joint GBSLEP -WLEP Panel which will meet three times annually or as/when significant issues arise requiring joint resolution

Joint Panel to comprise two nominated LEP Board representatives and Executive Director from each LEP, ideally one from the private sector and one from the public sector

Continuous liaison between both LEPs will be maintained through both Executive Teams Depending on agenda items to be subject of Panel discussion, LEB Board representatives will be

invited to contribute specialist knowledge and LEP intelligence I.e. chairs of respective Place Sub Groups if considering development sites or infrastructure schemes

Panel will submit joint reports to respective LEP Boards on Panel meeting outcomes, programme/project updates as well as performance management culminating in an annual review of progress and a forward look to the next year

Panel will escalate any substantive issues of non-agreement to respective LEP Chairs via both Executive Teams in the first instance and ultimately respective LEP boards

Panel will recommend joint decisions on programmes, projects, funding or issues arising to both LEP Boards for formal approval

Panel will use the North Worcestershire Economic Development & Regeneration (NWEDR) Portfolio Holders, service and North Worcestershire Business Leaders mechanisms as channels for wider consultation with local businesses, interests and organisation

Panel will require the support of the NWEDR service to co-ordinate the delivery of joint priority objectives, programmes and projects to ensure effective use of combined resources, impacts and outcomes as well as avoiding duplication

Panel will nominate one LEP to lead a common programme theme on behalf of both LEPs where appropriate i.e. first confirmed arrangement will be WLEP (as well as Stoke and Staffordshire LEP) managing the GBS LEP EAFRD funds (£1.14m) in a tri-partite alliance delivering projects which fulfil respective SEP strategic objectives and rural priorities and align fully with WLEP and SS LEP EAFRD funding

37 | P a g e

Item 6 : WLEP, GBSLEP and SSLEP Tripartite EAFRD Agreement

GBSLEP, SSLEP and WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to approve the arrangements agreed for the WLEP, GBSLEP and SSLEP tripartite management and implementation of the GBSLEP EAFRD allocation alongside WLEP and SSLEP EAFRD allocations to maximise and co-ordinate alignment, impact and outcomes to mutual benefit in the overlapping LEP areas of North Worcestershire and Southern Staffordshire

1.0 Context

1.1 Worcestershire LEP (WLEP), Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP (GBSLEP) and Stoke on Trent and Staffordshire LEP (SSLEP) are establishing Protocol Agreements covering the North Worcestershire and South Staffordshire overlapping areas as a requirement of the Government's EU Structural Investment Fund Strategy (EUSIFS) and Strategic Economic Plan (SEP).

1.2 The Protocol provides a common framework for aligning the LEP ambitions, objectives, priorities and resources together with national programmes. All three LEPs are progressing these arrangements formally through shared SEP and EUSIFS discussions.

1.3 While the SEPs and EUSIFS were being finalised, all three LEPs have been advised by Defra of their European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) allocations for 2014-2020. All three LEPs reference their EAFRD allocations in their respective SEP and EUSIFS objectives, priorities and funding. ERDF, ESF and EAFRD can all be used to support projects in rural areas although EAFRD funding can only be allocated in rural areas. All LEPs are expected to have a pivotal role to support economic growth and create jobs across their areas and utilise UK and EU resources to support key projects and activities across rural areas. With this in mind, the priorities for EAFRD will focus on:

building knowledge and skills in rural areas funding new and developing non-agricultural, micro, small and medium sized rural

businesses funding small scale renewable and broadband investments in rural areas and supporting tourism activities in rural areas

38 | P a g e

1.4 Business in rural areas, including farming, will be able to apply for EAFRD funding for activities that support their LEP’s EUSIFS. Activities are not sector specific so if a LEP has identified a need to invest in knowledge and skills in their area this will be targeted at general business skills rather than land-based skills.

1.5 Staffordshire and Worcestershire have recognised established track records in delivering rural development programmes and have considerable knowledge and experience given the predominantly rural nature of both counties. Indicative allocations for EAFRD have been issued by Government and the SSLEP allocation is £3.1m and the WLEP allocation is £2.2m. The SSLEP and WLEP have both undertaken detailed evidence based analysis of rural issues and priorities in their SEP and EUSIFS which include the overlapping areas with GBSLEP. For GBSLEP, the EAFRD allocation is less substantial (£1.1m) and the GBSLEP wishes to see its EAFRD allocation used to fulfil its SEP and EUSIFS ambitions and priorities through alignment with the SSLEP and WLEP priorities.

2.0 Tripartite LEP EAFRD Arrangements

2.1 Representatives of the three LEPs' representatives have met with Defra to scope out the basis of a tripartite arrangement to work collaboratively and make the most appropriate use of the EAFRD resources to support rural economic priorities. This involves the WLEP and SSLEP jointly leading on identifying rural priorities for the overlapping areas. It is proposed that the WLEP and SSLEP will work collaboratively to manage the GBSLEP EAFRD allocation ensuring that proposed activities fulfil the GBSLEP SEP and EUSIFS objectives This option will ensure effective co-ordination, avoid duplication and maximise leverage of all public, third and private sector sources into a positive cumulative impact supporting rural based economic growth and job creation in Southern Staffordshire and North Worcestershire as well as the wider Worcestershire and Staffordshire areas.

2.2 Alignment of the three EAFRD programme allocations will make significant contributions to each LEP’s rural economy. The joint management of all three EAFRD programmes will also help complement the Growth Deal, ERDF, ESF and funding programmes such as the LEADER programme to maximum effect.

2.3 Based on the SSLEP and WLEP evidence-based analysis of rural issues and opportunities, the proposed shared rural priorities for the overlapping areas are:

developing knowledge transfer and skills development support for micro and SME business support in key sectors supporting and developing the Agri-Food/Agri Tech Sector (agriculture, horticulture,

forestry, innovative technologies field/farm to fork supply chain) Destination Tourism

2.4 The table at Appendix A shows how all three LEP priorities align in principle and is illustrated by potential schemes, outputs and outcomes.

2.5 Governance structures have been developed for all three LEPs and involve a reporting structure to determine priorities for, and monitor progress on, UK and EU funding available to support each LEP's economic priorities. As part of the general

39 | P a g e

protocol for joint working arrangements for GBSLEP, SSLEP and WLEP, there will be established Joint LEP Panels to consider funding allocations that cover proposed activities in the overlapping areas. The GBSLEP will have representatives on the relevant WLEP or SSLEP Joint LEP Panel when EAFRD projects in overlapping areas are being considered. The Panel will make funding recommendations to the respective Local Management Committee (as part of the EU funding governance arrangements) and LEP Boards for approval. All three LEPs have agreed this joint approach in principle with Defra.

2.6 As part of these proposed arrangements, all three LEPs will ensure a co-ordinated approach to delivering support services to rural based businesses in the overlapping areas ensuring that businesses are clear on what is available to them, by whom and how to access via simple, signposted access points.

3.0 Partners and Engagement

3.1 The proposed Tripartite EAFRD arrangement will co-ordinate the promotion of the EAFRD funding opportunity to a wide range of public, private and community sector partners and stakeholders using their respective multi media channels and engagement activities.

Contact Claire Bridges WLEP Tel: 07970 919194Nigel Senior SSLEP Tel: 01785 277365

40 | P a g e

Appendix A

Summary of Possible Intervention Areas for EAFRD ResourcesType of Activity Strategic Investment Area Indicative LEPs' Activities Building the knowledge and

skills in rural areas Innovation Theme – SIAs

2.1, 2.2 and to 2.3; Skills, Employability and

Social Inclusion Theme – SIAs 4.1 to 4.3.

skills/careers training, apprenticeships and employment relating to rural sectors

knowledge/innovation support relating to rural sectors

focus on supporting priority sectors such as agri-tech energy generation along with wider ecosystem service activities

Funding new and developing micro, small and medium sized rural business

SME Competitiveness Theme – SIAs 2.1 to 2.5.

rural enterprise growth hubs general business and

enterprise support and access to finance assistance micros, SMEs start-ups, young entrepreneurs, community and social enterprises

focus on priority sectors for accelerated growth such as agri-food, agri-tech, food and drink, forestry enterprises and energy generation along with wider ecosystem service activities

Funding small scale renewable and broadband investments in rural areas

SME Competitiveness Theme – SIAs 2.4.

Place and Environment Theme – SIAs 3.1

Broadband voucher scheme. rural diversification including

new energy technologies e.g. Biomass.

Support for tourism activities in rural areas

SME Competitiveness Theme – SIAs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 3.3.

Place and Environment Theme – SIAs 3.3 and 3.4.

investment in rural/green tourism infrastructure

business support targeted at tourism related businesses/sectors.

funding for reuse of empty commercial space in villages and farms

41 | P a g e

Item 7 : Subgroup Reports and Outputs

a) PR & Comms Report

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to note:

a ) the findings of the Q1 PR Report

b) information below regarding the Tour of Britain regional launch event, the date of the Annual Conference and an update on the Investment Film.

In addition, the LEP Board is requested to approve the expenditure of £5,000 for the Highways Agency to carry out survey works in connection with county boundary signage.

1.0 Progress Report – Communications & PR Activity, 1st Quarter 2014 (to 31/3/14)

1.1 Twitter

Number of Followers – Top 10 & comparisons with end of 2013Rank end of Q1 2014

LEP No of Followers31.3.14

No of Followers 31.12.13

Ranking +/- compared with end 2013

1 Sheffield 4,185 3,754 =2 New Anglia 2,889 2,670 =3 Humber 2,872 2,471 =4 Gloucestershire 2,447 2,257 =5 Black Country 2,436 2,165 +26 Greater Birmingham

& Solihull2,373 2,174 =

7 Leeds 2,262 2,248 -28 Tees Valley 2,125 1,840 +19 West of England 2,112 1,821 +210 Worcestershire 2,100 1,849 -2

Number of Tweets - Top performers and comparisons with end of 2013Rank end of Q1 2014

LEP No of Tweets31.3.14

No of Tweets31.12.13

Ranking +/- compared with end 2013

1 New Anglia 3,613 3,343 =2 Greater Cambs &

Peterborough2,840 2,480 =

3 Leeds 2,549 1,934 +14 Enterprise M3 2,134 1,963 -15 Tees Valley 2,098 1,567 +16 York, N York & E

Riding2,063 1,761 -1

7 Greater Birmingham & Solihull

1,774 1,553 =

8 Gloucestershire 1,635 1,510 =9 Humber 1,553 1,096 +110 Derbys & Notts 1,414 913 +411 Hertfordshire 1,297 1,172 -212 Worcestershire 1,182 839 +4

42 | P a g e

1.2 Linked In624members as at 7 April 2014 (an increase of 36 since the end of 2013).

1.3 FacebookNew page set up beginning June 2014 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Worcestershire-Local-Enterprise-Partnership/545754412203389)

1.4 Website (www.wlep.co.uk) – trendsNumber of Unique Visitors January – March 2014 = 2,045Average number of Unique Visitors per month = 681, compares to 509 for last year – a more than 30% increase.Majority are direct visitors or come via Google or other Search Engines.131 came from Social Media Channels – particularly Twitter (116) 12 from Linked In and 3 from You Tube.Top 3 pages: Home, News, About WLEP

1.5 Ezine

Month (day of delivery)

Number Open Click Rate

Most Clicked

March (Mon)

983 29.0% (280)

3.9%(12)

1. fDi Intelligence2. Quarterly economic survey link3. Business Central events information

February (Weds)

972 28.6% (275)

2.2%(6)

1. Superfast Worcestershire2. Quarterly Economic SurveyPoor click rate

January (Jan)

972 28.7% (275)

4.7%(83)

1. Quarterly economic survey link2. GBSLEP3. Cyberstreetwise4. Autumn statement5. Kickstarter.com

1.6 Press ActivityNumber of press releases dispatched since January 2014:

Month Number ContentJanuary 1 More European funding coming Worcestershire’s wayFebruary 6 Superfast broadband rollout welcomed by WLEP

West Midlands LEPs join forces for £125 million A2F ProgWLEP welcomes new Heathrow rail link newsDelight at Morgan’s Stourport investmentWorcs scores top ten ranking for investment strategyTimely showcasing for Worcs flood mitigation strategy

March 4 Green Bridge Supply Chain Programme extendedWLEP events provide business engagement opportunitiesBusiness send off for Worcs’ SEPTour of Britain returns to Worcs this September

Average per month: 3.66 (compares to an average of 3.75 stories per month for last

year)

43 | P a g e

2.0 Tour of Britain – Progress

2.1 This will be held at the Hive on Thursday 19 June from 5.30 to 7.00 pm. In attendance will be members of the NFT Pro Cycling Team. Board Members have been invited to attend and are requested to reply to the event coordinator, jan.bailey@wlep.co.uk, if they haven’t already done so.

2.2 Sanctuary Group has confirmed their sponsorship of the Tour.

2.3 The Tour will go from The Hive in Worcester on Wednesday 10 September (time tbc, but approximately 10.00 am). It will travel onto Upton, Malvern, Evesham, Pershore & Broadway before going over the border through Gloucestershire to its final destination in Clifton, Bristol.

3.0 Annual Conference – 2014

3.1 Date confirmed: Friday 10 October 2014. Venue will be Chateau Impney in Droitwich Spa. Timings tbc, but provisionally will be 8.00 am until 1.00 pm.

3.2 Mary Rhodes (from BBC’s Midlands Today and Inside Out) will be chairing the proceedings.

3.3 Board members are requested to note the date of this year’s conference in their diaries. Registration will be open in July – further details to follow.

4.0 Investment Film

4.1 The Investment Film has now been signed off and is ready for use. Board members are invited to view the film via: https://www.mailbigfile.com/c8577eeae21e74268df0d5431aa74677/listFiles.php?repro_id=3381

5.0 Signage – Boundary Plates

5.1 This matter is being progressed with the Highways Agency by Ed Dursley at the County Council. An initial estimate of £25,000 per sign location has been given by the Highways Agency. This should cover design, installation and traffic management.

5.2 In order to ascertain exact costs, the Highways Agency has suggested Worcestershire enters into a S278 Agreement with them to deposit a nominal sum of money (say, £5,000) to enable a more accurate estimate to be obtained. Once completed, we will need to decide whether we want to proceed with the installation of the signs.

5.3 The Board is therefore requested to approve expenditure of £5,000 in order to enable the design and estimate to be prepared.

Contact

Jan Bailey, Communications & PR Executive, Worcestershire LEP01905 346180/07912 389189Jan.bailey@wlep.co.uk

44 | P a g e

b) Business Growth - Roy Irish

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to : Approve the £8,000 contribution to continue with the other West Midlands LEP toundertake the due diligence on the Fund of Funds.

1. Business Expansion Scheme

The Business Growth sub group are acting as the decision making panel on the Regional Growth Fund pot of funding which was allocated to Worcestershire in Round 4. The first round of this funding closes on the 16th June and then the panel will meet to make a decision on allocating funding.

2. “Advised in Worcestershire”

The private sector members of the business growth group have come together to address the lack of awareness of level of skill and expertise within the professional sector within the County, as many are getting advice from Birmingham or Gloucestershire. They are setting up a marketing campaign to bring this information and collaborating across the sector.

3. Progress report on Fund of Funds

The WLEP are active members and participants in a West Midland wide access to finance advisory body known as the Regional Finance Forum (RFF). The mission of the X-LEP sub-group is to keep fellow LEPs ‘informed’ on relevant Access to Finance initiatives in the region and where possible to broker ‘collaboration’ between the LEPs. The membership of the Sub-Group comprises one representative for each of the 6 West Midland LEPs together with observer representatives of BIS, DCLG and the British Business Bank.

The WLEP acknowledges that as the development of this project progresses, the economic landscape changes, the details of the sub-funds are further developed and other national/regional financial instruments enter the market; the need for further ex-ante assessment work may well be required.

The X-LEP sub-group, with the full support and engagement of all of the participating LEPs, is making good progress with the development of the fund-of-funds programme:

The general guidelines for the regional investment targets (minimum and maximum) have been agreed.

An application to BIS for the repatriated use of the AWM legacy funds as part of this programme has been submitted.

The ‘in-principle’ consent of BIS to the partial (£36k) use of the AWM legacy funds towards the costs of the design and development stage of this project has been secured.

The BIS contribution of £36k towards the design and development costs phase will be matched by a similar (£36k) contribution from the participating LEPs.

Further research has been undertaken and is ongoing on the approach on the preferred model for the management of the sub-fund managers.

The general principles of the corporate governance structure have been drafted and are under discussion – also consultation with WCC.

An outline project plan/timetable has been drawn up including costs.

45 | P a g e

c) Worcestershire Growth Hub - Dean Attwell

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The LEP Board is recommended to agree on the proposed governance arrangements for managing the WBC Growth Hub.

1.0 Context1.1 Central Government have requested that all 39 LEPs establish a Growth Hub.

1.2 WLEP Executive and WCC representatives met with BIS to discuss the option of WBC becoming the Worcestershire Growth Hub. This proposal was well received by BIS with the suggestion that Worcestershire could achieve Growth Hub Status by June 2014. Matt Hancock MP visited on the 12th June County to launch the hub.

2.0 Proposal2.1 The Growth Hub will itself provide services across sectors through:

Management and strategic coordination: improve the efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness of the local business support offer by understanding customer needs, improving coordination with national support efforts, eliminating duplication, evaluating and continually improving performance.

One stop shop: improve coordination, raise awareness and increase uptake of local and national business support by providing a single, local point of access for all businesses wishing to access business, innovation or trade support.

Bespoke business, innovation and trade support: where gaps are identified in the provision of business, innovation or trade support, the growth hub may commission additional services to meet business needs in their area. These will be co-designed with the local business community to ensure they are fit for purpose.

Improve the impact/reach of national policies: signpost and/or broker access to national schemes as appropriate, use local funding to amplify/expand the provision of agreed national schemes, establish close working relationships with BIS, UKTI, TSB and other national government stakeholders to foster improved collaboration (e.g. over design of national programmes)

Brief Description of proposal

2.2 The WBC Growth Hub will provide an online solution and access to information and support, bring together ERDF funded Business Support programmes and provide an account management function which facilitates and brokers both public and private sector solutions

2.3 Governance of the Growth Hub could be structured as follows: The Business Board act as the Board with responsibility for strategic overview and performance with the Worcestershire Economic Development Group will act as the operational group handling new ideas and initiatives and proposed developments of the service.

46 | P a g e

3.0 Delivery/Actions3.1 Worcestershire Business Central is established as the Growth Hub and launched by

June 2014.

3.2 Develop terms of terms of reference of the governance structure of the Growth Hub.

4.0 Partners and Engagement4.1 Partners involved in the Growth Hub include all of above WEP members as well as

training providers including FE and University of Worcester, Manufacturing Advisory service and Growth Accelerator. These partners are kept informed of progress through regular monthly/ quarterly meetings

4.2 Businesses will be engaged via the business board and also a panel of businesses has been established to have oversight of the portal to ensure it is fit for purpose, business friendly and easy to navigate, using business language.

4.4 Discussions are also taking place with Greater Birmingham LEP to ensure referrals are made where appropriate and although GBSLEP have not yet established their Hub as they are awaiting funding from EUIS 2014-2020 programme, an agreement to work together will avoid any duplication and confusion in the business community.

47 | P a g e

d) Apprentice Awards Event - Gary Woodman

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to approve the LEP event - Worcestershire Apprenticeship Awards 2014

1.0 Context1.1 Worcestershire Employment and Skills Board (ESB) in 2012 recognised the importance of Apprenticeships as one of the keys to revitalise the County's economy. The Board set a stretch target of 10,000 apprenticeships to be achieved by September 2017. In order to reach this target, over the past two years Worcestershire Apprenticeship Group – a subgroup of the ESB – has been supporting various activities to increase the uptake of Apprenticeships in Worcestershire. These activities include:-

Bi annual Apprenticeship shows aimed at young people Employer events Apprenticeship talks in Schools Building the capacity of training providers Trailer Roadshows around Business Parks

. 1.2 During the last year whilst the apprenticeship figures fell nationally by 12% and within West Midlands by 18.7%, Worcestershire's figures actually show, a modest but still, a growth of 1% in the number of 16-18 years taking up apprenticeships. In Worcestershire, the total number of Apprenticeships starts over the year was 5600, with over 10158 apprentices participating, an increase of 1000 during last year. Especially pleasing are the 141 starts on Higher Apprenticeships (Level 4 +) which represents a 95% growth.

2.0 Proposal

2.1 As part of the proposed activities for 2014/15 it has been recognised that we do not currently acknowledge the achievements of our apprentices in Worcestershire on a grand scale. It is therefore proposed to organise a charity awards event to celebrate the success of apprenticeships in November 2014. This event will be organised and managed in collaboration with the Worcestershire News Group in conjunction with a press campaign to promote the value of apprenticeships both to the Worcestershire's economy and also as a future career path for our young people.

3.0 Delivery/Actions3.1 The event is proposed to give away 12 awards with the highlights being Apprentice of the Year, Employer of the Year and Lifetime Achievement Award. The event is being organised through the Worcestershire County Council Economic Development Team as part of their work for the ESB and branded under the LEP in association with Worcestershire Business Central.

48 | P a g e

We propose to run the LEP event as a three course dinner at the West Midlands Safari Park, which has been secured at no cost. We have also secured Nick Hewer (Lord Sugar's Aide on the BBC production The Apprentice) as the celebrity host for the awards. We have also commissioned an events company DRP to handle the staging of the event and ensure it reflects the necessary glamour required for the awards.

The awards information will be promoted through the Worcestershire News Group, LEP Newsletter and Worcestershire Business Central mechanisms to secure nominations against each award category. A panel will then meet in early August to decide which nominations to go forward as highly commended to the award ceremony. The judging results will then be announced on the night.

To date, we have approached and secured sponsorships of £22K from local businesses with a further £6K to be secured. We then aim to sell tables of the event to both those nominated, local businesses and training providers. The total revenue from the event is proposed to be £48K.

3.2 We expect to spend around £38K on the event in catering, host, awards, marketing and staging.

3.3 We also propose to give the remaining amount as a charitable donation to an education charity with some connection to Apprenticeships in Worcestershire.

4.0 Partners and Engagement

4.1 The Employment and Skills Board champions this project and fully supports the activity and the concept of celebrating the successes of apprenticeships.

4.2 Businesses in Worcestershire will be engaged and not only those who already undertake apprenticeships to nominate themselves but those who have no apprenticeships to highlight how successful apprenticeships can be to their organisations.

4.4 We plan to link the awards into the National Apprenticeship Awards and send our winners forward to the National Awards for consideration, putting Worcestershire and its apprenticeships on the national map.

Contact

Judy Chadwick , Worcestershire County Council , 01905 768403jchadwick@worcestershire.gov.uk

49 | P a g e

e) Agri-tech Board Terms of Reference - Gary Woodman

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to approve the Terms of Reference for the Agri-tech Sector Group

2. CONTEXTNational

1.1 "Agricultural science and technology is one of the world's fastest-growing markets. It is driven by global changes: a rising population, climate change, rapid development of emerging economies with western lifestyle aspirations, and growing geopolitical instability around shortages of land, water and energy. A technology revolution is also taking place. Breakthroughs in nutrition, genetics, informatics, satellite imaging, remote sensing, meteorology, precision farming and low-impact agriculture are driving major global investment in agri-tech.  

  In order to meet these challenges, businesses and researchers need to work together to develop innovative technologies and processes which provide solutions that are economically, environmentally and socially sustainable."

1.2 This is the vision of the Government's UK Strategy for Agricultural Technologies, which aims to put the UK at the forefront of the sustainable intensification of agricultural production.

1.3 The Strategy established the Agri-tech Leadership Council to oversee this work.

Local1.4 World Class Worcestershire, the Strategic Economic Plan ('the Plan') for the County,

identifies the Agri-tech sector as being key to growing the economy over the next 10 - 15 years.

1.5 For the purposes of the Plan, the definition of the agri-tech sector is the supply chain spanning seeds, agro- chemicals, machinery, engineering, skills and other inputs including green energy, across arable and livestock agriculture, forestry, horticulture, food processing, packaging and retailing.  

1.6 The challenge being to apply learning, innovation and technology to each element of the supply chain to further develop the sector.

3. Remit 2.1 To lead this work, the Board of the Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership has

decided to establish a new Committee which will be accountable to the Board .

2.2 The Agri-tech Sector Group ('the Group')will provide leadership on the economic growth of the sector in Worcestershire by:

Reviewing and overseeing the implementation of the agri-tech related investment proposals within the Plan as they relate to both Local Growth Fund and European Funds;

Developing and seeking investment where needed to implement innovation within the sector;

50 | P a g e

Attracting additional benefit to the sector by developing relationships with a wide range of organisations including the Technology Strategy Board, Research and Development Institutions and private finance institutions;

Challenging, influencing and holding to account investment decisions, delivery arrangements and performance in Worcestershire on issues with a direct or indirect impact upon the sector. This may relate to local, regional or national organisations in the public, private or third sectors.;

4. MEMBERSHIP3.1 Membership will comprise individuals and organisations who can have a direct impact

on the economic growth of the Sector.

3.2 In the first instance, this is likely to include:

Existing businesses;

Research and Development Institutions;

further and Higher Education Institutions;

Membership organisations representing the sector;

3.3 The Chair will be appointed by the Board of the Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership..

3.4 The work of the Group will be supported by a number of other organisations who will be drawn into discussions where appropriate. These will include:

Government departments ie BIS and Defra

LANTRA

Existing support agencies ie UKTI, MAS

Other Government Agencies ie Environment Agency and Natural England

51 | P a g e

f) Cyber Security - Steve Borwell-Fox

Cyber Valley Working Group (CVWG)

MISSION: To determine and document the real opportunity from the Cyber Security (Defence & Security) sector for Worcestershire.

CURRENT PRIORITIES:

To actively promote the National Cyber Skills Centre (NCSC) in Worcestershire, its services and events.

To promote Worcestershire-based Cyber suppliers outside of Worcestershire and outside of the UK too.

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS & ACTIVITIES:

The NCSC is now established, and features a fully kitted modern configurable training room, break out area, and office for the Centre Manager (Debbie Tunstall) – new job created.

NCSC has run several seminars and training courses so far. Group 4 Security (G4S) have scheduled several courses to run from the NCSC. Centre Manager is in negotiations with other similar providers. Local and regional SMEs are welcome to approach the NCSC to offer-up their

training courses. Conference – a meeting was held with the UKTI, WLEP and another cyber supplier

to discuss the initial idea of holding a Worcestershire Cyber Security Conference. This is likely to be in Q1 in 2015.

NCSC ‘strategic board’ is being established with WCC and MHSP involvement. Board members need to relentlessly promote the NCSC and spread the word within their networks.

Growing Cyber scheme is now running, using the ERDF ESF funding that the WCC and WLEP bid for. Cyber suppliers can seek grants (£5k matched to provide £10k) and support, and cyber-dependent businesses can seek the same, but to a lower level (£2,500 matched to provide £5,000).

Cross-LEP – an initial meeting was held with Buckinghamshire Uni, who are looking for cyber partners from outside of their area.

CHALLENGES & BARRIERS:

Many stakeholders in the county trying to influence, but not helping to deliver. Our approach is now ‘that’s a great idea, help us deliver it’. Soon sorts the wheat from the chaff!

Coordination – very desperate for an online portal to allow us to work collaboratively. BIS ‘Cyber Essentials’ scheme is now active. Suggest SMEs apply for this as a

stepping stone to ISO 27001, the IT security standard. Skills agenda – no improvement in this area, and given that UK is in growth now, our

#1 business risk compounds further as other companies head-hunt and poach. Borwell Ltd has recently recruited one new software engineer (who will need 3-6 months of additional training) and has lost two software engineers in the same time.

Item 8 : BOARD AND BUSINESS BOARD APPLICATION PROCEDURE

52 | P a g eWLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to note of the progress that has been made to recruit new business members for the Business Board and Board.

1.0 Background

1.1. A number of business members have served on the Business Board and/or Board for three years. These members are required to state that they would wish to be considered for renewal or whether they would rather resign.

1.2. As a result of this process, there will be vacant places on the Board and Business Board for new business members. A recruitment process, application form and advert has been established, with adverts going out in numerous local newspapers (The Birmingham Post, local Newsquest papers (e.g. Worcester News, Malvern Gazette etc.), an editorial article in the WLEP monthly newsletter,

2.0 Current Progress

2.1. Applicants are required to complete a short application form requiring their contact details, 50 words on their main business activity and 100 words on why they would like to be on the board.

2.2. Applicants are made aware that if they have any questions, the WLEP Research and Administration Assistant is able to arrange a call with Paul Richards, an external Recruitment Consultant, of whom can inform them of the context and requirements for the available roles and answer any questions they may have.

2.3. The deadline for applications is Monday 16th June 2014. After this deadline we will arrange for a shortlist of candidates to have an informal discussion with the Appointments and Remuneration Committee and recommendations will be made to the Board for approval.

3.0 ADVERT

3.1. Please see the advert attached below:

53 | P a g e

54 | P a g e

Item 9 : End of Year Accounts - Gary Woodman

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to:

a) Approve the 2013/14 End of Year Accounts

1.0 Context1.1 The LEP with the support of the accountable body Worcestershire County Council

have been preparing annual accounts and meeting as part of budget monitoring.

2.0 The 2013/2014 End of Year Accounts2.1 The accounts show a surplus £351,470, with £91,579 ring fenced for transport –

therefore carrying forward £258,891 of growth plan funding and core funding.

2.2 Core Funding from Central Government, Local Government and a small percentage of private sector income – meant income was £543,033 – 3% over budget. This figure includes a balance brought forward of £130,335. Expenditure £348,974 was spent on operating costs - 20% under budget.

2.3 Capacity fund Income was £25,600 and Expenditure £24,346 of allocated costs.

2.4 Both of these under-spends were carried forward into 2014/15.

2.5 Growth Plan income was £250,000 and expenditure was £185,422 with £64,578 remaining. This has been committed for expenditure in 14/15.

2.6 These figures will be used for the annual report.

55 | P a g e

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT Annual Budget

Income and Spend

to Date (Y.E. Mar

14) Total spent/inc and committed

Remaining Allocated Budget

% budget spent /

committed % budget remaining

£ £ £

Core Funding:

Income:

Balance B/fwd: 130,335 130,335 130,335 0 100.00% 0.00%

DCLG - Core Funding 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 100.00% 0.00%

Contributions (LA and access to finance) 144,668 162,698 162,698 -18,030 112.46% -12.46%

525,003 543,033 543,033 -18,030 103.43% -3.43%

Expenditure:

Consultants Fees 30,000 12,814 12,814 17,186 42.71% 57.29%

Project Activity 167,634 147,730 147,730 19,904 88.13% 11.87%

General Office Staff Pay 100,000 91,799 91,799 8,201 91.80% 8.20%

Misc Other Exps 15,000 15,967 15,967 -967 106.45% -6.45%

Conference 20,000 20,793 20,793 -793 103.97% -3.97%

Exhibition and Events - Other 20,000 8,155 8,155 11,845 40.78% 59.22%

Promotion Expenses 40,000 35,395 35,395 4,605 88.49% 11.51%

Other training exps 1,100 57 57 1,043 5.20% 94.80%

Travel and Subsistence 10,000 0 0 10,000 0.00% 100.00%

Stationery 5,000 0 0 5,000 0.00% 100.00%

56 | P a g e

Furniture/equipment 1,500 1,452 1,452 48 96.81% 3.19%

Printing 10,000 6,783 6,783 3,217 67.83% 32.17%

Rent 2,250 2,250 2,250 0 100.00% 0.00%

Computers and software 6,200 5,779 5,779 421 93.22% 6.78%

Telephone Services 5,000 0 0 5,000 0.00% 100.00%

433,684 350,227 350,227 83,457 80.76% 19.24%

Balance: 91,319 192,806 192,806 -101,487

Capacity Fund:

Income:

DCLG - Capacity Fund 25,600 25,600 25,600 0 100.00% 0.00%

25,600 25,600 25,600 0 100.00% 0.00%

Expenditure:

Consultants Fees 15,000 14,008 14,008 992 93.39% 6.61%

Computer Software 2,400 2,200 2,200 200 91.67% 8.33%

Conferences 1,200 1,138 1,138 63 94.79% 5.21%

Research 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 100.00% 0.00%

Events 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

25,600 24,346 24,346 1,254 95.10% 4.90%

Balance: 0 1,254 1,254 -1,254

Growth Plan:

Income:

57 | P a g e

BIS Growth Plan 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 100.00% 0.00%

250,000 250,000 250,000 0 100.00% 0.00%

Expenditure:

Consultants Fees 50,000 162,922 162,922 -112,922 325.84% -225.84%

Other Fees 200,000 22,500 22,500 177,500 11.25% 88.75%

250,000 185,422 185,422 64,578 74.17% 25.83%

Balance: 0 64,578 64,578 -64,578

Transport:

Income:

Balance B/fwd: 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 100.00% 0.00%

40,000 40,000 40,000 0 100.00% 0.00%

Expenditure:

Exhibitions and Events 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 100.00% 0.00%

40,000 40,000 40,000 0 100.00% 0.00%

Balance: 0 0 0 0

Total Income and b/fwd: 840,603 858,633 858,633 -18,030 102.14% -2.14%

Total Expenditure: 749,284 599,995 599,995 149,289 80.08% 19.92%

80.1% 80.1% 19.9%

Excess of income over expenditure 258,638

58 | P a g e

91,319 258,638 -167,319

Budget not allocated

Total of Unallocated and Allocated budget

remainingAllocted Budget

remaining

59 | P a g e

Item 10 : Worcestershire County Council – Future Operating Model

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to:

a) To note the proposed restructure arrangements planned at Worcestershire County Council.

1.0 Context1.1 Worcestershire County Council has faced significant challenges over the last three

years, primarily brought about by changed financial circumstances with £100m of savings to be found by 2017/18 and increasing demographic pressures year on year.

1.2 In response to these changes the Council successfully launched the Better Outcomes Leaner Delivery (BOLD) Programme in 2010 which focused on reform, efficiencies and reducing spend. During this period the way the Council operates has evolved incrementally rather than being designed.

1.3 A comprehensive set of proposed changes to the way the Council operates have now been outlined to ensure the organisation is fit for the future. These changes will fundamentally change the operation of the Council, enabling it to be more responsive, agile, innovative and above all commission services for residents that meet need and deliver high quality and good value.

1.4 These proposed changes constitute the Future Operating Model (FOM) for the Council.

2.0 Key Headline Proposals of the Future Operating Model2.1 A refreshed Corporate Plan was published in January 2013, with an opportunity to

focus the Council's efforts and finances on four key areas of focus, with 'Open for Business' being a key priority. As indicated in the Leader's report to Council in January 2014, it is unlikely that the current way of operating will be fit for the future. The challenge is to maintain outcomes for Worcestershire residents whilst recognising the financial constraints and the future workforce reductions.

2.2 The Worcestershire County Council 'Operating model' has been defined as including the following components:

Customer base and needs Outcomes People and skills Processes and systems Structures Decision-making and accountability

2.3 The report to Full Council on 15 May stated that the three frontline Directorates (Business, Environment and Communities (BEC), Adult Services and Health (ASH) and Children's Services (ChS)) will broadly stay the same, based on their track record of delivering good services and substantial savings for the residents of Worcestershire and the need for them to focus on the challenges ahead. However, it also stated that there will need to be some structural changes to better implement the requirements of the Future Operating Model (FOM). This includes proposals to delete a number of existing senior posts to create new posts which better reflect the FOM.

60 | P a g e

2.4 To reflect the new operating model, the current Resources Directorate and Chief Executive's Unit will be replaced by a new Commercial and Change Directorate. This will mean the deletion of both the Assistant Chief Executive post and the Director of Resources post, and the creation of a new Director post in order to better deliver the FOM.

3.0 Restructure Proposal for BEC (including responsibilities for Economic Development, Strategic Infrastructure and Culture and Community)

3.1 In line with the FOM recommendations and with the BEC Directorate vision for a leaner management structure at both Head of Service and Unit Manager level (based around the three themes of Strategy, Commissioning and Communities), the BEC Directorate will need to make a number of changes.

3.2 It is proposed that the current Heads of Services posts within BEC, (Head of Integrated Transport, Head of Culture and Communities and Head of Economic Development and Planning) are deleted and 3 new posts created (all of which remain under the Director's leadership):

Head of Strategy and Infrastructure; Strategic Commissioner - Major Projects; and Head of Community and Environmental Services

3.3 The new structure, with its functions realigned to the new roles, is significantly different from the existing structure. It will:

provide clarity on the commissioning lead within the Directorate (Strategic Commissioner - Major Projects role).

provide for a more focussed approach to the development and delivery of the Council's strategic infrastructure priorities (Head of Strategy and Infrastructure role)

provide a central and dedicated operational area for community service provision, encompassing both the cultural and environmental offer as well as the customer response functions in relation to highways, routine maintenance and operations (Head of Community and Environmental Services role).

3.4 Given the priority of both highways and economic development in the Corporate Plan, the proposed new structure will see each Head of Service owning an element of each of these themes.

3.5 The strategy for economic development adopted by the Council was based around three core components contained within the Open for Business strategic overview. The proposed new structure and changes to roles reflects the following considerations:

The investment in the fundamentals component (infrastructure and skills) will remain in BEC; however will be spread across the three new Heads of Service roles;

The reputation and profile component will be owned by the corporate centre to reflect its political importance in raising the recognition of Worcestershire and Worcestershire County Council nationally; and

The service transformation component, which relates to the impact the Council has on the Worcestershire economy when procuring goods and services, will belong to the new Commercial and Change Directorate.

61 | P a g e

3.6 It is important to emphasise that the current priority is centred on the proposed restructure at Head of Service level, including consideration of the new roles and the functions/services that are proposed to sit within them. This is an initial phase of the longer term Directorate Operating Model restructures, which is anticipated to emerge towards the end of 2014/15.

4.0 Consultation and Engagement on FOM4.1 A wide range of stakeholder engagement has taken place in order to develop the

proposed changes within the FOM, including: Staff roadshows Directorate Leadership Team Meetings Elected Member briefings Partner briefings Scrutiny Panel briefings Interviews and Focus Groups with senior officers and managers

4.2 In the main, response has been positive and all sessions have provided constructive feedback which has been used to support the FOM proposals.

5.0 Timeline and Next Steps5.1 The key dates for the BEC Head of Service restructuring exercise are provided

below:

30 May - 29 June – Formal consultation on proposed new Head of Service roles and structure

4 July – Appointments Panel to make final decision on proposed changes in BEC (in light of consultation documentation and responses)

18 July – Appointments Panel to consider applications from ring-fenced candidates

19 July – Implications to Postholders confirmed August onwards – Consideration of wider recruitment process to remaining

vacant posts where appropriate September onwards – Earliest effective date for appointment to new posts

62 | P a g e

Item 12 : Executive Director's Report

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

A) Approve the extension of Research and Administration Assistant within the WLEP Executive team.

B) Approve the change in the office and additional cost of £4,000 per annum.

1.0 Staffing

1.1 Within the team we have been committed to developing a young person. David Irish has fulfilled the role of research and administration assistant. At the time of appointment we gave a 1 year fixed term contract. This expires in August 2014.

1.2 The proposal is to increase the period to culminate with the other members of the team to August 2015. This would cost £18,715 inc on costs per annum to the staffing budget.

2.0 Office

2.1 The WLEP has been based at CMCA Offices at Brindley Court since January 2012. The office has provided the LEP with an independent identity. At the start of 2014, the LEP agreed to pay a peppercorn rent to CMCA and use the facilities. This agreement was made with a quarterly payment and a notice period of 3 months.

2.2 In April 2014, the CMCA having won a number of new contracts served the three month notice on the LEP, as they required the office space for new staff.

2.3 The LEP has undertaken an office search and an analysis of the office market. We have had offers from partners to locate within spare capacity that they have available.

2.4 WLEP has found similar office space available at One Creative. This is serviced office space with car parking, visitors reception, furniture, power and IT. WLEP will have to make an additional cost compared to CMCA of £4,000 per annum.

63 | P a g e