WORCESTERSHIRE LEP BOARD MEETING

Monday 19th November 2018, 2.00 pm - 5.00 pm

Jenny Lind Building, Farrier Street, Worcester WR1 3BZ

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Apologies

2. Declarations of Interest

3. Minutes of WLEP Board Meeting – September 2018 ( 5 mins)

4. Matters Arising (5 mins)

4.1 Action List4.2 Correspondence

5. LEP Vision – Luke Willetts (45 mins)

6. Local Industrial Strategy Update from Tony Bray (BEIS) – Gary Woodman (45 mins)

7. LEP Annual Conference – 30th November – Jack Barnett (20 mins)

8. LEP review update – Gary Woodman (15 mins)

9. Update from Chair of FAR Committee – Chris Walklett

a. Financial Report from Accountable Body (Quarter 2) – Steph Simcox

b. ESIF Update – Gary Woodman

c. Risk Register – Luke Willetts

d. Other FAR updates – Chris Walklett (15 mins)

10. BetaDen update – Gary Woodman (10 mins)

11. HoW College (New Engineering Faculty) – Luke Willetts (15 mins)

FOR INFORMATION ONLY

12. Energy Strategy stakeholder engagement – Luke Willetts (5 mins)

Board Meeting Dates for 2019

Thursday 24th January Thursday 21st March Thursday 9th MayThursday 11th JulyThursday 19th SeptemberThursday 21st November

1.0 WELCOME & APOLOGIES

PRESENT:Mark Stansfeld (MS) Non-Executive Chair

Carl Arntzen (CA) Managing Director, Worcester Bosch Group

Cllr Matthew Dormer (MD) Bromsgrove District Council (rep Cllr Karen May and Northern DCs)

Mark Bayliss (MB) Leader, Worcester City Council (rep Southern DCs)

Cllr Ken Pollock (KP) Economy, Skills and Infrastructure, Worcestershire County Council (rep Simon Geraghty)

Chris Walklett (CW) Partner, Bishop Fleming

Mark Martin (MM) Chair of WLEP Business Board

Nick Baldwin (NB) Chairman, Office for Nuclear Regulation

Prof David Green (DG) CEO & Vice Chancellor of the University of Worcester

Stuart Laverick (SL) Principal & Chief Executive, Heart of Worcestershire College

IN ATTENDANCE:Gary Woodman (GW) Chief Executive, Worcestershire LEP

Luke Willetts (LW) Director of Operations, Worcestershire LEP

Stuart Emmerson (SE) Inward Investment Manager, Worcestershire LEP

Jack Barnett (JB) PR & Communications Executive, Worcestershire LEP

Steph Simcox (SS) Head of Strategic Infrastructure Finance & Financial Recovery, Worcestershire County Council

David Blake (DB) Managing Director, Worcester City Council

Tony Bray (TB) Area Director – South West England & West Midlands, BEIS

Maree Haddrell (MH) Office Manager, Worcestershire LEP (Notetaker)

APOLOGIES:Cllr Simon Geraghty (SG) Leader, Worcestershire County Council

Cllr Karen May (KM) Bromsgrove District Council

Linda Smith (LS) Director of Enterprise, Worcestershire LEP

2.0 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

2.1 Conflicts of Interest Policy

2.1.1 Introduction This policy exists to ensure that any conflicts of interest which may arise in the Worcestershire LEP’s decision-making processes are managed and recorded properly. This protects the integrity of our decision-making processes, enables stakeholders to have confidence in our decision-making, and protects the reputation of the LEP and members of its boards.

The policy should be read alongside the Standards of Conduct Policy for Worcestershire LEP.

2.1.2 Scope

This policy applies to all members of LEP Decision Making Groups (‘members’) making investment decisions involving public money as identified in Figure 1 – WLEP Organisational Structure.

2.1.3 Definition

An “interest” may include employment, other appointments (including trusteeships, directorships, elected office), memberships (whether corporate or personal), investments, shareholdings, land and property, intellectual property, customer/client relationships, use of the LEP’s services or anything else which could (or could be perceived to) impact on the member’s ability to act independently.

This list is not exhaustive, and the presumption should be in favour of including anything which could conceivably be considered to be an interest, even if it is felt unlikely to arise.

2.1.4 Policy

The policy is in two parts:

Maintaining a record of all interests

Managing potential conflicts of interest

2.1.5 Maintaining a record of all interests

The LEP Executive will maintain a Register of Interests covering all Members and these will be renewed in January of each year.

Members are required to update their forms if any new interests arise during the year.

The LEP Executive will publish an up-to-date Declarations of Interests on the LEP website at www.wlep.co.uk/

3.0 MINUTES OF WLEP BOARD MEETING

Monday 10th September 2018, 2.00 pm - 5.00 pm

DRP, Ikon Industrial Estate, Droitwich Rd, Hartlebury, Worcestershire

PRESENT:Mark Stansfeld (MS) Non-Executive ChairCarl Arntzen (CA) Managing Director, Worcester Bosch GroupCllr Karen May (KM) Bromsgrove District Council (rep Northern DCs)Cllr Linda Robinson (LR) Leader, Wychavon District Council (rep Southern DCs)Cllr Simon Geraghty (SG) Leader, Worcestershire County CouncilChris Walklett (CW) Partner, Bishop FlemingNick Baldwin (NB) Chairman, Office for Nuclear RegulationProf David Green (DG) CEO & Vice Chancellor of the University of WorcesterStuart Laverick (SL) Principal & Chief Executive, Heart of Worcestershire

College

Mark Martin (MM) Chair of WLEP Business Board

IN ATTENDANCE:Gary Woodman (GW) Chief Executive, Worcestershire LEPLinda Smith (LAS) Director of Enterprise, Worcestershire LEPSteph Simcox (SS) Head of Strategic Infrastructure Finance & Financial

Recovery, Worcestershire County CouncilLorraine Stone (LS) Connected County Manager, Worcestershire LEPStuart Emmerson (SE) Inward Investment Manager, Worcestershire LEPNigel Hudson (NH) Head of Strategic Infrastructure and Economy,

Worcestershire County CouncilJack Barnett (JB) PR & Communications Executive, Worcestershire LEPAndrea Ledward (AL) WLEP Senior Sponsor, DEFRARebecca Frost (RF) Head of Rural Productivity, DEFRAIan Miller (IM) Chief Executive, Wyre Forest District Council

APOLOGIES:No apologies were received.

1.

1.1

1.2

Welcome and Apologies

Mark Stansfeld (Chair) welcomed the Board and introduced and welcomed both Andrea Ledward, WLEP’s Whitehall Senior Sponsor and Rebecca Frost, Head of Rural Productivity, who also works with the DEFRA team.

A short introduction to DRP took place.

ACTION

2.

2.1

Declarations of Interest

MS asked the Board if there were any declarations of interest. It was agreed that Mark Martin would step out of the meeting on the item on pipeline, and with regard to the finance paper, Chris Walklett referenced that some were clients of his company.

3.

3.1

Minutes of WLEP Board Meeting on 5 th February 2018

These were agreed to be correct and the minutes were signed off as a true record.

4.

4.1

4.1.1

4.1.2

4.1.3

4.1.4

4.2

4.2.1

4.2.2

Matters Arising

Action list

Matters Arising

Local industrial strategies are on order. With regard to the Worcestershire 2040 vision, a further meeting had been held.

Work on the key companies was nearly complete and 3 sponsors had been achieved for MIPIM.

All other issues were covered by items on the agenda.

Correspondence

The Correspondence from the Prime Minster regarding the LEP review was acknowledged.

The letter regarding the exchange rate uplift on the European programme and the implication on the programme status was noted. It was agreed this would come to a future board meeting.

GW

5.

5.1

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.1.4

LEP Review

GW outlined the report, setting out the key recommendations and implementation plan. We have undertaken an options appraisal on the geographical approaches that the WLEP could take.

CW queried what our GVA is – size should be measured in terms of efficacy? MS replied that the execution of smaller LEPs may well have surpassed larger LEPs; it would be interesting to assess, therefore the size and scale issue becomes more complex.

SG stated his full support of a ‘One Worcestershire’ LEP. We have an excellent LEP that has delivered. Having spent so much time co-creating this and having a willing partnership and now looking towards a 2040 vision, if we were to be disrupted it would be very disappointing. One size fits all not the best in these circumstances, so if you have a LEP that is working why disrupt it? There was a strong supporting response for one Worcestershire LEP.

AL stated that Government recognised the benefits in not diluting the work that had been done, however Government had a red line to remove all overlaps. Government was encouraging LEPs to broker solutions. Equally, although the review does not place a definition on size and scale there is a view that LEPs need to have a certain degree of capacity, expertise and governance to handle the shared prosperity fund. Therefore Worcestershire should think about if we were to grow what would that proposition look like; otherwise Ministers are likely to

5.1.5

5.1.6

5.1.7

5.1.8

5.1.9

5.1.10

5.1.11

5.1.12

1.

shape and make decisions on geography and scale. A factor in these ministerial decision would be service delivery, but an exceptional case could be made

KM outlined the Northern Districts position of wanting the status quo to remain. There is much support for this approach in the conurbation and the success of the last 5 years is down to the structure, which is working. The West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, also supports the status quo and a case would be made to Government.

MS replied that Government have made it clear it doesn’t want overlaps. Given that, One Worcestershire is the preferred option and we should recognise our past success and proudly make the case to build on this.

KM highlighted the perception that this Board is Southern-Worcestershire centric – for example WLEP doesn’t have a business from the north on this Board. MS acknowledged that we needed to address the perception of been south-centric and this will be addressed via our upcoming recruitment of Non-Executive Board members.

MM said that business doesn’t worry about boundaries. We need to recognise red lines of the Government review and WLEP had in the past written for the Status Quo option, but the review had rejected this option and therefore we need to support the One Worcestershire model.

NB questioned the fact that not having a legal model has been an issue in the past, and asked what the Executive recommendation on this topic was. Also, is now the right time to recruit Non-Executive Board members? CW welcomes the review’s advice on legal entity, and on the issues of tax it is important Government issues further guidance.

GW highlighted the advantages of recruiting new Board members, should we be moving more quickly/slowly on appointing 3 new execs. SG agreed that we should continue to recruit to ensure we have a fully functioning board, with improved diversity and representation.

DG asked if a Worcestershire LEP, organised along county boundaries, was big enough to survive. AL commented it is not just geographic size but also the capability and capacity of the organisation to deliver sums of funding. SG highlighted the importance of ensuring we have the right capability; this is where Worcestershire is very strong and we need to present this in a powerful case as One Worcestershire – deliverability is key.

SL acknowledged that the LEPs approach to partnership working, such as that with Midlands Engine, is very important.

The Board agreed the following recommendations:

To progress the work with Gatenby Sanderson to recruit three new Non-Executive private sector Board members.

To continue to work on the legal entity and its implications for Worcestershire by 31st October.

The Board agreed that the preferred option was a single-county LEP.

GW

2.3.4.5.

5.1.5.1.1.5.1.2.5.1.3.5.1.4.5.1.5.5.1.6.5.1.7.5.1.8.5.1.9.5.1.10.5.1.11.5.1.12.

5.1.13.

Although acknowledging the Northern District position of supporting the status quo, the Board felt that this did not meet the objectives of the review. Assuming agreement cannot be reached with GBSLEP, the Board noted that Ministers will decide on boundaries. The Board remained open to other potential changes. GW will submit the paperwork on the geography issues by 28th September.

GW

6.

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

BetaDen progress

LSm gave an update of the progress of the BetaDen project.

An active recruitment campaign was carried out through the summer, including soft launch, recruitment of mentors and coaches and developing a network. This had resulted in 5 acceptances for the first cohort.

NB and CW noted 5G has been very helpful in leveraging interest and attracting people from Birmingham and Gloucester, not just the immediate locality.

AL asked if there were any common characteristics of applicants, and what a successful cohort looks like individually and collectively. LSm answered that the age range was between 23 - 60. All emerging tech, it is understood that the Malvern Hills Science Park is a draw, along with the network (5G), and the cyber security element cuts across all sectors.

DG asked whether MS will weave BetaDen into the World Mobile Conference in LA; MS confirmed that this was part of the story.

GW highlighted that the Board was taking a risk with this project and WLEP needed to accelerate the structure and revenue raising opportunities in the next quarter.

CW believed that we now have a tangible product which has attracted businesses, and therefore it was important to get the community, legal status and revenue structure right.

KM asked what the roll-out for the North of the County was. LSm explained that she had met with Mike Parker/OGL and a programme of events will be run in north Worcestershire, and physical space had

6.9

6.10

been assessed in Redditch.

The Board approved the business case and KPIs for the project, also approving the spend to date against the budget. The Board approved the forward looking budget and allocation for Q3, and the potential for ERDF in Q4.

The Board also agreed the reporting structure going forwards.

LSm

7.

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

5G Test Bed Update

LSt updated the Board on 5G project progress. The project is currently in the middle of the network build, although delivery of equipment is still awaited to ensure that the team can test as ‘pure’ a technology service as possible.

The project is delivering very positive external engagement opportunities. DCMS and Taiwanese delegations are being hosted by our private sector partners, OFCOM. We are being seen as thought-leaders and experts in the field

The team will be writing a joint white paper on network security. SG commented that it was extremely positive that 5G has traction across the Midlands as it is probably the most important project we are doing.

LSm asked how we can help business make the transition to IOT, smart factories; how do we drive people along this adoption curve? It was agreed that we need more participating companies and to widen the participation in any future further roll-out.

AL asked if Government could help raise the profile; it would like to support the project. The support would be required in joining up the test beds and agritech, and how we leverage this as there is potentially an interesting synergy between them.

LSt explained the current position; MS agreed that we should co-ordinate a workshop from Government department participants to help inform a number of initiatives and areas of work.

The LEP Board agreed to fund £574k, the bulk of which is now being transferred to MHSP for equipment purchases under a separate WLEP grant agreement.

LSt

8.

8.1

8.2

8.3

WLEP Energy Strategy

Encraft presented the current themes and findings emerging from the desk top study and consultation on the Worcestershire Energy Strategy.

The presentation outlined the national Government policy, energy use and generation, carbon emissions, infrastructure, efficiency and the low carbon economy in Worcestershire.

DG asked, in relation to new low carbon homes, should Worcestershire be demanding more from its development and planning community? A local planning framework that would be technology-agnostic, that would

8.4

drive improvement for example low carbon connectivity such as cycle paths for school runs, etc. which would help with make Worcestershire energy efficient.

SG asked about grid capacity as some firms are struggling to expand. The presentation highlighted some wins in terms of wasted capacity. Then look into how we link this in to the social care sphere; connectivity is crucial. It was agreed that the Board would continue to feed in thoughts and the final strategy would be signed off at the November Board.

GW

9.

9.1

9.2

9.3

9.4

9.5

9.6

9.7

Worcestershire pipeline 2040.

NH presented the current mapping exercise, which would bring together various data sources to create a number of zones of opportunity to potential development areas which could accommodate large scale housing and employment growth.

GW highlighted the guiding principles of the pipeline and areas of development. It was acknowledged that our planning-based approach had brought in partners to the processes and outcomes. However, this work was now starting to conflict with the statutory Local Plan consultation process.

SG reported that he felt this is a good piece of work for homes and transport, but it does need to be overlaid with a vision, including the type of firms we want to attract. We’ve invested in infrastructure and tech; we need to sweat those assets via Midlands Connect and other national funding sources to bring this piece of work to life.

IS commented that bringing the mapping toward areas of deprivation and driving an inclusivity agenda; how did these fit together? It would lead to better future alignment with things such as the Shared Prosperity Fund.

DG commented that digital connectivity has been the right strategy for this Board. The challenge for the next 20 years will be town centres and we needed to have serious debate about the regeneration and uses of these sub-optimal retail areas.

MS stated that we needed to carry out further work on the vision. Defining the terms of the kind of place we want Worcestershire to be will help us get to a point where we have a story, as at the moment we don’t have one.

The Board agreed to convene a workshop to look at the story of what Worcestershire will look in the future.

GW

10.

10.1

10.2

LEP Budget 2018/19 and LGF Programme

SS made three key points in relation to the budget paper. The first of these points was that when focusing on the Local Growth Fund spend, a recent project review had confirmed spend-to-budget during this financial year.

SS confirmed that despite reporting at the last Board meeting that the

10.3

FE capital money was potentially under-allocated, a review of previous paperwork and a discussion at the FAR Committee had confirmed that this was now allocated to the planned additional engineering capacity in Worcester.SS stated that due to staff changes, the Core LEP revenue budget was £20k under-profile and this would be added to reserves at this point in the financial year.

11. The further agenda items of LEP conference and FAR Committee were deferred until the next meeting.

12.

12.1

Board Meeting Dates for 2018

Monday 19th November 2018

Board Dates 2019:

Thursday 24th January 2019Thursday 21st March 2019Thursday 9th May 2019Thursday 11th July 2019Thursday 19th September 2019Thursday 21st November 2019

4.0 MATTERS ARISING (ACTION LIST & CORRESPONDENCE)

4.1 ACTION LIST

4.1.1 Matters Arising

1.2.3.4.

4.1.

4.1.1.1. Local Industrial Strategies are on order.

Action: Gary Woodman

1.2.3.4.

4.1.4.1.1.

4.1.1.1.4.1.2. LEP Review

4.1.1.2. The Board agreed to progress the work with Gatenby Sanderson to recruit three new Non-Executive private sector Board members.

Action: Gary Woodman

4.1.1.3. GW will submit the paperwork on the geography issues by 28th September.

Action: Gary Woodman

4.1.2.4.1.3. BetaDen Progress

4.1.3.1. The Board approved the business case and KPIs for the project, also approving the spend to date against the budget. The Board approved the forward looking budget and allocation for Q3, and the potential for ERDF in Q4.

Action: Linda Smith

4.1.24.1.3

4.1.4 5G Test Bed Update

4.1.3.

LSt explained the current position; MS agreed that we should co-ordinate a workshop from Government department participants to help inform a number of initiatives and areas of work.

Action: Lorraine Stone

4.1.5 WLEP Energy Strategy

4.1.5.1 SG asked about grid capacity as some firms are struggling to expand. The presentation highlighted some wins in terms of wasted capacity. Then look into how we link this in to the social care sphere; connectivity is crucial. It was agreed that the Board would continue to feed in thoughts and the final strategy would be signed off at the November Board

Action: Gary Woodman

4.1.6 Worcestershire pipeline 2040

4.1.6.1 MS stated that we needed to carry out further work on the vision. Defining the terms of the kind of place we want Worcestershire to be will help us get to a point where we have a story, as at the moment we don’t have one.

Action: Gary Woodman

4.2. CORRESPONDENCE