worcestershire lep€¦ · web viewbalanced scorecard – gary woodman (20 . mins) 5. growth deal...

WORCESTERSHIRE LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP BOARD MEETINGThursday 23rd July 2015 3.00 pm- 6.00 pm

Worcester Bosch, Cotswold Way, Worcester WR4 9SW

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Apologies

2. Minutes of WLEP Board Meeting on 2 April 2015 (5 mins)

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

4. Balanced Scorecard – Gary Woodman (20 mins)

5. Growth Deal Projects and Future Pipeline – Ian Edwards (30 mins)

6. EU Structure Investment Fund Strategy Update – Claire Bridges (15 mins)

7. Partnership Structure & Sub Groups – Gary Woodman (30 mins)

8. World Class Worcestershire Progress Update – Kirsten Dally (30 mins)

9. Midlands Engine / Combined Authorities Update – Mark Stansfeld (20 mins)

10. WLEP Conference 2015 – Kirsten Dally (10 mins)

11. Any Other Business

12. Dates of Meetings in 2015:

- 24th September 2015- 19th November 2015

1.0 WELCOME & APOLOGIES

PRESENT:Mark Stansfeld (MS) Non-Executive Chair

Carl Arntzen (KA) Managing Director, Worcester Bosch Group

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

Cllr Margaret Sherrey (MS) Leader, Bromsgrove DC (rep Northern DCs)

Mark Martin (MM) Chair of WLEP Business Board

Cllr Simon Geraghty (SG) Deputy Leader, Worcestershire County Council

Dr Simon Murphy (SM) CEO, Worcester Community Trust

Nick Baldwin (NB) Chairman, Office for Nuclear Regulation

Stuart Laverick (SL) Principal & Chief Executive, Worcester College of Technology

Cllr Linda Robinson (LR) Leader, Wychavon District Council

Steve Borwell-Fox (SBF) Managing Director, Borwell Ltd

IN ATTENDANCE:Gary Woodman (GW) Worcestershire LEP

Ian Edwards (IE) Worcestershire LEP

Claire Bridges (CB) Worcestershire LEP

Kirsten Dally (KD) Worcestershire LEP

David Irish (DI) Worcestershire LEP

Diane Dwyers (WS) Worcestershire LEP (Note Taker)

Clare Marchant (CM) Chief Executive Officer, WCC

Graham Pendlebury (GP) DFT, LEP Senior Sponsor

APOLOGIES:Chris Walklett (CW) Partner, Bishop Fleming

2.0 MINUTES OF WLEP BOARD MEETING

Thursday, 21st May 2015 3.00pm – 5.00pmCoomber Electronics, Worcester

Mark Stansfeld (MS) Non-Executive ChairCarl Arntzen (KA) Managing Director, Worcester Bosch GroupChris Walklett (CW) Partner, Bishop FlemingCllr Margaret Sherrey (MS) Leader, Bromsgrove DC (rep Northern DCs)Roy Irish (RI) Director, Financial Partnership & Support Limited (attending

in place of Simon Murphy as Richard Quallington was unable to attend)

Cllr Simon Geraghty (SG) Deputy Leader, Worcestershire County CouncilDr Chris O’Malley (DG) Pro Vice Chancellor, University of WorcesterNick Baldwin (NB) Chairman, Office for Nuclear RegulationStuart Laverick (SL) Principal & Chief Executive, Heart of Worcester College Rowena Innocent (RoI) Engineering Director, Malvern Instruments (attending in

place of Mark Martin)

Observers:Cllr Linda Robinson (LR) Leader of Wychavon DCCllr Phil Grove (PG) Leader of Malvern DC

IN ATTENDANCE:Gary Woodman (GW) Worcestershire LEPIan Edwards (IE) Worcestershire LEPClaire Bridges (CB) Worcestershire LEPKirsten Dally (KD) Worcestershire LEPDiane Dwyers (WS) Worcestershire LEP (Note Taker)David Blake (DB) Acting Corporate Director for Place, Worcester City CouncilGraham Pendlebury (GP) DFT, LEP Senior SponsorSander Kristel (SC) Director of Commercial & Change, WCCGraham Biggs (GB) Client Services Director, The Naked Creative

APOLOGIES:Dr Simon Murphy (SM) Chair, Sandwell Local Improvement Finance Trust Co LtdDavid Green (DG) CEO & Vice Chancellor, University of Worcester

1 Welcome and Apologies

Mark Stansfeld (Chair) welcomed the Board and he noted that there were apologies from Simon Murphy and David Green.

Mark Martin and Steve Borwell-Fox were voted in as Business Board Chair and Vice Chair. This was approved by the Board.

David Hughes was not re-elected as a councillor and therefore a letter has been sent thanking him for his contribution.

MS welcomed Cllrs Robinson and Grove as observers.

ACTION

2 Minutes from the Board Meeting 2 nd April 2015

Minor amendment to Item 12:

SM had raised the Connecting Schools and Businesses project with an advisor to the Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls. This was in part to continue to make the case for smaller sized LEPs and their capacity to deliver innovation".

The minutes were then approved and signed off as a true record by the Board.

ACTION

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

Matters Arising

Worcestershire Business Central was progressing well with a number of work streams taking place. A report to a future Board will be made.

Dashboard and Assurance Framework will be put on a secure web for board members to access. This should be in place by the end of June 2015.

Midlands Connect - further details are being sought before a decision can be made.

Correspondence:

Correspondence was noted.

G Woodman

4

4.1

World Class Worcestershire

KD introduced the World Class Worcestershire paper which outlined the development of the identity and the activities that had taken place around Inward Investment.

A facilitated session took place where everyone was split into 4 Groups:

1. Components2. Characteristics3. Characters4. Challenges

The outcome of these discussions will be written into a report with a proposal to develop a brand proposition, brand values, evidence and proof points, key messages and elevated pitch for the county as a place to live, visit, work, invest and do business.

It is proposed that a small group meet between 10am – 12pm on the 15th June at County Hall to discuss next steps, if other Board Members wish to attend please inform Diane Dwyers at the WLEP. A report of the outcome of the Board will then be circulated.

Kirsten Dally

Kirsten Dally

5 Business Plan for 2015/2016

GW presented the headline business plan and delivery plan with the recognition that some of the key performance indicators remain to be confirmed. In these exceptional cases national benchmarks do not reflect the key strategic priorities and therefore the development of a local benchmark may have to be initiated. This was particularly the case in Business Growth and Profiling frameworks. It was agreed that further work would be undertaken in these two areas.

DB asked how does the delivery plan reflect on World Class Worcestershire and the aspiration i.e. by delivering World Class Worcestershire, are we expecting to achieve ‘x’ number of jobs.

GW answered by reflecting that some measures would be subjective and others objective.

When dealing with public funding measures such as jobs created, business supported, apprenticeships engaged were expected, whereas the measures of World Class Worcestershire profiling are more likely to be related to visibility of the brand and customer satisfaction.

The Board agreed that the delivery plan should be RAG rated and developed towards and balanced scorecard approach. This was agreed.

Board members welcomed the Risk Register for the organisation and acknowledged that this would be reviewed by the FAR Committee at their next meeting in June.

The Board agreed to review the executive resources, this will be done at the next QUAD Meeting. The plan was agreed by the Board.

ACTION

G Woodman

G Woodman

6 Board Objectives

MS introduced the objectives on how we deliver as a LEP Board. These had been developed through 1:1’s with the Chair and electronic feedback.

CW commented that he felt that the objectives needed to be stronger on delivery.

MS stated that he was happy to make amendments and/or changes from any suggestions, these would remain under review.

RI felt that the third objective should be stronger where ‘Best Practice’ should be drawn from all sources not just the other LEPs.

WLEP should be aiming for best in class in all that it does.

CO’M suggested a sixth objective related to delivery.

It was agreed that the final draft would be distributed for any final comments then issued at the next Board Meeting.

G Woodman

7 Growth Deal ACTION

IE presented the paper explaining the rating against each Growth Deal project was a WLEP assessment. The plan was to over programme the local growth fund to achieve the £13.4 million spend this financial year.

IE continued that a meeting had taken place of the Programme Delivery Board and the risks had been shown in greater detail. Those in ‘red’ fell into three categories:

1. The scheme had not developed a business case2. Needed to accelerate the programme3. Still key delivery points would be concluded such as contracts

agreed.

CO’M asked if a greater explanation could come with the table. IE agreed.

NB asked if project owner could be defined. This was agreed.

MS asked for projects that were in the pipeline to be identified in future reports so the Board could make any necessary decisions about programme management.

I Edwards

8 EU Structural Investment Fund Strategy Update

CB presented the report which gave an update on the EU programme.

Specific highlights to the Board were:

ESI Sub Committee and its role in the decision making process.

The setting up of the Officer Working Group.

The priorities of future calls to replace existing programmes such as Enterprise Worcestershire and Inward Investment.

The DWP Opt in was discussed by the Board and it was agreed that a local option would best serve the WLEP EU Programme.

It was noted the Fusion Group would bring together a proposal of match funding.

9 Destination Worcestershire

GW proposed the report for a programme of activities to spend a budget of £20k enhancing Worcestershire outside of the county.

CW supported the proposal and said that an electronic sign-off for future similar papers should be implemented. The Board agreed the recommendation.

10 Sub Group Reports ACTION

Noted.

11

11.1

Any Other Business

Combined Authorities/LEPs

GW outlined that from a LEP perspective no emerging narrative had come from the new Conservative Government. Generally there is a feeling that any boundary changes would not be forced.

SG gave an update on the local government leaders discussion earlier in the week which covered the following points:

1. The mayoral model does not translate into a county setting.2. Is the Worcestershire geography big enough?3. Leaders were having conversations with the individual council

cabinets.4. The Secretary of State was presenting to county councils in early

June.5. Any work on a bid would not be concluded until the end of September.

GP stated that from early discussion with the new Ministerial team for the DfT. The LEP agenda continues as before.

The English devolution debate has no clarification on what is happening with smaller counties. There remains a strong emphasis on delivery and there are no signals about funding until after the Autumn.

MS summed this section up by suggesting that the Executive keep any developments under review and are reported to the Board when necessary.

12 Dates of Meetings in 2015

WLEP BOARD:

23rd July - Worcester Bosch24th Sept - Worcester Bosch19th Nov - Worcester Bosch

3.0 MATTERS ARISING (ACTION LIST & CORRESPONDENCE)

3.1 ACTION LIST

3.1.1 Dashboard and Assurance Framework will be put on a secure web for board members to access. This should be in place by the end of June 2015. Action: GW

3.1.2 World Class Worcestershire

3.1.2.1 The outcome of these discussions will be written into a report with a proposal to develop a brand proposition, brand values, evidence and proof points, key messages and elevated pitch for the county as a place to live, visit, work, invest and do business. Action: KD

3.1.2.2 It is proposed that a small group meet between 10am – 12pm on the 15 th June at County Hall to discuss next steps, if other Board Members wish to attend please inform Diane Dwyers at the WLEP. A report of the outcome of the Board will then be circulated. Action: KD

3.1.3 Business Plan for 2015/2016

3.1.3.1 The Board agreed that the delivery plan should be RAG rated and developed towards and balanced scorecard approach. This was agreed. Action: GW

3.1.3.2 The Board agreed to review the executive resources; this will be done at the next QUAD Meeting. The plan was agreed by the Board. Action: GW

3.1.4 Board Objectives

It was agreed that the final draft would be distributed for any final comments then issued at the next Board Meeting. Action: GW

3.1.5 Growth Deal

A meeting had taken place of the Programme Delivery Board and the risks had been shown in greater detail. Those in ‘red’ fell into three categories:

1. The scheme had not developed a business case2. Needed to accelerate the programme3. Still key delivery points would be concluded such as contracts agreed.

Action: IE

3.2 CORRESPONDENCE

3.2.1 Letter dated 5th June 2015 from LEP Network addressed to Chancellor and Secretary of State re Local Enterprise Partnerships – Response to the Consultation on Budget July 2015 Maintaining Momentum in Economic Growth.

3.2.2 Letter dated 1st July 2015 from UKTI addressed to Mark Stansfeld re attendance at the UKTI LEP Conference on 17th June.

3.2.3 Joint letter dated 1st July 2015 on behalf of the Chairs of the East and West Midlands LEP’s addressed to The Rt Hon Anna Soubry MP and Marcus Jones MP re Midlands Engine.

3.2.4 Letter dated 1st July 2015 from Cities and Local Growth Unit addressed to All LEP Chief Executives re Invitation to Workshop on Wednesday 29th July.

3.2.5 Letter dated 16th July 2015 from Department for Communities and Local Government addressed to Chair re New Enterprise Zone Programme.

4.0 BALANCED SCORECARD

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The WLEP Board is recommended to approve the Balanced Scorecard model proposed below as a performance management tool and to provide any further comments for improvement.

4.1 CONTEXT

4.1.1 At the 15th May Board meeting it was agreed that a structured performance management tool covering performance across the entirety of WLEP activity would assist with decision making for the Board.

4.1.2 To this end, the Executive Team has developed a ‘Balanced Scorecard’ model that will provide the Board with the requested information.

4.1.3 This model was discussed at the QUAD meeting on the 19th June 2015 and has been further developed following that discussion.

4.2 PROPOSED BALANCED SCORECARD

4.2.1 Typical approaches to balanced scorecards aim to summarise operations through a number of key themes, providing an outline of the overall balance of risks in each area and allowing for managers to ‘drill down’ to a level of detail identifying performance and risk at a project level. Often balanced scorecard themes include the following areas: Finance, Customer (i.e. stakeholder perceptions), Internal business processes (i.e. optimising internal processes/products) and Learning & growth (i.e. a forward-thinking view on how the organisation can innovate and improve), however this approach does not necessarily directly match with the strategic responsibility and practical activity of the WLEP.

4.2.2 Instead, the Executive Team propose that these key themes should be adapted to the performance monitoring requirements of the WLEP and fit into three themes; Operational, Financial, and Delivery, and that the document will identify RAG rated performance for each.

The Operational theme will highlight and categorise risks that apply across all areas of WLEP activity (adapting information present within the WLEP Risk Register).

The Financial theme will outline spend against targets for the budgets the WLEP has control over – i.e. Local Growth Fund, Growing Places, and Core funding.

The Delivery theme will outline performance against measures identified in the Delivery Plan, separated by each of the WLEP four key themes (i.e. Employment and Skills, Business Growth, Planning Infrastructure and Development and National Profile and Promotion) with an indication of whether the measure has been or will be achieved, is likely to be achieved, or will not be achieved.

4.2.3 A key process behind this balanced scorecard model is the ability for it to be easily updated by the Executive Team and kept on a secure online portal to allow for the Board to access it conveniently. The WLEP Executive Team will update their respective parts of the Balanced Scorecard ahead of the standard Board meetings.

4.2.4 The live model is now available at the online portal at secure.wlep.co.uk

4.2.5 The figure below shows the overview page outlining each theme with an indication of overall risk/performance attached to each one. Selecting any of the theme boxes will link to a detailed page showing the risk/performance and description attached to each individual item. An example being the Operational Risks as shown below.

:

David IrishResearch Executive

5.0 GROWTH DEAL UPDATE

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION1. That the Board notes and discusses the RAG (Red, Amber, Green) rating assigned

to each Growth Deal Project.2. That the Board notes and discusses the approach to pipeline development.

3. Note the Assurance Framework referred to in 5.3.4 below and agree to a review of the document by March 2016.

5.1 Growth Deal – Risk Assessment

5.1.1 The Board is invited to review the updated RAG rating for all current Growth Deal projects due for implementation in 2015/2016 and 2016/2017.

5.1.2 The figures identified for each project over the three year period represents the totality of budget approved by Government in Rounds 1 and 2 of the Growth Deal. This is being managed on a programme basis and therefore, projects within this framework can be accelerated or pushed back to achieve the bottom line expenditure which, for 2015/2016 is c £13.6m.

5.1.3 The current programme for 2015/2016 stands at around £13.8m which is insufficient particularly given the likely slippage of schemes. Therefore, the focus for the next 3 months is to continue developing a pipeline of projects within the context of the Employment and Housing Infrastructure Fund and Skills Capital Fund and to examine the potential for an Innovation Centre within the context of the emerging Innovation Strategy.

5.2 Pipeline Development – Skills Capital

5.2.1 The WLEP Skills Capital Programme currently has a capital budget of £2.2m of which the META project is the only one currently identified for further development. This has a notional budget allocation of c £270,000. The CoVE project was allocated funding as a stand-alone project

5.2.2 The expectation is that as part of further Growth Deal negotiations, additional funds will be made available to the Skills Capital Fund although there is no clarity on the timing of future Growth Deal rounds at this stage.

5.2.3 The LEP team has now met with all Further Education Colleges within the county as well as the Midland Group Training Services, which has an engineering operation in Redditch, to develop a high level programme of capital investments for projects that contribute to the delivery of the WLEP Business Plan 2015 – 2018 on the follow basis:

Group 1 - Schemes that can be delivered in 2015/2016 Group 2 - Schemes that can be delivered over the next 2 years Group 3 - Schemes that may be deliverable over a 3–5 year period

5.2.4 It is intended to present this programme to the Employment and Skills Board at its next meeting on 22nd September for comment and subsequent endorsement. It will then be our intention to work with the project sponsors for the selected projects in groups 1 and 2 to a point where they are approved, subject to funding being available. Projects in group 3 will continue to be monitored and may well come into the programme at a later date.

5.2.5 We have worked closely with the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) to ensure a robust project development, appraisal and approval process is in place. Application Guidance has already been developed and is available via the WLEP website (http://www.wlep.co.uk/assets/WLEP-Application_Guidance-for-skills-projects-and-private-providers_Final-v1.pdf). In essence, application forms are developed for either building costs and/or equipment costs and appraised by the SFA who in turn, make a recommendation to the WLEP Board. All projects developed as part of the Skills Capital Fund will adhere to this approach.

5.3 Pipeline Development – Employment and Housing Infrastructure Fund

5.3.1 In developing the Housing Implementation Plan, WLEP already has identified the priority housing sites requiring investment of resources, both time and funds, over the next 5 years. We are currently working with District Councils and the Homes and Communities Agency to identify the capital investment required unlocking a number of the site identified within the Plan.

5.3.2 In terms of the required infrastructure for employment sites, some of which will, of course, have a direct correlation with the infrastructure needs for housing sites, the Executive Director and the Head of Strategic Infrastructure and the Economy at Worcestershire County Council is meeting with individual District Chief Executives, Economic Leads and Council Leaders to identify the priority sites and investments where we can work together to develop a pipeline of schemes addressing infrastructure constraints on commercial sites.

5.3.3 The first to be funded in the context of the Employment and Housing Infrastructure Fund will be Vale Park, Evesham where an access road is opening up 30 acres of developable land as part of the Food Enterprise Zone.

5.3.4 All pipeline projects will be developed in accordance with the WLEP Assurance Framework endorsed by the Programme Delivery Group in March 2015 and available via the WLEP website (http://www.wlep.co.uk/assets/WLEP-Assurance-Framework-v1.0-Final.pdf)

5.4 Pipeline Development – Business Growth Fund

5.4.1 The Business Growth Fund will be a capital grant scheme along the lines of the Regional Growth Funded Worcestershire Expansion Scheme (WES) which is now coming to an end.

5.4.2 The contracted targets for the WES scheme required for 180 sustainable jobs to created and/or safeguarded by 2016. On completion, it is expected that WES will achieve the following:

240 FTE jobs and safeguarded a further 102.5 FTE jobs

The project has levered in £13.7m of Private Sector Leverage

£27m of increased GVA over the life of the project

5.4.3 The introduction of the Business Growth Fund will learn from the evaluation of the WES and will focus on, but not be exclusive to, businesses in our priority sectors.

5.4.4 It is expected that the Business Growth Fund will be considered for approval by the Board at its September 2015 meeting and launched at the Annual Conference on 13th November 2015.

Ian EdwardsGrowth Plan Project Manager

http://www.wlep.co.uk/assets/WLEP-Assurance-Framework-v1.0-Final.pdf

http://www.wlep.co.uk/assets/WLEP-Application_Guidance-for-skills-projects-and-private-providers_Final-v1.pdf

http://www.wlep.co.uk/assets/WLEP-Application_Guidance-for-skills-projects-and-private-providers_Final-v1.pdf

Growth Deal – RAG Rating

Project Project Lead

Project Phase

2015/2016 Forecast

2015/2016 Actual

2016/2017 Forecast

2017/2018 - 2020/2021

Forecast

Total Budget RAG (Change) Commentary

Pershore Lane Improvements (Worcester Six)

Peter Jago (WCC)

Business Case £2,000,000 £35,000 £3,000,000 £0

£5,000,000

WCC has entered into a target price contract with Alun Griffiths Ltd into the sum of c 2.9m. Balance of budget held for additional off site works and contingency although unclear at this stage what additional works are being proposed. Potential for defraying in excess of £2m but will be further assessed in Quarter 3.

Malvern Hills Science Park (Phase 5)

Nigel Nudson (WCC)

Programme Entry £1,000,000 £0 £3,000,000 £0 £4,000,000

Opportunity for using available budget to invest in Innovation Facility. Whilst MHSP Phase 5 is key for the WLEP there is a significant risk of not defraying £1m this year if focus remains solely MHSP.

Centre of Vocational Excellence

Duane Sanger

(HWGTA)

Business Case £250,000 £0 £630,000 £0 £880,000 Reduced from Red Risk due to clarity on State Aids issue and

reduced budget forecast.

BroadbandSte

Ashton (WCC)

Business Case £0 £0 £1,200,000 £1,200,000 £2,400,000

Potential to increase expenditure in 2016/2017 but given that the last cabinet is due to be enabled in June 18, current profile remains for planning purposes.


Project Phase

2015/2016 Forecast

2015/2016 Actual

2016/2017 Forecast

2017/2018 - 2020/2021

Forecast


Flood Alleviation

Ian Bamforth

(WCC)

Business Case £500,000 £0 £2,000,000 £1,500,000 £4,000,000

Amber risk relates to the fact that the Year 1 project, New Road, is unlikely to be implemented due to desire to work with the Cricket Club on the Phase 3 development of the Ground. Additional sites being identified for 2015/2016 implementation. Forecast expenditure has been reduced to £500,000 to reflect this uncertainty

Hoobrook Link Road

Mark Mills (WCC)

Business Case £3,600,000 £350,000 £0 £0 £3,600,000

No change in risk to WLEP expenditure but WCC need to ensure that process to approve Growth Deal Funds in both GBSLEP and WLEP are adhered to. WCC has let works contract to Alun Griffiths and agreed to underwrite additional costs (c £3m) should additional funds from LEPs not being forthcoming.

Southern Link Road

Andy McGinnis

(WCC)Approved £3,400,000 £0 £4,000,000 £9,000,000 £16,400,000

Increase in risk since last meeting as the scheme delivery strategy yet to be finalised but is likely to be delivered in 3 phases by 2 contractors with the first phase being Wittington to the railway bridge starting in summer/autumn 2015. Concern is that £3.4m will not be defrayed by the end of March 2016.

Parkway StationTom

Delaney (WCC)

Business Case £0 £0 £7,500,000 £0 £7,500,000

Reduced risk from last Board meeting due to clarity on planning application. Amber risk largely due to size of budget in 2016/2017 and issues that still require addressing ie land acquisition. A reduction in forecast budget for 2016/2017 likely.


Project Phase

2015/2016 Forecast

2015/2016 Actual

2016/2017 Forecast

2017/2018 - 2020/2021

Forecast


Kidd. Railway Station

David Balme (WCC)

Business Case £0 £0 £2,500,000 £0 £2,500,000 Reduced to Amber risk to reflect positive discussions with

GBSLEP on match funding of £1.8m.

Vale ParkPhil

Merrick (WDC)

Programme Entry £500,000 £0 £500,000 £0 £1,000,000

Reduced to green risk as forecast expenditure in 2015/2016 has been amended. Wychavon DC leading with contractor due to be appointed in October 2015. Application form currently being prepared with the expectation that the Board will be in a position to consider the project for approval in September 2015.

META Project

Noreen Moses (South

Worcestershire

College)

Business Case £250,000 £0 £0 £0 £250,000

Low risk as essentially capital equipment for South Worcestershire College. Reduced to Green Risk as more confidence in future governance of the College. Will be presented to the September Board for approval.

Worcestershire Business Central

Ian Edwards (WLEP)

Approved £250,000 £20,000 £0 £0 £250,000 Risk relates to potential delays in appointing new staff.


Project Phase

2015/2016 Forecast

2015/2016 Actual

2016/2017 Forecast

2017/2018 - 2020/2021

Forecast


Employment and Housing Infrastructure Fund

Ian Edwards (WLEP)

Programme Entry £1,000,000 £0 £1,500,000 £500,000

£3,000,000

New

Priority area for pipeline development with focus on Housing Implementation Plan and other priority employment sites. Estimate of £1,000,000 for new schemes included in programme budget for 15/16

Business Growth Fund

Ian Edwards (WLEP)

Programme Entry £0 £0 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £2,000,000 New

Grant programme to be launched later this year as a successor to the Worcestershire Expansion Scheme. Potential to use an element of funds to support innovation priorities ie link to emerging Innovation Strategy.

6.0 EU STRUCTURAL INVESTMENT FUND STRATEGY UPDATE

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe WLEP Board is recommended to note the confirmation of the UK Government EU Structural Investment Fund Growth Programme, nationally and locally, and impending actions.

6.1 EUSIF National Update

6.1.1 The ESIF Growth Programme for England 2014–2020 has finally been agreed between the UK Government and European Commission comprising three component Operational Programmes of European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF). The Government is expected to issue full Guidance in July 2015 which sets out the agreement, corresponding EU regulations, the business process as well as the roles and responsibilities of the Managing Authorities (MAs) and partners in the England ESIF Growth Programme.

6.1.2 Operational Programmes deliver their specific strategies through a series of Priority Axes, Investments Priorities and associated results and outputs, and financial targets. The Worcestershire ESIF Strategy sets out its equivalent priority axes and targets to reflect local development needs based on its notional allocation of £58.1m (ERDF/ESF) plus £2.3m (EAFRD). In summary:

Growth Programme Board will also be the national Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) for the England ERDF (DCLG Managing Authority) and ESF (DWP Managing Authority) Operational Programmes while providing advice to the England PMC (Defra) for EAFRD. The LEP Network will retain four places on the Growth Programme Board to represent LEP interests. It will maximise synergies between the separate Operational Programmes.

Worcestershire LEP Area ESIF Sub-Committee is the Sub-Committee of the national Programme Monitoring Committee for ERDF and ESF while the EAFRD Managing Authority will liaise direct regarding its own Operational Programme procedures. The Area ESIF Committees features are:

The existing Sub Committee membership complies with EU requirements and is drawn from business, public, environmental, voluntary and civil society sectors and will be an advocate for the opportunities and impact of the ESI Funds.

The Sub Committee will work with all sectors and organisations represented, particularly to promote active participation amongst local economic, environmental and social partners to help bring forward activities.

The Sub Committee will provide practical advice and intelligence to the Managing Authorities throughout the cycle of programme implementation, specifically on local growth conditions and opportunities; local development needs; forward planning; development of project/programme calls; outline/full applications; delivery against expenditure, milestones, cross cutting themes, outputs and results; collaboration with other LEP areas; and ongoing implementation throughout the 2014-2020 programme implementation period (See simplified business process in Appendix A).

PMC will also establish Themed Sub Committees for topics such as Environment Sustainability, Equalities and Social Inclusion, each PA Axis, Performance Management; Audit and Accountability etc. These will each broker and share local-to-national knowledge, expertise and experience, including best practice and lessons learnt.

6.2 ESIF National Calls Update

6.2.1 The UK Government issued its first ESIF Calls on 20 March 2015 before the General Election and Purdah which reflected prior discussions with Worcestershire LEP and Worcestershire LEP Area ESIF Sub Committee on local economic growth conditions and priorities.

6.2.2 Outline applications submitted in response to the WLEP Area Calls for Priority Axis 1 Innovation, Priority Axis 3 SME Competitiveness, Priority Axis 4 Low Carbon, EAFRD (Horticulture) and Technical Assistance (National Call) are all currently being assessed by the respective Managing Authorities.

6.2.3 A synopsis of each application incorporating the respective MA’s assessment is to be submitted to the next ESIF Sub Committee on 22 July 2015 and which will invite the Sub Committee’s advice on each proposal’s “strategic fit” with the WLEP area ESIF Strategy.

6.2.4 The Managing Authorities indicate that a number of Cross LEP applications have been received and that each MA assessment will disaggregate the grant value so that it is clear the amount being requested from each LEP area.

6.2.5 Further calls for programmes and projects will occur in either July 2015 or October 2015 and then on a quarterly basis thereafter. The Worcestershire ESIF Forward Plan attached in Appendix B outlines the anticipated programme of calls. Managing Authorities have reminded all areas to spread the calls across the whole 2014-2020 programme period and the Forward Plan has been created in a balanced and pragmatic way.

6.2.6 The WLEP Executive collaborates regularly with the National LEP Network as well as the LEP EU Officer Group. Both networks have spearheaded continuing concerns and requests for strategic and operational amendments during negotiations.

6.2.7 The most notable outcome of UK Government and European Commission negotiations is the greater authority and responsibility placed with Government Managing Authorities compared with LEP Area ESIF Committees as originally proposed.

6.2.8 LEP and EU officers continue to gather evidence on the ever present challenges across the ESIF business process and respective local-national responsibilities for future analysis and presentation to Government when the system is reviewed.

6.3 Worcestershire LEP Area ESIF Sub Committee

6.3.1 The Worcestershire ESIF Committee is meeting on 22 July 2015 with the following purpose:

Consider and agree the Worcestershire ESIF Calls Forward Plan (See Appendix B) and authorise the next rounds of calls.

agree the formation and purpose of the supporting Operational Working Group in line with best practice (See Appendix C)

provide the “strategic fit” advice to the MAs on all outline applications received in response to the March 2015 Calls

6.3.2 Given the Worcestershire LEP Area ESIF Sub Committee meets on the day preceding the WLEP Board meeting, a verbal update will be provided to the WLEP Board meeting on 23 July 2015 regarding the outcomes of the first application assessments as well as the above items and any other matters arising.

6.4 Partners and Engagement

6.4.1 The WLEP has conducted comprehensive consultations and engaged partners representing public, private and third sectors across Worcestershire throughout its SEP and ESIF process. The WLEP has been able to draw representation from the segmented interests described in Government Guidance to establish the Worcestershire LEP Area ESIF Sub Committee. A wide range of partners and interested parties are involved in the process to scope and develop the ESIF Implementation Plan and EAFRD (Rural Development) Programme Implementation Plan.

Claire BridgesStrategy and Partnership Executive

Appendix A

National ESIF Business Process

Appendix B

Worcestershire ESIF Calls Forward Plan 2014 – 2020 Period

Priority Axis Indicative Programme

First Round Call (March 2015)

First Round Call(July – October 2015)

Second Round (2017)

PA1 Innovation £5m (ERDF) SME Proof of Concept Fund£1.3m

£3.7m

PA2 ICT £1m (ERDF) £1mPA3 SME Competitiveness

£15.2m (ERDF) UKTI (Food/Defence and Security UKTI Trade Advisors)£1.25m (3 Years)

Growth Accelerator (Leadership/Management)£0.5m (2 Years)

Enterprise Worcestershire (Business Start-Up & Growth 3 Years) £1m (July)

Growth Hub £0.3m (July)

Growth Investment (Retention & Attraction; SME Green Tech 3 Years) £1.0m (July). Link to corresponding PA4 Low Carbon Call below

Growing Cyber Programme (3 Years) £1.75m (July)

£9.4m

PA4 Low Carbon £6.1m (ERDF) Resource Efficiency Programme (SMEs Energy Efficiency)£1.3m

SME Green Tech (3 Years) £1.2m (July) linked to corresponding PA3 SME Call above

Low Carbon Transport (3 Years) £1m (October)

£2.6m

PA5 Climate Change Adaptation

£0.3m (ERDF) £0.3m

PA6 Environmental Protection

£1.5m (ERDF) Green Infrastructure £0.5m (October)

£1m

PA8 Employment £8.7m (ESF) SFA Opt In (£10.6m Total PA 8,9,10) - Employability £2.9m (July)

SFA 3 Year Review

£5.8m (with PA10)

PA9 Social Economic Inclusion

£5.8mm (ESF) BLF Opt In £3.2m:Project 1 £1.1m (June), Project 2 £1m (June)Project 3 £1.1m (October)

BLF 3 Year Review

£2.6mPA10 Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning

£14.5m (ESF) SFA Opt In £10.6m Total PA 8,9,10: - NEET £1.2m (July); Skills for Growth £6.5m (July); Succession Planning – Second Tier Leadership/Management £1.5m (July)

SFA 3 Year Review

£5.3m (with PA8)

Technical Assistance (National Call)

Up to 2% of ERDF & ESF Technical Assistance

Project Development, Capacity-Building, Fund Promotion, Sustainable Urban Development (ERDF only)Deadline: 30 October 2015

WLEP ESIF TOTAL £58.1m £4.35m £22.05m £31.7m

Priority Axis Indicative Programme

First Round Call (March 2015)

First Round Call(July – October 2015)

Second Round (2017)

EAFRD (Rural Development)Programme

£2.3m

(£1.5m SME Competitiveness; £0.7m Innovation)

Horticulture Expansion Fund£0.3m

Business Development Non Tourism -£300k (July)Business Development Tourism £300k (July)Forestry £200k (September)

£1.15mHorticultureBusiness Development – TourismBusiness Development – Non TourismTourism Infrastructure

Protocol with GBSLEP & SSLEP to dovetail with GBSLEP’s EAFRD Programme

£1.1mGBSLEP area, North Worcestershire and South Staffordshire)

Business Development – Tourism (July)Business Development – Non TourismTourism Infrastructure (July)Forestry (September)

£600k (GBSLEP EAFRD)

WLEP EAFRD TOTAL £2.3m £0.3m £0.8m £1.15m + £0.6m

Appendix CWorcestershire LEP Area ESIF Sub CommitteeOperational Working Group

1. The role and responsibilities of the Worcestershire LEP Area ESIF Sub Committee is defined by the UK Government-European Commission agreement to provide strategic direction and performance management of ESIF European Structural and Investment Fund) and EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund) programme delivery activity across its area for the 2014-2020 period. LEPs also have the discretion to create an operational structure to support its ESIF Committee. It should be tailored to best fit with existing partnership activity for the LEP area and be set up to ensure, in operational terms, that all relevant sectors and partners are engaged in the ESIF process and that the requirements for managing and delivering the ESIF and EAFRD programmes, are carried out as efficiently and effectively as possible.

2. At its meeting on 10 June 2015, the Worcestershire LEP Area ESIF Sub Committee agreed to establish an Operational Working Group (OWG) as a sub group which will be responsible to and report direct to the Sub Committee. This mechanism is in line with emerging national good practice and the following sections outline the membership and operational arrangements. The core OWG membership will be as follows:

OWG Name Organisation Representing

Chris Hallam (Chair) Santander plc and Chair, WLEP Area ESIF Sub Committee

WLEP Area ESIF Sub Committee (Chair)

Gary Woodman and Claire Bridges WLEP WLEP

Nigel Hudson and Steve Brain Worcestershire County Council WLEP Accountable Body

TBC Worcestershire Business Communities HWCC, FSB, CLA, NFU

TBC TBC North Worcestershire District Councils

TBC TBC South Worcestershire District Councils

OWG Observers:

Nicola Kelly DCLG Growth Programme Delivery Team Managing Authority - ERDF

Roger Allonby DEFRA Growth Programme Delivery Team Managing Authority- EAFRD

Pete Long DWP Growth Programme Delivery Team Managing Authority - ESF

3. The OWG will provide a consistent core arrangement to respond to ESIF Sub Committee requirements. Membership of the OWG will remain flexible to allow the co-option of other relevant expertise to the group as and when required for the duration of the programme period (2014-2015). This will enable the OWG to be augmented by knowledge, experience and intelligence drawn from a wide range of independent perspectives, as well as through each ESIF Sub Committee Member sector channels, as the need arises. It will be essential to ensure that there will be no conflicts of interest to avoid any sector or organisational interests assessing one of its own programme and/or project proposals for consideration. It will also be advantageous to bring in independent specialist knowledge or experience to help the OWG in any actions and tasks allocated. It would also be possible to seek independent expertise from outside Worcestershire if there is no-one suitable from the locality. The following themes, while not exhaustive, indicate topics where additional expertise and/or capacity will be sought:

Research and Development – by business sector

Innovation – by business sectors

Micros, Small and Medium sized Enterprises

Sustainable Development, Environmental Sustainability

Climate Change and Low Carbon

People’s skills development, learning, training

Social Economic Inclusion

Tourism

Rural Business Development

4. It will be particularly critical to manage potential Conflicts of Interest in the OWG as much as it is for the ESIF Sub Committee itself. It is therefore envisaged that membership of OWG will be varied according to the tasks given i.e. any Programme or Project assessment work will need to ensure there is no involvement of people representing organisations with an interest in the programme or project being assessed.

5. Task and Finish Group arrangements will be established involving members of the OWG together with additional specialist expertise, knowledge, intelligence and experience as needed i.e. to ensure environmental sustainability is applied consistently across all ERDF, ESF and EAFRD programmes and projects; or devising an effective co-ordinated ESIF Sub Committee Communications Plan. Existing partnerships and groups will be utilised to support or lead on specific Task and Finish work areas wherever possible.

6. The Managing Authority representatives cannot be members of the OWG but are allowed to attend as observers and input Government advice.

7. The ESIF Sub Committee and OWG operational structure is as follows:

8. Subject to forthcoming UK Government Guidance clarifying the detailed local-national ESIF business process and operational requirements, it is envisaged that detailed work on specific themes and/or operational elements will be needed for:

research and innovation

supporting small and medium enterprises

creating a low carbon economy

increasing labour market participation

promoting social inclusion

developing people’s skills

supporting micro and small rural business

investing in small scale renewable and broadband investments

supporting tourism activities

EAFRD (Rural Development) Programme

WLEP Executive

ESIF ESF Task & Finish Group

EAFRD Task & Finish Group

ESIF ERDF Task & Finish Group

ESIF Sub Committee

GBSLEP Joint Commissionig

Group

ESIF Operational Working Group

(OWG)

ESF/ERDF cross-cutting themes

Big Lottery Fund and Skills Development Agency Opt In Programmes

Connectivity with allied LEADER Programme

ESIF Committee Communication Plan

Application/Assessment process

Audit and Accountability; Performance Management

9. The OWG role and responsibilities are outlined as follows:

Interpret and circulate all relevant EU information and guidance (Sources: EU, UK Government Managing Authorities)

Co-ordinate and prepare the WLEP Area ESIF Sub Committee work programme for ESIF (ERDF, ESF) and EAFRD programmes

Prepare recommendations to WLEP Area ESIF Sub Committee regarding “strategic fit” statements for each MAs’ applications/assessments process

Co-ordinate and prepare contributions to agendas i.e. written reports, presentations and all other relevant material for WLEP Area ESIF Sub Committee members

Co-ordinate the development and management of project pipelines for the ESIF (ERDF and ESF) and EAFRD programmes including specific elements such as Opt In programmes

Fulfil joint operational working established by WLEP Protocols with neighbouring/other LEP ESIF structures on relevant matters of mutual interest

Co-ordinate and develop the WLEP Area ESIF Sub Committee’s Communications Plan including WLEP website, PR, bulletin updates, social media as well as other ESIF Sub Committee members’ respective media channels

Develop, establish and deliver the ESIF (ERDF and ESF) and EAFRD Programmes’ Local Implementation Plan (LIP) including setting up financial and outcome programme performance management arrangements; ensuring the timely submission of reports and information to the Managing Authorities and the UK Government’s national Programme Monitoring Committee (Growth Programme Board). NB Requirements to be clarified by UK Government Guidance (due July)

If required, establish Task and Finish Groups for specific thematic and/or project development and delivery for ESIF (ERDF and ESF) and EAFRD programmes

Ensure complementary actions between the Worcestershire LEP ESIF Growth Programme and other aligned UK Government National Programmes and/or European Programmes in the WLEP area i.e. EAFRD with Countryside Productivity and LEADER Programme towards the WLEP ESIF Strategy delivery

A Joint Commissioning Group will be established to manage proposals for ESIF of mutual interest to the Worcestershire and Greater Birmingham LEPs; its role can also be extended to collaborative activities with other neighbouring LEPs

10. OWG meetings will take place at least two weeks before scheduled ESIF Sub Committee meetings to allow the agenda, presentations, reports and other relevant material to be prepared and circulated to ESIF Committee members. Matters requiring attention in between OWG meetings will be dealt with by written procedure. Papers and other material will be circulated electronically wherever possible.

11. The secretariat for the OWG will be provided by the WLEP’s Accountable Body, namely Worcestershire County Council.

7.0 PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE & SUB GROUPS

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe Board approves the proposed changes to the WLEP Structure.

Approve the draft terms of reference for each sub group and provide a clear reporting mechanism back to the WLEP Board.

Review the capacity of the Executive team and partners’ contribution to support and drive the project groups to ensure an efficient contribution to the Strategic Economic Plan.

7.2 Context

7.1.1 We must not lose sight of the reason why LEPs were set up in the first place. Our role and aims are fairly straightforward; we are a partnership of the private, public and education sectors that has been established to grow the economy and create jobs in our area.

7.1.2 The existing structure has served the WLEP well in enabling a new partnership to come together to focus on economic growth (see Appendix A). However, it needs to be developed in light of the new government policies and the focus on delivery and performance monitoring of Growth Deal and EU Strategy. Combine this with other strategies and WLEP responsibilities developed recently, such as the Growth Hub and there is a need to ensure the Partnership structure is fit for purpose.

7.1.3 The WLEP Board need to be conscious of not creating too many sub-groups that need to be supported and managed by the Executive team and partner organisations. As the partnership changes the Board will be required to focus on the following areas, whilst remaining the decision making body of the partnership:

ongoing strategy development;

identifying projects to deliver that strategies and overseeing arrangements for selecting projects using a mixture of commissioning,

bidding and co-financing as best meets local need;

assisting in finding match funding for those projects;

ensuring the projects deliver their targets;

making sure allocations are spent on time, and;

putting in place management information processes.

7.1.4 Therefore the establishment of any WLEP Board sub groups would need to be carefully considered and would generally be advisory in nature and:

Enable the LEP Board to delegate particular tasks to enable it to retain a genuinely strategic perspective;

Enable the LEP to draw on a wider range of people/expertise on particular topics, and;

Prepare plans, strategies, etc. for consideration by the LEP Board.

7.2 Review of the Existing Structure

7.2.1 The experience of operating the existing structure of the WLEP has revealed some challenges; these include:

The role of the Business Board has become unclear. It has lost its sense of purpose, no longer acts as an ideas generator or facilitator of delivery. It needs to corral the voice of business into the partnership. The recent appointment of a new Chair and Deputy Chair allows for a review of it modus operandi to be undertaken. However it needs to be far more about engaging the business community in the priorities of the WLEP.

The sub groups across the 4 pillars of the SEP – (Profile, Business Growth, Employment & Skills and Planning, Development and Infrastructure) are having mixed success. This variation being reflection of many aspects including:

The level of executive support from WLEP and partners

The ability to rebadge existing schemes as WLEP initiative;

The ability to joint fund projects and initiatives with other partners;

Mission creep from the original aim of the sub group;

The time and expertise of the members of the sub group, and;

The ability to have a strategic view opposed to a business interest.

The WLEP sector priorities groups which are built on existing structures to allow engagement in the following priority sectors of manufacturing, cyber, agri food and tourism have struggled to effectively contribute to the delivery of the Strategic Economic Plan

7.3 WHAT DOES GOVERNMENT REQUIRE OF WLEP?

7.3.1 As the national LEP agenda has evolved and Government has changed and grown the requirements of LEPs. Government has stipulated that specific structures exist, as part of the partnership governance. This means that national initiatives such as Growth Hubs have come with the requirement of a Project Board. Equally, the EU programme has the requirement for a EUSIF Sub Committee to manage the detail of delivery.

7.3.2 The following are expected requirements with a LEP structure:

A LEP Board – private sector led, with University and Local Government representation

A Growth Hub Project Board – Public, Private, Business Membership Organisations (Chamber of Commerce, Federation of Small Business, Institute of Directors) and University membership.

A EUSIF Sub Committee – that is advisory and works with the Managing Authorities of DCLG, DWP and Defra. Membership across public, private, FE, HE, 3rd sector, Trade Unions and Environment.

A Local Transport Board to act as transport project assessment, approval and sign off of business cases.

7.4 PROPOSED NEW LEP STRUCTURE

7.4.1 Taking these new requirements into account, it is proposed to make the following changes:

Retention of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee as this sub-committee as a matter of best practice and to monitor the relationship between WLEP and the Accountable Body;

Retention of the existing Executive Sub Group, known as the Quad;.

Retention of the Employment and Skills Board as this body has developed an effective Skill Strategy for the County and draws together all key organisations;

Development of a Local Government senior officer group that has an ability to identify and develop projects – particularly those that will be potentially funded through the infrastructure programme within the local growth fund but also the EU programme;

Reforming the Business Board to focus on business engagement. Members should be business networkers and sign posters to support through the growth hub, plus creating a two way communication between the LEP and local businesses regarding their needs and creating an innovative environment. The Business Board meetings to change to focus on consultation, engagement and involvement of local businesses in the WLEP agenda of creating and stimulating growth and jobs;

The Growth Hub Project Board will lead engagement with Sector groups as required.

In order to focus on delivery of priority activity a small number of task and finish groups will be established drawing on individuals from a range of sectors with the right skills and expertise in order to scope and develop projects that are required to deliver the 2015 – 2018 Business Plan. Terms of reference will be developed for these Groups (see draft at Appendix c). The Executive Team will ensure that the focus of these Groups remains on influencing strategy and project development, project identification, appraisal, funding and monitoring activities.

7.5 IMPLEMENTATION

7.5.1 It is proposed that if the Board are so minded to approve the changes and approach within the paper, a detailed review of each of the existing sub groups are undertaken to identify the appropriate focus for each Task and Finish Group.

7.5.2 This review will also make an assessment of the demands of the Executive Team and the WLEP partners to ensure that each Task and Finish group is given sufficient executive support to undertake the role and perform the role required to achieve the 2015 – 2018 Business Plan.

7.5.3 To ensure effective links with the WLEP Board it is recommended that each Task and Finish Group will submit a short progress report to each LEP Board with a programme developed for more substantial discussions on the progress of each Task and Finish Group.

Appendix A – Existing WLEP Structure

Executive Board

LEP BOARD

Finance, Audit, Risk Committee

Cyber Security

X Cross LEP Groupings

Tourism & Leisure Manufacturing

LA Liaison Group

Agri Tech Horticulture

Regulation & Enterprise

Group

OthersPlanning

Development Infrastructure

Employment & Skills Board

Business Growth

National Profile &

Promotion

Business Board

Local Authorities’

Leaders’ Panel

Other LEPs/National LEP

NetworkWLEP EXECUTIVE

Government SponsorsBIS & CLG

Appendix B – Proposed WLEP Structure

Business Board

Finance, Audit, Risk Committee

Task and Finish Group 1

X Cross LEP Groupings

Employment and Skills Board


LA Senior Officers Group



Local Transport Board

EUISF Committee

Growth Hub Project Board

Local Authorities’

Leaders’

Other LEPs/National LEP

Network

WLEP EXECUTIVE

Government SponsorsBIS & CLG

LEP BOARD

Exec. Sub Group

Appendix CDRAFT Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership Sub Group Terms of Reference – Example

Statement of Intent:To enable growth of the Worcestershire economy by developing a delivery plan for [to be completed with the theme].

The Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (WLEP) Employment and Skills Group is a non-statutory body established to help inform and coordinate support to meets the needs of employers and communities within the Worcestershire LEP area. The Group receives secretarial support from the [to be inserted] and is chaired by [to be inserted].

The Group is uniquely placed to help support WLEP with an understanding of and to take account of the needs and opportunities of the employment and skills agenda, including social inclusion. The expertise within the Group comes from a range of organisations including: [List the group membership].

The aim of the Group is to champion the economy within the WLEP area, given the importance of [insert the role] in the wider economy. Concerns will be reported directly through the WLEP executive team and ESIF Committee.

On behalf of the WLEP the Sub Group will:

Collate and interpret evidence to help inform WLEP priorities and actions

Review WLEP strategic plans e.g. Strategic Economic Plan, EU SIF and associated plans and projects to ensure all businesses and communities are able to fulfil their potential in the WLEP area

Engage and consult with businesses to enhance local business intelligence

Network and share best practice with other LEP areas

Lobby national and local decision makers to ensure WLEP economy benefits from policies and investment

Advice on how WLEP programmes can be enhanced to ensure maximum support for businesses and promote these programmes to businesses

Provide support and coordination to the development of the [theme or sector}

Provide expertise to support appraisal of projects and grants

Provide support for the representative within the WLEP structure e.g. support to the ESIF representative, representatives on the WLEP Board

To support the above activity the WLEP will:

Recognise and promote the sub group as a key component of the WLEP structure

Attend the sub group meetings to advise on WLEP priorities and activities

Consider the implications of the economic evidence base at a future WLEP Board and subgroup meetings as appropriate.

8.0 WORLD CLASS WORCESTERSHIRE

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe Board is asked to note the progress to date regarding the development of the ‘World Class Worcestershire’ identity for the County as a place to live, visit, work, invest and do business.

The Board is also asked to agree the next stages of ‘testing’ this approach with the target market for each area whilst acknowledging that responsibility for this sits with different organisations and that the Worcestershire LEP leads on the ‘invest’ element of the work.

The Board is also recommended to agree that a public and private sector Marketing Forum is set up for Worcestershire which would be a Worcestershire LEP Subgroup. This would ensure efficiency and that a co-ordinated approach is taken in the further development and roll-out of the identity as well as wider marketing activities to raise the profile of the County.

8.1 Context

8.1.1 Following the interactive session in the last Board meeting which collated feedback from Board Members on World Class Worcestershire, the marketing consultant has further developed the proposals regarding Worcestershire as a place invest, live and visit.

8.1.2 There is, however, a crossover of audience, i.e. someone who works in the County may also live in Worcestershire and quality of life is a selling point for people looking for a place to work or invest so that potential investors or people choosing their work location may visit the County prior to a decision. This is part of the argument for an overarching brand being developed around World Class Worcestershire to strengthen the profile of the County.

8.1.3 The brand has been developed to include the brand positioning/proposition, brand values/pillars, evidence/proof points, key messages and elevator pitch for the County as a place to invest, live and visit. These have been tested and further developed with key partners (please see section on Partners and Engagement).

8.1.4 As part of this work it has been acknowledged that the responsibility for the marketing and activity which affects the identity for these three areas sit with different lead organisations:

World Class Worcestershire as a place to invest, work and do business – Worcestershire LEP lead

World Class Worcestershire as a place to live – Local Authorities lead

World Class Worcestershire as a place to visit – Visit Worcestershire at Herefordshire and Worcestershire Chamber of Commerce leads.

8.1.5 As the above organisations know their target market(s) and are responsible for marketing activity, it has highlighted a need for greater marketing co-ordination between these and other organisations whilst recognising that marketing contacts do not currently regularly meet. Also, to achieve the targets in the LEP Business Plan i.e. to attract greater revenue from tourism as well as investment for the County, the identity is vital as is co-ordination across all partner organisations to raise the profile of Worcestershire.

8.2 Proposal and Delivery/Actions

8.2.1 Whilst recognising that there is more work to do (as outlined below), the Board is asked to consider the progress which has been made with regards to the identity for the County which is attached as Appendix A.

8.2.2 It is suggested now that further research is carried out by each of the lead organisations to understand whether Worcestershire’s offer resonates with the target market(s) and their needs and that we are very clear on what we want Worcestershire to be known for.

8.2.3 The Worcestershire LEP is researching the ‘invest’ area which includes looking at how others are targeting the investment audience and whether this is yielding results, for example, Derby is cited as being successful and a visit has taken place. Other activity includes an event with Commercial Property agents which is planned for September as well as regular meetings with UKTI on opportunities to consult on what attracts foreign investors.


8.3.1 Prior to the Board meeting, consultation had already taken place with the Youth Cabinet on what they believe is ‘World Class’ about the County and with the Business Board on how they can be involved in the roll-out.

8.3.2 Since the last Board, two sessions have been held with the consultant and a small sub group led by Chris Walklett from the LEP Board.

8.3.3 In addition to the above, further feedback has been sought from: Heart of Worcestershire College (Stuart Laverick), Visit Worcestershire (Mike Ashton), a private sector representative that the LEP has worked closely with on investment events (Bob Marley) and further consultation is planned with the University of Worcester (Chris O’Malley).

8.3.4 As mentioned, in the Proposal section above, it is now recommended that the identity is tested by the three lead organisations with their target audience(s).

8.3.5 It is recognised that after testing, further development and finalisation of the identity will be needed. This will require the organisations concerned to work together and successful co-ordination is needed with other organisations from a marketing perspective for successful roll-out. It is therefore, suggested that a Marketing Forum is set up as a LEP Subgroup to include marketing contacts from public and private sector partners to provide collaboration across the County. The Board is asked to endorse this approach and for suggestions of any contacts to sit on this Forum which will invite specialist marketing speakers from time to time.

8.3.6 When finalised, clear brand guidelines will need to be owned by the Marketing Forum which will include the development of materials for the identity’s roll-out as well as other items required such as an image library.

Kirsten DallyPR and Communications Executive

9.0 MIDLANDS ENGINE AND COMBINED AUTHORITIES

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe Board is asked to commit resources of up to £20k to produce the prospectus for the Midlands Engine

To note the development of the devolution agenda under the new government and the potential Combined Authorities

9.1 West Midlands Engine

9.1.1 A meeting with all the LEPs from the West Midlands and East Midlands took place on Wednesday, 24 June, in the House of Commons with Junior BIS and DCLG ministers. This presented strong support for the concept of a Midlands Engine. There was a recognition that this would work in tandem with the Northern Powerhouse to re-balance the UK economy.

9.1.2 The Midlands is already leading the way in delivering a private sector led recovery and Midlands Engine provides a unique opportunity to demonstrate private sector economic leadership across the Midlands through the LEPs, working closely in partnership with our local authority leaders and our other public and education sector partners.

9.1.3 There is already collaboration on a strategic transport project called Midlands Connect and potential for support to business based on a Midlands-wide access to finance programme. This provides us with an initial platform on which to grow our collaboration and partnership. It was recognised at this meeting all 11 LEPs within the West and East Midlands needed to be involved and engage with these pan regional initiatives.

9.1.4 The 11 LEPs involved are: Worcestershire, The Marches, Black Country, Stoke and Staffordshire, South East Midlands, Northamptonshire, Coventry and Warwickshire, Greater Birmingham and Solihull, Leicester and Leicestershire, Greater Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Nottingham.

9.1.5 The Midlands LEPs proposed the development of a Midlands Engine prospectus and the wider “asks and offers” this contains with Government in time for Autumn Statement. The LEPs expressed the development of a Midlands-wide growth commission to provide the recommendations, working closely with HMT, Local Authorities and the emerging combined authorities to agree the prospectus.

9.1.6 The Chancellor supports the Northern Powerhouse which covers an area including Liverpool, Greater Manchester, Leeds City region, Sheffield City region and Humber. Sajid Javid MP for Bromsgrove and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has announced that he would champion the Midlands Engine. In a recent article in the Birmingham Post he committed to leading a trade mission on behalf of the Midlands Engine.

9.1.7 On Friday 10th July, Sajid Javid launched the document Fixing the Foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation. In this document the following announcements were made:

‘The local transport authorities across the East and West Midlands has come together through a voluntary partnership, Midlands Connect, to develop their collective vision for transforming the regions transport connectivity and driving economic growth. The Government therefore commits £5million of funding to the Midlands Connect partnership to further develop a transport strategy for the midlands.’

The document continued:

‘In the long term economic plan for the Midlands, the Chancellor committed to working with the Midlands LEPs to support a regional approach to skills. The Government will work with LEPs, the local partners and emerging combined authorities to scale up this work across the Midlands, looking to agree a clear and detailed delivery plan in autumn 2015.’

9.1.8 This reflects the urgent need to undertake work at a pan regional level to agree a small set of priorities that make sense at a size and structure of the 11 LEPs. Any priority needs to be right to grow and add value to our Worcestershire businesses.

9.1.9 We have already expressed our concerns to our other LEP colleagues that the Midlands Engine must not get confused with the West Midlands Combined Authority. As with the Northern Powerhouse, this is of a scale of numerous authorities.

9.1.10 However, the Executive believe WLEP need to engage with this structure to have influence over the small number of actions that it undertakes and ensure Worcestershire businesses benefits from this work.

9.2 COMBINED AUTHORITIES

9.2.1 Government have made it clear that they are now prepared to consider delegating decision making powers and funding to local areas that adopt a Combined Authority approach and work collaboratively to establish this statutory function. This “devolution” of powers and funding could bring advantages to the local area and this is already being seen in the areas that have established a Combined Authority i.e. Greater Manchester.

9.2.2 It has been made clear by Government officials and Greg Clark, Secretary of State for Department of Communities and Local Government, that this formal collaboration is the vehicle for seeking devolution. It has also been stressed that Councils need to be proactive about their offer and the functions of the proposed vehicle: otherwise they will be at the back of the queue for devolution.

9.2.3 Combined authorities are not intended to replace existing local authorities. Member councils continue to deliver local services for their areas. Nor are combined authorities a replacement for Local Enterprise Partnerships which would continue to operate alongside combined authorities.

9.2.4 In the Summer Budget the Chancellor stressed the importance of the cities and their areas to improve productivity and to rebalance the UK economy. The Chancellor promised greater powers and autonomy through devolution deals to cities with ambition elsewhere in the UK, particularly to those who choose to have an elected Metro mayor. In the Summer Budget there was also the announcement of County Deals, the expectations being that a Mayor would not be required for County areas.

9.2.5 This does have implications for all Worcestershire Local Authorities reflected by the fact that the north Worcestershire Districts are members of both Worcestershire LEP and Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP.

9.2.6 The West Midlands Combined Authority covering the Black Country, Greater Birmingham and Solihull and Coventry and Warwickshire LEP areas has published its prospectus http://www.westmidlandscombinedauthority.org.uk/

This appears to have five early delivery priorities:

a. A Combined Authority wide Strategic Economic Plan

b. Access to finance and a Collective Investment Vehicle

c. Getting the transport offer right for the long term

d. Creation of an economic policy and intelligence capacity

e. A joint programme on skills

The prospectus also refers to the establishment of three Commissions as follows:

West Midlands Productivity Commission

West Midlands Land Commission

West Midlands Commission on Mental Health and Public Services

9.2.7 The West Midlands proposal has differing levels of membership and voting rights. Under current legislation, Wyre Forest DC, Redditch BC and Bromsgrove DC could join the emerging West Midlands CA at an associate level as opposed to a full member but only with the agreement of the County Council as well as the district councils concerned.

9.2.8 The Worcestershire Local Authority Leaders Board has been holding discussion on a Worcestershire Combined Authority since the beginning of 2015. Worcestershire County and Districts have procured the services of KPMG to work over the summer to develop a County devolution proposition both in terms of 'asks' and 'benefits'. This will similarly focus on both wider public sector reform and accelerated economic growth. A decision as to whether it is robust enough to present to central government will be made by end September. The WLEP is fully engaged with these discussions.

9.2.9 The Economic assessment (available on the secure website) prepared by Amion in March 2015 provided the following evidence

In terms of industrial structure, Worcestershire is most similar to Gloucestershire, with manufacturing and health as the sectors with most employees, followed by retail, business admin and support, and accommodation and food services.

Worcestershire has a similar broad demographic profile to neighbouring counties (with more 65+ than 0-15s). In contrast, Birmingham has more younger people than pensioners. Worcestershire population is projected to grow slower than adjacent areas, and working age population with greatest decline.

Travel to work – the majority of Worcestershire residents who travel to work remain in the county, with nearly 80% of Worcestershire's workers living in the county and 70% of Worcestershire's residents employed in the county.

Where there is travel to work across the county boundary the travel to work into Birmingham is not as high in Redditch (9%) and Wyre Forest (6%) as expected. It is more prevalent in Bromsgrove (26%). In the south of the county there is greater travel to work to and from neighbouring counties of Gloucestershire and Herefordshire than the West Midlands. For example, 11% of Wychavon residents travel to Gloucestershire to work.

http://www.westmidlandscombinedauthority.org.uk/

9.2.10 At this stage the Worcestershire LEP has no formal position on Combined Authorities although with a single county LEP, good two tier relations in Worcestershire and an increasingly robust track record in public sector reform wider than just local government, the case for Worcestershire local government being able to more effectively shape the skills, health and other aspects of the economy as well as its financial self-sufficiency is strong and needs to be considered.

Gary WoodmanExecutive Director

10.0 WLEP CONFERENCE 2015

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe Board is asked to note the progress to date in planning for the Worcestershire LEP Annual Conference which will take place on 13 November 2015 at the Chateau Impney Hotel and will be once again hosted by Mary Rhodes.

The Board is asked to agree the approach that Board members take the lead in presenting at the Annual Conference and are asked to provide feedback on the draft agenda during the Board meeting.

It is also requested that any further suggestions regarding any potential sponsors or stands is provided at the meeting or directly to Kirsten Dally by 31 July 2015.

10.1 Context

10.1.1 The Board received a report in November 2014 on last year’s annual conference, which was held in October 2014. This report highlighted the fact that 316 people attended the event and highlighted the successes and positive feedback of which there were many. Also areas for development were outlined which have been considered when shaping the agenda for this year’s conference.

10.1.2 Following that report, a tender process was held which saw ‘Opening Doors and Venues’ selected as the supplier for this year’s WLEP Annual Conference.

10.1.3 A number of dates were considered for the 2015 conference, however, to avoid coinciding with other events such as the Herefordshire and Worcestershire Chamber of Commerce Expo and to ensure it is a Friday so MPs can attend, the date has been booked for 13 November 2015 and ‘save the date’ communications have been issued. The date has also been circulated to the Board and Business Board to ensure it is in diaries and to other proposed speakers on the draft agenda.

10.1.4 Feedback from last year’s conference included the fact that face-to-face and e-communications are the best way to communicate with businesses locally. Therefore in addition to the Annual Conference, the WLEP has held a number of events over the last year including: a Business Plan Consultation Workshop, Devolution Debate and Project Champions event and developed the monthly e-newsletter.

10.2 Proposal and Delivery/Actions

10.2.1 The purpose of the WLEP Conference is:

a) To share the latest information on the progress of the LEP with a large audience

b) To host a large event where all the partners can network together

c) To showcase the successes of the LEP

d) To provide an overview of the future priorities of the partnership.

10.2.2 Board members are requested to ensure that the Annual Conference date is in their diary and confirm that they are able to attend.

10.2.3 The Board is asked to approve the approach that Board members take the lead in presenting at the Worcestershire LEP Annual Conference.

10.2.4 The draft agenda (Appendix A) has a focus on Worcestershire LEP delivery and Board members are asked to provide feedback/approval on the draft agenda during the Board meeting. Whilst reviewing the agenda, the Board is asked to consider how the feedback and suggestions from last year have been incorporated in the suggested programme:

Additional time for questions was requested: this year there is additional time proposed for Q and A’s to allow ample time for questions as well as the option to submit questions ahead of the event. Some of the Board will be on the stage during these sessions, however, it is suggested that panel members on the stage refer relevant questions to Board members on the floor as required

Further networking opportunities were requested as well as more action points to take away and smaller seminars: ample networking time will be provided and consideration given to how people are connected with people they wish to meet. The Conference will be clear on how businesses can be further involved in schemes and workshops/seminars are being included as optional sessions for the afternoon

Third sector representatives were requested: The EU Programme will be included and speakers from the third sector

Further focus on SMEs: the focus on ‘scale up’ businesses and business support should respond to this feedback as well as being mindful of the ‘pitch’ in other presentations

Potential for Political speaker: An MP will have a slot on the agenda, which is proposed to be Sajid Javid MP, and a proposed Q and A panel includes political leaders from local authorities

Some healthier lunch options: These will be included and to ensure greater attendance at lunch, people will need to book and confirm their attendance at the networking lunch. There will be a further option to stay for the afternoon workshop sessions.

10.2.5 Last year, the Annual Report was published to coincide with the Conference and it is planned to do this once again.

10.2.6 At last year’s event, 21 stands were sold and sponsorship achieved of £7,000. Stands and sponsorship options will once again be in place to recoup costs and the website is going live at the end of July to maximise this opportunity. Please can Board members provide any suggestions of businesses that may take stands or sponsorship either at the meeting or directly to [email protected] by 31 July 2015. These will be followed up by Opening Doors and Venues at the earliest opportunity.


10.3.1 Following feedback from the Board, the agenda will be finalised and partner organisations will be briefed for their section of the agenda.

10.3.2 The offer of stands and sponsorship will be extended to those who took these offers before and more widely as well as invitations being issued and publicity for the event itself.

10.3.3 As part of the contract with Opening Doors and Venues, a smaller event will be organised for early 2016 which will provide further engagement with businesses following the Annual Conference.

Kirsten DallyPR and Communications Executive

mailto:[email protected]

Appendix A: WLEP Annual Conference 2015 Draft Programme

WLEP Annual Conference 2015DRAFT (4) PROGRAMME

8:45 – 8:50 5min WelcomeMary Rhodes

8:50 – 9:00 10min IntroductionMark Stansfeld+ Sajid Javid via video

9:00-9:20 20min World Class WorcestershireChris Walklett

Inward Investment and World Class Worcestershire as a Place to…Clare Marchant

- Introduce

- Video 1 – Cricket- Activity- Foreign Direct Investment +

Outcomes- Video 2 - World Class

Worcestershire- Companies using World Class

Worcestershire- How you can be involved in

raising the profile.

Slot to finish with Q&A for Chris & Clare via Sli.do

9:20-9:45 25min Growth Deal: Delivery & Discussion (Q&A/panel discussion)Nick Baldwin

To join Nick on stage:Gary WoodmanMark Stansfeld

- Introduce Video 3- Update on delivery re: schemes

under £54.2m- Case Studies on delivery

All sat down for an ‘interview’ type panel with Mary facilitating

9:45-10:05 20min EU Programme and Delivery - Skills + Social InclusionSimon Murphy introduce

Chris Hallam

Update on delivery re: EU Programme (£60m)

(1) – InnovationInnovation Wednesday -> QinetiQ – Keith Mowbury

(2) – Rural economyDEFRA – Jo Jury

To join on stage:Gary Woodman

- Introduce

To potentially be delivered with digital visual illustrations from Laura

Slot to finish with all sat for Q&A –Simon, Chris, Keith, Jo & Gary (pre-prepared and via Sli.do)

10:05-10:45

40min Refreshment break – Exhibition & Networking

10:45-11:00

15min Energiser

11:00-11:20

20min Skills and People Development- Carl Arntzen- David Green OR Chris O’Malley- Stuart Laverick- Andrea Joyce- Helena Baxter

*potential intro: apprenticeship awards footage (either from event of vide prepared for awards)*- Mary to welcome all to stage – go to Carl first- delivery across county- apprenticeship scheme / incentive for businesses


11:20-11:30

10min Review of the Year From the WLEP Gary Woodman Looking back at the year and

looking ahead.

To potentially be delivered with digital visual illustrations from Laura

11:30-11:50

20min Q&A- Gary Woodman- Mark Stansfeld- Linda Robinson- Margaret Sherrey- Simon Geraghty

- Mary to invite all to join Gary on stage


11:50-12:25

35min Scale-up BusinessesSherry Coutu

Slot to finish with short Q&A facilitated by Mary

12:25-12:35

10min Growth HubRoy Irish Respond to Sherry in terms of:

- Increased Support Available- Structure of Growth Hub- Introduce Seminar later in

afternoonTo potentially be delivered with pre-prepared visual infographic from Laura

12:35-12:40

5min Conference ConclusionMark Stansfeld

12:40-13:40

55min Exhibition and Networking Lunch (booking required)

13:40 Main conference ends13:40-14:40

60min Post event seminars (TBC)- People/HR (possible sponsors

Hewett/Sabre)- Business Support (possible sponsor

PERA)- Business Mentor – what’s in it for

you (possible sponsor to be identified)

worcestershire lep€¦ · web viewbalanced scorecard – gary woodman (20 . mins) 5. growth deal...

Documents