appendix a …  · web viewprofessional indemnity insurance ... we need to not forget &...

135
WORCESTERSHIRE LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP BOARD MEETING Thursday 20th November 2014 3.00 pm- 5.00 pm Yamaski Mazak, Badgeworth Drive, Worcester WR4 9NF AGENDA 1. Welcome and Apologies 2. Minutes of WLEP Board Meeting on 25 September 2014 (5 mins) 3. Matters Arising (5 mins) - Action List - Correspondence 4. Away Day Feedback and Next Steps to Develop The WLEP Business Plan Including Key Performance Indicators - Kirsty Sneyd (20 mins) 5. Growth Deal Update - Gary Woodman (20 mins) 6. WLEP EU Structural Investment Fund Strategy Update - Gary Woodman(5 mins) 7. WLEP and Accountable Body Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) - Gary Woodman(5 mins) 8. Subgroup Reports and Outputs – Gary Woodman (15 mins) 9. Annual Conference Feedback and Annual Report (5 mins) 10. Budget - Gary Woodman (5 mins) 11. Chair’s Report (including WM LEP Chairs and LEP Network) - Peter Pawsey(10 mins) 12. Executive Staffing Report (5 mins) 1

Upload: hoangdang

Post on 27-Jun-2018

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

WORCESTERSHIRE LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP BOARD MEETINGThursday 20th November 2014 3.00 pm- 5.00 pm

Yamaski Mazak, Badgeworth Drive, Worcester WR4 9NF

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Apologies

2. Minutes of WLEP Board Meeting on 25 September 2014 (5 mins)

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

4. Away Day Feedback and Next Steps to Develop The WLEP Business Plan Including Key Performance Indicators - Kirsty Sneyd (20 mins)

5. Growth Deal Update - Gary Woodman (20 mins)

6. WLEP EU Structural Investment Fund Strategy Update - Gary Woodman (5 mins)

7. WLEP and Accountable Body Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) - Gary Woodman (5 mins)

8. Subgroup Reports and Outputs – Gary Woodman (15 mins)

9. Annual Conference Feedback and Annual Report (5 mins)

10. Budget - Gary Woodman (5 mins)

11. Chair’s Report (including WM LEP Chairs and LEP Network) - Peter Pawsey (10 mins)

12. Executive Staffing Report (5 mins)

13. Professional Indemnity Insurance for Directors (5 mins)

14. Update on Local Plans (5 mins)

15. Any Other Business

16. Dates of Meetings in 2015:

- 22nd January 2015- 2nd April 2015- 21st May 2015- 23rd July 2015- 24th September 2015

1

1.0 WELCOME & APOLOGIES

PRESENT:Peter Pawsey (Chair) (PP) Chairman, Robert West and Director Midland Heart

Chris Walklett (CW) Partner, Bishop Fleming

Nick Baldwin (NB) Chairman, Office for Nuclear Regulation

Dr Simon Murphy (SM) CEO, Worcester Community Trust

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

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

Cllr. David Hughes (DH) Leader, Malvern Hills DC (rep Southern DCs)

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

Mike Martin (MM) Director, One Creative Environments – Representing Carl Arntzen

Zad Padda (ZP) Director/Owner, Box on Ltd - Representing David Green,

Mike Ashton (MA) Chief Executive, H&W Chamber of Commerce -Representing Francis Christie

IN ATTENDANCE:Gary Woodman (GW) Worcestershire LEP

? (WS) Note taker Worcestershire LEP

Duncan Sharkey (IDS) Chief Executive, Worcester City Council

Kirsty Sneyd (KS) Director/Owner, Blue Acorn Solutions

APOLOGIES:Professor David Green (DG) Vice-Chancellor, University of Worcester

Francis Christie (FC) Managing Director, Francis Christie Ltd

Carl Arntzen (CA) MD Worcester Bosch Thermotechnology

2

2.0 MINUTES OF WLEP BOARD MEETING ON 25TH SEPTEMBER 2014

Thursday, 25th September 2014 10.30am – 12.30pmThe View, Level Three

Worcestershire County Cricket Ground

PRESENT:Peter Pawsey (Chair) (PP) Chairman, Robert West and Director Midland HeartChris Walklett (CW) Partner, Bishop FlemingNick Baldwin (NB) Chairman, Office for Nuclear RegulationDr Simon Murphy (SM) CEO, Worcester Community TrustCllr Paul Middlebrough (PM) representing Cllr Simon Geraghty, Worcestershire

County Council (rep Southern DCs)Cllr Margaret Sherrey (MS) Leader, Bromsgrove District Council (rep Northern DCs)Stuart Laverick (SL) Principal & Chief Executive, Worcester College of

TechnologyProfessor David Green (DG) Vice-Chancellor, University of WorcesterCllr. David Hughes (DH) Leader, Malvern Hills District Council (rep Southern DCs)

IN ATTENDANCE:Gary Woodman (GW) Worcestershire LEPWendy Stock (WS) Note taker Worcestershire LEPIan Miller (IM) Chief Executive, Wyre Forest District Council

APOLOGIES:Cllr Simon Geraghty (SG) Deputy Leader, Worcestershire County CouncilCarl Arntzen (CA) MD Worcester Bosch Thermotechnology

1. Welcome and Apologies

Peter Pawsey (Chair) welcomed the Board and he noted that there were apologies from Carl Arntzen and Cllr Simon Geraghty (both of which would be attending the afternoon session of the WLEP Away Day) and thanked Cllr Paul Middlebrough for attending as Simon's alternate.

SM stated that he had a Declaration of Interest as Chair, of the Social Economic Inclusion Group with regards to Agenda Item 5 concerning a submission a bid for European Funding.

DG stated that this was also the case in regards to the University. This was duly noted by the Chair.

2. Minutes from the Board Meeting 24th July 2014

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

3

3. Matters Arising

The Action Points from the July Board meeting were reviewed: Growth Plan Implementation Plan is a later agenda item. Updated version of the governance rules of the WLEP - GW said

that there had been an error on co-opted, non-voting members in relation to co-opting additional Board members and this had been corrected. The updated version would be distributed by GW to the Board.

Formally confirm alternates at the September LEP Board meeting - to be covered later in the Agenda.

Progress the process of LEP Chair recruitment - a short closed session would be held to discuss this at the end of the afternoon session of the Away Day.

Appointment of Board Members to roles - to be covered later in the Agenda.

Memorandum of Understanding between the LEP and Accountable Body - a further draft had been produce and discussed with the BIS - GW to bring final MoU to next Board Meeting.

The Quad to consider the LEADER strategy. PM asked if the LEADER strategy that had been prepared and submitted was for the whole of Worcestershire and PP confirmed that it was.

Innovation Incubator feasibility study to be progressed - GW /CW confirmed that a meeting had not yet taken place but an initial strategy for an incubator was in place.

Geothermal Project - PP said the Worcestershire LEP was one of only two LEPs who had submitted this in their SEP proposals. The Vale of Evesham had been identified and although there were positive noises, no final outcome had been received as yet.

Recruitment of Board and Business Board members - already discussed in a closed session at the start of the meeting.

Provide a funding guide to the pots of funding available to the LEP. GW stated that this was very difficult to achieve and give a complete picture was not possible. PP said that as much as possible would be noted down. PP confirmed that there was money available from BIS for 2014/15 but needs to be projects already shown on given list and 'shovel ready' but difficult to accelerate.

Provide a guide to the Local Authority Local Area Plans - a short summary was needed from each LA and DH confirmed that this could be arranged.

GW to distribute correct governance rules

Final draft of the MoU to be agreed at the next meeting.

Incubator feasibility to be progressed

GW to provide a funding guide

DH to provide a Local Plans update for the Board

4. Growth Deal Update

GW gave an update of the Growth Deal following the announcement on 7th July this year. He explained that this is now being unpacked into 5 separate but related documents, these being:

a Funding Agreement between the Government and the Accountable Body acting for and on behalf of the LEP.

An Assurance Framework that establishes the LEP will ensure value for money across the range of interventions.

A Monitoring and Evaluation Plan that sets out how the Growth deal will be measured, reported and evaluated.

4

A Strategic Communications Plan that sets out how the LEP and Government will work together on communications activity.

An Implementation Plan identifying actions, milestones, outcomes, etc., for the 2015/16 Growth Deal.

GW confirmed that each project would have its own objectives and measures as each will be different. This would be reflected in the governance arrangements of each project. Also where governance structures existed, these would be tasked or referenced to work with the WLEP to monitor and report the progress of the schemes. The implementation plan would be approved by the Quad in order to meet with the government submission deadline.

To inform the Plan, the Executive Team continues to meet with individual Project Managers to challenge the delivery of each scheme in terms of risk and expenditure profile to ensure, at a minimum, a programme outcome of £12.9m comprising the £9m Local Growth Fund and £3.9m pre-committed Local Transport Body funding is achieved in 2015/16.

GW had asked for business champions from independent businesses and a recent briefing session had been completed to ensure that a business voice is at the front of these projects as Government wants to see this.

SM said that there should be a communications plan for businesses to ensure other parties and stakeholders are involved. PP agreed explaining that the LEP is accountable to delivery of the Growth Plan projects that give best value for money. The accountable body is accountable for the delivery of the plan. PP said that other LEPs had changed their statues to 'company limited by guarantee' but then used a similar arrangement to WLEP.

SL said that impacts of these projects are difficult to assess as outcomes are within 5 years on completion of these projects.

It was agreed that this is difficult, however, ensuring good monitoring of projects was essential. DG said that the projects outlined in Table 1 were generally practical ones which are easier to assess and a brief written updated report on each project should be presented at future events.

NB also requested a better form of programme reporting as well as a risk register so that there were no nasty surprises and this was agreed. GW confirmed that the Growth Delivery Manager would come to each Board Meeting in order to give an update on the progress of projects.

DH said it would be helpful to have an idea what the total estimated spend will be as there are some other funding streams i.e. total cost and how much each party contributes. It was agreed that this would be included in the implementation plan.

PM stated that programme monitoring and updates have to be a priority and the structure needs to be right for the next Board Meeting. PP said that this was recognised as a top priority. SL agreed with this as well as seeing any blockages. This was also reiterated by other Board Members and CW said it was very important for the wider business community to understand what is happening and should be regularly communicated with along the journey.

The Implementation plan and monitoring process for the Board would be presented at the next meeting.

5

PP said that this would be communicated at the forthcoming annual conference and that the LEP Executive Team will be delighted to have more involvement of both Board members and Business Board members.

5. EU Investment Strategy

- Local Management CommitteeThe WLEP Board was recommended to endorse the next phase of actions required to establish the Local ESIF Sub Committee in accordance with Government Guidance which was issued in August. Government has issued a consultation on the ESIF and ERDF Operational Programmes which sets out the processes and requirements for all EU programmes and the WLEP has also supported Government in its negotiations with the European Commission (EC) on the final UK Partnership Agreement and detailed guidance is expected during Autumn 2014.

The WLEP has also continued to work collaboratively with a range of established and new interests across the public sector, business community and third sector to start converting the ESIF high level proposals into delivery options for programmes and project calls in Spring 2015.

GW talked through the composition of the WLEP Local ESIF Committee and SM queried the Trade Union representative being the NFU who do not recognise themselves as a traditional trade union organisation. SM to discuss further with GW off line. It was agreed that the Executive continue to bring together the appointment of the ESIF committee by the end of October.

GW gave an overview of the programmes managed by WCC which all run to 2015. This is noted.

Opt Ins UpdateThe Board was recommended to note the current position with EU Opt Ins and endorse the next phase of actions required to complete negotiations with each Opt In. GW explained that the ESIF Implementation Plan incorporates the development and delivery of Programmes and Projects Calls alongside agreeing arrangements and delivery of provision with Opt in organisations listed in the paper.

GW drew the Board's attention the advantages and disadvantages in committing EU funds through Opt ins.

CW asked if these opt-ins were compatible with the four strategic objectives of raising the profile of Worcestershire. GW replied by confirming that each opt-in or EU programme should link back to delivering the EU strategy.

It was agreed that negotiations with all BIS agencies / DCLG and DWP would continue.

The Executive to appoint the committee. SM to liaise with GW.

Further negotiations to continue with Opt In providers

6

6. Subgroup Reports and Outputs

Appointment of Board members to Committees and Roles

PP said that there were key positions and roles and committees to fill by Board members and lead on certain issues:

- Vice Chair (public) - currently Cllr Simon Geraghty (to be confirmed or changed.

- Vice Chair (private) - Currently vacant- QUAD Executive Board - 2 Vice Chairs to be confirmed.- Finance, Audit and Risk Committee - currently, Francis Christie

(not on Board) and will step down; Tony King - Sanctuary Housing and Stuart Laverick, Heart of Worcestershire College, John Campion has stepped down and Cllr Margaret Sherrey confirmed that she would fill his place. Chris Walklett agreed to Chair the FAR Committee.

- Appointments & Remuneration Committee – Peter Pawsey (Chair), Carl Arntzen, Cllr David Hughes, Paul Richards as the HR Expert, who is not on the Board.

- National Profiling - Chris Walklett and Professor David Green- Employment and Skills - Carl Arntzen and Dr Simon Murphy- Planning, Development and Infrastructure - Cllr David Hughes- Access to Finance - Roy Irish (Chair) and Nick Baldwin- Local EUIS Committee - Dr Simon Murphy- WLEP Board Members for liaison with the Greater Birmingham

LEP - Cllr Simon Geraghty (public) and a Board Member (private) - to be resolved. PP agreed to act as an Interim in the meantime.

- Business Board Chair - to be elected.- Alternates - Local Authorities are dealt with. The Board agreed

that alternates for Board Members (private) will be pooled amongst Business Board Members (e.g. Roy Irish, Steve Borwell-Fox, Paul Alekna, Zad Padda).

Inward Investment

The Board was asked to note progress and the next steps related to Inward Investment Strategy. The WLEP have invested in to the brand of World Class Worcestershire, including the twitter hash tag and marketing materials (investment brochure and film) which was launched on 30th July at the SEP event. Support has been gathered from the Worcestershire ERDF inward investment project and Worcestershire County Council - Open for Business programme. The WLEP is also carrying out work with private sector partners to identify intermediaries, companies and partners to present the Worcestershire offer and investment opportunities.

PP listed a series of forthcoming events. SM asked about the MIPM Property Trade Show, 15-17 October and how information would be gathered. PP confirmed that there would be a stand which will look to raise the profile of Worcestershire amongst the audience attending.

PP/GW confirmed that a copy of any press releases will be sent to the Board each time.

7

PP said that he would joining a delegation to China on the last day of October and flying onwards to Jakarta and will be having meetings with ministers, International Chambers of Commerce who wanted to know more about the LEP process. He also confirmed that the Investment Brochure was being translated into Chinese.

CW said that he would distribute to Board members a copy of a feasibility study showing country by country per capita which showed the US as the highest.

DG mentioned that there would be excellent links with the European Basketball Wheelchair Championships next year and suggested the WLEP as a potential sponsor.

ACTION CW

7. Conference and Annual Report

PP ran through the schedule for the WLEP Annual Conference taking place on 10th October with the Rt Hon Sajid Javid, MP for Bromsgrove and Secretary for State of Culture, Media and Sport being the keynote speaker. PP confirmed that there would be exhibition space and sponsors are continuing to be raised. There are currently 250 people booked to attend with a capacity of up to 400 with the WLEP keen to attract as many as possible.

PP also commented on the good national TV coverage for two recent events - Tour of Britain and the 10K Worcester Run.

PP confirmed that the new Annual Report would be issued at the upcoming WLEP Annual Conference.

8. Budget

GW gave a brief overview of the LEP Budget and asked for recommendations from the Board in terms of presentation of the budgetary figures in the Board Papers. CW confirmed that he would review this in his new role of FAR&A Chair.

9. Promoting Growth Outside the Core Cities

The Board was asked to support the emerging work programme around the 'non city' agenda being promoted by 'non city' LEPs and approve a contribution of up to £5,000 towards the costs of supporting evidence based, alternative economic models and policy propositions.

The Board agreed to this recommendation with the proviso that they were not happy with the term 'non-core' city and this must have a positive and forward-looking image, particularly with regards to the recent and on-going devolution debate for Local Authorities in England. PP/GW agreed to this and stressed that the term 'non-core' was not a term they had chosen.

8

10. Professional Indemnity Insurance for Directors

PP confirmed that he had done some investigation into this matter and would like to progress this as a priority. Action: PP/GW

11. Executive Director's Report - Gary Woodman

Staffing - already discussed during the closed session at the start of the meeting and no further queries were raised. Agreed

13. Any Other Business

None.

14. Dates of Meetings in 2014/15

LEP BOARD:

20th November 2014 – Mazak

2015

22nd Jan - Coombers2nd April - Coombers21st May - Coombers23rd July - Worcester Bosch24th Sept - Worcester Bosch19th Nov - Worcester Bosch

9

3.0 MATTERS ARISING (ACTION LIST & CORRESPONDENCE)

3.1 Redistribute Governance Rules of the LEP

3.2 Agree MoU between the LEP and the accountable body with final draft presented at the next Board meeting.

3.3 Business Incubator Feasibility Study to be progressed.

3.4 A funding guide to be produced.

3.5 DH to provide a local plans update for the Board.

3.6 Implementation Plan and monitoring process to be presented to the next Board Meeting.

3.7 Development of the terms of reference for a programme delivery group.

3.8 The Appointment of the EUSIF Committee to be progressed.

3.9 Continue the negotiations with opt in providers.

3.10 CW to distribute a copy of the Inward Investment Report.

3.11 Investigate Professional Indemnity Insurance for the Board Members.

10

4.0 AWAY DAY FEEDBACK AND NEXT STEPS TO DEVELOP THE WLEP BUSINESS PLAN INCLUDING KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

a) The LEP Board is recommended to agree the approach for the development of the WLEP Business Plan covering:

Developing a framework: Develop a clear framework to clarify what we want to achieve and identify the strategies to achieve these objectives. This should cover both current and longer term projects.

Utilising resources: Build on the away day by assigning members to strategic groups with clear responsibilities for initiatives/projects within each area.

Monitoring progress: Once a framework and responsibilities are in place, develop a mechanism for monitoring and communicating progress.

Communication: Develop a stakeholder map to understand what you are aiming to achieve and communicate to each stakeholder group and develop an elevator pitch so everyone is clear on the WLEP objectives.

b) The Board is asked to provide direction on the re-establishment of the strategic groups related to the development of a new business plan in line with the Strategic Economic Plan and priorities for the partnership going forward.

4.1 CONTEXT

4.1.1 The 2012 LEP Business Plan was developed before the Strategic Economic Plan, it provided a focus and agreed set of principles that all partners could understand, contribute and support.

4.1.2 The development of the Strategic Economic Plan provided the strategic direction for the County to create economic growth and jobs. All partners signed up to the Strategic Economic Plan and the Growth Deal has now part funded a number of projects identified within the 2012 Business Plan and Strategic Economic Plan. Other revenue based projects such as business finance have been developed in readiness for the new EU programme.

4.1.3 The LEP Away Day started to involve the partnership members in the development of a new business plan and pipeline of projects for the period 2016 and beyond. It is recognised that in developing the business plan other current plans and processes would need to be factored in e.g. Local Transport Plans, Local Plans and Business Membership Organisations feedback.

4.2 PROPOSAL

4.2.1 The away day in September 2014 started to highlight the priorities for the forthcoming year, with a practical approach to how people wanted the partnership to be working and what issues are on people’s minds. These are reported in Appendix A - The Away Day report. The recommendation focuses on how to project manage/organise rather than what projects the WLEP should be working on, although, by adopting this approach the projects would be identified.

11

4.2.2 The suggested framework for developing the business plan is that at each level of the partnership develops its own:

Objectives: What do we stand for and where are we going?Goals: What numbers will show we have reached our objectives?Strategies: How will we achieve our objectives? (e.g. for Place, People, Business)Measures: How do we measure success?

These would then be brought together to set the background for the nest 3-5 year period of delivery.

4.2.3 An example of the development of the WLEP Business Plan and work that needs to be completed within a priority area, such as inward investment, placed within the framework of OGSM is shown in Appendix B.

4.3 DELIVERY/ACTIONS

4.3.1 The way in which LEPs sub groups are organised and structured is important to their role and contribution to the business plan. It is clear, from both the ESI Funds Strategy and from the SEP, that WLEP’s structure will need to be fit for purpose in terms of fulfilling its responsibility for ongoing strategy development, finding projects to deliver these strategies and overseeing arrangements for selecting projects using a mixture of commissioning, bidding and co-financing as best meets local need.

4.3.2 This means that the WLEP Board will need to handle its business in a revised operating model involving a need to delegate more activity consistent with the newly developed strategies.

4.3.3 By means of a controlled delegation of detailed growth projects and activities, the WLEP Board can remain a strategic body that is independent of local authorities and local businesses but which consults with them to ensure a high level of consensus in the delivery of local growth, much of which will be examined and arranged at Sub-group level.

4.3.4 The 2012 Business Plan identified 4 strategic sub-groups of:

-National Profiling and Promotion -Access to Finance -Employment and Skills -Planning Development and Infrastructure

However, the Strategic Economic Plan identified 3 key themes of:

-Business -People -Place

Therefore the Board are asked to provide direction on the structure of the strategic sub- groups before they are re-established to undertake the business planning process.

4.3.5 Appendix C outlines the presentation to be made at the Board meeting.

12

APPENDIX A: AWAY DAY REPORT

13

Away day outputs25th September 2014

BackgroundThis document summarises the outputs from the WLEP away day held on 25 th October 2014, with the agenda included in the appendix. A separate report, which is being prepared for the board, will outline key recommendations.

What nextParticipants split into three self-selected groups, and were asked to discuss key priorities for the forthcoming year and the two or three action steps that would enable progression.

Business – key priorities1. Quality “one-stop” growth shop where:

Advice / grants funding Diagnostic to identify the right support Responsive to needs

2. Engagement ideas / tools / techniques “magic golden envelope” Spot the talent – the value of service to wrap around advice, support Same messages from various organisations

3. One pot fund for grants / funds / loans / equities

Group participants: Roy Irish, Dean Attwell, Neil France, Steve Borwell Fox, Mike Aston, Bob Brown, Aiden Stevens, Paul Hutchins, Duncan Sharkey, Gary Woodman

People – key priorities1. Career pathways

Roll-out of IT and engineering Next focus – horticulture Schools acceptance – challenge

2. Connecting schools & business Portal – consolidate & expand – teachers & wider ages Push schools / business engagement – job not done Horticulture opportunity – this is the most important / new area

3. Apprentices consortium – all levels Engineering pilot

4. UTC? Should also consider adult learning / skills development

Group participants: Carl Arntzen, Clare Marchant, Margaret Sherrey, Simon Murphy, David Green, David Crook, David Irish, Tamsin Jones, Viv Gillespie, Zad Padda, Kirsten Dally

14

Place – key priorities1. Delivery plan that’s in place- i.e. game changer sites

2. Deliver strategic infrastructure projects – HA has asked for next round of projects (improvement to A46 and A38 as both important strategic routes in county)

3. WTP – encourage sector focused culture, establish knowledge/marketing hub for Worcestershire, innovation/incubation centre

4. No quality office accommodation in the city centre

5. No 4/5* hotel in city

6. Inject impetus/time is money into planning process

Group participants: Jacqui Bayliss, Mike Parker, Claire Bridges, Simon Geraghty, Nick Baldwin, Peter Pawsey, Stuart Laverick, Chris Walklett, Paul Middleborough

Working in partnershipPictures were drawn to represent where people felt the partnership is currently, and where they want it to be in the future. The groups then determined what was the key thing needed to achieve this future vision of partnership.

Current Future Current Future

Action: Everyone is joined up, and Birmingham isn’t seen as a barrier

15

Current Future

Action: Having a clear, credible brand which we communicate

16

Current

Future

Action: clearly agreed common purpose for what the LEP is about

Current Future

Action: having a shared vision which is communicated

Current Future

17

Action: Having early and visible success

What actions will move us towards our vision of partnership?

Having the right communications going to different groups – we need to have a principle that after a meeting the key outputs go to the LEP PR team. Having a mind-set of “what can I tell the LEP about that” so that the information can then be fed out

Having a focus on building Worcestershire Business Central

Delivery – we have a plan and money, we need to stick to it and get it delivered, which we will do by having clear accountability

Need to understand how we can get a wider audience engaged and delivering the plan.

Need to develop the “hook”, the 1 minute corridor conversation so that someone can understand why Worcestershire is world class

18

What’s on our minds?Everyone was asked to write up their key priority, which they felt hadn’t been covered during the afternoon. After the workshop the priorities have been grouped into common themes, to give a clearer understanding of the focus areas. These areas will then be incorporated into planning for the coming year.

Vision & elevator pitch

Vision – we need to have a vision of what / where Worcs will be in 20 years – Simon Murphy

Direction / definition – we need to have an absolute clear understanding on the objective of WLEP. Is it purely economic or more? – Neil France

Elevator pitch + logo – If you locate your business in Worcestershire you will be able to hire world class people: Worcestershire world class people – Steve Borwell – Fox

The Worcestershire pitch - a credit card size summary of the “Worcestershire pitch” for everyone; “pitch” practice for all board members and group members – Francis Christie

Delivery & communications

We need to not forget & evidence delivery of “micro” stuff that matters to local businesses e.g. signage, how place works etc - Clare Marchant

Deliver & communicate success – we need to ensure we deliver the growth plan and clearly demonstrate value created to govt who provided the money; We need to build the capability and capacity to improve communication to sell the benefits of Worcestershire as a great place to live, work, grow business, go to college and visit – Nick Baldwin

Communication – we need to make sure we understand our stakeholders i.e. Who in the private sector is not engaged and that they understand our vision and how that differs, in the short term from what is practically deliverable (i.e. 7 projects etc) – David Irish

We need to connect delivery to vision – communicate quick wins & successes

We need to deliver and then communicate what we have effectively done - Paul Hutchens

Consolidate / communicate – We need to provide a coherent single (but in multimedia) point for organisations / individual from all sectors to access information about / from WLEP and associated bodies and then communicate through our networks and onwards – Penni Budenell-Pryke

Communications – we need to woo Whitehall – Middlebrough

Communicating progress of the college / students destination to the LEP to PR; seeing success as Worcestershire success rather than just the college; ensure our staff and students become “ambassadors of Worcestershire” – Tamsin

Enjoy – we need to celebrate Worcestershire success – Stuart

19

Pipeline & what else should we be working on

Priorities – we need to make sure that we have an agreed list of priority projects beyond those we currently have funded, to ensure that we have a solid pipeline of highly developed business cases in readiness for LGF3 and beyond – Mike Parker

Identify – what other projects can be accelerated to “shovel ready” status in order to “grab” any spare cash from government – Peter P

Self-sustaining financing of pipeline – Clare Marchant

Synergy: Discussion about other important sectors + links e.g. tourism link to food / tourism / agritech – Viv G

We need to be more inclusive – the population of Worcestershire is and has changed. We must ensure we don’t miss the opportunities presented by these changes. I am happy to support this – Zad

We need to win city of culture 2020

Attracting businesses

Business start-up – we need to create an innovation village – incubator for fledgling businesses

What are we doing to attract more business to Worcestershire? We need a tourism USP to better mark Worcestershire as a tourism centre. As a county we underperform Leicestershire which feels wrong – Aidan

Profile – we need to raise the profile of Worcestershire nationally and internationally so that as we build “it” they know where to come – Chris Walklett

Resources & accountability

Resources – we need to ensure resources are identified to deliver the SEP. Partners aligning those resources to ensure collectively we can deliver – Simon Geraghty

Actual commitments – we need to convert partners' & organisations' statements in support of the WLEP and SEP into actual dedicated resources – (expertise, people, knowledge) which help the WLEP executive team and WEP board broker tangible delivery – Clare Bridges

Resourcing LEP to be able to project manage / monitor and deliver the plan / priorities – Jacqui Bayliss

Partnership – we need to have all of the key stakeholders sharing the same building, to include the WLEP team, growth hub, chamber, FSB etc. However there needs to be a clear hierarchy of responsibility and accountability for delivery of agreed objectives within agreed timelines – Dean Attwell

20

Other:

Enterprise – we need to not go backwards and create an enterprise eco system through innovation, growth and opportunity – Mark Martin

Improve the pool of managerial and direction talent in the area – Bob

Culture – we need to grow trust between individuals and empower people to deliver – Duncan

We need to .. do this more often… with other stakeholder groups? – Gary

21

Appendix – Agenda

1. Context settingWelcomes, meeting objectives, outline and format of the afternoon.

2. Getting up to speedDeveloping a shared understanding of: the successes to date, what the LEP has achieved and the 10 year economic plan

3. What next?Subgroup discussions to develop clear next steps around our three themes: place, people and business, with participants self-selecting which area they would like to focus on.

4. What does partnership mean?Breakout discussions on what a true partnership looks like, and then 1 or 2 clear actions to strengthen our partnership further.

5. What’s on our mindsGathering thoughts and prioritising key areas that have not been raised during the afternoon but that participants feel are important. These priorities can then be discussed over dinner and / or incorporated into subsequent planning for the forthcoming year.

6. Debate over dinnerInformal discussions over dinner based on priorities highlighted during previous “what’s on our minds” session.

22

APPENDIX B: LEP Board Paper – Inward Investment

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The LEP Board is recommended to:

a) Define and refine the ‘Inward Investment Strategy’b) Review and agree the focus (geographic and sector) of the Inward Investment strategy so

this is targeted for maximum benefitc) Deploy collateral such as the World Class Worcestershire brochure and film as part of this

strategy

1.0 Context 1.1 The World Class Worcestershire brochure (“WCWB”) articulates the message that our region

offers many benefits in terms of attracting inward investment “Worcestershire is a varied and diverse county that blends industrial and economic strength with awe inspiring scenery and sites of key historic significance.”

1.2 Whilst WCWB is a compelling document the messages therein need to be distributed and communicated in an effective manner to support the inward investment strategy. Are we better to focus on a few regions and countries? Feedback from the British Embassy in San Francisco confirms that it requires intensive effort and resource to raise profile whatever the organisation or body. By contrast, feedback from one of our partner firms in Washington DC is that they perceive an appetite to understand more about potential UK locations for investment outside of London.

1.3 Companies in the manufacturing, technology and innovation (“MTI”) sectors are a potential focus for the strategy and as such may well include non-EU based businesses looking for a base to exploit the EU market and its resources, including finance, human capital and infrastructure

1.4 From experience many (but not all) of these will be of US origin, seeking to benefit from inter alia the advantages that UK sited holding/ intermediary companies can confer, including but not limited to, language, tax regime, and legal environment.

1.5 The enclosed schematic puts the UK’s position in MTI terms into a global context; it shows the dominance of the US in the MTI space. We also know that US companies see the EU as a key export market from which inward investment to EU regions should logically derive. The challenge is to realise that in the Worcestershire region.

2.0 Proposal

2.1 Review and agree the Inward Investment / profile raising strategy so that it effectively deploys the messages contained within WCWB and results in increased profile for our region; this necessitates the need for a mechanism by which this might be measured.

2.2 Review and agree the geographic focus (nationally and internationally) of the strategy – it is simply not practical to target every region of every country to generate profile and attract investment

2.3 Review and agree the definition of the ‘investment’ we seek – which sectors, provenance, type of investment etc.: is this compatible with the Strategic Economic Plan

23

3.0 Delivery/Actions

3.1 Resource evaluation – what resource do we have at our disposal to expedite the refinement of the strategy and give this some focus

Chris WalklettBusiness and International Tax Partner, Bishop Fleming

24

APPENDIX C: PRESENTATION

25

26

27

28

5.0 GROWTH DEAL UPDATE

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThat the Board:

1. Notes the Implementation Plan for Growth Deal Round 1

2. Agrees that the Accountable Body should enter into the Section 31 Funding Agreement relating to the implementation of Growth Deal Round 1

3. Notes progress in securing additional funding through Growth Deal Round 2

4. Approve the Terms of Reference for the Programme Delivery Group in Appendix 3.

5.1 BACKGROUND

5.1.1 At the previous meeting on 25th September 2014, the Board was given an update on the proposed suite of documents which collectively, would form the 'contract' for the delivery of the Growth Deal.

5.1.2 These included:

An Implementation Plan identifying actions, milestones, outcomes, etc., for the 2015/2016 Growth Deal

A Funding Agreement between the Government and the Accountable Body acting for and on behalf of the LEP

An Assurance Framework that establishes of the LEP will ensure value for money across the range of interventions

A Monitoring and Evaluation Plan that sets out how the Growth Deal will be measured, reported and evaluated

A Strategic Communications Plan that sets out how the LEP and Government will work together on communications activity.

5.1.3 The Board were also informed that discussions relating to Growth Deal 2 were underway although at the time of the meeting, no timetable was available.

5.2 GROWTH DEAL 1 - CURRENT POSITION

5.2.1 Subsequent to the September 2014 Board meeting, discussions with Government has progressed to the point where the Implementation Plan has evolved into what in PRINCE 2 project management terms would be considered a Highlights Report rather than a formal agreement between the LEP and Government. This will be used primarily to provide a focus for the regular monitoring meetings between Government and the LEP Executive and is intended to be a dynamic document which will be regularly reviewed and updated. A copy of the Implementation Plan which is written by BIS Local and will be agreed with Government is included as Appendix 1 to this paper.

5.2.2 The LEP Executive Team continue to meet with the individual Project Managers delivering Growth Deal Round 1 projects to ensure that momentum is maintained before funds

29

become available on 1st April 2015. In line with the outcome of last Board meeting, some draft terms of reference for a programme delivery group have been developed in Appendix 3 for approval.

5.2.3 In terms of the Funding Agreement, it would appear that Government has been true to its word and has circulated a draft which is reasonably straight forward in that it offers Section 31 grant the Accountable Body to apply to the projects approved as part of Growth Deal Round 1.

5.2.4 As far as the Assurance Framework, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Strategic Communications Plan are concerned, these remain work in progress with the development of each being a condition of funding. Although Government has already issued a series of metrics that are required to be collected as part of the monitoring of Growth Deal projects, at the last count, we are required to report on in excess of 40 metrics varying from the expected expenditure and job creation targets to the more thematic ones relating to skills, housing, business support, infrastructure and land and property.

5.2.5 Whilst these metrics are important to be able to measure the success, or otherwise, of individual project level interventions, the LEP Board will wish to adopt key performance indicators more relevant to the delivery of the Strategic Implementation Plan as a whole and this is to be discussed as part of an earlier agenda item 4.

5.2.6 The Board will recall that the original intention for Government was to offer the grant on a basis of quarterly payments in advance based on an agreed expenditure profile. However, at its meeting on 28th October 2014, the LEP Quad removed the final two barriers to securing funds on the basis of an annual payment in advance. By approving the Memorandum of Understanding between the Accountable Body and WLEP and the invitation from the Leaders Board for a LEP representative as an observer, we now expect that the final Grant Offer Letter will confirm this increased flexibility.

5.2.7 A copy of the draft Funding Agreement is included as Appendix 2 to this paper and a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding is to be ratified under Item 7.

5.3 GROWTH DEAL 2 - CURRENT POSITION

5.3.1 Following the approval of Round 1 of the Growth Deal on 7 th July 2014, Government indicated that discussions on Round 2 would commence immediately although no indication was given at the time as to timetable, budget or focus.

5.3.2 It is fair to say that Government gave little priority to Round 2 over the summer until 22 nd

September 2014 when the LEP Executive Director was contacted by our BIS Local lead to confirm the process for Round 2 indicating that the deadline for submissions would be 6 th

October 2014.

5.3.3 Despite still having little to no indication of the funding that may be available, it is clear that funds would only be available in 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 with the potential of some early spend on projects in 2014/2015. Furthermore, it was made clear to us at the outset that introducing new projects so soon after Growth Deal Round 1, i.e. schemes outside the list of 23 originally presented to Government, may give rise to questions about our ability to agree priorities.

30

5.3.4 With this in mind, a decision was taken to propose the following schemes in priority order:

Project 2015/16 2016/17 Total

Vale Park 1 0 1

Worcester Porcelain 0.5 1 1.5

Cathedral Square, Worcester 0.5 0 0.5

Redditch Skills Academy 0.5 0.25 0.75

ROTEC Skills Academy 0.263 0 0.263

Total 2.763 1.25 4.013

5.3.5 All projects were in the original list of 23 and represent the next highest priorities.

5.3.6 Since the 6th October when the proposals were originally submitted, Government appraisers have raised several queries to which responses have been or are being made. We have been advised that all ‘negotiations’ will need to be concluded before 14 th

November 2014 as announcements of additional funding at a national level are due to be made as part of the Autumn Statement on 3rd December 2014.

31

Appendix 1 – Growth Deal Implementation Plan, November 2014

Worcestershire LEP Implementation SummaryHMG Relationship Manager for Worcestershire LEP: David Crook HMG Central Lead for Worcestershire LEP: Rob Keeling

Purpose

This document provides a top-level summary of progress with implementation of the LEP Growth Deal. Its primary purpose is to enable a regular dialogue between Worcestershire LEP and HMG at the programme level of the Growth Deal.Other features:

This document sits alongside and does not replace local implementation plans. It is owned by HMG - the HMG relationship manager is responsible for updating it, but the contents should be agreed and the template should

be completed between both HMG and the LEP. The contents should be proportionate to the size of the deal and reflect the priorities of both the LEP and HMG.

How it will be used: It will be a ‘live’ document that will evolve over the life of the Growth Deal. It should be reviewed and updated on at least monthly basis or more frequently if HMG and the LEP agree it is necessary. It will provide a ‘snapshot’ that enables HMG to access key information on each LEP’s progress quickly and efficiently. This information

should feed into the separate reporting process to Ministers and LEPs can also share it with their key stakeholders.

CommentaryGood progress on implementation, especially for Growth Deal Projects with initial project milestones and owners identified for discussion with BIS for most projects, and milestones and owners identified for implementation actions.  Progress on freedoms and flexibilities less well developed but initial scoping meetings with relevant departments starting to be developed.    LEP board now taking effective ownership of the programme instituting a regular reporting cycle. Good information sharing with BIS Local including investigation of using a shared “cloud” for implementation data.

32

ImplementationActions

ConditionTarget

Completion Date

LeadHMG/LEP

Current Position (including risks/mitigation if necessary)

Accountability and Assurance FrameworkFormalise relationship between Worcestershire LTB and LEP Board

November 2014

WLEP - LuWi Agreement reached that LTB will provide continuity for transport-related expertise/guidance for LGF programme

Agree assurance/accountability framework arrangements for non-transport projects

December 2014

WLEP – IaEd / LuWiHMG - DaCr

Existing LTB assurance framework remains

Delivery Management (e.g. contracting)Establish local LGF governance arrangements to oversee programme delivery – accountable to LEP Board

January 2015

WLEP – IaEd / LuWiHMG – DaCr

LEP Board approved principle of establishing 'delivery management group' in September meeting. Terms of Reference and membership now being drafted. Board retain overall oversight with headlining reporting at each board meeting.

Issue formal confirmation of LGF funding to Lead Delivery Organisations

January 2015

WLEP – IaEd / LuWi

Awaiting receipt of grant offer letter from central government along with guidance on outputs/outcomes to be monitored per project

CommunicationsEstablish programme-level communications strategy

November 2014

WLEP – KiDa Initial draft produced – revision by the newly appointed Marketing and PR Executive to develop further.

Identify 'business champions' for each project to support delivery of key and consistent messages

November 2014

WLEP - KiDa Project champions event held in September 2014

Establish project-level communications strategy and align with programme level

January 2015

WLEP – KiDa Relates to wider communications strategy

Monitoring and EvaluationDevelop local 'performance management' arrangements - reporting/dashboard etc.

November 2015

WLEP - LuWi Being considered by LEP Board at November 2014 meeting

Develop local Risk Register for programme incorporating high-level risks from individual projects.

November 2015

WLEP – LuWi Under construction

33

Wider OfferLEP and HMG

wider commitments

Action/MilestonesTarget

Completion Date

LeadHMG/LEP

Current Position (including risks/mitigation if necessary)

The Department for Transport commits to working with the scheme promoters and the rail industry to help guide the development of the business case for the Parkway scheme, including an assessment of the impact on journey times of a new station.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

On-going work with Train Companies around scheduling now needs to factor in DfT Rail Team and project appraisal. Action DC to liaise with LW and GW around initial scoping meeting.

The Government Property Unit will engage with the LEP to examine the potential funding requirements re-release Government land and property to promote local economic growth and or housing development.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

GPU are now chairing JPV – Action LEP to liaise with Worcs CC BIS and GPU around how further progress could be made.

The LEP and local planning authorities commit to working together to deliver the housing provided for in Local Plans

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

The Homes and Communities Agency will work with the LEP and the Worcestershire Strategic Housing Officers Group to assist with the development of a strategic housing investment plan subject to agreement of governance arrangements with the LEP

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Initial scoping meeting with HCA on 17th Oct

HCA - Marketing and disposal of the Winyates Triangle Site in Redditch to support the Redditch Eastern Gateway game changer proposal which is currently going through the Home and Community Agency’s approval process

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Initial scoping meeting with HCA on 17th Oct

Consider proposals in relation to Bromsgrove Technology Park to enable market led development

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Initial scoping meeting with HCA on 17th Oct

Consider proposals to promote further investment in the Malvern Hills Technology Park, subject to outcome of BIS review

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Initial scoping meeting with HCA on 17th Oct

To support the delivery of the Growth Hub. The Local Enterprise Partnership commits to provide a

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Ongoing work between BIS GH team and LEP/County

34

Wider OfferLEP and HMG

wider commitments

clear model for coordinating and simplifying business support so that it joins up national, local, public and private support and creates a seamless customer experience for businesses, which makes it easy for them to get the right support at the right time.

Recognise Worcestershire LEP’s interest in deep geothermal and district heating, which is a clear strategic fit with the Government’s ambitions for low carbon heating. We welcome the LEP continuing to engage with Department of Energy and Climate Change’s Heat Network Delivery Unit to explore potential support for the LEP’s proposals through the Heat Network Deliver Unit’s funding stream and the engagement of the Heat Network Deliver Unit’s commercial and technical experts. Areas that may be considered for support are likely to be around initial scoping, including energy master planning and heat mapping.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Heat Networks Delivery Unit funding received to support further feasibility assessments to include heat mapping.

Broadband: Provide the flexibility for the LEP to re-allocate underspends on other projects in 2015/16 to enhance delivery of superfast broadband project, retaining the overall allocation to project which have slipped. If there are no underspends of LGF in 2015/16 to support the £2.4m investment, Government will provide further funding up to that level to ensure that the additional

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Awaiting Government response.

Environment Agency, Natural England and Forestry Commission will continue to work in partnership with Worcestershire LEP, building on the Local Environment and Economic Development (LEED) toolkit assessment and coordinated through the Local Nature Partnership, focusing in particular on better regulation, supporting the growth of agri-businesses and horticulture in the Vale of Evesham, and enabling the sustainable development of strategic growth sites.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Initial scoping meeting between DEFRA BDRO BIS and LEP 15th Oct

35

LEP - Provide a clear model for coordinating and simplifying business support so that it joins up national, local, public and private support and creates a seamless customer experience for businesses, which makes it easy for them to get the right support at the right time.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

See commitments to Growth Hub.

In return, the Government commits to working with Worcestershire LEP to help ensure that local employer priorities are fed into the operations of the new National Careers Service providers in Worcestershire.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Met with NCS 3rd Oct – further meeting with providers and SFDA TBA

Wider OfferLEP and HMG

wider commitments

The Government expects Worcestershire LEP to open up new jobs associated with the Local Growth Fund to local unemployed and long-term unemployed people working closely with local and national back to work initiatives. This would be part of a wider expectation that local areas use the Social Value Act, drawing on best practice across local councils and central expertise in maximising social value.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

To be considered as part of Grant Agreement

Government, through the Skills Funding Agency, will support the process to ensure that provision meets local priorities and that increasing responsiveness is delivered through a three-pronged approach:1 - Procurement of new provision: Worcestershire LEP will be involved throughout the process and providers’ track records against the LEP’s requirements will be considered as part of this assessment2 - Accountability: Providers will be required through their funding agreements with the Agency to explain to LEPs details of their provision and planning and we are testing ways in which they can be most effectively held to account for being responsive to local economic priorities. The Skills Funding Agency is trialling Skills Incentives Pilots

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Met with SFA Capital Team –3rd Oct agreed to develop SFA funding templates/mechanisms tailored to meet scale of current skills project.

36

Wider OfferLEP and HMG

wider commitments

from 2014/15 in Stoke and Staffordshire, the North East and West of England, designed to explore the mechanisms through which providers will account to LEPs for delivery.3 - Allocations and Intervention: When setting funding allocations in future years, the LEP should give consideration to training providers’ track record in terms of delivery. From 2015/16 the Skills Funding Agency will take into account the outcomes of the Skills Incentive Pilots in Stoke and Staffordshire, the North East and West of England, in making allocations to those providers in scope; subject to evaluation of the pilots, these mechanisms will be rolled out to other LEPs in future years

Government will set out revised information for LEPs on how they can take advantage of this approach and options for seeking advice if provision is not responsive to their needs. The Skills Funding Agency will publish information during summer 2014 on how LEPs can influence the use of all skills budgets in their localities, and the steps they can take if they are dissatisfied with the pattern of delivery.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

SFA action – Michelle D to report

Government will seek to improve the provision of skills data for LEPs and will develop and publish new reports that will quantify and assess responsiveness to local skills needs. In the summer of 2014 the Skills Funding Agency will provide all LEPs with a data set that updates them on the provision delivered in their areas.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

SFA Action – Michelle D to report

37

LEP - Local Enterprise Partnerships are well-positioned to enhance the current Careers Information, Advice and Guidance offer by influencing the shape of provision so that it meets the needs of the local economy. Moreover, they have the ability to link employers with education providers; can have strategic influence over skills supply; and have the ability to coordinate local services towards a shared goal. To achieve this, Worcestershire LEP will facilitate stronger linkage between education providers and local businesses. We will also work with relevant local stakeholders to communicate our priorities and align our offer to the National Careers Service (NCS) providers ahead of the new service’s roll-out in October 2014 in order to augment the service.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

Met with SFA Capital Team –3rd Oct agreed to develop SFA funding templates/mechanisms tailored to meet scale of current skills project.

The LEP will consider skills implications as part of decision taking on growth strategies.The LEP will clearly articulate and evidence skills priorities in the light of strategic national and local growth opportunities and communicate them to the FE and skills sector.The LEP will positively engage the FE and skills sector in key strategic partnerships e.g. Skills and Employment Boards.The LEP will recognise where the private sector has a responsibility to invest in skills provision and work with business and the skills system to realise that investment.

To be agreed with BIS

To be agreed with BIS

LEP to commit – Luke and Michelle Dunn to jointly provide some input on role of ESB.

38

LGF Project Milestones

Action/MilestonesTarget

Completion Date

Person Responsible

Current Position(including risks/mitigation if necessary)

WTP – Off-Site InfrastructureCommence construction of off-site highways improvements to enable development access to site

March 2015 WCC - NiHu

Complete construction January 16 WCC – NiHu

Southern Link RoadInitial scheme design and business case signed off by WLEP

December 14 WCC – MaBr

Complete acquisition of statutory powers May 2016 WCC – MaBr

Hoobrook Link RoadComplete procurement for construction contract

December 2014

WCC – MaMi

Commence construction June 2015 WCC – MaMi

Complete construction June 2016 WCC – MaMi

Malvern Hills Science ParkPreference Share Agreement Issued October 14 WCC – NiHu

Management Agreement Signed October 14 WCC – NiHu

Commence works on building November 14 WCC – NiHu

Complete works on building Sept 15 WCC – NiHu

Occupation of new building Dec 2015 WCC – NiHu

Flood Alleviation – New RoadStakeholder Engagement October 14 WCC - RiPr

Complete Site Surveys Dec 14 WCC – RiPr

Procurement of Works June/July 2015

WCC – RiPr

Commence Works Sep 2015 WCC - RiPr

39

Complete Works Jan/Feb 2016

WCC - RiPr

Superfast Broadband – Extension ProjectComplete Open Market Review October

2014WCC – StAs

Complete Public Consultation November 2014

WCC – StAs

BSUK Gateway Audit – Funding Confirmation December 2014

WCC - StAs

LGF Project Milestones

Centre of Vocational Excellence (CoVE) for Engineering TrainingAgree assurance process with SFA November

2014WLEP – IaEd / LuWi

Worcestershire ParkwayGRIP4 Completion November

2014WCC – ToDe

Approval to procure works May 2015 WCC – ToDe

GRIP5 Completion July 2015 WCC – ToDe

Approval for construction November 2015

WCC – ToDe

Kidderminster Railway StationAwait outcome of GBSLEP GD2 bid to understand total funding envelope for scheme.

December 2014

NWEDR - JoEl

Target Outputs 2015/16 Indicative

16/17Indicative

17/18Indicative

18/19 – 20/21WLEP PROJECT TOTAL

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Annual Annual AnnualSpend Profile

[£ figure] [£ figure] [£ figure] [£ figure]

Jobs [a narrow band covering the year] [slightly wider band]

[a slightly wider band]

[a wide band] 3,409

Housing 1,01540

Leverage 74.88m

Roads

Land / PropertyBusiness Support

Skills

Other 1

Other 2

41

Risk Monitoring

Risk Mitigating Actions Contact Responsible Review Date RAG Rating for Risk

Broadband Funding Flexibility:Ability to contract Broadband extension programme for 95% coverage by June 2015 – due to BDUK state aid umbrella exemption.

Need formal confirmation of LGF funding from government to pass BDUK procurement gateway stage.

Ste Ashton – WCC 31 October 2014 Amber

Costs of Development vs Potential Reward: Resource availability of partners to develop pipeline schemes to be of a certain standard to pitch in via LGF bidding rounds.

£250k annual SEP funding to WLEP to be provided in 15/16 by central government.Additional funds required for larger schemes – discussion with accountable body

Ian Edwards / Luke Willetts – WLEP

30 November 2014 Amber

Capacity of Contractors:Term Contractor for WCC likely to undertake number of these schemes. Need to ensure capability and capacity does not become an issue.

Amber

Provisional Funding Assurance:Assurance about future funding for scheme promoters – e.g. SLR: Assurity about full grant for WCC Cabinet to agree to scheme and funding strategy including prudential borrowing arrangements etc.

LuWi raised with DaCr – form of words being devised by DfT to provide comfort to LAs. DaCr to forward on when received.

Dave Crook – HMG 31 October Amber

42

Issues

Issue DescriptionDate

Issued Raised

Mitigating Actions Issue Owner Date Reviewed/Closed

Ability to monitor and track housing units and jobs created as interventions are implemented.

September 2014

Lack of clarity re: flexibility of LGF funding re: Broadband from 2015/16 into future years

April 2014

LEP Governance structures are hampering the degree to which it can be granted further financial flexibility over the growth fund

May 2014 Revise board structures (done)Agree MOU with accountable bodyInvite LEP chair to join joint leaders board (31st Oct) - done

GW (WLEP)DC (HMG)LW (WLEP/WCC)

31st Oct.28 Oct – Quad meeting21 Oct

43

Appendix 2: Draft Funding Agreement Letter

Section 31 Grant Allocation to [ ] Council

I am writing to inform you that the Department will be making a Local Growth Fund Capital Grant payment of [ ] in four quarterly instalments on1st April 2015, 1st July 2015, 1st October 2015 and 4th

January 2016.

This money will be paid on the basis of a section 31 Grant Determination of the Local Government Act 2003 to [ ] Council as the lead accountable body for [ ] LEP as per the Appendix A to this letter (attached). It is being paid to [ ] Council as the accountable body for[ ] LEP on the conditions set out in Annex B of the Grant Determination.

In addition to these conditions, [ ] Council will, of course, be subject to their normal internal and external audit controls.

We expect that this funding will fulfil the following requirements:

1) It will be used to support the Growth Deal agreed between HMG and [ ] LEP on 7 July 2014 and will be used to secure the outcomes set out in the Growth Deal.

2) The funding will be deployed solely in accordance with decisions made through a local assurance framework and monitoring & evaluation framework agreed between the LEP and the Council as accountable body, such frameworks to be consistent with the standards set out in the national accountability and monitoring and evaluation frameworks and with regard to retained DfT transport projects, in line with DfT national requirements.

At the end of each quarter, the LA Accountable Body and the LEP will review with government whether this grant has been spent on delivering the commitments set out in the Growth Deal. Failure to have done so may affect future allocations.

The monitoring metrics agreed by [ ] LEP for each of the LGF interventions are attached at Annex [ ]. [ ] LEP has also committed, as part of its Growth Deal, to produce a Growth Deal Evaluation Plan before the start of 2015/16.

As set out in the Growth Deal, subject to the local assurance framework and monitoring and evaluation framework, the [ ] Council as accountable body and [ ] LEP will have the flexibility to manage the implementation of the Growth Deal in order to deliver the outcomes agreed in the Growth Deal. If the LEP wishes to vary the projects that have been agreed as part of the Growth deal, this should be agreed with government in advance. The LEP should initially consult with their Relationship Manager who will be able to advise on next steps.

However, [ ] Council is reminded that the Council, as the accountable body for [ ] LEP, is responsible for ensuring that expenditure is spent in accordance with all applicable legal requirements including, for example, state aid and public procurement law, and is reminded that any development decisions for specific proposals must go through the normal planning process and be guided by local plans, taking into account all material considerations.

[ ] LEP and [ ] Accountable Body are also reminded of their responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty, as set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and should have regard to these requirements when apportioning Local Growth funding.

Yours,

[ ]

44

APPENDIX A

[ ] Council Grant Payment Determination (date): No 31/xx

The Minister of State for Communities and Local Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003, makes the following determination:

Citation

1) This determination may be cited as the [ ] Local Growth Fund Payment Determination.

Purpose of the grant

2) The purpose of the grant is to provide support to local authorities in England towards expenditure lawfully incurred or to be incurred by them and to allow X Local Authority, as accountable body for X LEP to work with X LEP to secure the outcomes as set out in the Growth Deal .

Determination

3) The Minister of State determines as the authority to which grant is to be paid and the amount of grant to be paid, the authority and the amounts set out in Annex A.

Grant Conditions

4) Grant paid to an authority under this determination may be used only for the purposes that a capital receipt may be used for in accordance with regulations made under section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003.

Treasury consent

5) Before making this determination in relation to local authorities in England, the Minister of State obtained the consent of the Treasury.

Signed by authority of the Minister of State for Communities and Local Government

xxxxx. xxxxx, xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx

45

ANNEX A

Authority to which Grant is to be Paid Amount of Grant to be paid

[ ] Council £X

ANNEX B

GRANT CONDITIONS

1. Grant paid to a local authority under this determination may be used only for the purposes that a capital receipt may be used for in accordance with regulations made under section 11 of the Local Government Act 2003.

2. The Chief Executive and Chief Internal Auditor of each of the recipient authorities are required to sign and return, to the team leader of the Business Partners Division of the Department for Communities and Local Government, a declaration, to be received no later than [insert date], in the following terms:

“To the best of our knowledge and belief and having carried out appropriate investigations and checks, in our opinion, in all significant respects, the conditions attached to [insert name of grant determination] No 31/**** have been complied with”.

3. If an authority fails to comply with any of the conditions and requirements of paragraphs 1 and 2, the Minister of State may:

a) reduce, suspend or withhold grant; or

b) by notification in writing to the authority, require the repayment of the whole or any part of the grant.

4. Any sum notified by the Minister of State under paragraph 3(b) shall immediately become repayable to the Minister.

46

Appendix 3: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE PROGRAMME DELIVERY GROUP

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThat the Board approves the Terms of Reference for the Programme Delivery Group

1.0 CONTEXT

1.1 On 25th September 2014, the Board of the Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership agreed to replace the SEP Steering Group with a Programme Delivery Group (‘the Group’)

1.2 This paper sets out the proposed Terms of Reference of the Group.

2.0 PURPOSE

2.1 The core purpose of the Group is to provide assurance to the Board as it responsible to central government. With LEP funded activity being delivered on time, best value for money, on budget and to the quality required.

3.0 SCOPE

3.1 The Group will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating project and programme performance across all non EU LEP funded activity. This includes all funds where Worcestershire County Council acts as the Accountable Body.

3.2 The role, if any, of the Group in the delivery of EU funded activity will be reviewed once EU funds are made available to Worcestershire under the 2014 – 2020 programme.

4.0 REMIT

4.1 The remit of the Group will be kept under continuous review but in the first instance will ensure:

Clear processes for reporting and monitoring both spend and project achievements are in place;

Appropriate processes are in place and to minimise the risk of claw back of grant;

Processes are in place to identify and manage project related risks;

Work with the Accountable Body to develop an annual financial plan which will feed into the Accountable Body's annual budget cycle;

5.0 MEMBERSHIP

5.1 The Group will be chaired by the LEP Executive Director and will include individuals and organisations well placed to scrutinise and challenge the performance of individual projects and will be defined in due course.

47

6.0 WLEP EU STRUCTURAL INVESTMENT FUND STRATEGY UPDATE

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The WLEP Board is recommended to:

a) note the ESIF update relating to respective Government and WLEP responsibilities related to the EU programme and Local Committee.

b) to approve the next phase of actions required by AMION Consultants supporting the WLEP development of ESIF and EAFRD Implementation Plans.

6.1 ESIF Progress Report

6.1.1 The Government has concluded its negotiations with the European Commission (EC) on the final UK Partnership Agreement which has now been approved. However, negotiations continue on the European Social Fund (ESF) and European Regional Development Funds (ERDF) Operational Programmes which will set out the local-to-national business process and requirements for all EU programmes and projects in the UK. It is now likely that these will not be finalised until January/February 2015. Detailed Guidance will be issued as soon as the Operational Programmes have been agreed.

6.1.2. In the meantime, and in line with Government Guidance, the WLEP is continuing to form the Worcestershire LEP Local ESIF Committee which, as explained in the September Board Report, will be a Sub-Committee of the national Programme Monitoring Committee/Growth Programme Board (PMC/GPB) and represent partners at a LEP Area level. The PMC/GPB will have other national Sub-Committees focusing on EU programme themes, audit and performance management.

6.1.3 The WLEP and DCLG have confirmed jointly that the first meeting of the Worcestershire Committee will be held on Tuesday 9 December. This allows an extended time period to confirm segmented sector representatives which are being identified either through a combination of sector nominations and/or open recruitment processes to fill each Member place on the Committee (See Appendix A for the current position).

6.1.4 The WLEP has continued to work collaboratively with a wide range of established and new interests across the public sector, business community and third sector to start converting the ESIF high level proposals into tangible delivery pipelines in readiness for programme and project calls which are still scheduled for Spring 2015.

6.1.5 AMION provided invaluable expertise, experience and knowledge to help the WLEP Board and Executive Team in producing the WLEP's SEP and ESIF. Both documents were recognised across Government as being of the top few high quality LEP submissions.

48

6.1.6 AMION has been secured on a rolling contract to provide augmented support, capacity and specialist expertise on any subsequent work arising out of the SEP and ESIF in response to Government requirements. It is now important and timely to bring in AMION to work up the essential detail for an ESIF Implementation Plan required by DCLG and the EAFRD (Rural Development Programme) Implementation Plan required by Defra. Detailed work will enable the WLEP to be prepared in advance of the likely series of requests emanating from Government once the Operational Programmes have been agreed with the European Commission.

6.1.7 AMION will be asked to work directly with the WLEP Executive Team, reporting regularly to WLEP Board meetings, to undertake development work within the scope outlined below through collaborative work with strategic and operational leads across the WLEP and key partner organisations:

Review the current Worcestershire programme delivery running until September 2015, with a view to recommended continuation of current schemes.

further development of the ESIF Implementation Summary (30 September for DCLG) into detailed pipelines of programmes and projects in readiness for the open Programmes/Projects Call by DCLG in Spring 2015

further development of the EAFRD Implementation Summary (30 October for Defra) into detailed pipelines of programmes and projects in readiness for the open Programmes/Projects Call by Defra in Spring 2015

Identify possible sources of match funding to support the programme The programme development will involve some co-design with partners who are not

potential delivery partners, therefore the role of various organisation needs to be defined.

produce the third and final WLEP ESIF (once all Government negotiations with the European Commission have been concluded) which will provide the definitive reference point for all Worcestershire LEP Area ESIF Committee responsibilities, recommendations and decisions (anticipated during January/February 2015).

6.1.8 From the correspondence 20 October there will now be no Opt-In with Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS), Growth Accelerator (GA), UK Trade and Investment (UKTI). These will now be dealt with in open calls and therefore it is more important that the understanding of the pipeline.

6.1.9 Negotiations with Big Lottery Fund (BLF), Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and consideration of whether to Opt -in or not will be brought to a future Board meeting.

6.2 Partners and Engagement

6.2.1 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 will be able to draw representation from the segmented interests described in Government Guidance to establish the Shadow Worcestershire LEP Area ESIF Committee by the end of November 2014.

49

Appendix A

Working Draft (CONFIDENTIAL)Worcestershire ESIF Committee Members - Shadow Status

Guidance requirement for Local ESIF Members

Worcestershire Shadow ESIF Committee Status

WLEP (1) Simon Murphy Agreed

Local Authority (3) Leader or Cabinet Member for Economy

Invitation to Authorities' Leaders Panel; Nomination Awaited

Business Partners (including small businesses and social enterprise) (5)

Corporate/Large SMESMESocial Enterprise

Business nominations sought from recent WLEP Business Recruitment Process

Voluntary & Community Sector (1)

Independent NCVO Recruitment Panel Process

Positions advertised; Nominations Awaited

Equalities & Non Discrimination i.e. young people, women, ethnicity, elderly (1)

Independent NCVO Recruitment Panel Process

Positions advertised; Nominations Awaited

Environment (with sustainable development expertise) (1)

David Throup (WLNP Chair) Agreed. Nominated by WLNP

Trade Union and employer representation (1)

Stephen Brown, Musicians Union

Agreed. Nominated by MU and TUC

Higher Education (1) University of WorcesterInvitation to University; Director Nomination Awaited

Education, Skills and Employment (1)

Andy Dobson, Kidderminster College

Agreed by College Principals

Rural (1) Caroline Bedell, CLA Nomination sought

CLLD or equivalent(North-South; urban-rural balance) (2)

Independent NCVO Recruitment Panel Process

Recommendations sought from third sector recruitment

Managing Authorities for ESI Funds and BIS Local (3)

Stuart Brandrick (DCLG)Roger Allenby (Defra)David Crook BIS West Midlands

All confirmed

Others as needed by the Local ESIF Committee RSL/Housing Providers

50

7.0 WORCESTERSHIRE LEP AND ACCOUNTABLE BODY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MoU)

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The LEP Board is recommended:

a) To approve the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Accountable Body (Worcestershire County Council) and WLEP

b) To note the context in which this approved MoU will support WLEP in achieving greater funding flexibility with central government for LGF monies

7.1 Context

7.1.1 Since the inception of WLEP it has been operating without a formal partnership agreement between itself and the Accountable Body, Worcestershire County Council.

7.1.2 Whilst the absence of an agreement has not adversely affected the operations of either party, the proposed MoU seeks to clarify the roles and responsibilities between both organisations and ensures compliance with best practice in terms of effective governance arrangements, as recognised by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

7.1.3 This paper outlines the process undertaken to establish the MoU. The MoU is attached as Appendix A.

7.2 Rationale for MoU

7.2.1 WLEP was subject to an audit by the Accountable Body's Internal Audit function earlier this year. The final audit report, published in May 2014, recommended that an agreement was established and put into place by July 2014.

7.2.2 In parallel, as the Local Growth Deals were announced nationally, there were a number of conditions placed on WLEP. One of which was to 'strengthen governance arrangements' – with a key component being the adoption of a MoU between the LEP and the Accountable Body.

7.2.3 WLEP were also advised by BIS that the adoption of a MoU would also strongly strengthen their position in achieving greater funding flexibility around the Local Growth Fund (LGF) monies i.e. one single payment in advance, as opposed to quarterly instalments during 2015/16.

7.3 Development of MoU

7.3.1 The MoU was co-designed between WLEP and the Accountable Body. It provides a clear framework of the role and responsibilities for each party in terms of the mechanics and transactional elements of this partnership.

7.3.2 It must be understood that the MoU has not been written to articulate Worcestershire County Council's roles and responsibilities as a partner member of the LEP, but rather to clarify their responsibilities as Accountable Body.

51

7.3.3 The MoU was presented and approved at the LEP Quad meeting on 28 October, and has been recommended for approval by the LEP Board.

Luke WillettsBusiness Delivery ManagerWLEP

52

Appendix A

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is made on

BY AND BETWEEN

1.0 THE PARTIES:

(1) Worcestershire County Council, (the 'Accountable Body') whose address is County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcester WR5 2NP

(2) Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (the 'WLEP')

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 WLEP is a 'loose association' where local groups of Local Authorities and Business Leaders have come together to form a partnership to help determine local economic priorities and create jobs within its local area. The WLEP was established with DCLG in 2011.

3.0 PURPOSE

3.1 The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to define the relationship between the Accountable Body and the WLEP where the WLEP is utilising allocated public funding to be administered by the Accountable Body for the purposes of implementing the Strategic Economic Plan and other programmes such as Growing Places and European Investment Programme.

4.0 STATUS

4.1 This MoU is not intended to be legally binding and no legal obligations or legal rights shall arise between the Parties from its provisions. The MoU reflects the good faith, intentions and commitment of the Parties and the Parties shall in good faith and at all times cooperate with each other as far as operating this MoU in accordance with its terms and conditions is concerned

4.2 The Parties shall observe and honour the provisions and perform all obligations under the MoU.

4.3 The MoU shall apply to all funding and programmes arising from financial allocations to the WLEP but no other economic development activities.

5.0 INTERPRETATION

WLEP Means the Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership, including those within its agreed governance structure and those contracted to work on its behalf

The Accountable Body Means Worcestershire County Council

Lead Delivery Organisations Organisations in the public, private or voluntary sectors in receipt of funds allocated by WLEP

SEP Funds Means the various Government funding regimes provided by Government to the WLEP for the purposes of delivering the Strategic Economic Plan for which Worcestershire County Council are the Accountable Body

53

Grant Agreement Tri-partite agreement between the Accountable Body, WLEP and Lead Delivery Organisation defining conditions for which WLEP funding has been awarded.

6.0 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY

6.1 WLEP acknowledges that the Accountable Body is subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 relating to the disclosure of information

6.2 WLEP shall (at its own expense) assist and cooperate with the Accountable Body to enable the Accountable Body to comply with these information disclosure obligations in the event that a request is made for documents relating to the subject matter of this MoU held by WLEP whether or not on behalf the Accountable Body.

7.0 TERMINATION AND VARIATION

7.1 Either Party may terminate this MoU upon three (3) months’ written notice to the other Party

7.2 A Party may terminate this MoU with immediate effect in the event of breach of its obligations by the other Party. However, this would be preceded by mediation between the LEP Chair and Accountable Body Chief Executive. The terminating party should immediately notify the other Party in writing of the termination and seek to set in place alternative arrangements.

7.3 This MoU shall terminate automatically upon the disbanding of WLEP. In such case, WCC and WLEP ahead of its disbanding shall complete all of their obligations concerning:

a) Monies granted to or by WLEP;

b) Other assets held by WCC on behalf of WLEP; and

c) Any accounts required to be submitted to central government or to any other relevant funding organisation.

7.4 The MoU will be subject to review to reflect the changing roles of LEPs and Local Authorities especially where this arises as a result of Central Government guidance or policy.

7.5 Variations to this MoU shall be in writing, and agreed and signed by the Parties.

8.0 EQUALITY

8.1 The Parties have a duty to promote equality under current legislation and ensure that the provisions delivered under this MoU comply with all such legislation. The Parties shall take all reasonable steps to ensure staff, agents and contractors are aware of, and are complying with, their responsibilities in this area.

9.0 DISPUTE RESOLUTION

9.1 In the event of any dispute arising between the parties to this MoU, which cannot be resolved directly by the Parties, such dispute shall be referred to a senior officer nominated by each of the Parties who will use all reasonable endeavours to resolve the dispute. Any such joint resolution shall be a final determination of the dispute. If joint resolution is not met then mediation between the LEP Chair and Accountable Body Chief Executive would prevail.

54

10.0 MISCELLANEOUS

10.1 Nothing contained or implied in this MoU will prejudice or affect the Accountable Body's rights, powers, duties or obligations in the exercise of its functions as a County Council under any statute, by-law, order or regulation, all of which rights, powers, duties and obligations may be as fully and effectively exercised by the County Council in its capacity as a local government body.

10.2 This MoU constitutes the entire arrangement between the Parties relating to the subject matter of the MoU. The MoU supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and undertakings, whether written or oral.

55

Schedule 1: The Role of the Accountable Body

The Accountable Body will:

1. Enter into Grant Agreements as appropriate with Lead Delivery Organisations for projects approved by the WLEP;

2. Advise the WLEP, during the project and programme development stages, of issues likely to prevent the lawful or proper entering into of Grant Agreements should a project be approved (e.g. State Aid issues, etc.);

3. Assist with project applications for grant monies to the appropriate funding agency through the provision of technical and financial support, where requested by the WLEP, recognising there will be potential option to recharge associated costs to WLEP on a case-by-case basis.

4. Support the WLEP in the development of an Assurance Framework for SEP Funds;

5. Work with government departments and external auditors on behalf of the WLEP with regard to an audit and programme review and take steps where the recommendation is relevant to the Accountable Body to implement.;

6. Prepare and submit grant claims to Government and other third parties on behalf of WLEP;

7. Provide representation on the WLEP finance and audit committee and all decision-making groups within WLEP;

8. Retain a financial audit trail on behalf of WLEP for the time period required by government.

9. Provide monitoring reports to WLEP, Government and other third parties in a form to be agreed with the WLEP;

56

Schedule 2: The Role of WLEP

The WLEP will:

1. Consider and approve the allocation of funds covered by this agreement;

2. Develop and implement an Assurance Framework relating to all SEP Funds;

3. Follow the procurement code of the Accountable Body;

4. Maintain an asset register for the WLEP;

5. Provide supporting evidence and detailed narrative to accompany grant claims submitted by the Accountable Body to Government;

6. Ensure that appropriate audit trails are in place and that documents are available to be viewed by the Accountable Body auditor as and when required;

7. Work with the Accountable Body to develop an annual financial plan which will feed into the Accountable Body's annual budget cycle;

8. Ensure clear processes for reporting and monitoring both spend and project achievements are in place;

9. Ensure appropriate processes are in place and to minimise the risk of claw back of grant;

10. Ensure processes are in place to identify and manage project related risks;

11. Regularly review performance at both project and programme level to ensure early identification of poor performance.

12. All Directors and volunteers representing the LEP should adhere to both the Code of Conduct for Board members of Public Bodies and the extract from the Second Report of the Nolan Committee on the Standards in Public Life, May 1996.

57

8.0 SUB-GROUP REPORTS AND OUTPUTS

8.1 National Profiling

NAME OF THE GROUP:

National Profiling Sub-Group

MISSION:

To raise the profile of the County regionally and Nationally under the banner of World Class Worcestershire.

STRUCTURE:

Now a smaller sub group with representatives from: Worcestershire County Council (Research and Marketing and Economic Development), Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (Executive Director and PR and Communications), Chamber of Commerce and Business representatives.

Extended network to include the previous wider group members, including the local media.

CURRENT PRIORITIES:

To raise the profile of the County locally, regionally and nationally To encourage inward investment to Worcestershire Promotion of key investment sites.

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES:

Consistent approach in identity – World Class Worcestershire, rather than profiling individual brands. This has been particularly successful on Twitter #WorldClassWorcs

Stand at MIPIM UK in September 2014 to begin raising national profile to audience of around 4,000 attendees. Profiled on the Day Two e-bulletin to all attendees with Tweet of the Day and picture of the stand. Welcomed a delegation to the stand on the last day from Asia and China.

Exclusive inward investment event planned for 24 November at Thistle Hotel Marble Arch Invite to event, including Estate Gazette’s database of 32,000 for Estates Gazette, and online

advertising has begun raising the profile of Worcestershire as well as building a working relationship with this key publication

Delegation to Hezhou and Huizhou China has taken place during this time and materials (World Class Worcestershire inward investment video and brochure) have both been translated.

LEP Chair presentations in Jakarta, Indonesia.

58

PLANNED WORKLOAD AND DELIVERY: (NEXT 3 MONTHS)

Further develop identity guidelines for World Class Worcestershire with more partner organisations to be using this to profile the County

Further develop a suite of key messages to profile the county as a place to live, work, visit and invest (under the World Class Worcestershire banner) to promote further consistency

Suite of literature to be completed: Tier Two World Class Worcestershire document profiling key Game changer investment sites – currently in draft form

Event at London Marble Arch on 24 November 2014. Programme of Worcestershire Boundary signs on motorways and Trunk roads with new, larger

‘Worcestershire Welcomes You’ signs via Highways Agency, using LEP Transport Fund.

CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS:

Further work than to raise the profile of the County – large number of invites sent out for the event on 24 November, reasonable open rate, however, take up is not as high as expected

Many of those attending MIPIM UK who we spoke to and were interested in opportunities, already had a relationship with Worcestershire, for example, were from the county or had family from Worcestershire and so we need to work further with educational establishments.

59

8.2 Business Growth (Access to Finance)

NAME OF THE GROUP:

Business Growth

MISSION:

To ensure that a full offering of financial instruments are available and that business can access the appropriate financial solution

STRUCTURE:

9 original members chaired by Roy Irish, including Ian Priest (banking consultant), Alistair Hayward-Wright (accounting practice), Robert Capper (corporate law), George Makison (CDFI – local “public” sector bank), Steve Harris (corporate finance and grant consultant), Mike Hankins (angel networks and mentoring), John Painter (accounting practice but also the Chamber), Sue Crow (Business Central), Gary Woodman (LEP).

Also just been joined by Richard Nichol (expertise in social enterprise finance)

These members also represent the County geographically by being located across the districts

CURRENT PRIORITIES:

1. To monitor progress on the West Midlands fund of funds and ensure it fits Worcestershire’s needs2. To support the development of “Advised in Worcestershire”, which is all the local professionals

working together and potentially a unique service for the business community3. To oversee the Worcestershire Expansion Programme grant scheme to its conclusion4. To input to and lobby for an enhanced Growth Hub (building on the Business Central model)5. To encourage the formation of an Incubator for Worcestershire (although this is a separate project).

KEY ACHIEVMENTS AND ACTIVITIES:

1. Part of the team driving the West Midland fund of funds – project approved by the LEPs and now moving to formal application with BIS to complete by the end of 2015 (separate update attached)

2. Sponsor for Advised in Worcestershire and supported its launch3. Provided to approval mechanism for the Expansion Programme and giving direction to the next

steps.4. Lobbying the local authority and LEP on mechanisms to deliver a business support service for the

County – examples enhancing Growth Hub and creating an Incubator5. Constantly using the input of the professionals on the sub group to help understand where the needs

of the business community are.

60

PLANNED WORKLOAD AND DELIVERY: (NEXT 3 MONTHS)

1. Give input to fund of fund on areas of demand for financial instruments and the best spread of the types of funds available prior to an outline application to BIS (full project plan for fund of funds is in the attached report)

2. Conclude on the current Expansion Scheme3. Determine what an enhanced Growth Hub should offer4. See the formal launch of Advised in Worcestershire5. Challenge the sub-group working on an Incubator to have a appointed a project manager to write a

plan

CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS:

1. Fund of Funds – challenge is central government delay currently slowing the process2. Expansion Scheme – lack of identifiable sources of funding to repeat the scheme. Sub-Group

members alone have identified a further £700,000 of demand3. Agreement between the LEP and partners as to what a Growth Hub should comprise and how it

should be managed going forward

Ask for the Board – we would like a formal redefinition of the role and priorities of the Sub-Group now that its brief has been extended from Access to Finance to Business Growth.

61

8.3 Employment & Skills Board

NAME OF THE GROUP: MISSION:

Employment and Skills Board

MISSION:

Improve Skills and Education in County

STRUCTURE:

Employment and Skills Board – Sub groups including Worcestershire Apprenticeship Group (WAG) and STEM Sub group.

CURRENT PRIORITIES:

1. Connecting Schools and Business roll out continuing2. Increasing Apprenticeships in County - survey to be launched3. Monitoring Employment and Skills Programmes in County4. Supporting the feasibility study for University Technical College/ vehicle for STEM development in

schools5. Supporting the localising of careers advice6. Supporting the growth of STEM skills in the County7. Developing a cyber skills strategy for County

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES:

1. Launch of Connecting Schools and Business Programme to 29 schools with 75 employers signed up2. Launch of Employment Hub in Kidderminster3. Launch of National Cyber Security Centre in Malvern4. Supported 2 Apprentice events in 20145. Launch of Worcestershire Apprenticeship brand6. Launch of 1st Annual Worcestershire Apprenticeship Awards7. Development of concept of UTC in Worcestershire8. Development of career progression tool in County – launch Jan 2015 plus App in March 20159. Development of Higher Apprenticeships Frameworks in County – Cyber and Engineering

PLANNED WORKLOAD AND DELIVERY: (NEXT 3 MONTHS)

1. Feasibility of UTC2. Refresh Employment and Skills Board Strategy3. Launch Employment Hubs in Worcester and Redditch4. Apprenticeship Awards November 25th 2014

CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS:

1. Need for greater employer engagement into SMEs to understand direction of travel2. Inflexibility in Education funding sources – SFA/EFA / DFe etc3. Finance to support activity

62

8.4 Employment & Skills Board

NAME OF THE GROUP:

Place, Development and Infrastructure

MISSION:

To establish a consistent, business focused spatial and development management experience across Worcestershire as one fundamental contribution towards attracting inward investment and economic growth

STRUCTURE:

Jacqui Bayliss Harris Lamb (Retiring Chair); Mark Bellringer, Robert West; Jess Munn, Thomas Vale Construction; Pete Cullen, PC Consultancy; Andy Plant, St Francis Group; Jason Tait, Planning Prospects;

Mark Martin, One Creative; Claire Bridges, WLEP

LPA’s Heads of Service join for combined WLEP and WPOG meetings at quarterly intervals

Statutory Consultees invited to key meetings as required

CURRENT PRIORITIES:

1. Review the Planning and development Charter and Action Plan and update the WLEP ambitions and specific delivery as a consequence of the WLEP SEP, ESIF and Growth Deal submissions

2. Review the membership of the Place Development and Infrastructure Sub group as a consequence of WLEP Board and Business Board membership changes

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES:

Planning, Development and Infrastructure1. Planning and Development Charter launched 2012; Action Plan 2013/14 developed2. WLEP PDI Sub Group formed in 2012 comprising multi disciplinary business perspectives3. Good collaboration with other LEPs – West Midlands and alliances with surrounding LEPs4. Shared learning and practice exchange across National LEP network5. Collaborative working established between WLEP, LPAs/WPOG and Statutory Consultees at kick-off

event on 10 May 2013 (subsequently encompassed by WEG and not met since)6. Action Plan delivery in 2013/14 focused on the production of a Spatial Growth Plan and development

work for specific major schemes and initiatives with strong business cases which were featured in WLEP Strategic Economic Plan and EU Structural Fund Investment Strategy

7. Contributions to the WLEP’s Growth Deal 2014 bid; continuing preparation for Growth Deal 2015 bid8. Contributions to Game Change Programme and emerging pipeline project priorities9. National Pinch point programme (Junction 4/M5 capacity, J9 M5 and A46 improvements at

Ashchurch) and Southern Link improvements secured10. Bromsgrove station (consultation) and Worcestershire Parkway bid - New Stations Fund.11. County Broadband project development

63

PLANNED WORKLOAD AND DELIVERY: (NEXT 3 MONTHS)

To kick start development work and change which will roll-out over the next 1-2 years as follows:

1. Establishing a Worcestershire Streamlined Service Standard based on Wychavon DC’s Fast Track for Business approach and Wyre Forest DC streamlined "end to end approach" for businesses

2. A Common/Consistent Validation Checklist (based on Wyre Forest DC’s model developed with GBS LEP Local Planning Authorities

3. Consistent Pre-Application Advice Service Standard involving LPAs, Statutory Consultees (EA, WRS, English Heritage, HA etc), Economic Development Officers and businesses

4. Officer and Member Shared Learning Series - collective responsibility which signals LEP-wide changing cultures and behaviours

5. LPAs' Open Door Culture based on Redditch & Bromsgrove’s proposal for better signposting, material and promotion (actual/electronic) around common LEP-wide common arrangements therefore establishing a "good Worcestershire planning service"

6. Worcestershire Developers Forum construction/development industry forum to develop individual and collaborative relationships with LPAS, SCs and support the WLEP SEP & EUIS ambitions

7. Connect Planning Charter to the WLEP Regulations and Business Charter 2012 to establish a co-ordinated approach across regulatory services which fulfil the Government’s Better Business for All programme

8. Worcestershire Planning Statement a business friendly comprehensive/high level statement of Worcestershire’s current/emerging spatial strategy (existing planning arrangements, key policies, constraints, opportunities, sites, zones, major infrastructure schemes, to encourage investment (written, visuals & mapped information)

9. LPAs Heads of DM and Succession Planning - bring in front-line planners to Heads of Service meetings with agents/developers on prospective enquiries to ensure that agents/developers get consistent advice from any one person in a LPA.

CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS:

1. Having successfully shape the Spatial Growth Plan and established the Game Changer Programme, the Sub Committee’s focus needs to priorities initiatives and proposals for Development Management services which meet business needs;

2. Different successful components exist in different authorities and the challenge is to secure commitment of officers’ time and expertise from all Local Planning Authorities towards establishing consistent First Class business-friendly Development Management services across Worcestershire

64

8.5 Business Board Sector Groups

8.5.1 Agri Tech

NAME OF THE GROUP:

Agri-Tech Sector Group

MISSION:

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

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

Developing and seeking investment where needed to implement innovation within the sector; Attracting additional benefit to the sector by developing relationships with a wide range of

organisations including the Technology Strategy Board, Research and Development Institutions and private finance institutions;

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

STRUCTURE:

The Group meets on a quarterly basis with membership currently comprising:

Name Organisation Job Title

Caroline Bedell Country Land and Business Association

Regional Director [email protected]

Chris Brooks Wychavon District Council

Regeneration Manager

[email protected]

Ian Edwards Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership

Growth Plan Project Manager

[email protected]

Luke Ryder National Farmers Union

County Advisor [email protected]

Nicola Griffiths UKTI Partnership Manager [email protected]

Prof John Newbury

University of Worcester

Head of Institute of Science and Environment

[email protected]

Steve Tones Horticulture Development Company

Head of Business Development

[email protected]

Tamsin Jones Pershore College Principal [email protected]

Zad Padda Director Vicarages Nurseries Ltd

[email protected]

65

CURRENT PRIORITIES:

The Group met for the first time on 30 th September 2014. The main priorities arising from the meeting were:

Opportunity to influence the Produce Centre being developed by AHDB

It was generally accepted that Worcestershire's ambitions for the sector were not generally known beyond the Region. All members agreed to promote the ambition in all networks in which they participated, particularly with Innovate UK and the Agri-Tech Leadership Council

The role of the Heart of Horticulture Report in shaping future investment.

The Group noted that there were significant opportunities for the sector to benefit from the regulation pilot being led by WLEP.

The Group acknowledged that employer engagement with Colleges, Universities and R & D would be key in the growth of the sector. The Innovation and Business Support programme being developed by the LEP would seek to maximise benefit to the sector.

There was a need to identify the value of the sector to the Worcestershire Economy and establish growth ambitions.

The LEP team will start drawing together a work programme for investment in the sector.

KEY ACHIEVMENTS AND ACTIVITIES:

See above

PLANNED WORKLOAD AND DELIVERY: (NEXT 3 MONTHS)

Priority focus on identifying the size of the sector in Worcestershire and engaging in networks with specific focus on innovation.

CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS:

1. Understanding the scale of the sector.

2. Identifying barriers to growth i.e. export, technological.

3. Wider exposure to national investment opportunities.

66

8.5.2 Cyber Security

NAME OF THE GROUP:

‘Cyber sub-group’ – full name is Cyber Valley Working Group (CVWG)

MISSION:

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

STRUCTURE:

Chair is Steve Borwell-Fox. Actively seeking a deputy as SBF has only 12 months left on the Business Board.There are well over 20 business participants from IT, Security, Defence, Insurance, Finance, Legal and other sectors, where there is cyber dependency or delivery of professional services, IT Services and products.

CURRENT PRIORITIES:

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

To support the ESB with skills agenda activities

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES:

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

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

Cross-LEP – an initial meeting was held with Buckinghamshire University, who are looking for cyber partners from outside of their area. Could lead to a satellite operation for the NCSC

PLANNED WORKLOAD AND DELIVERY: (NEXT 3 MONTHS)

The next CVWG workshop is planned for 20th November Idea for a national conference for late spring 2015 Meetings with QinetiQ to discuss working with local SMEs in their supply chain

CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS:

NCSC Centre Manager has resigned. So too have two of the Strategic Board. National conference – there is appetite for this, but it needs someone to own it and they must have

promoted one of these before. Need an event management company on board. Could be a great opportunity to showcase Worcestershire, Herefordshire, and Gloucestershire cyber suppliers (the Severn Valley area) to national delegates. Second day could be focused on import and inward investment – Supported by UKTI and DSO too

Need a collaborative space to store SWOT, aims, objectives, documents etc.

67

8.5.3 Manufacturing

NAME OF THE GROUP:

Manufacturing Forum

MISSION:

The Manufacturing Forum is a strategic group to promote the interests of manufacturers in our region.

It champions and lobbies for specific strategies and policies that benefit the members – from incubation to maturity, with a specific focus on skills, innovation and growth.

STRUCTURE:

The Manufacturing Forum is made up of 373 members who meet on a quarterly basis at manufacturing locations across Worcestershire from 8am until 11am. Generally attended by circa 40 members, the events include presentations from both manufacturers and service providers and the opportunity for a tour around the hosts facilities.

CURRENT PRIORITIES:

The Manufacturing Forum has four main aims:

To communicate the region’s manufacturing strengths and capability Establish a single voice, to articulate the needs of manufacturing to key stakeholders and influencers To encourage collaboration to capitalise on business opportunities To develop transnational funding, innovation and knowledge transfer to support the growth of

manufacturing.

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES:

The Forum was used a platform by the NZ embassy to identify a West Midlands based manufacturer to produce and assemble mowers for the NZ based business Trimax.http://www.trimaxmowers.com/index.php/edit-news/98-trimax-commences-mower-manufacturing-in-the-uk.html

The Forum was established by the business community in response to their desire to network in their sectors and has grown over the last 4 years to a membership of 373 members, all manufacturers.

PLANNED WORKLOAD AND DELIVERY: (NEXT 3 MONTHS)

The next Forum will be partnering with UKTI and will meet on the 27 th February 2015 at the Rugby Club. This will be an opportunity to open up the world of export to the group.

CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS:

The Forum is run as a free event and requires significant investment in terms of resource to ensure it continues to grow and develop. The forum would benefit from access to high profile speakers from the manufacturing industry to attract in more members and currently as all events are run on a cost neutral basis, there is no additional funding to support this.

Need for smaller focussed sub-group to drive key initiatives and to maintain focus.

68

8.5.4 Tourism & Leisure

NAME OF THE GROUP:

Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership Tourism & Leisure Sub-Group

MISSION:

To ensure the Worcestershire tourism industry is given strategic importance.

STRUCTURE:

Chair - Mike Aston, Chief Executive for Herefordshire and Worcestershire Chamber of Commerce

The Tourism & Leisure Sub-Group meets on a quarterly basis to discuss strategic priorities within the Worcestershire tourism industry.

The group is an open group and meets in various locations around the county to ensure a engagement from more tourism industry stakeholders.

CURRENT PRIORITIES:

European Tourism Indicator System - a benchmarking platform for the European Commission. Participants in the pilot scheme are more likely to get European funding in the future.

To engage with all stakeholders that can have an impact on the tourism industry including: Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership, Worcestershire County Council, the six District Councils and the private sector.

To ensure Worcestershire is represented in the World Class Worcestershire offer. To lobby for tourism industry research including a 2015 Visitor Survey and 2014 Economic Impact

Assessment. Inputting into the LEADer Programme for the development of rural tourism.

KEY ACHIEVMENTS AND ACTIVITIES:

Brown & white tourist signposting engagement has lead to a Project Manager being put in place at Worcestershire County Council and a review of the current policy.

Updated tourism industry statistics from 2004 to 2008 in The Value of Tourism document. Research report for a 4 star hotel in Worcester city centre.

PLANNED WORKLOAD AND DELIVERY: (NEXT 3 MONTHS)

Completion of the European Tourism Indicator System for the European Commission (January 2015). Feeding into the LEADer programme rural tourism element. Identifying hotel developers interested in building a 4 star hotel in Worcester city centre or at St. Mary's

School. Promotion of Worcestershire as a tourism destination feeding into the World Class Worcestershire

Inward Investment campaign. Completion of 2014 Economic Impact Assessment. Tender for 2015 Visitor Survey.

CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS:

69

Timescale to complete the European Tourism Indicator System. Public sector engagement to help complete the European Tourism Indicator System. Evidence available to complete the European Tourism Indicator System. Funding for marketing activities. Coordinating a number of stakeholders. Raising the profile and strategic importance of the county's official Destination Management

Organisation with the local tourism industry and other stakeholders. District Councillors need to see the county as a tourism destination, and not just their individual towns

or Districts as a destination. Need for smaller focussed sub-group to drive key initiatives and to maintain focus. Opportunity for Worcestershire City of Culture Bid 2021.

70

9.0 ANNUAL CONFERENCE FEEDBACK AND ANNUAL REPORT

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The Board is recommended to note the feedback from the Annual Conference, which was held on 10 October 2014, and coincided with the publishing of the Annual Report 2013-14.

The Board is also asked to endorse the proposals for the 2015 Annual Conference and put forward any feedback and recommendations for next year’s conference in particular in relation to any improvements, suggested speakers, sponsors or details for the programme.

Board Members are also asked to note the results of the live voting from the Conference, which is summarised in this report, and will be used for business planning in the year ahead.

9.1 Context

9.1.1 316 attended the WLEP Annual Conference 2014. 364 registered in advance to attend, there were 73 ‘no shows’ and 25 ‘walk ins’.

9.1.2 The Annual Report for 2013/14 was published to coincide with the Conference. Paper copies are available in the LEP office or electronic versions via www.wlep.co.uk

9.1.3 There were 26 exhibition stands, some of which were sold (21), and some were sponsors. Having the packages available up front was successful in generating £7,000 in sponsorship.

9.1.4 The organisers conducted feedback on the Conference through an electronic survey. 67 attendees responded and so the feedback should be considered in that context:

Just over 97% of respondents rated the WLEP Conference as ‘Excellent’ or ‘Generally Good.’

Speakers who had the most impact were: Ben Humphrey, Rt Hon Sajid Javid and Clare Marchant.

Feedback suggested Mary Rhodes was an excellent host. The sessions with Mary and Guests were well received as was the live voting

The overwhelming majority of respondents rated the organisation of the event as either ‘Brilliant’ and ‘Good’.

9.1.5 Suggestions for improvements from attendees were:

Some extra time for questions and audience involvement would be valued. This will be further considered but an initial idea would be having a ‘post your question’ at the start under subjects to structure the session

For there to be some further actions points, ideas and guidance to leave the audience with for action plan and involvement

71

Some further networking opportunities and some suggestions for some smaller seminars

Further focus on SMEs, additional SME representatives and some third sector representatives

Potential for a political speaker next time, possible focus on technology and consider some other subjects for discussion

Some healthier options for lunch, some other suggestions for venues and local water to be used (instead of Welsh Water).

9.1.6 There is an appetite to be further involved as when asked, 42% said ‘yes’ they would like to be further involved, 22% said ‘maybe’, 28% said ‘not at present’ with only 8% saying ‘no’. Those who are willing to participate will be followed up.

9.1.7 Some live polling on the day was undertaken to receive feedback from businesses to help with business planning. A summary of the feedback:

When asked when businesses last recommended Worcestershire as a business location: 39% were advocates in the last month, 21% in the last 3 months and 18% in the last 12 months with 22% never recommending the County showing there is potentially more to do with local businesses to raise profile.

The main two reasons for companies relocating to Worcestershire were cited as: central location and accessibility (58%) and 24% said lifestyle (the outdoors, culture, food and drink, sport, heritage and rural life). Only 9% suggested the successful business environment.

6% of respondents are exporting to Europe, 20% are exporting globally, 13% are due to be exporting soon whilst the majority (60%) said that they weren’t interested in exporting. 69% of all respondents recognised that whilst setting up to export is difficult, support is available

The majority of attendees get business advice from a professional advisor (57%) whilst others seek advice from the Internet (21%) and government backed support agencies (19%) with few finding help from friends/family (3%)

When asked whether Worcestershire had improved as a business location, 24% said significant progress had been made and 52% said that some improvement had occurred. Around a quarter of attendees (23%) said not enough and a small percentage (2%) said none had been made

When asked what conditions if they were improved, could make a difference to their business, most said skills and people development (39%) and improved infrastructure (36%). Others wanted finance availability (18%) with the least number of people suggesting access to business advice (7%) was important.

The room was positive with 68% of attendees being very optimistic or optimistic about Worcestershire’s future growth prospects, whilst 29% are quite optimistic and only 3% are not at all

72

It was suggested the best ways for the WLEP to keep in touch with delegates were: face to face events (44%), e-shots (32%), newsletters (11%) and social media (7%) with some also citing local media and advertising. This is in line with the WLEP’s current marketing and communications focus.

9.1.8 The results from the live polling will be used to show the WLEP is listening and acting on consultation with businesses. For example, the results which suggested face to face briefings are effective will be used when the next conference is publicised. The results from the live voting and the Conference will be provided in the next WLEP e-zine.

9.2 Proposal: Planning for WLEP Annual Conference 2015

9.2.1 The date for the WLEP Annual Conference for 2015 has been set for Friday 6 November to ensure it does not coincide with the Chamber of Commerce’s Expo, which has moved back two weeks into early October. Once again, a Friday has been chosen in order to increase the likelihood that local MPs can attend and also in response to feedback that the day/time was appropriate.

9.2.2 It is proposed that personal invitations will be sent Worcestershire’s main businesses (around 70). Producing businesses will be targeted to increase attendance in these areas.

9.2.3 Following the successful use of exhibition space, we are recommending that this is again made available. Being up front with sponsorship packages was successful in attracting sponsorship and it is suggested that this is replicated.

9.2.4 Suggestions from WLEP Board Members regarding potential key note speakers at next year’s Conference or sponsors would be welcomed. Initial ideas of other sponsors to target are: Hotelshop and Holywell Malvern WaterPlease send any ideas to [email protected]

9.2.5 In addition to the Annual Conference, next year WLEP is considering smaller scale workshops, with the potential for one in the New Year. The organisation of these events will be part of the Conference Tender Document. Their purpose, scope, target audience and details are currently under discussion.

9.3 Delivery/Actions

9.3.1 We will again be employing an external contractor to organise and run the event. A tender will be made live on the County Council’s Tender Portal which will also cover a host for the event.

9.3.2 The Chateau Impney is being booked for 6 November 2015.

9.4 Partners and Engagement

9.4.1 Businesses will be engaged through the e-zine with ‘save the date’ communications, feedback from the electronic voting and requests for further feedback.

Contact Kirsten Dally, Communications & PR ExecutiveWorcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership01905 672701/ 07912 389189.

73

10.0 BUDGET

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The LEP Board is recommended to:

a) Note the position of spend on the LEP Budget.b) Note the actions from the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee meeting

17th November.c) Apprenticeship Awards overspend is to be allocated to charity LEP Board to

suggest a process for distribution.

10.1 Context

10.1.1 The LEP, with the support of the accountable body, Worcestershire County Council, meet bi-monthly as part of budget monitoring process.

10.2 Review

10.2.1 Budget overview to the 31.10.14 as follows:

Income and expenditure budgets both of £1,035.070; Net budget (or expected end of year outcome) £0. Actual total expenditure to 30.10.14 - £428,948k Total expenditure and committed at 31.10.14 – £605k Total expenditure budget remaining - £480k

10.2.2 Budget Highlights

10.2.3 Within this various budgets are currently heading towards or are now overspent as follows:

a. Staff – budget £230k, costs to date £203k, this will continue to overspend from start of the year due to increasing the size of the executive team.

b. Other fees, Conference,  marketing, hospitality and promotion are already slightly over budget;

c. project activity under budget currently by £102k

d. Virement of unspent budget will be undertaken during the next financial period.

10.2.4 Transport – extra income received of £37k, expenditure budget £92k spent to date £42k and committed to date £1k = total spend and commitments of £43k, expenditure budget left £49k, total budget left £86k

10.2.5 Growth Plan expenditure budget £330k, only £32k spent and another £46k committed leaving £251k of budget remaining – virement of some of the expenditure to be moved from core funding to growth plan re staff salaries.

10.2.6 Apprentice Awards – currently excess of income over expenditure of £16k, this has been agreed that it will be donated to charity. Board to suggest process by which the charity will be decided.

10.3 Agreed that a dashboard approach to the presentation of the accounts for the Board would be progressed for the January board meeting.

74

LEP Budget Monitoring 2014/15 31/10/2014

Annual Budget

Income and

Spend to Date

(Oct 14) Committed

(SAP)

Committed (per Gary

W.) Total

Committed

Total spent and

committed Remaining

Budget

% budget spent /

committed % budget remaining

£ £ £ £ £ £ Core Funding:

Income:Balance B/fwd: 180,313 180,313 0 0 0 180,313 0 100.00% 0.00%

DCLG - Core and Capacity Funding 278,600 278,600 0 0 0 278,600 0 100.00% 0.00%Contributions (LA and access to finance) 155,000 137,268 0 0 0 137,268 17,732 88.56% 11.44%

613,913 596,181 0 0 0 596,181 17,732 97.11% 2.89%

Expenditure:

Support Costs:Staff and HWCC 230,000 202,908 113 57,065 57,178 260,086 -30,086 113.08% -13.08%Other training exps 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0.00% 100.00%Travel and Subsistence 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0.00% 100.00%Stationery 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0.00% 100.00%Furniture/equipment 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 0.00% 100.00%Printing 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 0.00% 100.00%Rent 11,700 8,520 7,881 -4,578 3,303 11,823 -123 101.05% -1.05%Computers and software 17,500 8,544 0 0 0 8,544 8,956 48.82% 51.18%Telephone Services 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 0.00% 100.00%Total Support Costs: 296,200 219,972 7,994 52,487 60,481 280,453 15,747 94.68% 5.32%

Activity Costs:Consultants Fees 45,000 7,306 8,350 -8,350 0 7,306 37,694 16.23% 83.77%Project Activity 159,513 23,000 0 34,453 34,453 57,453 102,061 36.02% 63.98%Conference 11,200 32,243 0 1,580 1,580 33,823 -22,623 301.99% -201.99%Exhibition and Events - Other 20,000 4,384 35 0 35 4,419 15,582 22.09% 77.91%Promotion Expenses 40,000 42,947 6,504 -545 5,959 48,906 -8,906 122.26% -22.26%Misc Other Expenses 42,000 17,345 19,365 -14,430 4,935 22,280 19,720 53.05% 46.95%Total Activity Costs: 317,713 127,224 34,254 12,708 46,962 174,186 143,527 54.82% 45.18%

613,913 347,196 42,248 65,195 107,443 454,638 159,275 74.06% 25.94%

Balance: 0 248,985 -42,248 -65,195 -107,443 141,543 -141,543

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT

75

LEP Budget Monitoring 2014/15 31/10/2014

Annual Budget

Income and

Spend to Date

(Oct 14) Committed

(SAP)

Committed (per Gary

W.) Total

Committed

Total spent and

committed Remaining

Budget

% budget spent /

committed % budget remaining

£ £ £ £ £ £ Transport:

Income:Balance B/fwd: 91,579 91,579 0 0 0 91,579 0 100.00% 0.00%

Sponsorship 0 37,000 0 0 0 37,000 -37,000 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!91,579 128,579 0 0 0 128,579 -37,000 140.40% -40.40%

Expenditure:Exhibitions and Events 81,579 13,370 0 75 75 13,445 68,134 16.48% 83.52%Promotion Expenses 0 7,603 736 0 736 8,339 -8,339 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Employees 10,000 4,389 0 0 0 4,389 5,611 43.89% 56.11%Other Fees 0 15,829 40,000 -40,000 0 15,829 -15,829 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

91,579 41,190 40,736 -39,925 811 42,001 49,578 45.86% 54.14%

Balance: 0 87,389 -40,736 39,925 -811 86,578 -86,578

Growth Plan:Income:

Balance B/fwd: 79,578 79,578 0 0 0 79,578 0 100.00% 0.00%

BIS Growth Plan 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 0 100.00% 0.00%329,578 329,578 0 0 0 329,578 0 100.00% 0.00%

Expenditure:Consultants Fees 254,578 28,095 0 38,000 38,000 66,095 188,483 25.96% 74.04%Other Fees 75,000 4,050 0 8,000 8,000 12,050 62,950 16.07% 83.93%

329,578 32,145 0 46,000 46,000 78,145 251,433 23.71% 76.29%

Balance: 0 297,433 0 -46,000 -46,000 251,433 -251,433

Apprentice Awards:Income:

Balance B/fwd: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Event Income 0 25,280 0 4,410 4,410 29,690 -29,690 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!0 25,280 0 4,410 4,410 29,690 -29,690 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT

76

LEP Budget Monitoring 2014/15 31/10/2014

Annual Budget

Income and

Spend to Date

(Oct 14) Committed

(SAP)

Committed (per Gary

W.) Total

Committed

Total spent and

committed Remaining

Budget

% budget spent /

committed % budget remaining

£ £ £ £ £ £

Expenditure:Hospitality 0 417 0 0 0 417 -417 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!Other Expenses 0 8,000 5,000 16,273 21,273 29,273 -29,273 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

0 8,417 5,000 16,273 21,273 29,690 -29,690 #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Balance: 0 16,863 -5,000 -11,863 -16,863 0 0

Total Income and b/fwd: 1,035,070 1,079,618 0 4,410 4,410 1,084,028 -48,958 104.73% -4.73%104.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 104.7% -4.7%

Total Expenditure: 1,035,070 428,948 87,984 87,543 175,527 604,474 430,596 58.40% 41.60%41.4% 8.5% 8.5% 17.0% 58.4% 41.6%

Excess of income over expenditure 0 650,670.45 -87,984 -83,133 -171,117 0 479,554 -479,554

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT

77

LEP Budget Monitoring 2014/15 31/10/2014

Growing Places

Income and Spend to Date (June 14) Reserve

Date of Decision to

CommitDate of

Advance

Monies Received - Feb 2012 5,518,972.00

Loans Advanced to 31.3.14:Worcester Cricket Club -1,250,000.00 Jan-12 Jul-13Johnson Vellen -91,815.33 Jun-12 Nov-13

Capital and interest receipts to 31.3.14:Interest - Cricket Club 11,417.00Capital - Cricket Club 12,500.00Interest - Johnson Vellen 517.81Capital - Johnson Vellen 0.00

Expenditure to 31.3.14:Ye 31.3.13 -11,600.00Ye 31.3.14 -26,992.30

Balance on growing Places Reserve at 31.3.14 4,162,999.18

Loans Advanced ye 31.3.15:

Loan Repayments Received ye 31.3.15:Interest Receipts Capital Receipts

Worcester Cricket Club -30.6.14 - £20,977 8,505.00 12,472.00Worcester Cricket Club -30.9.15 - £20,891 8,420.00 12,471.00Johnson Vellen 0.00 0.00

Total Interest Received ye 31.3.15 16,925.00

Expenditure ye 31.3.15:Thomas Lister - Redditch Eastern Gateway 2,100.00Coding correct agreed with Nigel Hudson -Cheyl Perry (was on L50000 / 50030)375.00

78

LEP Budget Monitoring 2014/15 31/10/2014

Growing Places

Income and Spend to Date (June 14) Reserve

Date of Decision to

CommitDate of

Advance

Total Expenditure ye 31.3.15 2,475.00

Excess of Expenditure of Income ye 31.3.15 14,450.00

Transfer to Reserve -14,450.00 14,450.00

Balance on Reserve at 31/10/2014 4,202,392.18

Commitments:Johnson Vellen - balance 2,184.67 Redditch Eastern Gateway 1,800,000.00 Hoo Brook 900,000.00

Total Commitments at 31/10/2014 2,702,184.67

Uncommitted at 31/10/2014 1,500,207.51

79

11.0 CHAIR’S REPORT (Including WM LEP Chairs’ and LEP Network Chairs’ reports)

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

a) The LEP Board is recommended to note and discuss the key strategic matters referred to.

b) The Board is asked to provide a collective view on the key issues.

11.1 LEP Network

The Board will recall that initially and until earlier this year, Government set up and directly funded a contract with the British Chambers of Commerce to provide a central coordinating service to the 39 LEPs and a single point of contact for Government. That contract terminated on the insistence of the LEPs that it was not acting in their best interests and was unaccountable to them.

Following wide discussion the LEPs agreed to establish their own central team with a small executive and a representative Board of LEP Chairs from each of the regions, (I was nominated to represent the 6 West Midlands LEPs). That process has operated since 1 April 2014 with a CEO (Alison) part time and two others seconded from Government Departments, also part time. Demands on those resources have increased dramatically as the LEP responsibilities have grown and clearly greater central resources are required. In view of that the CEO has resigned as she did not want a full time position and the other staff have also left or are leaving.

Currently WLEP and all others contribute £5k pa towards the costs of the LEP Network. A letter has been sent to Greg Clark requesting increased direct funding from government to supplement this and to enable a structure to be set up which will be able to respond to Government demands and the interests of LEPs generally and collectively. It is proposed that individual LEP funding be increased to £6k pa. The alternative appears to be that the Network will cease and that Government will be communicating directly and separately with all 39 LEPs on each and every matter.

I will update the Board verbally regarding the letter sent and any response received.

11.2 West Midlands LEP Chairs

11.2.1 A meeting of Chairs was held in Birmingham on Wednesday 29th October at which the principal guest was Lord (Andrew) Adonis who set out the Labour Party’s views on the LEPs in general and the West Midlands in particular. He confirmed his Party’s commitment to the continuity of LEPs but, following some criticism of ‘overlaps’, he was drawn into stating that his objective would be to see the number of LEPs reduced to ‘about 20’, each serving circa 3,000,000 population areas. He offered no guidance as to how that might be achieved but turned the discussion towards the creation of a West Midlands combined authority.

80

11.2.2 Following Lord Adonis’ departure from the meeting, discussion also continued on the matter of creating a West Midlands combined authority and who might be included. No firm conclusions were reached at that time and Board Members will be aware of current ongoing discussions, statements and positioning of a potential combined authority between the Black Country Authorities and Birmingham City Council. Currently Solihull, Coventry or any other shire areas have not committed to become part of the combined authority.

11.2.3 Attached is a draft letter to Lord Adonis responding to his policy issues (Appendix A). The Board is asked to agree that it be sent in its present form or with revisions.

11.2.4 Following the Chairs’ Meeting, I signed on behalf of WLEP an MoU with the Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP (GBSLEP) for the furtherance of cooperation between the two organisations in the delivery of wealth and job creation initiatives across the two areas. This MOU formalises the long standing informal agreements and cooperation that has been taking place and is quite separate from the combined authority issue. A similar MoU was also signed between GBSLEP and the Stoke & Staffordshire LEP.

11.3 Trade mission to China and Indonesia

I recently joined the Trade Mission organised by the Worcestershire Ambassadors to China, following two previous exchanges with government officials and businessmen from Hezhou city. The party comprised some 18 delegates from Worcestershire including City MP, Robin Walker, and the LEP Vice Chair, Simon Geraghty, acting in his City and County roles also.

Following 4 days of presentations, meetings, visits and formal events in Hezhou, the main party moved onto Huizhou, a second tier Chinese city for similar activities before returning to finish in Hong Kong. However I moved on to Jakarta, Indonesia, after Hezhou, where I had pre-arranged meetings and presentations through the good offices and hospitality of a long standing resident ex-patriot and influential colleague.

Attached are my summary notes on meetings and prospects (Appendix B), one of similar such reports produced and circulated by each of the delegates. There are real opportunities for Worcestershire business in both countries.

Peter PawseyExecutive Chair

81

APPENDIX A: WORCESTERHSIRE TRADE MISSION TO CHINA & INDONESIA

31st October 2014 to 10th November 2014 inclusive

Friday 31st October: Worcester – Heathrow – Hong Kong

Saturday 1st November: Hong Kong – Guangzhou (overnight)

Sunday 2nd November: Guangzhou – Hezhou (overland)

evening: Formal banquet with Hezhou City leaders

Signing of formal City to City Agreement

Monday 3rd November: Tea company presentation

University museum/cultural centre

Lunch discussions with Vice Mayor

Visit to eco power station

Visit to 20,000 acre orange growing farm

Visit to orange packing/processing company warehouse

Visit to model village development

Banquet at another town hall with their officials

Return to Hezhou

Tuesday 4th November: Formal meeting with Hezhou Government, Chamber and Tourism officials, initially in very structured environment but later in sub groups. Identified key potential investor, developer who wishes to visit Worcestershire in Jan/Feb 2015 with view to acquiring land or property and developing employment facilities. He also has a daughter currently in USA who he would like to locate in Worcestershire (to overview his interests and to learn more of business). PEP will attempt to arrange visit and set up possibilities for daughters work experience.

After lunch, informal meeting with Mr Wong, the hotel owner and major entrepreneur in region with suggestion that he may also be interested in inward investment to Worcestershire. PEP to attempt to develop in association with Frankie Tang.

In addition to inward investment to UK, we identified opportunities for producing green energy from crop waste as per the EVG example in Fladbury.

82

Visit to National Park.

Further banquet with Hezhou officials (now more relaxed)

Wednesday 5th November: Travel overland to Guangzhou

Flight Guangzhou to Jakarta

4 nights stay with Dr and Mrs J Scott Younger OBE, Chairman, Nusantara Infrastructure

Thursday 6th November: Breakfast presentation to British Chamber of Commerce (BritCham) in their offices, Jakarta. Very keen to form links with H&WCC and very interested in presentation on UK LEPs and WLEP in particular. They have and will provide data on W Mids and Worcestershire companies already trading with Indonesia (including Malvern Instruments and Joy Mining). MI are seeking a new arrangement in Indonesia and PEP/JSY will seek to help. BritCham would welcome and support a future trade mission from Worcestershire.

Visited Indonesian International Infrastructure Conference at Conference Centre in Jakarta. Introduced to a number of companies including water infrastructure.

Meeting at Sultan Hotel with JSY, Deden Rochmawaty, Gen Mgr Corp Affairs, Nusantara Inf, Eddie SL Soong, UEM Malaysia and Salwati Ariffin, UEM Group re infrastructure Indonesia and Malaysia.

Return to Infrastructure Conference – JSY chairing session on water supply and sanitation

Visit to Nusantara offices and meeting with Chairman.

Official invitation to reception at British Ambassador’s house. The Ambassador, Mr Moazzam Malik, has only been in office for 3 weeks and I also met the Deputy, Rebecca Razavi, who was acting Ambassador before him. Both welcomed the initiative to visit Indonesia and offered any future support to us and to any of our businesses. Other members of their team will also provide details of known W Mids and Worcestershire companies currently operating there.

Friday 7th November: Breakfast meeting with Chairman, Deputy and CEO of Indonesian Chamber of Commerce (KADIN). They are extremely interested in promoting the concept of business/government partnerships on the lines of the LEPs into appropriate parts of Indonesia as a solution to a perceived current opportunity. They are also very interested in the green, renewable energy concept as per EVG at Fladbury.

Meeting with representatives from the State of Lampung in southern Sumatra regarding both the LEP concept as applicable to Lampung and regarding the production of green energy from plant and food waste. Further discussions to follow and potential visit to UK with KADIN representatives.

83

Meeting with Raj Kannan, President Director of PT Tusk Advisory, Infrastructure Delivery and Funding Consultants, again discussing LEP concept and opportunities for development in Indonesia.

Saturday 8th November: Viewed England v New Zealand on TV and joined all but Kiwis in condemning the decision of the Welsh referee in awarding the first NZ try.

Sunday 9th November: Jakarta to Hong Kong

Re-joined colleagues on main party

Dinner with Fred Kinmonth, corporate lawyer with over 30 years’ experience in Hong Kong. General advice available from Fred regarding Hong Kong and major parts of China, including Mongolia. Also came away with a potential order for Morgan Cars. PEP to pursue with Steve Morris, MD Morgan Motor Company.

Monday 10th November: Return Hong Kong to Heathrow to Worcester.

Summary of Delegation Visit achievements in Hezhou

View on the potential for Worcestershire and for business

As far as potential for Worcestershire as a whole is concerned, it is difficult to judge but it appears that several of the business reps on the delegation came away with serious and exciting leads and contacts, and even an order or two. I await to hear more at the review meeting next week. Certainly the relationship between Worcester and Hezhou has been further strengthened. Details of any leads/opportunities identified and how I propose following them up

I identified two potential investors into development and property in Worcestershire as discussed above. I will make further contact with both to provide further details and to encourage them to visit Worcestershire in the new year as they suggested.

Feedback on the hosts to include the quality of the programme, the relevance of any meetings, hospitality

Paul Walker of Malvern Instruments puts it very well and I therefore repeat his summary: “I think our delegation was certainly taken very seriously with a good programme organised and we were treated with both enthusiasm and respect. I sense that the city is anxious to develop its credentials and raise its profile in order to attract more Government/Regional investment and having international links are seen as very valuable in this respect, so I'm sure they will be keen to sustain and develop the relationship going forward.”

Feedback on the sub group meetings and the actions which were agreed. Also any other actions you think we should take

As above

What we would expect from a Hezhou delegation for their visit to Worcestershire

The next delegation to Worcestershire must include a number of business people looking to trade and potential investors into UK (Worcs), and not just government and university representatives.

84

Summary of my onward visit to Jakarta, Indonesia

There is a real opportunity for Worcestershire businesses and organisations to build strong bridges with Indonesia which has one of the strongest and fastest growing economies in the world. As one of the MINT countries it has the world’s 4th largest population with Jakarta being a city of 24 million and growing rapidly. However whilst the Capital is now well developed and business is quite sophisticated, much of this enormous country is quite under developed and in need of infrastructure, technology, food and goods of all types.

At an organisational level, the British Chamber of Commerce is very keen to forge links with H&WCC and this was echoed by the new British Ambassador and his staff who welcomed the visit. We need to identify those Worcestershire businesses already trading there and to build on such knowledge. A trade visit to Indonesia could be arranged and would be welcomed. The country is very warm to UK and all business is done in English.

At a governmental level, there is a desire to get the business sector involved in the development and management of their economy and growth and therefore the LEP model appeals greatly to them. There was very significant interest both at a central and at a state level in the LEP model that I presented. The State of Lampung, which is the southern end of Sumatra and a ‘fruit and vegetable basket’, particularly for Jakarta, is extremely interested in such a model and talked of making a formal visit to UK in order to learn more about how we and some other LEPs operate etc.

Lampung and others at central level were also extremely interested in the green energy concept demonstrated through the AD plant at Fladbury and can see massive opportunities to develop similar facilities especially to serve rural towns and villages. There is a specific opportunity here which I will take further with Evesham Vale Growers and with Steve Hunt who was also on the China delegation.

Peter Pawsey

85

APPENDIX B: DRAFT LETTER

13 November 2014

Lord Andrew AdonisHouse of LordsLondonSW1A 0PW

Dear

West Midlands LEP Chairs

I write on behalf of the Worcestershire LEP following your presentation to the Chairs of the six West Midlands LEPs in Birmingham on Wednesday 29th October. The delay in responding has been twofold, firstly that I have since then been part of a Worcestershire trade mission to China and Indonesia, and secondly that I wished to seek the views of my full LEP Board, which I have now done.

In your presentation and the subsequent discussion, I understood you to say that Labour Party policy would be to continue to support the LEPs in general but to seek some restructuring which reduce their overall number from the present 39 to ‘about 20’, with a desirable size of circa 3 million population. If I have understood that wrongly, please confirm your actual thoughts, but if not, then we would be very concerned at the prospect of significant changes to the LEP structure at this critical time.

The existing arrangements are not always ideal or appropriate but they are working – very well in the case of Worcestershire. One of the issues that frustrates most of us, either in business or in local government, is the determination of each new administration, of whatever persuasion, to blanket change structures and policies which for the most part are working well. Whilst local government has had little option but to protest and then to accept such changes, I feel I must caution you with respect to enforcing changes upon LEPs from the centre. Their whole principle is based on local knowledge and if such changes are dictated from above, I believe and fear that the LEPs’ business members and influence will rapidly dissipate and that many of those business influencers will just walk away and do their own thing. Please do not underestimate the enormous time and commitment made by such members, despite the pressures of their day jobs, and the consequent value of their input.

Whilst accepting the logic of creating further major urban combined authorities through which much growth can be driven, I am convinced that the demand for and creation of combined authorities should come from the authorities within the sub regions concerned. I am even more convinced that any mergers, ‘underlaps’, or adjustment to LEP boundaries must come from sound business and economic arguments and reasoning within the areas involved. At the same time there is much evidence to show that for every £sterling invested in the main core cities the return is much lower than for a similar investment outside of those cities.

86

Finally, I do not believe that this is a political party issue, it applies to all schools of thought. The great success of the LEPs has been to bring business and public sector together in a partnership driven by economic and jobs growth across the whole of England. Certainly in Worcestershire this has been a revelation with all parties having contributed to an initial 10 year economic strategy with which they all agree. The private and business sector input to that process has made all the difference and I do not want to see such commitment and enthusiasm turned off through frustration from enforced central changes when the status quo has just started to show some extremely encouraging results and prospects.

I would be happy to discuss this matter further as too would many of my LEP Chair colleagues who I know share similar views. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Peter PawseyExecutive Chair

87

12.0 EXECUTIVE STAFFING REPORT

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The LEP Board is recommended to:

- Note the progress in recruiting the LEP Executive Team

12.1 LEP Executive Team Update

12.1.1 Context

12.1.1.1 At the previous meeting on 25th September 2014, the Board, following detailed discussions at the Appointments and Remuneration Committee, gave approval for a new structure for the LEP Executive Team. See Appendix A for current structure chart.

12.1.1.2 This does not retract from any of the commitment or 'heavy lifting' that our local government partners are committing to the LEP. This means that the LEP will have greater capacity and ability to manage the workload, act as a catalyst and be increasingly proactive.

12.1.2 Current Status of Recruitment Processes on New Structure

12.1.2.1 Jan Bailey, PR and Communication Executive and Wendy Stock, Executive Assistant left the organisation in September 2014.

12.1.2.2 The Growth Plan Manager full time role recruitment process has been completed with Ian Edwards starting full time on 17 November 2014 and the 2 day position has been deleted from the structure. This will provide extra capacity at a senior level within the Executive team.

12.1.2.3 Kirsten Dally joined the WLEP, as PR and Communications Executive from 13th October, on a secondment from Worcestershire County Council. She is being supported by a Graduate PR Office, Jack Barnett, who started on the 20th October. Currently Diane Dwyers is temporarily covering the Executive Assistant post, a recruitment process was undertaken but no suitable candidate was sourced and therefore options are currently being considered.

12.1.2.4 In order to support the administrative demands of the organisation, we have appointed Stephanie Banfield, who started on the 29th October, as the Administration Assistant.

12.1.2.5 The secondment opportunity for a Project Officer has not commenced.

12.1.2.6 All posts are fixed term until 31st March 2016, to co-inside with the national LEP funding allocation.

88

12.2 Budget

12.2.1 Current Staff Budget

12.2.1.1 The current staff budget for the LEP team minus the Growth Plan Project Manager salary is £224,256.

12.2.1.2 The additional posts will cost per annum: £151,938.

12.2.1.3 Therefore assume 6 months of year the proposed structure to be in place from October; the total budget for staffing in the 14/15 accounting year will be £323,265.

89

90

13.0 PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE FOR DIRECTORS

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The LEP Board is recommended to:

- Advise the LEP Executive of the next steps in regard to cover.

13.1 At the last Board meeting 26th September, the Board instructed the executive to investigate costs for insuring the Board

13.2 Following taking advice from the LEP Network about what other LEPs had in place it was agreed that the requirement of the LEP would cover the following areas and therefore quotes were sort for the following covers:

Professional Indemnity – cover for advice, design, consultancy, etc Management Liability (Directors & Officers) – Covers the officers / trustees, etc for

accusations of failing in their individual responsibilities Entity Extension – Covers the LEP as an organisation as well as the officers for failing

in tis corporate responsibilities

13.3 For comparison purposes the Executive asked for quotes of £500,000 limits of indemnity (see Appendix 1).

13.4 Further information on the type of transactions and legal status of LEP is required to complete all quotations, however the 3 main options the WLEP have at the moment are:

Angel £282.67 – basic cover with restricted limits on quite a few sections Markel £805.60 – more comprehensive cover Hiscox £887.46 – comparable cover to Markel but lower excess and higher cover limits

91

Appendix 1: Insurance Quotes

£500,000 Professional Indemnity £500,000 Management Liability (D&O) Optional Management Liability Entity Extension Total

AIG More info required More info required More info required More info required

Angel > £500 excess Aggregate Basis

> £0 excess Aggregate Basis

> £500 excess Aggregate Basis

£282.67

Axa No quote £1,400.00 £0 excessAny One Claim Basis

included £2,500 excessAny One Claim Basis

£1,400.00 excluding Professional Indemnity

Ecclesiastical

No quote No quote No quote No quote

Hiscox £503.49 £500 excessAny one Claim Basis

£191.99 £0 excessAggregate Basis

£191.99 £500,000 Aggregate Limit£0 excess

£887.46

HCC More info required More info required More info required More info required

Markel £288.32 £500 excessAggregate Basis

£432.48 £0 excessAggregate Basis

£84.80 £100,000 Aggregate Limit £1,000 excess

£805.60

QBE £1,261.40 £500 excessAny One Claim Basis

no - no - £1,261.40 excluding Management Liability

RSA More info required More info required More info required More info required

92

93

14.0 UPDATE ON LOCAL PLANS

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThe LEP Board is recommended to:

- Note the update on Development Plans across Worcestershire

14.1 Wyre Forest District Local Plan Update

Wyre Forest’s current development plan comprises of the Adopted Core Strategy (Dec 2010), the Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan and the Kidderminster Central Area Action Plan (both July 2013). The Core Strategy’s housing target is for 4,000 dwellings to 2026 with an annual delivery rate of 200 dwellings.

The District’s published Local Development Scheme timetables a review of the Core Strategy to produce an all-encompassing Local Plan for the District. This will commence in summer 2015 with an Issues and Options consultation. Officers are currently collating the evidence base to establish the future development needs for the District, which includes commissioning further work on the Objectively Assessed Housing Need. The Council has recently been involved in modelling work to inform the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the Bromsgrove and Redditch Local Plans, in addition to the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP housing needs work. We will also be undertaking an employment land review very shortly.

The Council is reviewing its Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document with stakeholder engagement scheduled for January 2015. It is anticipated that a CIL Charging Schedule will be progressed in tandem with the Local Plan Review.

14.2 Bromsgrove District Local Plan

The Bromsgrove District Plan is currently at examination with BDC specific hearing sessions taking place on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of December and a joint hearing session with RBC on the 11th of December to consider the Cross boundary element of the plan. The overall level of growth being planned for remains unchanged at 7000 dwellings and 28 hectares of employment land, although the objective assessment of housing needs figure remains unconfirmed, it is due to be discussed further on the 2nd December. In addition to the Bromsgrove related growth the plan also contains a green belt review mechanism to cater for possible unmet growth needs coming from the West Midlands conurbation.

14.3 South Worcestershire

The South Worcestershire Council’s approved recommended main modifications to the submitted South Worcestershire Development Plan on 30th September 2014. The recommended modifications primarily address the Inspector’s recommended uplift to the Objectively Assessed Housing Need requirement to 28,300 dwellings up to 2030. With the Inspector’s recommended changes to components of the SWDP supply the SWCs have had to identify sites for around an additional 6,000 dwellings across the plan area. As part of this process the SWCs undertook a ‘call for sites’ exercise over the summer with around 500 sites submitted for consideration. However, much of the uplift has been addressed by planning permissions recently granted primarily on land supply grounds and increases to strategic sites. Employment land and retail provision are unchanged from the submitted plan.

The recommended main modifications have been published for consultation (October – November) and consultation responses are to be passed to Inspector mid December. If

94

this timetable is adhered to the Local Plan Inspector has indicated that he will open stage 2 of the Examination In February 2015 looking at Strategic Policies and Strategic Allocations, moving onto Development Management policies in April and allocations in the main towns and villages in May.

A refresh of critical elements of the SWDP evidence base has been undertaken including consultation with infrastructure providers. This has enabled a full update of the South Worcestershire Infrastructure Delivery Plan to be published alongside the changes to the emerging plan.

Work has commenced by the SWCs on the preparation of joint SPDs for Affordable Housing and Developer Contributions which will be presented for approval for consultation purposes early in the new-year. Joint work on CIL is on-going but has been delayed to the SWDP timetable adjustments and is closely linked to on-going work around SWDP and site viability and delivery.

Speculative applications justified on land supply grounds continue to be submitted across South Worcestershire and the SWCs have lobbied the S of S for increased weight to be afforded the emerging SWDP.

14.4 Redditch Borough

Redditch Borough Council is part way through its examination. Sessions on the Redditch Plan were undertaken in June and September, with a further session scheduled for 11th December to discuss cross boundary growth in Bromsgrove District.

Interim conclusions received from the Inspector suggest that the level of housing growth proposed (6,450 dwellings until 2030) may be appropriate. This incorporates 3,000 dwellings within Redditch and 3,400 cross boundary in Bromsgrove. The submitted Local Plan also proposes 55 hectares of employment land, 27 hectares of which is located cross boundary in Bromsgrove and Stratford on Avon Districts.

14.5 Worcestershire County

Worcestershire Minerals Local Plan: The second stage consultation on the Worcestershire Minerals Local Plan took place in 2013.  The consultation  attracted a lot of interest from the local communities in Worcestershire and the Minerals Industry. WCC are currently working through the comments and the plan is being revised in preparation for a its third and final consultation expected in late spring 2015. It is anticipated that   plan will then be submitted in late 2015 with the Examination in Public 2016.

Worcestershire Waste Core strategy: The Waste Core strategy was adopted in November 2012, providing policies for the management of waste in the county. This is monitored annually through the Annual Monitoring Report. The strategy is currently performing well, and there are no matters of concern arising.

12th November 2014 (V2)Contact Gary Williams – Malvern Hills District Council

95