Councillor Yeulett began by stating that he hoped today's meeting would improve the relationship between the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and Fenland District Council (FDC) which is crucial to maximise funding opportunities in Fenland and raise awareness of how the LEP can support the growth of businesses locally.
Mark Reeve from the LEP gave a presentation to show Members what has been achieved and what hasn't been achieved so far in Fenland following recent examination of its practices locally.
The Facts and Figures in the Presentation
- the LEP is a private sector organisation with 15 local authority members working to spread growth across all districts in its area. It is a very big contributor to the UK Plc. In comparison the Combined Authority has been formed with a £20 billion GVA, last year the LEP had a £35 billion GVA.
- it is in the top 10 LEP's for productivity, with 63,000 businesses in its area.
- the GCGP board has 7 private sector members, 5 local authority representatives, 2 University representatives (Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin), 1 FE College and voluntary sector (Cross Keys Homes).
- Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) is the accountable body and the LEP are governed in the same way as CCC and this fact is often missed from information. The LEP are also required to be compliant with the Local Assurance Framework.
- the LEP are monitored by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and is subject to audit.
- core funding - £250,000 from Government, match funded by Local Authority contributions.
- nationally received £12 billion pound Growing Places fund from Government which have all been deployed through three rounds of funding.
- Growth Deals -£147 million for 2015-2021 for skills, homes, jobs and schools.
- GCGP influences the spend of c£60 million EU Structural and Investment funds.
- LEP feels it has been successful across the area in terms of jobs, income and growth. It is the second biggest LEP in England.
- infrastructure - the LEP is involved in several infrastructure intervention entities and only get involved in those who offer best value in your area. They include: Cambridge City Deal, West Anglia Taskforce and the A47 Alliance.
- investment and innovation - Cambridge is the LEP's biggest asset and the LEP are branding the area on the back of Cambridge and stretching that internationally.
- skills, transport and housing are key priorities and the LEP has tried to get involved in commissioning most things it does. This involves getting actively involved in skills and careers, trying to be the bridge between schools and training centres but this is proving very challenging with the resources available.
- so far in Fenland, the district has received 18% of all funding available for the LEP's 15 districts and if it was done proportionately, Fenland wouldn't have received that amount.
The projects include:
- King’s Dyke - money is there ready to go.
- Wisbech Access Study - again money is waiting to be spent.
- Fenland Stations feasibility study - improvements to Whittlesey and Manea.
- Agri-Tech - "this area should be at the top of this programme but it’s not". Has been highly successful.
Priorities - looking ahead following appointment of new Mayor and June general election. Working with Combined Authority, and pushing to get projects delivered.
Councillor Yeulett asked 3 general questions:
- what evidence is there to show residents that the LEP have successfully delivered their identified priorities in the Fenland area? Mark Reeve said the LEP had secured funding for King’s Dyke, Wisbech Access Study, and other infrastructure projects that are subject to deliverability. It needs to look at how we work together to further evidence that to residents by raising the profile of those projects. Karl Gardiner pointed out that 18% of the LEP’s allocated funding went to Fenland which is "well-above the pro-rata provision of funding" and makes the LEP confident of its investment in the area. Councillor Booth stated a lot of that 18% of funding hasn’t been delivered yet, so residents aren’t seeing the benefit of it. Mark Reeve said the LEP is frustrated too, and its credibility is challenged by the delivery of projects being held back.
- is Fenland getting a fair deal in comparison to other areas? Councillor Yeulett accepted the 18% allocation had answered that.
- what does Fenland have to do to ensure we are getting a fair deal? Councillor Yeulett said the presentation had touched on making sure businesses meet the criteria for bid applications, and how FDC and the LEP could work together more to prepare bids.
Questions to LEP on 5 themes:
Theme 1 - Business Support
Councillor Mason asked how confident are you of EU support post Brexit? Mark Reeve said the existing European funding stream will hopefully be replaced by other community funding streams, although difficult to predict. Needs to remain local decision on strategic fit approach. Karl Gardiner said development projects with sound research and evidence will enable the LEP to respond rapidly to funding opportunities.
How will the LEP improve awareness of the support and funding opportunities available to Fenland businesses? Mark Reeve said there needs to be dedicated teams on both sides to work on this. The LEP’s Signpost 2 Grow is an online-based solution signposting businesses to the right place for funding. Mark Reeve advised that FDC has a dedicated resource to access this as well as interact with local businesses/business groups. Mark Reeve said there is lots of support out there but unfortunately businesses don’t have the time to access this on their own. The LEP is also working with business representatives, such as Chambers of Commerce and briefing them and their membership of support available, but many people still don’t even know what the LEP is. Also trying to work with professional service providers such as accountants, lawyers and property agents within businesses to make sure they are aware of the LEP and its potential. Karl Gardiner said the LEP’s Agri-Tech lead met with FDC’s Economic Development Officer on 17 May to see how investment can be increased going forward.
How can the LEP better support Fenland businesses to compete for funds? Mark Reeve said it was about connecting businesses to the programme so again if FDC had a business forum then it is open to sending along a LEP representative to talk about how it works. Karl Gardiner said there is a limited pot of money so there is a due diligence process, but part of the LEP process is working with businesses and economic development officers across the local authorities to assist businesses in putting together the strongest possible business cases they can to secure that funding.
Councillor Booth said with regards to the Agri-Tech programme, it appears the mechanism isn’t working appropriately in relation to Fenland. Mark Reeve said Agri-Tech covers Cambs, Norfolk, Suffolk and into Rutland and there have been no issues anywhere else. "I can’t tell you what problem is or isn’t. I’m not sure why it works better anywhere else than in Fenland because it should." Karl Gardiner said no area gets preferential support. The one application the LEP have had did receive funding; it’s not a case of applications being rejected. For whatever reason applications from Fenland businesses are not coming forward. Mark Reeve said business communities elsewhere are disparate, and it could be that when one entity gets a grant others in that area come forward.
Councillor Booth asked if the LEP could support a Cambs Acre event in Wisbech St Mary, Mark Reeve said if they could they will, those kinds of events are ideal for the LEP to support.
Councillor Mrs Davis asked is it time for the LEP to allocate staff to specifically concentrate on Fenland? Mark Reeve said FDC had to take the lead, if the LEP decided to allocate more time to one area than another that could be problematic.
Councillor Mrs Davis asked has the LEP identified any specific companies that it could approach to boost their economic growth? There is a data base of Agri-Tech businesses within the area which could potentially be recipients of funding, but it is in its early stages of contacting them. Karl Gardiner stated that it needs to look at what agriculture sectors they fit into, and how can it assist with making them aware of help available.
Councillor Mrs Hay asked what steps has the LEP taken to engage with Stainless Metalcraft (SMC) regarding accessing grant funding to help them to grow? Mark Reeve stated that it has met several times with SMC but they are "significantly well-funded" and there are rules that have prevented it from doing many things with a business of that size. It is still open to working with them within the funding streams available.
Councillor Pugh asked how does the LEP ensure public money is well spent? Karl Gardiner stated that there are a number of measures which indicate value for money, both for social and economic growth. Rigorous due diligence and assessment processes assess how the LEP deploys funding and the LEP is confident going forward that those processes will be as strong, if not stronger than other LEPs. Mark Reeve said core key criteria for value for money is that the LEP gets £2.50 back for every £1 invested.
Councillor Mason asked how effective is the Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise Forum at conducting meaningful engagement? In October in Whittlesey it is organising a trade fair, would the LEP support that? Mark Reeve said the LEP would if it was relevant to its agenda, he would check that. Also said he could put the forum in touch with Claire Higgins, Chief Executive of Cross Keys Homes, who chairs the VSE funding panel.
Councillor Booth takes on board points about an inclusive economy and asked how we can deliver better and improve everyone chances and how that it now being progressed, but is the LEP frustrated by rules and regulations that mean it cannot move as dynamically as it would like to? Mark Reeve said as LEPs have grown their ability to be agile and deliver a strategic facilitation approach has become more difficult and the latest Assurance Framework has moved that on again. The LEP has had to evolve which has made the private sector influence more difficult to bring about but we are learning quickly. He still believes there is a really high value in bringing private sector influence.
Theme 2: Inward Investment and Skills
Councillor Mrs Hay asked what progress is being made to refresh the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) to ensure links with the Combined Authority, and to what extent has the LEP conducted meaningful engagement to ensure the SEP is fit for purpose? Mark Reeve stated the LEP is continuing to interact with stakeholders and stakeholder groups across the local authority areas to develop the plan using an evidence-based approach. Working with the Combined Authority, the evidence will allow the LEP to procure data and interactions within the wider economy. The LEP wants a strong plan that is undeniable in what needs to be done in any given area.
Councillor Mrs Hay asked what are the timescales for the refresh of the SEP? Mark Reeve said it is working towards taking it to the June board meeting, with it being ready for September. Councillor Mrs Hay asked how often will the new plan be updated? Mark Reeve stated that it will have to be continually updated, it is very much a live document. The evidence based approach will broadly tell us what we already know, but it is getting it all in one place. Karl Gardiner said that it will need to be updated after the election, after Brexit and the end of EU funding. Data will be constantly reviewed, it cannot be a single plan that is "all things to all people".
Councillor Mrs Davis asked how will the refreshed SEP maximise opportunities in Fenland and prevent skills and business leakage into other areas. Mark Reeve stated to appeal to businesses, areas need to have access, housing, skills, and access to market and that’s what it's here to do. In terms of economic climate, the LEP uses a multi-layer approach to see how Fenland fits in to wider economic geography. For example, Fenland will be able to draw upon the Garden Town plan to bring about intervention and use it to inform how something will be better for a certain place and also the wider economy.
Councillor Mrs Hay made the point that it is members’ understanding that Enterprise Zones are created to encourage new businesses into the area, however, in the case of MMUK it appears the Enterprise Zone at Alconbury has encouraged movement of a successful business in a relatively deprived area to a more affluent area in the same vicinity. How can this be avoided in the future? Mark Reeve responded that it is not easy to hold a business in one place; Metalcraft have said to us it should move to Cumbria as that is where nuclear industry is based. What the LEP and the local authorities can do is get in touch with businesses, understand the demands on it and try and stop them from moving, although it is quite difficult to do.
Councillor Pugh stated there is lots of deprivation in the North of the county but currently no Enterprise Zones, how to you plan to address that? Mark Reeve said that there are currently no plans for any zones but any area can create a zone and benefit from reduced rates. Karl Gardiner stated that there are no guarantee there will be any new Enterprise Zones after the election. If post-election the Government says there will be more zones, the LEP will lobby and negotiate with the government to ensure this region benefits from that, but cannot actually guarantee it will get any zones. Mark Reeve said that businesses should be proactive and look at setting one up, why wait until the next bidding round?
Councillor Mrs Davis stated that Fenland has only secured one Eastern Agri-Tech bid out of £3.2 million of funding available and asked what is the evaluation criteria? Mark Reeve stated that the criteria includes due diligence scoring on jobs secured, jobs created, and then interviews about credibility and deliverability. Karl Gardiner added that the application form could be shared, it is quite a simple form in line with other grant applications. Councillor Mrs Davis asked what can the LEP do to give greater support to the preparation of bids? Mark Reeve said it can help businesses fill in forms and support them through the process. Councillor Yeulett stated that we are keen to get this bidding process right. We’ve been successful within the Heritage Lottery area; we want to have the same success in the LEP area. Any assistance the LEP can give and constructive criticism will be welcome.
Councillor Yeulett asked how the LEP is going to align with the Combined Authority in terms of growth, skills, and transport and infrastructure? Mark Reeve stated it is in early discussions with the Combined Authority about how it is going to work together, meeting with the Mayor and Chief Executive again in two weeks’ time. It is going to be complimentary, and is a great opportunity with large interventions, leverage, and a global figure pushing forward.
Councillor Mrs Davis stated that it is members understanding that funding for the skills centre (Agri-Tech centre) has been cancelled; can the LEP provide an explanation for this decision? Mark Reeve advised that two bids came forward, one from Soham and one from Produce World (Chatteris), and the reasoning behind one over the other is well-documented. There was another potential entry for a separate £500k centre to be provided but no-one came forward with a proposition. We ended up doing some work with land agencies instead as businesses were saying they did not need skills centres but help with modern slavery.
Councillor Yeulett made the point that the Eastern Agri-Tech growth initiative has £3.2 million of funding available but only £46.5k has been spent in Fenland. Mark Reeve stated that it is disappointed that Fenland businesses only secured one bid. We’ve now got more Agri-Tech funding and we need to look at how we can move forward for likely better outcomes. Councillor Booth expressed the view that part of the issue has been bureaucracy and delays in businesses being able to get access to the funding. We need to try and remove these barriers and be pragmatic to get the investment locally.
Councillor Mason referred to the Must Farm project in Whittlesey, which the LEP injected cash into. How do you see that investment benefitting Fenland as a whole? Mark Reeve advised that he was not familiar with that investment, but it needs to see tourism as an opportunity for the whole area and anything of that nature that can be supported and create jobs is something we need to look at.
Councillor Mrs Davis asked what steps is the LEP taking to join up skills training with business requirements? Mark Reeve stated that quite a lot of work has been undertaken in this area and commissioned Opportunity Peterborough. Worked with data sets to see what businesses need now and in the future, and talked to schools and careers enterprise council to try and join business to the education system. In terms of connecting school and college outcomes to business, we’re working hard on that locally, regionally and nationally as schools are not producing the young people that businesses want. That’s not their fault because their criteria is different. Recently informed the curriculum at Peterborough Regional College by talking to businesses and putting people on courses that are appropriate for Peterborough. Our ambition is to provide that data to the educators so that they have criteria about getting people to work. Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that she hears Cambridge, she hears Peterborough, but wants to hear Fenland. Mark Reeve responded that the reality is Fenland is part of Greater Cambridge, Greater Peterborough and Opportunity Peterborough is covering the Peterborough area including Fenland. Councillor Mrs Laws asked if he was referring to the College of West Anglia? Mark Reeve said it was talking with David Pomfret, the senior figure there.
Theme 3: Infrastructure
Councillor Pugh asked if there is any update on the £11.5 million of investment ring-fenced for Fenland, however, only £2.3 million has been spent? Mark Reeve stated that he is waiting for feedback from executives on what the best inventions are, but hoping to move forward in June.
The growth deal funding is important to Fenland, when will growth deal round 3 be announced and can we be involved in that process? Mark Reeve said that the Growth deal round 3 is £37 million which the LEP has been awarded recently, to be spent between 2019 and 2021. The LEP will be going out with programmes and asking for bids into those programmes. He would encourage engagement with the executive to see what those programmes look like and making sure you have resources working towards bids that fit the programmes and are deliverable. Councillor Pugh stated that it would be good to have an insight into that so FDC can see what to push forward. Karl Gardiner stated that it is keen to have an investment prospectus produced in relation to round 3, saying what the requirements are, what can and can’t be invested in, investment sizes, sectors and application process, to offer complete transparency in the process. It would be available for everyone.
Councillor Mrs Laws made the point that Fenland was unsuccessful with growth 2 funding; this committee would like to see the assessment criteria and get feedback on those unsuccessful bids to ensure more successful bids in future. Mark Reeve stated that Wisbech Access Study was growth deal 2 and he is not aware of unsuccessful bids for funding, but can look into that. Councillor Yeulett agreed that feedback is wanted from unsuccessful bids to develop bids in future. Mark Reeve said the process is transparent, I would ask your executive officers to report back to you as to what went forward and why.
Councillor Mrs Laws asked what is the view of the LEP on the Wisbech Garden Town and does this pose a conflict with the extensive development planned for Waterbeach? Mark Reeve responded not at all, Waterbeach is a private arrangement between MOD and developers. LEP is very supportive of Wisbech Garden Town and has spoken to the Council's officers about how support can be best provided. Looking at taking a more holistic approach to the Garden Town, to the bid for £2.5 million and the reality of transport inventions that might support it.
There appears to be a contrast in funding proposals in relation to the Wisbech rail link compared to the military land development which appears to favour front loaded funding. Can the LEP explain this apparent inconsistency? Mark Reeve stated that the Wisbech rail funding is a stand-alone proposition, the MOD land is a matter for the MOD. They are completely separate and not connected propositions. Councillor Mrs Laws referred to the £395k spent on Fenland stations (Whittlesey and Manea) and asked has that all gone on GRIP? Mark Reeve advised no, it was station enhancements, a breakdown can be given. Councillor Yeulett expressed the view that the challenge with the Wisbech rail project has been raising the funding, stage by stage, to progress the development. Mark Reeve said that the Wisbech rail challenges have been well documented; it cannot provide funding for something which does not pass the test. A GRIP 2 has been undertaken which proves we cannot go on to GRIP 3. It could be looked at again in terms of the wider potential for Garden Town by the Combined Authority as its criteria is different to ours in that it will look at social impact potential. Councillor Booth asked, with processes set out by Network Rail, what challenges are we providing to Network Rail around assumptions build into cost benefit analysis? At times, when using Network Rail criteria, you’re not getting value for money. Mark Reeve advised there is no specific challenge; Network Rail has specific criteria and if they relaxed that for one place there would be many more behind it. Network Rail was clear that Wisbech rail was not supportable, and would need to be delivered by another party. Moving Network Rail or the DFT is not something we could do as it would have ramifications across the rail network. Councillor Booth felt the LEP had a role to play in influencing ministers on it as it’s not only Wisbech that is missing out.
Councillor Pugh stated that it is members understanding that the LEP is funding infrastructure upgrades to the A605 and A15, but what about the A47? Mark Reeve stated as far as he is aware, the LEP isn’t funding the A605 or A15. We are part of the A47 Alliance, which has delivered intervention to the North of Peterborough into A1 and at Guyhirn, and there are further interventions to come. Around £300 million to date has been spent on the A47 and more can be done.
Councillor Pugh asked what importance does the LEP give to the Wisbech 2020 initiative? Mark Reeve stated the LEP has been involved from the outset and gives it a high level of importance. We support it with funding and other things we’ve done, it’s as important as any other intervention in our area.
Councillor Mrs Laws asked how does the LEP intend to support sub regional infrastructure projects in Fenland, i.e. Wisbech to March rail? Mark Reeve said the LEP is unable to support the Wisbech to March rail project for the reasons that have been well documented; it’s been through the processes talked about and does not reach the bar. As far the LEP is concerned, the opportunity lies in wider context of the Garden Town project. If that is successful it will perhaps require rail as well as infrastructure. The LEP is not the lead on that, but it can support the Combined Authority in bringing added value and seeking opportunities within intervention.
Theme 4: Governance and Management
Councillor Booth asked why is the LEP funding per million of population lower than other LEPs by comparison, i.e. GCGP funding is £83.8 million of population compared with New Anglia at £108.1 million? Mark Reeve stated Cambridge, and in with it Cambridgeshire, is viewed as doing well and therefore doesn’t need much help. Also, in this area there have been lots of people asking for lots of things, no clarity, no 'one voice', but Anglia has been at one, and happy to work together. Finally, our area is one of the most complex and studied in England and has suffered from not putting forward strong, deliverable propositions. Karl Gardiner said we need to be able to make robust, evidence-based cases to government. Rather than taking a 'scattergun' approach in asking for money, we need to combine global world assets, with robust evidence and clarity in what we’re asking for.
Councillor Yeulett asked how can Fenland’s interests be better represented at board level? Mark Reeve responded that there are 5 local authorities on the board and they are elected, with numerous changes over a period. The leader of the county is currently on the board. Councillor Yeulett asked will the elected Mayor being on board impact any change? Mark Reeve stated that the deputy mayor is on the LEP board. Not had discussion with the Mayor yet, but would imagine him joining the board in addition to the deputy. Councillor Booth stated that the idea being muted is a rolling option for council leaders to join so everyone gets opportunity to be represented. Mark Reeve responded that as far as LEP is concerned we want to work with all of the leaders.
Councillor Booth referred to the standard economic appraisal process favours Southern Cambridgeshire projects when assessing bids and asked what impact does that have? How can the issue of deprivation be better recognised, considered and reflected in future project appraisals? Mark Reeve advised that people are not bothering to put time and effort into attracting funds, geography and deprivation are not significant factors. He would encourage FDC to put time, effort and resource into understanding what funds are available and try and match those to opportunities. It will take time but 'the door is open'. Councillor Pugh asked what happens to money not spent? Mark Reeve said the monies allocated for Wisbech Access/Kings Dyke could be challenged at some point but not currently. If a strong proposition comes forward, there does not need to be funding stream available. It would be revolutionary at the moment, but we could put it forward and ask for funding.
Councillor Mrs Laws asked if the current governance arrangements support interactions between the LEP and its partners which would help to inform decision making as well as influencing priorities and strategy formulation? Mark Reeve stated that processes on how we operate, transparency and decision making are all available on the LEP’s website. We also interact with all leaders and wider stakeholder groups. From a communications perspective we can always do more.
Councillor Mrs Davis asked is there any possibility that the LEP could fund a dedicated resource to FDC to improve engagement and identify funding opportunities? Mark Reeves advised no, but FDC could look to West Norfolk or East Cambs (councils) in terms of what they do and how successful they’ve been by dedicating resource to this activity.
Councillor Booth asked how much has the GVA grown since 2011 and do you track that growth? It is tracked and constantly measured growth in jobs, growth, and business numbers. All of that data is there from the start until now. Councillor Booth asked if the county council has ever refused to sign a certain project off in favour of another? Mark Reeve advised not that he is aware of.
Councillor Booth asked if the LEP has ever approached property funds to try and get inward investment into the area? For example, funds for prefab homes. Mark Reeve stated that the LEP has had those conversations in terms of commercial propositions and there are funds available that do provide funding for those types of things. There are some areas like Cambridge that people want to invest in more than others, but the LEP is investigating all of those and trying to put together a proposition that allows private sector money to be leveraged.
Councillor Yeulett asked what due diligence do the LEP take when considering bids to ensure the protection of public money? Mark Reeve advised it has an accountable body, so that protection is there. Challenge for LEPs is around transparency as we want to leverage a private sector, entrepreneurial approach to public money to get things done, but don’t want to have full encumbrance of being a public sector body.
Mark Reeve thanked members for inviting him to the meeting and said he was happy to come back to do it again. He said it was good to take away actions from the meeting and to see how things can be done differently moving forward.
Councillor Yeulett said a key message was that business case is paramount. Need to encourage businesses in the district to make bids and we look forward to help from the LEP as far as that is concerned. He would also like to look at Enterprise Zones and how FDC could be proactive with that. Mark Reeve said reduced rates should not be the deciding factors with Enterprise Zones, businesses need to be able to move quickly and get on. Councillor Yeulett said Wisbech 2020 was key to addressing deprivation and low aspiration among young people and we need to look at how we can develop work in that area. Railway is also important to open up Fenland to Cambridge and the wider world.
He is looking forward to working with LEP officers going forward.
Councillor Pugh asked if it was possible to have guidelines to work with so FDC could be as successful as others who have been successful with funding. Mark Reeve said his advice would be to go and talk with those that have been successful. We can give you that list of those successful organisations and you can ask those questions yourself. Councillor Booth stated that we should set clear target dates, and invite the LEP back in 6 months to a year’s time.
Anna Goodall identified specific actions:
- Working more closely between the LEP and FDC to identify sources of funding so FDC can match bids to those funding pots and increase funding opportunities within our area.
- Keen for LEP to share the outcome of unsuccessful bids, particularly in relation to Growth Deal round 2, to help inform FDC to shape more successful bids moving forward.
- Look at Enterprise Zones, and raise profile of the issue of deprivation and how that might be considered within that funding process going forward.
- Also keen to have a list of successful bids so FDC can learn lessons from them and share best practice to maximise our funding opportunities in our area.
- LEP to liaise with Cambs Acre and Agri-Tech businesses to enabling greater transparency and accessibility to FDC’s intelligence about businesses in our area.