Agenda item

Huw Jarvis

 

(1)       The Chairman welcomed Huw Jarvis and Nick Harrison to the meeting and invited them to give their presentations and answer questions from Member.

 

(NB Please to be read in conjunction with the presentation slides)

 

(2)       Huw gave a brief overview of the Leader approach delivered under the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE). The original 2007-2014 set up had been extended to 2020 and work commenced on a new 7 year programme. It was not known how much new money was available. The Local Action Groups (LAG’s) vetted interested bodies, and matched them to particular themes of the LAG’s development priorities. The KD&M LAG was made up of representatives from across the KD&M Leader area and final decisions were made by the LAG Executive (4 public sector and 5 private sector organisations representing the interests of the whole rural community) followed by Defra approval (formally SEEDA). KCC was the Accountable Body.

 

(3)       Huw showed a map giving details of the Leader areas in England, the North having a higher concentration, with devolved power to Scotland and the Welsh Assembly. There were some gaps, but Leaders are Rural grants, not Urban. East Kent had had an unsuccessful bid in 2007 and there was therefore no Leader activity in the area. 

 

(4)       Huw explained that there were three LAG Objectives;-

 

            a)Rural Economy-develop a pioneering and sustainable rural economy

            b)Rural Communities-foster vibrant rural communities

            c)Rural Environment-value

 

£1.8m total spend on projects had been reduced to £1.3m and the 6 Kent wide partners in West Kent had used its allocation on 54 projects.

 

(5)       Huw advised that there was a £50k limit, but an average spend was £24k per allocation. There was freedom for exceptional projects to expand. Match funding of between 40 -100% would be considered. 100% being very rare.  The Vision was to help secure a sustainable future for the rural communities and businesses of KD&M area by promoting entrepreneurialism and diversification.

 

(6)       Huw explained that each Leader funded application needed to fit into the priority areas adding value to local products; fostering sustainable rural tourism and assist rural communities and business manage change.  If the proposal meet the ingredients for a good Leader project it is fitted into one of the measures determining a particular theme covering the LAG’s priorities by applying the test :-is it innovative? value for money? sustainable when fund finished? All key to success.

 

Testimonals.

(7)       Huw explained that Leader worked hand in glove to provide advice and steer through the heavy bureaucracy involved in projects. It created intelligence networks and signposted towards other sources of funding.

 

How Leader works.

 

(8)       Huw stated that Leader funded grants of up to maximum of £50k. All require a degree of match funding. The Leader programme could only refund expenditure. A claim could be reimbursed in one month or less, but it was essential to have Planning permission in place (LAG had a Planning expert on their staff) and to that prove funding was needed. Some very good projects had not been not successful, which would always be the case when a number of projects were in competition for a small amount of funds.  Regarding Leader in Kent – it had created 47 Jobs

 

(9)       Huw showed a map of the spread of projects, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses, emphasising the need to work closely with Local Authority partners.

 

Question -  Who much European Funding does Leader deliver?

 

(10)     Huw stated that the Leader approach delivered a minimum of 5% EU funds within the RDPE.A minimum of £105m across the country.

 

Keith Harrison

 

(11)     Keith Harrison (KH) Chief Executive of Action with Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK) and Chair of KD&M Local action Group presented a flavour of the organisation.

 

(12)     Keith alluded to the role of ACRK in Europe, the benefits, challenges, risks (the need for control) and opportunities (community led local development (including Leader) and the chance to work anywhere. He mentioned the following  :-.

 

• European Social Fund (ESF) - distributor of Community Grants 2008-15 (12% of funds financed from KCC) aimed at getting people into training or work.

 

• Progress- partnership with 3 other countries.10 organisations funded a combination of NEETS and Graduates to enable young people’s careers in NGO sector, and share transferable experiences.

 

• Foreign partner families had been placed in Kent, including those from the second largest bid in Stockholm.

 

(13)     Keith stated that the benefits from an ACRK perspective £28m between  2008-13, approx.11% of their income over 5 years.

 

(14)     Keith stated that there was a need to prove how communities actually benefited eg Thanet - older persons health care. Trained LG officers were an  example of sharing Kent based expertise elsewhere in Europe and building a positive reputation.

 

(15)     Keith highlighted some of the challenges eg Surrey CC bank-rolling work for Kent, managing £2.2m loan.  Also regarding mainstreaming there was a need to make money coming into the County count and use innovation make a difference. There was a lack of adequate rural-proofing a need for a strategy to evolve.

 

(16)     In relations to the risks and opportunities Keith stated that it was necessary to take calculated risk to achieve progress. It was important to take the opportunity of joint partnerships working together and put funds at a local level to benefit good innovative ideas. eg trial use of village halls as business hubs.

 

Question - If a building is converted for tourism are funds reimbursed from profit?

 

(17)     Keith explained as this was a grant funds were not reimbursed from profit.  There were other options/ Growth Fund loans within Kent, a grant may not be best use of the money, or it could be used to underpin a commercial loan or dovetailed in.  He stated that attracting funding was not a competition, the focus must be on complimentary working, which needed to be high on the Defra agenda.

 

Question -  If for example a farmer applied for a grant to convert a building into holiday homes and this constituted a capital improvement-was this reciprocal?

 

(18) Keith stated that the key was to consider the wider benefit, eg shops, local amenities etc how does this fit into Growth fund.

 

Question -  how has rural Kent benefitted from European Funding?

 

(19)  Keith replied that their were benefits from people networking and shearing local intelligence which was very worthwhile.

 

Question – I am concerned all Leader money has been used - what is the new  allocation?

 

(20)     Keith stated that this was not known yet.

 

 

Question -  What would the impact be of the UK leaving the European Union 2017 ?

 

(21)     Keith replied that the vote on this matter was due in 2017. The UK funding (Leader??) programme ran until 2020, there would be a need for debate to establish a good exit strategy.

 

Question - Leader projects together produce 130 jobs, supporting very good projects in the rural economy can you comment on this?

 

(22) Keith stated that Leader was a development programme.  These 130 jobs were important for diverse areas, where jobs may not be readily available and do benefit the wider rural community.

 

(22)     Keith confirmed that without European funding the programme would close down. 581 people benefit directly or indirectly from the small projects serving business purposes and building networks. European funding was essential for this.

 

Question -  What is the time line for eg cheese makers (example in papers), if they have secured match funding, how quickly is likely success through the Leader programme?

 

(23)     Keith explained that this would depend on the quality of the application, the specific example of the cheese makers was very quick. On average Local groups met approximately 6 weekly and consider 3-4 applications on a conveyor belt system.

 

Question – there have been previous delays in payment of invoices, which effects cash flow-what is current time scale?

 

(24)     Keith stated that claims were checked and sent to RPA with a turn round target of 3 weeks, longest take 6 weeks.

 

Question -  What is your view on a bottom up verses  top down approach ?

 

(25)     Keith explained that the aim was to dovetail issues, tie into strategic plans and make best use of networking. The KCC Planning officer provided informal advice, organisations all working together, local intelligence promoted close working with LA partners which was so valuable in providing wider benefits for the whole rural community and projects.

 

(26)     The Chairman thanked Huw and Keith for attending the meeting and assisting the Select Committee with their work.