Agenda item

(1)       The Chairman welcomed David Godfrey & Ross Gill to the meeting.

 

(2)       David Godfrey is currently seconded as the Interim Director of SELEP. He gave an overview of the role of the Local Enterprise Partnership and explained the relationship between the Growth Deals, which give access to the Growth Fund, and EU funding via the European Structural and Investment Funds. EU funding is a way of achieving the Growth Deal.  The European Structural and Investment Funds Strategy (SIF) is due by the end of January.  The SIF strategy aimed to develop with Government and through wider public sector spending, private investment and match finance, would inject a minimum of £5b new investment to boost the economies of Essex, Southend and Thurrock, East Sussex, Kent and Medway over the rest of the decade.

 

(3)       The draft Strategy was produced in accordance with the Government Guidance to Local Enterprise Partnerships.  It forms part of the wider economic growth strategy and acts in support of the SELEP Strategic Economic Plan.  It was developed with a broad range of partners across the SELEP area including local businesses, local authorities, education institutions, the voluntary and community sectors and other stakeholders.

 

(4)       The SELEP will receive £165 million plus £15 million, rural fund, making £180 million EU funding. The lobbying that has taken place to achieve this has been good but now the priority must be on accessing it for Kent. The means of doing this will be through the Growth Deal Strategic Economic Plan, due end of March, and the European Structural and Investment Funds Strategy.

 

(5)       David went on to talk about European Structural Investment Funds (SIF) and explained that the strategy was being revised to build in local information which would bring in increased opt-in funding in conjunction with the Skills Funding Agency. Together with the use of JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Development in City Areas) developed by the European Commission.  This would enable the LEP to lever in more funding for specific projects.  He explained that it was an opportunity to link to wider growth packages by evidencing success of local schemes in Kent and Medway. 

 

(6)       The actual procedures around operating the fund are not defined as yet. There are some criteria that projects must meet to get funding like value for money and an evidence base showing a clear need for the intervention.

 

Question – what are the mechanics of winning bids assuming it would need to be robustly defended?

 

(7)       David advised that the allocation was £165 million and it was a case of deciding how this could be accessed.

 

Question – who is the decision maker?

 

(8)       David advised that it would the LEP and local priorities would need to be indicated.  He explained that 85% would be distributed locally and although there could be a potential difficulty with this, with European experience in Kent he was sure this would not be the case.

 

Question - the strategy document is key and – how does it how it work?

 

(9)       David advised that it was essential feed back was gained from government and the LEP would receive any challenges on this.

 

Question- will KCC’s office in Brussels be participating?

 

(10)     Not at the moment although it would be vital in later stages as they intended to look at wider access to other funding and their expertise would be needed. Brussels had also played a role in obtaining the amount of funding for the SELEP that had been achieved.

 

Question – How will the LEP benefit Kent & Essex with regard to the LowerThames Crossing – could European funding be attracted to that?

 

(11)     David explained that the bids needed to fit the criteria and this was why allocations were very important.  He advised that there may be other programmes from which to access funding but not currently.

 

Question - other European countries have accessed EU funding for infrastructure (eg. Roads in Madeira) -  the Lower Thames Crossing was desperately needed?

 

(12)     David explained that there were opportunities to put bids in for additional funding but the type of projects is specified.

 

Question – Where will SELEP go for advice on EU funding business processes/meeting EU criteria?

 

(13)     SELEP could call on expertise of individual authorities including Kent’s IAG. It is currently unclear how Kent and Medway would be able to influence it – he had attended a Conference and the same question had been asked – Ministers felt a great influence would be placed on how funding flows   .

 

Question – Although money may flow in – if criteria are not met – it could flow out again?

 

(14)     There followed a discussion about the links to the Brussels office giving Kent an advantage when bids are prepared.

 

Question – Do we know what the European neighbours were bidding for (referring to the coastal line of Belgium and Northern France)?

 

(15)     David advised that this information would not be available via the LEP but Interreg are open about their projects.

 

 

(16)     IAG would know what other European countries were bidding for through their contacts.

 

(17)     There followed a discussion about the creation of the LEP and the joining of three counties, bringing together a combination of people. The raised profile of the LEP reflected the importance of the task being approached in the right way, illustrating the value of intelligence and personalities.

 

ROSS GILL

 

(18)     Ross introduced himself and explained that his role included bidding for funding including from the Government’s Regional Growth Fund and the European Regional Development Fund together with establishing new economic projects and programmes.  He was also responsible for developing KCC’s Economic Strategy, including the Regeneration Framework and Unlocking the Potential - Going for Growth.

 

(19)     He explained that the LEP was a big opportunity and big challenge. He talked about the Unlocking the Potential Document and its Annexe and working in parallel to establish the Kent Economic Partnership which brings together businesses etc. and was a voice for Kent.  Ross explained that the bids to the European Fund would be made this year and to the Local Growth Plan – next year.  The broad principles of the two funds were in alignment and it was envisaged the plan would move forward over the next few months.  There would be a key role for the European team and district colleagues.   Focus needed to be made on how investment would be used and priorities noted for other European funding – Key Projects and High Growth in Kent.  He explained that if Kent had not received funding then we wouldn’t be pitching for this funding.

 

(20)     Ross referred back to the question of the prospect of funding for major infrastructure and explained that infrastructure funding from Europe usually went to less affluent countries. Britain and in particular the South east were more developed and affluent.  He explained that it would be necessary to explore different channels and that LEP would have a better route in.

 

(21)     David Godfrey concluded that this was a prime example of where LEP could work.

 

Question – Could you elaborate regarding the tension between the Strategy and bids?

 

(22)     Ross advised that the tension arose around housing numbers etc, growth funds and what to spend on – he explained that any bids needed to reflect the strategic needs to secure the required resources.

There followed discussion about needing  “more flesh on the bones” and the frustration that latterly joined countries were seeking the most investment.  There was a policy of combining what funds were available ie 50% and match 50%.  The need for LEP to work very closely with IAG and the importance of European Funding was emphasised..

 

(23)     David advised that the longer term relationships and partnerships were being built.

 

(24)     Ross advised that t was a short term /long term plan and a 7 year programme which would be constantly reviewed.   He advised that the Government would not want unspent funding so it was essential to demonstrate good strong schemes.

 

(25)     Alan Marsh confirmed that agencies handling RGF funds had in some cases been unable to satisfy enough bids and spend all the money.  He emphasised that it was necessary to work closely with the LEP as they were in a position to do much better than others.

 

(26)     David referred back to the £165 million and reiterated it was necessary to be as flexible and creative as possible.

 

Question – could you tell us more about Jessica?

 

(27)     JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Development in City Areas) was a South East fund programme able to access European investment money.   It had a chequered past and we needed to see what was possible and what was not .

 

(28)     Jessica is a revolving investment fund but money had not always returned for re-investment.

 

Question – From the “Unlocking the Potential” Document it is difficult to see how this can be actioned – (referring to the Transport Investment Programme and traffic and that 7,000 homes were to be built per year over the next 20 years which would mean a 20% increase in the population) where will jobs derive from?

 

(29)     The strategy was looking at growth in the main corridors, how to use them to bring in jobs but this must be business led.

 

Question – SME support focuses on trade and inward investment - will EU funding help?

 

(30)     Not directly - it will be more about the site infrastructure, skills investment and links with universities. The ability of Kent’s SME’s to take up the support is less than in other areas and the challenge is how to address this. There has been progress to get more businesses through the door, using Chambers of Commerce to cascade the message. When going out searching for projects to get funding West Kent were best, then Thames Gateway and East Kent.

 

Question – could you break it down into sectors?

 

 

(31)     Ross identified manufacturing and initiatives supporting the low carbon sector.  He explained that it was a challenge with homebased businesses setting up on their own whether in London or abroad – limited local economic strategy meant therefore the businesses may not be aware of them.

 

Question -  could it be regionalised?

 

(32)     Ross explained that an exercise had been carried out three times and in each case local businesses were asked if they had projects to be considered – Thames Gateway were quicker and stronger than East Kent and West Kent were better still with responses.

 

(33)     The Chairman thanked Ross and David for attending the meeting and helping the Committee with their work.