Agenda item

 The Partnership received a report by Ross Gill, Economic Strategy and Policy Manager which summarised the feedback received from Central Government regarding the Local Growth Fund allocation and the reasons for selection of particular projects over others.

In addition, the report sought to establish a strategic direction from the Partnership regarding a small number of additional project allocations that may become available in the autumn.

Government Feedback

Ross Gill introduced the report for the Partnership; in particular he referred to the following:

      i.        Government had selected projects based on three criteria:

a.    Assessment of the overall Strategic Plan

b.    Project level assessment

c.    Review of local prioritisation

    ii.        A large proportion of the project allocation funding (£127 million) would support transport projects with a further £6million of capital funding allocated to the Kent and Medway Growth Hub.
 

   iii.        Revenue funding of £800k had been allocated to the wider LEP area for business support.  It was envisaged that this money would link with the priorities emerging form the Innovation and Growth Strategy.

   iv.        A further round of Local Growth Fund bids would be launched in November, although the pot was likely to be small.  The Partnership was asked to indicate whether non-funded transport projects form the original priority lists should be resubmitted or whether new, non-transport schemes should be pursued.

Programme Delivery

Ann Carruthers, Transport Strategy Delivery Manager noted that the LGF Transport Programme was of a significant scale and would require significant resources and robust governance in order for it to be successfully delivered. Mr Carter, Leader Kent County Council asked for clarity regarding liability for any overspend, or the benefits of any underspend, on schemes within the programme.

The Board sought advice from officers regarding the likelihood of delivering those projects for which funding had been allocated to time and in line with costs set out in the application. It was agreed that a high level analysis of risks across the programme should be brought forward to the next Board.

Jo James, of Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce sought to establish whether the £6million of non-transport capital funding could be reasonably used to fund some of the business support work linked to the planned Growth Hub. Officers considered that this was likely to be possible. She expanded on current work in this area, including the establishment of a LEP wide steering group to develop the Growth Hub.

Governance Review

The Partnership discussed the review of LEP governance that would be undertaken by Irene Lucas and the Terms of Reference contained at Appendix 1 of the report.

Concerns were raised about the legitimacy of any ‘decision’ to reallocate project funding and where such decisions should be taken. It was noted that the Irene Lucas review would be an opportunity to provide greater clarity to the federated model; however, it was suggested that without further assurance regarding the competency of the accountable body and the strength of the federated bodies, the LEP could be disbanded and reformed along different geographical lines.

Vince Lucas remarked that the focus on governance could discourage business engagement. He urged the Board to think about the longer term strategy, to allow businesses to use their strengths to help and to represent the needs of Kent and Medway in the second and future rounds of bidding.

LGF Round 2

The Board was asked to determine whether LGF Round 2 should primarily focus on the resubmission of transport projects first proposed in Round 1, or whether new projects should be brought forward.

The Board generally expressed support for the former course.

It was resolved that:

a) The feedback from Government be noted;

b) The work to bring forward schemes approved be noted;

c) That resubmission of unsuccessful round 1 transport bids to the round two funding allocation be supported.