Agenda item

To receive a report that advises on the Government launch of two new calls for project proposals that will help unlock economic growth in local areas. In the first call, Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) are invited to bid for a share of the third tranche of Local Growth Funding (LGF), worth £1.8 billion across England. In the second call, LEPs are invited to bid for a share of the Large Local Major Schemes funding, worth £475m across England.

1.            The Kent and Medway Economic Partnership’s Strategic Programme Manager, Mrs Nurden, introduced a report on the government launch of two new calls for project proposals that would help unlock economic growth in local areas of Kent. 

2.            In the first call, Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) were invited to bid for a share of the third tranche of the Local Growth Fund, worth £1.8 billion across England.  Mrs Nurden advised that the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership had endorsed the business cases for 21 Schemes.  The total value of the 21 schemes was in the region of £75 million. One of the 21 business cases had subsequently been withdrawn by the applicant (East Kent Spatial Development Company).

3.            In the second call, LEPs were invited to bid for a share of the Large Local Major Schemes (LLMS) funding, worth £475m across England. To bid for LLMS, LEPs were required to submit large scale transport business cases to the DfT, which were compliant with the Department’s business case methodology (known as WebTAG). There were very few large scale projects with a WebTAG-compliant business case already developed, due to the high cost of undertaking this type of project development work and none at present in Kent and Medway. The DfT was, therefore, allocating some of the £475m to support LEPs in developing new WebTAG-compliant business cases. The Cabinet Committee noted that the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership (KMEP), at its meeting on 14 June, had endorsed the submission of a LLMS bid to develop a WebTAG-complaint business case for Junction J7 of the M2 (known locally as Brenley Corner).

4.            The Cabinet Committee was asked to endorse the proposed record of decision. This decision stated that Kent County Council would endorse the bid submission, act as the accountable body for projects within its geographical boundaries and delegate authority to the Section 151 Officer to sign a grant offer letter or equivalent.

5.            The Corporate Director, Mrs Cooper, explained the work carried out to produce a list in rank order of the projects and the government had the last word in choosing which projects to support.

6.            On concerns raised and questions asked; Mrs Cooper, Mrs Nurden and Mr Gill made the following responses:

Ÿ  Mrs Cooper said the LEP was bidding was to a different ministerial team.  KCC had referred to growth in the strongest narrative possible and each bid was accompanied by a supporting business case.

Ÿ  Mr Bowles made a plea for M2 Junction 7 which would have a wider benefit for Thanet, Dover etc.  This would open up housing possibilities.  He expressed frustration with the different rankings on various lists produced by different entities.

Ÿ  Mr Baldock considered that the process was messy and uncertain.  He referred to the priority given to Junction 7 of the M2 and had concerns about other junctions that were suffering peak hour congestion including Goudhurst and Bobbing.  He suggested that the list was not comprehensive.   Mr Ratcliffe said that projects for the Large Local Means Fund had to have a minimum cost of £75 million and that improvements to the Junctions on the A249 would not come to £75 million. He also said local authorities were precluded from grouping projects.

Ÿ  Mr Trulove referred to the Lower Road in Sheppey stating that half of the Isle of Sheppey spent their travel time in traffic queues. 

Ÿ  Mr Kite said that KMEP and its closest partners and colleagues across the county had been helpful and had worked well together. He considered that the Committee could not support both KMEP and SELEP as the assessments of projects were not compatible. He suggested that the recommendation in the report at the first bullet point be altered by removing the words “& the South East Local Enterprise Partnership”.

Ÿ  Mrs Cooper advised that the report was submitted to Cabinet yesterday, 18 July and it was agreed that the report would only be agreed by the Leader if SELEP agreed the KMEP list.

Ÿ  Mrs Nurden confirmed that the letter on page 23 set out the criteria.   Mrs Cooper added that the four criteria in paragraph 2.4 shaped KMEP’s prioritisation.

Ÿ  Mr Gill advised that the Kent and Medway Edge Hub, was sponsored by Canterbury Christ Church University and would support investment in engineering and technology businesses.  Members noted that the university was providing match funding. The A2 off slip at Wincheap, Canterbury was important to this scheme.

Ÿ  Mr Marsh supported the changes to the recommendation proposed by Mr Kite.

7.            The Chairman asked Members if they supported the changes to the recommendation as proposed by Mr Kite.  Members agreed to remove the words “& the South East Local Enterprise Partnership” in the first bullet point in the recommendation.

8.            RESOLVED that:-

(a)   the comments and responses to questions by Members be noted;

(b)    the Cabinet Committee noted the proposed decision to be taken by the Leader of the Council, for Kent County Council to:

•   Endorse the Local Growth Fund Round 3 (LGF3) and Large Local Major Scheme (LLMS) bid submissions to Government proposed by the Kent & Medway Economic Partnership. (Removing the wording “& the South East Local Enterprise Partnership”)

•      Act as the accountable body for projects within Kent County Council’s geographical boundaries that are selected by the Government to receive LGF3 and LLMS funding.

•   Delegate to the Section 151 Officer, the authority to sign on KCC’s behalf a grant offer letter or equivalent, where this is required to draw down funds following business case approval.