Agenda item

This session will be prefaced by a brief introduction to the Government’s “City Deals” programme. The focus of the discussion will be around the following three themes:

1.       Investment in Leicestershire;

2.       Focus and Priorities; and

3.       Sub-Regional Ambition.

Mr. B. L. Pain CC and Mr. P. C. Osborne CC (County Council representatives on the LLEP Board) have been invited for this session.

A copy of the issues the Commission wishes to raise with Mr. Bacon is attached. By way of background information, the following documents are attached for members’ information:

·         The LLEP’s Economic Growth Plan;

·         A document outlining the LLEP’s key first year achievements.

This session is scheduled to finish at 5.00pm

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting Andrew Bacon, Chairman of the Leicester and Leicestershire Economic Partnership, to discuss the progress of the LLEP during its first 18 months in operation. A copy of the LLEP’s Economic Growth Plan, a newsletter outlining its first year achievements and a copy of a draft Expression of Interest bid for the Government’s “City Deals” Programme is filed with these minutes, marked ‘C’.

Mr. Bacon thanked the Commission for the opportunity to brief members on the achievements of the LLEP. The Chairman commented that this was the first time the LLEP had been scrutinised by either the City or County Councils and he hoped that they would be able to build an effective relationship with one another.

Arising from the ensuing discussion, the following points were noted:

Securing Investment

·         Under the LLEP, roughly five times the amount of private investment had been secured for the City and County than under the previous arrangements which included the East Midlands Development Agency and the LeicesterShire Economic Partnership;

·         The creation of around 25,000 jobs was being supported under the LLEP, some of which would be part of the MIRA Technology Zone in Hinckley. £8 million of Growth Point funding had been secured for 2013, which would create in the region of a further 1,250 jobs;

·         Though little of the funding gained thus far had reached frontline services, a number of projects were being progressed for 2013 which would provide a blend of short and long-term employment opportunities, particularly in the skills-based sector;

Focus

·         Though the Economic Growth Plan included some 70 priority areas, not all were to be delivered by the LLEP itself, as it only employed eight full-time members of staff. Many priorities relied on business and other partners taking the lead, with a good number of the priorities set out over a long timescale;

·         The proactive involvement of business had been one of the key successes of the LEP programme, which had enabled a more inclusive approach and had increased business confidence;

·         The creation of long-term and sustainable employment would be achieved through ongoing road and rail improvements in North West Leicestershire and through the MIRA Technology Zone and Loughborough Science Park. The target to achieve 25,000 jobs was a conservative figure based on schemes that had already been agreed. The responsibility of the success of sustainable employment in the long-term would to some extent lie with educators to ensure that school-aged children were given a greater insight into and provided with the necessary skills for “the world of work”;

·         Securing investment was currently the key barrier to ensuring long-term growth. The LLEP would have a presence at the MIPIM Conference in March 2013 in order to try and attract international investment. It was acknowledged that more could be done to promote the area beyond the Enterprise Zone offering. The County Council also had a major role to enable development, which was viewed as a contributory factor to achieving growth.

Sub-Regional Ambition

·         It was acknowledged that the “East Midlands” had to some extent lost its voice. A greater level of collaboration with business had led to a firmer commitment to “sub-regional” activity. The Government’s “City Deals” programme presented a timely opportunity to bring to the fore innovative solutions to enable effective cross-border joint-working;

·         Through the City Deal document, the LLEP and its partners was taking up the opportunity to combine funding to stimulate growth in the sub-region. It was also noted that there would be clear benefits to the Government’s proposed “Local Transport Body” approach, which would be based around LEP areas and support the prioritisation and development of major transport schemes in support of economic priorities.

It was reported that the draft Expression of Interest (EoI) for the bid for the second wave of City Deals had been submitted to the Government at the end of November for initial feedback. The final version of the EoI was to be submitted by 15 January 2013. There would be further opportunities for scrutiny of the City Deal, even after the EoI had been through the approval process. The Commission felt that reference in the draft City Deal Expression of Interest to the GL Hearne Housing Study was erroneous; officers stated that the Study should not have been referenced in the document and that the Government was aware of this.

RESOLVED:

That Mr. Bacon be thanked for his attendance.