Agenda item

Purpose: To provide an overview of the functioning of the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership and consider its effectiveness in terms of how well it is delivering for West Berkshire, noting that the functions of LEPs are changing following a Government review that concluded in March 2022.

Katharine Makant (Economy Manager) presented a report concerning the Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership (Agenda Item 6).

It was noted that Alison Webster (Chief Executive of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)) was unable to make the meeting, but had provided additional information, which would be circulated.

Action: Circulate additional information to OSMC Members after the meeting.

The following points were raised in the debate:

·         Members noted that the LEP was still doing useful work and asked about its future. It was explained that options were being considered, but discussions were still at the early stages – these would take account of the Government’s views about the future role for LEPs.

·         It was highlighted that an OSMC Member who had been a substitute on the Local Transport Board for four years, but had not received meeting papers and had not been given the opportunity to attend meetings.

·         It was suggested that there was still a need for work to take place at a county level.

·         Members asked about how successful the LEP had been in leveraging private sector investment. Officers did not have the figures to hand, but offered to provide these after the meeting. It was suggested that most of the funding had been from public sources.

·         It was noted that there were references to European funding in the report – officers confirmed that these related to legacy expenditure, and there would be no new projects supported by EU funding.

·         Officers were asked about future funding devolution and the return to individual local authorities submitting competitive bids. Officers indicated that they would do their best for the Council in whatever system was in place. While a bid to the Levelling Up Fund had failed, a bid to the Shared Prosperity Fund had been successful.

·         It was noted that the LEP had been effective at lobbying on behalf of the Berkshire local authorities and this was more efficient than individual local authorities working alone. Members asked for details of costs incurred. It was explained that requests would have to be made to other local authorities to give an accurate picture, but officers were in no doubt that the LEP model was more efficient.

·         A question was asked about inward investment secured through the Berkshire Prospectus. It was confirmed that there had been no direct approaches as a result of the prospectus, but projects had also been promoted by the individual local authorities. The Newbury Masterplan was underway and funding had been secured for the Newbury Active Travel Scheme. Shared Prosperity funding had also been secured to work up an investment strategy for Whole Estate Plans.

·         Members noted that the LEP was not politically proportional, and it was suggested that all Members should have had an opportunity to comment on the future of the LEP at an earlier stage. Officers highlighted that the letter from the Minister had indicated that LEPs would be expected to work more closely with local authorities than they had in the past. The LEP had been set up in such a way that the majority of seats were given to businesses, but this was expected to change in future. Members suggested that the current model did not seem to be working effectively.

·         It was suggested that Members would welcome the ability to access meeting papers and to know more about the LEP and its operations.

·         Members queried why it was difficult to assess the impacts of the Berkshire Opportunities project. This was because employment / training opportunities were open to all, so it was difficult to work out how many West Berkshire residents had benefited, but officers offered to go back to the LEP for more information.

·         A question was asked about funding for Hungerford Town Centre. Officers confirmed that strategies were being developed for Hungerford and Thatcham Town Centre Strategies. Once these were agreed, the Council would be able to start bidding for funding for projects.

·         It was suggested that there should be Member development sessions on the LEP to raise awareness and seek input.

·         Members asked why Career Hubs were not provided at all West Berkshire secondary schools. It was suggested that this may be because some schools had chosen not to be part of the network, but officers offered to find out more from colleagues in Education.

(During the course of the debate, Councillor Biyi Oloko declared a personal interest in Agenda item 6 by virtue of the fact that he had been involved with a start-up accelerator that had been in contact with the LEP. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

·         Members asked about the key performance indicators (KPIs) that had been set for the LEP. Officers were not aware of KPIs, but highlighted that the returns on investment were far greater than the Council’s £10,000 annual contribution. Members suggested that this should be considered in future.

·         There was some discussion about how decisions were made and the efficiency of the process of allocating funds. It was suggested that there should be more coordinated push-back against proposed changes.

·         It was noted that the LEP was a powerful lobbying organisation, but it could not compete with larger, regional development agencies. Members suggested that there was a need to continue to ensure alignment with other organisations such as Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses. Officers explained that future plans for the LEPs had not been confirmed by the Government. LEPs were still being funded, albeit at around 50% of previous levels, but they were in flux and waiting for further announcements.

·         It was noted that some areas (e.g. Buckinghamshire Council) had set up Growth / Prosperity Boards. These allowed for more democratic decision-making and for larger businesses to be involved.

·         There had been meetings of local authority Chief Executives and Place Directors to look at future ways of working. It was expected that there would be more announcements from the Government later this year.

·         A key risk for the Berkshire local authorities was that they may need to expand their Economic Development Teams to replicate the LEP’s functions.

·         Members suggested that officers should be stronger in lobbying for the changes they wanted to see.

·         It was suggested that Members would welcome anything that made for more democratic decision making at a local level.

Actions:

·         Officers to provide an indication of the level of private sector investment that had been secured by the LEP.

·         Officers to identify what information could be provided for the Berkshire Opportunities service (e.g. number of web page hits from users in West Berkshire).

·         Officers to confirm why some schools did not have Career Hubs.

·         Officers to consider what KPIs would be appropriate for the LEP.