eu funding – east midlands leps collaborative working study · eu funding – east midlands leps...

EU FUNDING – EAST MIDLANDS LEPS

COLLABORATIVE WORKING STUDY

Project Extension - September 2015

LANGTON BROOK CONSULTANTS [email protected]

LANGTON BROOK CONSULTANTS 1

EU FUNDING – EAST MIDLANDS LEPS COLLABORATIVE WORKING STUDY

Glossary of abbreviations:

AME Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering

BIS Department for Business Innovation and Skills

D2N2 Derby, Derbyshire & Nottingham and Nottinghamshire LEP

DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government

EMC East Midlands Councils

EMDA East Midlands Development Agency

ESF European Social Fund

ESIFs European Strategic Investment Frameworks

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ETI Energy Technologies Institute

EU European Union

FE Further Education

GLLEP Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership

HE/HEI Higher Education/Higher Education Institution

HS2 High Speed (Rail) 2

iNET Innovation Network

LEP Local Enterprise Partnership

LLEP Leicester and Leicestershire Local Enterprise Partnership

MAS Manufacturing Advisory Service

NEP Northamptonshire Economic Partnership

NVQ National Vocational Qualifications

SEMPLEP South East Midlands Enterprise Partnership

SME Small-Medium sized Enterprise

TO EU Thematic Objectives

T & L Transport and Logistics



Executive Summary

i. This project is an extension to work already undertaken to identify and promote opportunities for collaboration between Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to use European funding for larger projects and services that achieve greater impact and economies of scale. This objective is part of the criteria set by Government for the evaluation of European Union (EU) projects.

ii. The work already undertaken identifies a range of reasons why collaboration

would be beneficial. These include strong similarities in economic challenges and outcomes required, increased efficiency in the delivery of services and projects, higher outputs, supply chains and sectors that are important to more than one LEP area, the need for similar support packages for example to retain specialist skills and the opportunities to use local expertise not necessarily available in each LEP area. However the need for a good business case to convince individual LEPs that collaboration was worthwhile was also identified.

iii. The findings of this project extension support many of the findings of the

previous work regarding the similarities in economic profiles and challenges and the potential benefits of collaboration. However it has also identified some of the reasons why collaborative projects and services have not been developed for EU funding.

iv. There are some clear reasons for LEPs to concentrate on their own ‘patch’.

The case studies of Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering and Transport and Logistics show that some of the priority actions being identified by each LEP for the same sectors are different. They reflect the concerns of the sector in the specific LEP for which they were prepared - in some areas issues such as skills were paramount while in others it was transport for example. Furthermore many of the interventions identified are local by definition, for example joint work between specific sectors and local schools on skills, sector promotion or working with local Councils to promote an understanding of the needs of a specific sector such as Transport and Logistics. These are some of the advantages of localism.

v. There are also some cultural and perception issues that have got in the way.

Concerns about loss of control in the selection of providers, the perception of introducing additional complexity in an already complex process, protection of local suppliers and the competitive desire to spend more, and more quickly, than ‘rival’ LEPs for example. Also there is no existing culture of collaboration across LEPs or any general sense of regional collaboration so collaborating on EU funding was not a ‘natural’ thing to do. These are some of the disadvantages of localism.

vi. There have been real problems of process and capacity as well including:



The EU funding process is designed around individual LEP’s calls for activity – it is not designed to facilitate or enable collaboration.

Despite the inclusion of ‘collaboration to achieve larger scale projects and higher outputs’ as an EU evaluation criteria there is no external incentive in the EU funding process to offset the predominance of the role of individual LEPs and encourage collaboration either through incentives or penalties. Penalties could include a reduced funding allocation if there are no collaborative projects and incentives could include additional funding as a reward for collaborative projects or funding set aside for collaborative proposals only.

The LEPs have not been well enough resourced to allocate time to develop collaborative approaches and have therefore concentrated on internal processes and objectives compared to spending time comparing their action plans with others.

There is insufficient common knowledge about priority needs and opportunities across LEPs on which to base collaboration.

vii. There have been some other barriers including the competitive approach

taken by some providers which is likely to mean that businesses have to rely on the expertise available in their LEP area rather than the best expertise for a particular need from the region as a whole (or wider).

viii. The overall conclusion of this project is therefore that there are opportunities

for collaborative approaches between LEPs in the region (and in adjoining the regions where this provides most benefit) which would provide benefits to the economy and make better use of the funding available by providing better support for businesses, removing duplication and increasing impact. However, there is currently no firm culture of co-operation between LEPs in the region on ERDF matters but there is a tendency towards competition and the protection of local suppliers. Although there are some cross LEP collaborative initiatives based on sector or geographic necessity, LEPs individually and collectively do not have a complete overview of the practical benefits of and opportunities for collaboration nor is there any mechanisms or resources in place to facilitate the provision of this evidence. The Government does recognise the potential benefits of collaboration but the process it has introduced to allocate EU funding have been entirely focused on individual LEP areas and actually encourage competition rather than provide incentives for the LEPs to allocate scarce resources to develop collaborative projects. As well as the lost opportunities for more effective use of funding this situation carries a risk that the East Midlands will lose out to other parts of the country that can prove to Government they can collaborate effectively to identify and deliver the improvements to the economy that will have the greatest impact.

ix. If this situation is to change for the second tranche of EU funding from 2018 a

change in culture from competition to collaboration is required. The following recommendations would help to facilitate this change:



a. A general expectation of collaboration where there is wider benefit to the

economy, businesses and people of the region needs to be established. Such an expectation can only be provided by the region’s leadership at local authority and LEP chair level. It is a necessary response in any event to the Government’s challenge around the Midlands Engine for Growth and has already been demonstrated in the joint transport work in Midlands Connect. This might be focused around problems common to the region as a whole such as low skills or around unique selling points such as the region’s higher than average manufacturing base.

b. This general expectation needs to be given practical effect in the economic

sphere by the development by the LEP Chief Executives’ of a clear joint understanding of the sectors, themes, activities and projects that pursed collaboratively would provide additional benefits to the regional economy in the same way as Midlands Connect identifies key strategic route corridors and an evidence base for a joint approach.

c. The identification of these collaborative priorities and the work to develop

them in more detail and implement them will require resources. The LEPs do not have sufficient resources currently and it is unlikely that the technical funding provided through EU funding will be sufficient by itself but it could provide some capacity for project development and implementation.

d. Some resources also need to be devoted to fostering a spirit of collaboration

between other key agencies and providers such as universities.

e. Finally, with support of partners, East Midlands Councils should lobby Government to develop the EU funding process to remove disincentives to and include incentives for LEPs to take a more collaborative approach in future.

x. The work commissioned by East Midlands Councils has highlighted the current situation and the risks it brings and has prompted discussion between LEPs. As a first step this discussion needs to be continued at LEP Chief Executive and subsequently LEP chair and local authority leader level.



Introduction

1. This project is an extension to work previously commissioned by East Midlands Councils (EMC) to promote and enable collaboration between Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to develop joint projects and services to improve their economies using European funding. The work undertaken so far has identified a rationale for collaboration including internal benefits such as economies of scale in delivery and external benefits such as improving access for local companies to larger supply chains.

2. The evaluation criteria for European Structural and Investment Funds

Strategies (The Development and Delivery of European Structural and Investment Funds Strategies- Supplementary Guidance to Local Enterprise Partnerships HM Government July 2013) include: ‘that the Local Enterprise Partnership has considered potential for collaboration with other Local Enterprise Partnerships to deliver bigger impact, exploit synergies between Local Enterprise Partnership areas, and achieve economies of scale.’

3. However despite these identified benefits and the evaluation criteria there

has been virtually no collaboration between LEPs in the region (or it seems more generally across England) about the use of EU funding to secure services or projects to achieve wider than local economic objectives. The purpose of the project extension was to understand why this is and whether it is still possible to develop joint EU funded projects or services across more than one LEP.

The Previous Work

4. The following have been produced or undertaken - a report ‘Meeting Need Realising Opportunity: A Socio-Economic Framework for the East Midlands to Inform the Delivery of EU Structural Funds (2014-2020)’ (December 2013); three workshops covering rail, food and drink and energy technology (Summer 2014); a report ‘Lessons Learned in European Funded Strategic Collaboration Projects’ (July 2014) and a report ‘PA3 Project: East Midlands LEPs Collaborate Working Study’ (January 2015). The reports and workshop write ups can be found at http://www.emcouncils.gov.uk/European-Investment-Plan and are summarised below.

Meeting Need Realising Opportunities (December 2013)

5. This report provided a comprehensive socio-economic data analysis and

identified the following opportunities for collaboration based on the socio-economic analysis of the region: a. Advanced manufacturing/ transport equipment – clusters of companies

across south Derbyshire and north and west of Leicestershire with links to

http://www.emcouncils.gov.uk/European-Investment-Plan



low carbon sector. Interventions could boost investment, stimulate local supply chains and ensure specialist skills are developed and maintained.

b. Advanced manufacturing / high performance engineering in Northamptonshire and into Milton Keynes and Warwickshire – collaboration to help maintain and develop this sector.

c. Energy generation and supply – strong renewable energy sector based around the Humber along with power generation expertise in the Trent Valley and Lincoln, parts of southern Derbyshire and Leicestershire. Collaboration could support major investors, stimulate local supply chains and develop better links between low carbon and traditional parts of the sector.

d. Food technology – traditional strength in southern Lincolnshire, Rutland and Melton. Collaboration could build on strong links between food producers and commercial and academic based research institutions and develop synergies with the future Rural Development Programme.

e. Access to Small Medium Enterprise (SME) finance – is a significant economic constraint highlighted by joint research across 5 LEPs. The minimum size of investment would necessitate a joint LEP approach.

f. Access to business support and training – collaboration could simplify the complex landscape of business support and training initiatives and provide consistent information on a co-ordinated basis for a sector or a geography.

g. Visitor economy – cross LEP initiatives would focus on natural geographies or markets such as The Fens, Peak District or farm tourism.

h. Improving low skills – collaboration across ‘low skill’ areas to improve training and stimulate private sector demand for higher skill levels.

Lessons Learned in European Funded Strategic Collaboration Projects’ (July 2014)

6. This report looked at what was needed for successful collaboration and its

findings are summarised in Table 1 below:



Table 1 – July 2014 report – criteria for successful collaboration

Reasons to collaborate When and where to collaborate

How to enable collaboration

Creating critical mass Is there added value?

LEP leadership

Providing access to knowledge

Do LEPs support it?

Use cross LEP body expertise

Providing specialist delivery staff

Are there delivery vehicles?

Share workload

Creating competition Make best use of technical assistance funding

Co-ordinating expertise

Reducing costs

Simplifying support

Sharing good practice

Three Workshops (Summer 2014)

7. Energy seminar identified the following actions: a. D2N2 to discuss with ETI scope for collaboration to deliver local economic

outcomes. b. EMC to seek additional ERDF assistance for analysis to identify

opportunities for joint commissioning. c. EMC to explore the potential for a more strategic relationship with

Western power to facilitate the deployment of decentralised energy schemes.

d. Longer term – establish partnership between industry, academia, local authorities and business.

8. The Food and Drink seminar identified a range of ideas for taking forward

collaborative initiatives including: a. D2N2 strategy – good range of business support activities – consider

applying elsewhere. b. Commission a piece of work to look at common themes across strategies. c. Help new starts find premises. d. Address barriers to growth including poor broadband and limited access

to export markets. e. EMC/FE and HE/LEPS/iNET (Food and Drink innovation

network)/MAS/Food and Drink Forum should work together to develop an ERDF proposal.

f. Food and drink centre of excellence should be ultimate goal of joint working.

g. Reforming university network using the Food and Drink Forum as a model of good practice – investigate the food and drink courses on offer and



activity around food science. h. Develop the supply chain and support farmers who are often working in

isolation. i. Use the work undertaken by EMDA. j. Support Food and Drink exporting. k. Annual Food and Drink conference.

9. The Rail seminar identified the following ideas and concluded that there is

clear support for an integrated sector initiative led by the Rail Alliance and the Derby and Derbyshire Rail Forum to help small and medium sized rail support companies: a. Attract more young people with the right skills – better relationship

between schools, college, universities and trade bodies to stimulate interest in career opportunities; promote apprenticeships in this area, use high tech nature of HS2 and the High Speed Rail College.

b. Increase use of new technology by SMEs – improve access to capital and advice, promote more collaboration between SMEs and between the Rail Alliance and the Derby and Derbyshire Rail Forum.

c. Better procurement access by SMEs – promote the work of the Rail Supply Group, developing mentoring relationships between Tier 1/2 companies and SMEs.

d. Improve access to government support for SMEs – develop a coherent LEP offer for the region and simplify BIS offer.

e. Increase SME access to export markets – develop a package of UKTI advice and collaborative export opportunities between SMEs and trade bodies to share costs and expertise.

PA3 Project: East Midlands LEPs Collaborate Working Study’ (January 2015).

10. This report sought to refine the rationale for collaboration. It found the appetite for collaboration from LEPs to be limited and requiring:

A clear business case to persuade LEP Boards to engage.

That inputs and outputs are agreed up front.

One lead organization.

11. It refined the list of reasons to collaborate:

Is there a rationale or value?

Is there an appetite from specific LEPs?

Is there a delivery vehicle or lead partner that can drive the process?

12. It also identified the following areas as having the most potential for collaboration: a. Procurement of national services (former opt in’s). b. The following medium term potential projects;

Develop links between SEMLEP and GLLEP around motorsport/engineering.

Rail engineering - but it noted that the representative bodies have



different view on value of collaboration. The Rail Alliance is developing a programme for SMEs (small scale interventions first) and this programme could be expanded to a wider geography using experience from other market access programmes.

Broadband - mentoring and support for exploitation of digital technology in enabled areas. This need is articulated in ESIF documents but there would be benefit in the wider design of a service. One LEP should be given the lead. Scope for cost savings and simplification of business support.

Food and Drink – area of competition and rivalry across the region. Vocational skills and higher level food science skills needed. Work underway with Food and Drink iNET which should lead an analysis of skills needs for Food Scientists. Better coordination of many initiatives is needed – a new forum or delivery group based around iNET recommended.

c. The following longer term strategic projects:

Life Sciences – are not fully recognised by LEPs. Interventions should be around social care. A wider study led by D2N2 was proposed.

Energy - Midlands Energy Forum and Energy Technology Institute are suitable lead bodies. Various LEPs particularly D2N2 have developed plans in isolation. Some 'demonstrator' projects available.

Market Access - enabling firms to become part of wider supply chains particularly MAS/rail sector.

Market Towns - what works/sharing best practise. Proposed that EMC collate all evidence.

Low carbon - part of EU funding but limited appetite for more than local projects and no lead entity.

Review of Evidence

13. This project extension started with a review of the data – in the form of a review of the socio-economic profile and a comparison of the outputs being sought by each LEPs in its European Strategic Investment Framework (ESIF). It has also examined the calls for proposals published in rounds 1 and 2 of calls in March and July 2015.

14. The summary socio-economic analysis is set out in Appendix A. Data taken

from ONS’s June Labour Market Statistics profiles for LEPs provide a current overview understanding of the population, employment and sectoral compositions for each LEP, across the East Midlands, and how this differs to the UK profile. The date highlights the dominance of the D2N2 area in terms of its population, accounting for just under half (46%) of all residents in the East Midlands. In relation to employment across occupational groups, it highlights that the East Midlands, and especially Greater Lincolnshire, have relatively lower levels of employment in higher skilled occupations, such as managerial, professional and associate professional/technical employment,



compared to the UK profile.

15. Related to this the region also has a lower proportion of its residents holding higher level qualifications (degree or above), than is seen nationally. In particular, Greater Lincolnshire has the lowest proportion of its resident population qualified to NVQ Level 4 or above when compared to the other LEP areas. On a sectoral basis the data demonstrates a regional concentration in manufacturing in comparison to the national profile, with D2N2 having the highest concentration of manufacturing employment within the East Midlands. Economic activity rates, and Jobseekers Allowance claimant data, both show a similar profile to the UK, but with Northamptonshire displaying particularly high levels of economic activity.

16. The ESIF comparison is set out in Appendix B across the 10 thematic

objectives (TOs) set by Government:

TO1 – Innovation: the concept of ‘Smart specialisation’ is referred to by D2N2 and LLEP in their ESIF’s, and is explicitly mentioned as a potential area for collaboration by LLEP. The target group is seen to be SMEs, with indicative outputs centred around the number of enterprises supported, jobs created, the number of enterprises with new products (to market or new to them) and the number of enterprises co-operating in research.

TO2 – ICT; the focus centres on support to enable businesses to develop ecommerce/ICT strategies, including the roll out of Broadband. In NEP TOs 2, 3, and 4 are linked together to create 2 LEP priorities centred on ICT & Finance for SMEs. Indicative outputs are the number of enterprises using enhanced ICT, the number of jobs created and number of enterprises receiving support.

TO3 – SME Competitiveness; key words include business support, access to finance, and business space with indicative outputs covering the number of enterprises receiving support, jobs created, the number of enterprises with new products and number of enterprises cooperating in research (there would appear to be some output overlaps with TO1).

TO4 – Low Carbon; intentions centre on low carbon infrastructure; environmental technology supply chains, retrofit housing, companies deploying low carbon practices, etc. (energy efficiency). Indicative outputs include the number of enterprises supported for resource efficiency, GHG reductions (tones), employment increase in supported enterprises, the number of enterprises cooperating with research bodies, the number of enterprises bringing new products to market.

TO5, TO6 & TO7– Climate Change, Protecting the environment/resource efficiency, Supporting Transport; only D2N2 provides TO activity indicators. TO5, 6, and 7 relates to infrastructure site development including green infrastructure (hectares), but also TO6 has number of enterprises supported, and new products introduced, as indicators.

TO8 – Employment; the key words relating to this aspect are job readiness, for those under and over 25 years of age. Indicative outputs include; number of unemployed participants/on inactive benefits, number aged 15-24, and



number of enterprises receiving support (D2N2). NEP has combined TO8-10 to create a priority area that centres on access to employment, skills and return to work programmes for their key sectors. NEP priority 3 indicative outputs are; number of micro and SME enterprises supported, jobs created.

TO9 – Social Inclusion: LLEP focus on holistic and rural social inclusion. Key indicative outputs are; number of unemployed participants/on inactive benefits, number of participants aged 15-24, number of inactive participants newly engaged in job searching on leaving programme

TO10 – Skills Development: LLEP are taking a flexible and holistic approach to skills through ‘Skills Metro’, Leadership Development and targeting SMEs (support for growth). Indicative outputs; number of participants, number of employed participants, aged 15-24, unemployed participants.

17. Appendix C summarises the calls for proposals that the East Midlands LEPs

have put out through the Managing Authorities in rounds 1 and 2. All LEPs have called for bids under ERDF, with calls focusing on innovation, SME support/competitiveness, ICT, and low carbon. D2N2 and NEP are the only two to have put calls out under ESF (national), and NEP is the only one to also put a call out under EADFT to provide micro and small business support in the food and drink sector.

18. The review of evidence undertaken in this project extension therefore

supports the conclusions underlying the original project work – that there are significant similarities between LEP areas in the East Midlands in terms of challenges and opportunities - and further establishes that the intentions of the LEPs set out in each ESIF and enacted through the first two funding calls also have significant similarities. There is therefore a prima facia case for LEPs to collaborate to achieve the benefits of economies of scale in lower delivery costs and higher outputs.

So why no collaboration?

19. So the question remains – why is collaboration not happening given that the rationale for wider services and projects is substantially accepted and that many of the challenges and opportunities are common to more than one LEP area. Interviews were held with senior representatives of 5 LEPs, BIS and DCLG followed by a workshop to seek to identify the underlying reasons.

20. The interviews were undertaken to find out what existing or planned

collaborative/cross LEP projects were being considered, the potential

benefits of those collaborations, whether the potential reasons to collaborate

identified by the project so far were the right ones including the business

reasons.

21. Interviewees were aware of work commissioned by East Midlands Councils so

far. They have used some of the analysis, regard the rationale presented for



collaborative working as sound and consider some of the practical work – e.g.

the rail workshop – as providing a good basis for the development of some

working collaborative projects.

22. Yet the only collaborative project that is progressing using EU funding is for

the European Bank financial instrument for SME loans. The proposal by the

Birmingham LEP for a joint rail HS2 supply project has not been supported by

other LEPs in the Midlands – it seems partly because of lack of involvement in

the development of the proposal and partly because they were unsure of the

value of the project to them i.e. about how many companies in their area

would be supported by the project. A project to promote innovation in food

supply and processing across Lincolnshire and the East of England developed

by major suppliers and universities seems to have floundered as a single

entity, due to difficulties of working across regions, with individual LEPs

having put out separate calls.

23. East Midlands LEPs are clear that they have no objection in principle, and can

see benefits, to multi LEP collaborative projects - so what is getting in the way

of actual projects being developed? The following each seem to contribute

to the problem:

a. The EU funding process is designed around calls from each LEP with no

incentives for collaboration – despite collaboration being included as an

evaluation criteria - which has encouraged each LEP to work individually

rather than spend time developing joint projects through a strategic

commissioning approach.

b. The ESIFs are fairly general and not sufficiently detailed to enable LEPs to

compare exactly what services they want to buy using EU funding.

c. LEPs have not had the resources to develop the detail of what they want

to buy to enable this comparison to happen. It would have been helpful if

the Technical Assistance funding had been available earlier – it is only

now coming through.

d. LEPs have used different strategies to draw down EU funding – some have

made calls with substantial funding in call 1, sometimes with outline

requirements, while others have made a small number of lower value

calls while taking the time to develop the detail of what they want to buy

for subsequent calls.

e. LEPs are not necessarily looking to other East Midlands LEPs for

collaboration - sometimes it makes more sense to collaborate with LEPs

outside the region.

f. However overlapping LEPs with interests in other regions is also a

complicating factor both in a practical sense – e.g. current problems with

ESF funding with DWP - and in a cultural sense - e.g. the need to keep non

East Midlands’ partners on board.



g. There are different views about the best themes/projects to collaborate

on.

h. In some cases it is clear that LEPs have different requirements from

specific services which will rule out collaboration e.g. buying university

led support for innovation compared to a voucher approach which allows

companies to get innovation support from their choice of supplier.

i. LEPs are to some extent competitive with each other and the

arrangements for EU funding to be reallocated if not spent enhances this.

j. There is no substantial experience of cross LEP work or accepted

processes to govern joint work to build trust.

k. It’s not clear whether the Managing Authority representatives on the

local committees will be able to use their joint intelligence to join up

similar bids to different LEPs because of the rules governing the allocation

process.

24. However there are a number of changes in circumstances that could make a

difference:

a. The Government’s ‘Midlands Engine for Growth’ initiative and the joint

transport initiative by Local Authorities and LEPs ‘Midlands Connect’ are

described in Appendix D. They both have collaboration at their heart and

will encourage bigger and more joined up thinking. There is a substantial

danger that Government funding will flow towards the West Midlands if

the East Midlands fails to act together to present its offer. This needs

political leadership (council leaders and LEP chairs) as well as some

practical work to identify the most effective projects.

b. LEPs now have a clearer and more detailed view of what they want to buy

with their EU funding – either because they have developed an internal

plan to guide future calls or because the proposals for call 1 have helped

define what services are available.

c. The availability of Technical Assistance means that LEPs will be able to

allocate resources to lead joint projects.

d. The East Midlands LEP directors have started to collaborate through

quarterly meetings supported by the Government Growth Team.

25. Therefore there was general support for a workshop to try to identify

projects/topics for EU funding that could be progressed through collaboration in the East Midlands region.

26. In setting the scene at the workshop East Midlands Councils and DCLG

representatives emphasised that:

a. The Government’s initiatives around Midlands Engine and Midlands Connect increased the need for the East Midlands agencies to work in a more collaborative culture. The Birmingham conurbation is working together



effectively and moving towards joint governance more quickly that the East Midlands which, given its economic significance, could mean it benefits more from Government funding.

b. The past use of EU funding to support small scale projects is inefficient in programme management terms but more importantly does not provide the economic impact and benefits to the region’s businesses and people it could have.

c. The funding available is being effectively reduced because of the exchange rate.

d. There is still an opportunity to show what can be done collaboratively before final rounds of calls in 2016, there is about an 18 month period to achieve this.

e. Some attempts at collaboration – such as the HS2 project – have failed and the lessons need to be learnt from this.

f. There was recognition by DCLG that the timetable for the initial call round in March did not help cross LEP collaboration, but that DCLG will be providing more advanced knowledge of when future rounds will happen, and would like to see more joint commissioning where this makes sense, and across different geographies within the Midlands. DCLG also stated that there is the opportunity for LEPs to create segmented calls i.e. where part of the activity is jointly commissioned alongside local only calls.

27. The workshop discussed the benefits of collaboration which were similar to those identified in previous work:

Economies of scale – reduction in overheads.

Critical mass.

Better quality.

Benefits to businesses such as larger supply chains.

Maximise the value of funding for businesses (ERDF) and people (ESF).

Making small allocations of funding easier to spend.

Removing overlaps.

Recognising that businesses do not have administrative boundaries.

Helping the universities work together.

“there is a political angle [regarding collaboration] to date programmes have been characterised by small scale projects that lacked economic impact, there is an opportunity to do something about this, while the danger is of parochial projects across East Midland’s LEPs...need to manage the resource to get the biggest impact, in the context of smaller funds with the exchanges rates further reducing their value…it is imperative that the EU funds provide an opportunity to work in collaboration in the East Midlands”.



Sharing expertise across LEPs.

Assist in market development to improve quality and value of proposals.

28. Attendees then discussed what would make collaboration work:

More cross LEP EU focused meetings.

Focus on the gaps – where there are problems getting good proposals in through the ESIF calls, for example low carbon was mentioned as an area with low quality expressions of interest received in response to one LEPs call.

Honesty – say no quickly if it’s not going to work for you.

Sharing of ESIF strategies.

Sharing programming of calls – what and when.

Match making by the Managing Authorities or some other resource.

A process for preparing joint calls.

Reducing EU funding complexity.

Focus on external audience – showing that EM can work together.

29. The following concerns about collaboration were shared: a. Local committees/boards would be concerned about any risk of losing

part of their allocation. b. Providers such as universities may want to compete rather than

collaborate. c. Historic regional tensions such as the perception of a focus on Derby,

Leicester and Nottingham still get in the way d. The East Midlands isn’t always the right area – e.g. Lincolnshire is working

with East Anglia and Leicester and Leicestershire is working with Oxfordshire on the Space sector.

e. Difficulties of process – e.g. matching timing of calls, LEPs are at different call stages.

f. Spend deadline pressures – risk of losing funding if it’s not spent by certain deadlines.

g. Lack of shared knowledge about each other’s requirements – lack of capacity for this oversight either by each LEP or by regional bodies.

“joint working on EU helps the mood music on the Midlands Engine collaboration in the EM…EM still feels the natural collaboration area”.



h. Local committee’s/boards often want local suppliers. i. Loss of control over selection of proposals.

j. Adding complexity to an already complex process e.g. LEPs may have

different preferences for proposals and how would these be resolved.

30. The workshop drew up a list of potential areas for collaboration:

Innovation – High Performance Engineering (automotive), Visitor economy, Logistics, Digital, Care.

Low carbon and resource efficiency.

Business support to increase take up of digital.

Open ESF for high end training.

SME competitiveness.

Financial Instrument for Loans – supporting businesses to be funding ready.

31. However when these were discussed in more detail it was apparent that

many of the concerns identified by interviewees and workshop attendees (and summarised above) would make developing a collaborative project at this stage very difficult. For example many LEPs had already submitted calls and received proposals, the focus of activity – what each LEP wanted to buy - varied between LEPs and local suppliers were preferred. There was also a recognition and concern that some providers are submitting ‘cut and paste’ proposals that do not demonstrate adequate understanding of local differences.

32. Attendees acknowledged the lack of awareness of each other’s priorities and approach to EU calls. It was felt that sharing information on what calls had

“[LEPs are] locked into a complex and iterative process…there is a capacity challenge to identify areas for collaboration with other LEPs…there has been no conversation between LEPs to specify joint need…also what would happen if there are disagreements on the bids received as to recommendations for which is best given there are different decision-making processes across LEPs”

“Our committee are of the view that some multi-LEP bids received didn’t demonstrate they had local area knowledge”



been issued, what expressions of interest had come in and what advice was being provided back to managing authorities on these submissions via the local committees would be of benefit to all. However, it was unclear whether such information could be shared, it was agreed that this would need clarifying prior to being taken forward by workshop members at future meetings. The intended output is to provide past, and current pre-call cross LEP understanding necessary for future joint commissioning, and the management of synergies across already called for activity.

33. The workshop agreed on the following actions:

a. The LEP EU leads should meet every two months to share knowledge and develop a better joint understanding of each other’s project and priorities and be better placed to spot and develop opportunities to collaborate in the future. The first meeting would be arranged by D2N2 towards the end of September/beginning of October, and then responsibility will move around LEPs alphabetically to share out the administrative burden.

b. Further work would be undertaken within this project to seek to identify

any opportunities to collaborate around transport and logistics and advanced manufacturing and engineering and associated issues around low carbon and skills – partly because of the links to Midlands Connect.

c. A report on the potential for collaborative work in these areas to be submitted to the next LEP Chief Executives meeting in Autumn 2015.

Case Studies – Transport and Logistics and Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering

34. The published action plans prepared by each LEP for Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering (AME) and Transport and Logistics (T&L) were examined for similarities (the results are summarised in Appendices E and F which are published separately from this report on the EMC website).

35. There is a notable difference in emphasis between the plans - for example for

AME, D2N2 concentrate on supply chain, business support and inward investment while LLEP and NEP focus more on land and skills issues.

36. Many of the actions are locally focused - for example improving links between both sectors and schools. Others might have some wider opportunities for multi LEP activity and some of the action plans refer

“Collaboration is not just about joint commissioning but joint learning and process…and there is an appetite to come together to jointly understand lessons learned and create best practice”.



explicitly to working with other LEPs on specific issues. Possibilities for collaboration include:

a. Promotion of the value of both sectors (as opposed to inward investment activity which is likely to be competitive).

b. AME - developing joint supply chain programmes learning from best practice and obtaining greater specialist expertise through economies of scale.

c. AME and T&L – jointly developing support for the sectors including signposting to the best knowledge base signposted through the individual LEP growth hubs.

d. T & L – jointly addressing issues around the burden of compliance e. T&L – developing a cross region approach to involving the sector in

road improvements as most companies have at least a regional scope.

37. However, the LEPs did not indicate any support for the further development of these or any other possible areas for collaboration.

Conclusions and Recommendations

38. Some LEPs have decided to release calls for as much funding as possible in rounds 1 and 2 partly to ensure they spend their allocations within the time limits provided. The opportunity for collaboration at this stage is therefore much reduced. The greatest opportunity for collaboration was after the preparation of the ESIFs and during the work on action plans during 2014 and early 2015.

39. It needs to be recognised therefore that a substantial proportion of EU

funding is now committed until 2018 and the development of a change of approach should therefore be focused on the next stage of EU funding (2018 – 2021).

40. The initial work under this project, substantiated by this project extension,

has demonstrated that the East Midlands LEPs have similar sector challenges and opportunities, some overlap of priority actions and that there are benefits in collaboration. But there has been virtually no actual collaboration and the project sought to understand why.

41. There are some clear reasons for LEPs to concentrate on their own ‘patch’.

The case studies of Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering and Transport and Logistics show that some of the priority actions being identified by each LEP for the same sectors are different. They reflect the concerns of the sector in the specific LEP for which they were prepared - in some areas issues such as skills were paramount while in others it was transport for example. Furthermore many of the interventions identified are local by definition, for example joint work between specific sectors and local schools on skills, sector promotion or working with local Councils to promote an understanding of the needs of a specific sector such as Transport and Logistics. These are some of



the advantages of localism.

42. There are also some cultural and perception issues that have got in the way. Concerns about loss of control in the selection of providers, the perception of introducing additional complexity in an already complex process, protection of local suppliers and the competitive desire to spend more, and more quickly, than ‘rival’ LEPs for example. Also there is no existing culture of collaboration across LEPs or any embedded approach to regional collaboration so collaborating on EU funding was not a ‘natural’ thing to do. These are some of the disadvantages of localism.

43. There have been real problems of process and capacity as well including:

a. The EU funding process is designed around individual LEPs calls for activity – it is not designed to facilitate or enable collaboration.

b. Despite the inclusion of ‘collaboration to achieve larger scale projects and higher outputs’ as an EU evaluation criteria there is no external incentive in the EU funding process to offset the predominance of the role of individual LEPs and encourage collaboration either through incentives or penalties. Penalties could include a reduced funding allocation if there are no collaborative projects and incentives could include additional funding as a reward for collaborative projects or funding set aside for collaborative proposals only.

c. The LEPs have not been well enough resourced to allocate time to develop collaborative approaches and have therefore concentrated on internal processes and objectives compared to spending time comparing their action plans with others.

d. There is insufficient common knowledge about priority needs and opportunities across LEPs on which to base collaboration.

44. There have been some other barriers including the competitive approach

taken by some providers which is likely to mean that businesses have to rely on the expertise available in their LEP area rather than the best expertise for a particular need from the region as a whole (or wider).

45. The overall conclusion of this project is therefore that there are opportunities

for collaborative approaches between LEPs in the region (and in adjoining the regions where this provides most benefit) which would provide benefits to the economy and make better use of the funding available by providing better support for businesses, removing duplication and increasing impact. However, there is currently no culture of co-operation between LEPs in the region but there is a tendency towards competition and the protection of local suppliers. Although there are some cross LEP collaborative initiatives based on sector or geographic necessity, LEPs individually and collectively do not have a complete overview of the practical benefits of and opportunities for collaboration nor is there any mechanisms or resources in place to facilitate the provision of this evidence. The Government does recognise the potential benefits of collaboration but the process it has introduced to



allocate EU funding have been entirely focused on individual LEP areas and actually encourage competition rather than provide incentives for the LEPs to allocate scarce resources to develop collaborative projects. As well as the lost opportunities for more effective use of funding this situation carries a risk that the East Midlands will lose out to other parts of the country that can prove to Government they can collaborate effectively to identify and deliver the improvements to the economy that will have the greatest impact.

46. If this situation is to change for the second tranche of EU funding from 2018 a

change in culture from competition to collaboration is required. The following recommendations would help to facilitate this change:

A. A general expectation of collaboration where there is wider benefit to the

economy, businesses and people of the region needs to be established. Such an expectation can only be provided by the region’s leadership at local authority and LEP chair level. It is a necessary response in any event to the Government’s challenge around the Midlands Engine for Growth and has already been demonstrated in the joint transport work in Midlands Connect. This might be focused around problems common to the region as a whole such as low skills or around unique selling points such as the region’s higher than average manufacturing base.

B. This general expectation needs to be given practical effect in the economic

sphere by the development by the LEP Chief Executives’ of a clear joint understanding of the sectors, themes, activities and projects that pursed collaboratively would provide additional benefits to the regional economy in the same way as Midlands Connect identifies key strategic route corridors and an evidence base for a joint approach.

C. The identification of these collaborative priorities and the work to develop

them in more detail and implement them will require resources. The LEPs do not have sufficient resources currently and it is unlikely that the technical funding provided through EU funding will be sufficient by itself but it could provide some capacity for project development and implementation.

D. Some resources also need to be devoted to fostering a spirit of collaboration

between other key agencies and providers such as universities.

E. Finally East Midlands Councils should lobby Government to develop the EU funding process to remove disincentives to and include incentives for LEPs to take a more collaborative approach in future.

47. The work commissioned by East Midlands Councils has highlighted the current situation and the risks it brings and has prompted discussion between LEPs. As a next step this discussion needs to be continued at LEP Chief Executive and subsequently LEP chair and local authority leader level.



Appendix A - Socio-Economic Summary Profile of East Midlands’ Local Enterprise Partnerships

1. A detailed socio-economic analysis of the East Midlands, and its local enterprise partnership (LEP) areas, is contained in the document, ‘Meeting Need, Realising Opportunity1’, published December 2013. At a LEP level there are detailed socio-economic contexts contained in the individual LEP EU Structural and Investment Funds Strategies, published in May 2014. All of these documents have provided an understanding of the common issues, and informed the rationales for the allocation and thematic objective priorities for the delivery of the EU Structural Fund. These documents will be drawn on within this project to understand potential areas for project collaboration across the East Midlands.

2. The purpose of this summary socio-economic profile is to present key updated data

where available, and to provide the reader with a data overview understanding of the region, including its constituent LEP areas. It is therefore not designed to be an in-depth analysis, or a comprehensive coverage of common issues, nor is it a full update of the East Midlands socio-economic framework.

East Midlands Area and Its LEPs

3. Within the East Midlands are four either entirely within the region (D2N22, Leicester and Leicestershire and Northamptonshire Enterprise) or almost entirely within the region (Greater Lincolnshire) LEPs. The geographical coverage of the East Midlands is shown in Map 1 below.

Map 1: East Midlands Region

Source: ONS, East Midlands Labour Market Statistics Profile, June 2015

1 Meeting Need Realising Opportunity – A Socio-Economic Framework for the East Midlands to Inform the Delivery of the EU Structural Funds (2014-2020), December 2013 2 Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire



Resident Population Profile

4. The East Midlands total resident population of 4.59 million people accounts for 7.1 per cent of the UK total resident population (64,105,700). Within the region the D2N2 LEP area accounts for almost half of the total resident population at 46%, whereas the Northamptonshire Enterprise area only accounts for 15%.

5. The percentage of people within the total resident population that are of working

age is both similar at the regional level to the UK percentage (63.8%) and reasonably consistent across LEP areas, although Greater Lincolnshire is the only area to be below the regional percentage at 61.3%.

Table 1: Total and Working Age Population (2013) ALL

PEOPLE (NUMBER)

AGED 16-64 (NUMBER)

AGED 16-64 (% OF ALL PEOPLE)

EAST MIDLANDS REGION 4,598,700 2,913,300 63.4 DERBY, DERBYSHIRE, NOTTINGHAM, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE (D2N2)

2,134,600 1,361,200 63.8

LEICESTER AND LEICESTERSHIRE 995,400 640,800 64.4 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE ENTERPRISE

706,600 447,400 63.3

GREATER LINCOLNSHIRE 1,053,000 645,500 61.3 Source: ONS, Mid-Year Estimates

Economic Activity and Inactivity Indicators (January to March 2015)

6. The economically active population are those who are either in employment or

unemployed (but not necessarily claiming Jobseekers Allowance), and are actively seeking work. The economically inactive population are those outside of this definition3 and include both those who want a job and those who do not.

7. The regional figures are once more similar to the UK profile but with a slightly lower

unemployment percentage to the UK at 5.5 per cent. Northamptonshire Enterprise has the highest percentage of its working age population economically active at 82.9, whilst the remaining LEPs have similar levels to the regional percentage of 78.7.

3 The economically inactive population includes; students, those looking after family/home, temporarily sick, long-term sick, discourages, retired and other



Table 2: Working Age Population by Whether Economically Active or Inactive (January to December 2014)

ECONOMICALLY ACTIVE:

IN EMPLOYMENT (%)

UNEMPLOYED (%)

ECONOMICALLY INACTIVE (%)

EAST MIDLANDS REGION

2,340,000 73.8 4.9 22.0

DERBY, DERBYSHIRE, NOTTINGHAM, NOTTINGHAMSHIRE (D2N2)

1,070,800 71.9 6.6 22.9

LEICESTER AND LEICESTERSHIRE

504,200 72.5 5.2 23.3

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE ENTERPRISE

379,200 78.4 4.5 17.8

GREATER LINCOLNSHIRE

524,500 73.8 5.1 22.1

Source: ONS, Annual Population Survey

8. Within the East Midlands only 23.7 per cent of the economically inactive population state that they want a job, meaning only one in four within the economically inactive group are potentially looking to (re)-enter the labour market. By LEP area the percentages are as follows: D2N2 (22.4), Leicester and Leicestershire (29.9), Northamptonshire (16.9), Greater Lincolnshire (24.1).

9. Latest Jobseeker Allowance (JSA) claimant rates for, and within, the region, are

shown in chart 1 below. This shows the difference between those meeting the unemployment classification, and the proportion of the eligible residents actually claiming JSA. Only Greater Lincolnshire LEP area has a JSA claimant rate above the UK (1.9) rate at 2.1 per cent, whilst Leicester and Leicestershire have the lowest JSA rate at 1.5 per cent.



Chart 1: Proportion of Resident Population (aged 16-64) that are JSA Claimants, May 2015

Source: ONS, Jobseekers Allowance Claimant Data

Employment by Occupation & Industry (January December 2014)

10. The profiles of employment by occupation and by industry are presented in tables 3 and 4.

11. The occupational profiles highlights that the East Midlands region has a slightly

lower percentage of managerial, professional and associate professional/technical employment at 40 per cent compared to 44.1 for the UK. Within the East Midlands only Greater Lincolnshire is below the regional per cent at 33.7 across these higher skilled occupational groups. Additionally, the occupational data also reveals that there is a slightly higher percentage of employment in Process, Plant & Machine Operatives and Elementary occupations within the region at 20.9 per cent compared to 17.2 at the UK level. Again, Greater Lincolnshire stands out at 26.0 of employment within this lower skilled occupational grouping.

12. When employment is analysed by industrial classification it demonstrates a regional

concentration of employment in manufacturing at 14.5 per cent compared to 9.8 within the UK, resulting in a lower total services employment profile at 76.2 compared to 80.1 per cent for the East Midlands and UK respectively. Within the region it is D2N2 that has the highest proportion of employment in manufacturing at 15.6, with Northampton and Greater Lincolnshire the lowest both at 14.2 per cent. D2N2 also has the highest proportion of employment in Public Administration, Education and Heath at 32.0 per cent compared to 29.7 at the regional level. Greater Lincolnshire has both the highest percentage of employment in agriculture (3.1 cf 1.0 EM) and distribution, hotels and restaurants (23.2 cf 20.0 EM).

1.7

1.9

1.5

1.6

2.1

1.9

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

East Midlands Derby, Derbyshire,

Nottingham,

Nottinghamshire

Leicester and

Leicestershire

Northamptonshire Greater Lincolnshire UK

Jobseekers Allowance Claimant Data May 2015 Percentage



Table 3: Percentage of Population Age 16+ in Employment by Occupation (January to December 2014) STANDARD OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION (SOC2010) MAJOR GROUP






UK

1. MANAGERS, DIRECTORS &SENIOR OFFICIALS

9.8 9.0 10.3 9.9 9.9 10.1

2. PROFESSIONAL OCCUPATIONS

17.7

18.2 17.8 19.4 14.0 19.8

3. ASSOCIATE PROFESSIONALS & TECHNICAL

12.3 12.6 13.5 12.7 9.7 13.9

MAJOR GROUPS 1-3 40.0 40.0 41.8 42.1 33.7 44.1 4. ADMINISTRATIVE & SECRETARIAL

10.9 11.1 10.0 11.2 10.8 10.7

5. SKILLED TRADES 11.3 11.8 10.4 10.9 11.5 10.8 MAJOR GROUPS 4-5 22.2 23.0 20.5 22.2 22.5 21.6 6. CARING, LEISURE & OTHER SERVICES

9.3 9.5 8.7 9.8 9.1 9.2

7. SALES & CUSTOMER SERVICE

7.7 7.7 7.8 6.5 8.6 7.8

MAJOR GROUPS 6-7 17.1 17.2 16.6 16.3 17.8 17.1 8. PROCESS PLANT & MACHINE OPERATIVES

8.0 8.0 8.2 6.2 11.3 6.3

9. ELEMENTARY 12.6 11.6 12.8 13.0 14.6 10.8 MAJOR GROUPS 8-9 20.9 19.7 21.1 19.4 26.0 17.2




Table 4: Percentage of Population Aged 16-64 in Employment by Industry (January to December 2014) STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (2007)




NORTHAMPTON -SHIRE ENTERPRISE


UK

PERCENTAGE A: AGRICULTURE & FISHING

1.0 0.6 0.4 0.5 3.1 1.1

B,D,E: ENERGY & WATER 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.7 C: MANUFACTURING 14.5 15.6 15.2 14.2 14.2 9.8 F: CONSTRUCTION 6.5 6.7 5.6 7.6 6.6 7.2 G,I: DISTRIBUTION, HOTELS & RESTAURANTS

20.0 18.2 20.7 19.6 23.2 18.8

H,J: TRANSPORT & COMMUNICATION

8.3 7.6 9.5 10.0 7.6 8.8

K-N: BANKING FINANCE & INSURANCE ETC

12.9 13.0 13.2 14.7 9.7 16.7

O-Q: PUBLIC ADMIN, EDUCATION & HEALTH

29.7 32.0 27.8 26.8 28.2 30.2

R-U: OTHER SERVICES 5.3 4.9 5.6 4.9 5.5 5.6 G-Q: TOTAL SERVICES 76.2 75.6 76.8 76.0 74.1 80.1




Qualifications within the Population (January December 2014)

13. The East Midlands region has a lower proportion of its resident working age population (16-64) that holding higher level qualifications (first degree and above) when compared to the UK at 30.9 and 35.8 respectively. All of the East Midlands LEPs except Greater Lincolnshire have a slightly higher proportion holding higher level qualifications when compared to the regional percentage, whereas in Greater Lincolnshire the proportion is significantly below at 25.5 per cent.

Table 5: Qualification Levels of Working Age Population, Composite Levels

(January to December 2014) NVQ4 AND

ABOVE (%) NVQ3 AND ABOVE (%)

NVQ2 AND ABOVE (%)

NVQ1 AND ABOVE (%)


30.9 53.3 71.4 84.7


31.1 53.5 71.0 84.5


33.0 55.2 72.6 86.0


31.0 52.4 72.0 84.1


25.5 49.2 69.1 84.1


14. The proportion of the resident working age population with no qualifications is consistent at the regional level within the UK per cent, and relatively consistent across the LEP areas within the region, except for Leicester and Leicestershire LEP which shows a lower proportion without qualification at only 7.9 per cent.



Chart 2: Proportion of Resident Population (aged 16-64) with No Qualifications (January to December 2014)


Business Size Structure

15. The vast majority 99.5 per cent of business enterprises within the region and by LEP area are Small and Medium Enterprises (SME), but it should also be remembered that the less than one per cent of large employers provide a significant proportion of employment, nationally (UK) accounting for 40 per cent of total employment in 2014.

Table 6: Business Enterprise Structure by Employee Size bands (2014) MICRO (0-9) SMALL (10-49) MEDIUM (50-250) LARGE (250+)

PERCENTAGE EAST MIDLANDS REGION

87.7 10.2 1.8 0.4


87.0 10.7 1.8 0.4


87.6 10.2 1.8 0.4


88.7 9.2 1.7 0.4


87.6 10.3 1.7 0.3

Source: ONS, Inter-Departmental Register

9.3

9.7

7.9

9.5 9.5

9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

East Midlands Derby, Derbyshire,

Nottingham,

Nottinghamshire

Leicester and

Leicestershire

Northamptonshire Greater Lincolnshire UK

No Qualifications (%)



Appendix B – An analysis of priority activities and outputs in ESIF by LEP

1. This appendix presents information in the following tables: a. Thematic Objectives (TO) and Associated Outputs (where provided by LEPs)/LEP Priority

Areas in each ESIF: TO1 – Innovation TO2 - ICT TO3 - SME Competitiveness TO4 - Low Carbon TO5 - Climate Change TO6- Protecting the environment/resource efficiency TO7- Supporting Transport TO8 - Employment TO9 - Social Inclusion TO10 - Skills Development b. Level and Nature of Funding across Thematic Objectives/Priority Areas (where provided) c. Key Industry Sectors and Areas of Commonality



Table A. Thematic Objectives/Priority Areas by LEP LEP Area Activity/Result

Indicator Key Words TO1 TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5 TO6 TO7 TO8 TO9 TO10 Indicative

Outputs Count

LLEP Develop coherent programme of activity that promotes innovation within the LLEP area

LLEP discusses Smart Specialisation as a potential area for collaboration in their ESIF

TO1 Number of enterprises supported

1800



TO1 Number of jobs created

350



TO1 Number of enterprises with new products

200



TO1 Number of enterprises in co-op research

300

D2N2 Increased number of businesses that are actively innovating to bring new products to the market. Further embedding innovation and building greater value

Smart specialisation indicator

TO1 Number of enterprises receiving support

403



chain connections within and across relevant functional economies, especially with the use of those enabling technologies that transfer across sectors (smart specialisation indicator)

D2N2 Increased number of businesses that are actively innovating to bring new products to the market. Further embedding innovation and building greater value chain connections within and across relevant functional economies, especially with the use of those enabling technologies that transfer across sectors (smart specialisation indicator)


TO1 Number of enterprises cooperating with research activities

200

D2N2 Increased number of businesses that are actively innovating to bring new products to the market. Further embedding innovation and building greater value chain connections within and across relevant functional economies, especially with the use of those enabling technologies that transfer


TO1 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to market products

20



across sectors (smart specialisation indicator)

D2N2 Increased number of businesses that are actively innovating to bring new products to the market. Further embedding innovation and building greater value chain connections within and across relevant functional economies, especially with the use of those enabling technologies that transfer across sectors (smart specialisation indicator)


TO1 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to firm products

40

NEP Provide support to a considerable number of SMEs and develop both new to the firm and new to the market products

SME TO1 Number of enterprises supported

400


SME TO1 Number of new enterprises supported

74




SME TO1 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to the market products

40


SME TO1 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to the firm products

255

GLLEP Innovation activity hitting the common theme objectives of Investment finance, skills infrastructure, Innovation, Digital Services, sites and premises, Knowledge transfer, housing, connected transport investor confidence and communities.

TO1 Various Various

LLEP To provide support to help businesses develop ecommerce/ICT strategies and to support roll out/take up of High Speed communications (Broadband)

Broadband TO2 Number of enterprises using enhanced ICT

1000

LLEP To provide support to help businesses develop ecommerce/ICT strategies and to support roll

Broadband TO2 Number of jobs created

50



out/take up of High Speed communications (Broadband)

D2N2 Support enterprises in their development of ICT products and services including broadband

Broadband TO2 Number of enterprises receiving support

778


Broadband TO2 Number of new enterprises supported

100


Broadband TO2 Employment increase in supported enterprises

187


Broadband TO2 Additional enterprises accessing ICT products and services incl broadband

622

GLLEP Information Communication Technology projects addressing the common theme objectives of Digital information, Digital Services, improving use in the retail sector, Knowledge transfer and the hardest to reach communities.

TO2 Various Various



NEP Enterprise and SME Competitiveness (TO2), Supporting Business Growth (incl ICT) and Finance for Business Programme (TO3) and Energy Efficiency for SMEs (TO4)

ICT & Finance for SMEs

TO2 TO3 TO4 Number of enterprises supported

1744



TO2 TO3 TO4 Number of new enterprise supported

606



TO2 TO3 TO4 Number of enterprises with broadband access of at least 30 mbps

240



TO2 TO3 TO4 Estimated reduction in GHG (tonnes)

tbc

LLEP Co-ordinated business support

Business Support TO3 Number of enterprises

1700


Business Support TO3 Number of jobs created

350




Business Support TO3 Number of enterprises with new products

500


Business Support TO3 Number of enterprises in co-op research

275

LLEP Access to finance Access to finance TO3 Number of enterprises supported

1000

LLEP Access to finance Access to finance TO3 Number of jobs created

250

LLEP Incubation and demonstration space

Business space TO3 Number of enterprises

900


Business space TO3 Number of new enterprises supported

500


Business space TO3 Number of jobs created

400

LLEP Tailored support for rural tourism, land-based and micro-enterprises and capital support to increase the quality and availability of rural space

Rural tourism and land-based sector

TO3 Number of jobs created

100

LLEP Tailored support for rural tourism, land-based and micro-enterprises and capital support to increase the quality and availability of rural space

Rural tourism and land-based sector

TO3 Number of training spaces

200

D2N2 Increase in SME productivity, increase in SME jobs created, increase in business start ups

SME TO3 Number of enterprises receiving support

1513




SME TO3 Number of new enterprises supported

113


SME TO3 Employment increase in supported enterprises

1311


SME TO3 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to market products

151


SME TO3 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to firm products

227

GLLEP Improving SME competitiveness through the common theme objectives of Investment finance, skills provision, access to new markets, digital services, resource efficiency, sites and premises, retail conditions, Knowledge transfer, better utilities, connected transport, promotion, investor

TO3 Various Various



confidence and communities

GLLEP Develop the availability of a portfolio of access to finance products to support SMEs to invest and grow.

TO3 Various Various

LLEP Low Carbon Infrastructure Low Carbon TO4 Estimated GHG reduction (tonnes)

300000

LLEP Low Carbon Infrastructure Low Carbon TO4 Number of enterprises supported for resource efficiency

100

LLEP Develop SMART environmental technology and supply chains

Technology & Supply Chains

TO4 Estimated GHG reduction (tonnes)

30000

LLEP Develop SMART environmental technology and supply chains

Technology & Supply Chains

TO4 Number of enterprises supported for resource efficiency

250

LLEP Retrofit Housing Housing TO4 Estimated GHG reduction (tonnes)

12500

LLEP Retrofit Housing Housing TO4 Number of enterprises supported for resource efficiency

870



D2N2 Energy efficiency increase of companies, buildings and transport. An increase in companies deploying low carbon practices, processes, services or products

Energy efficiency TO4 Number of enterprises receiving support

1945


Energy efficiency TO4 Number of new enterprises supported

195


Energy efficiency TO4 Employment increase in supported enterprises

937


Energy efficiency TO4 Number of enterprises cooperating with research bodies

486


Energy efficiency TO4 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to market products

195




Energy efficiency TO4 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to firm products

390


Energy efficiency TO4 Estimated GHG reduction (tonnes)

229665

GLLEP Low carbon through the common theme objectives of Investment finance, skills infrastructure, access to new markets, resource efficiency, sites and premises, Knowledge transfer, Housing, better utilities, connected transport, and communities

Various Various

D2N2 Improving the economic viability of area through infrastructure investments including Green infrastructure

Green infrastructure

TO5 Infrastructure site development incl green infrastructure (hectares)

29



GLLEP Climate change through the common theme objectives of digital services, Knowledge transfer and flood management.

TO5 Various Various

D2N2 Increased number of businesses that are actively innovating to bring new products to the market. An increase in companies deploying low carbon practices, processes, service or products. Improving the economic viability of area through infrastructure investments incl green infrastructure.


TO6 Number of new enterprises supported

241



TO6 Number of enterprises supported to introduce new to firm products

24





TO6 Number of companies supported with resource efficiency

181




14

GLLEP Addressing environmental sustainability through the common theme objectives of skills provision, skills infrastructure, resource efficiency, sites and premises, flood

TO6 Various Various



management, investor confidence and communities.

D2N2 Improving the economic viability of area through infrastructure investments include Green infrastructure



24

D2N2 Ensuring a sustainable transport system is in place through the common theme objectives of Innovation, digital services, Housing, connected transport, investor confidence and community engagement.

TO7 Various Various

LLEP Job readiness for under 25s

Job readiness TO8 Number of participants

5060


Job readiness TO8 Number of unemployed participants

1560


Job readiness TO8 Number of participants on inactive benefits

1560


Job readiness TO8 Number of participants aged 15-24

5060



LLEP Job readiness for those aged 25 plus

Job readiness TO8 Number of participants

5060



2520



2040

D2N2 Number of inactive participants newly engaged in job searching upon leaving. Number of participants in employment on leaving. Number of participants gaining a qualification on leaving. Number of participants in employment on leaving.

Job readiness TO8 Number of enterprises receiving support

1531


Job readiness TO8 Total number of participants

15313

D2N2 Number of inactive participants newly engaged in job searching upon leaving. Number of participants in employment on leaving.


7656



Number of participants gaining a qualification on leaving. Number of participants in employment on leaving.



3063


Job readiness TO8 Number of employed participants

4594

D2N2 Number of inactive participants newly engaged in job searching upon leaving. Number of participants in employment on leaving. Number of participants gaining a qualification on leaving. Number of

Job readiness TO8 Number of participants aged 15-24

4594



participants in employment on leaving.

GLLEP Building on the common theme objectives of skills provision, access to new markets, Innovation, digital services, resource efficiency, retail conditions, connected transport, investor confidence and communities to improve employment opportunities across the GLLEP area

TO8 Various Various

LLEP Holistic approach to social inclusion

Social inclusion TO9 Number of participants

3090


Social inclusion TO9 Number of unemployed participants

1240


Social inclusion TO9 Number of participants on inactive benefits

1550


Social inclusion TO9 Number of participants aged 15-24

1550

LLEP Rural social inclusion Social inclusion TO9 Number of participants

630



LLEP Rural social inclusion Social inclusion TO9 Number of unemployed participants

190

LLEP Rural social inclusion Social inclusion TO9 Number of participants on inactive benefits

310

LLEP Rural social inclusion Social inclusion TO9 Number of participants aged 15-24

190

D2N2 Number of inactive participants newly engaged in job searching upon leaving. Number of participants gaining a qualification on leaving. Number of participants in employment on leaving. Number of participants engaged in positive activities that address barriers to work or widen participation in training

Social inclusion TO9 Total number of participants

7660


Social inclusion TO9 Number of unemployed participants

3064




Social inclusion TO9 Number of participants on inactive benefits

3830


Social inclusion TO9 Number of employed participants

766

D2N2 Number of inactive participants newly engaged in job searching upon leaving. Number of participants gaining a qualification on leaving. Number of participants in employment on leaving. Number of participants engaged in positive

Social inclusion TO9 Number of inactive participants newly engaged in job searching on leaving

1915



activities that address barriers to work or widen participation in training

GLLEP Working with local communities to provide opportunity to all individuals and groups in society, such as employment, adequate housing, health care, education and training through the common theme objectives of skills provision, access to new markets, Innovation, promotion, and communities.

TO9 Various Various

LLEP Developing a flexible and holistic approach to skills - 'Skills Metro'

Skills Development

TO10 Number of participants

10150


Skills Development

TO10 Number of employed participants

7450


Skills Development

TO10 Number of participants aged 15-24

2030

LLEP Support for SME growth SME TO10 Number of participants

3190



LLEP Support for SME growth SME TO10 Number of unemployed participants

940

LLEP Support for SME growth SME TO10 Number of participants aged 15-24

1350

LLEP Leadership and Management development

Leadership development

TO10 Number of participants

3910



TO10 Number of employed participants

3260



TO10 Number of participants aged 15-24

1040

D2N2 Number of inactive participants newly engaged in job searching upon leaving. Number of participants in employment on leaving. Number of Participants gaining a qualification on leaving.

Job readiness TO10 Number of enterprises receiving support

2334


Job readiness TO10 Total number of participants

15316





3063


Job readiness TO10 Number of inactive participants

3063

GLLEP Strengthening our higher level skills, adapting skills to meet specific company needs, preparing young people for work and upskilling the long-term unemployed through the common theme objectives of skills provision, access to new markets, information, Knowledge transfer, promotion, investor confidence and communities

TO10 Various Various



NEP Key Sector Skills Programme (TO8), Access to Employment (TO9), Northamptonshire Return to Work (TO10)

Key sectors TO8 TO9 TO10 Number of participants

17288


Key sectors TO8 TO9 TO10 Number of unemployed participants

8870


Key sectors TO8 TO9 TO10 Number of participants aged 15-24

2928


Key sectors TO8 TO9 TO10 Number of micro and SME enterprises supported

600

NEP Support for tourism activities. Support for micro and SME enterprises within the rural area

Tourism Jobs created 320

GLEP Agri-Food businesses will be helped to implement the latest technologies, get into new markets, improve skills and have the right economic infrastructure for growth

Agri-food TO1 TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5 TO6 TO7 TO8 TO10

GLEP Manufacturing - drive up demand for knowledge and skills to promote adoption of new

Manufacturing TO1 TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5 TO6 TO7 TO8 TO10



technologies and new products

GLEP Visitor Economy - seen as driver of economic growth and influence on quality of life for residents - actions to make it a more appealing area to live and visit - as a means to attract new business - links with other parts of economy local food producers etc.

Visitor economy TO1 TO2 TO3 TO4 TO5 TO6 TO7 TO8 TO10

GLEP Action to support emerging sectors - Care, low carbon & small business - also Ports infrastructure - and foreign ownership

Emerging sector TO1 TO2 TO3 TO4 TO7 TO8 TO10

GLEP Actions to help Greater Lincs adapt in future: skills - innovation - advanced telecommunications

Adaption TO1 TO2 TO3 TO8 TO9 TO10

GLEP Actions to build on GL's strength of place - inter-connected activities to provide excellent conditions for business growth - transport - investor confidence - better utilities - retailers/high streets - environment - communities

Support activities TO2 TO4 TO5 TO7 TO8 TO9 TO10



GLEP Actions to build on housing growth

Housing TO5 TO7 TO9



Table B. Level and Nature of Funding across Thematic Objectives/Priority Areas (where provided in ESIF) LEP Area Thematic

Objective/Priority Area LEP Priority Area

EU Fund Type

EU Fund Amount

Match Fund - UK Public

Match Fund - Private

Total Funding Public Match Sources Private Match Sources

LLEP TO1 – Innovation ERDF £10,000,000 £10,000,000 Universities (M5 Group, EMIN)

LLEP TO2 – ICT ERDF £4,000,000 £4,000,000

LLEP TO3 - SME Competitiveness

ERDF £25,000,000 £25,000,000 £50,000,000 Manufacturing Advisory Service, Growth Accelerator, UKTI (match/opt in) also plan to work with Prince's Trust to support young entrepreneurs

LLEP TO4 - Low Carbon ERDF £15,000,000 £15,000,000

LLEP TO8 – Employment ESF £22,000,000 £22,000,000 DWP, SFA, HE, LA (match/opt in)

LLEP TO9 - Social Inclusion ESF £11,000,000 £11,000,000 Big Lottery (opt in)

LLEP TO10 - Skills Development

ESF £21,000,000 £21,000,000 SFA (opt in) and HE match, Prince's Trust

or private match

LLEP TO3 - Rural Activities EAFRD £3,000,000 £3,000,000

D2N2 TO1 – Innovation ERDF £20,900,000 £11,700,000 £9,200,000 £41,800,000 Universities, Technology Strategy Board, BIS, Local Authorities

SMEs

D2N2 TO2 – ICT ERDF £10,500,000 £2,900,000 £7,500,000 £20,900,000 Local Authorities, BIS SMES

D2N2 TO3 - SME Competitiveness

ERDF £36,500,000 £12,500,000 £24,000,000 £73,000,000 BIS, MAS/Accelerator/UKTI, LAs, Universities (opt ins)

SMEs



D2N2 TO4 - Low Carbon ERDF £20,900,000 £8,000,000 £12,900,000 £41,800,000 BIS, MAS/Accelerator/UKTI, LAs, Universities

SMEs

D2N2 TO5 - Climate Change ERDF £5,300,000 £5,300,000 £10,600,000 Local Authorities SMEs

D2N2 TO6- Protecting the environment/resource efficiency

ERDF £5,200,000 £2,900,000 £2,200,000 £10,300,000 Local Authorities SMEs

D2N2 TO7- Supporting Transport

ERDF £5,200,000 £2,200,000 £2,900,000 £10,300,000 Local Authorities Developers, Landowners

D2N2 TO8 – Employment ESF £41,800,000 £35,100,000 £6,700,000 £83,600,000 SFA, DWP, Local Authorities

SMEs

D2N2 TO9 - Social Inclusion ESF £20,900,000 £18,900,000 £2,000,000 £41,800,000 SFA, DWP, Local Authorities, Big Lottery

SMEs

D2N2 TO10 - Skills Development

ESF £41,800,000 £29,300,000 £12,500,000 £83,600,000 SFA, DWP, Local Authorities, Universities

SMEs

NEP TO1 – Innovation 1 ERDF £4,900,000 £2,900,000 £2,000,000 £9,800,000 Research Councils, HEFCE, Universities, FE Providers, Tech Strategy Bd (via expected opt-in proposition)

NEP TO2 – ICT 2 ERDF £5,000,000 £3,300,000 £1,700,000 £10,000,000

NEP TO3 - SME Competitiveness

2 ERDF £8,500,000 £8,500,000 £0 £17,000,000

NEP TO4 - Low Carbon 2 ERDF £4,600,000 £3,000,000 £1,600,000 £9,200,000

NEP TO5 - Climate Change £0

NEP TO6- Protecting the environment/resource efficiency

£0

NEP TO7- Supporting Transport

£0



NEP TO8 – Employment 3 ESF £6,500,000 £6,500,000 £0 £13,000,000 DWP, SFA, Big Lottery (Opt Ins)

NEP TO9 - Social Inclusion 3 ESF £5,100,000 £5,100,000 £0 £10,200,000 DWP, SFA, Big Lottery (Opt Ins)

NEP TO10 - Skills Development

3 ESF £11,500,000 £11,500,000 £0 £23,000,000 DWP, SFA, Big Lottery (Opt Ins)

NEP Growing Rural Economy 4 EAFRD £350,000 £350,000 tbc 700000 or more

NEP Growing Rural Economy 4 EAFRD £1,900,000 £1,900,000 tbc 3800000 or more



Table C. Key Industry Sectors and Any Areas of Commonality/Collaboration Identified

Is it also an EMC

Priority Sector?

If yes, Which

EMC Sector

(Socio-economic

framework)

Other LEPs with

this priority

sector Which LEPs Reasons for Industry choice

LLEP

Areas for collaboration

LLEP

Smart Specialisation' - unique clusters -

knowledge transfer - Transport Equipment,

Energy Generation & Supply and Food

Technology

Priority Sectors

Distribution and Logistics No Yes GLEP, NEP

High concentrations of

employment/competitive advantage

High Technology Manufacturing Yes

Advanced

manufacturing Yes All



Food & Drink Manufacturing Yes Food technology Yes All



Business & Financial Services No No

Increase to drive up earnings and GVA,

improve survival and productivity

Tourism & Hospitality Yes Visitor economy Yes D2N2, GLEP





Is it also an EMC

Priority Sector?

If yes, Which

EMC Sector

(Socio-economic

framework)

Other LEPs with

this priority


Creative Design No Yes



Environment/Low Carbon

Technologies Yes

Energy

generation and

supply Yes All

Facilitate new sector development working

with HE & FE

Space and Aerospace Yes

Advanced

manufacturing Yes NEP - aerospace

Facilitate new sector development working

with HE & FE

GLLEP Reasons for Industry choice

Priority Sectors GLEP

Agri-food Yes Food technology Yes All

Centre of excellence in food production -

competitive strength

Manufacturing Yes

Advanced


Links to innovation and development of

supply chains

Visitor economy Yes Visitor economy Yes All

Support other sectors and helps with

attraction and promotion of area

Ports/Logistics No Emerging sector

Low Carbon Yes

Energy

generation and

supply Yes All Emerging sector



Is it also an EMC

Priority Sector?

If yes, Which

EMC Sector

(Socio-economic

framework)

Other LEPs with

this priority


D2N2

D2N2 Action plans for 8 priority sectors

Low Carbon Yes

Energy

generation and

supply Yes All

Selected due to local and national

importance

Construction Yes Construction No


importance

Visitor economy Yes Visitor economy Yes All


importance

Food & Drink Manufacturing Yes Food technology Yes All


importance

Life sciences Yes Life sciences No


importance

Transport equipment

manufacturing Yes

Advanced

manufacturing Yes

All advanced

Manu - but not

clear if any have

this focus


importance

Transport and logistics No Yes GLEP, NEP


importance



Is it also an EMC

Priority Sector?

If yes, Which

EMC Sector

(Socio-economic

framework)

Other LEPs with

this priority


Creative industries No Yes LLEP, NEP


importance

NEP NEP

Priority Sectors Reasons for Industry choice

High Performance Technologies

(including motorsport,

automotive, aerospace, defence,

oil and gas and environmental

technologies incl sustainable

construction) Yes

Advanced


NEP has researched, developed and rolled

out its sector support model. The focus of

the sector model will be around supporting

the development and growth of four

sectors - chosen for distinctive features

and importance to area

Logistics No







Food and Drink Yes Food technology Yes All









Is it also an EMC

Priority Sector?

If yes, Which

EMC Sector

(Socio-economic

framework)

Other LEPs with

this priority


Creative and Cultural No Yes LLEP, D2N2









Appendix C – East Midlands LEP Calls submitted to the Managing Authority in Call Rounds 1 and 2 D2N2 LLEP SEMLEP NEP GLLEP

ESF national Big Lottery National Programme (IP 1.4)

Towards work (employability) £7.4m

Multiple and Complex Needs £4.63m

Financial Inclusion

£3.1m

EU Big Lottery

Assess to employment Nottingham City £3.2m

ESF open None None None None None

ERDF PA3 - SME competitiveness - £12.5m

PA 3 – enhance competitiveness of SMEs and promote entrepreneurship - £8.75m.

PA3 – Increase in

entrepreneurship and

growth capacity of

SMEs - £9.5m

PA3 - support SMEs and promote entrepreneurship £2.4m

PA3 - Increasing entrepreneurship by business start-up support and referral service £2m

PA1 - innovation- £14m PA1 – promote research and investment and business investment - £8m

PA1 – Promoting

research and innovation

- £3.6m

PA1 – Promoting

research and

innovation - £2.4m

PA1 - extending research infrastructure and increasing transfer to commercial exploitation-£3m

PA4- Shift towards

low carbon economy

in all sectors - £10m

PA4 – Shift towards low

carbon economy in all

sectors - £2.5m

PA4 – Shift towards low

carbon economy in all

sectors - £6m

PA4 – Shift towards

low carbon economy in

all sectors - £2.3m

PA4 - shift towards low carbon economy in all sector - £2.5m



PA2 – Enhanced

assess, use and

quality of ICT - £3.6m

PA2 – Enhanced assess, use and quality of ICT - £3m

PA2 – Enhanced assess,

use and quality of ICT -

£1.5m

PA2 - enhancing access to ICT by extending broadband network - £1.5m

EAFRD Small micro business

support – food, drink

and tourism - £853k

Support investment in

agricultural products -

£1m



Appendix D – The Policy Framework

1. National ESF priorities are:

Innovation and Research and Development

Support for SMEs

Low Carbon

Skills

Employment and Social Inclusion

2. The Evaluation Criteria for Evaluation of European Structural and Investment Funds Strategies (The Development and Delivery of European Structural and Investment Funds Strategies- Supplementary Guidance to Local Enterprise Partnerships HM Government July 2013) includes: ‘that the Local Enterprise Partnership has considered potential for collaboration with other Local Enterprise Partnerships to deliver bigger impact, exploit synergies between Local Enterprise Partnership areas, and achieve economies of scale.’

3. It is manifesto the Conservative Party stated its intention to ‘make the Midlands an engine of

growth’ with investment in transport putting it at the centre of the UKs transport network

and building on the region’s strength in advanced manufacturing, engineering and science

with major projects such as the Energy Research Accelerator and innovation in the motor

industry.

4. In speeches before the election the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had announced the

Midlands growth initiative with a plan that aims to:

raise the long term growth rate of the Midlands to at least the forecast long term growth rate of the whole UK – adding an extra £34 billion to the Midlands economy in real terms by 2030, equivalent to over £3,000 per person

create 300,000 extra jobs in the Midlands by backing the core strengths of the local economy like advanced manufacturing and engineering

put skills at the heart of the economic revival of the Midlands, working with local businesses and the Local Enterprise Partnership on a radical new matching service for local working people and increasing skilled apprenticeships. The government is devolving power over skills, which is currently centred in Whitehall, to the Local Authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships in the Midlands, on the condition that different areas combine together to produce a strong joint plan.

deliver £5.2 billion of investment into new transport infrastructure in the Midlands, upgrading the motorways to four lanes, delivering faster north-south rail connections and east-west links, and make the most of the economic opportunities of HS2

back science and innovation in the Midlands, focussing on the plan for local universities to develop an Energy Research Accelerator and support new technology in the world-leading automotive sector

improve the quality of life in the Midlands by regenerating run-down estates, investing in the county towns, supporting the construction of 30,000 new homes and making improvements to local education so 150,000 more pupils attend outstanding schools. Government will also support events to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death, along with the engineering and military history of the region

5. They stated that there are no quick fixes to achieving these important goals and set out a specific timetable to deliver the key concepts of this plan over the five years of the next parliament. As important next steps in the making the Midlands an Engine for Growth, the pair announced a number of new measures to improve skills, transport links, invest in the science, innovation, and energy, and improve quality of life including:



improve skills with a new four point plan including agreement in principle to devolve skills spending to Combined Authorities in the Midlands as and when they are formed

build on the Midlands’ world-leading scientific and engineering capability by inviting local leaders, universities and businesses to work together on building a strong case for new science investment in the Midlands, including looking at proposals for a new national hub for energy research

capitalise the Midlands’ strong heritage in the automotive sector by announcing the expansion of the MIRA enterprise zone in Nuneaton, the UK’s largest Automotive Technology Park

create four new Food Enterprise Zones in the Midlands in 2015, which will provide a boost to the food supply chain industry and create hubs across the region to attract food and farming businesses

6. The LEPs and Local Authorities in the Midlands have aligned their Midlands Connect initiative to the Midlands Engine for Growth concept. This initiative is intended to create a technical case for investment in transport infrastructure that will boost the economy of the region and be supported by a single regional voice. It identifies 6 strategic corridors where the creation of more capacity will reduce congestion and provide the capacity for jobs growth. Detailed studies of these corridors and the hubs they connect in transport terms are underway and supported by a study of business trading relationships and supply chains to provide information on economic transport demand.



East Midlands Councils 01664 502 620 [email protected] www.emcouncils.gov.uk Twitter: @EMCouncils First Floor Office South Annexe Pera Business Park Nottingham Road Melton Mowbray Leicestershire LE13 0PB This document is available in alternative formats and can be explained in a range of languages. For more information please call 01664 502 620 or email: [email protected] This document has been printed on recycled paper. Report prepared by Langton Brook Consultants in association with Greengage Consulting Ltd. [email protected] 07771942583

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.emcouncils.gov.uk/



eu funding – east midlands leps collaborative working study · eu funding – east midlands leps...

Documents