Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed members and officers to the meeting and congratulated Lucy on her appointment as the Board’s second Vice-Chair.

Members’ apologies were noted as above.

·         In relation to any agenda item

·         In relation to any activity since the last formal meeting

·         In relation to any forthcoming activity

None noted.

RESOLVED, that the notes of the meeting held on 8^th July are agreed to be an accurate record.

A report was presented to provide the Board with an overview of the current LGF programme commitments and the scale of projects in the over-programmed pipeline.

It was reported there is £32m of LGF funding left to be spent before the cessation of the programme against £71m of known demands. It was acknowledged there is therefore a requirement to address this funding gap and views were sought on how this might be best achieved.

It was noted this funding gap situation is not unique to the SCR LEP.

It was noted detailed proposals on the means via which the funding gap will be addressed would be presented to the next LEP Board meeting.

Considering the options available Members expressed particular support for the further evaluation of the deliverability of schemes in the programme, further efforts to seek additional resources from Government and the ability to carry funding over to subsequent years when required.

Members discussed how any prioritisation process might be undertaken and what factors might be of greatest pertinence including deliverability, scale of impact and ability to redirect schemes to other non-LGF funding sources.

It was confirmed the Executive are not accepting any new schemes into the programme with the exception of direct inward investment enquiries.

It was acknowledged the Gainshare Devolution Deal would be a further source of funding should this come to fruition.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1. Notes the scale of the pipeline and options available to address the potential overprogramming position.

2. Notes the contents of the Q1 2019/20 DELTA submission.

A report and presentation were received to provide the Board with an update on the emerging narrative and priorities for the Sheffield City Region (SCR) Strategic Economic Plan and Local Industrial Strategy.

It was reported the evidence base is largely complete and highlights a set of key messages that shape the emerging vision and priorities for the SEP and LIS.

The presentation provided a summary of the vision, priorities and ambition for further discussion.

Members were asked to comment on the proposal the SEP and LIS should be primarily focussed on people, with key visionary triggers based around ambition, transformation, prosperity, opportunity, inclusion and places.

Members considered the need to tether our visionary ambition in reality (asserting the SCR is ‘not’ going to be the world’s most prosperous city region) but recognised the importance of being genuinely ambitious.

It was agreed that the vision should be focussed on some key achievable deliverables that have the capacity to transform peoples’ lives such as raising skills sets which in turn might deliver greater prosperity and inclusion.

It was considered that some visionary attributes presented for deliberation are not necessarily compatible, with examples cited for where other regions internationally might have achieved great levels of prosperity but at the expense of the wellbeing of the local workforce.

Consideration was given to how any vision should be best communicated externally for maximum impact.

Members agreed the vision should not include any references to specific targets.

Consideration was given to whether environmental responsibility should be factored into the vision in respect of determining the way we want to grow our economy.

It was requested the Executive Team pull together a statement capturing the key points raised, to be circulated to the Board Members, to help seek assurance that there is a consensus understanding and support for both the draft vision and what this really means in terms of how it might be achieved (i.e. links to actions).

Action: Felix to co-ordinate the supporting statement for members to explain the rationale behind the proposed vision.

Consideration was given to whether the SEP and LIS should be factored around the existing thematic areas (skills, housing, infrastructure, transport and business growth) whilst also recognising the cross cutting themes of opportunity, prosperity and place, and the extent to which this approach might be used might provide a framework for the vision’s objectives.

It was suggested each of these themes needs to be supported by a set of prioritised performance indicators to ensure we focus on priority deliverables whilst recognising the Strategies can’t be everything to everyone.

Members considered the reality that most strategies collapse at the point of implementation, and recognised that it is the simplest strategies that tend to achieve. The degree of complexity of the current draft vision and objectives as presented were therefore challenged by the Board.

Cllr Gilby requested an update on how the strategies are being developed in conjunction with the D2N2 LEP area. The Chair noted regular meetings are held with both D2N2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

A report and presentation were received to provide an overview of the advances in technology, changes in demand characteristics and the emergence of new business models that are disrupting the transport sector.

The report introduces the Board to recently commissioned research that will inform the SCRs approach to the risks and opportunities presented by future mobility trends.

The presentation set out the social, environmental and economic benefits and risks of future mobility innovations.

Members were advised of what research work the SCR is engaged with and how this might be taken forward.

The Chair questioned what this undertaking means for the existing SCR Transport Strategy, and why the Strategy isn’t just being annotated to address any gaps. It was noted this work is essentially associated with the intended development of the implementation plans that are being developed to take the Strategy forward and the need to appropriately recognise new technologies.

Consideration was given to how the SCR’s internal connectivity issues might be addressed through technological changes and how we might benefit as a region from new economies built around new technologies.

It was suggested any implementation plans should not be based around what might be shifting or short-term government policies and ambitions, and focus on what the SCR really needs to achieve. 

Clarity was sought regarding the detail of the consultant’s commission. It was noted this will map out key assets, set out transport trends (and identify where the SCR might differ from other regions), and look at future trends and localised opportunities specific to the SCR (aligned to the Transport Strategy). It was noted this will be available by the end of the month.

It was requested the Board receive a summary of the consultant’s report at the next meeting.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1. Notes the technological advances, changes in demand and new business models driving ‘future mobility’ innovation

2. Notes the research work the SCR Executive is currently undertaking on Future Mobility trends and opportunities which will inform the principles and priorities that enable the SCR to adopt, adapt and innovate

3. Requests a summary of the consultant’s report at the next meeting

4. Notes the economic opportunity presented to the SCR by emerging Future Mobility trends and recommends the prominence and focus of this theme in the Local Industrial Strategy.

A report and presentation were provided to update the Board on progress made to achieve a reduction in the 2019/20 LEP and MCA core budget (the requirements as per explained at the previous meeting).

The report provided a summary of the proposals currently under consideration ahead of discussion by the MCA.

It was requested the rationale behind the options be backed up by additional treasury management information to provide a fuller picture of the matters under consideration. It was confirmed this would be provided when presented to the MCA.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

• note the progress to date in seeking to achieve a budget reduction
• note that a further report be made to the LEP Board concerning the proposals for finding the second £1m of savings, having regard to the LEP Boards concerns over this issue

A report was received to note the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the MCA to change the membership and quoracy provisions of the Thematic Executive Boards to reflect the position of the non-Constituent Authorities.

It was proposed that the quoracy provision for each Board be reduced from 7 to 5 Members, but that to be quorate at least one LEP representative and 2 members from the Constituent Authorities must be present.

It was noted a report confirming the SCR non-constituent members’ membership of the LEP Board will be presented once resolved. The Board was reminded the non-Constituent members would continue to be members of the SCR MCA and as such have the right to continue to be members of the thematic boards. It was noted matters of complexity would be addressed going forward.

RESOLVED, that the Board note the proposed changes to the Terms of Reference to reflect the position of the non-Constituent Authorities and to ensure that meetings are quorate.

A report was received to outline the potential risks of a no-deal Brexit to the SCR economy. The paper sought to stimulate a discussion on the potential impacts of a no-deal scenario and consider additional work to prepare and mitigate for a no-deal Brexit.

The report set out what the SCR might do to directly support local business and where efforts might be best placed in supporting the activities of other agencies such as the Chambers of Commerce.

It was suggested there is a need to target responses once Brexit outcomes are clear.

A concern was noted that businesses need to be members of a Chamber of Commerce to get their support. It was suggested the SCR might therefore consider helping the Chambers expand their remit to cover all local businesses in some capacity.

It was noted the Local Authorities are already working closely with their respective Chambers and therefore requested the any SCR-led messages and advice be wholly consistent and duplicate that being espoused by other agencies.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1. Notes the areas of activity detailed in this paper, against which the SCR might commence or accelerate activity.

2. Notes the respective merits and purpose of establishing an Economic Resilience Taskforce.

Provided for information.

Provided for information.

No further matters noted.