Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed Prof. Dave Petley as the representative of the University of Sheffield and thanked Prof. Koen Lamberts for his past support for the Board. Prof. Petley informed members of where his professional academic engagements would synergise with and support the work of the Board.

Dave informed the Board that Philippa Sanderson had stood down with immediate effect following her employer, KPMG’s, change of employment rules meaning partners can no longer sit as members of LEP Boards. The Chair thanked Philippa for her past support of the Board and noted the SCR would continue to work with her in other capacities supportive of the delivery and execution of the SEP.

·         In relation to any agenda item

·         In relation to any activity since the last formal meeting

·         In relation to any forthcoming activity

Cllr Read recorded a non-pecuniary interest in respect of the matters to be considered at item 6 (LGF scheme acceptance) by virtue of being Leader of the sponsoring authority for the scheme under consideration.

No further declarations were recorded.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 9^th September were agreed to be an accurate record.

A report was received to set out the process required to formalise the withdrawal of the District Councils with effect from the 1st April 2020 and the implications on LEP Board membership. This report also presented a revised draft of the Collaboration Framework with D2N2 LEP for consideration and agreement.

It was noted all transitional processes are predicated on their being no detriment to the non-Constituent district councils

Cllr Furness reiterated the Derbyshire Dales DC’s strong objection to being forced to leave SCR suggesting the district felt much stronger as part of the overlap.

Cllr Dore sought further clarification regarding the public-private and gender balance ambitions. It was confirmed the gender reference of 33% reflects the current balance but our ambition should be 50/50. Regarding the public-private split, it was noted the report, as presented, again reflects the current position but the policy remains to comply wholly with the proportionality determined by the LEP review.

Regarding the LGF programme, Cllr Dore requested clarity regarding what the new LEP membership arrangements will mean for schemes outside the SCR constituent area. The Chair highlighted the need to ‘co-manage’ schemes already in contract and the need to work closely with D2N2 colleagues with regard to transitional arrangements.

It was confirmed the SCR will not be funding any schemes that are not in contract (signed) with the SCR before 1^st April 2020.

Cllr Dore highlighted the need for the LEP Board to continue to be instrumental in determining which schemes come to fruition and remain informed of what outputs are being achieved for SCR-funded LGF schemes. It was suggested the Executive Boards could take a stronger lead in ensuring the LEP’s interests are represented as potential schemes emerge.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1. Notes the process required to formalise the withdrawal of the District Councils with effect from the 1st April 2020, the impact on the current balance of membership and implications for the Thematic Boards

Approves the draft Collaboration Framework with D2N2 LEP.

A report and presentation were received to provide an update on SEP/LIS development

Members received an update on the vision, strategic ambitions, underpinning principles, core narrative and emerging broad policy areas and were provided with an early view of the draft SEP.

Further information was provided in respect of the actions contained within the term ‘underpinning principles’, noting where these are aligned with skills and employability to support growth, transport and mobility, infrastructure and digital technology, housing, and culture and place.

Mayor Jones questioned the extent to which the plan has been developed with other key strategic partners and asked whether the impact of an aging population has been captured, particularly in respect of the transport and mobility priorities.

Examples were provided for where the health sector has been readily engaged with helping to develop the SEP and to also recognise where the SEP is instrumental in supporting the ambitions of the health and integrated care sector, such as in respect of that sector’s ambition for increasing care in the community.

Cllr Houghton suggested the Plan needs to be written mindful of not being so all encompassing that is becomes less relevant to localised communities and loses focus on those communities’ need to benefit economically from the SEP. Members asserted the importance of ensuring the Plan clearly links to communities and individuals.

Cllr Read expressed concern that the housing priorities aren’t yet clear enough and agreed with other members that the current draft is too ‘abstract’, devoid of specifics and not yet embedded in the realities of what tangible benefits South Yorkshire’s communities need to experience.

Members acknowledged the quandary of the Plan needing to be driven ‘top-down and ‘bottom-up’ and discussed the need to determine which priorities are the remit of the SCR and which are the remit of the local authorities or other strategic agencies. It was agreed the reality is that the Plan needs to be multi-layered and requiring of effective ideas and leadership at every level.

The Chair requested this ideology be weaved into the central narrative of the SEP vision.

Regarding housing, it was noted the recent Housing Board heard representations from Housing Association leads in respect of how they would like to help shape and support the SEP.

Prof. Husbands suggested the Plan needs to be crystal clear in respect of what strategic choices are being taken (and consequently which aren’t) to help justify the narrative.

A report was received requesting the Board accepts a project (Project Chorus) onto the LGF Programme in order to develop a Full Business Case for further consideration.

It was noted the report is not a request for funding approval, as any such decision would be taken by the MCA.

The report noted Project Chorus is a company who are initially seeking to establish a research and development facility to develop the next generation of antennae for satellite control systems. This will create c358 mostly high value jobs. A second phase will establish a manufacturing facility in the city region, creating a wide range of additional jobs.

It was noted the total value of the R&D phase is £18m with a LGF grant requested of £8m and if approved by the LEP onto the programme (and the MCA in respect of whether it is agreed to allocate funding), the company has identified temporary premises and could commence operations in the city region as early as January 2020.

It was noted this investment has been assessed at the strategic case and represents good value for money this will be enhanced when the manufacturing facility is delivered.

Members questioned the relationship between the 2 phases and whether agreeing phase 1 ties the SCR into approving phase 2 at some stage.

Mayor Jones highlighted the information to be presented at item 7 noting we currently have to manage a significant over-programming situation. Members were reminded the decision being sought today is just in respect of whether to include this project in the notional programme, with the MCA to determine whether this scheme will ultimately receive funding in the context of the other schemes vying for LGF awards.

Further information was provided to explain and support the potential significance of this scheme.

Mayor Jones suggested the LGF overprogramming position should have been considered prior to considering the acceptance of this scheme onto the programme and recommendation to the MCA.

RESOLVED, that the Board approves ‘Project Chorus’ onto the LGF pipeline Programme.

A report was received to provide the LEP Board with an update on the review of the current LGF programme commitments and the scale of projects in the over-programmed pipeline.

Members were reminded the LEP Board in September considered a range of options to address the over programming position and agreed to scheme promoters self-evaluating the deliverability of schemes within the funded window (to March 2021) and nominate schemes to defer or remove from the programme, SCR seeking opportunities to find additional resource (e.g. consider decommitting uncontracted elements from the programme, legacy Growing Places Funding, housing fund allocations etc.) and the undertaking of a LEP prioritisation process following the actions 1 and 2 if there remains an over programmed position

It was noted scheme promoters were therefore asked to complete and return self-evaluations for projects in the pipeline but not yet approved, projects approved but not yet in contract and projects in delivery but likely to underclaim.

It was noted the over-programmed figure is therefore £46.5m, against a total available programme of £377.6m and the commitment headroom is £9.4m (subject to pending decisions being taken at the forthcoming MCA). It was noted further diligence will be taken in respect of the best usage of the current commitment headroom.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1.         Notes the review of the LGF programme and current pipeline position following the self-assessment

2.         Agrees the steps to be undertaken, including the utilisation of the £8m Growing Places Fund to increase the available headroom for the pipeline, the identification of further programme withdrawals for schemes that cannot meet the conditions of the funding approval and to undertake further prioritisation of the pipeline

3.         Prioritises the remaining balance of £9.4m to support inward investment schemes, noting this prioritisation to be regularly reviewed based upon changes in the available headroom.

A report was received to provide an update on the progress made in identifying savings options to achieve a reduction in the 2019/20 LEP and MCA core budget.

Cllr Dore requested a separate budget meeting be convened for Leaders ahead of the MCA meeting (at which the budget will be presented for approval), to ensure Leaders have been able to influence the budget’s development. The Chair asked that the private sector be represented at that workshop and asked Nigel Brewster to attend.

Action: Mike to revise the budget development timetable and make arrangements for the additional workshop.

RESOLVED, that the Board notes the progress to date in seeking to achieve a significant budget reduction in 2020/21

A report was received inviting consideration of the business growth opportunities for the Sheffield City Region arising from technology and innovation in the transport sector.

Considering how the findings of the Future Mobility study should be taken forward, it was proposed a specific forum of members and officers (supported by colleagues from the Universities and the National College for High Speed Rail) be convened to look at the options in more detail.

Members considered the 37 points contained within the report and discussed whether the ownership of any of these points is wider than or lies outside the remit of the SCR.

Members questioned whether the spectrum of points contained within the report is currently too broad (noting this overlaps with the SCR Transport Strategy and its implementation plans).

It was suggested there is a need to determine what is important to us and prioritise those points.

It was suggested the role of future mobility awareness will be to help ‘nudge’ the actions contained within the implementation plans to ensure we are maximising the benefit of future technologies as our plans for future public mobility emerge.

RESOLVED that the Board notes the findings of recent research into Future Mobility services in the Sheffield City Region and agrees to support the creation of a ‘forum’ (including the representation of officers from the local authorities) to consider the future mobility opportunities in more detail.

Received for information.

Prof. Husbands noted the Working Win pilot had come to an end but the results won’t be reported for up to 2 years. It was noted this was because the referral window had now closed but the programme is extended for a further year. As a medical ethics trial the government will be undertaking the assessment. 

Received for information.

No further matters requested.