Agenda and minutes

Members’ apologies were noted as above.

Declarations of Interest by individual Members in relation to any item of business on the agenda.

None.

None.

None received.

It was noted the minutes of the previous meeting should have recorded Owen Michaelson being in attendance and also that Colin Blackburn did not attend.

RESOLVED, that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 29th August are agreed to be an accurate record.

A report and presentation were received to provide members with an update following the discussion at the last LEP Board which provided a steer on the vision and objectives for the emerging Strategic Economic Plan.

Members were provided with an update on the vision, objectives and draft outcomes and emerging broad policy areas.

An early draft of the plan was provided to inform a discussion of priorities for the economic plan.

It was noted the evidence base has been signed off by the LEP Board and is now publicly available to inform wider research.

The Board was informed of the extensive means of engagement undertaken and planned to help shape the plan.

It was noted the latest iterations of the plan have more of a ‘place’ feel. Additional changes from previous versions were explained noting the plan now focuses on inclusive growth, prosperity and opportunity, with more holistic targeting and a greater emphasis on relationships with other agencies.

It was asked how focusing on fewer projects would lead to greater inclusivity. It was suggested this would recognise that past attempts to invest equitably across the whole geography hasn’t led to inclusive economy results, therefore this introduces the concept of investing more wisely in a smaller number of big impact projects.

The Chair asked how this links to the various other regional and pan-northern strategies and asserted the SEP needs to link to and reference these other plans.

Members were introduced to the proposed SEP objectives for infrastructure.

Regarding the Digital objective to ‘lead the way’, it was questioned how this can be our ambition given we are behind other regions and unlikely to ‘catch them up’. It was suggested this actually refers to some niche areas of the digital economy where the SCR is well placed to be a world class leader. Members suggested the current wording of the objective needs amending to reflect this position.

Action: Felix / Jon to reconsider the wording for the digital objective.

It was questioned how the plan will be ‘translated’ to the district level given the important role the local authorities (and other statutory agencies such as Homes England) play in the statutory planning processes.  How will the SEP influence those processes? It was noted there are regular engagements with representatives of all districts and agencies to help develop a plan that is meaningful to all stakeholders. It was recognised the SCR has no ‘mandate’ to direct other agencies’ activities and therefore has to adopt a partnership approach to achieving its ambitions, especially the buy-in of the local authorities.

Members further questioned how the proposed SEP’s ambition and objectives equate to the development of an inclusive economy suggesting there is something missing in the narrative to link these factors together. It was suggested the SEP needs to reference and recognise the importance of more people-based actions such as digital mobility and skills and career guidance “we need to build the ladder as well as enable people to climb the ladder”.

It was agreed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

A report and presentation were received to provide an update on progress with the emerging draft SCR Energy Strategy, including summarised key stakeholder feedback; the findings from the University of Sheffield’s ‘Provocation’ Study; and the emerging Carbon Targets and Future Scenarios Analysis.

It was noted a comprehensive range of stakeholders had attended events to help shape the strategy.

Members considered debate raised through the stakeholder events regarding whether this should be developed as an energy strategy or a low carbon strategy. Members voiced support for this being developed predominantly as an energy strategy.

It was suggested more industry voices are needed to inform the strategy’s development. OM agreed to convene a roundtable meeting with some additional private sector individuals whom have not so far been involved in developing the strategy.

It was agreed that the planned presentation of the strategy to the LEP Board be deferred to permit time for reviewing the strategy taking into account the outcomes of the additional private sector engagement, as well as the Provocation Report and the Stakeholder feedback on the existing draft Strategy. There was also a shared view that the strategy needs to emphasise energy generation more.

Further information was presented in respect of the national level picture for future emissions mitigation and what the achievement of currently proposed emissions targets means for the SCR from either a top-down or bottom-up perspective. Members discussed which elements of this work need to feature largely in the SCR Energy Strategy and where it needs to be established that other thematic strategies will contribute to meeting emissions targets.

Members discussed what emission reduction outcomes we can and can’t directly influence and which SCR Board is best placed to deliver its part of the overall emissions reduction solution.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1.    Notes the feedback from the Key Stakeholder consultation exercise,

2.    Notes the University of Sheffield’s Provocation Study report.

3.    Agrees the Strategy be revised taking into account the Key Stakeholder feedback and the Provocation Study recommendations, but with also a greater emphasis on energy generation.

4.    Notes the emerging findings of the Carbon Targets and Future Scenarios work, including the emerging sub-targets being proposed for informing Phase 2 of the Carbon Targets and Future Scenarios analysis.

Recommends the report to the LEP Board headlining changes to the Draft Strategy be deferred pending the revision of the strategy and reporting it to the next meeting of the Infrastructure Board.

A report and accompanying performance dashboard provided the Board with up to date performance information on the Infrastructure programme delivered on behalf of the LEP and MCA

RESOLVED, that the contents of the report are noted.

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

It was noted all projects have been instructed to undertake self-evaluation to assess their deliverability and this information will be reported back to the next meeting of the LEP Board.

It was acknowledged a number of projects are profiled to spend late in the financial year. Half way through the year, approximately 25 % of the annual budget has been recorded as spent.

RESOLVED, that the Board:

1. Notes the scale of the pipeline and actions in progress to address the overprogramming position.

Notes the need to maximise claims at Q2 ahead of the annual performance review.

Provided for information.

Provided for information.

It was noted that going forward, the transport team will be asked to provide additional short narratives to help explain the transport agenda items. It was noted the Transport Board papers are also available on the SCR website.

It was noted this would be John’s last Infrastructure Board meeting ahead of him standing down as Sheffield CC CEX. The Chair and members thanked John for his contributions and support of the Board.