Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed attendees to the meeting.

Apologies were noted as above.

Members declared interests in relation to programmes located within their own Local Authorities.

Richard Stubbs declared an interest in Item 11, as a member of the Board of a company involved in the programme.

None.

None.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2022 be agreed as a true record.

Further analysis on the effectiveness of business support provision was requested. The approach being developed in relation to the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) which could be extended was discussed, and it was agreed that the proposal would be brought to the Board for information at a later date

ACTION: Innovation Project Director – to bring UKSPF provision proposal to the board once available.

An update on UKSPF was requested; an explanation was given that as the Investment Plan finalisation was an iterative process so had not been published, however, it was agreed that the draft version would be shared.

ACTION: Innovation Project Director – to share the draft UKSPF Investment Plan with the Board.

An update was given on the Create Growth Bid. The Bid was shared with Local Authorities, but had not been shortlisted by Government. The work would however be taken forward using alternative funding streams.

RESOLVED: to note the Action Log and updates.

An update on the Business Investment Pipeline was presented, it was noted that that: 

• there were 74 active enquiries; examples of companies progressing through the assurance process were given.
• 6 projects had been completed since January.
• Companies were being encouraged to also request loan support from the MCA, as opposed to just grants.

ACTION: Assistant Director – Procurement, Contracts and Programme Controls  to provide a current spend figure for projects on the pipeline from April 2022 to the Board.

A question was raised as to whether there was any overarching investment policy or values for businesses seeking funding. The Board were informed that each project was assessed on its own merit.

ACTION: Innovation Project Director to arrange a meeting with interested Board Members to explain the full Assurance Process.

RESOLVED: to note the update.

A Project Mandate was presented for sign off by the Board, with a funding ask of £2.4m.

Questions were raised around the business model, and more detailed information was requested on the proposal. It was noted that much of the business was still in development, and that more detail would be presented to the board as part of a Full Business Case (FBC).

The Board noted that the MCA was currently working to create a framework which would align proposals to set values as opposed to making funding decisions on the merit of individual cases.

An enquiry was made as to how this proposal would benefit South Yorkshire, as opposed to just being a business based in the region. A response was given that a significant proportion of partners supported under this programme would also be based in South Yorkshire

RESOLVED: to accept the Mandate as an application for funding to allow it to progress further through SYMCAs assurance process.

A Project Mandate for the South Yorkshire Supply Chain Programme was presented for sign off by the Board. The programme would support businesses with supply chain issues.

Questions were asked as to whether there were conditions for exactly how the funding would be spent within individual Local Authorities; it was explained that the Mandate specified one full time post within each Local Authority, but that so long as outcomes were delivered there would be scope for each to deliver differently, based on local requirements.

ACTION: Development Officer to explore with Local Authorities how the required outcomes could be delivered flexibly across each Authority.

RESOLVED: to investigate the programme further and review the Strategic Business Case (SBC).

An update on programme performance was provided. Forecasts suggested an outturn expenditure of £42.42m, and it was noted that 43% of the value of all schemes were in delivery. Three schemes were awaiting full approval, and most spending was expected to take place in Quarter 4.

More detail was requested on forecasted spend.

ACTION: Assistant Director – Procurement, Contracts and Programme Controls to provide a report of forecasted spend over the next few years for current projects.

Questions were raised around slippage in spending for some schemes, it was explained that delays during Covid, supply chain issues, increasing costs and limited numbers of tradespeople to deliver projects have all contributed to this.

It was noted that for most projects, funding could be carried forward if it was not spent within this financial year.

A question was raised on the £9.62m figure which was noted as a material overspend in the paper. It was clarified that this increased forecast was attributed to additional allocations from government and equity investments carried over from the previous year.

ACTION: The Assistant Director – Procurement, Contracts and Programme Controls to amend the paper to reflect that the £9.62m figure did not require mitigation action at this stage.

RESOLVED: to note the Performance Report.

An overview of 2 programmes which would be progressed to the MCA Board for final approval was given.

The first sought progression of the “Canon Diagnostic Suite and Arena” project to full approval and award of £1.4m grant.

Richard Stubbs declared an interest in this programme, as a member of the Board of the Olympic Legacy Park, where the programme would be based.

Questions were raised around whether any proportion of funding could be returned to the MCA in the future, and to seek assurance that the handover of facilities would take place as specified in the proposal. It was explained that both issues could be covered in the contract.

The second proposal sought progression of an SBC to an FBC.

Questions were raised around the risk of giving financial support to this programme. It was confirmed that due diligence and thorough financial assessment would take place as part of the MCA Assurance Process, and that this programme would continue to be brought back to the Board for approval as it developed.

An error was identified in the paper under ‘Recommendations’; the Board noted that delegated authority would only be approved for the Head of Paid Service to enter into legal agreements for the scheme covered should proposals be approved by the MCA Board.

ACTION: Assistant Director – Procurement, Contracts and Programme Controls to provide more detailed information to the Board on the proposal in advance of future funding decisions being made.

RESOLVED: to approve all recommendations for progression to the MCA Board.

An update on the UKSPF was given to the Board. An Investment Plan was submitted to the Government on 1^st August, and a funding decision was expected from Government in October 2022. Local commissioning for Year 1 work would be completed by the end of September. Commissioning for Year 2 would begin from October, and a key focus would be to ensure that there was no duplication across other schemes. An engagement strategy was being developed to allow stakeholders to shape this work, and a Local Partnerships Board would be established.

Questions were raised around governance arrangements and resourcing this programme. It was noted that governance was likely to be similar to that of the Cultural Recovery Fund, and that capacity had been allocated internally to progress the work.

RESOLVED: to note the update.

None.