Written evidence from Pennine Lancashire
Chief Executives (PLACE)
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 Economic success and growth do not relate
directly to local authority or other administrative boundaries:
the market is the important factor and interventions should be
designed on this basis.
1.2 Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP)
offer an excellent opportunity for the public and private sector
to come together to create the right conditions for a successful,
rebalanced economy.
1.3 LEP areas across the country should
be allowed to develop into models to suit the needs of their area,
irrespective of size. Some LEPs will be able to build on existing
strong partnerships and others may need more support in the early
stages, therefore it's important that transitional arrangements
from regional structures and timeframes to form a LEP remain flexible.
1.4 LEPs will provide the opportunity for
the private sector to work with local authorities to play their
role in connecting successful economies to successful social outcomes
and well-being. Local authorities will need to bring more flexibility
in their approach to statutory functions eg education and transport
as these are often the barriers which can stifle entrepreneurship,
retaining high skill businesses, business growth and the ability
to compete on a national and international level.
1.5 The private sector and local authorities
will need to recognise that there are some issues best addressed
at a regional level or across LEP areas eg transport links to
city regions, international tourism/marketing of an area. Individual
LEPs shouldn't feel threatened by regional co-ordination where
it makes sense to take a light-touch approach and equally should
be willing to work with neighbouring LEPs to achieve mutual outcomes.
1.6 The private sector and local authorities
are separate entities that will need to recognise the role each
plays in an area. The private sector can bring expertise, a focus
on realistic goals, and fresh investment to stimulate the economy;
whilst the public sector will provide the democratic accountability,
transparency and a flexible approach to delivering statutory services.
Each adds value to the other and puts more power in the hands
of local businesses and residents.
1.7 Upper tier authorities will be able
to provide the resources and legal framework to process financial
investment from Government and as the private sector will be on
board through the LEP it is important that funding be allocated
on a programme basis rather than project by project bounded by
red tape.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
TO THE
SUBMITTERS
2.1 Andrew Lightfoot has worked for Blackburn
with Darwen council since 2002 and is employed as Managing Director
for Local Government Services. Andrew joined the council as Director
of Policy and was promoted to Executive Director Corporate Resources
before moving on to his current role. He previously worked for
KPMG and has held regeneration roles at Rochdale MBC and Bolton
MBC.
2.2 Steve Hoyle is the Executive Director
for Economic Development at Regenerate Pennine Lancashire, a private
sector led, local authority owned economic development company.
He leads strategic economic development for the whole of Pennine
Lancashire; his achievements include: producing the Integrated
Economic Strategy and the successful delivery of the Local Enterprise
Growth Initiative (£30 million programme aimed at encouraging
enterprise in the most deprived communities in the area). Steve
was previously the head of service for economic development and
has been involved in regeneration programmes for Blackburn and
Darwen. Working for Blackburn with Darwen Steve was responsible
for the formulation and delivery of the council economic development
strategies including responsibility for inward investment, development
projects and town centre regeneration. Steve has been a Member
of the Institute of Economic Development for 25 years and has
a Masters Degree in Geography from Oxford University.
2.3 This submission is based on extensive
research undertaken over recent years, the latest market intelligence
and the significant professional experience of both submitters.
3.0 TOPICS
3.1 Function of a Local Enterprise Partnership
and ensuring value for money
3.2 Planning for economic growth should
take place across natural economic areas and not administrative
boundaries. Natural economic areas are characterised by travel
to work patterns, travel to learn catchments, housing markets,
supply chains for industry and commerce and service markets for
consumers. For example, Lancashire County is not a natural economic
area; it is an administrative construct formed by local government
reorganisations in 1974 and 1998. Pennine Lancashire on the other
hand, the traditional manufacturing heartland of Lancashire is
a functional economic area with over 85% of local residents actually
working within the sub-region and the area is still one of nation's
strong manufacturing concentrations. It is however recognised
that it is important that adjoining areas work together, and with
Government, to prioritise investment and growth in an area.
3.3 The Multi Area Agreement (MAA) in Pennine
Lancashire represented a step change in our approach to economic
development. Signed by seven local authorities and Government,
it brought together councils, the private sector and learning
providers to work directly with Government departments (eg DfT
for our rail schemes; DWP for welfare contracts). It set out how
we would maximise our strong manufacturing base, link education
and skills provision to meet the needs of the economy, connect
to areas of growth and create a better balanced housing market.
3.4 It is important that a LEP, where possible
builds on the foundations already in place between existing partnership
arrangements and that both the private and pubic sector are equally
and fully engaged.
3.5 Although LEPs should be business led,
it is clear that in order to create the right environment for
economic growth, local authorities must use their influence on
a range of different areas in addition to education and skills.
The Partnership will need to influence planning, transport, housing,
health and business regulations/public protection. This will require
local authorities to be receptive to new ideas and be willing
to push through change as necessary within their own councils.
3.6 Upper tier authorities will need to
be more flexible with their statutory functions eg transport planning;
education to allow district councils and the private sector to
work through bureaucracy quickly allowing programme themes to
develop cohesively. Only local authorities can use the planning
system to shape the way an area looks and develops and councils
must fully integrate private sector expertise within this new
approach.
3.7 The private sector must be directly
involved in determining priorities for an area; its expertise
is vital in helping us make the biggest impact with reduced public
funding. If the private sector can clearly identify its priorities
for economic growth—the public sector can help achieve them.
LEPs are an ideal vehicle for this. The priorities could be: improved
transport links, digital infrastructure to allow businesses to
operate on a national or international level; skills match to
enable businesses to continue to operate and thrive in a particular
location and to meet the needs of tomorrow's economy; and support
to encourage expansion and new enterprises. The private sector
should be expected to share their knowledge on inward investment,
market opportunities, supporting and promoting trade/export and
influencing Government.
3.8 The notion of a Total Business Environment
model should be considered with local authorities well placed
to co-ordinate business support and regulation. As Business Link
is dissolved the LEP should be given a mandate to develop a local
business support model which reflects the needs of the local business
community and aims to move towards a greater level of sustainability
over a period of time through increasing their own income streams.
3.9 It is important that the LEP adds value
to existing governance structures rather than be an additional
layer. It should be used as an opportunity to simplify, often
complicated, local structures.
3.10 Regional growth fund and other funding
arrangements
3.11 Cuts to public sector spending will
have a big impact in Pennine Lancashire and other areas disproportionately
reliant on the public sector to provide jobs and boosts to the
local economy. Areas which have existing partnerships and are
ready for a quick transition to an LEP will be in a strong position
to be the first to access the Regional Growth Fund. It is important
therefore that the Government honour its commitment to focus this
growth fund to rebalance the economy, recognising areas like Pennine
Lancashire can make a significant contribution to national economic
growth and success.
3.12 Pennine Lancashire earlier this year
signed a Joint Investment Plan with the NWDA for £20 million
funding per year for the next 10 years. Although this funding
is no longer available the principal of an agreed set of investment
priorities remain and it is intended that these priorities, where
private sector partners are in place, would form the nucleus of
an early bid for Regional Growth Funding. We also have a Local
Investment Agreement signed with the Homes and Communities Agency
and are working on a fully integrated investment plan linking
the economy with housing. Accessing funding from the NWDA has
been characterised by endless red tape and bureaucracy which has
delayed the start up of some schemes. Successive Government have
set parameters too tightly around different funding streams, with
little flexibility to vire monies, making it difficult to effectively
"place shape". Each funding stream has come with different
appraisal processes and often focused on short term outputs as
opposed to longer term outcomes—this has fostered a bureaucratic
monitoring culture.
3.13 Where sub-regional areas can demonstrate
strong local governance structures, they should be eligible for
full delegation of funding and responsibilities in the form of
an LEP "place" block allocation.
3.14 We hope that the Regional Growth Fund
will have a degree of flexibility to allow pooling with other
budget streams for cross cutting programme based schemes rather
than project by project with restrictions in place.
3.15 As regional government diminishes,
the LEPs can become a lead on grant funding and a managing body
for ERDF administering the function on behalf of other partners.
Again, there will be common issues across the region and in these
instances a light tough regional approach may be appropriate.
3.16 Upper tier authorities have the resources
and legal frameworks to provide the managing and accountable body
function for funding; for example, in Pennine Lancashire, Lancashire
County Council is the accountable body and Blackburn with Darwen
is the managing body for NWDA, ERDF and HCA funding. These arrangements
would work for the Regional Growth Fund and other funding streams,
managed by the LEP. There will be no need to set up new and expensive
teams.
3.17 Co-ordination of roles between LEPs
3.18 It will be important that there are
strong working relationships between neighbouring LEPs. There
will be themes and investment priorities which overlap partnership
areas and require collaborative working. In Pennine Lancashire
there are a number of rail schemes which are dependent on improvements
to the Manchester hub. Furthermore, job growth in Manchester and
Leeds will be greater than in Lancashire and it is important we
understand what type of jobs these will be and equip our residents
with the skills necessary to access these new job opportunities.
There are already existing arrangements in place where neighbouring
authorities and city regions co-ordinate activity eg Blackburn
with Darwen (unitary authority) is part of AGMA (Association of
Greater Manchester Authorities) and there are natural linkages
between neighbouring areas on travel to learn and travel to work
patterns.
3.19 LEPs operating within a county function
are likely to have representatives from the county council on
each LEP eg in Lancashire there may be three LEPs operating in
natural economic footprint. In this instance, where there are
common issues which require a Lancashire approach, there is a
case for an overarching "light touch" board with representatives
from each of the three LEPs including partners from the business
and third sector. It is important however that any overarching
arrangement doesn't duplicate the work of the LEPs.
3.20 The nature of the public sector and
private sector means that there are already strong links between
these bodies, eg a county wide leaders and chief executives group;
county wide group that brings together the respective chambers
of commerce. These groups will provide the opportunities to discuss
the work programme for individual LEPs and overlapping issues
to tackle together. These arrangements provide the opportunity
to develop "concordats" on themes which merit closer
collaboration.
3.21 Regional arrangements
3.22 The North West previously received
funding for 4NW (a body of leaders representing sub-regions within
the North West). Following the funding being cut to support 4NW,
regional partners have been in discussion to develop appropriate
arrangements within the new policy context which would allow for
the continuation of a North West voice.
3.23 It is recognised that some matters
are better addressed and taken forward on a regional footprint
eg visitor economy; attracting international investment; marketing.
Any arrangements at a regional level should be very light touch
and only when appropriate providing a supporting role to the LEP
within that area. With Regional Economic Strategies being scrapped
strategic prioritisation should take place at a local level in
line with the Governments' localism agenda.
3.24 To support these light touch regional
arrangements it may be necessary to allocate a small resource,
however it is likely that a local authority would be able to accommodate
a small supporting admin and research and intelligence function.
3.25 Structure and accountability
3.26 MAA areas will already have some form
of structures in place to take forward the agreed actions from
the MAA. Where there is no such structure in place it will be
important that relationships are allowed to build and grow with
recognition that there may be "teething problems".
3.27 LEPs may provide the opportunity for
rationalisation and refocusing of existing structures. In Pennine
Lancashire we have a business leader's forum, individual council
Local Strategic Partnerships; employment and skills board and
various private sector groups. It is important that a LEP does
not add another tier of bureaucracy and become simply a meeting
point where items are discussed but not delivered.
3.28 Council officers and democratically
elected members will need to operate differently and more flexibly
to ensure the private sector remains engaged and interested with
constructive, focused, business like agendas moving away from
traditional lengthy council meetings.
3.29 Equally, the private sector will need
to recognise the role of local authorities as open, transparent
and accountable to local residents. A local authority role is
wider than economic development and this should not be hampered.
Members need to declare a personal interest on council decisions
and similarly arrangements should be in place where private sector
representatives declare a personal interest on decisions of the
LEP.
3.30 In Pennine Lancashire there are pre-existing
partnerships that can adapt to become the LEP with some tweaking
of membership to ensure equal representation between the public
and private sectors. We are already actively engaged with the
East Lancs Chamber of Commerce who play a supporting role to the
Leaders Joint Committee (the democratically elected cross-authority
group established to promote economic prosperity in the area.)
and are also an equal member of the Pennine Lancs Chief Executives
group. We have set up an economic development company—Regenerate
Pennine Lancashire with a Board led by a prominent businessman.
We have a business leaders' forum chaired by the Chamber of Commerce
which brings together local business leaders. We also have a third
sector board bringing voluntary, community and faith groups together.
These existing structures will pave the way for a LEP representative
of the public and private sectors, whether this is through a representative
body eg Chamber of Commerce or independent local businesses.
3.31 Transitional arrangements
3.32 LEPs will be at different stages across
the country and it is important that transitional arrangements
and timeframes remain flexible. Regional Development Agencies
have land and other assets and it is important that these are
retained where they are of benefit to the region and arrangements
will need to be in place on how these assets can be best deployed.
RDAs will also have regional intelligence and research information
which will need to be retained.
3.33 Some areas will be ready to form LEPs
straight away, other areas will need support to build new governance
arrangements. It may be helpful to have a national or regional
forum for LEPs where those more advanced can provide support and
lessons learned to those still in development. In the North West,
Pennine Lancashire are positioned well to move quickly to a LEP,
and whilst we recognise that others in the area will need more
support, it is important that the NWDA is not retained for any
longer than necessary. We understand that the NWDA's entire budget
is committed and contracted to and where existing programmes are
under spending or are delayed there should be arrangements in
place to re-direct funding to programmes ready to start immediately.
4.0 FACTUAL INFORMATION
4.1 Our submission is based on experience
working within the public sector with an economic and regeneration
background. A number of research and intelligence reports have
been commissioned and produced and are used as an evidence base
on which to define our economic priorities and strategies. These
include:
4.1.1 Housing and the Economy: The Pennine Lancashire
Market in 2007 (Ekosgen, 2007).
4.1.2 Economic Relationship between Pennine Lancashire
and Greater Manchester (Ekosgen, 2008).
4.1.3 Pennine Lancashire MAA Economic Impact
Assessment (Ekosgen, 2008b).
4.1.4 State of the English Cities (ODPM, 2006).
4.1.5 The English Indices of Deprivation.
4.1.6 City Links (Centre for Cities, 2008).
4.1.7 Inquiry into Stimulating Economic Activity
in Areas Remote From Growth (Regeneris Consulting, 2008).
4.2 In addition:
4.3 Planning for economic growth brings
greater benefits if it takes place across natural economic areas,
and not administrative boundaries. Functional economic areas are
characterised by travel to work patterns, travel to learn catchments,
housing markets, supply chains for industry and commerce and service
markets for consumers.
4.4 Despite large investment in core cities
research has shown that this has failed to motivate growth in
neighbouring areas. It is important that adjoining areas work
together, and with Government to prioritise key transport schemes
to ensure "trickle down" actually occurs, as well as
linking skills provision to growth sectors in connecting economies.
4.5 Experience suggests that investment
is of more benefit if it is delegated on a programme basis allowing
regeneration to capture an area rather than just a specific project
that doesn't take into account the wider needs of an area.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 In relation to Local Enterprise Partnerships
we recommend the following:
5.2 LEPs should operate on a natural economic
footprint regardless of size
5.3 Local authorities, local enterprise
agencies and the chamber of commerce should be given a mandate
to promote private sector recovery through coordination of business
support and regulation—develop a local business support
model, which aims to move towards a greater level of sustainability
over a period of time through increasing their own income streams.
5.4 Funding from the Regional Growth Fund
and any other source of funding through the LEP is allocated on
a programme basis rather than an uncoordinated project by project
approach.
5.5 Non-statutory light touch partnership
arrangements be put in place at a regional level, where appropriate,
on issues such as spatial planning; transport; tourism or any
other scheme which would be best placed to benefit the region.
However, these arrangements should be organic and developed from
bottom-up.
5.6 LEPs should be of equal standing between
the public and private sector recognising the open, transparent
and accountable arrangements needed by the local authorities and
where relevant parties declare personal interests.
5.7 Land and assets held by the Regional
Development agencies be transferred to "collections of LEPs"
to encourage private investment.
5.8 Transitional arrangements and timeframes
are flexible to account for those areas that can proceed quickly
and those areas that will need comprehensive support.
5.9 LEPs simplify, not complicate, existing
structures; it should not add another layer of decision making.
5.10 LEPs should have the option of adopting
a wide range of functions including: economic development, planning,
housing, transport and digital connectivity, education and skills,
public protection/business regulation, business support and enterprise.
5.11 In two tier areas all councils should
have a duty to participate so that any barriers to economic success
eg transport, planning and education can be addressed.
12 August 2010
| 
