Download EU Strategy Refresh - Word Version final April 16

Driving prosperity in the M3 corridor
EuropeanStructuraland
InvestmentFundStrategy
Updated in February 2016
Enterprise M3 European Structural and
Investment Fund Strategy
February 2016
Developed by Enterprise M3 supported by Warwick Economics & Development and KADA
Research
Table of Contents
1.
Overview ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.
Socio-economic Context: Enterprise M3 ................................................................. 8
3.
The Vision for Growth and Programme Alignment ............................................... 33
4.
Enterprise M3 Strategic Actions ............................................................................. 36
5.
Outputs and Funding ............................................................................................... 67
6.
Delivery Arrangements and Proposed Local Governance Arrangements ......... 73
Cross-cuttingThemes–SustainabilityandEqualitiesandSocialInnovation...ANNEXES......................91
Overview
Who we are…
This document sets out ambitious but realistic proposals for the investment of European funding over
the next seven years to 2020 by the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). Put simply,
the LEP is working to exploit one of most successfully performing economies in England. We will
target these funds to help us achieve our bold vision, set out in our Strategy for Growth and reinforced
within our Strategic Economic Plan, to be ‘the premier location in the country for enterprise and
economic growth, balanced with an excellent environment and quality of life’.
Enterprise M3 covers mid and north Hampshire and south-west Surrey, stretching from the hinterland
of London, along the lines of the M3 motorway to the New Forest taking in several towns in
Hampshire and Surrey (including the key growth centres of Basingstoke, Farnborough, Guildford and
Woking, along with the Step-up Towns of Camberley, Aldershot, Andover, Staines- upon-Thames and
Whitehill and Bordon) and the city of Winchester (further detail around our spatial priorities is set out
in Chapter 2). As well as major urban centres, the area also has extensive rural towns and villages,
two national parks, education and innovation clusters and corporate HQs, military sites and sites of
outstanding natural beauty and heritage.
We are known for our exceptional connectivity. We aim to exploit and enhance our connections for
the benefit of our businesses, local communities and people who visit our area. We will capitalise on
our industrial strengths through an Enterprise M3 Sci: Tech corridor acting as a conduit for our
innovation investment and ‘smart specialisation1’ strategy. This investment will be complemented by
science and technology related skills and low carbon measures. The Enterprise M3 area is located at
the heart of a transportation hub connecting UK businesses to the rest of the world. In addition to its
proximity to Heathrow, Gatwick and Southampton airports, within the area lies Farnborough Airport Europe’s premier business aviation airport. Road and rail connections include stretches of the M25
and much of the M3 and A3, as well as 75 railway stations.
Source: NOMIS, 2012
We are a significant economy in our own right (see above). The area is home to around 100,000
SMEs (86,500 registered businesses) as well as global businesses such as AXA Wealth, Motorola,
BP and Novartis. Our location offers fertile ground for new and existing businesses whilst acting as a
key workforce artery to London’s economy. Quality of life is high and the area is packed with country
parks, heritage sites and visitors’ attractions with easy access to both major urban areas and the
countryside. It is these connections and our exceptional living environment, which provide the basis
for the LEP’s activity and the use of European funds to promote growth - helping us make the most of
our assets, skills and globally recognised industries.
We are a remarkably resilient economy and tend to ‘buck the trend’ in the creation of new jobs; the
1
The commission has asked for proposals to encourage smart specialisation, which involved identifying unique characteristics and assets,
highlighting competitive advantages, and rallying regional stakeholders and resources around an excellence-driven vision of their future.
4
baseline analysis shows (see Chapter 2) that we perform very well against our peers. For instance,
Enterprise M3 is ranked 2nd out of 39 LEPs in terms of the local business base and characterised by
businesses in growth sectors, export led and with high business survival rates. Our continuing
success is therefore very important for the rest of the country. We know we have world-class sectors
in ICT and digital media, pharmaceuticals, aerospace and defence and professional and business
services. These are supported by a bedrock of knowledge-based businesses, traditional and high
value manufacturing and services, and world class higher-level skills. But we need to continually
develop and improve to retain our competitive advantage exploiting opportunities in these and other
areas. This plan will complement our Strategy for Growth in helping to make a good place even
better. It will help us to tackle many of the constraints faced by many of the fastest growing EU
economies - from fostering innovation to ensuring our growing businesses are able to find the right
people they need.
This plan has been developed in line with the EU’s desire for smart, sustainable inclusive
growth, and complements the UK Government’s principal growth priorities. It takes into
account contributions from a wide range of key local stakeholders representing the public and
private sectors, not-for-profit organisations and civil society, higher and further education
institutions and local groups.
What we intend to do…
Enterprise M3 has received a notional allocation of €45.6m (£32.3m) for the period 2014-2020. We
intend to use 55% of this funding as European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) targeted at the
stimulation of small and medium businesses and supporting innovation and the development of a low
carbon economy. The other 45% will be used as European Social Fund (ESF) money for skills
investment, workforce training and targeted inclusion activities. We will also invest our £3.5m
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development money into rural business development,
complemented by ESF skills provision for rural areas.
Enterprise M3 undertook an extensive consultation process in developing its Strategy for Growth,
which was published in May 2013. This consultation process identified three headline targets for the
LEP around GVA, jobs and business births and survival. These targets have since been updated in
light of the latest economic data. The consultation also identified four key themes of activity, which
would underpin the progress towards these headline targets. The four themes are around enterprise,
innovation, skills and employment, and infrastructure and place. The relationship between these
themes and the headline targets are summarised in the following diagram:
GVA: To increase GVA per head from 18% to 25% above the
national average through increased productivity and a focus on
businesses in high value sectors
Business Birth and Survival:
adding 1,400 businesses
annually to the area
Jobs: 52,000 new jobs
through an increase in the
employment rate from 77.4%
to 80%
Source: Enterprise M3 Strategy for Growth
In order to effectively align the activity to be funded through our notional allocation with our wider
programme of activity, we have structured our EU investment priorities around these same four
themes (the only refinement being a greater emphasis on low carbon in the infrastructure theme).
5
Enterprise M3 EU Investment Priorities2
*Note: Enterprise M3 has an additional allocation of £3.5m from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
(EAFRD) with a suggested emphasis on providing strategic business support activity for small enterprises in rural areas.
This is additional and not included in the above allocations.
Within the EU funding parameters, the Enterprise M3 partners have chosen to focus investment
through an enterprise and innovation led programme (42% of the funding is allocated to these
two priorities) underpinned by investment in the workforce. This means that:
• We will prioritise support to enable the growth aspirations of SMEs and start-ups to materialise
and encourage a closer relationship between larger businesses and SMEs and stimulate new
inward investment projects in priority sectors (more on these later).
• Much of this activity will be driven from our enhanced business support infrastructure and we
expect national providers to tailor their work to complement and add value to our priorities and
aspirations for significantly enhanced co-ordinated support for our local firms and start-ups. (ERDF
funding allocated: £7m, 22% of notional allocation).
• In terms of innovation, we are very keen to support our ‘innovation ecosystem’ and the worldclass assets in our area by focusing investment in an Enterprise M3 Sci:Tech Corridor which will
exploit our unique characteristics and assets, competitive advantage, and rally stakeholders
and resources around an excellence-driven vision of their future. (ERDF funding allocated:
£6.5m, 20% of notional allocation).
These strategic programmes will be supported by comprehensive skills measures with an
emphasis on skills development supporting business growth and making the skills system
work much better (ESF funding allocated: £14.5m, 45% of notional allocation). Our employment
growth aspirations will be met through three strands of activity:
a.
b.
c.
World-class skills measures;
Supporting employability3; and,
Enhancing employer take up of training.
The Commission does not expect partners in more developed areas to allocate too much funding to
sustainable infrastructure (developing areas across Europe take precedence here). Our Low Carbon
and Sustainable Places strategic action is therefore more modest in size (ERDF funding allocated:
£4.2m, 13% of notional allocation) and aimed at supporting low carbon technologies. This
underpinning measure will work in tandem with the Local Growth Fund to unlock infrastructural
constraints on business growth and ensuring that we exploit opportunities in the low carbon economy.
This will be complemented by appropriate use of European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
for rural businesses.
Within this programme, we have plans to develop our visitor economy and to exploit the strengths of
our rural businesses. We will work closely with Local Nature Partnerships to ensure what we do
2
Note: Enterprise M3 has an additional allocation of £3.5m from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) with a
suggested emphasis on providing strategic business support activity for small enterprises in rural areas. This is additional and not included in
the above allocations.
3
Note the social inclusion element is 22% of the of the ESF allocation.
6
contributes to our ambitious plans for sustainable development, cutting across all activities, and
will work with the not-for-profit sector to do the same for inclusivity across the programme. The ageing
population in our area requires new responses to ensure the economy is able to draw on as diverse a
workforce as possible as new and replacement employment opportunities become available. To this
end, our plans also embrace the new concept of social innovation and we will work with the not-forprofit sector and social enterprise in particular to find new ways of working with the diverse needs of
communities within Enterprise M3 – in urban, suburban and rural areas, and market towns.
What we will achieve and how…
The headline impacts of the programme are as follows. The full range of impact measures appear in
Chapter 5 of the plan.
We are acutely aware of the need to ensure we have the capacity and appropriate structures in place
to deliver our programmes. The governance section in Chapter 6 of the plan sets out our
arrangements.
The Terms of References indicate that the LEP area ESI Funds committees are sub-committees of
the England Growth Programme Board (GPB) for ESF and ERDF. They will support the GPB’s role in
considering overall Operational Programme performance by specifically looking at and advising on
the local, on-the-ground implementation of it, via project calls, applications and on going
implementation. The advice of LEP area ESI Funds sub-committees will be focused on local
development needs that are set out in ESIF strategies within the context of relevant Operational
Programmes. This will inform as appropriate Managing Authority decisions on call specifications with
respect to Priority Axes and Investment Priority focus, geography, Operational Programme and ESIF
strategy context, financial resources and the timing of calls. Regarding the EAFRD funding, The LEP
area ESI Funds sub-committees are not sub-committees of the EAFRD Programme Monitoring
Committee but will assist the EAFRD Managing Authority and the GPB by providing advice where
those activities are relevant to EAFRD spend which is part of the ESI Funds Growth Programme.
With an emphasis on delivery and performance, European Management Group (EMG) the ESIF subcommittee for Enterprise M3 area will act as a conduit for our action groups, cross LEP working and
national structures / providers and the Managing Authorities (MA).
Our EU Structural and Investment Fund Strategy forms part of wider coordinated programme of
activity for Enterprise M3. In line with our Strategic Economic Plan, EU funds will be used alongside
Local Growth Deal funding and the Growing Enterprise Fund to maximise business growth in the
area.
ThisplanrepresentsaneweraforEnterpriseM3LEP.Weverymuchlookforwardtoworkingwithpartners
overthecomingmonthsandyearsonwhatwebelievewillbeanexcitingsuiteofactivitiesthatwillhelpunlock
furthergrowthinanalreadystronglyperformingandresilienteconomy.
7
2.
Socio-economic Context: Enterprise M3
Enterprise M3 stretches from the hinterland of London to the New Forest and South
Coast…
2.1
The Enterprise M3 area stretches from the hinterland of London, along the lines of the M3
motorway to the New Forest and south coast taking in several towns in Hampshire and Surrey
(including our Key Growth Centres of Basingstoke, Farnborough, Guildford and Woking, and
our Step-up Towns: Camberley, Aldershot, Andover, Whitehill and Bordon, and Staines-uponThames) along with the city of Winchester. To the north and neighbouring London and the M25,
the economy has strong links to London and the Thames Valley and includes a large number of
international headquarters and technology-based businesses. And to the south a predominantly
rural economy includes significant town centres, such as Andover, Petersfield and Farnham, but
with a stronger emphasis on environment assets and tourism and leisure industries. Its
outstanding landscapes are recognised in the New Forest and South Downs national parks,
which cover just over a quarter (26%) of the LEP area.
2.2
The area covers approximately 4,400 km2 and stretches 75 miles through Hampshire and
Surrey. Enterprise M3, therefore, brings together localities within the following local authority
district areas in Hampshire and Surrey:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.3
Enterprise M3 adjoins the following LEP areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.4
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
East Hampshire District Council
Elmbridge Borough Council
Guildford Borough Council
Hart District Council
New Forest District Council
Runnymede Borough Council
Rushmoor Borough Council
Spelthorne Borough Council
Surrey Heath Borough Council
Test Valley Borough Council
Waverley Borough Council
Winchester City Council
Woking Borough Council
Coast to Capital
Dorset
London
Solent
Swindon & Wiltshire
Thames Valley Berkshire
The mix of urban, peri-urban and rural areas is reflected in the population density, which in the
Enterprise M3 area, is less than that of the country as a whole. These features are explored
further in Chapter 7.
Figure 2.1: Population in the Enterprise M3 area
Population (2011)
Population density (people/hectare)
Enterprise M3
1,633,900
3.7
England
53,107,200
4.1
8
Figure 2.2: Distribution of urban/rural population in Enterprise M3 area (2001)
•
•
•
75% of Enterprise M3’s population live in urban areas, the 15th most urban LEP in England
(London LEP is the most urban LEP, with 99.8% of its population living in urban areas).
With 382,095 residents living in its rural areas, Enterprise M3 has the 11th highest rural
population in England among the 39 LEPs (South East LEP is the most rural LEP, with
25.5% of its population living in rural areas).
As shown in Figure 2.2 of all the local areas in Enterprise M3, Spelthorne, Woking and
Elmbridge have the highest percentage of total residents living in urban areas. On the
other hand, Winchester, Waverley and East Hampshire have the highest percentage of
total residents living in rural areas.
Enterprise M3 Spatial Priorities
As part of the development of our draft Strategic Economic Plan, which was submitted to
Government in December 2013, we undertook a process of spatial prioritisation around our
activities.
Through this activity, we identified two main spatial programmes of activity to be taken forward within
the wider SEP. These are as follows:
•
To promote a series of strategic actions along an Enterprise M3 Sci:Tech Corridor, a
corridor of thriving innovation, R&D, technological breakthroughs, commercialisation of
ideas and high value added economic activities generated by academia and businesses
working closely together. To deliver this objective we will capitalise on our industrial strengths
and the world-class research of our universities, acting as a conduit for investment in priority
sectors, businesses and local communities. This objective includes a number of interventions
ranging across transport, housing, skills, innovation and enterprise. The Sci:Tech Corridor covers
the whole of the Enterprise M3 area, but activity will be particularly focused on our four key
growth centres (Basingstoke, Farnborough, Woking and Guildford), which have clusters of
Sci:Tech companies and which are significant drivers of economic activity and growth within the
area.
•
To undertake concerted, transformational actions in those areas with high growth
potential to ensure this potential is harnessed – our Step-up Towns. This includes a range
of towns including some of our major garrison towns. Our Step-up Towns face distinct issues and
include Aldershot, Whitehill and Bordon, Andover, Camberley and Staines-upon-Thames. We will
9
be undertaking a range of interventions focused on these places in order to improve their
competitiveness. This will involve significant transport infrastructure development and town
centre regeneration as set out within the SEP, and a proportion of our employability and social
inclusion spend will be focused within these areas, along with a section of our skills spend
focused on allowing these areas to utilise their latent potential.
Enterprise M3 is one of the strongest and most resilient local economies in the
country…
2.5 The Enterprise M3 area has consistently experienced higher levels of employment than England.
Figure 2.3: Employment
Employment Enterprise M3
England
Employment Rate
(as a % of population)
2009
2010
2011
2009
2010
2011
775,000
782,800
774,000
75.91%
76.43%
74.80%
24,068,097
23,981,996
24,048,205
71.48%
70.82%
70.01%
Source: Employment data from BRES and population data from the Mid-Year Population Estimates,
ONS. Note: Employment has been rounded to the nearest 100.
2.6 Over the period 2009 – 2011 Enterprise M3 also consistently has a higher employment density
(number of jobs per working age person) than has England as a whole. Commensurate with
the higher employment rates, Enterprise M3 also has consistently higher GVA/FTE (full-time
equivalent) i.e. productivity levels than England.
Figure 2.4: Employment density
2009
2010
2011
0.84
0.86
0.87
England
0.78
0.78
0.78
Source: NOMIS. NOTE: The above figures are job density – the ratio of jobs to resident population aged
16 – 64.
Enterprise M3
Figure 2.5: Enterprise M3 Output and Productivity
2009
GVA (£m)
Enterprise M3
2010
2011
57,212
59,100
GVA/FTE (£/FTE)
England
54,900
56,700
58,200
Enterprise M3
87,100
89,600
94,800
Source: GVA data for Surrey and Hampshire from ONS and FTEs calculated from BRES employees’
data. NOTE: GVA/FTE rounded to the nearest hundred.
2.7
54,963
In fact, the Enterprise M3 area has seen consistently lower rates of unemployment over the
years 2009 – 2013 than England as a whole (this is also true of those claiming Job Seekers’
Allowance).
Figure 2.6: Unemployment (as a % of the working age population)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
England
6.4
8.1
7.7
8.2
8
Enterprise M3
3.5
4.4
4.1
5.2
5.2
Source: Annual Population Survey, NOMIS
10
… supported by a bedrock of knowledge-based industries and higher-level skills…
2.8
There is a high concentration of knowledge-based industries in the Enterprise M3 area
i.e. in computing, digital media, defence, pharmaceuticals, advanced engineering,
professional services, energy and the environmental sector.
2.9
In terms of broader sectors, the highest employing sector in 2011 was health (although this was
lower than in the country as a whole) followed by professional, scientific & technical (which is
over 2 percentage points higher than England). The broader sectors showing concentration in
employment relative to England as a whole over the years 2009 – 2011 were construction, the
motor trades, wholesale, information and communication, property, professional, scientific &
technical and the arts, entertainment, recreation & other services sector.
Figure 2.7: Employment Concentration in Selective Enterprise M3 Industries
Employment 2009
2010
2011
Energy
5,900
6,700
6,600
Change 2009-11
(%)
11.86%
Digital Media
23,300
24,800
24,800
Pharmaceuticals
Environment
6,800
6,600
8,800
Defence
Concentration
(Location Quotient)
2009
2010
2011
1.06
1.18
1.16
6.44%
1.57
1.66
1.59
7,200
5.88%
1.63
1.44
1.64
9,200
9,300
5.68%
1.13
1.1
1.07
3,800
4,000
4,000
5.26%
1.64
1.51
1.69
Healthcare
73,300
75,400
76,600
4.50%
0.97
0.96
0.99
Computing
35,900
35,300
35,700
-0.56%
2.12
1.97
2
Aerospace
5,200
5,000
5,100
-1.92%
0.8
0.81
0.84
Professional
Services
Advanced
Engineering
Finance
42,700
41,600
40,700
-4.68%
1.16
1.13
1.08
37,700
35,600
33,300
-11.67%
1.35
1.3
1.22
24,600
22,500
20,800
-15.45%
0.83
0.76
0.69
Source: Enterprise M3 Key Sectors, 25 July 2013 Draft report version 2. Note industries only
represent a fraction of total employment.
11
Figure 2.8: Future Employment Change by Broad Sector
Source: Working Future’s UKES (2011) Cited in the Enterprise M3 Skills and Employment Strategy
(2013).
2.10 One of the most comparatively significant employment concentrations is in defence industries
(though in absolute numbers it is relatively modest at c 3,500). It is worth dwelling on this sector
briefly given it (and the Ministry of Defence in particular) play a significant part in the economic
life of the area. It is a major employer and purchaser and, given the scale of some of its sites, it
has a significant influence on the physical character of some towns. The South East accounts
for one third of the defence sector personnel (both military and civilian) in England. One third of
the defence industry personnel in the South East are based in Hampshire. The March 2013
announcement by the defence secretary concerning the Basing Plan and the restructuring of
army bases will result in a £100m boost for Aldershot with new bases and accommodation for
troops returning from bases in Germany.
Figure 2.9: Key Locations of Military Personnel in the UK and in Hampshire
Source: Ministry of Defence, Quarterly Location Statistics, July 2013
2.11 The Defence sector is highly important for the local economy and its supply chain affects a
wide range of sectors that are highly significant to the local economy, as shown by the
Figure 2.9, including high value added and knowledge based industries but also
traditional sectors and services.
12
Figure 2.10: Top 20 Supply Sectors to the Defence Sector
ce
Computer, electronic & optical products (12.2%) Buildings &
building construction works (7.1%) Education services
(7.08%)
Air & spacecraft & related machinery (6.87%)
Financial services (5.33%)
Real estate services (4.4%)
Weapons & ammunition (4.31%) Legal
services (4.22%)
Computer programming, consultancy & related services (2.92%)
Telecommunications services (2.86%)
Waste collection (2.39%)
Management consulting (2.15%)
Coke & refined petroleum products (2.1%) Postal
& courier services (2.05%) Advertising & market
research (1.9%) Repair services of computers,
etc. (1.59%) Business support services (1.52%)
Technical testing & analysis services (1.51%)
Printing & recording services (1.45%)
Paper & paper products (1.32%)
2.12 In general, the prospects for the area are, overall, extremely positive. Over the period of 1997
– 2010, the majority of employment sectors in Enterprise M3 have experienced increases in
GVA and that trajectory looks set to continue.
Figure 2.11: Sector employment projections / GVA (Real Terms)
Source: WECD using GVA NUTS3 data from ONS. Projections based on the
growth rate in real terms GVA between 2000 and 2010 (CPI all items index used
as the deflator).
2.13 The Enterprise M3 area has a higher proportion of residents in the higher occupations than the
national average, and commensurately lower proportions in the caring, skilled trades and
elementary occupations (Figure 2.11). There is also a higher proportion of corporate managers
and directors and science, research, engineering and technical professionals (Figure 2.12). As
shown in Figure 2.13, and as it might be expected given the occupational profile of Enterprise
M3, there is a higher proportion of working age economically active residents with degrees or
higher compared to England as a whole (and a lower proportion with no qualifications).
Figure 2.12: Occupational make up and change (of residents)
Occupation Year to March 2013
Professional occupations
Associate prof & tech occupations
Managers, directors and senior officials
Administrative and secretarial occupations
Elementary occupations
Skilled trades occupations
Caring, leisure and other service occupations
Sales and customer service occupations
Process, plant and machine operatives
Source: Annual Population Survey, NOMIS.
England
19.5%
14.3%
10.3%
10.9%
10.9%
10.3%
8.9%
8.0%
6.2%
Enterprise
M3
23.1%
15.4%
14.3%
10.3%
8.9%
8.7%
8.1%
7.4%
3.8%
13
Figure 2.13: Highly skilled occupations
Occupation Year to March 2013
England
Enterprise
M3
9.01%
Corporate Managers and Directors
7.21%
Science, Research, Eng and Tech Professionals
5.25%
Business and Public Service Associate
7.56%
Business, Media & Public Service Professionals
5.33%
Teaching and Ed Professionals
4.99%
Health Professionals
4.04%
Other Managers and Proprietors
3.18%
Culture, Media and Sports Occupations
2.27%
Science, Eng & Tech Associate Professionals
1.85%
Protective Service Occupations
1.33%
Health and Social Care Associate Professionals
1.41%
Source: Annual Population Survey (workplace analysis), NOMIS.
8.95%
8.02%
4.93%
4.52%
3.22%
3.17%
2.58%
1.74%
1.63%
0.97%
Figure 2.14: Workforce skills / NVQ Analysis (of working age)
Qualifications 2012
NVQ4+
NVQ3
NVQ2
NVQ1
Other qualifications
Trade Apprenticeships
No qualifications
Source: Annual Population Survey, NOMIS.
England
Enterprise M3
34.2%
34.2%
16.9%
12.4%
3.4%
6.3%
9.5%
42.4%
16.7%
15.7%
10.9%
3.8%
4.6%
5.9%
Figure 2.15: Educational attainment (GCSE 5+ of working age)
Qualification Level
Degree or equivalent & above
Higher education below degree level
GCE A level or equivalent
GCSE grades A-C or equivalent
Other qualifications
No qualifications
Source: Annual Population Survey, NOMIS.
2.14
England
26.1%
8.4%
23.1%
22.8%
9.9%
9.6%
Enterprise M3
32.5%
10.1%
23.3%
20.0%
8.1%
6.0%
The Enterprise M3 Skills and Employment Strategy has included work examining the future
levels of occupational employment change between 2010 and 2020 with projected increases in
the higher level occupations (some 70,000 jobs).
Figure 2.16: Projected Occupational Change 2010 – 2020
14
Source: Working Futures, UKCES (2011) as in Enterprise M3 Skills and Employment Strategy.
Enterprise M3 has a strong track record in innovation and invention…
2.15
There are four universities in the Enterprise M3 area (Surrey, Royal Holloway, Winchester and
the University for the Creative Arts), as well as the Universities of Reading and Southampton,
which sit close by. This puts the Enterprise M3 area in a leading position in terms of quantity
and quality of the research produced and the opportunities for commercialisation and business
development. Alone, the University of Surrey and its Research Park contribute £1.2 billion to
the national economy4.
2.16
Surrey University is currently pioneering development of 5G telecommunications technology at
its 5G Innovation Centre; the research centre to spearhead international research into the next
generation of mobile technology. The Innovation Centre was awarded £35 million after a bid
developed by the Centre for Communications System Research (CCSR) to the UK Research
Partnership Investment Fund (UKRPIF), from a combination of the Higher Education Funding
Council for England (HEFCE), as well as mobile operators and infrastructure providers keen to
adapt their services for the future5. According to the Higher Education-Business and
Community Interaction Survey (HE-BCIs)6 universities in the Enterprise M3 area feature
strongly in national league tables for income developed from commercial relationships with
business, notably from SMEs. The universities of Southampton and Surrey occupy first and
second places respectively in the survey for SME Income for Facilities and Equipment Related
Services.
2.17
The Enterprise M3 area also has a strong tradition of translating internationally recognised
research into world-class companies. Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd (now part of EADSAstrium) is a prime example of this: it was spun-out of the University of Surrey in 2000 and has
gone on to become a £100 million per annum business, employing hundreds of people in the
UK. To date the company has launched 39 space missions, and is currently producing the 22
satellites in the UK for Galileo – Europe’s version of GPS.
2.18
A number of initiatives in the areas already work/operate around the Triple Helix Model
(business, academia, public sector). For example, Woking Borough Council’s support for the
McLaren Applied Technology Centre will influence the growth of an advanced engineering
cluster in the area. The new centre will comprise of about 60,000 metres2 of workshops,
prototype manufacturing and testing space, research and development equipment and offices.7
2.19
It is worth noting that the Enterprise M3 area has the highest number of patents per
100,000 residents among all LEP areas (based on latest information available) suggesting a
latent ‘absorptive capacity’ for innovation interventions.
Figure 2.17: Patents per 100,000 Residents per LEP area (2007)
LEP area
Enterprise M3
Buckinghamshire Thames Valley
Coast to Capital
Gloucestershire
D2N2
Coventry and Warwickshire
Dorset
Greater Birmingham and Solihull
Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly
Patents
19.1
16.3
15.4
10.2
9.2
8.8
6.4
5.1
3.9
4
The Research Park comprises 140 companies, 2,750 staff, and has an impressive 95% three year business survival rate, (Enterprise M3 and
WECD, Strategy for Growth, April 2013).
5
Surrey University Website, Centre for Communications Systems Research; Introducing the World’s Premier 5G Innovation Centre,
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/ccsr/business/5GIC/
6
2011/12 HE-BCIs data – HEFCE
7
Enterprise M3, Strategy for Growth, April 2013
15
Black Country
3.8
Cumbria
3.3
Source: LEP Network Annual Report into LEP Area Economies, Experian, Published in 2012
…and is home to established successful businesses…
2.20 The area is home to a diverse range of businesses including Thales, Vitacress, AXA Wealth,
Motorola, BP, Novartis, Surrey Satellite Technology and many others.
2.21 At the same time, it is also home to large number of micro businesses and small and medium
enterprises. It is important to note, however, that the 1.25% of businesses with more than 100
employees within the area generate 63% of the GVA.
Figure 2.18: Business turnover size band (Turnover size in £ thousand) – 2011
0 – 49
50 - 99
100 - 249
250 - 499
500 - 999
1,000 - 4,999
5,000
+
England
18.80%
23.11%
28.59%
12.24%
7.71%
7.28%
2.26%
EM3
18.83%
23.97%
29.07%
11.56%
7.36%
7.04%
2.17%
EM3
19,320
24,595
29,830
11,860
7,555
(Nos)
Source: UK Business: Activity, Size and Location – 2011, ONS.
7,220
2,225
2.22 Enterprise M3 has a far higher number of businesses per 1,000 population than England as a
whole.
Figure 2.19: Business per 1,000 Population
2009
2010
2011
England
39.38
39.18
38.43
Enterprise M3
73.41
73.52
72.43
Source: Business numbers from Business Demography, ONS; Population estimates from ONS.
Figure 2.20: Rural Businesses in England by LEP, 2011/12
LEP
South East
>=250
employees
50 - 249
employees
1 - 49 employees
With no
employees
Total
business
units
0.1%
1.6%
80.5%
17.8%
56,525
0.1%
1.4%
69.4%
29.1%
41,775
0.2%
1.6%
76.7%
21.6%
36,350
0.2%
1.5%
72.6%
25.7%
32,720
0.2%
1.8%
78.5%
19.5%
32,355
0.2%
1.4%
78.6%
19.8%
27,605
0.2%
1.7%
82.0%
16.1%
26,690
Leeds City Region
0.2%
1.8%
75.3%
22.7%
23,670
Derby,
Derbyshire,
Nottingham and
Nottinghamshire
0.2%
1.9%
77.7%
20.2%
23,070
Heart of the South
West
New Anglia
York and North
Yorkshire
Greater
Cambridge &
Greater
Peterborough
South East
Midlands
Enterprise M3
16
Greater
Lincolnshire
The Marches
0.2%
1.6%
76.4%
21.7%
19,850
0.1%
1.3%
67.8%
30.7%
19,105
Coast to Capital
0.2%
1.5%
81.0%
17.3%
18,265
Cornwall and the
Isles of Scilly
0.1%
1.3%
70.5%
28.1%
17,225
Solent
0.1%
1.7%
80.9%
17.2%
16,765
Cumbria
0.1%
1.2%
72.7%
26.0%
16,470
North Eastern
0.3%
2.0%
76.2%
21.6%
16,170
Oxfordshire LEP
0.2%
1.5%
80.5%
17.8%
15,925
Lancashire
0.3%
1.8%
76.7%
21.3%
15,225
0.2%
1.5%
79.1%
19.2%
15,010
0.3%
1.4%
78.9%
19.5%
13,605
Humber
0.2%
1.8%
78.2%
19.7%
12,920
Gloucestershire
0.1%
1.4%
76.4%
22.1%
12,760
Northamptonshire
0.2%
1.5%
78.4%
19.9%
12,680
0.3%
1.7%
74.0%
24.0%
11,980
0.1%
1.2%
79.3%
19.4%
11,695
0.3%
2.1%
76.3%
21.3%
11,475
0.4%
2.1%
78.4%
19.0%
11,340
0.2%
1.8%
76.4%
21.5%
10,865
Worcestershire
0.2%
1.4%
75.3%
23.0%
10,850
Sheffield City
0.3%
2.2%
77.2%
20.3%
10,200
0.5%
1.9%
83.0%
14.6%
9,695
0.2%
1.4%
81.8%
16.5%
9,330
0.3%
2.0%
77.7%
20.1%
9,250
0.4%
1.8%
77.2%
20.8%
7,660
0.6%
3.0%
79.3%
17.0%
3,210
0.8%
3.1%
80.3%
15.8%
2,565
0.6%
4.5%
81.5%
13.7%
1,565
0.0%
0.0%
82.0%
13.4%
1,085
0.0%
0.0%
66.7%
25.0%
60
Swindon and
Wiltshire
Cheshire and
Warrington
Stoke-on-Trent
and Staffordshire
Buckinghamshire
Thames Valley
Leicester and
Leicestershire
Coventry and
Warwickshire
Dorset
Region
Thames Valley
Berkshire
Hertfordshire
Greater
Birmingham and
Solihull
West of England
Greater
Manchester
Tees Valley
Liverpool City
Region
London
Black Country
Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) 2011/12, Local Unit level dataset, ONS
As shown in Figure 2.20 Enterprise M3 has the 7th highest number of rural business units in England
(out of 39 LEPs), just behind the South East Midlands, Greater Cambridge and Greater
Peterborough, New Anglia, York and North Yorkshire, the Heart of the South West and the South
East LEPs.
17
Figure 2.21: Distribution of rural businesses by size in the Enterprise M3 area, 2011/12
LAD Name
>=250
employees
50 - 249
employees
1 - 49
employees
with no
employees
Total Business
Units
10
70
3,520
660
4,260
Waverley
**
**
2,815
545
3,415
East
Hampshire
New Forest
**
**
2,735
575
3,350
**
**
2,595
595
3,260
Basingstoke
and Deane
Test Valley
**
**
2,325
465
2,830
**
**
2,180
505
2,745
Guildford
**
**
2,275
365
2,680
10
45
1,675
280
2,005
Surrey Heath
**
**
1,085
180
1,280
Runnymede
**
**
360
50
445
Elmbridge
**
**
**
**
190
Woking
**
**
115
25
150
Rushmoor
**
**
**
**
**
Spelthorne
**
**
**
**
**
45
465
21,890
4,290
26,690
0.2%
1.7%
82%
16.1%
26,690
Winchester
Hart
Enterprise M3
(No)
Enterprise M3
(%)
Source: Inter-Departmental Business Register (IDBR) 2011/12, Local Unit level dataset, ONS
As shown in Figure 2.21:
• Winchester, Waverley and East Hampshire (closely followed by New Forest) have the
highest number of rural business units in Enterprise M3.
• 82% of all rural businesses in the Enterprise M3 area have between 1 and 49
employees.
• There are 45 rural businesses with more than 250 employees in the Enterprise M3
area. Winchester and Hart are the two key locations for these businesses.
The Enterprise M3 area is also an attractive place to visit….
2.23 The outstanding landscapes of the Enterprise M3 area are recognised in the designation of
26% of it as national parks - the New Forest and South Downs. Both Surrey and Hampshire are
packed with country parks, heritage sites and visitor attractions. Hampshire is the most visited
county in the South East7:
•
£2.30bn is estimated to have been spent by day and staying visitors in Hampshire in 2010
worth some £2.67bn including wider multiplier effects.
•
In 2008, 60,500 individuals were employed in tourism in Hampshire, representing 9.2% of
the county’s total employment.
•
5.6% of the Gross Value Added (GVA) to the Hampshire economy (£29.8 billion, in 2007)
could be attributed to tourism (£1.68 billion, in 2007).
2.24 Surrey also contains many major local attractions such as Epsom Downs Race Course, Surrey
History Centre in Woking and the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre. Despite its location next to London,
Surrey is the most wooded county in England with 22.4% coverage. Among its
18
7
Hampshire County Council Factsheets, February 2011.
many notable beauty spots are Box Hill, Leith Hill, Frensham Ponds, Newlands Corner and
Puttenham and Crooksbury Commons, all of which sit within the Surrey Hills Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. Surrey is a stronghold for many of Europe’s rarest wildlife species
living on lowland heaths, including nightjar, Dartford warbler, sand lizard and smooth snake.
The ancient yew and box woods of the chalk downs are also protected under European law. Its
‘natural capital’ makes the LEP area an attractive area to live and invest. Many small and
micro-businesses operate from the villages within this outstanding landscape. There is
considerable rolling downland, whilst the chalk hills of the North Downs start at the Hog’s Back
in the west and broaden out eastwards across the county. There are many commons with an
extensive network of footpaths and bridleways including the North Downs Way long distance
path. Towards the north of the county, the land is largely flat around Staines and borders the
River Thames where there are many large reservoirs.
2.25 The area includes the New Forest and South Downs National Parks, recognising its iconic
landscapes. The Roman city of Winchester with its glorious cathedral and attractive shopping
centre is a popular tourist destination. The author Jane Austen’s associations with Winchester
and Chawton attracts tourists year round, together with Selborne, which was the home of
Gilbert White. The chalk rivers of the Test and Itchen are world famous for their trout fishing.
The Olympic Road Cycling Road Race took place in Surrey over the first weekend of the
London 2012 Olympic Games. Since then, Surrey has been on the map as a destination for
cycling. Every weekend hundreds of people head to the Surrey Hills to cycle through the
beautiful countryside.
2.26 Employment in the visitor economy sector reflects this rich profile. The sector has, between
2009 and 2010, been commensurate with that of England, although there has been an increase
in 2011, so that proportionately more people are employed in this sector than compared to the
country as a whole. The New Forest (alongside the adjacent cities of Southampton and
Portsmouth) provides one of the major locations for tourism related employment. This reflects
the role of the New Forest as an important leisure tourist destination - the New Forest National
Park is visited by 13.5 million visitors every year who generate nearly £400 million in tourism
expenditure.
Figure 2.22: Employment in the Visitor Economy
England
2009
7.17%
2010
7.06%
2011
7.27%
Enterprise M3
7.22%
7.50%
8.37%
Source: BRES. NOTE: visitor economy definition is based on that contained in “The Economic
Contribution of the Visitor Economy: UK and the nations”, June 2010, Deloitte and Oxford Economics,
although the SIC used is 2007.
… live…
2.27 Quality of life can be an important factor in attracting and retaining key staff. According to work
undertaken by Local Futures for Enterprise M38, Enterprise M3 is ranked 8 out of 48 subregions on Local Futures’ quality of life score, placing it in the top 20% of sub-regions in
England. The quality of life score is a composite of measures, including low levels of crime; high
levels of good health; the quality of local schools; access to amenities; and access to an
attractive natural environment. We will work strategically with our Local Nature Partnerships
(LNPs) to help manage the natural environment ensuring the views of a broad range of local
organisations, businesses and people are taken into account in local decisions, for example,
about planning and development.
8
Inward Investment Guide for Enterprise M3, Local Futures, February 2013.
19
…and set up a business
2.28 The 5-year survival rate of newly created businesses in the Enterprise M3 area is higher than
has been seen in England.
Figure 2.24: Business survival rates 1-5 years
5 Year Survival
England
44.80%
Enterprise M3
48.80%
Source: Business Demography, ONS. NOTE: The businesses who survived for 5 years were born in
2006.
2.29 As detailed in the Enterprise M3 Commercial Property Market Study (2013), there is
considerable availability of space for different types of commercial business and considerable
clustering of offices. For example, over the period for which data are available (2005 – 2008),
the Enterprise M3 has had a greater number of commercial offices (as a proportion of total
stock), approximately the same number of factories and fewer warehouses (and slightly fewer
retail premises) than England as a whole. In terms of floorspace however, Enterprise M3 has
seen a slightly higher proportion of retail premises, more commercial office space, fewer
factories and fewer warehouses. This suggests that Enterprise M3 has, on average, larger retail
and warehouse premises than in England as a whole.
However, future proofing is needed …
2.30 In terms of changes in employment, Enterprise M3 has seen a larger drop in total employment
between 2009 and 2011 compared to England which has apparently been driven by a larger fall
in public sector employment (whereas England saw a small rise in public sector employment),
but there was a far smaller fall in private sector employment compared to the country as
a whole.
Figure 2.26: Employment change over time (total & public/private)
Change in Total
Employment 2009 –
2011 (%)
-0.08%
-0.13%
Change in Public
Employment
2009 – 2011 (%)
0.35%
-0.74%
England
Enterprise
M3
Source: BRES Public/Private Employment Data.
Change in Private
Employment
2009 – 2011 (%)
-0.19%
-0.02%
2.31 Turning to international trade, businesses in Enterprise M3 appear to have exported less than
the average for England. This may be a reflection of the area having generally smaller
companies than England and our sectoral composition - according to UKTI, the statistics do not
take into account the import/export of services.
Figure 2.27: International Business
England
All Export
trade
2011
(£ million)
Exports
/GVA
2011
(%)
Exports to
the EU
2011
(%)
All Import
trade
2011
(£ million)
Imports
/GVA
2011
(%)
212207
18.87%
50.41%
316852
28.17%
Imports
from
the EU
2011
(%)
47.45%
12412
6.45%
12.92%
23549
12.24%
15.45%
Enterprise
M3
Source: Exports data from Regional Profiles, ONS and GVA data from ONS, GVA NUTS3 data.
20
NOTE: Enterprise M3 exports/imports are estimated proportion of workers in the south east and
applied to the south east exports/imports data.
2.32 There has also been a relatively large decline in number of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
projects in the South East between 2011 and 2012 (-34%). All English regions – including the
South East and the areas covered by Enterprise M3, are challenged as London continues to
dominate as the key regional investment powerhouse in the UK, attracting 45% of the UK’s
total projects - equivalent to the fourth biggest European country. Mark Gregory, Ernst &
Young’s chief economist commented: ‘The findings on the declining performance of the English
regions outside London - especially in attracting new projects - raise further doubts over the
UK’s ability to retain its lead in European FDI’.
Figure 2.28: Jobs Created by Foreign Direct Investment in the UK
2010/11
Total Jobs
East Midlands
East of England
Greater London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire & Humber
England Total
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Non Region/Nation Specific
UK Total
Source: UKTI
6,055
4,125
28,291
4,239
13,139
9,672
8,839
4,661
1,538
80,559
2,136
7,809
3,544
550
94,598
2011/12
Total
Jobs
4,375
5,663
15,150
10,679
15,430
5,561
2,948
14,254
3,700
77,760
1,480
12,610
2,854
17,955
112,659
% difference between 2011/12
and 2010/11
-28%
+37%
-46%
+152%
+17%
-43%
-67%
+206%
+141%
-3%
-30%
+61%
-19%
+3,165%
+19%
The job market is heavily dependent on London …
2.33 Enterprise M3 is one of the key workforce arteries supporting the London economy, with more
than one in ten economically active/employed residents of the Enterprise M3 area
travelling to London to work. For those living in Elmbridge and Spelthorne, the figures
rises to one in four. However, in Spelthorne the proximity to Heathrow accounts for
much of this travel.
Figure 2.29: Commuters to London by Selected LEP area
LEP
Enterprise
M3
SEMLEP
Herts LEP
Number of
Commuters
94,337
Economically
Active Employed
834,685
Economically Active Employed
Residents travelling to London
11.30%
38,048
130,494
864,308
568,664
4.40%
22.95%
21
Figure 2.30: Enterprise M3 Residents Commuting for Work to London
Source: Commuting data, ONS
2.34 It can be seen that the higher-level occupations experience higher levels of out-commuting.
Figure 2.31: Estimate of Flows from/to Enterprise M3 by Occupation (2012)
Source: Annual Population Survey, ONS (resident and workplace data), as from Enterprise M3 Skills and
Employment Strategy
2.35 This also contributes to the relatively high earnings of residents in the area. For example, over
the period 2009 – 2012, average resident annual salaries have been consistently higher in
Enterprise M3 than in England as a whole. However, the average workplace salary has been
lower. This suggests that the distribution of salaries and probably jobs in workplaces in
Enterprise M3 is not as wide as witnessed in England and/or a relatively high proportion of
residents commute outside of the LEP area and work in higher paying jobs elsewhere.
Figure 2.32: Average Earnings in Enterprise M3
Average Workplace
Average (Residents)
England
Enterprise M3
England
Enterprise M3
2009
30098
27095
27128
33607
2010
29762.5
27240
27246
33086.5
2011
29382
27303
27306
34214
2012
29793
27278
27302
35093
Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings. NOTE: These are the median and mean of gross annual
pay in total (i.e. including both part-time and full-time, male and female); figures for Enterprise M3 are
derived from the midpoint between the figures for Hampshire and Surrey.
2.36 The rural towns further from London also appear to suffer more. For both England and
Enterprise M3, the proportion of households where no adult is in employment is similar in both
urban and rural areas. Although Enterprise M3 is doing better in comparison with England as a
whole, closer examination of the figures suggests that the rural towns and their fringe areas
22
(including villages and hamlets) are more likely than their urban counterparts to have no adult
in employment.
Figure 2.33: Households with No Adult in Employment, Urban/Rural
Source: Census 2011. NOTE: Enterprise M3 figures have been derived from those for Hampshire and
Surrey.
2.37 Although youth unemployment has been consistently lower in Enterprise M3 than in England
and there have been lower proportions of youths classed as NEETs, worryingly however this is
increasing at a rate faster than England. In June youth employment fell by 4,000 and in the
three months prior to that, the same figure fell by 46,000. This lack of youth employment can
have a spiral effect on the future and the economy9.
Figure 2.34: Youth Unemployment
England
2009
16.0
2010
20.1
2011
19.0
2012
21.1
2013
21.0
Enterprise M3
8.2
11.1
9.2
14.7
13.4
Source: Annual Population Survey, NOMIS. NOTE: Youth = those aged 16 – 24; these unemployment
rates are not that same as the claimant count rates above.
Figure 2.35: Young NEETs
England
2009
10.3%
2010
12.98%
2011
11.87%
2012
12.95%
2013
13.27%
Enterprise M3
4.75%
6.17%
4.95%
8.63%
8.9%
Source: Annual Population Survey, NOMIS. NOTE: figures derived by: (Total – in employment – in
education)/Total.
Entrepreneurship is not as strong …
2.38 There also seems to be a relatively higher dependency on corporate culture and employment
and not as strong evidence of entrepreneurship as in the rest of the country:
•
The rate of start-ups is lower in Enterprise M3 area in comparison with England.
•
The rate of self-employment in Enterprise M3 area has been lower than the national
average.
9
Enterprise M3 and Hampshire County Council, Monthly Labour Force Market Update, June 2013
23
Figure 2.36: Start-up Rates in the Enterprise M3 area
2009
2010
2011
England
10.25%
10.14%
11.39%
Enterprise M3
9.45%
9.69%
10.81%
Source: Business Demography, ONS. NOTE: The rate is of company births expressed as % of the total
stock of companies for the year.
Figure 2.37: Self-employment in the Enterprise M3 area
England
2009
4.17%
2010
3.74%
Enterprise
3.74%
3.38%
M3
Source: BRES. NOTE: Proportions are of total employment.
2011
4.11%
3.79%
2.39 This may be due to a number of reasons and is counterintuitive when looking at the relatively
high level of public sector grants secured by the private sector (through the TSB for instance).
With the strong culture of innovation present within the area, there is a clear opportunity for
enterprises to make better use of the potential funding available, which will benefit the wider
economy. Given survival rates are so good a more intensive emphasis on start-ups also makes
sense.
Figure 2.38: Technology Strategy Board Grants Awarded to Businesses/Partners in Selected
LEP areas, 2012
LEP Area
West of England
Tees Valley
Greater Cambridge & Greater Peterborough
Oxfordshire LEP
South East Midlands
Enterprise M3
Solent
Gloucestershire
Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire
Coventry and Warwickshire
Leicester and Leicestershire
Thames Valley Berkshire
Greater Birmingham and Solihull
Cheshire and Warrington
Coast to Capital
Heart of the South West
Swindon and Wiltshire
York and North Yorkshire
Buckinghamshire Thames Valley
Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire
Humber
Black Country
Lancashire
Greater Lincolnshire
Cumbria
Northamptonshire
Dorset
Source: TSB Data
TSB Grant
£60,484,483
£52,277,630
£32,485,463
£26,042,306
£16,601,918
£14,274,545
£14,005,871
£13,702,378
£11,168,516
£11,000,957
£6,934,760
£6,362,811
£5,784,419
£5,425,776
£4,735,855
£4,731,334
£4,069,941
£3,962,371
£3,174,874
£2,615,068
£2,189,837
£2,096,712
£2,006,043
£1,860,769
£1,854,449
£1,758,200
£1,289,193
Human resource and infrastructure need to be strengthened…to reach all and give
better access to more opportunities …
2.40 The Enterprise M3 area has a higher proportion of older people (65+) than England (17.7% in
comparison with 16.4%) which has implications for the future health and social care needs of
the area – especially in the pockets where this is particularly pronounced such as the New
Forest. Additionally, and the labour force is growing much slower than the job market (the
24
modest labour force growth is ranked 39th out of the 48 sub-regions10). It is worth noting that by
2020 32.8% of the working age population will be over 50.
2.41 In the South East, there is generally a higher proportion of staff exhibiting skills gaps in
managerial associate professional and sales and customer service roles. The Skills and
Employment Strategy notes that as employment in the Enterprise M3 area moves further
towards higher skilled occupations, demand for qualifications is set to increase. Between 2010
and 2020, employment projections show an increase of 91,000 jobs requiring at least an
ordinary degree: 43,000 additional jobs requiring higher degrees; 42,000 additional jobs
requiring first degrees; and 6,000 additional jobs requiring doctorate level qualifications.
2.42 Women are not as likely as men to participate in the Enterprise M3 labour market: 70.2% of
working age females were in employment in 2012, compared with 84.8% of males. The rate of
female employment is above the UK average (66.6%), but at 14.6%, the gender employment
gap (the difference between the male and female employment rate) in the LEP area is greater
than the national rate (9.6%). There is scope to increase female participation
- the highest rate of female employment in the Enterprise M3 area in recent years was 74.2%
in 2006.
2.43 The number of young people employed in the Enterprise M3 area has fallen in recent years as
educational participation has risen. This was reinforced during the economic downturn as
returns to education increased and job prospects declined. Increasing demands for
qualifications and the rise in the compulsory participation age in education will add to this trend
in the coming years; but the rate of unemployment among young people remains high relative
to other age groups.
2.44 A total of 15,000 young people aged 16-24 were unemployed in 2012. This includes 10.3% of
20-24 year olds and 18.6% of 16-19 year olds. For the same period in 2007 the rates were
8.5% and 18.1%, suggesting that while youth unemployment has been adversely affected by
the economic downturn, the comparatively high level of youth unemployment is not a recent
phenomenon (ONS, 2012).
2.45 In contrast, labour market participation among people aged 65 and over has increased rapidly
in recent years, rising from 8.9% in 2007 to 12.8% in 2012. With people living longer and
healthier lives, as well as recent policy changes in the UK (including the phasing out of the
default retirement age), employment levels for older workers are likely to increase further in the
years ahead.
Figure 2.39: Skills Gaps
Roles
UK
Managers
11.29%
12.24%
Professionals
9.06%
6.83%
Associate professionals
5.70%
6.21%
Administrative/clerical staff
11.69%
10.74%
Skilled trades occupations
6.23%
5.83%
Caring, leisure and other services
staff
Sales and customer services staff
8.69%
6.95%
19.70%
23.84%
Machine operatives
8.29%
7.96%
Elementary staff
19.36%
19.39%
South East
Source: The UK Commission’s Employer Skills Survey 2011.
2.46 A business survey undertaken by Hampshire Economic Partnership for Enterprise M311 found
that for 1 in 5 businesses (21%), skills are a barrier to growth. Although half of micro
10
Inward Investment Guide for Enterprise M3, Local Futures, February 2013.
Barriers to Growth, 2011.
11
25
businesses surveyed did not in general face any skills issues, a third of larger businesses
(34%) stated that they have shortage of staff at Level 4+. At the same time basic skills (defined
as work readiness) was mentioned as an issue to be addressed by all types of businesses.
2.47 The ageing population, together with increasing numbers of people with long-term conditions,
could be a key factor in the socio-economic development of the area. On the other hand, social
care is a growth sector. Social enterprises, working with higher and further education and other
agencies within the LEP area, could ensure that the skills and workforce are in place to support
the needs of this demographic, contributing at the same time to employment and the economy
within the rural context. This needs to be delivered in a way that ensures that people remain
linked into their communities, and do not become socially isolated. This is particularly important
in rural areas, where access to services is more difficult due to greater distances, and high car
dependency.
2.48 In terms of infrastructure, key issues to be addressed in the area include affordability of space
– both housing and business premises, transport and superfast broadband reach.
•
Housing is relatively expensive. House prices over the period 2009 – 2012 have
consistently been a higher multiple of average pay in Enterprise M3 than in England as a
whole (Figure 2.38). Median house prices are significantly higher than England’s12. The
LEP is currently undertaking a detailed review of Enterprise M3 housing to deepen our
understanding of housing market dynamics.
Figure 2.40: Housing affordability (Ratio of average house price to average
annual pay)
England & Wales
Enterprise M3
2009
6
7
2010
6
8
2011
6
7
2012
6
7
Source: House price data from the Land Registry; pay data from the Annual Survey of Hours and
Earnings. NOTE: House prices for Enterprise M3 have been calculated from the midpoint between the
mean prices for Hampshire and Surrey; mean pay has been calculated as above. The above are
ratios of mean prices to mean annual pay.
•
In terms of business space, review of availability of commercial land suggests that there
are limited land opportunities for major inward investors. The Enterprise M3 Commercial
Property Market Study found that there are only three market ready sites across the area
with a capacity of over 50,000m2 . However, a relatively small proportion of businesses in
the Enterprise M3 area14 stated that lack of affordable and high quality premises was an
issue/barrier to growth (8%), with the Commercial Property Market Survey indicating that
there is, in fact, an overall picture of the supply of office space within the area exceeding
demand albeit amongst a context of stalled development of new sites. Our consultation
events (notably in October 2013) have revealed a lack of low cost space for start-ups and
raised the possibility of local colleges/universities addressing this constraint.
13
One in 10 businesses in Enterprise M3 area have stated that transport congestion is a
barrier to growth. The 2012 Enterprise M3 Transport survey in particular highlights the M3
(Junctions 3, 4 and 4a, 6, 7-9); A34/M3; M25 Junction 10, the A31 Ringwood widening, the
A303/A34 Bullington Cross and the A3 at Ham Barn roundabout and through Guildford.
Overall, the amount of traffic on our roads is on average 10% greater than the theoretical
capacity of the network, causing congestion and delays. By 2031, the demands upon the
network are projected to be almost 50% greater than it was designed to serve. The
situation is similar in the case of rail lines. Average main line congestion is 10% greater
than the theoretical capacity of the network which is expected to grow to 147% by 2031
•
12
ONS, LEP Comparator Profiles, May 2013
April 2013, www.enterprisem3.org.uk/commercial-property-market-study/
14
Barriers to Growth, 2011.
13
26
without significant investment in rolling stock, track and signalling improvements as well as
station parking15.
•
On the other hand, the South East has seen (in 2007/8, the only year for which data are
available) relatively higher expenditure on motorways and trunk roads than nationally, but
less on local roads (Figure 2.41).
Figure 2.41: Expenditure on Roads in 2007/8
Expenditure (£m) / 1,000 km
Motorways and trunk roads
Local Roads
England
285.2
18.1
South East
305.3
15.4
Source: Regional Trends – Directory of Online Tables (Release date 8th June 2011), ONS.
•
There is currently a high dependency on cars as a means of travel to work, as well as high
levels of energy consumption and carbon emissions, which will affect the long- term
sustainability of the area. Emissions of CO2 per capita have, between 2005 and 2011,
been slightly higher than England. Between 2005 and 2010, energy consumption in
Enterprise M3 on a per capita basis has been higher than that seen nationally.
Figure 2.42: Emissions per capita (Total CO2)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
8.48
8.42
8.19
7.95
7.11
7.29
6.67
England
8.81
8.68
8.59
8.42
7.77
7.88
7.06
Enterprise
M3
Source: Local and Regional CO2 Emissions Estimates for 2005 – 2011, Ricardo-AEA. NOTE:
Estimates for Enterprise M3 derived from the mean over the constituent local authorities.
Figure 2.43: Final energy consumption (GWh / capita and GWh (for Enterprise M3 only))
England
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0.028
0.028
0.027
0.026
0.024
0.024
Enterprise
0.039
0.038
0.037
0.035
0.035
0.034
M3
Enterprise
60480
59120
58240
55290
55180
54510
M3 (GWh)
Source: Sub-national total final energy consumption 2005 – 2010, DECC; Population numbers from:
Mid-year PEST, ONS via NOMIS.
•
There is an uncertainty over the long-term future of London’s airports; this can detract from
inward investment. Currently Heathrow has hub status; two thirds of the flights coming
into/leaving Heathrow depend on 25-40% of passengers having connecting flights. This
reflects the frequency of flights and diversity of locations on offer16. As airlines expand and
experiment with different routes Heathrow may be affected. We are working with other
LEPs on this issue.
•
Currently, it is mainly the urban areas in the LEP that have fast broadband coverage with
the majority of the land area having speeds between zero and 16 Mbps. Slow or absent
broadband and mobile phone signal is a major problem in the rural area and it is important
any constraints for new broadband infrastructure are addressed (planning, cost etc.).
15
From the draft Enterprise M3 Strategy for Growth
Future Heathrow, Importance of a Hub Airport, www.priorityheathrow.com/economic-benefits-page.php?id=37
16
27
Figure 2.44: Superfast broadband availability
Source:maps.thinkbroadband.com;http://maps.thinkbroadband.com/#!lat=51.198831372291814&lng=-
th
1.1027515644530972&zoom=9&type=terrain&estimated-speeds;accessedon27 August2013
However, both of the county councils within the Enterprise M3 area are undertaking
substantial superfast broadband rollouts, consisting of significant investment from a range
of partners and which set ambitious targets to increase rural broadband provision across
the Enterprise M3 area. Surrey County Council are investing £20m in this broadband
rollout and are aiming to extend provision to more than 99% of premises within the
county17. Hampshire County Council and its district and borough partners have contributed
£5m to a scheme which aims to see 95% of the county with superfast broadband provision
by 201718.
2.49 Following the baseline analysis of the Enterprise M3 economy the following section highlights
our vision for growth. It also sets out how our plans complement EU and national priorities.
•
Note: Clarification around Sector and Smart Specialisation Terminology
This investment framework refers to the term sector in a number of contexts. To clarify reader
should note:
•
The baseline and skills and employment strategy cite evidence on broad sectors. These
refer to those services and industries which make up the economy as a whole.
•
Several of the interventions refer to world class or priority sectors. These are same
and include the following: ICT and Digital Media, Pharmaceuticals, Aerospace and
Defence, and Professional and Business Services (further work on these is published in
the Enterprise M3 Key Sector Report, September 2012).
•
We also refer to niche sub-sectors. These are a much more specific set of subsectors, technologies and specialisms and include: satellite technologies, 5G mobile
communications technologies, cyber security, advanced materials and nano-technology,
photonics, advanced aerospace/ automotive manufacturing, animal health, computer
games and entertainment technologies. Our view is that these will continue to adapt and
change as the programme unfolds.
OursmartspecialisationstrategyisdesignedtoexploitexcellenceinScienceandTechnology
industries.TheproposedEnterpriseM3Sci:TechCorridorwillbuildontheabovenichesandour
wellknowncompetitiveadvantageinadvancedmanufacturing(aero,auto,marineanddefence)
andtechnology(pharmaceuticalsandICTforinstance).Againthestrategywilladaptandchange
overtime.
17
www.superfastsurrey.org.uk
18
www3.hants.gov.uk/broadband.htm 28
•
The Vision for Growth and Programme Alignment
Enterprise M3 stretches from the hinterland of London to the New Forest and covers major
urban centres but also smaller towns and villages and significant rural areas, as well as
highly successful education and innovation clusters and corporate HQs, military sites and
sites of outstanding natural beauty and heritage.
Enterprise M3 is one of the strongest and most resilient local economies in the country.
Certain broad sectors of the economy such as information & communications,
pharmaceuticals, and distribution withstood the recession well supporting our recovery
bolstered by a bedrock of knowledge-based businesses, traditional and high value
manufacturing and services, and world class higher-level skills.
The area is home to around 100,000 SMEs but also global businesses such as AXA Wealth,
Motorola, BP and Novartis. It is a location that offers success and opportunities for growth
to newly created businesses, whilst acting as a key workforce artery to London’s economy.
The Enterprise M3 area sits at the heart of a transportation hub that connects businesses in
the UK and to the rest of the world. In addition to proximity to Heathrow, Gatwick and
Southampton airports, within the area lies Farnborough Airport - one of Europe’s premier
business aviation airports. Road and rail connections include stretches of the M25 and much
of the M3 along with the A3 and 75 railway stations
This is balanced with an excellent environment and a high quality of life. The area is packed
with country parks, heritage sites and visitor attractions with easy access to both major
urban areas and the countryside.
3.1
The area’s strengths and opportunities for growth are summarised as follows:
Strengths
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Economic resilience
High employment rate and higher than national employment density
High per capita GVA
Concentration in key growth sectors, with many sectors having seen increases in GVA
High business density
High 5-year new business survival rate
Well qualified resident population
High average pay
Lower rates of youth unemployment and NEETs
Good broadband coverage in urban areas
Presenting opportunities for growth
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Employment, although having fallen, has done so less than nationally
Higher employment density should contribute to a more resilient economy
Concentrations in key sectors in terms of employment implies there is the possibility of
gaining advantage from clustering in those sectors
Particular strengths in information and communication technologies
Strengths in business and public research & development
A highly skilled population helps provide a key ingredient for continued economic growth
Relatively high incomes and spending power could help bolster future growth
More commercial offices and industrial properties could provide a stimulus for future
growth
There is a strong visitor economy which is showing signs of growth
29
3.2
However, the Enterprise M3 area faces some significant challenges that will need to be
addressed so that the local economy maintains its strong position and continues to make a
substantive contribution to UK growth.
Enterprise M3 has not been completely by-passed by the recession and public sector cuts
have affected employment in this sector. Enterprise M3 has seen a larger drop in total
employment between 2009 and 2011 compared to England which was driven by a fall in public
sector employment (whereas England saw a small rise in public sector employment). That said
we experienced a far smaller fall in private sector employment compared than nationally. It
currently appears that the trade position of businesses in the area could be enhanced –
statistics certainly show room for improvement in the volume of both exports and imports. It is
acknowledged that this may be due to service imports/exports not counted, but the figures are
accompanied by a relatively high reduction in foreign direct investment. This position may
protect the area from exposure to global changes but reduces opportunities to create jobs in a
highly globalised economy.
The area has a strong base to develop innovation and capacity to support the advancement
and adoption of new technologies but the innovation infrastructure is stretched and needs to
expand further. Innovation capabilities have not yet managed to fully operate in the well- tested
and successful Triple Helix Model (University – Industry – Government). The lack of innovation
space for start-ups was mentioned at the EU strategy consultation event in October (2013) and
it was recognised that there are examples from elsewhere of colleges providing space or
supporting priority sectors.
The Enterprise M3 Skills and Employment Strategy (2013) notes local labour market is
relatively tight (in part the effects of an ageing workforce and high levels of net out commuting).
There is limited scope to significantly increase labour market participation among residents,
although there may be opportunities to increase employment among women, young people
and older workers. For example, the job market is highly dependent on the London economy
and shows relatively weak signs of entrepreneurship. At a national level rural towns and their
fringe are more likely than urban areas (and villages and hamlets) to have no adult in
employment19 and a higher than average older population and dependents. Traditionally, lower
proportions of youths have been classed as NEETs, and although still significantly lower than
the national average, worryingly, the rate is increasing at a rate faster than England.
Reported skills gaps at Level 4+ represent a significant barrier to growth for local businesses.
The Skills and Employment Strategy confirms that growth potential is inhibited by a net outcommute of higher skilled residents and relatively low graduate retention l e v e l s (only one in
five graduates remain in the LEP area after leaving university). Additionally, the area has an
ageing population. Expensive housing and congestion on local roads present barriers,
particularly for young families who might leave (or not move into the area).
19
Rural Digest, 2012, Defra.
30
3.3
Key threats and their potential impact on the local economy are summarised as follows:
Threats
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Employment has fallen
Jobs created by inward investment have reduced
Entrepreneurship is comparatively weak: Business start-up rate appears to be lower
than nationally; lower levels of self-employment and less than average exporting. Low
reported levels of IP support or advice services for new enterprises.
High dependency on London jobs and earnings – for major urban centres closer to
London
High house prices
Higher rates of people in employment with long-term health issues
Non-urban areas have relatively poor access to fast broadband and a poor or absent
mobile phone signal
An ageing population, with more economically inactive people, particularly in rural areas
Increasing traffic congestion
Potentially weakening and stalling the local economy
•
•
•
•
•
3.4
Urban centres becoming residential support for London/dormant economic hubs, higher
the risk for rural areas
Higher than average skills gaps in some roles may place constraints on future growth
House prices may prohibit movement of people and therefore constrain economic
growth
Relatively poor access to fast broadband and poor mobile phone coverage in the nonurban areas diminishes the attractiveness of these areas for commercial/economic
development
Higher per capita energy use and emissions inhibit our ability to address climate
change in the future
Extensive consultation on the key challenges and opportunities with local stakeholders has
identified the following Strategic Actions20:
•
Enterprise – Maintaining and Strengthening the Local Business Base and its
Competitiveness. The priority is strengthening and diversifying the existing business
base – removing any constraints on growth and supporting development of start-ups and
developing a culture of enterprise, closer relationship between larger businesses and
SMEs but also new inward investment projects in high-growth sectors and new business
ventures are also part of the strategy. Young people and start-ups will be also supported.
Social enterprises, working with higher and further education and other agencies within
the LEP area, will ensure that the skills and workforce are in place to support future
economic prosperity. We will be developing the Enterprise M3 Growth Hub, which will coordinate business support and skills activity within the area, aligning national and local
support and providing a single point of access for this.
•
Innovation – Scaling up Capabilities, Widening Networks and Focusing on Smart
Specialisation. The priority is to improve the connectivity across our local ‘innovation
ecosystem’ through ‘open innovation’ - so that business, universities, colleges, public
sector research organisations and the wider public sector can support business innovation
better. This priority will be supported by promotion of innovation in the Enterprise M3
Sci:Tech Corridor – the conduit for our ‘smart specialisation’ strategy. We will encourage
strong collaboration between large businesses and SMEs/their supply chain, focused
around our Key Growth Centres and within our key sector. This could include supporting
an ‘arrow’ type project with partners across the area, for example around 5G
20
There is a section within each Strategic Action describing the consultation process. Some additional consultations (internally and with other
LEPs)
are described in Chapter Six (Governance).
31
telecommunications.
3.5
•
Skills, Employment and Employability – Meeting Employer Needs and Enhancing
Opportunities for Local People. The education and skills profile of the Enterprise M3
area is strong when compared to national averages but the growth in the labour market
and skills base – and the infrastructure to develop it – could be further strengthened to
ensure that employment growth aspirations are met through focus on (a) world class skills;
(b) employability, information, advice and guidance (IAG); and (c) collaboration and
brokerage.
•
Low Carbon and Sustainable Places. Low carbon adaptation is a key priority for area as
well as the promotion of Low Carbon Goods and Services. We also want to develop
sustainable urban environments and address infrastructural constraints on further
business growth (through Local Growth Fund primarily). For instance, key challenges
include road and rail ‘bottlenecks’ causing congestion and slowing journey times,
limitations on the capacity of the rail network, a shortage of affordable housing for local
workers, differential supply of reliable, high speed broadband and mobile phone services,
access issues in relation to Heathrow and Gatwick airports. These are complementary
issues that are key elements of our Strategic Economic Plan, which we would primarily
look to fund through domestic funding.
Addressing these issues will enable us to support our vision for the area; the Enterprise
M3 area should be21:
‘The premier location in the country for enterprise and economic growth, balanced
with an excellent environment and quality of life.’
3.6
Our proposed Strategic Programme is fully aligned with the EU objectives and rationale (See
table). The Enterprise M3 Strategic Actions have been consciously designed to link our LEP
priorities with national policy objectives. The Government has a clear emphasis on achieving
economic growth in response to the structural issues it has identified as barriers to prosperity. In
summary, the overall aims of Government in terms of future economic development are centred
on education, the support of certain key sectors, promoting exporting, generating a more
balanced economy (both in terms of sectoral employment and diminishing regional disparities)
and simplifying the regulatory environment for businesses. This strategy will ensure that local
EU measures are delivered within this changing policy horizon. In partnership with a wide
range of stakeholders and extensive consultations, a wide reaching but well focussed
pipeline of key activities has been developed and is proposed to be supported by the
European Structural & Investment Funds. Proposed activities under each Strategic Actions
and their alignment to EU Thematic Objectives are summarised in more detail in the next pages.
21
Enterprise M3 Strategy for Growth, May 2013
32
Policy
EU2020
Enterprise M3’s four Strategic Actions cover enterprise,
innovation, skills, and sustainable infrastructure, and therefore
have a strong link to the EU principles, targets and flagship
initiatives.
How we align
The EC put forward seven flagship initiatives to stimulate progress
under each priority theme including: innovation union; youth on the
move; a digital agenda for Europe; a resource-efficient Europe; an
industrial policy for the globalisation era; an agenda for new skills and
jobs; and an EU platform against poverty. These initiatives commit
both the EU and Member States setting the underlying parameters for
EU wide activities.
Description
A menu of thematic objectives in line with the Europe 2020 strategy
has been developed. These thematic objectives include some familiar
policy objectives including social inclusion, SME competitiveness and
education and skills. However, there is a much greater emphasis on
resource efficiency, ICT and innovation and low carbon.
Our plans clearly fit well with new emphasis on innovation and low
carbon and we intend to exploit the new funding flexibilities whilst
recognising the prominence given to performance management.
For instance, we propose a ‘smart specialisation’ framework
around Science and Technology and a suite of activities to
stimulate business resource efficiency.
European Alignment
The Commission has highlighted several areas, which the UK’s
Structural Funds need to address to unlock growth. These include the
improved the employability of young people (and in particular those not
in education, employment or training - NEETs), the integration of
people from jobless households into the labour market, and help for
SMEs to access finance.
There are two key points: (i) In our Strategic Action One
(Enterprise), the proposed Growth Hub will act as a focal point for
access to finance measures for SMEs; and (ii) Strategic Action
three (Skills, Employment and Employability) includes several
measures to encourage social inclusion and specifically the
sustainable integration of young people, in particular NEETs, into
the labour market.
33
ESI Funds
Growth
Programme’
Plan for
Growth
The top priorities of the national ‘EU Structural Investment (ESI) Funds
Growth Programme’ are innovation and research and development,
SME support, low carbon, skills, employment and social inclusion, and
via EAFRD the rural economy.
We will work with the universities and their alumni to promote
international trade and inward investment. We will work closely
with UKTI and, where appropriate, other LEPs to exploit our
international connectivity/proximity to London for the benefit of
local firms wishing to export for the first time or to new markets.
Our Strategic Actions (1-4) dovetail these areas extremely well
and we recognise the need to make a meaningful contribution to
the National Growth Programme (see Governance Chapter Page
Six).
The overall objective of the Government’s economic policy is to achieve Our proposed Enterprise Strategic Action (and the proposed suite
strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared
of activities around fostering a more entrepreneurial culture) fits
across the country and between industries22. The Government’s
neatly with the national ‘Plan for Growth’ that aims to make the UK
Business Bank proposals clearly demonstrate that access to finance is the best place in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. Our
vital for the UK’s future success.
high business survival rates locally mean we are able to capitalise
on this opportunity and ensure that access to finance and other
barriers are not stifling potential growth. Through our Business
Growth Hub we will have a much better oversight of the coordination of SME support. Enterprise M3 also has particular
strengths in life sciences and regenerative medicine, which chimes
well with the Government’s aspirations for innovation in health and
wellbeing.
National Alignment
Trade and
Investment
Our plans are very much in tune with the Government’s National
Export Challenge (which aims to double UK exports by 2020 and
create 100,000 new exporters) and its ambitions for foreign direct
investment.
Plan for Growth, 2011, BIS & HM Treasury.
22
34
We have worked intensively with local partners on distilling our Skills
Strategic Actions, which very much seek to add value to the
Government reforms in this area. Our local employers are wholly
involved in this process. The activities proposed will wrap around
national policies like the Work Programme within the spirit of measures
to ‘Get Britain Working’.
The Government highlights the key contribution of skills to national
The National
productivity and has set out its aspirations in the National Skills
Skills
Strategy. The Government wishes to see the labour market and labour
Strategy and
availability as a means of growth rather than a potential barrier to
Social Justice
growth – this also features highly in our thinking. Our activities have
been developed in line with the Government’s reform agenda (including
the participation of young people and the new further education and
skills system and the Government’s strategy for higher education)23.
GHG
Emissions
and
Sustainable
Development
Enterprise M3 will do its part to help ensure the meet the UK targets to
reduce greenhouse emissions by 34% compared to 1990 levels, to
increase the share of renewable energy to 15% and to enhance the
energy efficiency of homes, business and transport. We will work to
ensure our statutory partners are meeting their obligations and
Government priorities in this area24 adding value where it is
appropriate to do so and ensure applications are given pragmatic
advice on how to achieve our aspirations (for further detail see the
Sustainable Development cross cutting theme in Chapter 7).
23
The evidence base shows that whilst we are a highly performing
economy we suffer from an ageing workforce and are not exploiting
the full potential of the labour force. This is why our world-class
skills programme and social inclusion activities have clear
measures to support the sustainable integration of young people.
This will supplement national unemployment measures and ensure
that young people have the right skills for jobs of tomorrow in
our area. We will work closely with national agencies from the
outset to ensure that our priorities are not duplicating provision
elsewhere. A key challenge for us is a ‘crowded landscape’ in the
skills arena and the co-ordination of skills interventions will (in all
likelihood) form part of the remit for the Growth Hub. In tune with
the Government’s strategy for social justice (‘Social Justice:
Transforming Lives’), and its aspirations to improve social mobility
and reduce child poverty, we have put in place measures to
engage excluded individuals and families facing multiple
disadvantage and equip them with tools they require to work
towards positive economic outcomes.
The strategy contains a suite of low carbon measures (with the
Low Carbon and Sustainable Place Strategic Action) which
responds directly and proactively to UK legislation around
renewable energy and energy efficiency (including buildings and
industrial decarbonisation).
Sustainable development is a cross cutting principle of our
strategy and we recognise its significance as a key component of
our continued economic competitiveness and social well-being. It
is also recognised as a source of significant economic
opportunities. It is important we preserve and protect our rich
habitats and landscapes maintaining our local distinctiveness. We
are engaged with our Local Nature Partnerships.
There is also scope to increase the rate of labour market participation of women and older workers.
24
In for instance the Government’s Natural Environment White Paper, Biodiversity 2020: A strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem services, the European Landscape Convention, the EU Water Framework Directive
and the 2005 Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution.EU
35
4.
Enterprise M3 Strategic Actions
4.1
Enterprise M3 has been allocated a 45,6mEUR (£32,3m) of European Structural and
Investment Fund (ESIF) funding from 2014 to 20203. This funding is vitally important to support
plans for growth especially in an area where funding is limited and where EU funding can be
used as revenue funding to support the vision we have set out within our Strategic Economic
Plan, and can work in tandem with the capital investments being made through the Growth
Deal.
Our overall approach, considered in consultation with a wide range of key local stakeholders
representing the public, private and not-for-profit sectors along with civil society, higher and
further education institutions and local groups has identified that the following criteria should be
applied to all funding
•
•
•
ups
•
Support should be prioritised to enable the growth aspirations of business to be realised
Closer working relationships between larger businesses and SMEs should be encouraged
Activities must contribute towards job creation, job sustainability and new business start
New activity should complement existing programmes and add value to our priorities
ORIGINAL PRIORITIES FOR ERDF – JANUARY 2014
4.2
Recognising the importance of ERDF funding in particular to the Enterprise M3 area, the LEP
negotiated an additional 5% of the notional allocation to be spent on ERDF, bringing the total
ERDF funding pot to £17.8m. This comprised of allocations of £7,1 million for SME
competitiveness (enterprise) activity, £6.5m for innovation activity and £4.2m for activity to
develop a low carbon economy. Following consultation, our broad priorities for EU funding were
set out in the ESIF strategy published in January 2014.
The next table highlights our principal activities. This is followed by a more detailed description
for each summarising the rationale, the objectives and the principal anticipated outputs.
Figure 4.1: Summary of Proposed Strategic Actions and Principal Activities
1.ENTERPRISE – MAINTAINING AND STRENGTHENING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE LOCAL BUSINESS BASE
RATIONALE: TO SUPPORT START-UPS, SME GROWTH AND ENSURE A MUCH BETTER CO-ORDINATED
BUSINESS SUPPORT OFFER.
EU Thematic
ACTIVITIES
Objective
Development of SME competiveness capabilities through strengthening local sector
networks and supply chains including collaborative partnerships to support sector
ERDF/
growth encompassing business support, innovation, skills development, events and
Priority Axis 3
promotion, supply chain opportunities (an example would be the Aerospace Growth
Partnerships).
Development of SME competitiveness capabilities through a) encouraging and
ERDF/
supporting more SMEs to enter new domestic and international markets with better
promotion of current support and additional export services perhaps through1.1.1.1.1
an
Priority Axis 3
enhanced UKTI offer and support to high growth companies; and b) Raising
business growth ambition and support for SMEs with growth potential.
Strengthen Information, Advice and Guidance in key sectors through a) the Growth
Hub; b) Start-up Programmes; c) Finance for Growth Seminars; d) Support for
ERDF/
digital business including SMEs and Social Enterprises, in particular where there is
Priority Axis 3
relevance to Information Economy and Industrial Strategy and e) working with
public and private sectors to strengthen the Enterprise M3 inward investment and
international trade offer
36
2. INNOVATION - SCALING UP CAPABILITIES, WIDENING NETWORKS AND FOCUSING ON SMART
SPECIALISATION
RATIONALE: BUILD ON A RICH HISTORY OF INNOVATION, EXTENSIVE LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AND EXPLOIT
THE POTENTIAL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES.
EU Thematic
ACTIVITIES
Objective
Smart specialisation - Add value to the commercialisation of World Class Research
and Intellectual Property (20% of which will be in CleanTech/Low Carbon areas).
Emphasis on commercialisation of both public and private sector research and
1.1.1.1.2
development and working with universities and business to undertake a variety of
activities including development of a supply chain, helping businesses to exploit
smart specialisation and expansion of successful innovation support models
Priority Axis 1
and 4
Innovation for Everyone. Innovation adoption measures aimed at high growth
companies, every business, public or voluntary sector organisations, or social
enterprises. Bringing new products and business processes to the market,
including those linked to the UK Government’s ‘eight great technologies’ and
‘industrial strategy sectors’.
ERDF/
Priority Axis 1
and 3
ERDF/
Development of physical “incubation space” and "move on" accommodation to
support the needs of high growth companies to retain their economic value within
ERDF/
the area including: a) development of sector specific incubation centres; b)
exploring bringing back to use for use for the purposes of innovation centres
vacant
1.1.1.1.2.1.1
Priority Axis 1
and/or underused buildings and land; and c) supporting a new generation of real
and 3
estate entrepreneurs
Supporting businesses to benefit from the capital assets and opportunities arising
from activities such as Cyber Security Lab, 5G Test Bed
3. SKILLS, EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYABILITY – MEETING EMPLOYER NEEDS AND
ENHANCING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL PEOPLE
ERDF/
Priority Axis 2
and 3
RATIONALE: THE FUNCTIONING OF A MUCH BETTER LEARNING MARKET AND ACTIVITIES TO PREPARE FOR THE LIKELY ACCELERATION IN EMPLOYMENT GROWTH GENERATED BY
NEW AND REPLACEMENT DEMAND WITH A GENERAL SHIFT TOWARDS HIGHER
SKILLED/TECHNICAL OCCUPATIONS.
ACTIVITIES
Developing world class skills by working with schools, employers, and colleges to
map, promote and develop an inspiring locally tailored suite of STEM events,
hands-on-experiences and activities designed to stimulate interest in local
technology focused industries. Activities will be targeted in particular at: a)
promotion of female take-up of STEM provision; b) working with learning providers
to develop, build capacity and deliver skills (focussed on higher level skills) to meet
future needs in line with our growth priorities (e.g. in relation to new technology and
sector priorities and skills for innovation in SMEs); c) boosting the take up of
apprenticeships to support Governments 3 million target by 2020. In particular,
Higher/Degree Apprenticeships, particularly in STEM subjects, and alternative
higher-level vocational pathways, with increased SME participation (including
apprenticeship hubs or other shared arrangements); d) inclusion of older workers
for apprenticeship vacancies to support the Fuller Working Lives agenda.
Activities to increase employer take up of training, through: i) boosting employers'
and employees’ engagement with learning providers; ii) improving information
about the learning offer to support employers’ development of their workforce; iii)
the development of skills brokerage support through the Growth Hub. iv) Labour
market intelligence unit
EU Thematic
Objective
ESF/ Thematic
Objective 10
ESF/ Thematic
Objective 10
37
Supporting employability through: a) helping people back to work through vocational
pathways and apprenticeship programmes; b) strengthening Careers Information
Advice and Guidance to provide a more integrated service with a particular focus on
meeting the needs of growth sectors and technologies and target groups (e.g
women in relation to STEM career opportunities); c) working with learning providers
and employers to develop, promote and provide traineeships, internships and other
employability and re-engagement programmes focussed on the disadvantaged,
NEETs and other target groups and SMEs.
ESF/ Thematic
Objective O8
Employability and basic skills around groups at risk of discrimination from the
workforce. Could include active inclusion activities for groups with protected
characteristics, or activities to combat discrimination and barriers to employment of
these groups from labour market
ESF/ Thematic
Objective O9
Developing the capacity of social enterprises within Enterprise M3, with regard to
specific social inclusion needs across the area. Could include, for example, the
model of the Hampshire School for Social Entrepreneurs, which could be expanded
to cover the whole LEP area.
ESF/ Thematic
Objective O9
4. LOW CARBON AND SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
SUMMARY RATIONALE: PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOW CARBON BUSINESSES AND THE
DEVELOPMENT OF LOW CARBON PRODUCTS AND SERVICES WITHIN ENTERPRISE M3
EU Thematic
Objective
PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
Promoting Low Carbon Commercialisation
Commercialisation of World Class CleanTech/Low Carbon Research and
Intellectual Property. Emphasis on commercialisation of both public and private
sector research and development, we will work with universities and businesses
that are leaders in Low Carbon Technologies
Supporting the commercialisation of Low Carbon R&D across the economy through
Open Innovation. With a focus on local businesses including; social enterprises,
graduate start-ups and enterprise in underrepresented groups
ERDF/Priority
Axis 4
ERDF/Priority
Axis 4
Supporting the shift towards a Low Carbon Economy in all sectors
Enterprise support for low carbon start-ups and established businesses.
ERDF/Priority
Axis 4
Promoting the innovation and adoption of low carbon technologies in the
design and operation of new innovation which could include, for example, further
development of the wood fuel supply chain and business resource efficiency
4.3
ERDF/Priority
Axis 4
Each of the Strategic Actions and the proposed supporting activities is described next in
more detail.
1. ENTERPRISE – MAINTAINING AND STRENGTHENING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF LOCAL
B USINESS BASE
Rationale for Intervention
4.4
An overview of the strengths and challenges faced by the Enterprise M3 area has been
presented in Chapter Three of the report. The desk-based research and consultations
undertaken to date have identified specific challenges and opportunities faced in relation to this
specific priority which are summarized below. For example, the socio-economic analysis
shows that the Enterprise M3 area enjoys a relatively healthy economy. Enterprise M3 has
consistently seen higher levels of employment than England as a whole. Between 2009 and
2011, Enterprise M3 has consistently seen a higher employment density (number of jobs per
38
working age person) than England. Commensurate with the higher employment rates,
Enterprise M3 has consistently had a higher GVA/FTE (full-time equivalent) than has been the
case of England as a whole. However, the overall level of business start-ups and selfemployment are relatively low. In fact, the area is highly dependent upon large corporates.
1.25% of companies (100+ employees) make up 63% of GVA - any problems these firms face
could have a huge knock on effect to the local economy. Furthermore, in the last year there has
been a relative large decline in number of FDI projects in the South East between 2011 and
2012 (-34%). These issues are exacerbated by a large net outflow of commuters.
4.5
Local businesses, particularly those in high competing markets (engineering, high-tech), face
increased competition from lower cost economies. In order to compete, support is needed to
help existing firms to modernise further, achieve better resource efficiency, actively engage in
innovation, improve their productivity and diversify into new markets. At the same time, efforts
are required to generate new businesses in higher value sectors of the economy, and help
underrepresented groups fulfil their entrepreneurial potential.
Opportunities
•
•
•
•
Challenges
Comparative advantage in key
sectors that align with EU and UK
policies - information technology,
science and research sectors.
•
Capacity for enterprise support stretched.
•
Businesses need support to develop their
investment readiness.
Capitalising on spinouts and
commercialisation of R&D but also
supporting local businesses to
grow/trade more/raise their profile.
•
Leadership and management training needed
within SMEs.
•
Skills gaps in professional occupations among
larger businesses.
The visitor economy is a strong
driver of local economic growth –
and can further support rural
regeneration and growth.
At micro-level, willingness by both
major corporates but also supply
chain, to establish regular dialogue
process with public sector bodies in
order to provide a coordinated
approach to growth. The area has
had a successful business incubation
hub model that can be extended to
other locations.
•
Lack of coordination of support, businesses
confused by the help available.
•
1.25% of companies (100+ employees) make
up 63% of GVA.
•
Relatively low entrepreneurial activity. Better
communication of the support and advice that
is available to potential entrepreneurs is
needed.
•
Expensive area to attract and retain
workforce.
•
Poor broadband and mobile phone
communications in rural areas.
Reduce planning constraints,
particularly regarding re-use of rural
buildings.
These issues and opportunities arising from the strengths of the business base call for
measures to stimulate enterprise development. This will maintain local strengths and
strengthen the competitiveness of the local business base including SMEs, startups, social and rural enterprise.
Process - Consultations underpinning the Enterprise Strategic Programme
4.6
The Enterprise M3’s Enterprise Support Action Group, one of five Action Groups supporting the
LEP has helped develop the strands of activity within this programme and discussed key
priorities for local businesses. The group has a private sector chair, in common with all
Enterprise M3 Action Groups, and includes representatives from the SME community, business
support providers including UKTI, Growth Accelerator and MAS, a social enterprise provider,
university representative, local authorities and business membership organisations
39
e.g. the Chamber and FSB. The group meets quarterly. The Group held a special workshop in
August to develop the outline of the Growth Hub, to explore how partners would work together
and how EU funding and the opt-in propositions could support this development. This work has
been followed up by 1:1 discussions with additional partners, including businesses. In addition,
some 28 partners attended an Implementation Group (September 2013) to help shape key
actions and outcomes. It was agreed the enterprise component of the LEP’s ESIF activity
should focus on start-ups, growth, innovation, skills and infrastructure and should revolve
around key sectors that contribute significantly to growth. It was suggested that much of this
activity could be routed through a business Growth Hub, which will incorporate input from UKTI
and GrowthAccelerator resource and would co-ordinate other national and local business
support and skills activity through a single, central point.
4.7
Furthermore, Enterprise M3 local authority leaders and chief executives have discussed the
priorities for funding at a meeting on the 20 September and a group of economic development
managers from all local authorities have met twice to discuss priorities for investment and EU
funding. The development of the Growth Hub and the emerging Innovation Strategy was
discussed at length at the last meeting in September.
Objectives for ENTERPRISE Strategic Action
4.8
Within this overall context, the objectives of this Strategic Action are twofold:
i.
To promote sector networks and supply chains via:
•
ii.
iii.
Tailored measures to strengthening of local and national supply chains and grow priority
sectors.
To stimulate SME competitiveness by:
•
Encouraging more SMEs to enter new domestic and international markets.
•
The attraction of domestic and foreign direct inward investment in priority sectors.
•
Helping investment-ready SMEs with growth potential.
Promoting growth in key sectors by:
• The work of the Enterprise M3 Growth Hub.
• The promotion and possible provision of finance for growth.
• Supporting digital business growth.
• A strengthened inward investment and international trade offer.
4.9
Much of our new and existing activity will be routed through the Enterprise M3 Growth Hub,
underpinned by an enhanced business portal. Quite simply it will bring together services to
support start-up, business growth and sector specific activity and rural services. It will operate
virtually and physically bringing together the key people supporting business growth25 local and
nationally. It will provide a wraparound service available to all businesses who require
information, advice and guidance signposting businesses to appropriate support available from
the public, private and third sector. It will provide a focus for new and existing sector groups and
encompass the full spectrum of businesses to include skills needs in schools, higher and further
education, pre start, start up and established businesses. Our aspiration is that business
brokers will work alongside other specialists to develop business relationship and link business
to business support contacts.
25
For example UKTI Inward investment and export, Growth Accelerator, Manufacturing Advisory services, universities, Local authority business
support,
large corporates, SMEs, trade organisations and private sector providers e.g. banks, investors.
40
Additionality of EU Funds
4.10 EU funding will enhance the activities of the Growth Hub and supporting enterprise initiatives
that in turn will drive business growth, new job creation and improvements in business
productivity.
Value for Money
4.11 We have used agreed output and results indicators to demonstrate expected impact from these
funds. This includes information based on previous programme delivery and previous similar
provision for other SME competitiveness activities. We have also undertaken a wide range of
consultation with local businesses and others to ensure that we are targeting the interventions
appropriately. This has allowed us to build up a robust picture of the demand for, and expected
outcomes from, this funding.
4.12 We calculate these activities will generate £59,950,000 GVA, an estimated ROI (gross) of
£6 for every £1 invested.
Prioritisation of Activities
4.13 A range of activities were considered under the Information, Advice & Guidance and SME
competitiveness workstream. These included mentoring and opt-in for the Manufacturing
Advisory Services. These activities were dismissed as their economic impact and strategic fit
was less than those projects chosen to be included.
4.14 Increased funding would allow more to be done within the existing schemes and allow other
activities to be considered. Current funding levels for SME competitiveness of £10.66 million are
considerably less than the original project forecast of £17.9 million. Additional funding would
allow more businesses to be supported with growth programmes leading to job creation than is
currently planned and would allow the enterprise programme to be run in more locations to
support business start ups.
Proposed Activities
4.15 A summary list of activities has been presented in the introduction of this section. The following
list albeit indicative at this stage, provides some more detail.
Proposed Activities
Thematic
Objective
Sector Networks and Supply chains
Strengthening local and national supply chains including collaborative
partnerships to support sector growth encompassing business support,
innovation, skills development, events and promotion, supply chain opportunities
and facilitated sector networks (an example would be to work with the
Farnborough Aerospace Consortium). At the EU Strategy consultation event
(October 2013) the discussion around innovation stressed that IP support was
also needed.
ERDF/
Priority Axis 3
41
SME Competitiveness
Encouraging and supporting more SMEs to enter new domestic and
international markets with better promotion of current and additional export
services perhaps through an enhanced UKTI offer, and support to high growth
companies and Exporting for Growth events to support those businesses who
are new to exporting. This might provide resources to identify export potential
companies for mainstream UKTI support, working closely with existing agencies
and LAs at a local level as well as support on export visits, market research and
contacts in key markets.
Steps to raise business growth ambition. Support for SMEs with growth
potential to grow who are investment-ready, e.g. for the next stage of product
development/testing, new product development, move-on accommodation,
access to incubation services and universities R&D facilities and support with
workforce expansion, e.g. up-skilling/training. Including the consideration of a
Growth Accelerator Plus offer as well as project/ placement/ internship
opportunities.
Growth in Key Sectors
The development of a Growth Hub and business portal to co-ordinate national
and local business support activity through a single access point through an
enhanced business portal. Including business brokers and acting as a conduit
for existing and new sector groups and develop new groups, rural networks and
private providers, angel networks and access to finance. Virtual and one to one
support will be offered as well as business growth events/networks including
meet the buyer events and a calendar of UKTI trade missions, and enhanced
existing schemes e.g. UKTI, Growth Accelerator opt-ins, ensuring national
helplines have staff focussed on our needs.
Support for digital business including SMEs and Social Enterprises, in
particular where there is relevance to Information Economy and Industrial
Strategy.
Finance for Growth: The promotion and possible provision of start-up finance,
early stage equity/ venture capital, and proof of concept and investment
readiness support. This might include the expansion of angel networks and
promotion of existing expansion / equity funds available and Finance for Growth
seminars.
The attraction of domestic and foreign direct inward investment in priority
sectors (ICT and Digital Media, Pharmaceuticals, Aerospace and Defence, and
Professional and Business Services) through highly targeted and tailored
support including for instance business rate relief and the promotion of property
and premises. Working with public and private sectors to strengthen the
Enterprise M3 inward investment and international trade offer.
ERDF/
Priority Axis 3
ERDF/
Priority Axis 3
ERDF/
Priority Axis 3
ERDF/
Priority Axis 2
and 3
ERDF/
Priority Axis 3
ERDF/ Priority
Axis 3
2. INNOVATION - SCALING UP CAPABILITIES, WIDENING NETWORKS AND FOCUSING ON
SMART SPECIALISATION ON SMART SPECIALISATION
Rationale for Intervention
4.16 The map on the next page illustrates the clusters of major companies clearly identifying the
geography and extent of business activity across our local economy. We believe there is real
potential to further capitalise on their ability to generate and commercialise new ideas, thus
creating new businesses and employment opportunities.
42
4.17 Headline opportunities and challenges that need to be addressed are summarised below
Opportunities
•
•
•
•
•
Rich history of innovation and invention
coupled with major investments and
extensive research and development
networks. Giving the ingredients for an
effective innovation ecosystem and further
collaborations across research centres, and
between research centres and industry,
focused in Enterprise M3 research
specialisations with critical mass.
Challenges
•
Local innovation infrastructure
stretched, fragmented and sometime
under-funded. Despite world-class
expertise in business incubation, and
university industry collaborations,
funding is a constraint.
•
Our innovation ecosystem does not
always serve the growth needs of local
innovative companies e.g. challenges
around securing local benefits /
engaging local supply chains as a result
of the commercialisation of research.
Impressive universities and public sector
research infrastructure supporting
innovation and research excellence, with
first class connections between universities
•
and business and excellent track records in
commercialisation. Models of good practice
that can be replicated.
World class private sector research and
development assets, including QinetiQ and
the McLaren Technology Centre. Case
studies of these companies would help to
illuminate their potential and there is scope
to enhance communication with them more
generally.
Complexity – opportunities to simplify
and better co-ordinate the ways in
which business accesses the expertise
and knowledge of HE/FE institutions
perhaps helping to overcome the
perceived reluctance of academics to
commercialise their research.
National fragmentation – recognition
that we may need to collaborate with
other LEPs in order to achieve a critical
mass and scale in our sector priority
areas.
•
Opportunities exist to develop greater
collaboration between industry, universities,
•
colleges, public sector research
establishments through Open Innovation or
in terms of meeting higher -level skills gaps.
Potential of key sectors and niche subsectors
Skills- higher-level skills in key areas
are holding back the ability of industry to
deploy innovation.
4.18 Within this context, a number of specific issues have also been considered in identifying
priorities for the innovation Strategic Action.
• Innovation Ecosystem: Infrastructure and Global Research Capabilities. The areas
boasts a centre of higher learning with four universities a network of high performing further
education colleges delivering new vocational and higher education courses driven by the
demands of the business community. Surrey’s Research Park and the adjacent University of
Southampton Science Park collectively contribute almost £2 billion per annum to the regional
economy (the EU consultation event in October 2013 highlighted the potential for the two to
collaborate). Innovation leaders like QinetiQ, Electronic Arts, BAE Systems and McLaren are
based in the area (see map). According to the Higher Education-Business and Community
Interaction Survey (HE-BCIs) universities in the Enterprise M3 area feature strongly in national
league tables for income developed from commercial relationships with business, notably from
SMEs. The Universities of Southampton and Surrey occupy first and second places
respectively in the survey for SME Income for Facilities and Equipment
• Related Services. The area’s research capabilities include Surrey University’s 5G Innovation
Centre; The McLaren Applied Technology Centre, and the spin-outs like Surrey Satellite
Technology Ltd (now part of EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company)
Astrium). Enterprise M3 is also closely connected to the Satellite Applications Catapult at
Harwell through the University of Surrey’s involvement in the project. The area is the home to
a
range
of
world-class
Public
Sector
Research
Establishments (PSREs).
43
• The ‘innovation ecosystem’ not only supports large multinationals and university spin-outs,
but it also enables high growth SMEs and start-ups achieve growth faster. These smaller
companies make up a significant percentage of the Enterprise M3 business base and are
where much of our economic growth will come from. Supporting their innovation by
connecting them to the knowledge and expertise of the area’s universities, as well as to
other innovative businesses, particularly larger companies, is the key to unlocking future
growth. However, there are several key actions that need to be taken to make our assets
and strengths work better for the local area. For example, some of our innovation
infrastructure is stretched, there is no clear oversight of our innovation ecosystem and it is
hard to secure local benefits in the commercialisation of research. There is therefore a
clear opportunity for Enterprise M3 to further exploit its nascent research infrastructure and
enhance connections with local firms. Universities, colleges PSREs are keen to work with
Enterprise M3, they see Enterprise M3 as a strategic organisation that can help them build
stronger connections to the local business community. This will benefit business and
academic or research institutions, help drive innovation and unlock growth. Only one of the
key centres, Guildford, identified in the map has a university located within it. Enterprise M3
aims to strengthen the relationships between HE and businesses in all key centres, such
as Basingstoke, Farnborough and Woking through (it was suggested at the EU
consultation event in October 2013) the provision of space to new enterprises.
• Delivering Growth, Using Innovation to Overcome Constraints: The Enterprise M3 area
in common with many other growth areas faces challenges in unlocking that growth,
specifically in the areas of skills, infrastructure, rural super-fast broadband, and housing.
Future growth can only be sustained if the Enterprise M3 area intelligently uses innovation to
adapt to skills, infrastructure, rural super-fast broadband, and housing constraints. We need to
focus on the continued development of high value sectors too. The Enterprise M3 area will use
innovation to: help it move its industrial base up the global value chain and deliver the
productivity gains necessary for the area to remain competitive against its international
competitor regions. Innovation will play a significant part in driving and delivering change that
will help preserve the quality of life that makes the area special and create opportunities for
people who currently commute out of the area, particularly to London, to find attractive new
opportunities in the area.
• Smart Specialisation: Exploiting World Class Sectors and Niche Sub-Sectors. The
Enterprise M3 area has world-class priority sectors and a rich diversity of niche subsectors. In order to retain and enhance our competitive advantage, we recognise that we
need to continue to develop existing sectors, as well as nurturing and supporting new ones.
Enterprise M3 recognises the value of this sector focus and has worked with university
partners to develop a flexible ‘smart specialisation’ framework around an Enterprise M3
Sci:Tech Corridor. This will act as a focus for our niche specialisms to underpin the
innovation Strategic Action. Our aim is to work to support the impact of investment in these
specialist areas by helping connect the universities better to the local business community
unlocking opportunities that would not otherwise be developed. Through smart
specialisation we will work with partners to create the conditions for science and
technology sectors to expand, flourish and grow through innovation activities. Sector
champions will be identified to inform our growth plans.
5G telecommunications ‘Arrow Project’
4.19 Enterprise M3 is working hand-in-hand with the area’s universities, as well as HEFCE, the TSB
and UKTI to support cutting edge technologies that will create new companies, draw in inward
investment, giving the UK leadership in new emerging sectors by connecting universities to
business in a new way. Consensus has developed on aligning resources behind the £50 million
of private and public sector investment already secured by the University of Surrey in world
leading 5G mobile communication technologies. The private sector led consortium that
supports this project includes: Aeroflex, AIRCOM International, BBC, BT, EE, Fujitsu
44
Laboratories of Europe, Huawei, Ofcom, Rohde & Schwarz, Samsung, Telefonica and
Vodafone. These companies have pledged time, expertise and other contributions which
together total more than £40 million, this is in addition to HEFCE investment of £11.6 million
made from the UK Research Partnership Investment Fund (UKRPIF) in autumn last year.
4.20 Innovation funding could be used to support the development of an ‘arrow’ project, involving
the co-ordination of investment behind a HE lead organisation to drive the development of new
technologies. An example of how such a project could work is provided below:
4.21 The next table illustrates the areas of Sci:Tech ‘smart specialisation’ identified by our university
partners.
Figure 4.1: Proposed Areas of Sci:Tech Smart Specialisation
Partner
Engagement/Lead
Sci:Tech Smart Specialisation
Objectives for the INNOVATION Strategic Programme
TheoverallaimofthispriorityistofurtherincreasetheregionallevelsofR&Dexpenditureandactivity(especially
bytheprivatesector)andknowledgetransferbetweenresearchandbusinessinordertogeneratemore
innovativebusinessesthroughcommercialisationofideas.WithinthiscontexttheEnterpriseM3objectiveisto
enhancetheprospectsforgrowthbyhelpingstrengtheningtheinnovationinfrastructureoftheareaand
supportingtheinterdependencyandtheconnectivitybetweenbusiness,universities,collegesandPublicSector
ResearchEstablishments.Thekeyaimsofourproposedapproacharesummarisedasfollows:
I.
II.
To promote smart specialisation:
•
To focus on supporting business innovation in high valued added niche sectors
through ‘smart specialisation’ within the Enterprise M3 Sci:Tech Corridor where we
have a global competitive advantage.
•
To develop a strong supply chain around and across our areas of ‘smart
specialisation’ collaborating with other LEPs to support innovation where it makes
sense to do so.
Commercialisation, open innovation and new products and business processes:
•
To improve the connectivity across our local ‘innovation ecosystem’ through ‘open
innovation’ - universities, colleges, public sector research organisations and the wider
public sector can support businesses to innovate better.
•
Help universities, colleges and PSREs connect, collaborate and interact better with
business, and helping business access the knowledge, skills and expertise of the
area’s universities, colleges and PSREs.
45
III.
•
To create better connections to other UK and international ‘innovation ecosystems’
and work with local partners, UKTI, TSB and RCUK to support partnerships working
with other high growth regions globally. Again the aim here is to support business led
innovation.
•
To raise aspirations so that all businesses and public sector organisations understand
the benefits of innovation as a way of improving productivity and efficiency.
To support innovation infrastructure by:
• Developing commercial real estate and infrastructure solutions that support business
innovation – providing market intelligence to help the private sector respond to the
growth needs of innovative businesses and public sector partners, making highly
targeted public investment available to overcome areas of market failure.
4.16 The ESIF provides a unique opportunity to secure greater local impact, ameliorate the
fragmentation of facilities and simplify and better co-ordinate the ways in which business
accesses the expertise and knowledge of HE/FE institutions. We also aim to exploit
complementary activity through Horizon 2020.
Process - Consultations underpinning the INNOVATION Programme
4.17 The development of the Enterprise M3 Innovation strategy began in April 2013 with an initial
meeting that brought together representatives from universities, science parks, business
incubators, as well as other stakeholders from the innovation community. From this initial
meeting an action plan was developed that outlined the potential role that Enterprise M3 could
play in supporting the innovation community.
4.18 This plan was refined through a series of one-to-one follow-up meeting that Enterprise M3
held with universities, colleges and business incubators. In addition, Enterprise M3 has met with
other major players involved in supporting innovation nationally, including the Technology
Strategy Board and Research Councils as well as talking to local players such as Surrey
Connects. Meetings have taken place with sector experts including the Enterprise M3 Satellite
Applications Group chaired by Dolores Bryne (ex QinetiQ), sector specialists within universities
and at Hampshire County Council and Surrey Connects. From these additional meetings new
innovation support concepts have been identified, including a collaborative partnership between
Enterprise M3 and the BBSRC to support innovation and connections between businesses in
the area’s Public Sector Research Establishments. These discussions have also led to
discussions about cross LEP collaborations involving the successful SETsquared partnership
and four other LEPs in the South East and South West of England and collaborations around
Big Data between Hampshire County Council and Royal Holloway (University of London), with
Enterprise M3 recognised as a key contributor.
4.19 A better understanding of the challenges and opportunities to support innovation and areas of
‘smart specialisation’ came out of these discussions with universities, colleges and business
incubators. Importantly, Enterprise M3 has worked closely with the businesses community on
the development of the Innovation Strategy. This has included a series of one-to-one meetings
with a range of businesses, including large multinationals that are actively deploying innovation
across their organisations and SMEs that are embracing innovation.
4.20 Enterprise M3 are working with a number of businesses, including BP, Procter and Gamble, as
well as less well known SMEs to identify the role that Enterprise M3 can perform in:
• Helping what already exists in innovation support work better
• Filling identified gaps, or market failure where Enterprise M3 can stimulate market driven
solutions to support innovation
• Enabling better connections be made between business, universities colleges and funders.
46
Additionality of EU Funds
4.21 EU funding is essential to ensure that the commercialisation of locally developed research
and intellectual property realises its job creation, economic growth and company formation
impact on the UK economy. Without these interventions, economies outside Europe are likely
to gain the impact benefits gained from this activity.
4.22 Appropriate domestic funding to support these interventions is not available. Where some
funding is available, it is fragmented and is not of sufficient scale to deliver impact and
outputs associated with this project.
Value for Money
4.23 We will seek to maximise value for money from key public sector investments by focusing on
areas of smart specialisation, where we have a competitive advantage. EU funding will unlock
the benefits from previous domestic investment in the UK’s research and knowledge base.
4.24 We have drawn inspiration for this innovation intervention from a range of successful
university and industry programmes including the SETSquared partnership, which was
rated by the University Business Incubator (UBI) index report as one of the top four most
influential university business incubators globally, and number one outside the United States.
- See more at: http://science-park.co.uk/news/104/16/Global-recognition-for- SETsquaredPartnership#sthash.vaYYJ6r7.dpuf . Our aim is to build on good practice and expand
successful intervention models to deliver wider outputs across our economy.
4.25 We calculate these activities will generate £72,050,000 GVA, an estimated ROI (gross) of
£11 for every £1 invested.
Prioritisation of Activities
4.26 A key priority for Enterprise M3 is innovation investment that will quickly unlock local growth.
We considered a range of interventions that mirrored existing national products, including
innovation voucher schemes and broadly focused innovation support, but we quickly decided
on a tightly focused approach that would exploit opportunities from close-to-market research in
areas of smart specialisation.
4.27 Our aim is to add value in areas where other public funding was not able to make an impact,
using public investment to leverage private sector funding to accelerate the commercial impact
from our research and knowledge base. With more resources we would have the flexibility to
support a broader range of areas of smart specialisation, which would then enable us to deliver
significant additional growth benefits to the UK economy.
47
Proposed Activities
4.28 A list of proposed activities to deliver these objectives is presented below
2. INNOVATION - SCALING UP CAPABILITIES, WIDENING NETWORKS AND
FOCUSING ON SMART SPECIALISATION
Proposed Activities
Thematic
Objective
Smart Specialisation - Building collaborative research between enterprises, research
institutions & public institutions
Smart specialisation - Accelerating the commercialisation of World Class Public and
Private Research and Intellectual Property (20% of which will be in CleanTech/Low
ERDF/
Carbon areas). Developing strong supply chains creating new business opportunities Priority Axis
that would not otherwise exist within the Enterprise M3 Sci:Tech Corridor. Activities
1&4
include HEI/Business links, commercialisation, inward investment, collaborative
research, incubation, and innovation products such as innovation vouchers / KTPs,
working with key employers on supply chain development. Examples could include
Aerospace or 5G, R&D in the Health Sector or proximity to London’s high growth
creative community. Looking at Witty concept of ‘arrow’ projects, potentially around 5G
communication, with funding being used to co-ordinate different players.
Commercialisation, Open Innovation and New Products and Business Processes
Innovation for Everyone. Innovation adoption measures aimed at high growth
companies, every business, public or voluntary sector organisations, or social
ERDF/
enterprises. Activities include leadership and management, management development, Priority Axis
peer-to-peer learning, business collaboration e.g. capital equipment pooling to support
1&3
innovation; webinars/on-line tools highlighting best practice in innovation application
(available through the Enterprise M3 Business Portal) or expanding successful
university based models which enable business innovation.
Bringing new products and business processes to the market, including those
linked to the UK Government’s ‘eight great technologies’ and ‘industrial strategy
ERDF/
sectors’. This will include stimulating the demand for new (or improved) services, Priority Axis
processes and products; and practical support to stimulate the commercialisation of
3
R&D (e.g. workshops, user-group sessions and networking opportunities to help
entrepreneurs develop & commercialise innovations, connect with potential customers
and collaborators as well as institutions and Government sponsored partners, such as
the TSB, who will give access to a wide variety of innovative products).
Physical infrastructure
Development of physical “incubation space” and "move on" accommodation to
support the needs of high growth companies to retain their economic value within the
ERDF/
area including: a) development of sector specific incubation centres; b) exploring
Priority Axis
bringing back for the purposes of innovation centres vacant and/or underused buildings
3
and land; and c) supporting a new generation of real estate entrepreneurs
Supporting businesses to benefit from the capital assets and opportunities arising
from activities such as Cyber Security Lab, 5G Test Bed
ERDF/
Priority Axis
2 & 3
48
There are two levels of indicators under ESIF the performance framework targets and the
investment priority targets.
4.29 Performance framework targets
There are three types of performance framework targets in the England Operational Programme:
output, implementation steps (milestones); and spend targets for 2018 and 2023
- Output targets and milestones: these are measured for each category of region at Priority Axis
level in 2018 and 2023 and are set out in the performance framework.
- Spend targets: these are based on total eligible expenditure for each category of region and will
be measured for each Priority Axis in 2018 and 2023.
If the national performance framework targets are not met for 2018, the performance reserve that
had been set aside for the failing Priority Axis may potentially be moved to another Priority Axis in
the same category of region. This may result in either a revision of a LEP area’s PA targets or
notional allocations.
4.30 Priority Axis Investment Priority targets
There are two targets at this level, output and results targets. These are provided in the
Operational Programme at Investment Priority level under each Priority Axis. Although there is no
direct reward or sanction for achieving these, the Commission may consider failure to meet these
targets as symptomatic of failure in the general management and control of the programme and
may act as appropriate in response.
4.31 Priority Axis Investment targets for Innovation and enterprises activities under priority axis
1, 2 and 3 Investmentpriority
(extractfromERDFOperational
Programme)
Output indicator
1b - Promoting business investment Number of enterprises receiving support
in R&I, developing links and
synergies between enterprises,
Number of enterprises receiving grants
research and development centres
and the higher education sector, in
particular promoting investment in Number of enterprises receiving financial
product and service development, support other than grants
technology transfer, social
innovation, eco-innovation, public
Number of enterprises receiving non- financial
service applications, demand
support
stimulation, networking, clusters and
Number of new enterprises supported
open innovation through smart
specialisation, and supporting
Private investment matching public support to
technological and applied research, enterprises (grants)
pilot lines, early product validation
actions, advanced manufacturing
capabilities and first production, in Private investment matching public support to
enterprises (non- grants)
particular in key enabling
technologies and diffusion of
general purpose technologies
Employment increase in supported
enterprises
Target by
2023
Unit
289
Enterprises
203
Enterprises
5
Enterprises
71
Enterprises
24
Enterprises
245 076
EUR
342 849
EUR
23
Full time
equivalents
Number of enterprises cooperating with
research institutions
156
Enterprises
Number of enterprises supported to introduce
new to the market products
23
Enterprises
49
2b - Developing ICT products and
services, e-commerce and
enhancing demand for ICT
Number of enterprises supported to introduce
new to the firm products
46
Enterprises
Public or commercial buildings built or
renovated
125
Square
meters
Number of enterprises supported
394
Enterprises
Number of new enterprises supported
276
Enterprises
Number of enterprises supported to introduce
new to the firm products
63
Enterprises
1 508
Enterprises
129
Enterprises
85
Enterprises
12
Enterprises
Number of enterprises receiving non- financial
support
33
Enterprises
Number of new enterprises supported
100
Enterprises
Additional businesses taking up broadband
with speeds of at least 30Mbps
3a - Promoting entrepreneurship, in Number of enterprises receiving support
particular by facilitating the
economic exploitation of new ideas Number of enterprises receiving grants
and fostering the creation of new
firms, including through business
Number of enterprises receiving financial
incubators
support other than grants
Private investment matching public support to
enterprises (grants)
447 304
EUR
Private investment matching public support to
enterprises (non- grants)
14 442
EUR
Employment increase in supported
enterprises
52
Number of enterprises supported to introduce
new to the market products
10
Full time
equivalents
Enterprises
Number of potential entrepreneurs assisted to
be enterprise ready
407
Persons
Public or commercial buildings built or
renovated
16
329
Square
meters
Enterprises
220
Enterprises
Number of enterprises receiving financial
support other than grants
30
Enterprises
Number of enterprises receiving non- financial
support
86
Enterprises
Number of new enterprises supported
103
Enterprises
3c - Supporting the creation and the Number of enterprises receiving support
extension of advanced capacities for
product and service development
Number of enterprises receiving grants
Private investment matching public support to 1 391 541
enterprises (grants)
EUR
Private investment matching public support to
enterprises (non- grants)
EUR
448 676
Employment increase in supported
enterprises
135
Number of enterprises supported to introduce
new to the firm products
52
Full time
equivalents
Enterprises
50
3d - Supporting the capacity of
SMEs to grow in regional, national
and international markets, and to
engage in innovation processes
Number of enterprises receiving information,
diagnostic and brokerage
33
Enterprises
Public or commercial buildings built or
renovated
41
Number of enterprises receiving support
184
Square
meters
Enterprises
Number of enterprises receiving grants
123
Enterprises
Number of enterprises receiving financial
support other than grant
17
Enterprises
Number of enterprises receiving non- financial
support
48
Enterprises
Number of new enterprises supported
58
Enterprises
Private investment matching public support to
enterprises (grants)
852 932
EUR
Private investment matching public support to
enterprises (non- grants)
286 134
EUR
Employment increase in supported
enterprises
76
Number of enterprises supported to introduce
new to the firm products
29
Full time
equivalent
Enterprises
Number of enterprises receiving information,
diagnostic and brokerage
18
Enterprises
Public or commercial buildings built or
renovated
23
Square
metres
For Priority axis 4, please refer to the Low Carbon Section page 69.
3. SKILLS, EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYABILITY – MEETING EMPLOYER NEEDS AND ENHANCING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL PEOPLE
Rationale for Intervention
4.
Skills are a fundamental component of productivity and a key area of focus of the
Enterprise M3 strategy. The Local Futures report placed Enterprise M3 sixth highest (out of
48 economic sub-regions) for its share of ‘knowledge workers’, and third for the local skills
base. However, looking towards the future the Enterprise M3 area will need to address two
key issues: (i) skills gaps in professional and management occupations; and, (ii) the fact the
labour force is growing much slower than the job market. Challenges but also opportunities
are summarised below
•
•
Opportunities
Engagement with employers around a
transformation and step change in
information, advice and guidance with
significantly enhanced knowledge of
what opportunities and training are
available.
Closer working between schools,
colleges & universities to pool
resources and meet the demanding
growth needs of employers – with a
move towards supporting people to
gain employment rather than numbers
Challenges
•
•
•
Slow growth of a labour market against
projected growth in jobs and increased
demand for higher skills and STEM expertise.
This issue is pronounced because of the high
number of technology-based firms / proportion
of knowledge-intensive services, and the
importance of priority sectors like aerospace
and defence.
An ageing work force and fierce and growing
competition for lower skills jobs (manifested
through significant replacement demand).
Apprenticeships are growing but not at higher
51
•
•
•
educated.
A strong training network, third sector and FE sector looking to collaborate
and focus on areas for growth
combined with willing employers
wishing to engage, lead and influence
the skills agenda.
The above could help stem the
outflow of knowledge workers to
London and will have a knock on
effect on unemployment levels.
New Funding through the EU and
Single Local Growth Fund to deploy on
key skills priorities – to make the
system work better and respond to
projected employer demand;
•
•
•
•
level, or necessarily, in Enterprise M3 priority
sectors.
The links between skills providers and
employers are patchy – employers say skills
are holding them back.
Significant net out commuting especially
London and low graduate retention resulting
in a net-out flow of high skilled commuters.
The high cost for business and employees
compound this issue with further talent and
skills in danger of relocating.
31% of CEOs and senior managers from the
Barriers to Growth’ survey stated that basic
skills shortages were an issue. A shortage of
people with skills at degree level and above
(NVQ level 4 and above) was also perceived as
significant, particularly for larger companies
4.23 A number of issues have been considered in developing the Strategic Programme for this
priority and these are discussed below.
•
Demand Side. Looking at the demand side, employment in the Enterprise M3 area will
increase by some 59,000 jobs in the decade between 2010-2020 with accelerated growth
after 2015 (Working Futures, UKCES). This is faster than the national rate of 0.5%
(Enterprise M3 is predicted to grow by 0.7% per annum). Looking at broad sectors the
highest demand (19,000) for additional employment will be generated by professional
services over this period. It’s not surprising that much of the employment growth will
increasingly be found in higher skilled occupations (principally professionals, senior
managers and associated professional and technical occupations). This in turn will
generate increasing demand for higher level qualifications at QCF (post graduate) levels 7
and 8 and QCF degree or equivalent levels 4-6. The Enterprise M3 Skills and Employment
Strategy (developed by Enterprise M3 with Shared Intelligence and partners) notes that
replacement demand created by people leaving the labour market will create six times
more jobs (345,000) than those expected from new jobs (59,000). Replacement demand
will generate employment opportunities in all industries and result in an intensification of
competition for lower skilled jobs as well as a requirement for skills training.
•
In summary, there is a need to prepare for the likely acceleration in employment growth
generated by new and replacement demand with a general shift towards higher
skilled/technical occupations. This, in our view, necessitates a programme of activities
to support the world-class skills that will be required in one of the fastest growing LEP
economies nationally.
•
Supply Side. The Enterprise M3 Labour Market is already strong and recovering from the
recession. 77.4% of working age residents are in employment. This is higher than the SE
and UK averages at 74.7% and 70.6% and the Strategy for Growth aims to raise this
already high rate to an ambitious 80% by 2020. However the recovery here has left many
young people behind with more older people working (between 2007 and 2012 the net
change in employment was 10,900 for the over 50’s compared to a loss of 7,900 for 16-24
year olds). Younger people struggle to get on the housing ladder and this is compounded
by the fact that many highly skilled people commute out of the area. There are 64,000 high
skilled out-commuters with a net out-commute of over 50,000 as result of well-paid
employment opportunities in the capital and low graduate retention. While unemployment
and youth unemployment are relatively low compared to other areas, in light of commuting
and prospect growth it still represents lost opportunities for the economy and can have
drastic knock on effects on the future prospects of those affected. That said the
phenomena of ‘silver slavers’ (older people working longer) is quite prevalent in the
Enterprise M3 area and has been identified as potential opportunity.
52
•
The Enterprise M3 area is a high performing economy with an incredibly highly skilled
work force; it has the highest proportion of people with the highest skills (39.5% with NVQ4
or higher skills in 2011, an increase from 34.7% in 2006) out of the 39 LEPs. It also has
the second lowest percentage of the resident working age population without
qualifications. Despite this exceptionally well-qualified workforce, Enterprise M3 had the
highest incidence of hard to fill vacancies (8% of all establishments) and the highest rate
of establishments reporting skill-shortage vacancies (6%) amongst LEPs in2011 (UKCES
NES 2011). This is in spite of two thirds of employers (68%) reporting carrying out training.
•
The Skills and Employment Strategy cites lack of skills as holding back growth – this was
found strongly in stakeholder interviews and the Enterprise M3 Barriers to Growth
business survey. Businesses also raised lack of Science, Technology, Engineering and
Maths (STEM) skills as a problem and all respondents including learners wanted
improved IAG. A key conclusion from the Skills and Employment Strategy is that we have
got to get the learning market to work better to address these concerns and meet the
demands of a strong and growing economy.
•
The effects of projected employment growth are particularly stark when set against the
modest working age population growth, and the changing composition of the workforce as
people continue to work longer. By 2020, 32.8% of the working age population will be over
50. Looking at provision, the learning sector is well placed to respond with four
universities, strong neighbouring higher education institutions and rich mix of further
education provision. Our intention is to ensure provision is highly attuned to the needs of
local businesses and our priority sectors’ growth ambitions. Whilst apprenticeships are
increasing rapidly, this is from a low base with some 16,360 starts in Hampshire and
Surrey (2010/11, SFA/BIS). That said, they do not necessarily match the Enterprise M3
priority sectors and there have been very few higher apprenticeships with the majority at
the intermediate level. Enterprise M3 aspires to a greater number of higher level starters in
our priority sectors.
•
In terms of social inclusion, Enterprise M3 has seen consistently lower rates of
unemployment over the years 2009 – 2013 than have been seen in England as a whole
(this is also true of those claiming Job Seekers’ Allowance). However, we have pockets of
excluded groups including families with complex needs and youth unemployment and
NEETs, which - although comparatively low - is increasing rapidly compared to the
national average.
Consultation for the SKILLS AND EMPLOYMENT Strategic Programme
The Employment and Skills Strategy was developed by Enterprise M326 between May and
August 2013. The strategy informs many of the ESIF skills priorities. It is based on a detailed
review of evidence on skills and employment and recent policy developments. A series of
scoping discussions and detailed interviews were conducted with business representative
organisations and businesses, colleges, universities, the National Careers Service, Skills
Funding Agency, and other organisations. These discussions explored the challenges and
barriers currently faced by local stakeholders (for instance in meeting business needs or
accessing in-demand skills) and allowed the team to develop and test a series of propositions
emerging from the data analysis. These propositions covered ways in which the skills system
could be improved to support economic growth. They were developed further through a
number of learner focus groups. These were conducted with students studying courses,
including Business BTEC, Hairdressing, Beauty Therapy, Engineering, and Public Services, at
Levels 2 and 3. The process involved a series of workshops with businesses and providers.
These sessions examined the propositions in detail, prioritised them, and agreed a number of
responses or interventions to take them forward. There were four workshop sessions held with
4.24
26
Undertaken by Shared Intelligence Consulting Ltd on behalf of Enterprise M3.
53
100 attendees. An action plan has subsequently been developed, reviewed following
consultation and approved by the Enterprise M3 board.
4.25
With over 150 delegates the Enterprise M3 World Class Skills Conference (Developing a
Workforce for the Future) held in Woking (10 September 2013) brought together partners from
the learning and skills sector and key employers to discuss the implication of the Draft Skills
and Employment Strategy and Evidence Base and the skills priorities for the use of European
funding, along with the wider funding package available to the LEP. There was broad
agreement and ratification of key activities within the Strategy’s draft Action Plan. Delegates
stressed the importance of getting employers to realise the benefit of skills, to try to stem the
tide of commuters and there was very real interest in transforming IAG for the area. They were
keen to ensure that the fast growing economy would be able to draw on a world class skills
base.
4.26
Some 28 partners attended an extended Implementation Group meeting in September 2013 to
help shape key actions and outcomes. It was agreed that the skills component of the LEP’s
ESIF activity should give primacy to the role of SMEs in giving their perspectives on the skills
market, using labour market intelligence (LMI) to determine priorities and giving a stronger
focus on the role of work experience and more on exposure to entrepreneurship and
enterprise in schools. Continuing this theme, there was consensus of the need for further
practical approaches to inspiring young people (in STEM subjects in particular) and
maintaining that enthusiasm with strong careers advice. The role of incentives, particularly
financial incentives, for apprenticeships and other activity by employers was discussed as well
as an increasing role for and relationship between, intermediate and higher level
apprenticeships. The importance of workforce development measures (covering retention, reskilling and up-skilling for older people) was also mentioned. There has been a surprising
degree of unanimity across of the recent skills consultations. For instance the EU strategy
consultation event (October 2013) reiterated the fact that higher level apprenticeships are not
very well developed in Enterprise M3.
Objectives for SKILLS AND EMPLOYMENT Strategic Programme
4.27 The actions outlined below have been devised as part of our Skills and Employment Strategy
and accompanying evidence base and action plan, responding directly to the challenges and
opportunities outlined above. They are structured within three inter-linked work-streams: (a)
world class skills; (b) increasing employer take up of training; and (c) enhancing employability
prospects. These priorities were developed with a number of skills providers, employers and
partners – we found an appetite for employers to engage in employment and skills and we want
the pool of employers doing so to get bigger. We want to enable the learning market to work
better. It will require strategic planning, pooling of resources and lining up actions underpinned
by effective promotion. This will be overseen by a fit for purpose Employment and Skills Board
capable of guiding local actors towards achieving these ambitious plans. In addition, there are a
series of social inclusion interventions, which have been developed with local partners.
I.
II.
The objectives of the world-class skills programme are focused around:
•
Increasing interest in STEM subjects to create a world-class skilled labour pool
(including the promotion of female take-up).
•
Meeting specific skills gaps through close collaboration between employers and
learning providers.
•
Boosting the take up of Higher/Degree Apprenticeships, particularly in STEM subjects,
and alternative higher-level vocational pathways, with increased SME participation
(including apprenticeship hubs or other shared arrangements).
The aim of the next work stream is quite simply to increase employer take-up of training.
54
It has four elements:
III.
IV.
•
Boosting employers' engagement with learning providers. This involves developing
better links between business and educators and promote learning more effectively to
employers and support them in identifying and meeting their training needs.
•
Improving information about the learning offer;
•
The development of skills brokerage support through the Growth Hub.
•
The creation of a labour market intelligence unit
The employability work stream aims to increase learners’ understanding of employer
needs, employment opportunities and progression pathways, to improve employer
engagement with schools and colleges and to enhance IAG. It has the following
objectives:
•
Helping people back to work through vocational pathways and apprenticeship
programmes;
•
Strengthening Careers Information Advice and Guidance to provide a more integrated
service with a particular focus on meeting the needs of growth sectors and
technologies and target groups (including women in relation to STEM career
opportunities);
•
Working with learning providers and employers to develop, promote and provide
traineeships, internships and other employability and re-engagement programmes
focussed on the disadvantaged, NEETs and other target groups and SMEs.
Social inclusion objectives include the following:
•
Developing the capacity of social enterprises within Enterprise M3, with regard to
specific social inclusion needs across the area. Could build on, for example, the local
models for Social Entrepreneur development, which could be expanded to cover the
whole LEP area.
•
Employability and basic skills around groups at risk of discrimination from the
workforce. Could include active inclusion activities for groups with protected
characteristics, or activities to combat discrimination of these groups from labour
market. This will ensure excluded groups are given the support to tackle barriers to
work and that they are employment ready or entering training or self-employment.
There is an opportunity to recruit socially excluded groups and NEETs into new
environmental sectors such as renewable energy. These sectors do not just require highly
qualified workers.
Additionality of EU Funds
4.28 There is ongoing STEM subject promotion in the Enterprise M3 area, but we know that levels
of STEM engagement are lower amongst women. The EU funds will allow more targeted
activity that is tailored towards encouraging female, and other under-represented groups, to
participate in STEM subjects.
4.29 The skills activity focused on higher level skills will be focused on those groups that are
underrepresented in the labour market, i.e. young people, women and older people. This will be
supplementary to the universal offer from FE Colleges and private providers, with a specific aim
to increase the higher level skills attainment in these groups. The funding will also be used to
develop skills to meet future needs (e.g. in relation to new technology, construction or
production methods).
4.30 Without the EU funding targeted interventions in this area will lack the critical mass to have
impact at a level that is in any way proportionate to scale of need and opportunity in our local
55
economy. For example, without EU funding, the level of employer engagement in the provision
of vocational training for target groups would be greatly reduced which would have a
disproportionate negative impact on the effectiveness and value for money of interventions.
4.31 The funding available through FE Colleges will be used as match through the SFA until 2018.
This is for universal activity – the EU funds will allow us to target the disadvantaged and
underrepresented groups, increasing the attainment of higher level skills and increasing
uptake of STEM subjects. Devolution of these funds from 2018 could add further flexibility of
match to the local area.
4.32 There is limited other funding available to deliver higher levels skills activity – the LEP
intends to source local match at increasing levels from the start of the programme and
particularly from 2017 onwards.
Value for Money
4.33 As we develop our skills and employment propositions further, we will undertake a thorough
value for money assessment around these activities. We will be undertaking this as part of the
development of our wider Strategic Economic Plan.
Prioritisation
4.34 As described above, the Skills and Employment Strategy was developed through an extensive
consultation process with a range of partners. Through this process, a clear idea of the areas
it would be most beneficial to focus on was developed. The list of interventions proposed in
the EU strategy is specifically targeted at underrepresented groups.
4.35 Activity is scalable – with greater levels of funding we would be able to achieve more outputs
and a higher rate of return on investment. There would also be the opportunity to increase the
level of employer involvement, including increasing links between businesses and educators,
which would enhance the reach and beneficial economic impact of the programme. For
example, with additional funding we could do more to support intermediate, technical and
higher level skills for specific industries and sectors identified as driving growth in our local
economy. We could also do more to develop skills for innovation (focussed on SMEs) and to
align our skills programme with ERDF supported activities in line with our growth priorities.
Scaling-up in these areas would benefit both individuals in target groups (in terms of numbers
reached and the quality of the support provided) and ramp-up the economic impact of our skills
programme.
Proposed Activities
4.36 A list of proposed activities to deliver these objectives supported by ESF is presented below
review as per 4.1)
Proposed Activities
Thematic
Objective
World Class Skills
The development of an Enterprise M3 STEM programme designed to enhance
perceptions of STEM subjects preparing young people (and women in particular) for ESF/ Thematic
the industries of the future. Working with schools, employers and colleges to map,
promote and develop an inspiring local tailored suite of STEM events, hands-on- Objective 10
experiences and activities designed to stimulate interest in local technology focused
industries.
Working with learning providers to develop, build capacity and deliver skills to meet
future needs in line with our growth priorities (e.g. in relation to new technology, ESF/ Thematic
digital skills and sector priorities and skills for innovation in SMEs). Including Objective 08[1]
Support for specific intermediate, technical and higher level skills for Enterprise
M3 industries, sectors and supply chains.
56
Boosting the take up of Apprenticeships and Higher/Degree Apprenticeships,
particularly in STEM subjects, and alternative higher-level vocational pathways, with ESF/ Thematic
increased SME participation (including apprenticeship hubs or other shared Objective 08
arrangements). Working through NAS, HE and FE institutions, and employers
through existing channels and new sector based groupings for instance the
proposed Heathrow Academy Model. Activities have a focus on STEM subjects.
Increasing Employer Take-up of Training
Measures boosting the volume and quality of employers engaging with schools,
colleges, universities and other learning providers including the provision of ESF/ Thematic
diverse work placements, internships, traineeships and apprenticeships. Support for
collaborative projects or other activities with SMEs that enable students and Objective 10
graduates to gain industry relevant experience and skills.
Substantially improving information about the learning offer and developing skills
brokerage support through the Growth Hub. Independent Enterprise M3 skills ESF/ Thematic
brokers will provide impartial advice and support to businesses and to publicise
learning more effectively to employers and support them in identifying and meeting Objective 10
their training needs. Joint working protocols and an appropriate brokerage model
will be devised with appropriate support mechanisms/infrastructure.
The development of a labour market intelligence unit to give up to date intelligence
on employer skills requirements. Working with learning providers, the SFA and ESF/ Thematic
others to improve the quality, consistency and co-ordination of information about the
learning offer in Enterprise M3, including the possible co- design of current Objective 10
information systems with employers and the marketing of providers’ offers through
employer bodies.
Enhancing Employability Prospects
Helping people back to work through vocational pathways and apprenticeship
programmes. Targeting older workers to support the Fuller Working Lives agenda,
including engagement in apprenticeship programmes
ESF/ Thematic
Objective 10
Strengthening Careers Information Advice and Guidance to provide a more
integrated service with a particular focus on meeting the needs of growth sectors ESF/ Thematic
and technologies and target groups (including women in relation to STEM career
Objective 10
opportunities);
Working with learning providers and employers to develop, promote and provide
traineeships, internships and other employability and re-engagement programmes ESF/ Thematic
focussed on the disadvantaged, NEETs and other target groups and SMEs.
Objective 10
Social Inclusion
Employability and basic skills around groups at risk of discrimination from the
workforce. Could include active inclusion activities for groups with protected ESF/ Thematic
characteristics, or activities to combat discrimination and barriers to employment
Objective 09
of these groups from labour market.
Developing the capacity of social enterprises within Enterprise M3, with regard to
specific social inclusion needs across the area. Could include, for example, the ESF/ Thematic
model of the Hampshire School for Social Entrepreneurs, which could be expanded
Objective 09
to cover the whole LEP area.
57
Outputs/Results Indicators
4.37 The table below summarises the target outputs indicators for the Enterprise M3 ESF programme.
1.1.1.1.3 Investment Priority 8i (1.1)
1.1.1.1.6
1.1.1.1.4
ID 1.1.1.1.5
Indicator
O11.1.1.1.9
Participants
1.1.1.1.13
1.1.1.1.14
ESF
CO01
Unemployed, including longterm unemployed
1.1.1.1.17
ESF 1.1.1.1.18
CO03
Inactive
1.1.1.1.22
O4
1.1.1.1.23
Participants over 50 years of
age
1.1.1.1.27
O5
1.1.1.1.28
1.1.1.1.32
Total
1.1.1.1.7
Target
Value
(2023)
Women
target
value
(2023)
5 1201.1.1.1.11
2 8101.1.1.1.12
3 580
1.1.1.1.15
1.1.1.1.16
1.1.1.1.19
1.1.1.1.20
1 280
1.1.1.1.21
1.1.1.1.24
1.1.1.1.25
1 130
1.1.1.1.26
Participants from ethnic
minorities
1.1.1.1.29 1.1.1.1.30
480
1.1.1.1.31
ESF 1.1.1.1.33
CO16
Participants with disabilities
1.1.1.1.34 1.1.1.1.35
910
1.1.1.1.36
1.1.1.1.37
O61.1.1.1.38
Participants without basic skills
1.1.1.1.39 1.1.1.1.40
900
1.1.1.1.41
1.1.1.1.42
ESF CO14
Participants who live in a single
430
adult household with dependent 1.1.1.1.44 1.1.1.1.45
children
1.1.1.1.46
1.1.1.1.43
1.1.1.1.10
1.1.1.1.8
Men target
value
(2023)
2 310
1.1.1.1.47
Investment Priority 8ii (1.2)
1.1.1.1.50
Men1.1.1.1.52
target
value
(2023)
1.1.1.1.48
ID 1.1.1.1.49
1.1.1.1.53
O2
Participants (below 25 years of
age) who are unemployed or 1.1.1.1.55
inactive
1.1.1.1.58
1.1.1.1.59
ESF
CO01
Unemployed, including longterm unemployed
1.1.1.1.63
ESF 1.1.1.1.64
CO03
Inactive
1.1.1.1.67
O5
Participants from ethnic
minorities
1.1.1.1.69 1.1.1.1.70
110
1.1.1.1.71
ESF 1.1.1.1.72
CO16
Participants with disabilities
1.1.1.1.73 1.1.1.1.74
110
1.1.1.1.75
1.1.1.1.76
O61.1.1.1.77
Participants without Basic Skills 1.1.1.1.78 1.1.1.1.79
230
1.1.1.1.80
1.1.1.1.81
ESF CO14
Participants who live in a single
adult household with dependent
children
1.1.1.1.85
1.1.1.1.54
1.1.1.1.68
1.1.1.1.82
Indicator
Total 1.1.1.1.51
Target
Value
(2023)
1 3201.1.1.1.56
7201.1.1.1.57
1.1.1.1.60 1.1.1.1.61
920
1.1.1.1.62
330
1.1.1.1.65
1.1.1.1.66
1.1.1.1.831.1.1.1.84
40
Women
target
value
(2023)
600
58
1.1.1.1.86
(1.4)
Investment Priority 9i
1.1.1.1.89
Men1.1.1.1.91
target
value
(2023)
ID 1.1.1.1.88
Indicator
1.1.1.1.92
O1 1.1.1.1.93
Participants
1.1.1.1.97
ESF1.1.1.1.98
CO01
Unemployed, including longterm unemployed
1.1.1.1.99 1.1.1.1.100
910
1.1.1.1.101
1.1.1.1.102
ESF CO03
Inactive
1.1.1.1.1031.1.1.1.104
690
1.1.1.1.105
1.1.1.1.106
O4
1.1.1.1.107 Participants over 50 years of
age
1.1.1.1.1081.1.1.1.109
340
1.1.1.1.110
1.1.1.1.111
O5
1.1.1.1.112 Participants from ethnic
minorities
1.1.1.1.1131.1.1.1.114
160
1.1.1.1.115
1.1.1.1.116
ESF 1.1.1.1.117 Participants with disabilities
CO16
1.1.1.1.1181.1.1.1.119
300
1.1.1.1.120
1.1.1.1.122 n/a
(NOMS
1.1.1.1.123
only)
1.1.1.1.124
1.1.1.1.94
O7 1.1.1.1.121 Participants who are offenders
or ex-offenders
Total 1.1.1.1.90
Target
Value
(2023)
1.1.1.1.87
1 7201.1.1.1.95
Women
target
value
(2023)
9501.1.1.1.96
770
59
1.1.1.1.125
Investment Priority 10iii (2.1)
1.1.1.1.128
Indicator
Total
1.1.1.1.129
Target
Value
(2023)
Men target
1.1.1.1.130
value
(2023)
Women
target value
(2023)
1.1.1.1.126
ID
1.1.1.1.127
1.1.1.1.131
O1
1.1.1.1.132 Participants
1.1.1.1.133 7 6501.1.1.1.134 3 750 1.1.1.1.135 3 900
1.1.1.1.136
O4
1.1.1.1.137 Participants over 50 years of
age
1.1.1.1.138 1.1.1.1.139
1 680
1.1.1.1.140
1.1.1.1.141
O5
1.1.1.1.1421.1.1.1.143
720
1.1.1.1.144
1.1.1.1.145
ESF 1.1.1.1.146 Participants with disabilities
CO16
1.1.1.1.147 400
1.1.1.1.148
1.1.1.1.149
O6
Participants from ethnic
minorities
1.1.1.1.150 Participants without basic skills 1.1.1.1.151 1.1.1.1.152
1 350
1.1.1.1.155 Participants who live in a single
1.1.1.1.154 ESF adult household with dependent
CO14
children
1.1.1.1.1561.1.1.1.157
260
1.1.1.1.153
1.1.1.1.158
1.1.1.1.159 Investment Priority 10iv (2.2)
1.1.1.1.162
1.1.1.1.160
ID
1.1.1.1.161
Indicator
1.1.1.1.164
1.1.1.1.165 number of supported micro,
small and medium-sized
enterprises (including
CO23
cooperative enterprises,
enterprises of the social
economy)
Total
Target
Value
(2023)
1.1.1.1.166 140
Men target
1.1.1.1.163
value
(2023)
1.1.1.1.167
Women
target value
(2023)
1.1.1.1.168
60
4.38 The table below summarises the target results indicators for the Enterprise M3 ESF programme
Thematicobjective8i(1.1)
ID
R1
R2
R3
R4
ESF-CR06
Indicator
Targetvalue(2023)
Unemployedparticipantsintoemployment(includingselfemployment)onleaving
Inactiveparticipantsintoemployment,orjobsearchon
leaving
22%
Participantsgainingbasicskills
4%
Participantswithchildcareneedsreceivingchildcaresupport
Participantsinemployment,includingself-employment,6
monthsafterleaving
33%
36%
34%
Thematicobjective8ii(1.2)
ID
R3
R5
ESF-CR06
Indicator
Targetvalue(2023)
Participantsgainingbasicskills
4%
Participants(below25yearsofage)inemployment,
includingself-employment,oreducation/trainingupon
leaving
Participantsinemployment,includingself-employment,6
monthsafterleaving
43%
34%
Thematicobjective9i(1;4)
ID
ESF-CR02
R1
R2
R4
ID
R3
R6
R7
R8
Indicator
Targetvalue(2023)
Participantsineducationortrainingonleaving
17%
Unemployedparticipantsintoemployment,includingselfemploymentonleaving
Inactiveparticipantsintoemployment,orjobsearchon
leaving
Participantswithchildcareneedsreceivingchildcaresupport
14%
27%
36%
Thematicobjective10iii(2.1)
Indicator
Targetvalue(2023)
Participantsgainingbasicskills
11%
Participantsgaininglevel2orbeloworaunitofalevel2or
belowqualification(excludingbasicskills)
Participantsgaininglevel3oraboveoraunitofalevel3or
abovequalification
Employedfemalesgainingimprovedlabourmarketstatus
25%
8%
35%
InvestmentPriority10iv(2.2)
ID
Indicator
Targetvalue(2023)
R9
SmallandMediumEnterprisessuccessfullycompleting
projects(whichincreaseemployerengagement;and/orthe
numberofpeopleprogressingintoorwithinskillsprovision)
75%
61
4. LOW CARBON AND SUSTAINABLE PLACES PROGRAMME
Rationale for Intervention
4.39 Enterprise M3 is keen to support the shift towards a low carbon economy in all sectors and
building the market in low carbon environmental technologies, goods and services. For
instance we will further exploit our woodland assets creating new jobs in the low carbon and
rural economy by developing woodland enterprises, encouraging investment in the timber and
wood to warmth supply chain. We will seek out entrepreneurs, best practice and finance
modernising and develop new opportunities, building collaboration and adding market value
to products. The advice and guidance of the Local Nature Partnerships will help harness
natural capital and optimise environmental gain. To achieve joint environmental and
economic outcomes the programme will need to work from small-scale woodfuel/woodshop
ventures through to major investment (sawmilling/primary product processing including wood
pellet manufacture). By favouring collaborative ventures the supply chain will be shortened
removing waste, improving profitability and encouraging economies of scale. The EU strategy
event in October 2013 noted the potential of this sector to recruit excluded people.
4.40 There is near unanimity about the need for additional investment in infrastructure in the
Enterprise M3 area and this measure also has some substantial complementary activity
around transport and broadband.
4.41 According to the CBI, infrastructure brings greater economic returns on investment than many
other forms of capital expenditure, producing £10 of benefit for every £1 spent and creating
jobs, supporting business growth and reducing carbon - a three-way benefit for the economy.
We need to promote much more sustainable and smarter use of transport infrastructure in our
area, which is straining under the pressure of growth and over reliant on commuting and car
based travel. We want a transport network fit for growth through low carbon solutions which
result in enhanced mobility, reduced emissions and a much more personalised experience for
transport users. Investment in super-fast broadband and 4G mobile phone signal can reduce
the need to travel.
4.42 Given our need to develop so much more housing we would like to ensure that we develop
and advocate low carbon technologies (for instance in construction) and energy efficiency
measures including retrofit. We are very interested in optimising the resilience of transport
network and the sustainability of our local areas by exploring whole place low carbon
solutions and smart cities solutions through a town centre pilot (it was suggested at our EU
strategy consultation event (October 2013) that we should build on the example of
Heathrow’s state of the art wood fuel energy system at its Terminal 2 development). Given
our high emissions of CO2 per capita and energy consumption per capita promoting the
innovation and adoption of low carbon technologies is a priority for the LEP.
62
4.43 Key challenges and opportunities arising from all these issues are summarised below.
Objectives for the LOW CARBON AND SUSTAINABLE PLACES Strategic Programme
4.44 EU funds will be used to help support low carbon businesses and to promote the development
and commercialisation of low carbon research and products.
I.
Low Carbon Commercialisation: To support the development of low carbon
technologies and R&D:
•
•
II.
Working with universities and business that are leaders in Low Carbon Technologies
with an emphasis on commercialisation of public and private research.
With a focus on local business including social enterprises, graduate start-ups and
enterprise in under-represented groups.
To support the shift towards a Low Carbon Economy in all sectors:
Building the market in low carbon environmental technologies, goods and services.
Non-domestic low carbon technologies and energy efficiency including the
development of a small number (5-6) demonstrator sites/project for low carbon
technologies.
• Promoting the innovation and adoption of low carbon technologies including further
development of the wood fuel supply chain and business resource efficiency
measures.
Complementary objectives (not EU funded) to this programme include:
•
•
III.
•
•
•
•
•
Ensuring that housing provision does not act as a barrier to growth through the
following potential activities: housing need assessments, incentives to promote
housing development, a revolving loan fund and site development/reuse.
Ensuring that the commercial property stock is attractive to business and supports
a high quality of life.
Developing Enterprise M3’s business tourism offer through new a range of measures
including possible investment in visitor infrastructure.
Investment in additional major transport schemes (local and national such as Crossrail
2 and the western access to Heathrow) that help to deliver the Strategy for Growth,
further investment “pots”, e.g. around congestion or access to development,
where additional works can be undertaken where constraints to growth identified.
Town Centre redevelopment and regeneration.
63
•
•
Empty property initiatives and enhancements to the commercial property offer with the
selective development of high quality space, creative reallocation of any redundant
space including local authority property/land and MOD assets, or shared office space
schemes.
To deliver a transport network fit for growth through low carbon solutions to enhance
mobility, reduce emissions and personalise the user experience including:
o The promotion of sustainable travel through low carbon modal shift/ smarter
choices.
o
Innovation in transport systems enhance its efficiency by promoting a more
integrated approach looking at modal integration, system performance, business
models and real time information (Linked to Innovation programme).
o
Improving accessibility to work for individuals (Link to skills programme), reducing
commuting and promoting sustainable transport to key LEP employment sites. An
example might be a shuttle bus to business parks. (An example cited during the
consultation was the Elmbridge Cycle Strategy for commuters).
Consultation for the Low Carbon and Sustainable Place Programme
4.45 Further work on our Low Carbon and Sustainability aspirations was completed in December
2013. The Low Carbon and Sustainability Study made recommendations for the implementation
and application of the EU Structural Funds within the low carbon economy and suggestions on
how to implement the sustainable development cross cutting theme throughout the strategy,
making it an integral part of all activities delivered under the strategy. This study involved
consultation with key relevant partners and two workshops held on 2nd December 2013, the
first focusing on the Low Carbon Economy and the second on Sustainable Development. Key
findings have been integrated into the ESIF.
4.46 The Transport Action Group has brought together representatives from local authorities,
business, Network Rail, Heathrow, the Highways Agency and train and bus operating
companies among others to discuss priorities for action. Some 28 partners attended an
extended Implementation Group meeting in September 2013 to help shape key actions and
outcomes. It was agreed that the infrastructure & place component of the LEP’s ESIF activity
should, where eligible, stimulate low carbon activities and smart solutions to address congestion
issues, which affect business productivity. Discussions with Network Rail and the Highways
Agency are ongoing to ensure alignment with plans such as the Highway Agency Route Based
strategies and Network Rail’s Long Term Planning Framework and plans for Control Periods 5
and 6). The Group has surveyed business on a number of transport related issues to establish
priorities for action. The business survey for Heathrow had 436 respondents from the Enterprise
M3 area. The Group has also run a transport seminar for approximately 80 business
representatives, which took place in January 2014 and provided an overview of the LEP’s
proposed transport interventions.
4.47 The Enterprise M3 Local Transport Body was established at the end of 2012, in conjunction with
Surrey and Hampshire, to agree, manage and oversee the delivery of the prioritised transport
schemes from 2015 onwards (see www.enterprisem3.org.uk/enterprise-m3-local- transportbody/). The Enterprise M3 Local Transport Body is a partnership between Local Authorities, the
Local Enterprise Partnership and businesses. Over £24million of funding has been allocated
over four years, and will be used to address congestion and open up access to sites across the
Enterprise M3 area. Additional funding to support transport improvement in line with Enterprise
M3’s vision will be sought through the Local Growth Fund. The primary role of the Local
Transport Body will be to decide which investments in major schemes should be prioritised, and
to review and approve individual business cases for these investments, to ensure effective and
efficient delivery of the programmes. We will work closely with this body on the development of
sustainable transport infrastructure. This work will complement EU funding.
64
4.48 The Surrey and Hampshire LNPs have offered to act as a communications “conduit’ between
key partners including the Environment Agency and Natural England. And have contributed to
the development of activities around sustainability and low carbon.
4.49 Finally, the LEP has a role around developing the connectivity of the area. The ambitious work
being undertaken by the two county councils in the Enterprise M3 area means that there will be
99% and 95% superfast broadband coverage in Surrey and Hampshire respectively by 2017.
The LEP has an important role in building upon this work by supporting businesses in their use
and take-up of this technology.
Additionality of EU Funds
4.50 We have undertaken significant consultation around the development of the low carbon and
sustainable place programme, as set out above. Through this we have ensured that our funding
programme is positioned in an area where there is no domestic funding available. By focusing
this activity in such a way that it supplements our other investments in small and medium
enterprises and innovation, we have also promoted the additionality of this funding.
Value for Money
4.51 As part of the development of this programme, we have had regard to the value gained from
this funding. When designing out prospectus for the distribution of this funding, we will ensure
value for money is taken into account as a key consideration bearing in mind the limited
amount of funding available.
Prioritisation of Activities
4.52 The consultation exercise we have undertaken has identified those areas where this funding is
most needed. Although this exercise came out with a number of possible projects and a wide
range of interventions this funding could be used for, we have used the evidence available to
us to inform our decision that this funding will be most effective by being used to specifically
support low carbon enterprises and innovation. Other activities, which have not been included
within the final plan, can be found within the Low Carbon and Sustainability Study at Annex D.
Proposed Activities to be supported by ERDF
4.53 A list of proposed activities to deliver these objectives supported by ERDF is presented
below.
Activities
Thematic
Objective
Low Carbon Commercialisation
Commercialisation of World Class CleanTech/Low Carbon Research and
ERDF/
Intellectual Property. Emphasis on commercialisation of both public and
Priority
Axis 1
private sector research and development, we will work with universities and
&4
businesses that are leaders in Low Carbon Technologies
Supporting the commercialisation of Low Carbon R&D across the economy
ERDF/
through Open Innovation. With a focus on local businesses including; social
Priority Axis 1
enterprises, graduate start-ups and enterprise in underrepresented groups.
&4
Supporting the shift towards a Low Carbon Economy in all sectors:
65
Enterprise support for low carbon start-ups and established businesses.
ERDF/ Priority
Axis 4
Promoting the innovation and adoption of low carbon technologies in the
design and operation of new innovation which could include, for example,
further development of the wood fuel supply chain and business resource
efficiency measures.
ERDF/ Priority
Axis 4
Proposed Outputs/Results Indicators
The following outputs are proposed for the priority axis 4:
Output indicator
Investmentpriority
(extractfromERDFOperational
Programme)
4a - Promoting the production and
distribution of energy derived from
renewable sources
Target by 2023
Unit
No of enterprises receiving
support
19
enterprises
Number of new enterprises
supported
4
enterprises
Additional capacity of
renewable energy
production
2
MW
GHG reduction: estimated
annual decrease of GHG
4b - Promoting energy efficiency and Number of enterprises
renewable energy use in enterprises receiving support
GHG reduction: estimated
annual decrease of GHG
1 437
259
1 261
TonnesofCO2eq
Enterprises
Tonnes of
CO2eq
66
5.
Funding and Outputs
5.28 Enterprise M3 has received a notional allocation of €45.6m (£32.3m) for the period 20142020.
Key figures
Notional allocation in
Euros
Conversion rate
Notional allocation in £s
Average £s per year
7% performance reserve
€45.6
€1 = £0.71
£32.3
£5.4
£2.2
5.29 The table below shows the agreed funding allocations by EU thematic objective. It is based on
extensive consultation with key partners and stakeholders and highlights the focus of the
programme on innovation, skills and SME competitiveness.
EM3ESIFFUNDINGALLOCATION(conversionineurosasofexchangerateofSept2015)-SUBJECTTOCHANGEOF
EXCHANGERATE
ERDFPriorityAxis
Fund(grant
available)
Priority Axis 1 - Research and
Innovation
7,5mEUR
PriorityAxis2:-ICT
1,7mEUR
PriorityAxis3-SMEcompetitiveness
10mEUR
PriorityAxis4-LowCarbonEconomy
6mEUR
TOTALERDF
ERDF25,2mEUR
ESFThematicObjective
Thematic Objective 8 - Employment
andLabourMobility
ThematicObjective9-SocialInclusion
andPoverty
ThematicObjective10–Education
TOTALESF
Fund(grant
available)
Revised
allocationin£
at0,71revised
exchangerate
£5,3m
£1,2m
£7,1m
£4,2
ERDF£17,8m
Revised
allocationin£
at0,71revised
exchangerate
6,5mEUR
£4,6m
3,8mEUR
£2,7m
10,1mEUR
£7,1m
ESF20,4mEUR
ESF£14,5m
67
Figure 5.1: Enterprise M3 Preferred Investment of EU Funding
Enterprise M3 Investment
%
millions euros
ERDF Funded:
Innovation
ICT
SME Competitiveness
Low Carbon
Themes 1-4
Climate Change
Protecting the Environment/Resource
Supporting Transport
Themes 5-7
TOTAL ERDF
16%
4%
22%
13%
55%
0%
0%
0%
0%
55%
7.5
1.7
10
6
25,2
0
0
0
0
25,2
ESF Funded:
Promoting employment/supporting
Promoting social inclusion/combating
Investment in education, skills, lifelong
TOTAL ESF
15%
8%
22%
45%
6.5
3.8
10.1
20.4
The agreement with the European Commission is in euros so the sterling equivalent will
fluctuate depending on the exchange rate.
5.30 The following table also highlights the split by Strategic Action:
Figure 5.2: Enterprise M3 Strategic Action
Enterprise M3 Strategic Action
mEUR
%
Enterprise
10
22
Innovation
9,2
20
Skills/Employment
20,4
45
Sustainable Development
6
13
TOTAL
45,6
`100%
5.31 A suite of outputs and results are to be delivered against this funding. The principal outputs
of the programme are as follows:
•
2,139 businesses directly supported
•
2,460 new jobs created
•
12,700 participating in skills programmes and development
The following tables show the Enterprise M3 Performance Framework Targets for ERDF and
ESF; These Performance Framework indicators will be the basis for the evaluation of the
performance of the LEP and linked to the performance reserve indicator.
68
Figure 5.3: Enterprise M3 Performance Framework targets for ERDF
Priority Axis
1 - Promoting
Research and
Innovation
2 - Enhancing
access to, and
use and quality
of, ICT
indicators
Productive investment:
Number of enterprises
receiving support
Measurement
unit
Milestones
By 2018
Final targets
By 2023
0
289
3 853 929
15 109 258
72
N/A
870 489
3 408 313
0
0
0
639
5 119 484
20 044 839
165
N/A
0
2 906
3 030 900
11 867 190
31
N/A
Enterprises
Expenditure
Number of enterprises
receiving support that
has been achieved by
partially or fully
completed operations
Euros
Expenditure
Euros
Number
Additional businesses
with broadband access of
at least 30mbps
Enterprises
3 - Enhancing
the
Productive investment:
Competitivenes Number of enterprises
s of SMEs
receiving support
Expenditure
Number of enterprises
receiving support that
has been achieved by
partially or fully
completed operations
4 - Supporting
the Shift
Towards a Low
Carbon
Economy in all
Sectors
GHG reduction:
Estimated annual
decrease of GHG
Expenditure
Number of enterprises
receiving support that
has been achieved by
partially or fully
completed operations
Enterprises
Euros
Number
Tonnes of
CO2eq
Euros
Number
Figure 5.4: Enterprise M3 Performance Framework targets for ESF
Fund
Key
implementation
indicator
Measurement
unit
Milestone
total for
2018
1
ESF
Amount of
spend
Euros
3 877 868
1
ESF
Participants
Number
1 534
2
ESF
Amount of
spend
Euros
3 798 135
2
ESF
Participants
Number
1 438
Priority
axis
Milestone
mmen for
2018
Milestone
women for
2018
Final
men
target
(2023)
Final
women
target
(2023)
Final
target
(2023)
20 681 9
61
842
692
4 480
3 680
8 160
20 256 7
21
705
733
3 750
3 900
7 650
69
5.32 The outputs were established drawing upon several sources of intelligence:
•
Performance against the current programme 2007-2013.
•
Evaluations of similar interventions delivered in the South East during the 2007-13
European Programme (delivered by SEEDA and co-financed by various organisations).
•
Credible and robust benchmarks from nationally compiled sources drawing multiple sources
which were adjusted to account for inflation. These include work by CRESR (Valuing the
Benefits of Regeneration) and PWC (The Impact of RDA Spending).Performance of similar
programmes (the TSB for instance).
Rationale for Configuration of Strategic Actions
5.33 The overall programme architecture was first conceived during an extensive consultation
process in developing our Strategy for Growth which was published in May 2013. The
process identified three headline targets for the LEP around GVA, jobs and business births
and survival. The discussions also led to the development of four key themes of activity to
ensure progress towards these headline targets. The four themes are enterprise, innovation,
skills and employment, and infrastructure and place. As a result we decided to structure our
EU investment priorities principally around these same four themes (though the last theme
was refined to low carbon and sustainable infrastructure reflecting the significance of low
carbon interventions within the 2014-2020 programming period).
5.34 Within the EU funding parameters, the Enterprise M3 partners have chosen to focus on a
programme driven by enterprise and innovation (44% of the notional allocation is
earmarked to these two priorities) underpinned by substantial investment in the workforce
(45%). We know that without the right skills we will be unable to grow at the pace predicted.
In light of discussions and what we know about the-make up and performance of our
economy the programme has been designed around the following building blocks:
• Support to enable the growth aspirations of SMEs and start-ups and to encourage
investment in our priority sectors. This includes proposals to match two opt-in
providers – Growth Accelerator and UKTI combined with our ambitions for much better
co-ordination of business support. 28% (£10.6m) of the programme resources are
devoted to enterprise.
• Support for innovation, commercialisation and innovation infrastructure building on
our exceptional research and intellectual property capabilities. We are very keen to
support our ‘innovation ecosystem’ by focusing investment in an Enterprise M3 Sci:Tech
Corridor which will exploit our unique characteristics and assets, competitive advantage,
and rally stakeholders and resources around an excellence-driven vision of their future.
Our aim is to use public investment (including £6.5m of ERDF) to leverage private sector
funding to accelerate the commercial impact from our research and knowledge base.
5.35 These strategic programmes will be supported by comprehensive skills measures with an
emphasis on skills development supporting business growth and making the skills
system work much better. Following extensive consultation as part of our Skills and
Employment Strategy our employment growth aspirations will be met through three strands of
activity:
•
World-class skills measures;
•
Supporting employability; and
•
Enhancing employer take up of training.
5.36 We can confirm that we have retained or exceeded the minimum 20% thresholds for both Low
Carbon (£4.2m, 23% of ERDF allocation) and Social Inclusion (£3.9m, 26% of ESF allocation)
activity. Further work has been undertaken in these areas to elicit key priorities and finalise and
70
refine allocations. For instance in relation to social inclusion we aim to develop the capacity of
social enterprises to address specific social inclusion needs across the area and target
employability and basic skills measures around identified groups at risk of discrimination from
the workforce.
5.37 45% (£14.5m) of our notional allocation will be deployed on skills, employment and
employability and in line with Commission expectation for more developed areas we have not
allocated too much funding to sustainable infrastructure (developing areas across Europe take
precedence here). Our Low Carbon and Sustainable Places strategic action is therefore
modest in size and aimed primarily at supporting low carbon technologies. This underpinning
measure will work in tandem with the Local Growth Fund to unlock infrastructural constraints on
business growth and ensuring that we exploit opportunities in the low carbon economy.
The combined effects of a slighter greater emphasis on enterprise and innovation will result in a
higher cost benefit ratio than a 50:50 split27 . This will realise a good return on investment for the
UK economy.
The above allocations will be complemented by an additional allocation of £3.5m from the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) with a suggested emphasis on
providing strategic business support activity for small enterprises in rural areas.
Approach to Opt-ins and national calls
5.12 Enterprise M3 has met with the opt-in providers to discuss how each programme could be
tailored to meet the EU programme priorities. Opt-in prospectuses were published for a number
of co-financing organisations and we have considered the fit of each of these against our own
priorities. Using the evidence above, and following consideration of all opt-in prospectuses, it
was determined that the Manufacturing Advisory Service did not fit the priorities we had
identified within our enterprise support programme and that these would be better served by the
Growth Accelerator and UKTI opt-ins, along with other provision. The Growth Accelerator and
UTKI offers are no longer opt-in routes but will now operate through national calls. Enterprise
M3 will consider these. The Social Housing Financial Instrument was not seen to have sufficient
match with our priorities and expected use for these funds.
5.13 We have identified providers that meet with our objectives including Growth Accelerator
(through an ERDF national call), UKTI (through an ERDF national call), the Big Lottery Fund
(ESF opt-in), the DWP (ESF opt-in) and the Skills Funding Agency (ESF opt-in) although this
will be subject to further dialogue and evidence about how the national programmes can be
tailored to fit with our priorities. We have agreed Memoranda of Understanding with UKTI and
GrowthAccelerator their cofinancing contributions to our ERDF match funding and will be
looking to do the same with the ESF cofinancers listed above, provided that negotiations
continue in a satisfactory manner. We have indicated our provisional position around ESF
cofinancer as requested by Government.
5.14 The progression of the devolution agenda will affect the ability of the current opt-in
organisations to offer match as funding programmes are devolved to the local areas. Enterprise
M3 will ensure that the opt-in offer is considered at each stage of procurement. Enterprise M3
will work with local partners in regards to the devolution deals being negotiated in the local
area(s) to ensure potential to maximise EU funding opportunities.
5.15 The LEP has developed rapidly over a short space of time and will doubtless continue to do so
in the coming months and years. In light of this, the board have expressed a wish to only
commit to partial-term opt-ins with national cofinancers at this stage. This will provide us with
maximum flexibility and allow us to make changes to these arrangements during the funding
programme if it is in the best interests of the area to do so.
27
For instance the cost benefit for skills and training is 2.2 compared to a cost benefit ratio of 8.7 for business support activity (see Valuing the
Benefits
of Regeneration, CRESR, Volume 1, December 2010.
71
Figure 5.4: Indicative Sources of Match Funding
ERDF match
Private
Public – National
Public – Local
Opt In
m£
6,8
6,
5,0
0
ESF match
Private
Public – National
Public – Local
Opt In
ERDF match
TOTAL
m£
0
m£
0
0
6,2
8,3
ESF match
m£
SFA
3,5
Big Lottery
1,9
DWP
2,9
8,3
Priority Axis without Allocated Funding
5.16 Enterprise M3 has taken the decision to focus funding as much as possible to maximise the
outcomes for the local economy and to minimise the administrative burden placed on the LEP
and its partners through the delivery of these funds. This has meant that we have used the
evidence collected during the development of this strategy in order to prioritise areas within
which funding will be allocated. In doing this, we have taken account of the activities which have
the most appropriate fit to the needs and opportunities present within the area, along with where
domestic funding is directed and how the aims of some thematic objectives can be supported
through other means and guidance received from Government. Using this process, we have
decided not to allocate any funding to Priority Axis 5, 6 and 7. The rationale for each individual
Thematic Objective is set out below:
Priority Axis 5 – Promoting Climate Change Adaptation, Risk Prevention and Management
5.17 Although we recognise the view of the Environment Agency around the need for investment in
climate change adaptation and risk prevention and management activities within the LEP area,
it is our belief that the level of funding available will not produce effective outcomes within the
LEP area when compared with the outcomes which can be achieved through directing the same
funding through our other ERDF activities. We will look to work closely with the Environment
Agency as an infrastructure partner in developing our Strategic Economic Plan, under which
more capital funding may be available to make an impact in this area.
Priority Axis 6 – Protecting the Environment and Promoting Resource Efficiency
5.18 We have taken the decision to focus our efforts around green technologies and business
process under our investment programme under Thematic Objective 4. We believe that the
aims of this thematic objective can be appropriately served by the activities funded under
Thematic Objective 4 along with our commitment to support the cross-cutting priority of
sustainable development across all of our activities.
Priority Axis 7 – Promoting Sustainable Transport and Removing Bottlenecks in Key Network
Infrastructures
5.19 Within our Strategic Economic Plan, we have put forward a case to spend a significant sum of
money on infrastructure investments within the local area. This funding is available through the
Local Growth Fund, in line with Government advice, we believe that the aims of this Thematic
Objective are better served through the use of domestic funding and there is insufficient EU
funding available to make an effective impact through this Thematic Objective.
72
6.
Delivery
Arrangements
Arrangements
and
Proposed
Local
Governance
Overall Approach
6.28 Enterprise M3 undertook recently a governance review, which covered all aspects of Enterprise
M3 governance from membership of our board, the operation of our action groups and the
mechanisms for the delivery of the various funds to be made available within the LEP area. The
review was completed ahead of the submission of the final Strategic Economic Plan on 31
March 2014.
6.29 Hampshire County Council acts as the accountable body for Enterprise M3 and review of this is
not within the scope of the current governance review.
6.30 We have established an EU Mechanics’ Group, which brings together EU expertise from across
our constituent local authorities. This group has so for provided advice to the ESIF interim board
on technical issues around the development of the ESIF including Technical Assistance,
delivery mechanisms, and our approach to opt-ins.
6.31 Enterprise M3 has set an interim European Management Group (EMG) to become formal in
October 2015 to supervise the development and implementation of the LEP’s ESIF programme.
Government has issued guidelines on the membership of LEP Area ESIF committees (which
EMG is the Enterprise M3’s local terminology). The guidance that these groups must reflect the
breath of partners in the area and meet the Public Sector Equality Duty. The number of
representatives per sector can vary but it is expected that representation should be
proportionate to allow full representation of the sector in question. The terms of references and
guidance request a representation to cover:
•
Partners Chair
•
Managing Authority Deputy Chair
•
Local Enterprise Partnership
•
Local Authority
•
Business partners including small businesses and social enterprise as appropriate to the
Enterprise M3 Area
•
Voluntary & Community Sector
•
Environment (with relevant expertise in e.g. sustainable development)
•
Trade Union and employer representation
•
Equality and diversity representation
•
Higher Education
•
Education, skills & employment
•
SUD city region groupings (where appropriate) (not applicable to Enterprise M3)
•
Rural (where appropriate)
•
CLLD Local Action Group(s) (where appropriate) (not applicable to Enterprise M3)
•
Managing Authorities for each of the ESI Funds and BIS local
•
Others as needed by the LEP area ESI Funds sub-committee
The Membership of the EMG is for an initial three-year term and will be reviewed in 2017 to
ensure that it remains representative and reflects changing priorities. Government will expect
the EMG to meet at least quarterly, but initially at least, the group is likely to meet more
frequently depending on the pipeline of upcoming activities. The technical role of the EMG is to
act as a subcommittee of the national Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) for EU funds.
Each individual (and substitute) appointed onto the ESIF sub-committee represent the wider
interest of the ‘area/sector’ and not their own organisation. Decisions are taken by consensus,
which will be judged by the Chair.
73
6.32 The functions, roles and responsibilities of EMG are:
• Provide recommendations and strategic advice for the evaluation of the ESIF projects (including
ESF, ERDF, EAFRD)
• Provide recommendations and supervise the pipeline of operations that meet local needs
• Provide recommendations on the ESIF strategy and annual implementation plan for Enterprise
M3
• Promotion and publicity strategy
• Supervise delivery through opt-in organisations and direct funding
• Provide advice on match-funding sources
• Oversee the governance of the programme for Enterprise M3 area
EMG was set up as an interim board in October 2014 and became formal in March 2016 when
the operational programmes for the three funds (ESF, ERDF and EAFRD) were agreed with the
European Commission and that the national Programme Management Committee (PMC)
become formal.
Currently the position of Enterprise M3 is to allow applications through either Opt-in arrangements
through the community grant mechanism. The intention was to set up an overall process and
Governance Structure which was as simple as possible within the constraints of EU and national
regulations. It is important to ensure that this works in tandem with the process and governance put in
place for the Local Growth Fund and Growing Enterprise Fund.
Partnership working: governance and roles of ESI Funds Growth
Programme Board, its national and local sub-committees, Managing
Authorities and local partners
A national ESI Funds Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) has been established in England. It is
the PMC for the Operational Programmes for the ERDF and the ESF in England and is known as the
ESI Funds Growth Programme Board (GPB).
The EAFRD PMC will be the PMC for EAFRD funds within the European Growth Programme.
The GPB is chaired by a representative of the Managing Authorities, who also provide the Secretariat.
The membership of the GPB is drawn from representatives of a wide range of partners across the public,
private, business, social, voluntary and environmental sectors.
The GPB is supported by a number of sub-committees advising it on relevant policy and operational
matters. These sub-committees, which will provide supporting advice in specific policy areas such as
innovation, skills and aspects of implementation, will bring in leading experts from their fields and provide
an important resource for the GPB and ESI Funds Growth Programme.
All sub-committees will report to the GPB, to ensure transparency of proceedings. The GPB will not
delegate decisions to these national sub-committees though their advice will be important in informing
the GPB’s perspective, advice and decisions.
The Managing Authorities will work in partnership with economic, environmental, equality, social and civil
society partners at national, regional and local levels throughout the programme cycle, consisting of
preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
At the local level, ESI Funds sub-committees have been set up in each Local Enterprise Partnership
area. These local sub-committees in each Local Enterprise Partnership area will operate as subcommittees of the GPB, to whom they will report. Local promotion of ESI Funds projects and their impact
will be a priority, as will local leadership of this amongst partners. This will complement the functions of
the Managing Authority but not substitute for them.
74
Each Local ESI Funds sub-committee is therefore chaired by a local partner who, along with other
members drawn from business, public, environmental, voluntary and civil society sectors, are advocates
for the opportunities and impact of the ESI Funds. Membership of these sub-committees is inclusive and
in line with EU regulations and the wide scope of ESI Funds priorities. The Managing Authority is the
Deputy Chair of the local ESI Funds sub-committee, except in London.
The role and purpose of these Local ESI Funds sub-committees is clearly defined in Terms of Reference
published on GOV.UK28. They are not responsible for any tasks set out in EU regulations for which
Managing Authorities are responsible in relation to management of the ESI Funds.
The local sub-committees :
•
Provide advice to the Managing Authorities on local development needs and opportunities to
inform Operational Programmes and ESI Funds Strategies;
•
Work with sectors and organisations they represent so that they engage with and understand the
opportunities provided by the ESI Funds to support Operational Programme objectives and local
economic growth;
•
Promote active participation amongst local economic, environmental and social partners to help
bring forward activities which meets local needs in line with the Operational Programmes and
local ESI Funds strategies and Implementation plans;
•
Provide practical advice and information to the Managing Authorities to assist in the preparation
of local plans that contribute towards Operational Programme priorities and targets. Similarly,
provide local intelligence to the Managing Authorities in the development of project calls decided
by the Managing Authorities that reflect Operational Programme and local development needs as
well as match funding opportunities;
•
Provide advice on local economic growth conditions and opportunities within the context of
Operational Programmes and the local ESI Funds Strategy to aid the managing authority’s
assessment at outline and full application stage;
•
Contribute advice, local knowledge and understanding to the Managing Authority to aid good
delivery against spend, milestones, cross-cutting themes, outputs and results set out in the
Operational Programme and local ESI Funds strategies.
In this way partners at local level will play the important role foreseen in the Common Provisions
Regulation and the main principles and good practices set out in the European Code of Conduct on
Partnership. Managing Authorities will ensure that partner roles and responsibilities are clearly set out at
all levels and that conflicts of interest are avoided.
Where specific Managing Authority functions are designated to an Intermediate Body, that body will seek
advice from the relevant LEP area ESI Funds sub-committee in the same way as the Managing Authority
would. The LEP area ESI Funds sub-committee will therefore provide advice to the Intermediate Body
and/or the Managing Authorities as appropriate and as set out in the written agreement with the
Intermediate Body.
Technical Assistance
6.33 Enterprise M3 together with a local partnership has put a bid (under both ESF and ERDF
programme) in for technical assistance (TA) funding. It is our expectation that we will be
able to use TA to the value of 2% of our notional allocation for these purposes and are
proceeding on this basis. We are developing a proposition as to how this could be used to
support the operation of the ESIF programme, and allow us to develop our own in depth
expertise.
28
The Terms of Reference for the Growth Programme Board can be found on the following web page:
https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/growth-programme-board
75
6.34 Our current plan is to develop a service which will support both our governance structure and
the project application and delivery processes. This will need to be carefully shaped to prevent
duplication of opt-in organisation work and MA functions. We will continue to hone our plans,
taking account of guidance from the MA’s, over the coming months.
Risk Management
6.35 We recognise that the distribution and management of EU funding carries inherent risk. We
therefore propose to incorporate effective risk management into the development of our own
programme management structures and delivery prospectuses, as well as the project appraisal
methodology used to assess applications for funds. We will ask the EMG to make a judgment
based on the risks of each proposed project and the suggested mitigation for these risks. We
will take a proportionate approach to risk management based on the size of the funding
package available. We will not recommend for a project to receive funding under this
programme until we are satisfied that risk has been appropriately assessed by the MA’s and
until the EMG is satisfied that appropriate measures have been put in place to limit the
likelihood of risks occurring.
76
State Aid
6.36 We have been mindful of EU state aid regulations when developing this strategy and will
continue to be so as we move towards delivery. Wherever possible we have designed our
interventions so that they will not constitute state aid under the definition set out within
Article107(1) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. Where interventions do
constitute state aid, we will work with and seek advice from DCLG to ensure that interventions
are designed in such a way as to fall within the exemptions set out within the regulations,
particularly the de minimis and General Block Exemption Regulations (GBER).
6.37 In all cases we will comply with all reporting and notification requirements as set out within the
Government’s State Aid Guide along with relevant EC guidance. This will allow us to rely on
existing expertise around state aid when shaping the detail of our programme.
Compliance with wider EU Regulations
6.38 In addition to the above, we are aware of a number of other EU regulatory matters that we will
need to take into account whilst managing this programme. This will require a familiarity with
the Common Strategic Framework and the content of specific Regulations relating to ERDF,
ESF and EAFRD. We will, at the same time, need to ensure that we are clear on the content
and meaning of the Operation Programme/s which are ultimately agreed between the UK and
EU as part of the National Partnership Agreement.
6.39 As well as programme level regulation, we will also have regard to applicable general
regulation around issues such as procurement – this will particularly apply with our planned
Technical Assistance provision and will be an important part of arrangements with our opt-in
partners.
6.40 Wider compliance with relevant regulations will also be undertaken by our EU Mechanics
Group, taking advice from DCLG to ensure we make the most of existing expertise.
77
6.41 EMG and the structure of Enterprise M3
Further Consultations
6.24 In addition to the consultations that have been already mentioned, other consultations that have
taken place are listed below:
•
The officers at Surrey and Hampshire County Council, along with those of the District and
Borough councils represented by the LEP have actively been involved throughout with the
78
testing and refinement of ideas + mechanics group.
•
Local Authority European officers have been consulted on an ongoing basis as well as and
the involvement of Southern England Local Partners, who have produced a report
detailing the link between Enterprise M3’s priorities and those of the EU29.
•
Around social inclusion and the involvement of the not-for-profit sector, we have held a
workshop with not -for-profit and business representatives (60 people attended) hosted by
IBM and follow up 1:1 discussions with Community Action Hampshire and Community
Action Surrey. We have also undertaken ongoing and focused discussions with not-forprofit and local authority partners around how our social inclusion programme develops.
•
Discussions with both National Parks – together and separately.
•
Discussions with Surrey and Hampshire Local Nature Partnerships on priorities for
investment.
•
Discussions with the Rural and Broadband Action Group on priority areas – the group
includes rural businesses, CLA, LAs, National Parks, FE. These discussions will continue
beyond the end of January, as agreed with Defra following the allocation of EAFRD
funding in December 2013.
•
The involvement of tourism operators and Tourism SE and an extensive review of the
Visitor Economy.
•
Discussions with trade union who are keen to see effective stakeholder consultation,
considering the needs of the families of the workforce (i.e. housing, transport quality of life
issues) and employer ownership of skills (Union Learn are keen to engage).
A full list of stakeholders engaged with in the preparation of this draft strategy can be found
within Annex B.
6.25 The LEP board and its action groups have played a key role in the shaping and development of
EU priorities offering advice, support and feedback.
Approach to Securing Provision
6.26 In order to ensure any programmes we commission are of sufficient ‘scale’ for the Managing
Authorities to deal with, we will adopt a strategic programme management (rather than project
management) approach. This will necessitate us using a range of tools (such as ‘bundling’
projects, collaborative commissioning etc.) to ensure projects are of sufficient scale to be
handled by the Managing Authorities. In addition to the above, we will use a variety of
approaches to commissioning projects (including commissioning, competitions, procurement
etc.), ensuring compliance with EU procurement rules at all times link with appropriate audit
teams etc.
6.27 Our approach to securing project provision is to ensure that we help bring about delivery which
is clearly relevant to local need; offers genuine additionality and value for money; and delivers
the appropriate outputs and impact. In order to do this we will look to develop a mixed market of
open calls for projects and much more tightly-focused, commissioned pieces of work to address
particular opportunities or challenges.
6.28 At the same time, we will be mindful of the logistics of programme and project management
post-award, ensuring for example that any work we seek to secure is of sufficient ‘scale’ for the
Managing Authorities to effectively manage. We will adopt a strategic programme level
management (rather than project level management) approach. This might necessitate us using
a range of mechanisms (such as ‘bundling’ projects and collaborative commissioning where
applicable.
6.29 As regards the mechanics of procuring work at project level, this can be broken into two
29
‘A European Strategy for Growth for Enterprise M3 LEP’ SELP, 27 February 2013
79
elements. We will be working with opt-in partners to develop joint approaches, which are
suitable for our purposes. Where provision does not involve an opt-in partner, we will use a
variety of approaches to secure and award project provision (including commissioning,
competitions and procurement) compliant with EU procurement rules at all times and which
make appropriate links with relevant audit teams.
Collaboration with other Local Enterprise Partnerships
6.30 As far as collaborative commissioning across LEPs is concerned, our structure will also enable
a Cross-LEP Investment and Programme Management for collaborative commissioning. These
discussions are on-going with the GTV6LEPs and others. GTV6LEP is a Consortium of six
Local Enterprise Partnerships in the South East of England that have come together to develop
a common approach to delivering EU Structural Fund Investment Priorities. The LEPs
represented in the GTV6LEP Consortium are Buckinghamshire Thames Valley LEP; Coast to
Capital LEP; Enterprise M3 LEP; Hertfordshire LEP; Oxfordshire LEP; and Thames Valley
Berkshire LEP.
6.31 The six local LEPs in the GTV6 Consortium have worked together to explore possible areas for
collaboration both with regard to industrial and growth strategy, and in relation to operational
and delivery methods. Research has confirmed potential for joint or linked actions, and for
efficient programme oversight and monitoring. Through this consortium, we have identified a
number of potential opportunities to collaborate on alignment, lobbying and joint
commissioning including sector development and access to finance.
6.32 However, given the number of LEPs involved and the evolving nature of key priorities and
strategic goals, we need to first identify what our respective priorities are, before being able to
identify areas for possible collaboration. The GTV6 LEPs have met several times since
October, most recently in January following the completion of draft Strategic Economic Plans,
and we have identified several sector areas such as digital media, film and exploitation of 5G
technologies were collaboration may be possible. As we finalise our Strategic Economic Plans
areas for collaboration will become clearer.
6.33 In addition to working with the GTV6LEP, we envisage a number of other partnerships that will
be important to us moving forward (see table).
LEP
Joint working to date / Potential Areas of Interest
Solent
LEP
We have attended consultation events and identified areas for collaboration around
priority sectors such as aerospace and rural activities where we share Local Action
Groups that cross LEP boundaries. We also have common priorities around skills and
will need to work together where colleges/universities serve both LEPs such as with
University of Southampton and Brockenhurst College in the New Forest.
Coast to
Capital
LEP
(GTV6)-
We have attended consultation events and identified areas for collaboration around
exporting and rural activities where we are both working with South Downs National
Park. We are sharing our work on skills and trying to align our skills strategies through
working with the Surrey Employment and Skills Board. Chichester college (located in
Coast to Capital area) are currently delivering a £2m Skills for Work ESF programme in
our area).
Thames
Valley
Berkshire
LEP
(GTV6)
Already working closely with TV Berks LEP on issues around aviation and Heathrow.
We are working with Thames Valley and London LEP on an ESF skills project with the
Heathrow Academy that has successfully developed skills solutions for people living in
the Spelthorne BC area. We are exploring possibility of working closely with Thames
Valley and Coast to Capital on access to finance as all 3 of us have plans to deliver an
expansion/equity fund funded through Growing Places. The total value of this current
fund would be approximately £17m and could be matched against EU funds.
80
London
Enterprise
Panel –
We have commenced a dialogue with the London Enterprise Panel on areas of joint
opportunity. Other GTV6 members have also been involved in these discussions and
we have identified potential opportunities to complement activity within London
specifically around innovation in key sectors.
West of
England,
Heart of
the SW,
Solent
LEP
Working with LEPs and universities within SETsquared partnership (Bath,
Bristol, Exeter, Surrey and Southampton) on sector collaborations around open
innovation and particular sectors.
Dorset
LEP
We have held initial conversations with Dorset LEP around potential areas for
collaboration and attended the SELP conference in Poole on 4 October 2013.
6.34 Enterprise M3 LEP is committed to exploring all avenues to obtain best value for money from
deployment of EU funds, and will use this is the main criterion for deciding when and how to
work across our borders during the 2014-2020 programme.
Match funding
6.35 We see the need to match out ESIF notional allocation as both an opportunity and a challenge.
It is an opportunity to lever and use local and national resource in a new way and to involve
parties not traditionally involved in EU programme delivery. At the same time there is risk
involved and we do not underestimate the complexity of finding compliant match.
6.36 Pending developments over the coming months what we are in the process of developing an
approach which starts building match funding from three types of sources:
• Opt-in providers (as described above)
• Project applicants’ own resources – typically “local” match
• “third party” match from national programmes or other clean sources
We feel confident that we can develop this work with the help of both the EU Mechanics
Group and Technical Assistance in such a way that we are able to identify, secure and
subsequently capture/record eligible match funding at a mixture of programme and project
level over the lifetime of the programme.
81
7.
Cross-cutting Themes – Sustainability and Equalities and Social
Innovation
Rationale
7.28 Many visitors to the area are attracted by our natural including the New Forest National Park,
the South Downs National Park, the river Thames, the Surrey Hills AONB or our extensive
woodland or greenbelt areas. Two fundamental drivers of change will be climate change and
continuing population growth within southern England, which in turn will lead to complex social,
economic and environmental interactions and anticipated increases in tourism recreational
pressure. The New Forest National Park alone is visited by 13.5 million visitors every year. It is
important we preserve and protect these habitats and landscapes to maintaining local
distinctiveness. We will achieve this partly through working with Local Nature Partnerships.
7.29 The South East of England will be disproportionately affected by climate change, particularly
with regards to water scarcity. Climate change is already destabilising the economy and food
production. Future restraints on water supply pose risks to local communities, agriculture and
the environment. This means actions must be taken to prevent and adapt to climate change by
reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and requiring the inclusion of water efficiency measures to
reduce water consumption.
7.30 Our priority sectors and global transport infrastructure also place immense pressure on the
environment resulting in high per capita energy usage and energy consumption. The strategy
therefore places great important on applying the principles of sustainable development in our
activities.
Commitment to Promoting Sustainable Development
7.31 Sustainable development is a key principle of our strategy and we recognise its significance as
a key component of our continued economic competitiveness and social well-being. It is also
recognised as a source of significant economic opportunities over the coming years –
investment in sustainable development will help to make businesses we work with more resilient
in coming years. Enterprise M3 is committed to ensuring that sustainable development is
embedded within all projects – it will form a principal consideration in the application and
approvals process and subsequent implementation. Enterprise M3 project development,
selection and appraisal criteria will include sustainable development requirements and targets.
Successful applicants will be required to monitor and manage their sustainable development
performance. Performance in this area will be evaluated and all project will be required to
complete a sustainable development risk review to ensure that appropriate measures/mitigating
actions are being taken consciously from the outset.
7.32 All applicants will be actively supported to address sustainable development through local
guidance and assistance. For instance we intend to use case studies of exemplar local
businesses who have flourished through the adoption of sustainable development practice.
This, it is anticipated, will help engage participants and board members alike. We will also
explore the possibility of using environmental champions to assist in embedding, supporting and
maintaining progress against the sustainable development cross cutting theme objectives.
Champions could use a range of techniques to embed good practice from advice and guidance
to good practice and project applicant surgeries.
7.33 There is a strong emphasis on sustainable and low carbon development in the sustainable
infrastructure theme with activities focused on smart transport and a shift towards a low carbon
economy through the development of goods and services relating to the natural environment.
82
Objectives
7.34 Our objectives for this cross cutting theme build on some of the work led by Surrey and
Hampshire Climate Change Partnerships. We have not opted to allocate monies to thematic
objectives five and six (Climate Change Adaption and Environmental Protection) as the annual
allocations would be spread too thinly to be effective. Instead our approach is to mainstream
sustainable development practice in a robust manner offering advice and support across the
programme. They include measures to:
•
•
•
Reduce emissions by:
o Promoting sustainable and low carbon development principles across all of our
activities including the use of the Code for Sustainable Homes BREEAM targets
and CEEQUAL30, for new developments;
o Providing practical advice for all projects including skills and employment activities;
o Encouraging energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions by businesses and
communities;
o Take issues around sustainable development into account within project appraisal.
Adapt to climate change by:
o Protecting and enhancing natural and built environments preserving our distinctive
sense of place. This includes non-intrusive integration of new development, the
sustainable management of visitors to the area and the promotion of renewable
and low carbon technologies;
o Encourage development and investment that is resilient in the face climate change
and stimulate resource efficiency amongst our local businesses (this is a particular
priority for the two Counties given the recent floods (December 2013 and January
2014);
o Support investment and development that helps to manage the environmental
impacts of travel and transport addressing congestion and promoting smarter travel
(dovetailing our capital transport investment programmes).
Raise awareness of the issue amongst board members, companies, partners and
applicants and highlight some of the practical support that is available.
Commitment
to
Promoting
Equality
and
Combating
Discrimination
Rationale: Social Inclusion
7.35 Although Hampshire and Surrey are some of the least deprived counties in England there are
pockets of significant deprivation within Enterprise M3. The geographic area covered by
Enterprise M3 is comparatively wealthy compared with national statistics and has only 6 (5 in
Hampshire and 1 in Surrey), out of over 1,000 super output areas that rank amongst the lowest
20% in the country.
7.36 Although Surrey is a prosperous county there are at least 23,090 children (under the age o f
20) living in poverty. Hampshire is ranked the tenth least deprived principal authority in England
(out of 150) with Hart district the least deprived of all local authorities in England (out of 326).
Deprivation in Hampshire is most concentrated in a small number of neighbourhoods with
pockets of very localised deprivation across the county e.g. in Aldershot, Andover, Basingstoke
and Blackfield and Holbury in New Forest.
7.37 Skills levels among Hampshire’s adult population are generally higher than the national average
– but there are fewer highly qualified people in Hampshire compared to Berkshire (5% lower)
and Surrey (10% lower).
30
BREEAM is an environmental assessment method and rating system for buildings and CEEQUAL is the sustainability assessment, rating and
awards
scheme for civil engineering
83
7.38 Overall the picture masks significant variations and social inclusion needs such as low income,
poor skills attainment and education deprivation exist in several urban areas such as Alton,
Andover, Basingstoke, Borden, New Milton, Rushmoor and Winchester. For example, in
Rushmoor social cohesion challenges range from: levels of migration and demands for better
integration, English speaking and communication difficulties in particular with older and more
vulnerable people, social housing and overcrowding problems and low attainment / grades in
education.
7.39 Other key contributors to social exclusion (relevant to Enterprise M3) are highlighted in the
following boxes.
•
•
•
•
Elderly population
An increasing older population; rising numbers of older and vulnerable people living alone
raise concerns over their health and the impact on access to care and support. For
example, in Hampshire out of a population on 1.32M people the population shows an
increasing proportion of older people with 18.5% of the population aged 65 and over
compared to 17.2% regionally and 16.3% nationally. Yet the age structure varies
significantly across the districts with an average age of 47 years in the New Forest and
36% in Rushmoor.
Hampshire’s partnership strategy – Ageing Well in Hampshire Older People’s Well-Being
(April 2011-March 2014) identifies ‘tackling social isolation and loneliness’ as a key
objective. In Surrey, there is a higher proportion of older people compared to England
with the number of people aged 85 and over will double to 69,000 by 2033. Surrey also
has over 4,000 people over 65 years with learning disabilities and 15,100 people have
dementia in Surrey with 32% of carers working more than 20 hours per week.
In addition, 10% of Surrey’s population aged 60 years and above live in low income
households; a very high proportion in Woking and Runnymede.
Reliance on car-based transport within Enterprise M3 means that access and road
infrastructure is particularly important for older and disabled residents who have a high
dependency on use of cars and those without can be left isolated.
Vulnerable groups
• Within the Enterprise M3 area there are an increasing number of vulnerable population
groups such as young people (aged 20-24), working age men/JSA claimants, disabled
residents and women lone parents. In addition, the 2011 census found that 26.7% of
households across Hampshire were single person households and almost half were
pensioner households.
• Within the Enterprise M3 area disabled young people have significantly higher rates of
young people not in education, employment or training – and people with low skills are
increasingly at risk of unemployment and relative poverty with knock-on effects to their
health and wellbeing. Children and young people with disabilities are a particularly
vulnerable group in society – and likely to increase over next 10 years. For example, in
Surrey there are an estimated 2,000-3,000 children and young people with a disability who
do not access any social care, education or health support services.
• Rising numbers of older and vulnerable people living alone raises concerns over their
health and the impact on access to care and support for these groups. Around half of
elderly households in Hampshire are reliant on support. The physical environment is an
important influence on health.
Health and wellbeing
• Deprivation, poverty and socio-economic disadvantage are associated with poor health
outcomes. Surrey has the 2nd highest rate for increasing risk drinking in England and
smoking is the single most important cause of early death and ill health. For Surrey
84
•
•
•
supporting communities and encouraging people to improve their health and wellbeing is
central. Gaps still exist in knowledge about the needs of children, young people and their
families – it will be important to encourage more efficient data collection and sharing to
help develop a more holistic picture and better understanding of those needs.
Lifestyle programmes to change unhealthy behaviours will reduce demand on health and
social care. For example, in Surrey around 31% eat the minimum of five fruit and
vegetables per day (slightly higher than the 2010 average for England at 26.7%). The
economic situation is an important influence on population health.
Unemployment within Enterprise M3 is primarily concentrated in Basingstoke Town and
Rushmoor (Heron Wood and Mayfield areas).
Improving education attainment and skills is a top priority within Enterprise M3. A key
challenge is in deprived areas for example, Rushmoor has the 3rd lowest GCSE results in
Hampshire (11th worst in the UK) – with 13% or 1,400 of school children in Rushmoor
eligible for free school meals which is an indication of economic disadvantage as eligibility
for free school meals is based on levels of income. Poor educational attainment makes it
harder for young people to find employment.
Diversity and migration
• In terms of diversity and migration, for example, ethnic diversity is gradually increasing
across Hampshire although the population remains predominantly white British. Asian
ethnic groups make up the largest non-white categories in Hampshire, the South East and
across England. Rushmoor has the largest non-white population at 15.3% (up from 4.4%
in 2001) – mostly due to a growing Nepalese population due to a rapid immigration on exGhurkha soldiers and dependents following legislative changes giving them the right to
settle in the UK. Rushmoor is less cohesive than England as a whole for example, only
66% of Rushmoor’s residents agreed that Rushmoor was a place where people from
different backgrounds get on well together (329 out 352 local authorities 2008 Place
national survey).
• 23% of Hampshire’s population live in the 85% of the county classified as rural while 77%
live in the 15% categorised as urban.
Narrowing the gap
• Across Enterprise M3 it will be important to narrow the gap between the most and least
deprived areas. For example, Rushmoor is seeking to make employment, training
opportunities accessible (including the under-represented, disengaged and vulnerable
individuals and groups.
85
Social Innovation
7.10 This new development in the Structural Funds will be fully embraced by Enterprise M3. The
Guide to Social Innovation highlights the principles of simplification and integration. While
further guidance on social innovation have yet to be established, the approach offers new ways
of working which will suit the diverse needs of communities within Enterprise M3 – in urban,
suburban and rural areas, and market towns.
7.11 Working with its stakeholders across public, private and not-for-profit sectors, Enterprise M3
wants to encourage mechanisms that build the capacity of social enterprises (addressing the
issues of social exclusion) and facilitate a supportive business environment for them across the
Enterprise M3 area. Enterprise M3 believes by supporting the increased capacity of social
enterprises, the LEP will not only address the key causes of poverty and social exclusion within
the area but that this will help support our economic growth objectives and vision. “Social
enterprises have a higher start up rate, faster growth and are delivering more sustainable local
jobs than other businesses. In addition they add significant social value, operating in some of
the more deprived areas, something that will be important with the new European structural
funds.” (The People’s Business - State of Social Enterprise Survey 2013
– Social Enterprise UK).
7.12 The justification and rationale for this is twofold:
•
There are persistent social needs in parts of the Enterprise M3 area including pockets of
urban and rural deprivation, an ageing workforce and some youth disengagement from the
labour market and changing ethnicity and increasing dependency;
•
The presence of a vibrant and experienced not-for-profit sector and other assets (see box).
Building on existing assets
• Utilising the extensive volunteering community (for example, over 20,000 people volunteer
and there are over 3,000 charities and thousands of voluntary groups in Surrey) will have
significant benefits. In Hampshire, whilst estimating the scale of the voluntary and
community sector (VCS) is not an easy task, the 2009 RAISE (Regional Action and
Involvement South East) estimated that there are over 7,000 voluntary and community
organisations operating in Hampshire. It is estimated that over 51,000 people are
employed in the sector in Hampshire with over 111,000 volunteers. Of this work force it is
estimated that 71% are women and 74% are part-time workers. This sector has a
significant role in the labour market, not least as a vehicle for moving people towards
permanent full-time work. It is also crucial in supporting the areas’ quality of life and
contributing to many social, economic and environmental issues such as helping people to
take greater control of their health and can help people manage long-term conditions.
• It is important to recognise the area’s assets that can help Hampshire and Surrey meet its
social inclusion needs and that have an impact on people’s general health and wellbeing.
• Making use of those assets for example, some of England’s finest parks, woodlands and
open spaces will be critically important.
86
7.13
7.14
Our early potential ideas for social innovation (drawn up by the not-for-profit sector) include:
•
A service that will link into existing successful community development and social
enterprise and inclusion models.
•
A brokerage role signposting to all services available for unemployed people, plus a
programme of cross-sector mentoring & education.
•
A new service to tap into local knowledge of the not-for-profit sector to support funding
bids and business development, e.g. fulfilling the Social Value Act. This service could act
as a mechanism to link up and inspire good ideas, consortia and partnerships.
•
A new service to raise awareness of finance products in particular the growing social and
peer-to-peer lending platforms.
A ground-breaking MOU has been signed between Enterprise M3, Community Action
Hampshire (CAH) and Surrey Community Action (SCA) aimed at promoting social enterprise,
delivering better communications across Enterprise M3 and not-for-profit stakeholder
communities, encouraging the sharing of ideas and improving mutual understanding and
accountability. Enterprise M3 has consulted local authorities to better understand economic
and social inclusion programmes within the area. It has utilised research provided by
organisations such as Hampshire and Surrey County Councils and CAH to form a baseline
picture of priority SI needs.
Approach to Rural Development:
Development (EAFRD)
Enterprise M3
Total England (LEP
areas)
7.15
the
European
Agricultural
Fund
Total EAFRD allocation in
Indicative Sterling
Euros (€s)
€4,430,352
equivalent (£s)
£3,547,355
€221,058,333
£177,000,000
for
Rural
A significant part of the Enterprise M3 area is rural, with a diversified economy in market towns
and villages. The outstanding landscapes within the area are recognised in the New Forest
and South Downs national parks, which cover a quarter (26%) of the LEP area. Consequently,
the rural economy has a stronger emphasis on environment assets and tourism industries.
Within this geography, the evidence gathered to support this submission demonstrates that:
• The Enterprise M3 area is home to a large number of micro businesses and small and
medium sized enterprises (73,745 businesses employing less than 249 people, ONS – 2011)
• The visitor economy is a strong driver of local economic growth and supports 8.37% of all
employment. It can further support rural regeneration and growth.
• Although Enterprise M3 is doing better economically in comparison with England as a whole,
rural towns and their fringe areas including villages and hamlets are more likely than their
urban counterparts to have no adult in employment.
• In rural areas, access to services is more difficult due to greater distances, and high car
dependency.
• Slow or absent broadband and mobile phone signal is a major problem in rural areas.
87
7.16
For Enterprise M3, £3.5 million of European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
funding has been allocated to the area for 2014-2020. EAFRD is aimed at developing
business and skills in rural areas and can be used to contribute to four main areas of activity.
As part of the development of the European Structural and Investment Fund Strategy in January
2014, an extensive economic review was undertaken to inform the investment priorities for the
rural area. The Enterprise M3 Rural Action Group was consulted to inform the key priorities and
their rationale were as follows – these are not in priority order
1). Deployment and development of low carbon technologies and renewable energy.
Enterprise M3 is keen to support the shift towards a low carbon economy in all sectors and
building the market in low carbon environmental technologies, goods and services. Analysis has
identified that we have clusters of business that are already operating in this marketplace and
who could develop further. As the area also needs to develop much more housing, Enterprise
M3 is keen to develop and advocate low carbon technologies in construction. Due to the large
amount of woodland across Enterprise M3, activities focused on woodland management and
renewable energy also plays to our strengths
2). Exploitation of broadband technologies
Whilst broadband infrastructure continues to be developed, the Enterprise M3 economy will only
benefit from the impact of the infrastructure if businesses adopt and use the technology
effectively. For businesses that have not had access to new technology in the past, awareness
of the opportunities that it can provide is sometimes overlooked. Businesses may also have to
exploit alternative broadband technologies if current BDUK activity does not provide adequate
coverage to all locations. It is predicted that 95% of all locations will have coverage by end 2016
but the last 5% is anticipated to be in primarily rural locations.
3). Agricultural diversification
Supporting long term sustainable agriculture is a priority. The modernisation of farming and
improving agricultural competiveness is critical to ensure the productivity and longevity of the
sector. Improvements in agricultural techniques will also be required to meet the increasing
demands for food from a growing population.
4). Strategic projects that are designed to have a significant impact on the Enterprise M3
economy and complement work of Local Action Groups/other funding streams
The diversity of the rural economy in Enterprise M3 is a key driver of its success. The rural area
supports a large number of small and micro businesses often working in non- agricultural
activities i.e. digital entrepreneurs working in barn style rural conversions. A further example
includes the development of the Pirbright based animal health incubator which is an important
and growing Enterprise M3 niche sector and which could support supply chain SME
development.
5). Affordable housing
The availability of affordable housing is critical for the Enterprise M3 area and recognised by
business as crucial to supporting labour mobility and recruitment. This is true for both urban and
rural locations.
6). Development of the rural and visitor economy.
The estimated value of the visitor economy within Enterprise M3 is £2.66bn supporting over
61,000 jobs. Enterprise M3 has 2 national parks situated within its geography along with the
Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Destination management plans are not
required, neither is the development of visitor accommodation. However, ongoing investment in
visitor attractions and facilities is required to ensure the area can compete nationally and
internationally and to take advantage of the area’s close proximity to the London market
7). Enhancement of food (including drink) and farming businesses
Whilst not a key sector for Enterprise M3 overall, food and drink is massively significant for the
rural economy and therefore needs to be considered a priority sector within our rural landscape.
The area both hosts large scale manufacturers e.g. Vitacress, Hildon Water and over 600 food
88
and drink producers. Development of food and drink links to the visitor economy and therefore
provides a complementary approach, particularly with respect to the growing importance of
provenance for consumers. Our area is also home to a powerful science/academic community
that may be able to link food production and food science to matters regarding production,
productivity, crop resilience amongst others
SUPPORTING RURAL PRIORITIES UNDER WHICH SCHEME
As the amount of EAFRD is limited, other funds is thought to be used to complement the EAFRD funding
in Enterprise M3 area. Specifically, the existing Rural Broadband Loan scheme, funded from our
Growing Enterprise Fund, which is to be used to support the mechanisms for broadband enablement
and connectivity, and a proportion of the £8m Enterprise M3 has allocated towards skills development
across the LEP area, which is to be specifically focused on rural areas. By focusing the funding where it
is most needed, we will be able to concentrate the funding into a smaller number of high level activities
which will have a significant impact on the rural economy including job creation, business start ups and
increases in GVA per head through improved productivity
Rural priority area
1
Potential funding stream
Deployment and development of low carbon
technologies and renewable energy
EU/ERDF- low carbon. £4.2m available
2
Exploitation of broadband technologies
EU/EAFRD
3
Agricultural diversification
EU/EAFRD
4
Strategic projects that provide significant impact
on the Enterprise M3 economy
EU/EAFRD
5
Affordable housing
Local Growth Deal
6
Development of the rural and visitor economy
EU- EAFRD
7
Enhancement of food and drink businesses
EU – EAFRD
Local Growth Deal – woodfuel hub
project, £2m secured
Therefore, there are five rural priority areas proposed for Enterprise M3 that will be supported by
EAFRD. `
These are:
- Exploitation of broadband technologies
For broadband, DEFRA have indicated that grants for rural broadband via EAFRD are not currently
available in 2015. This arises as the phase 2 rollout of the BDUK superfast programme is still underway
and the final 5% hardest to reach areas on which EAFRD funds could be used cannot yet be defined.
The outcome of this work along with EU state aid clearance to the UK’s national broadband scheme
beyond June 2015 will influence how EAFRD funds can be used to support rural broadband from 2016
onwards. Phase 3 of the BDUK programme is also exploring how to extend superfast broadband into
the final 5% hardest to reach areas. Seven pilot projects in a range of locations are now testing a
number of solutions suitable for rolling out in these areas. The findings from these trials will be published
later this year.
- Agricultural diversification
For agricultural diversification, DEFRA are not planning to issue any calls under this heading in 2015 and
further work is required to identify the specific priorities within this area. It is important to note also that
89
some priorities might best be supported under the Countryside Productivity Scheme rather than EAFRD.
Strategic projects that provide significant impact on the Enterprise M3 economy with support investments
to develop micro and small rural businesses.
Enterprise M3 has a large number of small and micro rural businesses. These businesses
cover a variety of different sectors often not linked to agriculture such as digital
entrepreneurs working in a rural office base.
This investment priority will provide support for micro and small-sized businesses seeking to expand
and create jobs.
Examples of support include:
• Investment in equipment, technologies or processes to develop new or higher quality
products
• Farm diversification activities that will create business growth and new markets
• Construction and development of workshops, factories and machinery.
EAFRD Grants will be available for this call from ££50k up to €200,000 (approximately £140,000).
State aid rules will apply which may affect the amount of grant offered.
-
Development of the rural and visitor economy
The estimated value of the visitor economy within Enterprise M3 is £2.66bn supporting over 61,000 jobs.
The sector employs proportionately more people within Enterprise M3 than in the rest of the country.
Over a quarter of the land is located within two national parks. These are the New Forest National Park
and the South Downs National Park. The area also contains the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty that covers over a quarter of the county of Surrey. Hampshire is popular with visitors and
it is the second most visited county in England.
Whilst the proximity to London provides a potential market for Enterprise M3, it also results in the area
being in competition with the visitor offer in London. Enterprise M3s ESIF strategy identifies the need for
investment in visitor attractions to support growth of the tourism sector.
People visit the area to enjoy the natural environment, including the national parks, woodland and green
spaces. Applications that improve or enhance the visitor experience of the natural environment are a
priority for this call. This call will not fund destination plans or new or existing visitor accommodation.
Applications will be invited that contribute strongly to the growth of the tourism sector in the rural areas of
Enterprise M3 with activities that:
• develop new rural visitor or tourism attractions and facilities; or
• enhance current rural visitor attractions and facilities to improve their offer and attract more
visitors.
With examples that include:
•
•
Visitor attractions that include niche products and services, that encourage visitor to stay longer
and spend more, for example by turning day visits in overnight stays
Visitor attractions that focus on the natural environment.
EAFRD Grants will be available for this call from £50k up to €200,000 (approximately £140,000). State
aid rules will apply which may affect the amount of grant offered.
-
Enhancement of food and drink businesses
By Improving competitiveness of food and drink producers by better integrating them into the agri-food
chain through quality schemes, adding value to agricultural products, promotion in local markets and
short supply circuits, producer groups and inter-branch organisations
90
ANNEXES
ANNEX A – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND RESEARCH
In developing this strategy, we have undertaken a large amount of research. This includes
independent research conducted by the team who have developed this document, along with a whole
host of additional reports produced by or for Enterprise M3 or for others. The list below outlines the
various reports that have been drawn upon to develop the evidence base and activities contained
within this document.
Enterprise M3 Reports
‘Enterprise M3 Strategy for Growth’ – Enterprise M3 Supported by ICF GHK and in association
with Warwick Economics & Development (May 2013)
Enterprise M3 Innovation Strategy (Draft) – Enterprise M3 (September 2013)
Enterprise M3 Skills & Employment Strategy – Enterprise M3 Supported by Shared Intelligence
(September 2013)
‘Enterprise M3 Commercial Property Market Study’ – A report for Enterprise M3 by its Land &
Property Action Group (April 2013)
‘Enterprise M3 Visitor Economy & Business Tourism’ – Enterprise M3 Business Tourism Action
Group and VisitEngland (August 2013)
‘Enterprise M3 ‘Barriers to Growth’ Business Survey’ – Hampshire Economic Partnership for
Enterprise M3 (2011)
‘Low Carbon and Sustainability Study’ - James Ruel and Gemma Starr (January 2014)
Reports Developed by Other Organisations
‘An Inward Investment Guide to Enterprise M3’ – Local Futures (February 2013)
‘Enterprise M3 Key Sectors: Estimate of the GVA and Productivity Measures of the Enterprise M3
Local Enterprise Partnership (draft v2)’ – Hampshire County Council (July 2013)
‘A European Strategy for Growth for Enterprise M3 LEP’ – Southern England Local Partners
(March 2013)
‘Business Incubation Hubs Options Report’ – Surrey Connects (July 2013)
‘Surrey SME Digital Readiness Survey’ – Surrey Connects and Digital Business Britain (August
2013)
ANNEX B – ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED IN ENTERPRISE M3 CONSULTATION
In the development of this strategy and its supporting documentation, we have engaged with a range
of organisations from across the private, public and not for profit sectors. As the strategy develops,
we will continue with this wide-ranging consultative approach to assist us in refining and developing
our activities and outputs. A list of those organisations consulted with so far is included below:
Local Authorities Hampshire
County Council Surrey
County Council
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
East Hampshire District Council Elmbridge
Borough Council
Guildford Borough Council
Hart District Council
New Forest District Council
Runnymede Borough Council
Rushmoor Borough Council
Spelthorne Borough Council
Surrey Heath Borough Council
Test Valley Borough Council
Waverley Borough Council
Winchester City Council Woking
Borough Council
Higher Education Institutions and Innovation Bodies
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Business Incubators
EEGO
Higher Education Funding Council for England
Royal Holloway, University of London
The SETsquared Partnership
Surrey Research Park Surrey
Space Incubator Technology
Strategy Bureau
University for the Creative Arts
University of Portsmouth
University of Southampton
University of Southampton Science Park
University of Surrey
University of Winchester
Various Angel Investment Networks and Serial Entrepreneurs
Wessex Academic Health Science Network
Winchester School of Art, University of Southampton
Rural /Environmental Partners
Birtley House Group Ltd Carbon
Limiting Technologies Fieldfare
Local Action Group Forestry
Commission
Grown in Britain
1
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Nature Partnership
Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust Loddon
and Eversley Local Action Group Natural Catalyst
Natural England
New Forest Local Action Group, New
Forest National Park Authority
North Wessex Downs Local Action Group
Plains Action Local Action Group,
South Downs National Park Authority
Sowing Seeds Local Action Group,
Surrey and Hampshire Local Nature Partnership
Surrey Hills Local Action Group
Surrey Nature Partnership
Surrey Wildlife Trust Surrey
Rural Partnership
Wessex Rural Farming Network
Businesses and Business Groups
Ambassador Theatre Group Babcock
International Group
Baker Tilly
Basing News
Basingstoke Consortium Ltd
Birtley House Group Ltd
Bourne Group
BP
BSK-CIC
BT
The Business Collective Casterbridge
Property Development Citicentric
Property Consultants Charles Freeman
Projects
Cold Fuzion
Collectively Camberley Ltd
Crest Nicholson
Dale Carnegie Training Damarel
Systems International Dolphin
Group
EA Games
Farnborough Aerospace Consortium
Farnborough International Federation of
Small Business Finance South East
Finnbiz Consultants
Federation of Small Businesses
Hampshire Chamber of Commerce
Hays
HCR
Heathrow Airport Ltd
Herriard Park
Hill McManus
Highways Agency
IBM
Imtech
Institute of Directors
2
Jacobs
JTL
Kendall Cars
Kent Surrey and Sussex Academic Health Science Network
LC Energy Ltd
Mainstream Marketing
Matthews Associates
Menzies LLP
MEPC
Miller Brands
Mustang Oil
NatWest
Network rail
Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd
Operis Construction
Oxford Innovation Services Ltd
Proctor & Gamble
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Profit from Science
QinetiQ
RAISE
SATRO
SEGRO
Seen 2 Help
SFW
Skanska
Sony Professional Solutions Europe
Southampton Airport
South West Trains
Stagecoach Succinct
Solutions
Surrey Chamber of Commerce
The Hampshire Connection The
Maltings
The Real-Time Data Co Ltd
Theatre Royal Winchester
Torqueleader
Traico Ltd
URS
Vectair Systems
Vision Engineering
Vitacress Salads
VitalSix
Wilky Group
Willmott Dixon
Winchester Business Improvement District
Winchester Bourne Ltd
Winchester Chamber of Commerce
WSP UK Ltd
WSX Enterprise
Further Education Colleges and Skills Providers
77 Army Education Centre Group
3
ALPS Partnership Ltd
Aspire Learning and Development Ltd
Association of South East Colleges
Association of Learning Providers in Surrey
Basingstoke College of Technology
Brooklands College
Bohunt School
Brockenhurst College
Career Central CIC
Chichester College East
Surrey College Eastleigh
College
Enlightenment Partnership
Farnborough College of Technology
Guildford College
Insynergi JTL
Training
Learning Links
NIACE
North East Surrey College of Technology
Outsource Training and Development Ltd
PDM Training and Consultancy Ltd Smart
Training and Recruitment
Solent Education Business Partnership
Southampton Engineering Training Association (SETA)
South Downs College
Sparsholt College
Surrey Leader Programme
Surrey Lifelong Learning Partnership
SO2 Transition
TeenTech
The Wimbledon Trepisphere
Totton College
Wote St Employment Bureau
Other Local Enterprise Partnerships
Buckinghamshire Thames Valley Coast to
Capital
Dorset
Heart of South West
Hertfordshire London
Oxfordshire
Thames Valley Berkshire
Solent
West of England
Voluntary and Community Sector
Action for Carers Surrey
Community Action Hampshire
Enham Trust
Enterprise First
Headway Portsmouth
National Council of Voluntary Sector Organisations
4
QEF Mobility Services
RAISE
Rushmoor Healthy Living
The Environment Centre
The Princes Trust
The Shaw Trust
South East Employment Network
Surrey Community Action Voluntary
Support
Other bodies
BIS Local
Communication Workers Union
Department for Transport
Environment Agency
GrowthAccelerator
JobCentre Plus
Kent Surrey and Sussex Academic Health Science Network
Radian Housing Group
SERTUC
South East Local Partners
Surrey Connects
The Big Lottery Fund
The Creative Network
The Department for Work and Pensions
The Ministry of Defence
The Skills Funding Agency
Tourism South East Trades
Union Congress UK Trade &
Investment
ANNEX C – NOTE REGARDING ACCOMPANYING SPREADSHEET
There is a spreadsheet accompanying this document that details the breakdown of funding, match
funding, outputs and results against the activities listed within this strategy.
ANNEX D – LOW CARBON AND SUSTAINABILITY STUDY
A copy of this study follows.
5
LOW CARBON AND SUSTAINABILITY STUDY
JAMES RUEL AND GEMMA STARR
6
Contents
Introduction
3
Background
4
Consultation Activities
5
Baseline and Targets
9
Supporting the shift towards a Low Carbon Economy
in all sectors (Strategic Action 4)
12
Sustainable Development Cross Cutting Theme
18
Match Funding
23
Capital versus Revenue
24
Conclusion
25
Annex A: List of people and organisations consulted
26
Annex B: Agenda for the workshops
27
2
Introduction
This report makes recommendations for the implementation and application of the European Union
Structural Funds within the low carbon economy section of the Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise
Partnership’s European Structural and Investment Fund Strategy (ESIF). It also seeks to provide
suggestions on how to implement the sustainable development cross cutting theme throughout the
strategy, making it an integral part of all activities delivered under the strategy.
This report is the culmination of specific consultation both by phone and subsequently two workshops
held on 2nd December 2013, the first focusing on the Low Carbon Economy and the second on
Sustainable Development. The report is designed to provide the Enterprise M3 LEP with
recommendations and recommended options which have fallen out of this consultation process in
order to inform the final draft of the ESIF which is to be submitted to Government in January 2014.
The report has been compiled by James Ruel and Gemma Starr, two independent consultants
selected by the LEP to conduct this Low
Carbon and Sustainability Study.
3
In March 2013, the Government announced that, for the 2014-2020 funding period, the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and part of the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), would be combined into the European Structural
and Investment Funds Growth Programme for England (the “European Growth Programme”), with the
large majority of funding allocated to Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) areas.
On 27th June 2013, each LEP area was given the level of their allocation of European Structural and
Investment Funds for the full seven-year period of the European Growth Programme1. Allocations for
the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development element were not published at that point and
we understand that these are now expected to be provided to LEPs in mid-December 2013 by the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Each LEP and its partners were then tasked with
setting out how they intend to use this allocation in a European Structural and Investment Funds
Strategy, which should be agreed with Government by early 2014.
Enterprise M3 LEP was allocated €45.7m and submitted its first draft European Structural and
Investment Fund (ESIF) strategy to government on 7th October 2013. This strategy set out the needs
and priorities of the Enterprise M3 area, as well as the broad programme of activity to be undertaken
using this funding. The draft strategy was out for consultation until 29th November and the final
version of the strategy is due for submission to government by the end of January 2014.
Following the completion of the draft strategy, the LEP identified that the low carbon economy
(Strategic Action 4) and the Sustainable Development cross-cutting theme were elements of the
strategy that could be enhanced and the LEP engaged James Ruel and Gemma Starr to carry out a
Low Carbon and Sustainability Study to conduct additional consultation and desk based research to
develop these elements.
The objectives of the Low Carbon and Sustainability Study are as follows:
•
•
To develop the four activities set out in the low carbon economy part of the ESIF Strategic
Action “Supporting the shift towards a Low Carbon Economy in all sectors31
To develop the objectives to reduce emissions and climate change set out in the sustainable
development cross cutting theme ensuring that this activity is embedded into the plan and the
activities of partners.
This involved a series of telephone conversations with key stakeholders proposed by the LEP and
additional contacts suggested in those conversations, this concluded with two workshops held at The
Hilton Hotel, Basingstoke, on Monday 2nd December. The workshops aimed to explore and develop
eligible approaches and activities to deliver both the low carbon and sustainable development
elements of the strategy.
Consultation Activities
In order to compile this report, we have collated, drawn out and developed information given to us from
a number of sources as well as carried out significant research. The LEP provided a list of six contacts
to contact and with whom to develop thoughts and ideas around the two areas. These included the
Local Nature Partnership, Grown in Britain, Natural England and Sparsholt and Basingstoke Colleges
and Southampton University. A full list of those consulted is listed in Annex A.
Telephone interviews:
In order to gain the maximum amount of information from all of these contacts and to expand the
network, telephone interviews were conducted with each of these contacts. These interviews asked
about individual project development ideas as well as the overall bigger picture in terms of the low
carbon economy and sustainable development in the Enterprise M3 area. This included using their
31
Government set out the allocation of the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund in England on the427 June at
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/european-regional-development-fund-and-european-social-fundallocations-2014-to-2020.
knowledge in the sector to find out how they felt the outputs and results within the ESIF could be met
as well as exploring possible sources of match funding.
As timescales were short, many contacts found it easier to discuss their ideas and input via telephone
rather than attend the workshops. With that in mind, we carried out many phone calls with those that
could not attend the workshops as well as all of those who attended.
All contacts were asked the same series of questions including asking them what is currently
happening in the Enterprise M3 area to drive the activities under the low carbon economy heading
forward. Those we consulted with felt that although the number of jobs in the environmental sector
were profiled as growing and the area is continuing to do good work supporting low carbon projects,
that there were key areas within the sector that could benefit from funding which would make a great
impact. These included funding to support the use of Hampshire timber in house building, the use of
wood as fuel, assistance in growing small businesses in the wood chip and wood pellet sector, the
start-up and support of a regional centre for the demonstration and learning of Sustainable, Low
Carbon and Renewable Technologies.
Many of those spoken to on the telephone spoke of the capital / revenue division of the funds and
indicated that this would be crucial for them to know at an early stage. Those who were interested in
capital funds felt that the new jobs created in the low carbon and rural economy and the reduction in
greenhouse gases could be met within these capital projects by providing jobs at the demonstrator
centre itself and ensuring that the building was built in a sustainable manner. This is an area that can
be developed, because although the allocation would suggest that one large project is risky to ensure
that the outputs under this heading are met, there is the option to fund an aspect of this work. For
example, the option for a project to support businesses in learning about these new technologies
through advice, and teach in sessions held at the demonstration centre.
It was felt that there were a lot of potential ‘quick wins’ within the forestry and wood fuel sectors, with a
support of woodland enterprises being one of them. There are many opportunities surrounding this
sector which would not necessarily require a large proportion of the funds, whereby small amounts
would still make a significant difference. This includes a business support project supporting
businesses such as a wood pellet manufacturer in Andover and a sawmill, also in Hampshire. The
opportunity to use large areas of woodland means there is a huge potential in this area. These ideas
are developed further in the Low Carbon Economy section of this report.
5
Workshops:
Two workshops were held on Monday 2nd December, one focused around the low carbon economy
and one focused around sustainable development (Agendas for these events are seen under Annex
B).
The workshops were very much focused on trying to draw out key information from the experts in this
sector. There was therefore a lot of talk around set questions that we had posed to the groups and
then the development around these questions. Due to the time restraints, many of those that were
invited and that we had consulted with over the telephone could not attend, however, they were sent
the agenda and ask to feed in via email or telephone should they have any additional thoughts to
those that we had already discussed with them. Both workshops were extremely fruitful with many
ideas of how to implement the low carbon economy element of the work coming through and ideas of
how to ensure that it did not become a stand-alone item and was in fact integral to the rest of the
programme.
Early in the workshops, the attendees felt that the low carbon economy work could be incorporated
into all aspects of the strategy by having the option of using the funds allocated in this area to award to
projects funded other the other priorities in order to encourage them to contribute to the low carbon
economy. This would ensure that it was not looked at in isolation, but in fact is looked at across all
projects. This could take the form of projects that have been funded consequently applying for an
additional amount to create new jobs in the low carbon and rural economy and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. This would then assist the sustainable development cross cutting theme, ensuring that all
projects are considering these issues early in their planning process with the hope of gaining the
additional funds. These projects could then act as exemplar projects with the hope of encouraging all
projects to be thinking about how they can achieve these outputs even if their project does not sit
under this heading. This would also mean that the low carbon economy objectives could be influencing
the larger allocation of funds.
This could also take the form of one project being allocated the funds with the remit of ensuring that all
other projects funded under the strategy deliver results against the outputs. This could be a simple
training and advice model used. Although this would risk the low carbon economy element of the
strategy being stand-alone again and does not quite encourage it being an integral part of all project
applications as above.
It was discussed how the allocation given to support the low carbon economy was a small amount
over the seven years and although will make a difference, expectations should be managed as to what
it can achieve.
The attendees discussed business support projects providing green audits and 12 hours of support to
each business in order to help them bring new products to market, to influence supply chains and to
assist in the marketing once small scale capital investments were made. There was a concern that as
much as this has been a tried and tested, successful model, the match funding available for these
types of projects would be difficult to source as they have historically been reliant on public sector
funds.
Overall, it was felt that the low carbon economy is an opportunity for the entire programme. If a clean
process of assessing whether projects coming forward under other priorities had the
6
potential to achieve the outputs under the low carbon economy heading should they receive additional
funding, then this is a clear opportunity. By embedding this within the delivery model, there is the
opportunity to maximise the results.
Many of those attending the low carbon economy workshop actually also participated in the
sustainable development workshop. It was discussed how the Strategy for Growth’s vision to be “the
premier location in the country for enterprise and economic growth, balanced with an excellent
environment and quality of life” was a good start to the work need to ensure that sustainable
development remains a cross cutting theme across the strategy, however it was felt that there needed
to be a golden thread that runs throughout the strategy to ensure that it is entwined into all activities
and becomes more prominent that it currently is.
Summary
There were clear recommendations to start thinking about how the delivery models and selection and
approvals processes should be developed sooner rather than later. It was seen as a key opportunity to
think about how these processes could inform how the strategy would like to present the low carbon
economy work as well as vice versa.
Overall, the feedback from the both the telephone interviews and the workshops were extremely
positive. Enterprise M3 have a number of experts within the low carbon economy and sustainable
development fields that are on hand to help and to ensure that projects coming forward are supporting
the right areas. Although there is an element of interest in successfully obtaining funds in their
individual sectors, there is also a genuine passion from these organisations to see the funds go to the
right place to ensure that these objectives are met.
The Local Nature Partnership is extremely supportive of assisting to ensure funds are directed to
the right area as are many of the other organisations that we consulted with (listed in Annex A).
These organisations have expressed their support in continuing to develop the low carbon
economy ideas that are coming forward and also their assistance later down the line informing the
ideas around delivery. They also volunteered to continue their one-on-one discussions with
Enterprise M3 to assist them in any way possible.
7
Baseline and targets
The aim of was to develop a discrete series of credible baseline measures to track progress in these
two areas which was to be included in the next iteration of the ESIF.
Baseline:
Data from BIS on the South East for 2010-1132 demonstrates that the South East as a whole has a
strong low carbon economy base to build upon. In 2010-11 South East had:
o
o
o
6,585 low carbon businesses (13% of businesses)
Worth £14,644.9m of sales (12% of sales)
Employing 119,858 (13% of the workforce)
However, the report also shows that the rate of growth in the low carbon economy is at the lower end
of the range of growth rates from 2009-10 to 2010-11 across the UK, with employment growth of 2.7%
p.a. and sales growth of 4.2% p.a.
This data would need to be mined to provide information on the LEP geography, however these three
measures provide an indication of the existing business base on which the low carbon economy
element of the programme seeks to build.
This evidence coupled with the carbon emissions and energy use data already included within the
ESIF provides a measurable baseline against which to measure progress by this strategy.
In addition to this, the embedding of a ‘growth ready’ assessment for each project supported under the
programme, as described in the Sustainable Development cross-cutting theme section below, will
enable a low carbon and sustainability baseline to be established in respect of each activity funded
under the strategy and progress against the baseline can then be measured as part of ongoing
programme management and monitoring and as part of the evaluation process for the projects and
strategy.
In order for this to function effectively, the LEP should use the Local Environment and Economic
Development (LEED) Toolkit to systematically consider the evidence relating to the local
economy/environment relationship in order to reveal opportunities and threats and to consider
appropriate responses to them. The output of this process will provide a framework against which the
‘growth ready’ assessments can be reviewed and monitored.
Targets:
The draft ESIF included targets for Strategic Action 4:
Reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions
The target on the draft ESIF is expressed as a percentage reduction in GHG emissions to be
achieved by 2020. Technical Annex A to the July 2013 Guidance for LEPs notes that the unit of
measurement for this output should be tonnes of CO2 equivalent33. To develop this target for the
ESIF it is therefore necessary to develop a rationale to establish a reasonable tonnage of carbon
saved for the available funding.
The National Audit Office suggests a benchmark of £220-£230 per tonne of carbon saved34. This
32
Low Carbon Environmental Goods & Services (LCEGS) Report for 2010/11, BIS (May 2012).
The Development and Delivery of Structural Investment Fund Strategies, Supplementary Guidance to Local Enterprise Partnerships (July
2013), p.23.
34
33
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the 2006 Climate Change Programme Review, A review by the National Audit
10
Office,
January 2007. Benchmark taken for ‘Carbon Trust, policy expansion – support for investment in energy efficiency in SMEs.
can be applied to the various elements of the programme to provide the following breakdown:
Funding
Low carbon economy ERDF
Low carbon economy ERDF +
match
Full ERDF allocation
Full ERDF allocation + match
Full allocation (ESF + ERDF)
Full allocation (ESF + ERDF) +
match
Value
Tonnes of
carbon at
£220/tonne
8,759
Tonnes of
carbon at
£230/tonne
8,378
£ 3,854,000.00
£ 19,270,000.00
£ 38,540,000.00
£ 38,540,000.00
17,518
87,591
175,182
175,182
16,757
83,783
167,565
167,565
£ 77,080,000.00
350,364
335,130
£
1,927,000.00
The higher carbon cost should certainly be used, as the programme may be expected to address
novel and innovative carbon savings schemes, as opposed to cheaper existing technologies which
are available elsewhere.
These figures suggest that if the LEP adopted a target based on the higher of the two carbon costs
for the ERDF and match spent on low carbon economy activities, the GHG reduction target should
be 16,757 tonnes. These are equivalent to the annual per capita carbon emissions of 2,373 EM3
residents.
Additional ERDF outputs in relation to the Low Carbon Economy could be considered by the LEP,
following on from the consultation, it seems likely that outputs could be delivered against the
following outputs:
• Number of enterprises receiving support
• Number of enterprises supported to bring new products to market.
However, as the LEP needs to decide which of the potential options for the Low Carbon Economy
element will be adopted, it is not yet reasonable to identify which of these or what numbers should be
set to them as targets.
There are however no ERDF results indicated within the draft strategy. As a minimum the strategy
should include a result around new jobs or jobs created to support the output of new jobs created and
give confidence that longevity and sustainability is encouraged within the projects.
Recommendations:
o
o
o
o
Enterprise M3 should establish the number of low carbon businesses, the value of their sales and
the number of their employees within the LEP area as an initial baseline against which to measure
the impact of the ESIF.
The LEP should use the Local Environment and Economic Development (LEED) Toolkit to
systematically consider the evidence relating to the local economy/environment relationship
Embedding of a ‘growth ready’ assessment for each project supported under the programme
Targets for Strategic Action 4 should be revised as follows:
10
Output
Output
Result
Description
Reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions
Target
16,757
tonnes
New jobs created (in the low carbon and 150
rural economy by developing woodland
enterprises,
encouraging
end-to-end
investment in the timber and wood to
warmth supply chain).
SME jobs
50
10
Supporting the shift towards a Low Carbon Economy in all sectors
(Strategic Action 4)
There are four activities identified within the supporting the shift towards a Low Carbon Economy in all
sectors element of Strategic Action 4
•
Building the market in low carbon environmental technologies, goods and services.
•
Non-domestic low carbon technologies and energy efficiency including retrofit and low carbon
housing solutions/technologies.
•
Exploring whole place low carbon solutions and smart cities solutions through a town centre pilot.
•
Promoting the innovation and adoption of low carbon technologies
The consultation process has identified a series of options for the LEP to deploy the
£1.927m of European funding:
Option
Single
overarching
project
Description
Procuring a single project receiving
the entire £1.927m allocation to
provide a specific boost to an
identified element of the low carbon
economy within the LEP area
Single
low
carbon
technologies
demonstrator
project
Procuring a single project receiving
the entire £1.927m allocation to
provide support and grants for the
development of a small number (56) demonstrator sites for low carbon
technologies, e.g. district heating
system, demand response/STOR
solution within a specific locality,
waste heat recovery, energy from
waste systems
Allocation of
funding
across
the
programme
Using the allocation to provide a
specific
additional amount to
projects under the other Strategic
Actions to ensure that they have an
element of activity which is focused
on supporting the low carbon
economy
Pros/cons
• Single project is a delivery
risk and a monitoring benefit
• Potential
for
significant
impact from focused funding
• Ability to commit and spend
funding early in programme
period
• Significant risk that all of the
areas and sectors identified
under the strategy under the
Strategic Action 4 cannot all
be met.
• Single project is a delivery
risk and a monitoring benefit
• Ability to advance selected
and
relevant
new
technologies within the LEP
area
• Outputs tend to be incidental
(e.g. job creation depends
on multiplier effect from
adoption based on viewing
the demonstrators)
• Some respondents felt that
this approach had been tried
and was less innovative
• Embeds supporting the low
carbon
economy
into
Enterprise, Innovation and
Skills
• Innovative approach to the
level of funding available and
clear
demonstration
of
sustainable
development
cross-cutting theme
• Would require work for the
initial set up to ensure that all
applications coming
11
•
Series of
specific
projects
Procuring several specific projects •
to address specific identified needs,
e.g.
forestry
and
woodland •
management
linked
to
wood
products, wood fuel and carbon •
offsetting
•
•
forward under other strategic
actions are questioned on
the opportunity to deliver
against the outputs should
they receive further funding.
However, once this work was
embedded
into
the
application process, it should
then make the selection
process for the allocation of
funds very simple.
Partnerships are already in
place and simply need to
develop
in
terms
of
allocating
time
to
the
additional activity, which
could help in terms of match.
Traditional
approach
to
funding in this area
Specific needs can be
addressed
As match funding is scarce,
this gives the opportunity for
projects to come forward
with ‘what they have’, rather
than not being able to be
supported at all due to not
being able to achieve a
certain threshold of match.
Challenging
to
ensure
sufficient project pipeline to
commit the funding quickly
A good opportunity to ensure
that it is an open process
whereby projects of all
values can come forward.
Overarching project to support other projects
•
•
•
•
Summary - Project providing a range of low carbon economy advice and support, specifically
tailored to fit around the other activities funded under the ESIF. This would ensure that support is
available to successful projects to enhance their projects to engage with the low carbon economy
within the context of the other three strategic priorities.
Key sectors - As per other three strategic priorities
Key delivery partners - Private sector, Local Authorities, public sector agencies such as
Environment Agency
Match funding - Unclear
Low Carbon Technologies Demonstrator project
•
Summary - A single project which identifies and provides grant funding to establish either a
series of innovative demonstrator sites or one ‘centre of excellence’ to showcase low carbon
technologies and provide best practice, exemplar reference sites for these technologies. This
will help to stimulate demand for and adoption of these
12
•
•
•
technologies as familiarity and overcoming a lack of early adopters is often a key barrier to the roll
out of innovative technologies. Potential technologies which would be trialled include: district
heating systems, anaerobic digestion, waste heat recovery, electric vehicles, energy
storage/demand response, integrated solar PV and solar thermal, heat pumps, smart meters
linked to power line communication technology, distributed energy generation networks.
Key sectors - Various, depending on technologies selected (housing/Local Authority for district
heating, LEP key sectors for waste heat recovery, etc.)
Key delivery partners - Private sector, Local Authorities
Match funding - Private sector, public sector
Allocation of the low carbon economy funding across the programme
•
Summary – Adding a specific Low Carbon Economy allocation to projects supported under all of
the strategic priorities, to enable them to address low carbon economy issues within the
mainstream of their project delivery and therefore delivering against the low carbon economy
outputs.
•
Key sectors - Various, as specified within the relevant strategic priority within the strategy.
•
Key delivery partners - Various
•
Match funding – Various as per rest of the project
Selection of projects
1. Wood fuel supply chain
• Summary - Develop woodland enterprises, bringing unmanaged woods into production and
creating new woods whilst at the same time enhancing the environment. Wood products, wood
fuel and carbon offsetting are all commercial opportunities. A specific need is to develop the
wood fuel and wood pellet supply chain. This would combine developing the infrastructure
needed to deliver to biomass boilers and also the business support activities needed to
develop businesses within the supply chain. It would not fund installation of biomass boilers
themselves, and thus avoids any conflict between EU funding and RHI/FIT.
• Key sectors - Forestry, renewable energy
• Key delivery partners - Private sector, Environment Agency, National Parks, Forestry
Commission, LNPs
• Match funding - Private sector, public sector (National Parks, Environment Agency)
2. Catchment area water use
• Summary - Project building upon and linked to flood alleviation work based on water use and
management within a specific catchment area. This would link sustainable fisheries, improved
flood risk management and carbon storage through strategic river restoration. The activity
could create jobs and the potential for a significant increase in income from new ‘wild fishing’
tourism markets. This could link with nature-based tourism enterprises and bring together
different organisations working across river catchments.
• Key sectors - Utility companies, public sector, water intensive elements of LEP priority sectors
• Key delivery partners - Private sector, Environment Agency, water companies, LNPs
• Match funding - Private sector, public sector (Environment Agency, Local Authorities)
3. Sector focused knowledge transfer and commercialisation
• Summary - Project to support the development, transfer and commercialisation of low carbon
economy goods and services developed within the Enterprise M3 LEP’s priority sectors into
low carbon economy products through a mixture of grant and business support activities. E.g.
Support an aerospace firm to develop and transfer an innovation from their core aerospace
business into the low carbon economy.
• Key sectors - Digital media, aerospace/space and advanced manufacturing
14
•
•
Key delivery partners - Private sector, Higher Education
Match funding - Private sector match
4. Low carbon business support – audits, grants and support
• Summary - Project providing business support activities in the form of business green audits,
support time, workshops and grants to businesses working in the low carbon economy. Suite of
potential support to offer multiple opportunities for businesses to engage and have their growth
needs addressed. The projects could be similar to the sort of activity which has been funded in
the Thames Gateway.
• Key sectors - Environmental, low carbon economy
• Key delivery partners - Private sector, Local Authorities
• Match funding - Private sector match, opt in match (Manufacturing Advisory Service), match
from supported SMEs.
5. Transport connectivity solutions focused around a specific place
• Summary - Reducing carbon emissions caused by business travel is one element of
supporting a low carbon economy. There are several potential elements to this activity, ranging
for the larger scale access to rural broadband, mobile phone and data networks through to
smaller scale activities to deliver connectivity between different elements of public transport
focused around a specific place. This could include engaging with local businesses to offer
incentives for low carbon travel or simpler access to advance information about transport
options and connections in a specific place.
• Key sectors - Transport, Local Authorities
• Key delivery partners - Private sector, Local Authorities
• Match funding - Local Authority, private sector
6. Embedding Low Carbon Economy support in delivery
• Summary – Reserve from the low carbon economy allocation available to be awarded to other
projects funded under the ESIF, through an application process where they will look to use
additional funding to enable them to address low carbon economy issues within the
mainstream of their project delivery.
• Key sectors - Various, as specified within the relevant Strategic Priority within the strategy.
• Key delivery partners - Various
• Match funding – Various as per rest of the project
Amongst the workshop attendees there was significant support for the innovative approach of
leveraging the Low Carbon Economy allocation into the other areas of the ESIF in order to embed both
low carbon and sustainable development across the entire strategy. There was, however, awareness
that this could be seen as an innovative approach for Enterprise M3 to adopt. It was recognised that
there would need to be some work around ensuring that the application process was set up to include
and manage this at very early stages to ensure the success of it down the line.
In addition to this, there were several key issues which were identified during consultation which the
LEP needs to address in the final version of the strategy including
15
o
CAP/REV split in the funding35
o
Potential tension between jobs and carbon saving outputs: the LEP should consider to what
extent it desires to maximise job creation within the low carbon economy or carbon savings
made within the LEP area due to the programme. For example, market development and
commercialisation support may increase jobs but if sales are outside of the LEP area and
potentially outside of the UK, it is difficult to see how carbon saved as a result of these sales
could justifiably be reported by the project as an output.
o
Project size: a wide range of project sizes were suggested during consultation. While
smaller projects alleviate the issues around identifying match funding, and several
worthwhile ideas for very low value projects (<£50k) were put forward, there is a concern
about both the level of impact of small projects and the administrative burden of selecting,
managing and monitoring these. There could be concerns about accessibility of the funding,
if a minimum value for projects is given, however the difficulties of small projects suggest
that a minimum total project value of £250k would be advisable.6
SWOT analysis for low carbon economy
Strengths
Weaknesses
• Low carbon economy appears to be a • Level of funding under this priority is not
significant part of the economy of the
high in comparison for what could be
LEP.
achieved in the area.
• There are a number of organisations • Evidence suggests growth rate amongst
with innovative ideas as to how this
low carbon economy businesses is slower
funding allocation can be used.
than the national average.
• Some match is available, especially
when matched with public sector time of
teams delivering against the same
objectives.
Opportunities
Threats
• Various options to maximise the outputs • Expectations within the LEP must be
and results that this allocation of funding
managed as although the funding can
delivers.
make a difference, there are limitations.
• Funding allocation to this area is • Risk of disengagement amongst key
partners within the area, if the intentions
sufficient to be catalytic when targeted.
with regards to the options for delivery are
• Committing low carbon activity at the
not clear early on in the project
start of the programme period is an
development process.
opportunity for ongoing assessment
against the option chosen and
consequently offers the opportunity to
‘change tact’ should there be the need.
35
See detailed CAP/REV discussion below.
15
Recommendations:
As the detail of the implementation processes, in particular how projects will be procured, managed
and monitored are not yet fully developed, it is difficult to recommend a specific course of action.
However, the fact that these have not yet been finalised provides great opportunities. The issues for
the LEP to consider are:
•
•
•
Enterprise M3 should consider the viability of using the low carbon economy allocation to embed
low carbon economy support across the other strategic priorities of the ESIF. This could be done
by incorporating key questions into the approvals and selections process which would assess
whether projects applying under all priorities have the possibility to ‘expand’ in order to apply for
funding for a specific low carbon element of their project. As the projects would already be
established with partnerships, they could all use any additional time spent on this aspect of work
as match funding. A proportion of the funds could be allocated for existing projects to apply to
achieve results under these outputs and the remainder of the £1.9 million could be used as an
open tendering round.
If this is not adopted, then an approach of fewer, larger projects is administratively simpler for
monitoring purposes and research would suggest that there would be match funding available in
some of the project ideas coming forward.
If Enterprise M3 feels that a more traditional approach of several funded projects should be
adopted, the LEP should engage with the key partners in the area to develop proposals around
those activities have been identified (above). EM3 should also ensure that they retain the flexibility
to start to embed the support for the low carbon economy into other areas of activity. However, it is
a concern that the amount could be ‘spread too thinly’ and therefore not make enough of an impact
in any of the areas supported and it is therefore recommended that there is a minimum project
value given in the application guidance.
16
Sustainable Development Cross-Cutting Theme
There is a key opportunity to ensure that sustainable development is threaded throughout the strategy.
In our consultations, it was felt that although the commitment to this cross cutting theme needed to be
more explicit throughout the strategy and not just stated within the overall vision.
There was a suggestion that the correct language needed to be used in order to ensure that the cross
cutting theme does not become a tick box exercise, but in fact flows through all activities. The
sustainable development cross cutting theme needs to be seen as a key opportunity. There is the
opportunity to have a high level statement which is building on the vision to be “the premier location in
the country for enterprise and economic growth, balanced with an excellent environment and quality of
life”. This statement of a commitment to ensure that sustainable development is embedded within all
projects following key principles should be asked of in the application process to stress the importance
and be a key consideration in the approvals process.
There is an activity that needs to take place in ensuring that the language shows the extension of the
economic notion of capital (manufactured means of production) to goods and services relating to the
natural environment. This is an activity that many of those we have consulted with are willing to
contribute to. This is an opportunity to deliver large numbers of outputs and should not be pitched as a
‘green tax’ but in fact something that will really assist in making businesses more economically
resilient.
The longer term benefits of this work should also be highlighted as it could be that results will continue
to flourish beyond the years of the strategy as well as throughout the funding period. There is an
opportunity to use exemplar businesses who have great achievements in this area as case studies to
encourage how projects and businesses can achieve it, but also to inform the Enterprise M3 area of
how this needs to be pitched in order to get the right applications in. It was felt that the importance of
the sustainable development cross cutting theme needed to be carried from LEP Board level all the
way to the businesses and individuals being supported by the projects. Therefore, the examples of
successful, key businesses, being able to harness this to make them more economically viable would
be engaging to all levels.
There is an ideal opportunity of embedding the sustainable cross cutting theme throughout the
programmes by asking all project applications to complete a ‘growth ready’ risk review. This could be a
mandatory template provided to all applicants which needs to be completed, reviewed and assessed
as part of the selection process. There would need to be an exercise to identify the key growth
restraints and the key areas of concern and it would then be up to projects to assess how they were
going to mitigate against the areas that affected them i.e. water supply and rate on a green, amber,
red basis. This would then be assessed within the selection process to ensure that these ratings and
mitigations are satisfactory and thought through or whether they could be enhanced. This could also
be an opportunity for projects to explain on how they plan on enhancing areas. If all project
applications were asked to complete this from the offset, the theme would become an integral part of
the programmes. This could even benefit future project development coming forward by encouraging
all projects to think about these growth restraints. It would be an exercise that would benefit any midterm and final evaluations of the programmes as responses could monitored and
17
tracked throughout the life time of the funding and an overall collation of how each of the successful
projects mitigating actions have succeeded could be reviewed.
It was felt that there was a great necessity for the Local Nature Partnership to have a seat on the
selection committee for the selection and the approvals of projects. This would ensure that the
programme maintains the commitment to the sustainable development cross cutting theme and is
monitored against it. The LNP is welcome of this suggestion.
There is an opportunity to use large businesses and SMEs as case studies of what can be achieved
and how sustainable development can be economically beneficial to your business. These case
studies can then be used in order to encourage project applications on how to consider the cross
cutting theme within their proposals. They can also be used to engage with the LEP Board and the
selection committees in order to show them what has been achieved in the area and therefore what
opportunities the funding could bring.
With the strong network of organisations willing to assist in embedding, supporting and maintaining
progress against the sustainable development cross cutting theme, the LEP could appoint ‘champions’
within the area which can be people and organisations recognised to be both knowledgeable and
influential. When this was discussed at the workshops, there was a warm response to it. On the whole,
many of the organisations wanted to help as much as they could in order to make sustainable
development an integral part of the programme but resources would mean that there may be a limit to
the physical support available. However, it was suggested that these ‘champions’ could be appointed
under Technical Assistance in order to be coupled with someone with European funding knowledge in
order to provide advice and guidance to businesses wanting to apply under the low carbon economy
priority or organisations that have project ideas but are unsure on how to implement the sustainable
cross cutting theme throughout. The LEP could hold a number of partnership building events at which
time at the end is left for surgery slots whereby applicants can ask for advice on how to apply for
European funds, eligibility and match funding guidance and how to ensure that their project is in tune
with the sustainable development cross cutting theme.
Overall, it was felt that the commitment to this cross cutting theme needed to be explicit. It needs to be
entwined within the strategy and consequently embedded into the selection, approvals and delivery
processes in order to ensure that this is not seen as a ‘green tax’ by potential applicants. By
implementing a risk review it gives reassurance that these issues have been thought about at an early
stage and continue to be of great importance, but even more so, assists in showing how by
embedding this cross cutting theme, there is a real opportunity to build on the outputs achieved
throughout the whole of the priorities.
Sustainable Transport
There were many suggestions and indeed a lot of interest in the allocation surrounding sustainable
transport. With the money available, it was agreed, that the money needed to be focused in one area
to be able to really make an impact. There were many suggestions where it was thought that match
funding could be available in forms such as public sector staff time such as connectivity, information
systems in order to gain access to better transport systems, better broadband connectivity in rural
areas to encourage working from home or better phone coverage to encourage business expansion.
18
There were many ideas around the uses of electric cars and the funding of charging units or
marketing schemes to reassure businesses of the benefits of electric cars. There were a number of
car sharing schemes also suggested. Although, on the whole it was thought that with the allocation
in this area, there were other aspects of sustainable transport that may benefit more these smaller
amounts.
The benefits of sustainable transport need to be more widely publicised particularly to businesses.
The New Forest National Park Authority gave the example of how they have funded an open top
double decker bus which had the aim of getting people to explore the surroundings out of their cars
reducing the emissions. However, in doing this, they have been able to identify key businesses
along route and put bus stops outside businesses which has increased their footfall. Therefore, by
funding the bus, it has triggered many other benefits which in turn can be invested in and
developed.
There is an opportunity to fund ideas surrounding information technology and making transport
information accessible therefore encouraging people to use other means of transport. It was
discussed how if you were getting off a train to attend a meeting, if you had the option of obtaining
the information of when the next bus would arrive, you would be then more likely to use this, rather
than necessarily relying on a taxi or simply not taking the train at all, and driving yourself.
Information technology linked with connectivity of modes of transport is a great opportunity to make
a real impact in terms of reducing emissions.
There was an idea of building wood bike sheds in key areas such as stations to encourage people
to ride to the station and have somewhere to leave their bicycles. It was suggested that there could
be a link to using local wood sources in order to build the sheds which would also benefit the low
carbon economy area of the strategy. There is an opportunity to fund folding bicycle schemes for
businesses as extensions of green travel plans or, on a wider scale, to invest in a ‘Boris Bikes’ type
scheme in a large town such as Basingstoke which could then be used as an example within the
area. However, something of this scale would then need a significant amount of the allocation.
Although there are many ideas that were discussed that could benefit from small revenue amounts,
there really needs to be a decision as to what the focus should be in this area. There is otherwise
the significant risk that the allocation is spread to thinly funding projects ranging from broadband
support to the small scale capital items and therefore does not make a significant impact in either of
the projects funded. This can be a broad focus in terms of information technologies around transport
or the support and encouragement of cycling to work schemes, or the uptake of electric vehicles,
but once this overall broad focus is decided upon innovative project ideas can come forward under
this and collaborate to create a bigger impact.
SWOT analysis
Strengths
Weaknesses
• Natural capital of the LEP area is a key • Natural capital is not accepted as readily
factor for the LEP.
as traditional economic or social capital.
• Enthusiasm and support within relevant • The examples and recommendations to
parts of the LEP for the cross cutting
embed the theme require resource and
theme.
need to be developed early on to create a
sound base for a sustainable development
• Availability of expertise to act as
19
champions or assessors to support the
embedding of the theme.
Opportunities
• Enthusiasm and support from key
partners can help to steer the theme.
• Chance to demonstrate the economic
value of natural capital – i.e. sustainable
development makes doing business less
costly rather than being an added
expense.
• Design of the application process is a
real opportunity to ensure that the theme
is embedded, such as specific questions
about how projects under other strategic
actions could enhance their projects to
deliver against this theme and carbon
savings.
• Other models can be adopted, such as a
‘growth ready’ review as part of the
application process.
thread to run through all work funded
under the strategy.
Threats
• Theme is isolated and restricted to
Strategic Action 4 of the strategy rather
than being applied to all elements,
• Theme is not embedded throughout the
strategy and consequently the projects,
making it feel like an additional ‘green tax’.
• Missed opportunity to use the theme to
recognise the importance of sustainable
development, and risk the natural capital
of the LEP area.
• Risk of stakeholder disengagement early
in the programme and therefore the need
to maintain momentum.
Recommendations:
• Encompass a ‘growth ready’ review into the project application process in order to make
sustainable development an integral part of all project applications and successful projects
funded.
• Enlist the help of key stakeholders and experts in the sector to become ‘champions’ to assist
and guide projects or project applications where necessary.
• Ensure that the Local Nature Partnership has a seat on the Selection Committee for the
selection and approval of project applications.
• Select an area within sustainable transport to focus the funds on in order to gain maximum
impact. There was considerable interest in supporting projects under information technology,
broadband and mobile phone coverage linked to connectivity and availability of modes of
transport.
• Incorporate key questions into the approvals and selections process which would assess
whether projects applying under all priorities have the possibility to ‘expand’ in order to apply for
funding for a specific low carbon element of their project. As the projects would already be
established with partnerships, they could all use any additional time spent on this aspect of work
as match funding. A proportion of the funds could be allocated for existing projects to apply to
achieve results under these outputs and the remainder of the
£1.9 million could be used as an open tendering round.
• Engage with both large businesses and SMEs within the area that have successfully achieved a
holistic approach to sustainable development throughout their business and use these as case
studies for both project applicants and the LEP Board to show what can be achieved.
• See the cross cutting theme as an opportunity to assist in the delivery of the outputs under the
low carbon economy strategic priority.
20
Match Funding
Match funding remains an issue for many of the stakeholders we engaged with. It is increasingly
difficult to ask for innovative projects that are large enough to make an impact to be able to create a
solid funding package. It is critical that decisions to fund large projects are not implicitly stated within
the strategy as without great assistance in developing the projects and sourcing the match, it could be
difficult for projects to be able to bring those large amounts together.
However, there are still some sources of match funding that can be used. Hampshire County Council
have stated that as long as the low carbon economy activities are in line with what they are delivering,
they would be able to offer staff time to for projects to use as match, which will be of great benefit.
There is the opportunity to bring the match in from the SME’s that will be supported through projects
but this comes with significant risk and a large amount of evidencing requirements. Each SME
supported would need to provide documents for the audit trail including bank statements, payroll
records, some of which businesses are reluctant to share. There is also the significant risk that you
would not be able to identify those businesses prior to the project being approved and therefore when
it comes to the projects attempting to ‘sign businesses up’ they simply cannot as the evidencing
requirements are too heavy on the SME.
Linked to this, there is the opportunity for projects to be run on a grants type scheme, whereby SMEs
show that they have spent the 50% and earn the other 50% from the project. Again, this could have
the same problems as above with evidencing, but would potentially cause difficulty for the programme
spend profiling as it will become very difficult to identify the uptake of the businesses onto these
projects and could mean that the majority of their spend is at the end of the project lifecycle which
does not assist in hitting N+3 targets.
There is an interest from the private sector in the low carbon economy projects which can be
harnessed to use as match funding, but throughout the process, it must be clear to private sector
companies that they cannot make a profit through these funds, and can only charge consultancy rates
if they have gone through an open tendering round to win the work within a project. It is important that
applicants are aware of these issues before applying as to recognise whether to put the private sector
in as partners or whether it would in fact benefit them more to have them as consultants of the projects
as this will affect how the match funding is profiled.
Overall, it became apparent that this is an area that the people we consulted with really need
assistance and guidance on. In order to maximise any opportunities out there, it would be advisable to
use an element of the Technical Assistance budget in order to facilitate partnership building events
which would not only seek to fine tune the development of some of the project ideas coming forward
but would also clarify important eligibility criteria which can help applicants shape their applications
and maximise how they profile the match funding. They would also be crucial in bringing people
together and growing partnerships which in turn could increase the amount of match funding.
Capital versus Revenue
It became apparent throughout the consultation with stakeholders, that there were differing opinions on
what the capital / revenue split of the allocation should be. The majority agreed
22
that with the funds that were available, there were more opportunities to fund more activities through
the use of revenue. However, those consulted felt that in order to support projects coming forward
around the low carbon economy, there does have to be an element of capital funds available. Projects
that look at supporting new businesses to develop in the wood chip industries would benefit from the
opportunity to apply for small scale capital elements as well as the advice service on how to get their
product to market.
There was a lot of interest in demonstrator projects whereby new low carbon technology is showcased
in order to encourage the uptake and explain the benefits of this technology. As much as there is a
strong revenue element to this work in influencing supply chains and providing training and support
around how the technology can be used to make businesses more economical, there would need to
be a capital element which would assist in funding the demonstrators.
As the funds are primarily revenue, this needs to be widely communicated when the strategy is
finalised and delivery is commencing, at an early stage. It became apparent throughout our
consultations that although the majority understood that the funds would be primarily revenue, there
are still some that believe the funding could fund the building for the demonstrator projects and other
large scale capital items. With the amount of money identified under the low carbon economy part of
the strategy it would become difficult to achieve all of the four activities funding simply one large scale
infrastructure project.
ERDF eligibility criteria are very strict on what is listed as capital spend and it is therefore an important
consideration when going out to tender for projects under the low carbon economy activities. It should
be communicated to projects at the offset the approximation of the capital
/ revenue split expected within their applications as this will save time later down the projects approval
process and manage expectations early.
Recommendation:
o
Provide guidance prior to application rounds as to the capital/ revenue division intended. This
will give stakeholders in the area an indication of whether the work they want to do within the
low carbon economy can be supported under these funds.
23
Conclusion
The EM3 ESIF element of Supporting the Low Carbon Economy and the Sustainable Development
cross-cutting theme represent opportunities for the LEP to deploy EU Structural Funds in an innovative
way to bring national capital and the important low carbon economy into the mainstream of thinking
and activity delivery.
There are number of key recommendations for implementation given throughout the report. It has
become apparent that many of these will be guided by key decisions early on, which will then inform
how the application, selection and approvals process is developed. All of the recommendations require
a commitment of staffing resource early on, but the programme will benefit from injecting this early in
order to have key principles in place which can then be carried through the lifetime of the programme.
The individuals and organisations consulted with were very enthusiastic to continue to assist and this
engagement should be maintained to ensure that the commitment to achieving the objectives around
low carbon economy and sustainable development continue to be a collaborative achievement.
24
Annex A: List of people and organisations consulted
Adam Wallace
Natural England
Alan Scrase
University of Southampton
Anthony Bravo
Basingstoke College
Beverley Gower-Jones
Carbon Limiting Technologies
Bronwen Chinien
Surrey County Council
Chitra Nadarajah
Hampshire County Council
Chris Quintana
Hampshire Chamber of Commerce
David Moir
Basingstoke College
Debbie Tann
Hampshire & IOW Nature Trust / Hampshire and IOW Local
Nature Partnership
Dougal Driver
Grown in Britain
Gary Foster
Natural Catalyst
Jacquie Middleton
Carbon Limiting Technologies
Matthew Woodcock
Forestry Commission
Paul Wickham
Surrey Local Nature Partnership Sarah
Jane Chimbwandira
Surrey Wildlife Trust
Tim Jackson
Sparsholt College
Tony Spence
New Forest National Park Authority
25
Annex B: Agenda for the workshops
Enterprise M3 – Low Carbon Economy Workshop
Hilton Hotel, Old Common Rd, Black Dam, Basingstoke RG21 3PR Monday
2nd December 2013 9.30 - 11.30am
Agenda
9.30: Welcome and introductions
9.40: Scene setting – where are we now? 9.50:
Aims for the workshop
10.1 : ROUND THE TABLE DISCUSSIONS
•
What are the key priorities for the low carbon economy in the LEP area?
•
How would you develop the four activities set out in the low carbon economy part of the
strategy “supporting the shift towards low carbon economy in all sectors?”
•
What would projects achieving the outputs listed look like?
•
How would you see these outputs being measured?
10.45: Feedback and round up
10.50 : ROUND THE TABLE DISCUSSIONS
•
Where would the match funding come from to support these activities?
•
What support do you think would be helpful in developing ideas that will achieve these
low carbon objectives?
11.15: Feedback round up and conclusions 11.30:
Close of workshop
26
Hilton Hotel, Old Common Rd, Black Dam, Basingstoke RG21 3PR Monday
2nd December 2013 1.30-3.30pm
Agenda
9.30: Welcome and introductions
9.40: Scene setting – where are we now? 9.50:
Aims for the workshop
10.1 : ROUND THE TABLE DISCUSSIONS
•
What is the sustainable development vision in the strategy?
•
How would you suggest that sustainable development can be embedded into the strategy
and the future funded activities?
•
How do you think an overall holistic view of “the Enterprise M3 area is a beautiful, natural
place, let’s look after it” would work and how would you see projects seeking to tap into this?
10.45: Feedback and round up
10.50 : ROUND THE TABLE DISCUSSIONS
•
Do you think that the strategy would benefit from identifying ‘champions’ in sustainable
development who would assist in guiding the future programmes to ensure projects are
embedding this cross cutting theme within their activity?
•
What activities do you see would obtain the objectives of reducing emissions and climate
change?
11.15 : Feedback round up and conclusions 11.30:
Close of workshop
27
Enterprise M3 – Draft European Structural and Investment Fund Strategy – October 2013
ANNEX E – ESIF CONSULTATION TRACKER REPORT
A copy of the ESIF Stakeholder Consultation Tracker Report follows.
Enterprise M3 and ESIF - Stakeholder consultation tracker report
1. Background
The draft ESIF consultation document was published by Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership (Enterprise M3) in October 2013. The Strategy consultation sets
out ambitious but realistic proposals for the investment of European funding over the next seven years to 2020 by Enterprise M3. Enterprise M3 wants to “exploit
one of the most successful performing economies in England” and wants to target these funds to achieve its vision set out in the Strategy for Growth (published
in May 2013). Enterprise M3 LEP aims to work collectively with partners, communities and wider stakeholders to unlock growth, prosperity and quality of life
across the economic area. The EM3 LEP economic area stretches broadly 75 miles through across the two counties of Hampshire and Surrey and neighbours
the other LEPs such as Solent, Thames Valley Berkshire and Coast to Capital.
Enterprise M3 has received a notional allocation of £38.54m for the period 2014-2020 with an assumption of 50% European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
targeted at the stimulation of business growth and jobs and 50% for European Social Fund (ESF) for skills, investment, workforce training and targeted inclusion
activities. Enterprise M3 also intends to use part of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, once this has been allocated.
Enterprise M3 undertook an extensive consultation process in developing its Strategy for Growth. The consultation process identified three headline targets for
the LEP around GVA, jobs and business births and survival. The consultation also identified four themes of activity, which would underpin the progress towards
these headline targets. The four themes are around enterprise, innovation, skills and employment, infrastructure and place.
1
To be successful and relevant for stakeholders, EM3 have recognised that its ESIF strategy document needs to encompass their needs, views and actions. In
preparing the ESIF draft strategy, the project team and consultants (Warwick Economics & Development) have been engaging with key partners and
stakeholders (including local authorities, Further Education, Higher Education, business support organisations, the Not for Profit Sector and other public
bodies) on the shape and scope of our investment priorities and on the potential projects that could be included in the Strategy. The draft identified four
main areas of focus and these are strongly rooted within the Enterprise M3 Strategy for Growth, which was published in May 2013. The strategy has a strong
focus on enterprise and innovation as well as skills and employment and sustainable infrastructure. This document summarises the consultation responses
received after the publication of the draft ESIF strategy in October 2013.
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
2. Stakeholder consultation process
Following the publication of the draft ESIF strategy consultation document, Enterprise M3 received the following responses from: Surrey County Council
(Environment and Infrastructure), Surrey County Council (EmployAbility), Surrey Wildlife Trust (on behalf of the Surrey Nature Partnership), Surrey Hills AONB,
South Downs National Park Authority, Hampshire County Council, The Environment Agency, Runnymede Borough Council and Matthews Associates, Surrey.
3. Stakeholder consultation response approach
Whether the activities within the strategy are scoped and scaled correctly
How your business can help with the delivery of this strategy by using some of these funds as match funding for your own projects
How we can manage and deliver this funding to help business within the area to access and use this funding effectively
As Enterprise M3 has previously undertaken a wide ranging consultation on the broad themes within the strategy it was particularly interested in receiving
comments on the following issues:
•
•
•
4. Stakeholder consultation findings
More detail on the stakeholder responses is contained in Appendix 1 of this report. Individual references and sources have been included in this report to
provide context and technical detail.
4.1 Overview – key messages from stakeholders
2
Overall, there has been very positive feedback from stakeholders in relation to the ESIF strategy consultation and all stakeholders have indicated a willingness
to work closer with Enterprise M3 to ensure that the strategy accurately reflects the area’s needs and appropriate interventions. Stakeholders highlighted a
number of technical and scope/content gaps for Enterprise M3 to evaluate. Stakeholders have also provided detailed references so that Enterprise M3 can
review and amend certain aspects of the strategy document. For example, some stakeholders have highlighted that not enough emphasis has been placed
on rural issues and others are concerned that climate change, sustainable development and protecting the environment (e.g. flood risk and water
management) and transport have not been sufficiently included within the ERDF funding proposal. Stakeholders have also identified a number of ways in
which the document could read and flow
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
better so that the profile of key issues and actions can be raised. A high level summary of the key themes contained in the responses is provided below.
Match funding – identification, access and availability support and expertise offers
Opt-ins – implications and costs and ‘localness’ test application and evaluation ideas
Community Led Local Development (CLLD) – delivering local projects with local governance structures to drive benefit
Programme business processes – end to end LEP involvement
Funding technical assistance – access to budgets and funding sources eg Technical Assistance Fund and match funding on specific needs eg
nature based tourism, woodland enterprises, sustainable land management and sustainable fisheries
Technical advice and expertise on sustainable infrastructure and environment eg Green Infrastructure
Cross sector working such as protecting and promoting local environments with Local Nature Partnerships and their economic importance to
the Enterprise M3 area and sustainable transport and infrastructure projects
Support and willingness to work and collaborate with Enterprise M3 on the following key issues:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3
Promotion of a Growth Hub and sustainable business portals to drive economic growth, improve skills and employment (access) opportunities
Promotion of employment and support for social mobility including social investment funding for vulnerable groups and match funding opportunities –
employment, skills, innovation, local community
Supporting the shift to low carbon economy and stakeholder event development opportunities plus need to drive environmental benefits and
associated enterprise opportunities eg energy service companies, cooperatives, CICs
Enterprise opportunities – to grow visitor economy opportunities that drive economic growth and support rural regeneration
Visitor and business tourism to drive skills, employment, GVA
The development of funding opportunities for:
•
•
•
•
•
Roles of appointed bodies to strategically review and manage large scale bids and delivering change through appropriate governance
e.g. LEADER local action groups and working group membership offers
Sustainable development – supportive of the commitment to promoting sustainable development and associated objectives
Working together across organisations and cross cutting strategic plans and objectives:
•
•
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
•
•
•
•
4
Social enterprise – promoting the creation and expansion of social enterprises and collaboration with the LEP
Development of a Growth Hub – collaboration with the LEP to support the strategic themes of innovation, employment and employability,
sustainable infrastructure and places
Sharing best practice, collaboration and brokerage across organisations
Strategic assistance to support key organisations and businesses (e.g. universities) with sustainable transport and infrastructure plus the identification
of funding opportunities for cycling and other sustainable transport modes
Review the offers of support, collaboration, brokerage, advice and areas of expertise from stakeholders (e.g. County Councils) and utilise as
appropriate - plus review the requests for governance board membership
Consider ways to simplify the strategy document and incorporate relevant content (and detailed technical) gaps identified by stakeholders
e.g. environmental (e.g. water management, flood risk, climate change) and enhance sections as identified by stakeholders (e.g. visitor
/tourism economy, sustainable development)
Review examples of best practice outside of Enterprise M3 and seek to share learning from neighbouring LEPs on funding and projects
4.2 Key actions for Enterprise M3 ESIF
•
•
•
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
Appendix 1
Stakeholder consultation tracker – EM3 Strategy for Growth
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
5
1.
Scope and scale of activity
Whether the activities within the strategy are scoped and scaled correctly
•
Match-funding: any further refinement of proposed priorities should be done in parallel with a consideration of match funding – access to, and
availability of. All ESIF funded activity must be match funded in some way but the subject has not been explored fully. SCC are keen to support
Enterprise M3 in a detailed analysis of where both public and private match funding is available from existing local sources and work which might be
used to part finance key pieces of work identified in the final investment plan. SCC would like to explore with Enterprise M3, any ways in which it might
be possible to develop special purpose vehicles or similar that might be used to gather and harness local match funding in ways that mean that the
required sums can be identified and drawn down quickly and in accordance with ESIF regulations.
Surrey County Council
•
Opt-ins: any opt-in proposal needs to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. SCC offer to contribute to this process as it is vital that the full implications
and costs of any opt-in arrangement are fully understood and agreed with by local stakeholders. Opt-ins entail an alignment with existing national
programmes but any such provision must be capable of taking full account of local priority needs within the Enterprise area as opposed to
conforming to a national level template. It is also important that the same “localness” test be applied to the activity which a CFO is offering as
match funding.
6
Surrey Hills AONB
•
The AONB Board would like the LEP to reflect their vision for the Surrey Hills as part of the family of Protected Landscapes along with the South Downs
and the New Forest National Parks.
•
Working with its DMOs, the Protected Landscapes all support sustainable development and sustainable tourism. Within the Surrey Hills area the AONB
Board have recently established a Community Interest Company, Surrey Hills Enterprises, to support communities and businesses to work together to
provide high quality and memorable experiences, based on the unique sense of place. The work that the Surrey Hills AONB Board and other
protected landscapes are doing through projects such as Our Land is a key mechanism for delivery, providing a way to help rural tourism businesses
improve their environmental and economic performance through:
o
Improving business and marketing skills: delivered through the AONB & National Park units working in partnership with e.g. DMOs and
other business advice providers
o
Improving the visitor offer – focusing particularly on training in environmental and business performance, landscape awareness and
management: delivered through the AONB and National Park units
o
Supporting local retail – developing local networks of producers/supplies and the tourism sector: delivered through the AONB & National
Park units working in partnership, e.g. with DMOs.
•
Reference is made to the outstanding landscapes being recognised in the New Forest and South Downs National Parks which cover just over a
quarter of the LEP area. They suggest that the Surrey Hills Area of outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) should also be included here as it is a
nationally protected landscape with equal status to a National Park (NPPF paragraph 115). Surrey Hills suggest the document needs to be more
explicit about both the constraints and opportunities that this large percentage of Protected Landscapes brings.
Taken together, the two National Parks and the Surrey Hills AONB are vital in underpinning the economy and communities of the EM3area. They
provide ecosystem services such as freshwater, food, timber products, carbon storage, flood mitigation and pollution control. They are also a very
powerful factor in making the Enterprise M3 area an attractive place to live, work or locate a business, supporting the health, wellbeing and
quality of life of its residents and visitors. Within this document they suggest that the aim should be to maximise these benefits whilst avoiding the
destruction of the “environmental capital” that yields these long-term services. These
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
•
Protected Landscapes are a key economic asset in providing an attractive environment to live and work; and the associated inward investment. For
example a recent Defra study, by Professor Peter Bibby at the University of Sheffield, has identified the Surrey Hills as an "Elite Residential Enclave" in the
country with 43.1% of dwellings in the AONB having a registered company director in residence.
Funding – Surrey Hills are disappointed that Protecting the Environment and Transport are not included within the ERDF funding proposal
7
South Downs National Park Authority
•
The South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) outlined its responsibilities. It highlighted that the National Park Purposes are to: conserve and enhance the
natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area, and promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the park’s special qualities by
the public. They explain that public bodies are required to have regard to these purposes in carrying out their functions. The National Park Authority also has a
Duty: To seek to foster the economic and social well-being of the communities within the National Park in delivering the purposes. Fostering a strong, vibrant
and – crucially - a sustainable economy is the primary mechanism for achieving conservation and enhancement of the National Park. Conversely,
inappropriate forms of enterprise (such as poorly located light industry) could actively damage the special qualities of the National Park. The SDNPA quoted a
recent study (Valuing our National Parks-Cumulus Consultants 2013) that demonstrated the contribution which National Parks make to the national economy.
This report shows that England’s National Parks provide around 141,000 jobs and generated in 2012 an estimated £4.1m - £6.3m Gross Value Added to the
economy, equivalent to a city the size of Plymouth. A number of surveys in National Parks show that over 50% businesses (and more of those in tourism) felt that
their business was directly or indirectly dependent on high quality landscape and environment and that many businesses in towns close to but outside National
Parks stated that they were also dependent on and positively impacted by National Parks. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that businesses in
National Parks are suffering from undue planning restrictions compared to elsewhere.
•
General Comments – the SDNPA thought that the layout of the ESIF Strategy is rather confusing and repetitive in places and it is difficult to pick out actual
actions.
•
Specific comments:
Page 4: The SDNPA is pleased to see that the EM3 LEP intends to work closely with Local Nature Partnerships. Although the SDNPA is involved in the Hampshire
LNP, the SDNPA has a particular interest in sustainable development and in strengthening sustainable tourism. Within the area we already support communities
and businesses to work together to provide high quality and memorable experiences, based on the unique sense of place. The work that the SDNPA and other
protected landscapes are doing through projects such as Our Land is a key mechanism for delivery, providing a way to help rural tourism businesses improve
their environmental and economic performance through:
•
Improving business and marketing skills: delivered through the AONB & National Park units working in partnership with e.g. DMOs and other business
advice providers
•
Improving the visitor offer – focusing particularly on training in environmental and business performance, landscape awareness and management:
delivered through the AONB and National Park units
•
Supporting local retail – developing local networks of producers/supplies and the tourism sector: delivered through the AONB & National Park units
working in partnership with e.g. local county food groups
Para 2.1 Reference is made to the outstanding landscapes being recognised in the New Forest and South Downs National Parks which cover just over a
quarter of the LEP area. The Surrey Hills Area of outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) should also be included here as it too is a nationally protected landscape.
With this in mind the document needs to be more explicit about both the constraints and opportunities that this large percentage of Protected Landscapes
brings. Taken together, the two National Parks and AONB are vital in underpinning the economy and communities of the EM3area. They provide ecosystem
services such as freshwater, food, timber products, carbon storage,
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
flood mitigation and pollution control. They are also a very powerful factor in making the EM3 area an attractive place to live, work or locate a business,
supporting the health, wellbeing and quality of life of its residents and visitors. Within this document the aim should be to maximise these benefits whilst
avoiding the destruction of the “environmental capital” that yields these long-term services. These Protected Landscapes, and the wider rural economy of
which they are a part, also present many opportunities for the promotion of sustainable forms of business.
Para 2.23 This section is a little confusing it jumps around from the National Parks to the Surrey Hills AONB and then back to the National Parks. It would be more
useful to set the scene and then go on to provide a brief description of each of the protected landscapes and the features relevant to the EM3 area.
The Hampshire part of the South Downs National Park covers much of the rural areas of Winchester and East Hampshire Districts. Covering a total area of
1,653km2 from Winchester to Eastbourne, the majority of the area includes productive farmland and woodland. There are a wealth of historic monuments such
as St Catherine’s Hill, just outside Winchester, and key visitor attractions such as Marwell Zoological Park, along with listed buildings, and interesting market
towns and villages many of which are Conservation Areas. There are thousands of archaeological features as well as historic houses, parks and gardens. The
National Park is also rich in wildlife with nationally and internationally important wildlife sites such as the chalk grasslands such as that found on Old Winchester
Hill, National Nature Reserve and ancient hanger woodlands in East Hampshire as well as important lowland heaths around Bordon that contain some of the
UK rarest heathland reptiles and birds. It is also a landscape that has inspired artists, writers and musicians. There are an estimated 46m day visits to the South
Downs generating some £464m annually. There are in the region of 7000 businesses within the park many of these are small and micro businesses operating
within rural areas.
Figure 2.22 It would be useful to provide an urban rural split of commercial and industrial floorspace if this is possible.
Para 2.38 Although start up rates and self- employment rates are low compared to the national levels it would be useful to see how they compare to adjacent
LEPs.
8
Hampshire County Council
•
Hampshire County Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the draft EU funding strategy produced by Enterprise M3. The County Council would also
like to offer continued support and expertise to the LEP in developing the content of the strategy further and identifying match-funding opportunities. A list of
relevant expert officers has been provided to the LEP and it is hoped that the LEP will endeavour to work with these people. EU funding experts from
Hampshire County Council, along with experts from the other Councils in the EM3 area, are involved in the mechanics working group that was instigated by
the LEP. This group is able to provide advice on issues such as match- funding, opt-ins, governance arrangements and technical assistance and is working on
papers on these issues. The County Council is pleased to offer this support to the LEP to help develop to best effect the final EU funding strategy.
•
Are the activities within the strategy scoped and scaled correctly? Hampshire County Council feels that the activities within the strategy are scoped and
scaled correctly, and is very pleased to see a number of synergies with the on-going and planned future work of the Council. The Council appreciates the
opportunities that the LEP has provided for contributions from stakeholders to shape this strategy and feels confident that with continued cooperation it will be
able to support the delivery of the final EM3 LEP strategy and help to achieve the targets set within it. Are there activities missing from the strategy? The Council
notes that 0% of funding is proposed to be allocated to Climate Change and Protecting the Environment. This is only viable if it is ensured that cross-cutting
themes around sustainability are acted upon.
The Environment Agency (EA)
•
The strategy sets out the importance of infrastructure, and in particular the need to remove bottlenecks which constrain growth within the
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
LEP area. The main area of focus in the strategy is transport infrastructure. EA would suggest that there are also other infrastructure needs in the area, which
could hamper business growth if not addressed. EA recommend that the following types of infrastructure are fully considered in the strategy:
Infrastructure
•
Flood Risk - parts of the LEP area could be severely impacted in the event of a major flood of the River Thames. Due to the nature of flooding in the Lower
Thames, it could potentially take a number of weeks for flood water to recede. This would present a significant disruption to businesses within Runnymede,
Spelthorne and Elmbridge - with transport, energy networks and sewage treatment infrastructure likely to be affected. In an attempt to address this risk, the
Environment Agency is proposing a flood alleviation scheme (the River Thames Scheme) between Teddington and Datchet, passing through the Enterprise M3
LEP area. EA see this is a key piece of infrastructure to enable growth in the area. We anticipate that 53% of the cost of this scheme would be funded through
Grant in Aid. The remainder would require partnership contributions. EA feel this should be referenced in the strategy and the EA have briefed Enterprise M3
separately on this issue. In addition to the above, flood risk generally from all sources should be recognised as a potential constraint to growth.
•
Water Resources and Water Quality - the strategy makes brief reference to water scarcity in the area. We recommend that this point is expanded, as it is
intrinsically linked to development and economic growth. This area is water stressed (particularly the northwest of the area), and new development could
put additional pressure on this limited resource. EA would therefore like to see reference to new technologies and reduction in usage through new
development. Water treatment is carbon intensive, and so there are multiple benefits to reducing usage. The catchment abstraction management
strategies (CAMS) show how this area of the south east is classed as water stressed: http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/132669.aspx. EA would also recommend the strategy references the water companies Water Resource Management
Plans. There should also be reference to the area’s need to comply with the Water Framework Directive (WFD). This links to the essential, multifunctional
benefits of green and blue infrastructure (including economic). The health of the water environment within Enterprise M3 is clearly important for economic
growth. EA therefore feel there is justification for the strategy to promote water efficiency and other water infrastructure, including waste water treatment
infrastructure.
•
Green Infrastructure and Natural Capital - EA are pleased that the strategy recognises the importance of the natural assets in the Enterprise M3 area, and how
they link to quality of life, tourism growth and ultimately the economy. Watercourses in this area, such as the River Thames and our internationally important
chalk streams provide numerous services for people and the economy. These include drinking water, urban sewage discharge, recreation and commercial
activities such as boating and fishing. EA recommend that additional emphasis is placed on the importance of green and blue infrastructure. EA believe that it
would be useful for the natural environment and its relevance to growth be highlighted explicitly, running through the strategy since it is part of the Enterprise
M3 vision.
•
HM Government Guidance (Supplementary Guidance to LEPs July 2013) - EA refer to the revised framework of European Growth Programme priorities in the
above guidance. EA are disappointed that no funding will be allocated to: Priority 5: Promoting Climate Change Adaptation, Risk Prevention and
Management and Priority 6: Protecting the Environment and Promoting Resource Efficiency. EA would like to see The LEP give a clear analysis of why these
have been excluded and why other sections are seen as a much greater priority. EA believe that both are relevant within the Enterprise M3 area.
9
Runnymede Borough Council
•
Runnymede Borough Council is generally supportive of the overall aims and objectives of the strategy and the scope and scale of activities detailed within it.
Information on possible proposals and areas of activity within the Borough which could assist in achieving the outputs required from the strategy, have been
provided through the Economic Development Officers Group. Gap analysis on the LEP ESIF Draft
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
10
Strategy is listed below:
Page 7 - map showing overview of Enterprise M3 area:
•
Location of some education/innovation sites need adjusting e.g. Royal Holloway, Pirbright Institute.
•
List of major businesses seems a bit random with some significant employers omitted e.g. BP, British Gas, Samsung etc.
•
P&G Research & Development site at Rusham Park Egham is not shown
•
Should CABI (Europe) and Weybridge Veterinary Laboratory be shown under innovation as they are major animal and plant research centres, albeit
inter-governmental and governmental institutions.
•
The LEP boundary seems to have got slightly distorted on this map in the north-east corner. Page 13/14 –
very little information is provided about RHUL activities:
•
The Information Security Group (ISG) at Royal Holloway University of London has been recognized by EPSRC and GCHQ as one of eight Academic Centres of
Excellence in Cyber Security Research in the United Kingdom. The group has expertise in cryptanalysis, combinatorial cryptography, provable security and
message authentication codes. The Smart Card Centre (SCC) has been part of the ISG since 2002. It began as collaboration between academia and
industry, originally attracting funding from Vodafone and Giesecke & Devrient.
•
The University has considerable international connections and was ranked 1st in the UK and 4th in the world for international outlook in the 2012/13 Times
Higher Education World University Rankings.
Page 15 – Some of the LEP area’s biggest paying tourist attractions are not mentioned: e.g. Thorpe Park (1.8m visitors in 2012) and RHS Wisley Gardens (just
under 1m visitors in 2012). It may also be worth noting the tourism value of the River Thames, Windsor Great Park/Savill Gardens, Runnymede Meadows/Magna
Carta and the influence on the LEP area of the neighbouring tourism hotspots of Windsor and Hampton Court. Page 20 – the results of figure 2.27 seem
surprising. Are these figures accurate?
Page 22 – the higher dependence on corporate culture in the area is not surprising, due to the high skill levels and proximity to London and Heathrow which make
the area a very attractive location for EMEA and UK HQs. These companies employ large numbers of people often in high paying jobs. The benefits provided to
the area’s communities through the corporate responsibility initiatives of these companies should also not be underestimated. The strategy must ensure the area
remains attractive to such companies as well as assisting start-ups /entrepreneurship.
Page 29 – redevelopment of obsolete commercial space is also important in providing a stimulus for future growth
Page 31 – although the skills profile of the area is strong in relation to the national average, it needs to be able to compete internationally as well as nationally.
Also, the present skills level amongst all ages in the local population varies considerably. This variation in skill levels should be addressed through initiatives to
improve basic skills for children and adults.
Page 32 – the provision of safe pedestrian and cycle routes is also to key to addressing congestion and access issues.
Page 39 (and page 62/63) – schemes to provide school transportation should be supported under the smart transport objective. Such schemes have the benefit of
cutting peak time congestion, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and help to increase labour market participation as well as improving pupil punctuality and
truancy levels.
Page 47 – It may be worth mentioning the P&G R&D facility at Rusham Park in the opportunities column.
Page 48 map 4 – Research in Motion have moved out of the area. A number of large companies in Runnymede are not mentioned on this map including British
Gas/Centrica (employing over 2,000 people along the Causeway), Gartner, Future Electronics, Dow Chemicals, BUPA, Intel, Belron, Kerry foods, Cemex, Thales,
Cochlear, Chep, HCL Axon, Toshiba Information Systems, VTL Wavenet, ADP, Akamai and OKi.
Page 49 – CABI, Vet Labs and Pirbright Institute provide both animal and plant research facilities.
Page 49 (and TO1 page 53) – RHUL is located just outside Egham Town Centre which itself is situated adjacent to the major employment area along the Causeway
which runs to Staines Bridge and Staines-Upon-Thames Town Centre. This sustainable urban area has a considerable population base and is served by two railway
stations. It also benefits from direct access to the M25 which quick access to Heathrow. Given the
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
nature and importance of the businesses in this location and their relevance to the work of RHUL, the LEP should also seek to support the strengthening of relations
between the University and businesses in this area.
Page 66 – as road capacity is an issue an additional output of reduction in car journeys may be useful.
Matthews Associates (MA)
•
MA welcome the numerous references to both tourism and the visitor economy within the EM3 ESIF strategy, but would have liked to see more specific
references to, and integration with, their draft paper “Strategic Action 5. Develop Visitor Economy & Business Tourism” which gave a more focused picture of
the emerging Visitor Economy priorities for EM3 focused on business tourism, conference venues, skills within the sector and the rural visitor economy.
•
EAFRD within ESIF – MA acknowledge at the time of ESIF submission the EAFRD funding stream was not (and is still not) confirmed by Government. MA also
acknowledge that references to this have been made within the EM3 ESIF submission, although wish to emphasize that this strand of ESIF funding will be
(depending on fund size) important to both the visitor economy and rural economy potential interventions. MA would have liked to see greater prominence
made to the suggested EAFRD interventions outlined in the Government ESIF Guidance to LEP paper, accepting that at the time of submission only ESF and
ERDF streams had been confirmed.
Development of ICT products and services, improving ability to exploit e--- commerce opportunities, especially for micro and SME businesses.
Ensuring key employment locations are fully superfast/ideally ultrafast enabled; supporting locations outside core BDUK supported roll-out.
EU Thematic Objective 2: Enhancing Access to, and use and quality of, Information and Communications Technologies
MA appreciate that Government advice was to avoid the infrastructure element of this EU Thematic Objective, but in light of the Superfast Surrey rollout to a target
of 99.7% coverage of the county, MA felt the omission of this EU Thematic Objective was a lost opportunity:
Not to directly reference business/selected residential demand stimulation interventions that MA believe are essential post superfast rollout.
•
•
•
• Ensuring town centre businesses are fully digitally engaged, able to embrace/exploit rise in on-line commerce and marketing opportunities. With significant
SCC investment in Superfast, an element of this MA believe could potentially be used as match-funding against ESIF funding streams. Headline investment figures
are £20 million by Surrey County Council, £11.8 million from British Telecom and £1.3 million from the Government's BDUK fund. Digital will form an important strand of
the emerging SEP, MA believe this should have been greater reflected within the ESIF strategy. EAFRD references supporting superfast in the final hard to reach rural
areas should also have been supported by the ESIF strategy.
EU Thematic Objective 6. Protecting the Environment and Promoting Resource Efficiency
MA note that this objective was designated as a lower priority within the Government guidance, but MA did identify within this objective there is a stated ESF
activity relevant to both the SDNP and Surrey Hills AONB under the following: “Educate residents on the importance of habitat and nature improvements for
regional and coastal tourism”. MA believe that educational activities of both the AONB and SDNP could potentially count towards match funding within the EU
Thematic Objective. MA should not lose sight of the importance of our National Park and AONB’s, especially with the specific rural EAFRD funding stream as yet
unclear.
11
EU Thematic Objective 8: Promoting Employment and Supporting Social Mobility
•
MA concur with the ESIF strategy stated, but also believe that the retail, hospitality and tourism sectors all offer low-barriers to entry in both employment and
self-employment models as evidenced by their respective trade groups and representative organisations to government consultation. MA believe that
these sectors offer established routes to employment and can also demonstrate social mobility benefits and
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
2.
Working together to
deliver the strategy
How your business can help with the delivery of this strategy by using some of these funds as match funding for your own projects
Surrey Nature Partnership (SyNP)
•
The SyNP is one of 48 Local Nature Partnerships recommended by the Natural Environment White Paper (2010) and mandated by Government in
July 2012. SyNP highlight that Surrey has a rich heritage of wildlife, valued by both residents and visitors; it is a popular place to live and work and is
an economic powerhouse that supports the national economy to the tune of £6 billion per year. The SyNP brings together expertise and influential
decision makers to ensure that the true costs and benefits of the natural environment are properly taken into account (recognising our natural
capital) and embedded within all decision making processes. The SyNp believe this is a major shift in working that will ensure better outcomes for
everyone. The SyNP work closely with our neighbouring Local Nature Partnership (Hampshire & Isle of Wight LNP) to cover the EM3 area in a coordinated way. The SyNP are delighted that the EM3 Strategy recognises the valuable role that the Local Nature Partnerships will play in further
refining, and supporting the delivery of, the objectives outlined in the Vision for Growth within the draft Strategy. In particular recognising the
important cross-cutting role the LNPs will play in informing sustainable economic growth. The SyNP confirm that their willingness to play such a role in
matters relating to Surrey.
o
The LNPs are broad strategic partnerships with expertise in engaging stakeholders from wide cross sections of the community and from a range of
sectors, and in supporting these stakeholders to inform and shape local initiatives leading to delivery of key objectives. These skills are available to
EM3 to assist in delivering key activities and would be particularly beneficial in supporting Community Led Local Development. Project themes
previously submitted by the LNPs should be included i.e. developing nature based tourism, woodland enterprises, sustainable land and
developing sustainable fisheries, improved flood risk management and carbon storage.
Surrey Hills AONB
EM3 Strategic Actions: Areas of mutual interest
•
Enterprise – maintaining and strengthening the competiveness of the local business base
Land based businesses are of particular importance to rural areas. Surrey Hills Enterprises, a Community Interest Company, purpose is to strengthen the
rural economy of rural Surrey by working with the land based sector, developing local supply chains particularly in the tourism, food and drink sectors.
The AONB Board supports the aim to promote the creation and expansion of social enterprises
The development of a Growth Hub and business portals to support local businesses is an area that Surrey Hills Enterprises would like to collaborate with the
LEP on.
1. Innovation – scaling up capabilities, widening networks and focusing on smart specialisation. The SDNPA welcomes the inclusion of public, voluntary
sector or social enterprises under the innovation measures – and suggest Surrey Hills Enterprises could play a major role.
2. Skills, employment and employability. The Surrey Hills AONB Board would like to highlight the importance in relation to the land management sector,
and the ability to access Broadband in rural areas.
3. Sustainable Infrastructure and Places. Promoting sustainable access to and within the Surrey Hills AONB and National Parks through infrastructure
improvements and information should be highlighted as an opportunity to enhance the LEP area as a tourist destination and as a recreational
destination for the urban workforce.
12
Cycling is a major opportunity and management issue for the National Parks and the Surrey Hills. The Surrey Hills was the destination for the Olympic Cycle
Race and the legacy has been a massive increase in road cycling and events, which take place almost every weekend over the
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
Summer in the Surrey Hills. The Surrey Cycle Strategy identifies this as an opportunity to encourage more people cycling for the benefit of the environment, health
and economy. The Surrey Hills is already acknowledged as one of the top locations in the country for Mountain Biking, but investment in infrastructure is required to
maximise the benefit.
Supporting the shift to low carbon: The Surrey Hills AONB Board fully supports this being a priority. In one of the most wooded regions in the country there should be
a focus on wood fuel. As woodlands are important to our landscapes, the Protected Landscapes have strong support and representation on the growing and
processing side and there is the opportunity to work with the LEP to develop the market and the environmental technology sectors.
Surrey Hills Enterprises has established an annual wood fuel conference as the focus for the industry in the country. Next year, it will be form part of the Grown in
Britain Week and The Surrey Hills AONB Board would like to work with Enterprise M3 on this event.
Enterprise Opportunities: The Surrey Hills AONB Board agrees that the visitor economy is a strong driver of economic growth that can further support rural
regeneration. The Protected Landscapes of the Surrey Hills AONB and the two National Parks are the regions greatest assets in this respect, and the AONB Board
is pleased to see recognition of these in 4.35.
South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA)
4. Enterprise – maintaining and strengthening the competiveness of the local business base
Land based businesses are of particular importance to rural areas. The strengthening of local supply chains can bring together and support the land-based
sector, tourism and food and drink sectors helping them to develop and grow.
Business premises: An adequate supply of incubation units and flexible workspace is an issue that was also identified in the South Downs Management Plan, we
therefore support measures to provide ‘grow on space’ and support services where there is market failure. Many rural businesses are small, employing less than 10
people, often starting as home based. In order to grow there is a need for flexible work space and move on premises. Rental levels are also an issue in some
places, there is a need for low cost premises as well. The SDNPA employment land study and work for their Local plan suggest there is a gap in suitable premises
between the homeworker and the light industrial estate, which may be a barrier to the incremental growth of these businesses.
13
Business support services are crucial to ensuring improved start up rates and survival rates along with access to finance for start-ups. The development of a Growth
Hub and business support portal to support local businesses is key, along with the development of rural business networks, something that the SDNPA would be
keen to look at particularly within the tourism sector through the work that we do with Our Land and the intention to set up a South Downs Sustainable Tourism
Network.
Social enterprises: The SDNPA supports the inclusion of incentivising and supporting the creation and expansion of social enterprises
5. Innovation – scaling up capabilities, widening networks and focusing on smart specialisation
The SDNPA welcomes the inclusion of public, voluntary sector or social enterprises under the innovation measures.
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
6. Skills, employment and employability
Access to training and jobs in rural areas can be a particular issue for young people. Whilst the SDNPA support improving access to HE provision through remote
and virtual learning, many of the rural areas are disadvantaged through lack of internet provision or speeds. Whilst the SDNPA appreciate that the ESIF cannot be
used to address the gap in provision of superfast broadband, it believes that it can assist in increasing levels of take up and use of digital technology. In addition,
a skilled rural workforce will be a critical factor in securing the effective management of land to conserve and enhance the landscape and to maximise the
delivery of the ecosystem services mentioned earlier in this response. There may be opportunities for the SDNPA along with Sparsholt College and other partners to
develop apprenticeships to help address these skills gaps.
7. Sustainable Infrastructure and Places
Smart Transport: The SDNPA particularly welcomes the inclusion of measures to help tackle the impact of transport within the EM3 area and the promotion of
sustainable travel through low carbon modal shift/ smarter choices. The SDNPA would welcome the opportunity to work with the LEP to see how its current LSTF
project could be extended after the current round of funding runs out. Much of the work that the SDNPA are currently doing under this scheme revolves around
behavioural change, particularly in relation to tourism travel. The SDNPA have been working with key tourism attractions within the South Downs to implement
sustainable transport plans.
The SDNPA would be interested to hear what major infrastructure improvements are planned and will of course need to be subject to rigorous cost/benefit analysis
and environmental appraisal in terms of potential impacts on the special qualities of the National Park. The SDNPA would like to see more evidence here on the
need to grow the economy whilst avoiding where possible growth in carbon emissions and congestion.
Infrastructure improvements should reflect the sustainable transport hierarchy – 1) avoiding the need to travel (eg local supply chains, good broadband), 2)
switching to more sustainable modes (eg freight off lorries and onto rail or short sea shipping), 3) managing existing networks better (eg better routing of lorries using
satnav), and not just going straight to 4) new infrastructure. Business opportunities and cost savings to business are there to be had in all four elements.
With growth placing additional pressure on existing infrastructure alternative sustainable modes need to be provided - such as walking and cycling links that
enable shorter utility journeys to be undertaken using lower carbon modes. The SDNPA’s Vision for Cycling shows that at least
£6million of investment is needed, and could bring much greater benefits. If a detailed programme of potential infrastructure investment is being prepared the
SDNPA can provide the rationale behind the proposed routes in terms of the connectivity and economic benefits provided for communities. The SDNPA has
provided a map of suggested routes for funding although this is indicative at this stage.
In addition the provision of green infrastructure improvements will increase the attractiveness of our rural areas, especially the National Park, as a tourist destination
and as a recreational destination for the urban workforce.
No mention is made of other infrastructure such as water management. Supply of water, managing flooding, and the ability of the environment to absorb
pollution are important ecosystem services but also place important constraints. Water availability will be key to capacity for development, especially housing,
particularly for those areas that source water from the chalk aquifers as these are already over abstracted.
14
Supporting the shift to low carbon: The SDNP Energy Study indicated that a multi-faceted approach will be needed in order to meet Government carbon savings
targets. Key to this will be energy efficiency measures in both domestic and non-domestic buildings, along with a shift towards
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
renewable energies, as indicated under Thematic Objective 4; currently support is only mentioned in relation to non-domestic. The SDNPA would want to ensure
that any large scale RE schemes were sensitive to their environment. To support the uptake of energy efficiency and RE schemes improvements are also required in
terms of training associated trades to install and maintain renewable energy technologies.
The SDNPA wants to explore innovative ways to get superfast broadband to rural business clusters and communities within the SDNP area of the LEP
Enterprise Opportunities: The SDNPA would agree that the visitor economy is a strong driver of economic growth that can further support rural regeneration.
Given the significant proportion of the EM3 area that comprises designated high quality landscapes (see above), there must be potential to encourage
overseas visitors to see the area as a destination in its own right. In particular EM3 has two National Parks with good accessibility from most of its surrounding
urban areas. This is a unique characteristic which has direct and indirect economic benefits.
Page 41. Reducing planning constraints particularly regarding the re-use of rural buildings, is identified as an opportunity, but does not appear to get picked up in
the activities. Whilst it can provide useful space for rural businesses care needs to be taken when redeveloping redundant rural buildings and their settings,
especially where these are of historic value. Conversion should follow current planning policy framework, local plan policies and relevant planning guidance.
4.35
The SDNPA is pleased to see recognition of all three of the protected landscapes within this section and their value as assets of national capital. However it does
not sit well within the section which is more about infrastructure, nor does it recognise the constraints and opportunities that this may have upon the EM3 area
(see 2.1 above)
4.39
The opportunity exists to develop local, low carbon, sustainable and resilient networks of businesses based, for example, on food, wood fuel, tourism and transport.
The SDNP is characterised by plenty of large energy-inefficient rural houses which are off-grid, but also an abundant supply of renewable resources – in particular
wood fuel from one of the most densely wooded parts of the UK. There is a big opportunity here to create skilled, local jobs, reduce emissions, improve biodiversity
and reduce the dependence of the economy on volatile fossil fuel prices. Again, this applies to many of the rural parts of EM3 not just the NP.
15
The LEP seeks an inclusive and cohesive society. The SDNPA sees affiliation between this aspiration and its own duty to seek social and economic well-being of
communities within the Park. There are perhaps synergies to be made with the work that the SDNPA is doing with communities on neighbourhood planning and
support for social enterprises through its Sustainable Communities Fund.
5. Funding
It is disappointing to see that Climate change, protecting the environment and Transport are not included within the ERDF funding proposal
Hampshire County Council
What activities are already taking place or are planned that fit with the strategy? Could these be used as match-funding?
•
Existing work relevant to the Enterprise and Innovation Priorities - Hampshire welcomes the focus on Enterprise and Innovation. The Council’s
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
16
own economic development objectives and activity are closely aligned to those in the strategy. Hampshire County Council is currently working with EM3 to
identify opportunities for stronger alignment of activities and resources to achieve greater impact in the local economy. The recent workshop with Economic
Development Officers from Surrey and Hampshire identified that the Council’s Inward Investment, Key Account Management and Enterprise activities, for
example, contribute to EM3’s Enterprise and Innovation agendas. The business support currently provided by Hampshire including, for example, Meet the
Buyer events, handling business and investment enquiries and business support organisations and networks helps existing businesses to succeed and grow as
well as attracting new private sector investment to create new jobs and drive skills development. There is scope, as these shared activities are progressed, to
use the investment to deliver these activities as match-funding.
•
Existing work relevant to the Skills, Employment and Employability programme World Class Skills
o
Hampshire is very supportive of work to promote the take up of Apprenticeships/ Traineeships. This needs to link in with existing work being done with
the National Apprenticeship Scheme, the Association of Learning Providers Hampshire & Isle of Wight network and Hampshire’s emerging Youth
Investment programme.
o
The promotion of STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and maths) to young people needs to be supported by effective
Information, Advice & Guidance and should be guided by local labour market priorities and needs.
o
Hampshire’s strong post-16 provider network will be key in supporting the development of higher level vocational pathways and skill development for
key sectors. Again, this work needs to be closely aligned to business needs and sector development.
•
Employability and Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG)
o
This is a complex area in which Hampshire is keen to be involved. There has been criticism by Ofsted of the existing policy whereby schools are
responsible for independent IAG for young people from year 8 upwards, and with a large free market of providers (including Hampshire Careers
and Employability Service) it may be difficult to attain a coordinated approach. The LEP may wish to consider a lobbying role to government on this
issue.
o
Hampshire is already undertaking work to increase employer engagement with schools through the development of an ‘Investor in Young People’
Award and is supporting the raising of the participation age through initiatives such as the Hampshire Youth Investment programme as well as
initiatives to support participation and re-engagement of NEET young people.
•
Collaboration and brokerage
o
In order to enable better links between business and education providers, the LEP must consult with Business Development functions already in
existence within post-16 providers, which already look at marketing to employers and meeting their needs for training the existing workforce.
•
Social Inclusion
o
It is crucial that European funds link into and add value to the existing work being undertaken by the Troubled Families teams in the EM3 area.
Projects relevant to the Sustainable Infrastructure and Places strategic programme
•
The promotion of sustainable travel through low carbon modal shift/ smarter choices.
o
The County Council has begun a process of rolling out electric vehicle charge points across Hampshire and the surrounding area, and mapping
and promoting the use of these. On-going work in this area could be used in support of this objective.
•
Non-domestic low carbon technologies and energy efficiency including retrofit and low carbon housing solutions/technologies.
o
The County Council is developing its own Energy Performance Programme and has identified 25 of its own corporate buildings for energy
performance measures, with procurement to follow shortly. The County Council has developed expertise in this area which
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
o
o
o
o
o
could be utilised both in terms of provision of advice or potentially a more hands-on role in providing services to non-domestic building owners.
This could ultimately lead to local businesses making savings against their energy bills.
The County Council also has experience in developing feasibility studies for the application of District Energy Networks to domestic and nondomestic properties and would be able to contribute expertise in this area.
On-going and planned projects in these areas have a definite fit with the Strategy and the potential to be used as match funding.
Exploring whole place low carbon solutions and smart cities solutions with a town centre pilot.
As per the above, the County Council has experience in assessing the feasibility of District Energy Networks which could potentially form part of a
town centre pilot. There is also previous experience of delivering wide ranging domestic energy efficiency programmes (Insulate Hampshire) as well
as the aforementioned knowledge of energy performance programmes, and the Council is also carry out on-going work around deployment of
technologies such as Solar PV, all of which could be relevant. Furthermore, the Council’s experience and on-going work with regard to Electric
Vehicle usage could feed into a sustainable transport aspect of any pilot project.
Much of the County Council’s current and planned work could be utilised in support of this objective.
17
Are you aware of any examples of best practice happening outside of Hampshire that could be rolled out in our area?
•
Below are some potentially relevant examples in the area of energy / low carbon, with benefits for small businesses, community projects and the economy in
general:
o
Cambridgeshire County Council (Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridge City Council) have developed a network aiming to deliver £1bn
worth of retrofits to 40,000 buildings by 2050. The Cambridge Retrofit Project will operate as part-social enterprise, part- professional delivery service with
its work overseen by a group of 30 public and private sector organisations. http://www.cambridgeretrofit.org/default.aspx
o
Oxfordshire County Council (Oxfordshire City and County Councils) are setting up the OxFutures Fund as part of the Oxfordshire Total Retrofit programme.
They have received EU funding to attract private and public sector funding to support community energy efficiency projects across the county. This has
involved setting up a revolving community share offer scheme. Much of the development and drive for this project has come from Low Carbon Hub.
http://oxford.gov.uk/oxfutures
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
3.
Enterprise M3 role to
manage and deliver
funding
How we can manage and deliver this funding to help business within the area to access and use this funding effectively
Surrey County Council (Environment and Infrastructure)
• Community Led Local Development (CLLD): If a compelling case can be made for the establishment of one or more CLLD initiative in the Enterprise
M3 area this should be included in the investment plan and worked up in further detail during the programming period. This situation will presumably
become clearer once full details of the amount of EAFRD to be included in the Growth Programme and Enterprise M3 allocations are announced.
SCC are keen to work with Enterprise M3 in developing new ways of delivering local projects with genuine local governance structures where that
approach is likely to bring exceptional benefit.
• Programme Business Processes: SCC encourage Enterprise M3 to continue to make appropriate arguments to national Government with regard to
how delivery applications are made, selected and subsequently managed and reported on. End-to-end LEP involvement is key here and the
processes should be those that best support flexible and innovative delivery. SCC offer to support to Enterprise M3 representations as opportunity
arises. In particular we are keen to see that the application process be as open as possible to enable local and innovative delivery to be
developed and financially supported.
• Technical Assistance: SCC are keen to lend active support to Enterprise M3 in making an argument for a fair share of the available Technical
Assistance budget. SCC are equally keen to be directly involved in the development of a local support model that will use this funding alongside
local match funding.
Surrey County Council EmployAbility
•
EmployAbility are keen to work with Enterprise M3 to enable the LEP to secure additional funding through appropriate sources to meet social inclusion
needs for the economic area. EmployAbility is Surrey County Council's supported employment service with a track record in delivery on European
funded projects and already support around 700 disabled people in Surrey to access or sustain employment. Yet this is a fraction of the number of
disabled people who would want to work, but need additional support. For example, Surrey has the highest number of people with learning disabilities
in Europe, but the majority would not qualify from support from a service such as ours as their disability would not be considered eligible for adult
social care services. In Surrey there are over 17,000 people with a learning disability but only around 3, 300 eligible for support from Surrey County
Council's social care. The majority of people with learning disabilities express an interest in finding work, but need support to access the vacancies.
Interestingly many Surrey employers experience difficulty in filling entry level roles or find staff turnover high, some of these roles would be ideal for
EmployAbility’s clients who often enjoy repetitive tasks. They may take longer to learn a task, but once trained they will generally be a very reliable
workforce who are keen to be part of their local community and included. EmployAbility believe that there may be opportunities to look at what
existing funding exists for some of the vulnerable client groups and to explore if there are match fund opportunities to enable EmployAbility to reach
those who would not otherwise get the support they need. For example, the "place, train and maintain method" (as mentioned in the ESIF strategy
document) of supported employment has been shown internationally to be the most successful way to get disabled people and other vulnerable
groups (including NEET young people) to become economically active and contribute to their communities.
18
SyNP
•
The SyNP has an Economic and Funding Task Group which will be taking a strategic overview of large scale bids within the SyNP/EM3 area. There is an
opportunity to use this group to support the ability of Surrey based businesses to access this funding to develop their business. This
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
Task Group could be used to develop criteria for, and potentially administer a grant, specifically focussed on supporting a range of business opportunities. In
addition support such as guidance and training to utilise the funding could be delivered. Please note this funding would be completely separate from LEADER
funding and would not seek to duplicate that work but would provide an additional route to access funding.
South Downs National Park Authority
Delivery Arrangements and Proposed Local Governance - National Park Authorities as the Planning Authority are ‘relevant authorities’ under the ‘duty to
cooperate’ when developing and agreeing investment priorities and should therefore be represented within the Governance structure. The SDNPA would
welcome the opportunity to be involved in the proposed LEIFIG.
Approach to Rural Development: Community Led Local Development & European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
7.12 The SDNPA is pleased to see that the LEP intends to work with the LEADER LAGs and to tailoring mainstream funds (ERDF, ESF and EAFRD) to address rural issues.
We would support the initial priorities stated on page 78
•
Rural diversification measures – principally around the exploitation of ICT, supply chains in the food and drink business sector, business advice, skills,
support for strategically important tourism, recreation and leisure projects; and
Measures to enhance the competitiveness of our rural areas.
•
The SDNPA would welcome the opportunity to develop practical ideas that will specifically benefit rural areas within the SDNP.
20
Hampshire County Council
How can we manage and deliver this funding to help business within the area to access and use this funding effectively?
•
There are various possibilities for how funding could be managed effectively so as to help business access and utilise it.
o
There is potential to create an Energy Services Company (ESCo), broadly a commercial non-profit organisation for delivery of a range of energy projects,
around a relevant project or projects in support of funding aspirations. This would create a commercial structure to produce, supply and/ or manage
projects such as the local delivery of decentralised energy to a ‘whole site’ development. An ESCo could seek to secure partnership investment from
private equity or community sources, including partnership with major utilities/ energy companies to help meet their own low-carbon aspirations.
o
There is also potential to enter into various other trading structures for project delivery, including creation of a subsidiary company as per the Norfolk
County Council example above and entering-into or setting-up other non-profit organisations such as Co-operatives and Community Interest Companies.
Opportunities exist to create structures with can bring together the interests of local authorities, business and enterprise and community groups to deliver
projects that are in the interests of all three.
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
4.
Other
SyNP
•
Governance Review - the SyNP would like to request that a seat on the Board be made available for the LNPs in order to allow them to fulfil the role outlined in
4.45 to act as a communications conduit with statutory and other key stakeholders on managing the natural capital asset of the area. The SyNP would be
pleased to have a seat on the Local European Investment Framework Implementation Group (LEIFIG).
•
Sustainable development - the SyNP support the commitment to promoting sustainable development and the objectives outlined in Section 7: 7.1 to 7.6
including the desire outlined in 7.2 to “preserve and protect these habitats and landscapes to maintain local distinctiveness”. The LNPs provide a key source of
expertise, data and knowledge to lead this work. SyNP is a member of the Local Authority Climate Change Adaptation Group and chairs two Catchment
Partnerships within Surrey supporting the catchment based approach advocated by Defra. The SyNP strongly support the stated objective in 7.6 to “ensure a
sustainable approach to growth, which protects the natural capital of the EM3 area, while also unlocking smart economic growth for the future”. The four
project themes submitted by the LNPs of tourism, woodland enterprises, sustainable land management and sustainable fisheries are all cross-cutting in nature
and meet the commitments outlined in 7.
Surrey Hills AONB Board
Delivery Arrangements and Proposed Local Governance
•
The Surrey Hills AONB Board believes that the LEADER Local Action Groups are an effective means to deliver projects in discreet rural areas. Surrey Hills
LEADER programme should be seen as a key partner and delivery agent, through which further resources could be delegated.
21
Hampshire County Council
How can we ensure sustainability and equality are cross-cutting themes?
•
It is recognised within the Strategy Document (para 7.5) that objectives for the cross cutting theme of sustainability build on some of the work led by the Surrey
and Hampshire Climate Change Partnerships. Skills and experience exist within Hampshire County Council to specifically help build upon this work, as the
Council led on the development of the Hampshire Partnership.
•
The Council supports the inclusion of reduction in Greenhouse Gases by 2020 as an output (para 4.48) but suggest that this could be a cross- cutting output
across all of the priorities listed. It is felt that it would generally be beneficial to commit to embedding the concept of sustainability into all of the objectives of
the Strategy, to ensure that this cross-cutting theme is taken into account across all actions that are taken. The key point is that it should ultimately lead to
financial savings across the board, with businesses and organisations able to achieve a combination of savings in energy use and also potentially to make
savings against future costs arising from climate events.
The Council supports the recognition that further work is needed to develop low carbon aspirations and would welcome the opportunity to contribute to
discussions around this with LEP and local LNPs (para 4.45).
•
The Environment Agency
•
EA welcome the strategy’s emphasis on low carbon activities and whole place low carbon solutions. This shows a clear recognition of the relevance of
climate change. EA also support the commitment to promoting sustainable development in the cross cutting themes. EA highlight that sustainable
development is rarely mentioned in the rest of the document, despite it being a cross cutting theme.
EA support the ambition to work with Local Nature Partnerships.
EA also support the plan to include ‘Environmental bodies’ on the LEIFIG sub group. EA are keen for this to include either a Natural England or an
Environment Agency representative to provide a single voice on behalf of both organisations.
•
•
ReportproducedbyDrumainnLimitedforEnterpriseM3LEP(January2014)
Enterprise M3 – European Structural and Investment Fund Strategy – Revised in February 2016
ANNEX F – DETAILS OF ESIF CONSULTATION EVENT – 24 OCTOBER 2013
Enterprise M3 held an EU consultation event on 24 October 2013 in Woking.
The following organisations sent representatives to Enterprise M3’s EU Consultation Event:
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
NatWest Basing
News
Surrey Community Action
The FSE Group
Waverley Borough Council
Surrey Connects
Aspire Learning and Development Ltd
BIS South Central & West
Bourne Group
Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited
Environment Agency
Big Lottery Fund
Community Action Hampshire
North Wessex Downs Leader Programme
Outsource Training and Development
Brooklands College
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Winchester Business Improvement District
Collectively Camberley Ltd
Oxford Innovation Services Ltd
Hampshire Chamber of Commerce
NIACE
Hampshire County Council Test
Valley Borough Council The
Real-Time Data Co Ltd Action
for Carers Surrey
New Forest National Park Authority
University of Southampton
Royal Holloway University of London
Chichester College
Communication Workers Union
Surrey Research Park
Farnborough International Charles
Freeman Projects
New Forest RDPE LEADER Programme
University of Southampton
WSX Enterprise Limited
Kent Surrey and Sussex Academic Health Science Network
Profit from Science
Thames Valley Berkshire LEP
Elmbridge Borough Council The
Prince's Trust
Forestry Commission - Southeast and London Area
Enterprise M3 – European Structural and Investment Fund Strategy – Revised in February 2016
LC Energy Ltd University of
Portsmouth
Communication Workers Union
East Hants/Havant Council RAISE
Department for Works and Pensions
Surrey County Council
Surrey Hills Enterprises CIC Smart
Training and Recruitment Eastleigh
College
PDM Training and Consultancy Ltd
WSP UK Ltd
Spelthorne Borough Council
Enham Trust
South Downs National Park Authority
Learning Links
JTL Training
Solent Education Business Partnership
SERTUC
Guildford Borough Council
QEF Mobility Services
Surrey and Hampshire Local Nature Partnerships
The Wimbledon Trepisphere
Sparsholt College Hampshire
Career Central CIC
ALPS Partnership Ltd
Farnborough College of Technology
Guildford College
Hart District Council Heathrow
Airport Limited The Hampshire
Connection Basingstoke
Consortium Woking Borough
Council
Loddon & Eversley LEADER Programme
Matthews Associates (UK) Limited
Marskman Consulting LLP
BSK-CIC
Citicentric Property Consultants
MEPC
Federation of Small Businesses
Birtley House Group Ltd Insynergi
Rushmoor Borough Council
Surrey Heath Borough Council
Summary of Feedback from EU Consultation Event
For the second half of this event, the room was divided into eleven tables to consider how we take the development of the Enterprise M3 EU Investment
Strategy forward. These tables were split across the programmes identified as forming the strategy, namely Enterprise, Innovation, Skills & Employment, and
Sustainable Infrastructure.
Delegates were asked to consider the following three questions:
1. Getting Started: What measures need to be taken and who should be involved to ensure we get off to a ‘flying start’? Can your business or organisation
help – could this funding match your own spending?
2. Experience and alignment: What’s already happening or planned in the area? What’s missing and how can build on previous learning? How do
we address sustainability and equality?
3. Delivery: What needs to happen to take forward the activities we have identified quickly and effectively and get the funds to those who can make a
difference?
We collected a large amount of feedback, considering these issues from the viewpoints of a range of organisations. A summary detailing the main points that
were raised is below. We will consider the verbatim comments collected as part of the overall consultation exercise underway around the draft strategy.
1. Ensure that we know what is already out there, how this can contribute to what we are trying to achieve, how it is being operated and whether this can
contribute to match funding. Important to cost existing activity if possible and to spin out best practice across the area where appropriate. Also applies to
activities underway outside Enterprise M3.
2. The LEP’s role is one of engagement across barriers. Key to the success of all initiatives is to have organisations working together in new ways. This
means that the LEP and its partners need to work together to break down vertical silos. There is also an element of culture change here, particularly
around openness and sharing of information. Where organisations are used to being in competition and protecting information, there needs to be a
culture of collaboration in order for initiatives to be a success. This particularly applies for SMEs and the HE sector.
3. We need to be giving key partners leadership roles in taking these ideas forward. Ideas such as ‘sector champions’, were floated along with proposals
around giving colleges/HEIs/companies key roles in taking plans forward. This will increase engagement across the area as well as maximising the
capacity of the LEP. Equally, the LEP should use the premises and facilities of its partners to increase its physical presence across the area. A number
of partners suggested they would be amenable.
4. Businesses value the opportunity to access face –to-face support. It is recognised that this will need to be part of a mix of support solutions, however face
to face support and clear signposting to other sources of support available are regarded as important.
5. Space for businesses to grow is key. Appropriate incubation space within the area, which is not prohibitively expensive, is necessary to allow
businesses to grow.
6. The LEP needs to effectively communicate its ideas. These need to be presented in a form which is transparent and easily understandable to
businesses. Communication of ideas needs to start early and we need to be able to clearly define and articulate what we want.
£1,2m
Issuedin27
March15,closed
29May15,
Procurementin
process
Call1March
ANNEX G: ERDF Provisional schedule of calls
Subjectofcalls:whattypesof
projectsarebeingsought?
EM3ERDFNotionalallocationin
euros
Revisedallocationat0,71Exchange
rate
PriorityAxis1:Researchand
Innovation
DigitalInnovationTechnologies
InnovationNetwork
Innovate2Suceed
InnovationBusinessNetwork
2015
Call2
July
£0,5m
Issuedon
th
24 July,
th
closeon25 Sept15
Procurement
inprocess
Call3
Nov
£3m
issuedon9
Dec15,
closingon
29Jan16,
procureme
ntin
process
Call1
March
Call3
Oct
2016
Call2
June
2017
Spring
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2018-2020
Total
Budget£s
20142020
25,2m
EUR
£17,8m
£13,35m
£5,3m
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2015-2017
£4m
£4,45m
£1,3m
Subjectofcalls:whattypesof
projectsarebeingsought?
Innovation/incubationcentresfor
prioritysectors
TOTALEM3ERDFPriority1issued
TOTALEM3ERDFPriority1
contracted
PriorityAxis2:-ICT
DigitalGrowth
Digitalhighstreet
3
-
SME
TOTALEM3ERDFPriority2issued
TOTALEM3ERDFPriority2
Contracted
Priority Axis
competitiveness
AccesstoFinanceforGrowth
2015
600000
3000000
500000
1200000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
£0,550m
Issued27March
15,close29May
15,procurement
inprocess
550000
0
£0,500m
Issued17March
15,close29May
15,procurement
inprocess
2016
(£0,6m)
*
Remaini
ng
planned
(£0,650
m)*
Remaini
ng
Planned
2017
£0,9m
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2018-2020
£7,1m
£1,2m
Total
Budget£s
20142020
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2015-2017
£5,3m
£0,3m
£1,8m
Subjectofcalls:whattypesof
projectsarebeingsought?
UKTI-InternationalTrade
BusinesssupportforInward
Investment(softlandingandafter
care)
GrowthHubProgrammesupportfor
SMEsacrosspriorityandniche
sectors
5Gtechnologiesappliedacrossniche
sectors/Devofnewproductsand
services
TOTALEM3ERDFPriority3issued
TOTALEM3ERDFPriority3
contracted
PriorityAxis4-LowCarbon
Economy
Woodfuel
Generalcallforinnovativeideas
500000
0
2015
£0,600m
Calledissued
inJuly15,
closedon
15,
procurement
inprocess
600000
0
0
0
£1m
issuedon8
Dec15,
closingon
29Jan16,
procureme
ntin
process
2016
£1,3m
Planned
£2m
planned
(£2,4m)*
remainin
g
planned
£2m
Planned
2017
£600k
Plannedfor
secondhalfof
theprogramme
£3,15m
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2018-2020
£4,2m
Total
Budget£s
20142020
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2015-2017
£1,05m
Subjectofcalls:whattypesof
projectsarebeingsought?
Specificcalls(dependingonresponse
oftheabove)
TOTALEM3ERDFPriority4issued
TOTALEM3ERDFPriority4
contracted
TOTALEM3ERDFTendered
(41,3%cumulative)
TOTALEM3ERDFContracted
(0%cumulative)
TOTALEM3ERDFLeft
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2018-2020
Total
Budget£s
20142020
2017
0
2016
2015
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2015-2017
£0,600m
Planned
(£17,8m)*
(£0,600m)*
Remaining
allocation
planned
4000000
0
1100000
0
2250000
0
£17,8m
1000000
0
0
£17,8m
0
0
£17,8m
*remainingbudgetsubjecttothefluctuationoftheexchangerateoverthecourseoftheprogramme
2016
2017
£0.25min
consultation
£0.5m
£0.5m
£0.75m
waitingto
beprocured
£1mwaiting
tobe
procured
£0.75m
issuedin
August15,
Procuremen
tinprocess-
2ndstage
£0.25mIn
consultation
2015
ANNEX H- ESF Provisional schedule of calls (subject to change)
ESFPriorityAxis-
SubjectofCalls
EM3ESFNotionalAllocation
Revisedallocationat0.71Exchange
rate
Thematicobjective8:Employment
andLabourMobility
SFAopt-in
EmployercentredEmployability&
BasicSkills
SFAOpt-in
EmployerLedVocationalPathwaysfor
theunemployed
DWPOpt-in
Pre-employmenttraining(Heathrow
Academy-ledbyLondonLEP)
CIAGforgrowthsectors
DigitalSkills
1.1.1.1.170 Employer led employability and
vocationalskills
Thematic Objective 9 - Social
InclusionandPoverty
BIGLotteryOpt-in
SocialEnterprise
BIGLotteryOpt-in
SocialInclusion
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2015-2017
2020
2019
2018
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2018-2020
£1.6m
£3m
Total
Budget£s
2014-2020
20.4mEUR
£14.5m
£4.6m
£2.7m
£1.7m
1.1.1.1.169
£0.6
m
1.1.1.1.171 £1m
£1m
ESFPriorityAxis-
SubjectofCalls
1.1.1.1.172 Supporting multiple & complex
needs
1.1.1.1.174 Financial/DigitalInclusion
2017
£3.2m
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2015-2017
2016
2018
2019
1.1.1.1.173
£0.6
m
2020
Indicative
Budget
allocation£s
2018-2020
Total
Budget£s
2014-2020
1.1.1.1.175
£0.6
m
1.1.1.1.177
£0.5
m
£7.2m
£0.5m
£4m
£0.45m
£0.5m
2015
forretendering
£14.5m
STEMskills
£1m
GrowthHubBrokerageofskills
£0.75m
waitingto
procure
£0.5m
waitingto
procure
£0.5min
consultation
LMI
1.1.1.1.176 Barriers to employment in rural
areas
ThematicObjective10–Education
SFAOpt-in
EmployerLedVocationalpathways
towardsHigherSkills
SFAOpt-in
EmployerLedVocationalPathwaysfor
redundancy
SFAOpt-in
InformationAdviceandguidance
Developmentofhigherlevelskills
capacity(apprenticeships)
DigitalSkills
FullerWorkingLives
£0.75m
1.1.1.1.178 £2m
Employerownedfundsforskills
TOTALEM3ESFTendered(5.1%)
0
1.1.1.1.179 £0.5
m
1.1.1.1.180
£0.5
m
TOTALEM3ESFContracted(0%)
£14.5m
TOTALEM3ESFLeft