WORCESTERSHIRE LEP BOARD MEETING

Monday 18th September 2017, 2.00 pm - 6.00 pm

Stanbrook Abbey, Jennet Tree Lane, Callow End, Worcester WR2 4TY

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Apologies

2. Declarations of Interest

3. Minutes of WLEP Board Meeting on 17th July 2017 (5 mins)

4. Matters Arising (5 mins)

4.1 Action List

4.2 Correspondence

5. Reviewing the Data and Future Trends – Graham Russell (45 mins)

6. Operational Structure and Future Role of the LEP– Gary Woodman (30 mins)

7. Key Projects

7.1 Centre of Entrepreneurship – Linda Smith (30 mins)

7.2 Connected County including 5G test bed – Lorraine Stone (30 mins)

7.3 Invest in Worcestershire – Ian Edwards (30 mins)

8. The Kiln, Application for Funding - Ian Edwards (15 mins)

9. Funded Programme Update – Ian Edwards (10 mins)

10. Project Pipeline - Next Steps – Gary Woodman (30 mins)

11. Board Meeting Dates for 2017:

20th November 2017

Board Meeting Dates for 2018:

5th February 201819th March 201821st May 201816th July 201810th September 201819th November 2018

1

1.0 WELCOME & APOLOGIES

PRESENT:Mark Stansfeld (MS) Non-Executive Chair

Carl Arntzen (KA) Managing Director, Worcester Bosch Group

Cllr Karen May (KM) Bromsgrove District Council (rep Northern DCs)

Cllr David Chambers (LR) Leader, Malvern Hills District Council (representing Cllr Linda Robinson)

Cllr Simon Geraghty (SG) Leader, Worcestershire County Council

Chris Walklett (CW) Partner, Bishop Fleming

Mark Martin (MM) Chair of WLEP Business Board

Nick Baldwin (NB) Chairman, Office for Nuclear Regulation

Prof David Green (DG) CEO & Vice Chancellor of the University of Worcester

Stuart Laverick (SL) Principal & Chief Executive, Heart of Worcestershire College

IN ATTENDANCE:Gary Woodman (GW) Chief Executive, Worcestershire LEP

Ian Edwards (IE) Deputy Chief Executive, Worcestershire LEP

David Irish (DD) Research Manager, Worcestershire LEP (Note Taker)

Linda Smith (LAS) Director of Enterprise, Worcestershire LEP

Lorraine Stone (LS) Connected County Project Manager, Worcestershire LEP

Ian Miller (IM) Chief Executive, Wyre Forest DC

APOLOGIES:Cllr Linda Robinson (LR) Leader, Wychavon District Council (rep Southern DCs)

2

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

2.1 Conflicts of Interest Policy

2.1.1 Introduction This policy exists to ensure that any conflicts of interest which may arise in the Worcestershire LEP’s decision-making processes are managed and recorded properly. This protects the integrity of our decision-making processes, enables stakeholders to have confidence in our decision-making, and protects the reputation of the LEP and members of its boards.

The policy should be read alongside the Standards of Conduct Policy for Worcestershire LEP.

2.1.2 Scope

This policy applies to all members of LEP Decision Making Groups (‘members’) making investment decisions involving public money as identified in Figure 1 – WLEP Organisational Structure.

2.1.3 Definition

An “interest” may include employment, other appointments (including trusteeships, directorships, elected office), memberships (whether corporate or personal), investments, shareholdings, land and property, intellectual property, customer/client relationships, use of the LEP’s services or anything else which could (or could be perceived to) impact on the member’s ability to act independently.

This list is not exhaustive, and the presumption should be in favour of including anything which could conceivably be considered to be an interest, even if it is felt unlikely to arise.

2.1.4 Policy

The policy is in two parts:

Maintaining a record of all interests

Managing potential conflicts of interest

2.1.5 Maintaining a record of all interests

The LEP Executive will maintain a Register of Interests covering all Members and these will be renewed in January of each year.

Members are required to update their forms if any new interests arise during the year.

The LEP Executive will publish an up-to-date Declarations of Interests on the LEP website at www.wlep.co.uk/

3

3.0 MINUTES OF WLEP BOARD MEETING

Monday 17th July 2017

Malvern Hills Science Park, Geraldine Road, Malvern WR14 3SR

PRESENT:Mark Stansfeld (MS) Non-Executive ChairCarl Arntzen (CA) Managing Director, Worcester Bosch GroupCllr Karen May (KM) Bromsgrove District Council (rep Northern DCs)Cllr Linda Robinson (LR) Leader, Wychavon District Council (rep Southern DCs)Cllr Dr Ken Pollock (KP) Worcestershire County Council Cabinet Member with

Responsibility for Economy and Infrastructure (representing Cllr Simon Geraghty)

Mark Martin (MM) Chair of WLEP Business BoardNick Baldwin (NB) Chairman, Office for Nuclear RegulationSarah Greer (SG) Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Worcester (representing

David Green)Stuart Laverick (SL) Principal & Chief Executive, Heart of Worcestershire College

IN ATTENDANCE:Gary Woodman (GW) Chief Executive, Worcestershire LEPIan Edwards (IE) Deputy Chief Executive, Worcestershire LEPLorraine Stone (LSt) Connected County programme Manager, Worcestershire LEPJack Barnett (JB) PR & Communications Executive, Worcestershire LEPLinda Smith (LSm) Director of EnterpriseKevin Dicks (KD) Chief Executive, Bromsgrove BC & Redditch DCGraham Russell (GR) Partner Director, Amion ConsultingRhodri Burridge (RB) Creative Services Director, Gough Bailey WrightMichelle Wright (MW) Client Services Director, Gough Bailey WrightLinda Beauchamp (LB) BEIS West Midlands

APOLOGIES:Prof David Green (DG) CEO & Vice Chancellor of the University of WorcesterCllr Simon Geraghty (SG) Leader of Worcestershire County CouncilChris Walklett (CW) Partner, Bishop Fleming

1.

1.1

Welcome and Apologies

Mark Stansfeld (Chair) welcomed the Board, Kevin Dicks, Graham Russell, Rhodri Burridge, Michelle Wright and Linda Beauchamp. MS highlighted the LEP’s good momentum in significant areas, highlighting the 5GIC meeting that took place in Malvern Hills Science Park the previous Friday with a Memorandum of Understanding now signed.

LR entered the meeting

ACTION

2.

2.1

Declarations of Interest

MS asked the Board if there were any declarations of interest, no declarations of interest were made.

4

3.

3.1

3.1.1

Minutes of WLEP Board Meeting on 22 nd May 2017

Action List

The minutes were signed off as a true reflection by the Board.

4.

4.1

4.1.1

4.1.2

4.1.3

4.1.4

4.1.5

4.2

Matters Arising

Action list

MS noted the progress of the North Cotswold Line project and that the inaugural North Cotswold Line Taskforce would be meeting on the 24th July.

MS noted that a memorandum of understanding has now been signed between the Worcestershire LEP and the University of Surrey. MS highlighted plans that the new 5G test site will be ready before Christmas with the space identified at Malvern Hills Science Park.

MS acknowledged that the Worcestershire LEP Annual Conference is progressing well and reminded the Board that the event will take place on the 1st December 2017. MS stated that action is taking place to ensure that all delegates arrive at the conference fully informed of the LEP’s work.

MS mentioned the development of land at QinetiQ is also progressing well and will double the size of the Malvern Hills Science Park, creating 1,000 extra jobs. MS stated that these developments help to benefit all parts of local community.

MS asked the Board to complete their Declaration of Interest forms, which are circulated to the Board annually.

Correspondence

There was no correspondence.

Board

5.

5.1

Growth Deal, Growing Places and Finance Update

IE gave the board an overview of the current position on the £15.43m budget that was available in 2017/18. At this stage of the programme the mitigation of risk against underspend is likely to be covered by the design costs of schemes due to be delivered in 2020/21.

5.2

5.3

IE stated that the A38 should be match funded by Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP for £7.5m as the project will deliver access to jobs and housing.

KM stated that the A38 is only recognised as a B grade project by the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP and they will only consider A grade projects.

5

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

5.12

MS questioned whether there would be any potential risk of the project not receiving its required total funding, IE mentioned there is only a potential risk to spend stating that Section 106 funding was always expected from developers.

MM and SL entered the meeting.

The Board noted the approval of the capital investment in the Heart of Worcestershire college advanced manufacturing sector.

IE updated the Growing Places fund which committed £5.5m in 2012 with loans to Stoford, Select Research, Vellen, Worcestershire County Cricket Club and St Francis Group. IE stated that £1.8m was currently located in a loan and there is an opportunity for the Board to turn the loans into grants.

IE stated that the Highways Authority could be directly funded in order to drive out costs. By paying the grant up front it could be covered 5-10 years down the line with less finance charges. NB questioned whether the executive proposal was grant or loan? At this stage a detailed proposal cannot be made until a full financial assessment is complete and would be presented to the Board.

MS concluded that interested parties can hold separate conversations with IE.

IE added that there is £1.4m available in the budget to be reinvested through capital investments that create jobs. GW added the importance of the Annual Return to measure investment and jobs created.

IE also reiterated the importance of keeping investment in line with Worcestershire’s Strategic Economic Plan. This was agreed by the Board.

LR has shared the agenda with leaders of Worcester City Council and Malvern Hills District Council and they have added their support for the Kiln Innovation Programme. IE recognised the good commitment from partners.

MS concluded that within the capital programme there must be a Centre of Entrepreneurship approach across the County. Linda Smith will be developing the proposal of how this works which will go to the September Board.

IE

LSm

6.

6.1

6.2

SEP Assessment

MS began the SEP assessment by asking Graham Russell if the LEP is continuing to look at the right industry sectors for growth. GW added that GR’s research will help Worcestershire LEP to consider what is next in terms of delivery and that all work is important for Industrial Strategy. LB recommended this approach.

GR highlighted findings of research are at an early stage but draws out what the local issues are; what the local gaps are and the bottom-up impact of LEP projects. GR stated that the Worcestershire SEP had an ambitious vision and that Government feedback was good in response.

6

6.3

6.4

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

6.10

6.11

NB questioned whether the research incorporated all of the Worcestershire LEP’s funded projects. GW confirmed the research included findings from GD1 and GD2 funding and shows that Worcestershire LEP is performing well. However, the timing of investment means that our funding has limited influence on the figures.

GR added that Worcestershire’s GVA is outperforming the national average. However the county has falling levels of working age population.

CA joined the meeting.

KM asked if the research recorded any findings of variation between the North and the South of the county. GR responded that the research does not break this down specifically.

GR qualified that the research used data up to 2015 from Government and that no dramatic change was expected between 2015-17. However there is an expected underperformance to the UK average in terms of GVA growth. MS highlighted that achievement of strongest growth in the UK between 2010-15 is still valid.

GR summarised that Worcestershire has relatively less momentum in comparison to competitors but has seen strong growth in earnings and slow growth in life satisfaction. GR also highlighted low Enterprise Churn which measures the business competitiveness in Worcestershire.

GR concluded 7,500 jobs of 25,000 jobs target created between 2014-17 and £570m GVA of £2.9bn target achieved between 2014-17. GVA is therefore slightly behind target but jobs are on track.

MS was concerned that the research doesn’t line up to Government figures, different to Experian. GR offered to create a paper to discuss the difference between different datasets.

NB questioned what the impact of Worcestershire LEP was on the priority sectors. GR highlighted good competitive advantage in growth sectors to be promoted but there is a need to attract and retain graduates and use skills growth to address skills shortages.

A number of key trends were identified:

a) The ageing population hence falling levels of working age population.

b) Growth in a number of indicators had performed well but not as fast as high performing economies.

c) Job creation had been positive but, due to high historical performance, job growth had not been as great as other areas.

d) Improvements had been made on higher level skills but pockets of deprivation remain.

e) The housing market remained a constraint drag on productivity.f) Lack of business creation and innovation across all sectors of the

economy.g) The loss of young people to the economy.

7

6.12

6.13

6.14

It was acknowledged that most of our funding and levers were directed at enablers and not to support key sectors or companies. An example of this is the investment in skills for manufacturing, by investing in equipment for training.

It is also very difficult to identify the impact of the LEP investment on the macro economy.  However, we needed to continue to build a reputation of delivery, a story of success and proof points and become a more attractive as a place to invest.

Amion had only completed two weeks of the total commission and therefore a further report would be produced at the next Board Meeting. GW

7.

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

Worcestershire – The Story & Future Profile

LSt said that Gough Bailey Wright have been appointed to help with developing the story for Worcestershire and posed the question, what does the Board want Worcestershire to be famous for? MS added the importance for communications to engage with all stakeholders.

Michelle Wright highlighted there is more to Worcestershire than meets the eye. The LEP’s work with digital connectivity doesn’t fit under the World Class Worcestershire brand and the brand doesn’t communicate to every person locally. MW stated that clear messaging is important, the tone should make more approachable, less corporate so that the community feels more included. MW’s suggested brand was that Worcestershire has the ‘Best of Both Worlds’ (rural and urban).

LR raised concern that new brand is similar to World Class Worcestershire and a new brand is repeating a recent process.

KP raised that it would be difficult to summarise this concept in a tagline of four or five words. World Class Worcestershire hasn’t worked so well but has been used as an aspirational message all over the world.

KP left the meeting

SG added that a less corporate approach is good in communicating to the person on the street. SG did raise concern that Gough Bailey Wright’s messages will not help to keep students in the county. KM added the messaging lacked personality.

MS said that the new messaging would help to provide fresh, modern, creative and different communications.

CA added that Gough Bailey Wright’s vision was a good start but didn’t fit the vision. CA added that he didn’t like the World Class Worcestershire brand.

Further work to develop this umbrella brand will continue. LSt

8

8.

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

8.8

Bromsgrove District Council Economic Plan

KM delivered a presentation. KM mentioned that Bromsgrove skills level is higher than regional average but there is not enough land available for growing businesses. KM mentioned Bromsgrove town centre redevelopment has inspired businesses.

KM added that the Centres Management Strategy has been developed and will be signed off in September. KM mentioned local wages were relatively high but growing slowly. 3,700 people have left the Bromsgrove employment market and the town has an aging population in general.

KD noted that Bromsgrove attempted to maintain the status quo before KM’s arrival at Bromsgrove. KD highlighted that Bromsgrove’s aging population was drawing on the public sector.

KM stated that there should be a stronger focus on creating skilled jobs in Bromsgrove. The current planning policy framework is making Bromsgrove’s development an uphill battle despite residents generally wanting more infrastructure and housing. KM also mentioned that car parking should be revisited in Bromsgrove at the train station car park and the town is keen to gain HE campuses.

KM highlighted infrastructure as a priority problem which the A38 will help towards. DP added that immediately available sites is also a problem. IE added that Worcestershire LEP is receiving a good amount of investment enquiries but finding locations for enquiries is difficult.

KD stated the challenge of using green belt land and would be keen to gain support from Worcestershire LEP.

KM added that 40% of housing has to be affordable housing. KM concerned that north of the county is not well connected digitally.

LR asked whether there would be opportunity for other districts to present at the Board. MS confirmed there would be opportunity.

9. Any Other Business

GW gave thanks to Board Members SL, CW and NB for their contributions to the Worcestershire LEP Executive Team’s away day. GW mentioned that the September Board meeting will be used for a Board Away Day.

MS mentioned that the Board will be presented with the vision for the Worcestershire LEP’s new business plan which will be shared at the Worcestershire LEP’s Annual Conference.

GW

10. Dates of WLEP Board Meetings in 2017

18th September 201720th November 2017

9

4.0 MATTERS ARISING (ACTION LIST & CORRESPONDENCE)

4.1 ACTION LIST

4.1.1 Matters Arising

MS asked the Board to complete their Declaration of Interest forms, which are circulated to the Board annually.

Action: ALL Board members

4.1.2 Growth Deal, Growing Places and Finance Update

4.1.2.1 IE stated that the Highways Authority could be directly funded in order to drive out costs. By paying the grant up front it could be covered 5-10 years down the line with less finance charges. NB questioned whether the executive proposal was grant or loan? At this stage a detailed proposal cannot be made until a full financial assessment is complete and would be presented to the Board.

Action: Ian Edwards

4.1.2.2 MS concluded that within the capital programme there must be a Centre of Entrepreneurship approach across the County. Linda Smith will be developing the proposal of how this works which will go to the September Boar.

Action: Linda Smith

4.1.3 SEP Assessment

Amion had only completed two weeks of the total commission and therefore a further report would be produced at the next Board Meeting.

Action: Gary Woodman

4.1.4 Worcestershire – The Story & Future Profile

Further work to develop this umbrella brand will continue. Action: Lorraine Stone

4.1.5 Any Other Business

GW gave thanks to Board Members SL, CW and NB for their contributions to the Worcestershire LEP Executive Team’s away day. GW mentioned that the September Board meeting will be used for a Board Away Day.

Action: Gary Woodman

10

4.2 CORRESPONDENCE

4.2.1 Letter dated 11th August 2017 from DCLG to Mark Stansfeld re. Review into the future role of LEPs.

11

12

4.2.2 Letter dated 6th September 2017 from The Careers and Enterprise Company to Mark Stansfeld.

13

5.0 REVIEWING THE DATA AND FUTURE TRENDS

Presentation by Graham Russell (to follow)

14

6.0 OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE AND FUTURE ROLE OF THE LEP

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The WLEP Board is recommended to:

a) Note the report and give consideration to the structure and role of the LEP in Worcestershire going forward.

b) Agree a proactive response into the Review announced by DCLG and BEIS

6.1 Context

6.1.1 The Correspondence from Jake Berry Minister with Dept. for Communities and Local Government and Margot James Minister within Business Energy and Industrial Strategy dated 11 August announces a review of LEPs to strengthen the role and build on the work undertaken to present since the LEPs inception in 2011. The landscape and role has changed since 2011, with the strengthening governance and representing the private sector interests into the delivery of the Strategic Economic Plan.

6.1.2 The review is likely to cover the various forms and functions of LEP, the role of the business voice within the partnership, diversity on the board and within the partnership, geography and the balance between democratic accountability and independence of decision making.

6.1.3 Government have also completed an internal review on Governance and Transparency of LEPs conducted by Mary Ney, NED at DCLG, the findings of which have not been published. However, general conclusions from the discussions which Worcestershire LEP Executive were involved in, which could be drawn are:-

(i) Transparency and openness of decision making needs to be clear and followed explicitly

(ii) The Assurance Framework for making these decisions needs to be published and available to the general public.

(iii) The role and approach of the accountable body within the LEP structure is critical to assurance and risk.

(iv) The role of democratically bodies and embers needs greater definition.

(v) There are various models of legal status within the 38 LEPs from loose partnership to company limited by guarantee and any government guidance in the future needs to take account of these local circumstances.

15

6.1.4 There are a number of challenges in considering the future role of the LEPs within their local economies and communities. These include the LEPs role in the emerging Industrial Strategy and the creation of Local Industrial Strategies within the policy verses the current Strategic Economic Plans (particularly what is the difference between the documents?), the structure of funding beyond the current EU programme, the impact of Brexit and the balance between a leading strategic role of the partnership and the need to deliver or even become operational in specific areas of the strategy.

6.2 Current Governance

6.2.1 The previous governance review conducted in 2015 define the role of the Worcestershire LEP is to:

(i) Provide strategic leadership and develop a long term vision related to Worcestershire’s economy, providing strategic insight on the challenges and opportunities facing the county.

(ii) Champion Worcestershire’s economic vision and promote bold solutions.

(iii) Secure finance, attract investors and encourage local-to-national bodies to match resources to achieve Worcestershire’s ambitions.

(iv) Lead and co-ordinate Worcestershire interests from business, public and third sector networks and organisations to drive forward economic growth.

(v) Share knowledge, practice and intelligence in Worcestershire as well as across the national LEP Network to support best practice and have Worcestershire recognised as a high priority area.

16

Policy (Local Authorities)

Strategy (LEP)

Definition of Projects and programmes

(LEP)

Delivery (Local Authority,

Skills providers & Chamber of

Commerce

Monitor & Evaluation (LEP & LAs)

6.3 Success of the structure

6.3.1 The success of the structure of the LEP has been that it has bought all partners behind a strategy, which then has focused on delivery and also stood the test of time.

6.3.2 The partnership has achieved a significant amount of infrastructure investment over a 5 year period, which has generally been seen by the local business population as positive. The ‘heavy- lifting’ of the local government partners in delivering those schemes has been vital to their success.

6.3.3 In addition, we have developed a small executive team that is well respected by partners and seen a punching above its weight in terms of impact. This has meant that organisations such as skills providers, Worcestershire Training providers and the Chamber of Commerce have been tasked with delivery and seen as potentially sustainable beyond the funding.

6.3.4 Worcestershire LEP has been recognised nationally as achieving high level of productivity, prosperity and skills growth in the local economy, although difficult to assess impact of the investment made on the national performance indicators, these have created a track record of improved performance.

6.4 Disadvantages of the Structure

6.4.1 The disadvantages of this model is the LEP can be seen as an arms-length department of the County Council, therefore removing duplication of roles could be advantageous.

6.4.2 Unincorporated associations do not offer an inbuilt mechanism to ensure LEP accountability to local stakeholders, which would apply under the Companies Act’s reporting requirements. Although there is recognition of the additional costs that would come with incorporation. The paper does not recommend this action although it was contained within the Conservative manifesto for the 2017 election, although will be picked up in the review.

6.4.3 The lack of ability to instruct delivery can lead to frustration or complexity of management arrangements, which take time and resource in a structure that has limited capacity.

6.5 Priorities for Local Enterprise Partnerships in the Future

6.5.1 As the Government considers its policy on local growth and industrial strategy there are several propositions that LEPs should put to Government:

(i) Committing to a strong role for business with leadership responsibility in taking investment decisions to benefit the local economy, making sure local growth money and other infrastructure investment funding works in a joined-up way and has the maximum impact on people and businesses.

(ii) Maintaining and simplifying standalone funding for local growth, separate from the local government funding system, and in due course a replacement for EU funding without the bureaucracy that has made it so hard to use.

17

(iii) Continue with recent steps to improve local and national working on trade and investment, and don’t cut back on the wider support that is available face to face for local businesses which want to / could innovate, grow and export into new markets. Growth Hubs are working.

(iv) Follow through on the manifesto commitment for local industrial strategies. LEPs will bring business, councils, colleges universities and the relevant local stakeholders together to deliver clear strategies in line with the Government’s national priorities.

(v) Use the industrial strategy to make innovation and research funding more flexible, so it can be used for smaller scale commercial research projects and partnerships between universities, businesses and councils. Innovate UK is working better, but could still have a greater SME focus.

(vi) Continue to bring local businesses into schools and colleges, so that young learners get effective advice about the careers that are available and the skills that they need to realise their ambitions.

(vii) Commit to businesses being fully involved in greater local influence over skills policy and funding. Leaners need to better understand the future labour market and the skills they need to succeed, and businesses must play their part in funding and encouraging skills progression in the existing workforce. Local authorities driving this alone won’t have credibility with businesses.

6.6 Potential Functional Governance Model

6.6.1 The Worcestershire LEP and its partners should be proactive in feeding into the government review, therefore preparing to change and adapt the structure and role of the partners is one way of showing that Worcestershire is ready for the next phase of the LEP, in its evolution as more than the strategic economic lead in the County.

6.6.2 It is important with the resources that the partnership has at its disposal are clear and avoids duplication. This means that a more functional governance model that makes a clear delineation of role and responsibility. Unless the government review makes a clear recommendation of a change the LEP should remain a non-legal entity and this would be reviewed by the Board on and as when basis.

6.6.3 The suggested governance model in Appendix A, has the leaders panel setting the policy, as democratic accountability is important in the structure to ensure representation and alignment of decision making. With the statutory roles of the local government of housing, transport and planning with a responsibility to bring forward a prioritised list of infrastructure schemes, which contribute to the overall strategy. This avoids the duplication of resources.

6.6.4 The functional model then provides a clear LEP leading role in Skills, Enterprise and Profiling and Inward Investment. Each partner will still need to contribute to the whole plan within these themes to ensure success. However, budgetary and resources control would be cited with the LEP. As at present, the strategy and tactical decisions will be made at the LEP Board.

18

6.6.5 The Board are asked for their views on this approach with a view of a proactive positive narrative into the Government review.

GARY WOODMANCHIEF EXECUTIVE

19

20

7.0 KEY PROJECTS

7.1 CENTRE OF ENTREPENEURSHIP

Presentation by Linda Smith

21

22

7.2 CONNECTED COUNTY INCLUDING 5G TEST BED

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

a) Support the continued Development of the connectivity plans & 5G test bed

b) 5G Press Release content For Info (Appendix)

c) 5G was previously allocated a £100k from the Project Development Fund to build and develop a 5G test bed at Malvern Hills Science Park, this will need to increase given initial network costs – anticipate achieving this through DCMS funding application

d) Agree Application to proceed with Operational test licence for the network: whilst this is a nominal cost £100 per month, it sets out our intent to apply for planning permission for a mast between MHSP & QinetiQ site as part of the network deployment.

7.2.1 Background

7.2.1.1 In realising the WLEP vision, we recognise that developing the digital connectivity will provide the county with the environment and social structure to allow flexible working across a semi urban / rural geography, which will make the county ‘future fit’ for the next digital revolution.

7.2.1.2 At the WLEP Board meeting in May 2017, the WLEP Board agreed to support the MOU signing with 5GIC to develop the 5G test bed. The WLEP previously committed £100k of Growing Places funding.

7.2.1.3 We committed to working with operators to improve connectivity in the County following the AWTG study.

7.2.2 Connectivity

7.2.2.1 WLEP working with Worcestershire County Council is creating a partnership approach, with the network operators with a view to improving connectivity across the county. This approach includes us becoming an exemplar of new technologies, and pushing the boundaries with planning permission/public sector assets, exploring new business models to make Worcestershire a commercially attractive area in which to invest.

7.2.2.2 So far all engagements have been positive with operators embracing the sentiment. O2 has been the most proactive already making changes to improve capacity and putting an application in for a mast at the university of Worcester into their plans.

7.2.2.3 In addition 3 and o2 are considering a broader solution to a rural coverage issue: two scenarios are being proposed 1. In Agritech 2.Shelsley Location (Hill climb)

23

7.2.2.4 In terms of fibre broadband. Virgin have been equally positive, committing to develop a holistic County plan, that maps to our development sites. Work is in progress to underpin this plan.

7.2.2.5 The Invitation to Tender for phase 3 of Superfast Broadband rollout has now concluded with supplier selected which will extend coverage to a further 3000 locations prioritised by the Broadband steering group.

7.2.2.6 An expression of interest has been submitted into the Local Full Fibre Networks Program. Bids are expected to open in the Autumn 2017.

7.2.3 5G Progress

7.2.3.1 5GIC is part of the University of Surrey and has a state-of-the-art test bed for trialling emerging 5G ideas, proving concepts, validating standards and vendor inter-operability testing. The Spring Budget on Wednesday 8th March announced £16m to trail 5G, with further £150m+ approximately to support two further hubs in future financial years.

7.2.3.2 5GIC are attracted by Worcestershire, due to our Cyber pedigree, our interest in Automated Manufacturing and our Telco knowledge and contacts. Following the May Board the MOU was signed showing intent to develop the 5G test bed in Worcestershire.

7.2.3.3 This facility will be located at Malvern Hills Science Park. This location is ideal due to the nature of the science park, and the close proximity to our business partners locations e.g. QinetiQ, Bosch, Mazak. Negotiations continue to secure the site.

7.2.3.4 Considerable progress has been made with an outline network design being produced, which is now being refined. This will connect back into the 5G Hub at Surrey, which we are hoping to achieve through the JANET (educational) network. 5GIC are currently creating the core network in conjunction with Bristol & Kings College and as such they will be ready to connect to the Worcestershire Spoke from April 2018

7.2.3.5 Initial Business use cases have been defined and shared with 5GIC, with positive feedback. These now require further refinement to ensure they will meet 5G test KPI’s. Additional business partners will be sort to incorporate Fintech/Blockchain developments into the applications test.

7.2.3.6 There is a high leveI of interest in Worcestershire taking a wider role in leading the other interested LEP’s given our level of technical expertise. There is potential to house the Network Operations Centre for all the spokes within Worcestershire. This requires further consideration and evaluation.

7.2.3.7 In order to progress the 5G network, the WLEP now needs to apply for a temporary network licence, the cost of which is limited @ circa £100 per month, but also signals our intention to apply for planning permission for a mast at Malvern between the science park and the QinetiQ site.

7.2.3.8 Full program costs are still to be established once network design is refined. It is envisaged that additional funding above the original £100k committed by the board will be required, this is expected to come via a DCMS call out this Autumn.

24

7.2.3.9 The board are asked to support the next stage of application for a licence

7.2.3.10 A copy of the press release, beginning the communication of our efforts is contained in appendix for reference.

LORRAINE STONECONNECTED COUNTY MANAGER

25

7.3 INVEST IN WORCESTERSHIRE

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThat the Board notes the current position in respect of the performance of the Invest in Worcestershire service.

7.3.1 Background

7.3.1.1 The Invest in Worcestershire (IiW) service has been operating within the LEP ‘family’ of services for approximately 9 months alongside other functions such as Worcestershire Business Central and WiNN and has a strategic aim to secure significant levels of new business investment, expansion and employment for the County.

7.3.1.2 IiW services are available to national and international companies that wish to relocate to – or expand within – the County. Working in partnership with the seven local authorities, Department for International Trade and Worcestershire Business Central, IiW co-ordinates services such as relocation support, assistance in finding property solutions and advice on recruitment and training.

7.3.1.3 An IiW Board has been established, chaired by Chris Walklett, and has approved an operational Business Plan (‘the Plan’) for 2006 – 2018.

7.3.1.4 The Plan has the following objectives:

(i) To provide a Countywide Investor Support Service

(ii) To support delivery of the 25k jobs by 2025 outlined in the Strategic Economic Plan

(iii) To increase the number of UK and Foreign Investments in Worcestershire

(iv) To support the retention and expansion of existing UK and Foreign Direct Investments in Worcestershire.

(v) To develop activities that focus on knowledge and relationship management, service quality and marketing to secure quality inward investments.

(vi) To facilitate and raise the profile of Worcestershire as a World Class Investment Location

7.3.1.5 In addition, the IiW Board has agreed the following Key Performance Indicators for the service:

KPI 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020New Jobs to Worcestershire 300 500 1000

Sqft floorspace occupied 300k 500k 1m

New Enquiries 50 100 150

26

7.3.1.6 The IiW Board is accountable to the WLEP Board for the deivery of the service.

7.3.1.7 The IiW executive team represent a single, dedicated resource to deliver the IiW Business Plan for 2017/2018 and currently comprises:

Name Role Responsibilities

Stephen Butterworth

Inward Investment Manager (3 days per week)

Responsible for managing all inward investment enquiries

Managing Soft Landing & Proposition development

Relationship Managing DIT

Mike Ashton Worcestershire Business Ambassador (1 day per week)

Worcestershire Champion, responsible for meeting new investors

Collaboration with key stakeholders

Account managing Worcestershire’s flagship investors

7.3.1.8 Sharon Rai left to take up a new role in Milton Keynes at the end of August and will be replaced by a permanent post to be advertised shortly.

7.3.1.9 To support Investors, the following products have been developed by the service:

Product DescriptionSoft Landing Offer A red-carpet service available to new and existing investors in

order to encourage and support investment to the county. Over 30 local businesses providing services free of charge or at discounted rates to new investors to Worcestershire. This service is available only via the IiW team.

Research & Economic data/ Commercial Property Search

Relevant data and information to support investor propositions.

Site Visits Site specific visits designed to showcase Worcestershire as a World Class investment location.

Location/Sector propositions

Sector Propositions covering the key target sectors, namely; Advanced Manufacturing, Cyber & Defence and Agritech

27

7.3.2 Performance

7.3.2.1 IiW produces quarterly performance reports which are made available on the LEP Board secure portal. The latest version is attached at Appendix 1.

7.3.2.2 Since November 2016, IiW has supported the following eight investors which has resulted in:

(i) 138 new jobs to Worcestershire

(ii) 169,700 sq ft occupied

(iii) 45 Investment enquiries

Investor Outcome of IiW support

Royal Life Saving Society 65 Full and part time 15,000sqft - Redhill House, 227 London Rd

Harvey and Brockless Ltd 44 Full time 35,000 sq ft - Vale Business Park, Evesham

8D Closures Ltd 15 Full time 5 new jobs 25,000 sq ft – 16a Blackpole

Gateway Success Ltd 4 Full time 400sqft office – Sidbury House

Bimar Ortho 10 Full time 10,000sqft at East Moons Moat

Senti Insurance Brokers 4 Full time 800 sq ft office at 60 Friar Street, Droitwich

Team Dynamics 15 Full time jobs (65 planned jobs to be created in coming years)

24,000 sq ft Industrial at Unit 22, West Stone, Berry Hill Industrial

Superform 6 New full time (25 – 30 new jobs within 3 years)

59,500 sq ft at Sealine Works, Whitehouse Road, Kidderminster

CHRIS WALKETT/ IAN EDWARDS

28

8.0 THE KILN, APPLICATION FOR FUNDING

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThat the Board approves a grant in the sum of £195,000 000 to Worcester City Council to refurbish 2 Copenhagen Street for the purposes of developing a co-working space to be known as The Kiln subject to the following conditions:

(i) Worcester City Council to provide a £60,000 capital contribution to the refurbishment project;

(ii) Worcester City Council enter an operating lease with a yet to be formed Community Interest Company, or similar model (‘the operator’), to operate the facility as a co-worker space as defined within the project application;

(iii) The terms of the lease are to be agreed with the LEP Executive and will include a rent free period of two and half years followed by a further two years at 50% of rent;

(iv) Worcester City Council to develop a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan to the satisfaction of the LEP Executive;

(v) Worcester City Council and the LEP to undertake a joint review of the project after 6 months, 12 months and annually thereafter to assess progress against the original project plan;

(vi) Should the project cease within 3 years of operation, the LEP reserves the right at its absolute discretion to clawback up to the full amount of grant invested i.e. £195,000.

8.1. The Project

8.1.1. The project is to establish a physical co-working space in Worcester to address an identified need for such a facility. The proposal is consistent with the ambition of the LEP and its partners as articulated within the Strategic Economic Plan.

8.1.2. A presentation on the plans for the facility will be given at the Board.

8.1.3. In particular, the projects seeks to address the following challenges:

(i) Young people leaving Worcester, especially university graduates, and taking their digital and creative skills with them;

(ii) Freelancers, such as designers and developers, having no flexible space to use for work, meetings and client engagement, and;

(iii) Skilled individuals have little or no opportunity to share ideas with established businesses.

29

8.1.4 The City Council proposes to refurbish one of its existing property assets, 2 Copenhagen Street, to develop a membership facility that is becoming common place in a number of UK cities including Bristol and Bath.

8.1.5 A further dynamic here is that the proposal is a direct response to an organic campaign from an existing group of like-minded business men and women, largely in the creative sector, known as The Kiln (www.thekiln.co) with the stated ambition of:

“Creating an enthusiastic, collaborative community supporting creative, craft and tech small businesses and startups in Worcester”

8.1.6 The applicant has stated that £60,000 of capital funds will be made available and that a rent free period of two and half years followed by a further two years at 50% rent reduction will be offered to the operator. It should be noted though that all businesses and individuals using The Kiln will be required to be members and will pay a market rate to be determined.

8.2 Outputs

8.2.1 If approved, the City Council will be contracted to deliver the following outputs:

Outputs ProfileValue

FY0 FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4+ Total

Number of enterprises receiving non-financial support

200 372 Tbc tbc 572+

Number of new enterprises supported

8 22 Tbc Tbc 30+

Follow on investment at site

25k 25k 13k 13k 56k

Commercial floorspace occupied (cumulative)

140m2 210m2 280m2 280m2

Commercial rental values

£88/m2 £88/m2

Jobs connected to the intervention

1 1 1 3

8.2.2 It should be noted that the outputs described above are standard outputs that each LEP is required to report on. Therefore, they are not necessarily the most relevant when seeking to assess the impact of the scheme. For example, the productivity of individual members may be of greater interest. Should the scheme be approved, the LEP Executive will work with the City Council to develop an appropriate monitoring and evaluation framework.

8.3 Appraisal Findings

8.3.1 On receipt of the full application, the WLEP Executive undertook an appraisal of the project based upon the published Assurance Framework. As the applicant is the City Council, the usual financial due diligence checks were not undertaken.

30

8.3.2 The appraisal itself assesses the application using the 5 business case model i.e.:

Strategic Case Economic Case Financial Case Commercial Case Project Management Case

The following represents a summary of the appraisal findings against each criteria:

Strategic Case

8.3.3 The strategic argument for the project is well grounded within both the Strategic Economic Plan and the current LEP Business Plan through the provision of workspace for start-up and existing businesses. The scheme also supports the delivery of the Spaces element of the Worcestershire Innovation (WiNN) strategic plan.

8.3.4 We are aware of a private sector led proposal to develop an “Entrepreneur Co-working Business Incubator” in partnership with the University of Worcester. It is hoped that this approach is successful as given the dearth of such facilities across the County, both models can successfully co-exist.

8.3.5 In terms of the emerging Centre of Entrepreneurship, it is suggested that The Kiln would sit comfortably within the context of a dispersed model of facilities to support the ambitions of the wider project with links established to support the growth of member businesses .

8.3.6 In summary, the appraiser is satisfied that the application fully makes the Strategic Case for investment.

Economic Case

8.3.7 When assessing the Economic Case of any proposal, the appraisal examines the rigour of any options identified for scheme delivery and the value for money offered to the public purse.

8.3.8 The options discussed within the application largely relate to the location of the facility rather than a different delivery model. That said, I am aware that the background research informing the proposal has assessed a number of models, such as Welch ICE, and this model has proven to be successful elsewhere.

8.3.9 In terms of location, I agree that the Copenhagen Street site presents the best option in terms of access to the City, scale, availability and ownership by the public sector.

8.3.10 The value for money in a capital investment such as this is normally satisfied by the works being competitively tendered as would be the case here. However, the value of this scheme to the LEP is not in the capital refurbishment of a building, but in the business growth that accrues as a result.

31

8.3.11 As a crude indicator, publicly job creation and business support programmes have delivered, on average 1 new job for every £5k - £10k of grant. In the absence of any other output being delivered by the scheme, the LEP would require 20 – 40 new jobs to be created over the lifetime term of the project. Taking into account the added value element of the scheme such as business productivity improvements, new business generation, etc, it is suggested that the scheme presents reasonable to good value for money.

8.3.12 In summary, the appraiser is satisfied that the application largely makes the Economic Case for investment.

Financial Case

8.3.13 The assessment of the Financial Case focusses on the affordability of the project to both the applicant and the LEP as well as the robustness of the cost assessment, the viability of the applicant and the quality of the submitted Project Management Plan.

8.3.14 From an affordability point of view, the LEP Growth Deal programme has included a budget for this scheme for several months and the City Council has already approved its contribution. The City Council is clearly a viable applicant and has prepared a robust cost plan to support the application.

8.3.15 Finally, the submitted Project Management Plan addresses all aspects of delivering the capital refurbishment scheme including the financial control.

8.3.16 On this basis, the appraiser is satisfied that the application fully makes the Financial Case for investment.

Commercial Case

8.3.17 The Commercial Case assesses the applicants approach to procuring the scheme and is fully made.

Project Management Case

8.3.18 Finally, the Project Management case assesses the delivery of the scheme in terms of applicant capability, marketing and communications, scheme monitoring and evaluation and perhaps most importantly, risks and issues.

8.3.19 The risks of delivering a capital refurbishment scheme are relatively well known and largely focus on cost control. Risks here tend to be mitigated by following agreed tender and contracting processes and ensuring sufficient contingency exists within the scheme budget. This risk sits with the applicant and any cost overruns will be the responsibility of Worcester City Council.

8.3.20 The most significant risk for this particular scheme is the willingness of a sufficient number of individuals to pay a fixed membership charge to use the facility. Despite their being an evidenced need for a facility such as this and that similar facilities have been successful elsewhere, the fact remains that take up is a significant risk.

32

8.3.21 The applicant has included a 10 year financial cost model with the application which demonstrates that allowing for this rental position will result in a cumulative operating surplus of c £81k by Year 10. This model is based on a estimate of 50% membership take up by the end of Year 1 climbing to 100% by the end of Year 3.

8.3.22 There is a clear mitigation for this risk. As the facility is already a Council owned building, the refurbishment being undertaken would only add value to the property. Therefore, if the co-worker project should fail, the property could be marketed for commercial use by the City Council with the rental used to re-pay the LEP up to the maximum investment level of £195,000.

8.3.23 The next largest risk relates to the operation of the facility itself. Should this application be approved, a Community Interest Company (CIC), or a similar model, will need to be established to run the facility, employ staff and enter into a property lease with the City Council for 2 Copenhagen Street. The LEP would be represented on the CIC along with Worcester City Council and representatives of the existing Kiln community. In addition, the CIC would include legal and financial advisors. It is understood that a Shadow Board is currently being established with the support of WiNN and the City Council.

8.3.24 Taking these risks into account and the level of mitigation possible, the application largely makes the Programme Management Case for investment.

8.4 Recommendation

8.4.1 The Board is recommended to approve a capital grant in the sum of £195,000 to Worcester City Council to refurbish 2 Copenhagen Street for the purposes of developing a co-working space to be known as The Kiln subject to the following conditions:

(i) Worcester City Council to provide a £60,000 capital contribution to the refurbishment project;

(ii) Worcester City Council enter an operating lease with a yet to be formed Community Interest Company, or similar model (‘the operator’), to operate the facility as a co-worker space as defined within the project application;

(iii) The terms of the lease are to be agreed with the LEP Executive and will include a rent free period of two and half years followed by a further two years at 50% of rent;

(iv) Worcester City Council to develop a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan to the satisfaction of the LEP Executive;

(v) Worcester City Council and the LEP to undertake a joint review of the project after 6 months, 12 months and annually thereafter to assess progress against the original project plan;

(vi) Should the project cease within 3 years of operation, the LEP reserves the right at its absolute discretion to clawback up to the full amount of grant invested ie £195,000.

IAN EDWARDSDEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE

33

9.0 FUNDED PROGRAMME UPDATE

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATIONThat the Board:

1. Notes the current position in respect of the 2017/2018 Growth Deal funded programmes.

2. Notes the call timetable for ESIF programmes and the current PA1 call specification for Innovation.

9.1 2017/2018 Growth Deal Programme

9.1.1 As previously reported to the Board, the total Growth Deal budget available during 2017/2018 is £15.433m.

9.1.2 Table 1 below identifies the current forecast spend against each project as well as the current actual spend position. In essence, the current programme is forecasting a marginal underspend. However, I am reasonably relaxed about this at the moment given that several of the Growth Deal 3 projects (A38, Pershore Northern Link Road) are spending fees developing the full applications and these fees can be met by the LEP as soon as the projects are approved.

9.1.3 The actual spend at 20% of the programme budget is below where I would expect a mature programme to be at this stage of the year. The significant risks remain the Flood Alleviation scheme, Parkway Station and the QinetiQ land purchase at Malvern.

9.2 ESIF Programme

9.2.1 The Board will be aware that European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) programme is overseen at a local level by an ESIF Sub Committee. One of the key roles for the Committee is to design and agree calls for proposals to deliver specific aspects of the delivery of Worcestershire’s ESIF Strategy

9.2.2 On 6th September 2017, on behalf of the Worcestershire ESIF sub Committee, Government issued a call relating to Priority Axis 1 (Innovation). Details can be found at https://www.gov.uk/european-structural-investment-funds/research-and-innovation-call-in-worcestershire-oc38r17p-0608. The deadline for the submission of proposals being 10th November 2017 with a total available ESIF budget of £2.6m.

9.2.3 In summary, the call invites proposals for:

(i) investment in the development of innovation/incubation space and facilities and the provision of supporting business;   

(ii) provision of facilities and support that will enable businesses to develop new products and services within the identified growth sectors in the county including – advanced manufacturing and engineering, cyber security/defence/information technology and agri-tech; 

(iii) support for the commercialisation and development of new products, services, and business processes, including initiatives that stimulate demand;

34

(iv) the promotion of collaboration between business, higher education/research institutions, innovation agencies and public institutions;

9.2.4 The LEP Executive will be working with partners and potential bidders to ensure that any project approved through this call support the stated aims of the LEP including the Centre for Entrepreneurship and 5G testbed.

9.2.5 Further call windows in November 2017 and February 2018 will be utilised to call for proposals for business support activity (Priority Axis 3) and the low carbon economy (Priority Axis 4).

IAN EDWARDSDEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE

35

Table 1 – 2017/2018 Growth Deal Programme

2016/2017 and 2017/2018 Schemes

2017/18

Forecast

2017/2018

Actual

Malvern Hills Science Park phase 5 520 199

Flood Alleviation 2,471 186

Southern Link Road Phase 3 37 37

Broadband 1,792 810

Parkway Station 5,372 1,148

Kidderminster Railway Station 669 48

Worcestershire Growth Fund 1,381 307

META 313 0

QinetiQ Land Purchase 1,177 0

Centre of Vocational Excellence 147 147

Pershore College - Agritech 382 0

Inclusive Skills Base Centre 71 71

Worcester Advanced Manufacturing Centre

600 0

The Kiln (Workspace, Worcester) 195 0

Total 15,127 2,953

36

10.0 PROJECT PIPELINE – NEXT STEPS

WLEP BOARD RECOMMENDATION

The Board:

(i) Acknowledges the emerging pipeline of projects and the process underway to identify a dynamic programme for potential future government funding for delivery between 2018 - 2030.

10.1 Background

10.1.1 The LEP is gaining a reputation as an organisation that can successfully deliver a suite of projects aligned to the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and largely financed through the three rounds of the Local Growth Fund.

10.1.2 Since the initial call for projects at the time, the SEP was developed, the LEP has had a deliberate policy not to issue open calls for projects on the basis that the budgets available have generally been unclear and managing expectation amongst a long list of potential applicants would be time consuming and counter-productive.

10.1.3 Generally speaking, the projects currently being delivered were identified by a number of key partners such as the County Council and individual training providers such as Heart of Worcestershire College and the Worcester Group Training Association.

10.1.4 It should be noted that this approach is in stark contrast to the approach for delivering ESIF funded projects where specific calls are made against clear budgets and outcomes.

10.2 Project Pipeline

10.2.1 The discussion at Agenda Item 5 demonstrates that the constraints on the growth potential of our economy remain consistent with those originally identified within the SEP ie an ageing and reducing workforce, the supply of quality commercial space, the availability of appropriate housing, etc.

10.2.2 Across the County, District Councils have been examining options for the growth of the local economy and a number of potential interventions are beginning to emerge..

Bromsgrove

10.2.3 The Board will recall the pro-growth presentation from Bromsgrove District Council at a previous meeting. Emerging priorities include; A38 improvements, Improving connectivity, M42 improvement by Highways England, Investing in expanding the curriculum offering of Heart of Worcestershire College, improvement in rail services to and from Bromsgrove and increasing commercial space in the east of the District and investing in the town centre.

37

10.2.4 Bromsgrove is also reflecting on a review of the Green Belt in the context of the future growth of the District.

Redditch

10.2.5 Completing the Redditch Eastern Gateway project possible remains the number one priority in Redditch. Other potential interventions include; improvements in the quality of commercial space, investing in expanding the curriculum offering of Heart of Worcestershire College, develop the Redditch Town centre to include the transport infrastructure, connectivity of the railway station into the town and finally, the One Place Review of the town centre.

Malvern Hills

10.2.6 The focus of the LEPs work in Malvern has been the continued development of Malvern Hills Science and Technology Park alongside the 5G testbed including the acquisition of 4.5ha of commercial land currently owned by QinetiQ. Further priorities include the development of Blackmore Park and the Spring Lane Industrial Estate as well as the further development of FE offer in the District.

Worcester

10.2.7 The pipeline of projects within Worcester are likely to be informed by the recently commissioned Masterplan which will focus on discrete areas of the City including Shrub Hill and City Walls Road. Further opportunities will emerge in the HE and FE sectors

Wyre Forest

10.2.8 Opportunities include the continued development at the Safari park as well as the former Silverwoods site. Both of which will be facilitated by the redevelopment of Kidderminster Station. The construction of new homes at Churchfields will be enabled by funding from the LEP and the University of Wolverhampton are keen to further develop the business Solutions model currently being delivered from Wyre Forest House. The Council has also recently created an investment fund to support the delivery of activity of economic and financial benefit to the District.

Wychavon

10.2.9 The continued development of Vale Park remains a priority for Wychavon alongside highways improvements to the A46.

Next Steps

10.2.10 I will be meeting with the Chief Executives and senior Economic Development staff at all these Councils over the next few weeks to further develop the pipeline

GARY WOODMANCHIEF EXECUTIVE

38