Agenda item

David Ayton-Hill (Assistant Director – Communities) summarised that:

• The team were busy with supporting businesses with support grants, access to finance, employment skills, inward investment, sector development and advising on energy bills
• Work was done with the FSB, Chambers of Commerce and Growth Hub to understand what businesses faced in terms of energy bills
• Central Government recently announced that they would cap energy bills for businesses
• Businesses would only get a plan for six months and it was expected that Central Government would review this plan every three months
• In Warwickshire, it was the hospitality and leisure sectors that were struggling most with energy bills and the economic climate
• The LEP (local enterprise partnership) review was underway and WCC was taking part in with Coventry City Council for the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP. This will look at the transition of where for the end of LEPs following central government’s announcements that they should end and be integrated into democratic institutions and combined authorities
• Coventry and Warwickshire’s economic geography is linked by strong commuter flows and sector development flows. Therefore, it was important to maintain this link post CWLEP so businesses could retain that support
• The LEP Board will meet to agree plans going forward
• £2.5 million of funding had been secured via the Multiply Fund which is part of the government's UK Shared Prosperity Fund. This funding is for adult numeracy
• A review was done a review of Warwickshire’ European funded business support programme which will end in 2023
• The IDF business support programme was evaluated and received positive feedback with 92% of businesses recommending the programme and 87% of businesses saying they achieved their goals
• There was a lot of inward investment from motoring and gaming companies

In response to Councillor Tim Sinclair, Mark Ryder (Strategic Director – Communities) said that they would know what the future will look like after the LEP board meets. WCC wants to hold onto several assets of the LEP, so nothing has to start from scratch. After the first meeting, this information will be shared. The Chair requested that this information be shared as soon as possible as by the next meeting everything may have changed.

In response to Councillor Jonathan Chilvers, Mark Ryder stated that they had no say in how central government distributed funding but the Shared Prosperity Fund will be less money then the previous EU one. David Ayton-Hill added that the CWLEP was the accountable body to receive this funding. Funding stream themselves then to go via local authorities individually then the combined one.

Following a supplementary from Councillor Chilvers, Mark Ryder confirmed that WCC will state that they want the retain what they had with the CWLEP. Over the last decade many LEPs nationwide invested heavily in staffing and did lots of the work in economic development; Coventry and Warwickshire did this outside the LEP. Therefore, there should not be too much change when the CWLEP dissolves.

Councillor Sinclair suggested that there be a table of the businesses helped and what was done instead of this being in writing.

In response to Councillor Jenny Fradgley, David Ayton-Hill said that most external funding used to support economic development and business support was revenue funding from the EU. The fund went into a national programme that was then split up regionally. This money could be spent on local issues and businesses could bit to get some funding from it. Central government ran this but the local authorities got a say in what should be allocated where. The Shared Prosperity Fund was less money but a broader range (place shaping and regeneration, business and the economy, and employment and skills). This funding has been given to the district and borough councils. Warwickshire received £12 million and the more densely populated areas got more. They must develop an investment plan that says how they will spend the money over the next three years against the funding topics. The districts and borough were worked with on their plans and what is suitable. They plan to focus on place-shaping but this means there will be less funding for business support, employment and skills, especially has some current activities would end next year.

In response to Councillor Sinclair, David Ayton-Hill confirmed that they wanted to continue investing in identified key strengths geographically cross-county. Councillor Sinclair suggested reporting on these for the next meeting and what was not going on.

Following a question from Councillor Richard Baxter-Payne, David Ayton-Hill stated that the Communities Enterprise Fund had been well received with three applications being granted funding and 20 were being worked on. Any businesses who got in contact would be referred to the appropriate fund.     

In response to the Chair, Mark Ryder stated that the boroughs and districts were on the LEP board so they would get a say when the LEP dismantles. There will be a transition period where the accountable body (Coventry City Council) must report to the successor arrangements for the LEP.

David Ayton-Hill confirmed that all funding for already approved schemes had been given out and the Multiply Fund was for numeracy only because this was central government’s priority.