kent and medway economic partnershipkmep.org.uk/documents/agenda_pack_-_01_dec.pdf · 2016. 2....

1

Kent and Medway Economic Partnership

Tuesday 1 December 2015, 5.00‐6.30pm

Motivation Room, Village Hotel

Castle View, Forstal Road, Maidstone ME14 3AQ

AGENDA

Page Approx. time

1. Welcome, introductions and apologies for absence ‐ 5.00

2. Minutes of previous meeting and matters arising 2 5.05

3. Action tracker and project update 8 5.10

4. Workforce Skills: Progress review 15 5.30

5. Local Growth Fund delivery: Business case development Presentation by Steven Bishop, Steer Davies Gleave

20 5.40

6. Local Growth Fund delivery: Current schemes progress report 21 6.10

7. Spending Review 2015: Implications for economic development in Kent and Medway

24 6.30

8. Future meeting dates 27 6.45

9. AOB ‐ 6.50

Item 2

2


KENT AND MEDWAY ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP BOARD

1 December 2015 ITEM 2 MINUTES of a meeting of the Kent & Medway Economic Partnership (KMEP) held in the Innovation Suite, Village Hotel, Castle View, Forstal Road, Maidstone on 12 October 2015.

Board members present

BAB members Paul Barrett Graham Brown Miranda Chapman Douglas Horner Jo James Andrew Metcalf Geoff Miles (Chair) Paul Thomas Paul Winter

Higher Education representative Rama Thirunamachandran, Canterbury Christ Church University

Further Education representative Graham Razey, East Kent College

Local Authority elected representatives Andrew Bowles, Swale Borough Council Rodney Chambers, Medway Council Paul Carter, Kent County Council John Cubitt, Gravesham Borough Council Peter Fleming, Sevenoaks District Council Paul Watkins, Dover District Council

Apologies Simon Cook, Canterbury City Council Jeremy Kite, Dartford Borough Council Vince Lucas Nick Sandford, Kent Country Land Association

Officers in attendance Megan Brackenborough, Barbara Cooper, Shane Convey, John Foster, Lorraine George, Ross Gill, Madeline Homer, David Hughes, Abdool Kara, Tim Ingleton, David Liston‐Jones, David Macdonald, Susan Priest, Ron Moys, Mark Raymond David Smith, Paul Spooner, Katie Stewart, Louise Whitaker

Item 2

3

1. Welcome, introductions and apologies

Mr Geoff Miles, Chairman, KMEP welcomed those present to the meeting and received apologies, as

set out above.

2. Minutes of previous meeting and matters arising

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 September 2015 were agreed as a correct record

subject to Mr Andrew Bowles being recorded as present which had been omitted in error.

Partnership Members asked that a system be established whereby actions arising from meetings

could be tracked and Lou Whitaker, KCC, agreed to adapt the web page in order to facilitate this.

3. Lower Thames Crossing: Next Stage of Consultation

3.1. The Partnership received a report summarising the work that had been undertaken to date to

determine potential route alignments for a new Thames Crossing and outlining the next stage of the

consultation process and which sought the views of partnership members on those alignments. In

addition the report set out further work that the partnership may wish to commission from officers

in order to inform their response.

3.2 Joe Ratcliffe, Transport Strategy Manager, KCC, introduced the item. He reported that of the 3

options originally set out the government had rejected option B: a new crossing at the Swanscombe

peninsula and only options A and C remained. Option A being an additional crossing at Dartford and

option C being a new crossing east of Gravesend and including improvements to the A229 at Bluebell

Hill to link the proposed crossing to the M20 at Maidstone.

3.3 It was anticipated that four route alignments would be proposed within corridors A and C for

further consultation in early 2016, expected to last 12 weeks and be led by Highways England, with a

view to the new crossing being opened in 2025.

3.4 As yet the Partnership had not expressed a view on a preferred option or route alignment

within, although individually most partners had expressed a preference for route C.

3.5 The item was opened for discussion and the following comments were made:

That the partnership would look to strengthen the case for option C

That businesses within the LEP area would also be approached before the consultation began to

inform the view KMEP and the LEP.

John Cubbit, Leader of Gravesham Borough Council confirmed that his

.1 Council was opposed to option C for reasons set out previously, not least that any route would

pass through areas of outstanding natural beauty and special scientific interest. However he

urged the Partnership to respond to any consultation as the design of the crossing would be

crucial to alleviating the fears of local residents, preferably by proposing a tunnel crossing.

That an open letter from business on both sides of the Thames supporting Option C and any

preferred route alignment would add weight to any response and ensure that the matter did not

forgotten by government as fiscal demands increased.

Item 2

4

That it was important that not only KMEP responded as one voice but that SELEP could also

agree on one preferred solution.

That work had been considered in the past to establish a privately funded means of establishing

a new crossing and work should continue to that end.

That speed was of the essence, given the high economic cost of traffic constraints at the existing

Dartford crossing.

It was agreed by consensus that:

Lord Adonis be contacted to facilitate a meeting between him and the relevant Chairs and vice

chairs of the federated LEP bodies

That a review of the local economic analysis and impact work done to date should be conducted

with a view to identifying where there are gaps in information or additional work that could

usefully be done.

4. Support for business: The Growth Hub and the new support landscape

4.1. The Partnership received a presentation from Jo James, Chief Executive of Kent Invicta Chamber

of Commerce [available on line at www.kent.gov.uk] regarding the new Kent and Medway Growth

Hub Service, the contract for which had recently been awarded to Kent Invicta Chamber of

Commerce.

4.2. Ms James explained to Partnership members that the Hub would provide a central point of

information about the business support services that were available to those running small and

medium sized enterprises, in addition to one‐to‐one navigation advice using telephone, face‐to‐face

and internet‐based channels. The Growth Hub core service would also help to provide a route to

support services offered at a local level.

She continued to inform members that the service would be launched in November 2015 and a

further report would be received by the Partnership once the service had been established, followed

by regular performance monitoring reports.

Ms James also reported that a limited amount of funding, £140,000 had been made available to local

business support programmes offered via local authorities, to address locally‐identified needs and

gaps in provision.

The Partnership heard that the current funding would support the service for one year but that an

application had been submitted, with other SELEP partners, to the European Regional Development

Fund to extend the Growth Hub into future years.

The matter was opened for discussion and the following comments were received:

That Universities would be fully involved in the programme as part of the more general aim to

have all of the relevant information in one place and accessible by as few clicks as possible.

That the funding available was not conducive to providing an exhaustive or long running service

for local businesses, in particular concern was expressed that the distribution of funding may

mean that services are not joined up.

Item 2

5

It was agreed by consensus that the report and presentation be noted and that KMEP would receive

regular updates as work, and funding applications, progressed.

5. European Structural Funds: Progress update and future opportunities

5.1 The partnership received a report providing an update on the progress of the European

Structural and Investment Funds programme and highlighting current project proposals that were

particularly relevant to Kent and Medway. In addition the report summarised recent developments

and opportunities under other European funding sources, including Interreg.

5.2 Lorraine George, Ron Moys and Shane Convey introduced the report. They reported on the

various funding programmes as follows:

5.3 ERDF ‐ the first two calls for projects for ERDF funding had now taken place and that five of

particular relevance to Kent and Medway had been submitted, but not yet fully approved:

LOCASE (Low Carbon South East)

Inward Investment

Innovate to Succeed

South East Growth Hub

Growth Hub Business Finance

5.4 ESF – was likely to support activities in the following three areas:

Department for Work and Pensions – focused on supporting unemployed people to secure and

keep jobs, particularly in priority sectors of the regional economy

Bid Lottery Fund – supporting the hardest‐to‐reach client groups and most likely favouring

delivery through the voluntary sector.

Skills Funding Agency – likely to include support to achieve higher skills, support for

apprenticeships, support for graduates and helping people to navigate skills provision.

5.6 The Board was also briefly updated on the following funds:

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

Community Led Local Development

LEADER

Interreg

Connecting Europe Facility

5.7 The report was opened for discussion and the following comments were made:

That in relation to ESF activities it was important that KMEP and individual partners continued to

lobby before specifications were produced in order to influence and inform future delivery.

That it should be borne in mind that calls for projects are open to all competitors and that the

Board should be careful not to endorse specific providers.

That the journey to securing European funding had been long and difficult and partners, elected

members and officers should be congratulated at the progress made to date.

Item 2

6

That when the first definitive decisions were received on funding, this should be used to inform

future bids.

That the emphasis for bids had shifted to an outcome based model and future bids would reflect

this.

That although it was expected that the Big Lottery Funding would support voluntary Sector bids,

local authorities were welcome to apply which had not initially been envisaged.

It was resolved by consensus that the report and progress to date be noted and future updates

continue to be received.

6. Future infrastructure investment: Planning for the next round of the Local Growth Fund

6.1 The Partnership received a report presented by Ross Gill, Economic Strategy & Policy

Manager, KCC, outlining the potential for additional investment through the Local Growth

Fund and seeking early views from the Partnership as to the focus of any future LGF round.

6.2 He began by reminding partnership members that the LGF was introduced by the coalition

government and may not survive the conservative government’s spending review.

6.3 The bids to date that had been informed by the preferences of KMEP had largely centred on

transport projects and this report sought to establish whether this direction of travel was still

preferred in the third call for bids.

6.4 If the Partnership were minded to move away from the transport theme, Mr Gill suggested

that a separate evaluation methodology would be needed following comments received

previously on the inappropriateness of evaluating transport and non‐transport schemes under

the current model.

The matter was opened for discussion and the following comments were received:

That in order to make strong bids for non‐transport related bids, intellectual property of

universities and businesses should be utilised. In response university representatives confirmed

that this opportunity would be welcomed.

That in the past the time between calls for bids and submission had been short and that it was

important that priorities and evaluation methodologies were resolved quickly in order that a

speedy and robust response could be made to calls.

7. Revisions to KMEP terms of reference

7.1 The Partnership received a report from introduced by Ross Gill that set out proposed changes

to the terms of reference for KMEP as discussed at the previous meeting of the partnership.

Following a brief discussion the changes were agreed by consensus as set out in the report with one

addition as follows:

That alternates / substitutes be nominated for each of the partners and included in the membership

details.

8. Future meeting dates

Item 2

7

8.1 The schedule of future meetings was noted. The next meeting was scheduled to take place on

1 December 2015, at the Village Hotel Maidstone, at 5pm.

9. AOB

9.1 It was reported that Whitehall had made it clear following the decision not to renew the

contract of the current SELEP Chairman, Peter Jones, that a review of the geography of the LEP

boundaries would only be undertaken when consensus had been achieved across the LEP.

9.2 In the meantime, Mr Miles reported that the federated model would continue to be

strengthened and to that end the role of Chairman of the LEP was likely to become one of a

figurehead.

9.3 He asked Partnership members to put forward, to himself or to Ross Gill, by the 16th October

2015, any ideas they had in relation to the job description in order that it achieved the desired ends.

The meeting closed at 7:30pm.

Item 3

8



1 December 2015

ITEM 3

Subject: Action tracker and project update

Board Lead: ‐

Report author: Ross Gill

Economic Strategy and Policy Manager, Kent County Council

Summary

As requested at the last meeting, this paper updates the Board on progress in taking forward actions

previously agreed by KMEP. The Board is recommended to note this report.

1. Future rail franchising in Kent and Medway (September 2015 Board: Item 3)

In September, the Board received a report on the new Southeastern rail franchise, scheduled to

commence in June 2018. If the proposed TfL Metro transfer is made at the same time, the new

franchise will consist of the High Speed and mainline Southeastern services, making the service

almost exclusively relevant to Kent and Medway.

Stakeholder consultation on the new franchise will run from June to October 2016. Following the

discussion at the Board meeting, further views are sought from KMEP Board members and partners,

to ensure that there is a strong and inclusive Kent and Medway response. A questionnaire is

attached as Annex 1 to which Board members may wish to respond by 31 January 2016. The

responses to this will be reported to KMEP in the New Year to inform a formal response to the

consultation.

2. Future workforce skills (September 2015 Board: Item 4)

A full update is set out in Item 4.

3. New Enterprise Zones (September 2015 Board, Item 5)

Following the September Board meeting, two applications for Enterprise Zone designation were

submitted to Government: for North Kent (including Rochester Airport, Kent Medical Campus and

Ebbsfleet Garden City) and for sites in Shepway associated with infrastructure solutions to Operation

Item 3

9

Stack. The proposed North Kent Zone Innovation Zone was approved as part of the Autumn

Statement (see Item 7).

4. Economic impacts of Operation Stack (September 2015 Board, Item 6)

The Board considered a report providing some headline analysis of the economic cost of Operation

Stack. Since then, Highways England has commissioned further economic impact analysis. KCC

officers have met with Highways England’s consultants to discuss their methodology, although the

output has not yet been shared.

Highways England will begin a six week consultation on 11 December on the options for

infrastructure solutions to Operation Stack.

5. Lower Thames Crossing (October 2015 Board, Item 3)

The Board considered Highways England’s forthcoming consultation on route options for a new

Lower Thames Crossing. Following the earlier consultation in 2013 by the Department for Transport,

Highways England is considering route options within Corridor A (at Dartford) and Corridor C (east of

Gravesend).

Consultation will begin in January 2016. In advance of this, work is currently underway to review the

economic impact studies previously carried out, as agreed at the October KMEP Board meeting. In

parallel with this, a brief is being prepared by KCC to undertake a strategic assessment of the impact

of either route option on travel patterns and to provide updated cost estimates for improvements

that may be required on the A2/ M2 corridor and to the links between the M2 and the M20. This

study will assist KMEP and partners in responding to the DfT’s consultation. A further brief has also

been prepared to provide additional advice on private financing options.

It may be appropriate for KMEP Board to consider the Lower Thames Crossing consultation as a

substantive item at the February Board meeting.

6. Kent and Medway Growth Hub (October 2015 Board, Item 4)

The Board discussed the new Kent and Medway Growth Hub, funded by Government to provide

information and signposting support about the range of publicly‐funded business support products

that available, with a view to streamlining provision.

Kent Invicta Chamber of Commerce has been awarded the contract for the delivery of the Growth

Hub core service. The service will be launched on 15 December, with a launch event taking place at

Ashford Business Point at 8.30am.

At present, the service is only funded for one year; however, the Chamber is considering options for

its future sustainability and an application for additional funding has been submitted to the

European Regional Development Fund, in conjunction with other LEP partners.

Item 3

10

7. European Structural Funds (October 2015 Board, Item 5)

The Board considered a comprehensive report on the range of European‐funded programmes

available in Kent and Medway. Since that meeting:

All three Leader programmes (in West Kent, East Kent and Kent Downs and Marshes) have

launched calls for applications.

Of those projects submitted from Kent and Medway for Interreg funding, final approval for two

is anticipated shortly, with several further schemes in the pipeline.

The Government has been slow to deliver the European Structural and Investment Fund

programmes, with zero commitment so far. To date, no funding has been committed to any

projects submitted since the first call opened in March, and it is unlikely that any spend will take

place until the middle of 2016. However, several projects are in the application process.

8. The future of KMEP and the South East LEP (September 2015 Board, Item 8)

The Board discussed the interim arrangements that have been put in place to chair the South East

LEP Board and the work that was underway to reinforce the LEP’s ‘federal’ governance model.

Since the last meeting, a role description for a new chairman has been agreed and recruitment

consultants have been approached to manage a search and selection process. Work is also

anticipated to begin shortly to recruit a new Director, following David Godfrey’s appointment to a

new post at DCLG.

The South East LEP Accountability Board has now been formally constituted as a Joint Committee of

Kent County Council, Medway Council and the other four county/ unitary authorities in the LEP area.

This means that the Board now has authority to approve the release of funds to projects following

appraisal by the LEP’s Independent Technical Evaluator, and to approve significant variances in

project funding and delivery.

At the last meeting, the Board also approved KMEP’s revised terms of reference. The agreed terms

of reference are attached with this agenda pack.

9. Recommendations

The Board is recommended to note this report.

Report author

Ross Gill


03000 417077 │ 07837 872705 │ [email protected]

7 October 2015

Item 3

11

Kent County Council draft consultation on the New Southeastern Franchise

For KMEP Members: December 2015

Following the presentation made to KMEP Members on 14 September 2015, Kent

County Council, with support for Medway Council, has prepared this consultation document in order to seek the opinion of KMEP members throughout the county on the New Southeastern franchise. These views will inform the official responses which Kent County Council and Medway Council will prepare for submission to the Department for Transport (DfT) in 2016. There will be significant background growth in rail travel on which Network Rail would be expected to advise as a key component in their concurrent Kent Route Study. This will determine the outputs required, and the funding submission to support them, during Network Rail’s Control Period 6 (CP6) (2019–2024).

Significant growth in housing and employment is expected by 2031, both within

Kent and Medway and in neighbouring counties. The councils are particularly concerned about how demand for rail travel in and through the county will grow, and how such growth can be accommodated on a network already approaching capacity. Improved connectivity to destinations, and reduction in journey times within and beyond the county, are also important to both councils.

There is a clear need to plan for the development of the rail network to meet the

expected demand from significant planned housing and commercial growth, as set out in the county’s Growth and Infrastructure Framework. The councils would welcome any measures that could be introduced through the course of the franchise to assist in meeting this expected demand, and would welcome the opportunity to work with the new operator on these and other schemes to improve the passenger experience.

Questionnaire Responses Responses are invited to all the questions set out in this document, but alternatively KMEP members may prefer to provide a brief response setting out the main areas for development of the rail network which they deem are necessary for inclusion in the next franchise.

Item 3

12

Summary of key issues:

Key passenger priorities to be addressed: capacity, service-wide punctuality /

reliability, quality of rolling stock Key service enhancements: sufficient capacity to London & neighbouring

areas, including enhanced service frequency on High Speed services to Ebbsfleet, Ashford, Canterbury, Folkestone and Dover, with passive provision for extension to Hastings and Bexhill in East Sussex; enhanced services on Mainline routes serving Faversham, Sittingbourne, Maidstone East line, Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge and Sevenoaks; improved capacity on all services during evenings & weekends; ensure Metro services meet needs of Thames Gateway (Kent) area if these transfer to TfL

Commitment from Government to invest in enhanced HS fleet with up to 26 new 6-car sets if required level of HS service is to be delivered during course of new franchise

Commitment to participate in a new Kent Quality Rail Partnership (QRP) Commitment to working with existing Community Rail Partnerships (CRP) Improve communication including during times of disruption Measures to improve on board experience on congested trains Provision of additional seating Proposed station improvements, including to station buildings/platforms and

forecourts Inclusion of proposed new station of Thanet Parkway in new franchise service

specification Security recommendations Key on-board facilities Key aspects of service provision to be monitored Provision of station travel plans to facilitate sustainable access to stations Other issues including access & mobility, ticketing, parking, partnership

working, staffing, supporting employment, franchise length/targets/name Provision of Smartcard ticketing and contactless payment

Q1. Please select 3 of the Transport Focus recommendations set out below which you believe require particular attention in order to improve your end to end journey? If relevant please identify the rail line to which your answer relates.

Delivering value for money Providing a punctual and reliable service Provision of sufficient capacity, both in terms of train frequency and the

availability of seating on board the train Effective management of disruption, especially through information to

passengers The availability of accurate information about trains and platforms The comfort and adequacy of accommodation on the train, especially on

longer journeys The availability of train and station staff

Item 3

13

The ease of buying the most appropriate ticket for the journey at a ticket office, online, or via a ticket machine

The ease of access to services for passengers with reduced mobility Free wi-fi available on trains

Q2. Are there any examples of outstanding customer service experiences, related or unrelated to passenger rail services, to which you believe the New Southeastern franchise should aspire? If so, please provide supporting details or evidence in your answer. Q3. Are there any changes to the current passenger rail service (i.e. number of trains per hour/day), which you feel should be considered? If so, please explain your rationale. For example, please identify specific local factors which might influence the future level of passenger demand which you consider should be reflected in the specification. Q4. Results indicate that rail is not the preferred mode of transport when travelling from Kent to Gatwick Airport. What improvements do you believe should be made to the rail service in order to make this your first choice of travel? Q5. What are your preferences for service enhancements in the new franchise? Q6. Do you have any proposals to improve Community Rail Partnerships so as to deliver more of the beneficial outcomes for passengers achieved so far? Please provide any evidence in support of your proposals. Q7. How can the franchise operator help you better during a) planned disruption, such as engineering works and forecasted bad weather, and b) unplanned on-the-day disruption? Please provide separate answers for both cases. Q8. To improve the railway’s capability to match growth in demand with appropriate levels of capacity, an increase of carriages per train, or in the number of services per hour, would help. When travelling on a service where capacity is stretched, what opportunities do you see which would improve your on board experience? Q9. What are your views on removing first class seating in order to provide more overall seating and reduce standing? Q10. Are there any specific stations or services that you feel could improve on reliability or punctuality? Where possible, please explain your reasoning when responding to this question.

Item 3

14

Q11. What sort of improvements would you like to see prioritised at the station(s) you use? Please provide details and reasoning for these as well as the name(s) of the station(s). Q12. Do you have any proposals to improve security and safety at stations or on trains that you would like to consider? Please provide any supporting evidence and details of any specific stations which you feel merit consideration for future improvement under these schemes. Q13. Are there areas of improvement in customer information and engagement you would like to see before, during and after your journey? Q14. On a scale of 1 to 9, how would you rate the following on board passenger facilities (1= not important; 9= very important):

Luggage holds Cycle storage Audio passenger information Provision of different classes of service Catering Tables Staff presence Baby changing facilities Plug sockets

Where possible, please explain your reasoning when responding to this question. Please also identify any other on board passenger facilities not listed above that you deem very important. Q15. What areas of customer service within your end-to-end journey would you expect to see monitored and reported on in the new franchise, in order to improve the service quality for passengers? Q16. Based on your experience or knowledge of rail passenger services, do you have any observations that may assist us in our commitment to have due regard to the environment, equality, social value and the family in the development of the specification of passenger services for the New Southeastern franchise? Q17. In summary, what three aspects of your current rail journey would you like to see improved to enhance your overall travel experience? Q18. Please indicate if there are any additional areas that you think it is important for us to consider and that have not already been addressed in this consultation.

Item 4

15



1 December 2015

ITEM 4

Subject: WORKFORCE SKILLS: PROGRESS REVIEW

Board Lead: Graham Razey

Report author: Ross Gill

Economic Strategy & Policy Manager, Kent County Council

Summary

Following the Board’s discussion on workforce skills at the last meeting, this paper updates the

Board on progress in establishing the new Kent and Medway Skills Commission. It also explains the

work that is ongoing to build on Kent’s Adult Learning Employment and Skills Strategy and the action

plan associated with it.

The Board is recommended to note this report and the proposed terms of reference for the Skills

Commission.

1. Background

1.1. The growth strategy set out in the Compelling Case for Change noted that ‘creating a highly

skilled, more productive workforce’ is the most pressing priority for the future of the Kent and

Medway economy. Following the publication of the Compelling Case, KMEP considered an

extensive evidence base setting out future workforce skills demands. This highlighted both the

increase in skill levels that are likely to be required by employers over the next decade and a

recurring demand from employers for the need to improve information and advice to young

people on available job opportunities.

1.2. Alongside consideration of demand evidence, KMEP Board also committed to the

establishment of a Kent and Medway Skills Commission, bringing together both employers

and providers to focus on how the needs of the economy can be met within a demand‐led

system.

Item 4

16

2. Establishing the Skills Commission

2.1. Since the last KMEP Board meeting, terms of reference have been considered by the existing

Employment, Learning and Skills Partnership Board, and are attached at Annex 1. It is

intended that the new Commission will replace the ELSPB, and will have a central role in:

Owning, developing and maintaining the Workforce Skills Evidence Base and ensuring that

it is effectively used;

Overseeing the implementation of the Adult Skills Strategy (see below);

Ensuring that there is a strategic approach to the future use of skills capital funding in Kent

and Medway (and other funds that may be devolved by Government in due course);

Developing more effective mechanisms for the provision of careers information, advice

and guidance, based on direct employer input;

Developing sector‐led frameworks, through the system of sector‐led Guilds established in

Kent to provide positive perceptions of and greater access to opportunities in sectors with

prospects for employment growth.

2.2. The new Skills Commission will meet for the first time on 11 December, although the

membership has yet to be fully determined and will evolve over the next couple of months.

KMEP Board members may wish to propose members of the Commission; in particular,

suggestions for a chairman of the Commission would be very welcome.

3. Strategy for Adult Learning, Employment and Skills

3.1. Following consultation, Kent County Council published its new Adult Learning, Employment

and Skills Strategy in October. Alongside the development of an action plan for the Strategy,

work is underway to prepare a similar strategy for Medway. It is envisaged that both

strategies and the action plan will be considered by the Skills Commission and reported to

KMEP in the New Year.

4. Recommendations

4.1. The Board is recommended to note this report and the work underway, and to note the

proposed terms of reference for the Skills Commission.

Report author

Ross Gill


03000 417077 │ 07837 872705 │ [email protected]

25 November 2015

Item 4

17

Annex 1: Kent and Medway Skills Commission: Draft terms of reference, October 2015 Aims

maintain a credible labour market intelligence base to inform provision and ensure a strong employer voice

identify areas in which delivery would be strengthened through the devolution of powers and/or funding to Kent and Medway

develop and drive new approaches to the delivery of skills training in Kent and Medway

support the delivery of the 14‐24 Learning, Employment and Skills Strategy

support the delivery of the Adult Learning, Employment and Skills Strategy

identify key priorities for action to upskill the workforce in Kent and Medway

influence the allocation of skills resources from EFA, SFA and LEP Our Ambitions:

a) For Employers Employers to shape and influence the delivery of skills training to ensure there is a skilled workforce to meet local economic needs.

b) For Young People

Our ambition is for all young people in Kent and Medway to become better qualified and skilled for employment; to be able to participate and achieve success in education and work based training at least until the age of 18 and to ensure more 18 to 24 year olds can access higher learning or sustained employment that is appropriate to their needs and relevant to the local and national economy.

c) For Adults

Our ambition for Kent and Medway providers will be to: maximise adult participation in training and learning in order to achieve economic growth, full employment, social inclusion and community cohesion.

Structure of the Kent and Medway Skills Commission: 1. The Board will appoint a Chair, which shall be reviewed annually 2. Membership of the Kent and Medway Skills Commission will be reviewed at least every two

years (reflective of the skills need). 3. Members who miss three consecutive meetings without sending representation will be reviewed

by the Commission. 4. Each Kent and Medway Skills Commission member will provide a named alternative for

attendance in their absence. 5. Co‐opting of Members is allowed where appropriate. Co‐opting will be for a defined period of

time and will not have voting rights. 6. The Kent and Medway Skills Commission will be supported by a 7. Secretariat provided by Kent County Council

Membership Executive Board of the Kent and Medway Skills Commission

Item 4

18

Members with voting rights (22*):

Employer representatives

Employer representation organisations (Chamber/FSB)

1

Guilds/sector representatives 8

LEP/KMEP representative (business member) 1

VCS representative (social enterprise) 1

Total (employers) 11

Providers

Kent Association of Headteachers 1

Medway School representative 1

KATO (Kent Association of Training Organisations)

1

KAFEC (Kent Association of Further Education Colleges)

1

HE (Higher Education) 1

Total (providers) 5

Strategic partners

KCC 1

Medway 1

District Councils 1

JCP (Job Centre Plus) 1

EFA (Education Funding Agency) 1

SFA (Skills Funding Agency) 1

Total (strategic partners) 6

Grand total: 22

*+ Co‐opted members required (without voting rights) The working Executive Board will establish and commission a range of specialist project groups as required. Officers from partner organisations will be in attendance as and when they are required. The Kent and Medway Skills Commission will develop an action plan for business growth which will: 1. Assess gaps in skills training and advise schools, FE, HE and work‐based learning providers on

strategic planning and co‐ordination of post‐14 provision. Ensuring there is equality of access to appropriate education and training , traineeships and apprenticeships which provides opportunities for progression into sustained employment or further training.

2. Assess the impact on Kent and Medway of national funding arrangements for post‐14 provision

and to advise the LEP, LA, EFA , SFA, FE, HE and work‐based learning providers on local priorities to meet the needs of learners and employers.

3. Ensure that employers influence and review skills training provision across Kent and Medway 4. Monitor, evaluate, continually seek to influence and improve skills and training opportunities

with the agreed priority sectors across Kent and Medway.

Item 4

19

5. Commission activities, as appropriate, and improve aspects of skills training in Kent and

Medway, to include employer engagement work experience, careers guidance, upskilling existing employees and employability skills.

6. Lead on LEP skills and training by influencing, informing and advising KMEP and SELEP Board on

skills priorities (to aggregate into a LEP Strategy), activities and funding allocations. Develop a pipeline of capital and revenue programmes.

The Kent and Medway Skills Commission will: 1. deliver an annual conference for all partners to promote skills development and effective

employer engagement 2. support the development of a website and an effective communications strategy on skills

opportunities for employers 3. develop an three year plan with annual reviews, which sets out the priorities and monitors the

impact of the Kent and Medway Skills Commission 4. support and influence the development of the Guilds 5. promote traineeships and apprenticeships to improve the skills‐base across Kent and Medway 6. oversee the activities and monitor the impact of the Careers and Enterprise Board Coordinator

Item 5

20



1 December 2015 ITEM 5

Subject: LOCAL GROWTH FUND:

SECURING THE FUNDING AND MONITORING THE PROGRAMME

Introductory note

The Local Growth Fund was originally allocated on the basis of outline business cases. However, in

order to draw down funding, all projects require full business cases which are independently

assessed before being approved by the LEP’s Accountability Board.

Steer Davies Gleave has been appointed by the LEP as the ‘Independent Technical Evaluator’,

responsible for assessing all business cases for LGF schemes and for reporting to the Accountability

Board.

Steven Bishop, Associate and Deputy Head of Planning at Steer Davies Gleave, will present to the

Board on the role of the Independent Technical Evaluator and the process for developing business

cases. He will also set out the ongoing monitoring that the LEP and the Government require. SDG is

acting in a similar capacity in a number of other LEP areas, and Steven will highlight key lessons that

have been learned from the development of the LGF programme so far.

Item 6

21




Subject: LOCAL GROWTH FUND: DELIVERY PROGRESS REPORT

Board Lead: ‐

Report author: Mary Gillett

Interim Head of Strategic Projects, KCC

Summary

This paper provides an update on the progress of those schemes allocated funding through the Local

Growth Fund. The Board is recommended to consider the report.

1. Introduction

£148 million has been allocated from the Local Growth Fund to capital projects – primarily transport

schemes ‐ in Kent and Medway. The spreadsheets accompanying this agenda pack provide a

monitoring update on progress in delivering all the LGF capital projects in the Kent County Council

area and Medway through both Rounds 1 and 2 of the Growth Deal.

2. Business case development

Project funding is only secured following the completion of a full project business case, its appraisal

by the Local Enterprise Partnership’s Independent Technical Evaluator (currently Steer Davies

Gleave) and approval by the LEP Accountability Board.

Funding has now been secured for 17 schemes starting in 2015/16. The only scheme due to start in

2015/16 that has yet to secure funding is the North Deal Transport Improvements scheme. This is

being delivered by a third party developer and it is now expected that the business case will be

submitted for approval by the Accountability Board in February 2016.

In addition, funding has been secured for two schemes starting in 2016/17.

3. Scheme delivery

The attached spreadsheets provide a RAG rating for each project. Of these:

17 are Green (business case approved, funding fully secured and delivery on target). These

include one project – Folkestone Seafront Resurfacing Phase 1 – which has been completed.

Item 6

22

14 are Amber (funding not yet secured; or scheme delay or funding issue which can be

mitigated);

5 are Red (funding not yet secured and significant cost or delivery issues).

The following projects are highlighted as Red on the spreadsheet:

Scheme LGF Timescale Status

Sturry Link

Road,

Canterbury

£5.9

million

Start of works

spring 2019;

18 month

construction

Scheme requires £22.7 million match funding. Developer

agreements to fund scheme preparation and delivery not

yet in place, placing business case development at risk.

However, heads of terms being drafted for agreement

with developers.

North Deal

Transport

Improvements,

Dover

£0.8

million

Start of works

2016/17

Originally due to begin spend in 2015/16. Delivery of this

scheme has been put back to 2016/17. Further work is

required on the business case, the previous deadlines

having been missed by the developer. It is now intended

that the business case will come to the Accountability

Board for approval in February.

Thanet Parkway

station, Thanet

£10

million

Start of works

March 2018;

12 month

construction

Recent cost estimates are significantly in excess of the £14

million budget. Work continues to refine and reduce the

estimated costs and obtain greater certainty regarding

scheme benefits.

Dover Western

Docks, Dover

£5

million

Start 2016/17 There are potentially significant state aid issues which

need to be resolved before the business can be

considered.

Westenhanger

Lorry Park,

Shepway

£3

million

Start 2017/18 Work is currently on hold on this scheme, as it is affected

by the wider strategy for addressing Operation Stack.

4. Spend risk and mitigation

The LEP Accountability Board considered in November the underspend risk for 2015/16 and the

mitigation strategies being brought forward by each authority.

Within the KCC programme, there is an underspend risk of £4.92 million in 2015/16 through

schemes rephrased to 2016/17. This is fully mitigated through spend brought forward to this year on

schemes within the LGF programme scheduled to start in 2016/17.

Within the Medway programme, there is no anticipated underspend this year.

Across the South East LEP LGF programme as a whole, there is a forecast underspend of £17.6

million. Scheme promoting authorities have reported to the Accountability Board that this is fully

mitigated within each county/ unitary authority area.

5. Recommendations

The Board is recommended to consider this report.

Item 6

23

Report author

Mary Gillett

Interim Head of Strategic Projects, Kent County Council

03000 411638 │ [email protected]

26 November 2015

Item 7

24



1 December 2015

ITEM 7

Subject: SPENDING REVIEW AND AUTUMN STATEMENT 2015:

IMPLICATIONS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN KENT AND MEDWAY

Board Lead: ‐

Report authors: Ross Gill

Economic Strategy & Policy Manager, Kent County Council

Summary

The Chancellor published his Autumn Statement and the Government’s Spending Review on 25

November. Substantial analysis of the Autumn Statement has been published in the media and by

various think tanks. This paper does not attempt to duplicate this; however, it highlights some key

headlines that are of particular relevance to KMEP’s goal of increasing productivity through

investment in skills, infrastructure and business growth.

1. Infrastructure and development

Locally‐specific announcements

9.1. The Autumn Statement contains a number of very positive announcements for Kent and

Medway. In particular, these include the allocation of up to £250 million for a new permanent

lorry park to relieve the pressure of Operation Stack, particularly important following the

severe disruption faced by the county over the summer.

9.2. £310 million has also been announced to support the delivery of Ebbsfleet Garden City. This

represents an additional £110 million on top of the £200 million allocation previously

announced.

9.3. In addition, KMEP’s priority Enterprise Zone proposal in North Kent has been approved. This

will mean up to 100% business rate discounts from April 2016 for new occupiers at Rochester

Airport Technology Park, Kent Medical Campus at Maidstone and Ebbsfleet Valley (Ebbsfleet

Valley North East and Northfleet Embankment). The North Kent Innovation Zone is the only

new EZ to be approved in the South East LEP area, representing a positive result building on

the success of Discovery Park.

Item 7

25

Local Growth Fund

9.4. The Local Growth Fund was originally intended to amount to £12 billion between 2015/16

and 2020/21, although initially, no commitment was made to fund schemes starting next year

and beyond. The Autumn Statement confirms that the commitment to the full £12 billion

remains, including to those indicative allocations that have already been made. It appears that

this will continue to be a formally un‐ringfenced fund. However, it is likely to incorporate

specific budget lines published elsewhere in the Autumn Statement (for example for the Local

Sustainable Transport Fund), the objectives of which departments will probably want to see

delivered through LGF.

9.5. At this stage, there is no commitment to a third round of LGF funding. How remaining funds

are to be allocated remains to be seen, although there is a strong emphasis on the

Government’s priority for the delivery of the Northern Powerhouse. This is to be expected,

and reflects the strategy set out by the Government in previous documents.

Transport

9.6. Despite significant cuts in the Department for Transport’s revenue budget, capital investment

will increase, with £15 billion committed to the Roads Investment Strategy, which includes

funding commitments to the A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions, M2 Junction 5 and M20

Junction 10a (partly funded through LGF). The Autumn Statement also announced the

publication of a second Roads Investment Strategy before 2020.

Housing growth

9.7. A series of measures are set out to support housing growth, including the extension of the

Help to Buy equity loan scheme and the Builders’ Finance Fund to 2021. Across the Autumn

Statement as a whole, the focus in respect of support for housing interventions appears to be

oriented towards national, rather than locally‐driven schemes. In addition, the Autumn

Statement announced a ‘delivery test’ on local authorities to ensure delivery against Local

Plan numbers.

10. Skills

10.1. The Government’s previously‐stated strategy is to transfer a greater share of the costs of

workforce training onto employers, with the intention of achieving savings as well as

increasing employer ownership of skills issues. The Autumn Statement set out the

Apprenticeship Levy to be paid by larger employers, with government support remaining for

smaller employers. Overall, the Statement anticipates a doubling (in cash terms) of

apprenticeship spending by 2019/20.

11. Business growth

11.1. There is no reference to any future round of the Regional Growth Fund, or any similar scheme

(there is a commitment to a Northern investment fund, although it appears that this is

primarily European‐funded). Generally, the focus of the Autumn Statement is on easing the

burden of regulation and taxation (for example through the extension of the doubling of Small

Business Rate Relief), with the focus of direct support oriented to science‐based and

innovative companies.

Item 7

26

12. Recommendations

The Board is recommended to note this report.

Report author:

Ross Gill


03000 417077 │ 07837 872705 │ [email protected]

27 November 2015

Item 8

27




Subject: FUTURE KMEP MEETING DATES

All to be held at the Village Hotel, Maidstone at 5pm:

4 February 2016

11 April 2016

14 June 2016

1 August 2016

4 October 2016

12 December 2016

LEP Schemes Programme RAG Report November 2015

No. Scheme Description Delivery By Budget Business Case Status RAG Status Comments Key Events for Next Period

1A28 Chart Road, Ashford

Carriageway dualling, junction improvements and NR bridge widening. Start of works planned for Spring 2018 with an 18 month construction period.

2019/20 £32.80m (£10.23m SLGF, £22.57m match

funding)

BC currently being prepared. KCC aim to submit to ITE in Dec 2015 for sign-off by Accountability Board in spring 2016 and release of funding in April 2016.

Design and planning of the scheme is progressing well but a S278, although well underway, has yet to be concluded with developers who are part funding the delivery of the scheme.

Conclude S278 Agreement, continue LEP BC. Public engagement event planned in November/December 2015.

2Sturry Link Road, Canterbury

New link road connecting the A28 Sturry Road to A291 Sturry Hill requiring a crossing of both the railway and the river. Start of works planned for Spring 2019 with an 18 month construction period.

2020/21 £28.60m (£5.90m SLGF, £ 22.70m match funding)

BC currently being prepared. KCC aim to submit to ITE in Dec 2015 for sign-off by Accountability Board in spring 2016 and release of funding in April 2016.

EiP of CCC Local Plan commenced 14th July, outcome will not be known for several months. Developer agreements to fund scheme preparation and delivery not yet in place and LEP BC and therefore funding is at high risk.

Agree terms for funding of scheme design and delivery with developers.

3 A28 Sturry Road Integrated Transport Package, Canterbury

Extension of in-bound bus lane. Start of works planned for summer 2016 with a 4 month construction period.

2016/17 £0.55m (£0.3m SLGF, ££0.25m match funding)

Business Case approved at Nov 15 Accountability Board. Funding to be released in 2016/17.

Feasibility progressing. A funding gap of £150k has been identified due to reduced match funding. Gap to be funded form Congestion Management scheme. Scheme deferred until 2017/18.

Continue scheme preparation

4 North Deal transport improvements, Dover

New road between Albert Road and Church Lane, Deal. Scheme being prepared and delivered by developer. Work due to start in 2016/17.

2016/17 £1.55m (£0.8m SLGF, £0.75m match funding)

Developer submitted Transport Statement to ITE. Issue in that not a full BC - awaiting developer submission of full business case - due in November 2015

Developer to submit BC for sign off at Accountability Board in Feb 2016

Seek further design details from developer

5 A226 London Rd/B255 St Clements Way, Dartford

Junction improvements. Start of works planned for Spring 2019 for 12 months.

2019/20 £10.7m (£5.2m SLGF, £5.5m

match funding)

BC to be prepared following appraisal of options for the scheme. Aim is to submit to ITE in 2017 (SLGF profiled to be released in 2018/19/20.

On target. E&T Cabinet Committee now planned for January 2016.

6 Rathmore Road Link, Gravesend

New 2-way link road between Stone Street and Darnley Road. Start of works planned for June 2016 with an 18 month construction period

2016/17 £9.5m (£4.2m SLGF, £5.3m

match funding)

BC currently being prepared. KCC aim to submit to ITE in Dec 2015 for sign-off by Accountability Board in spring 2016 and release of funding in April 2016. SRO published with no objections.

On target - Tender documents issued. Evaluate tender submissions

7 Maidstone Gyratory Bypass, Maidstone

A229 Gyratory Bypass, Fairmeadow. Main construction works planned to commence summer 2016 for a 6 month period.


BC approved. Funding released. On target. Continue design and contract document preparation. Tender documents to be issued in January 2016

8 Maidstone sustainable access to employment areas

New pathway along the River Medway between Aylesford Village and Allington Lock and complementary measures on existing routes. Start of works planned for spring 2016 for a 12 month construction period.

2016/17 £3m (£2m SLGF, £1m match

funding)

Business Case approved at Nov 15 Accountability Board. Funding to be released in 2016/17.

On target. Start work in Spring 2016

9 Maidstone Integrated Transport

Package of transport improvements. Works to start in 2016/17.

2016/17 to 2019/20

£15.8m (£8.9m SLGF, £6.9m

match funding)

KCC aim to submit to BC to ITE in Dec 2015 for sign-off by Accountability Board in spring 2016 and release of funding in April 2016.

Government notification of scheme amendments required.

Continue scheme planning and preparation

10 Folkestone Seafront Resurfacing Phase 1, Shepway

Complete May-15 £0.29 SLGF

PROJECT RAG STATUS

SLGF1

Approved. Funding released to KCC.

Programme Manager: Mary Gillett 1 of 3



PROJECT RAG STATUS

10A Folkestone Seafront Resurfacing Phase 2 (incorporating Tontine Street Traffic Scheme), Shepway

Resurfacing of Tontine Street (in conjunction with S106 works at same location). Start of works planned for October 2015 for a 4 month construction period.

2015/16 £0.36m (£0.21m SLGF, £0.15m

S106 funding for Tontine Street

On target Continue construction

11 Sittingbourne Town Centre Regeneration (developer delivered), Swale

Re-alignment of St. Michaels' Rd and public realm improvements adjacent to rail station. Construction planned to start in 2015/16.

2015/16/17 £4.5m (£2.5m SLGF, £2m match

funding)

Approved. Funding released to KCC. Design of scheme and Service Level Agreement still to be agreed with developer

Developer to continue scheme preparation. Finalise SLA.

12 Thanet Parkway, Thanet

New rail station. Start of works planned for March 2018 for a 12 month construction period.

2018/19 £14m (£10m SLGF, £4m match

funding)

Comments received from ITE on BC. Comments currently being addressed with the aim of BC sign-off in spring 2016. SLGF profiled for 2017/18.

Recent cost estimate prepared scheme costs far in excess of scheme budget.

Review cost estimate and funding package. Ongoing

13 M20 Junction 4 Eastern Overbridge

Widening of existing motorway overbridge. Start of works planned for February 2016 with a 6 month construction period.


Approved. Funding released to KCC. Tenders received. Currently being assessed. Tender award Section 6 Agreement with HA to be signed.

14 Tonbridge Town Centre Regeneration

Transport improvements to Tonbridge High Street commence. Phase 1 commenced on site in August 2015. Phase 2 is planned to start in 2016/17.

2015/16/17 £2.65m (£2.4m SLGF, £0.25m match funding)

Approved. Funding released to KCC. Construction delayed by 3 weeks - to be mitigated by increasing workforce.

Continue construction of Phase 1. Commence Phase 2 outline design work.

15 A26 London Rd/ Speldhurst Rd/ Yew Tree Rd

Junction improvement and A26 route study. Start of works planned for Spring 2016.

2015/16/17 £1.8m SLGF 2015/16 funding approved and released to KCC. A supplementary BC is required to secure future years' funding - the aim is to submit this to the ITE in December 2015.

New proposals required for remainder of funding. Continue with scheme preparation and investigate alternative options for remaining funding

16 West Kent LSTF A package of measures to support travel by sustainable means. Start of works planned for September 2015 for a 5 month construction period

annually until 2020/21

Total across 6 years - £9.06m (£4.9m SLGF, £4.16m match

funding)

2015/16 funding approved and released to KCC. A supplementary BC is required to secure future years' funding - the aim is to submit this to the ITE in December 2015.

On target Award Snodland Contract and progress to detailed design. Approve detailed designs for Wayfinding Tunbridge Wells and manufacture signs.

17 Kent Thameside LSTF A package of measures to support travel by sustainable means. Start of works planned for September 2015 for a 5 month construction period


Total across 6 years - £7.65m (£4.5m SLGF, £3.15m match

funding)

Full approval for all years. 2015/16 funding released to KCC.

On target Planning Permission granted for cycle hub.

18 Kent Strategic Congestion Management programme

Package of congestion management initiatives. Start of works planned for October 2015 with a 4 month construction period.


Total across 6 years - £4.8m

SLGF


Detailed design for A229 complete and being submitted to BBMM and HE for approval. VMS tender received and being evaluated. CCTV specification complete and starting procurement

CCTV tender return, VMS being ordered and A229 works to be programmed in early in the new year.

19 Kent Sustainable Interventions programme - 2015/16 Scheme details 19A to 19E

A package of smaller transport interventions - see 19A to 19D below


Total across 6 years - £3m

SLGF (£0.5m annually)


19A Sittingbourne TC Cycle

Walking/cycling improvements 2015/16 See 19 above Scheme delayed - data received late Continue scheme preparation

19B Dartford Cycle Route Walking/cycling link 2015/16 See 19 above Scheme delayed - objections received Further options to be taken to December JTB.Total 2015/16

annual SLGF




PROJECT RAG STATUS

19C South Street Deal Public transport interchange 2015/16 See 19 above Scheme delayed - objections received Complete design and take to December JTB

19D Howard Avenue Walking/cycling link 2015/16 See 19 above On target Detailed Design to be completed and scheme procured.

20 Kent Rights of Way improvement plan

Package of ROWIP measures. Start of works planned for 2015/16.


Total across 6 years - £0.3m

SLGF


On target Complete final community engagement.

21 M20 Junction 10A (now a full junction to be delivered by Highways England)

Delivered by Highways England 2018/19 £70m (£19.7m SLGF, £16.2m match funding,

£34.1m Highways England)

Highways England to prepare BC. Highways England preparing BC. Delivery programme slipped - start of works now planned for early 2018 with an 18 month construction period. Issue with securing match funding

Highways England to complete BC

22Dover Western Dock Revival

Package of highway improvements. 2016/17 £5m SLGF Dover Harbour Board to prepare BC.

Potential State Aid issues to be resolved. SLA to be agreed.

23

Ashford International Rail Connectivity (Ashford Spurs)

Signalling upgrade to maintain international rail services at Ashford International station

2016/17 to 2018/19

£4.76m (£2m LGF2, £2.5m

LGF2 or LGF3, £260,000 partner

funding)

Full Business Case to be provided by Network Rail at close of GRIP 3 (March 2016) for submission to ITE.

Change of technical solution approved at Accountability Board in Nov. 2015. Basic Services Agreement (BSA) signed between KCC & NRIL.

Network Rail to present feasibility report and full estimate of costs and timescale for KVB solution to Governance Group in Jan 2016.

24

Westenhanger Lorry Park

Facility for overnight lorry parking. Scheme affected by recent Operation Stack events and location has changed.

2018/19 £12m (£3m SLGF, £9m match

funding)

KCC aims to submit BC to ITE in autumn 2016 to enable funding to be released in April 2017.

Scheme on hold. Agree strategy for this funding and seek approval from SELEP/Government so that BC can be prepared

25

Folkestone Seafront (developer delivered)

Construction of platform to facilitate development of Folkestone Seafront.

2017/18 £22.21m (£4m

SLGF, £17.11m

match funding)

Developer to submit BC to ITE. Business Case outstanding. Developer to continue scheme preparation.

26Innovation Investment Fund (Growth Hub Capital)


Total £6m (£1m

annually)

Business Case approved at Nov 15 Accountability Board. Funding to be released.

On target

SLGF2

NON-TRANSPORT

annual SLGF allocation - £0.5m


KMEP Update Medway LGF Schemes


M1 A289 Four Elms Roundabout to Medway Tunnel

Highway Capacity improvement to provide Journey Time savings and reduced congestion

2019 £11.1m BC approved, funding released The outline design has been completed.The detailed design is underway,currently agreeing access forgeotechnical investigations withLandowners adjacent to the existinghighway.

Geotechnical investigations and commence aquiring land

M2 Strood Town Centre Journey Time and Accessibility Enhancements to the town centre including changes to the highway, improved public realm and retail improvements.

2018/19 £9m BC approved, funding releasedCurrently we are looking at developingoutline designs for the scheme in linewith the agreed Business Case. Afunding agreement with South Easternhas been agreed and signed.

Prepare Action Plan, and undertake engagement with businesses and local members

M3 Chatham Town Centre Place-making and Public Realm Package

Improving the link between Chatham railway station and Chatham centre and waterfront area and provision of a new civic space.

2017/18 £4m BC approved, funding released

The draft Masterplan has been approvedby the Chatham Regeneration Board(CRB) and the preferred option for the1st phase of delivery will go to the boardin December. Public consultation on themasterplan and 1st phase delivery willbe held in January 2016. This will notaffect the overall delivery plan andintended onsite start of Autumn 2016.

Public consultation in Jan.

M4 Medway Cycling Action Plan A range of measures designed to improve access to cycling in the Medway area and improve upon and expand existing cycling facilities

1st construction in 2015/16, then annually until

2018/19

£2.5m BC approved, funding releasedFirst route being constructed inBeechings Way, Gillingham.Stakeholder engagement on the cyclingaction plan has been completed and thefeedback is being assessed.

Revision of Cycling Action Plan incorporating costs for phase 1 and taking into account comments from stakeholders

M5 Medway City Estate Connectivity Improvement Measures

An integrated package of infrastructure measures aimed at addressing the existing barriers to movement to and from and within MCE.

Early interventions in 2015/16 with 2nd part

of the project by 2017/18

£2m BC approved, funding released The project has been split into twophases, with phase 1 focussing onaiding egress off the City Estate to thebenefit of the 5000 employees based onthe Estate.

Construction on the ground expected December 2015. The later phases of the project will focus on improving connectivity within the Estate for all modes of transport and the possibility of a river taxi to Chatham town centre.

26Rochester Airport Innovation Park

Rochester Airport Innovation Park

2026

£4.4m (future phases

in addition)

MC submitted draft BC to ITE in April 2015. Awaiting feedback. Awaiting clarification by Accountability Board for release of funding.

Awaiting clarification around procedure and timings for devolving funding

confirmation on sign-off of business case from ITE

PROJECT RAG STATUS

SLGF1

NON-TRANSPORT

Prepared by Nikola Floodgate 11.09.2015


TERMS OF REFERENCE

Revised October 2015

1. Purpose

1.1. This document sets out the terms of reference for the Kent and Medway Economic

Partnership.

2. Aims and functions of the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership

2.1. The Kent and Medway Economic Partnership (KMEP) is a private‐public body which aims to

drive forward economic growth and prosperity in Kent and Medway.

2.2. In pursuit of these aims, the Partnership shall:

a) Approve, drive forward and monitor a strategic economic plan for Kent and Medway;

b) Consider strategic economic investment priorities through funds such as the Single Local

Growth Fund, European structural and investment funds and other public funding sources

that may become available;

c) Consider and develop responses to new economic opportunities and challenges in Kent

and Medway;

d) Maintain strategic oversight of the use of all funding devolved from the South East Local

Enterprise Partnership to Kent and Medway;

e) Ensure a strong voice for Kent and Medway business and government at national and

regional level, including through the South East LEP.

3. Governance

3.1. The Partnership shall be governed by a Partnership Board, which shall fulfil the functions set

out in para. 2.2.

4. Membership of the Partnership Board

4.1. The Board shall consist of 32 members, as follows:

Business representatives ( 16)

The Leader of Kent County Council (1)

The Leader of Medway Council (1)

Leaders of Kent District Councils ( 12)

Higher education representative (1)

Further education representative (1)

4.2. The Board shall seek to ensure a balanced representation of businesses and local authorities,

reflecting Kent and Medway’s geography and the diversity of its business base (by size and

scale).

4.3. Should a Board member be unable to attend one or several Board meetings, s/he may

nominate an Alternate to take his/her place. In such cases, the Board member should notify

the Chairman in advance, via the Secretariat.

4.4. Members may resign from the Board by giving no less than 20 working days’ notice to the

Chairman and Secretariat. Should a member resign, s/he shall be replaced according to the

balance of representation in 5.1.

5. Quorum

5.1. The quorum of the Board shall be 12 of which no fewer than 6 shall be business

representatives.

5.2. Should a Board meeting not be quorate, the Chairman may arrange a Special Meeting of the

Board to deal with outstanding business, or may allow business to adjourn to the following

ordinary Board meeting, or may allow Board members to convey their views electronically to

all the other Board members via the Secretariat.

6. Chairman

6.1. The Board shall elect a Chairman through the process outlined in Section 11. The Chairman

shall serve as both Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Partnership.

6.2. The Board may also elect a Vice‐Chairman.

6.3. Both the Chairman and the Vice‐Chairman shall be business representatives.

6.4. The Chairman shall preside at meetings of the Board. In the absence of the Chairman, the

Vice‐Chairman shall preside. In the absence of the Chairman and the Vice‐Chairman, the Board

shall elect any Member of the Board to act as Chairman for that meeting only.

7. Other participants

7.1. With the prior agreement of the Chairman, Other Participants may attend meetings of the Board. Other Participants may include representatives of agencies with a significant economic

role, such as (inter alia) the Environment Agency, the Homes and Communities Agency or the Skills Funding Agency.

7.2. Other Participants may, at the discretion of the Chairman, participate in discussion (subject to the Conflicts of Interest procedure set out in 8 below. However, they shall not be considered to be members of the Board.

7.3. Officers shall also attend Board meetings where they are presenting papers or other

information for the Board’s consideration.

8. Conflicts of interest 8.1. A Register of Interests shall be held by the Secretariat. Members shall be responsible for

ensuring that the Secretariat is informed of any changes that should be made to the Register of Interests. The Register will be available for public scrutiny.

8.2. Should a Board Member become aware that s/he has any interest, direct or indirect, in any

matter being considered by the Board, then s/he shall: ‐ (a) disclose the interest to the meeting and not take part in any consideration or

discussion of the matter or vote in any questions with respect to it; and (b) unless the meeting invites him/her to remain, withdraw from the meeting.

8.3. The rules in 8.2 apply whether or not the interest concerned is already set out in the Register

of Interests. 8.4. However, the rule in 8.2 above does not apply where the interest concerned relates primarily

to the general interest of any public sector Member in his/her area of geographical responsibility, or to the interests of Kent and Medway as a whole.

8.5. The rules in 8.2 also apply to any Non‐Voting Participant, save that Non‐Voting Participants do

not have voting rights.

9. Secretariat, minutes and agenda‐setting

9.1. The Secretariat of the Board and the Partnership shall be carried out by Kent County Council.

9.2. In exercising this function, the Secretariat shall work with a KMEP Joint Management Group

(JMG). The JMG shall consist of chief executives (or other senior officers as delegated) from

Kent County Council, Medway Council and at least six District Councils, and shall consider both

forthcoming agenda items and the strategic monitoring of actions determined by the Board.

9.3. The agenda for the Board meeting shall be agreed by the Chairman prior to circulation.

9.4. The agenda and papers for the Board meetings shall be circulated to the Board by the

Secretariat not less than five working days before each Board meeting.

9.5. Draft minutes of meetings of the Board shall be prepared by the Secretariat and circulated to

Board Members within 10 working days after each Board meeting.

9.6. Draft minutes shall be approved by the following meeting of the Board. Once approved, they

shall be made publicly available (see Transparency, section 11).

10. Making recommendations

10.1. The Board does not have delegated authority to make decisions regarding the use of public

funds. However, the Board may provide a strategic partnership view on priorities for, or the

use of, public funds and may make recommendations to local and central government and

their agents.

10.2. In considering priorities and performance and in making recommendations, the Board shall at

all times aim to reach consensus. Where consensus is not possible, the Board may set out

majority and minority opinions.

11. Voting

11.1. The Board may vote on the following matters:

a) Variation to the Terms of Reference of the Partnership and Board;

b) Election of the Chairman or Vice‐Chairman;

c) Termination of the Partnership and Board

11.2. Determination of these matters shall require the support of at least 75% of Board members

present.

12. Sub‐groups

12.1. The Board may from time to time establish sub‐groups. In such circumstances, the terms of

reference for any sub‐group shall be approved by the Board.

13. Transparency

13.1. The Board shall seek to operate in an open and transparent manner. 13.2. Meetings of the Board shall be open to the public and notification of future meetings shall be

publicised via the KMEP website (and those of partner organisations as appropriate). 13.3. Following approval by the Board, minutes shall also be made publicly available via the

websites of KMEP (and those of partner organisations as appropriate). 13.4. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 shall apply to Board papers and to records of the

Board’s discussions.

14. Annual Report and Annual General Meeting

14.1. The Board shall consider and approve an Annual Report, setting out the activities and

membership of the Partnership and the Board over the course of the year, and its anticipated

focus for the year ahead. This shall be publicly available and disseminated widely.

14.2. In addition, the Partnership shall hold an Annual General Meeting, reporting on the

Partnership’s activities over the course of the year.

15. Frequency of Board meetings

15.1. The Partnership Board shall meet at least 4 times per year. It may meet more frequently if

business needs dictate, at the discretion of the Chairman.

15.2. Board meetings shall be scheduled and located in such a way that the business of the Board

can be expedited efficiently.

16. Termination

16.1. The Board may decide to terminate the activities of the Board and Partnership, subject to the

provisions in para. 10.4.

17. Indemnity

17.1. Unless otherwise indemnified by the organisations of which they are representatives, Kent

County Council shall indemnify the members of the Board in respect of all decisions made by

the Board.

18. Variation to Terms of Reference

18.1. The Board may decide to vary its Terms of Reference, provided the procedure in Section 11 is followed.

Approved by the Board of the Kent and Medway Economic Partnership

12 October 2015

kent and medway economic partnershipkmep.org.uk/documents/agenda_pack_-_01_dec.pdf · 2016. 2....

Documents