Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board Agenda Thursday 17th May 2018, 09:30 – 11:00 Board Room, Webster and Horsfall, Hay Mills, Birmingham, B25 8DW
Subject Pre Read Purpose Presenter
1 Welcome & apologies N/A - Chair 2 Declarations of interest N/A - Tom Fletcher 3 Decisions and actions from the last Attached To agree the decisions and actions of the meeting on 26th March 2018 and Rehana Programme Delivery Board meeting and update on any matters arising. Watkinson matters arising 4 Programme Board Summary Report Attached To note the summary report, including to: Tom Fletcher a) Programme issues and risks note the current programme status for forecast grant claims and b) Project overviews and exceptions outputs; c) Background on approved projects note the current status with project development and delivery; d) Completed projects summaries note the project investment approvals made by the LEP Director under delegated authority; agree to the change of project sponsor for The Grand Hotel refurbishment project that is receiving Growing Places Funding; agree to receive the Outline Business Case recommendation for the Burton Town Centre Regeneration project via written procedure; note that there was 11.5% financial slippage across the LGF projects in 2017/18 financial year and was within expectations; and note that there was full utilisation of LGF funding for 2017/18. 5 Project review: Hagley Road SPRINT Attached To receive an update on the Hagley Road SPRINT project, including to: Angela note the strategic changes, including substantial increase in scope of Horsford the project since entering the Growth Programme; and approve the changes to the financial profile. 6 Project review: STEAMhouse Attached To receive an overview of and update on the STEAMhouse Phase 2 Jo Birch and project, including the strategic context, current delivery plan and intended Tom Cahill- project benefits. Jones 7 Project investment change request: Attached To approve the increase in conditional allocation for the Kidderminster Lada Zimina Kidderminster Railway Station Railway Station Interchange project from £1.8m to £2.407m following Interchange confirmation of costs, subject to a satisfactory Full Business Case. 8 Any other business Attached a) To note the improvements to the PMO arrangements and approve the a) Rehana a) PMO improvements amendment of the Assurance Framework. Watkinson b) Growth Deal quarterly monitoring b) To approve the Q4 2017/18 Growth Deal Monitoring Report b) Rehana Subject Pre Read Purpose Presenter
report to Government submission to Government. Watkinson c) Pipeline development fund c) To endorse the principle of the LEP establishing a fund to support c) Tom d) SEP Enabling Fund – Revolving business case development of strategic pipeline projects. Fletcher Investment Fund appraisal d) To approve the submission of SEP Enabling Fund EoI for support with d) Tom support financial assessment of loan projects. Fletcher Post meeting: Tour of the Tyseley Energy Park project
Dates of Future Meetings: Thursday 9th August 2018 – 9.30-11am Committee Room, Bromsgrove District Council, Parkside, Market Street, Bromsgrove, Worcs, B61 8DA Thursday 8th November 2018 – 9.30-11am (venue tbc – Solihull) Thursday 14th February 2019 – 9.30-11am (venue tbc – Southern Staffordshire)
Page 2 09/05/2018 Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board
Exceptional Project Review Meeting
Monday 26th March 2018, 09:30 – 11:30 Conference Room, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND
Decisions & Actions
Present: Apologies: Chris Loughran – Deputy Chair for Delivery, GBSLEP (Chair) Phil Edwards – Assistant Director, Birmingham City Council Tony McGovern – Managing Director, Cannock Chase District Council (Present for all Paul Faulkner – Chief Executive, Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce items except item 5c) Neil Rami – Chief Executive, West Midlands Growth Company John Barr – Head of Finance, Birmingham City Council (Accountable Body) Ian Miller – Chief Executive, Wyre Forest District Council Varinder Raulia – Head of Infrastructure Development, Birmingham City Council (For Michelle Nutt – Assistant Director, Cities and Local Growth Unit Phil Edwards) Mike Lyons – Connectivity Director, GBSLEP Anne Brereton – Director of Managed Growth, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council In attendance: Tom Fletcher – Acting Head of Delivery, GBSLEP Executive Rehana Watkinson – PMO Manager, GBSLEP Executive Wendy Edwards – Project Champion, GBSLEP Executive
Presenting: Andy Middleton – Technical Officer, Birmingham City Council (Item 5a only) Amjid Bashir – Senior Infrastructure Delivery Officer, Birmingham City Council (Item 5b only) Peter Parker – Infrastructure Delivery Manager, Birmingham City Council (Items 5a and 5b only) Angus Johnston – Group Head, Strategic Projects, Freightliner Group (Item 5c only) Chris Lawrenson – Managing Director, Pentalver Group (Item 5c only) Nick Matthews – Cannock General Manager, Pentalver Group (Item 5c only)
# Subject Decisions Actions Timescales Owner(s)
1 Welcome and apologies The Chair welcomed everyone to the Exceptional Project Review Meeting of the Programme Delivery Board (PDB)
1
Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board
Exceptional Project Review Meeting
Monday 26th March 2018, 09:30 – 11:30 Conference Room, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND
Decisions & Actions
# Subject Decisions Actions Timescales Owner(s)
Apologies were noted as above. 2 Declarations of Interest Tony McGovern declared a non-financial interest in the Mid- Cannock Freight Interchange Project, due to the Cannock Chase DC involvement in land purchases with Pentalver. Tony offered and agreed to leave the meeting for the questions and deliberations around this item. Varinder Raulia and John Barr declared non-financial interests in all Birmingham City Council (BCC) projects being discussed. 3 Decisions and actions The decisions and actions of the PDB meeting that took place of the last meeting on 15th February 2018 were agreed.
All actions were either completed or addressed during the meeting. There were no matters arising that were not addressed at this meeting. 4 Project Review The PDB: Summary Report Noted the financial forecasts by projects allocated funding
in 2017/18 Noted the anticipated financial slippage across the
2
Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board
Exceptional Project Review Meeting
Monday 26th March 2018, 09:30 – 11:30 Conference Room, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND
Decisions & Actions
# Subject Decisions Actions Timescales Owner(s)
programme for the 2017/18 financial year
Noted that any underspend would be temporarily moved to the Revolving Investment Fund (RIF) until Q1 2018/19
Noted the approval of £1,476,000 on Local Growth Fund
(LGF) grant towards the Birmingham Dance Hub
(Hippodrome), by the LEP Director Noted the verbal update in the meeting that two projects
recently added to the strategic pipeline have had Full
Business Cases approved by the LEP Director, following independent appraisal. The projects are:
o New Manufacturing Engineering Centre (South and Circulate project investment report and May 2018 RW City Birmingham College) - approval of £250,000 include in next meeting’s papers LGF grant towards the total project cost of £650,000; and
o Hybrid Vehicles Technology Centre (Solihull College Circulate project investment report and May 2018 RW & University Centre) – approval of £272,000 LGF include in next meeting’s papers grant towards the total project cost of £582,000.
3
Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board
Exceptional Project Review Meeting
Monday 26th March 2018, 09:30 – 11:30 Conference Room, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND
Decisions & Actions
# Subject Decisions Actions Timescales Owner(s)
5 Project Reviews a) Birmingham Cycle Revolution a) Birmingham Cycle Revolution
a) Birmingham Project confirmed that the re-profiling of future grant claims would take into account any risk to delivery of the project and Cycle Revolution its outcomes and there was no issue around capacity to delivery
(BCC) in 2018/19. The Project Manager expressed confidence that, despite the challenges, the scheme would be fully delivered by b) Iron Lane (BCC) March 2020.
c) Mid-Cannock During the discussion, the PDB:
Freight requested that the project alert the Programme Team if
Interchange there are any challenges that would affect the timescales of (Pentalver) delivery.
noted the good work done so far on the projects within the Project to submit a supplementary report on May 2018 BCC usage data from bikes and the impact on BCR programme and requested a supplementary report on usage data from bikes and the impact on access to jobs. access to jobs and other outcomes. April 2018 PDT approved the change request to re-profile the LGF grant Confirm approval of Change Request to the
project. claims for the project, including financial slippage from
4
Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board
Exceptional Project Review Meeting
Monday 26th March 2018, 09:30 – 11:30 Conference Room, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND
Decisions & Actions
# Subject Decisions Actions Timescales Owner(s)
2017/18 into 2018/19 and 2019/20.
b) Iron Lane b) Iron Lane
The Project Sponsor confirmed his confidence in the Compulsory Purchase Order process would be confirmed as
many of the objectors did agree with the actual scheme, but were concerned more with timings and disruption during
construction.
In the event that the CPO is not confirmed, the scheme would need to be reviewed.
Delay to the confirmation of the CPO by the Secretary of State
could be mitigated by highlighting and emphasising the outcomes and benefits of 1,000 new homes.
Project Sponsor confirmed that: 1. Tenders are due back in July or August 2018.
2. Any cost increase following tender return is expected to be contained within the contingency provision and
5
Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board
Exceptional Project Review Meeting
Monday 26th March 2018, 09:30 – 11:30 Conference Room, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND
Decisions & Actions
# Subject Decisions Actions Timescales Owner(s)
should not cause significant delays to the programme of works.
3. 20-30% of the total value of the project is contingency.
4. The funding of any cost increase would have to be met
by BCC Project to provide an update to Programme October BCC PDB approved the request to re-profile the LGF grant claims for 2018 Team when Contractor has been appointed. the project and requested that the project provide an update following the appointment of a contractor in October 2018
c) Mid-Cannock Freight Interchange c) Mid-Cannock Freight Interchange
PDB noted the update to the project and reasons for delays.
During the discussion, the PDB:
acknowledged the economic benefits expected through the
delivery of this project and the commitment to the project
from the Project Sponsor. Contact the Programme Team if the LEP can June 2018 Pentalver
agreed to help facilitate discussions with Network Rail. support discussions with Network Rail.
6
Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board
Exceptional Project Review Meeting
Monday 26th March 2018, 09:30 – 11:30 Conference Room, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND
Decisions & Actions
# Subject Decisions Actions Timescales Owner(s)
agreed that the project should remain on the LGF Provide an update report and formal change June 2018 Pentalver programme and provide confirmation in June 2018 of the request following outcome of the next next key milestones being met. project review point (rail access application). 6 Future Skills for Growth The PDB: Programme Noted the forthcoming investment proposal for the Future Skills for Growth Programme.
Noted that the programme will operate on the principles of
engaging with employers early on, being open to any
training providers subject to them meeting the criteria and stimulating projects to come forward to deliver benefits.
7 Any Other Business The PDB:
Noted that Alison Jarrett (Accountable Body) will be returning to work to after the Easter holiday. Future meeting dates of the Programme Delivery Board for 2018: . Thursday 17th May 2018 – 9.30-11am Board Room, Webster and Horsfall, Hay Mills, Birmingham, B25 8DW . Thursday 9th August 2018 – 9.30-11am Committee Room, Bromsgrove District Council, Parkside, Market Street, Bromsgrove, Worcs, B61 8DA . Thursday 8th November 2018 – 9.30-11am (venue tbc – Solihull) . Thursday 14th February 2018 – 9.30-11am (venue tbc – Southern Staffordshire)
7
Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership Programme Delivery Board
Exceptional Project Review Meeting
Monday 26th March 2018, 09:30 – 11:30 Conference Room, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND
Decisions & Actions
KEY: CR Chris Loughran IM Ian Miller AB Anne Brereton PH Phil Edwards MN Michelle Nutt NR Neil Rami TMcG Tony McGovern PF Paul Faulkner JB John Barr WE Wendy Edwards TF Tom Fletcher RW Rehana Watkinson LZ Lada Zimina PP Peter Parker
RM Roger Mendonça PDT Programme Delivery Team PBD Programme Delivery Board CLoG Cities and Local Growth BEIS Business, Energy & Industrial DCLG Dept. Communities & Local Government Strategy PMO Programme Management Office LGF Local Growth Fund RIF Revolving Investment Fund
8
Item 4
Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP
Programme Delivery Board Meeting
17th May 2018
Summary Report: May 2018
Recommendations The Programme Delivery Board (PDB) is requested to: note the current programme status for forecast grant claims and outputs – Appendix A; note the current status with project development and delivery – Appendix B; note the project investment approvals made by the LEP Director under delegated authority – Appendix C; agree to the change of project sponsor for The Grand Hotel refurbishment project that is receiving Growing Places Funding; agree to receive the Outline Business Case recommendation for the Burton Town Centre Regeneration project via written procedure; note that there was 11.5% financial slippage across the LGF projects in 2017/18 financial year and was within expectations; and note that there was full utilisation of LGF funding for 2017/18.
Programme Status Pipeline and Project Delivery Overview 1. There was a concentration of activity over March with projects progressing through the Stage Gateways. In total, 5 Local Growth Fund (LGF) projects completed in Q4 2017/18, taking the total number of completed LGF projects to 26 out of a current programme size of 58. Further details are at Appendix A. 2. A case study on the Centre for Clinical Haematology that completed in Q4 has been added to the GBSLEP website and featured in recent GBSLEP newsletters. A summary of the recently completed projects is included in Appendix D. 3. The Friarsgate Town Centre Regeneration project in Lichfield has reported that they are now progressing with approvals for project funding from Lichfield District Council. A further verbal update will be provided at the meeting. 4. The Birmingham Grand Hotel development, which is receiving a Growing Places Fund (GPF) grant and loan mix of £5m, is currently undergoing a change of operator. Fonciere des Regions (FdR) are progressing with the planned acquisition of the Grand Hotel from current operator, Principal Hotels, as part of a larger deal. Finance Birmingham, as fund advisor for the GPF investment, is seeking assurance over the delivery of the project and has received a positive
1 of 3 Item 4
initial response, though it is anticipated that the project completion milestone will change. The PDB is requested to approve the change of project sponsor for the funding allocation, subject to due diligence and the LEP Programme Team receiving confidence over the delivery plan. The new operators will be invited to a future PDB meeting to discuss project delivery. 5. The six-monthly review of the strategic pipeline of projects is in progress. This will encompass the SEP Delivery Plans, subject to approval at June LEP Board, and map out those priority capital interventions associated with these, some of which are currently on the pipeline and others which will be commissioned.
Project Investment Approvals 6. The following project investment decisions have been made since the last meeting by the LEP Director under the scheme of delegation: New Manufacturing Engineering Centre project (South and City College Birmingham) received approval for £250,000 grant following the independent appraisal of a Full Business Case. Hybrid Vehicle Technology Training Centre project (Solihull College and University Centre) received approval for £271,836 grant following the independent appraisal of a Full Business Case; and Symphony Hall Extension (Performances Birmingham Ltd) – approval of £408,148 of project development funding to support the preparation of the Full Business Case. Further background information is provided in Appendix 4c. 7. The independent appraisal of the Outline Business Case for the University Station Interchange project (Transport for West Midlands) is reaching its conclusion after clarifications. The £30m project is seeking a £10m LGF contribution, including £2m of project development funding, and will be recommended for approval by the LEP Board in June. The investment report will be circulates to PDB members. 8. The Burton Town Centre Regeneration and Flood Defence Improvements project (East Staffordshire BC) has now been submitted and is undergoing independent appraisal. The innovative project is seeking to stimulate local economic growth by simultaneously address town centre severance, create a significant visitor attraction, and enhance natural capital and flood defences. The project is seeking a £3m LGF contribution towards the £29.6m scheme. As the appraisal will conclude late May, it’s proposed that any approval recommendation to PDB is made via written procedure. 9. The Future Skills Capital Fund programme (GBSLEP) was scheduled for recommendation at this PDB meeting. Further work is being undertaken on the Outline Business Case following the completion of the appraisal and is anticipated to now be recommended for approval at the August PDB meeting. 10. The forward plan of project investment decisions and recent additions to the strategic pipeline is included in Appendix 8b.
Programme Finances
2 of 3 Item 4
11. The 2017/18 LGF grant claims came to £23.3m against an annual allocation from government of £25.6m. Those projects that experienced late financial slippage in February and March are highlighted in Appendix B. 12. This equates to near 10% slippage across projects, which was within the internal estimate of up to 25%. This represents a significant improvement from the 68% slippage across projects in 2016/17 and demonstrates the benefits of additional LEP programme resource being in place. 13. There was a full utilisation of the annual LGF allocation, with the remaining funding being temporarily transferred to the Revolving Investment Fund (RIF) before being returned to the programme in Q1 2018/19. 14. Looking to the year ahead, the financial profile is substantially over-programmed to 185%, with £35m already allocated against £19m of available funding to mitigate against the risk of any slippage. The RIF will be utilised and converted back to grant to cover this level of over- programming and to buttress the dip in the LGF funding profile over 2018/19 – 2019/20.
Programme Management Office (PMO) 15. A series of improvements to the PMO arrangements have now been completed, as per the SEP Business Plan. These improvements will build upon the work already done to test project delivery plans and seeks to embed good practice across all projects on the programme. The next phase of improvements are already underway as part of the continuous improvement of the programme. Further information is included under Item 8a. 16. Through the PMO changes the LEP Programme Team have improved the level of information that is being reported by projects on outputs and outcomes. The first period of revised reporting is currently being reviewed and an enhance profile picture of outputs will be provided once completed. 17. The LEP has commissioned a series of externally facilitated workshops to support capacity building with project sponsors. The first themes have been around project and programme management, and business case development, both of which have received positive feedback.
Conclusions 18. The performance of the LGF programme is continuing to improve. Whilst there was some limited financial slippage across projects in 2017/18, there has been a substantial improvement in the position and a low risk of occurrence in the financial year ahead. As the improvements to the PMO are being embedded, there will be increased attention is on supporting the development of pipeline projects.
Prepared by: Tom Fletcher Acting Head of Delivery
Contact: [email protected] 0121 303 2150 / 07860 906438
Date: 4th May 2018
3 of 3 Growth Deal Programme Issues and Strategic Risks - May 2018
Programme Level Key Issues and Strategic Risks – May 2018
Overall Programme Status (Current Key Issues)
Budget Time Benefits ↔ ↑ ↔
Growth Deal funding insufficient Greater confidence in the With the exception of skills, and to to deliver all projects we would accuracy of project delivery plans lesser extent commercial ideally take forward. SEP Delivery following ongoing testing through floorspace, forecast outputs Plans informing where to target additional Programme Team exceed original forecast. resources to ensure we achieve resource and PDB ‘Star However, previous slippage raises greatest impact for the resources Chambers’. questions about deliverability of available. outputs in practice. 11.5% financial slippage across LGF projects in 2017/18 and 2018/19 forecast 180% to programme.
Actions in hand: Actions in hand: Actions in hand: 1. Arrangements for Programme 1. Level of overprogramming for 1. Emerging SEP Delivery Plans Management Levy escalated 2018/19 higher than previous to clearly identify priority within Accountable Body and years to reduce risk of any interventions required to show signs of progressing. slippage. support the SEP ambition and targets. Strategic pipeline 2. Pipeline projects being 2. Revolving Investment Fund to review to be conducted in developed to Outline Business be accessed to accommodate light of this. Case allowing other potential overprogramming and smooth sources of funding to be out uneven financial profile 2. Revised project reporting in identified and pursued. through to 2020/21. place April 2018 to better capture and distinguish 3. Exploration into options to 3. Programme Team and PDB outputs and outcomes. provide greater support to ‘Star Chambers’ reviewing develop pipeline projects in projects higher risk projects. 3. Revised outputs forecast to be order to take advantage of Projects informed that provided to CLoG and updated current and future funding funding reallocation may take as pipeline projects enter the opportunities. place. programme. 4. Additional LEP resources 4. First phase of PMO 4. Project evaluation guidance in secured to support access to improvements completed development in next phase of alternative funding streams. April 2018. Will further PMO improvements to £7.7m successful bids support better understanding support overall programme supported so far. of project delivery confidence. evaluation.
1 Growth Deal Programme Issues and Strategic Risks - May 2018
Financials
Previous 2017 2018 2019 2020 Financial Year Total Years /18 /19 /20 /21 Growth Deal allocation £63.20m £25.70m £19.30m £12.72m £31.85m £152.77m Forecast Expenditure* £63.20m £23.26m £36.49m £14.16m £8.71m £145.82m Variation - -£2.44m +£17.19m +£0.87m -£28.43m - Level of overprogramming - 90% 189% 111% 27% - Revolving Investment Fund** £35.7m Growth Deal Funding available £42.65m for Strategic Pipeline Claims to date 2018/19 £0.37 * Forecast expenditure does not include priority pipeline projects until a conditional allocation is made. **RIF can be converted back to grant to cover any annual over allocation, if required. Stage Gateway Progress
Variation from Number of Last Projects Proportion Quarter Total Funded Projects 58 100% +3 Live Projects 32 55% -2 Completed Projects 26 45% +5 Projects by Stage Gateways Completed Projects (Stage Gate 6+) 26 45% +5 Delivery (Stage Gate 5) 20 34% - Contracting (Stage Gate 4) 6 10% -2 FBC (Stage Gate 3) 6 10% 0
Benefits Total Outcomes and Outputs Public / Private Jobs Commercial Learners contributions Leverage created / Homes Floorspace Assisted (£m) (£m) safeguarded built (m2) (p.a.) Total Forecast 127.2 263.0 38,119 10,251 603,680 1,565 Growth Deal Target 119.0 0.0 20,300 4,900 641,703 12,500 Variation +8.2 +263.0 +17,819 +5,351 -38,023 -10,935
2 Growth Deal Programme Issues and Strategic Risks - May 2018
Key Strategic Programme Risks
Risk Status Management response
Project development and ↔ Additional resource established within the delivery stalls due to lack Significant historical slippage LEP Programme Team to support project of resources or internal evident in 2016/17 and sponsors to develop and deliver projects support within project 2017/18 and certain themes Test forecast financial profiles with project sponsors of project pipeline slow to sponsors and notify them that slipped progress. funding will at risk LEP resource identified to support capability building in Council partners LEP project development funding being accessed by projects to progress from OBC to FBC SEP Delivery Plans identify pipeline projects where the LEP will intervene to accelerate development More rigorous assessment of deliverability has been adopted as part of GD3 appraisal processes Increased use of overprogramming enables easier switching of resources from stalled projects in future years
Poor programme ↑ Additional resource recruited into the LEP to management decisions Manually operated data more proactively assess project information are made due to a lack of management systems are PDB ‘Star Chambers’ review projects that are accurate data on projects time consuming and create assessed to be a higher risk of not proceeding the potential for errors in to plan the processing of First phase of Programme Management information from highlight Office (PMO) improvements made April 2018 report to management and next phase of changes over Q1/2 18/19 system to report New project monitoring, change request, completion and evaluation forms are providing more relevant data New Programme Management System (PMS) to enable improved data management and reporting to be explored following project- data review and PMO formalisation
3 Delegation: <£2.5m Approval
Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP Programme Delivery Board 17th May 2018
Item 4c - Further Information on Project Investments Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP Investment Report
New Manufacturing Engineering Centre
Recommendation
Programme Delivery Board is requested to note the:
Approval of the capital grant of £250,000 (two hundred and fifty thousand pounds) to South and City College Birmingham (SCCB) for the delivery of the New Manufacturing Engineering Centre project, made by the LEP Director under delegated authority and in accordance with the GBSLEP Assurance Framework
Background
1. GBSLEP’s skills team has been working with the SCCB on a number of projects over the last few years. The present project aims to support the establishment of the New Manufacturing Engineering Centre within the existing Bournville College Campus based in Longbridge. The overall project budget is £665,000 (capital costs), whereby the College contributes £415,000 (62%).
2. In February 2018, the SCCB submitted an Expression of Interest (EoI) to Growth Deal 3 programme. The EoI was assessed as a ‘B’ strategic fit against our Strategic Economic Plan and invited to submit a Full Business Case (FBC).
3. The initial FBC was submitted on 02.03.2018. In addition to the £250,000 requested at the EoI stage, the FBC contained a request for further £55,000 towards the refurbishment costs associated with the new centre. The FBC was independently evaluated by the GBSLEP programme team; while no critical issues were flagged up, a number of points of clarification were sought. Following the revised FBC submitted on 12.03.2018, the programme team concluded that the case for further £55,000 contribution was not strong enough to justify the increased funding.
Case for change
4. The project aims to support the establishment of a dedicated training facility for manufacturing engineering SMEs in the supply chains of major national and local companies, enabling them to obtain a supply of suitably qualified and skilled labour.
5. The project directly responds to shortages of skilled labour and provides opportunities for both young people and adults (unemployed and employed) to enhance their engineering skills and safeguard and/or lead to sustainable employment. The new facility will also promote and support new apprenticeship opportunities in manufacturing engineering.
Delegation: <£2.5m Approval
6. The project is located in an area that there is demand for the proposed courses. The project will start with lower-level qualifications (which is appropriate for its location), aiming to move on to higher-level qualifications.
7. The benefits of the project will be as follows:
a) Outputs
Output Description Output quantity
Floorspace refurbished and fitted out 610sqm Jobs created 2
b) Outcomes
Outcome Description
Create 120 SME jobs Safeguard and reskill / upskill 120 existing SME jobs Support and train 360 additional young people Recruit and train 120 new apprentices
Funding Profile
Future 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Years Total £ £ £ £ £ £ Capital (LGF) 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 Capital (SCCB) 250,000 165,000 0 0 0 415,00 Revenue (SCCB) 0 137,000 209,000 235,000 470,000 1,051,000 Total 1,716,000
Conclusions
8. The New Manufacturing Engineering Centre directly addresses GBSLEP SEP commitment to support skill development in the area. The GBSLEP Director approved the allocation of £250,000 LGF capital grant funding for the project on 16th March 2018.
Reviewed by: Tom Fletcher, Acting Head of Delivery Prepared by: Lada Zimina, Project Support Officer
Contact: [email protected] 07864931943
Date: 18 March 2018
Delegation: <£2.5m Approval
Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP Investment Report
Hybrid Vehicle Technology Training Centre
Recommendation The Programme Delivery Board is recommended to note the: Approval of the capital grant of £271,836 (two hundred and seventy-one thousand, eight hundred and thirty-six pounds) allocation of Local Growth Funding (LGF) to Solihull College and University Centre for the delivery of the Hybrid Vehicle Technology Training Centre project, made by the LEP Director under delegated authority and in accordance with the GBSLEP Assurance Framework.
Background 1. GBSLEP’s skills team has been working with the Solihull College on a number of projects over the last few years. The present project aims to support the establishment of the Hybrid Vehicle Technology Training Centre within the existing Woodlands site based in Chelmsley Wood. The overall project budget is £582,000, whereby the College contributes £310,000.
2. In February 2018, the Solihull College submitted an Expression of Interest (EoI) to the Growth Deal 3 programme. The EoI was assessed as an ‘A’ strategic fit against our Strategic Economic Plan and invited to submit a Full Business Case (FBC).
3. The initial FBC was submitted on 07.03.2018. The FBC was independently evaluated by GBSLEP programme team; while no critical issues were flagged up, a number of points of clarification were sent to the College, following which the revised FBC was submitted on 12.03.2018.
Case for change 4. The project will help to equip the Hybrid Vehicle Technology Training Centre with new vehicles and appropriate tooling, as well as a new lab which will create opportunities for the students to investigate and apply techniques relevant to autonomous vehicle operation and control.
5. The project aims to ensure that the College’s automotive and motor vehicle training facilities are updated to enable training which responds to the emerging technologies and related skills gaps. This would reflect both national and regional priorities within this sector, enabling the development and take up of low carbon technologies.
6. Finally, the project supports several key areas with regards to GBSLEP’s skills agenda, including high level skills; priority sectors such as advanced manufacturing / automotive and emerging sectors; being solution focussed and employer led, including the role of apprenticeships; and focusing on the future needs.
7. The benefits of the project will be as follows:
Output Description Output quantity Delegation: <£2.5m Approval
Floorspace refurbished 385sqm Workshop, laboratory and To a total cost of £179,000 IT equipment procured
Outcome Description
Safeguard or create 25 jobs Support additional 132 people participating in education & training Support an additional 25 apprentices
State Aid
8. Solihull College ascertains that the project does not qualify as State Aid because it falls under the GBER - Employment and Training Aid.
Funding Profile
9. The amount requested is £271,836, representing 47% of the total £582,000 capital cost; the remaining £310,000 is contributed by the College itself.
10. The capital grant is allocated to the 2017/18 financial year and the project is ready to start the works immediately, with an anticipated practical completion and handover date of August 2018.
Conclusions
11. The Hybrid Vehicle Technology Training Centre directly addresses GBSLEP SEP commitment to support skill development in the area. The GBSLEP Director approved the allocation of £271,836 LGF capital grant funding for the project on 16 March 2018.
Reviewed by: Tom Fletcher, Acting Head of Delivery Prepared by: Lada Zimina, Project Support Officer
Contact: [email protected] 07864931943
Date: 18 March 2018 Delegation: <£2.5m Approval Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP
Investment Report – Project Development Funding
Birmingham Symphony Hall Extension
Recommendation
The Programme Delivery Board is recommended to note the:
1. Approval of the allocation of £408,148 (four hundred and eight thousand and one hundred forty-eight pounds) Development Funding to Performances Birmingham Limited to progress the Birmingham Symphony Hall Extension project from Outline to Full Business Case. This is in accordance with the GBSLEP Assurance Framework, following the conditional approval of the Outline Business Case by GBSLEP’s Programme Delivery Board on 9th November 2017.
Background
2. Following the submission of an Expression of Interest for the Symphony Hall Extension project in September 2016 and its assessment as an ‘A’ strategic fit against GBSLEP’s Strategic Economic Plan, Performance Birmingham Limited (PBL) submitted their Outline Business Case (OBC) in June 2017. Subsequent to independent appraisal of the OBC, the project was recommended for approval by the LEP Executive in October 2017.
3. The request for an LGF grant allocation of £4.5m against a total project cost of £12,532,300 was conditionally approved by GBSLEP’s Programme Delivery Board on 9 November 2017. This approval was subject to a Full Business Case (FBC) being submitted by no later than 31st December 2018, and to PBL securing additional match funding to the value of at least £8.032m.
4. While PBL did not apply for development funding with their OBC submission, they indicated their intent to do so later on in the process in order to progress the project designs to the level required at the FBC Gateway.
5. The Development Funding applied for will enable PBL to complete relevant capital design works (progressing to RIBA Stage 3), surveys and specialist design inputs.
6. The process followed is compliant with the GBSLEP Assurance Framework.
Financial Implications
7. The allocation of Development Funding will be included in the total capital grant allocated to the project, subject to the approval of the FBC. Should the FBC not be approved or delivery of the project does not commence, the project sponsor will be required to return the funds to GBSLEP. The below table profiles the funding allocation for the project, reflecting the Development Funding allocation (FY2018/19) and the balance of LGF subject to FBC approval.
Previous Future 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total years years
Capital funding (£000s) Delegation: <£2.5m Approval
GBSLEP LGF - - 408 - 4,092 - 4,500 Grant funding requested Total capital - 444 408 775 10,905 - 12,532 cost
Conclusions
8. The Birmingham Symphony Hall Extension will transform the commercial capability of this major cultural attraction. Approval of Development Funding will enable PBL to develop its Full Business Case and this contributing to achieving this ambitious aim.
Reviewed by: Tom Fletcher Acting Head of Delivery
Prepared by: Lada Zimina Project Support Officer
Contact: [email protected] 07864 931 943
Date: 12th April 2018
Item 4e Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP Programme Delivery Board Meeting 17th May 2018
LGF projects completions Q4 2017/18
1. Prince’s Trust
Location: Digbeth Value of Local Growth Funding: £627,303 Value of Project: £2,455,000 Direct impact: 1,427m2 of refurbishment works and creation of learning floor space, 700 Young people into jobs over 3 years, 2,250 Learners per year supported to learn new skills relevant to gaining employment, 3,000 Learners supported to learn new skills relevant to gaining employment
The Prince’s Trust aim is to create a ground-breaking Young People’s Skills & Enterprise Hub in the centre of Birmingham. This project has refurbished the Cold Store building in the Beorma Quarter which was an unused Grade II listed building into a state of the art building with the aim of up-skilling and supporting unemployed young people into jobs directly or through start-up businesses. The centre opened in April 2018.
Press release link: https://gbslep.co.uk/news-and-events/news/princes-trust-develops-new-skills-birmingham
2. WMG Academy for Young Engineers
Location: Solihull Value of Local Growth Funding: £1,107,816 Value of Project: £2,216,000 Direct impact: 4576 direct jobs, 2,730 learners by 2021
The WMG Academy for Young Engineers Solihull is a specialist Academy that offers a radically different approach to teaching and learning. The Academy has been developed in partnership between local, national and international businesses. The GBSLEP capital funding has helped purchase improved and more advanced specialist engineering, science, digital and ICT equipment that will enable the Academy to undertake a more comprehensive and challenging range of employer led engineering and advanced manufacturing and design projects.
The Academy is characterised by the use of real life projects co-developed with a range of businesses and designed to reflect the world of work and meet the current and emerging growth needs of engineering and advanced manufacturing and design businesses. The Academy works in partnership with the University of Warwick and with local, national and international employers such as Jaguar Land Rover, Arup and Rolls Royce.
3. Meeting the Skills Needs
Location: Bordesley Green Campus, Digbeth Campus and Hall Green Campus Value of Local Growth Funding: £9,754 Value of Project: £28,757
The South and City College Birmingham have created walk in facilities across the college’s three main campuses that replicate the environment of a commercial recruitment agency. Working in partnership with a leading private sector recruitment agency and the college’s own Business Services Division (the InBusiness network), these facilities will encourage learners to actively seek careers and employment advice which will be provided by a team of specialist advisors who will utilise current labour market data. Employers will support this project by providing the employment opportunities that learners will be matched against. Further added value will be provided to employers through the delivery of vacancy focussed pre-employment training programme for candidates. Item 4e
4. Minworth Roundabout Improvements Scheme
Location: A38 between M6(T) and Birmingham, southeast of Sutton Coldfield Value of Local Growth Funding: £2.280m Value of Project: £2.348m Direct impact: Reduction of delay from 14 min per vehicle to less than 2 min in both morning and afternoon peak times
Minworth is a strategically important roundabout on A38 in northeast Birmingham, serving as a key junction for unlocking access to the Langley residential and Peddimore employment developments. As part of Birmingham Development Plan, it has the potential to add significant capacity to the local and regional economy. The roundabout previously experienced severe queuing, and in order to remove a congestion hotspot the project widened several of the approaches and exits on the roundabout, introduced partial signalisation and provided enhanced crossing facilities for pedestrian and cyclists.
5. Advanced Manufacturing Hub
Location: Aston Value of Local Growth Funding: £ 4,412,085 Value of Project: £ 10,706,321 Direct impact: 613 Net direct jobs created and safeguarded, 1,040 Net indirect jobs created and safeguarded, 160,673 sqft Commercial Floorspace created, 7.5 ha Brownfield land redeveloped, £14.7m Private sector investment
This project has allowed the acquisition of JB Foods and Concentric Controls sites, and the remediation of the Rylands Garage site. The Advanced Manufacturing Hub is a 20ha regeneration scheme in Aston, Birmingham to deliver serviced plots for occupiers in the advanced manufacturing sector. It is a joint Birmingham City Council and Homes and Communities Agency initiative.
6. Birmingham Centre for Clinical Haematology Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Location: Queen Elizabeth Hospital Edgbaston Birmingham Value of Local Growth Funding: £2.4m Value of Project: £3.4m Direct impact: Creation of 2,100m2 of floor space, 34 new jobs and 16 jobs safeguarded
The project will expand the highly successful Birmingham Centre for Clinical Haematology at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, by converting 2,100 m2 of floorspace in the BCCH building into premises for clinical innovation and research. This will create vital new capacity for the BCCH’s internationally significant haemato-oncology programme, permitting out-patient delivery of stem cell transplants and complex haemato-oncology care, and increase the scale and breadth of its clinical trial capacity. The project is time critical; without LGF investment the space will be used for NHS administration, representing a significant missed opportunity to strengthen Birmingham’s life sciences cluster.
Website case study link: https://gbslep.co.uk/projects-and-case-studies/case-studies/birmingham-institute- haematology-queen-elizabeth-hospital Item 5 Project Exception Report Project Name: Hagley Road Sprint Project Sponsor: Angela Hosford Project Manager: Martin Pyne LGF Approved Date (actual/forecast) 04/12/17 Project Start On Site Report Completed by Report Date Date: June ‘18 (Sponsor/PM) Martin Pyne 04/05/18 Background Context of project and funding including current status and reason for change
The Hagley Road Sprint scheme is promoted by Transport for West Midlands (TfWM, the project sponsor) and Birmingham City Council. The scheme is a Bus Rapid Transit scheme linking Birmingham city centre with the west of the City along the A456 Hagley Road. The scheme will provide a major uplift in public transport provision and link key destinations including Snow Hill Station, Enterprise Zone sites and, in the future, the Curzon Street HS2 station.
The initial phase of works are highway improvements from the Broad Street / Bishopsgate Street junction to Wyndham Road in the vicinity of Five Ways and the planned Edgbaston Metro terminus.
The Local Growth Fund (LGF) approval of the Full Business Case was received on the 4th December 2017. The scheme is valued at £14.65M of which £8.1M is to be provided by GBSLEP. GBSLEP approved £8.1M of which £4.7M has full approval and £3.4M is conditionally approved. The £0.81m development funding was disbursed to the project in the 2015/16 financial year.
The agreed funding profile anticipated expenditure of £1.63 Million in the financial year 2017/18. This was predicated on completion of land acquisition and lease surrenders by February 2018 and the completion of the funding agreement. The funding agreement was completed on the 28/03/18 and land acquisition was not achieved; as a result there was less expenditure than anticipated. This was noted as a key risk on project management reports to GBSLEP throughout the last financial year. As a result, this change request seeks to reallocate approximately £868,000 of expenditure from 2017/18 to subsequent financial years as per the expenditure profile shown.
The initial phase of works for this scheme has been designed in partnership with Midland Metro Alliance (MMA) and complements the Edgbaston Metro extension. The works are to be delivered by MMA together as part of the overall Edgbaston Metro scheme. These works will form the first phase of the Hagley Road Sprint scheme.
The overall Sprint programme is valued at £279 million and covers seven routes including the Hagley Road. Sprint services will form a key part of the integrated transport network for the West Midlands, providing fast, reliable and comfortable connectivity between our strategic centres for approximately 23 million users per annum providing access to jobs, health and recreation for communities across Greater Birmingham, Solihull and the Black Country. We have an ambitious programme to be delivered by 2026 including three routes to be delivered in advance of the Commonwealth Games. The initial works on the Hagley Road are a key enabler for delivery of this wider network.
Change Management Policy – Appendix C – Project Exception Report Page 1 of 5
Item 5 Project Exception Report Funding Agreement/SLA Current Forecast Variance + / - Project End Date 31/12/2022 Project End Date 31/12/2022 (months) 0 Reason for time variance N/A Funding Agreement/SLA Current Forecast Variance + / - £14.65M £14.65M £0 Forecast Total Project Cost Total Project Spend Funding Agreement/SLA Current Forecast Variance + / - £8.10M £8.10M £0 Total LGF Allocation Total LGF Required/Allocated Reason for required/allocated LGF variance N/A Funding Agreement/SLA Actual LGF Claimed to date Variance + / - £2,440,000 £1,572,327 -£867,673 Forecast LGF Claims to date Reason for claim variance Land agreements not secured, delaying commencement of Utility works in March 2018. Forward LGF Forecast £’000’s 2017/2018 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total SLA/Funding agreement profile £1,630,000 £1,630,000 Current Profile £286,971 £31,614 £91,780 £351,963 £762,327 2018/2019 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total SLA/Funding agreement profile £1,100,000 £400,000 £400,000 £360,000 £2,260,000 Current Profile £29,394 £326,658 £1,159,795 £634,601 £2,150,368 2019/2020 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total SLA/Funding agreement profile £0 Current Profile £878,258 £98,966 £977,224 2020/2021 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total SLA/Funding agreement profile £3,400,000 £3,400,000 Current Profile £3,400,000 £3,400,000
Change Management Policy – Appendix C – Project Exception Report Page 2 of 5
Item 5 Project Exception Report Key Risks and Issues (showstoppers) Planned mitigation / contingency Land Acquisition Working closely with Designer/Surveyor and current leaseholder to resolve. C4 Utilities estimates expire or not received Dedicated client side utilities team working with utilities companies. Objections during consultation Clear stakeholder strategy – liaise with ward councillors first – ensure objections are heard – work with Local Authority Officers to confirm all likely reasons for objection have been considered and that we have an answer for these. Critical milestones completed this quarter/year None yet. Critical milestones DUE but NOT completed this Reason not completed and planned date(s) for quarter/year completion Utility Diversions 1st Order Placed Land acquisition delayed. Funding agreement delayed. Critical milestones to still be completed Date for completion Utility Diversions 1st Order Placed 30/09/2018 Utility Diversions Commence 01/11/2018 Change request submitted 31/12/2018 Utility Diversions 33% complete 28/02/2019 Utility Diversions 66% complete 31/05/2019 Utility Diversions 100% Complete 31/08/2019 Main Works commence on Site 01/06/2019 Main Works complete on Site 31/12/2019 Delivery of Sprint Buses (subject to approval of the Conditional Grant Payment) Subject to future change request Forecast Outputs (inc date(s), as per Forecast variance to outputs Reason for variance SLA/Funding Agreement) New bus lane along Hagley Road (0.25km) N/A N/A FTE jobs created / safeguarded (27) N/A N/A
Change Management Policy – Appendix C – Project Exception Report Page 3 of 5
Item 5 Project Exception Report Sprint Standard compliant Buses (9) N/A N/A
Decision required WMCA requests that GBSLEP slip £867,673 of underspend from FY 2017/18 to FY 2018/19 with corresponding amendments to scheme key milestones to reflect delays in land acquisition.
WMCA requests that the board notes that a further change request will be submitted later in 2018 as per the funding agreement. This change request will seek to release the conditional element of the funding for the Hagley Road Sprint scheme (£3.4M).
Supporting information
Further information available on request.
Change Management Policy – Appendix C – Project Exception Report Page 4 of 5
Item 5 Project Exception Report GBSLEP use only LEP Project Tom Fletcher Project Support Lada Zimina Report Received Date 08.05.2018 Champion: Programme Team Review
Project scope increased substantially since the original expression of interest was submitted in 2015 – currently covering seven routes, including access to Birmingham Airport and UK Central, as well as A34 to Perry Barr which would be critical for the Commonwealth Games. Hagley Road is the first of the routes to be embarked on and will serve as a key source of learning for the subsequent projects.
PDB Decision Date
ACTIONS Action By who By when Status 1 2 3 4
Project Risk RAG RAG Status key: Risk type RAG Green On target to hit original forecast (including within agreed tolerance) Time Current - No longer on target to meet original forecast & minor impact on the overall project Amber Benefits Future – At risk of missing original forecast & minor impact on the overall project Cost Current - No longer on target to meet original forecast & significant impact on the overall project Red Future – At risk of missing original forecast & significant impact on the overall project
Change Management Policy – Appendix C – Project Exception Report Page 5 of 5
Project Exception Report – STEAMhouse Item 6
Project Name: STEAMhouse Project Sponsor: Joanna Birch Project Manager: Tom Cahill-Jones LGF Approved Date (actual/forecast) 29.03.2018 Project Start On Site Scheduled for Report Completed by PM (TCJ) Report Date 03.05.2018 Date: 2019 (Sponsor/PM) Background
The GBSLEP region currently underperforms in terms of innovation capacity, when compared to other UK regional centres - STEAMhouse proposes a way of stimulating the local innovation ecosystem by establishing a mixed and open facility with capacity to support interactions across different sectors. Key to the proposal is the idea of combining artistic and cultural practice with science, tech, engineering and maths to create combinatorial products. The proposal includes a mix of creative practitioner, production, co-work, incubation, SME, corporate and teaching space. The project has been allocated £14m grant funding via BEIS and £1m Local Growth Funding from GBSLEP towards a total project cost of £42.4m.
The current status:
The project is on track. We have exchanged contracts to purchase the plot B and paid the agreed £4.5m land price. The developer (Goodman) has contracted to deliver the building. Completion of the deal is now conditional upon 2 things from hereon: 1) BCU agreeing the building specification and ‘target turnkey price’ and then 2) obtaining satisfactory planning permission. Upon satisfactory completion of the building, the long leasehold interest will be transferred to BCU and the transaction completed.
In terms of specific actions:
RIBA Stage 1 briefing has been completed BCU is engaged in RIBA Stage 2 consultation with Goodman Goodman will produce massing studies for the scheme over the next two weeks, based on BCU’s schedule, progressing to layouts, adjacencies, core plans and plant considerations. The target for completing the outline design is the end of June 2018. Internal design sign off should be completed in July 2018. RIBA Stage 3 design can then commence through to a planning determination by the end of Dec 2018.
Exception Report Template V4.1 Page 1 of 5
Project Exception Report – STEAMhouse Item 6
Funding Agreement/SLA Current Forecast Variance + / - Project End Date 30/09/2021 Project End Date 30/ 09/ 2021 (months) 0
Reason for time variance n/a Funding Agreement/SLA Current Forecast Variance + / - £42,406,786 £42,406,786 £0 Forecast Total Project Cost Total Project Spend Funding Agreement/SLA Current Forecast Variance + / - Total LGF Allocation £15,000,000 Total LGF Required/Allocated £15,000,000 £0 (inc BEIS funding)
Reason for required/allocated There is no variance but just to note that final committed costs (total project cost) will be known after contractors LGF variance tender returns in Q1 of 2019. (inc BEIS funding) Funding Agreement/SLA Variance + / - Forecast LGF Claims to date £4,997,937 Actual LGF Claimed to date (inc £4,947,937 -£50,000 (inc BEIS funding) BEIS funding)
Reason for claim variance Fees incurred by Goodman to date in preparation of documents for the bid, initial design work and legals were slightly less than anticipated.
Forward LGF and BEIS Forecast £’000’s 2018/2019 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total SLA/Funding agreement profile £,6,571,295 £,6,571,295 Current Profile £,6,621,295 £,6,621,295 2019/2020 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total SLA/Funding agreement profile £3,430,768 £3,430,768 Current Profile £3,430,768 £3,430,768 2020/2021 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total SLA/Funding agreement profile 0 0 Current Profile 0 0 Key Risks and Issues (showstoppers) Planned mitigation / contingency Exception Report Template V4.1 Page 2 of 5
Project Exception Report – STEAMhouse Item 6 Planning determination Submit a pre-application to the council, to limit exposure to unknowns. NB the Belmont Works, specifically, has already received planning permission; it is the combined project that requires sign off. Supply of terracotta tiles. Limited number of firms. Early engagement with supply chain. Delays due to unforeseen circumstances Will be tackled with haste when identified NB A full risk register was submitted as part of the Green Book process Critical milestones completed to date Land purchase Goodman (developer) contracted to deliver the building RIBA Stage 1 Critical milestones DUE but NOT completed to date Reason not completed and planned date(s) for completion n/a Critical milestones to still be completed Date for completion RIBA Stage 2 July 2018 RIBA Stage 3 Oct 2018 Planning determination Dec 2018 Enabling Works Apr 2019 RIBA Stage 4 TBC 2019 NB timelines are agreed with Goodman, as developer and are subject to their review Forecast Outputs (inc date(s), as per SLA/Funding Forecast variance to outputs Reason for variance Agreement) Commercial floorspace – 5243m2 0 Learning Floorspace - 1000m2 0 Learners graduating Apprenticeships, HNDs and 0
Exception Report Template V4.1 Page 3 of 5
Project Exception Report – STEAMhouse Item 6 Degree courses - 814 Employment - STEAM Academy graduates - 134 0
Jobs Created - 323 No variance as of yet but there is the possibility that BCU would like to extend the STEAM Academy (teaching and learning) to include provision for digital technologies and the School of Computing.
Supporting information n/a
Exception Report Template V4.1 Page 4 of 5
Project Exception Report – STEAMhouse Item 6 GBSLEP use only LEP Project Project Support: Report Received Date Champion: Wendy Edwards Theo Tsang 08.05.2018 Programme Team Review
Project contracted 29.03.2018, however there is still work to do before final design and cost in place. Total funding agreement = £15,000,000 which is made up of £1,000,000 LGF + £14,000,000 secured from BEIS, £4.4m of which used to secure land for project in Q4 2017/18. The project will refurbish and fit out the Belmont Works in Eastside Locks, together with an adjoining new build. The Cost Benefit calculation presented in the business case indicates that the project will deliver a Net Present Value of £239m with a BCR of 6.5 (including GVA impacts and optimism bias). PDB Decision Date
N/A New project overview and update only. 17.05.18
ACTIONS Action By who By when Status 1 2 3
Project Risk RAG RAG Status key: Risk type RAG Green On target to hit original forecast (including within agreed tolerance) Time Green Current - No longer on target to meet original forecast & minor impact on the overall project Amber Benefits Future – At risk of missing original forecast & minor impact on the overall project Green Current - No longer on target to meet original forecast & significant impact on the overall project Cost Red Green Future – At risk of missing original forecast & significant impact on the overall project
Exception Report Template V4.1 Page 5 of 5
Item 7
Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP
Programme Delivery Board Meeting
17th May 2018
Change Request: Kidderminster Railway Station Interchange
Recommendation The Programme Delivery Board (PDB) is requested to approve the increase in conditional allocation for the Kidderminster Railway Station Interchange project to £2.407m, subject to a satisfactory Full Business Case.
Background 1. Worcestershire County Council (WCC) submitted an Expression of Interest (EoI) for the Kidderminster Railway Station Interchange project in September 2014 as part of the Growth Deal 1&2 process. At this early stage of project development, the total project cost was estimated to be £4.3m, with £1.8m LGF request to the GBSLEP and the remainder being sourced from Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (WLEP).
2. Following earlier issues in progressing with the development of the project, SLC Rail were commissioned to manage the development of the scheme.
3. The project completed its GRIP 3 designs in March 2017, following which an independent review process with WLEP conditionally approved it for LGF funding.
4. The project’s progress in overcoming the earlier issues was noted by the Programme Delivery Board (PDB) in May 2017. At this stage it was reported that cost estimates to deliver the project were anticipated as being higher than the existing project funding package.
5. Since then GRIP 4 designs were completed in March 2018, and GRIP 5 together with appointing the contractor in May 2018. The Full Business Case is due to be submitted on 15 May 2018 to WLEP, who will lead on its technical appraisal on behalf of GBSLEP.
6. The project is now shovel-ready, with rail works due to start on site in August 2018 and scheme to be completed by May 2019.
Funding 7. The initial project cost was estimated at £4.3m, with GBSLEP committing £1.8m and WLEP – £2.5m. Following the submission of tenders in April 2018, the expectation of cost increases has been realised, with the total project cost reaching £5.295m, thus a funding gap of £0.995m. Despite the cost increases, the business case remains very strong with a Benefit:Cost Ratio (BCR) of 7.71. Item 7
8. While reducing the scope of the project remains an option this would negatively impact project’s BCR and would result in key objectives of the scheme no longer being achieved. Furthermore, it would also represent a missed opportunity for the area.
9. At a recent project funding meeting, WLEP stated that there is an absence of uncommitted funding for the project; Wyre Forest District Council (WFDC) committed £0.075m; and further additional funding is being sought from WCC and West Midlands Trains.
10. The GBSLEP has previously permitted any unutilised funding from Growth Deal 1&2 projects to be considered for reallocation to existing projects that encounter cost pressures or could increase scope to deliver more benefits. The current headroom from several projects coming in under budget in 2017/18 is confirmed at £0.607m. This headroom does not include Birmingham City Council projects that have had funding reallocated to indicatively support the Commonwealth Games.
11. It is proposed that the current headroom of £0.607m is conditionally allocated to reduce the funding gap on the project. Subject to the approval of this increase by the PDB and a satisfactory Full Business Case, this would increase the GBSLEP contribution to £2.407m. The final funding decision would be made by the LEP Director as it falls within the <£2.5m delegation.
12. A further verbal update will be provided in the PDB meeting following the outcome of the WLEP appraisal decision on 15th May.
Conclusion 13. This report seeks PDB’s approval to increase conditional allocation for the Kidderminster Railway Station Interchange project to £2.407m, subject to a satisfactory Full Business Case. This is a strategically important project in an area that previously received limited GBSLEP investment. The project completed its key development milestones on time and is ready to start works on site.
Reviewed by: Tom Fletcher Acting Head of Delivery
Prepared by: Lada Zimina Project Support Officer
Contact: [email protected] 07864 931 943
Date: 4th May 2018
Item 8a – PMO Arrangements
Appendix A PMO Policies and Guidance
Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership
Local Growth Fund
Change Management Policy
Author Rehana Watkinson
Date 23rd April 2018
Version Draft Version 0.1
Purpose 1. This document details the process that the Greater Birmingham & Solihull Enterprise Partnership’s (GBSLEP) follows to manage change on the Growth Programme (Local Growth Fund, Growing Places Fund and Revolving Investment Fund). The Change Management Policy for the Growth Programme has been developed within the framework of the GBSLEP’s existing Assurance Framework. All future documents, procedures, codes of practice, forms or guidelines related to change management are developed in line with this policy. 2. It is not unusual for circumstances to alter in such a way that a project can no longer be delivered as originally forecast. In the event of a variation to a project – in its scope and benefits, time or cost – the variation must be reported to the LEP Executive. Usually, this will take the form of a formal change request which the LEP Executive will consider in light of the fact that the agreed expectations of the project will now not be met. 3. Understanding variations on individual projects within the Growth Programme is integral to its successful management and ultimately the delivery of the benefits expected from the programme as a whole. 4. These variations include when grant funding will be utilised by projects. The GBSLEP is allocated Local Growth Funding from Government on an annual basis, during which period it must be utilised. The ability to do this is used as a performance measure for the programme, with underperformance risking withholding withdrawal of grant funding from Government. Therefore any financial slippage across individual projects must carefully be considered by the LEP Executive as it impacts on the programme as a whole and it may not always be possible to accommodate it.
1
5. Additionally changes to individual projects may create a reputational risk to the LEP, which would need to be managed and may impact on delivery of other projects within or external the Growth Programme.
The Change Process 6. Throughout the development of a project, the Project Sponsor will work with the GBSLEP Programme Team and have a named LEP Project Champion and Project Support Officer. Any changes to the proposed project – from Outline to Full Business Case and contracting – will be managed with the Project Sponsor and Programme Team in a proportionate way. This may be through meetings or discussions to understand what changes are proposed and what their impact on delivering the proposed project will be. At this time, all funding allocations are strictly provisional. 7. Once the contracting stage has been completed, and only then, LEP funding allocations are committed to a project. This is when formal Change Management Processes come into effect. 8. Upon the conclusion of the contracting stage, the Project Sponsor will receive: I. The GBSLEP Change Management Policy (this document) II. Scheme of Delegation Document setting out the types of variation and what actions and what decisions need to be taken (Appendix A) III. Project Exception Report which projects will need to produce and present to the GBSLEP Programme Delivery Board (PDB) in the event of very significant change or risk IV. Change Request Template for formal submission of any changes that materially affect the scope and benefits, time or cost of the project 9. Where a material variation is expected to occur on a project, the Project Sponsor must notify the LEP Executive at the earliest opportunity by contacting their named LEP Project Champion or Project Support Officer. 10. At this point, the LEP Project Champion will advise on how the change process will work and what action the Project Sponsor needs to take. Details of the format for reporting variations are provided within the ‘Recording Change’ section below. 11. Effective handling of change requests is critical to the smooth running of the Growth Programme. The proposed thresholds make clear where responsibility lies for these decisions, providing a balance between the need for scrutiny and swift action. 12. Where a major change is requested, which has a significant negative impact on
scope and benefits (more than 10% from forecast);
time (slippage over financial years); or
cost (more than 10% and/or £100,000 from forecast), approval is required from the Programme Delivery Board.
2
13. Minor changes, below 10% variation to benefits or cost and slippage within the financial year, require approval from the Head of Delivery. 14. All change requests will be reported to PDB and, for projects above delegation, to the LEP Board. Further details of the scheme of delegation are included in Appendix A. 15. In exceptional circumstances, contracted projects may, with the agreement of the Programme Delivery Board, have their funding removed and reallocated elsewhere within the programme. 16. This is likely to be an exceptional event where, following detailed discussion between GBSLEP and the Project Sponsor, a project can no longer deliver the planned benefits within an agreed timeframe, or can no longer be expected to deliver the agreed outcomes because of a change in external circumstances. Recording Change 17. We have various ways of reporting and recording changes to projects depending on the nature of the change. The Project Champion and Project Support Officer will advise on what is the most appropriate action to take. Recording change can take one or more of these forms: i. Project Management Reports (PMR) – this is the tool project manager’s use to report, on a quarterly basis, on the status of their project. Any and all variations should be recorded by the project with the next submission of its PMR to the LEP. This includes changes that may not require the formal change process i.e. slippage across quarters but not financial year. ii. File Notes – on occasion, very minor variations to the agreed project parameters may not warrant a formal change request. There should still be clearly recorded as a change to what was agreed in the Business Case and Grant Agreement. In these instances, following notification by the Project Sponsor of the change, the LEP Project Champion will produce a File Note and send it to the Project Sponsor. iii. Change Requests – where changes will materially affect the scope and benefits, time or cost of the project, the Project Sponsor will need to notify the LEP Executive and submit a formal change request. This document will detail the change and enable GBSLEP to consider the effect of this and whether it is acceptable or not. iv. Exceptions Report – where a project has experienced more significant change, or the change is not considered acceptable by the LEP Programme Team and Head of delivery they will be required to produce and present an exceptions report to the GBSLEP Programme Delivery Board for consideration. v. Deed of Variation – If the project is in contract i.e. a signed Grant Agreement or Service Level Agreement is in place, all approved change requests will also need to the supported by a variation to contract. This will be done via a Deed of Variation to the existing Grant Agreement or Service Level Agreement. 18. The GBSLEP Programme Team will work to support projects to manage and control change in order that they are able to meet the delivery of their projects in the most timely and cost effective way in the context of the Growth Programme.
3
19. Any inquiries regarding change management and any part of this Policy, or accompanying guidance and templates, should be directed to the GBSLEP PMO, at GBSLEP, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND. Telephone inquiries are to be directed to 0121 303 9861 and all email inquiries to [email protected]
4
Change Management Policy – Appendix A – Scheme of Delegation
Appendix A - Types of Variation and the Scheme of Delegation What’s the type What’s the scale of the variation What action does Who makes the of project the project need to decision? variation take? Cost A decrease in the total cost of the project and reduction in the amount of the LEP funding Report the variation N/A allocation to be drawn down by the project. via email and record in the PMR. The LEP Executive will produce a Project File Note. Costs increase: Record in the PMR N/A of items of expenditure or cost categories, but with no increase in the overall project cost; or of the total project, but the cost increase is covered by an increase in the amount of match funding. A decrease in the total cost of the project and a request to re-allocate the unused LEP Submit a Change Head of Delivery funding (up to a maximum of £100,000) to increase the scope and benefits of the project. Request Any request above this value would be treated as a new project and would be subject to a new funding application. Increase in total cost of the project that cannot solely be covered by an increase in match Submit a Change Head of Delivery funding, resulting in a request to increase the LEP funding allocation by under 10% and Request £100,000. Any request to increase the LEP funding allocation will also be dependent upon there being
5
other projects under-claiming across the LEP’s programmes].
Increase in total cost of the project that cannot solely be covered by an increase in match Submit a Change Programme funding, resulting in a request to increase the LEP funding allocation by over 10% and Request Delivery Board £100,000. Any request to increase the LEP funding allocation will also be dependent upon there being [other projects under-claiming across the LEP’s programmes]. Accessing contingency Submit a Change Head of Delivery In general, the LEP’s funding contribution towards the project will not include contingency Request allocation as this should be covered by the Project Sponsor in addition to the match funding. In instances where the LEP’s funding contribution does include part of the contingency allocation, the case must be made by the Project Sponsor to access the contingency funding up to the agreed amount. Time Slippage of milestones with no effect on start date, completion date or the grant claim Record in the PMR N/A profile. Slippage of milestones and grant claim profile of less than 3 months which can be contained Report the variation Head of Delivery within financial years. via email and record in the PMR. The LEP Executive will produce a Project File Note. Slippage of milestones and grant claim profile over 3 months and contained within financial Submit a Change Head of Delivery years, or requiring minor re-profiling across financial years (up to 10% of the value of the LEP Request funding allocation). Slippage of milestones and grant claim profile over 3 months that requires major re-profiling Submit a Change Programme
6
across financial years (over 10% of the value of the LEP funding allocation). Request Delivery Board Scope An increase in the scope and forecast benefits of the project. Record in the PMR N/A A decrease of up to 10% in the scope and forecast benefits of the project. Report the variation Head of Delivery via email and record in the PMR. The LEP Executive will produce a Project File Note. A decrease of over 10% in the scope and forecast benefits of the project. Submit a Change Programme Request Delivery Board Reputation Local media attention that lasts longer than 3 days or national media attention Contact Programme Head of Delivery to Team immediately escalate as External criticism (e.g. politician or notable figures) to agree a strategy appropriate Change in confidence or satisfaction of shareholders to jointly deal with Loss of confidence – stakeholders, partners or community the situation
7
Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership
Local Growth Fund
Claims Policy 2018
Author Rehana Watkinson
Date 12th April 2018
Version Draft Version 0.5
1. The Greater Birmingham & Solihull Enterprise Partnership’s Claims Policy for the Local Growth Fund has been developed within the framework of the GBSLEP’s existing Assurance Framework. All future documents, procedures, codes of practice, forms or guidelines related to claims are developed in line with this policy. 2. As detailed in the Assurance Framework, the Accountable Body will hold the devolved funding and make payments in accordance with the decisions of the LEP Board, the Programme Delivery Board and the LEP Director, as endorsed by the Supervisory Board. 3. The Accountable Body is responsible for ensuring that all funding arrangements or Service Level Agreements are in place before any grant claims are paid, and that grant claims which do not contain all of the required information or adequate supporting documentation are not processed or paid until the appropriate details have been provided. 4. In practice, this requirement will be strengthened by checking, through the LEP’s Programme Management Office, all grant claims for eligibility, evidence of meeting pre-conditions, and supporting information, before the claim is submitted to the Accountable Body with instruction for payment. 5. All grant claims will be paid in accordance with the terms and condition of the Grant Agreement or, the Service Level Agreement. 6. Grant claims will not be paid unless and until both the LEP and the Accountable Body are satisfied by the production of documentary evidence that such payment has been used for proper expenditure in the delivery of outputs of the project in accordance with the Grant Agreement or SLA.
8
7. Claims must be submitted according to the grant claim profile agreed in the Grant Agreement. No part of the grant may be spent on the delivery of the project after the grant period. 8. Quarterly grant claim profiles should be followed and annual allocations must be adhered to. Failure to do this would risk reallocation of funds. 9. Recipients that are forecasting claims towards the year-end will be required to submit claims in the February before year-end at the latest, unless otherwise agreed with the Programme Management Office. 10. Where a grant claim profile is likely to be change within the financial year, for instance more than 3 months and up to 9 months, Recipients must inform the Programme Management Office either via the Project Management Report or by directly reporting the slippage either to their Project Champion, Project Support Officer or the PMO Manager. A decision to agree the slippage will be made within the GBSLEP Programme Team and duly recorded. 11. If slippage against the agreed spend profile is likely to occur between financial years, Recipients must immediately contact the Programme Management Office. Formal change control measures will be taken (please refer to the LGF Change Control Policy). Following this, a decision regarding reallocation of funding will be taken at Programme Delivery Board. It is likely that Recipients will need to attend an Exceptional Board Meeting to explain the infringement of the Grant Agreement. 12. The Recipient will, on receipt of the draft Grant Agreement, be issued with a Claims Pack. This will include: I. The GBSLEP Claims Policy (this document) II. Claims Form Template III. Claims Form with Guidance IV. Claims Checklist 13. Claims must only be submitted once all checks set out in the Claims Checklist have been completed. This will include ensuring that, along with the claim form signed by the project manager and relevant budget holder, the Recipient provides to the Funder all qualifying evidence as detailed in the Grant Agreement. 14. The Funder shall have the right to review, at the Funder’s reasonable request, the Recipient’s accounts and all records that relate to the expenditure of the Grant and to verify any claim. To facilitate this, the Recipient shall keep all invoices, receipts and accounts and any other relevant documents relating to the expenditure of the Grant for a period of at least 12 years following the receipt of Grant monies to which they relate. 15. Following receipt of a completed claim, the GBSLEP PMO shall carry out all relevant checks as per the PMO Claims Checklist and liaise with the project for any additional information or clarification if so required. 16. When satisfied with a complete submission of the claim, the GBSLEP PMO will instruct the Accountable Body to begin the process of payment. The GBSLEP PMO will aim to process the claim within 5 working days of receipt.
9
17. The Accountable Body’s Finance Department will carry out any additional checks as required to comply with the Assurance Framework and, if needed, liaise with the GBSLEP PMO for any further clarification. Once satisfied, the Accountable Body Finance Department will make payment against the claim. The Accountable Body Finance Department will aim to process and make payment on the claim within 7 working days following receipt of the claim which has been checked and approved by the GBSLEP PMO. 18. Any inquiries regarding claims and any part of this Policy, Claims form or accompanying guidance, should be directed to the GBSLEP PMO, at GBSLEP, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND. Telephone inquiries are to be directed to 01213039861 and all email inquiries to [email protected]
10
Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership
Local Growth Fund
Risk Management Policy and Guidance 2018
Author Rehana Watkinson
Date 4th May 2018
Version Draft Version 0.2
1. The Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership’s Risk Management Policy and Guidance for the Local Growth Fund has been developed within the framework of the GBSLEP’s existing Assurance Framework. All future documents, procedures, codes of practice, forms or guidelines related to risk management are developed in line with this policy. 2. This policy also follows guidance from Government’s Orange Book on Risk Management. It will be reviewed and updated on an annual basis by the Programme Team within GBSLEP.
Purpose 3. This document aims to provide a clear and systematic approach to the identification, evaluation and control of risks both at a project and programme level. GBSLEP aims to be a risk aware, but not risk averse organisation and this is reflected in our tolerances of risk. 4. This document will offer guidance and direction to project sponsors on how risks are defined, categorised, scored and tolerated by GBSLEP and how this impacts on the programme as a whole. 5. To help manage risk in a project receiving a grant allocation from the Local Growth Fund, the Project Sponsor will receive: I. Risk Management Policy and Guidance (this document) II. Risk Tolerances – linked to our Change Management Policy III. Classification and Scoring of Risk and Risk Register template 6. Projects that are using their own, established and recognised, systems of risk management are encouraged to continue to do so, as long as this follows good
11
practice and is shared with the GBSLEP as detailed in the section on monitoring risk below.
Risk and Issue Definition 7. Risk is defined as the uncertainty of outcome, whether positive or negative. Risk is quantified by measuring the likelihood of that risk becoming an issue and the impact it would have on the objectives of the project or programme. 8. Inherent Risk is the impact that the event would have on the project or programme and the likelihood of it occurring, should it not be acted upon (mitigated). 9. Residual Risk is the impact that the event would have on the project or programme and the likelihood of it occurring after the agreed mitigations are implemented. 10. An issue is an event that has already occurred and requires the parameters of the project to be changed. For GBSLEP, this may come in the form of a change request or Deed of Variation to the Funding Agreement. 11. Mitigation is defined as the steps that need to be taken to reduce the adverse effects of a risk, or steps taken to prevent its realisation. It is the policy of GBSLEP that risk mitigations are robust, actionable and time bound.
Risk Responsibility and Governance 12. The project sponsor and project manager have overall responsibility for the identification and mitigation of risk within their project. 13. The project risk register records the names of the individuals who are the owners of each risk and responsible for the implementation, reporting and review of the risks mitigation. 14. Responsibility of programme level risk lies with GBSLEP’s Head of Delivery 15. Accountability for programme level risk lies with the Programme Delivery Board. 16. It is the responsibly of the programme team within GBSLEP to accurately report on risk and escalate, for the attention of the Head of Delivery, those risks that fall above the threshold of ‘managed’ i.e. – present a (likelihood x impact) ranking that is red.
Monitoring and Reporting of Risk 17. Project managers and project sponsors will manage risks through the Risk Register. A GBSLEP example template from the Outline Business Case is provided to projects. 18. A risk register will be submitted as part of a project’s Outline Business Case and Full Business Case. Projects can use the GBSLEP risk register or their own. 19. Project risks will be monitored on a quarterly basis through the Project Management Report that project managers are required to submit to GBSLEP. Projects can use their own risk registers here as well if they wish to. 20. Project risk registers will focus on four main areas of risk
12
I. Cost – where there may be potential for there to be changes in project costs II. Time – where there are delays to delivery that may impact on the grant claim profile or the achievement of project outputs and outcomes III. Benefits/scope – where there may be potential for outputs and outcomes to change in terms of quantity or quality IV. Reputation – this could be a negative impact on the reputation of the project sponsor, GBSLEP and/or partners. 21. The GBSLEP programme team will review the project risks and give the overall project a RAG rating for time, cost, benefits/scope and reputation. This categorisation aligns with the LGF reporting requirements from Government. 22. There may be instances when a risk or issue presents itself and needs immediate management. In this instance, the project sponsor should immediately alert the GBSLEP Project Champion, Project Support Officer or Programme Management Office.
Classification and Scoring of Risk 23. GBSLEP has its own measure of risk management which quantifies risk by probability and impact. You can find this and the measures of impact and probability in Appendix A.
Tolerance of Risk 24. Tolerance of risk, and our expectations of what projects are required to do when a risk becomes an issue, is laid out in Appendix A. This links to GBSLEP’s Change Management Policy. 25. The GBSLEP programme team will work to support projects to manage risk so that they are able to meet the delivery of their projects in the most timely and cost effective way in the context of the Growth Programme. 26. Any inquiries regarding risk management and any part of this Policy, or accompanying guidance and templates, should be directed to the GBSLEP PMO, at GBSLEP, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Broad Street, Birmingham, B1 2ND. Telephone inquiries are to be directed to 0121 303 9861 and all email inquiries to [email protected]
13
GREATER BIRMINGHAM AND SOLIHULL LOCAL ENTERPRISE PARTNERSHIP (GBSLEP) LOCAL GROWTH FUND BRANDING AND COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE
This guidance is aimed at providing projects that have been granted Local Growth Fund (LGF) funding, clarity around their obligations to GBSLEP concerning branding, communications, acknowledgement and publicity.
Accompanying this guidance, you will find logos for the GBSLEP and Midlands Engine that will BOTH need to be used in all publicity – in print, digital or physical form – relating to the project. This includes press releases; plaques; pull up banners; billboards and online; as well as any marketing material about Local Growth Fund backed projects.
Notes to editors are attached (Appendix A), which will need to accompany every press release that is sent out by the project. Also attached are the brand guidelines and logos in various formats for both GBSLEP (Appendix B and C) and Midlands Engine (Appendix D and E). Sizing and display guidance is provided for both logos.
It is a condition of your funding that this guidance is adhered to for all publicity and branding related to the project.
YOUR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE FUNDING AGREEMENT
Your Funding Agreement sets out your requirements with regards to publicity and you will note that it requires you to:
1. Acknowledge the Grant in your Annual Report and accounts including an acknowledgment of GBSLEP as the source of the Grant.
2. Not publish any material referring to the project or GBSLEP without the prior written agreement of GBSLEP.
3. Acknowledge the support of GBSLEP in any materials that refer to the project and in any written or spoken presentations about the project.
4. These acknowledgements (where appropriate or as requested by GBSLEP) shall include the both GBSLEP and Midlands Engine name and logo using the templates provided by us.
5. In using both GBSEP and Midlands Engine name and logo, you will comply with all reasonable branding guidelines issued by GBSLEP.
6. You will agree to participate in and co-operate with promotional activities relating to the Project that may be instigated and/or organised by GBSLEP. These could include case studies, media interviews, videos and appearances at events.
14
7. GBSLEP may acknowledge your involvement in the project as appropriate without prior notice – although we will take all reasonable steps to ensure you are made aware of this.
8. You will comply with all reasonable requests from GBSLEP to facilitate visits, provide reports, statistics, photographs and case studies that will assist GBSLEP or Midlands Engine in its promotional and fundraising activities relating to the project.
LOGOS AND BOILERPLATES
This section outlines the use of GBSLEP and Midlands Engine logos and the standard text that you are required to include in publicity around your project.
Further information on using the logo and boilerplate text is included with this guidance and should be referred to before any publicity or branding activity is embarked on.
The GBSLEP logo and Midlands Engine logo must be included at the top of all press releases about your project.
The logos must not be obscured by other images or copy, and must be the same size as any another logos that have been featured.
Boilerplate copy – which you will find below - should be featured at the bottom of all press releases about your project.
Where possible, the GBSLEP and Midlands Engine logo and boiler plate should also be included on any website that has published press releases on your project.
There are three boilerplates (standard text) that will need to accompany any publicity and they are; the GBSLEP boilerplate, the Midlands Engine boilerplate and the Local Growth Fund boilerplate. Please use them, verbatim, as published below with the instruction ‘Note to Editors’. You will find this in Appendix A
GBSLEP
The Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership (GBSLEP) is a partnership of business, public sector and further and higher education. Its mission is to drive sustainable economic growth across the city-region, creating jobs and improving the quality of life for everyone.
The GBSLEP area spans nine local authority areas: Birmingham, Solihull, East Staffordshire, Cannock Chase, Lichfield, Tamworth, Redditch, Bromsgrove and Wyre Forest. It is home to over two million people, an estimated 848,000 jobs and an economy worth £44.5 billion.
Since 2010, the government has awarded GBSLEP £433 million to invest in a range of projects to grow the local economy. These include transport infrastructure, skills development, business support, innovation, and cultural and creative assets. GBSLEP is on course to secure more than £300 million of additional public and private investments, which will create a further 29,000 jobs and 7,000 new homes.
15
Since 2010, more than 130,000 new private sector jobs have been created across Greater Birmingham and Solihull. Last year, the area generated a 4.7% increase in economic growth – making it the fastest growing core city LEP in area in the country. More than 7,000 businesses have been supported by the GBSLEP Growth Hub in the past two years.
For more information about GBSLEP, please visit the website, subscribe to its newsletter or follow on Twitter and LinkedIn.
Midlands Engine
The government is committed to making the Midlands an Engine for Growth in the UK, increasing economic growth and improving the quality of life for everyone. The Midlands is home to over 10 million people and over 780,000 businesses. Its economy is worth £217.7 billion. So far the government has awarded £1.9 billion in three rounds of Growth Deals across the Midlands. 8 Enterprise Zones have been established in the Midlands Engine since 2012, and 3 zones have been extended. By March 2016 these had attracted almost £1 billion of private investment, and created 85 new businesses and 7,291 jobs.
Local Growth Fund
Local Enterprise Partnerships are playing a vital role in driving forward economic growth across the country, helping to build a country that works for everyone.
That’s why, by 2021, Government will have invested over £12bn through the Local Growth Fund, allowing LEPs to use their local knowledge to get all areas of the country firing on all cylinders. Analysis has shown that every £1 of Local Growth Fund invested could generate £4.81 in benefits.
Further information If you would like some further facts about the Fund, or the wider regeneration work going on across the country, please contact DCLG press office by emailing [email protected] in the first instance to request any additional information you might need.
Some additional key facts: There are 38 LEPs covering the whole of England The government has awarded £9.1bn in three rounds of Growth Deals to local areas to drive economic growth. LEPs are investing in a wide range of projects informed by detailed analysis of the most pressing economic needs in each of their areas, including transport, skills, business support, broadband, innovation and flood defences.
16
We would expect this to be included as standard with all publicity. If you would like further information or guidance, please contact Rehana Watkinson by email [email protected] or by telephone on 01213039861
Timings
Please make note of the following timings. We understand that, on some circumstances and on some occasions, adherence to these timings might not always be possible. However, we would expect that these are met in all other circumstances.
1. GBSLEP must be notified of communication plans for your project at least one month before communication activity starts. This will enable us to plan to provide written content, including supporting comments, for media relations. We are also able to offer spokespeople for interview requests from both broadcast and print/online journalists, subject to diaries. With prior knowledge and where appropriate and possible, we will be able to provide Ministerial attendance and quotes.
2. All press releases must be shared with GBSLEP at least two weeks in advance of being issued. This allows us to coordinate our communication activity and provide you with the best possible support in promoting your project.
3. You must give GBSLEP at least one weeks’ notice for requests for commentary, images or similar.
4. All final versions of press releases and other content must be shared with GBSLEP as soon as they are finalised. This allows us to add them to GBSLEP website and social media channels.
How GBSLEP can support you in branding and publicity
GBSLEP is happy to support and facilitate effective publicity around your project and its contribution to our strategic aims. We will provide written content, images, information, appearances and quotes where possible.
If you need further information and guidance around publicising your project and its achievements, please contact Rehana Watkinson, email: [email protected] tel: 01213039861 and we will aim to help you wherever we can.
Existing Projects
You should update publicity materials for existing projects with the new logos. If doing so would not be feasible due to excessive cost, old branding can continue to be used but should be updated at the first possible opportunity.
Where branding changes involves updating costs that are not excessive, new branding should be used. For example, on websites, new logos should be used but you may consider physical signs that are in already place to be expensive to update immediately.
17
New Projects
New projects should follow all of the guidance provided in the branding guidelines when undertaking publicity,
Hopefully this guidance document, and the accompanying appendices, will give you clear and comprehensive direction as to your obligations and requirements around branding and publicity when in receipt of LGF funding. Should you have any further queries or need further clarification, please contact Rehana Watkinson, PMO Manager, GBSLEP, Baskerville House, 2 Centenary Square, Birmingham B1 2ND email: [email protected] tel: 01213039861
18 Item 8a
Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP Programme Delivery Board Meeting
17th May 2018
PMO Improvements
Recommendations
The Programme Delivery Board is requested to: to note the improvements to, and formalisation of, the LEP’s Programme Management Office (PMO) arrangements for the Local Growth Fund, in line with the SEP Business Plan and as recommended by the follow up audit of management arrangements conducted by the Accountable Body audit team in July 2017; and to approve the revision of the Assurance Framework to incorporate these improvements.
Background
1. In their role as Accountable Body, in October 2016 Birmingham City Council’s (BCC) audit team conducted a review of the effectiveness of the governance and monitoring arrangements in place for the management and delivery of the Local Growth Fund (LGF) programme in 2015/16. This was the first year in which the programme operated. A subsequent follow up review in July 2017 acknowledged the improvements already in place and made recommendations for more robust and effective arrangements, most notably in relation to the grant claims payment processes. 2. The management response to the recommendations proposed that all actions would be completed by the end of the 2017/18 financial year, which has been achieved. This started with a review of the accuracy and completeness of project level data held by the Programme Team in summer/autumn 2017, before commencing with improvements to the grant claims process. 3. Recognising the fact that the Assurance Framework is a living document setting out the LEP’s governance procedures, it was agreed in the meeting of the Programme Delivery Board of 16th June 2017, that revisions to the Assurance Framework can take place when necessary in the course of the year. The formalised process for these revisions is to be approved by PDB, agreed with the Accountable Body and then approved by the LEP Board.
Programme Management Arrangements
4. After a reduction in the programme resource in summer 2017, the new Programme Team is now almost fully resourced and has designed and implemented a number of processes following a full process review. 5. A number of policies and guidance documents have been drafted and are currently being followed. These include: I. Claim Policy, Process, Templates and Guidance (attached as Appendix A); Item 8a
II. Change Management Policy, Process, Templates and Guidance (attached as Appendix B); III. Risk Management Policy, Process, Templates and Guidance (attached as Appendix C); and IV. Branding and Publicity Guidance including all Midland Engine and GBSLEP logos (attached as Appendix D and detailed guidance available on request). 6. A range of templates have been agreed and are in place in order to standardise all communications between the GBSLEP and projects both applying for, and in receipt of funding. These include most letter and email correspondence and reports applicable at each programme stage gateway, such as Grant Approval and Conditional Approval Letters, Financial and Practical Closure Letters and documents such as Closure Reports, Exception Reports and Project Management Reports. 7. Arrangements with the Accountable Body Legal department are in place to expedite the drafting and agreeing of Grant Agreements, Service Level Agreements and Deeds of Variation. This includes a named contact within the BCC Legal Team to work with the Programme Team, an agreed Legal Forward Plan and (forthcoming) regular meetings to deal with any issues. 8. Programme Monitoring has moved from a monthly to a quarter cycle with a new Project Management Reporting template developed and designed to ease the reporting of risks, milestone and project status. This also captures information that satisfies central government reporting requirements, including a revised approach to monitoring output information from projects. 9. The Programme Team is applying a continuous improvement approach to the PMO arrangements. Following the completion of this first wave of improvements, the team are currently conducting an in-depth review of all business case templates, drafting a strategic fit assessment template and project evaluation guidance. 10. With the core improvements to the PMO arrangements now in place, requirements and options for a Programme Management System will be revisited.
Conclusion
11. Improvements have been made to the PMO processes as per the agreed objectives in the SEP Business Plan. Arrangements within the PMO will be reviewed regularly as part of our continuous improvement process. 12. Subject to approval, the Assurance Framework will be revised to reflect the improvements made by these new PMO arrangements.
Reviewed by: Tom Fletcher, Acting Head of Delivery
Prepared by: Rehana Watkinson PMO Manager
Contact: [email protected] 0121 303 9861
Date: 4th May 2018
Item 8c
Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP
Programme Delivery Board Meeting
17th May 2018
Pipeline Development Funding
Recommendations The Programme Delivery Board (PDB) is requested to endorse: the principle of the LEP establishing a fund to support business case development of strategic pipeline projects; and establishing the feasibility of creating a fund using the Business Rates Pool.
Background 1. The LEP has worked with partners to develop an extensive strategic pipeline of projects that would support the delivery of the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP). With the emergence of the SEP Delivery Plans, the areas where the LEP can add value through interventions is becoming more focussed. 2. In order to be considered for Local Growth Fund (LGF) support, projects are required to be developed in line with the HM Treasury Green Book guidance for project appraisal and evaluation. Our processes reflect this by requiring an Outline Business Case (OBC) prior to offering a conditional funding allocation, and a Full Business Case (FBC) before funding is granted to the project. 3. These stages are designed to result in informed decisions on project investments and are supported by independent appraisals of the projects. There are costs – often substantial - associated with developing projects to each of these stages. At present, the LEP only provides capital funding in advance of need to develop projects once an OBC has been approved. 4. There is recognition across the LEP of the importance of early investment in the strategic pipeline to ensure that there are a series of priority projects always in a position to receive funding when it is available. These funding opportunities relate to: o the availability of funding at short notice due to slippage on the LGF programme (as raised at the February meeting of the Programme Delivery Board); o funding calls that are issued by other funders; or o preparation for future funding bids into Government. 5. As the current programme funding becomes fully allocated, the importance of investing in the strategic pipeline in anticipation of future funding programmes remains.
1 of 2 Item 8c
Funding Source 6. The LEP’s SEP Enabling Fund (utilising the Business Rates Pool) that established last year has provided an opportunity for some projects to apply for revenue funding for feasibility studies and Masterplan work to support early stage development. Projects will often require further investment in development before they are at OBC or FBC stage. 7. Now that the LEP Business Rates Pool has become more stable and future income forecasts are more reliable, there is an opportunity to explore how this could be used to best support economic growth across the area. 8. Revenue funding from the Business Rates Pool could be used to support partners to develop business cases for priority strategic pipeline projects. Any projects that are later approved for capital funding from the LEP would effectively repay the revenue fund with this capital grant. This would therefore create a semi-sustainable fund source for the development of strategic pipeline projects. 9. Subject to endorsement by the Programme Delivery Board, the feasibility (including demand) and potential options (including scale) for the fund will be explored with the LEP Finance Directors group, prior to seeking approval from the LEP Board.
Prepared by: Tom Fletcher Acting Head of Delivery
Contact: [email protected] 0121 303 2150 / 07860 906438
Date: 3rd May 2018
2 of 2 Item 8d Greater Birmingham & Solihull LEP
Programme Delivery Board Meeting
17th May 2018
SEP Enabling Fund – Revolving Investment Fund Appraisal Support
Recommendations The Programme Delivery Board (PDB) is requested to approve the submission of the SEP Enabling Fund expression of interest submission for £20,000 of funding to support the financial assessment of projects seeking loans from the Revolving Investment Fund (RIF).
Background 1. In August 2017, the Board agreed to the creation of a SEP Enabling Fund to enable the delivery against specific SEP objectives. The Board agreed to allocate £1.5 million from the retained element of the Business Rates Pool allocated to GBSLEP for economic development to the SEP Enabling Fund.
2. As part of this allocation, the Board requested that the Head of Strategy manage the portfolio of projects funded through the SEP Enabling Fund.
3. The scheme of delegation states that once the Expression of Interest has been approved by the relevant LEP sub-board, the Head of Strategy has authority to make decisions on applications up to the value of £100,000.
4. The LEP Executive has identified a resource need to support the management of the pilot of the RIF. There is a requirement for appropriate level of expertise and capacity around the financial assessment, due diligence and performance monitoring of projects seeking loans funding. Given the previous involvement in providing this function for the LEP Growing Places Fund and with WMCA funds, Finance Birmingham is the natural partner. The LEP Executive would still remain the overall programme management function for the pilot.
5. As the resource requirement fall outside of the current independent appraisal resource, a separate funding expression of interest has been made into the SEP Enabling Fund for up to £20,000 to cover these costs (appendix A). The Programme Delivery Board are requested to approve this submission.
Conclusions 6. The Programme Delivery Board is requested to approve the submission of the SEP Enabling Fund expression of interest for financial assessment support associated with the RIF.
Prepared by: Tom Fletcher Acting Head of Delivery
Contact: [email protected] 0121 303 2150 / 07860 906438
Date: 8th May 2018
1 of 4 Item 8d
Appendix A – SEP Enabling Fund Expression of Interest
Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership
Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) Enabling Fund - Expression of Interest
The SEP Enabling Fund is a revenue fund of last resort designed to resource priority activities necessary to deliver the SEP and/or the SEP Business Plan.
The process agreed by the GBSLEP Board is that projects over £100,000 and/or of a “strategically significant nature” must be approved by the LEP Board. Otherwise, they can be approved by the LEP Director.
If this proposal is agreed and the funding allocated, you will need to complete a procurement or grant-funding exercise as appropriate.
1. Summary Project Details Project name GBSLEP Revolving Investment Fund Pilot Lead officer Tom Fletcher Summary description of what the The Revolving Investment Fund (RIF) will provide funding from capital funds project will do to projects seeking loan funding from GBSLEP. Finance Birmingham previously provided administration for the GBSLEP Growing Places Fund and is identified as the best option to provide services to support the management of the RIF through its initial pilot phase. Funding is requested to cover Finance Birmingham’s costs associated with providing a financial assessment, due diligence and performance monitoring of projects seeking loans funding from the RIF. Project start date April 2018 Project end date April 2021 Estimated total project cost £20,000 How much revenue funding is Up to a maximum of £20,000 required from the SEP Enabling Fund? Is approval from the LEP Board No required? (see note above) Which member of the GBSLEP Theodora Tsang Executive team is acting as your contact for this project? 2. Strategic Fit Describe the proposal and how it will The Revolving Investment Fund will provide loan funding from capital funds meet the GBSLEP SEP and/or Business to projects seeking loan funding from GBSLEP. Finance Birmingham Plan objectives. previously provided investment management and administration for the GBSLEP Growing Places Fund and is identified as the best option to provide
2 of 4 Item 8d
services to manage the RIF, as well as being BCC’s preferred investment manager. Funding is requested to cover Finance Birmingham’s costs associated with providing a financial assessment, due diligence and performance monitoring of projects seeking loans funding from the RIF. There isn’t the required expertise for the financial assessment of loan projects, within the existing LEP appraisal or programme management resource. A Service Agreement has been drafted to cover the full scope of the service provided by Finance Birmingham. The RIF is managed by the LEP Executive and overseen by the Programme Delivery Board, in accordance with the GBSLEP Assurance Framework and the defrayal of funds would be approved by the Accountable Body Birmingham City Council. Which of GBSLEP’s key sectors does This applies to all key sectors as projects applying for the RIF will be assessed this proposal contribute to? through a strategic fit in accordance with the GBSLEP Strategic Economic Plan and Assurance Framework. Does this project add value to any This project aligns with the GBSLEP Growth Deal fund as applicants will be existing projects in development or able to apply for a mixture of grant and loan funding. This project will also delivery across the GBSLEP area? enable projects to come forward that only require loan funding and not grant. The project adds value to existing projects in development or in delivery by providing a further funding option to applicants to maximise the financial benefits of funding from GBSLEP. 3. Stakeholders Which partners have been engaged in Finance Birmingham and Birmingham City Council the development of the proposal? Has the relevant GBSLEP Pillar Board GBSLEP Board and Programme Delivery Board have previously approved the (or sub-board) been consulted on this establishment of the RIF and have been informed of the intent to engage proposal? Finance Birmingham to support the management of the loan fund. 4. Additionality Why is the SEP Enabling Fund The GBSLEP Assurance Framework states that the cost of running RIF will be required to deliver this project? submitted within the wider costs of running GPF and LGF. The SEP Enabling What would happen if this support fund is suitable to provide the finances to run the RIF, without the funding was not forthcoming? the RIF would not be able to pay Finance Birmingham for their services. What alternatives to this project have Finance Birmingham are able to recover expenses from the applicant, been considered, and why were they however the pilot projects that the fund is seeking to support are public dismissed? sector led and only anticipate covering costs. As such, imposing a charge and percentage fee on the projects, in addition to the costs incurred in preparing the business case, risks the project no longer being viable.
The pilot projects will nonetheless be tested to determine if costs can be recovered from the project. Should the pilot be continued, private or third sector applicants to the fund will be charged a fee and percentage, as
3 of 4 Item 8d
appropriate. What is the anticipated product of The delivery of the pilot phase of the RIF and achievement of that objective this project, and how do the in the LEP Business Plan. outcomes enable the delivery of the SEP, and/or why is it necessary in the context of the Business Plan? 5. Finance Please indicate below the SEP Enabling Fund required and the match funding over financial years. Please note that SEP Enabling Fund is revenue funding and only available until the end of the financial year ending 31st March 2019. These figures are an estimated, final amount to be confirmed. Funding Source (£) 2017/18 2018/19 Total SEP Enabling Fund £20,000 £20,000 MATCH Public Sector Private Sector Other Total project cost £20,000 £20,000
6. Deliverability Who will manage this project? GBSLEP Executives and Finance Birmingham What are the governance The RIF is managed by GBSLEP under the governance of the GBSLEP arrangements? Assurance Framework and the defrayal of funds would be approved by the Accountable Body Birmingham City Council.
What are the key milestones? Application process finalised for the RIF Service Level Agreement in place with Finance Birmingham Commit all RIF funding in the next 12 months to projects How will the funding be invested? Procurement Grant / (please check the appropriate box) If procurement, the proposal must be commissioned in line with Birmingham City Council’s standing orders for procurement. If grant, has a delivery partner been No identified? If not, is an open call required? If grant, are there any State Aid No implications to be addressed?
4 of 4