Presentation by Matt Lockley, Economic Development Team Manager, Nottinghamshire County Council
Minutes:
Matthew Lockley, Team Manager of Economic Development at Nottinghamshire County Council delivered the presentation, outlining the options available to district authorities in securing funding within the European Union (EU), highlighting the following:
(a) structural funding within the EU includes three main funding streams. These are the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which focuses on research, innovation, business development and infrastructure. Funding via ERDF accounts for 50% of EU funding and must have an economic focus. The European Social Fund (ESF) focuses skills and access to employment and social inclusion. The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) focuses on economic development in rural areas;
(b) the amount of funding available to the D2N2 includes £104.4 million via ERDF and £104.4 million via ESF however, both funding streams require a 50% match, so the overall programme is valued at £428.6 million;
(c) Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) provide overall management over EU funding, devising a strategy and prioritising funding applications. LEP Boards have been expanded to deal with local EU decisions however D2 and N2 committees are consulted as part of the process. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) acts as the managing authority for EU funding and will issue contracts to individual projects. The DCLG will not approve anything which has not been selected by the LEP;
(d) the D2N2 European Structural Investment Fund (ESIF) establishes the activities that may be funded and follows 9 thematic objectives including, innovation, ICT, small and medium enterprise (SME) competitiveness, green and blue infrastructure, combating unemployment and tackling social exclusion. There is an additional transport objective available via ESIF but this is only pertinent to Cornwall and the Isle of Scilly;
(e) £20 million is available via ERDF for innovation projects which focus on commercialisation and the support for innovation processes within business, graduate start-ups and research collaborations, usually consumed by cash-rich universities. A further £10 million is available via ERDF for support for ICT development for SMEs with demonstrable economic need and benefit;
(f) the objective of SME competitiveness accounts for £37 million of ERDF support with a particular focus on SME support, business finance, sector support and growth initiatives. A further £20 million is earmarked for low carbon initiatives and new local carbon technology development;
(g) ESF support includes £40 million for the promotion of employment and requires Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) match funding at source. An approach to funding via the ESF must relate to training activities for unemployed people or special groups facing barriers to employment. Almost 75% of match funding for ESF schemes is provided by Big Lottery funding who effectively manage that element of the programme;
(h) in order to quality for ESIF support projects would need to demonstrate an element of additionality with a particular focus on economic development and ultimately demonstrate a contribution towards programme targets and indicators.
RESOLVED to note the presentation on the options available to districts in securing EU funding and to circulate the presentation to all district authorities.
Reasons for the decision:
By outlining the different EU funding options available, district authorities are better placed to prioritise, target and secure additional funding through European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF).
Other options considered
To do nothing. This option was discounted given the options available to district authorities in securing EU funding.