1
Public
New Anglia Board Meeting Minutes (Confirmed)
26
th
May 2021
Present:
Kathy Atkinson (KA)
Kettle Foods
Sam Chapman-Allen (SC)
Breckland Council
Claire Cullens (CC)
Norfolk Community Foundation
David Ellesmere (DE)
Ipswich Borough Council
C-J Green (CJG)
Brave Goose
John Griffiths (JG)
West Suffolk Council
Matthew Hicks (MH)
Suffolk County Council
Pete Joyner (PJ)
Shorthose Russell
Dominic Keen (DK)
Britbots
Helen Langton (HL)
University of Suffolk
Steve Oliver (SO)
MLM Group
Corrienne Peasgood (CP)
Norwich City College
Andrew Proctor (AP)
Norfolk County Council
Johnathan Reynolds (JR)
Opergy
Sandy Ruddock (SR)
Scarlett & Mustard
Alan Waters (AW)
Norwich City Council
Attendees
Tim Green (TC)
Cefas - For Item 2
David Carlin (DC)
Cefas - For Item 2
Shan Lloyd (SL)
BEIS
Mark Ash (MA)
Suffolk County Council
Vince Muspratt (VM)
Norfolk County Council
Chris Dashper (CD)
New Anglia LEP – For Item 11
Julian Munson (JM)
New Anglia LEP – For Item 6
Lisa Roberts (LR)
New Anglia LEP – For Items 7 & 9
Chris Starkie (CS)
New Anglia LEP
Rosanne Wijnberg (RW)
New Anglia LEP
Helen Wilton (HW)
New Anglia LEP
2
Actions from the meeting: (26.5.21)
Developing the Norfolk and Suffolk Economic Renewal Plan
A representative from Ipswich or Norwich to be added to the ERG membership
LR
1
CJ Green (CJG) welcomed everyone to the meeting including Tim Green (TG) Chief Executive of
Cefas and David Carlin (DC), Cefas’ Science Director.
2
TG provided the board with an overview of the work of Cefas which forms part of DEFRA and is a
world leading marine science centre currently employing 500 staff.
TG highlighted the ongoing work and current key impacts including assisting Government with
research into fishing sustainability and assessing fishing quotas, marine pollution, sustainable energy
production and the testing of waste water for Covid variants.
TG thanked the board for their investment in the new building in Lowestoft and provided a virtual tour
of the facility. The board was invited to visit and hold a meeting there in the future.
The board also received details of the training and skills development schemes and plans for
developing knowledge in this key sector going forward.
Johnathan Reynolds (JR) asked where the LEP can work best with Cefas going forward to add the
most benefit.
DC noted that the region had the potential to rival the traditional centres such as Southampton but the
opportunities such as the development of the ABP site at Lowestoft and Sizewell provided the scope
to showcase capabilities for marine science in the East.
Helen Langton (HL) asked for their thoughts on the marine academy. DC confirmed that Lowestoft
would be used as a centre for training and creating high value, sustainable jobs and build on the
relationships with partners such as the UEA and UoS to create a marine focussed economy.
CJG thanked DG & TC for attending and for proving the presentation and expressed the continued
support of the board for the work of Cefas.
TG and DC left the meeting
3
Apologies were received from Tim Whitley and Jeanette Wheeler
4
None
5
The minutes were accepted as a true record of the meeting held on 31
st
March 2021.
CJG reviewed the action log and confirmed all been updated.
6
Julian Munson (JM) presented the board with an update on the work of the Innovation board
noting the significant impact which innovation has within the region. In order to successfully
deliver on the strategic objectives the four workstreams have been defined with key activities
under each being delivered.
- Improve the innovation infrastructure in Norfolk and Suffolk by supporting key strategic
projects
3
- Increase the level public and private sector investment in innovation - supporting
businesses in the bidding process and in accessing funding
- Support the innovation ecosystem in Norfolk and Suffolk, developing and promoting
innovation clusters.
- Assist and develop the best talent for delivering innovation at the scientific, technical
and business levels.
Further details of progress and delivery can be found in the delivery plan circulated with the
papers.
JM reviewed the proposed next steps which include raising the national profile of the key
innovation programmes and activities and continuing to showcase the innovation assets via
the Innovation Prospectus, Norfolk and Suffolk Unlimited campaigns and DIT HPOs.
A new Innovation Framework will also be developed to provide an updated, strategic overview
of all innovation related activity across Norfolk and Suffolk,
Work will also continue to strengthen links across the Industry Councils and Skills Advisory
Pane and there will also be strong engagement with the new Clean Growth Taskforce
Claire Cullens (CC) noted that Strategic Development Fund application process had very tight
timescales both in the bid and the delivery and noted there would be benefit of tying in with
the Innovation board.
JR noted the importance of bringing in the public sector to work with SMEs in innovation and
also the need for the LEP to map the funds being made available to support in funding
applications given the complexity of the funding landscape.
The Board agreed:
To note the content of the report and the plan
7
Lisa Roberts (LR) presented the board with the proposed approach to developing the
Renewal Plan which will build on and consolidate the Economic Strategy, Local Industrial
Strategy and Restart Plan. It will align with local recovery strategies and coordinate with the
Government’s Plan for Growth.
The renewal plan is due to be presented for approval in the Autumn,
Andrew Proctor (AP) noted that a number of plans are being developed in the region and that
it was vital for these to be drawn together. He also queried whether the timescales were
aggressive enough.
Alan Waters (AW) noted that there was not an urban perspective in the Economy Recovery
Group (ERG) membership and that this needed to be included.
ACTION: A representative from Ipswich or Norwich to be added to the ERG membership
CS noted that the larger Economy Recovery Advisory Group included representatives from all
districts.
The meeting discussed the importance of including place in the plan and CS confirmed that
the plan needed to represent all areas of Norfolk and Suffolk and also had to cover all
sectors,
JR asked that all sub boards and industry councils be included in the development and LR
confirmed that this would be the case.
The Board agreed:
To note the content of the report
To endorse the approach to developing the Norfolk and Suffolk Economic Renewal Plan.
LR
4
8
CS presented details of how the review is being carried out and provided an overview of the
working groups which have been established namely Objectives and Functions, Geography,
Accountability, LA representation and interaction, Implementation and Funding models and
Engagement and Comms.
CS noted that there are still some areas of overlap in the West Midlands and the
recommendation is to focus on removing these.
Some colleagues have already been asked to provide feedback and the paper includes
details of how board members can do so if the y wish.
CS confirmed that the LEP review is due to continue to conclude towards the end of June, with
officials providing advice to ministers before the summer recess.
It was confirmed that the LEP is funded for this financial year but further planning beyond that
is difficult given the uncertainty. Progress reports will be provided at future board meetings as
a standing item.
HL noted the views on LEPs at the feedback meeting she attended were very positive and that
the valuable outcomes from the LEP should be stressed noting the key role the organisation
plays.
The Board agreed:
To note the content of the report
9
LR presented the board with an overview of the Clean Growth Taskforce which will provide
leadership and collaboration and promote Norfolk and Suffolk as the UK’s Clean Growth
Region.
The taskforce will be chaired by Pete Joyner (PJ) and will bring together entrepreneurs,
academia, local authority and other public sector partners to identify innovative way to deliver
on our clean growth aspirations and ensure clean growth is considered in the decisions made
within the region and will work with and add value to existing groups already working in this
area.
It is recommended that the Taskforce has three initial areas of focus:
Skills – creating the skilled workforce required to support the zero-carbon economy.
Transport - Sustainable Connectivity – Transport accounts for 39% of the regions carbon
emissions and reducing these would contribute significantly to achieving the zero emissions
target
Business support - Supporting Business to Net Zero - Enhance the knowledge and
understanding of the scale of the opportunity to business as well as put in place a package of
support to help them move to zero carbon.
JR asked if the taskforce could be formed before the MAG 7 members were invited to join to
ensure that those selected had the appropriate skill set to enhance the membership.
JR noted that his team were collating details of work going on in the region which he was
happy to feed in in advance of the first meeting to start discussions.
PJ confirmed that he was happy to chair and noted the need to keep the taskforce to a
manageable size.
Steve Oliver(SO) confirmed that the Transport Board would align with the Taskforce
direction.
The Board agreed:
5
To note the content of the report
To approve the updated Clean Growth Taskforce terms of reference and three initial areas
of focus.
To appoint Pete Joyner to join the Clean Growth Taskforce and to act as interim Chair whilst
an independent Chair can be recruited.
To invite members of the Mag 7 group of entrepreneurs to be members of the Clean Growth
Taskforce as part of the wider recruitment of taskforce members.
10
11
Chris Dashper (CD) presented the report in its revised format and noted that the report was
slightly earlier than the usual reporting cycle to tie in with the submission to the LEP audit.
Dominic Keen (DK) noted the high quality of the projects coming forward and the value that
the loans from the NAC was providing,
AP asked for future reports to include one line of information on the activities of the company.
RW confirmed that the companies in the portfolio are being invited back to present to the NAC
board to assist in monitoring investments.
The Board agreed:
To note the content of the report
12
CS presented the revised report and highlighted key areas of activity.
CS confirmed that the Food Innovation Centre (FIC) is now proceding following a period of
intensive work and legal advice to support the project.
LEP staff are providing support to partners in various bids to the Community Renewal Fund.
JG expressed his thanks to the Inward Investment team for the requests which have been
received.
The Board agreed:
To note the content of the report
13
RW presented the quarterly accounts and advised that additional costs had been incurred for
EU transition work which was reflected in wages and consultation costs but this has been
offset by an increase in income.
The Board agreed:
To note the content of the report
14
RW presented the reports to the Board and highlighted key items.
6
RW noted that the FIC and Nar Ouse projects were progressing but that any project
underspends would be reallocated.
ERDF – More funding is being made available however the process for allocation is still not
clear and securing funds for the future of the programme remain a priority. CS confirmed that
this will be raised with MPs if progress is not made within the next few weeks.
Dashboards – RW noted that the outputs have been delayed due to the pandemic and the
both outputs and spend have lagged but it is believed that the outputs will still be realised.
The Board agreed:
To note the content of the reports
15
The Board agreed:
To note the content of the plan
16