West of England Local Enterprise Partnership Assurance Framework

Transcription

1 West of England Local Enterprise Partnership Assurance Framework December

2 West of England Local Enterprise Partnership Assurance Framework 1. Governance and Decision Making 1.1 The governance arrangements for the Growth Deal provide timely and binding decisions, with due clarity, transparency and accountability. These are underpinned by the One Front Door approach which seeks to create harmonised governance, assurance and reporting arrangements across a number of funding streams (including the Local Growth Fund). This provides the flexibility to match the most suitable funding stream to a particular scheme, and also allow overview, consistency and rigour. The governance process is shown diagrammatically in Figure 1. Figure 1 - One Front Door Governance Process 1.2 The One Front Door processes involving the Directors Board, Investment Panel, LEP Board and West of England Joint Committee apply to funding for other LEP initiatives including the City Deal Economic Development Fund, new projects through the Revolving Infrastructure Fund and schemes coming forward to support the new Enterprise Zones at Bath and Somer Valley and the Bristol Temple Quarter extension. 1.3 The City Deal signed in 2012 by the West of England Councils, the LEP and Government included a range of measures aimed at driving economic growth. Many of the Deal elements 2

3 have been mainstreamed (such as developing an integrated inward investment service) or completed. One ongoing element is the Growth Incentive whereby the local authorities retain 100% of business rates growth in the five West of England Enterprise Areas. 500m of the growth in these Enterprise Areas, together with the Bristol Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone, is being used to create the LEP s Economic Development Fund to deliver infrastructure to help unlock these locations. All EDF schemes coming forward follow the same business case and governance process as for the Local Growth Fund. 1.4 Whilst the operation and monitoring of the Enterprise Zone and Areas is undertaken by the relevant Council, the overall growth performance is overseen by the Business Rates Pooling Board which comprises the four Council s151 officers and the LEP. Periodic reports are presented to the LEP Board and the West of England Joint Committee, and an annual performance report is provided to the WECA Overview and Scrutiny Committee. West of England Investment Panel 1.5 The Growth Deal governance is underpinned by the West of England Investment Panel which comprises the Chief Executives of the Local Enterprise Partnership and four local authorities. The Panel meets quarterly and its role in the context of the Growth Deal is to: Act on information provided by scheme promoters and technical advice and recommend a programme (the Programme Entry schemes) for consideration by the LEP Board and approval by the West of England Joint Committee. Make recommendations on individual investment decisions for schemes with Programme Entry awarded by the West of England Joint Committee based upon business cases and technical advice. Provide overview of the One Front Door Programme. Directors Board 1.6 The Directors Board comprises the Directors of Development of the four constituent West of England Councils and WECA/LEP. The Board considers programme performance, risks and issues and: Considers highlight (see Appendix 1) and exception reports and seeks necessary approval from the West of England Joint Committee. Monitors the progress of individual schemes managed by individual Project and Programme Boards. Makes recommendations on the approval of scheme changes below tolerances where a Joint Committee decision is required. The decision on such change requests is made by the LEP Chief Executive in consultation with the Directors Board. The tolerances are shown in Appendix 4. West of England Joint Committee 1.7 A West of England Joint Committee involving the West of England Combined Authority Mayor, three Council Leaders and the Bristol Mayor has been established which meets formally and in public. It is established under Section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, as applied by Section 20 of the Local Government Act 2000 and Regulation 11 of the Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations

4 by the Executives of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire Councils. In terms of the Growth Deal its role will be to approve and periodically review a programme of schemes through the submission of Outline Business Cases (see Appendix 2). These schemes will be awarded Programme Entry. Schemes with Programme Entry will then produce Full Business Cases (Appendix 3) for approval to secure funding confirmation. 1.8 The West of England Joint Committee will provide the formal and accountable forum for decision making relating to all relevant LEP funding streams with recommendations coming from the Investment Panel via the LEP Board. 1.9 The Terms of Reference of the West of England Joint Committee can be viewed on the West of England Combined Authority website (page 24 of the linked report). LEP Board 1.10 The role of the LEP Board will be to bring a business perspective and make recommendations to the West of England Joint Committee based upon advice from the Investment Panel. A programme of sequential meetings of the Directors Board, Investment Panel, LEP Board and West of England Joint Committee will support this process and timely decision making. The Chair of the LEP Board participates in the meetings of the West of England Joint Committee The business members of the LEP Board have been identified through the Business Nominations Committee (BNC). The BNC consists of the LEP Board Chair and Vice Chair, together with representatives from Business West, IoD, CBI and FSB. Selection criteria and procedures will ensure that individuals are selected on the basis of their relevant merits and abilities, and promote diverse representation reflective of the local business community. The business members of the Infrastructure Board, Skills Board and Business Board will be members of the LEP Board A member or members of the LEP Board, currently Neil Douglas and Martino Burgess, are specifically responsible for representing and engaging with the SME business community The membership of the LEP Board, the terms of reference can can be viewed on the LEP website and minutes on the WECA website. WECA Overview and Scrutiny Committee 1.14 The functions of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee are primarily to scrutinise the work and decisions made by the WECA Committee and the West of England Joint Committee including the prioritisation and approval of schemes. WECA Overview and Scrutiny Committee shall have the power to:- i. Review or scrutinise decisions made or other actions taken, in connection with the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the WECA Committee or West of England Joint Committee; ii. Makes reports or recommendations to the WECA Committee or West of England Joint Committee on matters that affect the WECA area or the inhabitants of the area; 4

5 iii. iv. Makes reports or recommendations to the WECA Committee or West of England Joint Committee with respect to the discharge of any functions which are the responsibility of the WECA Committee or West of England the Joint Committee; In so far as the business of the Local Enterprise Partnership Board (LEP) relates to the discharge of functions of WECA, the WECA Overview and Scrutiny Committee shall have the power to scrutinise the LEP as set out in (i) (iii) above. Accountable Body 1.15 The accountable body for the Growth Deal will be the West of England Combined Authority. The accountable body will be responsible for enacting the final funding decisions made by the West of England Joint Committee. Scheme and Programme Support 1.16 Beyond actions undertaken at the individual scheme level by the promoting organisation, a number of arrangements are in place to support scheme and programme delivery: Resource is available to assist with business case preparation and scheme development through the West of England Combined Authority and LEP, the local authorities and third party specialist technical support. Cross authority/organisation Project Boards and teams are in place or planned. Strategic engagement with delivery agencies will continue to take place via the Strategic Solutions Panel in addition to their involvement at the scheme specific level eg Network Rail are active members of the MetroWest Programme Board. Programme coordination and independent review functions are in place to support evidence based decision making, effective monitoring and robust and timely change management. A process to escalate issues identified through regular highlight reporting to the Investment Panel (and LEP Board/West of England Joint Committee as appropriate) to ensure that remedies are in place and projects remain on track, or suitable change management processes are in place. A proportionate process of assurance review involving individuals outside of the project arrangements either internal or drawing on external expertise. 2. Strong Supportive Local Authority Partnership Working across the LEP 2.1 The West of England has a long track record of joint authority governance and partnership working for spatial planning and transport policy, and the development and delivery of cross authority projects. An Infrastructure Advisory Board has been established which involves the West of Combined Authority Mayor, four Council lead members and business representatives which makes recommendations to the West of England Joint Committee. As discussed in Section 1, the West of England Joint Committee provides the forum for strong collective leadership and strategic direction to support the development and delivery of key strategies to improve the economic conditions across the West of England area including the Growth Deal. 5

6 Pooling Resources 2.2 The authorities have long standing arrangements for joint development and delivery teams such as for the MetroBus programme (shared project team), Local Sustainable Transport Fund (joint delivery team for marketing, engagement and other area wide activities) and most recently for the development of MetroWest. These teams are overseen by joint Project or Programme Boards and a Senior Responsible Owner who acts cross authority for the project. Similar arrangements will continue, tailored to the individual project. 3. Transparent Decision Making 3.1 This assurance framework has been approved by the LEP Board and accountable body and is published on the LEP website. It will be reviewed annually via the Investment Panel and any changes approved via the LEP Board. Following this review the revised assurance framework will be republished on the LEP website. The Section 151 Officer of the West of England Combined Authority, as the LEP accountable body, will write to MHCLG s Accounting Officer by 28 February each year certifying that the framework has been agreed, is being implemented and meets the standards set out in Local Enterprise Partnership Assurance Framework guidance of November An Annual Assurance Statement confirming to Government compliance with the required guidance has also been published on the LEP website. 3.2 Engagement with key stakeholders and the public takes place through a variety of means and at various stages of the Growth Deal process: The way in which prospective promoters can submit schemes for consideration of funding through the LGF (and wider One Front Door funding streams) is clearly set out on the LEP website. This will in the first instance be the completion of an Outline Business Case (see section 4) to be provided to the Investment Panel. Opportunities to submit proposals to take advantage of future funding opportunities will be promoted to stakeholders such as via social media, press communications, presentations or newsletters. Information related to the Growth Deal is published on the LEP website, including details of funded projects and progress with their implementation. An Executive Summary for each fully approved project is also provided on the LEP website. A description of all schemes with funding though the One Front Door process, the funds allocated to them and their approval status is shown on the LEP website. In addition a breakdown is provided via a checklist setting out the date when schemes were approved and the grant funding claims made to date. An annual funding and status report is published showing how the LGF grant has been spent and the status of projects in the Growth Deal programme. 6

7 The West of England LEP will assist in the promotion of the individual projects via channels such as social media, newsletters etc referencing the funding contribution of the LGF. The agendas, reports, minutes and forward plan for the West of England Joint Committee are published on the West of England Combined Authority website. The West of England Joint Committee will receive a regular report with the recommendations made by the West of England Investment Panel which will be published as part of the papers. Any recommendations made by the LEP Board relating to the Growth Deal programme will be published through the notes of the meeting. Stakeholders will be able to submit questions, petitions or statements to the West of England Joint Committee. Future LEP strategy development will build upon the extensive consultation undertaken in the formulation of the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and emerging West of England Regional Strategy. At the time of project completion, individual communications plans and actions will be drawn up by the LEP in partnership with the promoting body. Each scheme is required to produce a Project Completion Report within 3 months of the end of the project which is published on the LEP website. In addition, the results and outcomes from post scheme evaluation will be made available including publication on the LEP website, and individual scheme evaluation plans which form part of the FBC are required to set out the proposed approach to disseminating these. The wider activities of the LEP are disseminated though a number of means including a regular newsletter sent to a wide group of stakeholders, an Impact Report, social media and a LEP annual conference. 3.3 The availability of LGF and other LEP grant funding streams will be highlighted to organisations and businesses in the area via a number of channels tailored to the funding opportunity. Where the aim is to engage with local businesses the approach employed for the West of England Growth Fund will be used utilising local media and press including specialist business magazines, sector representatives, and through engagement with business organisations such as IOD, FSB, CBI and Business West. 3.4 The West of England Combined Authority as accountable body will ensure that Freedom of Information and Environmental Information Regulation requests are dealt with in line with relevant legislation. 3.5 Any complaints related to the arrangements, processes or decision making associated with the Growth Deal will follow the formal complaints process of WECA. The procedure is published on the West of England Combined Authority website and looks to manage any complaints that should arise appropriately and effectively. 3.6 In addition to the above, there is also a Whistleblowing Policy in place. which outlines the process to follow when reporting a perceived wrongdoing within the LEP, including something that is believed to contravene the core values and Nolan Principles of Public Life. 7

8 3.7 The LEP Board are required to follow a code of conduct which includes the way that interests are declared and managed. The interests of individual members are published on their individual profile pages on the LEP website. The code of conduct reflects the requirement for business members to act in line with the Nolan Principles of Public Life. Senior staff at WECA and the LEP and those who advise of decisions are also required to complete a register of interest form. 3.8 The development, appraisal and approval of projects will be undertaken through the governance arrangement set out in section 1 and the processes set out in sections 4 and 5. The prioritisation of Local Growth Fund projects starting in 2015/16 was undertaken by Government amongst the 15 early deliverables identified through the SEP. The identification of schemes thereafter has been based upon the SEP, deliverability and match funding opportunities and has been reported through the governance process. Schemes and programmes seeking funding through Growth Deal round 3 were outlined in the bid submitted to Government in July Schemes will accord with the economic growth and wider social value policies contained within the SEP and emerging West of England Regional Strategy. A requirement of each FBC is to outline how social value is being considered in line with the principles of the Social Value Act In recognition of its role as a community partnership leader, and its firm commitment to equality of opportunity, the LEP will champion equal opportunity principles and practice. The LEP is committed to mirroring and reflecting the diversity of the local community. In this regard the LEP is committed to keeping all its policies, practices and procedures under review in order to remove potential barriers to equality of opportunity. In order to monitor and review progress, a LEP Annual Equality and Diversity Report is produced including an annual action plan. In addition each One Front Door scheme is required to produce an individual Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment and to draw up a plan of action to address equality and diversity issues relevant to the scheme In order to ensure transparency and ease of access to information on LEP funding and related processes, a dedicated Funding at a Glance page on the LEP website has been created. This draws together information from other sections of the website to provide one point of quick reference for those wishing to understand how the LEP operates including: the assurance framework, Freedom of Information requests, Data Protection, Complaints and Whistleblowing, LEP expenditure, the Business Nominations Committee, membership and terms of reference of Boards, Code of Conduct and Conflicts of Interest Policy, summary of funding allocations and checklist of progress, guide to funding applicants, how the LEP procures services and a summary of all expenditure over Accountable Decision Making 4.1 The accountable body for the Growth Deal will be the West of England Combined Authority. Unless there is good reason the assumption is that the West of England Combined Authority will fulfil this function for other future funds awarded to the LEP by Government and that this assurance framework will apply. 8

9 4.2 Arrangements will be based upon the guidance provided by CIPFA in Principles for s151 Officers in Accountable Bodies working with Local Enterprise Partnerships. The West of England Combined Authority s151 officer will be responsible for ensuring that: Decisions and activities of the LEP conform to all relevant law with regard to equalities, social value, environment, State Aid, procurement etc and that records are maintained so this can be evidenced. Funds are used appropriately and in accordance with the conditions placed on each grant. This LEP assurance framework is adhered to. Through an Assurance Framework Action Plan any areas for improvement can be identified and this will be monitored for delivery. An official record of proceedings is maintained and copies of all relevant LEP documents relating to LGF and other funding from Government are held. Decisions of the West of England Joint Committee in approving project Business Cases comply with the agreed process (eg if subject to legal challenge). There are arrangements for local audit of funding allocated by LEPs at least equivalent to those in place for the Combined Authority spend. Audit reports related to the LEP produced by either internal or external audit will be shared with the LEP Board and the Cities and Local Growth Unit. 4.3 Should a decision made by the LEP not conform to the LEP Assurance Framework, eg not meeting legal requirements or representing inappropriate use of funds, the accountable body will not action this decision. In the first instance this will be raised at the Investment Panel where the issue and proposed corrective action will be discussed and a way forward to enable the accountable body to comply with the original decision agreed, or the decision to be amended. Where appropriate these actions and the agreed approach will be reported to the LEP Board/West of England Joint Committee. 4.4 The LEP and accountable body have agreed procedures and timescales to support effective implementation of decisions. The accountable body can provide guidance to the Panel in making their recommendations to the West of England Joint Committee. Similarly, arrangements are in place to monitor delivery through the Directors Board based upon highlight and exception reporting. In addition, regular reporting of outcomes including spend will also be undertaken through the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. Individual scheme offer letters between the accountable body and the promoter will set out the project outputs, milestones, funding allocation and profile as detailed in the approved Full Business Case. 4.5 The use of resources will be subject to the usual local authority checks and balances, including the financial duties and rules which require councils to act prudently in spending, which are overseen and checked by the Responsible Chief Finance Officer, Malcolm Coe the S151 Officer of the Combined Authority, and to ensure transparency that annual accounts 9

10 are published. Such checks will include ensuring value for money, legality, the basis for the offer and consistency with the standards set in Managing Public Money. 4.6 The accountable body will use funds in line with the governance process, unless in contradiction of the checks described above, and not for its own purposes or without a clear mandate. 4.7 When the LEP awards funding for a project there will be a clear written agreement between the West of England Combined Authority as accountable body and the delivery agent formalising the funding offer including establishing eligible costs, milestones and monitoring arrangements as well as adequate provisions for the protection of public funds (e.g. arrangements to suspend or claw back funding in the event of non-delivery or mismanagement). 4.8 Schemes coming forwards through the Growth Deal (and wider One Front Door arrangements) will follow a two stage process of Outline and Full Business Cases (see Appendix 2 and 3). An independent review of these Business Cases will be undertaken to support consideration by the Investment Panel, LEP Board and West of England Joint Committee. The Joint Committee will receive a regular report including issues and recommendations from the Investment Panel and this will also be available for consideration by the cross authority Member WECA Overview and Scrutiny Committee allowing further public scrutiny. 4.9 The accountable body are responsible for the decisions of the LEP in approving projects if, for example, subject to legal challenge Information on the way in which goods and services are procured (see Doing business with us ), and details of LEP spend over 500 are both provided on the WECA website 4.11 The expenditure and funding of the LEP for 2016/17 is provided via the Bath & North East Somerset Statement of Accounts signposted from the LEP website. From 2017/18 accounts will be published on the West of England Combined Authority website under the Financial Information section. 5. Ensuring value for money 5.1 All awards of Programme Entry via an Outline Business Case, and funding decisions made via the approval of Full Business Cases are supported by independent third party review commissioned through the LEP. Highlight Reports and Change Requests are also independently reviewed and comments provided. This provides clear separation of roles between the promoter and those providing advice to the Investment Panel, LEP Board and West of England Joint Committee. 5.2 Arrangements are in place for risk management across the range of LEP activities including risks related to project delivery, funding, propriety and value for money. For LGF and other LEP funding streams through the One Front Door process a risk report is a standing item for meetings of the Investment Panel. Each identified risk is allocated an owner whilst the 10

11 overall responsibility for the identification and management of risk sits with the LEP Chief Executive. a. Options appraisal and prioritisation 5.3 Programmes and constituent projects will be published on the LEP website together with the way in which schemes are identified, appraised (via the Investment Panel) and approved (via the West of England Joint Committee). This will include: The evidential basis on which the need for intervention is based (through published Outline and Full Business Cases) including links to the Strategic Economic Plan and supporting strategies. The way in which current LGF projects were developed and prioritised through the SEP (see section 3). Future processes for additional funding streams/opportunities will also be published. 5.4 At a level of detail proportionate to project scale and the type of scheme, individual project Full Business Cases will include: The rationale for the interventions linked with the strategic objectives identified in the SEP and supporting strategies. A set of clearly-defined inputs, activities, outputs and anticipated outcomes, which provide additionality having due regard to factors such as displacement and deadweight. A Support Manual and Step by Step Guide is provided on the LEP website to assist promoters and to encourage them to draw on best practice when producing a Full Business Case. The benefits and costs showing a positive case for investment. A Management Case that set out deliverability considerations including the way that project risks will be managed and an assessment of risks with identified owners and mitigation actions. 5.5 Decisions made by the West of England Joint Committee will be evidence based, and Business Cases will set out in detail the nature of the scheme (costs, risks, deliverability considerations etc) and the planned outcomes. These documents will be independently reviewed covering all aspects of the Business Case and a report provided to the Investment Panel to support scheme recommendation to the LEP Board and West of England Joint Committee b. VfM and Business Case Development for Prioritised/Funded Proposals 5.6 All Full Business Cases will follow the five case structure Strategic, Economic, Financial, Commercial and Management. The format of the FBC is shown in Appendix All scheme Full Business Cases will include a statement regarding value for money signed by the promoting organisation s s151 Officer/Chief Finance Officer. A named individual, the West of England Combined Authority S151 Officer, is responsible for ensuring value for money for LEP programmes. 11

12 5.8 Transport schemes with over 5m of funding by the LEP will fall within the processes set out in Appendix 5 including those related to value for money, assurance and evaluation. This includes a requirement for a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) above 2. Smaller scale schemes will fall within the processes for other LGF schemes. 5.9 Skills capital projects will be independently assessed for value for money using the Skills Funding Agency methodology For schemes other than larger transport/skills capital projects, value for money will be considered as part of business case approval, which will include job creation, GVA impact and other specific outcomes delivered, and the suitability of the intervention and its effectiveness, for the funds invested. This will be clearly set out in the Economic Case within the FBC and signed off by the organisation s s151 Officer/Chief Finance Officer and considered as part of the independent review. c. Monitoring and Evaluation 5.11 All approved One Front Door projects are required to complete a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan as part of Full Business Case Approval. The format of this Plan is based upon the Logic Model approach and scheme business cases and is shown in Appendix 3 of the Full Business Case Template (Appendix 3 to this framework). A requirement for Monitoring and Evaluation in line with this agreed Plan is embodied in grant offer letters All One Front Door schemes are required to produce End of Project Delivery Reports 3 months post-delivery to set out next steps for monitoring and evaluation in line with the agreed Plan. A summary of the End of Project Delivery Reports is published on the LEP website Appendix 1: Scheme Highlight Report Template Appendix 2: Outline Business Case Template Appendix 3: Full Business Case Template Appendix 4: Change Request Tolerances Appendix 5: Arrangements for Larger Transport Schemes 12

13 Appendix 1 Scheme Highlight Report Investment Panel e.g. LGF AE Month / Year SCHEME / PROJECT NAME : KEY FORECAST OUTCOMES: Net additional jobs (excluding construction jobs) and GVA derived directly from the intervention and time period over which these will be produced/ Other linked to Grant Offer Letter 1. MILESTONE COMPLETION DATES Include 10 or so key milestones such as below including those from offer letter Outline Design and Programme Entry Approval Detailed Design Secure statutory powers/cpo/planning Consent Full Business Case Approval/Offer letter signed Procurement Construction Start on Site Construction Practical/Substantial Completion Operational Baseline mm/yr Last Reported Current 2. KEY ACTIVITIES AND ISSUES THIS REPORTING PERIOD month month / year Review tasks reported as planned last period 3. ACTIVITIES FOR THE NEXT REPORTING PERIOD month month / year Activity Please complete Forecast Completion Date 4. TOP 3 Current Project Risks Risk Please complete RAG rating Mitigation Mitigated RAG rating Month / Year IPv1 Submission date: Submitted by:

14 Scheme Highlight Report Investment Panel e.g. LGF AE Month / Year 5. SCHEME COST TOTAL BUDGET.m Split cost between funders below Eg EDF 5m 6. ELIGIBLE COST BREAKDOWN BY CATEGORY ( 000s) Cost heading* 1 Current Total Forecast Expenditure Current Forecast LGF, EDF, RIF or Investment Fund Last Reported Baseline Variance (current to baseline) % Change in Expenditure* (from current to baseline) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% Total* 2 0 0% * 1 Changes of 5% or more against any of the Eligible Cost Headings and the addition or deletion of cost headings should be explained in Section 8 of the Highlight Report. * 2 In addition, any changes in total expenditure not previously reported should be explained in section 8 of the Highlight Report. Changes beyond the thresholds stated in table of tolerances below should be raised via the Change request form. Month / Year IPv1 Submission date: Submitted by:

15 Scheme Highlight Report Investment Panel e.g. LGF AE Month / Year 6a. SCHEME COST BY QUARTER 18/19 & 19/20 ( 000s) Scheme 18/19 18/19 18/19 18/19 18/19 19/20 19/20 19/20 19/20 19/20 16/17 16/17 cost Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total 20/21 Total LGF (Current) Private Match CAPITAL Private Match REVENUE Public Match CAPITAL Public Match REVENUE Match Total Total LGF spend only Last Reported Baseline Variance (Current to Baseline) Month / Year IPv1 Submission date: Submitted by:

16 To Scheme Highlight Report Investment Panel e.g. LGF AE Month / Year 7. GENERAL COMMENTARY ON SCHEME Please complete 8. CHANGES REQUESTED, REASON FOR CHANGE AND IMPACT Please describe change here for: any changes in total cost (table 6) any change in cost category above 5% (table 6) any change in milestones (table 1) from last reported spend that needs to be re-profiled across financial years changes to scale, nature, focus, location and scope of the scheme changes in outputs and benefits of the scheme For more significant changes (see table of tolerances below) a change request form must be completed which will inform the Director s Board in making recommendations to the Joint Committee. 9. Confirmation of State Aid position Please confirm that your State Aid position as stated at OBC/FBC stage remains unchanged. If there are changes to the State Aid position please complete section 8 above. 10. COMMENTS FROM TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT / INDEPENDENT REVIEW Not for completion 11. ACTION REQUIRED FROM ACCOUNTABLE BODY Not for completion Scheme Senior Responsible Owner: Please confirm Project Manager: Please confirm Month / Year IPv1 Submission date: Submitted by:

17 Scheme Highlight Report Investment Panel e.g. LGF AE Month / Year Guidance on Form Completion: Milestones in Box 1 above can be amended to suit Project/Scheme. Once an offer letter has been issued milestones in the Highlight Report should mirror those included in the offer letter. Rows can be added to tables but no other adjustments to format should be made Page 1 (Items 1-5) of this report should be considered to be public as it may be reported to the Joint Committee or Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Items in italics for guidance only. Delete/amend to suit project. Risk rating key: Reporting and seeking approval for changes Note: All changes related to cost (ie 1-3 in the table below) must be supported by a change request signed by the s151/chief Finance Officer confirming that all necessary processes have been undertaken within their organisation in relation to the change. For other changes (ie 4 and 5 below) It will be assumed that the organisation has followed all relevant processes related to the delivery of the project in line with their own arrangements. Category Scale Action Approval 1 Cost Increases Cost increases of up to 10% to a ceiling of 100k (Feasibility and Development Funding) and 300k (approved scheme funding) subject to funding being available and there being no impact on any other project in the programme Describe in Highlight Report (HR) and complete Change Request (CR) LEP CEO, in consultation with West of England Directors (the Director of Development at WECA and the 4 Constituent Authorities) 2 Reductions in Match Funding Cost increases above this threshold HR & CR Joint Committee Reduction in match funding up to 10% to a ceiling of 300k HR & CR CEO in consultation with Directors Reduction in match funding above this level HR & CR Joint Committee 3 Reprofiling of Spend (with no cost increase overall) Reprofiling of up to 50k (Feasibility and Development Funding) and 100k (approved scheme funding) between financial years Reprofiling between financial years above this level HR & CR HR & CR CEO in consultation with Directors Joint Committee Month / Year IPv1 Submission date: Submitted by:

18 Scheme Highlight Report Investment Panel e.g. LGF AE Month / Year Category Scale Action Approval 4 Time Slippage of milestone(s) for approved schemes less than 3 months HR CEO in consultation with Directors Slippage of milestones of 3 months or more HR & CR Joint Committee 5 Scope, Benefits and Quality Up to 10% change in value of quality as percentage of project value and/or 10% change in one or more metrics of benefits and/or minor change to the scope of the scheme Over 10% change in value of quality as percentage of project value and/or over 10% change in one or more metrics of benefits, or a fundamental change to the scope of scheme HR HR & CR CEO in consultation with Directors Joint Committee All decisions made through delegation based upon the submitted change request will be reported on WECA s officer decision register. Baseline Completion Milestone Dates in Section 1 Schemes are generally baselined at the point an OBC is approved and then again when an offer letter is put in place. Other re-baselining is actioned following Directors Board or Joint Committee approval, depending on the level of change required see table above for details. RAG rating of highlight reports: For reporting purposes a RAG rating is attributed to schemes based on the information provided in the quarterly Highlight Reports as follows: Green No change, or change(s) reported which when compared to the position last reported fall below those considered necessary for a change request. For example, delays of less than 3 months to milestones which are not reported or considered to impact on completion; small changes in outputs of up to 5% not impacting on outcomes. These changes are expected to have a minimal or no immediate effect on the project. Amber Red Reported change(s) will have material effect on the project and/or have potential to escalate to red rating and/or require significant resource(s)/mitigation action(s) to manage. For example, delays of up to 3 months to milestones which are reported or considered to impact on completion, moderate change to spend profile within year without slippage of expenditure into subsequent financial years; up to 10% change in one or more metrics of benefits and material change to the scope of the scheme. This includes cumulative impacts in terms of a number of smaller changes. Change reported above the level requiring a change request in relation to cost, spend profile and milestones, including re-profile of LGF/EDF/RIF spend across financial years; significant cost increases (over either 20% or 2m) and slippage in milestones with a delay of over 3 months to completion. This includes cumulative change impacts which in aggregate exceed the approval limits. Reported change will likely move the project back in terms of budget, spend or timeline, or will materially affect quality or scope. Month / Year IPv1 Submission date: Submitted by:

19 Appendix 2 West of England - Outline Business Case Project Title: Project Owner: Promoter and partners: Description of Intervention: Please provide a short description of the intervention, including cost of element to be funded, the delivery timeframe and explanation of the wider delivery context. Where appropriate, provide details of project scalability including consideration of phasing delivery. For schemes which form part of a wider programme and/or extend over a number of years, please describe the delivery approach. If phased approach taken, separately and where possible, provide detail for each phase. (indicative 350 words) Please include drawings/plans or other relevant documents to help describe/explain the project. Please complete a Logic Model for the proposed scheme (see template Annex A). This should assist with clearly establishing the scope of the project and identifying the relationship between the project investments (inputs), the activities and outputs funded, and how they are predicted to generate the anticipated outcomes and impacts. Market Failure (including why the private sector cannot resolve): Please state rationale for public intervention ie. public highways, public good, public services, public realm etc. (indicative 250 words) State Aid Position Promoters are advised to take specialist advice where necessary to provide a firm position. State aid rules should be considered from the outset of the proposal to ensure it is compatible and compliant with EU competition rules. Please describe the State Aid exemption that will apply, or the method and approach to show how no State Aid will be granted. For guidance, please refer to the State Aid: the basics note issued by BIS (Jul 2015) (indicative 200 words)

20 West of England - Outline Business Case Rationale including alignment with strategic aims: Please state alignment with existing and emerging policies, plans and studies ie. Core Strategies, Joint Local Transport Plan, Joint Spatial Plan, Strategic Economic Plan, Regional Strategy, Joint Transport Study. Please state project fit with funding streams and their priorities LGF, EU SIF, EDF, RIF, West of England Investment Fund (indicative 350 words) Options appraisal: What options for the project have so far been considered (include do nothing / do minimum )? Why has this option been selected? What options have been considered to fund this project and why not progressed? Wherever possible an impartial analysis of the options should be provided. For schemes which form part of wider programmes, have the component and initial or prioritised schemes been identified? Synergies with Other Projects/Programmes/Sector Initiatives: Please reference other programmes of activity and/or synergies with other sector initiatives to demonstrate maximum return on investment (indicative 150 words)

21 West of England - Outline Business Case Outcomes including wider socio-economic benefits: Additional jobs and GVA derived directly from the intervention - Provide calculations and clearly state assumptions made to explain how these have been produced. For outcomes relating to jobs creation, if possible, please provide an annual profile of jobs created and clearly state the time period over which new jobs will be created. Please differentiate between construction jobs created from those created post delivery. Consider other direct scheme impacts including, where appropriate: Employment land released/served Land protected How scheme will drive business rate growth in EZs/EAs Acceleration Transport benefits including any vfm assessment undertaken Consider wider environmental and socio-economic impacts (ie. business start-ups, reduced CO2 emissions, R&D university investment, direct/foreign investment, supply of new homes, population with HE qualifications, broadband coverage, patents etc) Where outputs/impacts draw from experiences elsewhere these should be clearly stated. To assist, refer to the Impact Guidance Note and suggested multiplier ratios by which impact can be assessed. This also provides an indication of the level of analysis required at OBC stage. (indicative 300 words) NB: Stated outputs/impacts should remain consistent when bringing forward a Full Business Case. Significant loss/change in the nature of benefits from evolution of Outline to Full Business Case may require review of proposal.

22 West of England - Outline Business Case Project Spend Profile a. Business Case Development Phase (funds required to develop the scheme up to the submission of a Full Business Case) Cost ( 000s): 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Total Funds Sought Public Match Private Match Overall Total b. Delivery Phase (funds required from Full Business Case approval to scheme completion) Cost ( 000s): 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23 Total Capital Sought Revenue Sought Total Public Match Private Match Overall Total Cost Breakdown Please provide, in as much detail as possible, a breakdown of costs by spending categories, or at minimum the types of expenditure to be incurred and an estimate against each. a. Development Phase b. Delivery Phase Source and Commitment of Match Funding: Please provide details of match funding quantity and source(s), including from private and public partners, in kind contributions, third party funding agreements, both secured and/or in the process of being secured. (indicative 100 words) Public Match Source Amount ( 000 s) Secured/ Status Private Match Source Amount ( 000 s) Secured/ Status

23 West of England - Outline Business Case Delivery Issues, Key Milestones, Track Record and State of Readiness: Expected date of completion and submission of Full Business Case mmm/yyyy Please outline key scheme delivery issues and current state of readiness (e.g. has planning consent been progressed/ obtained, to what level of design/specification has the scheme reached, etc). Include a set of key milestones eg design work, procurement, enabling works, build of works, project completion, operational, etc. Please outline experience and track record of the promoter and partners in delivering similar projects. (indicative 300 words) Dependencies, Key Risks and Viability: Please outline scheme dependencies, list 5 key risks and mitigation actions, and consideration of financial viability. (see risk rating key at end of form) Top 5 current risks RAG rating Proposed mitigation measure Mitigated RAG rating Submitted by: Contact details ( /phone): Date of submission:

24 West of England - Outline Business Case Approval of the Outline Business Case: Senior Responsible Owner from promoting organisation Name: Signature: Date: Section 151/Chief Finance Officer of promoting organisation Name: Signature: Date: Risk rating key:

25 West of England - Outline Business Case Annex A: Logic Model Context and Rationale Provide a brief description of the strategic and policy context (link to local and national strategy policy). Briefly describe the market failure rationale for the intervention. (indicative 50 words) Objectives Resources/ Input Activities Outputs Direct & Indirect Outcomes The aims/ objectives of the scheme are: (Ensure that all aims/objectives are SMART) In order to achieve the set of activities to fulfil these aims/ objectives we need the following: (Resources should not be limited to money e.g. grant, match funding, in-kind, project team, specialist support, etc. The inputs define the scope of the project being considered in the logic model ) In order to address the aims and objectives we will accomplish the following activities: (What will the money be used for? e.g. construction, project management, equipment/fit out, etc): We anticipate that, once accomplished these activities will produce the following deliverables: (Where possible provide measurable outputs e.g. length of new road/cycle path, m 2 of space constructed/refurbished, number of businesses supported, learners engaged, etc) We anticipate that if accomplished these outputs will lead to the following change e.g. new products or services, skills, behaviour, new business/contracts, etc: (Ensure that all outcomes are SMART and relevant to the aims/objectives to allow for attribution; where possible distinguish between direct and indirect outcomes) Impact We anticipate that if accomplished these activities will lead to the following changes in service, organisation or community: (quantitative economic impacts e.g. indirect jobs and/or GVA to be crossreferenced with FBC as appropriate)

26 Appendix 3 West of England Full Business Case Template Programme: [If appropriate] Scheme: [Title] Originated Reviewed Authorised Date 1 Version Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

27 Executive Summary [Indicative 400 words] Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

28 1 Strategic Case 1.1 State Aid Considerations [Indicative 250 words] 1.2 Project Description [Indicative 300 words] 1.3 Project Objectives and Case for Change [Indicative 250 words] 1.4 Rationale for Public Intervention [Indicative 250 words] 1.5 Strategic Fit [Indicative 300 words] 1.6 Options Appraisal [Indicative 400 words] 1.7 Environmental Sustainability Considerations [Indicative 250 words] 1.8 Equality and Diversity Impact Assessment Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

29 2 Economic Case 2.1 Economic Appraisal [Indicative 650 words] 2.2 Value for Money Statement Total project cost Grant sought (EDF/LGF/RIF) Net Quantified Benefits Jobs, GVA VfM indicator* Cost per job; GVA per spent * Benefit compared to total cost including match funding Summary table of assumptions Criterion of assessment e.g. jobs e.g. GVA [Indicative 300 words] Assumption Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

30 3 Financial Case 3.1 Chief Financial Officer sign off 3.2 Scheme Cost Revenue Elements Cost Heading Internal staff including overheads External consultants Marketing Add other categories as appropriate Etc Total projected eligible expenditure Amount to be claimed Capital Elements Cost Heading Total projected eligible expenditure Amount to be claimed 3.3 Spend Profile and Funding Sources Capital Spend ( 000s) Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Etc Pre 15/16 15/16 16/17 Etc Revenue Spend ( 000s) Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Etc Pre 15/16 15/16 16/17 Etc Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

31 Total Spend ( 000s) Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Etc Pre 15/16 15/16 16/17 Etc Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

32 4 Commercial Case 4.1 Procurement [Indicative 400 words] 4.2 Operation and Financial Viability [Indicative 400 words] 4.3 Social Value Act [Indicative 300 words] Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

33 5 Management Case 5.1 Promoter and Delivery Arrangements [Indicative 300 words] 5.2 Project Governance and Delivery [Indicative 400 words] 5.3 Programme Plan Milestone completion dates Include 10 or so key milestones such as below Outline Design and Programme Entry Approval Detailed Design Secure statutory powers/cpo/planning Consent Full Business Case Approval/Offer letter signed Procurement Construction Start on Site Construction Practical/Substantial Completion Operational Baseline month/year Revenue projects define as appropriate 5.4 Risks, Constraints and Dependencies 5.5 Land Acquisition, Planning and Other Consents [Indicative 300 words] 5.6 Service Diversions [Indicative 250 words] 5.7 Engagement and Consultation [Indicative 300 words] 5.8 Project Assurance [Indicative 200 words] 5.9 Monitoring and Evaluation Scheme: [Name] Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017

34 1. Scheme background and context Provide a short description of the scheme, including costs, the delivery timeframe and an explanation of the wider delivery context. A summary of the key milestones should be provided with expected and actual completion dates. (indicative 250 words) Milestone completion dates Baseline month/year Actual completion mm/yyyy mm/yyyy 2. Logic Model Complete a logic model to reflect the project scope i.e. all the activities covered by the investment. Ensure also that there is a clear progression between the steps in your logic model. State assumptions between the investment and the predicted outcomes and impacts. For outcomes relating to direct jobs creation, please provide an annual profile of jobs created and clearly state the time period over which net additional jobs and GVA will be created. Please define the impact area of the intervention ie West of England or other geographical scale. (indicative 350 words) Doc v22 Last updated Aug 2017