Analysis of Corporate Plan Feedback Issue Executive Summary Review of Current Economic Position Policy Context – SNR; GVA growth target; Single Strategy
General messages Plan needs to reflect the enhanced role of the Agency – new roles and responsibilities; Plan needs to reflect basis skills as a key dimension of the RES though not directly being addressed by the Agency; profile of E&D; Contradictory growth rates/targets; monitor intra-regional growth during plan period and make necessary adjustments; Translation of growth target into Sub regional targets; GVA target needs to be more challenging if the region is to close gap with other English regions. Liverpool contends that their growth project are higher than those set out in the document; areas which are the engine of economic growth advocating for more prioritisation; review of existing evidence & reflect the areas where joint work on developing evidence base is already taking place; consider including measurable outcome indicators; focuses too much on CSR, SNR to the exclusion of other drivers i.e. Leitch; are we planning to set sub regional targets in relation to the 5 indicators; indicate possible outputs against outcomes; connectivity between areas of need opportunity; availability of evidence/data at a spatial level; rationale & market failures for each objective need to provide the extent to which these affect the region/sub region; question the relevance of using annual GVA figures and suggest use of average growth over four years; indicate historical growth rates; Performance monitoring should be at a sub regional level; reflect the anticipated local government changes in Cheshire; need to follow through implications of SNR highlighted within the change programme into policy context and objectives; concern with effectively linking outputs back to GVA; GVA measures should be applied intelligently and not constrained to fit with lower performing sub regions; should consider alignment of plan targets/outcomes with LAA/MAA national indicator sets to aid consistency betweens Las and SRS;
Review of Progress against Corp Plan 2005/08 Strategic Objectives Key Priorities and Themes
Working Together to Deliver the RES;
Lack of reference to HMR given the move to a single strategy; Rationale for objectives; Clarity of relationship/fit between 11 objectives, RES and SRAPs; objectives should be explicit where the challenges lie and funding allocations should reflect this; lack of input into development of objectives; rationale for funding allocations against objectives; concern about level of funding allocated to some objectives i.e. employment sites; should refer to priority sectors in reference to growth forecasts/focus on high GVA generating sectors; Objective 9 needs to be more focussed and should reflect provision of other critical infrastructure; Position of TA’s not cross-referenced in the plan i.e. Economic participation for all; Regional E&D Strategy; spatial perspective o investment; objectives need to reflect single strategy approach – principle of integration (spatial planning, transport and housing); indication of the extent of market failure within the region and intra regional impacts; evidence to support choice of outcomes; need a statement on approach to rural matters including RDPE; request for a 12th additional objective “Economic Participation for All”; consider quantifying the outcomes for each objective; clarity about how Business Support at regional level will impact on LA economic development and business support roles; Alignment with SRAPs; Lack of evidence SRAPs have informed the plan; plan needs to reflect MAAs, LAAs and LA indicators if LA are to have more role in delivery; stronger reference to relationship with SRPs; request for sight of the results of the E&D and SD Impact assessments; role of the VCS; clarity about operational arrangements and detail for ERDF; definition of Business support and what elements will be delivered by NWDA; Role of Education/College sector; how we plan to integrate planning function within the Agency; role of Agency in simplifying delivery infrastructure; engagement with LAA process to ensure in line with the objectives of the RES; how LA capacity will be strengthened – SRP
too business focussed; using emerging evaluation evidence; Core Cities and their role in driving growth; LA requirement to produce local economic assessments and how these can be used inform the RES with NWDA developing framework for these; lack of detail of steps to be taken to develop and strengthen SRPs to deliver regional targets; need to be more explicit about the role of the 3rd sector; Evaluation and Link 5% efficiency saving to measuring impact to inform efficient allocation of Performance resources; role of SRPs in impact evaluation and performance management and Management how forecasting will be built into this; timescales on developing new indicators – outcome/outputs and how hey relate to LAA national indicator sets; Organisational Welcoming early opportunity to discuss delegation – what will the tests be; links Change programme need to be made between the change programme and the development and delivery of objectives; clarification on appropriate level to delegate and this needs to be to the level most appropriate to economic and Geographic circumstances and at which effective programme management is optimised; clarity of role; Budget and Rationale for funding profile and balance of funding between priorities (clarifying Funding the reducing profile as compared to ONE); level of detail; need to reflect how Allocations NWDA funding will work with other funding streams; need to take a flexible approach; SIP to indicate clearly the allocation on a sub regional basis for the three years in line with sub regional GVA growth targets; legal commitments by year; committed funding and headroom needs to be highlighted; Other General and Cross cutting messages Presentation Plan could be more hard hitting Linkages/interdepe ndencies National/European Regional/European comparison would be useful; Comaprison
Spatial Implications
Would like to see importance of place made more prominent recognising that particular places drive growth (i.e. Manchester City and GM); plan needs to be more explicit about how we plan to align investment with partners to achieve synergy and efficiency savings; connectivity and importance of transport, housing growth and renewal and their role in underpinning economic growth; Reflect rural programmes like RDPE within objectives; role of City development COs;