Overall programme performance LGF programme does not realise its economic - Agreement with DfT and grant recipients on impacted by poor performance of the growth targets due to nature of focus of monitoring and reporting requirements against Major transport Projects Department of Transport objectives versus LGF targets. LGF outputs/outcomes. - Work with DfT to understand the funding Achievement of the aims and objectives of the conditions and any conditions/clawback if the programme adversely affected by any non-transport outputs are not achieved. significant issue or risk in any one of the - Explore to tie in stronger penalties to 4 3 12 projects. of outputs to the funding offer. Reputation of CWLEP to deliver is adversely affected due to the scale of the transport scheme projects. Lack of suitable projects and/or ESIF programme does not meet its Consider more long term staffing arrangements. appropriate match funding to form ESIF outputs/outcomes which could result in loss programme pipeline to meet eligible of funding for the sub region. criteria including meeting cross cutting Damage to LEP reputation and credibility both thematic objectives and revised locally and nationally as well as with Treasury deadline of March 2018 for Government which could impact on 4 3 12 final project submissions. Flexibility or consideration for future funding rounds i.e. delay in decisions to use of LGF3 as the future prosperity fund. match. Lack of partner support to Loss of funding to the Sub Region to support deploy remaining funds and sources of delivery of growth, jobs and businesses in match funding particularly under the Cheshire and Warrington and delivery of SEP. European Social Fund. Failure to implement the seven The benefits to employers, learners, the The Strategic Forum will work to achieve the recommendations of the ABR Review colleges and the economy more generally will political buy-in to the implementation of FE has a detrimental effect on the not be achieved. 3 3 9 delivery of FE skills provision across Cheshire and Warrington..
Overall programme performance impacted by poor performance of the Major transport Projects LGF programme does not realise its economic growth targets due to nature of focus of Department of Transport objectives versus LGF outputs/outcomes. Achievement of the aims and objectives of the programme adversely affected by any significant issue or risk in any one of the projects. Reputation of CWLEP to deliver is adversely affected due to the scale of the transport scheme projects. - Agreement with DfT and grant recipients on monitoring and reporting requirements against LGF targets. - Work with DfT to understand the funding conditions and any conditions/clawback if the non-transport outputs are not achieved. - Explore to tie in stronger penalties to of outputs to the funding offer. 4 3 12 Lack of suitable projects and/or appropriate match funding to form ESIF programme pipeline to meet eligible criteria including meeting cross cutting thematic objectives and revised Treasury deadline of March 2018 for final project submissions. Flexibility or delay in decisions to use of LGF3 as match. Lack of partner support to deploy remaining funds and sources of match funding particularly under the European Social Fund. ESIF programme does not meet its outputs/outcomes which could result in loss of funding for the sub region. Damage to LEP reputation and credibility both locally and nationally as well as with Government which could impact on consideration for future funding rounds i.e. the future prosperity fund. Loss of funding to the Sub Region to support delivery of growth, jobs and businesses in Cheshire and Warrington and delivery of SEP. Consider more long term staffing arrangements. 4 3 12 Failure to implement the seven recommendations of the ABR Review of FE has a detrimental effect on the delivery of FE skills provision across Cheshire and Warrington.. The benefits to employers, learners, the colleges and the economy more generally will not be achieved. The Strategic Forum will work to achieve the political buy-in to the implementation 3 3 9
18.02.21-PI-Programme-Manager-Report.docx