£53m cash boost to kickstart Worcestershire's economy

Malvern Gazette: Peter Pawsey, from Worcestershire's Local Enterprise Partnership Peter Pawsey, from Worcestershire's Local Enterprise Partnership

A £53 million cash boost is being handed to Worcestershire - in a Government bid to create thousands of jobs and boost the economy.

After four months of waiting your Worcester News can today reveal the outcome of a £280 million bid by Worcestershire's Local Enterprise Partnership, including:

- Worcestershire will get £13 million in April 2015 to kick the 10-year blueprint off

- The Government has indicated that another £40 million will be handed over during the following four years

- An agreement has been struck over which projects can be pursued with the initial amounts of cash, including the part dualling of the A4440 Southern Link Road in Worcester, Worcestershire Parkway at Norton, further improvements to the existing £20 million superfast broadband scheme and extra flooding alleviation, which is expected to focus on New Road

- Other priority projects with the £53 million include Worcester Technology Park and Malvern Hills Science Park

The Government has given LEPs some flexibility over how to spend their money, with both parties saying there will be further negotiations over how each one proceeds.

Council leaders and the LEP yesterday insisted the deal was a good one for Worcestershire, saying they fared well against competition from 38 other bidders nationwide.

Worcestershire LEP did ask for £48 million alone next year, and has admitted projects will need to be "re-programmed" after the award fell short.

It is also unclear where it leaves hopes of dualling the A4440 Carrington Bridge, which the county wants £63m for from Government.

Ministers are making £2 billion available per year to LEPs around the country.

The 10-year blueprint for Worcestershire calls for investment into more than 50 different projects, and the announcement means at least eight are expected to proceed initially.

Peter Pawsey, chairman of Worcestershire's LEP said: "This is a good and fair deal for Worcestershire which we welcome, but it will require our partners to be creative and some choices will have to be made.

"Of course we would always have liked more cash but the allocated fund was massively oversubscribed and together with other funding streams, including those from Europe and from county and district councils' resources, we can together make some very significant progress on our priority schemes."

Councillor Simon Geraghty, county council deputy leader and cabinet member for economy, skills and infrastructure, said: "This is great news and backs the ambitious 10 year plan that was devised by local government and businesses working together through Worcestershire LEP.

"The allocation over the next five years is significant and allows investment in key schemes in rail, road, broadband and flood alleviation.

"Looking to the future there are exciting times ahead and we will now work alongside others in bringing these projects to reality thereby boosting the local economy and tackling key transport bottlenecks."

West Worcestershire MP Harriett Baldwin, meanwhile, said: “This is fantastic news and is a great reward for the hard work put in by the Local Enterprise Partnership to secure some important funding to support our county’s long-term economic plan.

“I was pleased to be able to help the team in their bid process and I think that this investment will be a huge boost for local business.

“The Government has given a clear thumbs-up to the business-led approach reflected in the bid and has indicated that more funds will be made available in the coming years.

“I am particularly pleased to see money committed to the growth of Malvern Hills Science Park which will allow it to offer more space for start-ups and growing small business.

“Infrastructure projects like the much-needed Worcester Parkway project and road improvements will also get funding support and I am sure local people will be toasting this success across the county today.”

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:32am Mon 7 Jul 14

brooksider says...

The Marches receive £75 million, Gloucestershire £60 million and Worcestershire only £53 million, only the deluded like Geraghty and Pawsey would try so fool us into believing this is a good deal for local business.
The Marches receive £75 million, Gloucestershire £60 million and Worcestershire only £53 million, only the deluded like Geraghty and Pawsey would try so fool us into believing this is a good deal for local business. brooksider
  • Score: 19

9:43am Mon 7 Jul 14

brooksider says...

There is also a caveat to the £13 million for 2015.
This includes £2.4 million for broadband infrastructure and is only paid out on full delivery on Worcestershire LEP projects.
Therefore Worcestershire receive the 2nd lowest payout from the growth fund, only Cumbria were awarded less.
There is also a caveat to the £13 million for 2015. This includes £2.4 million for broadband infrastructure and is only paid out on full delivery on Worcestershire LEP projects. Therefore Worcestershire receive the 2nd lowest payout from the growth fund, only Cumbria were awarded less. brooksider
  • Score: 16

10:23am Mon 7 Jul 14

stu2010 says...

Wiltshire got £130 million
Wiltshire got £130 million stu2010
  • Score: 9

11:54am Mon 7 Jul 14

Perfman says...

I'm looking forward to booksider and stu2010 "Worcester Development Plan for 2012-2020". Let us all know when you've published it and got central Government approval!
I'm looking forward to booksider and stu2010 "Worcester Development Plan for 2012-2020". Let us all know when you've published it and got central Government approval! Perfman
  • Score: -1

12:48pm Mon 7 Jul 14

redman14 says...

I say I say ashlaaayyyyyy !!! lol
I say I say ashlaaayyyyyy !!! lol redman14
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Mon 7 Jul 14

orla nutting says...

How much is projected to go to consultants and IR35 employees?
How much is projected to go to consultants and IR35 employees? orla nutting
  • Score: 9

1:17pm Mon 7 Jul 14

brooksider says...

Perfman wrote:
I'm looking forward to booksider and stu2010 "Worcester Development Plan for 2012-2020". Let us all know when you've published it and got central Government approval!
Ha Ha!
Too be fair, almost anyone could do better than Worcestershire's effort, as long as they don't use the same fag packet as Pawsey and Geraghty to do their calculations.

Any business owner going to a bank to fund a business plan and coming away with 87% less money than he asked for can be sure there is a problem with his plan and expectations.

The result is Worcestershire taxpayers are let down once again and only get 3,000 more jobs instead of the much heralded 25,000.
[quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: I'm looking forward to booksider and stu2010 "Worcester Development Plan for 2012-2020". Let us all know when you've published it and got central Government approval![/p][/quote]Ha Ha! Too be fair, almost anyone could do better than Worcestershire's effort, as long as they don't use the same fag packet as Pawsey and Geraghty to do their calculations. Any business owner going to a bank to fund a business plan and coming away with 87% less money than he asked for can be sure there is a problem with his plan and expectations. The result is Worcestershire taxpayers are let down once again and only get 3,000 more jobs instead of the much heralded 25,000. brooksider
  • Score: 7

4:08pm Mon 7 Jul 14

Marant says...

brooksider wrote:
Perfman wrote:
I'm looking forward to booksider and stu2010 "Worcester Development Plan for 2012-2020". Let us all know when you've published it and got central Government approval!
Ha Ha!
Too be fair, almost anyone could do better than Worcestershire's effort, as long as they don't use the same fag packet as Pawsey and Geraghty to do their calculations.

Any business owner going to a bank to fund a business plan and coming away with 87% less money than he asked for can be sure there is a problem with his plan and expectations.

The result is Worcestershire taxpayers are let down once again and only get 3,000 more jobs instead of the much heralded 25,000.
That's 3,000 more jobs for an anticipated 60,000 more people, if all the homes are built. Many, many more needed.
[quote][p][bold]brooksider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: I'm looking forward to booksider and stu2010 "Worcester Development Plan for 2012-2020". Let us all know when you've published it and got central Government approval![/p][/quote]Ha Ha! Too be fair, almost anyone could do better than Worcestershire's effort, as long as they don't use the same fag packet as Pawsey and Geraghty to do their calculations. Any business owner going to a bank to fund a business plan and coming away with 87% less money than he asked for can be sure there is a problem with his plan and expectations. The result is Worcestershire taxpayers are let down once again and only get 3,000 more jobs instead of the much heralded 25,000.[/p][/quote]That's 3,000 more jobs for an anticipated 60,000 more people, if all the homes are built. Many, many more needed. Marant
  • Score: 8

10:55pm Mon 7 Jul 14

thesquirrel says...

Gutted.
Gutted. thesquirrel
  • Score: 0

12:08am Tue 8 Jul 14

,weekp3i47545ruioip[4orp[orp[]23r[]23pr[]ep3oerp[] says...

orla nutting wrote:
How much is projected to go to consultants and IR35 employees?
All that money for the council to waste .
[quote][p][bold]orla nutting[/bold] wrote: How much is projected to go to consultants and IR35 employees?[/p][/quote]All that money for the council to waste . ,weekp3i47545ruioip[4orp[orp[]23r[]23pr[]ep3oerp[]
  • Score: 8

12:33am Tue 8 Jul 14

,weekp3i47545ruioip[4orp[orp[]23r[]23pr[]ep3oerp[] says...

,weekp3i47545ruioip23r[]23prep3oerp[] wrote:
orla nutting wrote:
How much is projected to go to consultants and IR35 employees?
All that money for the council to waste .
I can see a few consultant s getting some nice new car s. soon and booking a extra Holliday this year
[quote][p][bold],weekp3i47545ruioip[ 4orp[orp[]23r[]23pr[ ]ep3oerp[][/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]orla nutting[/bold] wrote: How much is projected to go to consultants and IR35 employees?[/p][/quote]All that money for the council to waste .[/p][/quote]I can see a few consultant s getting some nice new car s. soon and booking a extra Holliday this year ,weekp3i47545ruioip[4orp[orp[]23r[]23pr[]ep3oerp[]
  • Score: 10

7:49am Tue 8 Jul 14

WorcsBornandBred says...

Marant wrote:
brooksider wrote:
Perfman wrote:
I'm looking forward to booksider and stu2010 "Worcester Development Plan for 2012-2020". Let us all know when you've published it and got central Government approval!
Ha Ha!
Too be fair, almost anyone could do better than Worcestershire's effort, as long as they don't use the same fag packet as Pawsey and Geraghty to do their calculations.

Any business owner going to a bank to fund a business plan and coming away with 87% less money than he asked for can be sure there is a problem with his plan and expectations.

The result is Worcestershire taxpayers are let down once again and only get 3,000 more jobs instead of the much heralded 25,000.
That's 3,000 more jobs for an anticipated 60,000 more people, if all the homes are built. Many, many more needed.
Of those 60,000 homes :

Some will be elderly (who won't want a job)
Some will be retired (doubt they'll look for work after they've made the decision to retire)
A lot will be children (illegal to work)
A lot won't work IN the county or will work on the periphery (as most people use Worcester as a base for work in Birmingham, cheltenham, etc)
Some will be in training (preparing for work, might be in the county, might not)
Some won't want to work at all (don't even get me started!)

3000 jobs is better than none! Growth only comes organically, NOT overnight!
[quote][p][bold]Marant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brooksider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: I'm looking forward to booksider and stu2010 "Worcester Development Plan for 2012-2020". Let us all know when you've published it and got central Government approval![/p][/quote]Ha Ha! Too be fair, almost anyone could do better than Worcestershire's effort, as long as they don't use the same fag packet as Pawsey and Geraghty to do their calculations. Any business owner going to a bank to fund a business plan and coming away with 87% less money than he asked for can be sure there is a problem with his plan and expectations. The result is Worcestershire taxpayers are let down once again and only get 3,000 more jobs instead of the much heralded 25,000.[/p][/quote]That's 3,000 more jobs for an anticipated 60,000 more people, if all the homes are built. Many, many more needed.[/p][/quote]Of those 60,000 homes : Some will be elderly (who won't want a job) Some will be retired (doubt they'll look for work after they've made the decision to retire) A lot will be children (illegal to work) A lot won't work IN the county or will work on the periphery (as most people use Worcester as a base for work in Birmingham, cheltenham, etc) Some will be in training (preparing for work, might be in the county, might not) Some won't want to work at all (don't even get me started!) 3000 jobs is better than none! Growth only comes organically, NOT overnight! WorcsBornandBred
  • Score: 2

7:51am Tue 8 Jul 14

WorcsBornandBred says...

WorcsBornandBred wrote:
Marant wrote:
brooksider wrote:
Perfman wrote:
I'm looking forward to booksider and stu2010 "Worcester Development Plan for 2012-2020". Let us all know when you've published it and got central Government approval!
Ha Ha!
Too be fair, almost anyone could do better than Worcestershire's effort, as long as they don't use the same fag packet as Pawsey and Geraghty to do their calculations.

Any business owner going to a bank to fund a business plan and coming away with 87% less money than he asked for can be sure there is a problem with his plan and expectations.

The result is Worcestershire taxpayers are let down once again and only get 3,000 more jobs instead of the much heralded 25,000.
That's 3,000 more jobs for an anticipated 60,000 more people, if all the homes are built. Many, many more needed.
Of those 60,000 homes :

Some will be elderly (who won't want a job)
Some will be retired (doubt they'll look for work after they've made the decision to retire)
A lot will be children (illegal to work)
A lot won't work IN the county or will work on the periphery (as most people use Worcester as a base for work in Birmingham, cheltenham, etc)
Some will be in training (preparing for work, might be in the county, might not)
Some won't want to work at all (don't even get me started!)

3000 jobs is better than none! Growth only comes organically, NOT overnight!
Sorry, people not homes!

We can create all the jobs in the world but if the infrastructure (schools, parking, housing, amenities, etc) isn't right, it's not worth doing!
[quote][p][bold]WorcsBornandBred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marant[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]brooksider[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Perfman[/bold] wrote: I'm looking forward to booksider and stu2010 "Worcester Development Plan for 2012-2020". Let us all know when you've published it and got central Government approval![/p][/quote]Ha Ha! Too be fair, almost anyone could do better than Worcestershire's effort, as long as they don't use the same fag packet as Pawsey and Geraghty to do their calculations. Any business owner going to a bank to fund a business plan and coming away with 87% less money than he asked for can be sure there is a problem with his plan and expectations. The result is Worcestershire taxpayers are let down once again and only get 3,000 more jobs instead of the much heralded 25,000.[/p][/quote]That's 3,000 more jobs for an anticipated 60,000 more people, if all the homes are built. Many, many more needed.[/p][/quote]Of those 60,000 homes : Some will be elderly (who won't want a job) Some will be retired (doubt they'll look for work after they've made the decision to retire) A lot will be children (illegal to work) A lot won't work IN the county or will work on the periphery (as most people use Worcester as a base for work in Birmingham, cheltenham, etc) Some will be in training (preparing for work, might be in the county, might not) Some won't want to work at all (don't even get me started!) 3000 jobs is better than none! Growth only comes organically, NOT overnight![/p][/quote]Sorry, people not homes! We can create all the jobs in the world but if the infrastructure (schools, parking, housing, amenities, etc) isn't right, it's not worth doing! WorcsBornandBred
  • Score: 4
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree