One year on since their launch and a new study from the Centre for Cities suggests there are still some critical question marks hanging over the setting up of Local Enterprise Partnerships, reports Dermott Calpin.

Launched barely a year ago, local economic partnerships (LEPs) were heralded as a  ‘landmark move' that would see local business and civic leaders working together to promote economic growth and create new jobs.

For Business Secretary, Vince Cable the unveiling of plans for the first 24 LEPs as part of the White Paper on Local Growth, showed: ‘real imagination and initiative and a genuine desire to drive local economic growth.' 

While Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles was perhaps even more effusive on their potential, declaring: ‘Our vision is for local enterprise partnerships that will help transform the economic geography of the country by creating a new local dynamism that will encourage local economic growth and protect business with proper local accountability.'

In a joint letter to council and business leaders, they stressed: ‘A clear vision is vital if local economic renewal is to be achieved. The Coalition Government is determined to rebalance the economy towards the private sector. We regard local enterprise partnerships as being central to this vision.'

The initiative was a central part of the then new Government commitment to scrapping the nine Regional Development Agencies in England and setting up series of partnerships between councils and businesses which would be more responsive to local needs and conditions.

A key part of the criticism of RDAs centred on their being too large and remote, based of fairly arbitrary – even artificial - regional boundaries that did not match local patterns of economic and business activity, while in contrast LEPs promised they would see ‘people who know their area best calling the shots' and found widespread support among councils.

The original network of 24 LEPs has been expanded with now 38 approved covering all but seven local authorities and with several partnership areas where councils overlap neighbouring LEP boundaries.

From the beginning the LEPs were seen as part of the coalition Government's larger strategy to promote business and boost economic growth that has been reinforced with the establishment of new enterprise zones, the local government resource review and the setting up of the £500m Growing Places Fund to kick start infrastructure projects.

With the end of March now set as the deadline for closure of the RDAs, it is reasonable to suppose that they new LEPs should be up and running promoting more effective cross boundary working and in position to take on the ‘heavy lifting' of local economic development in their areas.

That at least is the assumption made by the Centre for Cities in a report which marks a fairly critical assessment of progress so far on LEP policy and organisation entitled ‘Cause celebre or cause for concern?' 

The study is confined to the original 24 LEPS announced by the Government  and looks first of all at their progress in setting up and appointing a board of experienced local people when will set put priories and agree ways of working.

Eight of the 24 partnerships still operate with shadow boards waiting for their members to officially recognised by the Government and on average it took the remaining 16 partnerships at least six months to set up their boards properly  - despite the fact that all LEPs submitted original bid documents to the Government.

‘There may be individual reasons for this, but the failure to clear the first hurdle in many cases is indicative of alarmingly slow progress,' conclude the report authors Tom Bolton and Ken Coupar.

When it comes to setting local priorities or strategies, only two LEPs are found to have published full long term strategies, some claim to be at various stages of consultation and others give no public indication at all of what level of development they have reached. 

Some partnerships have appointed large boards and advisory teams. South Eastern LEP has 43 board members, while the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP has 14 associated focus groups with at least 160 people involved raising concerns about burgeoning bureaucracy and process which could stifle progress.

Presented with a rather patchy national picture on organisation and strategies, the Centre for Cities cautions: ‘There is much talk about being ‘open for business' but detail about what lies behind these declarations of intent are often lacking.

Given that LEPs are designed to be the ‘go-to' organisations for information on local skills, investment and growth strategies, the researchers express dismay at the highly variable level and details of public information that is available.

Five of the original 24 LEPS still have no dedicated website and Bolton and Coupar say: ‘This lack of basic progress does not bode well for their dynamism or likely effectiveness.'

Though they acknowledge that many partnerships may have been distracted from the day to day business of setting up their organisations by submitting bids to establish local enterprise zones, they also warn that those LEPs left without enterprise zones could become second-tier organisations with less ability to promote business and growth.

This concern is echoed by the report's observations on boundaries and what it finds is a serious mismatch with real local economic areas – South Eastern LEP has 16 different travel to work areas suggesting it may be too large, while there are six LEPs in the Birmingham area where local politics may have prevented setting up a ‘more optimum scale' partnership.

The report concludes that further Government action is needed to give LEPs the tools they need to meet their mandate and it suggests: ‘Government should consider devolving further resources, powers and freedom to capable LEPs operating at the right scale for example on transport and skills.'

It also suggests that the Government needs to ‘get to grips with underperforming LEPs before it is too late' and should consider redrawing the LEP map ‘before further funding is allocated.'

For councils too it has a fairly firm message and concludes: ‘Local authorities also have an important role to play in overcoming local politics and working in partnership for the benefit of the wider area.'