Greater Manchester Combined Authority Community Renewal Fund Programme

Through the Community Renewal Fund (CRF), government identified the four districts of Bolton, Manchester, Oldham, and Rochdale in the top 100 priority places across the country. In total, Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) received 76 applications worth £47 million. After appraising the projects, 27 projects worth a total of £17 million were submitted. From the 27 projects, eight were successful with a total value of £4.3 million.

Seven of the eight projects selected related to investment in skills and supporting people into employment, although a range of projects across all CRF Investment Priorities including investment in communities and place, and investment for local business were also submitted. The Combined Authority made a conscious decision not to submit any of their own applications to allow them to concentrate on developing a robust shortlist to government and working with bidders without any perceived conflict of interest.

GMCA began the process with a call for projects and had an ambition through the process to fund a balance of projects which fit local need. The CRF fund was also seen by bidders as a route to piloting projects which over time could support the levelling up agenda. A number of feasibility study projects came forward from bidders, partly due to the pilot nature of the CRF and partly due to the lack of alternative funding options for these projects. However, while these projects were shortlisted by GMCA, they were not funded in the final appraisal process completed by government. GMCA continues to seek funding and investment options for these feasibility studies to address some of the long-standing issues faced by the region. 

The combined authority held two on-line engagement sessions for potential bidders, outlining the CRF priorities, process and timescales as well as outlining Greater Manchester priorities for this funding.  As a result of government time constraints, GMCA were unable to provide any one-to-one support for applicants. The combined authority followed government guidance closely and asked bidders to address several local priorities and encouraged their projects to reflect these priorities in the appraisal stage. To further assist bidders, an FAQ system was set up through The Chest - an online procurement portal that GMCA used to run the application stage.

After appraising the projects that were submitted to the GMCA, they compiled a shortlist which they submitted to government. The final shortlist of projects included those which the combined authority believed met the government criteria most closely. GMCA was unable to work with applicants to further develop or aggregate strong projects. The very short timescales set by Government to develop the call, local appraisal and submission of the shortlist meant that GMCA was unable to take a more strategic approach to address specific priorities at a local level by working with applicants in order to maximise the place-based outcomes coming forward.

Lessons learned from the process

As a combined authority, GMCA was well placed to manage the overall process. Pre-existing relationships with local councils as well as the private and voluntary sector delivered a healthy pipeline of applications and a successful portfolio of eight projects. The experience of delivering many different programmes and funding schemes ensured a robust and smooth process. This allowed GMCA to get ahead of emerging challenges and be proactive in what needed to happen next, for example with securing delegated authority for signing grant funding agreements.

GMCA found a mix of new applicants as well as applicants with prior experience of delivering similar projects locally had come forward to present projects. There were also applications from national organisations, which were less successful, as they did not reflect local priorities and need. The applications for feasibility projects which were rejected by government reduced the ability to drive forward innovation for the fund. GMCA remains optimistic that future funding such as the UKSPF will allow this.

In relation to the overall portfolio of projects, only one successful project, ‘One Manchester’, lends focus towards people and communities in relation to net zero and the green economy. The other seven projects that were awarded centre around supporting people into employment, skills, and local business start-up. This is a consideration for future investment opportunities, as a number of strategic projects and feasibility studies that did not receive funding could help to seed or deliver long term outcomes for Greater Manchester.

Overall, CRF projects under GMCA have done well with getting into delivery so far. The waiting period between the announcement of successful projects and receiving the grant funding agreements was an initial challenge for GMCA, as they had to encourage projects to get up and running but were unable to clarify the potential risks associated with the grant as the funding agreements had not yet been received. This also made it difficult for the project partners to begin coordinating supply chains as they were unsure of the grant funding agreement. When the grant funding agreement was received, there was some ambiguity around the monitoring of projects by Government, however the GMCA set up a monitoring process that avoided placing too much risk on the providers while also meeting the needs and accepting the challenges around timescales.

Lessons learned from the process

Timescales impacted some of the projects, for example, the delay caused one project in the education sector to become out of sync with timetabling, a horticulture project was impacted by having to deliver in a different season to what they had initially planned, and an employment project had to deliver in a different economic climate that originally expected as the impact of COVID-19 had changed. Nonetheless, these projects rose to these challenges by reassessing their delivery models and got into action by looking ahead at their targets of delivery.

The monitoring process has been an issue for GMCA and partners as there was uncertainty with the interpretation of definitions and how data is to be collected and reported for ‘Annex A’. They have therefore felt clearer definitions and more dialogue on the expectations of monitoring would be useful in the future.

Some projects were working with different combined authorities and those combined authorities were working differently, which caused an issue regarding consistency. However, in terms of monitoring, the GMCA has 4 projects that deliver specifically within the Manchester area, so the GMCA has hosted group sessions for those projects to link together and encourage shared working and learning. These sessions involved members of policy staff within the council to help with delivery and was well received. In addition to this, the CRF process has been helpful with involving local authorities in the projects as there has been greater coordination throughout.

• Technical assistance and correspondence with prospective bidders were considered important aspects of developing a strong portfolio of applications, and Greater Manchester offered this to applicants, for example through a FAQ on their website.
  
   
• Technical assistance from the government, such as feedback to unsuccessful applicants, was not provided but it is certainly considered important going forward, particularly to ensure robust project delivery and compliance with the funds’ terms and conditions.
  
   
• With more time and capacity built into the bidding process, Greater Manchester Combined Authority would aim to be more strategic regarding the projects that were submitted and work more closely with them.
  
   
• Several bids submitted for CRF aligned with Levelling Up bids, and the deadline for both overlapped, which was a challenge.
  
   
• While no partners have secured matched funding, they have had a lot of questions regarding the UKSPF as many are enthusiastic to continue their projects, and some are taking a proactive measure to look at other available funding streams.
  
   
• Partners are interested in delivering projects that are specific to a location within an area to achieve greater impact, rather than producing widespread projects.
  
   
• The GMCA believed it would be effective to contribute more to the CRF decision making process and selection of projects because of their awareness in local issues and needs.