51²è¹Ý

Background to the research 

In April 2023, Steer Economic Development was commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to undertake evaluation scoping activity on behalf of two funds aimed at supporting local economies: the Local Growth Fund (LGF) and the Getting Building Fund (GBF). Two evaluation scoping outputs were produced: an initial scoping study (you can read the Local Growth Fund and Getting Building Fund: initial evaluation feasibility assessment on the 51²è¹Ý website), and a final scoping study. In addition, a process evaluation of the funds was also conducted. 

In January 2025, building on this previous work, MHCLG commissioned Steer Economic Development to undertake 3 light-touch area-based case studies. The purpose of the case studies was to explore design and delivery of LGF and GBF portfolios in three areas, with a particular focus on the role of the ‘single pot’ (a notable feature of LGF and GBF design), and an emphasis on understanding barriers and enablers to achieving impact. The case studies were prepared rapidly, so as to contribute to the evidence-base collected for the 2025 Spending Review. They addressed the following five high-level evaluation questions (more specific questions were also included, but are not included here for brevity) 

1. What measurable outputs, outcomes and impacts occurred as a result of LGF/GBF in each case study Local Enterprise Partnership? 

2. To what extent did the scheme result in synergistic impacts – i.e. greater impacts than could have been produced by individual project investments in isolation? 

3. What relationships /partnerships were formed as part of LGF/GBF delivery, and how? 

4. What innovative funding mechanisms were used by case study LEPs, and what were the barriers and enabling factors to use of these mechanisms? 

5. What lessons can be learnt about the impact of LGF/GBF and its implementation by the case study Local Enterprise Partnerships? 

Three areas were selected to be the focus of the case studies: (1) West Yorkshire; (2) Cheshire and Warrington; and (3) Greater Cambridge & Greater Peterborough. These areas were selected due to their capacity to support the work within the timescales available, and also to provide a balance across a range of geographies and LGF/GBF investment types.  

This document is the case studies final report, summarising all work conducted for this commission. It contains one chapter for each of the three case study areas, detailing notable projects, portfolio design, and project delivery. Supporting theories of change are provided in an accompanying annex. This executive summary brings together key findings and overarching learnings from across the three case studies. 

The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative analysis of monitoring data, desk review, and qualitative insights gleaned via primary fieldwork. The methodology included: 

• monitoring data analysis: analysis of output data submitted to MHCLG by each of the 3 case study areas 

• document review: analysis of strategic economic plans, growth deal submissions, and local evaluation reports (where available)  

• interviews: a total of 23 interviews were conducted with key stakeholders, such as LEP delivery staff, project beneficiaries, and local authority representatives 

Key findings 

Strategic priorities and project selection approaches reflected regional maturity and evolving local contexts 

While all 3 regions aimed to stimulate growth and job creation, their strategies for project selection diverged based on local conditions and institutional maturity. Leeds City Region, a large and diverse urban area, balanced clearly defined strategic priorities with responsiveness to local needs and pragmatic considerations, resulting in a well-rounded yet focused portfolio. While the area has a large economy and innovative firms in growth sectors, its Gross Value Added (GVA) per head has been below national average for some time, and there was a clear focus on renewal and regeneration of urban areas following previous industrial decline. 

Cambridgeshire & Peterborough pursued a clear strategy, led by its Business Board, targeting GVA growth and high-quality employment. It sought to build on the region’s existing key sectoral strengths (such as biomedical tech and advanced manufacturing) while also addressing patches of poor skills and training provision within the region.  

Finally, Cheshire & Warrington spans both urban and rural areas, with a thriving rural sector home to a wide range of businesses. While it has the second highest GVA per capita in England outside of London, it has faced challenges around transport, housing, and skills. The LEP’s early approach was shaped by the short timeframe for initial LGF bids and the LEP’s early stage of development, which meant the project pipeline was still emerging. As a result, the LEP initially adopted a more reactive, opportunity-led approach. However, following the first funding round, this evolved into a more strategic, place-based model increasingly aligned with sub-regional growth priorities.  

Synergies emerged differently depending on timing, planning, and place-based focus 

The emergence of project synergies was more immediate in Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and Leeds City Region, where place-based strategies and aligned priorities allowed natural integration across projects. In Cambridgeshire & Peterborough, stakeholders noted that synergy often occurred organically as projects with shared goals converged. Leeds City Region also benefitted from spatial targeting, enabling projects to reinforce one another and SEP objectives. While Cheshire & Warrington initially faced challenges generating synergies due to an underdeveloped pipeline, a shift towards a place-based approach led to greater project alignment and stronger outcomes over time. As in Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and Leeds City Region, this evolution enabled synergies to emerge both organically and through more deliberate spatial targeting. 

Partnership development was a common strength but took varying forms  

All three regions leveraged partnerships to deliver LGF and GBF outcomes, though the nature of these collaborations varied. Cambridgeshire & Peterborough actively encouraged partnership formation as part of its process for selecting projects to fund. Leeds City Region built on mature local authority relationships and broadened its partnership base through successive funding rounds. Cheshire & Warrington’s most notable transformation came in the education sector, where LGF and GBF investments succeeded in creating a regionally driven skills partnership, which grew from what had previously been a tense and competitive environment between local education providers. 

Flexible funding tools were used creatively, though starting points and challenges differed 

Regions adapted their funding models to local opportunities and constraints. Cambridgeshire & Peterborough made extensive use of innovative instruments, such as special purpose vehicles and joint ventures, providing strategic flexibility. Leeds City Region focused on using LGF as a confidence signal, leveraging it to attract co-investment and align public-private efforts, especially in infrastructure and risk reduction.  Similarly, Cheshire & Warrington used LGF to prime infrastructure projects and unlock private investment. They also effectively addressed a key design limitation of LGF – the lack of revenue funding – by recycling funds from sources such as Enterprise Zones and the Growing Places Fund to support business case development and support pipeline building.  

The single pot approach enabled strategic integration but delivered differently across contexts 

The single pot approach supported more strategic and synergistic portfolios across the three regions, though stakeholder perceptions of its effectiveness varied. In Cambridgeshire & Peterborough, the approach enabled bold and potentially risky investments which could not have been achieved under traditional departmental funding silos. Cheshire & Warrington used the single pot to support a regionally aligned investment model, fostering new partnerships and delivery models. Crucially, they directed funding  toward enabling infrastructure and supply chain skills development - investments that provided practical foundations for local economic growth. Leeds City Region benefitted from the relative flexibility of LGF and GBF, which allowed broader funding packages and local priority-setting than other similar funding sources. However, Leeds City Region stakeholders also noted some of the limitations of the single pot, such as it being capital-only funding, inflexible timeframes, and a restricted ability to adapt or reprofile projects. 

Learnings from the case studies 

The case studies demonstrate that devolved, flexible funding, particularly through a single pot mechanism, can enable more strategic, holistic, and locally tailored investment. When local leaders are empowered to direct funding across policy areas based on a well-evidenced and widely consulted economic plan, outcomes are stronger and more aligned with local priorities. A place-based approach, underpinned by joined-up strategic planning and strong partnerships, enhanced the effectiveness of interventions, while the flexibility of funding design encouraged innovation. The predictable, long-term nature of the funding built local capacity, enabled faster and more confident delivery, and attracted private investment. However, despite these strengths, single pot mechanisms still faced constraints, such as capital-only restrictions, and limited adaptability once projects were underway, that limited their full potential. 

Effective delivery was consistently linked to strong governance structures, collaborative working models, and a focus on building strategic partnerships. LEPs played a crucial coordinating role, enabling engagement with beneficiaries, fostering alignment across sectors, and supporting smooth project delivery. Areas with weaker pipelines struggled with the limitations of short-term bidding processes and insufficient revenue funding. A shared lesson across all case studies was the importance of designing funding processes that encourage collaboration and strategic alignment, with a clear focus on sustainable, long-term growth outcomes.