Prospect Leicestershire faces closure as funding is cut
An organisation aimed at creating jobs in the city and county is set to close after having its funding axed.
Mayor of Leicester Sir Peter Soulsby yesterday announced he was to cut the city council's £175,000 contribution to Prospect Leicestershire.
David Parsons, leader of the county council – which contributes a similar amount of funding to Prospect – said last night it was also likely it too would withdraw the cash.
This will lead to the winding up of Prospect, which employs seven staff and is based at Colton Square, in the city centre.
The move comes after both councils supported the setting up of the new Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership, which is aimed at overseeing economic growth in the city and county.
Sir Peter said: "We have some excellent resources and expertise in Leicester, and I am confident that we can drive the regeneration of Leicester forward, at the same time creating jobs and, I hope, prosperity for the people of Leicester."
A county council spokesman said: "The city council's decision will mean that Prospect is no longer viable, so the county council will now consider how to deliver the services previously provided by them within the county area."
Prospect, which is entirely funded by the public, was set up in 2009 after an agreement between the two councils.
It had a budget of £1.5 million in 2009/10, but last year lost a major chunk of that following Government spending cuts.
Prospect chairman Nick Carter said: "We understand the financial pressures the city council is under. We are grateful for their past support and that of the county council."
7 Comments
by Graham_LE8
Friday, June 10 2011, 8:09PM
“@Cford9; wouldn't disagree with you on that at all...”
by cford9
Friday, June 10 2011, 2:36PM
“@Graham - but when your company needs increased sales to survive, you don't start by culling the sales team. Instead you start by cutting 'nice to have' services' and mothballing those which you may want to resume when times are better.”
by Graham_LE8
Friday, June 10 2011, 1:41PM
“@ cford9; I think the unwritten but operative words here are "costcutting by both councils"...”
by cford9
Friday, June 10 2011, 1:26PM
“@Kulgan - the operative word there is 'overseeing' rather than 'doing'.”
by Kulgan_Crydee
Friday, June 10 2011, 1:20PM
“@Cford9, I think you missed this sentence when you say "So do the City & County Councils intend not to promote the area for inward investment?"...................."The move comes after both councils supported the setting up of the new Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership, which is aimed at overseeing economic growth in the city and county."”
by ClaireW2010
Friday, June 10 2011, 1:18PM
“[crosses_fingers] Not to worry cford9, I'm sure that both councils consider that the fame of Walker's crisps and a one time footballer is enough to provide enough proof for new business investors from the rest of the UK, nay the entire world, of all the benefits that relocating their businesses to this region can bring them. Thus as a tax payer with unstoppable faith that this is not a knee jerk decision I am absolutely sure they will have done a thorough scoping exercise of the financial implications of not only setting up Prospect Leicestershire but also the contractual costs of winding it down too. [/crosses_fingers]”
by cford9
Friday, June 10 2011, 12:38PM
“So do the City and County Councils intend not to promote the area for inward investment? -fx: gunshot to head- If not, the current staff will enjoy protection under TUPE law and their costs will then have to be paid by .... the councils. What are the costs of closure and what will be the net saving? Remind me, is this the same company lauded by the OECD in Paris recently as an exemplar of good practice in economic development? Just asking.”