Summary of RGF first round bids
Applications by Amount Requested
Amount Requested | No. Bids | Percentage of Bids |
| <£1m |
19 |
4% |
| £1-5m |
299 |
64% |
| £5-10m |
80 |
17% |
| £10-15m |
24 |
5% |
| £15-20m |
13 |
3% |
| £20-25m |
11 |
2% |
| >£25m |
18 |
4% |
| Total bids |
464 |
|
| Total value |
£2.78bn |
Applications by Area
| Region | No. Bids | % of Bids |
| North West |
89 |
19% |
| West Midlands |
72 |
16% |
| North East |
69.5 |
15% |
| East Midlands |
62 |
13% |
| Yorkshire & The Humber |
56.5 |
12% |
| South West |
39 |
8% |
| South East |
33.4 |
7% |
| East of England |
23.6 |
5% |
| London |
19 |
4% |
The figures relate to the location where RGF funds will be received, rather than the area over which a project will have an impact.
A single project may cover multiple areas resulting in fractions of bids having been recorded in these results.
Applications - Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Area
| Local Enterprise Partnership | Number of Bids |
| North Eastern |
42 |
| Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, Derby, Derbyshire |
38 |
| Liverpool City Region |
32 |
| Leeds City Region |
30 |
| Tees Valley |
27 |
| Greater Manchester |
24 |
Birmingham and Solihull with East Staffordshire, Lichfield and Tamworth |
21 |
| Sheffield City Region |
21 |
| Kent-Essex |
17 |
| Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire |
15 |
| South East Midlands |
14 |
| Coventry and Warwickshire |
12 |
| Cheshire and Warrington |
11 |
| The Black Country |
10 |
| Leicester and Leicestershire |
9 |
The Marches Enterprise Partnership - Shropshire and Herefordshire |
8 |
| West of England |
8 |
| Worcestershire |
8 |
| Cumbria |
7 |
| New Anglia |
7 |
| Solent |
7 |
Brighton and Hove, Croydon, the Gatwick Diamond and West Sussex - Coast to Capital |
6 |
| Empowering Enterprise - Cornwall and the Isle of Scilly |
6 |
| Greater Cambridge & Greater Peterborough |
6 |
| Lincolnshire |
5 |
| Hertfordshire |
2 |
| Oxfordshire City Region |
2 |
| Thames Valley Berkshire |
2 |
| Not in a LEP |
76 |
The table summarises the locations of bids by the LEP using the location of the project rather than the area over which the project is said to impact.
The results do not indicate the number of projects endorsed by a LEP. Further, because LEPs can overlap in an area, the same project may have been counted in multiple partnerships.