government and we will continue to work with them and our partners across the town to make this vision a reality.”


And Hyndburn MP Sara Britcliffe added: “The successful Levelling Up Fund and UK Shared Prosperity Fund bids are a fantastic example of what happens when we work together.”


While most of Lancashire was celebrating, the mood in other parts of the North West was less upbeat. Yasmin Qureshi, Labour MP for Bolton South East, called on Mr Gove to visit the town and explain the thinking behind the decision to reject its bids for £40m of levelling up cash.


She pointed out that while Bolton had not made the list of successful projects, Mr


Sunak’s constituency in North Yorkshire is getting £19m from the fund.


She said: “Bolton South East is the 38th most deprived constituency. Richmond, however, is much wealthier and as such is the 450th most deprived.


“Despite this, the PM’s constituency gets £19m in levelling up funding, and Bolton gets nothing. How does this make sense?


“How can our town, the 19th most deprived borough, be ignored in favour of wealthier areas, by a fund designed to address regional inequalities?”


Eden on the horizon: page 9 LEVELLING UP’S WINNERS AND LOSERS COUNTY HALL


Lancashire County Council secured almost £50m to develop a range of complementary public transport, walking and cycling projects that will significantly improve travel opportunities for people across east Lancashire, making them safer and greener. It considered 600 potential transport schemes around the county before selecting projects in Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle and Rossendale.


BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN


Blackburn with Darwen prepared two submissions to government. One supporting its town centre masterplan – with phase one focused on establishing a new Business Innovation District with a £60m development - was unsuccessful.


The second submission successfully secured funding to deliver a £30m package of new transport infrastructure improvements at J5 of the M65, integrated with new walking and cycling routes to support growth opportunities in south Blackburn.


BLACKPOOL


The resort’s bid covered a range of projects. They included the ‘Multiversity’, which is a £65m scheme for a new world class ‘university experience’ in the town centre.


A £26m scheme for the refurbishment of the old Abingdon Street post office into a new four-star hotel and a £17.1m project to transform the town centre’s transport network were unsuccessful.


CHORLEY


Chorley submitted a scheme totalling £45m that would transform three town centre sites creating a civic square, community health hub and town centre living. It did not receive any cash.


FYLDE


A £13m bid to kickstart the delivery of the St Anne’s town centre masterplan by transforming public realm and connectivity


from the station gateway to the promenade, integrating the town centre and seafront and providing a “linked, high- quality experience for residents and visitors alike” was unsuccessful.


LANCASTER


It’s high-profile application for £50m of public investment in the county’s flagship Eden Project Morecambe was successful.


HYNDBURN


The successful Hyndburn £23m bid focused on the redevelopment of Accrington Market Hall, Burtons Chambers and Market Chambers all of which face onto the new town square.


PRESTON


The £20m it will receive will fund projects that include a new bridge for cyclists and pedestrians over the Ribble to replace the Old Tram Bridge, and investment in its parks.


ROSSENDALE


Its bid for £17m was not successful. The cash would have been used to streamline the gyratory system in Rawtenstall, reconfigure Rawtenstall market, redevelop the site of the existing Bacup market and create a new centre for skills provision in Rawtenstall working with Nelson and Colne College.


SOUTH RIBBLE


South Ribble submitted proposals across two sites to create new-look public spaces in Penwortham and a major new sporting complex at Vernon Carus. They did not make the list of approved projects.


WEST LANCASHIRE


The West Lancashire bid looked to build a new, “visually impactful, energy efficient and centrally located” Leisure and Wellbeing Hub for the people of Skelmersdale and the wider borough. It was unsuccessful.


LANCASHIREBUSINESSVIEW.CO.UK


To discuss how brand power can help you achieve your vision, email hello@studiolwd.co.uk, call 01253 892031 or visit www.studiolwd.co.uk


Laura Weldon Creative director


@studioLWD studiolwd


DOES YOUR BRAND NAME BOUNCE?


Hyundai, Skoda, and Vimto (sorry, Vimpto) have all run ad campaigns recently about the pronunciation of their long-standing brand names. You might think these pedantic or whimsical, but business can genuinely be lost if your brand name doesn’t “bounce” properly.


This can actually be extra significant for B2B businesses, because bounce-ability is especially important for those who win work through referral or recommendation.


It’s possible to spend hours in branding workshops ensuring a new brand represents what the company is about and that it really sums up the company’s values. It looks impressive on paper, with an eye-catching logo. But is it fun to say? Is it easy to remember? Is it obvious how to pronounce it (quick hint: if your name has a mathematical symbol in it, it probably doesn’t bounce)?


But most importantly, and most oft-overlooked: does it bounce off the tongue in sentences where it is likely to be used?


This is not a simple as it sounds. It’s understandable that saying, “You really need to speak to Bogle Bartle Hegarty & Stamp” is a bit of a mouthful. But is “You really need to speak to BBH&S” actually much easier in reality?


Of course, your brand name still needs to evoke your products services and epitomise your company values. However, if it then doesn’t bounce inside people’s heads, and then easily out of their mouths, what’s the point?


It takes some real thought, and sometimes some bravery, to adopt a more bouncy brand name. But if your brand name doesn’t bounce brilliantly, it could be losing you business.


7


IN VIEW


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80