Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 8 November were correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

1.               The Chairman welcomed the Chief Executive Officer, Business Support Kent, Community Interest Company (BSK-CiC), Ms Ollis and Mr Ivanov (High Growth Coach in BSK) to the meeting and invited them to give their presentation.  Ms Ollis and Mr Ivanov welcomed the opportunity to speak to the Cabinet Committee.

2.               Ms Ollis and Mr Ivanov gave a comprehensive presentation using overheads  and highlighted the following points:-

• As a community interest company it was a non profit business based in Kent.  Its sole purpose was to help Kent companies grow and any profits that were made had to be reinvested back into the business community.
• BSK help Kent businesses to grow through offering opportunities for networking and deploying a team of trusted advisors.
• The majority of BSK’s services were free of charge as they had secured European and other public funding.
• BSK looked to work with ambitious Kent companies with something unique to offer the market place such as offering new products and ideas into the market place that could grow particularly in Europe and the global market place. The High Growth coaches were all specialists in one or more areas.
• Only 20% of the business in the UK had real substantive ambitions to grow.  In Kent 55,000 businesses were operating in the community, approximately 6% of those business had the potential to grow, equalling 3,000, and of that 3,000 approximately 20% had real substantive ambition to upscale their business.
• There were a number of factors which impinged on why businesses did not have the ambition to grow including the economic situation  Ms Ollis stated that there needed to be a culture of where “success breeds success”.  Having networks and creating events for businesses to meet and talk to one another was important.
• A key barrier to growth was accessing finance with a quarter of businesses citing this reason.
• Over the last three years High Growth Kent had generated a network of nearly 500 Kent companies, providing individual coaching support for over half of those companies and in that process creating 400 new jobs for the Kent business community and raising £40 million of investment to those businesses. BSK had also supported a small number of Kent businesses into the European market.
• Ms Ollis stressed the importance of a Coach saying that research showed that a number of businesses sought advice from a colleague or friend, accountants or lawyers but a third who looked for that advice did not do anything with it.  A Coach would help solve a particular problem that the business had at that point in time and as part of that process would improve the ability of that owner to take control, to be confident to be able to manage risk better and go forward to manage their business better.
• High Growth Kent was only working with 9% of Kent companies with growth potential.  Referring to national data, Ms Ollis advised that Kent was below average in terms of companies with growth.  Ms Ollis  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

(Report by Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Economic Development, Mr Cockburn, Corporate Director Business Strategy & Support)

(Mr K Harrison, Chief Executive, Actions for Communities in Rural Kent was present for this item)

1.               The Chairman welcomed the Chief Executive of Action for Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK) Mr K Harrison, to the meeting and invited him to give his presentation.

2.               Mr Harrison welcomed the opportunity of speaking to the Cabinet Committee.  He gave his presentation using overheads and raised the following points:-

• Action for Communities in Rural Kent (ACRK) was a charitable organisation with 17 staff and 50 volunteers [2012 - ACRK had 22 staff 22 associates and 100 volunteers].
• ACRK’s role was to influence and give information so that the County Council  can make decisions and form policies.
• The work of ACRK covered approximately 600 projects per year.
• ARCK’s main clients were Parish Councils, community organisations, small business, Social Enterprises, informal community bodies and sometimes combinations of those five bodies.
• ACRK would need to review its level of activity if the investment it received remained the same.
• ACRK was working with KCC officers in new external investments coming into the Kent to help deliver for rural communities.
• Work had been undertaken to quantify the economic impact of ACRK’s work [ACRK’s two agreements with KCC was listed in the Economic Development draft Business Plan in the latter part of the agenda].
• ACRK had two “rural proofing” contracts with the Government.  This was where the Government had given private sector companies the opportunity to deliver a rural quota or they would be fined and ACRK gave the company that rural reach.  Mr Harrison considered that that may be something that was replicable in Kent.
• Over the past five years ACRK had underpinned £420 million of activity in Kent’s economy.  More work would be carried out to evidence this later in the year.
• ACRK’s running costs for 2007-12 were £3.6 million of which KCC invested 11%.  This represented a return on KCC’s investment of £1:£1,050.  Mr Harrison advised that the average investment per council was 26%.  He calculated that for every £1 of KCC’s investment ACRK attracted £1050 worth of spend in Kent every year.  He was unable to say how much of that figure would have been spent without ACRK.
• ACRK was involved in a local needs housing scheme in Gunston Park to develop 80 housing units.  ACRK had a database of all the housing schemes that it had worked on and explained that at present there were 2.5 million unbuilt local needs houses in Kent due to either problems in finding sites.  Work was being undertaken with the districts and Housing Associations which was underpinned by the Housing protocol which KCC had a key role in producing.  He then spoke on the work of the ACRE in the network of village halls across the country keeping them safe and legal.
• ACRK was currently running eight European funded projects all bar one were run with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

(Report by Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Economic Development, Mr Cockburn, Corporate Director Business Strategy & Support)

(Ms J Hansen, Finance Business Partner, Business Strategy and Support was present for this item)

1.               The Chairman invited Ms Hansen to introduce the report.  Mrs Hansen highlighted the following points:

• The revenue budget was on target to deliver a balanced outturn.
• There were no major variances
• There was a minor variance due to the empty properties initiative where the County Council received extra income which had to be paid directly to the Districts.
• There was rephasing on the Capital budget into following years due to the Regional Growth Fund rephasing which was based on “estimates” on applications for the Expansion East Kent programme, the Broadband project due to the procurement timetable and Live Margate which was rephasing beyond the current MTP period into 2012/15.

RESOLVED that the revenue and capital forecast variances from the budget for 2012/13 based on the second quarter’s full monitoring to Cabinet be noted.

(Report by Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Economic Development, Mr Cockburn, Corporate Director Business Strategy & Support)

(Ms J Hansen, Finance Business Partner, Business Strategy and Support and Mr D Shipton, Head of Financial Strategy, was present for this item)

1.               The Chairman invited the Head of Financial Strategy, Mr Shipton, to introduce the report.  Mr Shipton advised the following:

• The timing of this Cabinet Committee and some others was difficult as the settlement was advised just before Christmas and the final draft budget was planned to be launched on Tuesday, 15 January when the Cabinet papers would be published. As a result there was an offer for those Cabinet Committees that meet before the launch to convene a Budget IMG to discuss their draft budgets before the budget was discussed at County Council on 14 February.
• The provisional settlement from the Government was considered the most complicated settlement that the County Council had received from the Government.  This was due to the introduction of a new funding arrangement with localising the business rates and transferring a number of existing grants into the new business rate model which made the comparison of this year and next year complicated.
• The headline for KCC was overall the settlement was £16 million worse than was forecast as the time of the launch of the budget consultation in September 2012.  The issues did not affect this Cabinet Committee’s portfolio as they were about the changes to the arrangements on the early intervention of grant and the funding for local authority central functions in relation to Education where there were significant reductions that were not anticipated.
• On a more positive note there had been an announcement in the Autumn 2012 from the government that there would be an additional grant to support freezing Council tax 2013/14. This was more than had been forecast at the time of the budget consultation.
• In terms of the overall provisional budget, at the time of the launch of the budget consultation it was estimated that there would be £32 million additional spending pressures, some of those pressures had also increased since the launch of the budget consultation and it was anticipated that the County Council would have in excess of £40 million additional spending pressures to fund next year as well as those funding reductions which meant that the overall position was the need to make £83 to £84 million savings in the proposed budget compared to the £60 million estimated at the time of the launch of the budget consultation. This was all still subject to change before the final draft.

2.               The Chairman asked Members whether they wished to have another Budget IMG meeting.  A Member suggested that it would depend on how the final draft budget figures affected the budget of the Regeneration and Economic Development portfolio’s budget.

3.               Ms Cooper advised that she understood that there were no further pressures on the Regeneration and Economic Development £3.9 million budget as 30% savings had already  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

(Report by Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Economic Development, Mr Cockburn, Corporate Director Business Strategy & Support)

1.               The Chairman invited the Director of Economic Development, Ms Cooper, to introduce the report.  Ms Cooper gave a summary of the events since the Cabinet Committee received the presentation from Mrs Charlotte Hastings from Seven Hills at its meeting held on 21 November, which included the following:

• The launch of “Grow for it” held on 28 November at Dover Cruise Terminal was considered successful with many business people in attendance.
• Many of those businesses pledged their support to the campaign by offering their stories as successful businesses in East Kent and/or using their space to advertise the campaign.  Work was currently being undertaken to follow up those pledges.
• Advertisements had been displayed in London on bus sides and in the underground from 28 November to 13 December 2012. Feedback as to the impact was awaited on the advertising campaign.
• The website had also been launched.

The plans for the next quarter were as follows:

• There would be sector debates, which included a digital and creative debate on 21 February 2013 called “Wanted Digital Pioneers -Innovations for the 21^st Century” to coincide with Games Expo East Kent “GEEK” in Margate.  Work was currently being undertaken on the programme and the speakers.
• Plans were underway to hold a Tourism Conference on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 at Dover Cruise Terminal.  The programme would reflect what had been achieved in tourism in the past 10 years with Visit Kent and the challenges and opportunities for the future.  This would include looking at new markets and  how to adapt to those markets.
• Further developments were to be made to the website to include a “tool kit” for businesses.
• Another bus tour was being planned which may be in conjunction with the tourism conference.
• Seven Hills was meeting with the Economic Development Officers from each of the Districts.  A meeting was due to be held on 11 January 2013.
• Ways of measuring the advertising campaign was currently taking place.

2.               Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:-

a)    A Member considered that it was difficult to gauge the mood of business but there was evidence of positivity within the stock market and advertising. It was suggested that KCC needed to capture this as there could be benefits for Kent.  Ms Cooper concurred saying that at the last meeting of the Business Advisory Board, business representatives said that they could see some real indicators of growth particularly in marketing and support services.  Ms Cooper suggested that in economic development terms KCC had been working to help businesses cope with the recession, this was the time for KCC to start to capitalise on growth.

b)    In reply to a question, Ms Cooper advised that it was anticipated that the marketing programme would run for three years subject to results.  The aim of this programme was to access markets through  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

(Report by Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Economic Development, Mr Cockburn, Corporate Director Business Strategy & Support)

1.               The Chairman invited the Director of Economic Development, Ms Cooper to introduce the report.  Ms Cooper advised that the Key Performance Indicators would be refined and a report would be submitted to the next meeting of this Cabinet Committee.

2.               Members raised the following points:

a)    In reply to a comment, Ms Cooper considered that the draft plan was as focused as it could be and there needed to be an assurance that the resources were in place to meet the plans. 

b)    A comment was the Director of Economic Development needed to have flexibility and the ability to be able to react and make changes when necessary and keep Members informed.  Ms Cooper concurred saying that there had already been of areas that the Team had to withdraw from as the total focus was on job creation.

c)     A comment was made that there appeared to be no structure around the skills base, apprenticeships etc within the county and Members would welcome guidance on what new skills were required for the new jobs generated in Kent.

d)    A request was made for the formula and trend indicators used to produce the number of jobs within the Business Plan.

e)    It was suggested that the links made on priorities with other portfolios should be strengthened.  Ms Cooper gave examples of joint working that included the Culture and Sport Unit on the Capital Culture Bid, through environment and enterprise joint work was carried out on road transport links and with Education Learning and Skills on apprenticeships.  Ms Cooper agreed to strengthen this in the Business Plan.

3.               RESOLVED that:-

a)         the responses to comments and questions by Members be noted;

b)         the Directorate Risk Register set out in Appendix A in the report be noted; and

c)          the draft performance indicators in Section F of the draft business plans in Appendix B be noted.

(Report by Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Economic Development, Mr Cockburn, Corporate Director Business Strategy & Support)

(Mr P Wookey, Chief Executive, Locate in Kent and Mr D Hughes, Head of Business Engagement and Economic Development were present for this item)

1.               The Chairman invited Mr Wookey and Mr Hughes to introduce the report.  The points raised included:-

·       There had been evidence of new opportunities emerging in key overseas markets and the report puts forward proposals to seize those opportunities to put Kent in the forefront of investors’ minds when considering a UK or European location.

·       Kent was in a unique advantageous position in some of those key markets.  The UK was seen as a safe haven in terms of the European market for a place to invest. 

·       Locate in Kent was already talking to a number of USA companies, and companies located in northern Europe that were looking at coming to the UK which gave Kent some unique opportunities.   Kent Science Park and Discovery Park and others were unique assets.

·       Kent also had an advantage through Expansion East Kent and TIGER to offer support to those companies which was important when talking to UK Trade and Investment who had offices all over the world.  They would sell the UK first not Kent.  Kent had lost its overseas representation with the demise of SEEDA so Kent was now under represented in key overseas markets.

·       Unless Kent was in those key markets selling what it had to offer it would not see a return in foreign investment.  Locate in Kent was targeted by KCC to attract 28% of its project success from foreign direct investment. 

·       This was not a proposal to open offices all over the world.  It was proposed that this be carried out in a targeted way with direct lead generation identifying those companies that had projects with investment proposals.  It was also about contacting a large amount of people and companies within the market.

·       The proposal was to target those markets where Kent’s strengths play to its advantages. Kent’s unique selling points were cost, connectivity proximity to markets and quality of life aspect.

2.               The Chairman advised that this was not the first time this initiative had been discussed by Members of this Cabinet Committee as it was presented and discussed at the Budget Informal Member Group in November and met the approval of the Regeneration Board.

3.               Members were given the opportunity to make comments and ask questions which included the following:-

a)    In response to comments and questions, Mr Wookey gave assurances that this was a Kent wide initiative and not about one location.  There would be no offices opened overseas.  Locate in Kent would retain lead generating  services in the USA whose job it would be to ensure that Kent’s offer was put forward to those companies that had an investment requirement. There were fiscal measures that the American government had just introduced which gave the UK an advantage and there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

(Report by Mr Dance, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Economic Development, Mr Cockburn, Corporate Director Business Strategy & Support)

(Mr R Moys, Head of European Policy and Mr R Gill, Economic Strategy and Policy Manager, were present for this item)

1.               The report set out two reviews undertaken at a similar timescale on Regional Aid and Structural Funds. The Head of European Policy, Mr Moys and the Economic Strategy and Policy Manager, Mr Gill raised the following points:-

Structural Funds

• Kent had secured £30 million in EU grants under the current programme period of 2007-2013. This had supported 60 projects in KCC and Kent, a number of which had related to economic development including; a future tourism event in March 2013,  Visit Kent had secured projects from European funding eg the World Project which secured £1 million of EU grant.
• The current programme ends in 2013 therefore it was for Kent to be in a position to benefit from the new Structural Funds programme which would run from 2014-2020.  The Commission’s proposals suggested that Kent remained eligible for significant programmes; INTERREG Transnational programmes and the European Regional Development Fund Competitiveness Programme which at present was based on the former South East Region.
• Progress reports would be submitted to future meetings to this Cabinet Committee.

Regional Aid

• At the same time that the European Commission revised the Structural rules it had also changed the rules surrounding Regional Aid and assistance to business and consultation would take place shortly.
• The Regional Aid rules set the limits for the amount of public assistance that could be given to businesses through schemes such as Expansion East Kent and other public sector grant schemes.  They also defined the geography that  enabled certain areas to have higher thresholds for distributing various forms of public assistance.
• Kent benefitted from having Assisted Area Status for the whole of Thanet and the northern part of Dover, including Sandwich that enabled KCC to offer grant assistance to companies [SMEs and larger companies] in those areas at higher intervention rates than would otherwise be realised.
• There was a threat within the new process.  The first stage of the European Commission’s review would be the publication of the overall amount of the UK that would be eligible for Assisted Area Status.  At present that was 24% of the country.  It was predicted that the percentage would reduce to 23% which meant that there may be a challenge to keep the status in East Kent. Once the Commission’s Aid Guidelines had been published it was anticipated that the UK government would consult on the criteria for designating assisted areas in mid 2013 and would publish a map for consultation thereafter.
• Kent’s position would be to retain what it already had rather than adding to it with diminished funding overall, but it may be that the criteria could allow the County Council to look at other parts of Kent other than Dover and Thanet such as Shepway and Swale.

2.               Members were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

1.               The Chairman invited the Director of Economic Development, Ms Cooper to give her update which included the following:

·       TIGER (Thames Gateway Innovation, Growth and Enterprise) programme – Following the report submitted to this Cabinet Committee at its last meeting a Key Decision to enable KCC to act as the accountable body for the programme and to enter into a formal grant agreement with the Government had been signed by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Development.  A conditional grant offer had now been received from the government. KCC was identified as an exemplar in how to organise an RGF Scheme. Work was now being undertaken on the detailed governance arrangements for the scheme. This would entail looking at who would sit on the Approval Panels which would be subject to a further Decision to be taken by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Economic Development.

·       Continued work was being undertaken with each of the Districts on CIL and the negotiations about relative priorities.  To date there had been meetings with Dover, Dartford, Ashford, Maidstone, Sevenoaks and Swale where there had been overwhelming cooperation and agreement.

·       Broadband – Broadband was still out to tender and would close on 18 January.

2.               The Chairman reminded Members that there was a visit to Produced in Kent being arranged for Friday, 1 March 2013.

3.               RESOLVED that the information in the verbal update be noted with thanks.