Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Freeman & Councillor B Wright.

Councillor Flaxman-Taylor attended as a substitute for Councillor Freeman.

There were no declarations of interest declared at the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2021 were confirmed.

Councillor Flaxman-Taylor asked that the minutes be amended to reflect that she had substituted for Councillor Price at the meeting.

There were no matters arising for the above minutes.

The Committee received and considered the Forward Plan.

Councillor P Hammond requested that an update be brought to the Committee regarding the number of units let in the new covered Market Place. Councillor Wainwright reported that there was no need for this information to come to this Committee. This information would be reported to the Great Yarmouth Town Centre Member Working Group which Councillor Hammond sat on and which was meeting on Thursday, 16 September 2021. The Chairman asked that the matter be left with him.

RESOLVED:-

That the Forward Plan be noted.

The Chairman welcomed Tim Ellis & Richard Hayman to the meeting.

Tim Ellis & Richard Hayman gave a joint presentation to the Committee updating the progress to date of the construction of the Third River Crossing.

Councillor Plant reported that the residents in his ward were accepting the construction works and associated nuisances of noise and vibration with a good deal of grace. Tim Ellis reported that he was aware of the consequences of noise and vibration on the local residents and that they continued to actively engage with local residents. 

Councillor C Walker also reported that the local residents should be congratulated on what they had dealt with and that this should be recognised as the noise and vibrations from the piling works could be heard as far away as Bradwell and Belton and she was especially concerned regarding the impact of the works on the housebound. However, she welcomed the construction of the bridge which she had been working on for 21 years to bring to fruition for the town.

The Chairman agreed with Councillor C Walker as he too, had been working to bring this project to the town since 2003 and he thanked Tim & Richard for their continued community engagement and that they carried on their good work.

Councillor A Wright reported that this project went back to the Road Review in 2000 and had indeed been a long time in coming to fruition. Councillor Wright asked if the vibrations caused by the piling works had caused any structural damage to nearby properties and services. Councillor Wright voiced his disappointment that the steel piles had been manufactured in Turkey and the leaves for the bridge in Belgium and asked what the percentage of goods supplied in the UK was.

Richard Hayman reported that pre-condition surveys had been undertaken in neighbouring properties prior to the commencement of the build and any identified cracks were monitored on a regular basis to see if they worsened. When the build was complete, a full and final survey would be undertaken and remedial works undertaken to ensure the building(s) in questions were re-instated to as they were. Richard Hayman reported that he was unaware of any damage to local services and explained that the procurement of building materials for the build was dependant on market forces and whether the UK manufactured the type of building material required, for example, the UK did not manufacture the piling required for the project. However, they did use local SME's wherever possible on the build and staff were utilised from their offices based near Dereham. The project had a solid order book, for example, a £2m order had been placed with Mullins Construction, which would help the local economy.

The Chairman thanked Tim & Richard for their informative presentation.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Head of Inward Investment.

The Head of Inward Investment reported the progress made against the Economic Growth
Action Plan since its approval by Members in February 2020 and the subsequent bi-annual updates provided at the October 2020 and March 2021 Economic Development Committee meetings. Progress continued to move at pace, with significant progress made on key strategic projects as well as the submission of a new skills based project seeking funding from the Community Renewal Fund. Activity also continued to respond at a business, community and organisational level to the Covid19 pandemic with business support being offered to businesses of all sizes, sectors and in both a proactive targeted way, as well as responding to those seeking advice and guidance.

The Head of Inward Investment reported that as previously agreed by Members, the Economic Growth Strategy and Action Plan was a living document and as a result, the Economic Growth Action Plan had been refreshed and updated to show the progress against the aims and the outcomes of each project, policy or deliverable. The themes and the Corporate Plan strategic priorities remained the same.

Councillor C Walker reported that she had been informed at a recent County briefing that the Local Enterprise Partnership's (LEP) were going to be disbanded and she wondered what would be put in place to replace them. The Head of Inward Investment reported that the future of the LEP's was uncertain at this stage and that the Council was awaiting formal notification from Government on what the next steps are with the LEP's. What had been confirmed is that future funding would be launched next year and it was likely to be centrally led and should include funding programmes of UK Shared Prosperity Fund, Community Renewal Fund and the Levelling-up Fund.

Councillor Candon highlighted the exemplary work of officers in getting the ARG funding out to local businesses at every stage of the pandemic. 

Councillor A Wright reported that he welcomed the new Opportunity GY project to pilot a transformational approach to the Skills agenda in the borough which would provide a full career pathway for residents of all abilities, ages and ambition.

Councillor A Wright was pleased that some of the Welcome Back Fund would be invested in increased CCTV around hotspot areas, including The Waterways and Gorleston promenade.

Councillor C Walker asked if there was an update regarding the Vatenfall's public enquiry. The Director of Planning & Growth reported that this issue was being considered at national level (through the Development Consent Order route with the Planning Inspectorate as a Nationally Important Project) and that clear timescales were being sought. Councillor Walker reported that this would be a significant investment in the local economy and hoped that the Inspector understood that.

The Chairman thanked the Head of Inward Investment for her comprehensive report. 

RESOLVED:-

That the Committee review and comment on the Economic Growth Action Plan progress update.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Head of Inward Investment.

The Head of Inward Investment gave an update on the Enterprise Zone Legal Agreement and recent increases in the financial return within Pot B. The report detailed the process undertaken in terms of the arrangements for the Enterprise Zones covering the areas of Great Yarmouth and East Suffolk and the agreement to separate the two areas to allow East Suffolk to have have their own agreement, as could Great Yarmouth Borough Council. Therefore, this meant that each area could manage their own commercial interests and the LEP would have two separate arrangements, one covering the Great Yarmouth Enterprise Zones and one covering the East Suffolk Enterprise Zone.

Councillor Wainwright queried the reduction in Pot A1, GYBC for any use, from 20% to 16.9%, which equated to a 10% drop over 3 years and asked what this years figure would be. The Head of Inward Investment reported that the Council would have preferred the reduction to have been taken off of one funding pot but the LEP had insisted that a slice of funding be taken off of each pot. This proposal had been run past and been agreed by the County Section 151 officer and our Section 151 Officer. The Head of Inward Investment reported that she did not have this figure to hand but would forward it after the meeting.

Councillor P Hammond reported that looking at the figures that County had taken a bigger hit. The Chairman agreed that although it was a reduction for the Council, we still came out with a higher percentage. The Head of Inward Investment reported that we needed the additional income from Pot B to help develop the O & M Campus which would in turn generate business rates and thus, revenue for the Council. 

RESOLVED:-

That the Committee review the paper and note the contents of the report.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Strategic Director & Head of Inward Investment.

The Strategic Director reported that the report presented the proposal by the two lead partners; East Suffolk Council and Great Yarmouth Borough Council in developing and submitting an application to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), to become the named place for the UK City of Culture 2025.

The Strategic Director reported that this report sought approval to allocate a £40,000 budget from the Special Projects Reserve at the long-listing stage of the competition and establish a governance structure to help shape the Bid further.

Councillor Price queried whether the proposed funding ask of £200k would be enough funding to see this project through. The Chairman reported that this would be a living document and could come back to Council if more funding was required.

Councillor Wainwright thanked the officers for the excellent report and would keep everything crossed that our bid was successful. Councillor Wainwright asked if there was an update regarding the sensitive piece of Banksy's artwork that had been covered up in Gorleston. The Strategic Director reported that a conservator had just been appointed to restore and move the artwork to a more suitable, secure location such as a gallery and a report would be presented to the Policy & Resources Committee.

Councillor Mogford reported that this was a most exciting project and would put the borough and the region to the forefront of a cultural revolution in the east.

Councillor P Hammond asked why the Maritime Festival had been excluded from the report. The Chairman reported that the Council did not organise the Maritime Festival and it was staged by another organisation.

RESOLVED:-

That the Committee:- 

a) Consider, comment and approve the process to date in terms of the development of a UK City of Culture 2025 application and the formalisation of a governance structure as summarised in this report,

b) Further to recommendation (a), approve the proposal for one elected Member to sit on the
Shadow Board and to approve that Member to be the Chair of Economic Development
Committee,

c) Approve the allocation of a £40,000 budget from the Special Projects Reserve at long-listing stage,

d) Approve the proposal to establish a Community Interest Company with charitable trust status from April/May 2022 as a delivery body for the UK City of Culture 2025 programme; and

e) Recommend to Council via a future report the formation of said Trust subject to a successful outcome from the DCMS competition.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Renewables Marketing Manager.

The Renewable Marketing Manager reported that the report provided Members with an update on the Norfolk & Suffolk Offshore Wind Competitive Positioning Programme. The project sought to develop and deploy a coherent, co-ordinated and collectively owned brand, offer, an identity and marketing strategy to complement other strategic and capital initiatives and drive energy sector investment.

The Chairman thanked the Renewables Marketing Manager for her excellent, in-depth and informative report and highlighted the five themes on page 67 of the report, which Generate would achieve whilst delivering the Council's vision.

Councillor Candon highlighted the potential that this project had for Great Yarmouth.

Councillor A Wright voiced his concerns that the Council would not have both a physical presence and a stand at all of the major conferences and exhibitions as, in his view, this was a requirement for all events and the Council should not adopt a cherry-picking attitude. The Renewables Marketing Manager reported that a strategic decision would be taken on an event by event basis and would be dependant on costings to achieve both value for money and speculative economic return. Councillor Wright urged the Committee to ask officers to re-look at this proposal and to bring it back for endorsement.

Councillor Price reported that a measured approach should be adopted when attending events. Councillor Mogford reported that he favoured a direct approach to companies to bring business in.

The Head of Inward Investment reported that the attendance at energy events would be constantly monitored and evaluated on an on-going basis and that following the first event, the resulting targeted and business enquires would be evaluated.

Councillor Cordiner-Achenbach asked for confirmation regarding where the Council was with the agreement in terms of the stakeholders and the accompanying element of risk this carried. The Renewables Marketing Manager reported that all stakeholders were on board and bi-weekly and monthly meetings were timetabled with them.

Councillor C Walker asked if consideration had been given to sharing the costs of attending events with local companies who might be willing to help with the cost of providing a stand in return for their attendance.

The Chairman reported that he had experience of attending energy events in the past but he had no experience of what a digital offer would look like.

Councillor Wainwright asked if there was an update on the ongoing review with the onshore connection points in relation to Vattenfall in North Norfolk. If the review was not concluded shortly, he was concerned that Vattenfall would move their major, national significant infrastructure project to elsewhere in the country. The Chairman reported that the Government was being lobbied hard by the LEP, NCC and the energy industries as this infrastructure was needed across England and not just Norfolk.

The Director of Planning & Growth reported that this was being discussed with  Vattenfall this Thursday and that the MP was briefed.Meanwhile, the required Development Consent Order was being considered at national level.

RESOLVED:-

That the Committee:-

(i) Review and comment upon and support the proposed marketing strategy, framework
and supporting activity to launch and embed the new brand into the wider energy sector;
and

(ii) Endorse the launch of the strategy allowing officers to begin to focus on individual energy projects.

RESOLVED:-

That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 12(A) of the said Act.