In the interest of transparency, Councillor Green disclosed, in respect of the item relating to Business Support Provision (Minute **), that he had been approached by a local business in respect of the Priority Street Initiative but had referred the matter to the appropriate officers.

(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)

Reports and background papers for agenda items may be inspected by contacting the person shown after each agenda item.  Certain reports and background papers may be restricted. 

Any request to remove the restriction on a report or background paper should be made to the relevant Strategic Director or Assistant Director whose name is shown on the front page of the report. 

If that request is refused, there is a right of appeal to this meeting. 

Please contact the officer shown below in advance of the meeting if you wish to appeal. 

(Sheila Farnhill - 01274 432268)

There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents.

Any referrals that have been made to this Committee up to and including the date of publication of this agenda will be reported at the meeting.

There were no referrals to the Committee.

The Strategic Director, Place will present a report (Document “I”) which provides an overview of the current business support initiatives provided by the Council and its partners within the district and the City Region.

The Committee is asked for its comments in respect of the issues raised in Document “I”.

                                                            (Clare Wilkinson – 01274 433537)

The Strategic Director, Place presented a report (Document “I”) which provided an overview of the business support initiatives currently being provided by the Council and its partners within the district and the wider City Region.

In presenting the report the following issues were highlighted and responses given to Members’ questions and comments:

·         Officers were considering rolling out a discretionary business rate relief scheme, as utilised as part of the City Centre Growth Scheme, to other district centres.

·         Details of Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) schemes and other programmes part funded through the European Structural Investment Fund (ECIF) were included within the report.  Details of inward investment work could be included within future reports.

·         Evaluation was undertaken on a scheme by scheme basis. £23 million of support had been delivered as a result of work by the Invest in Bradford Team last year. It would be difficult to calculate an overall headline figure in terms of the benefit of all schemes as this covered such a wide range of activities.

·         The benefits to local business and the district’s economy were achieved through ensuring that businesses were resilient and competitive.

·         In terms of sustainability; the benefits/outputs were monitored for the length of the relevant programme but it was not possible to continue to do this indefinitely. The Economic Development Team tried to ensure that businesses were aware of the support available to them and that they reviewed their efficiency so that they were in the best possible position to move forward.  In terms of the creation of additional employment, verification was undertaken to ensure that the jobs created would be of an appropriate quality.

·         A set amount of rate rebate applied per job created regardless of the size of the business concerned. Smaller businesses would be permitted to achieve full rebate whilst others would have a ceiling applied. Approximately 95% of the businesses supported were independent.

·         There was a cap on the amount of public funding permitted for a single company (€200,000) which would affect larger businesses if they had claimed relief elsewhere.  The aim was for assistance to be provided in situations where the benefit would not have been realised other than through this funding being made available.

·         Officers were exploring what could be done to promote the Digital Enterprise Fund and to encourage take-up from Bradford businesses.  Currently 17 local businesses had benefitted from this scheme.

A Member commented that the City Centre Growth scheme had not just been aimed at Broadway but towards bringing empty units back into use. He was not aware of any of the businesses that had benefitted from funding/assistance having ceased trading.

Members and the Portfolio Holder also commented that:

·         Those car parks under Council control were the cheapest in West Yorkshire.

·         More and more shop units were being brought back into use and it was not true to say that ‘half were shut’. There was a recognised issue with the ‘top of town’ but consultation was currently being undertaken on a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Previous reference:Minute 5 (2016/17)

A report will be submitted by the Strategic Director, Place which updates Members on the progress made in respect of the One City Park redevelopment project since the last report to the Committee in June 2016 (Document “J”).

Recommended –

That the progress made in respect of the One City Park project and the current anticipated timeline for the next stages of delivery, as set out in Document “J”, be noted.

                                                            (Simon Woodhurst – 01274 433789)

Previous reference:Minute 5 (2016/17)

A report was submitted by the Strategic Director, Place which updated Members on the progress made in respect of the One City Park project since the report to the Committee in June 2016 (Document “J”).

It was explained that:

·         This was a key site for the regeneration of the City Centre.  It had been vacant since the demolition of the old police station and outline planning permission had been granted in December 2014.

·         There had been a party interested in a substantial part of the site during 2016 but this had not resulted in a formal offer.

·         The Council was keen to promote the site and an informal ‘Expression of Interest’ process had been launched on 18 October 2017. A commercial estate agency was also being used to promote the site directly with developers and companies who may be in a position to relocate in the near future.  A more formal process to allow expressions of interest would be pursued in early 2018.

The Assistant Director, Economy and Development responded to questions from Members:

·         Planning permission had originally been sought in order to establish the principle of the delivery of development on the site and to give an indication of the volume of development that could be achieved. This permission was not able to account for any particular form of development the end user might require. There had been no significant changes in policy since that time.

·         It was not proposed to extend the existing planning permission as any developer would have to submit a new application, to establish their preferred scheme, in due course.  It was considered that the extant permission offered sufficient comfort for any potential developer in respect of the establishment of the  principle of development.

·         Officers were trying to map the potential demand for this site.  There had been a much higher level of interest at the soft launch in October than had been seen previously.

·         The site would provide very good quality commercial office space which would be accessible and affordable. The aim was to develop provision that would meet future need. £4.8 million grant remained available to facilitate the project.

·         The Council was very clear that this site should also be part of the public infrastructure in terms of accessibility and permeability but did not wish to be too prescriptive in terms of design.

·         It was difficult and could be considered counter-productive to have firm contingency arrangements in place at this stage,

·         Planning permission was only one part of the wider process.  The expressions of interest would be used to inform a process of more formal expressions of interest which would be open to scrutiny.  It was not considered that a planning permission that, in reality, would never be delivered was particularly helpful.

·         In terms of the £4.8 million grant funding, the project had to be delivered by 2021 and the timeline had been developed in order to achieve this. This funding was to assist in addressing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Committee’s Work Plan for 2017/18 is submitted (Document “K”) for Member’s consideration.

                                                            (Licia Woodhead – 01274 432119)

Previous reference:Bradford West Area Committee, Minute 7 (2017/18)

The Committee’s Work Plan for 2017/18 was submitted (Document “K”) for Member’s consideration.

It was noted that a referral from the Bradford West Area Committee, at its meeting held on 5 July 2017, which the Committee had resolved to add to its Work Programme for 2017/18 in respect of a petition relating to traffic matters in the Lumb Lane area of Bradford, with particular reference to parking provision and the potential redevelopment of the Drummond Mills site, would not be considered by the Committee until such time as there were substantive proposals to develop the site.

The Assistant Director - Planning, Transportation and Highways had been asked to notify the Scrutiny Lead Officer if and when any proposals to develop the site were submitted.

Resolved –

(1)       That a progress report on the One City Park project be added to the future Work Programme for January 2019.

(2)       That it be noted that the petition relating to traffic matters in the Lumb Lane area of Bradford, with particular reference to parking provision and the potential redevelopment of the Drummond Mills site, will not be considered by the Committee until such time as there are substantive proposals to develop the site.

ACTION:       Scrutiny Lead