Agenda item

To consider the following Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 13 January:

•   Freeport Bid

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Philip Broadhead, Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning.

The Cabinet report for this item is included with the agenda for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Board.

Freeport Bid - The Chairman invited the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Economy and Strategic Planning to present the report, a copy of which had been circulated to each member and which appears as Appendix 'X' to the Cabinet Minutes of 13 January 2021 in the Minute Book. In the ensuing discussion a number of issues were raised including:

·       A Councillor commented, in relation to a reference made by the Portfolio Holder, that they did not think that the Freeport Bid would catch the eye of central government and the BCP area would not be part of the Government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda as there was not much deprivation in the area and would therefore not be attractive.

·       In reference to a comment made by the Portfolio Holder that there would be a ‘planning bonus’, a Board member commented that this was purely for those wanting to develop as it was restricting rights of objection which would not be beneficial to many.

·       A Board member commented that the BCP bid would be competing against much larger more developed areas such as Southampton and Portsmouth and therefore if the government was looking at scale there would be many preferred bids ahead of BCPs. It was noted that the BCP area scheme was looking to create something different based on the areas’ strengths. For example, the BCP area was developing smart places and smart connectivity and it could demonstrate how things could look into the future. The Portfolio Holder felt that the Council had a very credible pitch.

·       A Councillor commented that in terms of connectivity for transport we struggled as a local authority area. Another member suggested that it might assisted in improving the local transport links into the future, as if the bid was successful the government would be interested in seeing the scheme succeed

·       The Chairman asked if there had been any encouragement from government for BCP to submit the bid. Issues were raised by the Board concerning the contributions being made to the initial £50k cost for submitting the bid and what the involvement was from the Council partners. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the Council was the sole contributor at present. A Councillor commented that this seemed very speculative and that private enterprises should also be contributing towards the cost of the Bid. The Portfolio Holder advised that this was purely in relation to the first stage and that if we were successful in the first stage there would be further stages when the cost burden could and would be shared. Another member commented that the contribution was fairly small for the first stage and it would have a positive impact and further opportunities moving forward.

·       Councillors questioned the impact that this might have for Poole Harbour in terms of leisure use and as a site of Special Scientific Interest, with increased freight use in the area. It was also noted that the harbour needed to be accessed for the majority of vessels through a very narrow channel.

·       It was suggested that the private sector and the LEP should be providing a contribution towards the freeport bid.

·       A Board member commented that we should not be making the first stage proposal without a proper understanding of the funding requirements for taking it forward and that the actual proposal being put forward did not meet the government’s requirements and that there was not much space available for future developments. The Portfolio Holder responded that the Rigby Group was fully behind the Bid and that there was lots of space around the airport for future development potential.

·       The Portfolio Holder was asked and undertook to provide the overall cost for stage one of the process and the cost for the overall Bid which would need to be submitted in April – see the Board’s action sheet.

·       A Councillor asked the Portfolio Holder to clarify whether an additional report would come back to the Cabinet and the O&S Board for the future stages of the project. The Portfolio Holder advised that he was keen for the O&S Board to be further involved with the project, but that timing was key and that other members to ensure member involvement may need to be used such as member workshops. The recommendations outlined in the report were to ensure that there was not a need to come back to Cabinet to begin working on the business case, but it would probably come back to Cabinet due to overall cost of future stages.

·       A Councillor commented that they did not support the overall project and asked about the proposed aim of the project to bring in high skilled and high salary jobs when the National Insurance rate relief only applied to jobs created under £25,000.

·       A Councillor commented that we were competing against other areas of the country and that, similar to other regeneration bids, we were coming late to the party and rather than having put the work in earlier to build a foundation to the bid we were putting something together that we thought government would want. It was also suggested that the government may allow lots of places submitting an expression of interest to continue on to the second stage even if they only stood a very small chance of moving forward.

·       The Portfolio Holder was asked if existing business within the zone would continue to pay business rates or whether they would be exempt under the scheme. The Portfolio Holder undertook to provide a response on this issue to the Board – See the Board’s action sheet.

·       Further concerns were raised about the scope for Poole Harbour to take on any additional traffic due to factors limiting the size of vessels which could access the harbour. It was suggested that developing IT should be an area where we could most likely present a good outcome. The Portfolio Holder agreed that there was a need to be more ambitious in the pitch for this but informed the Board that they had needed to be reactive as the previous administration had not decided to move forward with this. The Portfolio Holder also advised that jobs and investment could and would go to other areas, there was an issue of protecting jobs as well as creating them.

·       A Board member raised issues concerning tax exemptions and reputational risk to the area if it became known as an area for tax evasion. It was asked whether that would have an impact on tourism and other industries. The Portfolio Holder acknowledged that these were issues which would need to be looked into further if the project progressed.

·       Councillors commented that this was probably not suited to the BCP area but was rather intended for those areas with a manufacturing base who would suffer a detriment as a result of Brexit.

The Chairman summarised that during the discussion we had heard a lot about potential benefits and challenges but there had not been much focused on the impact to the conurbation. It was also noted that information coming out of the bid process could be beneficial in future.