Issue - items at meetings - Foredown Tower - Verbal Update

Mr Bates outlined the report and thanked the Committee for the opportunity to bring the report to them.  The strategy was about sustaining and creating jobs. The service used intelligence and data significantly to design and shape what they do and to guide decisions. There was a lot of partnership working with 330 partners. So far, the lack of funding had not stopped innovation. They were also responsive and when the economic downturn hit in 2008, they pulled all partners together at once to discuss the issues. There was also a lot of cross-authority working – all the 8 million visitors experience the city across the board (eg highways, museums, safety etc).  Councillor Smith added that to be in the top 10 cities was fantastic and there was a need to balance to day and night time economy.

Mr John Carmichael, Marketing Manager, showed a quick video promoting Brighton & Hove.

A question was asked about the deal with the Oyster card in London.  Mr Bates explained that this was totally funded by First Capital Connect who were also funding a small guide for Time Out.  The Council were working with transport providers to bring people into the city. It was acknowledged that the engineering works can be an issue.  Seasonability was a big issue for tourism and it is about spreading the benefits. The marathon in April was a good example of this. On the issue of the nightime economy, the Council had Beacon Status.

A question was asked why so many visitors were from Germany and Mr Carmichael replied that there had been a PR agency promoting the city to German speakers for the last three years and the number of visitors had grown year on year.  German publications had been targeted and there were great benefits for the city.

On the Brighton Centre, they were in the process of making moderate investments to compete in the market.  On the figures for English language students in the city, there was a paucity of data but this was a relatively well managed sector. ‘Operation Colombus’ had been a partnership of the schools, the Council and the police for over 10 years.  It was remarked that looking after overseas students brought money into communities.

Following a question on an apparent discrepancy in the figure for overnight stays (17% or 40%) it was suggested that one was a figure from the UK and one from international visitors. The 17% was more accurate. Mr Bates explained that the main focus was to deliver staying visitors. There was an issue around lower occupancy of stock at around 60% but the spend delivered was higher than average.

The Chair thanked Mr Bates and his team for an informative and interesting report.

53.1 The Principal Solicitor, Commercial Projects, Bob Bruce informed the Committee that although the Heads of Terms for the Foredown Tower had been drawn up, and the lease was due to be signed, the Adur Sea Cadets had recently informed the Council that they wanted to establish a Community Interest Company (CIC) before they would sign the lease. The Cabinet Member Meeting in September had agreed the lease but that was on the grounds it was signed by the Adur Sea Cadets not a CIC. If a CIC were formed, the amended papers would need to go back to the Cabinet Member for agreement.

53.2 Mr Bruce explained that Community Interest Companies were launched in 2005 as a specific vehicle for social enterprise companies who wished to be seen as associated with the community.  CICs were halfway between a company and a charity.  They had similar responsibilities to other companies in terms of annual reporting, but the CIC Regulator had to apply the community interest test that any reasonable person would see the community purpose, and also confirm that any profit is recycled back. Community purpose’ was difficult to define but excluded political motivation or too narrow objectives.

53.4 It had not been thought necessary to have a CIC as the Sea Cadets were a national organisation which was community based. Also the lease for the Foredown Tower contained a lot of detail on issues such as access and school usage.

53.5 Mr Bruce asked the Committee for their opinion, including on who should sit on the Board of the proposed CIC.  Should Ward Councillors or Council officers?

53.6 A question was asked about whether the formation of a CIC would slow the process down, and it was confirmed that the handover would be delayed.  Mr Bruce emphasised that the priority was to complete the transfer. There was no objection to the idea of a CIC but it was unfortunate the issue had arisen so late in the process. The main issue now was the membership of the CIC.

53.7 Those Councillors who expressed a view, felt that there was no requirement for Councillors or officers to sit on the Board of the CIC but that it should be community representatives.

53.8 CTEOSC expressed frustration that this issue had arisen so late in the process and urged officers to do all they can to keep the process moving forward.  The Chairman requested that the committee be kept informed of progress.