Agenda item

Mike Denby, Director of Inward Investment and Place Marketing, will attend for this item.

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive which provided an update on the work of the Place Marketing Team for Leicester and Leicestershire.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 8’ is filed with these minutes.

The Chairman welcomed Mr Mike Denby, Director of Inward Investment and Place Marketing (the Director), to the meeting.

Arising from discussion, the following points arose:

(i)               Members noted that the support provided by the Place Marketing team (the team) to both new and existing businesses coming to the area varied.  The team might provide links with other local businesses, local colleges and universities, or work with job centre plus.  It also worked with agents to help source properties in the area.  The Director commented that the team added most value by providing support and helping to establish links across the locality to both grow and bring in new investment to the area.

(ii)              The MIPIM (the international market for real estate professionals) event had been held in March and whilst this had generated some interest in some local schemes, these had not yet come to fruition.  The Director confirmed, however, that discussions were still ongoing to pursue opportunities which might lead to direct investment within the County. 

(iii)            It was noted that the Head of Strategic Property Services had attended the event in March on behalf of the County Council.  A Member questioned whether attending MIPIM was worthwhile given the costs involved.  The Director advised that local private sector partners attended the event and so a presence, though on a very small scale, had been considered important.  It was noted that more focus was given to UK based events such as REiiF.  Members agreed this was a more appropriate use of resources and more likely to attract investment into the County.

(iv)            The campaign to promote the County was good and demonstrated local assets well and in a way that was refreshing and hopefully attractive to businesses.  However, a Member commented that whilst the team clearly undertook good work, given its size, its level of influence was limited. The team consisted of 7 staff with a total annual budget of £650,000. 

(v)             A Member commented that of the enquiries raised through the PM website, only a 6% conversion rate appeared to have been achieved.  Members noted that as a small team its efforts had to be targeted towards large businesses that would bring in the most investment and create the most jobs.  Smaller businesses that sought advice were able to use the automated web-support provided.  Members noted that one member of the PM team had also been appointed to focus on such smaller business contacts.

(vi)            A Member suggested it was not clear what direct outcomes had been achieved from the information provided.  For example, whilst it had been reported that the team had helped to safeguard 47 jobs in the area, it was not clear how many opportunities had been lost, or what number of businesses had moved out of the area.  It was further suggested that the businesses supported might in any event have come into the County.  It was acknowledged tracking the direct value added by the team as a result of the work and marketing it undertook was difficult.  However, the Director emphasised that it provided a centralised point of contact that worked hard to reach out to businesses and agents early on, to build connections across the area that hopefully tipped the balance in favour of Leicestershire over other areas a business might be considering.  A member commented that the team appeared to do well within the resources it had and that to do more, more funding would be required which was unlikely given the financial pressures faced by local government.

(vii)          A Member commented that much investment in the County had been targeted towards logistics.  This took up a lot of land but on a square metre basis generated fewer jobs and jobs at lower income levels.  It was questioned what was being done to attract other types of business to the localities, such as creative or tech industries.  Members noted that locality PM teams had been established to engage with district councils to understand what they had planned for their area through their Local Plan processes.  This was, however, more difficult for commercial developments where there was no clear policy.

(viii)         A Member pointed out that cuts to local infrastructure such as busses, affected the connectivity of the County which likely reduced its attractiveness to businesses.  

(ix)            It was noted that since the pandemic businesses were starting to seek to move to smaller but higher quality (grade A) premises.  This was a challenge for Leicester and Leicestershire as other areas, such as Birmingham and Nottingham, had for many years sought to stimulate this area of the market.  Grade A office space was limited in the County and the City.  The team was therefore working with owners of grade B office space to encourage them to upgrade this to meet such demand.

RESOLVED:

That the update now provided on the work of the Place Marketing Team for Leicester and Leicestershire be noted.