Agenda item

The Chief Executive of LeicesterShire Promotions has been invited to present a report on progress and future developments.

 

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive concerning the delivery of tourism, promotion and inward investment services in Leicestershire, through the not-for-profit company, Leicester Shire Promotions.  A copy of the report marked ‘A’ is filed with these minutes.

 

The Chairman welcomed to the meeting, Mr. Martin Peters, the Chief Executive of Leicester Shire Promotions.

 

Mr. Peters outlined the background to the transfer of responsibility of tourism, promotion and inward investment activity to Leicester Shire Promotions.  He advised the Commission that in relation to the two key areas of activity, tourism and inward investment, the key objectives were:

 

(a)    Tourism

 

(i)      Better return on resources:

 

         This had been achieved by realising economies of scale as a result of the tourism functions previously supplied to Leicestershire County Council, Leicester City Council and the Leicester Shire Economic Partnership being bought together.  Less was now being spent on administrative and support services and those resources had been deployed to frontline operational services.  The rationalisation of printing arrangements and development of a comprehensive combined website had assisted in this aim.

 

(ii)     Better co-ordination and Marketing of the Brand:

 

         It was hoped to conclude a single service level agreement with the three partners within the next few months.  In addition, all district councils were committed to work with Leicester Shire Promotions to deliver tourism services on their behalf.

 

         The aim was to promote the identity of Leicestershire whilst at the same time identifying and promoting the distinctiveness of the districts with Leicestershire.  The publicity material now being produced aimed to do that.

 

(iii)    Lever-in additional funding:

 

         One of the main reasons for establishing a not-for profit company to deliver the tourism function was the potential the company would have to attract external funding.  To date the Company has managed to attract an additional £350,000 much of which would be directed towards promotion and publicity.

 

(b)    Inward Investment

 

         The primary aim was to re-energise the service and to be more proactive in efforts to attract and protect employment.  The company had exceeded the targets set for ‘jobs created’ and was greatly increasing the number of enquiries.  The private sector was also encouraged to play a greater role in promoting the City and County as an area for investment.

 

In response to questions, Mr. Peters advised the Commission as follows:

 

·              an inevitable consequence of the decision to externalise the tourism and inward investment function was some loss of direct democratic control.  The company had recognised this and a member of the Council, Mr. H. Barber CC, had been appointed to serve on the Board of Directors.  In addition, the Company had sought to ensure that an officer and member were represented on each of the District Partnerships.

·              in some district councils there was now an increased recognition of the importance of investment in tourism and promotion and new budgetary provision had been made available;

 

·              the development of the single service agreement and the key performance targets therein would reinforce accountability and enable members to monitor performance.  In addition, the Head of Public Relations and Tourism at the County Council held regular meetings with him and his management team to discuss issues and undertake more detailed performance monitoring.  The Company expected the local authorities to set robust performance targets for forthcoming year.

·              there was some difficulty in establishing a singe brand name for the area which would be acceptable to all stakeholders.  There remained considerable difficulties in promoting and branding Leicestershire as a tourist destination, as it did not have a particular distinctive identity.  Much work needed to be done and the regeneration of Leicester City would be the key to improving the attractiveness of Leicestershire as a tourist destination.  Work was also in hand to promote certain distinctive aspects of the County such as food tourism in Melton and to provide information to encourage visitors to stay overnight in the County.

·              that he acknowledged that greater play could be made in inward investment promotion packs about the existence of three good quality universities in the area.

·              other County areas in the East Midlands had not made such progress towards an effective co-ordinated approach.

·              the Company was increasingly developing a body of expertise and helping statutory bodies to identify barriers to investment which ranged from planning and land use issues to particular skill gaps.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr. Peters for his helpful presentation.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)    That the progress made by Leicester Shire Promotion Ltd in the areas of tourism, promotion and inward investment be noted;

 

(b)    That a further report on progress be made in twelve months’ time.