West of England LEP
Rural Economy Sector Group
Notes of the ninth meeting
10.30am Wednesday 25 July 2012
The Paragon, Counterslip, Bristol
By kind permission of Thrings LLP
Present
Charles Hignett (CH)
John Mortimer (JM)
Mark O’Sullivan (MOs)
Chris Head (CHd)
Mike Amos (MA)
Roger Smith (RS)
Chris Smith (CS)
Alex Stevens (AS)
Duncan Sigournay (DS)
Gill Ainge (GA)
John Alvis (JA)
Steve Marriot (SM)
Graham Clark (GC)
Apologies were received from Paul Goff, Peter Jackson, Simon Gregory, Peter Duppa-Miller, Tim Mead, James Durie, Matthew Riddle, John Wilkinson, Jerry Barnes, Antony Merritt, Mike Weaver.
ACTION1. Welcome and introductions
CH welcomed members to the meeting. Attendees introduced themselves.
2. Notes of the meeting held on 28 March 2012
2.1 These were agreed.
3. Matters arising from the minutes
3.1 The WoE LNP application had been approved by DEFRA. Chris Head would represent the RESG.
4 WoE LEP Update, Group Chairs meeting 25 June 2012
4.1 CH reported the meting had been well attended.
4.2 City Deal
· CH noted that we were now referred to as City Region. There would be 5 main elements of the City Deal
· Growth Iincentive Proposal: Bristol region will be allowed to keep 100% of growth in business rate for next 25 yrs
· Transport Devolution Agreement
· Bristol Public Property Board to manage public property
· City Growth Hub
· People & Skills Programme
· Significant move by central government to devolve power.
4.3 LEP Chairman, Colin Skellet, called for two specific asks from each sector group. It was felt the LEP sector groups had made a good start but actions were needed.
4.4 There had been a discussion about communications.
4.5 CHd commented about City Deal that he could not see any specific reference / links to rural whereas other groups could all specifically link in i.e aerospace, creative, etc. Wondered if we should issue statement about how rural should sit inside the City Deal – arguing that we should represent ourselves as more of a cross cutting group.
4.6 MA – stressed the importance of emphasising to Defra that we get left out of City things so still need support.
4.7 It was queried whether the City Deal commitment was to keep increase in business rates in the Enterprise Zone and the five Enterprise Areas or the whole City Region.
5 Taking Forward the Food Agenda
5.1 CHd introduced.
5.2 Steve Marriot:
· He had prepared a ‘time line’ of what has happened on the food agenda in Bristol and distributed a hand out.
· Bristol Food Links – had funding until 2005 but then fell apart. It had not been very strategic and potential had not been met.
· ‘Who Feeds Bristol’ was commissioned to provide an evidence base.
· A structure was needed about how to take it forward.
· Food Policy Council was set up – advisory but had clout in influencing key city policy decisions around issues such as health.
· He commented that there had been a strong anti supermarket feeling amongst green campaigners in the city.
· FPC was looking at supermarkets, convenience stores and neighbourhood markets.
· There was a ground swell of support for allotments and local food supply
· FPC had looked at public procurement – a sizeable market so influencing this is important.
· Roy Heath and the Cornwall Health Authority - food for hospitals programme. They set up a group City Council, WoE Uni, North Bristol Health Trust (NBHT), University of Bath, Avon and Somerset Constabulary. They were still trying to extend the reach of the group. £5m of public sector spending had been identified. NBHT have a third of their food purchasing expenditure going to small local producers.
· Final part is considering how to engage people in the sustainable food agenda. This could be a turn off – so they came up with The Good Bristol Food Charter. They went to Yeo Valley, food wholesale businesses and Apetito for engagement.
· Plan to keep it on a slow burner because previously these initiatives had fizzled out.
· Initiative needs to be bigger than the City. Tried drawing up a list of local suppliers but they highlight the problems and barriers to dealing with public sector contracts.
· Next step needs to be taken carefully but aim is to swing big organisations behind the concept of good food.
· CH thanked SM for the interesting presentation and explained the RESG our growth agenda. He asked how the Bristol food initiatives could help in that goal.
· JA commented that people’s perception of the countryside was that it was all about the environment. Food doesn’t get a look in. We need to change that.
· CHd commented that so far Bristol had looked at public sector food purchasing but there were also important purchasers in the private sector.
· CS – reflected on two things SM had said. Firstly, slow growth is important – it will make trade more sustainable – and secondly the importance of understanding the language and needs of buyers. Food is a high entry cost sector and understanding the retail buyers is vital.
· SM commented that he had tried to run a suppliers workshop this afternoon but there had not been enough support.
· JM suggested a selective meeting to link rural producers with the users as a next step forward. Retailers have their own terms of trading and needs. Rural also needs to understand that.
· MA emphasised the buyers’ perspective was important but they don’t understand seasonality, nor the needs of small producers for cash flow etc.
· DD reported a consistent message from all sector groups about the procurement process and the need to bridge the gap between the buyers’ needs and the local producer. The SMe support group was also trying to identify their key needs too.
· The LEP has 2 functions; lobbying for the business community and drawing together players who collectively can do more together rather than separately.
· CHd thought there was an open door to take things forward.
· RS though the first step should be to encourage small producers to want to grow their businesses.
· MA left the meeting.
· MO’S raised ‘the what’s in it for me factor’ and though it important to grow the awareness of all the players.
· GA agreed. Buyers need to be givne the reasons to change.
· GC mentioned the experience of Bath and District Farmers
· CH asked if WoE is the right unit to talk about this. CHd though we can’t put up fences and all agreed that the boundary can’t be drawn.
· Regarding branding, CS thought ‘West Country’ had a good ring. Mention West Country and most won’t think of Bristol.
· AS thought it would be useful to have some kind of WoE procurement hub through which people could communicate.
· It was agreed that CHd would form his group and report back.
6 Skills – David Draycott
5.3 DD confirmed that business rate retention would be just for enterprise zones and areas but asked why there should not be a rural enterprise area. The precedent has been established so if it works in the urban zones perhaps it could and should work in a rural zone.
5.4 The Skills group want to work on a cooperative basis with the educational sector to deliver LEP priorities.
5.5 He outlined LEP structure; the Board sets priorities but the details must come from sector groups. This applies to skills as well. But the cross cutting skills group is largely provider dominated and looks to sector groups to identify the skills needs.
5.6 DD wants to work with the RESG to develop a rural skills agenda
5.7 The Skills Group can then help RESG to deliver what is needed – with limited resources.
5.8 CHd referred to the Commission for Rural Communities report. In particular he raised the rural transport issue of trainees getting ot the training or work venue.
5.9 MO’S was concerned that schools are less and less accountable to local communities He welcomed the mention by DD of the link with schools and hoped they could respond to local need. He enquired who was going to pay for all that DD had mentioned. DD replied that there would be a plan about how to meet needs – but the bad news was that funding was reducing year on year. He didn’t see the government increasing money but need to concentrate on making what education institutions deliver attractive to businesses. Our very good educational assets need to be sweated.
5.10 JA governor of Brigwater College and says his college does have good relationship with businesses – Morrisons and EDF for example.
5.11 CS said not to forget what schools are delivering. The skills education of 16 -18 year olds is also important – not just FE level.
6 Communications
7.1 Website development: the LEP website was being reconfigured with dedicated space for sector groups, Intranet and the use of social media to ensure better communication with LEP office. Hope to have prototype up for use in September. Paul Deluna would come to speak to our group. Architecture of the site would be adaptable.
7.2 CHd commented that the WoE website was behind our neighbours.
7.3 JM stressed the importance of being able to communicate out to our constituency.
4. Affordable Rural Housing
8.1 CHd informed the group of the forthcoming conference being organised by West of England Rural Network
5. LNPs
9.1 JM reported that the government had approved the WoE LNP.
9.2 It was agreed that the WoE LEP RESG would confirm that it would engage constructively with the LNP.
9.3 CHd is on their Momentum Group. It comprises about half a dozen people. The subjects covered are the state of the environment, the local economy, spatial planning, green infrastructure, health & learning.
9.4 Represented are the 4 UAs, Avon Wildlife Trust, UWE, Rural Network, Green capital partnership, WoE Local Access Foirum, National Trust, Wessex Water, Bristol Natural History consortium.
9.5 CHd is the rural network group rep and will feed back to RESG
9.6 RS said we must stress importance of more than just environment. CHd thought it would be positive and integrated. JA thought we needed to get away from the view that all development was bad.
9.7 Agreed CH will write – to congratulate and encourage them to use the LEP RESG as a conduit.
9.8 MO’S asked whether they had representation from land managers. It transpired we don’t know the constitution of their board. CHd would find out and feedback.
9.9 GC questioned whether we should engage or not. Risks either way.
9.10 CHd said they were a ‘duty to consult’ partner and less of a delivery body. North Somerset was not engaging in the green agenda and they are in danger of being left out.
9.11 JM thought we needed to be engaged at least to observe, to be a break and to be constructive as long as things go in the right direction. Communication between us will be important.
10 Broadband Update
10.1 The delay in the UKBD project caused by the State Aid challenge was discussed.
11 Two main asks
11.1 Chairman of the LEP, Colin Skellet had asked each sector group to come forward with two main asks of the Board. The group reached no conclusion but the points were raised:
· JA – addressing the issue of regulation and implementation of the MacDonald report. Advocating a shift from regulation of processes to the regulation of outcomes.
· CHd asked whether this linked back to procurement because of the procurers rule book.
· CHd –remote / web based learning.
· JA – the removal of capital allowances
· Profile raising – web site issue.
· The Business West rural website
· Funding for a ‘state of the sector’ survey.
·
12 AOB
10.1 CHd hoped the LA representatives would be able to join the next meeting.
10.2 AS distributed copies of the NFU publication Farming Delivers. In due course, there would be a SW version.
6. Dates and venues for future meetings
· 28 November at Thrings LLP