West of England LEP
Rural Economy Sector Group
Notes of the seventh meeting
10.30am Wednesday 28 March 2012
By kind permission of Smith & Williamson
Present
Charles Hignett (CH) Chairman
John Mortimer (JM)
Graham Clark (GC)
Mark O’Sullivan (MOs)
Anthony Merritt (AM)
John Alvis (JA)
Chris Head (CHd)
Mike Amos (MA)
Jerry Barnes (JB)
Kim John (KJ)
Apologies were received from G Ainge, G Clark, P Dupper-Miller, S Gregory, M Riddle, D Sigourney, J Wilkinson, R Smith & M Weaver.
ACTION1. Welcome and introductions
CH welcomed members to the meeting.
2. Minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2011
The minutes were circulated. AM requested point 6.2 be amended to say he had been invited to a meeting for the LEP sub group looking at the upgrade of the LEP website, not that he was on the sub group. The minutes would be changed to reflect the amendment.
CH asked for the minutes of the meeting of 25 January 2012 to be edited and sent for approval.
JM informed the group that the LEP had requested copies of the minutes of the group meetings and that these would be distributed once approved at the meetings. / JM
JM
KJ
3. Matters arising from the minutes
There were none that would not be discussed later in the meeting.
4. WoE LEP Update
4.1. CH had attended meeting about the Regional Infrastructure Fund which was interesting but not of great relevance to the group at this time.
4.2. A meeting took place on 27 March regarding The Employer Ownership pilot which offers all employers in England direct access to up to £250 million of public investment over the next two years to design and deliver their own training solutions. The pilot is jointly overseen by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department for Education and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.
4.3. CHd pointed out there would be a tranche of money coming through from Defra in the autumn for skills and training. AM said that the LEP was attempting to pool all skills and training resources into one pot.
4.4. JM reported that SWCoRE was considering the establishment of a rural skills and training signposting website.
5. Report from Defra LEP Roundtable & Defra Rural and Farming Networks
5.1. JM reported the roundtable meeting had taken place on 28 February comprising mainly discussion papers. It had not been particularly useful.
5.2. Exporting from the food sector had been discussed. JM would forward the presentation onto members of the group.
5.3. There was to be a Rural and Farming Network Chairs meeting with Ministers on 17 April.
5.4. There would be 2 competitions launched for innovation in food and there would be workshops which members were encouraged to attend on 29 March in Reading, and 3 April in Exeter. The idea of the competition was to provide funding for the rapid development of an innovative idea across farming, food and drink industries. There would be a number of £25k grants. Concern was expressed that it had not been properly marketed.
5.5. Reference had also been made to rural proofing. The Commission for Rural Communities was likely to be abolished and Defra intended to be take rural proofing in house. AS Thought this would put additional pressure on the RESG.
5.6. JM outlined developments with Rural & Farming Networks, informing the group there were currently 2 to cover the South West. Purpose of the groups was to provide a conduit to Defra Ministers from the grassroots. An open meeting would be held on 16th April to discuss issues of concern which could then be fed back to Ministers on the 17th April. CHd said there were 15 Rural & Farming Network groups which would have an hour in total to put their points across to Ministers.
5.7. CH thought that the ability to communicate with rural businesses in the WoE was important and asked how this should be achieved and how their views should be fed back to the LEP Board. The matter was discussed. Funding was thought to be an obstacle and the increasing breadth of subjects that the LEP and RFNs were being asked to become involved with.
5.8. CHd thought competition between LEPs, for instance for RGN funding would restrict sharing of ideas and experience which he thought was against the spirit of what the government was seeking to achieve. JM agreed said he had raised the same thing at the roundtable meeting.
5.9. It was agreed that as much as possible should be learnt from the other RGN bids. / JM
6. Taking forward Rural Growth Network Proposals (taken out of order of the agenda)
6.1 JM provided feedback from the bid on the RGN. He said that 29 applications had been received and 5 were selected. Those being Swindon & Wiltshire, Durham & Northumberland, Devon & Somerset, Cumbria and Coventry & Warwickshire. JM would provide a copy of the feedback to the group.
6.2 JM provided the group with a description on how the decisions had been made.
6.3 MA thought that the implications within the next round for the RDPE £250k fund would be that the 5 areas would have priority for the money. JM thought there could be a clear point made against that as these 5 areas would already have a stack of money.
6.4 CH felt they had been chosen as late arrivals in the LEP network. CHd thought there had been a lot of LA input for the 5 selected. He said that in particular the Swindon & Wiltshire had been heavily LA led as it was targeted at the impact of military reorganisation on rural Wiltshire.
6.5 CHd said that in Devon they had a well established Women in Rural Enterprise group.
6.6 JM said that what the WoE had proposed in the bid had not been that different to that of the Heart of the South West group. He said the challenge was how to take things forward.
6.7 AM asked that feedback be provided from AS on the press release from the Heart of the South West. A link was supplied to KJ from AS http://mediafiles.thedms.co.uk/Publication/CW-NDevT/cms/pdf/HOTSW%20RGN%20Business%20Plan%20Final.pdf
6.8 The proposal for a WoE rural business pop-up in Bristol was discussed. The pop up would promote the best of rural WoE to local businesses and to visitors to Bristol. There had been no formal cost calculations made yet but that the idea had been floated at a few places and at the LEP board. He thought the businesses that would use the pop up would contribute and thought that by selling out these opportunities it could be staffed. Hopefully a property could be secured free of charge in an area of considerable footfall such as Temple Meads.
6.9 AM said there were plans in place with Bristol Council for Cultural pop ups, and he thought that once a plan had been put together it would be good to get to get the lead of the project out to talk to the RESG.
6.10 CH asked if the pop up could go to other events, however AM thought that it should remain as a more known base within the city centre.
6.11 JM asked if a concrete proposition would be needed or if businesses should be approached first. AM suggested first finding out how it would work logistically and take it from there. AM would get in touch with his contact and arrange a meeting with them and JM to discuss the pop ups.
6.12 MA thought developing the framework was important but thought other areas such as Western Super Mare should be developed also. JM said that the message was Bristol centric and would be promoting benefits of all areas. AM said it was about having one functional economic area with a focal point to benefit the areas outside of the city.
6.13 JM thought banners could be transported to other areas if required.
6.14 CHd asked if it would be worth partnering with tourism or one of the other sector groups due to the limited resources available to the RESG. JM thought there would be positives to that but not to join up with too many and have the messages of the group diluted. However it was thought that tourism, rural and business centre would work well together.
6.15 JM thought that the pop up should be something more fixed term for 3 years, but also to have materials available to take it out to other areas.
6.16 JA urged caution that when it came to promotion to be careful not to put other businesses noses out of joint who may also stock products promoted within the pop up.
6.17 JB raised the point of sponsorship and the group decided that sponsorship would be required.
6.18 CHd suggested a leaflet should be produced for people to take away to look at. JM thought that professional design and print would be required.
6.19 JM suggested a snack shop using local produce and MA suggested using local bakers also so that all aspects of the product bought are made from locally sourced produce.
6.20 AM thought there were lots of options and that a formal plan needed to be designed.
6.21 Another aspect of the WoE RGN bid had been rural business hubs. The proposal had been to have 6 centres that would be prepared to host a meeting opportunity once a week for coffee for people to come and chat about what their business needs were. Then eventually incorporate the facilities within the centre.
6.22 Web based training had also been proposed. Gill Ainge had experience in this area.
6.23 JA said this was done via the Rural Business Forum and that it worked well. JM said there were these facilities in place but there was no clear handle on what was out there.
6.24 MA thought there was a comprehensive conferencing facility within North Somerset.
6.25 AM thought a map should be produced providing details of where rural business centres were already available. It was suggested that Economic Development Officers within the Unitary Authorities could map areas already available. He would email AM with an outline of what would be required.
6.26 Business West should be contacted to establish what help they and the economic development teams could offer towards the study.
6.27 A brief specification should be prepared for circulation to the UA’s, FSB, Business West, WiRE and NFU to identify any gaps that would need support. / JM
AM/JM
JM
JM
7. Broadband Update (taken out of order of the agenda)
7.1 AM provided the following update on broadband within South Gloucestershire:
§ South Gloucestershire Council has teamed up with Wiltshire and Swindon Councils to do a joint procurement of a wholesale network supplier.
§ They would be using the national BDUK framework and would undertake a local call-off.
§ Providing the national framework is complete, it was hoped to launch the Invitation to Tender late April/early May, with contracts signed in the Summer.
§ During the procurement, the bidders would be asked to design a network with the highest superfast broadband coverage (defined as an access line speed of at least 24Mbps), with no premises receiving less than 2Mbps. The target is 90% of premises across South Glos to receive superfast speeds but they will be hoping for more.
§ Once a successful bidder has been identified and contracts signed, they will undertake detailed surveys of the area and final roll out plans. This is expected to be completed in December 2012. After which communities will be told what they will get and when.
§ A demand stimulation programme will be developed with the successful bidder to encourage take-up. This will be targeted at those communities getting superfast broadband in line with the roll out order.
§ A project is in place to secure £255k ERDF funding for a business support programme to ensure businesses can utilise the new superfast broadband service to grow their business.
7.2 CHd provided an update for BANES saying they had joined with the Devon & Somerset timeframe. They would be going out to tender for the BDUK programme. He said that people still needed to complete the online survey. CHd said the intention was that 100% coverage with 2mb by 2014, and by 2020 100% coverage of the 24mb.
7.3 CH thought that CLA, NFU and FSB needed to push members to complete the survey. The closing date was in April.
7.4 CH asked if there was anything that needed to go back up to the LEP board to say that we were unhappy with progress. CHd thought there was a lot of activity. JM agreed and thought nothing needed to be said at this point as it was moving along well.
7.5 CHd said that Bristol had been identified as being an ultrafast city and that money would be fed into it.
7.6 JM was concerned that the 2mb minimum aspiration was not good enough. AM said it was a competitive process between companies, though the aspirations were as per government recommendations.
8. Strengthening Links in the WoE food chain
8.1. CHd said discussion would be adjourned until a future meeting.
9. RDPE Update
9.1. MA said there had been a meeting on 27 March and that there was an issue with the de minimus, £165k on category 3 projects and thought that it would put a lot of people outside of the frame. AS said a colleague had gone to that meeting.
9.2. MA said his project was also facing planning issues as he was being challenged regarding whether his was a rural process or an industrial process being carried out in a green belt area.