(i) The Cabinet Portfolio Holder’s role in attracting and supporting investors to the County.
(ii) What has been the Cabinet Portfolio Holders input into the UKSPF bids for County Durham.
(iii) An explanation for delays in Portfolio Holders responding to councillors e-mails and the length of time taken for responses.
Minutes:
The Chair welcomed Councillor Rowlandson, Portfolio Holder for Resources, Investment and Assets, who had been invited to attend the meeting, following a request by Councillor Marshall at the Economy and Enterprise OSC held on the 3 October, that the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holders, attend the next meeting of the committee, to answer three questions, with the questions stated on the agenda for the meeting. It was noted that Councillor E Scott, Portfolio Holder for Economy and Partnerships was also invited, but had been unable to attend the meeting and rendered her apologies.
The Principal Overview and Scrutiny Officer explained that three questions had been raised at the previous meeting which were summarised on the agenda. The Chair welcomed Councillor Rowlandson to provide a response to each question. Councillor Rowlandson responded as follows:
Question 1 - The Cabinet Portfolio Holder’s role in attracting and supporting investors to the county.
Councillor Rowlandson explained that in his role and to date he had undertaken the following:
· Instigated the Inclusive Economic Strategy to give clear direction to future inward investment activity which had previously not been in place.
· Ensured stability and direction in Business Durham by appointing a CEO a post which had been left vacant by the previous administration.
· He had fronted meetings with potential investors together with Business Durham
· Visited major employers and businesses in the region and confirmed that a meeting was arranged with the Director of GlaxoSmithKline to encourage the use of local businesses for their supply chain.
· Had a meeting on 3 November with investors at Station Place Newton Aycliffe about the continued development of the site and further ambitions in the area.
· Attended meetings of the Business Durham Advisory Board to guide the inward investment strategy. He commented that Cllr Marshall receives invites to the Board but has only attended once in 18 months.
· Attended inward investment events such as UK REIIF (UK Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Fund). He highlighted that this is the first time County Durham has attended this prestigious event with a stand. Officers and the Cabinet Portfolio Holder were on the stand over three days and had contact with well over 100 businesses.
· Through Cabinet, he was ensuring the continued commitment to major investments such as NETPark Phase 3 was undertaken.
· Ensuring the ongoing support for Finance Durham, an evergreen fund supporting businesses to locate and grow in the County
· Supported the UK City for Culture bid seeing the county short- listed for the first time and featured on prime-time national media.
· Supported and developed a new way to engage with the business community through the Econ-versation.
Question 2 - What has been the Cabinet Portfolio Holder’s input into the UK SPF bids for Durham County Council.
Councillor Rowlandson provided the following response on behalf of Councillor Scott.
“Councillor Scott has been fully involved in the process; She was a key board member of County Durham Economic Partnership that led the process of developing the Investment Plan; She had introduced the stakeholder event on 4th July, which launched the extensive stakeholder engagement; She was involved in the thematic working groups of local stakeholders. In addition, she was involved in regional consultation events and round-table discussion with the main business representative organisations and had reviewed key strategies, for example the County Durham Vision, feedback from the recent Big Econ-versation and the emerging priorities in the Inclusive Economic Strategy”
Question 3 - To provide an explanation for delays in Portfolio Holders responding to Councillors e-mails and the length of time taken for responses to be received.
Councillor Rowlandson explained that he was not aware of any outstanding responses in relation to his portfolio, however, should any member wish to make a complaint against any Portfolio Holder that they could do so via the complaint’s procedure/process.
It was noted that in relation to question 3, Councillor Marshall at the previous meeting had provided no specific detail and subsequently no further information had been provided, Councillor Moist therefore suggested that the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holder be contacted outside of the meeting regarding any issues concerning specific unanswered emails.
Resolved:
That the responses from Councillor Rowlandson be noted.