Agenda item

Attendee:

-           Beverly Owen, Strategic Director – Place

-           Keir Duffin, Head of Regeneration Investment and Housing

-           Tracey Brooks, Development & Regeneration Manager

The Head of Regeneration and Housing gave a presentation to the Committee on the draft Economic Growth Strategy Update for 2020.

The Committee asked the following questions:

The Chair thanked the Head of Regeneration and Housing for an interesting and informative presentation and felt that the document was pitched at the right level and that the information was relevant and right.  It was a very good document with the right balance of graphics.  There was also enough for scrutiny to measure.

A member of the Committee did mention that the arrows were slightly confusing. It was noted however that the arrows were meant as to indicate the direction of travel and not the targets.

The Committee asked why was the Newport Hub under aspirational people, should this be under wellbeing.  This was in relation to visitors to city, information was being collected to find out why people are coming to the city as it was important to know what was attracting visitors.  An example given was the Newport Ship, who was attending, was there potential and should the council build on this as number were increasing to over 100 thousand.

The Committee asked was data being collected on self-employed people as they were a major contributors to the Newport economy the Development and Regeneration Manager would find out if there were performance indicators in relation to self-employed people.

The Committee referred to the Citizens Panel and the Newport Economic Network, as key leaders were brought together in Newport by these groups it was felt that more of an explanation was required.

The Committee liked SWOT analysis layout however, it was felt that more evidence could be provided.

With regard to Property Maintenance 19% of landlords were classed as rogue landlords. The Committee would like to see this moved into the ‘Challenges’ category and negligent landlords added to the ‘Threats’ category.

There was no mention of the impact the of M4 corridor had on businesses and although it was a national problem it had an important role to play in the consultative process.

A member of the Committee referred to the whole time equivalent gross earnings, as there were highly paid jobs however, poorly paid jobs were growing.  It was felt that if we did not have ‘drivers’ coming to Newport the city would be left behind and we should therefore aspire to drive up earnings.  There was also a need for students from the university to stay in the city.  A high level of students attending Cardiff Met University stay in Cardiff and help to regenerate the city. If we could retain a small percentage of the cohort that would be an achievement, therefore could the figures be presented in a more attractive way.

A member of the committee mentioned that the document was greatly improved with a reduction of approximately 10 pages of repetition.  The M4 relief road would need to go into the ‘Threats’ category and there was concern about students and the night time economy.   In general there was an improvement from the last document.

A member of the committee referred to employees aspiring to high wages and felt that women were still suffering and suggested addressing companies on the gender pay gap.  These companies should be monitored and we should protect citizens.  In addition, it was suggested that the council could monitor uptake of universal credit as well as benefits for older people.

A member of the committee suggested that the sports economy could also be promoted within Newport.  Newport was now a city of sport, with a lot of business opportunities for physiotherapists, trainers, mini gyms etc. The Council could have a sports fair, similar to a jobs fair, to promote these facilities within Newport.  The Head of Regeneration and Housing said that this was a helpful comment and the city could use sport as an economic draw.

The Committee reiterated that the document was really positive feedback and a good piece of work.  The only criticism was the picture quality of some of the images.

It was generally felt that there needed to be a cultural element to attract students into the city centre as well as more mature students.  The Council needed to be more reactive where there was potential such as new businesses coming to the city as well as attracting bigger employers.

The Thriving City comments were subjective and measures needed to be more objective. 

Conclusions:

§  Under Newport Now - Rogue Landlords needed to be added to the Challenges category and Absent Landlords needed to be added to the Threats category within the report.

§  More information regarding sports business opportunities within Newport should be added to the report.

§  Under Location and Connectivity - The Report should highlight the Threat/Challenges that the M4 Relief Road had within Newport.