Public Document Pack
Policy and Resources Committee
Date: THURSDAY, 8 APRIL 2021 Time: 1.45 pm Venue: MICROSOFT TEAMS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OIrpMdzc7s) Members: Deputy Catherine McGuinness Alderman Vincent Keaveny (Chair) Alderman Ian Luder Sheriff Christopher Hayward Jeremy Mayhew (Deputy Chairman) Andrew McMurtrie Deputy Keith Bottomley (Vice- Wendy Mead Chairman) Deputy Andrien Meyers Deputy Tom Sleigh (Vice-Chair) Deputy Brian Mooney (Chief Commoner) Randall Anderson (Ex-Officio (Ex-Officio Member) Member) Deputy Alastair Moss (Ex-Officio Rehana Ameer Member) Nicholas Bensted-Smith (Ex- Joyce Nash Officio Member) The Rt Hon.the Lord Mayor,Alderman Wi Tijs Broeke lliam Russell (Ex-Officio Member) Karina Dostalova Alderman Baroness Scotland (Ex-Officio Anne Fairweather Member) Marianne Fredericks Sir Michael Snyder Alderman Timothy Hailes Deputy James Thomson (Ex-Officio Deputy Wendy Hyde (Ex-Officio Member) Member) Mark Wheatley Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Deputy Philip Woodhouse Shravan Joshi Alderman Sir David Wootton Deputy Edward Lord
Enquiries: Gregory Moore [email protected]
Accessing the virtual public meeting Members of the public can observe this virtual public meeting at the below link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OIrpMdzc7s This meeting will be a virtual meeting and therefore will not take place in a physical location following regulations made under Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. A recording of the public meeting will be available via the above link following the end of the public meeting for up to one municipal year. Please note: Online meeting recordings do not constitute the formal minutes of the meeting; minutes are written and are available on the City of London Corporation’s website. Recordings may be edited, at the discretion of the proper officer, to remove any inappropriate material.
John Barradell Town Clerk and Chief Executive AGENDA
Part 1 - Public Agenda
1. APOLOGIES
2. MEMBERS DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
3. MINUTES To consider minutes as follows:-
a) To agree the public minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 11 March 2021. For Decision (Pages 1 - 14)
b) To note the public minutes of the Projects Sub-Committee meeting held on 23 February 2021. For Information (Pages 15 - 24)
c) To note the draft public minutes of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee meeting held on 17 March 2021. For Information (Pages 25 - 28)
d) To note the draft public minutes of the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee meeting held on 4 March 2021. For Information (Pages 29 - 32)
4. AUDIO-VISUAL PARTICIPATION IN FORMAL MEETINGS Report of the Town Clerk. For Decision (Pages 33 - 48)
5. ELECTION ENGAGEMENT CAMPAIGN Report of the Director of Communications. For Decision (Pages 49 - 56)
6. RECOVERY FUND Joint report of the Town Clerk, Chamberlain, Director of innovation & Growth, and City Surveyor. For Decision (Pages 57 - 68)
2
7. REOPENING INITIATIVE Joint report of the Director of Communications and the Head of Programmes, Mansion House. For Decision (Pages 69 - 72)
8. RECOVERY TASKFORCE Report of the Director of Innovation & Growth. For Decision (Pages 73 - 88)
9. RECOVERY PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGN Joint report of the Director of Innovation & Growth and the Director of Communications. For Decision (Pages 89 - 96)
10. YEAR 1 PLAN FOR CLIMATE ACTION Report of the Director of Innovation & Growth. For Decision (Pages 97 - 128)
11. FINANCE FOR SUSTAINABLE GROWTH Report of the Director of Innovation & Growth. For Decision (Pages 129 - 158)
12. IGAB MEMBERSHIP AND COMPETITIVENESS UPDATE Report of the Director of Innovation & Growth. For Decision (Pages 159 - 164)
13. STANDING INTERNATIONAL FORUM OF COMMERCIAL COURTS Report of the Remembrancer. For Decision (Pages 165 - 168)
14. CROSS-RIVER PARTNERSHIP MEMBERSHIP AND REPRESENTATION Report of the Director of Markets & Consumer Protections. For Decision (Pages 169 - 172)
15. REVIEW OF FUNDING TO THE GUILDHALL SCHOOL OF MUSIC & DRAMA FOR SCHOLARSHIPS Report of the Principal, Guildhall School of Music & Drama.
NB – To be read in conjunction with the non-public appendix at Item 25. For Decision (Pages 173 - 174)
3
16. JOINT PHILANTHROPY STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION - UPDATE AND FUTURE PLANS Report of the Chief Grants Officer & Director, City Bridge Trust. For Decision (Pages 175 - 194)
17. PROJECT OUTCOME AND CLOSURE: DESIGN, BUILD, SUPPORT AND HOSTING FOR NEW WEBSITE Report of the Director of Communications. For Decision (Pages 195 - 202)
18. COLPAI TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION ARRANGEMENTS Report of the Director of Community & Children’s Services. For Information (Pages 203 - 214)
19. POLICY INITIATIVES FUND AND COMMITTEE CONTINGENCY Report of the Chamberlain. For Information (Pages 215 - 226)
20. DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY OR URGENCY POWERS Report of the Town Clerk. For Information (Pages 227 - 230)
21. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
22. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT
23. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC MOTION - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act. For Decision
Part 2 - Non-Public Agenda
24. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES To consider non-public minutes of meetings as follows:-
a) To agree the non-public minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 11 March 2021. For Decision (Pages 231 - 234)
4
b) To note the non-public minutes of the Projects Sub-Committee meeting held on 23 February 2021. For Information (Pages 235 - 242)
c) To note the draft non-public minutes of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee meeting held on 17 March 2021. For Information (Pages 243 - 244)
d) To note the draft non-public minutes of the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub-Committee meeting held on 4 March 2021. For Information (Pages 245 - 246)
25. NON-PUBLIC APPENDIX: REVIEW OF FUNDING TO THE GUILDHALL SCHOOL OF MUSIC & DRAMA FOR SCHOLARSHIPS Non-public appendix to be read in conjunction with Item 15. For Information (Pages 247 - 250)
26. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE
27. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED.
5
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3a
POLICY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE Thursday, 11 March 2021
Minutes of the meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee held over Microsoft Teams and streamed at https://youtu.be/xX1-c0g_UhQ on Thursday, 11 March 2021 at 1.45 pm
Present
Members: Deputy Catherine McGuinness (Chair) Sheriff Christopher Hayward (Deputy Chairman) Deputy Keith Bottomley (Vice-Chairman) Deputy Tom Sleigh (Vice-Chair) Randall Anderson (Ex-Officio Member) Rehana Ameer Nicholas Bensted-Smith (Ex-Officio Member) Tijs Broeke Karina Dostalova Anne Fairweather Marianne Fredericks Alderman Timothy Hailes Deputy Wendy Hyde (Ex-Officio Member) Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Shravan Joshi Deputy Edward Lord Alderman Vincent Keaveny Alderman Ian Luder Jeremy Mayhew Andrew McMurtrie Wendy Mead Deputy Brian Mooney (Chief Commoner) (Ex-Officio Member) Sir Michael Snyder Deputy James Thomson (Ex-Officio Member) Mark Wheatley Deputy Philip Woodhouse Alderman Sir David Wootton
In attendance: John Chapman Helen Fentimen Sophie Fernandes Alderman Sir Roger Gifford Alderman Alison Gowman Graeme Harrower Ann Holmes Vivienne Littlechild Barbara Newman Graham Packham Oliver Sells
Page 1 Jeremy Simons
Officers: John Barradell - Town Clerk and Chief Executive Peter Kane - The Chamberlain Michael Cogher - Comptroller and City Solicitor Paul Double - City Remembrancer Paul Wilkinson - City Surveyor Caroline Al-Beyerty - Deputy Chamberlain Damian Nussbaum - Director of Innovation & Growth Bob Roberts - Director of Communications Peter Lisley - Assistant Town Clerk Angela Roach - Assistant Town Clerk Nigel Lefton - Remembrancer's Department Charles Griffiths - Bursar, City of London School Alan Bird - Head, City of London School Jeremy Blackburn - Mansion House Giles French - Assistant Director of Economic Development Amanda Mays - Human Resources Richard Messingham - Town Clerk’s Department Sanjay Odedra - Communications Team Steven Reynolds - Chamberlain's Department Adam Rout - Mansion House Peter Shadbolt - Department of the Built Environment Paul Wright - Deputy Remembrancer Mark Gettleson - Electoral Engagement Manager Peter Young - City Surveyor's Department
1. APOLOGIES Apologies were received from Deputy Alastair Moss, Deputy Joyce Nash and the Rt Hon The Lord Mayor Alderman William Russell.
2. MEMBERS DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA Alderman Vincent Keaveny and Alderman Sir David Wootton declared non- pecuniary interests in respect of Item 22 as Honorary Benchers of Gray’s Inn.
3. MINUTES a) The public minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 18 February 2021 were approved. b) The public minutes of the Projects Sub-Committee meeting held on 25 January 2021 were noted. c) The public minutes of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee meeting held on 17 February 2021 were noted.
Page 2 d) The draft public minutes of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee meeting held on 2 March 2021 were noted.
4. COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE AND COMPOSITIONS The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk setting out amendments requested from various committees to their compositions or terms of reference.
Introducing the item, the Town Clerk advised of a minor issue with the proposed amendment to the Community & Children’s Services Committee’s terms of reference, in relation to new public safety responsibilities. It was observed that the proposal specified that the Police Authority Board Chair/Deputy Chair would serve as the SaferCity Partnership Deputy Chair; however, that Board had, in fact, agreed that it should be a Member of that Board, not necessarily the Chair/Deputy. Subject to the wording being amended to reflect this revised position, Members were supportive of the change.
A late request from the Markets Committee was also brought to Members’ attention, which sought an addition to their terms of reference to provide for “input into the design and management elements of the new consolidated market at Dagenham Dock.” Members discussed the proposal, noting the various discussions in recent years in relation to responsibilities around the re- location programme, including the establishment of a protocol to clarify definitively such matters. The Committee questioned the necessity of such an amendment but, on balance, was not opposed to one if it helped add greater clarity. However, it was cautioned that it would need to be re-worded sufficiently to make clear the respective responsibilities of the two Committees; in particular, the ownership of the programme by the Policy & Resources Committee must be respected, so it was clear that the Markets Committee was simply providing views and not making decisions. It was agreed that authority should be delegated to the Town Clerk, in conjunction with the Chair and Deputy Chairman, to consider final wording.
The Committee was also advised of a prospective amendment to the Barbican Centre Board’s arrangements, which the Board was set to consider at its next meeting. If approved, this would provide for a second Deputy Chair, selected from amongst the external membership, in a manner akin to that in place for the Audit & Risk Management Committee. Members noted the prospective proposal and agreed to delegate authority to the Town Clerk, in conjunction with the Chair and Deputy Chairman, to consider such a proposal in due course.
RESOLVED: That Members:- 1. Approve the minor changes to the terms of reference of the Policy and Resources Committee (Appendix E) 2. Support the proposed amendments to the composition of the City of London Police Authority Board, together with amendments to its terms of reference (Appendix A)
Page 3 3. Support the proposed change to the composition of the Board of Governors of the City of London Freemen’s School (Appendix B) 4. Support the proposed additions to the Culture, Heritage and Libraries Committee’s terms of reference in relation to Aldgate Square and the Blue Plaque Scheme (Appendix C) 5. Support the proposed addition to the Terms of Reference of the Community and Children’s Services Committee to provide oversight of the new responsibilities of the of that service area in relation to public protection (Appendix D), subject to an amendment in respect of the Police Authority Board’s representative on the Safer City Partnership 6. Delegate authority to the Town Clerk, in conjunction with the Chair and Deputy Chairman, to consider proposed amendments to the Markets Committee’s Terms of Reference in relation to the new co-located market 7. Delegate authority to the Town Clerk, in conjunction with the Chair and Deputy Chairman, to consider proposed amendments to the Barbican Centre Board’s constitution, concerning a second Deputy Chair 8. Delegate authority to the Town Clerk, in conjunction with the Chair and Deputy Chairman, to consider any further changes requested by Committees which might arise unexpectedly in advance of the next meeting, to facilitate their submission to the Court through the White Paper.
5. APPOINTMENTS TO THE STATUES WORKING GROUP The Committee proceeded to make appointments to the five vacancies on the Statues Working Group.
Pursuant to the resolution at the last meeting, Deputy Wendy Hyde (as Chair of the Culture, Heritage & Libraries Committee) was appointed to one of the vacancies. Members proceeded to ballot in respect of the remaining four vacancies.
The results of the ballot were announced as follows:-
Votes Munsur Ali - 18 Mary Durcan - 19 Sheriff Christopher Hayward - 21 Deputy Clare James - 11 Andrew Mayer - 3 Natasha Lloyd-Owen - 6 John Scott - 5 William Upton - 12 Deputy Philip Woodhouse - 6
RESOLVED: That Munsur Ali, Mary Durcan, Sheriff Christopher Hayward, Deputy Wendy Hyde, William Upton be appointed to the Statues Working Group.
Page 4 6. APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE MUSEUM OF LONDON The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk proposing the reappointment of the Rt Hon the Lord Boateng to the Board of Governors of the Museum of London.
RESOLVED: That the reappointment of Rt Hon the Lord Paul Boateng to the Board of Governors of the Museum of London for a12-month term expiring 31 March 2022 be approved.
7. MEETING SCHEDULING The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning the formalisation of recess periods, during which the scheduling of meetings should be avoided.
The Town Clerk clarified that the proposals would be put into effect from the coming municipal year, if approved.
In response to questions, it was confirmed that a degree of pragmatism would be used where the recess dates fell awkwardly, such that business was accommodated sensibly and recess lengths were consistent with the spirit of the proposals. It was also confirmed that recess dates would be made clear in advance through the annual committee diary setting process.
RESOLVED: That the introduction of formal Christmas recess period, in addition to those covering the Easter and Summer holidays, be approved, during which time no formal committee meetings should be held.
8. GOVERNANCE REVIEW: PLANNING OUTCOMES The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk concerning those aspects of the Governance Review relating to the Planning & Transportation Committee. The report presented the recommendations of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee (RASC), following an informal engagement process intended to gather the views of all Members.
The Chair thanked Sheriff Christopher Hayward for his efforts in managing the consultation process to-date and drew Members’ attention to RASC’s proposals as set out in the report. The Committee proceeded to debate the various recommendations in turn as set out in the report.
During discussion on the various recommendations, the following points arose: • A Member reflected on their service on the Court and the wishes of voters in their Ward, highlighting the integral nature of planning matters within this activity and their role in representing the views of constituents. The Member argued that the move to Panels would prevent them undertaking this role as effectively and would be against the interests of their voters. • Another Member suggested that the implication of the proposed move away from Ward Members in local decision-making was to call into question the validity of previous decisions. They argued that the proposals
Page 5 watered down the democratic oversight provided by a larger committee and did not address sufficiently the main concern with the existing arrangements, that being the question of conflict or perceived bias for those serving on property committees or involved with the property industry professionally. • Other Members spoke in strong support of the Panel approach, reflecting on practice elsewhere, the question of efficiency, and the clear recommendations of Lisvane. Noting the balance between representation and decision-making, they argued that the proposals would actually empower Ward Members to be more effective in representing their constituents, as it allowed them to get involved on a pre-application basis in ways that would not be possible under current arrangements. • A small number of Members, whilst supporting the move to smaller decision-making panels in principle, expressed some reservations as to a geographic basis for panel formation being the most appropriate structure. They urged that thought be given to ensuring an appropriate balance in how panels were constituted, to ensure that residents were reassured their views formed an integral part or the process, whilst also reflecting on the risks of separate panels forming inconsistent views on the same policies set down by the grand committee. One suggestion was that random panels be appointed each time, so as to mitigate against any perception that the smaller fixed panels could in any way be subject to undue influence. • The importance of efficiency and transparency around decision-making in this area was stressed, this being key to increasing confidence in the City’s planning processes. It was urged that any false dichotomy between “residential” and “business” Wards be challenged, as the City Corporation, its processes, and its Members were there to serve the City community in total and all its constituent parts. • A Member observed that any arrangements approved now need not be in stone; rather, it would be prudent to review their operation and change or improve them as time went on, thereby allowing the system to be responsive to any concerns arising from its operation. • In response to a query concerning the role of partners of professional firms involved in planning applications, the Comptroller clarified the implications of such a disclosable pecuniary interest and the need to declare such matters accordingly. • With reference to the question of whether service on the Planning Committee by those with property industry experience or who sat on any property-related committees should be prohibited, a range of views were expressed. • Some Members argued that it would be in the best interest of both Members and the City Corporation to enforce such a separation, so that there was no possible perception of any potential conflict or perceived bias. • Other Members reflected on the benefits brought by such cross-fertilisation of knowledge and talents across different committees and professional backgrounds, adding that placing internal barriers to the participation of
Page 6 democratically-elected Members felt self-defeating. It was also suggested that a blanket ban would be too blunt a tool and could cause significant issues, for smaller Wards in particular, in having representation on the Committee. • Members also observed it was the responsibility of elected Members to manage their interests in accordance with the Code of Conduct and there was no history of any impropriety in this sense; therefore, one could take issue with the suggestion that individuals by default could not be trusted to act with integrity and manage any conflicts. • With reference to particular commentary around service on other committees that might be responsible for submitting planning applications, Members were reminded of recent changes to the Planning Protocol to manage separation in this area, inserted following the recent Holocaust Memorial judgement. • In relation to the Capital Buildings Committee, it was observed that there was only one planning application from that body likely within the next several years and that no Member of that Committee would be involved in the planning decision, so this seemed a misplaced focus for concern. A Member also made the wider point that one could argue City’s Cash committees were reliant on investment income and the performance of the Property Investment Board; therefore, one should take care before considering the imposition of any blunt prohibitions.
During the individual consideration of the recommendations, a number of Members placed on record their vote in opposition to specific proposals, as follows:- • Recommendation (b) (Establishment of a Panel System) – Marianne Fredericks, Mark Wheatley, and Deputy Brian Mooney registered their vote against this proposal. • Recommendation (d) (Members prohibited on serving on panels considering applications within their Ward) – Randall Anderson, Marianne Fredericks, and Deputy Brian Mooney registered their vote against this proposal. • Recommendation (e) (No outright ban on Members sitting on both the Property Investment Board or Capital Buildings Committee and the Planning and Transportation Committee) - Marianne Fredericks registered her vote against this proposal. • Recommendation (f) (No outright ban on Members with professional connections or a background or expertise in property serving on the Planning and Transportation Committee - Marianne Fredericks registered her vote against this proposal.
RESOLVED: That, in respect of the various recommendations set out in the report:- 1. Recommendation (a): It be recommended to the Court that the Planning and Transportation Committee be retained as a Ward Committee.
Page 7 2. Recommendation (b): That:– (i) It be recommended to the Court that Planning Panels (as sub- committees of the Planning and Transportation Committee), comprising the grand committee’s Members from the Wards in those areas, dealing with those applications in the ‘mirror’ area be established; and (ii) Noting the points raised in the report at paragraph 23 iv (a-g), officers be requested to draft detailed proposals on the establishment of Planning Panels, outlining quorum requirements, terms of reference and suggested revisions to the Planning Protocol etc. ahead of submission to the Policy and Resources Committee and the Planning and Transportation Committee in April 2021 for approval, and with submission thereafter to the Court of Common Council. 3. Recommendation (c): It be recommended to the Court that the detailed work currently delegated to the Local Plans Sub-Committee and Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee remain with those bodies. 4. Recommendation (d): It be recommended to the Court that no Member shall sit on a Planning Panel to hear a planning application that affects their Ward (but should be free to make representations to a Panel). 5. Recommendation (e): It be recommended to the Court that there shall not be an outright ban on Members sitting on both the Property Investment Board and the Planning and Transportation Committee or the Capital Buildings Committee and the Planning and Transportation Committee. 6. Recommendation (f): It be recommended to the Court that there shall not be an outright ban on Members with professional connections or a background or expertise in property serving on the Planning and Transportation Committee as good governance dictates that those Members with the right skills should be encouraged to participate in the governance structures. 7. Recommendation (g): It be recommended to the Court that training for all Members of the Planning and Transportation Committee should be mandatory.
9. INTERIM SCHEME OF DELEGATION CHANGES The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk proposing interim amendments to the City of London Corporation’s Scheme of Delegations to Officers, required as a consequence of the ongoing organisational restructure.
RESOLVED: That the proposals as outlined be recommended for approval by the Court of Common Council and that the Town Clerk be authorised to make such minor amendments to the Scheme of Delegations as required whilst structures are developed and implemented throughout the next 12 months.
10. RECOVERY PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGN The Committee considered a joint report of the Director of Innovation & Growth and the Director of Communications regarding the need for a large scale and
Page 8 sustained promotional campaign to entice workers back to the Square Mile sooner and give people compelling reasons to return frequently.
The following points emerged during discussion: • Members strongly endorsed the proposed approach, as well as the suggestion that thought be given to increasing the level of resource available in support of this initiative. The Committee agreed to delegate authority to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman, to consider related proposals as required. • It was urged that any intended activity be grounded in what City businesses were planning or encouraging their employees to do. This would ensure that efforts did not end up simply functioning as a marketing exercise but, instead, resulted in a co-ordinated and considered approach. • It was suggested that initiatives such as the roll-out of a “City gift card” should be explored, in an effort to stimulate spending at local businesses. • Caution was urged in respect of ensuring that any approach, whilst supporting London-wide recovery, remained politically neutral the in run-up to the Mayoral election. • Members reflected on the difficult tensions between necessary budget cuts in some areas and expenditure on initiatives such as this, noting the importance of prioritisation. This included items such as expenditure on public toilets, which would be a necessary provision in plans to bring people back to the City, whilst opportunities to leverage activity in some areas for the benefit of other objectives should also be explored. In this particular instance, could this increased engagement with workers and businesses be leveraged into an opportunity to increase voter registration, for example. • It was urged that any planned events or activity be coordinated carefully with neighbouring boroughs.
RESOLVED: That:- 1. The City of London recovery promotional campaign core purpose and success metrics be approved, as set out in the report. 2. The phase 1 budget of £250k be approved, to be met from the COIVD Contingency Fund in order to launch the recovery campaign by spring/summer 2021. 3. Authority be delegated to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman, to consider further funding allocation to this campaign.
11. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY: EXTENSION OF DEFERRAL OF CIL PAYMENTS DUE TO COVID The Committee considered a report of the Director of Built Environment regarding the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and proposing an extension of the deferral of CIL Payments due to COVID.
Page 9 RESOLVED: That a time-limited extension to the Community Infrastructure Levy phasing policy until 31 July 2021, as set out in paragraphs 5-8 of the report, be approved.
12. POLICY INITIATIVES FUND AND COMMITTEE CONTINGENCY The Committee considered a report of the Chamberlain which provided the schedule of projects and activities which had received funding from the Policy Initiatives Fund (PIF), the Policy and Resources Committee’s Contingency Fund, Committee’s Project Reserve, COVID19 Contingency Fund and Brexit Contingency Fund for 2020/21 and future years, with details of expenditure in 2020/21.
RESOLVED: That Members note the report and contents of the schedules, whilst granting approval for unallocated balances on the Committee’s PIF and Contingency Fund should be carried forward into 2021/22, as well as for the rolling forward of the COVID Contingency Fund into 2021/22 due to the ongoing pandemic and the need to respond rapidly.
13. OFFICER APPOINTMENTS BY COMMITTEE The Committee considered a report of the Director of Human Resources which outlined the revised arrangements concerning senior officer appointments and committee involvement therein.
The Town Clerk advised of an error in the appended schedule in relation to the appointment of senior police officers (i.e. the Assistant Commissioner and Commanders). The list set out gave the impression that such posts were Member appointments; however, whilst there was Member involvement in the process, it was important to clarify that such appointments were made by the Commissioner of Police.
A Member also queried the arrangements concerning the Head of the Barbican & Community Libraries post, observing that, whilst the budget for the Library Service fell within the remit of the Culture, Heritage and Libraries Committee, the Head of the Libraries Service reported to the Director of Community and Children’s Services. It was, therefore, agreed that the latter committee should also be included within the recruitment process for this particular post.
Subject to these two amendments, Members approved the paper for onwards submission to the Court of Common Council.
RESOLVED: That the interim position in respect of the recruitment of senior officers be approved for submission to the Court of Common Council, as set out appendix 1 and subject to corrections in relation to senior police roles and the Head of Libraries post.
14. CITY OF LONDON COVID BUSINESS RECOVERY FUND: INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS The Committee considered a joint report of the Town Clerk, Chamberlain, Director of Innovation & Growth, and City Surveyor concerning the details of a
Page 10 COVID Business Recovery Fund, intended to support small businesses in the City affected by the pandemic.
Members welcomed the report and commended officers on the pace with which the proposals had been developed following the Fund’s establishment at the previous week’s meeting of the Court of Common Council.
During discussion, the following points arose: • It was agreed that the Deputy Chairman of Finance should be added to the informal “sounding board” of Members outlined in the report and at recommendation 3. • In relation to the criteria at paragraph 19 subsection (vi), assurances were sought and provided that the City Corporation’s own SME tenants would be able to apply for grants where eligible, and that the Corporation would be proactive in this respect. Clarification was also sought in respect of those businesses which might not qualify solely due to unsupportive landlords. Officers advised that one of the intentions of the scheme’s design was to put pressure on landlords to engage with their businesses, assisting them in gaining additional grant funding: it was, clearly, in the interests of landlords to have viable tenants. The lack of stipulations around the level of support within this particular clause would also aid in that respect. • In response to a query around a similar ongoing process for Housing Revenue Account (HRA) tenants, assurance was provided that a joined-up approach would be employed to minimise any duplication or overlap of activity. • Responding to questions concerning the online-based nature of the application process, officers advised that there would be 1-1 telephone support, as well as computer support in the City’s business library, to assist those with who had difficulties using online systems. However, it was important to maintain the management of the process through an online system as this could be procured in such a way as it would undertake certain checks automatically, thereby improving the speed of the application process. • With reference to the question posed at paragraph 19 subsection (ii), Members expressed support for expanding the criteria to include small independent hotel and bed & breakfast accommodation, and leisure and sports facilities. • It was confirmed that the target date for launching the Fund for applications would be immediately after the next meeting of this Committee (8 April 2021), pending approval at that meeting of refined criteria for the final scheme.
RESOLVED: That Members:- 1. Agree to the outline scheme design Option B, as set out in the report. 2. Support the scheme eligibility criteria to be used as set out in paragraph 19, including the expansion at (ii)(a).
Page 11 3. Agree to establish a small Member Sounding Board to provide guidance to officers as the scheme is established and implemented (such membership to comprise the Chair and Deputy Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Finance Committee, and the Proposer of the Court Amendment. 4. Authorise officers to procure external provider(s) for financial viability assessments, with approval to support the recommended procurement option, should it be needed, delegated to the Town Clerk in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman of Policy and Resources Committee.
15. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were two questions:-
Virtual meetings A Member observed that the Regulations governing the ability to hold virtual meetings (introduced as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic) were shortly to expire and requested an update on the position. The Assistant Town Clerk advised that consideration was being given to the various scenarios for holding meetings and would report back to Members with more detail. The Remembrancer added that the Corporation continued to lend its voice to the Local Government Association’s efforts in calling for an extension.
Census A Member reflected on the potential difficulties faced by those residents who did not have ready access the internet in completing the Census form, as well as the prospective impact of Census completion rates on the Corporation’s funding allocations. The Assistant Town Clerk advised that paper forms were made available and undertook to provide information on this to Members following the meeting. The Chairman of Finance took the opportunity to clarify that the Corporation’s funding allocation from central Government would be subject to consideration within the context of the wider Fair Funding Review, adding that the Chamberlain and Town Clerk would be monitoring the position.
16. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There were no items of urgent business.
17. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
18. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES The following non-public minutes were considered: a) The non-public minutes of the Policy and Resources Committee meeting held on 18 February 2021 were agreed.
Page 12 b) The non-public minutes of the Projects Sub-Committee meeting held on 25 January 2021 were noted. c) The non-public minutes of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee meeting held on 17 February 2021 were noted. d) The draft non-public minutes of the Resource Allocation Sub-Committee meeting held on 2 March 2021 were noted.
19. TARGET OPERATING MODEL UPDATE The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk proving an update on the Target Operating Model implementation.
21. DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY OR URGENCY POWERS The Committee received a report of the Town Clerk advising of decisions taken under delegated authority or urgency powers since the last meeting.
22. CLS & CLSG SATELLITE STRATEGY AND ASSOCIATED FUNDING The Committee considered and approved a joint report of the Heads of the City of London School and City of London School for Girls presenting the strategy and associated funding proposals for a satellite site.
23. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE There were no questions.
24. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED. There was one urgent item, concerning ongoing engagement with Transport for London.
The meeting ended at 3.36 pm
Chairman
Contact Officer: Gregory Moore tel. no.: 020 7332 1399 [email protected]
Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 14 Agenda Item 3b
PROJECTS SUB (POLICY AND RESOURCES) COMMITTEE Tuesday, 23 February 2021
Minutes of the virtual meeting of the Projects Sub (Policy and Resources) Committee held on Tuesday, 23 February 2021 at 11.00 am
Present
Members: Deputy Keith Bottomley (Chairman) Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark (Deputy Chairman) Randall Anderson Andrew McMurtrie Deputy Catherine McGuinness Susan Pearson James de Sausmarez Deputy Philip Woodhouse
Officers: Peter Lisley - Assistant Town Clerk Joseph Anstee - Town Clerk’s Department Rohit Paul - Town Clerk’s Department Sarah Baker - Town Clerk’s Department Caroline Al-Beyerty - Deputy Chamberlain Nicholas Richmond-Smith - Chamberlain’s Department Diane Merrifield - Chamberlain’s Department Chris Bell - Chamberlain’s Department Bukola Soyombo - Chamberlain’s Department James Gibson - Chamberlain’s Department Ola Obadara - City Surveyor’s Department Leah Coburn - Department of the Built Environment Paul Monaghan - Department of the Built Environment Gillian Howard - Department of the Built Environment Leila Ben-Hassel - Department of the Built Environment Maria Curro - Department of the Built Environment Daniel Laybourn - Department of the Built Environment Tom Noble - Department of the Built Environment Clarisse Tavin - Department of the Built Environment Melanie Charalambous - Department of the Built Environment Albert Cheung - Department of the Built Environment Pauline Weaver - City of London Police Jonathan Poyner - Barbican Centre Cornell Farrell - Barbican Centre Hannah Bibbins - Barbican Centre
At the start of the meeting, the Chairman welcomed Members and those watching the live broadcast of the meeting via YouTube, before reminding Members of the guidance circulated for the conducting of remote meetings.
Page 15 1. APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Sheriff Christopher Hayward and Deputy Edward Lord.
2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA There were no declarations.
3. GATEWAY APPROVAL PROCESS RESOLVED – That the Gateway Approval Process be received.
4. MINUTES RESOLVED – That the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 25 January 2021 are approved as an accurate record.
5. PUBLIC ACTIONS The Sub Committee received a report of the Town Clerk regarding public actions. The Sub Committee noted that a report on the Bank Junction Improvements project was on the agenda for consideration.
RESOLVED - That the public actions list be received.
6. GATEWAY 4C - BANK JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT: ALL CHANGE AT BANK The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 4c report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding the Bank Junction Improvements project. The Chairman introduced the item and advised that as it was not usual Sub Committee practice, the recommendation regarding delegated authority should be amended, with any matters for decision to be brought back to the Sub Committee on an efficient basis. The Director of the Built Environment then introduced the report and drew Members’ attention to the key points, also outlining the plan for the public consultation.
The Sub Committee then discussed the proposals, particularly in respect of the public consultation. Members sought assurances that the consultation would be sufficiently broad, account for users of the junction not currently in the City of London and account for the post-COVID-19 landscape. The Chairman added that if the response was not felt to be sufficiently comprehensive then this would need to be addressed, and pausing the project was an option if necessary. The Chairman then reiterated the suggestion made at the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee that officers consult with TfL on the possible use of their channels for advertising the consultation.
The Director of the Built Environment advised that a target for responses had not been set, but cited responses to the Bank on Safety scheme, CAS Return to Work Task Force consultations as a guide. Alongside social media officers would utilise partners such as the Cheapside Business Alliance to encourage businesses to respond to and amplify the consultation. The consultation had been planned in accordance with the project’s challenging timeframe, and
Page 16 whilst there would be an opportunity to pause the project at the next Gateway, it was noted that this would prevent completion by the current 2022 timeframe.
The Chairman asked that the Sub Committee be kept updated on the consultation’s progress, noting the anticipated launch in mid-March. Members stressed the importance of ensuring the consultation was effective, by targeting the right people to capture the views of genuine users and stakeholders, and taking proper account of the responses received.
The Chairman asked officers to report back to the April meeting of the Sub Committee with an update on the number of responses received so far and how the engagement could be analysed to gauge representation.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
1) Approve the detail and programme set out within this report to go out to public consultation, including:
a) Agree to maintain the current restriction timings and mix of traffic of Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm on the ‘open arms’ to bus and cycle only as the base assumption for the consultation. b) That Queen Victoria Street between Bucklersbury and Bank Junction is closed to all Motor Vehicles in an eastbound direction 24/7 c) That Threadneedle Street is closed to Motor Vehicles between the junction and Bartholomew Lane in both directions 24/7 d) That Princes Street is open to buses and cycles only in a northbound direction 24/7 e) That Princes Street southbound is also intended to be the route for traffic to access Cornhill for servicing, as well as bus and cycles. f) Seeking views on potentially extending the restrictions times g) Seeking views regarding the traffic mix during the hours of restriction h) Seeking feedback on the various public realm enhancement proposals outlined in paragraphs 39 to 50.
2) Approve the following details to maintain pace of the programme:
a) Agree that for the reasons set out in this report the proposed traffic model submission for TfL traffic management approvals, has the ‘open’ arms of Cornhill westbound, King William/Lombard Street and Poultry operating as Buses and cycles only Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm. b) Note that Members will be asked to approve the design, timings and mix of traffic following the public consultation, and should they consider it appropriate to seek amendments to the timing and vehicle mix assumptions (in 1a), these can still be considered prior to the scheme becoming operational at the end of 2022.
3) Agree to delegate the final approval of the consultation material and consultation survey to the Director of the Built Environment in
Page 17 consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee.
4) Agree that the project can go to Projects Sub Committee in June ahead of the Streets and Walkways Committee in July if necessary, given the programme constraints.
5) Agree that if necessary, delegated authority is given to the Town Clerk in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Streets and Walkways Sub Committee, to consider the outcome of the public consultation to take minor design decisions, and/or agree changes to process or programme that require earlier approval ahead of the next available committee date in July; with these matters to be submitted to the Projects Sub Committee for consideration if required; and
6) That a Costed Risk Provision of £95,000 is approved to be retained (to be drawn down via delegation to Chief Officer).
7. GATEWAY 5 - WEST SMITHFIELD & CHARTERHOUSE STREET (THAMESLINK) BRIDGES REMEDIAL WORKS The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 5 report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding a project for essential refurbishment/maintenance at three highway structures over railway near Smithfield Market. The Director of the Built Environment introduced the report and drew Members’ attention to the key points.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
1. Agree the total revised project budget of £645,000 (excluding risk);
2. Approve the appointment of Dyer & Butler (incumbent Tunnel Lids contractor) by means of a variation to their currently approved works order in the total value of £390,000; and
3. Agree that a Costed Risk Provision of £150,000 is approved over and above the £645,000 (to be drawn down via delegation to Chief Officer).
8. GATEWAY 2 - CAR PARKS - FIRE REMEDIAL WORKS The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 2 report of the City Surveyor regarding a project to carry out essential fire door replacements at Baynard House and London Wall Car Park, and ventilation replacement at Tower Hill.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
1. Agree that a budget of £30,000 is approved to carry out detailed surveys to reach next Gateway;
2. Note the total estimated cost of the project of £300,000 (excluding risk);
3. Note that there is a Costed Risk of £60,000 (post mitigation);
Page 18
4. Note that the total estimated cost of the project of £360,000 (including risk);
5. Note that ‘in principle’ central funding from City Fund reserves was agreed as part of the 2020/21 annual capital bids, with draw down subject to the further approval of the Resource Allocation Sub and Policy and Resources Committees.
9. GATEWAY 2 - SMITHFIELD MARKET CAR PARK - SPRINKLER AND FIRE DOOR REMEDIAL WORKS The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 2 report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding a project to carry out essential fire door and sprinkler head replacement at Smithfield Market Car Park.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
1. Agree that a budget of £20,000 is approved to carry out detailed surveys to reach the next Gateway;
2. Note the total estimated cost of the project of £120,000 (excluding risk);
3. Note that there is a Costed Risk of £30,000 (post mitigation);
4. Note that the total estimated cost of the project of £150,000 (including risk); and
5. Note that ‘in principle’ central funding from City Cash reserves was agreed as part of the 2020/21 annual capital bids.
10. GATEWAY 3 ISSUE - CROSSRAIL LIVERPOOL STREET URBAN INTEGRATION (PHASE 2) The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 3 Issue report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding Phase 2 of the Crossrail Liverpool Street Urban Integration project. The Director of the Built Environment introduced the report and advised the Sub Committee of preparations for the public consultation at the next stage of the project, which would account for local stakeholders and the impact of COVID-19. Officers would continue to work with TfL and monitor the impact of temporary schemes in response to COIVD-19 in the area.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
a) Note the recent delays incurred by the project, the reasons behind them and what the next steps are; and
b) Note and approve the updated Costed Risk Register – Appendix 1 (overall CRP has not changed).
Page 19 11. GATEWAY 3 - GREENING CHEAPSIDE: SUNKEN GARDEN (PHASE 1B & PHASE 2) The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 3 report of the Director of the Built Environment concerning Phase 1B and Phase 2 of the Greening Cheapside project. The Chairman introduced the item and advised that there were three separate projects within the proposals. The option progressed would be dependent on the funding procured for the project, and officers would return with a preferred option once this had become known.
As two of the possible projects were not funded at this stage, the Chairman proposed that the Sub Committee consider the funded option, and if further funding was secured the project could be brought back for further consideration.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
1. Agree that the increased scope, in response to additional external funding secured, be approved;
2. That Option 1 ‘bronze’ is approved, and to note that options 2 ‘silver’ and 3 ‘gold, will only be progressed should further funding be confirmed. This funding decision will be taken by Members via a separate report on the implementation of the Climate Action Strategy;
3. That additional budget of £50,000 is approved for fees and staff costs (fully externally funded) to reach the next Gateway (G4/5) and that £13,905 underspent from the current budget allocation is carried forward to be used on this next stage of the project; and
4. Note the total estimated cost of the project (Phase 1B) at £296,095- £515,000 (excluding costed risk provision).
12. GATEWAY 2 - 1 LEADENHALL STREET SECTION 278 HIGHWAY WORKS The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 2 report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding Section 278 (S278) highway works to facilitate the 1 Leadenhall Street development. The Sub Committee noted that an additional recommendation authorising officers to enter into the S278 agreement once negotiated with the developer had been omitted in error, and this was also agreed.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
1. Agree that a budget of £100,000 is approved for detail design, engagement with stakeholders and survey work to reach the next Gateway;
2. Note the total estimated cost of the project at £550,000 - £800,000 (excluding risk); and
Page 20 3. Authorise officers to enter into the S278 agreement once negotiated with the developer.
13. GATEWAY 5 - 100 MINORIES PHASE ONE: S278 WORKS The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 5 report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding Phase One of the S278 works at 100 Minories.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
1. Note the revised total estimated cost of the project at £510,236 (excluding risk), subject to successful completion of S278 agreement and receipt of monies; and
2. Agree that a Costed Risk Provision of £68,000 is approved (to be drawn down via delegation to Chief Officer), subject to successful completion of S278 agreement and receipt of monies.
14. GATEWAY 6 - 60-70 ST MARY AXE The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 6 report of the Director of the Built Environment concerning the creation of a new public space and wider improved public realm in the vicinity of the 60-70 St Mary Axe development. The Sub Committee noted the success of the project and delivery within budget.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
1. Note the contents of this report and authorise closure of the project; and
2. Authorise the return of £94,030 to the developer under the terms of the Section 278 agreement, subject to verification of final accounts.
15. GATEWAY 6 - 80 FENCHURCH STREET The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 6 report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding a project to undertake the required S278 highways works in the vicinity of the development at 80 Fenchurch Street.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
i) Approve the content of this outcome report;
ii) Authorise the Chamberlain’s department to return unspent section 278 funds to the Developer as set out in the respective legal agreement (subject to the verification of the final account); and
iii) Agree to close the 80 Fenchurch Street project.
16. GATEWAY 6 - 100 BISHOPSGATE S278 The Sub Committee considered a Gateway 6 report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding highway improvements implemented under the S278 works at 100 Bishopsgate. The Sub Committee noted that whilst there had
Page 21 been delays, the project had delivered positive outcomes and was within budget.
RESOLVED – That the Projects Sub Committee:
a) Approve the content of this outcome report;
b) Authorise the Chamberlain’s department to return unspent Section 278 funds as set out in the respective legal agreement (subject to the verification of the final accounts); and
c) Agree to close the 100 Bishopsgate project.
17. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB- COMMITTEE There were no questions.
18. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT There were no items of urgent business.
19. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED – That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
Item No. Paragraph No 20 - 23 3 24 - 26 7 27 - 29 3 30 - 31 -, 3
20. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES RESOLVED - That the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2021 be approved.
21. NON-PUBLIC ACTIONS Members considered a report of the Town Clerk regarding non-public actions.
22. PROPERTY PROJECTS GROUP - COVID-19 UPDATE The City Surveyor provided an COVID-19 update regarding the Property Projects Group.
23. GATEWAY 2 - BARBICAN CENTRE & GUILDHALL SCHOOL CONFINED AND DANGEROUS SPACES The Sub Committee considered a report of the Barbican Centre and the City Surveyor.
Page 22 24. GATEWAY 2 - 21 MOORFIELDS AND FORE STREET AVENUE SECTION 278 The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment.
25. GATEWAY 2 - BANK STATION UPGRADE - CANNON STREET ENTRANCE S278 The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment.
26. GATEWAY 2 - BUILDING I HVM MEASURES The Sub Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment.
27. GATEWAY 4 ISSUE - CITY OF LONDON SCHOOL - SUMMER WORKS 2021 The Sub Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor.
28. PPG COVID-19 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND - UPDATE The Sub Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor.
29. PORTFOLIO OVERVIEW The Sub Committee received a report of the Town Clerk.
a) Gateway 5 Issue - Bridge House Estates - Candlewick House, 116-126 Cannon Street, London, EC4 The Sub Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor.
b) Gateway 6 - GSMD Roof Phase 2 The Sub Committee considered a report of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama.
c) Red Report: Ring of Steel Compliance (iMS-DRS) Video Management System The Sub Committee received a report of the City of London Police.
d) Red Report: 123-124 New Bond Street The Sub Committee received a report of the City Surveyor.
e) Red Report: Barbican Centre Fire Safety Projects The Sub Committee received a report of the City Surveyor.
30. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB- COMMITTEE There were no questions.
31. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE SUB-COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED There were two items of urgent business.
Page 23 a) GATEWAY 6 - CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT PLANT REPLACEMENT: PHASE 3 The Sub Committee considered a report of the City Surveyor.
The meeting ended at 12.13 pm
Chairman
Contact Officer: Joseph Anstee [email protected]
Page 24 Agenda Item 3c
RESOURCE ALLOCATION SUB (POLICY AND RESOURCES) COMMITTEE Wednesday, 17 March 2021
Minutes of the virtual meeting of the Resource Allocation Sub (Policy and Resources) Committee held on Wednesday, 17 March 2021 at 4.00 pm
Present
Members: Deputy Catherine McGuinness (Chair) Jeremy Mayhew (Deputy Chairman) Tijs Broeke Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Karina Dostalova Anne Fairweather Alderman Vincent Keaveny Deputy Edward Lord Alderman Ian Luder Deputy Tom Sleigh
Officers: John Barradell - Town Clerk and Chief Executive Peter Kane - Chamberlain Caroline Al-Beyerty - Deputy Chamberlain Angela Roach - Assistant Town Clerk Dianne Merrifield - Chamberlain’s Department Bukola Soyombo - Chamberlain’s Department Jack Joslin - City Bridge Trust James Lee - City Bridge Trust Roland Martin - Headmaster of the City of London Freemen's School Jo Moore - City of London Freemen's School Sanjay Odedra - Town Clerk’s Department Paul Wright - Deputy Remembrancer Sonia Virdee - Chamberlain’s Department Greg Moore - Town Clerk’s Department Joseph Anstee - Town Clerk’s Department
1. APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Deputy Keith Bottomley, Sheriff Christopher Hayward, Shravan Joshi and Alderman Sir David Wootton.
2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA There were no declarations.
Page 25 3. MINUTES RESOLVED – That the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 2 March 2021 be agreed as a correct record.
4. CAPITAL FUNDING UPDATE The Sub Committee considered a report of the Chamberlain seeking approval to the reallocation of funding between schemes to address unexpected shortfalls, and to the release of funding post gateway approvals to allow schemes to progress. The Chamberlain introduced the report and outlined the proposals recommended.
RESOLVED – That the Resource Allocation Sub Committee:
(i) Reallocate £1.137m to provide top-up funding for two schemes - applying the ‘one-in, one-out’ approach – as summarised in Table 1 of the report;
(ii) Review the schemes summarised in Table 2 of the report and, particularly in the context of the current financial climate and confirm their continued essential priority for release of funding at this time;
(iii) Agree the release of up to £3.198m for the schemes in Table 2 from the reserves of City Fund, City’s Cash and Bridge House Estates as appropriate, subject to the required Gateway approvals;
(iv) Agree the release of £135,000 of revenue funding to cover maintenance of the new Secure City systems over the interim programme delivery period, to be met from existing revenue provisions; and
(v) Note that in order to maintain sound financial discipline a review of unallocated central project funding provisions will be brought to Members in Spring 2021.
5. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY NEIGHBOURHOOD FUND - APPLICATIONS FOR APPROVAL The Sub Committee considered a report of the Chief Grants Officer and City Bridge Trust (CGO) regarding applications to the Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Fund (CILNF).
RESOLVED – That the Resource Allocation Sub Committee:
1. Note the approved and rejected grants under delegated authority at a meeting of the CILNF Officer Panel in February 2021; and
2. Approve the grant recommended to the Bevis Marks Synagogue Heritage Foundation at a meeting of the CILNF Officer Panel in February 2021, as set out in the report.
Page 26 6. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB COMMITTEE The Chair advised that the Sub Committee was reaching the end of a series of additional meetings, and would soon be reverting to a more familiar programme. The Chair then sought Members’ views on a preferred timetable and frequency of meetings, noting that previously, meetings had been scheduled shortly before meetings of the Policy & Resources Committee. The Town Clerk added that Members had reported difficulties with this arrangement in the virtual meetings format.
Members commented that a more intensive programme may be necessary until the conclusion of the Governance Review, and the frequency of meetings could be reviewed again at that point. Members also felt that scheduling meetings further from Policy & Resources Committee meetings had been beneficial. A Member stressed that going forward, hybrid meetings would be important for participation. Another Member commented that it would be beneficial if a regular date was identified for meetings to maintain a structured committee cycle.
The Deputy Chairman commented that the recent work of the Sub Committee had demonstrated the importance of a collaborative relationship between the Policy & Resources and Finance Committees, and expressed his hope that this would continue. The Chair agreed and thanked Members and officers for their contributions to the work of the Sub Committee during the COVID-19 crisis.
The Chair then thanked Members for their comments and advised that this would be taken forward with the Town Clerk.
7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIR CONSIDERS URGENT There was no other business.
The Chair then thanked any Members of the public watching via YouTube for their attendance.
8. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
Item No. Paragraph No. 9 - 10 3 11 - 12 -
9. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES RESOLVED – That the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 2 March 2021 be agreed as a correct record.
Page 27 10. LOAN REPAYMENT REPHASING AND LOAN PERIOD EXTENSION REQUEST CITY OF LONDON FREEMEN’S SCHOOL The Sub Committee considered a report of the Headmaster of the City of London Freemen’s School.
11. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB COMMITTEE There were no questions.
12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIR CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE SUB COMMITTEE AGREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED There was no other business.
The meeting ended at 4.21 pm
Chair
Contact Officer: Joseph Anstee [email protected]
Page 28 Agenda Item 3d
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUB (POLICY & RESOURCES) COMMITTEE
Thursday, 4 March 2021
Minutes of the meeting of the Public Relations and Economic Development Sub (Policy & Resources) Committee held virtually on Thursday, 4 March 2021 at 3.00 pm
Present
Members: Deputy Catherine McGuinness (Chair) Alderman Timothy Hailes Sheriff Christopher Hayward (Deputy Deputy Jamie Ingham Clark Chairman) Alderman Vincent Keaveny Deputy Keith Bottomley Deputy Edward Lord Tijs Broeke Jeremy Mayhew Dominic Christian Deputy Tom Sleigh Anne Fairweather Alderman Sir David Wootton Alderman Prem Goyal
In Attendance
Officers: Emma Cunnington - Town Clerk's Department Angela Roach - Assistant Town Clerk / Director of Member Services Sam Hutchings - Town Clerk's Department Chloe Rew - Town Clerk's Department Richard Messingham - Town Clerk's Department James Gibson - Chamberlain's Department Paul Double - City Remembrancer Paul Wright - Remembrancer's Department Giles French - Innovation & Growth Bob Roberts - Director of Communications Tim Wainwright - Mansion House & CCC Jeremy Blackburn - Mansion House & CCC
Also in Attendance: Peter Arnold - EY Colin Edwards - EY
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Deputy Sir Michael Snyder.
2. MEMBERS' DECLARATIONS UNDER THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN RESPECT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA There were no declarations of interest.
Page 29
3. MINUTES RESOLVED – That the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 11 February 2021 be approved as a correct record.
4. SPORT ENGAGEMENT UPDATE The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of Communications concerning sport engagement, and heard a presentation of an external consultant on the impact of major sporting events on soft power, trade and investment.
Members were very supportive of the work undertaken by the Sports Engagement Manager, and made the following points: • There should be further exploration about the delivery of events on our own open spaces and engaging with the City’s existing contacts to deliver sporting events; • Any announcement of the research work should be conveyed to the media for wider press coverage; • A focus on urban street games could channel the enthusiasm of young people and reach out to different groups; • Suggestions on how to take forward the recommendations in the EY report would be brought back to Members later this year .
RESOLVED, that – the report be received and its contents noted.
5. 2021 - 2022 MAYORAL THEME - ALDERMAN VINCENT KEAVENY (SUBJECT TO ELECTION) Members considered a joint report of the Director of Community & Children’s Services, the Chief Grants Officer, the Director of Innovation & Growth and the Director of Communications in respect of the 2021-2022 Mayoral Theme for Alderman Vincent Keaveny (subject to election).
Alderman Keaveny advised that theme aligns with several outcomes in the Corporate Plan and amplifies a number of City initiatives and strategies, including the Social Economic Diversity Taskforce, Regional Partnership Strategy, support for SMEs and COVID Recovery.
RESOLVED, that – the 2021-2022 Mayoral Theme be received and its contents noted.
6. IG MONTHLY UPDATE Members received a report of the Director of Innovation & Growth in respect of the Innovation and Growth Monthly Update.
RESOLVED, that – the progress of the Innovation & Growth workstreams be noted.
Page 30
7. PARLIAMENTARY TEAM UPDATE Members received a report of the Remembrancer in respect of the Parliamentary Team Update.
The Remembrancer provided an update in respect of paragraph 15 that the online roundtable with SNP MPs entitled ‘Civic Leadership and Green Finance in the transition to net zero’ would be held on Friday 12 March.
RESOLVED, that – the report be received and its contents noted.
8. CORPORATE AFFAIRS UPDATE Members received a report of the Director of Communication in respect of the Corporate Affairs Update. It was noted that previous Member feedback in terms of a thematic approach to priorities had been incorporated into the strategic plan, and outreach was underway with the City’s MP and local assembly Member.
RESOLVED, that – the report be received and its contents noted.
9. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB- COMMITTEE One question was raised in respect of City’s Cash and the Covid Recovery Fund. Is it worth having an explanation that City’s Cash funds are being used for? The Director of Communications advised that it would be best to focus on service delivery and outcomes, rather than the funding streams that these services come from.
10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT The Chair thanked Emma Cunnington on behalf of the Sub-Committee for her work in supporting this committee and supporting the Policy Chair’s office and wished her all the best in her new role.
11. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC RESOLVED – That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.
Item Paragraph 12 3
12. NON-PUBLIC MINUTES The non-public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 11 February 2021 were approved as a correct record.
13. NON-PUBLIC QUESTIONS ON MATTERS RELATING TO THE WORK OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE There was one question.
Page 31 14. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT AND WHICH THE SUB COMMITTEE AGREES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHILST THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED There was one item of urgent business.
The meeting ended at 4.06 pm
Chair
Contact Officer: Emma Cunnington [email protected]
Page 32 Agenda Item 4
Committee: Date: Policy and Resource Committee 8 April 2021 Court of Common Council 15 April 2021
Subject: Audio-visual Participation in Formal Meetings Public Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate 4, 5 and 9 Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or N capital spending? If so, how much? N/A What is the source of Funding? N/A Has this Funding Source been agreed with the N/A Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: Town Clerk, Remembrancer and Comptroller For Decision and City Solicitor Report author: Angela Roach, Assistant Town Clerk and Director of Committee and Members Services
Summary
1. The introduction of virtual meetings was first contemplated by the Policy and Resources Committee in November 2018. It was considered a sensible means of facilitating greater participation in meetings and at that time the Committee agreed to pilot virtual meetings with the Board of Governors of the City of London Freemen’s School. A number of other Members not associated with that Board were also keen for remote access to meetings to be considered with a degree of permanency to better assist participation in the democratic process and the work commitments of Members and Officers. They have continued to voice this view since that time.
2. Last year’s outbreak of COVID-19 together with the restrictions on gatherings and travel which followed, brought the issue of virtual meetings to the forefront for all public bodies. It resulted in a rapid move to virtual meetings in the UK with Government introducing temporary, emergency, measures (the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020) enabling formal decision-making meetings to be undertaken virtually until 7th May 2021.
3. Virtual meetings have introduced more flexibility, helped to facilitate greater public scrutiny, aided Members and officers in conducting business more efficiently and are now operating with a high degree of success nationally. Notwithstanding this, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) have confirmed that it will not be extending measures beyond 6th May 2021 to enable local authority meetings to continue virtually or indeed enable us to move towards a hybrid format as we would have liked.
Page 33
4. Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 covers public access to meetings, agendas and reports, the inspection of minutes and background papers, etc. and applies to the Common Council in its capacity as a local authority and police authority. Without the modifications introduced by the 2020 Regulations the legislation prohibits formal meetings taking place virtually. This means that in order to participate in discussions and vote on decisions or recommendations, Members must be present physically at the meeting at which the matter is considered. The legislative framework does not apply to informal meetings such as call-overs and working parties.
5. The Court has in the past voluntarily chosen to apply Part VA to all of its formal meetings including those with non-local authority and non-police authority functions. The need for public access to meetings in accordance with Part VA is referred to in Standing Orders No. 4 and 32 but the Standing Orders also give the Court and its Committees scope to disapply those provisions in respect of non-local authority and non-police authority functions. A schedule setting out the status of the committees in terms of the functions they cover is attached as an appendix to this report for your information.
6. Notwithstanding the fact that committees can, if they so choose, change the way the legislation is applied, officers are of the view that rather than leaving this to individual committees and addressing the issue in a piece-meal manner, any disapplication is best dealt with holistically, with a corporate, policy, decision being taken and applied across the board.
Recommendations
7. Members are asked to note the content of this report and:-
i. determine whether, subject to the approval of the Court, Members should continue to have the flexibility to participate in Court and committee meetings remotely, when exercising non-local authority and non-police authority functions;
ii. subject to the approval of recommendation (i) above, resolve to continue voluntarily applying Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 to the Common Council’s non-local authority and non-police authority functions beyond 6th May 2021 as amended by the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020;
iii. authorise a change to the wording on the title page of non-public committee reports which relate to the Common Council’s non-local authority and non- police authority functions to make it clear that Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 is being voluntarily applied;
iv. consider not resuming physical meetings until after 17th May as suggested by the MHCLG, by which time the Department envisages a much greater range of indoor activities taking place in line with the Government’s Roadmap. Noting that, subject to the approval of recommendation (i) above, all decisions required
Page 34
between 7th - 14th May would need to be dealt with under the urgency procedures including those destined for the Court on 13th May;
v. consider whether Members who need to return to Guildhall for face-to-face meetings should be encouraged to undertake regular lateral (rapid) flow tests prior to coming into Guildhall in the same way staff, who have to attend the workplace to perform duties that they cannot do at home, are being encouraged to do; and
vi. the Town Clerk being authorised to make such amendments to Standing Orders and related corporate governance documentation as is required to give effect to the above decisions.
Main Report
Background
8. Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 was inserted by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985. It covers public access to meetings, agendas and reports, the inspection of minutes and background papers, etc. and applies to the Common Council in its capacity as a local authority and police authority. As drafted, the legislation prohibits formal virtual meetings. In order to participate in discussions and vote on decisions or recommendations, a Member must physically be present at the meeting at which the matter is considered. In 1986 the Court of Common Council voluntarily agreed to apply Part VA to all of its formal meetings regardless of whether the relevant functions were financed via City Fund (ratepayers’ money), City’s Cash or Bridge House Estates. It should be noted that this would not prohibit Members participating in informal meetings such as call-overs and working parties remotely.
9. The introduction of virtual meetings in relation to the Common Council’s non-local authority and non-police authority functions was first contemplated by the Policy and Resources Committee in November 2018. It was considered a sensible means of facilitating greater participation in meetings and at that time the Committee agreed to pilot virtual meetings with the Board of Governors of the City of London Freemen’s School. The School Board was attracting limited interest from Members wishing to serve on it and the feeling was that this was largely due to the difficulties associated with Members needing to juggle work commitments with travel to and from Ashtead in Surrey to attend meetings. Other Members not associated with the Board were also calling for remote access to meetings to be considered with a degree of permanency to better assist participation and the work commitments of Members and Officers and allow for some modernisation of the Corporation’s practices. They have continued to voice this view since that time.
10. Last year’s outbreak of COVID-19 together with the restrictions on gatherings and travel which followed, brought the issue to the forefront for all public bodies. It resulted in a rapid move to virtual meetings in the UK with Government introducing temporary, emergency, measures (the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020) (“the Flexibility of Meetings Regulations”)
Page 35
enabling formal decision-making meetings to be undertaken virtually until 7th May 2021.
11. With the advent of improved technology and new ways of working, virtual meetings have been operating well since that time. They have introduced more flexibility, helped to facilitate greater public scrutiny, aided Members and officers in conducting business more efficiently and are now operating with a high degree of success nationally. The City Corporation’s committee rooms have been upgraded and can now support this new way of working. A project is also underway to upgrade the AV system and equipment used in Guildhall’s event spaces in order to better support the delivery of both the City Corporation’s and commercial events in future.
12. Notwithstanding this, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) have confirmed that it will not be extending measures to enable local authority meetings to continue virtually or indeed enable us to move towards a hybrid format as had been hoped. MHCLG had previously advised that extending the facility for councils to continue to meet remotely, or in hybrid form, would require primary legislation. In confirming its view more recently, the Department have also commented that with the successful rollout of the vaccine and the reduction in cases of Covid-19, risks to Members meeting in person will reduce significantly. It cited the ability of public bodies to utilise existing powers to delegate decision-making to key individuals as another reason and whilst the Flexibility of Meetings Regulations end on 6th May, the MHCLG have suggested that local authorities could also consider not resuming physical meetings until after 17th May by which time it is envisaged that a much greater range of indoor activity will be taking place in line with the Government’s Roadmap. A copy of the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government’s letter is attached as an appendix.
13. Nevertheless, the Minister is encouraging Councils to share their experiences, via a call for evidence, about how remote meetings have taken place during the pandemic. Its purpose is to inform any potential legislation regarding their use beyond the coronavirus outbreak and will close on 17th June 2021. It is important that the City Corporation responds to this accordingly.
14. The Local Government Association as well as a number of pan-London agencies all made representations to MHCLG prior to its decision and will continue do so in light of the most recent outcome. The Association of Democratic Services Officers (ADSO) with the help of Lawyers in Local Government (LLG) is seeking a declaratory judgment in the High Court that the Act does in fact allow remote cabinet and committee meetings to take place (contrary to the generally accepted position).
15. In the meantime, like us, local authorities are now considering their options for enabling safe, physical, attendance at meetings including looking at the use of larger premises and any associated cost.
16. The requirement for people to socially distance is still in place and is likely to remain so for some time, making it difficult to accommodate some of the City Corporation’s larger committees without the use of larger event space and incurring significant cost. For example, there are 32 Members on this Committee and its usual meeting place,
Page 36
Committee Rooms 3 and 4, can only accommodate a maximum of 18 people in a safe, socially distanced, manner. This excludes access to a public gallery. Moving the meeting to alternative event space such as Great Hall will come with a cost (approximately £6,848.50 ex. VAT for the first meeting and £5,400 for subsequent meetings), should we wish to continue with livestreaming and/or record meetings (which in our view is desirable to assist managing physical attendance and to maintain greater transparency). If physical meetings are to resume before 17th May, a total of 6 meetings would potentially have to be held in Great Hall due to the size of membership and limited capacity in the committee rooms. They would need to be supported by an external contractor at a cost of approximately £33, 848.50. That said, streaming is not legally required if provision is made for the public to attend physically. However, doing so would require space, further limit the number of Members who can attend meetings in a committee and could be challenging logistically.
17. The decision to apply Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 to all the Common Council’s functions was well-meaning and was based on the Court’s desire to increase transparency and consistency across all of its activities. However, given the success of virtual meetings and the fact that the expiry of the 2020 Regulations will again require Members to be physically present in order to make decisions on local authority and police authority matters, the time is now right for the City Corporation to consider whether it ought to move away from a “one size fits all” approach.
18. Consideration should therefore be given to whether Members should continue to have the flexibility to participate in committee meetings remotely when exercising non-local authority and non-police authority functions. To assist with this decision a schedule of the status of the Common Council’s committees in terms of the functions they cover, is attached as an appendix to this report for your information.
19. The need for public access to meetings in accordance with Part VA is referred to in Standing Orders No. 4 and 32 but the Standing Orders also give the Court and its Committees scope to disapply those provisions in respect of non-local authority and non-police authority functions. However, officers are of the view that rather than leaving this to individual committees and addressing the issue in a piecemeal manner any disapplication is best dealt with holistically with a corporate, policy, decision being taken and applied across the board.
20. When considering local and police authority matters, the Comptroller and City Solicitor has advised that the statutory framework surrounding local authority meetings (in the absence of the 2020 Regulations) require the public to have physical access to the public part of the meeting. Authorities would however be able to make reasonable provision in the current circumstances by, for example, continuing to offer a live streaming service to those members of the public who could not be accommodated physically. It has always been the case that public access can be limited by the facilities reasonably available as long as the authority acts in good faith (it is likely to be bad faith to deliberately organise a meeting in a small room to limit public access). Reasonable available capacity having regard to health and safety requirements is therefore a legitimate limiting factor.
Page 37
Options for Holding Physical Meetings Safely
21. The City Corporation has a duty of care with regard to the use of its premises. It is required to conduct appropriate risk assessments and to follow Public Health England, Health and Safety Executive and Government guidance to ensure that business is conducted safely. As mentioned, the requirement for social distancing (two metres, or one metre with risk mitigation (where two metres is not viable) will still be in place and for the time being capacity in the committee rooms has been reduced to adhere to this. For example, in Committee Room 1 it is now no more than 8 people, Committee Room 2 no more than 10 and Committee Rooms 3 and 4 combined, now has a maximum of 18 people with two metre distancing. In addition, safe movement around the building will also need to be factored in.
22. Accommodating some of the City Corporation’s larger committees without the use of larger event space will be challenging and carries a significant cost. The reduced capacity in committee rooms is also likely to have an impact on the management of the current calendar of meetings. For example, on 26th May, there are 4 meetings scheduled to take place – Property Investment Board (8.30am start), Social investment Board (9am start), Resource Allocation Sub-Committee (10am start) and Markets Committee (11.30am start). Due to the size of the membership of the Markets Committee (33), this meeting could not be accommodated in the committee rooms unless 16 members were excluded from attending in person. The other committees could be accommodated in the committee rooms - and all members able to attend physically - but there is uncertainty regarding the amount of time required between meetings to allow for rooms to be appropriately cleaned before re-use. Overall footfall through the 2nd and 3rd floors of West Wing are also a consideration when and where meetings can be held, noting the guiding principle that the meeting area must be Covid-safe.
23. Accommodating a full Court of Common Council meeting will also be challenging. Committee and Members Services have been advised that Great Hall can accommodate approximately 63 Members only with the 2m social distancing safety measure in place. This increases to approximately 106 Members if 1m distancing is deployed with further risk mitigation measures, i.e. those present in the room being required to wear a mask.
24. Officers are in the process of working through the impact and the complex logistics of holding committee meetings as well as the limitations associated with Court meetings. For example, consideration is being given to the use of alternative, City Corporation, venues which might be able to accommodate a full Court, cleaning the committee rooms in between meetings and, in the case of the Court, cleaning microphones after use and managing a division should one be required if Great Hall is used. In the meantime, it is proposed that, apart from the Clerk, all officers should to continue to attend meetings remotely. This will assist with management of physical numbers within a confined space. It also represents a more efficient use of officer time.
25. Members views are nevertheless sought on what further measures could be introduced to managing meetings within these constraints. For example, consideration could be given to:-
Page 38
• committees taking place on an informal basis prior to convening a formal session for decision-making. The Policy and Resources Committee adopted a similar process, albeit briefly, at the beginning of the pandemic. The process enabled those attending remotely to share their thoughts or ask questions on agenda items and for the general view of the Committee to be known before a formal decision is taken. Such an approach is unlikely to be appropriate for Planning and Licensing.
• reverting to the use of the urgency process for the time being but widening the scope of the process by convening an informal meeting of a committee to, once again, share thoughts/ask questions prior to a formal decision being taken.
• Convening an informal, virtual, meeting of the Court with the public being given access to the informal meeting and formal decisions subsequently being ratified under the urgency procedures.
• Where there are no decisions to take, Sub-Committees and indeed Consultatively Committees being held informally and taking place as a virtual meeting.
• Subject to the Committee’s views on the disapplication of certain aspects of local authority legislation across the board, all non-local authority committees and Boards continuing to take place virtually for the timing being (and not hybrid). This would create more room in the committee calendar for those meetings which have to take place physically.
• Reduce social distancing to one metre to allow more Members to attend physically. However, this will require further risk mitigation with those present in the meeting room having to wear a mask.
26. It is important to note that some of these suggestions will reduce the level of public transparency as to how decisions were reached. It is also important to note that to minimise the risk of asymptomatic people transmitting the COVID virus, staff who have to attend the workplace to perform duties they cannot do at home are being encouraged to undertake a lateral (rapid) flow test period to attending the workplace. The Committee might want to encourage Members who need to return to Guildhall for face-to-face meetings to do the same.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
27. For local authorities, the conduct of meetings is governed primarily by the Local Government Act 1972. Not all these provisions apply to the City Corporation in its capacity as a local authority or police authority. However, those provisions that do apply, inserted by legislation passed in 1985, do not as drafted allow Members attending via video link to count towards the quorum, participate in discussion, or take part in voting on the business at a meeting. The advice from leading counsel in the past has been that it would probably be permissible for Members and officers to make some contribution to local authority or police authority meetings via video link where a quorate meeting is taking place in one physical location, but this would be limited to, for example, assisting with a factual matter, or dealing with a point of information. This has always been the generally accepted position, within Government and Local
Page 39
Government, hence the need for the Flexibility of Meetings Regulations in the first place. However, as noted in paragraph 14 this position is now being challenged and officers will monitor the position.
28. Subject to this, any change to this position after the expiry of the Flexibility of Meetings Regulations therefore requires an amendment to legislation. The view of Government, pre-pandemic, was that only joint committees, combined authorities meetings and some rural authority meetings were suitable to be held via video conferencing for transparency purposes reasons and the potential distances people might need to travel to adhere to some of those arrangements. As will be seen above the Government has indicated that they do not intend to extend the Flexibility of Meetings Regulations and the position will therefore revert to the traditional position.
29. In terms of the City Corporation’s educational activities, schools in the public sector are able to hold virtual meetings under legislation specifically directed at them, and independent schools may also do so depending on the terms of their individual governing instruments.
30. With regard to some of our other activities, such as Bridge House Estates, and other charities for which the City Corporation is trustee acting by the Court of Common Council, guidance from the Charity Commission states that charity trustees may choose to conduct some trustee meetings by electronic means, unless the governing document specifically prohibits it, and provided that the means used allows them to both see and hear each other. The guidance states that such meetings can be useful if an emergency decision needs to be made, if trustees live a long way from any central point or if electronic communication makes it easier for charity trustees with disabilities to participate.
31. The City of London is a common law corporation and the conduct of its non-local authority and non-police authority business is a matter for its own internal management. This includes the conduct of Court of Common Council and its committees. In the same way that the Court can voluntarily choose to adopt the framework under Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 for its non-local authority and non-police authority functions, it can continue to treat the currently amended provisions as though they apply. It could also choose to depart from this framework completely and develop some alternative arrangements. This has been confused by the existing Corporation practice of referring to the Local Government Act 1972 on the title page of all non-public committee reports when dealing with access to information rules, a practice traceable to a decision of the Common Council when the 1985 legislation was passed to record the access rules applicable to local authorities to all Common Council functions whether local authority or non-local authority in nature. This was a decision which the Court was entirely entitled to make, but the prompt for doing so was the Common Council’s and not as a result of a statutory imposition.
32. This history is not apparent from the way committee papers are currently annotated. The existing practice infers that all Common Council functions are governed by the 1972 Act. The issue raised by virtual meetings points to the need to address the current practice to make clear that in relation to non-local authority functions, the rules on access are governed by the Corporation’s policy decision and not imposed by the legislation applicable to local authorities.
Page 40
33. Members are therefore asked to consider authorising a change to the wording on the title page of all non-public committee reports which relate to the Common Council’s non-local authority and non-police authority functions to make it clear that Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 is being voluntarily applied.
Corporate and Strategic Implications
34. The ability to virtually attend meetings or hold meetings in hybrid format supports outcomes 4, 5 and 9 of the Corporate Plan i.e. it will ensure that City Corporation remains digitally well-connected and responsive, it will also assist in ensuring that its communities being more tenacious and cohesive and that as a business we are trusted and socially and environmentally responsible. As an organisation with private, public and charitable and community sector responsibilities, and significant capabilities and commitments, it is important that we demonstrate this across all our activities. Disentangling the organisations non-local authority and non-policy authority also supports the ethos of the City Corporation’s responsible business strategy by creating positive impact on decision-makings. The change will enhance transparency and accountability and enable the City Corporation to support its communities becoming better connected.
Equality Impact Assessment
35. Under the Equality Act 2010, all public bodies have a duty to ensure that when exercising their functions due regard is given to the need to:-
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the 2010 Act; • advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and • foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not;
In advancing equality of opportunity public bodies also need to have due regard to the need:-
• remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; • take steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people; and • encourage people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is disproportionately low.
36. An Equality Assessment has been undertaken to ensure that this will not adversely affect any particular group of people (i.e. age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sex orientation). Disapplying legislation which requires Members to be physically present in order to participate in the decision-making process will have a positive impact by widening transparency and the scope for elected Members and members of the public to participate in the democratic process remotely, particularly those with
Page 41
disabilities or health conditions which would potentially make coming into Guildhall difficult.
Conclusion
37. With the advent of improved technology and new ways of working, virtual meetings are operating well. They have introduced more flexibility, helped to facilitate greater public scrutiny, aided Members and officers in conducting business more efficiently and are now operating with a high degree of success nationally. The City Corporation’s committee rooms have been upgraded and can now support this new way of working. A project is also underway to upgrade the AV system and equipment used in Guildhall’s event spaces in order to better support the delivery of both the City Corporation’s and commercial events in future. A resolution to continue voluntarily applying Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 to the Common Council’s non- local authority and non-police authority functions beyond 6th May 2021, as amended by the 2020 Regulations, will enable certain committees to continue with virtual/hybrid meetings on a permanent basis.
38. Whilst the Court, its Committees and Sub-Committees have the ability to do disapply the legislation, officers are of the view that rather than leaving this to individual committees and addressing the issue in a piece meal manner any disapplication is best dealt with holistically with a corporate, policy, decision being taken and applied across the board. Officers are also of the view that consideration should be given to changing the wording on all non-public reports with reference to the Local Government Act 1972, where it does not formally apply, as this can cause confusion.
Appendices: Schedule of the Status of Committees and Letter from the Minister for Regional Growth and Local Government, Luke Hall MP
Contact Officer: Angela Roach, Assistant Town Clerk and Director of Members Services T: 020 7332 1418 E:[email protected]
Page 42
Appendix 1
Local Authority Status of Committees/Boards
Body Local Authority (Yes/No/Part)
1 Audit and Risk Management Committee Part
2 Barbican Centre Board Yes
3 Barbican Residential Committee No
4 Board of Governors of the City of London Freemen’s No School
5 Board of Governors of the City of London School No
6 Board of Governors of the City of London School for No Girls
7 Board of Governors of Guildhall School of Music and No Drama
8 Capital Buildings Committee Part
9 Community and Children’s Services Committee Yes
10 Culture, Heritage and Libraries Committee Part
11 Education Board Part
12 Epping Forest and Commons Committee No
13 Establishment Committee Part
14 Finance Committee Part
15 Freedom Applications Committee No
16 Gresham (City Side) Committee No
17 Hampstead Heath, Highgate Wood and Queen’s Park No Committee 18 Health and Wellbeing Board Yes
19 Investment Committee Part
20 Licensing Committee Yes
Page 43
21 Livery Committee No
22 Local Government Pensions Board Yes
23 Markets Committee Part
24 Open Spaces and City Gardens Committee Part
25 Planning and Transportation Committee Yes
26 Police Authority Board Yes
27 Policy and Resources Committee Part
28 Port Health and Environmental Services Committee Part
29 Standards Appeals Committee Part
30 West Ham Park Committee No
31 Bridge House Estates Committee (NEW) No
32 Innovation & Growth Advisory Board (NEW) No
33 Health and Social Scrutiny Care Yes
34 Fraud and Cyber Crime Reporting and Analysis No Service Procurement Committee (NEW – time limited)
Local Authority Committees 8
Non-Local Authority 14 Committees
Hybrid Committees 12
Page 44 APPENDIX 2
Luke Hall MP Minister of State for Regional Growth and Local Government
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Council Leaders Principal Councils in England Tel: 0303 444 3440 Email: [email protected]
www.gov.uk/mhclg
25 March 2021
Dear Colleague,
LOCAL AUTHORITY MEETINGS It is just over a year to the day since the Prime Minister asked us all to stay at home, and local authorities across England have risen magnificently to the challenges of this period. There has been a dramatic shift in your day-to-day operations, alongside new difficulties and demands, and I commend the efforts of all councillors and officers in supporting your communities and ensuring vital business continues during these unprecedented times. As you will be aware, The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 do not apply to meetings on or after 7 May 2021. Extending the regulations to meetings beyond May 7 would require primary legislation. The Government has considered the case for legislation very carefully, including the significant impact it would have on the Government’s legislative programme which is already under severe pressure in these unprecedented times. We are also mindful of the excellent progress that has been made on our vaccination programme and the announcement of the Government’s roadmap for lifting Covid-19 restrictions. Given this context, the Government has concluded that it is not possible to bring forward emergency legislation on this issue at this time. As outlined in the Government’s Spring 2021 Covid-19 Response, our aim is for everyone aged 50 and over and people with underlying health conditions to have been offered a first dose of the Covid-19 vaccine by 15 April, and a second dose by mid-July. While local authorities have been able to hold meetings in person at any time during the pandemic with appropriate measures in place, the successful rollout of the vaccine and the reduction in cases of Covid-19 should result in a significant reduction in risk for local authority members meeting in person from May 7, as reflected in the Government’s plan to ease Covid-19 restrictions over the coming months.
I recognise there may be concerns about holding face-to-face meetings. Ultimately it is for local authorities to apply the Covid-19 guidance to ensure meetings take place safely, but we have updated our guidance on the safe use of council buildings to highlight ways in which you can, if necessary, minimise the risk of Pageface-to -45face meetings, and we will work with TEMPLATE FRAMEWORK – NOT TO BE USED FOR SUBMISSION OF DRAFT ANSWERS sector representative bodies to ensure that local authorities understand the guidance and are aware of the full range of options available to them. You can find the updated guidance here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19- guidance-for-the-safe-use-of-council-buildings/covid-19-guidance-for-the-safe-use-of-council- buildings. These options would include use of your existing powers to delegate decision making to key individuals such as the Head of Paid Service, as these could be used these to minimise the number of meetings you need to hold if deemed necessary. Additionally, some of you will be able to rely on single member decision making without the need for cabinet meetings if your constitution allows. While I appreciate that a greater number of authorities will be subject to elections this year due to the postponement of the 2020 elections, those councils who are not subject to elections could also consider conducting their annual meetings prior to 7 May, and therefore do so remotely while the express provision in current regulations apply. As you will know, councils who are subject to elections are statutorily required to hold their annual meeting within 21 days of the elections. The Government’s roadmap proposes that organised indoor meetings (e.g. performances, conferences) are permitted from 17 May, subject to Covid secure guidelines and capacity rules. On this basis, councils should consider the extent to which their annual meetings (and any other meetings) can operate on the same basis as other local institutions in their area, taking into account their individual circumstances and requirements. If your council is concerned about holding physical meetings you may want to consider resuming these after 17 May, at which point it is anticipated that a much greater range of indoor activity can resume in line with the Roadmap, such as allowing up to 1,000 people to attend performances or sporting events in indoor venues, or up to half-capacity (whichever is lower). Finally, while you do have a legal obligation to ensure that the members of the public can access most of your meetings, I would encourage you to continue to provide remote access to minimise the need for the public to attend meetings physically until at least 21 June, at which point it is anticipated that all restrictions on indoor gatherings will have been lifted in line with the Roadmap. However, it is for individual local authorities to satisfy themselves that they have met the requirements for public access. I am grateful for the efforts that local authorities have made to allow remote meetings in their area and recognise that there has been a considerable investment of time, training and technology to enable these meetings to take place, and I am aware that some authorities, though by no means all, have made calls for the Government to make express provision for remote meetings beyond the scope of the pandemic. I am today launching a call for evidence on the use of current arrangements and to gather views on the question of whether there should be permanent arrangements and if so, for which meetings. There are many issues to consider and opinions on the detailed questions vary considerably. This will establish a clearer evidence base of opinion and enable all the areas to be considered before further decisions are made. The Government will consider all responses carefully before deciding to how to proceed on this issue. Page 46 TEMPLATE FRAMEWORK – NOT TO BE USED FOR SUBMISSION OF DRAFT ANSWERS
I am copying this letter to the Mayor of London, the chairs of the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, as well as the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in respect of other authorities covered by the current meetings regulations, including fire and rescue authorities, police and crime panels, national park authorities, the Broads Authority, and conservation boards.
Yours sincerely,
LUKE HALL MP
Cc. Rt Hon Priti Patel MP, Home Secretary Rt. Hon. George Eustice MP, Environment Secretary Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London Cllr. James Jamieson, LGA Chairman Cllr. Sue Baxter, NALC Chairman
Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 48 Agenda Item 5
Committee(s): Date: Policy and Resources 8 April 2021 Subject: Election Engagement Campaign Public Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate Plan 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or capital N spending? If so, how much? N/A What is the source of Funding? N/A Has this Funding Source been agreed with the N/A Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: Director of Communications For Decision Report author: Mark Gettleson, Election Engagement Manager
Summary
Following the postponement of the elections for Common Councillors and Aldermen until March 2022, the Policy and Resources Committee chose to take this opportunity to improve engagement in those elections: digitising the registration process and hiring a new Campaign Manager.
This report contains the proposals of the Election Engagement Manager to address issues relating to election registration, turnout and candidate diversity.
It recognises while some issues relating to participation in the election relate directly to the COVID-19 pandemic – such as ongoing social restrictions and changed working patterns – others are due to longer-term factors, including our internal processes and community engagement.
Dealing with these issues goes to the heart of who we are as an organisation: how we relate to those we serve and represent, the value they place on us and the democratic mandate we receive from them.
This report therefore proposes:
• A whole-organisation approach – leveraging the strong existing relationships of Members, Officers, and partners to disseminate action-based election messages at meetings and digitally. These relationships and activities will be tracked centrally to ensure success and replicate best practice in successful modern political campaigns.
• A “digital first” approach – as is essential during a period of continuing unpredictability, we will focus on online outreach to communicate with organisations and individuals most likely to engage in the election, through simple and attractive online content, digital advertising to promote it, and temporary staff to assist with that outreach.
Page 49
• Strong and synchronised messages - to effectively raise the salience of the elections. As far as possible, we will root the election campaign in messages and campaigns relating to City recovery and diversity, which are high priorities for registrants and tie into other streams of work being undertaken by the City Corporation.
Recommendations Members are asked to:
1. Approve the report.
2. Approve the use of £182,000 Committee Contingency funds previously allocated for spending on the election campaign (£127,000 in February 2020 and £55,000 in March 2020) to implement the plan covered by this report, specifically: (a) £47,000 to create an election “campaign portal” CRM and website, enabling us to encourage and track all engagement with the election in real time and be a central source of key information for all audiences. (b) £40,000 on digital advertising and engagement. (c) £40,000 to recruit additional temporary staff to carry out that engagement online and offline, prior to the registration deadline. (d) £25,000 on direct mail, print advertising and material including an easy to distribute leaflet for use by Members and Officers. (e) £20,000 to part fund a role to lead on senior internal stakeholder engagement and ensure a whole-corporation approach to election engagement. (f) £5,000 to hold a candidate diversity reception. (g) £5,000 towards creative production and graphic design, as required in the course of the campaign.
3. Agree that non-financial resources across the organisation to deployed the support the above activities, as a priority, including: (a) IT support for the creation and maintenance of an engagement CRM that is able to draw information in real time from other City Corporation CRMs – and ensure the City Occupiers’ Database is able to update automatically with new information collected online. (b) Support from all departments and partners with a community engagement function (e.g. CPAT, CBL, Chamberlains [rates], Surveyors [Tenants], Licensing, Heart of the City, etc.) (c) Subject to GDPR compliance, information and contact details be shared across the organisation to support election engagement goals. (d) Making clear the City Corporation’s preference for postal voting among both residents and workers, in order to maximise participation.
Page 50 Main Report
Background
1. At its December meeting, the Committee approved the appointment of a dedicated election campaign manager, tasked with improving registration, turnout and candidate diversity ahead of the postponed Common Council and Aldermanic elections to now be held in March 2022. The postholder was asked to come back to this committee as soon as possible after their appointment to present a new election engagement plan. Acting at significant pace, the post was advertised on 1 February, with a campaign manager in place on 1 March and this report presented in April.
2. The Committee approved a £127,000 programme of activities for this election at its February 2020 meeting and made available a further £55,000 for additional activities at its December 2020 meeting. Having reviewed existing plans, the Election Engagement Manager has proposed a significantly altered composite campaign plan that forms the basis of this report.
Current Position
3. In March 2022, the delayed all-out elections will take place to elect Common Councillors and Aldermen. These elections will be based on the Ward List, for which voters can be registered between 1 September and 16 December (City of London Act 1957, section 7). Each qualifying body must be informed of the number of voters they are able to register prior to 1 September (City of London Act 2002, section 8) – based on the size of their workforce, determined in part by responses to the City Occupiers’ Survey, which we conduct between now and June.
4. As outlined in the November 2020 report, complexities arise from the continued dislocation of the City workforce, with voting eligibility dependent on predicting the number of workers who will use a City address as their principal place of work on 1 September, even if they are still working flexibly. Those expected to now be working from home permanently will not be counted towards voting eligibility.
5. Due to the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of voters on the Ward List fell from 19,200 (6,484 residents and 12,716 workers) in 2019/20 to 12,980 (4,993 residents and 7,987 workers) in 2020/21. The number of qualifying bodies (businesses and others) registering voters fell from 41% of those eligible in 2019/20 to 24% in 2020/21. There are, however, longer-term trends at play, with the majority of identified eligible qualifying bodies not having registered voters since 2014/15.
6. Qualifying bodies registering more than one voter are required, so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure that the voters it appoints reflect the composition of its workforce (City of London Act 2020, section 4). Attempts to enforce this legal requirement have so far been limited.
Page 51 7. The City Corporation is undertaking a number of campaigns relating to City Recovery, which focus on many of same audiences as the election campaign.
8. Electronic voter registration will be introduced for residents for the upcoming registration canvass in 2021, making it far easier to undertake this process quickly and remotely. The electronic voter registration for businesses will also be altered to be integrated with the Electoral Services Software system providing efficiencies for the Electoral Services Team. It is also now possible to complete the City Occupiers Survey online; however, this does not automatically populate the City Occupiers Database and any information given must be re-entered manually.
Proposals
9. While previous programmes of election activity have focused on promotional materials and awareness-raising, the aim of this plan is to take a more holistic and targeted approach, focused on encouraging and tracking specific actions among registrants, voters and potential candidates. As outlined in the summary, this plan takes a whole-organisation and digital-first approach to addressing election engagement, while rooting messages in high-salience topics relating to City recovery and improved diversity.
Campaign Portal Backend: Election Engagement CRM
10. Various teams across the City Corporation and its partners engage with businesses and other organisations on a regular basis. Leveraging those relationships effectively will be crucial element in ensuring each organisation is fully registered and engaged in our elections. As such, we must develop a means of bringing together those relationships centrally: using the City Occupiers Database for underlying information and overlaying information from SEEMs (the shared IG, Mansion House, Communications and Remembrancers CRM), the City Business Library and other CRMs. This Election Engagement CRM would allow for a single overview, helping us identify the relationships we need to leverage in order to engage an organisation in the election.
11. The Election Engagement CRM would also track particular key metrics in live time, such as completion of the City Occupiers Survey, voter registration, postal vote applications and new information we collect in the course of the campaign, such as information about potential voters and candidates. Some of this will require changes to the City Occupiers Database, such as digital surveys automatically updating the database, enabling live data to feed in immediately.
Campaign Portal Frontend
12. We will then create a central campaign site, under the slogan “Speak for the City” with a series of attractive targeted landing pages, providing information and collecting details from those we want to engage in the election – deploying exceptional design and user experience. This would include the City Occupiers Survey, voter registration, postal vote applications, expressions of interest in being a voting representative or a candidate. We would guide organisations
Page 52 through the process of selecting their voting representatives and push them to do this prior to registration opening on 30 August – collecting contact details, where possible, on those they plan to register. All these actions and information would be stored in our Election Engagement CRM.
13. Learning from the Local Government Association’s Be A Councillor programme, a key section of the campaign portal would be information and advice to new candidates, especially those from diverse backgrounds, including voxpops from women, BAME and LGBT+ members and officers. Visitors could choose to complete a survey, which would match them with member and officer ‘mentors’, who they would be able to contact immediately. Members will be asked for their support in creating content for this section, in order to keep it as relevant as possible to the lived experience of being a candidate and councillor.
14. If practicable, following the close of nominations in 2022, the campaign portal could also include a section with information on each of the candidates – a virtual ‘candidate booklet’ of the kind issued during a London Mayoral Election – which would include contact details and the ability of visitors to engage with them further. We could also consider experimenting with integrating an online hustings functionality via Microsoft Teams, as a supplement to wardmotes.
15. As legislation requires us to publish provisional ward lists “on or before 30 November”, it is proposed to publish a searchable list online of organisations and their registration status in real time after 30 August, including the number of voters to which an organisation is entitled. This would enable workers to check on their organisation and to contact us if they are interested in becoming a voter themselves. Such a function would aim to generate ‘network effects’, whereby leaders will want to be seen to engage in the process on behalf of their staff, and where staff are able to act as internal election advocates. Likewise, elected members will be able to see which organisations in their ward have registered and whether they have used their full allowance. It may also be possible to give a demographic breakdown of larger organisations’ registered representatives, in order to encourage the submission of diverse and reflective lists, as is required by legislation.
16. It is proposed that we would develop the campaign portal externally, using experts in digital campaigning, supported by internal assistance from IT and other departments.
Voter contact
17. During an ongoing and unpredictable health crisis and changes to working patterns, overly relying on printed materials would put the success of the campaign at risk. While we propose producing some physical materials and canvassing activities, the campaign should be “digital first”, focused on identifying online exactly those we’re looking to survey, register and turn out. These will then be directed to appropriate, targeted landing pages on our campaign portal.
Page 53 18. Where possible, we will first use the relationships and information the City Corporation and its partners already hold, to encourage engagement – ensuring compliance with the GDPR while mindful of our legal obligations to ensure correct registration. We will develop different approaches for organisations of different sizes, mindful of the need in large organisation to get buy-in from senior leadership, as well as administrators. We will also leverage the relationships held by our diversity networks, both for ensuring organisations nominate representative voters (as required by law) and finding candidates.
19. Where we lack responses, existing information or relationships, we will use social media advertising to contact potential voters directly. This should include Twitter, Instagram and – primarily – LinkedIn advertising. We will pursue a formal partnership with LinkedIn to try and maximise our ability to reach the right organisations and staff directly, using tools like LinkedIn Sales Navigator, which could integrate directly with our Election Engagement CRM (subject to compliance with the GDPR).
20. For this work, both online and offline, we will enlist additional temporary staff May to December as part of a “field team”. This team will be given weekly targets relating to key election outcomes and attend twice weekly field campaign meetings, with metrics shared with interested members and officers. They will work closely with existing staff, both permanent and the ‘retail follow-up’ team, with the latter co-managed by the Election Engagement Manager.
21. The development of paper communications materials will depend heavily on the physical reality of the time of distribution, and while there is reason to be optimistic, there are advantages to retaining some flexibility. All paper communications should focus on directing readers to our online campaign portal, helping to track and quantify its effectiveness. These may include a special election edition of CityMatters or a wraparound of CityAM. As was approved at the March 2020 meeting, approaches from the Lord Mayor may prove highly effective at persuading unregistered businesses to take part in the election. It is proposed to retain a direct mail and paper communications budget, representing a small proportion of the overall election engagement budget, for this purpose.
22. While most of the fall in residential registration 2019/20 to 2020/21 is believed to be due to people being temporarily away from London during the annual canvass, particular effort will be made to follow up with those properties which fell off the register. Additionally, where temporary accommodation has been made more permanent during the pandemic, we will ensure these are identified and approached for registration.
23. Following the closure of registration on 16 December, the main focus of the campaign will become turnout among both residents and workers. While many of the engagement ideas proposed above will serve to increase participation, specific actions will also be taken such as strong encouragement of postal votes and email reminders of the election date and individuals’ polling station locations. We could also make businesses aware that whether or not their nominating voters cast a ballot is a matter of public record.
Page 54
24. A diversity reception for potential candidates, as undertaken in previous years and approved by this Committee, will be undertaken in the autumn, though candidates will also be encouraged to meet their “mentors” on an ad-hoc basis. However, it is our intention to embed diversity messages throughout the registration process, reflecting the high priority which target registrants will give it.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
25. The opportunities presented in this report will assist the City Corporation’s vision in terms of its Corporate Plan. It will help the organisation’s contribution to a flourishing society, ensuring people have equal opportunities to enrich their lives through our democracy. The activities and engagement proposed will help encourage residents and businesses to become more invested in engaging with democracy at a local level. They will help build more socially responsible businesses by engaging them in City democracy and encouraging them to promote diversity among voters and candidates. The proposals to create an innovative digital-first election campaign will make our communities better- connected and encourage collaboration across our organisation and its partners.
Resource implications
26. Significant resources from across the City Corporation will need to be deployed to make the election engagement campaign a success, specifically from all departments and partners with a community engagement function, as well as IT, as many of the solutions proposed require digital changes and support.
Legal implications
27. While many activities relating to voter registration are public duties required by law, several of these proposals involve significant GDPR considerations – and will only be implemented subject to the agreement of the City Solicitor.
Equalities implications
28. The aim of this campaign plan is to dramatically increase participation in the election and candidate diversity. It also addresses the requirement for qualifying bodies to nominate a reflective representation of their workforce as voters. Digitising both the electoral process and engagement campaigns will make it more accessible to a wider and more diverse audience and encourage more City constituents to participate in the democratic process, including those with protected characteristics, for example, those with mobility issues.
Climate implications
29. The proposals included in this paper do not carry any significant implications for the Climate Action programme. However, the increasing digitisation of the electoral process and engagement will contribute to decreasing the City
Page 55 Corporation’s footprint. While some paper materials will still be required, this plan aims to reduce significantly the proportion of outreach this represents.
Conclusion
30. Members have expressed their wish for increased participation and diversity in City elections over many years. While the Covid-19 pandemic has brought this matter to a head, issues relating to community engagement and collaboration across the organisation have developed over many years. The activities listed here focus on resolving these beyond a purely promotional or awareness-raising response, building innovative digitally-led solution that will enable the City Corporation to track and improve all engagement with its elections. This outreach will be focused, while generating significant network effects, encouraging people across the City to engage in our elections. It is hoped this will yield significant dividends for the whole City Corporation and its democratic legitimacy.
Background Papers Reports to the Policy and Resources Committee:- • 20 February 2020 – Common Council Elections in March 2021 • 7 May and 9 July 2020– COVID-19 Implications – possible postponement of the City-Wide elections in March 2021 • 10 September and 8 October 2020 - Common Council Elections Change of Date from March 2021 to March 2022 – Bill for an Act of Common Council • 19 November 2020 – Electoral Registration Update • 10 December 2020 – Electoral Registration Campaign Manager
Mark Gettleson Election Engagement Manager E: [email protected] T: 07596 888 230
Page 56 Agenda Item 6
Committee(s): Dated:
Policy & Resources Committee – For decision 8/4/2021
Subject: COVID-19 Business Recovery Fund: Launch Public
Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate 4, 7, 8, 10, 12 Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or Y capital spending? If so, how much? £50 million What is the source of Funding? City Cash Reserves Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Y Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: Town Clerk and Chamberlain For Decision Report author: Peter Lisley, Town Clerk’s Department
Summary
At the Policy & Resources Committee meeting on 11 March 2021 outline criteria for a new City of London COVID-19 Business Recovery Grant were approved. Officers have now developed the scheme in accordance with the criteria and design principles outlined in the previous report and have engaged with a number of professional services firms to establish a mechanism for online application and individual viability assessment. A number of firms will be appointed to conduct viability assessments in time for the launch.
The guiding principles have been that the scheme should seeks to support businesses which contribute to the City’s vibrancy at street level and directly provide services to returning City workers and residents, and the scheme should seek to support those businesses that can evidence, through the grant application process, a likelihood that with support they have a reasonable chance to survive beyond the short term.
HM Government, through BEIS, have recently announced that the next tranche of the Additional Restriction Grant (ARG) will be allocated based on the number of businesses in a Local Authority Area. It is recommended that when the funding allocation to the City is known it should be distributed based on the same criteria and application process as the COVID-19 Business Recovery Fund.
The Scheme is now attached at Appendix 1 for approval to allow launch on 12 April 2021.
Page 57 Recommendation(s)
Members are asked to:
1. Approve the Scheme detailed at Appendix 1. 2. Approve that the latest tranche of HM Government funding for Additional Restriction Grant (ARG) be allocated in the same manner as the City Corporation’s own funding. 3. Approve the scheme launch on 12 April 2021 with applications closing on 11 June 2021, noting grants will be awarded on a first come first served basis and if the funding available is exhausted the scheme will close at that point. 4. Approve the charging of professional fees for viability assessments and the application portal to the £50M COVID-19 Business Recovery Fund (funded by City’s Cash).
Main Report
Background
1. The City of London Corporation is committed to supporting the Square Mile’s economic recovery from the pandemic and building back better.
2. As part of those efforts elected Members decided unanimously at the Court of Common Council on 4 March 2021 to set up a City of London COVID-19 Business Recovery Fund.
3. Subsequently, at your Committee on 11 March 2021, draft eligibility criteria for the scheme were agreed.
4. An informal Sounding Board of Members was established to work with officers and provide strategic guidance. The Members of the Sounding Board were agreed as the Chair and Deputy Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Proposer of the Court Amendment.
Government Grants
5. HM Government, through BEIS, have recently announced that the next tranche of the Additional Restriction Grant (ARG) will be allocated based on the number of businesses in a Local Authority Area, something the City Corporation had advocated, instead of the residential population which was the basis of previous grants.
6. The financial allocation to the City is £4,237,124 from a national allocation of £425M.
Page 58 Current Position
7. Following the last Policy & Resources Committee, officers have worked on refining the draft criteria. The guiding principles have been that the scheme should seeks to support businesses which contribute to the City’s vibrancy at street level and directly provide services to returning City workers and residents, and the scheme should seek to support those businesses that can evidence, through the grant application process, a likelihood that with support they have a reasonable chance to survive beyond the short term.
8. The scheme’s wording has been discussed with the Sounding Board and professional advisers and is now attached at Appendix 1.
9. An online portal has been procured and set up ready to take applications on 12 April subject to any changes recommended today.
10. The City Business Library will provide support to those applicants unsure of using the online application portal.
11. Meetings have been held with three professional services firms to seek input into the design of the viability assessment process and negotiate a fixed fee per grant application reviewed.
12. Utilising the delegation granted at the last Policy & Resources Committee “to procure external provider(s) for financial viability assessments, with approval to support the recommended procurement option, should it be needed, delegated to the Town Clerk in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman of Policy and Resources Committee” contracts will have been agreed with professional services firms to carry out the viability assessments subject to approval of the Scheme at your Committee today. This will allow a prompt launch on 12 April 2021.
13. It is in the interests of all small businesses with a direct public interface – e.g. food, retail, hospitality and close-contact services to register with the Covid Compliant Accreditation Scheme (CCAS) as by following the best practice advocated by the scheme the possibility of business interruption through outbreaks and the need for self-isolation are minimised.
14. To make the process as simple as possible for applicants, businesses will be able to register their interest in the Covid Compliant Accreditation Scheme (CCAS) at the time of application if they are not already registered. To ensure that this process does not delay the payment of grants COVID secure documentation will be checked remotely and queries discussed by telephone. The final stage, a site visit, will happen later.
Proposals
15. It is recommended that the Scheme detailed at Appendix 1 is approved and launched with appropriate publicity on 12 April 2021. The application will be via a web portal which will ensure that initial eligibility checks can be carried out along with
Page 59 various automatic anti-fraud checks. Support will be available for those who cannot use the web portal themselves.
16. Applications will be accepted between 12th April and 11th June 2021. No applications will be accepted after the closing date.
17. Funds will be awarded on a first come, first served basis. If the level of grants awarded exceeds the allocated funding, then the scheme will be closed with immediate effect.
18. It is further proposed that the HM Government funding received from BEIS for the latest round of discretionary grants is distributed using the same criteria and application route, so businesses only have a single application process to navigate.
19. It would be necessary to record grants from the BEIS allocation separately for reporting purposes and to ensure it is accounted for correctly as a City Fund rather than City Cash expenditure. BEIS funding would be allocated first under these arrangements.
20. The size of the grant awarded would be advised to City Corporation officers by the professional services firms who would examine the documentation detailed in the scheme and speak to the applicant.
21. All grants would then be subject to sign off by officers and payment arranged.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
22. The City of London Corporation is committed to supporting the Square Mile’s economic recovery from the pandemic and building back better. The COVID-19 Business Recovery Fund aims to alleviate some of the worst effects of the pandemic on the Square Mile’s support infrastructure and enable the City to emerge with a functional and thriving economy.
23. The fund follows the support already provided by the City Corporation to its tenants throughout the COVID-19 pandemic including rent deferrals, rent holidays and offering rent to be charged on a turnover basis.
Financial implications
24. Funding will be provided from a drawdown of City’s Cash reserves.
Resource implications
25. Fees for the professional advisors and for procurement of the application software will be charged to the COVID-19 Business Recovery Fund and funded from the £50M commitment from City’s Cash.
Legal implications
Page 60 26. Self-certification by applicants that the grant will not cause a breach of State Aid regulations will be required. This is the model that has been used for all HM Government grants.
Risk implications 27. There is a risk that the initial applications could overwhelm the viability assessment process. This will be mitigated by appointing more than one professional firm and engaging with the firms early to ensure that there is an understanding of the requirements. Conversely there is a risk that the scheme could be viewed as too complex and this has been mitigated by limiting the initial information requested through the web portal and ensuring that information requested at the viability assessment stage is the minimum required to allow the professional advisers to conduct their assessment.
Equalities implications 28. These grants are aimed at supporting the business community across the City and are accessible to all businesses that meet the stated criteria. An Equalities Impact Assessment of the Scheme has been completed. It is expected that the impact of this scheme will be neutral or positive in terms of protected characteristics, but potential adverse impact will be reviewed and mitigated as appropriate by the decision maker when taking allocation decisions. It is proposed that as a condition of the grant scheme that all recipients should pay the Living wage.
Climate implications 29. Nil
Security implications 30. Communication and awareness raising is already planned to encourage workers returning to the City to be aware of their surroundings – especially in public spaces and retail areas.
Conclusion
31. This report presents Members with a recommended scheme and eligibility criteria to support distribution of grants to small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Appendices Appendix 1 – COVID-19 Business Recovery Fund criteria and application process
Background Papers Report to Policy & Resources Committee 11/3/2021: COVID Business Recovery Fund: Initial Considerations
Peter Lisley
Page 61 Assistant Town Clerk and Director of Major Projects
T: 020 7332 1438 E: [email protected]
Page 62 Appendix 1
CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION CITY OF LONDON RECOVERY GRANT FUND On 11th March 2021 the City Court of Common Council agreed to create a grant fund for City SME Businesses that have been impacted by the Covid-19 Pandemic. The scheme is designed to support businesses which contribute to the City’s vibrancy at street level and directly provide services to returning City workers, visitors, and residents. The necessary infrastructure for a successful City has been affected by enforced closure or low footfall and this scheme will seek to support those businesses that can evidence, through the grant application process, a likelihood that with support they have a reasonable chance to survive beyond the short term.
The scheme is entirely discretionary, and the City is permitted to use its own local knowledge based on economic need to determine qualification criteria.
Who will receive a Grant?
The City is aiming this support at SME businesses that have their trading premises primarily in the City of London and who serve the general public through an in-person service in the following sectors: i) retail ii) hospitality iii) medical (e.g. doctors, physiotherapists, dentists, opticians) iv) leisure
The business does not need to be a business ratepayer but if not a ratepayer then the business must be delivered at street level, at a fixed location, contribute to the vibrancy of the street scene and contribute to increased footfall within the City.
Through an application and financial evaluation process, applicants will be required to demonstrate the following:
• the business has had its trading premises in the City of London since at least the 11th March 2020:
• the business is currently operational and trading or will be trading once restrictions are lifted:
• that the business has suffered a significant financial impact directly attributable to the Covid-19 Pandemic:
• that it remains viable and that it has a reasonable chance of surviving in the short term:
• the business has taken steps to reduce its costs as far as practical and has taken up all available grants/loans:
• the business has actively engaged with its landlord and agreed a rent-free period or a reduction in rent:
Page 63 Appendix 1
• that prior to 11th March 2020 the business satisfies at least 2 of the following 3 criteria and pays the Living Wage. i. Turnover: less than £5m ii. Employees: fewer than 50 iii. Net Assets: less than £250K
• that the business has registered with the City of London Covid Compliant Accreditation Scheme
Who is ineligible for the Grant?
Businesses that provide the following services: • Financial services (e.g. banks, building societies, cash points, bureaux de change, short-term loan providers, insurance companies/brokers) • Professional personal services (e.g. solicitors, accountants, insurance agents/ financial advisers, recruitment agents) • Businesses that are not wholly or mainly serving city workers, residents or visiting members of the public. • Businesses that are not wholly or mainly reliant on in-person services • Businesses that are wholly or mainly providing busines to business commercial trade. • A business that has ceased trading, is in liquidation, in administration or dissolved.
The Assessment Process
Applications will be accepted between 12th April and 11th June 2021. No applications will be accepted after the closing date.
Funds will be awarded on a first come, first served basis. If the level of grants awarded exceeds the allocated funding, then the scheme will be closed with immediate effect.
The assessment process has two-stages.
-Stage 1. Completion of an online application form to collect relevant information. The business will need to supply the following information: • Name and address of the business • Registered business address • Details of Company Directors including DOB • Business Rate Account Number (If the business is the ratepayer) • Date of occupation or the date the business began trading in the City • Company number • VAT number • National Insurance Number (if a sole trader) • Number of employees • Annual turnover etc. • Name and address of current accountant (if applicable)
Page 64 Appendix 1
The application form will request that the following documents, or as many as the business has available are uploaded:
• Bank Statements (This should include pre-March 2020 statements and three recent statements) • P&L Account and Balance Sheet for last three years (two of which should before the pandemic). For newer businesses, their pre-pandemic forecast and actual performance. • Current management accounts (to include Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet) • Cashflow forecast (to include pre-pandemic actuals). Where neither forecasts nor pre-pandemic actuals are available, businesses should demonstrate cashflow requirements up to the point they expect to see a return to stable trading • Evidence of the reduction in your rent that the business has negotiated. • Valid Street Trader Licence where applicable.
You will also be asked to make a short statement detailing the level of grant you are seeking and why the business requires it.
-Stage 2. On submission of the form, a full financial assessment will be carried out by an Independent third-party organisation. As part of this assessment further evidence and documentation may be requested. Further information that may be required could be but not limited to: • HMRC Payment plans • Owner/manager support • Aged debtor and creditor schedule • Details of agreements with finance creditors, HMRC and other liabilities not detailed in creditor schedule. • Property lease where applicable • Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS)/Bounce Back Loan Scheme (BBLs) • Furlough schemes • Business Support Grants • Evidence of CVA Supervisor Statement if applicable.
A meeting may also be required with the third-party organisation undertaking the financial assessment.
On completion of this financial assessment, a recommendation will be made to the City of London on whether the business meets the scheme criteria, whether a grant payment should be made, and if so, how much that grant should be and whether there are any caveats. The City will then accept or reject the application and notify the business accordingly.
Page 65 Appendix 1
How the Grants will be awarded?
Grants will be based on the individual business requirements after a financial evaluation but will not exceed £100,000 per business. In exceptional circumstances and/or if the business operates from more than one location this amount may be increased. Grants will either be paid as an immediate up-front payment or spread over not more than two payments. The second payment may be subject to a further light touch financial evaluation. The final payment will be paid not later than 31st January 2022. Assistance with the Online Application Form If you require any assistance with completing the form, then please e-mail [email protected] or leave a message on 020 7332 1812. Declaration All applicants will be required to confirm that acceptance of the grant will not exceed the state aid limits. The United Kingdom remains bound by its international commitments, including subsidy obligations set out in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) with the EU. It is considered unlikely that businesses eligible for this support will exceed these limit however details of the State Aid requireents will be made available as part of the application process. The City of London is under a duty to protect the public funds it administers, and to this end may use the information that is being provided for the prevention and detection of fraud. It may also share the information it holds with other bodies responsible for auditing or administrating public funds for these purposes. For further information, please visit www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/nfi If a Business is found to have canvassed Members, City of London Officers or the third party assessor during the application process, they will be immediately disqualified from the process. Appeals This is an entirely discretionary scheme and there is no appeal process. The City of London’s decision is final. Data Protection How we will use your information. The City of London Corporation is a data controller, and processes the personal data you provide, in accordance with the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. For full details of how and why the City processes personal data, please refer to the full privacy notice, at www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/privacy. Please direct all data protection queries to the Information Compliance Team at [email protected]. The City will share this information with third party contractors who are certificated chartered accountants to undertake the financial assessment. This authority also has a duty to protect public funds it administers and may use information held about you for the prevention and detection of fraud and other lawful purposes. This may include, but not be limited to undertaking credit reference checks. The City of London will also use the information for the purpose of performing any of its statutory
Page 66 Appendix 1
enforcement duties. It will make any disclosures required and may make any disclosures permitted by law and may also share this information with other bodies responsible for auditing or administering public funds. We will not disclose your personal information to third parties for marketing purposes.”
Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 68 Agenda Item 7
Committee(s): Date: Policy & Resources - For information 8 April 2021 Subject: Public ReOpening Initiative Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s 7, 8 and 10 Corporate Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or No capital spending? If so, how much? N/A What is the source of Funding? N/A Has this Funding Source been agreed with the N/A Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: For decision Jeremy Blackburn, Head of Programmes, Mansion House Bob Roberts, Director, Communications
Summary
The pandemic has substantially reduced the level of activity within the Square Mile. Minimal footfall has left many businesses and civic organisations struggling. Once it is safer, workers, residents and business visitors will lead the return. The speed and volume of the return will be vital to the Square Mile’s recovery.
It has become increasingly clear that there is a route through the pandemic (via mass vaccination) to the ‘re-opening’ of The City in its widest sense, during Spring and Summer 2021. This route, for the nation as a whole, was laid out in the Government’s Roadmap.
Making the most of this moment is essential to boost confidence in the return of normal activity, and in the unique cluster of firms and business activities that define the Square Mile, to both local and global stakeholders. The return of activity will also stimulate a broad spectrum of economic transactions, whether international investment opportunities or putting cash flow into vital small businesses. Therefore, as a precursor to the much wider Recovery Taskforce work and integrated into the Recovery Promotional Campaign. It is proposed to hold a series of events over April, May and June (potentially including July and September too) that highlights the return of workers and organisations to encourage a wider return. Recommendations Members are asked to: 1. Note the report. 2. Endorse the approach to ‘ReOpening’ outlined in the report;. 3. Contribute potential activity, when approached by external organisations.
Page 69 Main Report
Background
1. The City Corporation has a very strong interest in doing all it can to help in speeding, and deepening, the return. The Lord Mayor, Policy Chair and Sheriffs will take a lead on this – though all Members can, and will, act as a catalysts and convenors for return activity.
2. The ReOpening Initiative will focus on a gradual build up of activity, working with the gradual easing of restrictions and the natural rate of return, rather than attempt a ‘big bang’ moment.
3. This means three initial stage gates: weeks commencing 12th April, 17th May and 21st June. We will look at further weeks in July and September, given that the return to the workplace is likely to evolve in waves. These stage gates will build towards the Lord Mayors Show in November 2021.
4. Each stage gate will comprise visits, events, meetings, speeches and ceremonies across as many stakeholders as possible. This will include commitments generated by the City Corporation and its family of institutions, particularly the resumption of the Civic Calendar as much as restrictions allow.
5. The ReOpening Initiative is very much the leading edge of the overall Recovery Promotional Campaign. It will become a component part of that Campaign as it stretches out over the next few years, using our civic leaders.
6. There is confidence in the City’s ability to adapt and evolve. We are also conscious of the need to work with colleagues in neighbouring boroughs, GLA and in pan London initiatives, as Greater London also begins to return in greater numbers. We will seek to amplify rather than replicate these initiatives.
7. We wish to involve as many stakeholders as possible:
(a) All levels of firms across Financial and Professional Services.
(b) Wider business sectors, in particular hospitality & leisure, as well as vital SMEs. (c) Public bodies, such as Fire Service or Transport for London.
(d) Civic bodies, including culture, churches and livery companies.
Current Position
8. Organisations are starting to return or planning their return. Other areas of London are highlighting their ‘reopening’. This presents a unique moment and a challenge in terms of timing.
9. The timing of this is key. We cannot get ahead of the Covid trajectory and risk promoting a ‘false dawn’. It needs to be at the leading edge of change, where
Page 70 possible. However too close to the Summer may (on current estimates) look like we are following change rather than catalysing it.
10. By focusing on a gradual build up over April, May and June, working with the extant restrictions at each point, this manages the risk of none return and any interruption to the covid roadmap.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
11. Strategic implications – This project aligns to points 7, 8 and 10 of the Corporate Plan. We are a global hub for innovation in finance and professional services, commerce and culture. (7). The Square Mile’s vibrant offer is key to the attraction and retention of businesses and workers and business visitors are vital to the vibrant offer’s sustainability.
12. We have access to the skills and talent we need. (8) As well as career opportunities, domestic and global workers (talent) are attracted to the Square Mile by the vibrant offer.
13. We inspire enterprise, excellence, creativity and collaboration. (10) A rich ecosystem, economic activity and overall vibrancy create the conditions for innovation and collaboration and creativity
14. Resource implications – set up a cross-Corporation team to deliver effectively.
15. Risk implications – significant reputational damage if the Corporation does not act to accelerate the recovery.
Conclusion
16. The City of London is viewed as the leader and organiser of the return to the Square Mile by many of our stakeholders. By using the Lord Mayor and other civic leaders, through a programme highlighting reopening activity, we will match these expectations by acting as a catalyst for the return of businesses and civic organisations.
17. It is aligned to the Recovery Promotional Campaign as its opening section, to support bringing workers and business visitors back sooner, which will enable a higher probability of a speedy and strong recovery.
Page 71 Annexe A
Page 72 Agenda Item 8
Committee(s): Date(s): Policy & Resources Committee – For Decision 8 April 2021 Planning & Transportation Committee – For Decision 13 April 2021 Subject: Public Recovery Taskforce – Final Report Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or N capital spending? If so, how much? N/A What is the source of Funding? N/A Has this Funding Source been agreed with the N/A Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: Damian Nussbaum, Director of Innovation & For Decision Growth Report author: Giles French, External Affairs Director, Innovation & Growth
Summary
This is the final report of the Recovery Taskforce. The Recovery Taskforce was initiated by Members of the Policy & Resources Committee and the Planning & Transport Committee in November 2020, to recommend the actions to be taken to ensure the medium-term economic recovery of the City of London.
Recommendation(s)
Members are asked to: 1. Approve the recommendations of the Recovery Taskforce (Appendix 1). 2. Approve the proposed governance arrangements for the ongoing implementation of the recommendations (paragraph 21). 3. Note that any additional funding required for implementing the recommendations would be subject to approval by the relevant Committees.
Main Report
Background
1. The prosperity of cities across the world is under threat. Those able to adapt to the new environment, and help shape it, will thrive. The City of London Corporation has a crucial role to play not only in helping the City of London to adapt and meet changing demands, but also in turbo-charging its recovery following losses from the pandemic. This it will do with partners across London, and with an eye to supporting the recovery of the whole of the capital and the country.
Page 73 2. The Recovery Taskforce (RTF) was commissioned by the Policy & Resources Committee and the Planning & Transportation Committee in November 2020. Its task is to identify objectives and actions to ensure the Square Mile remains internationally competitive and locally vibrant. The mission of the RTF is to ensure the Square Mile is the world’s most innovative, inclusive and sustainable business ecosystem, an attractive place to work, live and visit.
3. By delivering the long-term success and recovery of the Square Mile, we can ensure the City plays its full part in driving the recovery across London and the rest of the UK.
4. The Recovery Taskforce has built on existing work from the City Corporation including the Culture and Commerce Task Force; the Climate Action Strategy; the draft City Plan 2036; the Transport Strategy and the report London Recharged, published in October 2020. The RTF focuses on three dimensions:
i. World-class business ecosystem (i.e. thriving businesses with innovation and growth opportunities) ii. Vibrant offer (retail, hospitality, culture, heritage and recreation) iii. Outstanding environments (i.e. the right workspaces, environment, and infrastructure)
5. The recommendations of the RTF are not an exhaustive list of all actions being taken by the City Corporation to ensure the continued attractiveness of the Square Mile. They are the priority actions required to deliver the a thriving future.
6. The actions identified in the RTF have been designed to be delivered in partnership with stakeholders in business, the arts and culture, the retail and hospitality sectors, academia, regulators, local and national government. From the extensive engagement and consultation we have had with these audiences, we know how keen they are to work with the City Corporation to deliver the outcomes of the RTF.
7. The Recovery Taskforce is the third leg of the City Corporation’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic:
• Urgent Response: Work on short-term measures and activity to support the Square Mile’s initial recovery will continue to be led by Gold group, and the relevant Silver Groups. • Reopening: a campaign to encourage a return to the Square Mile (next 6 months) • Recovery Taskforce focusing on the Square Mile’s success in the medium term (next 5 years).
Current Position
8. The project has been led by a small core team from Innovation & Growth (IG), Department of the Built Environment (DBE), Cultural Services, Corporate Strategy & Performance, and Chamberlain’s. It is supported by cross-cutting working groups and external consultants (Oliver Wyman).
Page 74
9. The project has been overseen by the Chairs of the Policy & Resources and Planning & Transportation Committees, supported by their deputies, and with input from the Lord Mayor and Senior Alderman Below the Aldermanic Chair (SABTAC).
Engagement
10. Since late January 2021, the RTF team has been engaging widely on the proposals. Conversations have taken place with over 200 businesses (financial, professional and legal services, and technology), property developers, BIDs and business partnerships, retail and hospitality providers, livery companies and civil society organisations, visitor attractions and cultural institutions employing thousands of people in the Square Mile.
11. Engagement has also taken place with the Chairs of relevant major Committees and two all-Member briefings were held in February. Together these meetings have tested and validated our proposals, and the final report reflects the feedback we have received from these important audiences.
12. In addition, over 4,600 members of the public contributed to an online survey regarding how they intend to use the Square Mile when rules allow. The survey was open from 1 to 25 February. This reflects high levels of interest and uptake, though lower levels of representation of some City stakeholder groups. A summary of who responded, in what numbers and what was said is shown at Appendix 2.
13. Key findings include:
• 50% of all respondents had travelled to the Square Mile every working day before March 2020. This falls to 15% intending to do the same when rules allow. • 70% of City workers responding intend to come to the Square Mile on some working days when rules allow. • The top reason for staying away was working practices. This was closely followed by the journey to the Square Mile. • Overall, respondents were as likely, if not more likely to want to use the Square Mile for eating and drinking out, arts and culture, visiting tourist attractions and shopping compared to prior to March 2020. Sub-group analysis indicates that this is, at least in part, due to turnover rather than people who undertook these activities pre-Covid saying they intend to do them in future.
14. Further sub-group analysis offers interesting insights into barriers, incentives and potential behaviour changes. More analysis of these results and will be shared with Members and Officers to help inform the implementation of the RTF’s recommendations.
Page 75 Proposals
15. Three themes run though the recommendations: innovation, inclusion and sustainability. These reflect the priorities we’ve heard from businesses and stakeholders in the City. They are the qualities they prize and which they believe will continue to make the Square Mile an attractive place to locate and grow business.
16. Innovation is crucial to the City’s continued success and competitiveness. Businesses still want to be located alongside their clients, customers and competitors, and bring together their employees to create the products and services their customers want. The last year has demonstrated the importance of adaptability, resilience and technological adoption. We will cultivate and nurture high potential businesses to start up, scale up, and adapt. The City Corporation is uniquely placed to broker partnerships between incumbents and disruptors: providing an ecosystem for businesses to access talent, capital, workspace and advice. We will identify the right actors to participate in this ecosystem and bring them together, physically or virtually, to create the conditions for business growth.
17. The importance of being able to recruit and retain a talented workforce was raised at almost every meeting we had with businesses. Businesses large and small said that it was the factor that sets the City apart from international competitors. We will continue to advocate for a world-class visa system that attracts the highest quality talent into the UK. However, it is equally important to be widening the domestic talent pool, attracting more people from different backgrounds that have not traditionally seen the City as a place to use their skills and abilities. We will work with public and private sectors to scale the work we do to improve the domestic skills base, tackle issues inhibiting socio-economically diverse groups progressing within our sector, widen access of under-represented groups into financial and professional services, and making the visa regime as efficient a process as possible.
18. The strength and attractiveness of the City’s ecosystem was raised repeatedly. We will want to build on its existing strengths, with a focus on encouraging those businesses and technologies that will drive future growth, such as FinTech, LawTech, green finance, AI and the creative industries. Underpinning all of this is data. We want data driven businesses to use the City as their ecosystem to test ideas, develop new products, raise capital and attract talent. We should seek to attract a wider range of these types of businesses that don’t currently see the City as an integral part of their ecosystem.
19. The experience of workers, visitors, residents and others when in the City is crucial to the on-going attractiveness of the Square Mile with each community essential to the on-going viability of retail, hospitality and culture. Businesses can control the environment in the workplace, but expect a high standard of these services for their employees and clients. Many international businesses use their City of London office as an international hub for conferences and employee training. That is in large part due to the overall experience of what being in the City provides.
Page 76 20. We will aim to ensure that those living, working and visiting the City want to spend more time here. If more flexible working patterns mean workers coming in to the City for fewer days of the week, we want them to maximise the time spent meeting clients, collaborating with colleagues and socialising. We also want to attract visitors to spend money in our shops, restaurants, bars and attractions when the workforce is absent, supporting the infrastructure that serves the business community in the working week. The fundamental question the RTF has sought to answer is: what is it going to take for people to come to the Square Mile? Simply put, it has to be an attractive and engaging place to spend time. If workers want to be there, so too will firms. We envision a City brimming with life. We will work with partners to animate public space and promote the cultural offer of the City.
21. The physical infrastructure and public environment are also crucial to the City’s attractiveness. We will work with partners in the property and development sector to provide flexible and adaptable commercial workspace for businesses of all sizes. This will be underpinned by excellent digital infrastructure, renewable energy networks and a sustainable and resilient built environment across the Square Mile.
22. The City’s streets, gardens and public spaces will be attractive places to spend time. We will accelerate our plans to rebalance vehicle use, prioritise walking, enable cycling, improve air quality and provide more public space. The experience of travelling through and spending time in the Square Mile must be world class, for the benefit of residents, visitors and workers alike.
Implementation
23. If the RTF recommendations are approved, a cross-Corporation steering group will monitor implementation of the RTF proposals and will report quarterly to Members of the Policy & Resources Committee and Planning & Transportation Committee.
24. Where necessary, approvals for activities, projects and resources will be sought from the relevant Committee.
Corporate & Strategic Implications –
25. Strategic Implications - The RTF is focused on delivering the Corporate Plan (2018-23) ambition of having a vibrant and thriving City. Specifically, it aims to impact the following corporate outcomes:
• Outcome 3: People have equal opportunities to enrich their lives and reach their full potential. • Outcome 5. Businesses are trusted and socially and environmentally responsible. • Outcome 6. We have the world’s best legal and regulatory framework and access to global markets.
Page 77 • Outcome 7. We are a global hub for innovation in finance and professional services, commerce and culture. • Outcome 8. We have access to the skills and talent we need. • Outcome 9. We are digitally and physically well-connected and responsive. • Outcome 10. We inspire enterprise, excellence, creativity and collaboration.
26. Resource and financial implications – The RTF has been designed to be delivered within existing resources. However, where it is proposed that options are explored, any additional funding resulting would need to be taken to the relevant Committee in the usual way. Consideration may need to be given to the terms in which commercial workspace is offered to potential occupiers, and this would need to go to the relevant Committee.
27. Legal Implications – No legal implications have been identified.
28. Risk Implications – No risk implications of the RTF project. Risk is if no action is taken and the City fails to remain an attractive place for workers, residents and visitors.
29. Equalities Implications – No equalities risks have been identified in relation to the recommendations in this report. A major strand of work of the RTF will be to widen access to the City.
30. Analysis of responses to the public survey shows that female workers (especially female City Corporation workers) and persons of minority religions and BAME groups were intending the most significant shift to working fewer days in the Square Mile. If this were to happen, it would have a negative impact on the diversity of people in the Square Mile. This could impact negatively on career progression within these groups and on diversity of the talent pipeline. As stated in paragraph 12, these insights will be used to inform the implementation of the RTF’s recommendations.
31. Climate Implications – The RTF is fully in line with the City Corporation’s Climate Action Strategy and provides an additional catalyst to progress this programme of work.
32. Security Implications – No new security implications identified by the RTF. We will continue to work with the City of London Police to ensure safety and security as people return to the Square Mile.
Conclusion
33. The RTF proposals are the City Corporation’s opportunity to respond to the extraordinary challenges presented by the last 12 months. It provides clear ambition for how the City remains successful well into the future. It is supported by businesses, workers, residents, visitors and others, and can help to drive a successful recovery not just in the Square Mile, but across London and the UK.
Page 78 Appendices
• Appendix 1 – Recovery Taskforce Vision and Action Plan • Appendix 2 – Key findings from public survey
Giles French External Affairs Director, Innovation & Growth E: [email protected]
Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 80 APPENDIX 1
Recovery Taskforce Page 81 Page
Recommendations and actions
April 2021 The Taskforce focuses on a critical mission
Ensure the Square Mile is the world’s most innovative, Page 82 Page inclusive and sustainable business eco-system, an attractive place to invest, work, live and visit.
2 Vision overview and how we will deliver (1/4)
Dimension ‘Big move’ Target outcome Headline workstreams
1. Enable high potential A. Square Mile is the best place to establish, i. Work with private sector partners to provide workspace, advice, digital skills, access to businesses to start, grow, and transform your innovative, high networks, a cyber secure environment and capital. World-class adapt, and grow growth business business ecosystem 2. Open London’s B. The Square Mile fosters talent and equips ii. Continue our leadership role on the Socio-Economic Diversity Taskforce (i.e. thriving opportunities to people to succeed, especially within FPS and iii. (Continue to) maintain an emphasis on attracting and retaining talent from across the UK businesses with everyone tech and around the world innovation and growth 3. Curate thriving C. Square Mile is London’s (and the world’s) iv. Act as a global ‘testbed’ for data driven technologies, such that businesses of all sizes opportunities) innovation ecosystems innovation and thought leadership hub, esp. see the City as a place to start, grow and develop data-driven products and services in strategic sectors for green finance, fintech, the creative industries, and AI
4. Create and sustain a D. Workers and business visitors return and v. Execute a marketing campaign and complementary activities programme over 5 years vibrant and engaging remain in the City, encouraged by the to promote the City as an inclusive and exciting place to be. City offer Vibrant Offer Vibrant 83 Page offer (leisure offer i.e. retail, E. Leisure visitors return and remain in the vi. Enable and animate the City’s weekend and night-time offer as part of a strategic hospitality, culture, City, encouraged by the Vibrant Offer review of the City’s Vibrant Offer tourism and recreation) F. Leisure-sector organisations across retail, vii. The City Corporation will help leisure businesses to thrive hospitality, tourism and culture return and remain in the City, encouraged by COL Corp. support
5. Shape the future City F. Sustainable and resilient buildings and viii. Work with the property industry to enable and promote buildings that provide a low infrastructure allow the Square Mile to grow environmental footprint; high quality, convivial spaces for workers and the wider and adapt to changing social, environmental community; and opportunities for cultural uses and distinctive retail and hospitality and economic circumstances. ix. Work with providers and operators to ensure the Square Mile’s communications and energy infrastructure and transport connections are best-in-class and future proofed Outstanding environments x. Work with public and private sector providers and academic institutions to enhance (i.e. workspaces, anonymised data collection and analysis capabilities to improve policy development environment, and planning infrastructure) 6. Provide world-class G. The City’s streets, gardens and public i. Provide new and improved public spaces that include opportunities for culture and streets and public spaces are great places to spend time and exercise, and incorporate seating and greening climate resilience measures. spaces are seen as a key part of the Square Mile’s offer. The Square Mile is known as an xi. Accelerate our plans to make our streets more accessible, prioritise people walking and attractive, enjoyable and safe place to walk improve the experience of cycling and cycle.
3 Vision overview and how we will deliver (2/4)
Dimension Headline workstreams Activities
i. Work with private and public sector partners to provide workspace, • Curate an ecosystem that provides a range of tech focused SMEs with access to workspace, advice, digital skills, access to networks and capital for high advice, capital, talent, cyber secure and networks to grow and adapt their businesses. potential, high growth tech enabled SMEs. • Agreement of a partnership with potential providers • Explore options for provision of workspace, including from the Corporation’s property portfolio • Promote the innovation ecosystem to relevant businesses and providers within the Square Mile and across London
ii. Deliver the HMG-commissioned Socio-Economic Diversity Taskforce • Responsibility for running and delivering the Socio-Economic Diversity Taskforce and all three Page 84 Page working groups.
World-class • Publish taskforce recommendations to improve socio-economic progression within financial business iii. Maintain an emphasis on attracting and retaining talent from across and professional services. ecosystem (i.e. the UK and around the world • Widen access to under-represented groups to financial and professional services. thriving businesses with • Work with Home Office to implement recommendations of the 2020 report by City innovation and Corporation on how to improve the process for business visas. growth opportunities)
iv. Act as a global ‘testbed’ for data driven technologies, such that • Join London Data Charter businesses of all sizes see the City as a place to start, grow and develop data-driven products and services • Curate an ecosystem that provides a range of data focused SMEs with access to workspace, advice, capital, talent and networks to grow and adapt their businesses. • Collate and publish data on the numbers of workers returning to the City in 2021
4 Vision overview and how we will deliver (3/4)
Dimension Headline workstreams Activities
v. Execute a marketing campaign and complementary activities • Deliver activities and events that foster a sense of inclusion and shift perceptions around programme over 5 years to promote the City as an inclusive and belonging in the City exciting place to be. • Deliver marketing targeting the City's and London's workforce, fostering inclusion and celebrating the "Unseen City", while encouraging participation in leisure activities outside of work hours • Deliver outdoor fitness and leisure initiatives that contribute to the physical and mental wellbeing of the City's workforce (noting workforce respond best to sport, food and drink (alcohol) based activities)
vi. Enable and animate the City’s weekend and night-time offer • Deliver strategic review to plan for a successful and thriving visitor destination for all London Page 85 Page communities (and longer term: national and international markets) • Deliver bold event programming to include major weekend and night-time events that respond to shifting work patterns and potential low-use periods; support with community-led Vibrant offer content (leisure offer i.e. retail, hospitality, • Deliver marketing activity to drive domestic and London audiences to the City culture, tourism and • Facilitate planned or potentially new attractions and programmes coming to the City, driving recreation) audiences
vii. The City Corporation will help leisure businesses to thrive • Deliver selected recommendations of the Culture and Commerce Taskforce enabling creativity through mutually beneficial commerce and civic support • Support the City's leisure sector by articulating value and providing targeted support • Support the City's business events offer by positioning the City as the place to do business post-Covid
5 Vision overview and how we will deliver (4/4)
Dimension Headline workstreams Activities
viii. Work with the property industry to enable and promote buildings • Ensuring high quality, sustainable developments progress quickly through the planning system that provide a low environmental footprint; high quality, convivial • Ensuring developments are built and operate to the highest environmental standards spaces for workers and the wider community; and opportunities for cultural uses and distinctive retail and hospitality • Ensuring new developments deliver community benefits • Supporting the delivery of more residential development ix. Work with providers and operators to ensure the Square Mile’s communications and energy infrastructure and transport • Creating new opportunities for culture, retail, hospitality and start ups connections are best-in-class and future proofed • Supporting new uses for vacant space within buildings x. Work with public and private sector providers and academic • Delivering comprehensive 5G coverage institutions to enhance anonymised data collection and analysis capabilities to improve policy development and planning • Ensuring the City's energy network is world-class, smart and green • Delivering in electric vehicle charging infrastructure • Championing improved transport connections to the Square Mile Page 86 Page Outstanding • Informing and influencing future development by sharing data and knowledge of working environments patterns and trends (i.e. workspaces, environment, • Improving data collection, sharing and analysis on travel behaviours and the use of streets infrastructure) and public spaces • Driving innovation and collaboration on transport and built environment challenges
xi. Provide new and improved public spaces that include opportunities • Providing high quality gardens and public spaces for culture and exercise, and incorporate seating, greening and • Enabling unique opportunities to exercise climate resilience measures. • Introducing climate resilience measures into the City’s streets and spaces xii. Accelerate our plans to make our streets more accessible, prioritise • Ensuring streets, gardens and public spaces are clean, safe and well maintained people walking and improve the experience of cycling • Ensuring the Square Mile's streets accessible to all • Creating the best urban walking experience • Enabling more people to choose to cycle • Reducing motor traffic volumes, noise and emissions
6 Appendix 2: Key findings from public survey Pla tform us e d: Give My Vie w
23,123 4,670 2,040 Free -text Votes Voters comments
Voter Segmentation
60% 23% 11% 9% 9% 4% 2% 2%
I am a worker I am a visitor I'm in a I live in the I'm a City I'm a I'm a City I'm a Square Mile Corporation business livery Officer owner Corporation student company Member
Key Insights
Pre- March 2020, 50% of Interestingly attitudes to voters said they would leisure activity have work in the Square Mile stayed the same. E a t i n g & every working day. drinking out scored 8 1% When rules allow this and 85%. drops to just 15 % . Pre- March 2020, just 17 % This indicates that when of voters said they people are in the Square would work in the Mile they will enjoy the Square Mile some days. City's sights in the same When rules allow, the way as pre- March 2020. number of voters increases to 52%. Perceptions have switched and fle xible w orking is now the new normal.
Gender breakdown Voter locations
Prefer not to say 3% 11,635 website visits 5,567 Fem ale Male 43% 54% Social clicks
DigitalPage Engagement 87 1s t – 25th Feb 2021 How did/would you use the Square Mile for work?
Before March 2020 When rules allow
Dat a- Driven Insight:
The two questions above allow us to see a clear intention to change the frequency people are in the Square Mile for work. ‘Some working days’ and ‘for some meetings & events’ rose to the top 'when rules allow’. ‘Every working day’ dropped from first place at 50% to fourth place at 16%.
How did/would you use the Square Mile for leisure?
Before March 2020 When rules allow
The leisure results are very different from the working activity of the Square Mile's voters in that the order of answers does not change. It seems that people are just as, if not more, keen to use the Square Mile to enjoy themselves, whether eating, drinking or seeing art and culture. Therefore, it seems that people still want to utilise the City’s offer and attractions. Sub- group analysis shows that the groups using the Square Mile for leisure are likely to change, with someThink less similar likely to and NewPage some York’s more88 Highline likely, -withand noas notnet lineareffect. - a route in a garden square. N.B. The percentages quoted on this pageAllow relate creativityonly to those imagination who chose inventionto answer theseand hope questions, to rather than all survey respondents. Percentages quoted in thepercolate paper however through relate the to garden. all survey respondents. Agenda Item 9
Committee(s): Date: Policy & Resources - For decision 8 April 2021
Subject: Public Recovery Promotional Campaign Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate 7, 8 and 10 Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or Yes capital spending? If so, how much? £550,000 (phase1) What is the source of Funding? Covid Contingency Fund/PIF Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Yes Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: Director, Innovation & Growth For decision Director of Communications Head of Relationships, Mansion House Report author: Julie Chappell, Projects Director IG
Summary
A proposal concerning a “Recovery Promotional Campaign” was first reviewed and approved at Policy and Resources on 11 March. Members underlined the importance of the work and asked officers to look at increasing the activity and the budget. The proposal has now been updated accordingly.
Minimal footfall in the Square Mile has left many businesses struggling. Once it is safer, workers, residents and business visitors will lead the return. The speed and volume of the return will be vital to the Square Mile’s retail, culture and hospitality recovery.
There is an urgent need for the City Corporation to lead, prepare and launch a large scale and sustained promotional campaign. The core purpose of the campaign will be to entice workers back to the Square Mile sooner and give people compelling reasons to return frequently. Residents and business visitors will also be targeted by the campaign.
The campaign will be resourced, designed and delivered by the City Corporation in partnership with business and London stakeholders who will also benefit from the activity.
The promotional activity will be delivered across digital, broadcast and print media. It will be data and content driven and engineered to drive real-world success metrics such as footfall, which in turn will drive economic benefit for businesses most under threat.
Page 89 Recommendations
Members are asked to:
1. Approve the City of London recovery promotional campaign core purpose and success metrics. 2. Approve the revised phase 1 budget of £550k to be met from the COIVD Contingency in order to launch the recovery campaign by spring/summer 2021.
Main Report
Background
1. The Square Mile faces challenges to recover and rebound. Major firms feel increasingly comfortable having staff work from home, their need for office space may reduce or radically change. Businesses in sectors under threat such as culture, hospitality and retail may not recover quickly enough, and the City of London’s offer will be greatly diminished. The City Corporation has a very strong interest in doing all it can to help in speeding, and deepening, the return.
2. Strengthening the City of London’s vibrant and thriving offer is a key part of the overall economic recovery plan. Without it, the Square Mile is a less attractive place to do business, to invest in and for highly mobile talent. As well as hospitality, retail, wellbeing and leisure activities, enabling business engagement will be key.
3. Data indicates ways of working are likely to change long-term. The UK had the highest rate of home working compared with employees in France, Germany, Italy and Spain during the pandemic at 3.1 days per week. After a year of remote working, across Europe, workers’ desire to return to their physical workplaces full time has fallen. A recent survey of FTSE and S&P 500 hiring managers shows 40% of firms’ biggest concern is the reduction of innovation and collaboration if employees continue to work remotely in the long-term.
4. There is confidence in the City’s ability to adapt and evolve. The recent City of London Corporation report London Recharged: Our Vision For London In 2025 set out an inspiring picture of what a revitalised London could become. We are now building on that with a plan focused on the Square Mile through the Recovery Task Force. Kick starting the recovery and getting people back to the Square Mile will be vital to achieving the vision.
5. We are monitoring what other global cities are doing to develop their attractiveness as destinations. Amsterdam has implemented a ‘circular tourism strategy’ focussing on sustainably, the environment and dispersal away from the centre to other regions. Berlin is focussing on tourism sustainability, the environment, product innovation and diversity. Businesses in Paris will benefit from national government financial assistance in the form of grants, investment and tax breaks. The Mayor of Paris has also accelerated plans for greening key
Page 90 locations in the city.
6. The Mayor of London recently announced £5m of funding during 2021 to aid the recovery of the London economy. We will be working closely with the GLA on these plans. Tourism and transport will feature prominently in the marketing activity, however return to office is yet to be scoped, making the City Corporation’s timely promotional activity aimed at workers, even more important.
7. Workers, residents and business visitors are the most likely to return to the Square Mile first. Bringing these audiences back sooner and more frequently will kick start the recovery of the City of London’s offer and inspire others, such as leisure visitors, to follow.
8. We will accelerate the pace and scale of the recovery by launching a promotional campaign designed to:
a) Provide trusted information and reassurance which will encourage workers and business visitors to return to the Square Mile as soon as they are permitted.
b) Give people compelling reasons to return frequently and participate more.
c) Be in line with and reinforce the City Corporation’s wider messaging and corporate vision of a vibrant and thriving City, supporting a diverse and sustainable London within a globally successful UK.
Current Position
9. London’s reputation as the world’s leading financial hub is being challenged in some media reports. We should we be doing all we can to encourage workers to come back to offices safely and frequently.
10. Our recommended course of action is to support the City’s offer with a promotional campaign aimed at workers, residents and business visitors. Act decisively and in partnership with business to kick start the recovery and drive footfall in the Square Mile which in turn will give retail, hospitality and cultural businesses the confidence to open sooner, innovate and adapt to the new normal.
Proposals
11. Lead and launch a promotional campaign aimed at key audience groups - workers, residents and business visitors - collaborating with and tailored by City businesses. Partnerships, access to audiences, value in kind and match funding from City business and others will be vital to ensure success and we will aim for a ratio of 1:1 in terms of value. The outline here is for the first phase of the work; we will report back to Members on its impact and if/how to build on this success for further work. In parallel, we are also looking at what needs to be done to support the global attractiveness of financial and professional services, and tech, and will revert to Members.
Page 91
12. The recovery campaign will be highly targeted and at sufficient scale to drive measurable results i.e. footfall, resulting in economic benefit for businesses in the Square Mile.
13. The promotional campaign would:
• Reassure workers and help them to plan their return by providing or signposting trusted information. • Drive footfall by giving people compelling and timely reasons to participate and return frequently. o To connect and do business, experience what’s new and different in culture, retail and hospitality o Explore renewed urban environments o Try new ways of working o Attend unmissable events and experiences such as Mansion House Reopening Week. • Be in line and in support of the City Corporation’s wider messaging and corporate vision of a vibrant and thriving City supporting a diverse and sustainable London within a globally successful UK. • Be joined up with CHL consumer campaigns and initiatives as they will provide compelling content for worker engagement and additional routes to market.
14. The campaign will promote innovation, inclusivity and sustainability themes, which will run through content areas such as:
• Culture and entertainment • Unique ‘money cannot buy’ experiences • Retail and hospitality • Lifestyle and wellness • Social interaction and networking • Renewed urban environments • New ways of working and behaviour patterns • Sustainable ways of moving around the City • Innovative business networking and events
15. Compelling and timely City Corporation owned and third-party events will be vital for the success of the campaign and provide reasons to act. Treasured traditional events will be joined on the calendar by unexpected happenings, presenting the Square Mile in new ways. NB many events are TBC due to unknowns such as future social distancing rules, permissions and funding.
16. A number of business programmes will strengthen the City Corporation’s support for innovation, for example, we are supporting the next iteration of the Digital Sandbox pilot. The Digital Sandbox supports our offer as a vibrant innovation hub, providing a place for business and technology to collaborate across the FPS ecosystem. With its unique features and synthetic data, the sandbox is a novel way of addressing current challenges in digital innovation. Innovation & Growth
Page 92 will continue to support this initiative in its next phase, bringing together industry and encouraging advances in technology development and adoption.
17. All messaging in the campaign will be signed off in the normal manner by the Communications Team to ensure it is in line with wider corporate messaging
18. It is proposed that the funding of £550,000 is met from the Committee’s COVID Contingency Fund and charged to City’s Cash. There is currently an uncommitted balance of £772,776 within the non-ringfenced City Cash element of the COVID Contingency. Some of this spend will be incurred in 2021/22 and in line with how other contingencies are managed any unspent funds for this bid at the end of 2020/21 will be rolled into 2021/22. If there are other calls on this Contingency Fund, we suggest that any shortfall is met by PIF.
19. The full budget allocation will allow us to reach more people, more often and for a longer period, with our key calls to action. A lower budget would result in a shorter campaign lifespan, less economic impact and reduced economies of scale.
20. The project budget would be allocated as follows:
Item Spend estimate Planning and delivery – external agency £80,000 We will work with an external agency to plan the campaign, understand key audience drivers and craft messaging that will resonate and drive the behaviours we want through all the stages of the campaign.
The agency will also produce creative assets such as photography and video. Assets will be adapted as the campaign matures and we learn more about what is working through monitoring, testing and tracking outcomes.
The agency will also help us to measure the impact of our activity on the metrics. We need to make sure we attribute any successes correctly and report the impact of the work.
The agency will help us to pitch marketing partnerships to City businesses and set up channels that will help us to increase our reach and impact with worker audiences.
We will also ask the agency to ensure knowledge transfer so we learn from them and upskill our teams.
April to September.
Audience reach – paid and earned £350,000
Page 93 In order to reach workers with the right messages at the right times, we will use paid and earned media channels.
The first stage will be to reassure people about safety especially on public transport. Primary ways of reaching workers with these messages will be through employers, TfL and other trusted media channels.
The second stage will be to give people compelling reasons to act sooner and to attend more frequently. This messaging will move from reassurance to excitement and anticipation therefore a different tone, messaging and channels will be needed.
The third stage will be to encourage first movers to inspire colleagues to join them. Again, this will require different messaging and channels. Perhaps gamification, unmissable events, invite a friend for free, social media incentives, VIP experiences for groups etc.
May to September.
People (2 FTEs) to drive the programme, manage the £100,000 external partners, help develop collateral, join up the Corporation’s effort and link it with external partners. This will include Project director (pt), Marketing manager (pt) and Marketing and comms executive (ft)
April to September.
Additional costs £20,000 Tools, monitoring, PR facilitation, promotional assets.
May to September. Total £550,000
21. We are exploring reliable measurement methodologies for footfall and will work with the agency to set stretching targets, based the budget allocation.
Corporate & Strategic Implications (as per previous paper)
22. Strategic implications – This project aligns to points 7, 8 and 10 of the Corporate Plan. We are a global hub for innovation in finance and professional services, commerce and culture. (7). The Square Mile’s vibrant offer is key to the attraction and retention of businesses and workers and business visitors are vital to the vibrant offer’s sustainability.
Page 94
23. We have access to the skills and talent we need. (8) As well as career opportunities, domestic and global workers (talent) are attracted to the Square Mile by the vibrant offer.
24. We inspire enterprise, excellence, creativity and collaboration. (10) A rich ecosystem, economic activity and overall vibrancy create the conditions for innovation and collaboration and creativity
25. Financial implications – cost of the project; potential losses to Corporation income if we don’t accelerate the rate of return.
26. Resource implications – set up a cross-Corporation team to deliver effectively.
27. Risk implications – significant reputational damage if the Corporation does not act to accelerate the recovery.
Conclusion
28. The City of London’s offer will be one of the most visible indicators of recovery. Investing in a sustained campaign aligned to launch with the reopening of the Square Mile, to bring workers and business visitors back sooner will enable a higher probability of a speedy and strong recovery.
Background Papers Report to Policy & Resources, 11 March 2021 and associated Appendix (Vibrant Offer Campaign Slides), available here.
Report Authors Damian Nussbaum, Director IG Bob Roberts, Director Comms Jeremy Blackburn, Head of Relationships
Page 95 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 96 Agenda Item 10
Committee(s) Date: Policy & Resources 8th April 2021
Subject: Public Year 1 plan for Climate Action Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate Plan 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or No capital spending? If so, how much? NA What is the source of Funding? CAS programme funding Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: For Decision Damian Nussbaum, Director of Innovation & Growth Report authors: Grace Rawnsley, Chamberlain’s Department Stuart Wright, Climate Action Programme Manager, Innovation & Growth Julia Makin, Climate Action Stakeholder Engagement Lead, Innovation & Growth
Summary
This paper sets out the implementation plan for year 1 of the Climate Action Strategy (CAS) programme. It provides Members with an overview of the year 1 activity and outcomes proposed through the ten workstreams across the programme. It also outlines the enabling activities that will support delivery and integrate Climate Action into decision making across the Corporation.
Year 1 focuses on making tangible reductions to our emissions profile, acting on early opportunities in the first 2 quarters of the year. By Quarter 3, implementation will begin under almost all workstreams. Results of these interventions will further progress our understanding and best practice, strengthening our approach in future years.
We will also focus on deepening our understanding of the opportunities and risks presented across our operations, value chain and Square Mile. We will do this through surveying, piloting, and testing new technologies and ideas. We will also increase our expertise and literacy on climate creating a strong foundation for evidence based decision-making and prioritisation.
Recommendations
The Policy & Resources Committee is recommended to:
Page 97 1. Approve the year 1 programme plan for CAS as highlighted below and signed off by Service Committee Chairs.
2. Approve the year 1 CAS budget (£10.48m) to implement the actions in the plan – from the overall budget approved (£68m) at RASC & P&R (Sept 20), the Court of Common Council (8 October 20), and in the Medium-Term Financial Plan (December 20). Drawdowns will be managed through the existing governance arrangements for capital and revenue.
Main Report
Background and context
1. In January 2020 the City of London Corporation set out on a fast-paced, cross- corporation journey to develop an ambitious Climate Action Strategy. At that point, the Corporation needed to assess the carbon footprint across both its own varied holdings, and across the Square Mile - as well as develop a plan to achieve Net Zero.
2. This was a major challenge, particularly during the first lockdown. We undertook an in-depth organisational and Square Mile carbon foot-printing assessment to create our pathway. Alongside this, we conducted an analysis of the climate resilience in the Square Mile across buildings, public realm and infrastructure. The pathway and analysis formed the basis of the Climate Action Strategy adopted at Court of Common Council on the 8th October 2020.
3. The Climate Action Strategy (CAS) marked the start of a new and transformative programme of action. It set out three interlinked primary objectives for the City Corporation and the Square Mile: • to support the achievement of net-zero emissions, • to build resilience, and • to champion sustainable growth.
4. It committed the City Corporation to mitigating the impact of climate change by achieving net-zero emissions for the City Corporation and the Square Mile. It highlighted the need to take preventative steps to protect the City and its assets from the physical and commercial risks from climate change. Fifteen costed project delivery areas have since been consolidated into ten project plans. Upon adoption, it was agreed that a year 1 programme plan would be presented for approval at P&R at the start of the inaugural year.
Current position 5. An extensive mobilisation effort has been undertaken across 10 workstreams and 6 departments, for the official launch of the programme in April 2021. This paper summarises the composite plan across the workstreams. Detailed project plans for
Page 98 each workstream have been developed and the relevant Service Committees and their Chairs have been consulted.
6. Based on our year 1 plans, we have updated our net zero trajectories to reflect our planned activities as can be seen in the graphs in Appendix 1. We are still on target to achieve our overall ambitions of being: • Net Zero in our own operations by 2027 • Net Zero in our value chain by 2040 • Net Zero in the Square Mile by 2040 • Climate resilient in our buildings, public spaces and infrastructure
Interim Targets
7. A key part of mobilisation has been to profile interim targets for Net Zero. This involved identifying targets for the end of year 1, coinciding with our first comprehensive baseline since the initial study on 2018 emissions. We also set interim targets across the life span of the 2027 and 2040 net zero dates.
8. We anticipate that the year 1 programme will reduce carbon emissions to: • 23 ktCO2e in our own operations by end of 2022 through energy reductions (from baseline of 36 ktCO2e) • 1,027 ktCO2e in our value chain by end of 2022 (from baseline of 1,014 ktCO2e) • 965 ktCO2e in the Square Mile by end of 2022 (from baseline of 1,392 ktCO2e)
9. We expect a small increase in our value chain due to the refinement of our approach to emissions measurement resulting in increases in the carbon emissions we are accounting for.
10. We have also set interim targets for our Net Zero goals which demonstrate the percentage of our overall reduction we must achieve at our interim checkpoints.
Net Zero by 2027 in our own operations 2022 2024 2026 Total reduction required by 2027 % overall reduction 63% 22% 15% 21.5 ktCO2e targets achieved
Net zero by 2040 in our value chain 2025 2030 2035 2040 Total reduction required by 2040 % overall reduction 20% 26% 26% 28% 351 ktCO2e targets achieved
Net Zero by 2040 in the Square Mile 2025 2030 2035 2040 Total reduction required by 2040
Page 99 % overall reduction 67% 12% 18% 3% 989 ktCO2e targets achieved
11. We have developed a set of KPIs to measure our progress on resilience. In year 1, we will test and refine these KPIs, and produce appropriate targets as our understanding of resilience deepens.
Year 1 Programme for Climate Action (21/22)
12. In the foundational year of the strategy, we will focus on taking early action to reduce our carbon emissions. We will also continue to focus on understanding the opportunities and risks to our Net Zero targets and increasing our ability to manage climate related risks across the Square Mile. We will continue to deepen our skills and expertise on climate action to ensure effective prioritisation of actions in year 2 and beyond.
13. A high-level overview of the programme can be found at Appendix 2 and is split into four ‘tube maps’ to demonstrate our actions in each area. A few of the key highlights are listed below:
• Scope 1 & 2, net zero by 2027 • Decarbonisation studies and energy audits across our owned and operated areas in CPG, Housing and landlord areas of IPG • Increased energy monitoring and data management • Development of a new suite of standards for refurbishment of corporate properties and Housing • Land management changes to accelerate carbon removals, including transitioning arable land to meadow and tree planting in Epping Forest • Investigating the potential of further carbon removal through its capture in wood products. • Our value chain, net zero by 2040 • Development of a new suite of standards for new developments and capital projects • Decarbonisation studies and energy audits across our IPG estate • Fund and portfolio level net zero targets for financial investments by September • Supplier specific targets for purchased goods and services • Square Mile net zero by 2040 • Development of Supplementary Planning Guidance on climate action • Pavement widening schemes across the Square Mile • Development of a Climate Action Fund plan to help tackle emissions • A support package for SMEs’ will drive adoption of net zero journeys across the Square Mile. • Increasing our resilience
Page 100 • Integrating the physical risks and opportunities of climate action into internal decision-making through governance and processes • Identifying, evaluating, and piloting measures such as heat resistant materials and SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) into our public realm. • Risk register and business continuity log on corporate, housing and investment properties
14. As part of the Corporation’s Carbon Descent plan, which has now been incorporated into the programme above, several additional workstreams will contribute to our commitments in year 1. These include; • The first Purchase Power Agreement (PPA) in the corporate public sector. It will remove 74,000 tonnes of carbon from the UK grid and deliver energy at below market prices. • A new Citigen heat pump is estimated to remove 25% of carbon from the City’s heat supply • A £9.5m grant from BEIS (Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy), delivering £900k pa savings and 1,500 tonnes pa carbon saving • Fleet electrification and implementation of EV charge points across the city • Current energy efficiency projects providing a further £1.5m+ energy savings
Enabling workstreams to support Year 1 delivery
15. To deliver this ambitious programme, we require robust enabling workstreams to support the delivery of climate goals. Key workstreams on performance monitoring and reporting, stakeholder engagement, and integration of climate across other areas of the organisation are detailed below.
16. Performance and reporting
• We developed a full list of reporting and management KPIs across the programme (Appendix 3). These KPIs represent a mix of existing and new performance indicators and are at different stages in development of data reporting.
• Using the KPIs, we developed a new interactive and public-facing performance dashboard for the programme. Screenshots of the dashboard can be seen at Appendix 4. Orientation on how to use and interpret this dashboard to help inform decision making will be given to all members.
Page 101 • Alongside the dashboard, a set of recommendations about data governance, quality and maturity of data processes has been produced to progress our journey to transparent and reliable information.
• Reporting of progress of the overall programme with updated dashboards will happen on a quarterly basis to P&R Committee. Individual workstreams will report to their service committees as and when necessary or requested. Change control on projects will be managed through existing change control governance.
17. Stakeholder engagement
• Successful achievement of the programme targets is reliant on a variety of audiences supporting the strategy goals. Each delivery area includes a stakeholder engagement element in their plans and coverage across audiences is monitored and tracked by the CAS programme team. These plans are supported by communications and principal engagement plans, and evaluated through metrics on effective engagement and reach. Audience owners and Members will be supported with tools for effective CAS engagement; new tools for use in Y1 are outlined in Appendix 5.
• The stakeholder engagement plan, which tracks the activities with 42 audience types, plots interventions with audiences across the key moments in the program and wider market. It is based around 5 key objectives for this inaugural year:
• Stakeholders increase their climate literacy to inform decision making. • Stakeholders are well informed about what the programme will achieve and are supported and challenged to take actions that support the CAS targets. • Stakeholders understand when physical changes in the public realm, housing, open spaces and buildings will begin and what they will achieve. • The City of London is a recognised leader in climate action, with a particular focus on Scope 3, and supports UK leadership on national and global stages. • Stakeholders have equal opportunity to access information - transparent data progress against targets and lessons learned – and shape engagement and actions under the CAS Y1 programme.
18. Integration of CAS goals across the organisation
• A tool has been developed for quickly identifying high risk/high opportunity climate impacts on capital projects that entered the gateway process prior to the CAS programme.
Page 102 • Updated guidance on climate related impacts and consideration in Gateway reports and Committee reports has are being finalised for both net zero and resilience.
• A new training module will be developed for the Project Management Academy to ensure that all project managers have the correct level of knowledge to effectively manage climate and resilience considerations.
Financial update
19. A high-level year 1 budget can be found at Appendix 6. It summarises a total budget across the programme for year 1 of £10.48m. This does not represent a new commitment but is the first allocation required under the original commitment of funds by Court on 8th October and confirmed in the MTFP by RASC on 10th December.
Risk update
20. Climate Action is a high-profile programme. This is due to its resonance with a wide range of audiences, our ambitious and public targets, and the high level of financial commitment. In addition, our ability to achieve our Net Zero target is reliant on a number of externalities. The Corporate Climate Risk (CR30 found in Appendix 7) describes our organisational response to climate change and focuses on areas within our control and their mitigations.
21. A key externality for the Climate Action programme is our reliance on the decarbonisation of the grid to meet our Net Zero goals. During the development of the strategy, we used Treasury Green Book projections of UK grid decarbonisation. However, over the past year, governmental forecasts of the amount of national renewable energy to feed into the UK grid has been reduced. This has caused the projected carbon emissions reduction from the City Corporation’s use of electricity in 2020 to be 42% overestimated. We have therefore realigned our CAS action planning with a more conservative estimate of decarbonisation. This does not impact our ability to deliver on our targets for Net Zero, but we will continue to monitor this risk closely.
22. The workstreams on energy reductions in our buildings remains the highest risk area due to the concentrated levels of financial commitment. To mitigate this risk, a transformative new approach to delivering energy reduction projects across the property portfolio is proposed. This includes a new Centre of Excellence on climate action in buildings located within the City Surveyors Department. It will enable the team to draw on expertise across a wide range of sustainability issues. This mirrors the Centre of Excellence on Resilience in the Pubic Realm housed in DBE.
Page 103
Corporate and strategic implications
23. Strategic implications: The CAS supports delivery again the following outcomes in the Corporate Plan, 2018-23: • Outcome 1: People are safe and feel safe • Outcome 5: Businesses are trusted and socially and environmentally responsible • Outcome 7: We are a global hub for innovation in financial and professional services, commerce and culture • Outcome 10: We inspire enterprise, excellence, creativity and collaboration • Outcome 11: We have clean air, land and water and a thriving and sustainable natural environment • Outcome 12: Our spaces are secure, resilient and well-maintained.
24. The strategy builds upon existing strategies and policies, including: The Responsible Business Strategy 2018-23, the Responsible Investment Policy, the City Procurement Strategy 2020-24, the Local Plan 2015, the draft City Plan 2036, the Transport Strategy 2018-43, the Air Quality Strategy 2015-20, the Climate Mitigation Strategy, the Carbon Descent Plan, the Transition to a Zero Emission Fleet Policy, the Renewable Electricity Policy & Sourcing Strategy and related campaigns, such as Plastic Free City. It is aligned to ongoing reviews of our financial and property investment portfolio
25. Resource Implications – This proposal requires approval of a budget of £10.48m to support the year 1 programme, from the total envelope for CAS of £68m as agreed by RASC and P&R in September 2020.
26. Risk Implications – To manage risk effectively in the programme, all projects have a risk register and the overall risks are controlled through a corporation level risk CR30 – Climate Action Strategy.
27. Equalities Implications – A Test of Relevance was undertaken on the Climate Action Strategy and several positive impacts were identified for people in at least one of the following five protected groups - age, disability, race, pregnancy/maternity and gender. No negative impacts were identified. Potential equalities impacts will be investigated and assessed on an ongoing basis.
28. No new legal, security, climate implications arise from the recommendations in this report.
Conclusion
29. In Year 1 of the Climate Action programme, we will make tangible carbon emission reductions across the Square Mile and within our own operations. We will do this through both energy reductions in our buildings and carbon removals on our open
Page 104 spaces. We will roll out an exciting programme of activities across all 10 of the workstreams to meet our Net Zero and Resilience goals. We will also focus on deepening our skills and expertise to build a strong foundational base for the life of the Strategy. Crucially, we will create an enabling environment to support delivery departments with focus on performance, reporting and improving our data quality, stakeholder engagement, integrating CAS into the wider organisation, and strong financial and risk management.
Appendices • Appendix 1 – Net Zero Trajectories • Appendix 2 – Year 1 Programme Overview • Appendix 3 – KPIs • Appendix 4 – Climate Action Dashboard • Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Engagement • Appendix 6 – High-level budget • Appendix 7 – Corporate Climate Risk
Page 105 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 106 Appendix 1 – Net Zero Trajectories
Net Zero in our own operations by 2027
Page 107 Page
Net Zero in our value chain by 2040
Page 108 Page
*Please see further explanation at the end of the appendix
Net Zero in the Square Mile by 2040
Page 109 Page
*Please see further explanation at the end of the appendix
Further explanation of Value Chain and Square Mile trajectories
Both the Value Chain and Square Mile trajectories are based on conservative estimates of the impacts of our planned actions over the current life of the Strategy (2021-27). They recognise our need to have targets that start us on the journey but also that we will need to identify further actions beyond the end of our current strategy to reduce these trajectories by 2040. This is in line with the recommendations of the ‘Science Based Target Initiative’ approach which requires us to set shorter term targets (no greater than 15 years) with greater confidence, and that align with the Paris Agreement. Speeding up these trajectories will require ongoing engagement with suppliers, investment managers, and Square Mile stakeholders, as well as more rigorous stress testing of our investment portfolio. This is a key part of our year 1 plans.
Page 110 Page Appendix 2: High level tube map of year 1 programme Tube map 1: Buildings and Carbon Removals
Page 111 Page
Tube map 2: Financial Investments & Purchased Goods and Services
Page 112 Page
Tube map 3: Square Mile, Transport & SME’s
Page 113 Page
Tube map 4: Mainstreaming Climate Resilience & Cool Streets and Greening
Page 114 Page
Appendix 3: CAS Programme KPIs
Reporting KPIs: Inform our overall carbon foot-printing and will be updated on an annual basis. These are all measured in CO2 emissions.
Management KPIs: Are more accessible KPIs designed to help us track performance against our objectives on a quarterly or bi-annual basis. Delivery area Reporting KPIs Management KPIs Buildings – Housing Tonnes of CO2e (COL • Energy use in kilowatt hour per gross internal floor area (tenanted areas) Scope 3) from owned and COLC operated estate (CPG & Housing) • Weighted average Energy Performance Certificate rating for whole portfolio
Buildings – Corporate Tonnes of CO2e (COL • Energy use in kilowatt hour per gross internal floor area Properties and housing Scope 1&2) from owned and COLC operated estate (CPG & Housing) (landlord areas) • Weighted average Energy Performance Certificate rating for whole portfolio Buildings – Investment Tonnes of CO2e (COL • % of buildings reaching Energy Performance Certificate B Properties Scope 3) or equivalent • Weighted average Energy Performance Certificate rating for whole portfolio Buildings - Capital Tonnes of CO2e (COL • % carbon intensity change (+/-) across top capital projects Projects Scope 3) Buildings – Resilience Total % resilience risks • % of resilience risks mitigated addressed Purchased goods and Tonnes of CO2e (COL • Number of top 25 contracts with an action plan signed off services Scope 3) • % spend on contracts with a carbon metric integrated • % spend on suppliers on SBTI / Paris agreed target • % reduction in annual carbon footprint
Financial investments Tonnes of CO2e (COL • Percentage of portfolio in Paris aligned investments (SBTI) Scope 3) • Portfolio temperature alignment • Investment in climate solutions (longer term) Weighted Average Carbon Intensity (WACI) Transport Tonnes of CO2e (Square • Traffic volumes (vehicle numbers / vehicle mileage) Mile Scope 3) • % of pavement widening • % of traffic restrictions / pedestrian priority streets Square Mile Tonnes of CO2e (Square • % of businesses aligned to SBTi net zero Mile Scope 1,2&3 BASIC +) Carbon removals Tonnes of CO2e removal • Hectarage of land suitable for climate action (COL Scope 1) • Hectarage of land climate action management is in progress on Mainstreaming Total COLC % resilience • Communities: % of resilience risks addressed resilience risks mitigated • Environment: % of resilience risks addressed • Innovation & Growth: % of resilience risks addressed Cool Streets and Square Mile Urban Greening • Area covered by sustainable drainage systems SuDs Greening Factor (sustainable urban drainage systems) Heart of the City & Tonnes of CO2e (Square • Businesses engaged with Small/Medium Sized Mile scope 1, 2 & 3 • Businesses assessed as climate ready Enterprise (BASIC+)) • % of carbon reduction across climate ready businesses Engagement (aspirational metric) Climate Action Stakeholder Satisfaction - Strategy – Stakeholder Inclusiveness & Engagement responsiveness (% overall satisfied with CAS)
Stakeholder confidence - Understanding towards action (% overall confident with CAS)
Page 115
Page 116 Appendix 4: Climate Action Performance Dashboard The Climate Action Dashboard is designed to be fully interactive and public facing. It outlines our progress against each of our climate goals and can also be navigated by delivery area. The dashboard will also track the quality and maturity of our approach to data collection and analysis. Graphic 1: Landing page of Climate Action Performance Dashboard Page 117 Page
Graphic 2: First navigation layer of the dashboard Page 118 Page
Appendix 5 – Stakeholder Engagement Tools
Tool (Owner) Purpose City of London Corporation website with Engaging one-stop-shop for Climate Action directories, ways to get involved, blogs, case studies, testimonies and vox pops (SE Lead)
Communications/Media Plan (Comms) Planned and approved media activity around strategy milestones Principal Engagement Plan (SE Lead to Planned approach to Principal Engagement at coordinate amongst various audience political and major events owners) Internal Teams Hub (SE Lead) Approved and repeatable content easily accessible for briefings, speaking and other content Stakeholder engagement measurement Audience owners are supported to gather data on tools – pulse surveys and proforma (SE stakeholder confidence, satisfaction and reach Lead) across sample engagements
Stakeholder survey and consultation Developing a standard approach to public survey platform and consultation across CAS projects Action Plan for Year One – Full Document Outlining the initial deliverables under each project fold-out with summary, related strategic area in simple language for use with multiple work, directory and glossary. (CAS PMO) audiences Action Plan for Year One – Summary document emphasising positive Summary/infographic (CAS PMO) outcomes/changes for residents, workers, businesses and visitors.
CAS Data Dashboard (CAS PMO and A publicly available and transparent and accessible Corporate Strategy) platform for view of real-time data and progress against strategy targets Annual Report (SE Lead) Public and formal progress report on CAS and an emissions statement City Action Pledge (SE Lead) Additional strand included under climate action in Clean City Awards to galvanise climate action on energy use/lighting
What You Can Do guide – Residence and Practical action framed in terms of individual, Businesses - 1-page PDF (SE Lead with community company, and political. Audience Owners) Glossary - 1-page PDF (SE Lead) Translation of scientific terms into accessible language. Signpost The Carbon Trust’s Carbon Literacy training. Business Engagement Tool – 2-page PDF Describing how the CAS wishes to engage with Version for SMEs and Version for Mid- businesses in the Square Mile. Cap/P100 (SE Lead with Audience Owners) Key actions for businesses Heart of the City resources for climate Augmenting the HOTC programme with information literacy and actions for SMEs (HOTC) on climate literacy and planning for climate action Resident Engagement Tool – 2-page PDF Describing how the CAS wishes to engage with for use by Members and Audience Owners businesses in the Square Mile (SE Lead with CCS) Key Actions for residents
Page 119 ‘You said; We Did’ (SE Lead with Audience Repeatable process for delivering follow up Owners) communications for engagement with any stakeholder audience All Member Training Package –90 minute Upskilling Members on climate scrutiny using LGA intro module plus ‘Training plus’ guide with curriculum and signposting tools resource and training links Bespoke Member Training for CAS Service In-depth training on specific topics, e.g. financial Committees investments and buildings, to support Member expertise and decision making Corporate Narrative Webcasts (Corporate Identifying ways to embed climate in all decision- Strategy) making by COLC officers using The Carbon Trust’s Carbon Literacy resource Design Standards: Carbon and Resilience Embedding consistent standards withing Corporate (CSD w/DBE) and IPG properties, Housing, New Developments and in SPG/ Planning Permissions Procurement Standards (CSD and CHB) Low Carbon Procurement Specifications for use across Corporation Mainstreaming Resilience Catalogue (DBE) Catalogue of resilience measures for consideration in planned public realm, transport, highways and open spaces schemes
Page 120 Appendix 6: High level year 1 programme budget Comm Dept Workstream Year 1 ittee expendit ure (£’000s) CASC CSD Buildings - CPG & Housing 1775 Commission building energy surveys – CPG assets & Housing Develop building controls management strategy Roll-out monitoring and targeting programme Decarbonisation of heat: Decentralised systems (non-housing) & Housing Deep fabric retrofit pilot Additional energy specialist resources Capital programme roll-out PIB CSD Buildings - IPG 1725 Undertake MEES risk boundary assessment at asset level to deliver portfolio cost and risk profile, identify costs required to upgrade major refurb works to EPC grade B between 22-40, identify and green environmental Due diligence standards Study to establish process, cost and benefit of an improved metering strategy Green lease MOU pilot group tenants to evolve a working template for portfolio roll out Operating plan to identify pathway to 60% emissions by 2040 Capital Opportunity budget - city fund & housing Sustainable property specialist & Capital PM resource CASC/ CSD Buildings – Design and Capital 915 PIB Whole life cycle emissions footprint and cost analysis Development of Net Zero Technical Standards Development of Net Zero Design standards for new developments and major refurbs Sustainable design specialist CASC/ CSD Buildings – Resilience 305 PIB Climate change impact modelling Development of Resilience Action Plan Buildings Resilience Specialist OS OSD Carbon Removals 525 Staffing & Consultancy Carbon sequestration, Ecosystem services, Natural capital and biodiversity studies Wood and agricultural products study Land management works and associated infrastructure P&T DBE Cool Streets and Greening 1700 Staffing Framework development & resilience measures catalogue Smart sensors for flood and heat monitoring and data collection & analysis Opportunity mapping Site identification & prioritisation
Page 121 Design, model and install resilience measures for 4-7 pilot sites P&T DBE Transport 1550 Pedestrian priority schemes Freight consolidation centre feasibility study P&T DBE Mainstreaming Resilience 287 Staffing P&T DBE Square Mile 380 Staffing Square Mile Local Area Energy Plan Climate Action Fund Scoping Study & Launch FIB CHB Financial Investments 153 Staffing Paris aligned pathway analysis Membership initiatives Procur CHB Purchased Goods and Services 500 ement Sub Staffing Identification of priority suppliers, carbon baselineing, hotspotting and viable tracking and reporting Carbon industry specialist advice on procurement standards P&R IG Small and Medium Enterprises 200 Grant funding to Heart of the City to deliver a package of support P&R IG Strategic Implementation 464 Staffing Communications collateral Additional technical support on carbon foot-printing TOTAL 10478
Page 122 Appendix 7 – CR30 Risk Register
Code CR30 Title Climate Action
Description Cause: Insufficient resources and prioritisation allocated to Climate Action.
Event: The City Corporation fails to reduce and mitigate the impact and effect of climate change.
DELIVER AND REFINE CLIMATE ACTION STRATEGY 2020 ACTION PLAN
Impact: As the governing body of the Square Mile dedicated to the City, there are a range of potential impacts including:
• failing to deliver on the net zero targets in our Climate Action Strategy 2020
• reducing our ability to effectively reduce carbon emissions in the next two carbon budget periods (2022 and 2027)
Page 123 Page • damaging the City’s credibility in Green Finance and Insurance markets
• reducing our ability to champion sustainable growth globally and enhance the relevance and reputation of the Square Mile
• failing to adequately invest in climate resilience measures leading to negative impacts on social, economic and environmental outcomes
• failing to adequately invest in net zero initiatives leading to negative impact on our financial and property investments
Category Environmental Approach Reduce
Risk Level Corporate Risk John Barradell, Town Clerk & Chief Executive
Owner
Strategic Aim Support the achievement of net zero, build Key Climate Action Strategy 2020 climate resilience and champion sustainable Policy growth Priority Department Town Clerk’s Committe Policy and Resources Committee
e
Decreasing Target Current Risk Risk Assessment, 12 Assessme 4 Score & Trend nt & Comparison Score
Likelihoo Likelihood Possible Rare d
Impact Major Impact Major Page 124 Page Risk Risk Score 12 4 Score
Target Review Date 10-Dec-2020 31-Mar-27 Date
Latest Note The City of London Corporation’s Climate Action Strategy 2020 was approved by the Court of Common Council in October 2020. Work is underway to mobilise the various workstreams ready for delivery to commence in April 2021. Project plans for all 10 workstreams are being finalised and a year 1 programme plan will be presented at April P&R. Stakeholder engagement plans, performance dashboard and management systems, governance approach are also finalised. Assessment of climate implications now required within all reports to Committees.
Actions related to this risk:
Ref No: Title Action Description Action Owner Due Date Progress Latest Note CR30k Impact on City financial and Ongoing political and Damian 70% Strategy picked up by media and ability to champion international Nussbaum, helping promote reputation of City sustainable growth of not relationship Director of financial. Stakeholder engagement 31-Mar-27 hitting net zero targets / management Innovation & plan to identify opportunities for maintaining resilience Growth political and international engagement opportunities
CR30l Risk of not hitting net zero Deliver programme of Paul Wilkinson, 5% Pre-mobilisation underway across and resilience targets for works across The City four workstreams – investment, City Corporation operational operational and Surveyor corporate, resilience and capital and investment assets, investment portfolios 31-Mar-27 projects. Programme due to start 1 whilst maximising returns April. Departmental risk reviewed and updated to support Climate Action Strategy.
CR30m Risk of not hitting net zero Monitor and drive Peter Kane, The 5% Funded project plans with resources
Page 125 Page targets for financial performance against Chamberlain and capability requirements now in investments and supply net zero and financial place. Financial investment plan chain targets for financial developed by cross-corporation investments and 31-Mar-27 team. Overview of project plan (is supply chain, this one of the things in the last two continually refreshing sentences, or both?) approved by learning FIB. Supply chain workstream focused on most impactful contracts.
CR30n Resilience risks of Square Monitor and drive Jon Averns, 5% Project plans for the two resilience Mile infrastructure and performance against Interim Director projects and the transportation public realm and risk of not net zero and of the Built project have been completed and hitting net zero targets for resilience targets, Environment includes process for tracking KPI’s 31-Mar-27 developments and transport continually refreshing and reporting. The Net Zero for the learning Square Mile project plan is being finalised and is due to be completed during March 2021. CR30o Reaching carbon removal Set out carbon Colin Buttery, 5% Capital funding confirmed for targets through open removal action plan Director of Open 2021/22. Preparing risk register for spaces and mobilise Spaces carbon capture workstream. Current risks are: - Resourcing: timeline for the appointment of staff on FTCs
- Identifying and securing sites for 31-Mar-27 Carbon Capture; Committee decisions needed on existing farm tenancies (underway, site by site)
- Survey and planning work: to design appropriate schemes secure permissions and external funding and implement
CR30p Delivery delays and failures Run overarching Damian 10% Dedicated stakeholder engagement Page 126 Page due to stakeholder / public engagement Nussbaum, lead built into PMO function. action / inaction programme with our Director of Stakeholder engagement plan under stakeholders and Innovation & development ready for April P&R partners (phase 3 of Growth: Kate 31-Mar-27 update. engagement plan) Smith, Head of and quality assure Corporate engagement for Strategy & projects Performance
CR30q Protecting vulnerable Carry out impact Andrew Carter, 0% Subject to continuous assessment groups who are most likely assessments and Director of within implementation plans. to be impacted by climate equalities analysis on Community & change and fulfilling Public projects and Children’s Sector Equalities Duty stakeholder research Services; Kate 31-Mar-27 and use their findings Smith, Head of to shape future Corporate engagement and Strategy & delivery Performance CR30r That the scope, budget, Agree to and Damian 50% Full year 1 implementation plan timescales, targets and/or implement Nussbaum, being finalised for April P&R, commitments of the climate appropriate Director of including a strong PMO function action strategy are not governance to embed Innovation & providing oversight. Beta version of delivered upon through the Climate Action in Growth; Kate performance dashboard developed climate action programme departmental scrutiny. Smith, Head of with 95% KPIs signed off and plan of work Ensure appropriate Corporate for addressing data gaps and capacity and Strategy & quality. capabilities are in Performance 31-Mar-21 place including for regular KPI progress reporting via the CPF. Ensure mechanisms in place for releasing staged financing. Set up regular tracking of
Page 127 Page impact of our actions on targets.
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 128 Agenda Item 11
Committee(s): Date: Policy & Resources Committee – For decision 8 April 2021 Subject: Finance for Sustainable Growth Public
Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate Plan 7, 10 does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or capital N spending? If so, how much? N/A What is the source of Funding? N/A Has this Funding Source been agreed with the N/A Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: Damian Nussbaum, Director, Innovation & Growth For Decision Report author: Ines Righi (Innovation & Growth)
Summary
Key 2021 CoLC priorities are: 1) delivering our cross UK strategy (i.e. showing how London/FPS is an asset to the UK, capable of supporting Levelling Up); and 2) supporting ambitious climate action in the year of COP26.
With these objectives in mind we are piloting a new approach, bringing together regional UK partners and linking them into sustainable funding opportunities in London. To facilitate the connection of green research and innovation in the UK’s regions to London’s capital and expertise.
The capital’s position as a global hub for sustainable finance leaves us well placed to do this. And by doing so, London will be making a public and demonstrable contribution to the UK- wide, net zero ambition.
We will trial this approach first in the North East. Research shows this area to be a relative ‘cold spot’ for greentech/sustainable business. We have four partners lined up – all key players within the region’s sustainable business ecosystem (see ‘Background’ for more information)1.
They are ready to provide case studies, information on regional investor events, and investment opportunities to us that can be posted on a new and dedicated microsite. The exact ask/offer will be captured in a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed between CoLC and partners.
The aim is to spotlight the innovative (green) business activity that is happening in the North East. But often gets missed by national/international investors. Ultimately to drive more private finance into the area to support green growth. If successful there, we would like to roll this approach out to other parts of the country.
Recommendations Members are asked to: 1. Approve the outlined partnership model and the attached MoU 2. Note the partnership concept being piloted in the North East
1 Our prospective partners are NorthStar Ventures, the Northern Accelerator, the North East LEP and potentially BP (reflecting the region’s relative competitiveness in the energy sector).
Page 129 Main Report
Background
1. To achieve net-zero by 2050 we must do more to support greentech and sustainability- oriented businesses throughout the UK. Much of this is now based in London and the South-East. If more can be developed outside these areas, we can help hit net-zero and create new, resilient jobs across the UK. Building back better in action.
2. London in uniquely positioned to support here – it has the breadth of green finance expertise and deep capital pools that can be leveraged to support balanced UK green growth. The City Corporation has the unique brand and network to lend credibility within private finance to this agenda. Which in turn will cement the Corporation’s credentials in the green finance arena – vital in this year of climate action and with COP26 in sight.
3. Our North East pilot has been long in the works. Last year the City Corporation commissioned research looking at 850 UK SMEs who have attempted to access finance in the last three years. It identified five “elements of success” that underpin sustainable business cluster growth. The first four are: i) corporate ecosystem ii) political infrastructure iii) research & commercialisation and iv) access to finance. The fifth element is what makes things fly and can be called ‘interconnectors.’ They coordinate the other four, bringing them together so ideas and capital can link up to drive business growth.
4. This research identified greentech/sustainable business “cold spots”2 around the UK. Last December we hosted a roundtable which put this research to regional partners in the North East – an identified cold spot. The discussion showed that the region has some of the right elements to support green business cluster growth. But they suffer from a lack of visibility outside the region. We have since maintained a dialogue with actors there to explore how the City Corporation could help here.
5. We now have four prospective partners – one representing each of our identified element of success – lined up in the North East3, ready to proceed with signing an MoU. We will then work towards a public launch of this work – including publishing the core research and launching a new website where content from partners can sit – in the coming months. The MoU will be centred around the amplification and connection of North East innovation to London for a period of twelve months.
Current Position
6. The rationale for the City Corporation supporting green cluster growth across the UK is clearer than ever: • Most of the greentech/sustainable business activity is happening in London and the South East. This needs to change if we are hoping to reach net zero by 2050 • This proposal complements the Corporation’s commitment to supporting a thriving economy. It promotes London/the UK as a global hub for sustainable investment,
2 We have defined cold spots as UK regions with comparatively fewer greentech/sustainability-oriented start- ups and scale-ups, as identified by the research undertaken 3 Our prospective partners are NorthStar Ventures (Finance), Northern Accelerator (Research & Commercialisation) and North East LEP (Policy). The fourth partner (Companies) – potentially BP – will be confirmed shortly
Page 130 supports ‘levelling up’ across the country, and ensures the UK remains competitive in the future. • This proposal contributes to IG’s goals of enabling growth in the UK’s share of global Assets under Management, establishing the UK ‘levelling-up’ agenda as an investment opportunity for FPS and enhancing the UK’s position as a leader in FPS innovation. • This proposal complements our prospective regional signatories’ goals in that it supports building a case for investment in the regions and showcases green innovation. • This work supports and strengthens our ongoing cross-UK engagement, critical to several of our objectives and policy goals.
Proposal
7. The Finance for Sustainable Growth programme in the North East will officially launch in May 2021 and will last for twelve months.
8. Programme Objectives: • Facilitate the connection of North East green research and innovation to London’s capital and expertise • Enhance visibility of regional green innovation and interconnecting initiatives • Support an increase in the flow of green investment to the region • Support ecosystem interconnection for sustainable business growth in the region
9. Ask of regional signatories: • They will create interest for the work and a public launch • They should provide the material they would like to profile on the website • They should provide access to their regional and national network in support of keeping website content up-to-date and relevant.
10. Offer to regional signatories - During the North East pilot, we will develop a standard offer of activities that we could potentially roll out to other regions: • We are developing a dedicated website to showcase the events and case studies provided by regional partners. • We may conduct additional amplifying activities with support from delivery partners (for example, organise a thematic roundtable). • We will publicly report on the progress and impact of the Finance for Sustainable Growth work in the North East and other UK regions.
Key Data
11. We intend on measuring success in the long term by reviewing the: • Increase in proportion of private capital going to green innovation in region (%) • Increase in number of deals (%) • Track record of new thematic fund mandates for North East based investment (x number)
Corporate & Strategic Implications • Strategic Implications - This proposal complements the Corporation’s commitment to supporting a thriving economy by promoting London/the UK as a global hub for sustainable
Page 131 investment, supporting a greater flow of investment into sustainable solutions in the UK regions to promote levelling up across the country, and ensuring the UK remains competitive in the future . • This work supports and strengthens our ongoing cross-UK engagement, critical to several of our objectives and policy goals. • Financial implications – this proposal entails the launch of a report (estimated £3,600) and a website (estimated £10,000). This will be covered in existing IG local risk budgets. • Resource implications – none • Legal implications – none • Risk implications – none • Equalities implications – none • Climate implications - none • Security implications - none
Conclusion
12. We plan to launch the North East programme in early May (date TBC), once the MoU has been signed by all North East partners, the early findings report is ready to be published and the website has been built. The North East programme will last for twelve months from May 2021.
Appendices
• Appendix 1: 212203 – F4SG North East MoU • Appendix 2: 212203 - Finance for Sustainable Growth Exec Summary
Ines Righi Policy Advisor, Innovation and Growth T: 07552254711 E: [email protected]
Page 132 APPENDIX 1
Memorandum of Understanding
Finance for Sustainable Growth
1. Partnership Aims and Objectives • Facilitate the connection of North East green research and innovation to London’s capital flows • Enhance visibility of regional green innovation and interconnecting initiatives • Support an increase in the flow of green investment to the region • Support ecosystem interconnection for sustainable business growth in the region
2. Timeframe 2.1. Length of Partnership
The initial time frame for the partnership will be one year. The City of London Corporation and signatories will assess options for continuation thereafter.
2.2. Commencement date
The Finance for Sustainable Growth Programme will officially launch in May 2021 (date TBC)
2.3. Review Points
Review points will be scheduled each quarter with all delivery partners. They will assess whether the partnership activities are having the desired impact and delivering the desired outcomes. 3. Partnership Activities 3.1. Frequency of activities
Profiling of regional material on the dedicated website will be ongoing. Other activities may be conducted in addition.
3.2. Activities
The specific activities to be conducted will be decided by the City Corporation and its regional partners. Illustrative activities include: Objective Example Activities Facilitate the connection of North East • Start-up pitches/profiles on website green research and innovation to London highlighted on the new website Enhance visibility of regional green • Dedicated slot focussing on relevant innovation and interconnecting initiatives activities during Lord Mayor visits Support an increase in the flow of green • Information on managerial/ investment to the region mentorship/skills building for founders highlighted on the new website Support ecosystem interconnection for • Thematic roundtables held together sustainable business growth in the region with CoLC and regional partners.
Page 133 APPENDIX 1
4. Evaluation of Impact Desired Outcomes Evaluation Method • Regional partners build their portfolio of • Increase in proportion of London-based contacts private capital going to • London-based investors and companies are green innovation in region increasingly interested in innovation in (%) regions • Increase in number of deals • Mindset shift and built confidence for (%) investors around investing in green • Track record of new • Regional ecosystem strengthened and thematic fund mandates for further developed North East based investment (x number)
5. Roles and Responsibilities 5.1. Elements of Success Signatories responsibilities
Official Launch (date TBC): Signatories should create interest for the work and for attending the official launch within their respective organisations and network. They should organise for a senior speaker to attend the launch event. They should support communications around launch time within their networks and online.
Provision of material: Signatories should provide a calendar of upcoming events, a list of ongoing projects and initiatives, regional case and success stories and marketing collateral ready to be profiled on the website.
Access to network: Signatories should provide access to their regional and national network and leverage said network to support participation in the profiling activities.
Ongoing work: Signatories should support with the facilitation of the profiling activities where their expertise is required.
5.2. City Corporation responsibilities
Website profiling: City Corporation should maintain and update the Finance for Sustainable Growth website to showcase the events and case studies provided by its regional partners. City Corporation should also market and promote the website to its network.
Activities: City Corporation should conduct additional amplifying activities as illustrated above with support from its delivery partners.
Interim and final reports: City Corporation should publicly report on the progress and impact of the Finance for Sustainable Growth work in the North East and other UK regions.
Page 134 APPENDIX 1
6. Disclaimer
Signing a MOU does not constitute the creation of a legal entity or give anyone within the partnership the authority to make binding commitments on behalf of other organisations.
Desired outcomes and areas of focus may evolve over time and will be subject to regular review.
Page 135 APPENDIX 1
Signed on behalf of City of London Corporation
………………………………………………………...... Date ………………………………….
Signed on behalf of North East LEP
………………………………………………………...... Date ………………………………….
Signed on behalf of Northern Accelerator
………………………………………………………...... Date ………………………………….
Signed on behalf of NorthStar Ventures
………………………………………………………...... Date ………………………………….
Signed on behalf of X
………………………………………………………...... Date ………………………………….
Page 136 APPENDIX 1
Annex - Background
1.1 Reaching Net Zero across the UK • To reach Net Zero by 2050, we need to do more to help SMEs providing sustainable solutions access the finance and support they need to scale up in all parts of the UK • An analysis of 845 companies that have attempted to receive finance in the last three years, commissioned by the City Corporation, shows that access to finance is a problem especially pronounced outside of London and the South East • The research has also identified four ‘elements of success’ underpinning green cluster growth. These are: accommodating policy, access to finance, research and the presence of corporates. At the centre is an Interconnector, an entity that focuses on bringing together and coordinating the four elements of success.
1.2 State of Play
The roundtable hosted in December 2020 and the subsequent engagement has shown that:
• The North East has a good level of sustainable innovation activity, with a developed University research base and ecosystem • The ecosystem is fairly well connected, with key players (NELEP, pan-University community, funds etc) already working together on various initiatives • This green research and innovation coming out of the region needs to be made more visible to investors, and connected with London Financial Services sector and large corporates
Page 137 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 138 APPENDIX 2
Page 139 Page Finance for Sustainable Growth in the North East Page 140 Page Proposed Approach The ‘Elements of Success’ that Underpin Green Cluster Growth
- To reach Net Zero by 2050, we need to do more to help SMEs providing sustainable solutions access the finance they need to scale up in all parts of the UK
- An analysis of 845 companies that have attempted to receive finance in the last three years shows that access to finance is a problem especially pronounced outside of London and the South East
- The research has also identified four ‘elements of success’ underpinning green cluster growth. These
Page 141 Page are: accommodating policy, access to finance, research and the presence of corporates
The Finance for Sustainable Programme aims to focus on each region of the UK and support ecosystem development and visibility, starting with the North East Enhancing Visibility of North East Interconnecting Initiatives
Objectives of the Finance for Sustainable Growth programme in the North East
1 Facilitate the connection of North East green research and innovation to London Page 142 Page
2 Enhance visibility of regional green innovation and interconnecting initiatives
3 Support an increase in the flow of green investment to the region
4 Support ecosystem formation for sustainable business growth in the region What our North East partners have told us so far
December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 – December 2022
North East Working Bilateral Round Page 143 Page Group call Calls Table
• The region has a good level of sustainable innovation activity, with a developed University research base and ecosystem • The ecosystem is fairly well connected, with key players (NELEP, pan-University community, funds etc) already working together on various initiatives • This all needs to be made more visible to investors, and connected with London Financial Services sector and large corporates • The City Corporation can play a role in working with partners in the North East to amplify the work already being done supporting sustainable business A Twelve Month Partnership Programme
December 2020 – April 2021 May 2021 – April 22
November 2021 May 2021 COP26: Interim April 22 F4SG Report & Final Launch Review
Page 144 Page Profiling
A new collaborative Partnership Programme between the City Corporation and North East stakeholders
TBC Delivery of Activities under the Partnership Model The City Corporation will conduct a range of amplifying and profile raising activities (quarterly at the minimum) with the support and input of its partners.
Delivery Partners City Corporation
Inputs Example Outputs • One representatives per • Start-up pitches/connection Page 145 Page ‘element of success’ • Showcasing North East success stories • Access to regional networks • Sandpits focused on specific technologies • Regional intelligence on existing • Dedicated slot during Lord Mayor visits programmes • Facilitating managerial mentorship/skills • Calendar of future events building for founders (gaining support from • Regional success stories and multiple stakeholders, customer traction) marketing collateral • Facilitating coaching on navigating • Feedback and input on activities deals/accessing finance (building investor • Input on the regions strategic readiness and founder confidence) priorities • Repository of contacts for support available to founders • Facilitating Angels mentoring Angels (building investor confidence and mindset shift) • Convened thematic roundtables Page 146 Page Finance for Sustainable Growth Research Executive Summary SYER ADVISERS Important Information
This document has been prepared by Syer Advisers Limited (”Syer”) for and at the request of City of London Corporation (”Client”) in connection with the Client’s engagement of Syer to deliver the [Finance for Sustainable Growth] Commission, under the terms and conditions of the Order Form dated [TBC] (”Order Form”).
Syer has based this document on secondary market research, analysis of publicly available financial and market information and a range of interviews with market participants and representatives of the Client. Syer has not independently verified such information and makes no representation, express or implied, that such information is accurate or complete. All findings, analyses, projections, conclusions and recommendations set out in this document are based on the information described above and represent Syer’s judgment on the date hereof and should not be construed as definitive forecasts or guarantees of future performance or results. Page 147 Page
Syer is under no duty to update this report to reflect new information received or any change in commercial circumstances or economic environment.
Syer makes no representations or warranties of any kind with respect to this document or the information and materials contained herein and disclaims all such representations and warranties including, without limitation, representations or warranties about the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the information and materials published herein.
All intellectual property rights, methodologies, tools or know-how developed or acquired by Syer (or its third party suppliers or contractors) and set out in this document shall remain the exclusive property of Syer (or such third parties), other than Client’s Confidential Information (as defined in the Order Forms). All logos and corporate names referenced in this document constitute the intellectual property of their respective rights holders and may not be reproduced without the prior express authorisation of such third parties.
This document was prepared solely for Client, does not constitute investment advice or an investment recommendation, and should not be used or relied upon in any way by any third party. It may not be reproduced or electronically distributed partially or in its entirety without the prior express permission of Syer. Any liability arising out of such use, reproduction or distribution, whether permitted or not, is expressly disclaimed.
COPYRIGHT © 2020 SYER ADVISERS LIMITED
8 Towards an Industrial Strategy for Green Growth SYER ADVISERS Unbalanced and unsustainable economic growth jeopardises the ability of the UK to level up and meet its 2050 net-zero commitment
Finance for Sustainable Growth
- Companies that design and build innovative, green and sustainable solutions often struggle to access the funding they need to scale
- An analysis of 845 companies that have attempted to receive Page 148 Page finance in the last three years shows this problem is especially pronounced in areas such as Wales, Northern Ireland, the North East and the East Midlands
- The emergence of innovation led companies and clusters provides a commercial opportunity for UK companies to drive the transition to net zero and achieve significant growth. We need more of them across the country, leveraging existing expertise in region.
- This research maps the funding ecosystem for regional green tech firms and sustainability–led growth companies. It uncovers insights capable of supporting decarbonisation and the creation of innovation and jobs throughout the UK. Source: Syer Advisers Heat map: # of UK ESG SMEs in pipeline looking for financing 9 Scope of the Research SYER ADVISERS The mapping & analysis of Syer’s pipeline of 845 SMEs that have looked for financing over the last three years across a number of different categories is illustrated below.
Deal Types UK Regions Grant Greater London Accelerator/Incubator South East Seed Scotland VC Early East of England VC Growth North West PE Buyout/LBO South West M&A Yorkshire & The Humber Page 149 Page 7 12 West Midlands East Midland North East Business Types Wales Service Northern Ireland Software SME’s Hardware 5 6 Projects Solutions Sectors Energy 4 Waste Food & Ag Company Maturity Stages Mobility Seed Built Environment Early Water Growth Mature
10 What are the ‘elements of success’ at the local level? SYER ADVISERS Five factors have been identified as key to delivering clusters that underpin sustainable business growth. This analysis shows how the CoLC can make more of those factors where present and introduce them where absent.
Core A holistic approach is required, which ensures all conditions for success are present in all parts of the UK. Hypothesis Initiatives targeted at our identified conditions for success in isolation, either at local level or nationally, are likely to provide more modest results and miss out on “virtuous circle” dynamics
Key Success Factors/Cluster Pillars The fifth element
Interconnectors are organisations that bring these 1 Government Research & 2 Commercialisation different conditions for success together and play a Page 150 Page critical role in the formation and development of National and local political Universities, Research Institutions cluster ecosystems. “infrastructure” in place, e.g. and Science Parks with the policies, strategies, and funding knowhow, invention and talent, schemes which is commercialised with the support of Accelerators & 5 Incubators Engage with local, national & Develop international R&D Interconnectors enterprises, and Networks glue cluster local and components 4 3 Financing Landscape together Companies national govt Interconnector Various forms of specialised Building on and adapting existing Create peer financing are vital to the formation corporate ecosystems along areas to peer and growth of companies through of historical strength is also an networks the various stages of maturity and important factor, which can lead (managerial risk e.g. angel, VC, broader to positive “coopetition” dynamics Develop Brand best alternatives market (PE, Private forming and attracting further (Specialisation) practice) Debt), and Banks corporates to a cluster
11 State of play across ColC regional partnerships SYER ADVISERS The situation across the UK is unbalanced: overall cluster density is strongest in London, the South East and Scotland but all parts of the UK enjoy different sectoral specialisms that can be built up and built out.
Belfast | #1 sector: Energy & Built Environment Edinburgh | #1 sector: Energy • Low cluster of ESG companies around Belfast • Third larger cluster of ESG companies in the UK • Two universities and educated workforce but lack of • Strong higher education and public research funding, companies to retain them especially in renewable energy • Low R&D spending from government and businesses • Strong presence of investors • Recent government strategies developed such as the • Strong network of accelerators and incubators “NI Innovation Strategy”
Gov R&C Finance Companies Score Gov R&C Finance Companies Score
LOW HIGH
Page 151 Page Birmingham | #1 sector Energy & Mobility Manchester | #1 sector: Energy & Waste • Strong existing industrial cluster, with some of the • North West is the fifth largest pipeline cluster largest energy companies in the UK • Local industrial government strategies: ‘Greater • Significant research capacity in the mobility sector Manchester Clean Growth Productivity Programme’ • Strong research community and ‘Lancashire Energy Strategy 2019’ • Regional government strategies recently • Hubs and Enterprise zones recently established but developed: “West Midlands High Speed 2 Growth results not yet seen Strategy” and “Regional Energy Strategy 2018” • Fairly active in terms of R&D expenditure Gov R&C Finance Companies Score Gov R&C Finance Companies Score
MEDIUM/LOW MEDIUM
Cardiff | #1 sector: Energy Leeds | #1 sector: Energy & Built Environment • Low density cluster • Region is 7th largest cluster of ESG companies in UK • Recent government strategies developed such as • High potential for offshore wind in the region the “Energy Efficiency Strategy 2016-2026” • Low levels of investment in innovation in the region • Low R&D investment due to lack of base in the • Low R&D investment country • Recent government strategies developed such as the “Humber Local Energy Strategy 2019”
Gov R&C Finance Companies Score Gov R&C Finance Companies Score # of UK ESG SMEs in pipeline LOW MEDIUM/LOW looking for financing
Source: Syer Advisers Towards an Industrial Strategy for Green Growth (1/2) SYER ADVISERS CoLC can connect the real economy with the City’s knowhow, network and international reach, with a policy influence overlay. This is the Fifth Element: the Interconnector.
Key Success Factors/Cluster Pillars The Role of the City Corporation
1 2 Cross fertilization Government Research & amongst institutions in 5 Commercialisation CoLC’s sphere
Interconnector Insight into & Green Finance 3 4 sharing of best Agenda Thought practice Leadership Page 152 Page Financing Landscape Companies
The CoLC, thanks to its convening power and position at Help channel Support access to the interface between public and private sectors, and capital to real international UK economy based business strong finance overlay, can help bring together the network different stakeholders that underpin these ‘conditions for success’. We can leverage our regional partnerships Engage with local & national government with Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Leeds and on policy initiatives Manchester to form a UK hub.
The CoLC can work, in collaboration with its regional partners, to bring these critical Interconnector components together and push the green and sustainability agenda across the UK
13 SYER ADVISERS Towards an Industrial Strategy for Green Growth (2/2) As we look towards the long term, we will engage on all five conditions for success, ensuring each is addressed as part of this holistic approach. Indicative actions are detailed below.
Key Success Factors/Cluster Pillars 2 Research & Commercialisation 1 2 • Set up green innovation R&D hub/centres Research & Government • Leverage existing programmes (Innovate UK 5 Commercialisation network) or entities (e.g. catapults) to drive sector specific solution Interconnector • Leverage position of strength in Universities 4 3 • Explore LEP role and where best practice happens Page 153 Page Financing Landscape Companies • Identify scalable solutions requiring further R&D inputs
3 Financing Landscape 1 Government • Collaborate with the BBB as a conduit for green/sustainable programme • Coordinate industrial & regional development policy and public • Work with the BBB also as a key driver of fund financing manager innovation focused on growth financing • Link skillset developments with regional cluster strength and sustainability • Shift discussion from bank-centered risk management and • Potential to expand with international angle via disclosure to concrete solutions with allocated capital partnerships with MDBs (e.g. IFC) • Promote regulatory review to support emerging innovative asset managers and reduce set up barriers and costs • Review tax policy and fiscal incentives to support investing 4 Companies • Promote role and budget of Innovate UK as risk capital provider to innovative corporates • Raise regional awareness of financing available to growth companies
14 What is the UK picture? SYER ADVISERS Strong concentration in larger cities, typically with university links or historic industrial cluster angle, with energy as the largest sector in the pipeline. Early stage and mature companies are the most common, with a gap in growth companies pointing to potential financing issues Key Findings • Low number of companies in Growth stage and high M&A deal count suggests a lack of funding options for growth stage Maturity • Largest number of companies in Mature and Early Stage stage • Early-Stage pipeline concentrated in Greater London • Mature Stage companies relatively well balanced across regions Page 154 Page • Main clusters and innovation focused in four regions (London, South East, East of England and Scotland) • Other regions, like Manchester in the North West, are catching up with a significant increase in Regions investment in the recent years • Other smaller regional ESG clusters are linked to existing industrial clusters, e.g. in the North and Midlands • Energy is the largest sector, driven by innovation in Sectors energy transition, historic Oil & Gas industry and a Syer Pipeline split by Type of company Syer Pipeline split by Sector strong regulatory framework • Overall dominance of Hardware and Service companies across regions and sectors Company • London is the only region where Software, Hardware Type and Service have parity • For Software companies, Energy is the largest sector of focus (40%)
Source: Syer Advisers What is the UK picture? Financing SYER ADVISERS The UK alternative finance sector is strong but remains very London centric. Financing for growth stage companies requires attention. Innovate UK and the British Business Bank play important roles that could be expanded with a green growth bias
Very London-centric market. Distance can create friction and reduce awareness regionally
Emergence of thematic Green & Sustainability funds in private markets, but from a low base. More innovation required
Page 155 Page Importance of wider financing ecosystem (brokers, corporate finance advisers, service providers, etc) to drive awareness and match supply & demand
Potential for technology to reduce access barriers & friction
Increasing appetite from institutional investors to deploy capital into ESG/thematic investing but long way to go on allocations
BBB has played a key role in driving non-bank financing solutions and helping fund managers get off the ground and scale
Financing gaps primarily in Growth Stage and Venture Debt. Early stage financing very tax driven and less sophisticated
16 Corporate Case Studies SYER ADVISERS There are many corporates that have successfully navigated the complex financing landscape to raise public & private capital, drive innovation, growth, economic activity and international expansion
A pioneer in battery storage, Zenobe accessed different pools of Focused on the integration of distributed renewable generation capital during its growth journey, matching different risk profiles into constrained networks, SGS is an innovative leader that has to different capital providers, and taking an innovative approach to expanded internationally despite its difficulties accessing the “parcelling” risks across its corporate structure to reduce its cost of quantum of patient capital needed to accelerate growth capital
HIGH RISK = Type of GROWTH HIGH RISK GROWTH capital accessed by company BUSINESS SEED ANGEL/SEED GRANT CAPITAL CAPITAL FUNDING GROWTH EARLY VC STRATEGIC
Page 156 Page EQUITY EQUITY INFRA FUND INSIDER INVESTMENT GROWTH EQUITY DEBT
PUBLIC MEZZANINE FUNDING FINANCING PARTNERSHIP
BANK BANK DEBT DEBT
LOW RISK TIME LOW RISK TIME
Challenges and Growth Barriers Challenges and Growth Barriers Limited commercial history Market challenges: Distribution Networks / Smart Grid is generally a conservative and slow-moving industry New markets subject to regulatory change created funding and trading uncertainty Customer behaviour driven mainly by regulatory framework
Significant cost and time friction to get going and raise capital (e.g. high legal Customers tend to be conservative, initial sales cycles are slow and usually start and due diligence costs) with long technology proof-of-concept, and then scale up much later Initial high net worth equity raise and time consuming “herding cats” concept Market is fragmented globally, due to varying regulatory frameworks 17 Investors Case Studies: Ambienta + Environment SYER ADVISERS Agency Pension Fund Thematic funds are an opportunity to channel capital to deliver positive outcomes without compromising on returns, and should be able to rely on some UK LPs’ thought leadership in decarbonising capital markets for support
• One of the largest and most experienced sustainability private equity investors, with over €1.2 billion of assets Business under management • Defined benefit pension scheme for the Environment Agency rd Description • Currently investing its 3 fund, a 2018 €635m vehicle with c£3.9bn of assets under management on behalf of • Diversified mix of blue-chip global investors, which 39,500 members include insurance companies, banks, pension funds, Page 157 Page foundations and asset managers
• Viewed as thought leader in stewardship and climate change • One of the early adopters of sustainability thematic • Investment strategy validated by strong performance and Reason for investing in European private markets well funded scheme • Have backed innovative sustainability themed managers in the feature • Successful in growing the strategy across several fund cycles, and viewed as succesful example of thematic pivate markets space investing (latest fund oversuscribed and hit hard cap) • Public pension fund driving best in class sustainability and ESG asset allocation - highlights role of public pension funds in leading charge of sustainable capital allocation
• Has set specific targets to drive investment portfolio and processes in line with Paris agreement targets. • Recently met ahead of time its 2020 targets of: • Focus on European businesses driven by the Investment ‒ 15% of the fund tied in climate mitigation opportunities. environmental sustainability trends of Resource Efficiency ‒ Supported progress towards transition to low carbon Strategy and Pollution Control economy through actively working with asset owners, • Traditionally focused on more industrial (rather than tech) fund managers, companies, academia, policy makers and businesses others in the investment industry. • Has significant investments in private market managers with a sustainability or impact theme, including Ambienta 18 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 158 Agenda Item 12
Committee(s): Date: Policy & Resources 8th April 2021
Subject: Public IGAB Membership and Competitiveness Update Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate Plan 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or No capital spending? If so, how much? NA What is the source of Funding? NA Has this Funding Source been agreed with the NA Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: For Decision Damian Nussbaum, Director of Innovation & Growth Report author: Simi Shah, Project Director, Innovation & Growth
Summary This paper outlines the how drawing on industry expertise from internal Members and external co-opted Members into the proposed Membership for the new Innovation and Growth Advisory Board (IGAB). It also outlines the next steps on the development of the Competitiveness Strategy. Recommendations Members are asked to: 1. Confirm the proposed internal Members (see paragraph 12) as well as the approach to securing the external Members (paragraphs 13 – 16). 2. Confirm the addition of up to 8 external Members of the Steering Committee of IGAB. 3. Note the next steps in the development of the Strategy.
Main Report Background 1. On 18th February 2021 the Policy and Resources adopted the recommendations of the Fraser 2.0 report including the creation of the IGAB.
2. Members were asked to submit expressions of interest as set against the criteria and the Innovation and Growth (IG) directorate was instructed to compile a short list of external members set against the same criteria.
3. The role of the Advisory Board is:
Page 159 a. To provide informal guidance or direction to Innovation & Growth on the implementation of the Competitiveness strategy (whilst being clear that formal oversight would be held by Policy & Resources, with this group reporting in on an advisory basis). b. To provide expertise and insight to officers and Policy & Resources on the ingredients of global success of UK Financial and Professional Services, acting as an internal forum for the testing of ideas and prioritisation in the work of promotion and policy of the sector. c. To offer additional support to the Lord Mayor and Chair of Policy and Resources as Ambassadors on the Innovation and Growth agenda. d. To provide advice on the strategic deployment of hospitality as required.
Composition and Criteria 4. The IGAB is led by a Steering Committee. Expert groups may be used in addition and utilised in an agile and targeted way to provide insight for specific areas sectors or campaigns. This paper focuses on the mobilisation of the Steering Committee who will then work together to deploy other expertise on an as needs basis.
5. The composition of the Steering Committee as previously agreed by Policy and Resources was as follows: a. Chair of the Policy & Resources Committee (Chair) b. Chair of the General Purposes Committee of Aldermen (Deputy Chair) c. Deputy Chairman of the Policy & Resources Committee d. Deputy Chairman of the General Purposes Committee of Aldermen e. Four Members of the Court of Common Council with relevant expertise f. Four co-opted external members with relevant expertise.
6. There has been further reflection since Policy and Resources that the Advisory Board might be more impactful if an additional four external Members were added (i.e. 8 internal + 8 external). This allow for sufficient capacity to ensure full breadth and balance of perspectives, including sectors, markets, and diversity.
7. Criteria for membership of the Steering Committee agreed by Policy and Resources were as follows: a. The Steering Committee would best benefit from broad and deep expertise across a number of markets and sub-sectors relevant to FPS. Expertise that is deep to one sector or market will be utilised in the ad hoc aspect to the Board’s work. Preference for the Steering Group will
Page 160 be given to those with senior level experience and expertise on 2 or more sectors and/or markets. b. Expertise and experience should be based on direct market participation. c. Composition of the Steering Group should balance diversity of perspective, thought, expertise and experience. d. The Steering Group will also benefit from members who: 1. have experience and expertise within new and emerging sub-sectors and themes of FPS and 2. in managing FPS businesses located in London with headquarters in foreign jurisdictions.
8. It is proposed that appointments are renewed yearly with the expectation of 3-4 years of service.
9. It is proposed that a quarterly meeting of the full Steering Committee is the regular sequence. Core Members of the Steering Committee or Expert Groups could meet on an as needed and more frequent basis.
10. Perspectives sought need to balance cover across the following:
Markets Sectors Perspectives US Banking Sustainability Europe Asset Management New FPS/Tech China Professional Services Regulatory India Legal Customer Insurance Japan Cross UK Market Infrastructure
Core Members of the Steering Committee 11. The core Members of the Steering Group are listed below. They serve in a governance capacity, but the current post holders also bring specific expertise on Competitiveness as listed.
Position Current Holder Relevant Expertise of Current Holder Chair of Policy and Catherine Legal, Europe, US, India, China Resources McGuinness Deputy Chair of Policy and Chris Hayward Aviation, Infra, Services, Gulf Resources Chair of General Purposes Sir David Wootton Legal, Cross UK, USA, Saudi Arabia, Committee of Alderman Asia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand Deputy Chair of General Sir Roger Gifford Banking, Green Finance, Japan, Purposes Committee of Sweden Alderman
Page 161
Internal Members of the Steering Committee 12. Fourteen members of the Court submitted expression of interest. It is recommended to appoint the names below and use the excellent breadth of expertise in the remaining 10 members in the work of the Competitiveness agenda
Name Position Relevant Expertise Sue Langley Alderman Insurance, Banking, US, Asia, Europe Shravan Joshi Common Councillor GreenTech, FinTech, AI, Energy, Trade Finance, Asia, Middle East, US, Canada Nicolas Lyons Alderman Banking, Insurance, Asset Management, PE, US Dominic Christian Common Councillor Insurance, Asia, Green Finance
External Members of the Steering Committee 13. The areas of Legal and Insurance are well covered with the various appointments above as are most of the key markets. Asset Management and Banking are also covered as is the sustainability agenda, although more coverage on these would be beneficial.
14. There is then a need to use the external appointments to focus in on balancing out the intellectual and demographic diversity of the Committee as well as bring in more international and ‘new FPS’ perspectives. There is a particular need to bring in the operational or risk view from a US or EU firm. It would also be beneficial to ensure representation from a current consultant from one of the Big 4 and/or a Chief Economist for the comprehensive strategic view.
15. It has been suggested that the Steering Committee would also be strengthened by the appointment of the Chairs/senior industry figures from our key partners.
16. It is proposed that following confirmation by Policy and Resources, the Steering Committee will work through the list to ascertain the exact balance on the committee for the remaining eight members and do early scoping on availability. Conversations could then be had with individuals to confirm their interest before bringing the final list for confirmation at the first meeting of the IGAB.
Strategy Development 17. The strategy, which is currently in development will anchor programmes in an overarching narrative of the additive role for the City Corporation to play in driving the competitiveness for UK FPS. It would build upon the existing market strategies, engagement with international bodies and benchmarking work currently underway in IG.
Page 162
18. It will also describe: a. The current position and the future of both longstanding and new competitive elements of UK FPS against those most relevant for understanding our position globally. b. The range of global indexes benchmarks and comparators against which these elements should be measured. c. The implications of emerging and future opportunities and challenges to leverage or embrace to remain competitive. This would cover trends affecting financial services and its regulation as well as wider political, geopolitical and trade influences. d. A proactive approach to collaboration with the UK Government, regulators and financial services trade associations. e. An impactful and proactive approach to political engagement and communications on the competitiveness agenda
Next Steps 19. Assuming confirmation of the above, invitations to first Board Meeting 20 April will be issued to internal Members to confirm external Members by name. Initial content of strategy to be discussed.
20. A full inaugural meeting of the IGAB to be scheduled for May to discuss initial content of strategy.
21. During May – July strategy comes back to P and R and then on to Court for adoption and a Breakfast for all Members is held. The Competitiveness Breakfast is currently scheduled for 10th May so that all Members may be consulted on its evolution.
22. Rolling introduction of agile and targeted Expert Groups based on identified priorities in the strategy to follow first full meeting of IGAB on as needed basis.
Corporate and strategic implications
23. The approach outlined supports the commitments set out in the Corporate Plan, 2018-23, and the strategy itself is being designed to impact upon the following outcomes and high-level actions:
Outcome 5: Businesses are trusted and socially and environmentally responsible • Champion the ease, reliability and cost-effectiveness of doing business here. • Model new ways of delivering inclusive and sustainable growth. • Support, celebrate and advocate responsible practices and investments.
Outcome 6: We have the best legal and regulatory framework and access to global markets.
Page 163 • Promote regulatory confidence founded on the rule of law. • Influence UK and global policy and regulation and international agreements to protect and grow the UK economy. • Attract and retain investment and promote exports of goods and services across multiple global markets.
Outcome 7: We are a global hub for innovation in financial and professional services, commerce and culture • Support organisations in pioneering preparing for a responding to changes in regulations, markets, products and ways of working. • Promote London for its creative energy and competitive strengths
Outcome 8: We have access to the skills and talent we need. • Promote the City, London and the UK as attractive places to live, learn, work and visit. • Champion access to global talent • Identify future skills needs shortages and saturations
24. No legal, security, financial, climate or resourcing implications arise from the recommendations in this report. Activities to support the initial development of a Competitiveness Strategy will be met from existing IG budgets and resources. Any implications associated with the implementation of the Strategy itself will be included in the submission to P & R.
Conclusion 25. It is within the Corporation’s core purpose to steward the UK’s financial centre and financial, tech, and professional services sectors through current and future challenges and opportunities. Establishment of the IGAB will allow us to fulfil this important role by combining the deep industry expertise that exists in the Membership with external industry voices.
Page 164 Agenda Item 13
Committee(s): Date: Policy and Resources Committee 8 April 2021
Subject: Public Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate Corporate Plan outcomes Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b and 7c. Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or Yes capital spending? If so, how much? £50,000pa for 3 years What is the source of Funding? Policy and Initiatives Fund Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Yes Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: The Remembrancer For Decision Report author: Nigel Lefton
Summary
The Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts is a judicial initiative to support the rule of law and promote international legal services. Founded in 2017, the Forum Secretariat is based at the Rolls Building in the City of London. It is supported by the judiciary of the Commercial Court and HM Government. Its objective is to contribute to the rule of law and international legal services, increasing the Government’s understanding of the importance of the justice system, and enabling English commercial law to continue as a key asset helping UK businesses to do business around the world.
This report seeks approval for the City Corporation to continue to support the Forum for the next three years.
Recommendation(s)
Members are asked to approve funding of £50,000pa for three years to be met from your Committee’s 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24 Policy Initiatives Fund to support the work of the secretariat of the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts.
Main Report
Background
1. The Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts (SIFoCC) was established in 2017 as an initiative launched by Lord Thomas, former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Thomas continues to chair the international Steering Group. It for the first time brings together the world’s commercial courts. The Forum held its inaugural meeting in London in May 2017. Senior judges (many at Chief Justice level) from 25 jurisdictions convened to support collaboration between the world’s
Page 165 commercial courts and agreed the Forum should continue as a standing institution. The judiciaries of other jurisdictions have since joined, including most recently Brazil and India. The full Forum met in New York in 2018 and in Singapore, virtually, in March this year. Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice, delivered the closing address at this year’s meeting.
2. The Forum has engaged in discussions on arbitration, meeting the needs of court users, third party litigation funding, corruption, money laundering and technology including blockchain and AI. It has established the first international working group on case management and produced a multilateral memorandum on enforcement, now in its second edition, with the participation of over 30 jurisdictions worldwide. Information has been exchanged between courts on their delivering justice during the Covid-19 pandemic and the future use of technology. An international working group is currently underway, co-chaired by Sir William Blair (Chair of the Bank of England Enforcement Decision-making Committee) and Judge Francois Ancel (President of the International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal), to distil shared common themes of enforcement. SIFoCC is facilitating a programme to enable the judiciary in developing jurisdictions gain experience with an established commercial court.
3. As further examples of its current work, SIFoCC in partnership with London International Disputes Week will be delivering an international judicial seminar in May 2021 and is working in partnership with the Commonwealth Lawyers Association to deliver a seminar in April 2021. In partnership with the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association, a second joint SIFoCC/CMJIA roundtable is planned.
4. Following assistance being provided by the City Corporation starting in 2017, the Forum has been served by a secretariat based at the Rolls Building in the City of London. A request has been made to the City Corporation by the Chairman of the Forum’s steering committee and former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas, Sir William Blair, latterly head of the Commercial Court and a member of the steering committee, and Mr Justice Robin Knowles, the Judge with day to day responsibility for SIFoCC, for it to continue with its support for the secretariat. They have reported that the strength of the UK’s offer to continue to lead and convene, and provide London as SIFoCC’s base, depends on the City’s support alongside the funding, time and expertise provided by the Judicial Office.
5. The justification for continuing support for SIFoCC is that it places the UK in a position in which it can lead debate and discussion by the senior judiciary of commercial court centres around the world on the development of commercial law. The effect of the prominent role taken by the UK judiciary and London in the work of SIFoCC is to provide reinforcement of the UK’s leadership position in commercial dispute resolution and thereby to help underpin the global use of English Law. This is of particular importance at the present time when in the period following the UK’s departure from the EU the international commercial users of English law are looking closely at the operation of London, as are other international legal services centres.
6. The Forum also provides an additional channel to foster relationships with major EU jurisdictions (to date France, Germany, the Netherlands and the Republic of
Page 166 Ireland). Through the enforcement memorandum referred to above, the Forum is assisting in answering concerns about the enforcement of UK judgments post- Brexit. In the continuing absence of agreement on the UK’s accession to the Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in cross-border civil and commercial disputes, this work is of particular value in helping to underpin the efficacy of English commercial law, a central concern to the international commercial legal community, many leading members of which service the Financial Services sector.
7. The Policy and Resources Committee at its meeting on 4 May 2017 agreed initial funding of £60,000 for start-up and year 1 costs, and then £50,000 for each of the next two years, on the basis that the secretariat would be based in the City of London. The City Corporation has provided similar support for other international organisations to be based in the City, including the European Banking Authority, the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds and the International Dispute Resolution Centre.
Proposals
8. It is proposed that the City Corporation renews its support for SIFoCC at a cost of £50,000 for the next three years. It is intended during this period to review the City Corporation’s relationship with SIFoCC and the support it provides in the context of the City Corporation’s work on the rule of law, its support for UK legal services and the City’s recovery following the pandemic.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
• Strategic implications – in support of relevant Corporate Plan outcomes to promote a thriving economy and regulatory confidence founded on the rule of law. • Resource/financial implications – the current uncommitted balance in the 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24 Policy Initiatives Fund is respectively £706,365, £920,000 and £950,000 prior to any allowances being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda. • Legal implications - none • Risk implications - none • Equalities implications – none • Climate implications - none • Security implications - none
Conclusion
9. This paper recommends funding of £50,000pa to be allocated from your Committee’s Policy Initiatives Fund for 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24, categorised under ‘Promoting the City’ and charged to City’s Cash. A further review of the City Corporation’s support for SIFoCC will be undertaken during this period taking account of current activities to support UK legal services. Funds cannot be met from local budgets.
Page 167 Appendices
None
Background Papers
Report on ‘Request for Sponsorship for the Secretariat of the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts’ to Policy & Resources Committee, 4 May 2017
Nigel Lefton Director, Remembrancer’s Office E: [email protected]
Page 168 Agenda Item 14
Committees: Date: Policy and Resources 8 April 2021
Subject: Cross River Partnership Membership and Public Representation
Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate 2,5,9,10 and 11 Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or No capital spending? Report of Jon Averns, Director of Markets and For Decision Consumer Protection Dept. Report author: Ruth Calderwood Air Quality Manager, Markets and Consumer Protection Dept.
Summary
Cross River Partnership (CRP) is a public-private partnership working with seven partner London local authorities (including the City of London Corporation), seventeen business organisations (mainly Business Improvement Districts) and six other strategic agencies such as the Greater London Authority, Port of London Authority and Network Rail. CRP also works on specific projects with a further twelve London Boroughs.
The City Corporation has been a member of CRP since its inception in 1994. Wendy Hyde CC has been the City Corporation’s representative and co-chair of the CRP Board for five years. Ms Hyde has indicated her intention to stand down from the Board, so a request is being made for the appointment of a Member to represent the City Corporation on the Board.
The City Corporation pays an annual membership fee of £10,000, which is currently met from the Air Quality budget. Membership provides a place on the CRP Board, a platform for collaborative work and the submission of funding applications on behalf of partner organisations. Approval is being sought for the continuation of membership and payment of the £10,000 membership fee for the next three financial years.
Recommendation
Members are asked to:
1. appoint a Member to replace Ms Hyde on the CRP Board
2. approve further membership of CRP, comprising three annual payments of £10,000 in the financial years 2021/22, 2022/23 and 2023/24 to be met from the Air Quality budget
Page 169 3. delegate, to the Director of Markets and Consumer Protection or the Executive Director of Environment, the authority to approve annual contributions for the next three years, subject to there being no major change of CRP policy, reporting back to your Committee only in the event of a major policy shift or performance shortcomings
Main Report
Background
1. Cross River Partnership is a strategic development and delivery, public/private partnership. Seven London local authorities are partners (including the City Corporation), along with seventeen business organisations, mainly Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) and other strategic organisations like the Port of London Authority. Westminster City Council is the lead accountable body for CRP.
2. The City Corporation has been a member of CRP since it was founded in 1994. Wendy Hyde CC has been the City Corporation’s representative and co-chair of the CRP Board for five years. Ms Hyde has indicated her intention to stand down from the Board.
3. CRP describes itself as a test bed for designing and delivering innovative pilot projects with its partners. It has project delivery expertise in the following areas: Place Making; Health and Wellbeing; Air Quality; Diversity and Inclusion; Freight, Transport and Active Travel; Energy; Environment; Culture and Lighting.
4. The annual membership fee for a local authority is £10,000. Membership provides:
a. a place on the public-private sector CRP Board b. consultation on the Business Plan c. facilitated cross-borough and cross-BID discussions on transport, health and environment topics d. information on funding opportunities e. funding application(s) submitted by CRP on behalf of central London local authorities, BIDS and other partner organisations collaboratively
5. The City Corporation is working with CRP on a Clean Air Thames project and Clean Air Villages project, both of which support delivery of the Air Quality Strategy 2019 – 2024. Officers have also worked with CRP on a Healthy Streets Everyday project, a lighting London project and the Illuminated River. CRP also manages the Central London Sub Regional Transport Partnership on behalf of Transport for London. The City Corporation is a member of this partnership.
6. In the 2020/21 Annual Report, CRP lists achievements which include:
a. Winner of two Global Good awards for smart electric urban logistics b. The launch of a new interactive Health Streets Everyday website
Page 170 c. Seven new cargo bike schemes d. Engagement with 978 businesses as part of Clean Air Villages e. Clean Air Champions network
7. One of the key advantages of membership of CRP is being able to participate in collaborative work and be part of a large network of organisations across central London with common goals. CRP has a strong track record of obtaining funding to deliver programmes which lead to real changes on the ground.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
Strategic implications 8. Membership of Cross River Partnership supports the following Corporate Plan outcomes: No. 2 People enjoy good health and wellbeing No. 5 Businesses are trusted and socially and environmentally responsible No. 9 We are digitally and physically well-connected and responsive No. 10 We inspire enterprise, excellence, creativity and collaboration No. 11 We have clean air, land and water
9. Partnership work has also assisted in the delivery of actions in the City Corporation Air Quality Strategy and Transport Strategy.
Financial implications 10. The annual fee for membership of CRP is £10,000. This is currently met from the Air Quality local risk budget. This budget was transferred from the Economic Development budget in 2019/20. Given the success that CRP has with project delivery, it is considered that membership provides value for money.
Resource implications 11. The Air Quality Manager is a member of the CRP Board and works with CRP on projects including Clean Air Thames and Clean Air Villages. Other officers across the organisation work with CRP on specific ad hoc projects.
Legal implications 12. None
Risk implications 13. None
Page 171 Equalities implications 14. None.
Security implications 15. None.
Conclusion
16. Cross River Partnership (CRP) is a public-private partnership working with seven partner London local authorities (including the City Corporation), seventeen business organisations and six other strategic agencies such as the Greater London Authority, Port of London Authority and Network Rail.
17. The City Corporation has been a member of CRP since its inception in 1994. Wendy Hyde CC has been the City Corporation’s representative and co-chair of the CRP Board for five years. Ms Hyde has indicated her intention to stand down from the Board and Members are therefore being asked to appoint a replacement.
18. The annual membership fee for the City Corporation is £10,000. Membership provides access to the CRP Board, a platform for collaborative work and access to external funding to deliver projects on the ground. Approval is being sought for the continuation of membership and payment of the £10,000 membership fee for the next three financial years.
Ruth Calderwood, Air Quality Manager T: 020 7332 1162 E: [email protected]
Page 172 Agenda Item 15
Committee(s) Date(s): Education Board 18 March 2021 Policy and Resources Committee 8 April 2021 Subject: Public Review of funding to the Guildhall School of Music & Drama for Scholarships Report of: For Decision The Principal, Guildhall School of Music & Drama Report authors: Group Accountant, Guildhall School Head of Development, Guildhall School
Summary
This report reviews the City Corporation’s payment of £30,000 per annum to the Guildhall School of Music and Drama (the School), as part of the implementation of the City Corporation’s Grants Service Based Review. This payment has historically been used to fund scholarships. This report demonstrates the impact of the funds on the School and on the scholarship recipients in 20.21. Members are asked to agree to continue the annual payment for the financial years 2021/22 & 22/23 and to review the payment again in two years’ time in the context of the City Corporation’s wider education offering.
Recommendations Members are asked to: • Review and approve as satisfactory the submission of the School’s impact report on the use of the £30,000 grant in 20/21; • Approve the grant continuation to 21/22 on the basis of this satisfactory submission.
Main Report Background 1. A one-off grant payment of £30,000 for 2005/06 was approved by the Finance Grants Sub-Committee in May 2005 to The Guildhall School Trust (the Trust) (Charity No. 1082472, Company No. 04041975) to go towards the cost of UK and EU bursaries. A £30,000 payment has been made annually for scholarships since then, into the School’s account via journal payment, rather than the Guildhall School Trust’s account. 2. The annual payment has been used for scholarships, going into the School’s scholarships account and was awarded as an unrestricted award to help attract the best artists to the School and London. Current position 3. The environment in which the School operates has changed significantly since 2005. Tuition fees for home students are now three times higher at £9,250 and the School has closer to 1,100 FTE when compared to around 800 in 2005. The School’s competitors are in a position where they can offer both full fee and maintenance scholarships in order to attract and secure the best talent. 4. The Covid-19 pandemic and Brexit has had a negative impact on recruitment from the EU and around the world, making the need for Scholarship funding greater than ever. While the grant from the City is clearly targeted at students from the UK and will be a significantPage support 173 to them, having this will enable the
School to free up funds from other donors to support other students in genuine need. 5. The School awards Scholarships of over £3m to students in both fee and maintenance awards based on merit. In a highly competitive market place any Scholarship offer is an important one. Proposal 6. This report requests that the City Corporation approves the continuation of the 2- year funding commitment to the School of £30,000 p.a. for scholarships for the financial year 2021/22 following the submission of the impact report for 2020/21 (Appendix 1) as previously agreed by the Education Board in 2020. 7. After this further one year of funding, it is proposed that the payment is reviewed again in the context of the City Corporation’s education priorities at that time. 8. It is also proposed that the School reports back annually to the Education Board on the number of Scholarships awarded and the impact of the £30,000 grant. Implications 9. As the £30,000 payment is made from the City’s Cash Finance account, and would continue to be made out of that account, there are no financial implications for the Education Board’s budget. Conclusion 10. This paper reviews the Guildhall School’s use of the £30,000 grant from the City’s Cash for UK Scholarship support in 2020/21 and asks Members to agree to release the previously agreed grant for 2021/22, having received a satisfactory impact report on 2020/21. Next year the payment will be reviewed again within the wider context of the City Corporation’s education offering. Appendices • Appendix 1 – Use and impact of the 2020/21 allocation & recommendations
Caroline Hawley Head of Development – Guildhall School of Music & Drama T: 020 7382 2313 E: [email protected]
Graeme Hood Group Accountant – Guildhall School of Music & Drama T: 020 7638 4141 ext 7842 E: [email protected]
Page 174 Agenda Item 16
Committee(s): Dated: City Bridge Trust Committee – for decision 25 March 2021
Policy and Resources Committee - for decision 8 April 2021
Subject: Joint Philanthropy Strategy Implementation – update and Public future plans
Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate Plan does Outcomes 3 & 5 this proposal aim to impact directly (both for the City Corporation itself and as Trustee for Bridge House Estates(1035628) insofar as the outcomes are considered to be in the best interests of the charity to support in taking these decisions)? Which outcomes in the Bridge House Estates Strategy does See para 20 this proposal aim to impact directly below Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or capital No spending? If so, how much? N/A What is the source of Funding? N/A Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Chamberlain’s N/A Department? Report of: David Farnsworth, Chief Grants Officer For Decision Report author: Fiona Rawes, Philanthropy Director, Town Clerk’s Department
Summary The Report provides an update on the implementation of the Joint Philanthropy Strategy adopted in June 2018 for the City of London Corporation (CoLC) itself, and as Trustee of Bridge House Estates (Registered Charity No. 1035628) in furthering the charity’s ancillary object. The Joint Strategy was developed in recognition of the fact that the CoLC undertakes significant philanthropy, whether in its own right or as Trustee of Bridge House Estates (BHE) and that a more strategic approach was required to analyse, cohere and communicate this philanthropy to maximise its impact, as well as ensuring that the CoLC was contributing to, and raising awareness of, high impact and/or high value philanthropic practice more broadly.
The Joint Strategy encompasses the giving of time, money, assets and skills by individuals, businesses, trusts and foundations and aims, through the work of the CoLC and BHE in conjunction with others, to increase the impact and value of philanthropy.
Following the development and approval of the Joint Strategy, an implementation plan was agreed by City Bridge Trust (CBT) and Policy and Resources (P&R) Committees in November 2018/February 2019 respectively. The context for the implementation of that plan has been highly challenging for obvious reasons: the public-health crisis caused by Covid-19 has become a socio-economic crisis of a magnitude which this country has not experienced since the Second World War.
Page 175
Inequalities which existed prior to the pandemic have been powerfully illuminated as a result of it. Charities, many of which are focused on tackling these inequalities and their underlying causes, have faced a perfect storm of rising demand combined with significantly depleted resources. And all of this in a context where rapid digital transformation of both back office and frontline delivery has been essential but, in many cases, very challenging owing to inadequate resourcing.
Within this context, it would be easy to assume that the public would baton down the hatches and deprioritise philanthropy. Analysis1, however, suggests that giving in 2020 remains comparable to previous years, although restricted in-person fundraising has inevitably take its toll on some causes. Institutional funders, including CBT, also rose to the challenge, and fast-tracked improvements in their collective funding practices which may otherwise have taken many years to achieve.
The well documented upsurge in offers to volunteer - whether at national, regional or hyper-local level - threatened to overwhelm the system’s capacity, perhaps reflected in the fact that the level of volunteering went down- whether in terms of the % of volunteers and the number of volunteering hours spent2. However this analysis does not capture the emergence of significant hyper-local, informal volunteering at street or ward level which was one of the most heartening developments witnessed in the early months of the pandemic.
This paper, which sets out implementation proposals for the second phase of the 2018 – 2023 Joint Philanthropy Strategy, therefore comes to you at a point when there is very significant need in the charitable sector, but philanthropic energy is high and there are opportunities to capitalise on the philanthropic innovations wrought through the pandemic. The paper encompasses recommendations, set out in Appendix 5, to:
a) further refine and increase the impact of the CoLC’s own philanthropy, whether in its own capacity or as Trustee of BHE; b) support other organisations who are playing a leading role in increasing the scale and impact of philanthropy more broadly, with a particular focus on cross sectoral collaboration where possible; and c) raise awareness of excellence in philanthropic practice, drawing on our networks, assets and convening power to support this.
Recommendations
The CBT Committee for the CoLC as Trustee of BHE (Charity Registration No. 1035628) in the best interests of the Charity, and the P&R Committee acting both for the CoLC for itself, and separately and solely in the best interests of BHE as charity Trustee, are each recommended to: 1. Note the update on the implementation of the Joint Philanthropy Strategy to-date; and
1 https://www.cafonline.org/about-us/publications/2020-publications/uk-giving-2020
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-life-covid-19-re-contact-survey-2020-main- report/3-formal-volunteering-community-life-recontact-survey-2020
Page 176
2. CBT Committee to agree the proposed 2021 – 2023 Implementation Plan set out in Appendix 5 for approval by the Policy and Resources Committee. 3. The P&R Committee to agree to adopt the proposed 2021 – 2023 Implementation Plan, set out in Appendix 5.
Main Report Background 1. In June 2018, the Court of Common Council approved a Joint Philanthropy Strategy for 2018 – 2023. The Strategy was prepared jointly for the CoLC in its general corporate capacity, and as Trustee of BHE (Charity Registration No. 1035628) in furthering the charity’s ancillary object.3 The Joint Strategy encompasses the giving of time, money, assets and skills by individuals, businesses, trusts and foundations and aims, through the work of the CoLC in conjunction with others, to increase the impact, value and profile of philanthropy. 2. Unless otherwise stated, all references in this Report and Appendices to the CoLC are to the CoLC acting both in its general corporate capacity and as Trustee of BHE. The principal activities of BHE in furthering the charity’s ancillary object in support of the Joint Strategy are being delivered through the charity’s funding arm, CBT.
3. In October 2020, the Court of Common Council approved an overarching Strategy for BHE, Bridging London 2020 – 2045. This strategy provides a framework for all of the charity’s activities and outlines the collective impact it seeks to have through its primary and ancillary objects. The Joint Philanthropy Strategy for BHE sits under that overarching Strategy and provides more detail on philanthropic practice and objectives for BHE. 4. The Joint Philanthropy Strategy has 3 outcomes: 4.1. High impact philanthropy is role modelled by the CoLC and CBT contributing, in particular, to a reduction in inequality and/or an increase in social mobility. 4.2. Higher impact and/or higher value philanthropy is generated from others as a result of the CoLC and CBTs’ support for philanthropic infrastructure. 4.3. Key audiences are better equipped to generate higher impact and/or higher value philanthropy as a result of the CoLC and CBTs’ awareness-raising activities about it.
3 The primary object of BHE is to maintain and support five bridges crossing the River Thames - London Bridge, Blackfriars Bridge, Southwark Bridge, Tower Bridge and Millennium Bridge. A cy-près charity scheme of 1995 permits income surplus to that required for the bridges to be used for broader, and more general, charitable purposes within Greater London (“the ancillary object”). The income surplus is applied in accordance with a policy agreed by the Court of Common Council and notified to the Charity Commission, following consultation with external and internal stakeholders, being the Bridging Divides 2018-2023 funding strategy.
Page 177
5. A phase 1 implementation plan for the period spanning April 2019 – March 2020 was endorsed by the CBT Committee for BHE in November 2018 and approved by the P&R Committee for both BHE and for itself in February 2019. The plan focused on building a stronger understanding of the CoLC’s philanthropic practice, focus and impact, and also laid the foundations for providing greater support for, and awareness-raising of philanthropy externally. Officers planned to use the resulting insights to shape a phase 2 implementation plan for April 2020 – March 2023. 6. The Philanthropy Director, CBT Chief Grants Officer and many other Officers across the CoLC have been intensively involved at pan-London level in the official strategic response to the Covid-19 health pandemic since March 2020. In particular the Philanthropy Director has co-chaired the Funder, Community and Voluntary Sector ‘cell’ which forms part of the emergency response architecture and is currently co-chairing the ‘Building Strong Communities’ Mission which is one of nine workstreams underpinning the London Recovery Plan led by the GLA and London Councils. 7. This Covid response work, described in more detail in Appendix 1, has directly supported many of the aspirations of all three pillars of the Philanthropy Strategy as well as reflecting CBT’s adaptive, progressive and collaborative values, and the CoLC’s aspirations for pace, relevance and reliability. High impact giving of time, money and skills has been role-modelled at a time of critical need, as has the provision, by the CoLC and CBT, of significant practical and financial support, expertise and awareness-raising around pioneering new collaborations focused on funding, volunteering and gifts in kind in London. 8. However, these intensive efforts have meant that some aspects of the original implementation plan have needed to be deprioritised and others delayed. This pause in implementation has to some extent been propitious insofar as it enables the implementation efforts to better align with, and support the delivery of, the recommendations currently being formulated and proposed for the interim review of BHE’s funding strategy, Bridging Divides 2018-2023 and the BHE Strategic Governance Review.
Current Position 9. This paper sets out the progress and learning amassed from March 2019 to- date, and the proposed implementation plan for the remaining 2 years of the current Joint Philanthropy Strategy (April 2021 – March 2023). The 3 framing pillars of Role Modelling, Supporting and Raising Awareness of high impact philanthropy deployed in the first phase of the Joint Strategy’s implementation continue to provide a useful strategic framework and will therefore also be deployed for this next phase of implementation. 10. Pillar 1: High impact philanthropy is role modelled by the CoLC and CBT contributing, in particular, to a reduction in inequality and/or an increase in social mobility. This pillar looks at internal practice within the CoLC in its different guises – whether in relation to its own giving in its corporate capacity, or that undertaken through BHE as Trustee.
Page 178
11. Within this pillar, the implementation priorities for 2019-2020 were to: a. build a more comprehensive picture of the CoLC’s philanthropy; b. ensure the foundations were in place to better analyse its impact; and c. ensure that the CoLC’s expertise, assets, networks were fully harnessed in support of CBT’s Bridging Divides strategy.
12. The outputs and learning from this pillar are set out in Appendix 2. Officers have made encouraging progress in building a more comprehensive picture of the CoLC’s philanthropy, whether in its own right or as trustee of BHE. In 2019 – 20, this amounted to more than £54.9m of funding and benefits-in-kind comprised of £30.4m from CBT and £24.5m from the CoLC. There is also greater consistency of practice between different giving focus areas across the organisation thanks, in no small part, to the efforts of the Central Grants Unit (CGU) which is going from strength to strength. Officers are also building a more concrete picture of the funding leverage achieved through CoLC philanthropy, although there is still more to do here. 13. More broadly under this Role Modelling pillar, the CBT has played a leading role in a pioneering new collaboration of over 65 institutional, statutory and corporate funders who came together to maximise their collective impact in responding to the pandemic. The resulting ‘London Community Response’ galvanised over £42m of funding from across these funders and enabled over 1,500 grants to be made for the benefit of Londoners. Significant innovations in funding practice resulted, with the associated funders pooling expertise and streamlining processes to accelerate impact. More detail on the London Community Response is set out in Appendix 1 and the model has been widely lauded as a exemplar of progressive cross-sectoral funding collaboration. Steps will be taken to capitalise on the innovations, embed them more deeply in the CoLC’s own philanthropic practice – whether for itself or in furtherance of BHE’s ancillary object – and use them as a foundation for further cross sectoral collaborations with the CoLC’s stakeholders in this next phase. 14. There have also been notable improvements to monitoring and evaluation practice across the organisation to ensure that the CoLC’s philanthropy is as impactful as possible whilst, again, recognising that further progress is required. Good progress has also been made in harnessing the CoLC’s expertise, assets, networks in support of CBT’s Bridging Divides strategy not least during the pandemic, however efforts will be refocused around this in the next phase recognising that it is currently an under-exploited area. Associated recommendations for this first Role Modelling pillar in 2021 – 2023 are set out in Appendix 5. 15. Pillar 2 of the strategy is more externally focused; higher impact and/or higher value philanthropy is generated from others as a result of the CoLC and CBTs’ support for philanthropic infrastructure organisations. 16. The 2019-20 implementation plan prioritised the following actions:
Page 179
a) extending the funding criteria within CBT’s Bridging Divides strategy to include ‘cause-agnostic’ organisations whose primary focus was increasing the value/impact of gifts of time/money/assets or skills; b) focusing on driving greater on and offline collaboration to unlock higher impact and higher value philanthropy; and c) deepening understanding of what the CoLC’s philanthropy has leveraged for the causes it supports.
17. The outputs and learning from this pillar are set out in Appendix 3. A range of thoughtful funding partnerships and broader collaborations have been explored and developed as appropriate to enrich the quality and scale of philanthropic activity in London and beyond. It has been particularly encouraging to see how foundations laid through the CoLC’s funding partnerships established prior to the pandemic have come into their own in the last year, with tangible impact on funding, volunteering and broader philanthropic practice for the benefit of London and beyond. The aspirations for 2021 – 2023 are set out Appendix 5.
18. This final pillar (“Key audiences are better equipped to generate higher impact and/or higher value philanthropy as a result of the CoLC and CBTs’ awareness-raising activities about it”) is also externally focused. Through convening, research and thought leadership, it aims to raise awareness of what drives effective philanthropy. 19. Work under this pillar, described in Appendix 4, has been, of necessity, emergent whilst the CoLC has recruited and onboarded the Head of Charitable Communications, and CBT has developed its Learning and Impact team. However there are encouraging green shoots described in more detail in Appendix 4 which provide exciting foundations for the phase 2 recommendations set out in Appendix 5. Corporate & Strategic Implications Strategic implications 20. For the CoLC in its corporate capacity, the recommendations in the Report support outcomes 3 & 5 of the Corporate Plan, and align with and support the recommendations of the CoLC’s Social Mobility and Responsible Business Strategies. These objectives are also considered to be aligned to the strategic objectives of BHE, and in the charity’s best interests to support. Specific BHE Strategies which are supported by the recommendations in the Report are the charity’s overarching strategy, Bridging London 2020 - 2045 and its charitable funding strategy Bridging Divides. Specifically, it supports BHE’s aims of being catalytic and impact-driven in order to become a charity that is a world-class charitable funder and responsible leader. Financial implications 21. Any proposed initiatives for the 2021-22 financial year are costed and included in the relevant approved Budgets.
Page 180
Resource implications 22. All resourcing needs are costed into the relevant budgets for 2021-22. It is not anticipated that there will be a material uplift in resourcing requirements in 2022 – 2023. Legal implications 23. As Trustee for BHE, the CoLC must continue to independently consider and ensure that the adoption of the Joint Strategy and its implementation in furthering the charity’s ancillary object remains in the charity’s best interests having regard to the charity’s primary object (which takes precedence over the ancillary object) and the charity’s overarching strategy under which the Joint Philanthropy Strategy sits; and further that any conflicts of interest arising in the CoLC acting for itself, or otherwise as Trustee of BHE, are managed. Risk implications 24. Appropriate skills, insights and networks are currently being developed across the relevant CoLC Teams to ensure that any risks attaching to the CoLC’s philanthropic activity under the Joint Strategy are identified and the appropriate mitigations put in place. In this way the CoLC can ensure that its focus on role modelling high impact philanthropy remains an integral part of the implementation of the Joint Strategy. Equalities implications – 25. The CoLC’s Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) applies to the exercise of the CoLC’s local authority functions only. Nonetheless, pillar 1 of the Joint Philanthropy Strategy has an explicit focus on reducing inequality, and many of the initiatives which are supported or amplified under pillars 2 and 3 are also focused on this. The implementation of the Joint Strategy is therefore expected to positively address inequality alongside the CoLC’s separate discharge of the PSED. Climate implications: 26. Officers are engaging with the relevant teams within the CoLC to ensure that the philanthropic activities which the CoLC is role modelling, supporting or amplifying Security implications:
27. None Conclusion As we enter this next two year phase, when resources throughout the Charitable Sector are depleted, but BHEs’ own philanthropic contribution, through the activities of CBT, is likely to be significantly higher, it is even more incumbent on the CoLC, both for itself and as Trustee of BHE, to support the aspirations of its Joint Philanthropy Strategy and ensure that it is role-modelling excellence in philanthropy, and playing a highly constructive and influential role in supporting and amplifying excellent philanthropy more broadly. The recommended outputs for 2021-2023 are set out in Appendix 5 accordingly, and commended to your respective Committees for approval.
Page 181
Appendices
• Appendix 1: How the CoLC’s engagement in the Pan-London Covid response, for itself and as Trustee of Bridge House Estates, has supported the aspirations of its Joint Philanthropy Strategy • Appendix 2: Learning and outputs from the CoLC’s philanthropic role modelling initiatives, for itself and as Trustee of BHE • Appendix 3:Learning and outputs from philanthropic funding partnerships by the CoLC for itself and as Trustee of BHE • Appendix 4: Learning and outputs from initiatives to raise awareness of high impact and/or high value philanthropy • Appendix 5: Recommended Joint Philanthropy Strategy Implementation Plan 2021-2023
Fiona Rawes Philanthropy Director, Town Clerk’s Department T: 0207 332 3745 E: [email protected]
Page 182
Appendix 1: How the CoLC’s engagement (for itself and as Trustee of BHE) in the Pan-London Covid Response has supported the aspirations of its Joint Philanthropy Strategy
1. The Philanthropy Director, CBT’s Chief Grants Officer and many other Officers across the CoLC have been intensively involved at pan-London level in the official strategic response to the Covid-19 health pandemic since March 2020. 2. This work has directly supported many of the aspirations of all three pillars of the Philanthropy Strategy. High impact giving of time, money and skills has been role-modelled at a time of critical need, as has the provision, by the CoLC and CBT, of significant practical and financial support, expertise and awareness- raising around pioneering new collaborations focused on funding, volunteering and benefits-in-kind in London. 3. In particular, as part of the wider London Community Response (“LCR”), a collaboration comprising c.67 funders led by London Funders in response to Covid 19, the CoLC established the London Community Response Fund (‘LCRF’) as a restricted fund within Bridge House Estate’s ancillary object. Some funders, including the National Lottery Community Fund, GLA, Paul Hamlyn Foundation, Bloomberg and Macquarie, have chosen to donate funds directly to LCRF (rather than distribute those funds directly themselves through the LCR framework). To date £16.7m has been received in external donations to LCRF whilst BHE, through its CBT funding budget, has committed £15.250m to the LCRF, and separately £990,369 in aligned funding. More than £27m has been distributed via 1,500 grants awarded through the LCRF since March 2020, contributing to a total of over £42m distributed through the wider LCR. 4. Particularly pioneering features of this LCR collaboration of cross-sectoral funders from the Independent, Corporate and Statutory sectors include: 4.1 a common application portal hosted by London Funders which has enabled community groups to reach multiple funders through a single application; 4.2 engagement of key equity partners, and explicit prioritisation or ringfencing of funding for these groups, to ensure that communities who have been disproportionately adversely affected by the pandemic have been financially supported; 4.3 a nimble and progressive approach to pooling resources, expertise and process improvements across its funders to ensure the most streamlined and efficient experience for organisations applying for funds. 4.4 the 'cover', through collaboration, for individual funders to reappraise their risk appetite and pilot new, more progressive approaches alongside their peers as well as to extend the reach of all funders by exposing them to new civil society organisations that they had not funded before. 5. More broadly, beyond CBT’s engagement with the LCR, CoLC officers have worked assiduously with partners from a range of sectors to ensure nimble and impactful responses to Covid-19-related issues, such as food insecurity, domestic violence, homelessness and bereavement. Refinements in harnessing voluntary and in-kind support have resulted. These include contributing to work scoping the possibility of a national volunteering passport to reduce the
Page 183
bureaucracy around DBS checks, fast-tracking volunteering engagement as a result, and closer engagement with Business in the Community around a pooled national in-kind brokerage service for emergencies 6. All of this has served to enrich and enhance the CoLC’s own philanthropic practice for the longer term as well as deepening its relationships with key organisations and creating opportunities to shape new strategic partnerships.
Page 184
Appendix 2 : Outputs and learning from pillar 1 of the Philanthropy Strategy (“High impact philanthropy is role modelled by the CoLC and CBT contributing, in particular, to a reduction in inequality and/or an increase in social mobility”). 1. Officers have undertaken a comprehensive review of philanthropy across the CoLC, including that of City Fund, City’s Cash, the Sundry Trusts and Open Spaces charities and BHE through its funding arm, CBT. The review considered over 1,000 underpinning financial and in-kind transactions p.a. 2. Based on the most up to date figures the CBT acting in all its legal capacities collectively gave £54.9m in 2019/20, broken down as follows: Type of philanthropy Amount given in 2019-20 (£m) CBT Funding 30.4 CoLC Funding 22.5 CoLC Benefits In-Kind 2.0 Total 54.9
3. This exercise revealed that it is challenging to generate an accurate figure of exactly how much the CoLC gives, whether in cash or in kind. In some cases there are grey areas, for example where it could be argued that the spend to charitable recipients is enabling the CoLC to discharge its statutory duties, but the level of spend is over and above what might be expected of a local authority in fulfilling its statutory obligations. There are also some areas where there is potentially a quite significant underestimate of the CoLC’s philanthropy e.g. in relation to its in-kind donations/support. 4. However, it can now be stated with some confidence that the CoLC, including that of City Fund, City’s Cash, the Sundry Trusts and Open Spaces charities and BHE through its funding arm, City Bridge Trust (CBT) currently give a total of at least £54m. of funding, time, assets and skills p.a. 5. The focus of the CoLC’s philanthropic spend is broad-ranging with at least 63% of the 54.9m total reflecting the priorities of the Joint Philanthropy Strategy i.e. that the philanthropy of the CoLC acting in all its legal capacities contributes, in particular, to an increase in social mobility and a reduction in inequality. 6. The governance of the CoLC’s philanthropy is dispersed across both the Court of Aldermen and the Court of Common Council (and its various committees), leading to variable levels of scrutiny of impact, efficiency and alignment to corporate objectives. Considerable work has therefore been undertaken to refine and align grant-making practice and its associated oversight, not least through the expanding remit of the Central Grants Unit (CGU) which was established in October 2016 to manage the effectiveness of the CoLC’s grant- making by facilitating consistency of approach and harmonising service standards across the CoLC’s grant-making activities (in its various capacities, including as trustee of a number of charities). 7. The CGU now has oversight of the Central Grants Programme (CGP) (in part funded from City’s Cash and from individual charities in accordance with a number of strategic themes set by P&R Committee in March 2016), the £6.3m CIL Neighbourhood Fund, the grant making of a number of other City Corporate related charities outside the CGP, and benefits-in-kind reporting. It also provides
Page 185
advice on donations made through the International Disaster Fund, held by the Finance Committee. A key role of the CGU, in addition to supporting individual grant programmes, is also to provide advice across the whole of the CoLC’s activities and model good practice. This strategic role is a significant element of the current work undertaken by the CGU with the unit providing either direct oversight of, or more informal advice and guidance around, 79% of the £24.5m of funding or benefits-in-kind provided by the CoLC. 8. This work has been enhanced, since September 2019, through the current Corporate Charities Review which is intended to further rationalise the portfolio of charities for which the CoLC is corporate Trustee (or otherwise appoints the majority or all of the individual trustees). This is being achieved through closures and mergers, by making other administrative changes to the charities’ governing documents to enhance the charities’ effectiveness, and to model best practice in implementing governance and management arrangements for the remaining portfolio. Progress continues to be made within the Review but further work is planned over the next 12-months to help ensure the objectives of the Review are fully met. 9. Recognising the dispersed governance relating to the CoLC’s philanthropy noted in paragraph 6 above, officers have undertaken the following steps to build a better understanding of its impact: 9.1 An impact and learning team has been established in CBT supported by an independent learning partner to enable a stronger understanding of the impact of BHE’s philanthropic and social investment practice. This team liaises closely with the CGU team to ensure cross-fertilisation of practice between their respective domains. 9.2 The piloting and mainstreaming of the CGU has enabled more consistent officer-level oversight and support for grant making committees across the CoLC, including cohesive oversight and scrutiny of the impact of funding decisions. Learning and best practice is applied consistently. Participation in the Charities Review is further enhancing outcomes for both the CGU and the Review - for example the risk management framework across all the sundry trusts is being reviewed and updated to align both with the CoLC’s own systems and charity best practice; a joined up approach to charitable activity is implemented (refer para 9.4 below). 9.3 The CGU has implemented a more robust policy and assessment of the value and focus of the Benefits in Kind (BIKs) reporting made across CoLC. This information is analysed annually and presented to Members. More work is required to understand the impact that BIKs have, and to continue to better capture BIKs. 9.4 The Corporate Charities Review aims to support a more streamlined and consistent approach to the giving undertaken by the numerous charities for which the CoLC is the Trustee (or appoints the individual trustees). This includes reviewing the governance, management and administration of such charities to ensure that their activities are as impactful as possible, and any strategic connections with the CoLC and corporate other charities, including BHE, are best utilised.
Page 186
10. However more work is needed to build a community of practice between and beyond these areas to ensure the CoLC’s giving, in the round, is as impactful as possible. The recommendations for the 2021 – 2023 implementation period (Appendix 3) reflect this. 11. More broadly, beyond these efforts to build a more accurate understanding of the CoLC’s giving practice and its impact, officers have undertaken various measures to better harness the CoLC’s expertise, assets, networks and those of its associated charities including BHE’s Bridging London overarching strategy and its Bridging Divides funding strategy. In particular: 11.1 the CoLC’s Employee Volunteering Programme has been revised and relaunched from November 2020 to include a much more explicit link between employee volunteers and volunteering opportunities hosted by CBT funding partners; 11.2 extensive work has been undertaken through the BHE Strategic Governance Review, to assess how the governance of BHE could be enhanced, to ultimately increase the reach and impact of the charity’s activities and to model good practice in the charity’s management and administration; 11.3 initial mapping of the CoLC’s Skills and Assets has been undertaken with a view to better linking them into BHE’s Bridging Divides ‘total assets’ priorities, although progress has been constrained in owing, in particular, to the demands of the pan-London Covid response. 12. With the above in mind, proposed Role Modelling recommendations for 2021 – 2023 are set out in Appendix 5.
Page 187
Appendix 3: Outputs and learning from pillar 2 of the Philanthropy Strategy (“Higher impact and/or higher value philanthropy is generated from others as a result of the CoLC and CBTs’ support for philanthropic infrastructure organisations”). 1. CBT has supported various strategic initiatives focused on increasing the impact and scale of philanthropy, and is increasing its learning about successful philanthropy-focused partnerships as a result. For example: 1.1 CBT has been a long-term funder of London’s Giving which supports the development of place-based giving schemes in each of London’s 32 boroughs and associated peer support, learning networks and resources to enable a sustainable future for place-based giving in London. By taking an assets-based approach, the London’s Giving Model brings together the voluntary, private and statutory sectors and builds on the notion that everyone has something to give – be this time, skills or money. It is breaking new ground in understanding how communities can come together from the grassroots to tackle issues such as poverty, loneliness, mental health and unemployment. 1.2 the Beacon Collaborative which is a collective impact initiative focused on raising the scale and impact of philanthropy from High-Net-Worth individuals. 1.3 Heart of the City which is the UK’s largest Responsible Business network for SMEs. Part of its focus has been on supporting SMEs to develop and deliver higher impact corporate philanthropy and volunteering schemes. What we’ve learnt. 1.4 London Funders which is the membership network for funders and investors of civil society from all sectors – charitable, statutory and private. As well as funding it to host the London’s Giving Network, CBT has provided a core grant of £50k p.a. for the past 5 years which it is likely to renew during the coming year. 1.5 CBT has long recognised the importance of civil society support organisations which help build the capacity of frontline organisations and which co-ordinate voluntary activity, be this at local, sub-regional or regional levels. Recognising the need for a London-wide co-ordinating body for London’s Civil Society, CBT established LondonPlus in 2017 and has invested £865,000 towards its establishment over the past 3 years. It has been a key and vital voluntary sector partner in the Covid-19 crisis response. 2. Collaboration to enable higher impact and/or higher value philanthropy has also lain at the heart of CBT’s engagement with the pioneering funder collective, the London Community Response (LCR) (see paragraphs 3-4 in Appendix 1 above) during the pandemic. 3. Prior to the pandemic, much effort under this pillar was focused on developing a potential co-location project, working in close collaboration with Anchor Partners. Changes to plans for the building originally envisaged for this project together with broader disruption in the co-location market wrought by Covid-19 have constrained progress in the last financial year. CBT officers are currently engaging with the anchor partners, the City Surveyor’s Department and with
Page 188
CoLC Members to scope the ongoing potential of this project and will update the relevant committees shortly. 4. Officers also committed to increasing the CoLC’s understanding of the leverage achieved through its philanthropy. At this stage, the primary learning has been through CBT who have measured leverage for the first time during this period. 82% of the 317 funded organisations who responded to this part of CBT’s annual survey stated that CBT funding has a positive (50%) or strongly positive (32%) effect on their other fundraising. In the coming period we anticipate significant additional leverage will be achieved through the Corporate Charities Review with Aldermanic Charities such as the Sir William Coxen Trust Funds and the Emanuel Hospital both likely to lever significant additional funding in the coming year. 5. Drawing on the outputs and learning above, priorities for the ‘Supporting Philanthropy Pillar’ for the 2021-2023 implementation period are set out in Appendix 5.
Page 189
Appendix 4: Outputs and learning from Pillar 3 of the Philanthropy Strategy (”Key audiences are better equipped to generate higher impact and/or higher value philanthropy as a result of the CoLC and CBTs’ awareness-raising activities about it”): 1. In order to convene and contribute, with authority, to broader awareness-raising initiatives around high impact and/or high value philanthropy, the CoLC needs to ensure it is role modelling excellent philanthropy itself in whichever capacity it is acting – whether for itself, as a charity trustee or otherwise. With this in mind CBT has developed, since 2019, an Impact and Learning Team supported and challenged by an independent external ‘learning partner’, Renaisi, which reports on a six monthly basis, with additional one-off reporting as necessary. These reports CBT in improving and developing its learning practice. 2. CBT has also funded and regularly contributes to a number of member-led partnerships which increase and amplify understanding of what drives effective philanthropy such as: 2.1 London Funders (the umbrella body for Institutional, Corporate and Government Funders across London) which has provided an invaluable platform through which to raise awareness of high impact and/or high value philanthropy across an increasingly engaged cross-sectoral funding community.
2.2 the Beacon Collaborative and Heart of the City, referred to in paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 of Appendix 3 above. 2.3 The London’s Giving initiative, described in more detail in paragraph 1.1 in Appendix 3 above, provides tailored support for local giving schemes, as well as maintaining and extending a learning network and an evidence base and knowledge hub on place-based giving schemes.
2.4 LondonPlus, referred to in paragraph 1.5 in Appendix 3 above has amplified, , in partnership with the GLA, learning relating to the growth of volunteering during Covid-19 and communicated it to key audiences through the pan- London Strategic Response work 3. The CGU is also deepening its oversight and expertise to support colleagues across the CoLC, as well as other CoLC grant-making charities, to ensure their grant-making is as impactful as possible and their administration effective and efficient. The Head of the CGU also plays an active role in learning from and sharing best practice with Borough Grants Officers and both he and the Social Investment Director are in regular contact with Livery Grants and Social Investment Officers. In this next phase, we anticipate that the CGU will make a much more active contribution to awareness-raising initiatives. 4. More broadly, ‘City Giving Day’, an initiative of the Lord Mayor’s Appeal to celebrate and amplify the scale and breadth of Corporate Giving and volunteering across the capital is providing the blueprint for equivalent celebrations in other cities across the UK. 5. Through their engagement in the Pan-London Covid Response work, Officers and Members have reflected on, and contributed to, awareness-raising discussions
Page 190
hosted by organisations such as the Association of Charitable Foundations, the GLA and London Funders around how philanthropic practice is positively evolving as a result of the disruption wrought through the pandemic.
6. In particular, an independent evaluation of LCR is underway which aims to answer the following learning questions: 6.1 How can funders build on the experience of the LCR to enable future collaboration? 6.2 How can the experiences of civil society groups inform future ways of working? 6.3 How can LCR’s approach to equity and inclusion continue to be strengthened? 6.4 What should the key areas of focus be as the sector looks towards renewal?
7. The evaluation will also examine the challenges of the collaboration, including 7.1 securing wide-spread corporate engagement in a purely London-based response; 7.2 the difficulty in agreeing funding priorities amongst such a diverse group of donors; and 7.3 the operational challenges of engaging as a single-issue funder, in a collaboration of such scale.
Page 191
Appendix 5 - Recommended Philanthropy Strategy Implementation Plan 2021 – 2023 What By when Lead Officer(s) Pillar 1: Role Modelling high impact philanthropy ourselves 1.1 Continue work to develop a more accurate annual appraisal of the amount that Annually Head of Charity & Social we give in cash, kind, assets and skills. Agree key messages to share through our Investment Finance, Philanthropy communications channels. (Chamberlain’s, Communications) Director, Head of CGU, Head of Charitable Comms 1.2 Make recommendations for developing a deeper community of practice across March Philanthropy Director, Head of the CoLC in relation to how we give and, in particular, how we assess , 2022 Central Grants Unit, Head of communicate and ensure consistency of scrutiny of the impact of our giving. Bring Impact and Learning. forward recommendations to members in respect of appropriate governance oversight at the appropriate juncture Page 192 Page 1.3 Support the implementation of any resulting changes. March As above 2023 1.4 Implement the recommendations resulting from the Corporate Charities Review March Corporate Charities Project in order to ensure that the corporate charities, including those with grant-making 2022 Officer activities, are well managed and governed and achieve maximum impact for their beneficiaries.
1.5 Further develop the work to enable more systematic linkages between the Ongoing Philanthropy Director, Head of networks, assets and expertise of the CoLC and BHE’s Bridging Divides CGU. strategy (e.g. through the BHE Strategic Review, the launch of the revised Employee Volunteering Programme etc.)
Pillar 2 : Supporting high impact and/or high value philanthropy by others 2.1 Maximise the impact of existing philanthropy-focused partnerships funded by the Ongoing Philanthropy Director, Head of CoLC and CBT to ensure that limited resources are utilised effectively CGU
2.2 Scope and develop future philanthropy-focused partnerships and collaborations for Ongoing Philanthropy Director approval (not least those with a cross-sector focus, recognising the unique access the CoLC enjoys to business, government and civil society partners.)
2.3 Continue to scope and develop the co-location project as appropriate Ongoing Philanthropy Director, City Surveyors’ Dept. 2.4 Deepen our understanding of what CoLC philanthropy has leveraged – both from Ongoing Head of Impact and Learning, within City Bridge Trust and beyond it eg via the International Disasters Fund. Head of CGU
Pillar 3: Raising awareness of higher impact/higher value philanthropy through convening, research, thought leadership etc 3.1 Reflect on the CoLC and CBT’s learning around Philanthropy and determine what September Chief Grants Officer, Philanthropy it would be useful to share, with whom, by when and the optimal platforms for 2021 Director, Head of CGU, Head of Page 193 Page doing so Charitable Communications,
3.2 Identify other players in the philanthropy space who can complement, amplify Ongoing Philanthropy Director, Head of and/or challenge CoLC/CBT perspectives and build/deepen partnerships with them CGU, Head of Charitable Communications 3.3 Commission and publicise research as appropriate around under-explored/under- Ongoing Head of Charitable exploited areas of Philanthropy Communications, Head of learning and impact. 3.4 Use CoLC convening power to amplify other voices and organisations in the Ongoing Philanthropy Director, Head of Philanthropy arena, including via the LM, Sheriffs and other Aldermen and Members Charitable Communications as appropriate.
Page 194 Agenda Item 17
Committees: Dates: Corporate Projects Board - for decision 10 March 2021 Policy and Resources Committee - for decision 08 April 2021 Projects Sub - for decision 14 April 2021
Subject: Gateway 6: Design, Build, Support and Hosting for New Website Outcome Report Unique Project Identifier: Regular PV Project ID 11948 Report of: For Decision Town Clerk Report Author: Ryan Dolan – Project Manager
Summary
1. Status update Project Description:
Design, build, support and hosting for new website
1. The previous website was launched in 2012 and, inevitably, was showing its age and no longer reflected well on the City of London Corporation.
2. All support for SharePoint 2010 [the previous website platform] will cease in October 2020 (regular support stopped in 2015). SharePoint will not be providing a platform for external sites in future, so it could not simply be updated, leaving our website on an unsupported platform posing a major risk.
3. Our previous website did not display well on mobile devices, was not task structured (i.e. lacking user focus) and the out of the box search engine did not provide results from across the full range of corporate information (i.e. Member, Jobs and Media sites are separate) that users expected.
Project Objectives
1. Discovery To carry out research on the technical and strategic requirements of the City Corporation’s website, to assess the key user requirements and to ensure that any proposed solution fulfils the City Corporation’s statutory and legislative obligations.
2. Design / Audit To create an excellent user experience based on best in class information architecture, navigation, visual layers, accessibility and functionality.
Page 195
3. Build / Testing and Training To build the desired website as agreed with the City Corporation.
4. Launch To undertake a phased launch to allow go-live with minimal content, but full site functionality.
5. Transition to business as usual Provision of ongoing support of the website in terms of hosting, technical maintenance, first line support and any required training.
RAG Status: Green (Green at last report to Committee) Risk Status: Low (Low at last report to committee) Costed Risk Provision Utilised: £0 Final Outturn Cost: £295,748.00
4. Next steps and Requested Decisions: requested Projects Sub Committee decisions Policy and Resources Committee 1. To approve closure of the project and note lessons learned.
5. Key The new website was launched in July 2020 ahead of the Oct 2020 conclusions deadline. The old website platform was decommissioned on schedule in Aug 2020 along with other servers as part of the Azure migration. The project has been delivered on budget to the agreed specifications.
The re-design of the website and its user journey / experience was carried out by the team at Zengenti who were awarded the contract via the G-Cloud framework. This design was the result of research into the current site, the corporate plan and Google Analytics data. We also ran workshops with staff, online surveys for staff and members as well as public user experience session.
The Information Architecture has been re-designed around a structured content model making it easier to re-use and classify our web content in a more flexible manner. This new model also allows for easier integration with external data sources and other platforms.
Our new website is cloud based in a secure data centre, this removes the City Corporation’s need for server maintenance staff
Page 196 and security patching as this has been outsourced to Zengenti. Our security around the platform has been increased with the new cloud model and we have further security enhancements and support from Agilisys for Cloudflare the virtual firewall software.
Mobile compatibility has been achieved across all screen sizes and we have successfully imported data from Jobs, Democracy and News systems for internal searching with the website.
Main Report
Design & Delivery Review
6. Design into The overall design of the project has worked well and delivered delivery satisfactorily on all requirements. The project adopted an agile methodology during the design and build phases, which resulted in changes to the look and feel as the site design was developed.
7. Options The options appraisals in Gateway 4 opted to outsource Design, appraisal Build and Support, via G-Cloud procurement. This has allowed for a successful project without compromising the scope and project deliverables. All project deliverables were completed within budget, to agreed specifications and delivered 4 months early.
8. Procurement The contract was let under the Crown Commercial Services route framework, GCloud 10 (Procurement reference con_COL_14659).This process was successful without the need for revision.
9. Skills base A fixed term, full-time, external project manager was brought into the web team to oversee the project delivery.
Training has been provided to over 120 City of London staff on creating over 1,200 pages for the new website. This training was delivered by the project manager in conjunction with IT training staff to ensure knowledge transfer.
The project manager has also documented a system administrator guide as part of the transition to business as usual.
10. Stakeholders A communication plan was written at the start of the project and was followed throughout. Regular updates to all stakeholders were based on a RACI model (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed).
We have used all forms of communications within the project making special use of Microsoft teams for engagement with large
Page 197 groups of editors including video-based workshops and training and electronic forms for content audit.
Variation Review
11. Assessment of Key milestones project against key milestones Gateway 5 milestones: November 2018: Contracts December 2018: Supplier By April 2019: Discovery phase By August 2019: IA user journeys, wireframes By December 2019: Build and development Early 2020: UAT. training etc Mid 2020: Launch
Project Milestones 6.1 Discovery phase Completed 03 Jun 2019 Information Architecture presented to website working group, with testing from staff public and members.
6.2 Content Audit Phase Completed 31 Jul 2019 87 editors reviewed and ranked 2,421 pages, identifying 995 pages as needed for launch.
6.3 Design Phase Completed 20 Aug 2019 Designs were agreed at the project board and displayed to stakeholders via teams, face to face presentations and emails.
6.4 Platform Build Phase Completed 21 Oct 2019 Build templates were tested and adjusted in agile sprints for each content type. There were some delays with: · Jobs data import · Cookies Controller
6.5 Testing and Training Phase Completed 03 Dec 2019 127 editors were trained across all sections
6.6 Content Creation Phase Completed 30 Apr 2020 1,053 pages were created and approved for launch.
6.7 Go Live Phase
Page 198 New website launched on the 06 Jul 2020
12. Assessment of The project has delivered on all the requirements outlined in the project against project brief. Scope • Display well on mobile devices, • Provide comprehensive search results across City of London Corporation sites, • Provide information in a task-based, user-focused manner.
The new platform is stable and well maintained and we do not anticipate any requirements for major work of this kind for the period of the contract 2 years + the option for two 1 year extensions.
Satisfaction feedback is generally positive for the design of the new website, it is worth mentioning that we have met a general expectation amongst some members and senior managers that the new website would deliver more interactive functionality.
While the full scope of the project has been met, the further ambitions of the City Corporation, could be fulfilled now we have a stable and integration ready platform.
13. Risks and issues No identified risks occurred during the project. The risk log has been monitored as part of the ongoing project and reported to the project board on a monthly basis.
One of the largest risks were concerns over staff resourcing for web editors and their usual workloads. With help from colleagues in all departments we have been able to deliver all pages that were audited as essential content within the given time frame.
14. Transition to BAU Regular knowledge transfer sessions and configuration documentation have left the publishing team in a good position to support the platform moving forward and the training materials have been passed over to the IT trainer who has been providing ongoing training with no issues encountered.
The issue reporting and escalation has been documented and circulated amongst IT staff editors, content leads and publishers and was drafted in consultation with both internal and external helpdesk service providers.
Value Review
15. Budget Estimated Estimated cost (including risk): Outturn Cost (G2) £481,444
Page 199 At Authority to Final Outturn Cost Start work (G5) Fees £179,360 £153,092 Staff Costs £142,656 £142,656 Works £ £ Purchases £ £ Other Capital £ £ Expend Costed Risk £ £ Provision Recharges £ £ Other* £ £ Total £322,016 £295,748
Please confirm whether or not the Final Account for this project has been verified. * The final accounts have been verified by Laura Tuckey on 25-01- 2021. A final recharge for Staff Costs is due from the Town Clerks local risk budget end of Quarter 1 2021 and has been included in the above figures. 16. Investment Not Applicable 17. Assessment of OBJECTIVES project against • To scope and procure services to implement a new City of SMART London Corporation Website by 2020. objectives This target was achieved with the launch in July 2020.
• To move to an externally supported and hosted website model The new website is externally hosted and supported.
• To improve website look, feel, and functionality to improve user satisfaction, as measured through user feedback and industry benchmarking initiatives such as the annual SOCITM survey SOCITM no longer provide the annual benchmarking surveys, but we have been audited by the team that they used.
• Specific – user focus/tasks The new user journeys are much improved and with the new layout and searching it is easier to find and complete tasks.
• Measurable – responsive design The new website has a fully responsive design and renders to a standard presentation across all device platforms.
• Assignable – Ambition to have independent project manager and will appoint reputable supplier
Page 200 A project manager was recruited for this development along with Zengenti as the supplier.
• Realistic – if keep to timescales and get budget then everything Time-related – must be by 2020 The project has been delivered with no loss of scope, on budget and within allotted time. 18. Key benefits Baseline G2 report. realised • Better user experience • Improved engagement with key audiences • Better vehicle for communications
With the federated searching we are able now to direct customer traffic to City Corporation services and data that was previously unavailable on our website. The integration with Mod.Gov in particular means that Committee papers are now searchable from the City Corporation’s website without the need to navigate into different subdomains. Lessons Learned and Recommendations
19. Positive reflections The content leads and regular User Experience group meeting was a valuable tool for communication.
Teams and online forms were useful for data gathering and as a knowledge base.
In conclusion: • The new website was launched in July, three months ahead of the October deadline. • The project was delivered 8% under budget, returning £26,268 of unspent capital funds. • Of the comments we have received since launch we have received a 2:1 positive: negative ratio.
20. Improvement A greater focus on Google services would have improved the reflections launch of the website. We have documented learning points from this and improved reporting by adding additional metrics with Google Tag Manager.
As these services were not taken into account at the start of the project, we will be in a better place to include the existing and improved services in the future.
21. Sharing best practice The Content Lead User Experience group that was used throughout the project has been a great way to disseminate the information learned during this project and the team’s areas will continue to be used going forward.
Page 201 22. AOB None
Contact
Report Author Ryan Dolan [Melissa Richardson] Email Address [email protected] Telephone Number Contact via Teams
Page 202 Agenda Item 18
Committee: Date: Policy and Resources Committee 08/04/2021 Subject: COLPAI Temporary accommodation costs Public
Contribute to a flourishing society 3 & 4 Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or Yes capital spending? If so, how much? £267k What is the source of Funding? Reallocation of existing central funding from City’s Cash reserves agreed as part of the 2020/21 annual capital bids – adopting the RASC ‘one-in, one-out’ principle Has this Funding Source been agreed with the Yes Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: For information Andrew Carter, Director of Community and Children’s Services Report authors: Gerald Mehrtens, Director of Academy Development
Summary
This report is to update this committee on the temporary accommodation arrangements for the City of London Primary Academy Islington (COLPAI) and provide a breakdown of the associated costs involved following this committee approval of funding.
On 12 December 2019, this committee approved up to £300k for temporary accommodation for the academy for the 2020/21 Autumn academic term due to delays to the completion of the permanent school site caused by obstructions and asbestos in the ground.
In September 2020, this committee approved a further £283k for temporary accommodation for the Spring term due to the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic causing further delays to completion of the permanent school site. The report to the committee at this time also asked members to note that a further request may come back to this committee should the Coronavirus pandemic impacts cause further delay to the completion of the COLPAI permanent build into the 2020/21 Summer Term.
On 17 February 2021, the City Surveyor’s report on the continued impact of the Coronavirus pandemic sought approval to 267k of additional funding for the costs associated with COLPAI having to remain in temporary accommodation for 2020/21 summer academic.
This report provides a breakdown of these costs (attached to this report as Appendix 1 (Non-Public)) and clarifies the source of funding to cover the additional expenditure.
Page 203
Recommendations
Members are asked to:
• Note the £267k additional cost of retaining the temporary accommodation for COLPAI over the summer term, pending completion of the permanent construction. • Note that the ‘one-in, one-out’ principle will be applied to identify City’s Cash funding from existing 2020/21 provisions for new bids.
Main Report
Background
1. The City of London Primary Academy Islington (COLPAI) permanent capital build is being delivered by the City of London Corporation (CoLC) to provide a 2-form entry primary school and nursery provision. This development has had a history of delays, the details of which have been reported to relevant committees since June 2018, and most recently to this committee by a report of the City Surveyor on 17 February 2021.
2. COLPAI opened in September 2016 and was previously housed temporarily on the Moreland Primary School site with a lease that will expire in July 2020. Since September 2020, further temporary accommodation has been secured at the Copenhagen Primary School, an existing primary school in Islington, the option approved by this committee in December 2019. Given the distance from the permanent school site, in addition to refurbishment and rental costs, there are also costs associated with transporting children to the temporary site.
3. In March 2020, the Government introduced ‘lockdown’ restrictions in response to the Coronavirus pandemic which required businesses to either close or implement Public Health England social distancing procedures, in order to continue to operate. A result of this was the contractor for the school build, had to stop work on the site for a period of time in order to introduce social distancing procedures and additional welfare facilities, and now continues to operate with a reduced workforce on site in order to maintained these requirements. The projections when previously reported to this committee show completion of the school build beyond the previous completion of December 2020 to May 2021, which may be delayed further should the impact of the Coronavirus continue further
Current Position
4. The projections previously reported to this committee were for a completion of the main school build by May 2021 with the potential for the school to take partial occupation in April 2021 for the beginning of the summer term.
Page 204 5. However, the continued impact of the Coronavirus on the completion of this build has been the contractor as at best been able to operation at 90% capacity which means a June completion date for the school.
6. Attached as Appendix 1 shows a breakdown of the additional costs for temporary accommodation for each term. Members will also note the transportation costs involved due to the distance of the temporary site and due to social distancing implications in transporting children to and from the temporary school site in ‘bubbles’ due to the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic on transportation arrangements.
7. On 24 July 2020, the City Surveyor’s report, COVID-19 Capital Projects Contingency Fund, which was approved at this Committee, reported potential additional costs due to COVID-19 to the COLPAI project build of £3,655,526. The City Surveyors Gateway 5 Issues report (5.3) to this Committee today for decision, revises this figure to £2,594,697, of which £1,738,447 relates to the housing element of the build, to be funded from ring-fenced s106 monies in hand, and £856,250 to the school. However, this figure does not include the COLPAI temporary accommodation costs associated with COVID-19.
Corporate & Strategic Implications
8. Strategic implications – This development contributes to the Corporate Plan: Outcome 3: to promote effective progression through fulfilling education, with the building and sponsorship of a 2 FE primary school; and Outcome 4: help provide homes that London and Londoners need, by making a significant contribution towards the CoLC target of building 700 social housing units. The Department of Community and Children’s Services Business Plan’s priority objective ‘Potential’, states: “People of all ages can achieve their ambitions through education, training and lifelong learning”, with the outcome to be achieved by “Delivering an outstanding education offer through the City of London family of schools”.
9. Legal implications – Contained within the report
10. Financial implications – Officers continue to have discussions with the Department for Education on the uplift in funding for the capital build (which are presently underwritten by approvals from Policy and Resources committee) and temporary accommodation costs. Central funding was allocated as part of the 2020/21 annual capital bid process for the temporary school costs – initially £300k plus a subsequent top-up of £283k. Applying the ‘one-in, one-out’ principle adopted by Resource Allocation Sub Committee to cover requests for additional capital funding outside of the annual bid process, existing City’s Cash funding is being identified to meet this latest request for an additional £267k to cover the extra school term in temporary accommodation (via a separate report on Capital Funding to RASC).
11. Risk implications –
Page 205 COLPAI opened in September 2017 on the temporary site of Moreland Primary School where the lease expired in July 2020, and subsequently in temporary accommodation at Copenhagen Primary School in Islington, requiring up to 160 young children being transported by coaches to school each day. Failure to achieve occupation of the school build in April 2021 has resulted in temporary accommodation being needed until the end of July 2021 with some parents seeing their child attending school in temporary accommodation for a fourth academic year.
12. Equalities implications – None.
Conclusion
13. This report updates this committee on the temporary accommodation arrangements for the City of London Primary Academy Islington (COLPAI) since it was last report by the Director of Community and Children’s Services on 9July 2020, and te City Surveyor on 17 February 2021, providing a breakdown of the additional costs resulting from the Coronavirus pandemic causing added delays to the completion of the permanent school site.
Appendices • Appendix 1 – COLPAI Temporary Accommodation Costs
Background Papers
• Progress report of the provision of additional primary school places and social housing on the former Richard Cloudesley School site, Policy and Resources Committee, 12/12/2019 • Progress report of the provision of additional primary school places and social housing on the former Richard Cloudesley School site, Policy and Resources Committee, 09/07/2020 • PPG COVID-19 Capital Projects Fund – Update, Policy and Resources Committee, 17/02/2021
Gerald Mehrtens Director of Academy Development, Department of Community and Children’s Services E: [email protected]
Page 206 Costs associated with COLPAI being based at Copenhagen school
1) set up costs Refurbishment/set up type Total H&S Repairs & refurbishment & Electrical at Copenhagen £22,524.00 Specialist IT removal & transport £1,687.40 cabling at Copenhagen £2,434.00 Telephony and broadband connections £2,000.00 De-installation and installation of equipment on both sites £3,442.00 Fitted Furniture £3,000.00 Furniture assembly £494.10 Deep clean and Premises manger's time Copenhagen £1,293.78 Removals costs from Moreland School £7,004.00
Total cost for Autumn £43,879.28
2) Transportation costs Daily cost per Number of Mode of transport coach coaches Daily total Cost of coaches to transport children £300.00 5 £1,500.00
Number of Number of Pupil supervision Hourly rate assistants hours Passenger assistant service for coaches costs £15.20 10 4
Estimated Autumn Term cost for the suspension of LB Islington parking bays on Copenhagen Street £26,000.00
Total combined cost of coaches, passenger assistants & parking £171,452.00
3) Revenue Costs Weekly cost Number of Total per square square weekly Rentals meter meters cost Rental at Copenhagen for Autumn Term £3.50 936.00 £3,276.00
Additional school staffing costs Autumn total
Facilities management abortive costs £20,356 Additional general schools assistants £10,842 Additional midday meals supervisor £4,711 TA/HLTAs additional costs £19,929 Lunchtime Supervisors Additional costs £0 Total staffing costs £55,838
Page 207 Total combined revenue costs for Autumn Term £114,806.00
Grand Total Autumn Term costs £330,137.28
Page 208
Number of days Autumn total 69 £103,500.00
Autumn Daily total Number of days total £608.00 69 £41,952.00
Number of weeks Autumn total 18 £58,968.00
Page 209 Costs associated with COLPAI being based at Copenhagen school
1) Transportation costs Daily cost per Number of Mode of transport coach coaches Daily total Cost of coaches to transport children £300.00 5 £1,500.00
Number of Number of Pupil supervision Hourly rate assistants hours Passenger assistant service costs £15.20 10 4
Estimated Spring Term cost for the suspension of LB Islington parking bays on Copenhagen Street £26,000.00
Total estimated combined cost of coaches, passenger assistants & parking £144,048.00
2) Revenue Costs Weekly cost Number of Total per square square weekly Rentals meter meters cost Rental at Copenhagen £3.50 936.00 £3,276.00
Additional school staffing costs Spring total Facilities management abortive costs £20,356 Additional general schools assistants £10,842 Additional midday meals supervisor £4,711 TA/HLTAs additional costs £19,929 Lunchtime Supervisors Additional costs £0 Total staffing costs £55,838
Total combined revenue costs for Spring Term £101,702.00
Grand Total Spring Term costs £245,750.00
Page 210
Number of days Spring total 56 £84,000.00
Spring Daily total Number of days total £608.00 56 £34,048.00
Number of weeks Spring total 14 £45,864.00
Page 211 Costs associated with COLPAI being based at Copenhagen school
1) Transportation costs Daily cost per Number of Mode of transport coach coaches Daily total Cost of coaches to transport children £320.00 5 £1,600.00
Number of Number of Pupil supervision Hourly rate assistants hours Passenger assistant service costs £15.20 10 4
Estimated Summer Term cost for the suspension of LB Islington parking bays on Copenhagen Street £26,000.00
Total combined cost of coaches, passenger assistants & parking £165,104.00
2) Revenue Costs Weekly cost Number of Total per square square weekly Rentals meter meters cost Rental at Copenhagen £3.50 936.00 £3,276.00
Additional school staffing costs Spring total Facilities management abortive costs £20,356 Additional general schools assistants £10,842 Additional midday meals supervisor £4,711 TA/HLTAs additional costs £19,929 Lunchtime Supervisors Additional costs £0 Total staffing costs £55,838
Total combined revenue costs for Summer Term £101,702.00
Grand Estimated Total Summer Term costs £266,806.00
Page 212
Number of days Spring total 63 £100,800.00
Spring Daily total Number of days total £608.00 63 £38,304.00
Number of weeks Spring total 14 £45,864.00
Page 213 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 214 Agenda Item 19
Committee: Policy and Resources Date: 08 April 2021
Subject: Policy and Resources Public Contingency/Discretionary Funds Report of: Chamberlain For Information
Report author: Laura Tuckey
Summary
This report provides the schedule of projects and activities which have received funding from the Policy Initiatives Fund (PIF), the Policy and Resources Committee’s Contingency Fund, Committee’s Project Reserve and COVID19 Contingency Fund for 2021/22 and future years with details of expenditure in 2021/22. The balances remaining for these Funds for 2021/22 and beyond are shown in the Table below.
2022/23 2021/22 2023/24 Balance Balance Balance Remaining Fund Remaining Remaining after after after Approved Approved Bids Approved Bids Bids £ £ £ Policy Initiative Fund 1,050,807 737,000 767,000 Policy and Resources Contingency 282,719 300,000 300,000 Policy & Resources Project Reserve 343,000 0 0 COVID19 Contingency 927,546 0 0
Recommendations
Members are asked to:
• Note the report and contents of the schedules. • If the bid for the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts is approved increase the multiyear PIF cap by £10,635.
Main Report Background
1. The purpose of the Policy Initiatives Fund (PIF) is to allow the Committee to respond swiftly and effectively with funding for projects and initiatives identified during the year which support the City Corporation’s overall aims and objectives.
2. The current process for identifying which items should sit within the PIF are if they fall under the below criteria:
Page 215 • Items that relate to a specific initiative i.e. research. • Sponsorship/funding for bodies which have initiatives that support the City’s overall objectives; and • Membership of high-profile national think tanks.
3. To restrict the depletion of funds in future years, a two-year time limit is in place on multiyear PIF bids, with three years being an option by exception. To ensure prioritisation within the multiyear bids, the PIF from the financial year 2019/20 and onwards has £600k of its total budget put aside for multiyear bids with the rest set aside (£650k) for one off allocations, with the option to ‘top up’ the multiyear allocation from the balance if members agree to do so. This will ensure that there should always be enough in the PIF to fund emerging one-off opportunities as they come up.
4. PIF bids need to include a measurable success/benefits criterion in the report so that the successful bids can then be reviewed to see what the outcomes are and if the works/activities meet the objectives of the PIF. These measures will be used to review PIF bids on a six-monthly basis. This review will aide members in evaluating the effectiveness/benefits of PIF bids supported works/activities which can be taken into consideration when approving similar works/activities in the future.
5. When a PIF bid has been approved there should be a reasonable amount of progress/spend on the works/activities within 18 months of approval which allows for slippage and delays. If there has not been enough spend/activity within this timeframe, members will be asked to approve that the remaining allocation be returned to the Fund where it can be utilised for other works/activities. If the Department requires funding for the same works/activities again at a later date, it is suggested that they re-bid for the funding. If there is a legitimate reason, out of the Department’s control, which has caused delays, it is recommended that these are reviewed by Committee as needed.
6. The Committee Contingency Fund is used to fund unforeseen items of expenditure when no specific provision exists within the Policy Committee’s budget such as hosting one-off events.
7. The Committee’s Project Reserve is a limited reserve which has been established from funds moved from the Projects Sub Committee Contingency Fund as approved in May 2019’s Policy and Resources Committee. This reserve of £450,000 from the Project Sub Committee is not an annual Contingency but a one- off sum. It is suggested that this reserve is used for project type spend.
8. The COVID19 Contingency Fund is a time limited fund established to meet any unforeseen items of expenditure due to the COVID19 virus such as; to enact contingency planning arrangements, support unforeseen expenditure required to support service community which cannot be met from local budgets and to support/implement guidance issued by the government where there is no other compensating source of funding. The Town Clerk and Chamberlain have delegated authority to approve bids to this fund that are under £250,000.
Page 216
Current Position
9. Appendices 1 to 3 list committed projects and activities approved by this Committee for the current and future financial years with the remaining balances available for the PIF (Appendix 1), your Committee’s Contingency (Appendix 2), and the Policy & Resources Project Reserve (Appendix 3). Bids against the COVID19 Contingency Fund (Appendix 4) has either been approved by the Town Clerk and Chamberlain under delegated authority or by this Committee.
10. The balances that are currently available in the Policy Initiatives Fund, Committee Contingency Fund and Committee’s Project Reserve for 2021/22 are shown in the Table below.
2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 2021/22 Balance Balance 2021/22 Fund Opening Approved Remaining Remaining after Pending Bids Balance Bids after 2021/22 2021/22 Approved Bids Pending Bids £ £ £ £ £ Policy 2,204,555 (1,153,748) 1,050,807 50,000 1,000,807 Initiative Fund Policy and Resources 788,214 (505,495) 282,719 0 282,719 Contingency Policy and Resources 343,000 0 343,000 0 343,000 Project Reserve COVID19 1,594,546 667,000 927,546 195,000 732,546 Contingency
11. The remaining multiyear allocation is shown in the Table below with details, as shown in Appendix 1, prior to any allowances being made for any other proposals on today’s agenda. If the bid for the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts is approved then the multiyear cap will need to be increased and there will be no allocations left for the rest of 2021/22.
2021/22 2022/23 2023/24
Balance remaining of £39,365 £137,000 £167,000 Multiyear PIF allocation Corporate & Strategic Implications
12. Although each PIF application has to be judged on its merits, it can be assumed that they may be helping towards contributing to a flourishing society, supporting a thriving economy and shaping outstanding environments as per the corporate plan.
Page 217 13. Each PIF application should be approved on a case by case basis and Departments should look to local budgets first before seeking PIF approval, with PIF requests only being submitted if there is no funding within local budgets available.
Appendices
• Appendix 1 – PIF 2021/22 and Future Years • Appendix 2 – P&R Contingency 2021/22 and Future Years • Appendix 3 – P&R Project Reserve 2021/22 • Appendix 4 – COVID19 Contingency 2021/22
Laura Tuckey Senior Accountant, Chamberlains
T: 020 7332 1761 E: [email protected]
Page 218 Appendix 1
Policy and Resources Committee - Policy Initiative Fund 2021/22 to 2023/24
Budget 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Initial budget £ 1,200,000 £ 1,200,000 £ 1,200,000 Uncommited balance brought forward from 2020/21 £ 527,082 £ - £ - Unspent balances deferred from 2020/21 £ 447,113 £ - £ - Unspent balances in 2020/21 returned to Fund £ 30,360 £ - £ - Revised Budget £ 2,204,555 £ 1,200,000 £ 1,200,000
Date Name 2021/22 Bid 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Bid 2023/24 Bid 07/07/16 London Councils Summit £ 16,000 £ - 16/11/17 Proposed Grant to retain the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation (CSFI) £ 6,635 £ - 22/02/18 Sponsorship of Wincott Awards £ 4,000 £ - 03/05/18 Saudi Arabia Vision 2030, Public Investment Fund and Financial Services £ 27,487 £ - 07/06/18 City of London Corporation - Engagement with Strategy World Economic Forum (WEF) £ 76,339 £ - 05/07/18 Events Partnership with The Strand Group, King's College London £ 35,787 £ - 21/02/19 London and Partners: domestic promotion of London £ 75,000 £ - 17/10/19 City Week 2020 Event Sponsorship £ 25,000 £ - 20/02/20 Future.Now - Application for Funding £ 17,000 £ - 20/02/20 Tokyo 2020 Games £ 40,000 £ - 19/03/20 London Messaging Research £ 40,000 £ - 16/04 2020 Sponsorship of London 2050 Project £ 1,500 £ - 16/04/20 Sheltered Employment Programme - Corporate Catering at the Guildhall Offices £ 180,000 £ - 11/06/20 British Foreign Policy Group £ 35,000 £ - 24/09/20 Commitment to UN Sustainable Development Goals £ 20,000 £ - £ 10,000 21/01/21 Support for Innovate Finance £ 250,000 £ - £ 250,000 £ 250,000 21/01/21 Green Horizon Summit Evaluation & COP26 Preparations £ 100,000 £ - 18/02/21 Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council: Renewal of Strategic Partnership £ 20,000 £ - £ 20,000 Urgency AIIB Membership £ 184,000 £ - £ 183,000 £ 183,000
Total Allocations £ 1,153,748 £ - £ 463,000 £ 433,000 Balance Remaining £ 1,050,807 £ 737,000 £ 767,000
Bids for Committee's Approval: 08 April 2021 - Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts £50,000 £50,000 £50,000 - - - - Total Balance if pending bids are approved £ 1,000,807 £ 687,000 £ 717,000
Multi Year PIF Bids 2021/22 Bid 2022/23 Bid 2023/24 Bid Multi Year PIF Allocation £ 600,000 £ 600,000 £ 600,000 16/11/17 Proposed Grant to retain the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation £ 6,635 16/04/20 Sheltered Employment Programme - Corporate Catering at Guildhall Offices £ 90,000 24/09/20 Commitment to UN Sustainable Development Goals £ 10,000 £ 10,000 21/01/21 Support for Innovate Finance £ 250,000 £ 250,000 £ 250,000 18/02/21 Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council - Renew of Partnership £ 20,000 £ 20,000 Urgency AIIB Membership £ 184,000 £ 183,000 £ 183,000
Total Multi Year Allocations £ 560,635 £ 463,000 £ 433,000 Multi Year PIF Allocation Balance £ 39,365 £ 137,000 £ 167,000
Bids for Committee's Approval: 08 April 2021 - Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts £50,000 £50,000 £50,000 - - - Total Balance if pending bids are approved -£ 10,635 £ 87,000 £ 117,000
Page 219 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 220 Appendix 2
Policy and Resources Committee - Contingency 2021/22 to 2023/24
Budget 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Initial Budget £ 300,000 £ 300,000 £ 300,000 Uncommited balance brought forward from 2020/21 £ 719 £ - £ - Unspent balances deferred from 2020/21 £ 487,495 £ - £ - Unspent balances in 2020/21 returned to Fund £ - £ - £ - Revised Budget £ 788,214 £ 300,000 £ 300,000
Date Name 2021/22 Bid 2021/22 Actual 2022/23 Bid 2023/24 Bid 08/05/14 City of London Scholarship - Anglo-Irish Literature £ 19,850 £ - £ - £ - 17/11/16 Police Arboretum Memorial Fundraising Dinner £ 30,000 £ - £ - £ - 04/10/18 Beech Street Transformation Project £ 55,000 £ - £ - £ - Common Council Elections in March 2021 - funding a high-profile 20/02/20 £ 126,645 £ - £ - £ - advertising campaign 19/11/20 Census 2021 £ 18,000 £ - £ - £ - 10/12/20 Mobilisation of Climate Action £ 49,000 £ - £ - £ - 10/12/20 Electoral Registration Campaign Manager £ 150,000 £ - £ - £ - Urgency Smithfield Negotiations - Mediation Fees £ 57,000 £ - £ - £ -
Total Allocations £ 505,495 £ - £ - £ - Balance Remaining £ 282,719 £ 300,000 £ 300,000
Bids for Committee's Approval: 08 April 2021 ------Total Balance if pending bids are approved £ 282,719 £ 300,000 £ 300,000
Page 221 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 222 Appendix 3
Policy and Resources Committee Project Reserve: 2021/22
Budget 2021/22 Initial Budget £ 450,000 Less: 2019/20 spend -£ 30,000 Less: 2020/21 spend -£ 66,422 Revised Budget £ 353,578
Date Name 2021/22 Bid 2021/22 Actual 30/07/20 Project Management Academy £ 10,578 £ -
Total Allocations £ 10,578 £ - Balance Remaining £ 343,000
Bids for Committee's Approval: 08 April 2021 - - - - Total Balance if pending bids are approved £ 343,000
Page 223 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 224 Appendix 4
Policy & Resources Committee - COVID Contingency 2020/21 - 2021/22
Budget 2020/21 2021/22 Initial Budget £ 1,500,000 Funding moved from Brexit funding - City Fund £ 239,270 Funding moved from Brexit Funding - City's Cash £ 413,276 Uncommited funding carried forward from 2020/21 - City Fund £ 210,270 Uncommited funding carried forward from 2020/21 - City's Cash £ 784,276 Additional allocation ringfenced for GSMD subject to CCC approval £ 600,000 Revised Budget £ 2,152,546 £ 1,594,546
Date Name 2020/21 Bids 2021/22 Bids 03/04/20 SMTA Rates Bill £ 67,000 21/04/20 COLPAI - CCTV £ 41,000 17/04/20 Support the Mortality Management Group £ 27,000 24/04/20 Direct Access Server Replacement + Additional Server £ 37,000 06/05/20 PPE Purchasing £ 4,000 11/05/20 CoLP IT Resilience £ 263,000 28/05/20 Open Spaces PPE and HSE £ 65,000 09/06/20 Using Public Transport and Social Distancing - Face Coverings £ 25,000 24/06/20 CoL IT - Remote Working upgrades and expenses £ 81,000 09/07/20 City of London Academies Trust Funding Request for Summer Provision 2020/21 £ 70,000 08/07/20 Everyone In - Rough Sleeping Response £ 261,000 27/07/20 Brakespear Mortuary £ 32,000 £ 12,000 05/10/20 Public Health Communications Officer £ 50,000 19/11/20 Communications with Residents £ 28,000 10/12/20 Dedicated City Corporation News Hub on City AM £ 45,000 21/12/20 Dedicated strategic support on social care to the Chief Executive of Ealing £ 9,000 22/01/21 Letter drops to City residents £ 24,000 10/02/21 Public Health Communications Officer extended £ 40,000 18/03/21 Dedicated City Corporation News Hub on City AM £ 45,000 11/03/21 Recovery Promotional Campaign £ 250,000 19/03/21 Covering the cost of Hands-Face-Space COVID19 Campaign Materials £ 13,000 26/03/21 Contributions towards Pan London Mortality Wace 1 Costs £ 16,000 31/03/21 Mental Health & Well Being support to Acadamies £ 320,000
Total Allocations £ 1,158,000 £ 667,000
Non ringfenced balance (City's Cash) £ 202,276 Non ringfenced balance (City Fund) £ 125,270 GSMD ringfenced balance (City's Cash) £ 600,000 Total Balance Remaining £ 927,546
Bids for Committee's Approval: 09 April 2021 Laptops required for new starters and replacing broken devices to the end of - 195,000 March 2021
Total Balance if pending bids are approved £ 732,546
Page 225 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 226 Agenda Item 20
Committee: Date: Policy & Resources Committee – for information 08 April 2021
Subject: Decisions taken under delegated authority or Public urgency powers Which outcomes in the City Corporation’s Corporate See Background Report Plan does this proposal aim to impact directly? Does this proposal require extra revenue and/or See Background Report capital spending? If so, how much? See Background Report What is the source of Funding? See Background Report Has this Funding Source been agreed with the See Background Report Chamberlain’s Department? Report of: Town Clerk For Information Report author: Greg Moore, Town Clerks
Summary
This report advises Members of actions taken by the Town Clerk in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, in accordance with Standing Order Nos. 41(a) and 41(b) since the last meeting.
Recommendation That Members note the actions taken since the last meeting of the Committee.
Main Report
Since the last meeting of the Committee, approval has been given under urgency procedures or delegated authority arrangements, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41, as follows: -
Polling Station CL – Change of Location 1. At the September 2019 meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee it was agreed that the polling place for the CL polling district would continue to be the Artizan Street Library.
2. Unfortunately, a fault with the air handling unit at the Artizan Street Library had recently arisen which made the building non-compliant on the grounds of Health and Safety and Coronavirus guidance. For this reason, the building was not currently available for public use, including as a polling station.
3. An alternative location within the polling district was sought and the Portsoken Community Centre on Mansell Street identified as a suitable alternative. It was, therefore, proposed that the Portsoken Community Centre be used as a polling station for electors registered to vote in the CL polling district for the Thursday 6 May 2021 Greater London Assembly Election. Approval was also sought for
Page 227 the suggestion that Portsoken Community Centre be used as an alternative to the Artizan Street Library in future, in the event (and only in the event) that the library was unavailable for other elections.
4. The fault with the air handling unit was confirmed only in March 2021. The polling stations was required to be finalised before poll cards for the election could be despatched to voters and such poll cards should, by law, be despatched as soon as reasonably practicable during the election period to give voters sufficient notice of their voting arrangements and to make voters aware of deadline for absent voting if they are not able to attend their polling station. It was, therefore, necessary for an alternative location to be agreed under urgency procedures.
Public Sector De-carbonisation Scheme (PSDS) – Project Approval & Governance and Gateway 2 Project Proposal 5. In February 2021, the Policy & Resources Committee agreed (under urgency procedures) to accept a grant from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), which had launched the £1b Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme for public sector bodies to apply for capital funding towards carbon reduction projects for non-domestic buildings. The City Corporation had applied for grant funding to cover projects to upgrade M&E building services (heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting) and improve building controls and energy metering across the Guildhall Complex, Barbican Arts Centre, GSMD, and London Metropolitan Archives. It was estimated that the projects would deliver savings of 1.5 ktCO2 (1.5 kilotonnes or 1500 tonnes of CO2) each year, and £875,000 each year.
6. In approving the grant receipt, it was noted that this provided an excellent opportunity to advance the aims of the Climate Action Strategy without increasing capital burden on the City Corporation’s finances. However, it was also observed that this would require wide senior sponsorship, delegated authority, and additional resources to unlock this significant opportunity within challenging timeframes.
7. At the subsequent meeting of the Policy & Resources Committee, in March 2021, Members were advised that this further report was now being finalised and was expected to be completed imminently. In view of the extremely tight deadlines, it was not possible to wait for the next meeting for approval for the aforementioned governance processes and project initiation elements; therefore, the Committee resolved to delegate authority to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chairman, to consider the relevant reports. In so doing, Members stressed the importance of ensuring the governance arrangements integrated with the wider Climate Action Strategy governance.
8. Subsequent to this, satisfactory arrangements were confirmed and, in order to give effect to the establishment of the project and meet the required timescale conditions of the grant, approval was granted to a series of proposals around project initiation and governance. The full details of these arrangements are available in the relevant background reports.
Page 228 Early Mobilisation of key resources for Climate Action 9. The Climate Action Strategy (CAS) was approved by the Court of Common Council in October 2020. As the mobilisation and implementation of this Strategy began to get underway, it was necessary to seek early approval for the drawdown of previously approved funds to key resources in two workstreams - strategic implementation and mainstreaming resilience. These resources would ensure that these two workstreams, focusing on integrating the Climate Action Strategy across the organisation, could be actioned effectively from 1st April and that key skills and expertise are retained in the programme. A full programme plan report was due to be presented at the 8th April 2021 meeting of the Policy & Resources Committee for approval.
10. These key resources for the strategic implementation workstream took the form of a Programme Director (Deputy SRO), Programme Manager, and Stakeholder Engagement Lead. For the mainstreaming resilience workstream, the required resource consists of a Programme Lead (Climate Resilience), Data Lead, and 1.5 FTE topic leads. The sums for these posts were within the approved budget allocations for these workstreams and represented an overall drawdown of £520k for the coming year.
11. Funding requests for these posts for future years would be incorporated within the annual cycle of reporting, for as long as the posts remained necessary or appropriate.
12. The proposal involved the extension of existing fixed term contracts which were due to expire on 31 March and so urgency procedures were utilised to obtain the necessary approvals.
[Background documents available on request]
Contact: Greg Moore @[email protected]
Page 229 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 230 Agenda Item 24a By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 231 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 24b By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 235 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 24c By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 243 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 24d By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 245 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 25 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 247 This page is intentionally left blank