Public Document Pack

Agenda

Meeting: Cabinet Date: 25 February 2015 Time: 5.00 pm Place: Council Chamber - Civic Centre Folkestone

To: All members of the Cabinet

All Councillors for information

The cabinet will consider the matters listed below on the date and at the time and place shown above. The meeting will be open to the press and public.

1. Apologies for absence

2. Declarations of interest

Members of the Council should declare any interests which fall under the following categories. Please see the end of the agenda for definitions*:

a) disclosable pecuniary interests (DPI); b) other significant interests (OSI); c) voluntary announcements of other interests.

3. Minutes

To consider and approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2015.

These minutes will be circulated in advance of the meeting.

4. Folkestone Indoor Bowls Club (Pages 1 - 10)

Report C/14/83 considers proposals to grant a new lease to the Folkestone Bowls Association Ltd. The proposed commercial terms of the lease are set out in the report and include a significant reduction in the rent

Queries about the agenda? Need a different format?

Contact Sue Lewis – Tel: 01303 853495265 Email: [email protected] or download from our website www.shepway.gov.uk

Date of Publication: Tuesday, 17 February 2015

Cabinet - 25 February 2015

payable by the Bowls Association.

In addition, the report considers a request from the Bowls Association for a further reduction in rent to a level below the assessed commercial rent. In response to this, the report proposes that the Council provide grant funding to the Bowls Association to support their running costs.

5. Folkestone Invicta Football Club (Pages 11 - 22)

Report C/14/81 considers a request from Folkestone Invicta Football Club for a longer lease period, in order to access grant funding for essential maintenance work.

6. Policy Guidance on assessing and prioritising requests for controlled parking schemes (Pages 23 - 34)

Report C/14/85 The council has previously confirmed its commitment to the introduction new resident permit parking schemes where these are strongly supported by local residents. The Council receives many requests for the introduction of new resident permit parking schemes from residents across the district. Due to the demand, schemes have to be prioritised as only a few can be introduced annually. In order to ensure requests are considered in a fair and consistent way, a points system has been designed for members to consider and agree.

7. Discretionary Business Rate Relief (Localism Act 2011) - Key Decision (Pages 35 - 40)

Report C/14/79: This is a proposed extension of an innovative scheme which will deliver the Economic Development Strategy via locally designated enterprise areas and it will complement other economic development initiatives.

The financing of this proposed scheme was included in the 2015/16 Budget Strategy Report approved by Cabinet on 5 th November 2014. The £250,000 allocation towards this new Discretionary Business Rate Relief (DBRR) scheme forms part of the overall 2015/16 budget.

8. Shepway Economic Development Strategy - Key Decision (Pages 41 - 112)

Report C/14/78: The Cabinet considered the Draft Shepway Economic Development Strategy and the accompanying Draft ‘Shepway in Context’ report at the meeting on 17 th December 2014. It was agreed that this should go out for a six week public consultation from 15 th January 2015.

Feedback received during the consultation has now been taken on board in the Draft Final Shepway Economic Development Strategy and evidence base in the Draft Final ‘Shepway in Context’ report, which is recommended for adoption by Cabinet.

Cabinet - 25 February 2015

9. 2015 Member Working Group - Role of Members Workstream - Key Decision (Pages 113 - 148)

The 2015 Member Working Group is an advisory non-decision making body that has been formed to make recommendations on how the council and councillors should work with a membership of thirty. Report C/14/77 makes recommendations to Cabinet with regard to the Council’s Constitution, the development of the council’s Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy which promotes the role of ward councillors, Ward Budgets and Ward Plans. Following consideration by Cabinet, the report will be considered by Constitutional Advisory Committee and Council, as there are elements in the recommendations which require approval by all three committees

10. District, Parish and Town Council Elections - Election Fees and Charges (Pages 149 - 156)

Report C/14/82 sets out a proposed scale of fees and expenses of Shepway’s Returning Officer to undertake the arrangements for managing and conducting district, parish and town council elections.

11. Members 2015 project - Accommodation and Technical Report - Non- Key Decision (Pages 157 - 164)

Report C/14/80 sets out a number of proposals for minor changes to the council chamber and adjoining accommodation areas; the creation of a new disabled toilet facility in the store adjacent to the public entrance to the council chamber; and the installation of a web casting facility which would allow members of the public to view council meetings via the Internet.

*Explanations as to different levels of interest (a) A member with a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) must declare the nature as well as the existence of any such interest and the agenda item(s) to which it relates must be stated. A member who declares a DPI in relation to any item must leave the meeting for that item (unless a relevant dispensation has been granted). (b) A member with an other significant interest (OSI) under the local code of conduct relating to items on this agenda must declare the nature as well as the existence of any such interest and the agenda item(s) to which it relates must be stated. A member who declares an OSI in relation to any item will need to remove him/herself to the public gallery before the debate and not vote on that item (unless a relevant dispensation has been granted). However, prior to leaving, the member may address the meeting in the same way that a member of the public may do so. (c) Members may make voluntary announcements of other interests which are not required to be disclosed under (a) and (b). These are announcements made for transparency reasons alone, such as: • membership of outside bodies that have made representations on agenda items, or • where a member knows a person involved, but does not have a close association with that person, or • where an item would affect the well-being of a member, relative, close associate, employer, etc. but not his/her financial position. Voluntary announcements do not prevent the member from participating or voting on the relevant item

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 4

This Report will be made public on 13 February 2015

Report Number C/14/83

To: Cabinet Date: 25 February 2015 Status: Non-Key Decision Head of Service: Bob Porter; Housing, Land and Property Portfolio Holder: Councillor John Collier; Properties Management

SUBJECT: Folkestone Indoor Bowls Club

SUMMARY: This report considers proposals to grant a new lease to the Folkestone Bowls Association Ltd. The proposed commercial terms of the lease are set out in the report and include a significant reduction in the rent payable by the Bowls Association.

In addition, the report considers a request from the Bowls Association for a further reduction in rent to a level below the assessed commercial rent. In response to this, the report proposes that the Council provide grant funding to the Bowls Association to support their running costs.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out below because: a) The proposal to offer a lease on commercial terms will maximise the contribution to the Council’s revenue budgets from this property asset. b) The Bowls Club provides leisure and sports facilities for local people, and the grant will help to ensure that this provision is sustainable throughout the proposed lease period.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. To receive and note report number C/14/83. 2. To approve the proposed approach to the offer of a new lease to the Folkestone Bowls Association Ltd, as set out in paragraph 1.4 of this report. 3. To authorise the Head of Housing, Land and Property, in consultation with the Solicitor to the Council to finalise the details of the proposed lease with the Folkestone Bowls Association Ltd. 4. To agree to the payment of a grant of £10,000 per year to the Folkestone Bowls Association Ltd for each of the 5 years of the proposed lease, with the first annual payment made in the financial year 2014/15. A condition of the grant will be the completion of essential maintenance at the Folkestone Indoor Bowls Club.

Page1 1 1. Background

1.1 Folkestone Bowls Association Limited (FBAL) currently lease the premises know as Folkestone Indoor Bowls Club, Cheriton Road, Folkestone from the Council. The lease was originally granted on 25 March 1991 for a 21 year period and therefore expired on 24 March 2012. The FBAL are currently holding over on the same terms as the original lease.

1.2 The terms of the lease include the following: • A secure lease with full repairing and insuring liabilities resting with the tenant. • Subject to upward only rent reviews every third year. • The Council is able to terminate the lease in the event of the site being redeveloped. • The commencing rent was £16,000 per annum and in subsequent reviews it eventually rose to £24,500 in 2004 and has remained at that level since.

1.3 The Council obtained a valuation for the premises from an independent chartered surveyor on 13 February 2014. The valuation report recommended an annual rent of £15,000, taking into account all of the current circumstances. The valuation report is attached at appendix 1.

1.4 As the current lease does not allow for a reduction of the rent within the current terms, the recommended rent of £15,000 per annum would require the current lease to be brought to an end and a new lease granted on new terms. The council wrote to the FBAL on 10 November 2014 offering a new lease, on the following terms: • Term: 5 years from completion • Rent: £15,000 exclusive per annum • Break clause: Any time by either party giving six months notice • Security of tenure: Sections 24-28 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to be excluded (i.e. non-secure)

1.5 The FBAL wrote to the Council on 24 November 2014 rejecting this offer. A copy of this letter is attached at appendix 2 to this report. The FBAL have requested a further reduction in rent to £5,000 per annum, with a rent free period for the first 12 months. They have highlighted the costs of works required to the premises; although it should be noted that the FBAL were responsible for the maintenance of the premises under the lease granted in 1991. The FBAL have also stated that the currently proposed rent of £15,000 per annum would leave them with a budget deficit of £35,000 over the 5 year period.

2. Policy Position

2.1 The Council’s agreed Asset Management Plan sets a number of objects for non-operational assets, i.e. those assets not required for the Council’s business. The Asset management Plan was agreed at Cabinet on 12 March 2008 (Decision 07/097 refers). The Asset Management Plan states that all non-operational assets should be:

Page2 2 • Able to make the maximum contribution to service revenue budgets in terms of rental income; and/or • Able to make a positive contribution to the social well-being of the community through its use by others such as voluntary groups, charity organisations or small businesses; • Retained for reasons of strategic importance, such as to influence the physical and economic regeneration of the district.

Any decision therefore made to offer a new lease to the FBAL or to renew the existing lease should be made within this context.

2.2 In addition the Council is able to agree to make a grant payment to the FBAL to support its activities. The authority to make such a grant is contained within the general power of competence as set out in part 1 Localism Act 2011.

3. Proposed Way Forward

3.1 Taking into account both the aims of the Council to achieve a maximum income from its property assets and the value that the Folkestone Bowls Association Ltd brings to local residents, it is proposed that: • The Council confirms the offer of a new lease, as set out in paragraph 1.4 above. • That the Council provide an annual grant of £10,000 to the FBAL to support their activities.

3.2 The offer of a grant will be dependent upon a funding agreement, to include the following requirements: • That the FBAL works to become financially sustainable/independent of the council during the 5 year period • That their activities promote health and wellbeing and physical activity and tackle social isolation. • That the FBAL develops a business plan that will enable them to invest in the maintenance of the Indoor bowls centre and complete essential maintenance as agreed with the Council.

4.0 Financial Implications

4.1 The recommended proposal would result in a cost pressure to the council of £19,500 per annum (i.e. £9,500 reduction in budgeted rental income and £10,000 additional grant payments). This will need to be found from existing budget resources.

5.0 Risk Management Issues

4.1 Perceived risks as follows:

Perceived risk Seriousness Likelihood Preventative action That the Council The Council continue to fails to medium low offer a lease for the maximise the premises on a

Page3 3 return achieved commercial basis. from this property asset. The Council provide That the Bowls financial assistance in Association can the short term to the no longer fund FBAL and support them Medium High its activities and to become more therefore financially sustainable closes. during the period of the proposed 5 year lease.

5.0 LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS

5.1 Legal Officer’s Comments (AK)

The legal issues are addressed in the body of the report.

5.2 Finance Officer’s Comments (JM)

Finance comments are shown in paragraph 4.1 above.

5.3 Diversities and Equalities Implications (BP)

There are no diversity and equalities implications that arise immediately from this report. However the grant funding agreement with the FBAL will include a requirement to consider the diversity and equality implications of their work to to promote health and wellbeing and physical activity and tackle social isolation.

6.0 CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the following officer prior to the meeting

Bob Porter (Head of Housing, Land and Property) Telephone: 01303 853333 Email: [email protected]

The following background documents have been relied upon in the preparation of this report:

Appendices: 1. Valuation report 2. Letter from Folkestone Bowls Association Ltd

Page4 4

Our Ref: MCT/RP/P7818

13 February 2014

Shepway District Council Civic Centre Castle Hill Avenue Folkestone Kent CT20 2QY

For the attention of Mrs Sandra Bryant

Dear Sirs,

Re: FOLKESTONE INDOOR BOWLS CENTRE, CHERITON ROAD, FOLKESTONE, KENT

I refer to your email of 24 January instructing me to provide you with rental valuation advice on the Folkestone Indoor Bowls Centre. The premises are well known to me, having first provided advice in 2000.

Having made my inspection and with regard to the situation, I have set out my advice on an informal basis which I hope will provide a more helpful discussion document than if I provided a formal Redbook Valuation at this stage.

BACKGROUND

The tenants, Folkestone Bowls Association Limited (FBAL) are currently holding over on a lease which was granted for a term of 21 years from 25 March 1991 and therefore expired on 24 March 2012. It is a full repairing and insuring lease, subject to upward only rent reviews every third year. The commencing rent was £16,000 per annum and in subsequent reviews it eventually rose to £24,500 in 2004 and I understand has remained at that level since.

The main building dates from 1963 and the structure is therefore now 50 years old. FBAL at their own expense extended the bar and dining facilities and carried out other improvements under a planning consent granted in 1995. The rent has disregarded the rental value of these improvements, having been undertaken at the tenant’s expense.

SUMMARY OF DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMMODATION

According to my file the original accommodation provided the following:-

Ft² M² Clubhouse: Approx 3,750 348 Indoor Bowling Hall with 7 rinks: Approx 18,850 1,751 Additional facilities: 2 outdoor greens (12 rinks) - -

TAYLOR RILEY STAFFORD 30 NORTH STREET ASHFORD KENT TN24 8JR Regulated by RICS TEL: (01233) 629281 FAX: (01233) 665345 www.taylorriley.co.uk

Taylor Riley Stafford is a trading name of Taylor Riley PageCommercial 5Ltd which is registered in England, Company No. 6658887 Registered office is Stourside Place, Station Road, Ashford, Kent TN23 1PP. Directors: Michael C Taylor FRICS Richard J C Stafford MRICS

[2]

BUSINESS RATES

The premises are currently assessed with a rateable value of £34,000. This however does take into account the extension provided by the tenant and which has been excluded from the rent assessment.

Having made enquiries I note that the tenant does get charitable relief by way of an 80% discount on the normal rates payable.

I also note from my file that in 2004 the rateable value was £47,000. This has since been significantly reduced to £34,000 (a 27.5% reduction) reflecting the acceptance by the Valuation Office of declining membership and financial difficulties experienced by many bowling clubs.

MARKET COMMENTARY

In 2004 I made enquires with the Valuation Officer regarding the rating assessments of bowling centres. I was advised that the Valuation Office also has difficulties in collating evidence and at that time found a number of cases where membership was falling and bowling centres were having difficulty remaining viable, such that it was found that rent concessions were being granted in some cases. As a result a number of rating assessments were lowered on revaluation as was the case with Folkestone Indoor Bowling Centre as stated above.

The Valuation Office has produced a paper on the prevailing situation with regard to indoor bowling centres and their current approach to their valuations.

Many indoor bowling centres were built or converted in the 1980s and 1990s, although the Folkestone Indoor Bowling Centre is an early example dating from the 1960s.

The proliferation of clubs has had an effect on membership numbers at existing clubs. In particular Folkestone has lost members to the new Ashford facilities. The growth in the popularity of short mat bowls has also affected the membership numbers of indoor bowls clubs. Whilst existing bowlers generally remain loyal to the full length indoor game, many potential new members appear to be content to play the short mat version of the game which is often more conveniently played in local community halls or sports centres.

The English Indoor Bowling Association (EIBA) recommends a benchmark of approximately 100 playing members per rink and therefore Folkestone, being a 7 rink club should have a membership of about 700 playing members. Folkestone however only has 650 members of varying grades of membership.

VALUATION ADVICE

In assessing a suitable rent for these premises regard must be given to the age of the building and repairing liability, economic conditions and the circumstances particular to the Folkestone club. For example I understand that due to the age of members, membership numbers are falling and they are not being replaced by younger members as there are now so many other competing activities. When I recently inspected the club and met the manager he informed me that the current turnover is about £260,000 to include subscriptions and green fees together with income from the bar/restaurant and gaming machines.

Page 6

[3]

I have obtained a copy of the assessment made by the District Valuer as at the Valuation date of April 2008. This assumes the market rent on a year to year basis based on evidence they have collated. They have assessed the rinks at £4,000 per rink. They have assessed the 2 outdoor rinks at £1,200 each and the ancillary facilities at £3,400 per annum, part of which includes the extension. This is useful information as the rateable value is based on market rent as at 2008.

I am of the view that the rental value of the ancillary space is about £3,500 per annum, and the outdoor rinks £2,400 per annum. However the 7 indoor rinks, having regard to current conditions, I only assess at £2,000 per rink. This produces a total of £19,900, say £20,000 per annum.

The club has however to find funds to operate a programme to keep the premises, particularly the main hall, watertight and in general repair. With this in mind I can recommend a reduction in rent to £15,000 per annum, subject to the club providing SDC with a budget and maintenance programme. It is in the interests of SDC that the building should be maintained and not allowed to fall into further disrepair whilst the long term future of the site is being considered.

I understand that SDC would wish to keep all their options open on the future of this site and therefore they may wish to allow the club to continue to hold over under the existing lease but at a reduced rent. Alternatively they may wish to grant a new lease, say for a term of five years but with six month break clauses operative every second year, with the lease outside the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

I trust that this advice is of assistance to you and I shall of course be pleased to discuss and expand on any points arising and to give consideration to any other possible options.

Yours faithfully,

M C Taylor FRICS RICS Registered Valuer e-mail [email protected] www.taylorriley.co.uk

Page 7

This page is intentionally left blank FOLKESTOE BOWLS ASSOCIATIO LIMITED

Cheriton Road Chairman: L King Secretary: C R Sexton FOLKESTONE Tel: 01303 210023 Kent e-mail: [email protected] CT19 5JU

P Marshall, Esq. Shepway District Council Land and Property Services Civic Centre Castle Hill Avenue FOLKESTOE Kent CT20 2QY 24 th November 2014

Your ref: AR0045.pm

Dear Mr. Marshall,

LEASE DATED 29 th JAUARY 1991

Many thanks for your letter of the 12 th November which has now been fully considered by the Council of Management in the light of the Association’s current trading position and projected budgets over the next four years.

Our main income stream is from membership fees and bowling green charges, both of which are very sensitive to upward changes and we would lose members should they rise at anything over inflation rates. Our premises are almost 50 years old and suffering from increasing maintenance charges and antiquated lighting and air-conditioning that, ideally, should be replaced for more modern, eco-friendly systems that are cheaper to run and maintain.

There are 11 air-conditioning and heating units which are virtually life-expired. The plan is to replace two units each year at a current cost of £5,000 per unit which will take another five years to complete assuming failures will be gradual over that period.

The lighting system uses 1,000 fluorescent tubes that contribute to an annual electricity bill in excess of £30,000. There is little we can now do to improve efficiency without installing new units, the cost of which would be prohibitive given the uncertainty of any long-term tenure.

The roof is beginning to show signs of wear and tear evidenced by increasing maintenance in the last couple of years. A recent survey has indicated a likely minimum spend of £30,000 to merely replace the existing top cover. There would be additional costs if weak patches were found in the felt which would be likely due to regular seagull nestings.

Page 9

Budgets indicate continued heavy losses over the next four years should your proposed rental charges be adopted. It is pertinent that the Association has paid £½m to the Council in rents under the terms of the former lease which includes the sum of £67,375 since it expired in March 2012.

The Council of Management would like Shepway District Council to consider the following ongoing terms for a new five year lease:

A rent free period for the first 12 months.

Annual rent of £5,000 exclusive for the remainder of the term.

This would equate to an annual charge of £10,922 paid for the eight year period since expiry in March 2012.

Budgets indicate that, even at this level, there will be a deficit of some £35,000 over the period and the Directors will still need to consider how profitability can be restored from further cost-savings or increasing income from other sources. Obviously, this takes no account of any unforeseen capital expenditure which may force an earlier review of future trading prospects.

The Club has a total membership in excess of 725 playing and social members and provides a large community facility for the Shepway area. Visiting clubs and their guests bring additional business to Folkestone; the national Top Ten Tournament in 2014 saw 14 teams of 12 players with their supporters staying in the town over the four-day Easter break. Social members, a lot of them over retirement age, use the bar and restaurant to stay in touch with local friends and acquaintances and regularly meet at the Club which is open every day from 9 am to late in the evening.

I hope the Council are able to look sympathetically at our proposed terms which won’t eliminate our precarious financial position but might make our continued existence a little more achievable. I shall be more than happy to share our detailed budget forecasts if you think that would help your deliberations.

I shall look forward to your response in due course.

Yours sincerely,

C R Sexton Company Secretary

e-mailed to: David Monk Leader of Shepway District Council John Collier Cabinet Member for Properties Management SDC Leon King Chairman of Folkestone Bowls Association Limited Dick Pascoe Member of Shepway District Council and Director FBA Ltd

Page 10 Agenda Item 5

This Report will be made public on 17 February 2015

Report Number C/14/81

To: Cabinet Date: 25 February 2015 Status: Non-Key Decision Head of Service: Bob Porter; Housing, Land and Property Portfolio Holder: Councillor John Collier, Properties Management

SUBJECT: Folkestone Invicta Football Club

SUMMARY: This report considers a request from Folkestone Invicta Football Club for a longer lease period, in order to access grant funding for essential maintenance work.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out below because: a) It is not clear that Folkestone Invicta Football Club is in a position to meet the liabilities of a long-term lease of the premises at this stage. b) The proposed grant funding from the Council will enable the FIFC to complete the essential footpath improvements, without the need to grant a new long-term lease. c) It is more likely that the Council’s operational requirements for the ground floor of the Pavilion will change over the longer period, impacting on the financial viability of this structure.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. To receive and note report number C/14/81. 2. To reject the request from FIFC to grant a new lease for a longer period. 3. To agree to provide grant funding of £7,500 to the FIFC to support the costs of essential footpath improvements, as set out in paragraph 3.2 below. 4. To agree that proposals for a new longer-term lease are considered before the end of the current 5 year period.

Page1 11 1. Background

1.1 Folkestone Invicta Football Club (FIFC) currently leases their ground in Cheriton Road, Folkestone from the Council. The land included within the lease includes the land, football pitch, pavilion, club house and all stands including terraces. The lease commenced on 26 April 2014, and includes the following terms: • Lease period: 5 years • Rent charge: £6,875 per year, paid monthly in advance. There is no provision for review of the rent during the lease period. • Rent free period: first year of lease to 25 April 2015. • Security of Tenure: Excluded from the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. • Tenant Covenants: To keep in good repair and to insure the whole premises. • Business Plan: To present a detailed business plan, plan indicating viability of business and how activity encourages community engagement and sports development, before 25 April 2016.

1.2 The lease is currently in its first year and the rent free period runs until 25 April 2015.

1.3 The FIFC have approached the Council to increase the period of the lease. The purpose of this request is to enable the FIFC to secure grant funding from the Football Stadia Improvement Fund (FSIF) to contribute to the costs of improving footpaths that run around the sides of the pitch. The work is a ground grading requirement from the Football Association (FA) and is scheduled to be completed by 31 March 2015. The cost of the work is estimated at £15,000 and the value of the proposed grant is £7,500 with the remaining £7,500 funded by FIFC. The current condition of the footpaths is shown in the photographs attached at appendix 1.

1.4 The Football Stadia Improvement Fund (FSIF) provides financial support to football clubs towards their ground improvement projects. It is funded by the Premier League with an annual budget of £6m. The FSIF awards capital grants to clubs from the Football League down to the lower levels of the National League System to improve safety at their stadia and to enable them to satisfy The FA’s ground grading requirements.

1.5 The conditions of the grant funding from the FSIF include the following requirements in respect of security of tenure: • The Organisation must have security of tenure at the ground for a residual minimum period of at least 10 years from the date of acceptance of the grant conditions. • The lease must be in a form that cannot be terminated by contractual agreement or forfeited except for non-payment of the rent or a breach of covenant and which contains provisions allowing the organisation time to remedy any breach of covenant including non payment of rent.

Page2 12 1.6 Although the minimum secure lease period required for the funding is 10 years, the FIFC have requested a lease period of 25 years. FIFC have been asked to set out the reasons for this request and responded as follows:

“This makes absolute sense as many projects require a long lease of variable length, and it means we will not have to keep coming back to SDC to meet the requirements of a particular project.”

2. Policy Position

2.1 The Council’s agreed Asset Management Plan sets a number of objects for non-operational assets, i.e. those assets not required for the Council’s business. The Asset management Plan was agreed at Cabinet on 12 March 2008 (Decision 07/097 refers). The Asset Management Plan states that all non-operational assets should be: • Able to make the maximum contribution to service revenue budgets in terms of rental income; and/or • Able to make a positive contribution to the social well-being of the community through its use by others such as voluntary groups, charity organisations or small businesses; • Retained for reasons of strategic importance, such as to influence the physical and economic regeneration of the district.

Any decision therefore made to offer a new lease to the FIFC or too renew the existing lease should be made within this context.

3. Considerations

3.1 Before considering the request from FIFC there are a number of factors that need to be taken into account. These are: • The current lease does not include provision for rent review. It is recommended that any agreed longer period should be subject to an upward rent review at regular intervals. This would require a new lease to be granted on new terms. It is recommended that a new rent valuation be obtained prior to entering into a new lease. • The current lease includes only the 1 st and 2 nd floors of the pavilion. The ground floor of the Pavilion is used by the Council as changing facilities. The responsibility for maintenance of the structure of the pavilion is not set out in the lease and therefore rests with the Council. Over a longer period there is an increased risk that structural maintenance works will be required to the Pavilion. In addition the Council’s operational needs for the ground floor space may change. • A new lease would need to be accompanied by a new photographic record of condition and a new schedule of outstanding repairs at the premises. The Council may seek to require the FIFC to both improve and maintain the premises. The current lease only requires the FIFC to maintain the premises to the same condition as at the start of the lease. Page3 13 • At the time of drafting this report FIFC had not been able to provide a draft of their business plan in support of the request to extend the lease. It is not clear that the FIFC would be in a position to meet rent, maintenance and insuring liabilities for the extended period.

3.2 In response to these considerations it is recommended that the FIFC is not offered a new lease. This would mean that FIFC would not be able to secure the proposed funding from the FSIF for the footpath repairs. It is however recommended that the Council offer the FIFC a grant of £7,500 to support the cost of the necessary works. The Council grant will enable the completion of the necessary works without the requirement for a new long- term lease to be granted. The offer of a grant from the Council also creates the potential for further benefits to be negotiated with the FIFC, such as the Council’s logo being included in sign boards during the work and the issue of some free tickets for local youth clubs and good causes. If the proposal for grant funding is approved, officers will seek to negotiate these additional benefits with the FIFC.

3.3 It is further recommended that proposals for a new longer-term lease are considered before the end of the current 5 year period. By this time the FIFC should have completed work on their business plan and their ability to meet the obligations of the current lease will be clearer.

5. Terms of a new lease

4.1 In the event that Cabinet agrees that the FIFC should be offered a new lease at this time, this report recommends the inclusion of the following terms: • Lease period: 11 years (ensuring that the minimum period is available to FIFC) • Rent charge: Based upon a new valuation of the current market rent, with an upward rent review on the 5th anniversary. • Security of Tenure: Excluded from the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. • Tenant Covenants: To keep in improve and keep in good repair and to insure the whole premises. • Pavilion: That the structure of the pavilion is included within the lease and the costs of any necessary structural repairs apportioned between FIFC and the Council. • Business Plan: To present a detailed business plan, indicating viability of business and how activity encourages community engagement and sports development, before the commencement of the lease. • All other terms to remain unchanged.

5. Potential Options

5.1 There are a number of potential options available to the Council as follows: a) Reject the request from FIFC to offer a new lease for a longer period. With this option, the Cabinet could also consider making a small grant of £7,500 to the FIFC to enable the footpath works to

Page4 14 progress. The financial implications of this are set out in the finance officer’s comments at section 7.2 below. b) Agree to offer FIFC a new lease on the terms set out in section 4 above. c) To agree to the request from FIFC to offer a new 25 year lease, either: i. on existing terms, or ii. with the terms set out in section 4 above.

6. Risk Management Issues

6.1 Perceived risks as follows:

Perceived risk Seriousness Likelihood Preventative action The Council does not agree to a new lease and as a consequence the FIFC is It is recommended that unable to Medium Medium FIFC are offered a grant secure grant of £7,500. funding and complete necessary repairs to the footpaths. The FIFC is unable to meet A longer lease is not the liabilities of High High recommended at this the premises stage. over a longer lease period

7. LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS

7.1 Legal Officer’s Comments (AK)

All the main legal issues are set out in the above report. Should the recommendation be to extend the lease and/or offer grant funding then it will be necessary to seek appropriate legal advice.

7.2 Finance Officer’s Comments (JM)

Should the recommendations be agreed, as set out in option a), £7,500 would need to be vired from underspends within the Communities budget to fund the grant.

7.3 Diversities and Equalities Implications (BP)

The proposed footpath improvements would help to improve the access arrangements for people with disabilities to the facilities at FIFC. Page5 15

8. CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the following officer prior to the meeting

Bob Porter (Head of Housing, Land and Property) Telephone: 01303 853333 Email: [email protected]

The following background documents have been relied upon in the preparation of this report:

Appendices: 1. Photographs of current condition of footpaths.

Page6 16 Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank Page 21 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

This report will be made public on 17 February 2015

Report Number C/14/85

To: Cabinet Date: 25 February 2015 Status: Non-Key decision Head of service: Bob Porter, Head of Housing, Land and Property Cabinet Member: Cllr Malcolm Dearden, Cabinet Member for Transport and Traffic Management

SUBJECT: POLICY GUIDANCE ON ASSESSING AND PRIORITISING REQUESTS FOR CONTROLLED PARKING SCHEMES

SUMMARY: The council has previously confirmed its commitment to the introduction of new resident permit parking schemes where these are strongly supported by local residents. The Council receives many requests for the introduction of new resident permit parking schemes from residents across the district. Due to the demand, schemes have to be prioritised as only a few can be introduced annually. In order to ensure requests are considered in a fair and consistent way, a points system has been designed for members to consider and agree.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. To receive and note report C/14/85. 2. That all requests for controlled parking schemes be assessed using the criteria shown in appendix 1 as guidance. 3. That a priority list is drawn based on this assessment and the Cabinet Member for Transport and Traffic Management makes the final decision on which scheme(s) to progress in a financial year. 4. That requests are assessed at the start of the calendar year with a view to progress potential scheme(s) that have been approved in the new financial year. 5. To agree that if an application does not proceed, it can only be considered in the following year if a fresh application is made but no priority on the previous application would be applied.

Page 23 1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The council receives many representations from residents across the district about parking difficulties in their area and request that residents parking schemes be introduced to address the problems. The main issues raised are parking pressures caused by commuters parking on their roads that are near to stations, hazards caused by obstructive parking particularly at junctions, pinch points and narrow roads, and parking pressures caused by shoppers or other short-term users visiting amenities close to their properties.

1.2 Whilst it should be noted that there is no legal right for residents to park on the highway, it is desirable to introduce schemes to protect parking spaces for residents and encourage visitors to make better use of off-street parking facilities which are usually available. Also, such schemes do provide better traffic management as they reduce illegal and disruptive parking. They also improve access for emergency vehicles and help to improve safety for all road users including pedestrians and cyclists through improved visibility.

1.3 The Council has been successful in introducing new schemes to address this growing problem. Recent examples include the residential streets around Folkestone West Station and Chilham Road in Cheriton. These schemes were introduced following representations and strong support from residents in the affected areas.

1.4 Officers have collated all of the recent requests resident parking schemes, submitted by both ward members and residents. There are currently 16 requests to be considered. With the existing resources available for this work, it is estimated that 2-3 schemes could be introduced each year, depending upon their complexity and scale. An agreed approach to prioritising these requests and deciding which schemes should be progressed in each year is therefore needed.

2. ASSESSING REQUESTS AND PRIORITISING POTENTIAL PARKING SCHEMES

2.1 The aim of a controlled parking scheme is to give priority to local residents over commuters and visitors to an area, who should be encouraged to use off-street parking facilities that are widely available. There must be a genuine need for a parking scheme and each scheme must be designed to suit the needs of the community which will determine the hours of operation of the scheme.

2.2 It is proposed that a set of criteria be applied to each of the requested resident schemes and that these criteria be used to assess their relative priority. The set of criteria are set out in appendix 1.

2.3 In addition proposed schemes will need to be technically feasible and affordable within the available budget. The scoring system will be used to determine the extent of the problem, strength of initial support and the level of demand for parking spaces in the areas councillors and residents have

Page 24 reported issues. As illustrated, the more severe issues will gain more points.

2.4 It is proposed that requests are assessed at the start of each calendar year and following this assessment a priority list for that year is produced which will assist the Cabinet Member for Transport and Traffic Management in deciding which scheme(s) are to be progressed in the new financial year.

2.5 If a request fails the assessment it will not be progressed. However, it will be considered the following year if a fresh application is made. No priority on the previous application would be applied.

2.6 Where a request for a parking scheme does not meet the criteria, the Cabinet Member may decide to progress it if: • The scheme is to be introduced as part of a wider traffic management objective. • A parking scheme will be the most effective way to address the concerns raised by residents. • The scheme is necessary to address the potential problems of any future development.

3 PROCESS FOR INTRODUCING A PARKING SCHEME

3.1 A number of steps would then follow once it is agreed to progress a scheme. These would include: • Preliminary design of a possible parking scheme • Informal consultations to gauge the views of stakeholders and as many local residents and businesses as possible • Consideration of diversity and equality implications • Drafting and publication of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) • Statutory consultation for the TRO in the local press • Installation of road markings and signage • Processing of permit applications and issuing of permits

3.2 Where the informal consultation indicates majority support for a scheme, a report recommending that a traffic regulation order be made will be prepared for the Cabinet Member for Transport and Traffic Management to consider and agree. A proposed TRO is then drafted and advertised inviting comments from members of the public. Any objections received will be considered and referred to the Cabinet Member for Traffic Management and Transport who will then make the final decision. Prior to the date of implementation, roads markings and appropriate signage would be installed.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The costs associated with parking schemes fall into 2 main categories: a) Set-up costs including occupancy surveys, consultations, preparation and publication of Traffic Regulation Orders and installation of signing of lining. b) Ongoing permit issue and enforcement costs. Page 25

4.2 These costs will vary depending on the size and complexity of the scheme. Officers will estimate the likely costs of implementation when considering the feasibility of each scheme. There are currently budgets for lining and signing maintenance and advertising which have been used previously to introduce small resident permit schemes. In the event that a larger scheme is included within the proposed programme further budget provision may become necessary and would be dealt with as part of the normal annual budget process.

5. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES

5.1 Risk is as follows:

Perceived risk Seriousness Likelihood Preventative action Thresholds suggested Areas not should not be applied experiencing without discretion and problems but should be used as where there is a guidance. Officers will risk of future liaise with Planning to difficulties as a Medium Medium keep abreast of result of developments in development suggested areas and may be make awarded a low recommendations to priority. the Cabinet Member accordingly.

6. LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS

6.1 Legal Officer’s Comments (AK)

There are no legal issues arising from this report

6.2 Finance Officer’s Comments (LH)

There are no immediate financial implications arising from this report. However, in the event that a large scheme is agreed for inclusion in the future programme then additional budget will be required and would be dealt with through the normal annual budget process.

6.3 Diversities and Equalities Implications (BP)

There are no diversity and equality implications arising directly from this report. The implications of any future scheme will be considered as part of the process.

7. CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the following officer prior to the meeting Page 26

Frederick Miller Telephone: 01303 853207 Email: [email protected]

The following background documents have been relied upon in the preparation of this report:

None

Appendices

Appendix 1: Criteria Sheet Appendix 2: Application Form Appendix 3: Definitions

Page 27 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1

Controlled Parking Zone Criteria Form Site name: Location of proposed CPZ Times of congestion

Inner town centre Outer town centre Town periphery Suburban Rural All Year Seasonal

10 7 5 2 1 10 5

Level of initial Support from residents for Proposal 61-100% 41-60% 0-40% All days Mon - Sat Weekdays Weekends 10 7 5 10 7 5 2

Points of interest (All criteria may apply) Number of streets affected Page 29 Page

Neighbouring Immediate to Transport Hub Employment Wider area Shopping Centre Tourist Attraction streets requestor 10 10 10 7 10 7 5

Cause of parking congestion (All criteria may apply) Parking supply

Severely Restricted-More Adequate- Less Restricted-Over than 30% of than 30% of Commuters Shoppers Visitors Residents 60% of spaces spaces used by spaces used by used by non- non- residents non-residents. 10 10 5 2 10 7 2

Max score 124 A score over 80 requires a scheme design A score between 50 - 80 requires further study A score below 50 requires no action This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 2

Controlled Parking Application Form

Please answer all questions as fully as possible. The answers provided will enable officers to properly assess your application and prioritise for a potential scheme.

Name:

Email Address:

1. Defin e the area incl uding address and postcode . Attach map if possible showing the road(s) affected.

2. Outline the main issues and problems relating to parking .

Page 31 Appendix 2

3. Identify which problems the area has .

Resident vs. commuters Residents vs. Residents

Residents vs. Shoppers and Residents vs. Parking other short-term users restrictions

4. What are the times of congestion?

All Year Seasonal

All days Weekdays

Mon - Sat Weekends

5. What percentage of the spaces would you say is occupied by non - residents during the times of congestion?

Over 60% More than 30% Less than 30%

6. Please answer this question after you have surveyed residents in your area. A signed petition may also be helpful.

Number of households in the proposed area

Number of households that support your proposal

Page 32 Appendix 3

Glossary of Definitions

“Inner town centre” has the meaning of the roads immediately within a very busy and populous town centre with a high density of traffic and high parking demand but with a limited supply. Such areas would normally maintain a significant number of permanent residents, and commercial and financial properties as well as being served by a public transport hub. These areas would usually have some parking restrictions already in place and contain off-street parking facilities. Parking places in such areas would be in high demand even into the evenings and on weekends.

“Outer town centre” has the meaning of the roads immediately surrounding an “Inner town centre” . Such roads will have a high number of residential properties, a significant number of which may be multiple occupancy. The roads may also have parking restrictions in place to prevent parking at junctions, pinch points and there may be some limited parking areas to prevent all day parking, however a large part of the road space will be uncontrolled. There may be a number of bus routes which pass through or immediately next to such areas. Parking demand is high during the day and for a time after the evening rush hour as it is usually driven by commuter parking.

“Town periphery” has the meaning of roads which neighbour roads which would normally comprise part of the “Outer town centre”. Normally separated by a geographical feature or distributor road, these areas generally include transport hubs which serve the “Inner town centre” but are not directly located within it. Such areas may also include service centres such as hospitals, schools, or sports centres. Parking demand is usually moderately high but can be extremely high for sporadic periods during the day and in some cases only so on certain days of the week. Such roads are generally uncontrolled except at junctions. In most cases smaller zones are required to effectively control traffic between the different streets. It should be noted that not all areas can be classed as a town periphery and in some locations the jump between “Outer town centre” and “Suburban” are immediate.

“Suburban” has the meaning of roads which are smaller residential roads served by one or more main distributors. These areas would be mainly residential with one or two small shops to cater for essentials. Such roads usually have no parking restrictions, even at junctions. Roads in this category are usually removed from the pressures of town centre parking, however they may be served by a number of local amenities which mean that parking demand may be severely high for short periods of time during the day. Potentially the number of residential properties may mean that parking demand has exceeded the supply but these areas may not automatically benefit from parking controls, or the noticeable effects of parking controls would be reduced when compared with the above locations because it would be mainly residents that are creating the parking demand.

“Rural” has the meaning of roads which serve smaller communities, usually a small congregation of properties at junctions or short lengths of strip development adjoining the main thoroughfare. These roads are normally quiet with few vehicle movements or parking demands. Normally such roads are unrestricted, or there are some formalised parking places in a village square or outside the main run of shops. Normally there is very little need to introduce parking controls in these areas except to protect junctions or pinch points, or in rare cases time limited waiting to encourage a turnover of vehicles visiting the area. Demand is usually comprised of a small number of residents from the immediate or surrounding areas and visitors who are passing through or visiting a nearby attraction.

Page 33

“Shopping centre” Has the meaning of a large congregation of commercial, financial and services units, usually with attached off-street parking facilities or a number of off-street parking facilities nearby. May be served by a transport hub.

“Transport hub” has the meaning of a main focal point for public transport, such as a bus or railway station or terminal.

“Employment” has the meaning of any collection of properties which provide employment. This includes one or more commercial, financial, service, or industrial units. While usually found mainly in town centres or on industrial or commercial estates they may be located in isolation within suburban or rural areas and provide more localised parking issues.

“Tourist attraction” has the meaning of a landmark which is of interest to the general public; from both in and out of the area it is located. In Shepway they are most likely to be seasonal as the area is very weather dependent; however some attractions such as Romney Sands, the SSSI on Romney Marsh, the waters of Hythe Bay, Sandgate and Folkestone are popular all year round.

Page 34 Agenda Item 7

This Report will be made public on 17 February 2015

Report Number C/14/79

To: Cabinet Date: 25 February 2015 Status: Key Decision Head of Service: Dr Katharine Harvey, Head of Economic Development Cabinet Member: Councillor Susan Carey

SUBJECT: DISCRETIONARY BUSINESS RATE RELIEF (LOCALISM ACT 2011)

SUMMARY: This is a proposed extension of an innovative scheme which will deliver the Economic Development Strategy via locally designated enterprise areas and it will complement other economic development initiatives adopted by the Council.

The financing of this proposed scheme was included in the 2015/16 Budget Strategy Report approved by Cabinet on 5 th November 2014 considered by Council on 19 th February 2015. The £250,000 allocation towards this new Discretionary Business Rate Relief (DBRR) scheme forms part of the overall 2015/16 budget.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out below because this proposed scheme:

a) Contributes towards delivering the Corporate Plan 2013-2018 by meeting the strategic objective to ‘boost the local economy and increase job opportunities’; and b) Supports indigenous business growth and encourages inward investment which will contribute towards an expansion of the local economy.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. To receive and note Report C/14/79. 2. To consider the eligibility criteria proposed for the new Discretionary Business Rate Relief scheme 3. To consider the process proposed for the administration of the new scheme, with decision-making responsibility held by the Cabinet Member for District Economy, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Customer Contact.

Page1 35 1. BACKGROUND:

1.1 From May 2013 to August 2014, the district council delivered an innovative Discretionary Business Rate Relief (DBRR) scheme aimed at stimulating business growth and job creation. Indeed, the district council has been one of very few councils across the country to have such a scheme and no other district in Kent has one. The main findings of this scheme, as set out in Report OS/14/18 were that:

a) It has worked well and helped to stimulate job creation in the district, with 15 businesses supported and 70-plus jobs created, equating to around £3,300 per job to date.

b) It has been very well received by the business community and feedback was positive.

c) It has supported both growth of indigenous business and provided an additional incentive to businesses looking to invest in the district.

d) The scheme would benefit from being more geographically focused, as well as sectorally focused, in order to increase its potential impact on stimulating business growth.

1.2 The Report also set out a number of pointers for any future Discretionary Rate Relief Scheme should the district council agreed to allocate funding to do so:

a) To focus on a small number of geographical areas where the district council is keen to stimulate economic growth.

b) To maintain a sectoral focus , but review the target sectors in light of those prioritised in the Draft Economic Development Strategy 2015-2020.

c) To continue with a percentage rate relief allocation but cap the maximum relief for an individual business.

d) To maximise the benefits of Discretionary Business Rate Relief a similar sized funding pot of £250,000 would be required . However, it was felt that if a number of areas needed to be targeted, then this amount may need to increase.

e) To remove the weighting in favour of businesses that had been in the district for less than 3 years by allowing any business that is growing to be eligible.

f) To maintain the focus on supporting companies that have a strong emphasis on staff development, such as those that take on apprenticeships, offer training, pay a living wage etc.

g) To enhance and streamline the existing process for handling applications, with input from Economic Development, Business Rates and Finance.

Page2 36 1.3 Discussion regarding the scope of a future scheme by the Resource Scrutiny Committee on 08 October 2014 highlighted support for:

a) the Discretionary Business Rate Relief Scheme, and support for doing further schemes in the future; b) more of a geographical focus, including town centres; c) a sectoral focus in order to maximise the impact of the scheme; and d) an emphasis on supporting businesses with a strong staff development ethos.

2. GOING FORWARD (POST MARCH 2015)

2.1 Whilst the above sets out an indicative direction for any potential future scheme, a new scheme also needs to complement other initiatives, such as the Shepway Apprenticeship Scheme which was recently allocated funding for a further three year period and is due to commence in April 2015. This scheme also has a sectoral and geographical focus.

2.2 It is also essential, in view of the district’s poor record of attracting inward investment over recent years, that the new scheme maximises opportunities for encouraging new employers to relocate into Shepway, as well as supporting the growth of existing businesses.

2.3 Sectoral and Geographical Focus

2.3.1 The Draft Shepway Economic Development Strategy 2015-2020 highlights a number of sectors that have the potential to drive forward positive economic change in the district. It is therefore important that the new scheme has a strong focus on these to maximise its impact.

2.3.2 It is proposed that businesses within the following priority sectors identified in the Draft ED Strategy are eligible for the Discretionary Business Rate Relief: • Financial Services (including insurance and pensions) • Creative Industries (including media & IT) • Business and Professional Services (including engineering-related scientific consultancy and R&D) • Transport and Logistics • Energy (including utilities) • Tourism, Culture, Retail and Recreation • Advanced Manufacturing

2.3.3 It is proposed that the geographical focus of the DBRR scheme is on:

• Strategic Employment Sites , specifically Shearway Business Park (Phases 1 and 2); Junction 11 Employment Sites of Lympne Industrial Estate and Link Park; Mountfield Road Industrial Estate. • Town Centres of Folkestone (including the Creative Quarter); Hythe and New Romney.

2.3.4 The focus on the strategic employment sites listed above is in recognition that:

Page3 37

a) These are sites with capacity for expansion and growth, and hence economic growth that will support the aims and objectives of the Shepway 2014-2018 Corporate Plan and the target of 20ha of new employment land. b) The scheme will help to raise the profile of our key employment sites and help to attract inward investment.

2.3.5 The focus on the town centres listed above is in recognition that:

a) There is a requirement to provide geographic focus to maximise the impact of the scheme on business growth. b) This is based on the ‘Priority Centres of Activity Network’ in the adopted Shepway Core Strategy where Folkestone, Hythe and New Romney centres are given the status of ‘Town Centres’ (as opposed to district or local centres) which reflects their role in accommodating the majority of Shepway’s identified needs for retail, office and leisure uses.

2.3.6 Based on the geographical and sector criteria above to target business rate relief, it is proposed that:

a) Businesses that can demonstrate job creation and are in a priority sector (see para. 2.3.2) AND are located in one of the geographical focus areas (see para. 2.3.5) will be eligible for up to 100% business rate relief in a financial year (capped at £40,000).

b) Businesses that can demonstrate job creation and are in one of the priority sectors (see para. 2.3.2) OR located in one of the geographical focus areas highlighted (see para. 2.3.5) will be eligible for up to 50% relief in a financial year (capped at £20,000).

2.3.7 In exceptional circumstances , business rate relief would be available to businesses (capped at £40,000) not in a priority sector or one of the geographical focus areas but can demonstrate substantial job creation .

2.3.8 For eligible businesses, rate relief can be allocated for up to three years, but in line with the current scheme, the percentage relief offered in each subsequent year would be at a successively lower level; the total relief allocated would be capped at the maximum based on the eligibility criteria outlined in para. 2.3.8 above.

2.4 Additional Criteria

2.4.1 As with the previous DBRR scheme it is proposed that a number of additional criteria are also considered as part of the evaluation. Applicants will be required to demonstrate:

i. a commitment towards staff development – including evidence of a commitment to the living wage, investment in training and apprenticeships. ii. company solvency; and iii. how the company would use the business rate relief to deliver further growth. Page4 38

2.4.2 While the previous scheme assigned scores to applicants based on the relative strength of the above criteria, a more simplified approach is proposed for the new scheme. All the above criteria will be required to be adequately evidenced by the applicant and if this is not sufficient then the applicant will be deemed to be ineligible.

2.5 Process

2.5.1 It is proposed that the new scheme will be administered as follows.

a) Applications will first be considered by the Economic Development team in conjunction with the Business Rates team, to ensure that the eligibility criteria are met.

b) Recommendations on the eligibility of applications and the awardable level of business rate relief will be prepared by the Economic Development Team.

c) Final decisions on applications will be taken by the Cabinet Member for District Economy, who will consult with the Cabinet Member for Customer Contact. It is expected that decisions will be made monthly.

2.5.2 Applications for business rates relief can be made at any time (as in the previous one). However, it is proposed that the new scheme will indicate that the maximum time for a decision from the date of application will be 2 months. The decision itself will be conveyed by the Business Rates team. The ED team will maintain relationships with the companies receiving rate relief to ensure appropriate aftercare and to help monitor the impact of the investment.

2.5.3 It is also proposed that we formally monitor the impact of the scheme, by requiring businesses in receipt of the rate relief to complete a questionnaire on the performance of their business annually and for up to three years following commencement of the award. This will allow the Council to monitor the impact of the scheme on firms receiving this financial support.

2.5.4 The promotion of the scheme will be the responsibility of the Economic Development Team who will work closely with the Communications Team.

3. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES

3.1 A summary of perceived risks is as follows:

Perceived risk Seriousness Likelihood Preventative action Take up of any future High Medium Efforts will be made to scheme is lower than promote the scheme hoped for due to using well established change in criteria links with business representative organisations and the SDC Communications Page5 39 Department. Businesses that High Medium It is possible there will successfully apply for be instances where this the scheme do not happens but they will create jobs as be minimized by predicted carrying out site visits and requesting information on the success to date of the business. The scheme is Low Medium Clear evidence of oversubscribed. meeting the criteria will be required to ensure transparency of decision-making.

A review will be undertaken at the end of the scheme which could be used to put forward a case for further investment if appropriate.

4. LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS

Legal Officer’s Comments (AK)

4.1 There are no legal issues arising from this report

Finance Officer’s Comments (TM)

4.2 Proposed growth of £250,000 towards discretionary rate relief to businesses has been included within the Budget Strategy 2015/16, approved by Cabinet on 5th November. It will be funded from earmarked reserves.

Diversities and Equalities Implications (JW)

4.3 There are no equalities and diversities issues arising from this report.

5. CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Dr Katharine Harvey Head of Economic Development Telephone: 01303 853287 Email: [email protected]

Page6 40 Agenda Item 8

This Report will be made public on 17 February 2015

Report Number C/14/78

To: Cabinet Date: 25 February 2015 Status: Key Decision Head of Service: Dr Katharine Harvey, Head of Economic Development Cabinet Member: Councillor Susan Carey

SUBJECT: SHEPWAY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

SUMMARY: The Cabinet considered the Draft Shepway Economic Development Strategy and the accompanying Draft ‘Shepway in Context’ report at the meeting on 17 th December 2014. It was agreed that this should go out for a six week public consultation from 15 th January 2015.

Feedback received during the consultation has now been taken on board in the Draft Final Shepway Economic Development Strategy and evidence base in the Draft Final ‘Shepway in Context’ report, which is recommended for adoption by Cabinet.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS:

For the Cabinet to review and comment on the Draft Final Shepway Economic Development Strategy and the evidence base in the Draft Final Shepway in Context report, and agree to the adoption of the Strategy.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. To receive and note Report C/14/78. 2. To note the Equalities Impact Assessment undertaken on the Draft Shepway Economic Development Strategy 3. To note the changes made to the Draft Shepway Economic Development Strategy and Draft Shepway in Context report following consultation. 4. To agree that any subsequent final amendments are made to the Draft Final Shepway Economic Development Strategy and Draft Final Shepway in Context report by the Head of Economic Development with agreement of the Cabinet Member for District Economy. 5. To agree to the adoption of the Final Shepway Economic Development Strategy for publication on the Council’s website.

Page1 41

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The Shepway Economic Development Strategy provides a light-touch strategic framework that shows how the Council will deliver its ambitions for economic growth and achieve the vision of Shepway being “Prosperous and Ambitious – Working for more jobs and homes in an attractive district”, as set out in the Corporate Plan 2014 – 2018.

1.2 The evidence base that has informed the development of the Strategy is set out in the accompanying ‘Shepway in Context’ report. This will be used to provide important baseline information that will enable Officers to track and monitor key metrics underpinning the Strategy over time.

1.3 The Draft Shepway Economic Development Strategy and Draft ‘Shepway in Context’ report have been considered at the following council meetings where constructive comment and feedback was received. The meetings and dates when these were discussed are:

• Community Overview Committee 8th December 2014 • Cabinet 17 th December 2014 • Resources Scrutiny Committee 14 th January 2015 • Community Overview Committee 19 th January 2015

1.4 The Cabinet agreed on 17 th December 2014 that the Draft Shepway Economic Development Strategy and accompanying evidence base (‘Draft ‘Shepway in Context’ report) should go out for public consultation for a six week public consultation; this commenced 15 th January and ends 20 th February 2015.

1.5 An Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) of the Draft Strategy commenced 1st December 2014 and the initial findings informed the public consultation process.

2. PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROGRAMME

2.1 The public consultation programme for the Draft ED Strategy comprised the following activities:

• Shepway DC Website – the Draft ED Strategy was placed on the website and views were encouraged through two options - through a questionnaire which sought ratings to specific questions and ‘open’ comments and by contacting the Economic Team directly either by telephone or email.

• Distribution - hard copies of the documents were left in libraries and the civic centre, along with details of how to submit responses and views.

• Targeted emails – these were sent to businesses, partner organisations and community and business representative groups to

Page2 42 inform them about the Draft ED Strategy, provide links to the website and details of how to respond.

• Press release/Tweet/etc – a press release was issued at the start of the consultation process and this was tweeted. Attention was also raised in the press release for the Places and Policies consultation.

• Interview - Cllr Carey and the Head of Economic Development were interviewed by Academy FM for an article about the Draft Strategy.

• Meetings – the ED team has attended various meetings with presentations made on the Draft ED Strategy or awareness has been raised, including: Shepway Business Advisory Board; Shepway Welfare and Employment Board; BNI Hythe Chapter; Folkestone Town Team, East Kent Regeneration Board Officers Group.

• Parish and Town Councils – all were emailed to inform about the Draft Strategy and an offer was made to attend meetings and for a presentation to be given. The following meetings were attended:

Hythe Town Council 27 th January 2015 Cllr Alan Smith (Mayor) and Judith McCormick (Clerk) Dymchurch Parish Council 2nd February 2015 Cllrs Roger Wilkins, Russell Tillson, Terry Mallard, Jackie Tyler, Ian Meyers, Tom Gibbs, Gill Smith (Clerk); Folkestone Town Council 4th February 2015 Cllr Emily Arnold, James Avery, Jim Sterrell, Adrian Lockwood, David Taylor, Viv Kenny, John Barber, Elaine Gowan, Daniel Guiseppe, Dean Kirkpatrick, Lisa Young, Kate McCloughlin, Ray Johnson, Chris Raines St Mary in the Marsh 5th February 2015 Cllrs Graham Allison, Graham Comber, Pam Millen, Andrew Sinden, Terry Wilson, Mike Wilson; Russell Tillson, Gill Smith (Clerk) North Downs Town and 6th February 2015 Cllrs John Heasman, Ann Parish Councils cluster Day, Robert Hubble, Colin Tearle, George Hodgson, Richard Chubb Sandgate Parish Council 10 th February 2015 Cllrs Robert Bliss, Margery Hindlay-Stone, Nina Bliss, Jan Holben, Richard Grundy, Tim Prater, Leo Griggs, Michael Fitch, Tom Heselden, Amanda Oates (Clerk), Gay Thomas (Assistant)

Page3 43

3. SUMMARY OF CONSULATION RESPONSES

3.1 At the time of writing this report the following responses have been received. There will be an oral update given to the Cabinet on any additional comments received during the remainder of the consultation period which ends Friday 20th February.

Online Questionnaire responses

3.2 There have been 10 responses to the Draft Strategy online questionnaire online and a summary of these are in Appendix A.

Equalities Monitoring responses

3.3 We have received 1 response to the Equalities Monitoring survey. Unfortunately it was not possible to directly link the completion of this to the Draft Strategy questionnaire, due to a request to maintain confidentiality.

Summary of Feedback from Meetings

3.4 The main points from discussions at the meetings during consultation suggest that the following should be considered for either inclusion in the final Strategy or as part of the future work programme. a) Capitalising on the nuclear power station. b) Developing Further Education provision for all ages. c) Considering light industry and leisure opportunities. d) Attracting major new employers to the district. e) Examining more innovative ways of exploiting our economic strengths. f) Creating more job opportunities for graduates. g) Recognising the value and role of a range of jobs opportunities across the skills spectrum. h) Considering the transport infrastructure and public transport implications around key development sites. i) Recognising the distinctiveness of Hythe and Sandgate from Folkestone. j) Embracing the potential for tourism development in the Romney Marsh area and particularly consider accommodation quality and the weeklong tourism offer and potential for sports tourism. k) Considering how to achieve a trickle effect from growth focused on Folkestone to the Romney Marsh area. l) Instigating a proactive marketing campaign in London to attract residents and businesses to the district.

3.5 Specific comments made on the Draft Shepway in Context report included: a) Proof reading to ensure consistent language and consistent age group cohorts are adopted. b) Include forecasts of the working age population.

3.6 Changes made to the Draft Final Shepway Economic Development in response to the above comments are shown in Appendix B.

Page4 44 4. EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 In line with the council's equality duties, a stage 1 EIA screening document was completed by the Head of Economic Development to identify if there any positive or negative impacts from this policy on different groups with protected characteristics. This is shown in Appendix C.

4.2 The consultation was structured to give individuals and organisations the opportunity to identify any equality issues that need to be addressed by the council. This included providing background information in the form of the Draft Shepway in Context report. No issues relating specifically to equality or protected groups was raised through the consultation. Therefore, is no need, therefore, to complete a stage 2 EIA

5. Risk Management Issues

5.1 Perceived risks are as follows:

Perceived risk Seriousness Likelihood Preventative action The Council does not adopt an Economic Development Strategy for the district and Adopt the draft final therefore cannot take strategy, subject to advantage of High Low consultation and opportunity to grow the scrutiny. Shepway Economy and support the generation of new local employment. Ensure that the Resources required to allocation of resources deliver the actions set to the actions set out in out in the draft final High Medium the strategy is regularly strategy are not reviewed and progress available. against the action plan reported to members.

6. LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS

Legal Officer’s Comments (AK)

6.1 In order to deliver the aims and objectives of the Economic Strategy it will be necessary in some instances to seek the assistance of the Legal Department.

Finance Officer’s Comments (TM)

6.2 The Strategy sets out a wide range of areas which will have a potential financial effect on the district. These will be assessed as they arise and any resource implications will need to be agreed at the stage they are presented. Page5 45

7.0 CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the following officer prior to the meeting.

Dr Katharine Harvey Head of Economic Development Email: [email protected]

Appendices: Following the end of consultation on the 20 th February 2015 any updates to the following reports will be circulated to members of Cabinet before 25 th February 2015: 1. Final Shepway Economic Development Strategy 2. Final Shepway in Context Report

Page6 46 Appendix A – Online Questionnaire Responses

Questions Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1. Do you agree with our ambition to boost the local economy 3 7 0 0 and increase job opportunities in Shepway? 2. Do you think that the opportunities and challenges we 1 8 1 0 identify in our draft strategy are the right ones to focus on? Comments where disagree: • Need to encourage more retail focused initiatives and make the town a stronger shopping destination and promote that offer. 3. Do you agree with the four priorities in our draft strategy? 4 5 1 0 Comments where disagree: • It's a shame that you have lumped Hythe in with Folkestone and then ignored it as I think it has such a distinctive character that it should be considered separately - particularly in terms of its tourism potential. Having said that, I think Folkestone's character and history is undersold too. Both towns and the Marsh would benefit from a joined up marketing campaign emphasing all the benefits of visiting the area. There was a wonderful atmosphere in Folkestone during the Triennial. Improving public transport would help hugely including boosting the evening economy .For example buses that linked the town centres to stations and tied into the train timetable, more buses in the evenings and why no buses to the Shearway business park? There are a surprising number of small entreprenerial businesses in the area - marketing , IT etc . You could do a lot more to promote the area as a good and relatively cheap place to live and work but we need more offices suitable for his type of business - say ,20 employees. A more detailed study of exactly what type of businesses we have here (and why they are here) would be a good start. I'm not convinced that there will ever be the demand for more commercial outlets in Folkestone and think you are focusing your energies in the wrong direction. Rather than trying to look like every other town centre we should be looking for our own USP/reason for people to come here. How about a full size ice skating rink? 4. Do you think that t he actions we have identified to drive forward 0 8 2 0 the economy over the next five years are the right ones? Disagree comments: • No comment made 5. Do you think that the economic indicators we have chosen and 1 5 4 0 the targets we have set to assess the impact are the right ones? Comments where disagree: • Very concerned about the relatively low increase in number of jobs given the number of new homes planned for the area but the indicators chosen are of the right type. Good that you have included a target for affordable homes. • Although we support the selection of as few KPIs as possible to retain focus on the key issues, solely measuring the number of Apprenticeships is too narrow. The increase of Level 4 attainment is a critical measure for increasing economic activity, and driving higher value business and occupations. The Council should also consider other key indicators, such as the number of NEETs. • Respondent referred to response to Q1 (see above) but interpretation of this probably means that more ‘retail- related’ indicators should be adopted 6. Do you have any other comments or suggestions about our draft strategy? • What on earth does the "wrong kind" of employment mean in section 1? • There is a high level of focus for Folkestone, however not so much on development / regeneration for Romney as well as Hythe. • Carry on with the good work and keep the members of the Shepway Business advisory Board up to date with progress on this most important strategy • Geographic areas are equally as important as District boundaries. Consider this when making policies as they may be duplicated across boundaries. • The above strategies would apply to every town on the south coast needing to boost a failing economy. You need to find a way to emphasize what is different about Folkestone to other seaside towns. Adverts on St Pancras Station would be a start and better information at Folkestone Central Station once people arrive. The one way system is a nightmare for first time visitors by car as my visitors never fail to tell me. • Include Hythe

Page7 47 Appendix B – Editorial changes to the Draft Economic Development Strategy Note: new text

Para 2.3 o Jobs - there has been growth in the numbers of jobs, but arguably the wrong kind these have been generally lower paid, lower skilled jobs Para 2.5 Romney Marsh • The economy is primarily rural, with the energy , agriculture and tourism sectors playing an important role. While there is a need to diversify the economy in the future and to attract higher value jobs, these sectors do offer opportunities for a range of skill levels in the area . and there are a large number of unqualified / poor qualified and low skilled jobs. Para 3.2 o Enhance our towns and coast - Shepway’s towns and coast are major economic drivers for the district, important for attracting visitors to the area and inward investment. We need to continue to invest heavily in these in the future. We recognise that the tourism sector offers real opportunities for growth in many of our towns and coastal area and we will consider how better to capture economic growth opportunities, including continuing to enhance the attractiveness of our areas. Para 3.4 • At tract new businesses - Shepway is a net exporter of residents in higher level occupations with 1,160 workers leaving the district daily. These higher skilled residents are a potential attraction for inward investment - a pool of highly qualified labour for higher value businesses. We want to attract new major employers, particularly those in higher value industries, in order to increase job opportunities for local residents and attract those with higher level skills to Shepway Para 3.6 • Identify and bring forward appropriate sites for commercial development - assessment indicates that employment land allocations are in the wrong locations to meet current business demand in the sectors we have identified with growth potential. There are also only limited development sites presently available in the right location. We therefore need to explore opportunities for identifying new employment sites in and around our three M20 junctions. We also need to consider Folkestone town centre which has no sites available to meet the current demand from larger floorspace users and no suitable existing buildings for conversion. We will also explore the potential of relocating the council’s offices in Folkestone town centre thereby releasing land to intensify the commercial opportunities to capitalise on connections with HS1. We recognise that current infrastructure constraints for all new sites need to be considered as part of our work to bring forward these sites. Para 3.7 • The skills and qualifications profile of Shepway’s working age population is poor in comparison to other districts and the regional and national averages. The proportions of working age residents with no or low qualification (NVQ1 or below) is notably higher and the proportion with degree level (NVQ4+) qualifications is the lowest amongst the comparator areas. We also recognise that education opportunities for older people outside the workforce is also important for their quality of life. Measuring our impact Indicator Data Frequency 2015 Baseline 2020 target source of update Improving education and skills attainment • Decrease in the number of KCC Monthly 177 (6.1% Mar Decrease by 33% NEETs in the district 2014) (118)

Page8 48 Appendix C – Equalities Impact Assessment

Equality Impact Assessment Service: Economic Development Accountable Officer: Katharine Harvey, Head of Economic Development Telephone & e-mail: 07920 703618 [email protected] Date of assessment: 16 December 2014 Names & job titles of people carrying out the assessment: Katharine Harvey, Head of Economic Development

Name of service/function/policy etc: Shepway Economic Development Strategy Is this new or existing? New

Stage 1: Screening Stage 1. Briefly describe it’s aims & objectives This strategy sets out our ambitions for economic growth in Shepway 2015 -2020. It sets out how we will deliver the Shepway District Council, Corporate Plan 2013-2018 vision of Shepway being “Prosperous and Ambitious – Working for more jobs and homes in and attractive district” and the key priority to “Boost the local economy and increase job opportunities” To achieve this the strategy focuses on Shepway’s key economic assets to increase the opportunities for residents and business, particularly focusing on those things that will have the greatest transformational impact. The strategy will achieve this by addressing four priorities: • Building on our current and emerging economic strengths. • Boosting productivity and supporting business growth. • Promoting further investment by maximising the value of our assets and stimulating confidence. • Improving education and skills attainment.

2. Are there external considerations? (legislation/government directive etc.) The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on the Council to promote Equality of Opportunity, Good Relations and Eliminate Unlawful Discrimination.

Economic Development is fundamentally designed to promote equality of opportunity and diversity to ensure that all groups are able to contribute and benefit from economic growth. However, it is possible that the outcomes of the Strategy will affect sections of the community in different ways. For example, by placing emphasis on attracting higher value employment to the district this will potentially create proportionately more new job opportunities for residents in higher skilled occupations than for residents with lower skills and fewer qualifications. However, there are many sectors we have been identified with particular growth opportunities for Shepway that would provide a range of job types across the skills spectrum. One of our four priorities is to ‘Improve skills and educational attainment’; the aim of this is to help ensure that residents have the training opportunities to be able to access new job opportunities, including the more highly skilled jobs, and that our higher skills base will also attract new businesses/employers to the district.

3. Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests? Implementation of the strategy will involve working with partners to achieve the priorities by tak ing forward the key projects identified in the action plan, to help lobby government bodies, to provide support local businesses and to deliver the redevelopment of key employment sites.

4. What outcomes do we want to achieve and for whom? The aim of the strategy is to maximise our economic assets and opportunities for creating a better standard of living for all the residents of Shepway District. Page9 49

5. Has any consultation/research been carried out? Research – research to provide the underpinning evidence base upon which the strategy has been developed was undertaken by BBP Regeneration. This evidence is set out in a report ‘Shepway in Context’ which accompanies the strategy. Consultation - there will be a six week public consultation between 12 th January to 20th February 2015. This will involve: • Shepway DC Website – the Draft ED Strategy will be placed on website and views will be encouraged through providing two options to respond - through a series of questions or through an ‘open’ response. • Targeted emails alerts to the public consultation – some business and community groups will be specifically contacted to encourage their response to the draft ED Strategy by direct emails with links to the website. • Press release – the local press will be alerted to the public consultation through a press release which will give a flavour of its content and how to access it and provide a response. • SDC Officer presentation on the Draft ED Strategy to specific groups/meeting to encourage feedback – all parish councils will be contacted and offered this opportunity as well as relevant business groupings and other key stakeholders.

6. Are there any concerns at this stage which indicate the possibility of inequalities/negative impacts? Ultimately the strategy is for the benefit of everyone who lives in Shepway, works l ocally and owns or runs a local business. The priorities of the strategy ensure that all these groups will benefit in some way from the actions. The impact of the strategy will be monitored annually and a set of indicators with targets to 2020 have been identified. These include: increase in the number of jobs by 1%; increase in the number of jobs in the ‘knowledge economy’ by 2%; increase in GVA per head by 10%; increase in the number of business start-ups by 10%; increase in the 3 year business survival rate by 10 percentage points to 62%; increase in commercial floorspace (use classes A1 – B1, D1-D2) completed annually by 5% year on year; increase in the provision of allocated and committed land for commercial (office/industrial) land for development by 10 ha to 70.27 ha; 350-400 new houses built annually with 30% affordable; increase in the number of all apprenticeships in the district by 15% (+138).

All the delivery projects that fall out of the action plan will be individually assessed for Equality Impact. The sectors identified with opportunities for economic growth and the key employment sites identified for development in the strategy are spread across the district, therefore any potential negative equality impacts that might arise from growth in certain areas of the district will be mitigated

7. Could a particular protected characteristic be affected differently in either a negative or positive way? Type of impact, reason & any evidence

Disability Positive – economic growth could ultimately result in more opportunities for paid employment for this group Race (including Gypsy & Positive – economic growth could ultimately result in more opportunities for Traveller) paid employment for this group Age Positive – economic growth could ultimately result in more opportunities for paid employment for all age groups Gender Positive – economic growth could ultimately result in more opportunities for paid employment for all genders Transgender Positive – economic growth could ultimately result in more opportunities for paid employment for this group

Page10 50 Sexual Orientation Positive – economic growth could ultimately result in more opportunities for paid employment for this group Religion/Belief Positive – economic growth could ultimately result in more opportunities for paid employment for any person whatever religion and belief Pregnancy & Maternity Positive – economic growth could ultimately result in more opportunities for paid employment Marriage/ Civil Positive – economic growth could ultimately result in more opportunities for Partnership Status paid employment of whatever the status

8. Could other socio-economic groups be affected Ultimately the strategy is for the benefit of everyone who lives in Shepway, works l ocally and owns or runs a local business. The priorities of the strategy ensure that all these groups will benefit in some way from the actions.

9. Are there any human rights implications? No

10. Is there an opportunity to promote equality and/or good community relations? Yes

11. If you have indicated a negative impact for any group is that impact legal? N/A

12. Is any part of this policy/service to be carried out wholly or partly by contractors? No

Please note that normally you should proceed to a Stage 2: Full Equality Impact Assessment Report if you have identified actual, or the potential to cause, adverse impact or discrimination against different groups in the community. (Refer to Quick Guidance Notes at front of template document)

13. Is a Stage 2: Full Equality Impact Assessment Report required? No

14. Date by which Stage 2 is to be completed and actions N/A

Please complete We are satisfied that an initial screening has been carried out and a full impact assessment is not required.

Completed by: Katharine Harvey Date: 11 th February 2015

Role: Head of Economic Development

Page11 51 This page is intentionally left blank

SHEPWAY ECONOMIC Page 53 Page DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY 2015-20 DRAFT FINAL

1. Introduction

1.1. This strategy sets out our ambitions for economic growth in Shepway over the next five years. It shows how we will deliver the Council’s Corporate Plan 1 vision of Shepway being “Prosperous and Ambitious – Working for more jobs and homes in an attractive district”.

1.2. Our key priority is to “Boost the local economy and increase job opportunities” through the development of a sustainable and vibrant local economy. To achieve this we will focus on Shepway’s key economic assets to increase the opportunities for residents and business alike – focusing on those things with the greatest transformational impact.

1.3. We will work with partners to implement key projects, lobby government bodies, support local businesses and deliver the redevelopment of key local sites.

1.1. To achieve our ambitions we will focus on four priorities: • Building on our current and emerging economic strengths.

Page 54 Page • Boosting productivity and supporting business growth. • Promoting further investment by maximising the value of our assets and stimulating confidence. • Improving education and skills attainment. 1.4. We need to be bold if we are to maximise our assets and create opportunities for creating a better standard of living for our residents. Economic development is inherently competitive and we need to take positive action. There is no “stand still” option, only a decline if we are not proactive. 2. Our Opportunities & Challenges

2.1. We have many outstanding economic assets which make Shepway a desirable place to live and work right at the heart of the key UK-Europe corridor. The Channel Tunnel at Folkestone, and our three junctions from the M20 motorway ensure Shepway is highly connected, with easy access to and from UK and European markets. We have outstandingly beautiful countryside and villages, the ancient Cinque Port Borough of Hythe, and the vibrant coastal town of Folkestone where significant private and public investment in the Old Town has created a unique Creative Quarter. And of course our two high-speed rail connections provide direct access between Folkestone and London in as little as 53 minutes. We need to build upon these economic assets to secure future economic growth

1 Shepway District Council, Corporate Plan 2013-2018 1

2.2. Despite the recent recession there are some positive signs in the local economy. An analysis of recent socio economic trends shows that: o The population is growing – between 2001 and 2011 Shepway’s population, particularly those in the working age group, grew more quickly than most comparator 2 areas. o The working age population constitutes a higher proportion of Shepway’s population than in most comparator areas, and this offers an advantage in terms of the productive potential of residents. o The number of jobs has increased by 24% between 2000 and 2012 – faster than in all the comparator areas except Ashford which saw a similar growth rate. o Full time earnings in the workplace are increasing. o The unemployment rate has fallen recently. o Jobs are forecast to grow more quickly than the South East average to 2031.

2.3. Nevertheless, with a challenging economic environment there is no room for complacency. We need a clear and realistic plan to rise to these challenges over the next five years. o Jobs - there has been growth in the numbers of jobs, but these have been generally low value jobs. o High value jobs - there is a deficit of opportunities and workers in the knowledge economy. o Economic activity and employment rates - these are relatively low in Shepway. Page 55 Page o Worklessness - people claiming Job Seekers Allowance is higher than in the comparator areas and South East average. o Residents’ full time earnings – are lower than the South East and national averages. o Workplace earnings - are noticeably lower than the South East and national averages and also lower than average earnings for Shepway’s residents o Productivity (as measured by GVA per job) - has been running increasingly behind the SE over the last 12 years and this pattern is projected to continue to 2031 3.

2.4. Our district is varied and so therefore are our opportunities and challenges. We have three distinct economic “sub areas” - Folkestone and Hythe, Romney Marsh and the North Downs.

2 Comparator areas are Ashford, Rother, Adur, Lewes districts, South East region and England 3 East of England Forecasting Model (2013) 2

2.5. Each of these areas has its own distinct spatial characteristics and different strengths to celebrate, weaknesses to address, and opportunities to drive its Page 56 Page economic performance.

Folkestone and Hythe

• A population of around 65,000 people and is the main focus of economic activity in the district. • Excellent connectivity with two HS1 railway stations , three M20 junctions, the Channel Tunnel, and the UK’s largest and busiest sea Port as little as 20 minutes away. • Contains the two main retail centres in the district - Folkestone and Hythe, and several business and commercial estates . • Strong business representation in the financi al, insurance and business services sector s, an existing internationally renowned tourism reputation, and growing creative and media sectors. • Focus for the majority of the district’s recent and future housing growths – around 6,000 new homes are expected up to 2026 . • Low unemployment rates overall but small pockets of high unemployment in East and Central Folkestone. • Low wage levels. • Low levels of educational attainment, but opportu nities to capitalise on new investment by East Kent College and the pe rformance of Folkestone’s two grammar schools

Romney Marsh

3

• A population of around 20,000 people which forms part of a wider economic area (the Romney Marsh Partnership) spanning rural Ashford and eastern Rother. The area looks as much towards Ashford (north) and Rother (west) as it does towards Folkestone and Hythe, as reflected in shopping, travel to study and commuting patterns. • The economy is primarily rural, with the energy, agriculture and tourism sectors playing an important role. While there is a need to diversify the economy in the future and to attract higher value jobs, these sectors do offer opportunities for a range of skill levels in the area. • Jobs have declined significantly since 2008 and the number of businesses has remained static since 2011. • The Dungeness nuclear site is in this area; site A is forecast to see a sharp decline in jobs as it decommissions, but the EDF’s B station is expected to receive a lifetime extension until 2028 and so presents future opportunities around nuclear energy. • Unemployment levels are low largely due to an older and economically inactive population. • Housing growth of some 800 is expected up to 2026. • Lydd Airport is set to bring major economic development opportunities in the future, following Shepway District Council’s granting of planning permission for a new terminal building and for the extension of the runway. This could act as the catalyst for attracting new support and other service based businesses to this area. • There has been significant public intervention in this area over recent years for sea defences, education and training and for nuclear decommissioning. The challenge is to capitalise on this to attract private investment. • Internationally important natural and cultural heritage, which is both an opportunity and a constraint. North Downs

• This area is to the north of the M20 and is heavily influenced by the Canterbury economy. It includes settlements such as Hawkinge, Sellindge, Lyminge, Page 57 Page Elham and Densole. • A population of 23,000 is highly dispersed with no significant settlements. The “focal point” for growth is at Hawkinge with its ready access to the M20. • The economy is largely based around a wealth of natural assets – tourism and leisure, forestry and agriculture and some local services. • The area is characterised by the high quality of the natural landscape, its vibrant and diverse villages, and a variety of recreational activities in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. • Poor connectivity in some places with some mobile telephony ‘not-spots’. • Unemployment is low and earning levels are generally higher. • Potential for around 1,200 new homes up to 2026 and there is demand for high quality executive housing in key villages.

2.6. To achieve economic growth we need to encourage appropriate development through supportive planning policies, building on our opportunities and positive recent economic trends, as well as continuing to address our challenges through decisive action.

3. Our Priorities

3.1. We will achieve our ambitions through addressing the following four priorities:

4

Building on our economic strengths 3.2. We need to build on our existing assets and emerging economic strengths if we want to grow our economy in the future. To do this we need to: o Promote key sectors - there are a number of sectors which are well represented in the district where we have particular advantage for potential growth. These include: - Financial Services (including insurance and pensions) - Creative Industries (including media and IT) - Business and Professional Services (including engineering-related scientific consultancy and R&D) - Transport and Logistics - Energy - Tourism, Culture, Retail and Recreation - Advanced Manufacturing

In addition, there are also a number of ”support” services across the district - retail, health and social services, public administration; education, as well as the “enabling” sector – construction. All of these will grow as a result of demographic change and growth in the future and will be supported.

Although the agriculture sector has relatively low job numbers, it is a significant land use in much of the district. With major issues around food security Page 58 Page and changing technology, this could present some interesting opportunities in the future.

o Enhance our towns and coast - Shepway’s towns and coast are major economic drivers for the district, important for attracting visitors to the area and inward investment. We need to continue to invest heavily in these in the future. We recognise that the tourism sector offers real opportunities for growth in many of our towns and coastal area and we will consider how better to capture economic growth opportunities, including continuing to enhance the attractiveness of our areas. Boosting productivity & supporting business growth 3.3. Shepway’s economy is dominated by Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) with around 85% of businesses micro-sized (0-9 employees). This predominance of small businesses helps to create diversity and economic resilience, but to generate substantial numbers of new jobs we need to continue to encourage new businesses to start-up and support existing businesses to grow.

3.4. Our key activities will be to: o Encourage more business start-ups and improve survival rates - Shepway has low business density 4, but new businesses account for a higher proportion of Shepway’s business stock than in all comparator areas. Business survival rates are poor with the 3 year and 4 year survival rates of

4 As measured by number of active enterprises per 1,000 working age population 5

businesses lower than for of all comparator areas. Encouraging new business start ups, particularly in higher value sectors, and supporting their survival and growth is important for stimulating economic growth and increasing productivity.

o Support businesses to grow – encouraging access to finance, supporting innovation, and helping them to expand into new markets, including overseas, will help to grow the local economy and create higher value jobs.

o Attract new businesses - Shepway is a net exporter of residents in higher level occupations with 1,160 workers leaving the district daily. These higher skilled residents are a potential attraction for inward investment - a pool of highly qualified labour for higher value businesses. We want to attract new major employers, particularly those in higher value industries, in order to increase job opportunities for local residents and attract those with higher level skills to Shepway

o Providing infrastructure - good electronic communication is very important to high value technology businesses, particularly in the creative and digital sectors. It is therefore important to provide good access to high-speed broadband to encourage further growth and to tackle telephony ‘not spots’. Promoting further investment 3.5. Shepway has many assets upon which to build and to attract further investment. We need to capitalise on these to attract new businesses that will bring job opportunities to the district and create confidence so that the private sector continues to invest in Shepway in the future.

3.6. To achieve this we will: Page 59 Page o Identify and bring forward appropriate sites for commercial development - assessment indicates that employment land allocations are in the wrong locations to meet current business demand in the sectors we have identified with growth potential. There are also only limited development sites presently available in the right location. We therefore need to explore opportunities for identifying new employment sites in and around our three M20 junctions. We also need to consider Folkestone town centre which has no sites available to meet the current demand from larger floorspace users and no suitable existing buildings for conversion. We will also explore the potential of relocating the council’s offices in Folkestone town centre thereby releasing land to intensify the commercial opportunities to capitalise on connections with HS1. We recognise that current infrastructure constraints for all new sites need to be considered as part of our work to bring forward these sites. o Encourage development of commercial premises - while there are a number of small, serviced accommodation schemes and some specialist / niche accommodation for the creative/cultural sector available, occupancy levels are high and there is unsatisfied demand across many sectors. Many commercial buildings that are available are too old and of poor quality to meet occupier needs. We will consider how to bring forward new schemes, including for mixed uses, to meet existing business needs, attract new employers to the district and meet housing needs. o Maximise the impact of SDC’s assets / resources – Shepway District Council (SDC) has both property and financial assets that we can use to stimulate both investor confidence and bring forward specific schemes. We will be using Oportunitas – its regeneration and housing company - to deliver schemes to maximise the impact of all SDC’s assets. These will also help to meet business needs by providing housing across a spectrum value ranges including affordable homes.

6

o Public sector financial resources - many of the commercial sites in Shepway are not commercially viable investment propositions for the private sector in the current market. Rental values are generally low across all sectors (office, industrial, retailing) and while this could in the short term attract occupiers, they are well below the levels required to sustain any new or speculative development. To bring forward development sites therefore requires public sector intervention. We will identify public sector resources to bring forward development opportunities and consider mixed use schemes to improve the financial viability. Improving education & skills attainment 3.7. The skills and qualifications profile of Shepway’s working age population is poor in comparison to other districts and the regional and national averages. The proportions of working age residents with no or low qualification (NVQ1 or below) is notably higher and the proportion with degree level (NVQ4+) qualifications is the lowest amongst the comparator areas. We also recognise that education opportunities for older people outside the workforce is also important for their quality of life.

3.8. We will address this by: o Building on Shepway District Council’s Apprenticeship Scheme - this scheme will continue in the future and the opportunities promoted to local business. o Working with education and training providers to meet employers’ needs – it is important to understand the skills needs of local businesses so that

Page 60 Page they can grow and for training provision to be aligned so that residents can access jobs locally. o Supporting East Kent College – to improve and align their offer to meet the needs of business, particularly the key sectors with growth potential, and support their plans to redevelop the Shorncliffe Road campus. o Establish closer links with Hadlow College - with the development of a new campus on the western edge of Shepway in the adjacent Ashford district we will explore opportunities for our agricultural and horticultural sector to benefit by establishing closer links.

7

4. Our Action Plan – Driving the economy forward

4.1. For each of our priorities we have identified specific actions that we will be taking forward over the next five years.

Priorities Commencement Lead and Partners Timescale Building on our Economic Strengths Taking forward key sectors • Identify businesses in our key sectors in Shepway. • Q4 2014/15 Economic Development Team, Locate in Kent • Establish a programme of engagement to understand their business needs and • Q12015/16 (LiK) opportunities to support their growth and how to strengthen the district’s sector offer to attract inward investment in key sectors. • Formulate an action programme to target business opportunities and the • Q2 2015/16 marketing of Shepway to potential inward investors. Enhancing our towns and coast • Build on the conclusions from the Town Centre Retail Study. • Q1 2015/16 Economic Development Team , Planning, Kent • Liaise with Folkestone town centre businesses to identify current issues, growth • Q1 2015/16 County Council (KCC) Highways, town councils, Page 61 Page prospects, wider issues and ambitions. town teams, LiK • Consider how to improve connectivity in Folkestone between the town and • Q2 2015/16 seafront, including through the Coastal Park HLF project. • • Consider development options for larger footprint retail stores in Folkestone Q2 2015/16 through undertaking targeted market testing to identify potential users;

investigate site/building refurbishment options; consider the feasibility and viability of each; prioritise preferred option. • Take forward proposals for Central Folkestone by undertaking a review of • Q3 2015/16 market demand for leisure, eating and drinking facilities; identifying scale and type of potential uses; commission feasibility study for scheme options; review alternatives for bus facilities; confirm viability; work up development plan (delivery partner, funding etc) and formulate an Action Plan. • Q4 2014/15 • Explore the potential for more commercial sites in and around the key locations

in Folkestone, including the SDC offices site and Shorncliffe Road. • Engage with existing businesses and carry out a review to identify current issues, • Q4 2014/15 growth prospects, wider ambitions for other towns in the district to identify specific interventions to enhance vibrancy, address vacant premises, and explore potential development sites. • Consider how to bring empty properties in towns into use by carrying out a • Q1 2015/16 8

Priorities Commencement Lead and Partners Timescale detailed review of streets most affected; identify scale / nature of vacant floorspace; identify alternative / viable uses; identify key issues in securing wholesale changes in these areas; draw up an Action Plan for an initial Pilot

scheme. • Explore the role of residential uses into the town centres – review potential • Q1 2015/16 development sites / refurbishment options; test market demand and develop Action Plan. • Consider how to maximise the economic benefits of the coast, including the • Q4 2014/15 potential for more chalets and beach huts, more sea sports and facilities to encourage the full enjoyment of the asset.

Boosting productivity & supporting business growth

Encouraging more business start-ups and improving survival rates • Work with East Kent partners to identify the most cost effective way s of • Q4 2014/15 Economic Development Team , East Kent districts providing start-up and business support to Shepway businesses (TDC, ABC, CCC, DDC), KCC Page 62 Page Supporting businesses to grow • Secure funds to provide business support • Q4 2014/15 Economic Development Team , East Kent districts • Review SDC’s Discretionary Rates Relief scheme and secure funding. • Q3 2014/15 (TDC, ABC, CCC, DDC), KCC, CofC, Romney Marsh • Work with KCC to explore the potential for developing a Growth Hub in Shepway • Q3 2014/15 Partnership, FSB, town and parish councils, High that will signpost and make available information about more specialist advisory Growth Kent, Manufacturing Advisory Service, and support services to business. Growth Accelerator, UKTI, Technology Strategy • Consider applying for EU Structural Funds to support the growth of the district, • Q4 2014/15 Board, BOSCO, Kent Downs and Marshes Local including the LEADER Programme (subject to approval and renewal at the start of 2015). Action Group (LAG), East Kent LAG. • Establish a general programme of engagement to identify the key issues around • Q4 2014/15 business retention, growth, workforce etc. • Consider how to provide further financial and other support for businesses in • Q3 2014/15 the district. • Actively promote and support existing revolving loan and equity schemes to • Q3 2014/15 small businesses in the area including Expansion East Kent and Marsh Million. • Establish awareness and promote locally the availability of other reliefs to • Q1 2015/16 businesses e.g. Unoccupied New Structures, temporary relief (up to £1000) for certain occupied retail properties. • Review the likely parameters for a targeted, locally designated Enterprise Area • Q2 2015/16 9

Priorities Commencement Lead and Partners Timescale (EA) , including potential sites, the incentives which could be offered and the costs and benefits flowing from such an initiative. • • Consider the pros and cons of developing a pilot project, with a focus on either Q3 2015/16 one of the key priority sites or on the prospective Enterprise Area pilot.

Attracting new businesses • Develop and promote a strong brand for the district, while drawing on the • Q2 2015/16 Economic Development Teams , Comm unication s qualities and distinctiveness of the three economic sub areas, and prepare and IT, LiK, KCC, Romney Marsh Partnership material for promoting Shepway to key sectors. • Prepare a promotion and marketing campaign to help strengthen perceptions of • Q3 2015/16 the district as a pro-business pro-growth place in which to live. • Develop and set up a bespoke business “micro-site” to give investors and local • Q3 2014/15 businesses key information about the district, its offer / workforce and relevant business / property opportunities. Providing infrastructure to support business growth • Identifying areas of poor physical connectivity, and exploring funding sources to • Q3 201 5/1 6 Economic Development Team , Planning, KCC

Page 63 Page improve vehicular, pedestrian and public transport connections. • Roll out Superfast Broadband from the Civic Centre beyond direct ‘line of sight’ • Q3 2014/15 business parks to target other employment areas and businesses. • • Roll-out a Wi-Fi pilot scheme and consider additional schemes in specific, Q4 2014/15 targeted locations in partnership with town and parish councils.

• Consider how to improve mobile phone coverage in areas with poor / no mobile • phone coverage where this is affecting businesses and work with service Q1 2015/16 providers to identify possible solutions.

10

Promoting Further Investment

Identifying and bringing forward appropriate sites for commercial development • Identify gaps in commercial site offer, identify key issues and draw up options. • Completed Economic Development Team , Planning, Locate in • Consider how to maximise commercial opportunities arising near the • Q3 2014/15 Kent, Developers, Landowners connectivity nodes in the district. • • Provide evidence for Strategic and Locally Significant employment site Q3 2014/15 allocations put forward in the Places and Policies Local Plan. • • Take forward the strategic and locally significant commercial sites and working Q3 2014/15 proactively with landowners and developers to agree Action Plans to progress key sites. • • Commission master planning and a feasibility study to assess the employment Q3 2014/15 potential at M20 J11 working with landowners and KCC to shape proposals for a lorry park. • Q1 2015/16 • • Prepare delivery and marketing plans for all Strategic and Locally Significant sites Q2 2015/16 • Bring forward key sites to the market and to promote opportunities nationally • and internationally. Q2 2015/16 • Q3 2014/15 • Actions for SDC and all landowners / developers agreed. Page 64 Page • Work with Locate in Kent to ensure the district’s land and property offer addresses demand and competes effectively. • Q3 2014/15 • Continue to offer a supportive and flexible planning service to landowners / developers who want to explore the commercial development potential for sites • and premises within the district. Q3 2014/15 • Offer free pre-application advice to provide an early dialogue on development potential and any likely conditions; and permit the Phasing of Pre-Start Conditions to minimise delays. Encourage development of commercial premises • Identify gaps in accommodation offer. • Q3 2014/15 Economic Development Team, Private sector • Identify how to improve the quality of commercial workspace available, • Q4 2014/15 including incubation, flexible entry and move-on space. Identify public sector financial resources • Identify sites requiring public sector intervention to bring forward. • Q3 2014/15 Economic Development Team • Pursue public sector funding opportunities to bring sites forward and encourage • Q3 2014/15 joint “case making” by adopting a shared approach to risk and reward. • Identify and pursue where funding from partners or other sources could • Q3 2014/15 contribute to delivery. 11

Maximising the impact of SDC’s assets / resources • Review SDC’s assets, examine the potential value to be created, and prepare • Q3 2014/15 Economic Development Team investment cases as appropriate to stimulate confidence, bring about regeneration and foster growth. • • Deliver over 300 new homes through the Housing revenue Account (HRA) New Q3 2014/15 Build Programme, drawing on the expertise of our local business base and

supplier frameworks wherever possible. • Use SDC’s Regeneration and Housing Company, Oportunitas, to deliver • Q3 2014/15 development and provide more homes.

Improving Education and Skills Attainment

Building on Shepway Council’s Apprenticeship Scheme • Secure funding and roll out the Shepway Apprenticeship Scheme. • Q3 2014/15 HR, E conomic Development Team , KCC, East Kent • Hold discussions with other potential providers to ensure that the initiatives are College, private sector training providers, complementary and well-coordinated. • Q3 2014/15 Shepway Business Advisory Board, JCP, local businesses, Romney Marsh Partnership

Work with education and training provider to meet employers needs • • Page 65 Page Identify the skills needs of the main employers, key sectors and general Q1 2015/16 Economic Development Team, KCC, East Kent businesses in Shepway through the business engagement programme. College, Hadlow College, private sector training • Consider how career opportunities within the key sectors can be promoted • Q2 2015/16 providers, Shepway Business Advisory Board, across the district. local businesses, Romney Marsh Partnership • Identify specific initiatives to provide “easy access” to learning opportunities • Q3 2015/16 across all communities e.g. drop-in shops on High Streets. • Keep under review, the potential to introduce an HE provider into the district (possibly through a multi-provider facility) and explore discussions with • Q3 2014/15 potential providers over the next 12 months. Support East Kent College • Develop a particular focus between EKC, its emerging courses and the key • Q1 2015/16 Economic Development Team , East Kent College sectors in the district, particularly around the enterprise agenda. • Support East Kent College to take forward its proposals to develop the • Q3 2014/15 Shorncliffe Road Campus. • Explore the opportunities to provide access to appropriate HE (Higher • Q1 2015/16 Education) courses through East Kent College (or other providers) via relationships with nearby universities etc. Establish closer links with Hadlow College

12

• Particularly consider the opportunities to work with Hadlow College – to • Q1 2015/16 Economic Development Team, Hadlow College promote courses, R&D (Research and Development) opportunities and wider activities – specifically in relation to the agri-tech and horticulture sectors. • Consider the potential to involve a European University in any such initiative. • Q1 2015/16

Page 66 Page

13

5. Measuring our impact

5.1. There are a number of metrics that will be used to measure the impact of this strategy over the next five years to 2019. These metrics align with the outcomes set out in the Corporate Plan and they draw upon the socio-economic baseline in the “Shepway in Context” report, which provides the evidence base for this Strategy. We will aim to achieve the following by 2019.

Indicator Data source Frequency of 2015 Baseline 2020 target update Building on our economic strengths • Increase the number of jobs BRES - Total Annual 37,315 (2013) Increase by 1% (+ 373 Employment jobs) • Increase the number of jobs in ‘knowledge economy’ BRES – KCC definition Annual 4,850 (2013) Increase by 2% (+ 98 sectors jobs) Boosting productivity and supporting business growth • Increase GVA per head ONS/KCC Annual £16,275 (2012) Increase by 10% to £17,902 (2012 prices) • Increase the number of business start ups ONS Business Annual 530 (2012) Increase by 10% (+53) Page 67 Page Demography • Increase the 3 year business survival rate ONS Business Annual 52% (2009 starts Increase by 10pp to 62% Demography survived in 2012) Promoting further investment • Increase in commercial floorspace (use classes A1 – B1, KCC Commercial Annual 7,901 sq m (2013/14) Increase by 5% year on D1-D2) completed annually Information Audit year • Increase in the provision of allocated and committed land KCC Commercial Annual 60.27 ha (2013/14) Increase by 10 ha to for commercial (office/industrial) land for development. Information Audit 70.27 ha • Number of new houses completed with 30% being DCLG Housing Annual 90 total; 30 affordable 350-400 new houses affordable Statistics, Live Tables (2013/14) built annually with 30% affordable Improving education and skills attainment • Increase in the number of all apprenticeships in the district UK Gov/FE data Annual 920 (2013/14 prov) Increase by 15% (+138) • Decrease in the number of NEETs in the district KCC Monthly 177 (6.1% Mar 2014) Decrease by 33% (118)

14

This page is intentionally left blank

SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT: A SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND PROPERTY ANALYSIS

February 2015 Page 69 CONTENTS

CONTENTS...... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 2. SOCIO ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ...... 3 3. THE SHEPWAY SPATIAL CONTEXT ...... 24 4. THE PROPERTY MARKET CONTEXT ...... 27 Annex A – Key sectors

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 1 Page 70 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This report sets out the main challenges and opportunities facing the District of Shepway at the current time. This provides the evidence base for the Shepway Economic Strategy 2015 to 2020 which sets out a range of activities and actions to address the issues and take forward economic growth opportunities in the District. 1.2 It is important to understand the characteristics of the local economy and the recent economic trends, in order to establish policy objectives and identify activities to address the issues. The strategic priorities set out in the Economic Development Strategy are based on the detailed analysis of the Shepway economy presented in this report. 1.3 The focus of the report is on the following key aspects of Shepway economy: • Social and economic composition; • Spatial characteristics of sub areas across the District; and the • Property market, particularly how this relates to our key commercial / employment sectors

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 2 Page 71 2. SOCIO ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE

2.1 This section draws upon a wide range of key baseline information for Shepway District to examine economic performance over recent years. This includes publically available data such as the 2011 Census of Population (which provides a robust and comprehensive baseline), sample-based surveys such as the Annual Population Survey and other data sources including economic projections from the East of England Forecasting Model. 2.2 The analysis compares the performance of Shepway with a number of other areas which are either close neighbours or competitor areas with similar characteristics. In terms of close neighbours, Ashford has been chosen; this is both an adjoining borough and one of Shepway’s most likely competitors for inward investment. Rother District in East Sussex has also been selected. This is also an adjoining district which has close economic links to the western part of Shepway and is also part of the Romney Marsh Partnership area. 2.3 The districts of Lewes in East Sussex and Adur in West Sussex have been chosen as comparator areas. Both are south east coastal districts with a similar mix of urban and rural activities to Shepway. They also both have a mixture of good quality and more challenging residential and commercial areas, and have good, historic communication and commuting links to London. These areas therefore offer residents a variety of locally based employment opportunities and higher value options in London, similar to Shepway. 2.4 Finally, Shepway is also compared to the wider Kent and Medway area (the relevant federated area of the South East LEP), the South East region and England, in order to consider performance from a wider geographic perspective. Key Findings

• Total population growth and working age population growth has been greater in Shepway than in all comparator areas, except Ashford between 2001 and 2011. • Population projections suggest that Shepway will see relatively low population growth up to 2037, with the working age population expected to remain fairly static. • The skills and qualifications profile of Shepway’s working age population is poor in comparison to comparator areas, having the lowest percentage of residents qualified to NVQ level 4 (degree level). • Shepway has relatively low economic activity and employment rates. • Wage levels are relatively low for both residents and workers in Shepway, being significantly lower than the South East and England averages. • Shepway is a net exporter of workers and this is particularly for those in higher level occupation groups. • The largest employment sectors in Shepway are Health & Social Care and Retail & Wholesale Trade. • Shepway has outperformed its comparator areas in terms of job growth over the longer term from 2000 to 2013. But in the more recent period since 2009, employment has decreased substantially. • The Shepway economy is dynamic with new businesses representing an above average share of business stock in 2012. • Business survival rates are relatively poor – the four-year survival rate was under 47% in 2012 compared to 52% across the South East region.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 3 Page 72 • Employment is projected to increase by 5.4% between 2015 and 2020, which is above the 4.5% projected for the South East. However, growth in GVA productivity is projected to be below the rate for the South East, which is a reflection of the low representation of Knowledge Economy jobs in Shepway at present. Key Statistics

2.5 The figure below provides a summary of the key socio-economic indicators for Shepway and compares these to the South East region and England averages. Figure 2.1: Key Statistics for Shepway

Indicators Shepway’s Source Date Comparison Comparison Position with the with the Percentage South East England average average Working Age Population (all 72.2% Census 2011 72.7% 73.3% usual residents aged 16-74) Population Growth 12.2% Census 2001- 7.9% 7.9% 11 Working Age (all usual 15.4% Census 2001- 8.8% 9.4% residents aged 16-74) 11 Population Growth Employment Rate (percentage 59.7% Census 2011 65.3% 62.1% of working age residents 16-74 in employment) Self-employment Rate 17.4% Census 2011 16.6% 15.1% (percentage of all usual residents 16-74 in self- employment) Work at, or mainly from, home 3.5% Census 2011 4.5% 3.5% (as a % of residents aged 16- 74) Economically Active (as a % of 67.2% Census 2011 72.1% 69.9% residents aged 16-74) Economically Inactive (as a % 32.8% Census 2011 27.9% 30.1% of residents aged 16-74) Claimant Count rate (as a % of 3.7% ONS/ DWP 2011 2.5% 3.6% residents aged 16-64) Qualifications to NVQ4+ (as a 26.8% APS 2013 38.3% 35.0% % of residents aged 16-74) Qualifications to NVQ1 or 21.2% APS 2013 18.3% 21.3% below (as a % of residents aged 16-74) Business start-ups as a % of 14.4% ONS Business 2012 10.8% 11.6% stock Demography 3 year survival rate among 55.7% ONS Business 2008 61.4% 57.9% businesses set up in 2008 Demography birth

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 4 Page 73 Context

2.6 Shepway is a south eastern coastal district in the County of Kent. The district shares boundaries with Dover to the east and north, with Ashford to the north and west and Rother in East Sussex County to the south and west. Figure 2.1: Map of Shepway

Source: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights (2014). Licence number 100030994. Socio-economic Profile

2.7 According to the latest Census of Population, there were 107,969 residents in Shepway in 2011. The district is a significantly rural area, with a population density of three persons per hectare. Most of the population lives in the coastal towns of Folkestone and Hythe. 2.8 In terms of deprivation, Shepway is the second most deprived area in Kent, ranking 89 out of 326 local authority districts 1. 2.9 In 2011 the working age population (residents aged 16-64 years) of 66,345 accounted for 61% of the total population. This is slightly lower than in the South East and England in general, but higher than in the other comparator areas. This means that in terms of the productive potential of residents, Shepway is at a slight advantage compared to other districts.

1 Taken from the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010 at local authority district level. It puts the 326 LAD into a rank order based on the population weighted average rank of all LSOAs in the LAD. A rank of 1 is the most deprived.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 5 Page 74 Figure 2.2: Percentage of the resident population who are of working age (aged 16-64 years)

66% 64.8% 63.8% 64% 62.3% 61.4% 62% 60.7% 59.9% 60%

58%

56% 55.9%

54%

52%

50% England South East Adur Ashford Lewes Rother Shepway

Source: Census, 2011

2.10 Between 2001 and 2011 the resident population of Shepway increased by 12.2%. This is lower than the population growth in Ashford over the same period, but notably higher than in the other comparator areas (see Figure 2.3). Shepway also saw a 14.1% increase in working age residents (aged 16 to 64 years) which is similar to Ashford, but more than in the other comparator areas. Figure 2.3: Percentage change in population 2001-2011

16% 14.9% 14.2% 14% 14.1%

12% 12.2%

10% 9.2% 8.7% 8.1% 8.0% 7.9% 8% 7.9% 6.0% 6% 5.8% 4.9% 4% 2.6% 2%

0% England South East Adur Ashford Lewes Rother Shepway

Working age population (16 -64) Total Residents

Source: Census 2001 and 2011

2.11 Shepway has an older age profile (see Figure 2.4) with a higher proportion of residents in the working age group from 45 years to retirement (28%), compared to Kent & Medway (26%) at large,

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 6 Page 75 while there is low representation of residents in younger working age groups - 34% are aged 16 to 44 years, compared to 37% and 38% in Kent & Medway and the South East respectively. Figure 2.4: Age profile of All Usual Residents at the time of the last Census (source: Census 2011)

Shepway Kent and Medway South East region No . % No . % No . % All usual residents 107,969 100% 1,727,665 100% 8,634,750 100% Age 0-15 19,209 18% 336,968 20% 1,642,084 19% Age 16-24 11,483 11% 199,344 12% 969,055 11% Age 25-44 25,123 23% 438,085 25% 2,289,335 27% Age 45-64 29,739 28% 453,957 26% 2,252,256 26% Age 65-74 11,593 11% 158,169 9% 763,695 9% Age >74 10,822 10% 141,142 8% 718,325 total Mean Age 42 n/a 40 Median Age 43 n/a 40

Source: Census 2011

Population Projections

2.12 The most recent population projections for local authority districts shows that while in the five years to 2020 total population is projected to increase by 3% in Shepway, which is below the England (+3.6%) and South East (+3.9%) and well below the rates for the comparator area (see Figure 2.5). While this trend is generally also expected for the period up to 2037 with Shepway having a relatively low increase (+10.3%) compared to the other areas, it will nevertheless be above the national average rate England (+9.9%).

Figure 2.5 Total Population Projections 2015-20 and 2020-2037

16% 14.1% 14.3% 14% 13.3% 11.2% 12% 11.0% 10.3% 10% 9.9% 8% 5.4% 6% 4.9% 3.6% 3.9% 3.6% 4% 3.5% 3.0% 2% 0% England South East Adur Ashford Lewes Rother Shepway

2015 -20 2020 -37

Source: ONS 2012-based Sub national Population Projections

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 7 Page 76 2.13 Population projections for the working age group shows that this is projected to remain static in Shepway over both the 2015-20 and 2020-37 periods which contrasts with higher growth nationally, regionally and in comparator areas. Figure 2.6 Working age (15-64) 2 Population Projections 2015-20 and 2020-2037

6% 5.4% 4.6% 3.7% 3.4% 4% 3.4% 3.1% 2.5% 1.3% 1.4% 2% 1.6% 0.0% 0% 0.0% -0.1%

-2% -0.4% England South East Adur Ashford Lewes Rother Shepway

2015 -20 2020 -37

Source: ONS 2012-based Sub national Population Projections

Economic Activity

2.14 The 2011 Census indicated that 48,639 Shepway residents were in employment, which was equivalent to 70% of all those aged 16-64. The percentage of residents (aged 16 to 64) who are economically inactive is around 20% 2.15 Over recent years there have been some fairly significant fluctuations in the rate but currently the average for Kent & Medway is slightly higher and the South East regional rate is slightly lower (see Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7: Economically inactive residents (16-64)

30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0

Shepway Kent and Medway SELEP South East

2 Sub national Population Projections only available for working age 15 to 64 years

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 8 Page 77 Source: APS

Worklessness

2.16 There are two main sources of data on residents out of work – those claiming J ob Seekers Allowance (JSA Claimant) and those classified as being unemployed. JSA claimant count s are the unemployed that have been on the register less than 6 months and are eligible for this type of benefit. Broader unemployment statistics include those that have been out of work for a longer period. 2.17 Figure 2.8 shows that the latest JSA claimant count rate 3 in Shepway is 3.7% which is higher than the local comparator areas and the South East (2.5%) and England (3.6%) averages.

Figure 2.8: JSA Claimant Count Rate

Source: ONS/DWP Claimant data,

2.18 The wider unemployment rate measure for Shepway is 4.9% 4 which is lower than the rate for Kent and Medway (6.6%) and the wider South East region (5.2%) . This suggests that while short term unemployment, as reflected in the JSA claimant rate , is fairly high in Shepway , longer term unemployment is relatively low. It should be noted, however, th at the unemployment data at district level is subject to sampling errors and therefore needs to be treated with some caution. 2.19 Looking at unemployment rate trends sinc e 2005, Figure 2.9 shows that there have been considerable fluctuations for Shepway over the period .

3 Calculated as a percentage of the 2013 mid year resident population estimate aged 16 to 64 years 4 Annual Population Survey July 2013-June 2014

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 9 Page 78 Figure 2.9: Unemployment rate aged 16-64

14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 % unemployed % 2.0 0.0

Shepway Kent and Medway SELEP South East

Source: APS

Qualification/Skills Profile

2.20 The qualifications profile of working age residents (Figure 2.10) in Shepway indicate that the percentage with no or low qualification (NVQ1 or no qualifications) is 21% 5 which is the same as rate for Kent and Medway (21%) and England (21%). However, this is considerably higher than for the South East (18%) and in relation to the comparator areas the position is mixed; Ashford has a similar percentage to Shepway, Rother and Lewes and Adur lower.

Figure 2.10: Qualifications of the resident working age population (16-64)

50% 38% 35%

40% 33% 32% 26% 27% 24% 30% 23% 22% 22% 21% 21% 18% 20% 18% 10% 0% England South East Adur Ashford Lewes Rother Shepway

NVQ4+ NVQ1 or below

Source: APS Jan - Dec 2013

2.21 At the other end of the qualification spectrum, Shepway has considerably fewer residents with the highest qualification levels at NVQ 4 and above. Only 26.8% have at least an NVQ 4 (degree) qualification and this is considerably lower than the Kent & Medway (32.0%) and England average

5 Annual Population Survey Jan – Dec 2013

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 10 Page 79 (35.0%). However, in relation to the comparator districts it is only lower in Adur (24.3%) and is on a par with Ashford (26.3%) 2.22 Looking at trends over time, the percentage of residents with no or low (NVQ1) qualifications has fallen considerably since 2004 in Shepway by 16 percentage points (Figure 2.11). This is considerably more than in all the comparator districts except Adur which saw a similar reduction. 2.23 In terms of the residents qualified NVQ level 4 there has been some increase since 2004 in Shepway, with a 4.4 percentage point improvement, but this has not been as great as the improvement in Kent & Medway (+9.0 pp), the South East (+9.1 pp) or nationally for England (+9.2 pp).

Figure 2.11: Change in qualifications of the resident working age population 2004-2013

20% 9.2% 10% 9.1% 4.8% 4.4% 0% -10% -0.9% -2.7% -2.8% -3.4% -5.1% -20% -6.3% -7.7% -8.4%

-30% -16.0% -16.0% England South East Adur Ashford Lewes Rother Shepway 3. NVQ4+ NVQ1 or below

Source: APS Jan - Dec 2004, 2013

2.24 While Shepway has seen considerable improvement in resident's qualification levels since 2004 and the gap between Shepway and the wider Kent & Medway, South East and national profile has been closing at the lower end of the skills profile, this has not been the case for the higher level qualifications which has widened.

Apprenticeships

2.25 Statistics on the total number of apprenticeships undertaken by residents in Shepway are available for 2012/13 and 2013/14 and Figure 2.12 below shows the numbers in for Shepway and the comparator districts.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 11 Page 80 Figure 2.12: Total Apprenticeship Programme Starts

1400 1160 1200 1040 1000 920 760 800 690 560 600 510 520 540 400 400

200

0 Shepway Ashford Adur Lewes Rother

2012/13 2013/14 (prov)

Source: SFA/BIS FE Data Service

2.26 Shepway had the second highest number of apprenticeship starts in 2012/13 to Ashford with 1,040 over the course of the year. In the last year, however, the provisional figures suggest that Shepway has had more starts than all other areas.

Earnings and Housing Affordability

2.27 Average earnings for Shepway residents (who don’t necessarily work in the district) and the Shepway workforce (who don’t necessarily live in the district) are below the South East and England averages. They are comparable, however, to average earnings in the comparator districts. 2.28 There is a significant differential between the average earnings of residents and workers in Shepway, with the latter being higher. This reflects the high levels of out-commuting from the District for those in higher status occupation groups who are likely to be travelling to generally better paid jobs than those available in the District. This reflects the relative importance of jobs outside the district, such as in nearby Ashford and Maidstone and in London. 2.29 This difference is a common feature across the comparator districts, with the exception of Adur (Figure 2.13). However, people who live in the district (and both work in Shepway and elsewhere) earn on average £42.10 per week more than those who work in the district.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 12 Page 81 Figure 2.13: Median Gross Weekly Pay (2013)

Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings

Note: ASHE data does not include those who are self employed

2.30 The average price of a house in Shepway in 2012-2013 was £205,858; this was lower than in all comparison districts and to the England average (Figure 2.14). Figure 2.14 : Average House Price (Q2 2012 - Q2 2013)

Note: Data not available for the South East Source: CLG

2.31 Comparing house prices to earnings shows that housing in Sh epway is relatively affordable (Figure 2.15). The ratio of median house price to median earnings ratio in Shepway is lower than for the comparator districts , but it is higher than the national average. In line with most of the comparator districts except Rother, housing has become more affordable in Shepway since 2010. However, this is counter to the trend for Kent County and to in London. Figure 2.15: Ratio of median house price to median earnings by district

2013 2010 2005 2000 Shepway DC 7.25 7.63 7.90 4.51 Ashford BC 7.38 7.96 7.67 5.42 Lewes DC 9.01 9.18 8.70 5.02 Rother DC 11.52 10.59 10.64 6.46

Adur DC 9.64 9.95 7.46 4.55

Medway 6.22 5.69 6.24 3.66 Kent County 7.75 7.66 7.91 4.84 Inner London 10.41 9.57 7.95 n/a Outer London 9.10 8.52 8.41 n/a England 6.72 7.01 6.81 4.21

Source: DCLG – Table 577

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 13 Page 82 Commuting

2.32 The Census of Population provides information on district level commuting flows, although the data needs to be treated with some caution 6: 2.33 The 2011 Census indicates that some 23,600 people both lived and worked in Shepway, which was 61% of the total residents in employment in the district. An additional 11,000 people commuted into the district to work and 15,000 residents commuted out to work elsewhere. Overall (see Figure 2.16) Shepway is therefore a net exporter of labour, with some 4,000 more people travelling to work outside the district that travelling in to work. 2.34 The percentage of residents in employment working in the district (as well as living) was considerably lower in 2011 than in 2001 when it was 70%. At that time Shepway was also a net exporter of labour with around 4,200 more people commuting out of the district to work than commuting in - similar in absolute terms to the net outflow in 2011. 2.35 The principal district that people commuted into Shepway to work from in 2011 was Dover (which accounts for 42% of in-commuters) which was similar to the situation in 2001 when 43% of in- commuters came from Dover. 2.36 For the Shepway residents commuting out of the district to work, the destination for the highest percentage of out-commuter was Ashford (32% of out-commuters) in 2011, followed by Dover (18% of out-commuters) and Canterbury (13% of out-commuters). Only 12% of out-commuters travelled to the London boroughs to work, which represented only around 5% of the working residents in Shepway. Figure 2.16: Location of usual residence and place of work

Source: ONS Census 2011

2.37 This was very similar to the pattern in 2001 when most out-commuters travelled to work in Ashford (34% of out commuters), Dover (22% of out commuters) and Canterbury (12% of out commuters). The percentage travelling to London boroughs was also similar at 11%.

6 These figures do not include those that work at or mainly from home or individuals with no fixed place of work and are also subject to disclosure suppression where confidentiality issues apply.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 14 Page 83 Occupations

2.38 The occupation profile of Shepway residents in 2011 shows that three occupation groups are the most significant - Professional, Associated Professionals and Technical and Skilled Trades (Figure 2.17). These three groups together account for one third of Shepway residents in employment. Figure 2.17: Occupational profile of the resident and workplace based populations

Workplace Resident Balance Workplace Resident population population % % 1. Managers, directors and senior officials 4,500 5,290 - 790 10% 11% 2. Professional occupations 5,240 6,400 - 1,160 12% 13% 3. Associate professional and technical 6,000 6,200 - 200 14% 13% occupations 4. Administrative and secretarial 4,720 5,120 - 400 11% 11% occupations 5. Skilled trades occupations 5,720 6,150 - 420 13% 13% 6. Caring, leisure and other service 5,460 5,710 - 250 12% 12% occupations 7. Sales and customer service occupations 4,630 4,680 - 50 10% 10% 8. Process plant and machine operatives 2,770 3,340 - 570 6% 7% 9. Elementary occupations 5,210 5,390 - 180 12% 11%

Note: Numbers rounded to nearest 10. Source: ONS Census, 2011

2.39 Comparison of the occupational profile of Shepway residents with that for the districts workforce shows that almost half (48%) of the net outflow of commuters from Shepway are accounted for by the top two professional occupational groups - Managers, directors & senior officials and Professionals. 2.40 This, together with differences in the profiles, indicates that out- commuters are generally residents in the higher occupational groups, while those coming into the district are generally coming to jobs in lower occupation groups, such as to elementary occupations and associate professional and technical occupations. Business and Enterprise

2.41 The most recent data on the number of enterprises in Shepway indicates that there were 3,690 in 2012 and most (68%) had fewer than four employees (Figure 2.18). 2.42 The size distribution of businesses in Shepway in 2012 was very similar to elsewhere; it had a slightly higher incidence of larger businesses (as compared to Rother and Ashford), but Shepway’s profile was similar to the national and regional profiles. Figure 2.18: Proportion of active Businesses by size (number of employees) 0-4 5-49 50 -99 100 -249 250+ England 68.6% 28.1% 1.9% 1.0% 0.4% South East 70.6% 26.3% 1.7% 0.9% 0.4% Adur 70.7% 26.4% 1.8% 0.7% 0.4% Ashford 71.5% 26.1% 1.4% 0.8% 0.2% Lewes 70.5% 27.3% 1.4% 0.6% 0.2% Rother 74.8% 23.3% 1.4% 0.5% 0.0% Shepway 68.0% 29.0% 1.6% 1.0% 0.4%

Source: ONS IDBR

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 15 Page 84 2.43 There were 530 ‘births’ of new enterprises in 2012 and Shepway had the second highest count of new enterprises among the comparator districts in that year. As Figure 2.19 shows, new businesses accounted for 14% of Shepway’s business stock; this was higher than the other districts and also higher than both the South East (11%) and England (12%) averages.

Figure 2.19: Business Demography 2012

Number of Active Enterprises Count of births of new Business Start Ups as a % of enterprises Business stock Adur 2,275 220 10% Ashford 5,340 565 11% Lewes 4,110 375 9% Rother 3,870 340 9% Shepway 3,690 530 14%

Source: ONS Business Demography 2012

Business Survival

2.44 Despite the encouraging level of new start-ups, business survival rates are low. Both the 3 year and 4 year business survival rates were lower at 55.7% and 47% respectively, than in the comparator districts and in comparison with the South East and England averages. This suggests strongly that more needs to be done to support small, early stage, enterprises in Shepway.

Figure 2.20: Survival of newly born enterprises (2008 birth)

2012 1 year survival 2 year survival 3 year survival 4 year survival England 92.1 % 73.9 % 57.9 % 48.8 % South East 93.2 % 76.6 % 61.4 % 52.1 % Adur 97.6 % 78.6 % 61.9 % 57.1 % Ashford 93.8 % 72.7 % 57.0 % 48.4 % Lewes 92.8 % 75.9 % 59.0 % 51.8 % Rother 95.7 % 78.3 % 62.3 % 49.3 % Shepway 93.7 % 73.4 % 55.7 % 46.8 %

Source: ONS Business Demography Note: A business is deemed to have survived if having been a birth in that year or having survived to that year; plus it is active in terms of employment and/or turnover in any part of the year following.

Business Density

2.45 Business density can be used as a proxy to indicate the level of competition in the economy (Figure 2.21). Shepway has around 46 active enterprises per 1,000 of the working age population, which is lower than the South East (60), England (52) and for the comparator districts.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 16 Page 85 Figure 2.21: Business Density (2011)

Source: ONS Business Demography, Census 2011 Note: Business Demography data from 2011 has been used here to be directly comparable to the 2011 Census working age population Employment

2.46 Due to changes in the sources of employment data, two data sets have been used to examine employment change . ONS data enables longer term trends to be examined as it spans a longer time period, where as the Business Register and Employment Survey (BRES) which is only available from 2009 to 2013, enable more detailed analysis of sector trends. Both sources have been used for the analysis.

Employment Trends

2.47 Over the longer term, total employment , which includes both employees and the self -employed, has increased substantial ly in Shepway between 2000 and 2012, with around 9,000 jobs created which represents 24% growth (Figure 2.22). Of the comparators areas , only Ashford has seen a similar rate of job growth (25. 5%) over this period, while Adur (+14.3%) and Rother (+6.7%) had substantially lower growth and Lewes ( -4.8%) saw a decrease in jobs.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 17 Page 86 Figure 2.22: Total Employment Trends 2000 to 2012

Source: ONS Job Density

2.48 Over the more recent period from 2009 to 2013, employment trends in Shepway have not been so positive and total employment has decreased by 2.8% (Figure 2.23). While both Adur and Lewes suffered even greater total employment losses over this period, Ashford did not fare so badly with a 1% decrease . This contrasts with Rother, wh ere there was growth of 1.2%, and at the Kent & Medway, South east and England level s there was also job growth over this period.

Figure 2.23: Percentage change in total employment 2009 -2013

3.0% 2.1% 2.0% 2.0% 1.2% 1.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%

-1.0% -1.0% -2.0%

-3.0% -2.8% -4.0% -3.4% -4.0% -5.0% Shepway Ashford Adur Lewes Rother Kent & South South England Medway East LEP East

Source: BRES 2009, 2013

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 18 Page 87 Employment Sectors

2.49 The sector composition of employment in Shepway is shown in Figure 2.24 below for sectors with at least 1,000 jobs in the district. Data for these sectors is also shown for the Kent and Medway, the South East and England. Figure 2.24: Percentage of total employment by sectors 1,000+ jobs in Shepway District in 2013

Shepway Kent & South East England Medway Region Manufacturing 4% 7% 6% 8%

Construction 6% 7% 5% 4%

Retail & Wholesale Trade 15% 19% 17% 16%

Transportation & Storage 6% 5% 4% 4%

Accommodation & Food Services 8% 7% 7% 7%

Financial & Insurance 5% 3% 3% 4%

Professional, Scientific & Technical Activities 4% 5% 8% 8%

Administrative & Support Services 11% 9% 8% 8%

Public Administration & Defence 8% 4% 3% 4%

Education 9% 11% 10% 9%

Health & Social Care 13% 13% 12% 13%

Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 3% 2% 3% 2%

Source: BRES

2.50 Retail & Wholesale Trade is the largest employment sector in Shepway in 2013, providing 15% all jobs. However, in comparison to the wider areas, this sector is not as important in Shepway as elsewhere, with the sector accounting for a higher share of jobs in all of the wider geographic areas. 2.51 The three public-orientated sectors - Health & Social Care, Education and Public Administration & Defence, together account for 30% of jobs in Shepway which is more than in Kent & Medway (28%), in South East (25%) and nationally (26%). This highlights the need to diversify the Shepway economy away from this reliance on the public sector and encourage more private sector employment growth. 2.52 Other sectors which are relatively more important in the Shepway economy are Transportation & Storage, Financial & Insurance and Administrative & Support Services

Knowledge Economy

2.53 Knowledge economy 7 jobs are those that deal extensively with the processing, exchange and communication of information and knowledge and are likely to contribute a higher level of “value added” to the economy. These are often seen as being key drivers for economic growth.

7 KCC SIC 2007 definition of Knowledge Economy includes SIC 18,58,60-62,64-66,69-70,72,74,82,91, 262,263,591,631,639,711,712,731,732,854

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 19 Page 88 2.54 Figure 2.25 below shows that Shepway has the lowest percentage of knowledge economy jobs amongst all the comparator districts and substantially fewer than in the wider geographic areas. This is related to the relatively low wage levels in Shepway compare to the other areas and highlights the importance of encouraging higher value employers to the district in the future. Figure 2.25: Percentage of total employment in Knowledge Economy jobs in 2013

25.0%

19.5% 20.0% 18.1% 16.4% 14.6% 14.9% 13.5% 13.7% 15.0% 12.8% 13.1%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0% Shepway Ashford Adur Lewes Rother Kent & South South England Medway East LEP East

Source: BRES 2013

Sector Employment Change

2.55 Oxford Economics' (OE) East of England Forecasting Model (EEFM) provides local area projections for a number of economic indicators, including employment in 31 industry sectors and estimates of GVA 8. The most recent EEFM forecasts are based on OE’s 2013 economic outlook and the sector projections reflect the national outlook for the sector, also taking into account the relative past performance at a local level. 2.56 The EEFM can be used to look at recent employment changes to 2015 and Figure 2.26 below shows the changes since 2013, with the sectors that have shown the most significant job growth highlighted. Figure 2.26 Employment Change 2013 to 2015 in Shepway District

Employment Change 2013 -2015 No (000) %

Agriculture -20 -3,8 Mining & Quarrying - -29.7 Manufacturing -20 -0.7 Utilities (incl electricity) & Waste -60 -4.2 Construction +60 +1.9 Retail & Wholesale Trade +240 +3.8 Transportation & Storage +90 +2.9 Accommodation & Food Services +120 +3.0 Information & Communication +20 +3.5

8 GVA - Gross Value Added is a measure of the value of goods and services produced and is a measure of productivity

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 20 Page 89 Financial & Insurance Services +20 +1.0 Property +30 +6.4 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services +160 +6.0 Administrative & Support Services +240 +4.5 Public Administration & Defence -170 -5.2 Education -70 -1.7 Health & Social Care -120 -2.1 Arts & Entertainment +60 +4.6 Other Services +10 +0.9 TOTAL 595 +1.3

Note: Numbers rounded to nearest 10; Source: EEFM

2.57 The sector that have performed best in terms of jobs growth in Shepway since 2013 are Retail & Wholesale Trade and Administrative & Support Services; both of these sectors are estimated to have around 240 more jobs than in 2013. Other sectors which also are also estimated to have seen jobs growth over the last two years are Professional, Scientific & Technical Services, Accommodation & Food Services and Transportation & Storage.

Employment Projections 2015 to 2020

2.58 Looking further ahead to the period from 2015 to 2020 - the timeframe of the Shepway Economic Development Strategy, Figure 2.27 highlights the sectors that have a workforce of over 1,000 that are forecast to grow. Figure 2.27 Sector Employment Projections for Shepway District 2015 and 2020

2015 Employment 2020 Employment Change Employment 2015-2020 No % Agriculture 500 450 -50 -9.3 Mining & Quarrying 10 0 -10 -58.7 Manufacturing 2,180 2,110 -70 -3.3 Utilities (incl electricity) 850 800 -50 -6.7 Waste & Remediation 480 400 -80 -17.6 Construction 3,380 3,600 210 6.12 Retail & Wholesale Trade 6,410 7,200 830 13.0 Transportation & Storage 2,960 3,100 170 5.8 Accommodation & Food Services 3,870 4,200 370 9.5 Information & Communication 610 700 60 10.2 Financial & Insurance Services 2,180 2,200 60 2.9 Property 520 600 120 23.1 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 2,610 3,200 570 21.7 Administrative & Support Services 5,300 6,200 880 16.5 Public Administration & Defence 3,260 2,900 -380 -11.7 Education 3,950 3,800 -110 -2.8 Health & Social Care 5,760 5,500 -240 -4.2 Arts & Entertainment 1,370 1,600 240 17.8 Other Services 790 820 30 3.5 TOTAL 47,000 49,540 2,550 5.4

Note: Numbers rounded to nearest 10; Source: EEFM

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 21 Page 90 2.59 Between 2015 and 2020 t otal employment is projected to increase by 5.4% in Shepway , which is above the rate of 4.5% for the South East. The sectors projected to see the greatest absolute jobs growth in Shepway are Administrative & Support Services (+880 jobs), Retail & Wholesale Trade (+830 jobs), Professional, Scientific & Technical Services (+570 jobs) , Accommodation & Food services (+380 jobs) and Arts & Entertainment (+240 jobs) 2.60 In contrast, public service sectors, including Public Administration & Defence ( -380 jobs), Health & Social Care (-240 jobs) and Education ( -110 jobs) are all expected to decline.

GVA per Job

2.61 GVA per job is a measure of productivity which can be used to assess the economic health of an area. Data from the EEFM are available for the 1990 to 2031 period (Figure 2.28) and this shows that Shepway initially performed better than the regional average until about the year 2000. Since then Shepway has under-performed the regional average and this pattern is projected to continue in the future. Figure 2.28 Modelled GVA per job - historic and projected future

Source: EEFM, 2013

2.62 This suggests that although Shep way is expected to see employment grow at faster than the regional rate, the growth will be in lower value sectors rather than in the higher value Knowledge Economy type jobs. However , it should be noted that the above Sector based projections are modelled outputs and therefore need to be interpreted with caution . This projection has the potential to change with interventions. 2.63 Drawing the above analysis there are some key conclusions which can be drawn, in order to drive the approach to Sector development and growth over the next few years, and to address the objective of achieving more, higher value jobs in the District. 2.64 Such an approach should c oncentrate on Sectors that: • Have some existing scale within the area, and which have seen good growth • Are forecast to achieving growth over the next five years • Have seen investment over recent years • Are capable of achieving scale throu gh future development and growth and h ave the prospect of attracting further investment in the future

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 22 Page 91 • Shepway offers key advantages for the sector, such as location or infrastructure advantages • Provide an essential support infrastructure to growth in other economic sectors

2.65 Figure 2.29 below provides a summary of those sectors which offer particular potential for growth in Shepway in the future, based on the criteria outlined above, and looking at growth prospects over the longer 2013 to 2030 time horizon. Figure 2.29: Sector Priorities for Shepway Economic Development Strategy

Broad Sectors providing 1,000+ jobs by 2030 AND growth over next 15 years FINANCIAL SERVICES (including insurance and pensions) BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (including engineering-related scientific consultancy and R&D) TRANSPORT AND LOGISTICS TOURISM, CULTURE, RETAIL & RECREATION

Sectors where strong investment has occurred or is likely in the future CREATIVE INDUSTRIES (including media & IT) Sectors where Shepway has key market advantage to exploit ENERGY Knowledge Economy high value sectors ADVANCED MANUFACTURING - Cross cutting Support Sectors - which will respond to general growth in economic activities CONSTRUCTION Note: the 2 digit SIC codes of the sectors are set out in Annex

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 23 Page 92 3. THE SHEPWAY SPATIAL CONTEXT

3.1 Shepway District has three distinct economic “sub areas” - Folkestone and Hythe, Romney Marsh and the North Downs, each with their own distinct economies and spatial characteristics . These inevitably therefore have their own strengths, weaknesses and opportunities which will be outlined in this section.

Figure 3.1 : Shepway’s three distinct sub areas

Folkestone and Hythe

3.2 The Folkestone and Hythe sub area has a population in the region of 65,000 people , and is where the majority of the economic activity in the district takes place. It is also where the majority of growth will take place for the period up to 2026, with the Shepway Local Plan indicating that around 75% (6,000) of t he 8,000 new homes built in the district over this period are likely to come forward in this urban area. 3.3 This area of the district also enjoys unsurpassed connections – with both Folkestone West and Folkestone Central railway stations offering HS1 services and easy access to the M20, Eurotunnel and the Port of Dover.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 24 Page 93 3.4 The main centre of economic activity is in Folkestone itself, which contains the largest retail centre in the district, several industrial estates (including Park Farm and the Shearway Business Park which adjoins the M20). It also contains significant private sector insurance and financial services companies, and is developing a role as a focus for cultural, creative and IT companies especially in the Old Town (Creative Quarter). 3.5 Hythe, the other main centre in this conurbation, is home to a number of well established businesses, especially on its Industrial Estates. It has a successful town centre, dominated by independent retailers, but supported by key anchor stores – such as Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and WH Smith. It also has a strong visitor / tourist economy supported by the Royal Military Canal, St Leonard’s Church, the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch Railway and beaches. 3.6 The sub area clearly has a function as an ‘economic entity’ within Shepway, with the main employment locations serving both Folkestone and Hythe, as well as retail provision in Folkestone’s town centre, education facilities (particularly FE), a common coastline and other direct communication routes. 3.7 Whilst large parts of this sub area have low unemployment levels, there are pockets of higher unemployment in East and Central Folkestone, with rates in the region of 8% in some areas (June 2014). This clearly provides the opportunity for businesses to expand and recruit locally (subject to appropriate skill levels). This has been the case in recent months as illustrated by a drop in JSA claimant numbers. Romney Marsh

3.8 The Romney Marsh sub area has a distinct identity – there are some very remote parts to this predominantly agricultural area, which also has a long tourist tradition. 3.9 Approximately 20,000 people live in the sub area and housing growth is likely to be relatively modest in the period up to 2026. The Shepway Local Plan indicates that around 800 new homes (10% of the total for the district) will be built in Romney Marsh, with many likely to be in and around the more urban areas. 3.10 Unemployment rates tend to be low, with many wards having a JSA claimant rate below 2%. The new Marsh Academy and the work of the Romney Resource Centre are both supporting the creation of a strong future workforce. 3.11 Since the 1950s, the west of the area has been dominated by two nuclear power stations at Dungeness. One of these facilities is currently being decommissioned, and although a significant number of jobs were involved in that process, this is due to decline significantly over the next two years. Dungeness B, which continues to employ over 500 people, is expected to be granted an extension to its operations through until 2028, and will therefore continue to be a major economic driver over the foreseeable future. 3.12 The sub area also contains Lydd Airport, which has recently had exciting plans approved for the construction of a new terminal building and the extension of its runway to accommodate larger passenger planes. There is an aspiration over the next few years to achieve 500,000 passengers per annum using the airport services. This is particularly significant in view of the recent closure of Manston Airport. Once fully operational, this airport facility will have the potential to attract new support and other service based businesses into the area.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 25 Page 94 Figure 3.2 : Spatial characteristics of the Romney Marsh sub area

3.13 Due to its geographic location, th is area looks as much toward s Ashford and Rother as it does towards Folkestone and Hythe, as reflected in shopping and commuting patterns for the area. This is also reflected in the Romney Marsh Partnership, which straddles all three districts. 3.14 This area has seen considerable public investment over the last decade, including in sea defence at Dymchurch, in education and skills provision at the Marsh Academy and Romney Resource Centre and in the decommissioning of the nuclear plant. North Downs

3.15 The North Downs sub area comprises the geography to the north of Folkestone and Hythe and the M20 corridor, including settlement s such as Hawkinge, Sellindge, Lyminge, Elham and Densole. 3.16 The area is characterised by the predominance of agricultural activi ties, its quality natural landscape, its vibrant and varied villages, and a variety of recreational activities in the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 3.17 The Shepway Local Plan indicates that around 15% (1,200) of housing growth for the period u p to 2026 will be built in this sub area. 3.18 This area performs exceptionally well economically, with unemployment rates being exceptionally low. There are also some key development opportunities to be driven forward in Hawkinge, with its ready access to the M20. Commuting and shopping patterns suggest that people in this area are linked economically with Canterbury and Ashford , as much as they are with Folkestone and Hythe. 3.19 The sub area has a number of challenges, but also some distinct opportunities to stre ngthen the economy by working to maximise its advantages around the outstanding natural environment - as both a business opportunity, and as specific opportunities in the visitor, tourism and leisure sectors.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 26 Page 95 4. THE PROPERTY MARKET CONTEXT

Introduction

4.1 This section reviews the property market in respect of employment / commercial uses across the District. In particular the position in each of the sub areas set out above is considered, and the characteristics and performance of the market for sites and accommodation, serving the different sectors highlighted in the socio economic analysis in Section 2 are also considered. The balance of demand and supply is addressed and key issues around the suitability of the existing supply of employment land and property are highlighted. This is based on a literature review, consultations with local property agents and other stakeholders including Locate in Kent. 4.2 The wider context is one where following the 2008 financial crisis the UK economy is in recovery mode experiencing relatively strong growth in GDP. This is feeding through to the property market as occupier demand strengthens and investors return to the sector. These factors, combined with a shortage of supply, due to a lack of development activity in recent years, have led to rises in property values in London and the Home Counties for office, industrial and retail property. 4.3 Against this backdrop there are a number of important trends affecting the property market. These include: • Technological enhancements and increasingly competitive global labour markets leading to increased global competition. • Strong corporate pressure to achieve operational cost effectiveness – implying consolidation of multiple locations bringing benefits in terms of cost, collaboration/networking. • Cloud and wireless technologies promoting more home working and flexible working practises – growth in small serviced offices and co-working spaces – ‘clusters’ increasingly effective as attractors of businesses. • The growth of e-commerce is a driver for increased demand for industrial and logistics space with commentators forecasting a denser network of urban logistics facilities and innovation in the parcel delivery and courier sector. • Retailers are actively rolling out ‘dark stores’ in order to fulfil on line grocery orders. • Waste to Energy plants are also a source of future industrial demand, as the government promotes their use through Renewable Obligations Certificates and the Feed in Tariff. • Significant growth in the creative and cultural sector is generating demand for ‘flexi space’ in our towns and cities and driving new types of working environments. Kent and Shepway

4.4 Across the county average growth in rents in the office sector has improved to -0.01% from -2.60% in 2012-2013 9 with improving yields as business confidence improves. High street rents have fallen though partly reflecting changes in consumer behaviour toward on-line shopping. Retail warehousing rents have fallen slightly but yields continued to harden reflecting investor appetite for

9 Kent Property Market Report, July 2014

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 27 Page 96 UK property. Industrial rents have improved for the fifth year in a row and are now outperforming those for the South East and UK. 4.5 Locate in Kent’s East Kent report published July 2013, shows office demand in East Kent picking up significantl y in 2012 and 2013, although supply still exceeds demand the gap has started to close since 2012. The report indicates an over -supply in the smaller office sizes in 2013, and under-supply over 5,000 sq. ft. , the largest enquiry was for 60,000 sq. ft. 4.6 In Sh epway there are 38,000 jobs of which approximately one third are based in ‘B’ use class properties (offices, industrial and warehouses) and two thirds in non-‘B’ use class including accommodation, food and culture , wholesale and retail, education and healt hcare. Sizes of firms in Shepway broadly mirror Kent and national averages. 4.7 Key Shepway employers include insurance provider SAGA (which employs 2,500 people in Folkestone, Sandgate and Cheriton) , and health and beauty products manufacturer Church & Dwigh t (which employs 300 people in Folkestone) spread across multiple sites. In 2010, Dungeness Power Station employed around 1,000 people, although Dungeness A is in the process of being decommissioned, and Dungeness B is coming to the end of its initial lif e. Bouverie Place shopping centre employs around 1,000 people across its 25 retail and leisure units. Consultation with local commercial property agents suggested an over -reliance on the public sector in the office market, with large occupiers including S hepway District Council and HMRC. 4.8 However, Shepway, along with other east Kent districts, suffers from poor perceptions. Locate in Kent’s 2014 perception study reveals that only 11% of key business figures (ranging across businesses that have and have not considered locating in Kent, developers and investors, and advisors) consider East Kent to be the most favourable sub -region of Kent, compared to 33% for Thames Gateway and 29% for Maidstone/Ashford. Negative perceptions about Folkestone from the previous (2010) survey included its remoteness and a perception of it being ‘run -down’ as well as having a poor stock of commercial premises and workforce skills. Figure 2: Property market characteristics of Shepway’s three sub areas

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 28 Page 97 Folkestone / Hythe including M20 corridor

4.9 Whilst the overall quantum of office floorspace in Folkestone/Hythe compares favourably with neighbouring districts, this picture is skewed as 22% of the space is occupied by SAGA. Half of the office space within the Folkestone / Hythe urban area is located in and around Folkestone town centre, with a further one-fifth located in the M20 corridor. This includes the serviced workspace at the Basepoint Enterprise Centre, Shearway and premises occupied by SAGA at Cheriton Parc House. 4.10 Hythe has a modest amount of offices (5,300 sq. m) mainly in smaller units with almost half located on the High Street. 4.11 There is limited demand from larger occupiers, with most enquiries under 90 sq. m (1,000 sq. ft.), which in part reflects the relative lack of larger office space with modern features (air conditioning etc.) compared to neighbouring locations. Vacancy rates are also currently below desirable, “frictional” vacancy levels, to ensure that businesses are able to ‘right-size’ in space that is appropriate to their current needs. 4.12 Office rental values in Folkestone town centre are typically under £50 / sq. m (£4.50 / sq. ft.), whilst values close to M20 junctions can reach £150 / sq. m (£14 / sq. ft.). This variation in values may converge as stock limitations (both in terms of overall quantum, availability and specification) in the town centre are overcome. All-inclusive license fees for serviced offices equate to £235-260pa / sq. m (£22-24pa / sq. ft.).

Offices - Finance, Insurance and Business services

4.13 Sources of demand will be based on the existing business base within finance and business services, growing local businesses, capturing growing value pressures in London (outsourcing and relocations) and new business start-ups. Reduced travel times to London as a result of High Speed 1, coupled with cheaper house prices open up opportunities to attract businesses, commuters and home workers from London. 4.14 The property requirements are likely to be: • Small good quality office type business units in Folkestone/Hythe • Larger offices in wider “town centre” – capturing access to station / HS1 • Larger offices (as part of a more broadly based facility) in ‘quality’ environment with good access to motorway

Office and Workspace - Creative, Cultural and IT

4.15 The work carried out by the Creative Foundation in Folkestone’s ‘Creative Quarter’ has led to a significant cluster of creative and cultural activities, ranging from individual artists’ studios and media start-ups to cultural performance areas. The Creative Quarter now constitutes around 2ha of land at the Old High Street and Tontine Street, most of which is owned and managed by The Creative Foundation. 4.16 Accommodation is relatively low-cost with flexible terms, and extremely varied including: • Studios / workshops housing over 40 artists and creative students totalling around 930 sq. m

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 29 Page 98 • Around 25 business units totalling around 2,900 sq. m • Around 30 retail and leisure units • Around a dozen community and education uses • The Quarterhouse performance venue

4.17 This creative cluster has the potential to be a positive driver of demand for commercial space. The property requirements for businesses in the creative sector should focus on reinforcing/developing Folkestone wider town centre / creative cluster and include the need for: • Smaller units for showcasing, workshops, flexible business units (range of quality and cost). • Grow-on space to retain businesses in area. • Improved links – to town centre and transport connections (railway station). • A proactive partnership to be developed with the education sector. • High speed broadband to be rolled out / developed.

Industrial and Logistics

4.18 Industrial (manufacture and assembly) activity in Folkestone and Hythe is limited relative to logistics (warehousing and distribution), and is typically light in nature. Units typically range from 350 to 2,000 sq. m with a small number of larger units between 3,000 and 8,500 sq. m, primarily providing flexible space suitable for use as a workshop or warehousing (B1c\B2\B8). 4.19 Immediate motorway access is essential for all non-local facilities, and almost half of the developed employment land in this economic area (49%) is located along the M20 corridor principally at Shearway and Cheriton Parc. However, this land predominately provides lower density industrial and logistics accommodation, including some open storage land at the Park Farm industrial estate. 4.20 Over 15,000 sq. m of the District’s industrial (factory) premises are located at the Lympne Industrial Estate, much of which is housed in ageing stock. Whilst almost half of the District’s developable employment land (allocations saved from the 2006 Local Plan) is concentrated at Link Park in Lympne (32.4ha), this location is not considered attractive by logistics operators due to its distance from the M20. 4.21 Smaller-scale industrial estates in east Folkestone such as the Highfield Industrial Estate and Bowles Wells Gardens account for 15% of developed employment land within the economic area. Whilst varying greatly in quality of accommodation and access, they are well-occupied suggesting that they cater well for local demand. 4.22 In Hythe, local industrial estates such as the Pennypot, Kengate and Boundary Road estates provide a range of light industrial and logistics accommodation of varying quality, and typically modest in size. 4.23 The Council will need to protect smaller light industrial and logistics activity to service local needs across the Folkestone / Hythe urban area. However, East Folkestone offers a number of development opportunities for mixed employment and residential uses on currently allocated employment sites such as East Station Goods Yard, Bowles Wells Gardens and the former Gasworks on Ship Street. 4.24 Local agents have described a ‘two-tier’ market, whereby stock generally transacts below quoting rents, but some occupiers will pay above market rates for bespoke facilities that meet their requirements.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 30 Page 99 4.25 Sources of demand will include: • ‘Dark’ internet retail distribution centres – serviced, ready to develop, sites needed • Immediate motorway access essential for non-local facilities • Port-related – Competition to Whitfield, Dover • Smaller local service centres serving local catchment • Land hungry uses/storage e.g. construction related in lower value areas

Town centres and settlements

4.26 The size of retail units in Folkestone town centre is a key factor in terms of meeting future demand. With the exception of the key ‘anchor’ stores such as Debenhams, Primark, and the supermarkets (Sainsbury’s, Asda and Lidl), the majority of retail units are small, often constrained premises. Indeed, 72% of retail units are less than 200 sq. m in size, and over half are less than 100 sq. m. 4.27 Folkestone currently attracts 28.8% of comparison goods expenditure from the District’s Household Survey area, with its main competitors being Ashford and Canterbury, attracting 21.7% and 16.8% of comparison expenditure in 2014 from the District, respectively 10 . Both of these centres’ respective planning authorities have plans for significant expansion in the short to medium term. 4.28 The opening of Bouverie Place has clearly assisted in attracting new retailers to the town who would probably otherwise not be present (on account of lack of suitable premises), and have helped to stem some expenditure ‘leakage’. The rest of the primary shopping area, however, appears to be moving downmarket, and on Sandgate Road the majority of the main ‘anchor’ stores are now value retailers. Some secondary areas of the town centre are struggling, and it is noteworthy that there has been an increase in vacancy rates (pulling up average vacancy in the centre to 18.4% in May/June 2014, compared to the UK average of 12.6% 11 ). 4.29 A recent town centre study identifies that, in terms of comparison goods provision, there is a need for the quality of the retail offer to be improved in Folkestone town centre. This includes a repositioning of the centre away from its current low quality / value retail-orientated offer towards a more mid-market offer which will help to reduce the levels of expenditure leakage to surrounding centres. 4.30 Importantly, there is very limited available provision to accommodate such an offer within either existing unit stock (unless units become available in Bouverie Place) or vacant sites for redevelopment. Therefore the refurbishment / modernisation of existing floorspace, coupled with the delivery of larger footprint modern floorspace on suitable town centre opportunity sites, is considered essential if further retail leakage is not to take place. 4.31 Hythe is a complementary retail location to Folkestone, with a focus on specialist, independent retailers and eating and drinking facilities. The recent addition of a large Sainsbury’s supermarket has assisted in retaining a greater amount of expenditure locally.

10 Peter Brett Associates (2014) 10 Draft Town Centres Study Peter Brett Associates (2014) 11 Draft Town Centres Study

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 31 Page 100 Romney Marsh

Industrial and Logistics

4.32 The Mountfield Road Industrial Estate is the largest employment site in the Romney Marsh area (57% of the area’s 28 hectares of employment land). Phases 1 and 2, to the north of the site, total 10 hectares of land that is now almost entirely built out. Phases 3 and 4, most of which is under Shepway District Council ownership currently used for agricultural purposes (total six hectares). The estate is generally well occupied; however, as is the case across the District, quoting rents are rarely achieved and are not high enough to induce speculative development. 4.33 Whilst demand for larger unit sizes up to 20,000 sq. ft. has increased in recent months, there are currently only a handful of units between 4,000 and 30,000 sq. ft. The Council should therefore consider delivery of serviced plots in phases, in order to make such development more attractive to the private sector and ensure that appropriate space is available to meet business needs and enable growth. 4.34 There are currently three employment areas within Lydd: Station Yard (0.9 hectares of currently brownfield vacant land), Harden Road (2.2 hectares comprising some modern ‘nursery’ light industrial and logistics units and two larger units, one of which is vacant) and Kitewell Lane (one hectare comprising ‘nursery’ light industrial and logistics uses, situated close to residential uses, with capacity for further development on-site and expansion to neighbouring sites). Whilst there is considerable scope for reconfiguration of these sites, with some release of employment land for residential use, it is important to ensure that adequate capacity is retained to cater for long-term employment space requirements in this part of the District. 4.35 The Council should therefore conduct more detailed quantitative assessments of industrial and logistics requirements in Lydd, and Romney Marsh more generally, to establish the long-term requirement for employment space.

Lydd airport

4.36 There is potential for increased economic activity related to the planned £25m expansion London Ashford Airport in Lydd, now approved by the Secretary of State. The scheme comprises the construction of a new terminal building and lengthening the current 1,505m runway by a further 444m (294m runway and 150m starter) to handle short-to-medium range airliners up to Airbus A320-size. The scheme allows for up to half a million passengers a year, and will increase employment from the current 116 people to between 180 and 300. 4.37 The demand for accommodation to house those businesses developing around the airport to service increased activities will need to be kept under review over the next few years, as the airport develops. Most of this is likely to be accommodated on airport land, however nearby industrial estates may also have a role to play.

Energy

4.38 The exposure and expansiveness of the Romney Marsh area lends itself to renewable energy generation to serve local and regional demand through onshore wind and solar technologies. The coastal location potentially opens up opportunities for investment in offshore wind, wave and tidal technologies. The Council should work with private infrastructure providers to assess the feasibility of such energy generation, including appropriate locations and scale.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 32 Page 101 Town centres and settlements

4.39 The wider New Romney area, is home to a population of some 9,700 (9.0% of the District), and it is identified as a top-tier ‘Town Centre’ in Shepway’s Core Strategy. Its high street offer comprises a range of predominantly-independent convenience, comparison retail and services. The town centre is considered to be performing well, with vacancy rates well below the national average. 4.40 With its population of 3,900, Lydd is designated as a second-tier ‘District Centre’ in Shepway’s Core Strategy. The high street comprises historic urban fabric protected by a designation as a conservation area, and a 360m stretch of its High Street is designated with retail frontages in the 2006 Local Plan. Despite being a considerable distance from its nearest top-tier centre, Lydd’s retail area only totals around 20 units anchored by a Spar convenience store, with residents travelling further afield for most of their shopping needs. However, in this context it performs well, providing a well-maintained environment. North Downs

Town / village centres and settlements

4.41 Hawkinge is the largest settlement within the North Downs area, with a population of 8,000 (7.4% of the District). The town is designated as a second-tier ‘District Centre’ in Shepway’s Core Strategy, and has undergone significant expansion in recent years, with around 8 hectares still allocated for development at Hawkinge West. 4.42 Around ten commercial units are located on Canterbury Road, with the retail frontage broken up by residential units. Whilst the centre performs a limited retail function, it offers a pleasant environment with two national convenience stores. 4.43 Other settlements within the North Downs area include Lyminge and Elham, both designated as third-tier ‘Local Centres’ in the Core Strategy serving populations of around 2,800 and 2,100, respectively. Other activities which will impact on land/property requirements

Home working

4.44 The North Downs area has some of the highest rates of home working in Shepway, with the highest being 10% in Elham and Stelling Minnis ward and 7% in North Downs West 12 . Despite relatively high levels of home working, some parts of the North Downs area continue to suffer from very poor mobile and broadband connectivity. 4.45 The Council is currently working with private infrastructure providers and other public sector organisations to secure improvements to digital connectivity, as well as in promoting upgrade opportunities to local SMEs, via the recent arrangements with Maidstone Studios to feed an uninterrupted supply to the Civic Centre, with the potential for distribution throughout the district via line of sight connections and relay stations.

12 ONS (2011) Data Explorer: Method of travel to Work

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 33 Page 102 Agri-tech and Horticultural

4.46 Around 40 per cent of the District’s land mass is within the Kent Downs AONB, the majority of which is located within the North Downs area. Therefore, whilst the majority of the area is rural in character, buildings and structures supporting agricultural and horticultural activity will need to be developed creatively and sensitively to an acceptable level of visual impact on the area. 4.47 The Council will need to coordinate a programme of further research and investigation to assess demand from higher value agricultural and horticultural operations, and establish land, property and infrastructure requirements. It should seek to develop links to regional universities where research projects and apprenticeships require live agricultural and horticultural sites, particularly where there is potential to share in the benefits from commercialisation from new technologies resulting from research and development activity. Emerging Issues

4.48 There are some important issues emerging from the above analysis which create some real challenges if the property infrastructure is going to meet the needs of the District’s economic and growth agenda going forward. 4.49 This will require some detailed work to establish: • Well-located serviced land parcels in the ‘M20 strategic network’ for: o High quality offices / mixed use production, assembly and distribution o Sub regional logistics / distribution facilities • This would include the consideration of the potential for a new strategic employment development area encompassing a range of uses at J11 of the M20 / Westenhanger Station -a ‘flagship’ office employment area or business park to compete with developments such as Eureka Science and Business Park in Ashford, and White Cliffs Business Park in Dover. • Sites for smaller / more flexible quality offices in Folkestone town centre and / or close to the station / HS1 • Increased provision of small workspace accommodation across the district, some with a specialist focus (subject to more detailed sector research) • The creation of good retail and leisure sites within Folkestone and other town centres to accommodate a wider range of occupiers

4.50 Importantly, this offer also requires a range of physical, “support” initiatives / programmes such as: • The availability of superfast broadband across all key employment sites • A significantly improved housing offer (quality and range), both within the town centres and coastal strip – and other key locations. The Seafront development will set a new benchmark in terms of housing quality, which in itself can be an effective attractor for business. 4.51 Whilst low rental values relative to neighbouring locations make Shepway attractive to occupiers, they limit opportunities for speculative development, especially on a larger scale, due to viability issues. This is a ‘chicken and egg’ situation as without the space companies will not be attracted, but if they are the likelihood is that new value thresholds will be met – Priory Quarter in Hastings has demonstrated this through its programme of speculative office development.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 34 Page 103 Interventions

4.52 The land and property programme needs to be based around a programme of clear “interventions”, primarily from the public sector (e.g. feasibility work, support with land assembly, infrastructure or other enabling work or activities) which are required to bring forward a suitable supply of land and property to support the opportunities identified above. 4.53 In particular, these will cover: • Local Plan (Places and Policies) - ensure the portfolio of allocated employment and residential sites to be taken forward as part of this process - reflects the economic development priorities • Enabling and facilitating – Using its influence to work with landowners developers to steer development proposals in line with economic development priorities • Funding – Help to secure funding to help unlock priority scheme which are not viable schemes • Inward investment strategy and marketing – Implement a strategic and sector focused marketing plan with Locate in Kent, nationally and internationally • Other incentives – Initiatives using targeted business rates relief, local ‘enterprise areas’, simplified planning zones, etc. The balance of demand and supply

4.54 It is extremely important to ensure that there are adequate sites / premises, in the right locations, and built to the right specification – without which businesses will simply not come to, or remain in the area. 4.55 The baseline and target predictions for the potential jobs growth of key sectors set out in Section 2 of this report will have significant property implications and if these are to be realised, it is important that the key property market / site issues identified above are addressed and resolved. 4.56 A preliminary exercise has therefore been undertaken to relate anticipated job growth and the resulting demand for accommodation / land, to the current availability of land and property, both in terms of quantum as well as ability to satisfy the quality / location needs of occupiers and investors. The modelling of space requirements per FTE mirrors the methodology used in the Employment Land Review 2011. 4.57 Generally predictions of employment growth tend to be most reliable at regional and national scales, whereas at a local level they are most useful in providing a broad indication of trajectories and growth in different sectors. There is also not always a clear relationship between employment growth and land supply requirements. 4.58 In converting job numbers to floorspace it is very important to consider the factors which may influence demand and supply at a local level. There is a basic question as to whether the existing stock and pipeline is suitable in terms of its quality and location. If it is not, even the baseline employment growth projections are unlikely to be met. 4.59 Other factors that may have a material impact upon floor space requirements include the strength of competition from other areas, success in attracting inward investment, vacancy rates (sufficient to allow choice for businesses); business formation rates and so on. 4.60 To reflect these variables we have modelled a ‘high growth’ scenario. This is based on a 5% increase year on year above the baseline scenario applied to growth sectors. It assumes that the key property market / site issues are addressed and Shepway is better placed to accommodate economic growth.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 35 Page 104 Figure 4.2: Net change in jobs (‘000s)

Baseline scenario High growth scenario

Use class 2015 -2020 2020 -2025 2025 -2030 2015 -2020 2020 -2025 2025 -2030

B1 1.2 0.8 0.7 1.8 0.9 0.8 B2 -0.1 - 0.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 B8 0.2 - 0.0 -0.1 0.4 -0.0 -0.1 Non -B 0.6 0.2 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 TOTAL 1.9 0.9 0.6 3.4 1.0 0.7

Source: EEFM, adjusted by BBP Regeneration

Figure 4.3: Estimated gross external floorspace requirement (‘000 sq. m)

Baseline scenario High growth scenario Use class 2015 - 2020 - 2025 - TOTAL 2015 - 2020 - 2025 - TOTAL 2020 2025 2030 2020 2025 2030 B1 24.1 16.0 14.2 54.3 36.7 17.3 15.1 69.0

B2 -1.6 -2.0 -2.2 -5.8 0.1 -2.1 -2.3 -4.2

B8 7.9 -1.6 -3.1 3.2 17.2 -1.2 -3.1 12.9

Non-B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

TOTAL 30.34 12.41 9.01 51.8 54.01 14.03 9.65 77.7

Est. land req (ha) 7.6 3.1 2.3 12.9 13.5 3.5 2.4 19.4

Source: EEFM, adjusted by BBP Regeneration

4.61 This shows an estimated land requirement of between 12.9 Ha (baseline) and 19.4 Ha (high growth). 4.62 This compares with the requirement identified in the 2011 Employment Land Review of 5.2-15.0 Ha albeit over a different timeframe from 2008 to 2026. 4.63 Whilst the overall quantum of developable land within the District is far in excess of these estimated requirements over the next 15 years, much of the currently developable land is not suitable for the growth sectors identified. Even the most suitable sites are likely to require public sector intervention in order to secure the District’s economic growth potential within the required timescale. Therefore, in reviewing the key development opportunity sites within the District, the Council should distinguish between: • ‘Strategic Sites’ - Sites that are capable of being marketed as major employment locations and are therefore potential ‘game-changers’, justifying more involved public sector intervention to secure delivery. These provide potential for between 57 and 77 Ha of employment land. • ‘Locally Significant Sites’ – Sites that are seen as being able to create a positive economic development contribution within the specific part of the District in which they fall. SDC has an ownership interest in some of these sites, whilst others are owned privately. This will dictate the extent of public sector intervention justified for each site. These sites provide potential for up to 64ha of employment land.

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 36 Page 105 • Other sites - Sites that do not justify significant public sector intervention at this time. Some of these sites may be suitable for release to mixed / residential uses.

4.64 The tables that follow identify the sites identified as being within the first two categories above, along with their developable area, and some of the immediate issues / tasks that must be addressed in order to secure their delivery.

Strategic Sites

Site and Sectors Tasks Responsibility approx. developable area Junction 11 - Finance, - Consult with landowners - SDC (incl. Stop 24, insurance, - Assess feasibility options – re - Landowners Racecourse, business ownership, infrastructure provision, services development, delivery, etc. Lorry Park), - Industrial and - Planning framework and policy Folkestone – logistics needs to be developed between 20 and 40 Ha

Junction 12, - Finance, - Consult with landowners and - SDC Folkestone – insurance, clarify/define the offer - Landowners 4 Ha business - Assess options for taking control of services site and bringing forward for - Industrial and development logistics - Assess feasibility options – re 4.1 infrastructure provision, development, delivery, etc. 4.2 Junction 13 - Finance, - Seek to resolve access issues to - SDC (incl. insurance, Ph2 - Landowners Shearway business - Explore opportunities to release services quality gateway sites Phases 1 and - Industrial and - Assess opportunity to bring forward 2), logistics all sites in area under a Folkestone –4.3 comprehensive employment “offer” 5 Ha - Assess feasibility options – re ownership, infrastructure provision, development, delivery etc. - Work with landowners to market employment opportunity 4.4 Civic Centre - Finance, - Undertake an options appraisal to - SDC (incl. 3-5 insurance, assess whether a relocation of the Shorncliffe business council offices could support renewal services in the town centre and release a site Road), - Creative, for a quality office/business park Folkestone – cultural, IT - Assess development feasibility of 5 Ha - Residential current site for alternative uses - Assess options for incorporating any adjoining sites - Confirm viability and confirm preferred relocation option

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 37 Page 106 Folkestone - Finance, - Support Creative Foundation and - SDC Seafront / insurance, Folkestone Harbour - Creative Tontine business Foundation services and Street – 23 - Creative, Folkestone Ha cultural, IT Harbour - Tourism, visitor and leisure - Retail - Residential Town - Finance, - Identify key sites and work up - SDC Centres insurance, delivery plans - Landowners business services - Creative, cultural, IT - Tourism, visitor and leisure - Retail - Residential

Locally Significant Sites - SDC

Site and Sectors Tasks Responsibility approx. developable area Kitewell - Industrial and - Engage landowners - SDC Lane (and logistics - Develop planning policy - Landowners adjoining - Specialist (agri- - Define additional interventions tech, energy) land to the

East of B2075 Station Rd), Lydd – 4 Ha

Mountfield - Industrial and - Develop infrastructure proposals - SDC Road, New logistics - Market serviced sites Romney – 8 - Specialist (agri- - Relocation strategy to release land for tech, energy) residential uses Ha

Princes - Tourism, visitor - Develop planning policy - SDC Parade, and leisure - Draw up an implementation plan Hythe – 1 Ha

Pennypot - Residential - Engage landowners - SDC Lane and - Finance, - Define interventions - Landowners Kengate insurance, - Develop planning policy Industrial business Estates, services Hythe – 2 Ha - Industrial and logistics

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 38 Page 107 Locally Significant Sites - Private Sector

Site Sectors Tasks Responsibility Nickolls - Residential - Accelerate delivery of residential - Camland Quarry – Up - Finance, - Draw up a delivery plan for employment Developme to 6 Ha insurance, uses nts business - SDC services - Industrial and logistics Link Park – - Industrial and - Review planning policy - Landowners 32 Ha logistics - Market land - SDC - Specialist (agri- - Consider business support/ enterprise tech, energy are potential

Former Gas - Residential - Engage with landowners - Landowners Works Site, - Undertake due diligence for potential - SDC Ship Street – acquisition 2 Ha

Hawkinge - Residential - Engage with landowners - Landowners West – Up to - Finance, - Review planning policy - SDC 9 Ha insurance, business services - Industrial and logistics

1. SHEPWAY IN CONTEXT PAGE 39 Page 108 Annex A – Key sectors

Headline description - for Main SIC Codes EEFM Categories 2-digit SIC codes General description of "sub sectors" the purposes of the ED Strategy

Financial services (including K - FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE Finance 64, 65 & 66 Financial services (64); Insurance & insurance and pensions) ACTIVITIES pensions(65); and "auxiliary activities" (66)

Page 109 Page Business and Professional M - PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC Professional services 69, 70, 71, 73, 74 & Legal & accountancy, architectural, Services (including AND TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES 75 engineering, advertising, management engineering-related scientific consultancy and other professional/ scientific consultancy and R&D)

R+D 72 Research and experimental development on natural / social sciences and engineering etc

N - ADMINISTRATIVE AND Employment activities 78 Employment & human resource agencies SUPPORT SERVICE ACTIVITIES

Business Services 77, 79 to 82 Office / business support, rental & leasing, security services, facilities management services and travel agencies,

Transport and Logistics H - TRANSPORTATION AND Land Transport 49, 52 & 53 Land transport and pipelines; Warehousing STORAGE and support activities for transportation AND Postal and courier activities Water and air transport 50 & 51 Sea, coastal & inland water transport - passenger & freight; passenger & freight air transport G - WHOLESALE AND RETAIL Wholesale (part) 46 Wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and TRADE; REPAIR OF MOTOR motorcycles VEHICLES AND MOTORCYCLES (Part)

Creative industries (including J - INFORMATION AND Publishing and 58 & 59 & 60 Books & software; film, video and TV media & IT) COMMUNICATION broadcasting production, sound recording and music publishing; TV & radio programming and broadcasting activities Telecoms 61 Wired, wireless & satellite communications activities Computer related 62 & 63 Computer programming & consultancy; data activities processing & hosting, web portals & related activities

Tourism, Culture, Retail & R - ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT AND Arts and entertainment 90, 91, 92 & 93 Creative, arts and entertainment activities (90); Recreation RECREATION Libraries, museums and other cultural activities (91); Gambling and betting (92); Page 110 Page Sports, amusements and recreation activities (93)

I - ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD Hotels and restaurants 55 & 56 Accommodation & Food & beverage SERVICE ACTIVITIES

G - WHOLESALE AND RETAIL Retail 47 All Retail trade (except motor vehicles) TRADE; REPAIR OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTORCYCLES (Part) Wholesale (part) 45 Wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (45)

Energy D - ELECTRICITY, GAS, STEAM Utilities 35 Electricity & Gas - generation, transmission, AND AIR CONDITIONING SUPPLY distribution and sales

Utilities 36 & 37 Water & sewerage Waste & remediation 38 & 39 Waste collection, treatment and disposal E - WATER SUPPLY; SEWERAGE, activities; materials recovery AND other waste WASTE MANAGEMENT AND management services REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES

Advanced Manufacturing C - MANUFACTURING Chemicals (part) 20 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products

Pharmaceuticals 21 Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations

Electronics 26 to 27 Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products and electronic equipment

Transport equipment, 28 to 30 Manufacture of general purpose machinery machinery & equipment, and equipment; motor vehicle & other etc transport equipment parts MANUFACTURING - NOT Chemicals (part) 19, 22 & 23 Petroleum products (19); Rubber & plastics INCLUDED (22); glass, ceramics & concrete products (23)

General manufacturing 13 to 18, 31 to 33 Textiles & clothing, leather, wood and paper products, recorded media, furniture, other products (jewellery, sports, music, medical etc)

Page 111 Page & machinery repairs / installation Other manufacturing 10 to 12; 24 & 25 Food (10 to 12); metals (24 & 25)

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

This Report will be made public on 17 February 2015

Report Number C/14/77

To: Cabinet, Date: 25 February 2015 Status: Key Decision Corporate Director: Jeremy Chambers, Resources Cabinet Member: Councillor David Monk, Leader

SUBJECT: 2015 MEMBER WORKING GROUP – ROLE OF MEMBERS WORKSTREAM

SUMMARY: The 2015 Member Working Group is an advisory non-decision making body that has been formed to make recommendations on how the council and councillors should work with a membership of thirty. This report makes recommendations to Cabinet with regard to the Council’s Constitution, the development of the council’s Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy which promotes the role of ward councillors, Ward Budgets and Ward Plans. Following consideration by Cabinet, the report will be considered by Constitutional Advisory Committee and Council, as there are elements in the recommendations which require approval by all three committees.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out below because: The working group is an advisory non-decision making body that has been formed to make recommendations on how the council and councillors should work with a membership of thirty. As the recommended changes to the role of members impacts on all wards in the district, the decision is a key decision, which must be considered by Cabinet as a whole.

RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. To receive and note report C/14/77. 2. To recommend to Council the development of a role profile for ward members in line with the roles identified by the 2015 Member Working Group (Appendix A) 3. To recommend to Council that delegated authority for Ward Members is extended to include Ward Plans (Appendix B). 4. To recommend to Council that the ward profiles should be developed in line with the recommendations set out in this report. 5. To approve and recommend to Council the Ward Plans and the associated Ward Plans Funding Scheme based on the recommendations contained in this report and as set out in Appendix C.

Page 113 6. To recommend to Council that from 2015/16, Shepway District Council should operate three community funding schemes relating to Ward Budgets, Ward Plans and Community Chest. 7. To agree to expand and revise the remit of the Grants Advisory Panel (GAP) to cover both the Ward Plans funding scheme as well as the Community Chest. 8. To agree the revised terms of reference for the Grants Advisory Panel.

Page 114 1. BACKGROUND

1.1 One of the key challenges for Shepway District Council is to manage the transition to a Council with 30 members in May 2015. The 2015 Member Working Group was formed in May 2014 to provide democratic oversight and leadership for a number of key projects. This includes pieces of work which are important in delivering commitments in the Corporate Plan.

1.2 The membership of the working group is as follows:

• The chairman of the council (Cllr. Pam Carr); • The leader of the council (Cllr. David Monk); • Opposition group – People First (Cllr. Paul Marsh); • Opposition group – UKIP (Cllr. Terence Mullard) • Portfolio holder, Communities (Cllr. Jenny Hollingsbee) • The chairman of the General Purposes Committee (Cllr. Richard Pascoe) • Backbench member (Cllr. David Owen)

The Leader of the Council is chair of the working group.

1.3 The working group is an advisory non-decision making body that has been formed to make recommendations on how the Council and councillors should work with a membership of thirty. The working group is accountable to both Cabinet and Council. Any conclusions and recommendations reached by the group must be referred to a committee of the council to be adopted formally. This is the purpose of this report.

1.4 The aim of the group is to report to Cabinet on the 25 th February 2015 on those aspects of its work which are executive functions; to the Constitutional Advisory Committee on any constitutional changes proposed and to Council no later than 18 th March 2015 in respect of any other non – executive function.

1.5 The working group has a broad remit but this report is primarily concerned with defining the future role of Members. This piece of work is important in the context of the Corporate Plan 2013-18, which includes the following commitments:

Actions Outcomes by 2018*

A popular ward member budget scheme and Provide opportunities ward plans produced for each of the for residents to electoral wards. influence decisions and shape their local Developed a Community Participation and community Empowerment Strategy which develops the role of ward Councillors.

2. ROLE OF MEMBERS Page 115

2.1 The first issue that the working group considered was to define the future role of Members. This was in the context of:

• The transition to 30 members from 2015 and demographic changes mean bigger wards with fewer members; • Legislative changes (e.g. Localism Act 2011) and new community rights • The evolving role of local councillors within local communities. • The need to respond to technological and social change (e.g. social media); and • The desire to empower members to do more in their local communities.

2.2 The focus of this work stream was explicitly on the role of Members with regard to the Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy. The role of Members in terms of how the council operates with regard to executive and non-executive functions was picked up the Constitution work stream.

2.3 The working group considered the potential role of members in the new council. It was agreed that Councillors should be supported to perform the following roles within the terms of reference for the Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy:

• ‘Advocate’ – to act as an advocate for the council and to speak up on behalf of their community about issues which affect local people and to promote community causes;

• ‘Political representative’ – to support and help deliver the priorities of their political party including commitments made in manifestos;

• ‘Community leader’ – provide long-term direction in terms of community development and to be someone who bring local communities together;

• ‘Service transformer’ – help to improve the quality of local services in their ward and to hold service providers to account for poor quality services or service failure;

• ‘Enabler’ – identify what things need to improve in their ward and work with officers, partners and communities to bring about change (i.e. make things happen);

• ‘Supporter’ – support local projects and initiatives; and

• ‘Knowledge champion’ – understand what is going on in the ward and ensure good exchange of information between the council and the local community.

2.4 It was recognised that councillors already perform many/all of these roles but that the development of the Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy provides a good opportunity to formalise these

Page 116 roles and to ensure more support is available for ward members in carrying out these roles.

2.5 It was recognised that in order to fulfil these roles, support has to be made available in the form of training and development for Members, particularly newly elected Councillors in 2015. The working group identified a number of areas that need to be picked up as part of the Councillor Induction and Training Programme in 2015. This work is being led by the Head of Human Resources.

2.6 The working group also considered what more the council could do to support ward members to fulfil the roles identified in section 2.3. The group identified that the following points that it considered important and how each point could be addressed:

Requirements Recommendations Clear governance arrangements, Ward Councillor role profile added to well defined roles and ward SDC constitution. members understand how to influence decisions. Devolve decision-making powers Delegated authority in SDC and resources to ward members to constitution with regard to Ward enable them to fulfil this enhanced Budgets and Ward Plans. role. Provide more information on the Training and induction programme. council and how it operates (i.e. how to get things done). Ensure that there are sufficient Training and induction programme. resources to meet members’ development needs Find a mechanism to involve ward Developing Ward Plans will involve councillors in community significant community engagement engagement and consultation. and consultation. Officer support should be available (if required). Articulated role in Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy Have a single point of contact for Issue to be picked up by Leadership officer advice and support to deal Support Team, Committee Services with ward issues. and Policy and Engagement Team. The council needs to invest in more Ward Profiles. effective ward-based information systems to share local intelligence.

3. WARD PROFILES

3.1 It has been previously agreed to develop ward profiles for the new ward boundary areas, which come into effect from May 2015.

Page 117

3.2 The purpose of the ward profiles is to:

• Ensure a shared understanding across the council and in the broader community about the issues/challenges which are relevant in each ward; • Support Members with their community role (as set out in section 2); • Provide Members with useful information about their (new) wards post 2015 election; • Assist Members with identifying priorities to include in their ward plans; • Provide a resource that is made publically available for wider use by the public and voluntary / community groups (e.g. to support funding bids).

3.3 The 2015 Member Working Group considered a number of questions regarding what format the profiles should take, what content they should include and how they should be made accessible to Members, staff and the local community.

3.4 The recommendations of the group are as follows:

• Audience – The ward profiles should be used as widely as possible and made available to Councillors, council officers, Town and Parish Councils, voluntary and community groups, as well as the general public on the council website;

• Content – The profiles should contain information on: Page 118 o Demographics (e.g. population, deprivation) o Outcomes for the local population (e.g. educational attainment, health, employment rates, levels of crime and anti-social behaviour etc). o Level of service provision within communities (e.g. broadband access). o Quality of SDC services within particular wards where information may be available; and o The provision of community facilities;

• Format – Ward profiles should be held in an electronic format on the council website with a tailored report available for each ward that can be downloaded. A combination of information should be included (i.e. tables, maps and infographics etc) but it needs to be as engaging as possible;

• Timely – Ward Profiles should wherever possible but updated as and when new information becomes available. The council should do this on an annual basis as a minimum requirement;

• Comparability – Ward Profiles should contain some form of comparison between the statistics for a ward and the average position for the district. Moreover, an analysis of how trends change over time should be included as well; and

• Accessibility – The Ward Profiles should be made available on the council website. The website should include links to external information and source material.

3.5 The view of the working group is that ward profiles should contain factual / statistical information only. ‘Community intelligence’ should be gathered by ward Councillors through their community engagement activity and this intelligence can feed directly into determining the priorities to be included in the ward plans. The working group felt officer support should be available to support Ward Councillors with community engagement activity but that it should be available on request rather than mandated.

3.6 Cabinet is asked to agree that the ward profiles should be developed in line with the recommendations set out in this report.

4. WARD PLANS

4.1 Introducing Ward Plans for the new electoral wards is a council commitment in the Corporate Plan 2013-18.

4.2 The 2015 Member Working Group considered Ward Plans to be a key component of the council’s emerging Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy because they are intended to:

• clearly articulate members’ priorities for their respective wards; • ensure that officers are working to deliver member and community priorities; Page 119 • use ward profiles to ensure a strong evidence base to identify community priorities; • enable members to collaborate with partners in an accountable and clear fashion; and • providing an opportunity for local people to influence local priorities and shape their community.

4.3 In developing Ward Plans, the working group agreed the following key principles:

• There should be one ward plan, per ward, to promote consensus in multimember wards. • Ward plan actions should be practical and deliverable. • A ward plan priority/action should not be contrary to the Council’s stated policies strategies or plans. • There should be flexibility to accommodate cross-ward projects. • Actions/projects should be achievable within prescribed timeframes. • Ward plan priorities should be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders.

4.4 It should be noted that at its meeting on 22 January 2015 the member steering group considered the proposed delegation in Appendix 2 of this report (Delegation to Ward Councillors) and recommended to cabinet that it should read:-

“Ward Plans are formally adopted through a published decision notice. In a single member ward this requires the signature of the ward councillor in question. In multi-member wards this requires the majority agreement of both/all three councillors in order for the ward plan to be formally adopted.”

4.5 The officer recommendation is that ward plans should be adopted by consensus.

This is for the following reasons: -

Firstly, officers require a clear understanding of member priorities for an area and competing or contradictory priorities of different members could complicate matters.

Secondly, in order to affect real change in communities, it will require the buy-in of all members not just the majority in a ward.

Thirdly, throughout the process the members and officers have sought to avoid politicising the process of developing ward plans and it is felt this is best done through unanimous rather than majority agreement.

Fourthly, moving to a system of majority voting complicates the process of developing ward plans where there are two member wards and adds another layer of bureaucracy into the process in terms of adjudicating between members when there is not agreement.

Page 120

4.6 The working group agreed that there should be no compulsion on Councillors to have ward plans. However, members recognised that there would be a strong incentive to have them, as a means of accessing funding for community projects.

4.7 In terms of identifying priorities, actions and projects for Ward Plans, it was agreed by the working group that:

• Ward Profiles should provide an evidence base; • Some consultation is advised but it should be left to member discretion how this is done; • Potential consultees to include the public, town and parish councils, KCC Divisional Member(s), voluntary and community groups, local businesses, and public sector agencies; • It is advisable for Members to consult with HoS/middle managers, as the former develop their proposals, to see what can be delivered within existing staff resources; and • Members determine the content of ward plans. Officer support should be available on request to assist with drafting them.

4.8 The working group proposes that ward plan priorities focus primarily on the following functions:-

• Supporting community projects; • Improving community services or facilities in a local area; • Promoting better community relations; • Maintaining local open spaces and leisure facilities; • Improving the local environment or appearance of an area; • Addressing community safety issues; • Supporting community and economic regeneration initiatives; • Encouraging arts and cultural activities, sports development, community health and wellbeing and young people initiatives.

4.9 It was agreed that ward plans in multi-member wards should be developed through consensus and that a formal process would need to be established for developing and agreeing ward plans.

4.10 The working group also felt that it would be helpful at some point in the process to form a collective view of ward plan priorities by amalgamating information from the different ward plans, in order to assess the cumulative effect/implications on Council resources (both financial and staffing).

4.11 With regard to resources to support the delivery of ward plans, the working group agreed to recommend:

• A new community funding pot is established to support the delivery of ward plan priorities. • That funding should be distributed on the basis of business cases submitted by Ward Members in order to ensure that the funding does

Page 121 deliver community priorities. Funding should not be distributed on a first come, first serve basis but rather on the merit of the proposals. • That other community funding streams are aligned so that they can support the delivery of ward plan priorities; and • Existing staff resources should be used where possible to help deliver Ward Plans and this can be done through the service planning process.

4.12 The working group agreed that ward plans should be produced on an annual basis to feed into the Council’s service planning and budget setting process, with flexibility built in so that projects did not have to be completed within the financial year.

4.13 Once agreed, it is recognised that ward plans should be published on the council’s website along with any projects that are being undertaken and funding that has been allocated to those projects.

4.14 In terms of formalising these arrangements, Council will be asked to agree that that delegated authority for Ward Members is extended to include Ward Plans (Appendix B).

5. REVIEW OF COMMUNITY FUNDING

5.1 During the course of 2014/15 officers undertook a complete review of all community funding across the authority. The purpose was to ensure that the council’s community funding supports the aims and objectives of the emerging Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy and maximises the assistance to Members in their role as community leaders (see section 2). The review was conducted in two stages. Stage 1 consisted of reviewing the current position and stage 2 concerned making recommendations for the future allocation of community funding.

Stage 1: Current situation

5.2 The 2015 working group considered three types of funding. Firstly, small scale funding which is used to support frontline service delivery. Secondly, community funding in the form of grants to third party organisations. And thirdly, council funding relating primarily to community development, community engagement or community projects.

5.3 It was agreed that only the third type of funding was in scope of the community funding review – i.e. is council funding which directly supports the aims and objectives of the Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy and maximises the assistance to Members in their role as community leaders. However, the community funding review did identify some governance issues with respect to how the council manages community grants to third party organisations. These issues have been addressed by adding grant funding to the council’s partnership register and by strengthening the council’s monitoring arrangements.

5.4 In terms of the council’s current community funding (in scope), the situation looks like this:

Page 122 Funding 2014/15 2015/16 Ward Budgets £46,000 £30,000 Community Chest £94,600 £94,600 Arts Grants (3 funding pots) £15,500 £15,500 Young People’s Initiatives £2,000 £2,000 Total £158,100 £142,100

5.5 The difference in funding between 2014/15 and 2015/16 is that in the council’s current budget plans for 2015/16 the amount allocated to Ward Budgets will fall from £46k to £30k in line with the reduction in members from 46 to 30.

Stage 2: Future arrangements

5.6 In developing their proposals for the council’s future funding arrangements, the 2015 Member Working Group agreed the following principles:

Community funding should... • Align with corporate priorities (as set out in the Corporate Plan). • Support Member priorities (i.e. link to ward plans). • Provide opportunities for residents to influence decisions and shape their local community. • Be open and transparent – i.e. people know how decisions have been reached and who has taken them. • Have Member oversight and accountability built in for every funding stream. • Simplifying the number of funding streams and the associated administration where possible.

5.7 In forming their recommendations, the 2015 Member Working Group agreed unanimously that strengthening the role of Members and greater community empowerment is a corporate priority, as expressed in the Corporate Plan priority ‘Listening to local people’. The group’s recommendation is that the total amount of funding available should increase to £300k.

5.8 The 2015 Member Working Group considered a number of options with regard to how this total funding pot should be allocated to achieve the objectives of the review and meet the principles set out in paragraph 5.6.

5.9 The recommendation of the group is that the council’s community funding should be allocated as follows:

Funding 2015/16 Ward Budgets £45,000 Community Chest £95,000 * Ward Plans £160,000 Total £300,000

* This is condition on Shepway District Council continuing to receive second homes funding from Kent County Council. Page 123

5.10 In terms of what this means for the overall financial position would be as follows:

Funding 2014/15 2015/16 Proposed Revised allocation 2015/16 Ward Budgets £46,000 £30,000 +£15,000 £45,000 Community Chest £94,600 £94,600 +£400 £95,000 Arts Grants £15,500 £15,500 -£15,500 £0 Young People £2,000 £2,000 -£2,000 £0 Ward Plans - £157,900 +£2,100 £160,000 Total £158,100 £300,0 00 £300,000

5.11 The group agreed that this split will:

• Strengthen the financial support available to ward members • Simplify the administration of community funding • Strike a good balance between the different types of funding • Support ward members to deliver local community priorities.

5.12 The working group is, therefore, recommending the following changes to the council’s community funding arrangements:

• From 2015/16, Shepway District Council should operate three community funding schemes relating to Ward Budgets, Ward Plans and Community Chest.

• Increase the amount allocated for Ward Budgets in 2015/16 to £45k (i.e. £1.5k per ward member) from the current £30k (£1k/member), which is currently in the 2015/16 budget;

• Include a growth item of £157,900 in the 2015/16 budget to reach the £300k total funding pot for community related activity;

• Establish a funding pot of £160k in 2015/16 to be reserved for projects which deliver local community priorities, as articulated in formally approved Ward Plans;

• Delete the budgets relating to arts funding and young people initiatives, as it is recommended that this funding should be amalgamated into the three community funding pots; and

• Expand the criteria for Ward Budgets and Community Chest to ensure that these funds can explicitly be spent on the same things as set out in the Ward Plan guidance should Councillors choose to allocate funding in this manner. This will ensure that local communities will have opportunity to access community funding for a broad range of initiatives.

6. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES

6.1 The following risks have been identified: Page 124

Perceived risk Seriousness Likelihood Preventative action The proposals High Low This report ensures of the working that the relevant group are not decision-making formally ratified bodies are able to by the council consider and approve the recommendations of the working group. The future role Medium Low The working group has of Members in clearly defined the role the council is and this will be poorly defined reflected in the council’s constitution. An appropriate training and induction programme is being developed. The Community Medium Low A number of key Participation principles, as set out in and this document have Empowerment been agreed by the Strategy does working group. These not reflect the principles will inform wishes of the development of the Members strategy.

7. LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS

7.1 Legal Officer’s Comments (PW)

Cabinet needs to review the decision because it is a key decision and impacts on some of their executive functions. Also, the Grants Advisory Panel is an advisory body only appointed by Cabinet. Therefore, Cabinet will need to agree to revise and amend its terms of reference, as proposed in this report.

The Constitutional Advisory Committee needs to review the decision because it involves proposed changes to the Constitution.

Council needs to review it because it involves changes to the delegation for ward members, proposes an increase to the ward budget etc and also encompasses changes to the role of the member.

7.2 Finance Officer’s Comments (MF)

The financial implications of this report have been addressed in the main body of the report. In summary the ward plans budget of £157,000 was approved as part of the budget strategy. Cabinet report C/14/41 refers. Further adjustments to the budget for 2015/16 as outlined in paragraph 5.10 will be managed in accordance with standard financial procedures.

Page 125 7.3 Diversities and Equalities Implications (MM)

As a new council strategy, the Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy will require an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA). This needs to be considered by Members at the same time as the strategy is presented for approval.

8. CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the following officer prior to the meeting

Matthew Mellor, Policy and Engagement Manager Telephone: 01303 853 413. Email: [email protected]

The following background documents have been relied upon in the preparation of this report:

(Note: only documents that have not been published are to be listed here)

Appendices: Appendix A: Role profile for Ward Councillors (Council constitution) Appendix B: Delegation to Ward Members (Council constitution) Appendix C: Draft Ward Plan Scheme Appendix D: Revised Terms of Reference for the Grants Advisory Panel

Page 126 Appendix A: WARD MEMBER ROLE DESCRIPTIONS

Purpose

The main purpose of the role is to act as a:

• ‘Advocate’ – to act as an advocate for the council and to speak up on behalf of their community about issues which affect local people and to promote community causes;

• ‘Political representative’ – to support and help deliver the priorities of their political party including commitments made in manifestos;

• ‘Community leader’ – provide long-term direction in terms of community development and to be someone who bring local communities together;

• ‘Service transformer’ – help to improve the quality of local services in their ward and to hold service providers to account for poor quality services or service failure;

• ‘Enabler’ – identify what things need to improve in their ward and work with officers, partners and communities to bring about change (i.e. make things happen);

• ‘Supporter’ – support local projects and initiatives; and

• ‘Knowledge champion’ – understand what is going on in the ward and ensure good exchange of information between the council and the local community.

Responsibilities

• To manage the allocation/award of an annual ward budget.

• To develop and agree an annual ward plan through public consultation, which identifies the community priorities which the council will address during the course of the financial year.

• To develop and submit business cases in order to receive funding to support community priorities identified in the ward plan (‘Ward Plans scheme’).

• To take oversight of and responsibility for the delivery of council actions and council funded projects to deliver the identified priorities in the published ward plans.

Decision-making

• To agree an annual ward plan which sets out the local community priorities that the council will work towards delivering during the course of the year. Page 127

Ways of working

1. To be accountable, for priorities, projects and actions agreed through Ward Plans.

2. To comply with the Council’s code of conduct for councillors and its other rules governing behaviour.

3. To comply with the councillor/employee code of conduct contained in the constitution.

4. To take part in training and development to ensure that the role is undertaken effectively.

5. To champion equalities duties.

6. To use technology wherever possible.

Skills and knowledge required

1. Local leadership – engage with the community to learn about issues of local concern and develop a vision for the future.

2. Partnership working – build good relationships with others to identify issues and work together towards shared goals.

3. Communication and interpersonal skills – communicate regularly and effectively with all parts of their community using different forms of media and communication channels.

4. Scrutiny and challenge – ability to analyse information and present arguments that are concise, meaningful and easily understood.

5. Networking – ability to facilitate, negotiate and influence stakeholders to achieve mutually satisfactory outcomes for local communities.

6. Ability to work as part of a team.

Page 128 Appendix B: Delegation to Ward Councillors

SHEPWAY DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTITUTION PART 9 – COUNCILLORS

1. WARD COUNCILOR’S BUDGETS

1.1 Ward councillor budgets are allocated at the start of the financial year to be spent on supporting ward initiatives in accordance with the approved ward budget scheme (‘the approved scheme’).

1.2 Ward councillors are authorised to spend up to the amount in the approved ward budgets subject to complying with the requirements of the approved scheme and with the ward councillor decision rules contained in the constitution.

2. WARD PLANS

2.1 Ward councillors are authorised to develop, agree and adopt an annual ward plan for their ward.

2.2 Ward Plans are formally adopted through a published decision notice. In a single member ward this requires the signature of the ward councillor in question. In multi-member wards this requires the unanimous agreement of both/all three councillors in order for the ward plan to be formally adopted.

2.3 Ward councillors, subject to obtaining the agreement of all their fellow ward members (if any) are able to submit funding bids to the executive in accordance with the current ward plans funding scheme to support projects that deliver against the priorities identified in their Ward Plans.

2.4 Councillors may not participate in the decision making process where they have a discloseable pecuniary interest or another significant interest under the council’s code of conduct for councillors.

Page 129 Appendix C: Ward Plan Scheme

Shepway District Council Ward Plan Guidance

Overview

1. A ward plan is a document that can be used by members to identify priorities for the communities in the ward they represent. Ward plans will be used by elected members to identify the projects they want to deliver which require support from the council (officer time or funding).

2. Ward Plans apply to the following 13 wards:

Purpose

3. The purpose of ward plans is to:

• clearly articulate members’ priorities for their respective wards; • ensure that the council is working to deliver member and community priorities; • detail the key projects/actions that will address these priorities/issues; • use ward profiles to ensure a strong evidence base for identified priorities;

Page 130 • enable members to collaborate with partners and stakeholders in an accountable and clear fashion; • provide meaningful opportunities for local people to influence local priorities and shape their community; and • secure financial and staff resources to support projects/actions in the community.

Strategic Context

4. Ward Plans have been developed to help deliver the council’s strategic objective to ‘Listen to local people’, as set out in the Corporate Plan 2013- 18.

5. Ward Plans are a key component of the council’s Community Participation and Empowerment Strategy, which seeks to develop the role of ward members as community champions. The purpose of the strategy is to provide opportunities for residents to influence decisions and shape their local community.

Key Principles

6. The following principles will inform the development of ward plans:

• There will be one ward plan, per ward, to promote consensus in multimember wards; • Ward plan actions/projects should be practical and deliverable by the Council. They should be achievable within prescribed timeframes; • A ward plan priority/action should not be contrary to the Council’s stated policies strategies or plans; • There should be flexibility to accommodate cross-ward projects; • Ward plan priorities should be developed through public consultation and in collaboration with key stakeholders; and • The process should not be overly bureaucratic.

7. There is no requirement on Councillors to develop ward plans. However, members are encouraged to adopt ward plans, as a means of accessing funding for community projects.

Determining Ward Plan priorities

8. Members are encouraged to identify and deliver projects in their Ward Plan in the following priority areas:

• Support community projects; • Improve services or facilities in a local area; • Promote better community relations; • Maintain local open spaces and leisure facilities; • Improve the local environment or appearance of an area; • Address community safety issues; • Support community and economic regeneration initiatives;

Page 131 • Encourage art and cultural activities; sports development; community health and wellbeing; and young people initiatives.

9. Councillors are encourage to give priority to projects which:

• Further the council’s strategic objectives, as set out in the Corporate Plan 2013-18; • Demonstrate clear local support and/or community need; • Are consistent with any town or parish community plans; • Provides evidence of value for money; and • Directly benefits their electoral ward.

Restrictions

10. The priorities, actions and/or projects in the finalised and agreed ward plans cannot be contrary to the councils stated policy, strategies or plans.

11. Ward plans cannot be used for political campaigning, lobbying or for personal benefit.

12. Ward plans cannot be used to:

• Reinstate a cut in service or activity arising from an earlier policy decision of Shepway District Council or other public body; • Benefit individuals or privately owned businesses; • Support the mainstream activities of a community or voluntary organisation; • Resource activities retrospectively. • Grant monies to: o Town and Parish Councils, with a precept of greater than £21,000 a year; o Local authorities; o Individuals; o Privately owned businesses; o Political parties; o SDC Councillors or persons associated with them (to avoid any potential conflicts of interest).

Content

13. There is a standard Ward Plans template, which can be adapted to suit the requirements of members when developing their own Ward Plan. However, every plan will need to contain the following:

• A clearly identified set of priorities for the financial year; • A brief description of the project and actions that the members will aim to deliver for each priority; • Evidence in the form of a business case, information or consultation results which supports the priorities, actions and projects identified in the plan; • Details of who will deliver each action; Page 132 • The timescales over which each project will be delivered; • Any grants that are planned to be allocated during the course of the year; and • Any funding bids which will be made to the Ward Budgets funding pot to support the delivery of the priorities identified in the Ward Plan.

14. The Ward Plan template is available from the Policy and Engagement team: [email protected] or 01303 853 416.

Geographical focus

15. The primary focus of a Ward Plan is to identify the priorities, actions and projects that Councillors wish to focus on in their ward in the financial year. Consequently, Ward Plans are produced at the ward level.

16. However, there is flexibility to include shared priorities in neighbouring ward plans or to include projects which cross ward boundaries.

Consultation

17. The priorities identified within the ward plan should be developed through public consultation and in collaboration with key stakeholders. However, it is at the discretion of the ward members to determine how they will do this. Officer support is available on request to assist with consultation.

18. Any consultation must take place before final agreement and publication of the ward plan. Potential consultees include: the public, Town and Parish Councils, KCC Divisional Members, voluntary and community groups, local businesses and public sector agencies.

19. The level of consultation undertaken by ward members in developing the Ward Plan will be described within the version of the document that is formally adopted.

Approval and Decision-Making Process for Ward Plans

20. There will be only one Ward Plan per ward. Members in multi-member wards must reach a consensus for the plan to be adopted. Members are able to identify individual priorities within the plan should they so wish.

21. In order for a Ward Plan to come into effect a decision notice must be signed by all relevant Ward Councillor(s) depending on whether it is a one, two or three member ward. The council’s constitution gives authority to Ward Members to approve the Ward Plan for their ward.

22. Once a decision notice for each Ward Councillor has been published on the council’s website then the Ward Plan will come into effect and the Ward Members will then be able to submit funding bids to the Ward Plan Funding Scheme.

Page 133 23. If no ward plan is to be written, then all members representing that ward must agree with that decision, and this will be published on the council’s website.

Resources to deliver Ward Plans

24. Ward Members can use the following resources to support the delivery of their Ward Plans:

• A new Ward Plans funding scheme, which has been established to support the delivery of ward plan priorities; • Aligning their Ward Budgets to support the delivery of ward plan priorities; and • Requesting the deployment of existing staff resources to help deliver Ward Plans through consultation with the relevant Head of Service or Manager. As per the Member Code of Conduct, this can only take the form of a request, as members are not permitted to give instructions to officers.

Ward Plan Funding Scheme

25. If funding is required to deliver projects within the Ward Plan members can submit a funding bid to the Ward Plan Funding Scheme.

Funding Bids

26. To access the funding, Ward Members need to prepare a business case, which will considered by the Grant Advisory Panel, which will have an expanded terms of reference. The process is detailed in Appendix 1, and a template is included as Appendix 2.

27. In order to be able to consider a funding bid the business case must relate directly to a stated priority in an agreed and published Ward Plan. The funding bid needs to be signed-off by all the Ward Councillors in that ward.

28. Ward Members may submit a joint funding bid based on a single business case for projects which cross ward boundaries. In order to do this, both/all agreed and published Ward Plans must make reference to the shared priority and the business case must be able to demonstrate that all wards will benefit from the proposal.

29. The minimum funding bid to the Ward Projects Funding Scheme is £500 and the maximum is £50,000.

30. Funding bids can be submitted at any time to the Policy and Engagement Team. Officers will evaluate the business cases and prepare comments for the next meet of the Grant Advisory Panel. Officers will also offer feedback to Ward Members if they feel there are opportunities to improve the business case or if they feel they are points that need to be clarified or addressed.

31. Members submitting business cases for projects to deliver a priority/project in their Ward Plan must provide: Page 134

• at least one quotation in advance for items costing between £1,000 and £10,000; or • three written quotations in advance for items valued between £10,000 and £50,000.

32. Ward Members cannot personally receive funding from the Ward Plans Funding Scheme. The funding bid must therefore state who will be the accountable body for any payments. This can be a council service/team if a project is going to be delivered by the Council. If a payment is going to be made to an external body then full details of the organisation and its constitution must be provided up front.

33. Any funding bid cannot include any contractual or employment costs to the council. The business case must detail any recurring costs (such as maintenance and cleaning), who these costs will fall on and how these costs will be paid for. The Ward Plan funding scheme does not cover recurring costs.

Funding Allocation

34. The allocation of monies from the Ward Plan Funding Scheme will be determined on the basis of business cases submitted by Ward Members in order to maximize the community benefit across the district. This will ensure that there is a robust rationale for the spending and the council can have confidence that the money will be spent effectively.

35. Funding from the Ward Plan Funding Scheme can be allocated at any time from when the fund opens to when it closes each financial year, which is at the end of each financial year in March.

36. Funding allocated to successful bids should be spent before the end of the financial year in which the funding is awarded. It is possible for ward members to carry money forward in exceptional circumstances to the next financial year with the permission of the council’s Section 151 officer in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance.

37. Unspent monies at the end of the financial year from the Ward Plans Funding Scheme which have not been carried forward will be returned to the general fund as part of the council’s normal year end processes. Any change of use of remaining funding or the existing budgets will be subject to the council’s normal budget setting arrangements and Financial Procedure Rules.

Approval and Decision-Making Process for Ward Plans Funding Scheme

38. All funding bids submitted on the basis of a business case will be considered by the Grant Advisory Panel. This is an advisory, non-decision making body which makes recommendations to the Leader of the Council.

39. All funding bids will be considered at the next meeting of the Grant Advisory Panel. The GAP will meet as often as required in order to properly consider Page 135 and process the funding bids so that the funding can be allocated and projects can be delivered within the financial year.

40. It is the Leader of the Council who will formally approve any funding from the Ward Plan Funding Scheme. This is done by issuing a decision notice.

Compliance with the council’s financial procedures

41. The council’s financial procedures provide the framework for managing the council’s financial affairs. All purchase orders and payments for goods and services will need to comply with the finance regulations, as part of the council’s constitution. They apply to Councillors and officers.

42. Any relevant receipts and invoices should also be retained in line with the council’s financial procedures.

43. All Councillors and staff must ensure that any irregularity or suspected irregularity involving Council funds, property or other assets for which the council is responsible is reported immediately to the Chief Financial Officer.

Payments

44. Grant funding from the Ward Plans Funding Scheme will be made in advance for sums equal to or less than £1,000. In order for this to happen, the Ward Member must provide supporting evidence for audit purposes in the form of a quote or estimate for the cost of the project.

45. All other grants from the Ward Plans Funding Scheme are paid in arrears but where this causes “cash-flow” problems, the Council will consider paying up to £1,000 as “forward funding” and/or paying eligible grant monies in tranches/installments to an accountable body.

46. Payments made under the Ward Plans Funding Scheme cannot be made to Ward Members. Funding for approved projects will be made to:

• To the relevant service area for a specified project where a council service will be responsible for delivering that project on behalf of the Ward Councillor(s). This will be done by way of a budget virement. • A properly constituted accountable body, which is responsible for delivering the project and whose details were included in the business case.

47. All payments made to external parties from the Ward Plans Funding Scheme will be subject to a grant agreement, which will document what monies are being paid out and for what purpose. The precise form this agreement will take will be proportionate to the size of the payment.

48. The council reserves the right to undertake due diligence before making any payment to an external body under the terms of the Ward Plan funding scheme.

Timescales Page 136

49. Ward Plans are produced on an annual basis to fit with the councils service planning and budget setting process. However, this approach is flexible to allow projects and actions to run beyond the financial year if required.

50. The Ward Plan allows for different actions to have their own separate timescale for delivery. A mixture of short, medium and long term commitments are encouraged.

51. For longer-term projects spanning more than one year, Ward Members are encouraged to specify what in particular will be delivered within the one year timeframe of the Ward Plan.

52. Once consensus has been achieved the ward plan can be published and it will then be considered a ‘live document’.

Arrangements for 2015/16

53. Because the council is introducing Ward Plans for the first time in 2015/16 and council elections will not be held until May 2015, the ward plan scheme will not open until June 2015.

54. Ward Councillors are able to commence the development of their ward plans as soon as they wish and to seek formal approval for their Ward Plan as soon as it is ready.

55. An indicative timeframe for producing Ward Plans in 2015/16 is as follows:

Month Activity May 2015 Council elections. Member briefing/training on Ward Plans and funding June 2015 Ward Plan scheme and funding opens. Ward Profiles are published. July 2015 Public and stakeholder consultation August 2015 Draft Ward Plans produced September 2015 Ward Plans are formally adopted March 2016 Refresh of Ward Plans for 2016/17 Ward Funding Scheme 15/16 closes April 2016 Ward Plans for 2016/17 formally adopted Ward Funding Scheme 16/17 open for applications

Publication

56. Once a ward plan has been formally adopted, it will be published on the council’s website along with the formal decision notice. In addition, the council will publish information on any projects that been allocated funding from the Ward Plans funding scheme.

57. A plan may be amended during the course of the year (to demonstrate progress, or accommodate new projects). The version published on the website will be the current version that the members and officers are working to deliver. Page 137

58. Funding bids which are recommended for approval by the Grant Advisory Panel and approved by the Leader of the Council will also be published on the council’s website including summary details setting out what the money will be spent on.

Officer support

59. Ward Members will have the following support available to them in preparing their Ward Plan (on request):

• Access to key statistics and information on their ward through Ward Profiles; • Help to prepare any public or stakeholder consultation the Ward Member or Members wishes to undertake; • Assistance in drafting the Ward Plan; and • Support to prepare a business case for the Ward Plan Funding Scheme.

60. Where Ward Members require staff resources to support the delivery of a ward plan action or project, it is advised that they hold discussions with the relevant Head of Service and Middle Manager to ensure that the proposals are realistic and can be accommodated within the workload of the service/team. Ward Members may also choose to consult with the relevant Portfolio Holder.

61. Councillors are referred to the respective roles of employees and councillors as set out in the protocol on councillor / employee relations and in particular the restrictions on councillors giving or purporting to give instructions to officer.

62. It is expected that all Heads of Service and Middle Managers support Ward Members requests for officer support where this can be accommodated within the normal operations of the service/team through the effective planning and prioritisation of workloads. There is no expectation that officer support should be immediate but that all reasonable requests should be accommodated during the course of that financial year.

63. If the Ward Member or Ward Members feels that a reasonable request has been rejected by the Head of Service or Middle Management without fair consideration then they may take their request to the Corporate Director, Resources who will consider the matter.

64. Where a Head of Service or Middle Manager does not have sufficient staff resource to meet the request for assistance, then a Ward Member can submit a funding bid to the Ward Plan Funding Scheme for additional support to deliver a project or action. This may take the form of an external resource.

65. The Chief Executive as the Head of the Paid Service is responsible for the staffing of the council. Any project requiring funding to secure additional

Page 138 officer support or an external staffing resource will need to have the prior approval of the Chief Executive.

Publicity

66. Periodically, the council’s press office will publicise the ‘success stories’ of the Ward Plan approach through traditional and social media, as well as the council’s website.

67. Local community groups and Ward Members are free to seek their own publicity regarding any projects that are supported by the Ward Plan Funding Scheme.

68. The usual restrictions of political activity and campaigning during election periods will apply with regard to Ward Plans and the Ward Plan funding scheme.

Monitoring and reporting

69. When the draft ward plans have been produced, the information will be aggregated and presented to the Corporate Management Team and Cabinet for information only. This will enable the council to form a collective view of ward plan priorities by amalgamating information from the different ward plans, in order to assess the cumulative effect/implications on Council resources (both financial and staffing).

70. The council’s Policy and Engagement Team will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on Ward Plans. This will include keeping records on the priorities, actions and projects in the Ward Plans, as well as financial commitments the council has made through the Ward Plan funding scheme.

71. There will be an annual report to the Corporate Management Team, Community Overview Community and Cabinet each year summarizing what has been achieved and to account for how the council’s funding has been spent.

72. Updates on Ward Plans also forms part of the six monthly reporting on progress in delivering against the council’s Corporate Plan commitments (this is part of the council’s Performance Management framework).

Evaluation

73. The council reserves the right to contact external recipients of grant funding from the Ward Plan Funding Scheme at a suitable date after the payment has been made to secure feedback on the community benefits achieved from the funding.

Scrutiny

74. The council’s Community Overview Committee (COC) has oversight of Ward Plans. It will receive the same information as Cabinet in terms of the ongoing monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the success of the initiative. COC will Page 139 be able to make recommendations to Cabinet regarding how Ward Plans should operate or if improvements can be made.

75. With regard to payments made from the Ward Plan Funding Scheme to support the delivery of Ward Plans, there is a call-in period from when the Cabinet Member for Finance publish his/her decision notice. This can be used to scrutinize the decision to award grant funding for a particular project.

Code of Conduct

76. Ward Members are subject to the Local Code of Conduct and officers are subject to the Officers Code of Conduct on all matters relating to Ward Plans.

Data Protection

77. Disclaimer: The information provided to the council under the Ward Plan scheme will be held securely by the council at all times. The council may share the information with external agencies and the wider public to ensure that issues are addressed and projects are delivered successfully. The council may share the detail with other organisations, if required to do so by law.

Audit

78. The Ward Plan scheme will be subject to review by the council’s Internal Audit service to ensure financial probity and value for money in how public money is spent.

79. Appropriate records must be kept by officers of the funding approved and expenditure incurred by the council. Every approved project must be recorded within a published Ward Plan.

Equality and Diversity

80. The council has a set of equality duties that it needs to adhere to, as set out in the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Sector Equality Duty. How the council discharges its equality duties is set out in the council’s Equality and Diversity Policy. Members and officers should ensure that issues pertaining to all communities (both communities of interest and geographical) are considered when developing a Ward Plan.

Contact details

81. If you have any question relating to this guidance or the Ward Planning process, please contact the Policy and Engagement Team: 01303 853416 or [email protected] .

Page 140 Appendix 1 - Business Case Preparation and Approval Process a. Once a ward plan has been finalised, the key projects that require additional funding should be identified, and a business case will need to be written for them using the template in Appendix 2. b. To be eligible to apply for funding from the central ward plan fund projects must do one or more of the following: i. Support community projects (including art, youth and sports projects); ii. Improve services or facilities in a local area; iii. Promote better community relations; iv. Maintain local open spaces and leisure facilities; v. Improve the local environment or appearance of an area; vi. Address community safety issues; vii. Help regenerate the local area; viii. Encourage art and cultural activities; sports development; community health and wellbeing; and young people initiatives. c. Projects cannot be funded which: i. Are contrary to the council’s stated policy, strategies or plans; ii. Involve political campaigning, lobbying or for personal benefit; iii. Reinstate a cut in service or activity arising from an earlier policy decision of Shepway District Council or other public body; iv. Benefit individuals or privately owned businesses; v. Support the mainstream activities of a community or voluntary organisation; vi. Resource activities retrospectively; vii. Incur ongoing costs to the council which cannot be met or which have not been formally approved. d. Grant cannot be paid monies to: i. Town and Parish Councils, with a precept of greater than £21,000 a year; ii. Local authorities; iii. Individuals; iv. Privately owned businesses; v. Political parties; vi. SDC Councillors or persons associated with them (to avoid any potential conflicts of interest). e. Once the business case has been written, it must be signed by all the members of the electoral ward and sent to the Policy and Engagement Team to be prepared for Grant Advisory Panel (GAP). f. All completed business cases will be assessed at the GAP. An officer comments sheet will accompany each business case, which will confirm that it has been considered by the relevant Head of Service, Middle Manager and a Finance Officer. The comments sheets will also confirm it complies with the scheme regulations. Page 141 g. The GAP will be formed and the membership selected in accordance with terms of reference for the panel. h. All funding bids will be considered at the next meeting of the GAP, which will meet as often as required in order to properly consider and process the funding bids so that the funding can be allocated and projects can be delivered within the financial year. i. The GAP will make recommendations on how to allocate the funding over the course of the financial year to those projects that meet the terms and conditions of the Ward Plan Funding Scheme. j. The Leader will then approve the recommendations of the GAP and a decision notice will be published within three working days. There will be a period of five working days following the publication of the decision, where three or more members of the Resources Scrutiny Committee may request that the decision is called in. In this event it will be handled in accordance with part 7.3 (Call-In Rules of Procedure) of the councils constitution. k. Once the call in period has expired the funding bid is approved and the money can be released in accordance with the rules of the Ward Plan Funding Scheme. l. Funding from the Ward Plan Funding Scheme can be allocated at any time from when the fund opens to when it closes each financial year. The fund will formally close at the end of each financial year in March.

Page 142 Appendix 2 – Business Case Template

Ward Plan Project Business Case

Project Name: Ward Members:

1. Link to ward plan How does this reflect the priorities in ward plan?

2. Project Summary and objectives Project objectives and what it aims to achieve.

3. State which Strategic Outcome/s this project will link to: • Boost the local economy and increase job opportunities • More homes • Listening to local people • Support an attractive and vibrant place to live • Deliver value for money

4. Why we need the Project Background and problem/opportunity to be addressed

5. Benefits and impact Include financial and non-financial, if applicable. Also specify how they will be measured? What would be the impact on the Council’s reputation or structures? Think about impact on equality, environment etc.

6. Project Delivery 6.1. Project approach (who is involved? including governance of the project)

6.2. Project timescales (please highlight if the project will run into the next financial year)

6.3. Schedule of works or when will it take place

6.4. Key milestones from the project plan

7. Sustainability What will happen once the funding and support has concluded? Are there any ongoing/recurring costs from this project? How will they be funded?

Page 143 8. Project Resources 8.1. What support from council officers will the project need? What difference will they make?

8.2. Costs (including staff costs) Please set out one off and recurring costs for years 1, 2 and 3.

8.3. Funding requirement

8.4. Funding from other parties

9. Links and Dependencies State any links and dependencies with other projects and organisations.

10. Risks What are the most significant risks for the project and how will they be mitigated? Risk Mitigating action

11. Signature:

Ward member: Date:

Ward member: Date:

Ward member: Date:

Page 144 Officer comments sheet (for consideration at the Grant Advisory Panel):

Does it meet the criteria of Yes/No the scheme? Name and job title:

Signature: Date: Does it contradict existing Yes/No council policy? Name and job title:

Signature: Date: Finance Officer Comments Yes/No - Is the project financially Name and job title: viable? Are the costs fully detailed? Does the project Signature: represent value for money? Date:

Have the requirements for Yes/No officer support been Name and job title: approved by the relevant Head of Service and middle Signature: manager? Date:

Page 145 Appendix D: Revised Terms of Reference for the Grants Advisory Panel

1. Formation and purpose

The Grants Advisory Panel is established and its members appointed by the leader of the council to advise him / her on the applications set out in paragraph 3

2. Membership

The Panel shall be comprised of:-

• The portfolio holder responsible for finance; • The portfolio holder responsible for communities (or the equivalent) • One councillor drawn from the wards of North Downs West and North Downs East; • One councillor drawn from the wards of Hythe and Hythe Rural; • Two councillors drawn from the wards of New Romney, Romney Marsh and Walland and Denge Marsh; • Four councillors drawn from the wards of Broadmead, Cheriton, East Folkestone, Folkestone Central, Folkestone Harbour and Sandgate and West Folkestone.

Where a member of the grants advisory panel has a discloseable pecuniary interest or an other significant interest under the council’s code of conduct, he / she shall not participate in the decision (i.e. agreeing the recommendation of the committee).

The advisory panel shall consist of at least one member from a political group not forming part of the administration or an independent member so long as he / she is not part of the administration of the council.

3. Duties and responsibilities

To consider and to make recommendations on:

(a) Applications for funding from the community chest.

(b) Application for funding from the ward plan funding scheme.

Ensuring in all case that they meet agreed criteria and conditions

4. Quorum and frequency of meetings

The quorum shall be five members. The advisory panel shall meet at least once every two months.

08/01/15

Page 146

Page 147 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

This Report will be made public on 17 February 2015

Report Number C/14/82

To: Cabinet Date: 25 February 2015 Status: Non key Decision Head of service: Peter Wignall, Democratic Services Cabinet Member: Councillor David Monk, leader of the council

SUBJECT: District, Parish and Town Council Elections – Election Fees and Charges

Summary: This report sets out a proposed scale of fees and expenses of Shepway’s Returning Officer to undertake the arrangements for managing and conducting district, parish and town council elections.

Reasons for recommendations: Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations set out below in respect of the maximum scale of fees and charges for district, parish and town council elections. This enables a fair and reasonable recharge to be made by the Council to town and parish councils for their elections

Recommendations: 1. To receive and note report C/14/82. 2. To agree to adopt the Kent Scale of fees and charges shown in Appendix 1 for district, town and parish council elections and parish polls.

Page 149 1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The staffing costs of conducting Parliamentary and European Parliamentary elections are regulated by the Returning Officers’ Fees and Charges Orders made by the Government (“the National Scale”).

1.2 For a district election (including by-elections), Section 36 (4) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states that the council may set a maximum scale of charges for the returning officer to use. The legislation states that the a returning officer’s expenses for conducting an election shall be paid by the council but if a scale is set, the expenses shall not exceed those laid down in the scale.

1.3 For parish/town council elections, Section 36 (5) states that the council may similarly set a maximum scale of charges for the returning officer to use, which the district council is responsible for paying, but which shall be repaid to the district council by the parish council for which the election is held, if the district council so requires it to be paid. It is the policy of this council that parish councils are required to pay for elections.

1.4 In Kent, the costs of conducting county, district, borough, town and parish elections are applied through the Kent Scale of Fees and Charges, which since 1998 has largely mirrored the National Scale.

1.5 Each year the Kent Association of Electoral Registration Officers and their staff (KAEROS) submit the Kent Scale to the Kent Association of Chief Executives for approval. This scale is then adopted by all of the 13 local authorities in Kent as the maximum amounts applicable for returning officers to charge for conducting local elections and parish polls in Kent.

1.6 A variant of the scheme is also adopted by the County Council with amendments for deputy returning officers to manage and conduct elections on the county’s behalf.

2. THE KENT SCALE

2.1 With the exception of polling staff and their travel costs and official poll card delivery costs, the Kent Scale uses a “per elector” charge on which to base its charges e.g. for the employment of persons in connection with the counting of votes, clerical and other assistance required by the returning officer, the present charge is £69.70 per 500 electors or part in a contested election. The proposed charge is £71.23.

2.2 Poll cards are only a statutory requirement in national elections and referendums and at district elections. When there is a parish or town council election, poll cards are only sent out if the parish or town council so require which is done by way of notification to the returning officer not later than noon on the nineteenth day before an election. However if the poll is combined, an official poll card must be sent and part of the costs may be recovered.

Page 150 2.3 The proposed full scale is shown at appendix 1 and also covers the eventuality of an uncontested election when minimal costs are applied and recouped for managing nominations and booking polling stations etc. . 2.4 If the Council does not adopt a scale, then the Council will be obliged to pay the returning officer’s expenses without setting what it considers a reasonable scale of expenses applicable to district, town and parish elections in Shepway. In addition, the scale does provide some indication to parish and town councils of the likely costs they will be liable to incur if there are contested elections in their area.

2.5 It is considered therefore that the revised scale should be adopted.

3. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES

3.1 There perceived risks are as follows:

Perceived risk Seriousness Likelihood Preventative action Failure to adopt Low Low Adopt scale of fees. a scale of fees.

4. LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS

4.1 Legal Officer’s Comments (AK)

All the legal issues are set out in the report.

4.2 Finance Officer’s Comments (MF)

The scale of fees from 1 April 2015 are generally increasing by 2.2%. Costs relating to the parish / town elections are recovered as per the scale of fees set out in the appendix to this report.

4.3 Diversities and Equalities Implications (PJW)

No diversity and equalities implications.

5. CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the following officer prior to the meeting

Wayne Fitter, Democratic Services Manager Telephone: 01303 853234. Email: [email protected]

The following background documents have been relied upon in the preparation of this report: None

Appendix: Appendix 1: Proposed scale of fees and charges Page 151 This page is intentionally left blank

KENT ASSOCIATION OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICERS AND STAFF

September 2014

NOTES TO PROPOSED SCALE OF ELECTION FEES FOR 2015

1. Since 1998 the Kent scale of election fees mirrored the latest national scale, with local variations (for example, payment to the District/Borough for the use of Council staff). The Local Returning Officers’ Charges Order 2009 for the European Parliamentary election of that year introduced a new approach by Government. The Order provided for an overall maximum of expenditure, based on various assumptions, and allowed flexibility across different heads of expenditure; this approach has continued at all national elections since. However, after full discussion of various options at the September 2010 meeting of the Association, it was unanimously agreed to retain the present structure for District/Borough elections in Kent.

2. The scale of fees is revised each year in accordance with the annual National Joint Council APT & C pay award; the current fees will be increased in line with the NJC local government pay award for 2014/15 which has yet to be determined (as at 11 September 2014).

3. Commencing September 2013 the following applied to item 11 (delivery of poll cards by hand). Historically, the fee has been set at Royal Mail’s second class postage rate which at 11 September 2014 is £0.53, however the scale will say “second class post” as the rate is variable.

4. In the absence of the NJC APT&C pay award, it is proposed to agree to increase the scale of fees and charges in line with any pay award granted for 2014/15 with effect from 1 April 2015.

IMPORTANT NOTE

Kent AERO’s approved the proposal to agree to the scale subject to adding the pay award once known. The National Pay Award has now been agreed at 2.2%. The increase has been applied to the attached scale of Fees and Charges.

Page 153 KENT ASSOCIATION OF ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICERS AND STAFF

Proposed scale of fees for District/Borough and Parish Council elections held on or after 1st April 2015

Current 2014 Proposed 2015 ITEM % increase £ £

1. For each Presiding Officer at a Polling Station – 199.22 203.60 2.2% single election

2. For each Presiding Officer at a Polling Station – combined election or difficult station due to local 244.74 250.12 2.2% circumstances (at the discretion of the Returning Officer)

3. For a Presiding Officer who acts as a supervisor (additional) (additional) at a Polling Place where there is more than one 2.2% 9.66 9.87 Polling Station

4. Presiding Officer travel (see note 4 below) 13.66 13.96 2.2%

5. For each Poll Clerk at a Polling Station – single 119.53 122.16 2.2% election

6. For each Poll Clerk at a Polling Station – combined election (at the discretion of the Returning 147.99 151.25 2.2% Officer)

7. Poll Clerk travel (see note 4 below) 7.94 8.11 2.2%

8. Supervising Officer – for every 10 polling stations 199.22 203.60 2.2% overseen

9. For each Presiding Officer, Poll Clerk and 44.22 45.19 2.2% Supervising Officer attending training

10. For each training session provided by the 170.78 174.54 2.2% Returning Officer to Presiding Officers and Poll Clerks

11. For the delivery of official Poll Cards by hand Second class Second class

post post

12. For the employment of persons in connection with the counting of votes, clerical and other assistance 69.70 71.23 2.2% required by the Returning Officer – for each 500 electors (or part) in a contested election

13. For the employment of persons in connection with the preparation, issue and opening of postal ballot papers – for every 100 (or part) postal ballot papers 68.31 69.81 2.2% issued. (Further resources may be needed to meet the effects of the Electoral Administration Act 2006)

Page 154 Current 2014 Proposed 2015 ITEM % increase £ £

14. For each recount of the votes – for each 500 4.01 4.10 2.2% electors (or part) (see note 3 below)

15. Travel of staff in connection with the counting of votes (at the discretion of the Returning Officer – see 7.94 8.11 2.2% note 4 below)

16. For clerical and other assistance required by the Returning Officer at an uncontested election – for each 18.96 19.38 2.2% 500 electors (or part)

17. Payment to the District/Borough for the use of Council staff to support the Returning Officer in the conduct of elections as follows:

(a) contested election – (i.e. without District/Borough) for each 500 electors (or part) 53.98 55.17 2.2% (b) contested joint election (i.e. with District/Borough) – for each 500 electors (or part) 26.99 27.58 2.2%

18. Payment to the District/Borough for the use of Council staff at an uncontested election – per 14.89 15.22 2.2% uncontested election (see note 5 below)

19. Returning Officer’s fee for the conduct of elections as follows: (a) contested District/Borough OR Parish election – for each 500 electors (or part) 30.17 (b) contested joint District/Borough AND Parish 30.83 2.2% election – for each 500 electors 41.67 (or part) 42.57 2.2% (c) uncontested District/Borough election – 51.66 52.80 2.2% single fee (d) uncontested Parish election – single fee 17.70 18.09 2.2%

Notes

1. The fees are calculated on the number of local government electors on the register of electors and entitled to vote at the last day for publication of the notice of election.

2. At parish polls the fees relating to polling staff may be pro rata.

3. Item 14 – in special circumstances, the Returning Officer may recover actual costs.

4. Items 4, 7 and 15 – variable mileage rates may be applied where fixed travel is considered inappropriate.

5. Item 18 - the payment referred to applies (in the case of a parish election) to each ward of a parish.

Page 155 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11

This Report will be made public on 17 February 2015

Report Number C/14/80

To: Cabinet Date: 25 February 2015 Status: Non-Executive Decision Director: Jeremy Chambers, Corporate Director - Resources

SUBJECT: MEMBERS 2015 PROJECT – ACCOMMODATION AND TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY: This report sets out a number of proposals for minor changes to the council chamber and adjoining accommodation areas; the creation of a new disabled toilet facility in the store adjacent to the public entrance to the council chamber; and the installation of a web casting facility which would allow members of the public to view council meetings via the Internet.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: Cabinet is asked to agree the recommendations that have been discussed by the Members 2015 Steering Group

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. To receive and note Report C/14/80. 2. To agree to minor refurbishment of the council chamber benches and the installation of a 13A power supply at each desk at a cost of £3700. 3. To agree to a rearrangement of the Chairman’s office to form a more useful meeting/ work space. 4. To agree to the conversion of the store room outside, but adjacent to, the public gallery in the council chamber to a public toilet with disabled facilities at an estimated cost of £19k. 5. To agree the installation of camera equipment to permit the webcasting of meetings and that the solution that is considered to offer the best overall value rather than the lowest price be adopted. The cost of the proposed solution is £35,382 over 3 years.

Page 157 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Members 2015 Project was set up to consider a range of topics related to the transition to a thirty member council in May 2015. The project was divided up into workstreams, one of which was tasked to consider and review the requirement to make any changes to the Council Chamber and adjoining accommodation and the provision of technology to permit the filming and web casting of council meetings.

1.2 The Council (14/5/14) approved the formation the Members 2015 Steering Group (Minutes 14/08 refers) in order to review the options being considered by the Project Team.

2.0 Accommodation

2.1 The Members Steering Group considered a number of ideas and proposals regarding the use and layout of the council chamber, committee meeting rooms (Boulogne and Middelburg), ancillary rooms (Chairman’s parlour and members room) and the adjacent areas (members foyer and members toilets). The steering group were keen to ensure that all proposals offered value for money and focused on improving the public experience of attending council meetings. The following paragraphs (2.2 – 2.6) are a summary of the options considered and the steering groups agreed position.

2.2 Council Chamber

2.2.1 Retain the tiered benching though a smaller council would require a review of the seating occupancy for various meetings which ties in to the proposals for webcasting meetings (which are outlined later in this report).

2.2.2 Provision of a power socket for each desk to allow members to plug in laptops and tablets to enable then to work electronically should they wish cost of approximately £2200. 2.2.3 Minor repair/ re-varnishing of the desks at a cost of approximately £1500. 2.3 Chairman’s parlour and member’s room The Members Steering Group felt that although the Chairman’s parlour and member’s room are underutilised they are still useful on occasion. It is proposed that the layout of the Chairman’s parlour be changed to provide a couple of work spaces where members can hold informal meetings or sit and work on a laptop or tablet. The room would still be used for the Chairman’s duties on those formal occasions that require it.

2.4 Members Foyer An option was put forward with regard to creating a new kitchenette in the Folkestone room, removing the self service drinks machines from the stairwell and moving the sink and dishwasher from the space outside the men’s toilets but the steering group felt any expenditure changing the current arrangements was not necessary. Page 158

2.5 Members Toilets It was suggested that the refurbishment of the toilets adjacent to the member’s foyer should be included as part of the Members 2015 Project and that the amount of space given to toilets, particularly in the ladies toilet be reviewed. The steering group felt that there was little benefit to be gained from trying to reconfigure the space. They also felt that although the toilets are in need of refurbishment any works should be considered routine building maintenance and not specifically part of this project.

2.6 Committee rooms (Boulogne and Middelburg rooms) No changes are proposed for these rooms as part of the Members project although it is suggested that more committees are held in the council chamber in future to allow them to be webcast (which is outlined later in this report).

3.0 Public Toilets

3.1 One of the suggestions initially put forward as part of a total refurbishment of the council chamber and member’s area was an option to provide toilet facilities for members of the public who attend meetings. The steering group thought that although they did not wish to pursue whole scale changes to the Council chamber and adjoining spaces they thought there was merit in taking the opportunity to look at providing public toilets as the current arrangements present a number of problems:

3.1.1 The civic warden on duty has to escort the person through the building into the toilets in reception and then wait until the person requires escorting out again.

3.1.2 There is usually on one warden on duty unless it is an extra ordinary meeting and they may be involved with other duties at the time.

3.1.3 Contacting the warden during the meeting.

3.1.4 There is no easy or safe access route from the public gallery to the toilets for disabled members of the public as they have to go via the vehicular access at the far end of the print room.

3.2 A number of options have been considered each with varying degrees of complexity and cost and not all actually resolve all the issues, such as:

• Converting the member’s room to public toilets however the differing floor levels would necessitate long ramps and a reduction in the number of seats in the public gallery. • Converting a store room in the print room building to a public toilet as there is already a toilet in there however the space currently available would not be ideal for disabled access. • Providing a toilet in the shower room by the back door to the Civic centre however this does not address the difficulty of access via the

Page 159 vehicle route at the end of the print room nor the issues with the security of the main building. • Installing a modular toilet block in the car park however this option presents difficulties with the building aesthetics, difficulty connecting to drains and loss of parking spaces. • Create a public toilet with disabled facilities in the store room adjacent to the public entrance to the council chamber. 3.3 The steering group felt the latter option was the most favorable i.e. the conversion of the store to the left of the public entrance to the council chamber as shown below:

3.4 This option presents some technical challenges in terms of drainage and roof and floor levels but it does offer a number of distinct advantages in that it provides ground level access for disabled users, it would be accessible from the public gallery so there are no additional security requirements and it already forms part of the council chamber building structure so there are no visible changes to the outside of the building.

3.5 The cost of converting the store to a public toilet with disabled access is approximately £19k.

4.0 Filming and webcasting meetings

4.1 Increasingly councils are using web casts of meetings to provide a means of engaging with citizens who would not normally be able to attend meetings but who are interested in what is being discussed. A web cast is a video that is stored on the Internet that can be viewed on line either live or at a later time and place to suit the viewer. Allowing the public to filming meetings or parts of meetings is already permitted under the Council’s constitution and this right has been extended with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 which “allows any person to use any communication method, including the internet, to publish post or otherwise share the results of public meetings”.

Page 160 4.2 It is important for the council to maintain a true record of public meetings; increasingly video clips circulated via the web are used to disproportionally represent the context of events and social media provides the means for the rapid spread of messages and content which is very difficult if not impossible to counter act. By having a complete and unedited version of a meeting available on the Internet the public has access to an official version of events rather than something that has been edited to suit particular purposes.

4.3 Two specialist webcasting companies (Public-i and Auditel) who have differing levels of experience of working with local government bodies have been approached with regards to their solutions. Both companies have a similar basic offering; meetings are filmed using cameras permanently installed in the council chamber and a copy of the video is hosted off site by the company who have the facilities in place to make the video available to the web. The video related to each meeting is usually available for viewing by the public for up to 6 months after any particular event or meeting and then placed in a non public archive which the council retains access to.

4.4 The webcast would be linked to the modern.gov system so that someone viewing online will be able to see the proceedings in the council chamber, view the minutes and agendas and also be able to see some information about the relevant speakers all from the same web page. An example taken from Bexley Councils website is shown below:

4.5 Both companies are proposing that 3 cameras are installed which will cover the whole chamber. The cameras are activated by pressing the speaker button on the desk microphone unit so the nearest camera will pick up the current speaker. Page 161

4.6 Committee Services staff would manage the webcast during the meeting using a piece of software that provides a number of functions such as signalling the timing of events, for example when a new agenda item is started, or when more than one speaker is sharing a microphone they can identify who the current speaker is from a predefined seating plan. This enhances the web experience for the viewer allowing them to navigate to the items on the agenda they are most interested in, see who is currently speaking and access some background information on the speakers. Training for Committee Services staff is included with the installation of the system.

4.7 Although both offerings are similar in their basic form, and to a member of the public viewing a web cast they would probably both look similar in appearance, there are some differences between the two suppliers offerings that the council should be aware of:

4.7.1 Public-i. Webcasting, particularly in the public sector, is Public-i’s core business and has been for many years. The advantage of their solution is that their model is more mature than the Auditel offering, they currently provide the service to a larger number of Councils and the software used to control the web cast is better developed. The disadvantage of this solution is that the cost is based on a minimum of 60 hours of hosted video per annum payable in advance, the 3 year discounted price being £35,382 (£11,944 per annum) including installation. Sixty hours of hosted video is an average taken from a number of councils who use the service which would be enough to cover full council meetings, development control and some committee meetings. Additional hours can be purchased if required. There was some concern that not all the hours purchased would be used particularly in the first year but Public-i have responded by saying that unused hours would be carried forward.

Apart from web casting they offer additional services for councils which may be of use now or in the future, such as:

• An enhanced web casting service, Connect Social, that allows for interaction with citizens even during a meeting or could allow members to attend meetings virtually. • A toolkit designed to assist councilors engage with citizens through developing social media strategies and tools. • Democratic and community engagement solutions, such as online referendums and gathering local news feeds and creating collaborative web spaces for the community.

4.7.2 Auditel . Auditel’s background is in the manufacture of audio conferencing equipment and web casting is a recent addition to thier services. Although their web casting offering would look similar to public-i their offering is not as mature and they currently only have a small number of Council reference sites, some of whom have just signed up to the solution and are not yet live.

Page 162 The advantage of the Auditel’s solution is the cost model is based on the number of minutes hosted and is charged at £2.50 per minute. There is no requirement to commit to an upfront cost for a hosting allowance which may not get used particularly in the first year. In order to compare the Auditel solution with the Public-i solution the equivalent of 60 hours of hosted video per annum over three years is £32,750. Auditel have plans to further enhance the solution as the customer base expands.

4.8 It is suggested that because the Public-i offering is more mature and there are more reference sites available that this solution is adopted in the first instance on a 3 year contract. Even though it is slightly more expensive it is felt to offer a certain level of assurance and better overall value for money. If it transpires that the council is not using all it’s 60 hours of hosted video allowance there would be the option at the end of the contract to switch to the alternative provider whose model may have matured in the meantime.

4.9 There are a number of other considerations that have to be taken into account when implementing webcasting

4.9.1 For the webcasting to work effectively the system must be able to identify who is speaking at any particular time. The system does this by following predetermined seating templates which are programmed into the software. One seating template would be created for each type of meeting that is held in the council chamber, each member is allocated a particular seat depending on which meeting they are attending.

4.9.2 The camera system is connected to the existing wireless conference microphone system so that when a microphone is in use the relevant camera will pick up the speaker. Because the current arrangements are to share one microphone between two members the operator from Committee Services simply uses the software to identify whether it is the person on the left or right of the microphone that is speaking and the system will link that to the seating template so the relevant speaker can be identified on the web cast.

4.9.3 Although the current microphone system can be made to work with the web casting system it is over 12 years old and the microphones and the charging unit batteries increasingly need attention. The cost of replacing the existing units with similar freestanding units is approximately £30,000. The cost of replacing the existing microphone with units that are built into the desks is approximately £20,000. The replacement of the microphones is not currently considered part of the Members 2015 project.

5.0 RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES

5.1 There are a minor number of risk issues to consider:

5.1.1 Failure to install power sockets in the council chamber desks could affect the ability to work electronically efficiently during meetings.

5.1.2 A number of councils have experienced meetings being filmed and the film subsequently being released on the internet in order to affect Page 163 public’s view of the council. Filming and web casting meetings provides a level of assurance that an unedited version of events is available to the public thus helping to protect the council’s reputation.

6.0. LEGAL/FINANCIAL AND OTHER CONTROLS/POLICY MATTERS

6.1 Legal Officer’s Comments

There are no legal issues arising from this report

6.2 Finance Officer’s Comments

The financial implications of this report can be met within existing resources

6.3 Diversities and Equalities Implications

Provision of the public toilet improves the facilities at the Civic Centre for people with disabilities.

CONTACT OFFICERS AND BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Councillors with any questions arising out of this report should contact the following officer prior to the meeting.

Jeremy Chambers, Corporate Director - Resources Telephone: 01303 853263. Email: [email protected]

Page 164