Agenda item

Report to follow.

The Committee received a presentation for its consideration on the plans being put in place to support the economic recovery in the borough as it emerged from the covid-19 lockdown. The Cabinet Member for Economy & Jobs, Councillor Manju Shahul-Hameed, the Cabinet Members for Environment, Transport & Regeneration (job share), Councillor Paul Scott and the Executive Director for Place, Shifa Mustafa, delivered the presentation. A copy of which can be found on the following link –

https://democracy.croydon.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=166&MId=2152&Ver=4

During the presentation the following information was noted:-

• As well as the initial health crisis created by covid-19 there was now likely to be an economic crisis as well arising from the impact of the pandemic. Partnership working would be essential to ensure the economic impact was managed as well as possible.
• There were 14,000 businesses in the borough that had been impacted by covid-19 and to date the Council had distributed £49.5m in business grants.
• Unemployment in the borough was current at 8.9%, but this could eventually rise to 14%. Additionally 18% of the working population in the borough was currently furloughed.
• The Council continued to implement the distribution of Government grants and other schemes for local businesses. Internal processes had been put in place around debt management to support businesses. The Council also continued to provide signposting and other information to businesses on an ongoing basis.
• The disadvantaged such as low earners and the under 25s were likely to be the most impacted by the crisis.
• An Economic Renewal Board had been launched to deliver a sustainable recovery from the crisis. The Board was looking at a number of themes including the town centre, district centres, employment and skills. Task and finish groups had been set up to develop future plans based upon the themes identified.
• The task and finish groups brought together a wide team of people with different experiences to workshop ideas for possible interventions in different local centres. It was recognised that each centre was different and a one size fits all approach would not work. Ideas being considered included more external sitting spaces, meeting spaces and busking spaces. It was hoped that various ideas could be trialled leading to long term positives for local centres.

The Committee had also invited Simon Maddox from the Selsdon Regeneration Group to provide an update on their work in Selsdon. It was advised that a Community Plan was being created which had involved over 1000 people from the local community to help with prioritising ideas for the local centre. One such idea that was being explored was a touchdown place for people who worked from home which was being developed through the Selsdon Baptist Church.  It was highlighted that it was important to identify and manage the assets that were individual to the local area.

The Committee was given the opportunity to ask questions on the information provided. The first question concerned the distribution of the Business Grants to local businesses. It was confirmed that to date £48m had been distributed from a total fund of £60.6m. Work continued to identify the remainder of the businesses the Council had not be able to contact with visits made to businesses to establish contact. In some cases, businesses had gone out of business while others could not be identified as business rate payers in March 2020. Having difficulty contacting some of the businesses identified by the Government was a common experience for local authorities across London.

There had been some late submissions that were still being processed and other payments had been delayed due to issues such as name changes which required additional checks. If a business had followed the Government criteria when applying for the Business Grant then payment would have been made. Delays occurred when incorrect information was provided.

In response to a question about support available for local district centres it was advised that the aim of the task and finish groups was to produce a series of pick and mix interventions that local councillors and community groups could buy into. It was likely that the areas in the borough with Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) would trial interventions in the first instance to ensure they worked. It would then be for individual areas to decide which intervention feels appropriate for their area, with the possibility that some of the work could be funded by Ward Budgets.

Concern was raised about the openness of the Economic Renewal Board and how its activity would be communicated. In response, it was highlighted that when the Board had been established it had been announced by the Leader of the Council who had set out the process. It had also been publicised through social media and business networks. As the Board had been set up in response to a possible economic crisis arising from the covid-19 lockdown it was important to move quickly with initial ideas likely to be presented to councillors and community groups in the next few weeks.

Further information was requested to outline the plans for marketing Croydon to businesses and in particular the post covid-19 offer. It was advised that Croydon was being promoted as ’15 Minute City’ due to its close proximity to central London which would be attractive for businesses looking to relocate from more expensive central locations. It should also be recognised that Croydon had the highest number of start-up businesses in London. South Bank University was currently looking to move to the borough which would bring further investment into the education sector.

At present it was not possible to predict what the ‘new normal’ would look so it was essential to be flexible, but at the same time there was a need to demonstrate to people that change was happening through ideas such as the installation of new outside seating and planting. Option for using existing Council buildings such as libraries to support businesses were also being considered as well as working with landlords to bring empty spaces into use.

At the conclusion of the item, the Chair thanked that Cabinet Members and Executive Director for Place for their attendance at the meeting and their engagement with the questions of the Committee. The Chair also thanked Simon Maddox from the Selsdon Regeneration Group for attending the meeting and providing insight into community led economic activity in the borough.

Conclusions

Following the discussion of this item the Committee reached the following conclusions:-

• The Committee retained a concern about the transparency of the Economic Renewal Board and felt that there should be an aim to make it as transparent as possible to allow local businesses and the public to understand the aims of the Board and the outcomes it was delivering.
• The Committee welcomed the confirmation that options for using existing Council buildings to provide business support were being investigated and would encourage the exploration of options for using Fairfield Halls during its closure.
• Although it was acknowledged that the Council was marketing the borough as a place to do business and there was limited funding available to expand upon current activity, given the opportunities that may be available arising post covid-19 lockdown it would encourage the exploration of cost effective options to increase the marketing of the borough.

Recommendations

The Committee agreed to make the following recommendations to the Cabinet Member for Economy and Jobs and the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport & Regeneration (job share):-

1. That information on the Economic Renewal Board, including terms of reference, vision and an ongoing overview of activity, is published on the Council website.
2. That options for using the Fairfield Halls for alternative means during its closure are explored.
3. That options to increase the marketing of the borough are explored to identify cost effective solutions.