Agenda item

7.1

The Committee considered information reported by Richard Wright, Executive Director, Sheffield Chamber of Commerce and Industry, based on the following three questions:-

7.1.1

Is Sheffield Serving the Needs of Businesses/Developers?

Mr Wright stated that, whilst he believed Sheffield was serving the needs of businesses and developers in a much better way than in the past, there was still considerable room for improvement.  Whilst promotion of the City was getting better to inward investors, there was a common view that Sheffield needed to lose its ‘world’s largest village’ label, on the basis that it gave the impression that the City was lacking in opportunity and wealth.  He referred to the common view held by a number of businesses and developers regarding the negativity of the Planning Service, particularly how long it took for planning issues to be resolved.  He believed that the pre-application meetings should provide an opportunity for the Planning Service to sell the City, and how they can help and facilitate development, as opposed to informing prospective developers what was wrong with the application, and what would not be accepted.  Connected to this issue, Mr Wright considered that the entrance to Howden House needed re-designing as the current layout did not provide a particularly good impression for investors when attending to meet Council officers.  Mr Wright also believed that there was a need for more open discussion in terms of what was going on in the City, and the reasons for decisions being made. 

7.1.2

Are There Any Lessons for the Future?

Mr Wright believed that developers, some of whom had invested considerable amounts of money in expert planning and design teams to deliver proposals, should be afforded a better opportunity by the Council’s Planning and Urban Design Teams, and more senior Council officers, in terms of their development proposals.  It was also believed that, whilst the valuation of Council assets was important, a wider view was needed to be taken on these assets as often, the potential development of these sites, as well as the value that could be delivered, mainly in terms of new jobs, investment and homes, should easily outweigh the determination to achieve the absolute land value, which often prohibits sites coming forward. 

7.1.3

How Do We Compare with Other Cities and Core Cities?

Mr Wright stated that there was still a general belief in the business community that Sheffield did not shout about itself enough and, although things had improved in this area, he believed that this work should be led by the business community, who had the necessary knowledge and ability to have a more positive effect on inward investors.  Other large cities, including Core Cities, had a better reputation for being open for business, and often this stemmed from the planning system.  He stated that more effort was needed to welcome and accommodate developers, as opposed to finding issues with proposals, as was still the case regarding some schemes.  There was a need to drive the positives as much as possible, and the New Retail Quarter (NRQ) needed to be driven at pace, being the most important regeneration project in the City.  There was also a need to attract some of the high-end or quality retailers, such as Reiss, Jigsaw and White Company, as part of the NRQ, which could be found in many other major towns or cities across the country, in order to increase the City’s retail income.

7.2

Members of the Committee asked questions of Richard Wright, and the following responses were provided:-

·                Whilst a number of developers had faced problems in terms of dealing with the Planning Service in connection with construction proposals, there were some sectors which had been successful, including health and wellbeing and gaming software.  A detailed review of the planning application process was needed to enable a proper, responsive system to be put in place.

·                There was a need to achieve a correct balance between large businesses and small and medium enterprises (SME). With respect to SME, there was a need to ensure that the setting up of one business did not result in another one failing.  Support should be linked to a proven capacity and demand in the City, and to achieving strategic objectives, like growth in certain sectors or capabilities in a future economy. In terms of larger businesses, it was considered that there was a lack of original equipment manufacturers (OEM) (companies whose products were used as components in the products of another company). Creative Sheffield was doing an excellent job, and was now more focused than it had been in the past, in terms of attracting and retaining businesses in the City.

7.3

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       notes the information now reported, the comments now made and the responses to the questions raised;

(b)       thanks Richard Wright for attending the meeting, and responding to the questions raised;

(c)        requests the Cabinet Member for Infrastructure and Transport (Councillor Mazher Iqbal) to feed back to Members on current approaches regarding how they are made aware of planning applications in  their wards; and

(d)      in line with the outline scope of the Economic Landscape Task Group, requests that Creative Sheffield, the Executive Director, Place and other appropriate stakeholders, be invited to the Evidence Session No.2.