Agenda item

6.1

The Committee received a report of the Director of City Growth, Place Portfolio, on the support provided by the Council for small businesses in Sheffield.  The report contained information on what support was on offer for small firms in the City, what the impact of that support was and also, whether or not the Council was providing the correct support.  The report also provided an overview of the issues faced by the City in relation to its business population and economy more generally, outlined the overall support available to small firms generally and, specifically, considered the support provided by the Council’s City Growth Department, through the ‘Business Sheffield’ brand.  The report also contained, as an appendix, a list of the upcoming expert delivered business information sessions, from October to December 2017, available for small firms in the City.

6.2

In attendance for this item were Councillor George Lindars-Hammond (Cabinet Adviser for Business and Investment), Edward Highfield (Director of City Growth), Yvonne Asquith (Business Growth Manager, City Growth) and Kevin Bennett (Head of Business Growth and Investment, City Growth).

6.3

Kevin Bennett introduced the report, indicating that the vast majority of businesses in the City were either small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and that in relation to most business start-up or density indicators, Sheffield was towards the bottom of the Core Cities group.  He also stated that Sheffield was very strong in terms of advanced manufacturing and technology generally, but had insufficient business in knowledge-based sectors.

6.4

Councillor George Lindars-Hammond stated that the Council, through its ‘Business Sheffield’ brand provided a considerable level of support for SMEs, and that the Council was examining how it could look further at how such businesses performed, and what it could do to help businesses continue to thrive in the City.  He stated that there were plans for further developments in the City’s District Centres and other areas within the City Centre within the next few years.  Councillor Lindars-Hammond stated that the Council had acknowledged that there was a need to look at how more Council services could become involved in building up the business environment, and that as part of this work, there was a need to look at what businesses wanted, and not just what the Council wanted.

6.5

Members of the Committee raised questions, and the following responses were provided:-

·             The Council held very active dialogue with SMEs, specifically at the pre-start-up stage.  A high level of assistance was also provided at the early stage, with two very experienced officers within Business Sheffield assisting with this work.  The Council received and reviewed feedback on the advisors on a regular basis.  There was also a Growth Adviser Team of seven, which had a considerable level of experience, and based its approach on getting to understand the business and its growth support needs, rather than trying to promote specific actions or services. 

·             In terms of the Council’s interaction with businesses, the Sheffield Business Gateway (formerly First Point for Business) had improved communications with Council Services such as Environmental Health. However, some businesses were still having issues with the Housing and Council Tax Services in relation to dealing with employee issues. It was suggested that the Authority ought to be able to improve this area.

·             A considerable amount of work was undertaken to promote the contact telephone number for First Point for Business, which was operated by the Business Gateway Team. 

·             Information in terms of how Sheffield was performing with regard to the provision of business rate relief, as compared with the other Core Cities, was not available at the meeting, but could be provided to Members.  Work was undertaken to promote performance in terms of start-up businesses, and there was a considerable level of free information on both the Council’s and the Chamber of Commerce’s websites for businesses wanting to start-up in the City.  Whilst there was a number of good examples in terms of how the Council worked with businesses, it was accepted that there was a need for further improvement, particularly regarding the promotion of the Council as being ‘easy to work with’.

·             The cost of providing support for SMEs equated to approximately £270,000 a year.  It was difficult to compare this amount with the amounts spent by the other Core Cities as there was a number of variances in terms of the offer, whereby some Authorities offered a generic service and others operating in the form of arms-length companies.  As an estimate, it was considered that Sheffield was around the middle in terms of how much it spent on supporting SMEs. 

·             With regard to examples of good practice in terms of the Core Cities, Bristol was very effective at attracting businesses to the City, mainly due to it having more drivers in the underlying economy.  All the Core Cities had very different arrangements in terms of attracting businesses. 

·             It was acknowledged that Sheffield had two few businesses in the knowledge-based sectors and Business Sheffield, in acknowledgement of this, was continuing to look at how the imbalance could be addressed.  One such piece of work involved looking at how more such businesses could be attracted to the  Advanced Manufacturing Park.  In order to do this, businesses needed to be confident that there was a broad base of activity, as well as other benefits, to encourage them to locate in, or relocate to, the City.  In addition, Business Sheffield was also working on developing more managed work spaces in the City, and providing ‘wrap around’ support for any businesses expressing an interest in locating in, or relocating to, the City.  The changes in the number of knowledge-based businesses was a generational trend, therefore it could take some time for the City to see an increase in such businesses.  It was accepted that some cities were well ahead of Sheffield in terms of the number of businesses, but it was hoped that, through continued hard work, as well as the introduction of new ideas and initiatives, Sheffield would see an increase in the number of businesses locating in, or relocating to, the City.

·             It was acknowledged that a high number of skilled employees from the City were attracted to work in other major cities, including Leeds, on the basis that Sheffield simply did not have a sufficient number of businesses.  In order to change this trend, it had been acknowledged that there was a need for a better connection and communication between the City’s businesses and the Universities, specifically with regard to asking businesses to look at the content of University courses in terms of the courses’ relevance to them.

·             There had, however, been a number of businesses coming to Sheffield because of competition for digital jobs in the sector in places like Leeds and Manchester, but the Authority needed to avoid getting into the same position in Sheffield.

6.6

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the information now reported and the responses to the questions now raised;

(b)      thanks Councillor George Lindars-Hammond, Edward Highfield, Yvonne Asquith and Kevin Bennett for attending the meeting and responding to the questions raised; and

(c)      recommends that a conversation on policy direction takes place, including changing how businesses view the Council, as well as practical measures such as the sending of Business Rate relief forms with the Business Rate statements, and making Housing and Council Tax Benefit application forms more appropriate for employees of SMEs.