Minutes 30 January 2025

INTRODUCTION AND APOLOGIES

Introductions made and apologies were noted as above. 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATION

None.

3.

MINUTES OF LAST MEETING – 14^TH NOVEMBER 2024

The minutes were agreed as a true record.

4.

4a.

PROJECTS PROGRESS UPDATE

Digital Manufacturing and Innovation Centre

Neil advised a highlight and progress report had been circulated which has more detail around what is happening and includes a number of recommendations. The key thing is the Project Adjustment Request (PAR) that will be submitted to MHCLG in order to utilise the £4.2m underspend from the cancelled library project.

At the last meeting it was agreed we needed to look at expanding the centre to make it financially viable. We have worked on this with AHR Architects and Oxford Innovation and the challenge was to increase the size of the DMIC with the budget available to make sure it is financially viable. An option has been identified which continues to be refined and developed further.

The Chair, Brian, commented that the original design was too small to cover costs. The business model and financial projections are however now showing that the project will break even in Year 3 and generate an operating surplus.

Cllr Hartnett advised he had a number of questions. In the papers about 12 months ago the DMIC was in the old format and was in the public and private arena. He asked what was currently in the public arena as some people are querying what has happened in the last 12 months. Neil advised it will all be in public arena and published on the website shortly.

Brian suggested we need a coherent response from a comms point of view.

Rachel advised the papers would be published online but her preference would be to wait until the Project Adjustment Request (PAR) has been approved. We can then issue a statement regarding utilising library underspend to develop an expanded DMIC, whilst also formally withdrawing the existing planning permission.

Brian suggested whether we can formulate a comms statement along the lines of we have had to reappraise the plans and that revised plans have been submitted.

Cllr Hartnett advised that devolution is mentioned but we don’t know what this will look like and could be 2-3 years away. Rachel advised the DMIC will be an asset the Council owns and whatever happens to the Council it will remain an asset.

Cllr Hartnett advised he was in favour of the expansion and extra floor for the DMIC and asked if we have a clear idea at what businesses we will be looking at. Neil advised we have some thoughts and are working with others but at the same time we need to keep it flexible to a certain extent in order to respond to changing demands. We have also considered what kind of machinery, activity or support will be needed.  One possibility is to have a showcase for technologies. It is something we are looking into and will work to tailor in the most appropriate way. We are discussing with other partners and there are a lot of things going on to refine and work out the detail.

Rachel advised it had been a focused couple of months to get to the current position and as Neil advises, we will continue to refine and develop the designs in order to adequately address specific business demand.  We should be able to bring something forward to the next Board meeting in March.

Brian advised it would be useful to understand the proportion of floor space being devoted to factory, office, café, etc. if this could be shared next time.

Rachel advised the recommendation is not to fully kit out the units and only provide benches to give that flexibility.

Gary agreed it would be helpful to come back to the next meeting with further details. He referred to Steamhouse in Birmingham which is underpinned by Birmingham University and Oxford Innovation should be able to help in terms of that.  He queried whether we want to consider some specific conversations with local employers to help shape this and he was happy to help in any way he could.

Brian advised there needs to be some stakeholder engagement with big employers and training providers as this would be critical and the timescales for this.  Neil agreed they would be looking at this and look to build on these conversations and report back. We can have an ambition in the plan to do in that period and need to be clear how we get to stage 3 as quickly as possible.

Julia advised there was reference to the Innovation Centre helping to provide the necessary digital skills to residents and would look to include teaching space to deliver learning. She advised the college would be happy to be involved in the delivery and in describing those new learning spaces and innovative approaches and how we do that as a stakeholder.

Neil thanked Julia and advised he would send the current designs and was happy to discuss this further and we can look at the space to accommodate what is needed. It will be a difficult balancing act as we only have a certain amount of space to fit everything in but would be helpful to discuss.

Brian asked if they would be talking to individual stakeholders or hold an event.  Rachel advised they talk to a lot of people regularly but would speak to Gary about local businesses we can talk to and put a plan together.  Neil advised they were already reaching out to partners and had a call on the café to make sure that it is tailored and is attractive to a provider.  Julia advised she was happy to be involved and know that Rachel is speaking to Michelle about connectivity.

Neil advised there was a £4.2m underspend from the library project. An estimated £263k will be required to complete the public realm works which will leave £3.937m for an expanded DMIC. Assuming the PAR is approved, there will be potential to vire funds between each of these projects as required.

The Benefit Costs Ratio (BCR) forms a key component of the PAR submission and has therefore been updated. In doing so, the BCR is actually slightly lower (from 2.3 to 1.9), despite the fact that net lettable space within DMIC is increasing nearly threefold. This is almost entirely because of updated government policy papers which adopt a more cautious approach within the calculations, whilst we have also factored in a more cautious approach to the overall business model. Note that the original BCR was no longer achievable following a value engineering and a reduction in the overall size of the building.

Gary advised he was happy to support submission of the PAR. He queried what the timescale was in terms of the delivery plan and there may be a risk waiting to hear back from MHCLG for their decision.  Neil advised he had been working closely with Sean Duberley at MHCLG and he didn’t think there was anything contentious in the Project Adjustment Request. He is aware of the details and will be reviewing the business case. MHCLG have stated an estimated 2 weeks to provide an answer although we have factored in additional time for a decision as a contingency.  We are now in a position to submit the PAR whilst we continue to progress design work concurrently.

The key point around outputs is that whilst we are increasing the amount of net lettable floorspace, some of this will need to be reserved and allocated to the LEP application, which has resulted in a slight decrease. Other outputs have however increased because of the greater number of business which we are able to support.

In terms of next steps and the business model.  In the original business case, the centre was profiled to breakeven in year 6. The revised projections shows that it will now breakeven in year 3 and looking at up to £70k profit per year although the exact amount will depend on how the designs are refined and developed further.

Brian asked how the loss would be bridged.  Rachel advised this would be met by the Council and has already been agreed by Elected Members and included as part of the financial plan. Neil advised we expect the gap to be around £500k although up to £580k revenue has been signed off by the Council

Cllr Hartnett asked if the offer was just for Redditch or whether it would be a wider offer. Rachel advised we will strive to find the right balance and this will be further informed by planned project visits (e.g. Warwick University; Neath Port Talbot Innovation Centre; Steamhouse).  Whilst there will be no specific geographical restrictions, businesses will need to at least provide employment or other benefits to the Redditch area. Neil agreed it depends on how this is marketed but the net will be cast out to everyone.

Brian advised we need to have a plan for when we start looking at marketing the facility.

Neil advised he would cover the timing shortly.  In terms of the LEP funds, we are currently completing the outline business case for the amount of £2,425,000.  We haven’t been able to advance this before because the revised project was still being defined. However, we are now in a position where this work can be taken forward which will start with the outline business case. We are confident this will be successful (especially as funds are already ringfenced for Redditch) although the process is very complicated and labour intensive. It is likely to take around 5-6 months to go through the process but the key thing is to make sure this is signed off before construction, as we can’t commit the funds until they have been received.

The timescales are included in the highlight report.  We need to reach Stage 3 design asap (this will take longer than originally anticipated owing to increased stakeholder engagement). Once complete, we can continue to move the designs forward. As things stand, we will follow the same blueprint as previous, utilising a design and build contractor to carry out the stage 4 designs. This however can be kept under review to ensure the project is delivered in the most cost effective manner and in line with required timescales.

We are looking for construction to start before the end of the calendar year or early January 2026 which fits in with the MHCLG timescales for the money to be spent by March 2027.  The guidance is unclear whether the funds need to be spent or just committed by end of March 2027, although we are on track to have spent by this time.  We are looking to open the centre in quarter 1 or quarter of 2027/28, dependent on how quickly the design and construction work is able to advance. These key points are included in the highlight report and we have a detailed programme.

Brian advised he took a lot of confidence from what he had read and what has been achieved and it is excellent to get to this point.  He asked that his thanks be recorded to the Regen team.

Neil advised the £100k from the UKSPF needs to be spent by the end of March for the enabling works. We will go into contract with Speller Metcalf who will take excess material from the site, alongside additional ground investigation work.. We have a contract prepared and they will be mobilised in the next couple of weeks.

Neil referred to the recommendations as detailed in the briefing note.

• Recommendation A – To submit Project Adjustment Request to MHCLG was agreed.
• Recommendation B - To submit application to LEP for £2,425,000 was agreed.
• Recommendation C was for noting that RBC would increase the amount of revenue funding to support the DMIC to £580,303.
• Recommendation D - To continue DMIC development work as outlined in the report.

The group agreed to proceed with all of the above recommendations.

Neil advised they would make contact with partners as identified to go through the specifics.

Brian agreed that we need to proceed but bear in mind the comms plan and stakeholder engagement as discussed earlier.

Brian referred back to what Julia had raised earlier and advised the DMIC is intended to incubate fledgling businesses.  It is not the college but there will be skills and we will have people who are employed but won’t be duplicating what the college does. The link between the DMIC and the college is key and want to make sure people are educated which will benefit the town. This is a much bigger subject than our responsibility and there is the opportunity to work with the college. Neil advised we will make sure it is complementary and will channel to businesses.

 4b.

Public Realm

Jane advised they were still working on public realm with WCC. In the last period we talked about Unicorn Hill. There have been a few issues with the foundations. We have started work on the Church Green West footpath which is looking good. The issues have been solved and the taxi rank has been marked out at the bottom of Unicorn Hill. The cycle shelter at the top of Unicorn Hill has been removed.  When it goes back in, it will be an angle due to the number of services located there and we need to be careful where the footings go. Further street lighting is being upgraded and trees are being planted in some of the completed sections. We will be doing some trial holes in the Church area before we start work and waiting for a full price for this area.

We are slightly behind the programme schedule due to the weather but have more labour on site to pick up the issues and complete in September 2025.  There have been a few issues with people parking on footpaths and additional bollards have been put on Unicorn Hill to stop parking.

Brian advised the only way to understand progress is to have a look. This is encouraging and very tangible for people in the town to see the progress.  When this is completed and communicated it might be useful to include before and after views if this can be considered.

 5

Railway Station Quarter Update

Penny advised they were making some headway with Severn Trent in terms of the sewer but this is ongoing. More design work is going on but until we have an agreement on how we approach this we are limited.

She advised she had met with Rachel, Ruth and others to discuss some of the issues around the station including bins, etc to see if there is anything we can do now ahead of the bigger scheme.

Brian advised we need to be assured that it is on the priority list and not being put off as this is an area that has enough momentum behind it to make progress.

Cllr Hartnett advised he thought it had been agreed to build over the sewer and asked if there was a timeline. Penny advised it was agreed that we can build over and this is with the designers to sign this off. It is progressing but we still need to get agreement. We can then get timelines and updated costs associated with the station.

In terms of commitment, WCC has allocated £10m within the capital programme for delivery of the station. Once we have the agreed design signed off with Severn Trent we will need to review all of this within the capital programme allocation and what it means in terms of timelines.

Public engagement was undertaken in the summer of 2023 and we are doing the final due diligence before submitting a planning application but this will depend on what impact this has on the design and will keep the Board informed.  We don’t know what the changes will be but it is a priority and we are making progress but nothing definite at this stage.

 6.

UKSPF Update

Georgina shared a presentation which provided details of the UKSPF for 2025/26. The Government has extended UKSPF funding for a further year and we are looking at a new investment plan and there is an opportunity for the Board to give some initial feedback and views on what should be included in the plan.

We are looking for the Board to consider which of the UKSPF sub-themes should be prioritised for funding and how the funding should be split between the 3 investment priorities. Also if there are any suggestions for project ideas which will inform the sub-themes that should be prioritised.  The allocation for 25/26 is significantly less than 24/25. 

With the new extension to UKSPF the Government have looked at the old scheme and amended slightly. The 3 investment priorities remain the same. There were over 50 interventions which the Government have streamlined down to 5 themes and 12 sub-themes and brought previous interventions together. They have mapped old interventions to the new sub-themes as detailed in the report.

The starting point for the preparation of the investment plan would be the Council Plan. This is currently being refreshed following the change in administration. The new Council Plan will be based on the local Labour manifesto and we have looked at that as a starting point to inform the plan.  We have looked at how activities in each theme are currently funded. Some are reliant on UKSPF funding and need to be mindful that these won’t happen without that funding.  The performance of current projects will inform demand, e.g. over capacity or under capacity.

A Community Survey on the budget and how the Council should be spending has recently been undertaken. There was strong support for business support. In consultation with stakeholders and local partnership group, there is an opportunity for a conversation to start but we have a short turnaround if you want to discuss outside of this meeting.

Georgina shared a table of how activity for each theme is currently funded.

Advice and support to business is primarily funded through UKSPF funding, particularly for start-ups. Also support for young people (16 & 17 year olds) who are/or at risk of being NEETis exclusively funded by UKSPF.

The sub-theme Bringing communities together and tackling homeless covers a wide range of activities including investment in the Town Centre. If the Board supports the inclusion of this sub-theme, it is important to be clear on what activity the Board would expect to see.

Georgina shared how money had been spent in the current financial year 24/25.  There is a split in activities which are now mapped to sub-themes. For 25/26 it is suggested funding is split evenly between the 3 investment priorities.

Brian advised he was struggling to understand what the proportion should be as they are all very worthy and asked how Georgina had come up with suggestions.

Georgina advised she had looked at projects based on previous performance and as a starting point for being split as there is not a strong steer for preference. The manifesto seems to cover all 3 investment priorities.

Pete advised there had been great work in the last few years in terms of youth employment and asked if this could be prioritised in conjunction with WCC, particularly for Redditch.  We can’t currently satisfy demand and there are a lot of young people who need support for the job market.

Rachel asked if this was around the Youth Hub based in the College or other things. Pete advised we have 4-6 providers who are doing this work in various areas including the College Youth Hub but if prioritising for the town this should be extended. Rachel suggested a separate conversation around this.

Cllr Hartnett asked Pete if there was an existing scheme or a new idea. Pete advised it was a combination. There has been some recent work with Georgina around the hardest to reach and there are a lot of options but feel youth employment should be a priority.

Gary declared his interests as he had a number of projects in those themes.  He echoed Pete’s suggestion with youth employment as a priority as this is starting to rise and would champion the Youth Hub. The UKSPF recognises the challenges as we have less money and more demand. The Youth Hub is an important part of the jigsaw and a focus on the 16-25 age group will be really important.  He advised he was happy to discuss offline with Julia and Pete around what projects we have got and what does that mean.

Julia advised similarly to Gary and on Pete’s point, it is difficult to get the momentum going when stop starting projects. The Youth Hub started last Easter and has been very successful. It is a collaboration of partners and the projects can take time to get embedded but was very happy to speak to Gary and Pete about this. She agreed youth employment should be a high priority.

Some projects were County wide and asked how these would be reflected, e.g. skills boost for employers. If will get confusing for employers if we start carving up things. Some things like skills boost has only just started.

Georgina advised we are in touch with other districts to understand what their plans are but we are unlikely to have a consensus. County wide programmes have performed differently in other areas and it might be difficult to reach an agreement.

Gary recognised Georgina has a difficult job to pull this together.  He was talking to all districts and hoped to go back to them with a co-ordinated offer. If the districts are supporting specific initiatives and putting resources behind these, with both LEP and County, we will work through budgets to get to a point where there is a co-ordinated offer.  He advised this didn’t change his first message on the Youth Hub and youth employment. If the district can put reasonable amount into business support and some into start-ups and business grants, we may be able to match this to give a County wide approach and happy to discuss this offline and work through with Georgina and Rachel.

The districts will need to agree their priorities and then look at the County wide offer.  There are other pots of money available which we can bring to bear for a co-ordinated offer.

Brian advised it was recognised that there was less money to go around across the country, not just locally.

Julia advised on a different point around reducing crime, at the college we are picking up that there is a lot of fear around Redditch. We recognise that some of this is inaccurate and based on social media or things that have happened in the town centre or bus station.  She had never picked up so much fear about the town and felt that was spreading out to other towns and parents contacting us as they don’t feel safe in Redditch and it is a difficult thing to deal with.

Cllr Hartnett agreed this was perception rather than fact. Redditch has a low crime profile but recognise there have been some terrible incidents. He had spoken to the Community Safety Portfolio Holder and the local Police Inspector about trying to reassure the public.  If you look at social media and the TV people will get a false image which impacts on businesses and NTE.  There are isolated incidents but it isn’t true and we need to reassure the public.  Peter Martin does great work with schools and the college speaking about knife crime.  Julia agreed it is the narrative we need to create and not a reality.

Rebecca asked if any signage was included under the public realm element as it might not be that easy for people to navigate and the signage looks quite dated.  Brian agreed that would be a positive thing.

Muj suggested whether we talk about crime separately as he felt there was a problem in the town and things are not being reported. He advised he sat on the Safer Redditch Partnership and there is concern that incidents are not being reported and there is a problem that we need to address. Agree that compared to Birmingham, Redditch is relatively safer but there are still issues that can cause fear for businesses.  It is something that needs consideration and whether we can allocate funding to this.

Georgina advised there are restrictions in what the UKSPF can be used for in reducing crime and includes making physical changes to the built environment. It covers CCTV and hedge cutting rather than more revenue type activities but we are providing funding to community safety to deliver physical improvements to the built environment which will make areas less attractive for ASB.

Brian asked the Board to think about projects they want to suggest and whether we can set up a meeting on this.  Georgina advised the timescales are really short and she was aiming to circulate the investment plan on the 26^th February for the Board to be able to give their response at the next Board meeting on the 6^th March.

 7.

Governance

Rachel advised the revised Terms of Reference had been shared to reflect the shift from development to implementation and asked if there were any comments.  The updated Terms of Reference were agreed.

8.

AOB - Chair

Brian thanked the Regen team for their hard work in progressing the projects to date.

9.

Date of Next Meeting: 6^th March 2025