SELEP Team East Sussex: Minutes
Monday 24th October 2016, 3pm
Sussex Downs College, Eastbourne
Attendees
AE
Alan Elder
BH
Ben Hook
BS
Cllr Bob Standley
CE
Christina Ewbank
CM
Cllr Carl Maynard
DC
David Currell
DE
Dave Evans
DG
Derek Godfrey
DS
Dan Shelley
GM Cllr Gill Mattock
GP
Graham Peters (CHAIR)
JW
Jon Wheeler
KG
Cllr Keith Glazier
Apologies
AS
Cllr Andy Smith
CC
Clive Cooke
CS
Clive Soper
DH
Debra Humphris
DT
Cllr David Tutt
EBS Consulting
East Sussex CC
Wealden DC
ACES
Rother DC
FSB
East Sussex CC
Ellis Builders
Sussex Coast College
Eastbourne BC
ES Rural Partnership
East Sussex CC
East Sussex CC
KT
LR
ME
NHa
PC
PS
RD
RM
RS
SD
SH
TL
Katy Thomas
Lisa Rawlinson
Martin Ellis
Nigel Hannam
Cllr Peter Chowney
Penny Shimmin
Richard Dawson
Rhiannon Mort
Cllr Rupert Simmons
Stewart Drew
Simon Hubbard
Tony Leonard
East Sussex CC
Lewes DC / Eastbourne BC
Recruitment SE
Wealden DC
Hastings BC
Sussex CDA
East Sussex CC
South East LEP
East Sussex CC
De La Warr Pavilion
Hastings BC
Rother DC
Lewes DC
Sussex Coast College
FSB
University of Brighton
Eastbourne BC
JH
MAA
MS
NHu
PH
James Harris
Monica Adams-Acton
Martin Searle
Nazeya Hussain
Phil Hall
East Sussex CC
Hastings BC
FSB
Lewes DC / Eastbourne BC
East Sussex CC
1.
Welcome & introductions
1.1.
GP welcomed the attendees and delivered the apologies; round table introductions were made.
2.
Review of previous minutes (12 Sep 2016)
2.1.
GP ran through the actions of the previous meeting and noted that all were completed. Regarding
action 7.2 (rejecting a fourth federated area at SELEP) GP noted that the subject has not been
entirely forgotten but hopefully it will come to nothing, and agreed to keep TES updated. For action
9.3 (SELEP meeting with Heathrow) RD advised that the meeting was actually a Kent Chamber of
Commerce event which Adam Bryan attended simply to engage with SMEs in Kent, and was not any
endorsement of Heathrow; JW is now looking to arrange for Gatwick to attend the next TES meeting.
2.2.
The previous TES minutes were approved by the group as an accurate record of the meeting.
3.
Matters arising
3.1.
No urgent matters for discussion.
4.
TES discussion group – focus, future activities and the East Sussex Growth Strategy
4.1.
AE and RD delivered a presentation on the East Sussex Growth Strategy. RD highlighted some of the
many achievements made under each of the strategy’s three key pillars – business, place and people
– and also noted some of the areas we still need to work on, such as communications and image
work, the sub-sectors of innovation, creating public-environments/public-realm and the best use of
public-realm property, and reducing blighted properties. RD commented that we’re only two years
into a six year strategy (2014-20) so have already achieved a great deal and are certainly on the right
trajectory, including contributing to the seven original ‘Growth Measures’. The presentation is
attached in Appendix 1.
4.2.
AE went on to describe his review of the Growth Strategy, which has included 24 telephone and/or
face-to-face interviews with all key partners. The overall strategy is very good and has proved to be a
vital tool to support funding bids, but while it was certainly relevant at the time of its inception, it is
clear that the Implementation Plan in particular needs to be a shorter document that can be updated
more often, with revised Growth Measures and more of a focus on delivery. A revised strategy will
also need to be aligned with SELEP’s refreshed Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), its Skills Strategy, and
the new Infrastructure & Investment Strategy (IIS).
4.3.
The group discussed the Growth Strategy’s refresh in more detail; the key points of the discussion
are given in Appendix 2.
Page 1 of 4
4.4.
RM clarified that the refreshed SELEP SEP will be a more succinct, high-level document, with the
‘more local’ IIS document sitting below that and containing all of the SELEP area’s pipeline projects –
the East Sussex Growth Strategy will link well with these documents. Both the SEP and the Skills
Strategy refresh are expected to be completed by spring 2017, with the new IIS document to follow
on later in the year. GP noted that TES will need to be ready to comment and make inclusions to the
SELEP documents over the coming months with a refresh/update of the East Sussex Growth Strategy
to follow (as the main content was agreed to be consistent while noting the presentation of the
strategy itself could be done differently and made simpler).
5.
TES round table / AOB
5.1.
PC advised that the Root-1066 festival in Hastings has been very successful; he also noted that the
Queensway Gateway Road LGF project in Hastings looks set to be completed by Apr 2017.
5.2.
RS noted that we’re seeing dramatically improved ‘visitor economy’ figures, and referenced this in
part to the agreed Cultural Strategy which has helped to stimulate improvement working with
partners.
5.3.
PS queried SELEP’s Social Enterprise Strategy and asked RM if she could find out from her colleagues
when it will be published.
[Action: RM to provide an update on the expected publication of the SELEP Social Enterprise
Strategy]
5.4.
DS advised that Sussex Coast College is working with Sussex Downs College on ‘Sussex Skills
Solutions’.
5.5.
SD commented on the recent Best4Biz event held at the De La Warr Pavilion, stating it was a
pleasure to host the successful event at Bexhill and see so many fresh companies in attendance.
5.6.
JW advised that the A27 Reference Group met this morning and discussed Highways England’s (HE)
proposals on the use of our £75m allocation; some of the suggestions have a positive benefit-to-cost
ratio whilst others are not so encouraging. There will be a consultation from 27 Oct to 8 Dec 2016, for
which JW agreed to circulate a half-page briefing with a ‘standard response’. The A27 reference
group will continue engagement with HE on the use of the funds, but will also continue to push for a
full offline solution.
[Action: JW to circulate a half-page briefing on the A27 consultation, to include a standard
response]
Summary of actions
5.3
RM to provide an update on the expected publication of the SELEP Social Enterprise Strategy.
5.6
JW to circulate a half-page briefing on the A27 consultation, to include a standard response.
Appendix 1 – presentations delivered during the meeting
Item 4 presentation
by AE & RD
Page 2 of 4
Appendix 2 – TES focus, future activities & the East Sussex Growth Strategy
Key points from TES discussion group
What have been the most notable achievements of the Growth Strategy?

The variety of projects we’ve been able to bring forward for funding through our partnership
approach (not just all local authority schemes).

Broadband – already much improved over the last few years and better than many other rural county
areas.

Building business space and premises.

The overall value of the partnership itself – we effectively have an open door policy in communicating
thoughts and ideas across disparate sectors, geographies, business organisations etc.; that shared
experience and shared knowledge is invaluable.

The view of business is that its relationship with local authority is excellent in East Sussex, and that’s
something to shout about.

Establishing a range of good quality partnerships under TES – Business East Sussex (BES), Developers
East Sussex (DES) and Skills East Sussex (SES); all of these groups are ongoing and have a lot more to
offer.

A good level of achievement has been made in the majority of areas listed in the original Growth
Strategy Implementation Plan; having an overall strategic plan that we’ve worked through and stuck to
is an achievement in itself.

The very fact that we’re choosing to revisit and revise the Growth Strategy is testament to how much
work TES and its subgroups have put into pushing things forward and developing economic growth in
the county.
What does TES want to focus on and achieve in the next two years?

Infrastructure investment has moved on considerably but there are many projects that still need to be
seen through to completion; two years on from here we would want to see those moved toward
conclusion.

Extending the M27 motorway from Southampton to Devon may be beyond TES’s ability but there are
many smaller strategic improvements we can make to address bottlenecks whilst, crucially, not
losing sight of the larger longer-term goals (with the ongoing importance here of horizon planning).

We should consider what other key infrastructure we can deliver within two years.

Hailsham – how its doubling in size will link to other conurbations (consider now for the longer term).

Consider approach and funding avenues to achieve public realm investments that enhance the
economic vitality and attractiveness of our areas.

We’re beginning to use ‘culture’ as a tool, not just for regeneration but to lead on economic growth;
we need to focus in that area and learn how we use it to generate further economic growth.

The original strategy included ‘visitor economy’ but it’s an area that we’ve barely touched; we know
that our cultural offers are a huge draw so let’s properly engage in that over the next two years.

A focus on higher education; we must have an HE offer in the area in order to succeed.

Continue to raise young people’s aspirations and get them into work; the ‘Employability & Skills’
agenda has come a very long way since the original Growth Strategy, and that should be embedded
and reflected in the refreshed version.

The county’s work/life balance and its benefits need to be strongly articulated in our messages; we
know it’s excellent but we need to show this and demonstrate why it’s better than elsewhere.

Long term aspirations are important so the Growth Strategy needs to look far beyond the next two
years. Our current position is in part due to the long term strategic plans set out years ago, so the
revised strategy should also set out our long term plans and aspirations (10-15 years ahead). However
the strategy should at the same time ask which of those goals can actually be achieved in the short
term – i.e. have long term plans and aspirations coupled with a clear focus of activities over the next
two years.
Page 3 of 4

Communicating messages about successes and addressing place/image matters to promote East
Sussex.

Continue to Lobby effectively as TES and with our SE LEP partners to ensure the impacts and benefits
to East Sussex are explained on various priority matters.
How do we demonstrate TES’s contribution to economic growth?

The business members of TES will meet more often moving forwards for a separate ‘business-only’
meeting, to ensure business views are consolidated and properly fed into TES.

The regular TES meetings should include a round-table discussion on what members are currently
involved in, what’s happening in their areas etc. (sharing of information).

TES should consider who its partners and investors are in the long term; Government funds could be
used to seed private investment.

There are various business magazines and forms of communication that we could far better use to
push consistent messages out, such as a single page summary of Growth Strategy achievements.

The strategy is not and should not be seen as ‘council-led’ but must be about partnership working
with all partners playing an active part; we all have the same objectives so need to pull together and
have businesses, universities etc. not simply engaging but actually leading.
How does TES want to more usefully use the document?

It’s important to consider the audience; there’s no real issue if the document is just for TES and TES’s
partners, but if it’s intended for a wider audience then we’d need a broader cohesive ‘communications
strategy’. The format of the refreshed document entirely depends on the audience (TES/SELEP,
commercial/business, Government/political, stakeholders etc.).

The current document is far too long and needs to be presented in a different format, with a much
shorter and sharper front end (especially for business); perhaps the overall strategy could have two
parts, with the full ‘working manual’ in the background and the shorter summary version at the front.

Consider making the strategy more ‘business-friendly’ in terms of its size and language.

Businesses are familiar with KPIs and RAG dashboards; if it’s possible to produce a single page
summary dashboard that measures which of the priorities have been achieved and which need further
action then it would definitely be looked at by businesses.

The Implementation Plan cannot simply be a ‘reflective’ document listing what we’ve achieved in a
given area – it needs to set out clear actions with clear ownership.

Business members have already discussed the need to include something ‘different’ – something to
set East Sussex apart from other areas.

The Growth Strategy, and particularly the Implementation Plan, must be an ongoing live document
that is continually being updated; a constantly evolving, rolling plan won’t need to be ‘refreshed’ again
in another two years’ time. A review of the Implementation plan at TES and by Borough/District
Councils in their meetings on a regular basis is appropriate.

Consider making a live digital version of the document that can be updated online.

Be clear about what is actually being refreshed and which document is for ongoing use – is the
intention to leave the overall Growth Strategy document fairly intact in its current format but with the
Implementation Plan to be completely revised and reworked? (Acknowledging this will largely depend
upon the proposed SELEP documents’ refresh).
Page 4 of 4