Agenda item

The Monitoring Officer submits a report informing the Overview Select Committee that the Executive Decision taken by the City Mayor on 17 December 2020 relating to Capital Budget Monitoring 2020/21 – Period 6 – relating to only part 3 of the decision in respect of the funds for the Jewry Wall has been the subject of a five-Members call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D (City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules) of the Council’s Constitution.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report which informed the Overview Select Committee that the Executive Decision taken by the City Mayor on 17 December 2020 relating to Capital Budget Monitoring 2020/21 – Period 6 – relating to only part 3 of the decision in respect of the funds for Jewry Wall had been the subject of a five-Member call-in under the procedures at Rule 12 of Part 4D (City Mayor and Executive Procedure Rules) of the Council’s Constitution.

The report confirmed that the options for the Committee were to:

a)    Note the report without further comment or recommendation.

b)    Comment on the specific issues raised by the call-in.

c)    Resolve that the call-in be withdrawn

Councillor Kitterick, as proposer of the call-in, was invited to address the Committee, and made the following points:

·         Firstly, after reviewing the decision to add more money into the budget for Jewry Wall museum, the decision was made to call it in.

·         Secondly, there was mention in the 2019 Labour Manifesto which talked about the museum but did not talk about the sums of money that would be required. Other Manifesto commitments had previously been deemed too expensive, but the Jewry Wall commitment had been given priority.

·         People would be charged to enter the museum. There were questions about the King Richard III visitor centre which had cost £5million, had more attraction for visitors, and had struggled with visitor numbers. There were questions over whether the Jewry Wall would have the same widespread attraction for visitors who would be able to see the main attractions of Roman ruins and wall for free from the path.

·         Officers had previously outlined in terms of the capital budget and revenue budget that there was extreme uncertainty around Government funding, with impacts on business rates, and it was not known what needed to be done at this time to recover from the Covid-19 pandemic.

·         The Jewry Wall project was not considered to be a priority in terms in what the Council was facing post Covid-19, when the models of tourism and museums would have changed. Members who had requested the call-in were asked for the decision to invest a further £2.5million to be delayed until the priorities for Leicester’s economy were evaluated post Covid-19.

The City Mayor was given the opportunity to respond. He said it had been made clear in the Manifesto commitment that the Jewry Wall project would be developed. He added it was an exciting project in that it was the largest piece of non-military Roman masonry still standing in the UK and was important in what it represented in the 400 years of Roman governance in the City.

The City Mayor stated the city would need to use its assets to draw local and national tourists to the city post-Covid in many new ways and with the investment proposed would be a major draw to tourists rather than relying on city centre retail, the patterns of which were changing. The City Mayor added as well as the King Richard III Centre, and the Cathedral were poised to invest in its business centre.

The City Mayor noted the Jewry Wall project was well underway, with the first phase of £4million already invested which would be wasted if the project had to cut back on further investment. It was further noted the money received from the LLEP was specific for Jewry Wall, and he hoped that Members recognised the political commitment already made and the money that had been invested, and that the Committee could see the call-in withdrawn.

The Chair invited Councillor Waddington as one of the signatories to the call-in to comment. Councillor Waddington, as advised by the Monitoring Officer, declared she had no interest in the project and approached the discussion with an open mind. Councillor Waddington stated the facts received had not enabled anyone to make a clear decision about whether spending the additional £2.5million was a sensible proposals, and that she had hoped the call-in would have resulted in the Committee receiving a business case for the Jewry Wall museum so Members could see why the extra £2.5million was needed. She noted the project was not down for completion for two years, and that in the meantime there were other issues to be dealt with, including the economic recovery of the city.

Councillor Waddington had looked into pooled business rates to find out how the money could be spent, and that the amount of money available to the City and County was £24.4million, with the City’s share at £8.2million. She noted that even though it was public money, there was no published information on what projects were put forward. It was noted the money could be spent on capital or revenue project relating to economic development, the Council put forward proposals and LLEP considered projects put forward. Councillor Waddington quoted from LLEP report that the Executive were advised they could review the timing of some projects in the light of recovering from Covid-19. Any proposed changes would be assessed by LLEP and presented to the Leaders Group for determination. Councillor Waddington said it was clear the money could be used for a variety of things, one of which could be for Jewry Wall, as well as other projects for economic development. It was noted the money would be needed as the levels of unemployment in the city had risen considerably because of Covid-19. The Economic Development Recovery Plan was comprehensive and ambitious but relied on funding which it did not have. She added that she was not convinced that spending on Jewry Wall at this time would benefit the economic recovery of the city, and asked that a further report be brought back to the Committee with a business case for the Jewry Wall Museum, how the £2.5million on top of the millions already committed would enhance the economic recovery of the city, and what other options might be available to create more jobs in the city.

Members were given the opportunity to provide their points of view. Councillor Gee as Vice-Chair of Heritage, Culture, Leisure and Sport Scrutiny Commission noted the Jewry Wall Museum was a long-term project. He added as well as being a tourist attraction, it was an education facility and provided school children with the history of the city.

Further comments from Members made included:

·         Museums and other cultural institutions were part of the heritage and culture of the city as well as the tourism industry.

·         Where jobs and livelihoods were at risk, the City Council was duty bound to protect and preserve economic livelihood and lifeline of the city and to direct investment was one way that could be done.

·         To pull out of the project would run risk of reputational damage for the city and the Council. As a manifesto promise the Council needed to revive interest and build upon it for the city.

·         The costing of the project was presented to Members and discussed when the Manifesto was put together.

·         The closure of Jewry Wall for many years had resulted in loss of income. To develop the project would provide an important heritage and education facility for young and old alike and would bring people into the city centre, enhance the economic fabric of the city, and support small businesses such as catering and hospitality.

Councillor Porter queried why the museum was closed previously and raised concerns that target visitor numbers when the museum was opened would not be met. He also suggested that as the majority of the tourist attraction was outdoors people should not have to pay to access the museum. He suggested that Jewry Wall be opened as before without spending too much money on it. He added a sculpture park in a green space such as Aylestone Meadows or Watermead Park could be developed as a visitor attraction as in York to bring people to the city.

The Chair noted the retail sector was facing severe difficulties during Covid which might take many years to build up the lively city centre again and he was sure that the Executive and the Economic Development Transport and Tourism Scrutiny Commission would do all it could for the future city and tourism and education were crucial to the future of the city.

Councillor Kitterick responded to the comments that had been made, and said he was still genuinely concerned. He referenced the investment and additional proposed £2.5million and asked Members to consider how the money could be spent. He stated that if the business community were to be asked how they would spend the £2.5million and initial investment money he would be surprised if any of them had considered spending it to rebuild Jewry Wall. He added the future of business rates was not known and the city should step back and check priorities for spending the business rates pool.

The City Mayor welcomed the opportunity to have had the debate and the support from the overwhelming majority of Members at the meeting. He pointed out the project was already underway and there was a firm commitment to deliver it. He added it was not the first scheme that had had significant investment in order to bring families and visitors to the city and compared with other schemes was being delivered on budget and good value for money. The City Mayor noted the need to invest in the city in order for it to continue to thrive not be dependent on retail.

Chair stated the debate had been the true purpose of scrutiny, and a good example of how to deal with an issue, take on different views and arrive at options.

The Chair read out the various options within the report. He stated the City Mayor had heard some of the ongoing issues raised that could be looked at following the meeting. As the debate had highlighted a majority of support from Members for withdrawal of the call-in, the Chair MOVED and Councillor Gee SECONDED that the Committee withdraw the call-in of the decision, and on being put to the vote, the Motion was CARRIED.

AGREED:

1. That the call-in be withdrawn.