Decision details

Cabinet received a report which advised that the credit crunch that began in 2007 has virtually eliminated the funding traditionally available for growth developments and it is unlikely these funding mechanisms will ever recover to levels seen before. The economic downturn has also created a heightened pressure for economic development and city marketing activities. Over the last year the Council has been working to ensure its growth delivery arrangements positively adapt to these changes.  A dialogue with capital market specialists has been initiated, who have advised on the in-house processes and arrangements that will be needed to generate investor confidence in the city and on the technical approaches for making a case for them to fund key projects.  The arrangements discussed in the report will combine capital market infrastructure finance expertise with world-class development skills, enabling the growth agenda to continue to be delivered. 

As well as refreshing project delivery arrangements, the changes will also strengthen the commitment to building a strong economic base in the city. These proposals will, through changes to Opportunity Peterborough, enhance the approach to economic growth and development within the city and the wider sub-region, helping to realise the ambition to create conditions for greater levels of entrepreneurship and enterprise.

CABINET RESOLVED TO:

   Approve the proposed changes to the growth delivery arrangements set  out in the report.

1.  It is likely to be several years before traditional financing opportunities are available again, and these are unlikely to ever be to the same value as before to the downturn.  For Peterborough’s growth agenda to meet its ambitious targets, it must move forward with innovative finance models.

2.  A specialist capability is needed to access the financial markets in a different way.

3.  There is a greater need for focused economic development activity in the current climate, a function that Opportunity Peterborough is well placed to drive.

1. A total in-house option was considered, but the expertise needed does not exist within the Council nor could a local authority reasonably be able to recruit such expertise in the future.

2.  A fully externalised growth delivery service was rejected due to prohibitive cost and to ensure control of growth schemes was retained by the Council. 

3.  The options of continuing ‘as is’ was rejected as it would significantly constrain the medium term growth possible for the city compared to the recommended option.