?

community engagement programme;

?

exhibition;

?

construction contract;

?

organisational change and service restructure;

?

funding;

?

risk;

?

timescales.

(a)

whether further information could be provided relating to the community engagement programme, in particular ‘Your Recipes, Your Heritage’;

(b)

whether volunteers would be fully supported with the provision of induction training and if there were specific volunteer role profiles;

(c)

if people were interested in volunteering, how could they be signposted to find out further information;

(d)

whether existing museum staff had been retained, and if so, where had they been relocated to work during this period;

(e)

the reasons why the abnormal conditions relating to the refurbishment of St Luke’s and the Edwardian part of the museum and library had not been identified when the survey had been undertaken;

(f)

the rationale behind setting the contingency fund at £1.1m for this project;

(f)

whether the -

?

figures presented to Cabinet in October 2018 would be the final costs on the projected spend;

?

risk associated with the additional monies would be borne by the Council;

?

additional funding would be fully capitalised at the end of the project;

(g)

the rationale for appointing an interim Chief Executive of The Box.

(a)

the Council had identified a number of risks to the economic and social wellbeing of its communities, as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;

(b)

in order to properly mitigate these risks, the Council sought to obtain sufficient information to inform its engagement with businesses, institutions and communities, decision-making and resource allocation;

(c)

the issues identified where the Council sought further information pertaining to Plymouth included the –

?

detail of EU powers affecting local government that would be incorporated into domestic law and the extent to which devolution of such powers to local authorities was planned;

?

likely impacts on foreign direct investment, given half of the City’s twenty  largest companies were foreign owned and half of these were located in Plymouth specifically to access EU markets;

?

loss of direct EU financial support including plans for the continuing support of ERDF, ESIF and EMFF funded projects after 2020.

(d)

how much direct EU funding would Plymouth lose;

(e)

reservations relating to the timing of the letter, as currently it was unclear how the Secretary of State would be able to provide definite responses when Brexit negotiations were ongoing;

(f)

whether an acknowledgement or response to the letter had been received;

(g)

why the letter had not been sent directly following the referendum.

(a)

the need to refresh the Visitor Plan in the light of an evolving market place, the significant progress against the existing plan and new opportunities arising which included how best to capitalise on the Mayflower 400 legacy and the proposal to establish the UK’s first marine national park;

(b)

the achievements of the existing plan which included the –

?

growth of visitor numbers (which had seen the target of 20% surpassed with the actual visitor growth of 24.9%);

?

growth in visitor spend which had seen an increase of 17.5% (£321,767,000);

?

growth in jobs had seen an increase of 3,154;

?

growth in Gross Value Added (GVA) equated to £40m;

(c)

the refresh of the plan would set out new objectives, projects and aspirations which included –

?

the diagnoses and addressment of the opportunities/issues facing the growth in the sector, wider ‘place marketing’ challenges and establishment of a clear direction for the future development of Plymouth as a destination;

?

the engagement with key partners across the City to define priorities, projects and assets that would help drive visitor growth;

?

the identification of how best to invest limited funding and resources in improvements to the visitor offer and marketing effort.

(d)

what work had been undertaken by Destination Plymouth to develop the offer for all Plymouth residents;

(e)

how may hotel beds would be required for Mayflower 2020 and in developing the plan for the next 10 years;

(f)

the provision of a cruise ship terminal in Plymouth;

(g)

what extent were the variances between the summer and winter periods and whether there was scope in developing the off peak season;

(h)

the sustainability of core funding from the Council.

(1)

it recognised the success of the current Visitor Plan in growing the City’s Visitor economy;

(2)

it supported the refresh of the Visitor Plan for the ten years from 2020 up to 2030;

(3)

the Visitor Plan is developed and circulated to Members of the Committee and consideration is given as to whether the Plan will need to be submitted to its scheduled meeting on 9 January 2019.

(a)

Plymouth had three Higher Education institutions which collectively employed 3,125 FTEs with a number of world class areas of subject expertise and facilities;

(b)

the University of Plymouth generated in excess of £460m of output for the City;

(c)

the success and vibrancy of the Higher Education institutions contributed significantly to the City’s economy with student spend this was estimated to be worth over £120m to the local Gross Value Added (GVA) and also supported nearly 5000 jobs;

(d)

the loss of this contribution to the City’s economy would have a severe impact and affect businesses that supported the student population.

(e)

the potential impact of the loss of the Erasmus student exchange programme;

(f)

the potential changes that would be required for the retention and recruitment of faculty;

(g)

whether there would be opportunities to market Plymouth as a centre for marine excellence following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union;

(h)

how could the Council collaborate with the Higher Education sector to market the City internationally as an attractive place to study as well as a destination for employers;

(i)

whether the City’s three universities could form part of Plymouth’s offer for employment and training opportunities.

(1)

to ask the Government to -

(a)

clarify the status of  EU citizens in the UK in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit;

(b)

take international students out of the net migration figures and give an assurance that changes  to immigration rules and visa requirements will not limit the ability of universities to attract and recruit world leading researchers and teachers;

(c)

provide greater clarity on what the UK Share Prosperity Fund might look like and where possible to negotiate close relations with existing structures such as Framework Programme 9;

(d)

offer EU nationals continued access to UK research facilities and a matched funding scheme to support international collaborative research;

(2)

to collaborate with the Higher Education sector to market the City internationally as an attractive place to study and as a destination for employers.