Agenda item

The Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to consider the draft Chapel Lane Business Case and report scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 8 February.

The Committee is asked to scrutinise and comment on the report and if required to make recommendations or observations as appropriate.

Cabinet members invited to attend for this item: Councillor P Broadhead, Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth and Regeneration.

The Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth and Regeneration presented a report a copy of which was circulated to Committee members and a copy of which appears as Appendix A to these minutes in the minute book. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Director of Investment of FuturePlaces, outlined the work which had gone into the outline business case (OBC) and some of the issues and considerations around this. In the following discussion the Committee raised a number of issues which were responded to by the Portfolio Holder and Officers including:

·     The impact of the development on the availability of parking. The scheme was not new, but car parking losses could be addressed through altering the development plans. The car park was extremely well used.

·     That issues raised in earlier meetings with FuturePlaces do not appear to have been addressed or taken into consideration in this outline business case. In response the Committee was advised that the purpose of the OBC was precisely to get feedback at this stage which can then be incorporated into later stages.

·     Comparisons of the costs involved for an inhouse officer team or via FuturePlaces.

·     The full business case (FBC) costs. There appeared to be a significant premium on the overall project costs which pushed the project beyond viability.

·     The financial model for FuturePlaces appeared more favourable due to capitalising costs but it was not free due to the need to pay interest on the loan.

·     Whether any consultation had taken place – there was a general preference for surface car parks rather than multi-storey car parks.

·     The impact of the addition of the 7 commercial units if these were going to remain empty.

·     The commercial space was proposed to be used for Planning Class E, which could be any kind of commercial, business or social use.

·     The Ward Councillors contribution to the process. It was not clear when this consultation happens, and it would be useful to have a flow diagram for non-Cabinet members input into the process. It was confirmed that engagement would be taken on board.

·     The process was anti free-market. Putting this out to the free market would reduce the risk to the Council as outlined in option 6. The only risk would be the loss of place making influence. Other members raised concerns with this and it was suggested that it was extremely unlikely to get a mixed use housing development if it went to a commercial developer. It was noted that there were development issues with all of the sites and the desired schemes were not ones which would come forward from the private sector.

·     Engagement with business. It was noted that there had been some engagement and feedback was generally positive, but this was ongoing.

·     Concerns were raised regarding the close relationship between this and the specifications in the Big Plan as the this had never been considered by a scrutiny body or Council.

·     It was highlighted that the housing figures were based on the government’s standard formula. It had been confirmed that local Councils were now able to use their own figure for housing demand.

·     The regreening of southern car park section. However, there was no mention of using space for off-ground solar panels. These should be considered for all developments. It was noted that this would be considered as part of the second stage.

·     It was noted that the larger sites would take longer to come forward to outline business case stage.

·     The importance of public engagement for the next stage of this process was highlighted, particularly with local businesses.

Following debate, a Committee member moved that recommendations A and C as outlined in the report, to approve the outline business case and move to the full business case, be replaced with a recommendation to accept option 6 or 7 as outlined in the report.

The move was not seconded. However, another Councillor asked for it to be recorded that he could not support recommendations at B or C of the report.

A Councillor advised that there was a reference to city region and suggested that this be removed.