The Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to consider the draft Christchurch Civic Centre Business Case. Please note that this item has been deferred to the March Cabinet meeting, therefore in this instance the Committee is asked to consider the standalone business case in advance of Cabinet.
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.
Minutes:
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 ‘C’ to these minutes in the minute book. In the following discussion the Committee raised a number of issues which were responded to by the Portfolio Holder and Officers including:
· That there appeared to be huge risks in this scheme and the viability of the scheme was seriously questioned..
· The previous Christchurch Borough Council had already had a scheme worked out for this site which would open out the waterfront and was far more ambitious than the proposed OBC.
· There was surprise that the proposal was for a hotel on this site as it did not appear to lend itself to this purpose. FuturePlaces confirmed that a number of leading hotel operators had shown an interest in the building.
· There was no detail on consultation within the report. It was noted that there was a strong expression from local residents that the site should be used for some sort of community purpose, and this should be included within the plans for the development.
· It was noted that the marina project scheme developed by Christchurch Borough Council was included in considerations. However, there was a significant issue with flooding, it was thought that the flood risk had worsened further and using the existing building gets over issue of flood risk.
· There was concern raised that any building on the car park to the rear of the civic centre would obstruct views out to Hengistbury Head.
· There were issues highlighted concerning sustainable tourism in the area covered in a recent report and asked how this could be incorporated into this project.
· The Committee was confirmed that the issue of converting the former Civic Centre into a hotel had been raised before. The previous conclusion to this was that, as the site was within flood zone 3A, a sequential test would be required which would mean there would need to be no alternative site for a hotel in order for planning permission to be granted. It was proposed that no further action or spending should take place on this site until the flooding situation was resolved. FuturePlaces advised that there were in conversation with the flooding authority on this and this would be part of the process of developing the full business case.
· A Councillor commented that the civic centre building was designed in a modular fashion to be easily adaptable as a hotel.
· It was questioned how it would be ensured that this would be a ‘high quality boutique hotel’. It was noted that the proposal was to contract with a operator to an agreed standard and therefore the Council would retain an element of control.
· It was questioned whether enough in-depth consultation had been carried out with the right people.
· It was suggested that the rateable value of the building listed in the papers was incorrect.
Following discussions, the following motion was proposed and seconded:
To recommend to Cabinet that it seeks advise on the flood risk impact and that further funding for this project should not be committed until the position on flood risk issues for the development is clear.
There were concerns raised that the wording of the recommendation was overly restrictive and could cause problem with taking the project forward.
It was suggested that the wording of the recommendation could be amended as follows: That a specialist flood risk report should be completed and incorporated prior to the OBC being approved by Cabinet. The amended wording was not seconded, and the original motion was put to the vote.
Voting: 3 for, 6 against, 2 abstentions
A further motion was proposed and seconded, without further debate it was:
RESOLVED: That the O&S Committee recommended to the Cabinet Portfolio Holder that a flood risk report be obtained part of the OBC
Voting: 5 for, 4 against, 2 abstentions.
Supporting documents: