To consider the following regeneration related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 30 September:
· Happyland Site - Establishment of joint venture with Meyrick Estate (TBC)
· Lansdowne Dorset Local Enterprise Funded Place Making
· Wessex Fields
The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.
Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture.
The Cabinet reports will be published on Friday 20 September 2019 and available to view at the following link:
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=4025&Ver=4
Minutes:
Happyland, East Undercliff Promenade – Grant of Lease – The Portfolio Holder introduced the report explaining that thus was the outcome of a scheme which was worked up mostly under the previous administration of Bournemouth Borough Council. The current building was structurally supporting the cliff and the building was starting to fail. Options for addressing the problem were outlined and the option preferred was to establish a special purpose vehicle (SPV) by the Meyrick Estate to grant a lease to the nominee of the SPV. The Council would grant a 150 year lease for a small annual rent, this would be conditional upon the grant of planning permission for the site. It was noted that whilst it may have been preferable for the Council to retain control of the site there was not a viable ‘inhouse’ option for development. In the following discussion a number of issues were raised by the Board including:
· It being a prime site for development to provide for aspirations for a modern seafront;
· The size of the proposed hotel on the site. A hotel was not necessarily proposed. A building suitable for the site would be sought.
· Whether a lift would be installed. A developer would want to maximise space. A new lift would be required if the walkway was removed.
· There was no reference in the report to the Council’s seafront strategy;
· The freeholders and the Council would not necessarily align;
· There appeared to be a lack of consultation with ward Members and also with trade and industry. The Portfolio Holder commented that he was committed to consultation and wanted to be in a position to see business coming through but that the report was presented to him with a decision between two options required.
· The Monitoring Officer confirmed that following external legal device the options for the Council to approve the plans for the site risked a public procurement challenge.
The Chairman hoped that the Council would do everything possible to ensure a good development on the site and the Portfolio hoped that with future plans there would be extensive consultation.
Lansdowne – The Portfolio Holder introduced the report and explained that this was a long-term project of Bournemouth Borough Council. The Vision for Lansdowne would promote sustainable travel and deliver on a number of different Council priorities. It would create a better flow between Bournemouth train station, the town centre and the seafront.
A Member asked about reprovisioning the public toilets which were submerged at Lansdowne Roundabout. These were not part of the scheme but the Portfolio Holder confirmed that he would like to see more public toilets across the conurbation. However, the toilets at Lansdowne had been out of use for a long time.
A Member commented that the paper was really transformative and the area around Lansdowne was seeing lot of change.
The Chairman asked about the next steps for the scheme and for assurance that the proposals be fast tracked to be delivered by 2021. Over view and Scrutiny Board asked to take an active role in ensuring the development and requested the Cabinet Members speak to colleagues regarding the emerging underground issue.
Wessex Fields Development Site – The Cabinet Portfolio Holder outlined the recommendations within the Cabinet report and explained the reasons behind the current recommendations and changes to the scheme. It was noted that phase 1.1 of the scheme would be continuing as planned. However, the second party of phase one would stop at the boundary of the development site at this time and stage 2 would not progress until the use of the site was determined.
The Chairman noted that the Council had a masterplan for the site and challenged the Portfolio Holder as to why the development wouldn’t proceed through the site. The Portfolio Holder responded that the Masterplan was aspirational and provided ideas but there was nothing concrete in it in terms of development and other than the hospital there were no solid development plans. There was an opportunity to open up to consultation and to see who comes forward with ideas for the site.
In response to a question the Portfolio Holder confirmed that there was no additional finance required as a result of the paper. A Councillor commented that by not proceeding when the contractor was on site in the summer the works would have a greater financial impact.
Ward Councillors raised concerns with the comments from the Portfolio Holder that he hadn’t come across anybody who thought phase 2 of the scheme was a good idea and suggested there were many who considered a northbound junction from the hospital a good idea. The Portfolio Holder commented that they would look at the proposed consultation but that he wouldn’t be pushing for the phase 2 flyover. Ward Members felt that the concerns of residents in the ward were not being considered
A Board Member asked if the Portfolio Holder had spoken with the hospital. He noted that he had but conversations had been largely focused on the road through the site.
It was noted that at present there was no funding for phase 2 of the site and it was not a priority for the Cabinet. There was no desire to build the road until there was a sustainable proposal for
Employment use.
The Chairman asked about job creation on the site and noted that it was limited to 500 jobs if phase 2 did not proceed. The Portfolio advised that they would be looking at a more sustainable site for further jobs to be created. The Chairman was concerned that sustainability was being used as a reason to do nothing and that job creation had not been given sufficient consideration. The Portfolio Holder commented that the site needed to draw people from the conurbation rather than those coming from some distance away. The Portfolio Holder was confident that the Council would be able to find the right partners for the site.
A Councillor asked about traffic congestion in the area. It was noted that the present plans would not create any further congestion as it didn’t join up to another road.
A Councillor commented on the potential reputational risk of building a road to nowhere. The Portfolio Holder commented that he did not believe there was any risk as they fully intended to develop the site. There were also concern raised regarding backtracking on an approved planning application and running further consultation and the associated costs.
Cllr Lewis left during consideration of this item.