To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of public questions is 12 noon on Thursday 4 April 2024. [12 noon 3 clear working days before the meeting]
The deadline for the submission of a statement is midday on Tuesday 9 April 2024. [midday the working day before the meeting]
The deadline for the submission of a petition is Monday 25 March 2024. [10 working days before the meeting]
Minutes:
Cabinet was advised that there had been no petitions submitted but that one question and two statements had been received from members of the public in relation to Agenda Item 7 (Disposal of Land at Wessex Fields, Riverside Avenue).
Public Question received from Conor O’Luby
The draft Local Plan says Wessex Fields 'would provide at least 2000 new jobs', a figure based on building a roads flyover (A338-Wessex Fields Link application). Strategic Transport Policies T1 and T2 make it clear that all new development must prioritise active travel and public transport. How does the Cabinet square this contradiction?
Response by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Vikki Slade
The new draft local plan does not state that there is a need for 2000 jobs on the Wessex Fields site, that reference goes back to the previous local plan which is prior to the existing extensions to the hospital and other improvements.
The local plan does recognise that the types of jobs that are required on that site being primarily around research and health and suggests that any residential development should be in the form of key worker housing. Therefore, by establishing jobs which have associated onsite homes we would expect that most of these new workers and residents would be walking or cycling to work.
It's also worth noting that the site is well connected to public transport and active travel routes and there is really no contradiction in terms of prioritisation of active travel for this site.
Public Statement received from Siobhan Harrington, CEO, University Hospitals Dorset, NHS FT
This is a win-win decision. The land has unique value to NHS & partners.
Health-led campus leads to high-quality jobs, like research & education.
We need more homes, especially for the NHS key workers, who will walk to work.
UHD is an environmental custodian who can make this a net zero site.
This proposal is popular, common-sense use of the land. It’s supported by neighbouring landowners.
We’re local, with a long-term view. We have every interest in making this work.
Expert opinion has set the price, following the due process, so a fair deal for taxpayers.
We’ve developed a joint vision for the site, over many years. BCP are no longer leading on developing the site, UHD is best placed to progress this.
UHD’s track record includes £24m Pathology Hub, £13m for electrical upgrade, Net-zero buildings. We are keen to further deliver, with partners, the vision for this site.
We recognise the severe financial pressures on BCP and appreciate that professionally managed Day Centres cost more than other types of day opportunities. That said they are ‘tried and tested, and fit for purpose’, and it is important when comparing alternatives to compare ‘like for like’. I fear that the level of support and care presently provided by our Day Centres is unlikely to be present in many of the alternatives being considered.
Public Statement from Rob Whiteman, Chairman, University Hospitals Dorset, NHS FT (Statement will be read by Richard Renault)
We are keen to work in partnership for the benefit of all our residents. That means taking One Estate approach for best public value.
We’ve prepared a briefing for our stakeholders, on our intentions for Wessex Fields. As a public body we are putting this in the public domain. https://www.uhd.nhs.uk/uploads/comms/uhd_-_wessex_fields_brief_to_bcp_apr_2nd_v1.pdf
We are very keen to meet and discuss this with any councillors and partners. This has been our first opportunity to address councillors. To help explain why we are so keen to progress we also have this short video https://youtu.be/A21heSdLqqE
Public Statements from Alex McKinstry
Statement 1.
I absolutely welcome the proposal to sell 8 acres of disused arable land at Wessex Fields to the neighbouring landowner, which is of course the University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust. Should the sale proceed, it will result in education and training facilities for up to 500 medical undergraduates, sorely-needed accommodation for frontline NHS staff, and long-term improvements to the NHS, benefiting the greater part of the conurbation. It is the best possible use for this land. The offer, moreover, is credible and deliverable, thanks to the Trust's partnership with Prime PLC, who have already delivered key worker housing at Dorchester, Yeovil, Southampton and elsewhere. This, then, is a tremendously attractive proposal, likely to yield positive, enduring results that are highly tangible.
Statement 2.
I was also encouraged to hear that a second independent valuation has been commissioned for this site, to be carried out according to exacting RICS guidelines; the Council will therefore be getting "best consideration" for this site in line with established case law, notably R (Salford Estates) v Salford City Council, 17 May 2011. That is a fact, and it is a fact that can be held up before the entire planet. Marketing this site would generate unnecessary costs and delay for the Council and the Trust - there is no known private sector interest currently - and would not necessarily flush out a higher bid, as became apparent when the Council tried marketing land on the north side of Crescent Road in 2023. Then of course there is the massive socio-economic value of the current proposal, already alluded to.
Statement 3.
Finally, I'm impressed by the transparent manner in which these proposals are being discussed, with a three-hour scrutiny meeting held last week - entirely in open session - and a comprehensive 5,000-word report made available to the public, plus related correspondence. I well remember the less limpid "fire sales" of 2023, where the public weren't even told which sites were being disposed of until an officer let them slip; even then, the debate at full Council was characterised by Conservatives saying "I'm concerned we're getting into an awful lot of detail"; nor was it ever explained why those particular sites had been selected. No such puzzlement exists here. It would be congenial if the administration were to provide all councillors with the heads of terms agreements, valuation reports, and letters from supporting landowners, ahead of the full Council meeting of 23 April, where I hope this passes overwhelmingly.