To consider the following regeneration related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 27 May
· Holes Bay Site Poole
· Bournemouth Development Company 5 Year Business Plan
· Bournemouth Town Centre Vision (TCV) Winter Gardens Site
The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.
Cabinet members invited to attend for this item: Councillor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture, Councillor Kieron Wilson, Portfolio Holder for Housing and David Brown, Portfolio Holder for Finance.
The Cabinet report will be published on Thursday 12 May and available to view at the following link:
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=4252&Ver=4
Minutes:
Holes Bay, Poole (former power station site) Acquisition Strategy –
The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture and the Portfolio Holder for Housing introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix H to the Cabinet minutes of 27 May 2020 in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:
· In response to a question concerning borrowing for the purchase and the long-term vision for the site the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration advised the Board that there was an exciting opportunity to do something different and up to date which would deliver somewhere people would want to live. The planning application which had been in progress had stalled. There was support from Homes England for the development and the time appeared right to progress. Although the Covid situation introduced risk the private sector had been in possession of the site for a number of years and was struggling to develop it. Members would be fully involved with a cross-party member advisory panel on Poole regeneration.
· A Councillor commented that this was a positive opportunity but asked about the long wait for the non-design specific remediation. The Board was advised that in general the Council wanted to pursue this scheme as quickly as possible and was prepared to work with partners on this. There was a former power station and large concrete slab on site and there was further work to do to see where the issues lied with the site but there was a need to be realistic in the timescale for how long this would take.
· It was noted that there was now an opportunity with the site to deliver significantly more units than were outlined in the current planning application.
Bournemouth Development Company LLP Business Plan - The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix C to the Cabinet minutes of 27 May 2020 in the Minute Book. In the subsequent discussion Board members raised a number of issues including:
· It was noted that he Durley Road site was within the initial options agreement and was still proposed to proceed. There was a degree of opposition towards the development of the site and was previously turned down by the Bournemouth Borough Council Planning Board. The Portfolio Holder advised that it was the policy of the administration to make all decisions as a Cabinet rather than as individual portfolio holders and he wouldn’t want to comment further on the decision at this stage.
· There was a further concern raised that this was in the business plan of the BDC as the BDC was supposed to reflect the wishes of the town in its developments. It was suggested that the Board should recommend that the business plan should not be approved with Durley Road included. It was noted that this issue would certainly be discussed in due course.
· A Board member commented that the company should be driving improvements for the town and not just focused on profits and the Durley Road site in particular was not an underutilised car park. There was also a concern raised about the fact that this site had been taken to the Planning Inspectorate for appeal. The Portfolio Holder commented that only a year since the formation of BCP Council and he did not think the direction of BDC had been changed overall in this time. It was also noted that the decision was made by the Local Planning Authority rather than the Council.
· A Councillor commented that not being aware of the history of the BDC and the previous situations there was a difficulty in making appropriate recommendations on this issue. It was noted that the Council had officer and Councillor representatives on the Board of BDC and there was awareness of the controversy of this particular development. However, there were also advantages with the development to the school in the locality.
RECOMMENDED that:
1. Cabinet considers carefully whether the proposed BDC Business Plan continues to reflect the Council's ambitions for the future of Bournemouth Town Centre as a whole.
2. Specifically, before approving the BDC Business Plan, Cabinet confirms that profits achieved from projects such as the former Winter Gardens site are allocated to developments such as Pavilion Gardens / Bath Road where the driver for development centres around cultural and other public benefits rather than profit.
3. Cabinet recognises that Bournemouth Council's Planning Board (unanimously) rejected BDC's application for Durley Road Car Park and considers whether this project should be deleted from the programme.
Voting: For: 13, Against: 0, 2 abstentions
Note: The Area Action Plan only referred to Bournemouth, if sites in Poole were being considered a plan to cover this area should be considered. Also given the impact of Covid-19 the Cotlands Road site may need to be revisited.
Bournemouth Town Centre Vision (TCV): Winter Gardens Site Regeneration Opportunities - The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix I to the Cabinet minutes of 27 May 2020 in the Minute Book. There were a number of questions raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion including:
· There was a concern raised regarding the assumption of an increase in parking charges of 50 percent per annum as outlined in paragraph 56 of the report. It was suggested that this should be reviewed. It was noted that the 50 percent was an initial uplift in the first year and then based on inflationary increases after that. It was a concern raised that an increase in pricing would reduce occupancy and this needed to be reflected.
· It was noted that there was a councillor briefing scheduled for 2 June which would provide further detail on the finance and legal issues concerning the development. The development was critical to supporting the local economy.
· A Councillor commented that there were potential benefits to the development. It would be beneficial for the site to deliver some good quality public space. There was also an intention for there to be a supermarket on site which had been changed to a convenience store. Furthermore, there was concern with the amount of public car parking proposed. The Portfolio Holder advised that there were only a few days each year when town centre car parks reached capacity and therefore a reduction of spaces would not have a great impact at present. There was also a desire to reduce car movements in the town centre and increase cycling and public transport use. With regards to public space this was still in the development plan with facilities for seating and was tied into the garden walk element. The aim for the convenience store was to have a local business rather than a chain.
· A Councillor commented on the significant amounts of public money required for the development and there was a need to focus on the finances for this project further. Money would need to be borrowed for additional investment into the project amounting to an expenditure of approximately £1.1million. The car parking would be reduced, and further investment would be needed, in addition there would not be any additional land value from the site and the affordable housing contribution had been reduced. It was suggested that there should be an independent assessment of the project and the long-term financial cost to the Council. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the request was for up to an additional £6.7 million from Council finance. This reflected the scale of the development which was scheduled to make a surplus.
· A Councillor asked about whether the projected demand for rental properties was still realistic given the Covid-19 situation. It was noted that things were uncertain but current indications were that there was no change in demand in the private rented sector. It was also noted that this was a long-term investment as reflected in the business case. The Council would receive 50 percent of any profit in the scheme.
RECOMMENDED that:
1. Before approving the requests for Council Finance, Cabinet should confirm that it believes the projected revenue from car parking as outlined in the report is realistic.
2. Cabinet should consider whether the public benefits offered by the proposed scheme genuinely reflect the Council's ambitions for the Town Centre.
Voting: For: 13, Against: 0, 2 abstentions