To consider the following Regeneration related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 24 June 2020:
· Bournemouth Town Centre Vision, Durley Road Site – Approval of Site Lease Value and Additional Council Finance
The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.
Cabinet member invited to attend for these items: Councillor Mark Howell, Portfolio Holder for
The Cabinet reports will be published on Friday 5 June 2020 available to view at the following link:
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=4290&Ver=4
Minutes:
Bournemouth Town Centre Vision Durley Road Site - The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Culture introduced the report, a copy of which had been circulated and which appears as Appendix F to the Cabinet minutes of 24 June 2020 in the Minute Book. A number of issues were raised by the Board in the subsequent discussion, including:
· The Board raised as an issue that it was not the time to be removing car parking from the town centre following the covid-19 crisis when own centre business needed all possible help to recover
· A Board Member asked about the extension of the option date and what would happen if this was not agreed. The Portfolio Holder advised that it was just practically acceptable to extend the option agreement. Regarding backing out of the scheme this was not an option as the Council supported the scheme. The extension was just to ensure greater flexibility. The Director advised that if it wasn’t approved things were slightly more constrained in terms of construction on the site.
· A Councillor raised a concern that the path of BDC developing this site was not the most appropriate course of action at this time. It was noted that there was a section 106 payment agreed, the land value was outlined, and the potential profit was outlined in the non-public papers. Developer profit should be between 12-16 percent of development value. The Council would expect to receive half of the expected value which would be approximately £1 – 1.2 million pounds. If a private sector developer was asked to develop the site the Council would receive bids in excess of the £1.2 million expected at present. It was noted that the Council was required by law to extract best value for the Council Taxpayer and it was suggested that the recommendations within the Cabinet report would not do this. Morgan Sindall has an interest in maximising its profit and therefore the Council’s profit. There was a history of sites across the conurbation that were not being delivered by the private sector which was why BDC was created in the first place.
· A Councillor commented that the decision to go ahead with this development was bad for a multitude of small businesses, parents, NHS patients and residents. The overall car parking policy was to replace parking spaces lost on those sites being developed but this was not happening on this site. The Portfolio Holder noted that at present there was an oversupply of car parking in Bournemouth. There was a plan in place for how parking spaces would be rearranged with permit holders. There was a number of car parks closer to the town centre than Durley Road and Winter Gardens would be back in use as well. The Portfolio Holder noted that whilst he had been in post, he had not received a single objection from a member of public or business in relation to the scheme. The S106 agreement would be very beneficial in improving the local highway in the area. Morgan Sindall has an interest in maximising. It was also noted that Bournemouth Borough Council did not have to go ahead with submitting the appeal for Planning, the previous representative on the Board approved the decision to go forward for appeal.
· A ward Councillor advised that in paragraph 19 there was an additional sentence in a version which she reviewed. It was requested that Cabinet note this additional sentence and take it into consideration when considering this report.
· Further concerns were raised concerning the impact of the loss of car parking spaces for local residents, including those who do not have a vehicle themselves and the impact on local roads.
· A Councillor noted that it was in Morgan Sindall’s interest for the value to go down and the construction costs to increase. The Councillor expressed his opinion that if the decision was not changed and the site put out to tender hen that decision would be ultra vires. The Portfolio Holder advised that the structure was set up to benefit both sides and Morgan Sindell were not in a position to gain the system.
· The BDC representative noted that the motion was an attempt to break the contract between the Council and BDC and that there would be a significant cost to the Council from this.
· A Councillor commented on the amount of land banking within the BDC area and noted that he private developer way had been tried and, in many cases, had not worked. The BDC was set up by the Council to drive development forward and it didn’t appear to be a good decision to not use them and go to the private sector.
RECOMMENDED that Cabinet does not agree Recommendations a, b, c, e or g as outlined in the report and that it amends recommendation d as follows:
“In line with the legal requirement under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to achieve best value for the Council Taxpayer, Cabinet offers a 150 year lease on the land for sale in the open market. Potential bidders must recognize they will be required to implement the planning permission already granted on the site including payments in accordance with the S106 agreement in place.”
Voting: For: 9, Against: 4, 2 Abstentions
Cllr G Farquhar asked to be recorded as voting against the decision.
Advisory Note: A Ward Councillor requested that paragraph 19 of the report be amended to read as follows:
“This development is located within the Westbourne & West Cliff Ward. The Ward Councillors have been consulted and recognise that this site falls within the BDC option agreement. Having now obtained a planning consent it is necessary for BDC to follow the process and seek the necessary approvals as outlined in this Cabinet report. The Ward Councillors share the concerns raised by local residents during the planning consultation process relating in particular to the loss of car parking provision.”