Previous reference:Minute 5 (2016/17)

A report will be submitted by the Strategic Director, Place which updates Members on the progress made in respect of the One City Park redevelopment project since the last report to the Committee in June 2016 (Document “J”).

Recommended –

That the progress made in respect of the One City Park project and the current anticipated timeline for the next stages of delivery, as set out in Document “J”, be noted.

                                                            (Simon Woodhurst – 01274 433789)

Previous reference:Minute 5 (2016/17)

A report was submitted by the Strategic Director, Place which updated Members on the progress made in respect of the One City Park project since the report to the Committee in June 2016 (Document “J”).

It was explained that:

·         This was a key site for the regeneration of the City Centre.  It had been vacant since the demolition of the old police station and outline planning permission had been granted in December 2014.

·         There had been a party interested in a substantial part of the site during 2016 but this had not resulted in a formal offer.

·         The Council was keen to promote the site and an informal ‘Expression of Interest’ process had been launched on 18 October 2017. A commercial estate agency was also being used to promote the site directly with developers and companies who may be in a position to relocate in the near future.  A more formal process to allow expressions of interest would be pursued in early 2018.

The Assistant Director, Economy and Development responded to questions from Members:

·         Planning permission had originally been sought in order to establish the principle of the delivery of development on the site and to give an indication of the volume of development that could be achieved. This permission was not able to account for any particular form of development the end user might require. There had been no significant changes in policy since that time.

·         It was not proposed to extend the existing planning permission as any developer would have to submit a new application, to establish their preferred scheme, in due course.  It was considered that the extant permission offered sufficient comfort for any potential developer in respect of the establishment of the  principle of development.

·         Officers were trying to map the potential demand for this site.  There had been a much higher level of interest at the soft launch in October than had been seen previously.

·         The site would provide very good quality commercial office space which would be accessible and affordable. The aim was to develop provision that would meet future need. £4.8 million grant remained available to facilitate the project.

·         The Council was very clear that this site should also be part of the public infrastructure in terms of accessibility and permeability but did not wish to be too prescriptive in terms of design.

·         It was difficult and could be considered counter-productive to have firm contingency arrangements in place at this stage,

·         Planning permission was only one part of the wider process.  The expressions of interest would be used to inform a process of more formal expressions of interest which would be open to scrutiny.  It was not considered that a planning permission that, in reality, would never be delivered was particularly helpful.

·         In terms of the £4.8 million grant funding, the project had to be delivered by 2021 and the timeline had been developed in order to achieve this. This funding was to assist in addressing any abnormal costs associated with development of this site or any potential barriers to development.

·         The site was specifically targeted for private sector jobs to balance a disproportionate number of public sector jobs in this locality.

·         The Council needed to be robust in its commitment to develop a high quality scheme on this site; it was considered that it would have a transformative effect.

In response to comments from some Members expressing concern in respect of the public perception of the planning permission not being renewed and thus the Council’s commitment to development of the site, and the need for assurances that something would happen with the site, the Assistant Director undertook to give this issue further consideration.

Further comments were made by Members as follows:

·         It was important that it was recognised that the existing situation was temporary; it should be clear that this was a prime development site for the City Centre.

·         Contrary to the issues raised in respect of the lapse of planning permission, this was not a matter that had been raised as an issue of concern by the many different businesses with whom regeneration issues had been discussed during the preceding six month period.

Further to which it was

Resolved –

(1)       That the progress made in respect of the One City Park project and the current anticipated timeline for the next stages of delivery, as set out in Document “J”, be noted.

(2)       That the Strategic Director, Place be requested to present a further progress report to the Committee by no later than January 2019, with an earlier report being submitted if there are any significant developments with the project prior to that time.

ACTION:       Strategic Director, Place