Agenda item

The committee is requested to consider the draft Project Initiation Document, attached as Appendix 1 and to make any comments they wish to for consideration by Cabinet. The committee is also requested to nominate one of its members to sit on the proposed Chichester Growth Board as an observer.

The committee considered the report circulated with the agenda.

Mrs Hotchkiss presented the report. Mrs Shepherd was in attendance to answer questions.

The committee was reminded that the purpose of this report was not to consider the content of the Masterplan, which was going through a separate approval process via the Development Plan & Infrastructure Panel, Cabinet and Council, but to consider the draft Southern Gateway Implementation Plan and whether there were any gaps. This draft plan was being brought to the committee to consider in advance of the Masterplan being agreed.  A workshop on the Southern Gateway Masterplan, to which all members had been invited, was being held on 4 October 2017. The committee was also asked to nominate a member to sit on the Growth Board as an observer.

Mrs Hotchkiss drew members’ attention to amendments on page 67 – Mrs J Kilby replaced Mrs C Purnell as Cabinet Member for Housing Services; Mrs E Lintill has been added as Cabinet Member for Community Services and the representative from this committee would also be added once appointed.

The project outcomes, outputs, constraints, costs and governance arrangements were presented to the committee as well as the proposed project plan and proposals to develop a communications plan. This would be a phased project with some sites coming forward sooner than others. Key stakeholders would be kept informed and consultation carried out during the implementation phase. At all stages in the project the risks would be reviewed and rescored.

Mrs Apel referred to various questions submitted prior to the meeting by Mr J Ransley and the responses given by Mr P Over.

The committee made the following comments and received answers to questions as follows:

·             The law courts are to be closed and the courts will be handed over to the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) which is a key partner in the project.

·             Significant new funding streams - Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP): Bids are currently being developed.

·             Closure of the Kingsham building sited on the current High School: This area and the astro turf area is included in the Masterplan.

·             Current land owners have supplied us with letters of support for the project (required for the LEP application). We have also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with our key partners like WSCC and the HCA.

·             We currently own the land at Basin Road car park and at the bus station and bus depot.

·             Total cost of the loss of the car park and revenue from Stagecoach totals just under £80,000. That loss of revenue would be picked up when we work with the developer to mitigate this loss. The council would need to assess whether it wanted to be an investor in the project going forward or whether it just wanted to mitigate the loss.

·             How much spent so far? Cabinet had agreed £75,000 in January 2017 and from this and other partnership money we had funded initial appointments for legal and property advice. The contracts we have with these companies are staged so at any point we could pull out.

·             Mr Over is sponsor for this project and Mrs Hotchkiss is support. The project details in this report include the top level milestones. At present implementation is set for June 2019 with the appointment of a developer for the site. There is a gross development cost of £180m and once the developer is appointed it could take at least a further 5 years to develop all the sites in the plan. As individual projects are developed then reports would come forward to Cabinet for approval. All funding to date and approval to commence the masterplan process had previous Cabinet approval. As and when sites come forward further Cabinet approval would be sought. At that point Cabinet/Council would have the option to decide whether to invest directly in the schemes.

·             How do we assess the need for student accommodation? A consultant had carried out this work. We were trying to address some aspects of our Vision for young people. There is currently a planning application for units at Shopwyke so we need to continuously analyse what is coming through from the market and adjust the need for new homes and care homes (for which there is also a demand). Each of the site areas would have a range of development opportunities identified in the Masterplan. Until a developer was on board it would be difficult to pinpoint specifics.

·             The bus station and the train station would not need to be sited together as there would be an interchange to allow people to access either. This was linked to the Masterplan.

·             The property tour arranged for members on 10 October would allow members to understand the area and buildings involved in the Southern Gateway area.

·             The proposals for a bridge in the city would be considered as part of consultation on the Masterplan.

·             Short timescale issues: We are in the process of applying to the HIF and LEP funds so the timescale is linked to getting those applications in. If the Masterplan was not adopted then this timescale would move. If there was a significant change then advice would be sought on the viability of the project going forward. The risk was that the market could change, however we were mitigating this by analysing viability at key stages of the project.

·             A risk would be added to the PID – the risk of relocation sites not being identified.

·             The risks mentioned in the implementation plan are weighted as to the vulnerability of these risks to the project. As the project progresses the risks will be reassessed and advice sought regarding risks like the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) if we need to go down that route.

·             Funding is a high risk to cover the relocation costs. If we were unsuccessful with these two funding bids then we would have to investigate alternative funding sources. If these additional funding sources fail then we would have to look at what aspects of the Masterplan could go forward or not.

·             Occupancy of properties: Mrs Hotchkiss undertook to add this under Outcomes in the document.

·             The Masterplan would be a live flexible document. If there is no adopted masterplan a number of the sites are likely to be developed anyway so it was better to have a masterplan so that a coordinated approach to development in this area could take place. We did not have all answers yet but at each phase of this project there would be reports back to Cabinet and/or Council and members would receive those reports and would be able to question them. This PID sets out the steps needed to secure ownership of the properties within the development area and to appoint a developer.

·             There were a number of drivers to this project such as the sites available for development such as the law courts, the funding streams available and support from major partners such as WSCC and the HCA.

·             WSCC and this Council will agree a joint document about the priority projects and growth in certain areas. The Growth Board will be set up to consider how to allocate resources to those priority project areas.

Mrs Hotchkiss undertook to update the Implementation Plan with the two amendments raised above.

At the conclusion of the debate the committee voted on a show of hands unanimously in favour of the resolutions.

RESOLVED

1)      That the suggested amendments be made to the draft Southern Gateway Implementation Plan and the revised plan be presented to Cabinet once the Masterplan has been approved.

2)      That Mr N Galloway be appointed to the Chichester Growth Board as an observer.