Agenda item

Overview and Scrutiny Committee note the background information contained in the part one report and makes any recommendations to Cabinet.

The Chairman welcomed Mr Roberts to the meeting who was a consultant from JLL and Mr Dignum as Cabinet member for Growth, Place and Events.

 

The Chairman invited Mrs Hotchkiss to present the item.  Mrs Hotchkiss began by confirming Mr Roberts was the director of JLL which was an international property company and he had wide experience of advising on regeneration projects. 

 

Mrs Hotchkiss explained that the Council with its partner West Sussex County Council has under a collaboration agreement been working to implement the Southern Gateway Regeneration Project for a number of years.  Following an agreement at full Council to test the market, an open competition was run and following evaluation of the bids it was recommended at Cabinet and full Council in December 2019 to agree the preferred development partner, Henry Boots Developments (HBD).  The pandemic had resulted in a significant impact on the project, and the market sectors the project was planning to bring forward including leisure, retail, hospitality, office accommodation and a hotel.  In addition, the decision by Her Majesty Courts & Tribunal Service to open a Nightingale court to address current case backlog, had also impacted.  Officers supported by JLL had worked with HBD to consider different options within the project.  As part of the tender process HBD had proposed to develop the old police field, school site and Magistrates Court for residential and mixed use.  Due to the HMCTS decision, the court house cannot be included within phase one, but there was a commitment to working with HBD to develop a viable phase one and investigate alternative sites within the Southern Gateway Regeneration Project area.   Mrs Hotchkiss confirmed that regular updates had been provided for Cabinet and full Council, and monthly bulletins for all Members regarding progress on the project. 

 

Members had asked a number of Part I pre-prepared questions which were read by the Chairman and Members, and also asked further questions:

 

Question 1

 

We have heard there will be a health centre in Southern Gateway.  Is this a proper medical centre where procedures can be carried out i.e. hospital appointments with consultants, physio radio therapy etc.?  This can save patients many hours of travelling and waiting in hospitals.  It also saves the local NHS money as less hospital appointments are needed?

 

Mrs Hotchkiss responded:

 

The Sussex Community Foundation Trust (SCFT) would look to incorporate the relocation of all SCFT’s outpatient community health services provided within the City of Chichester.

 

In summary SCFT would occupy c. 3,200m2 of accommodation and this will include:

 

-          Outpatient physiotherapy

-          Special care and emergency dental services

-          Child development centre

-          Specialist community nursing clinics, including lymphedema, intravenous nursing, long term conditions such as Parkinson’s

-          Staff base for adult community nursing services (where most patient contact is within patient homes) aligned to the primary care networks

-          Healthy child programme nursing staff base

-          Children’s specialist therapies, including speech and language therapy  -aligned to the child development centre, delivered in schools, clinics, homes and other settings

-          Time to Talk, which is the Trust’s ‘Improving Access to Psychological Therapies’ service

 

For Primary Care it will be the relocation of GP practice from current location to planned new location, subject to viability.

 

Primary Care is expanding care provision, and community is wrapping around this (that service managed by SCFT – Sussex Community FT)

 

·         GP appointment for health concerns

·         Respiratory Diseases

·         Family Planning

·         Child vaccinations

·         Minor Surgery

·         Stop smoking

 

Question 2

 

In event of a change to the current road layout will a full transport study be conducted to assess any impact and can proposed changes to the A27 be included in the assessment?

 

Mr Ayling responded:

 

Any development proposals (including changes to the current road layout) will need to be supported by transport evidence which would be agreed in scope with West Sussex County Council as Highway Authority.  That work will need to take into account the current position regarding the A27 and how far progressed are any proposals for changes to that road.

 

Question 3

 

Periodically the Canal trust has to lift the boats out of the water for maintenance and in some cases they have to be transported away from the site. Will the necessary provisions be put in place to ensure this necessary access?

 

Mrs Hotchkiss responded:

 

The Canal Trust contacted the Council before the development of the brief was issued for tender and there access requirements were included. HBD architects in their proposal have taken into account the requirements and have retained an access road to the rear of the Richmond Arms Public House for the Canal Trust.  This was included in the documentation available to Member in December 2019.

 

Question 4

 

Clearly the project has been delayed by the Coronavirus restrictions, the resulting change of mind by the Ministry of Justice, and probably other causes; what is the proposed new timeline?

 

Mrs Hotchkiss responded:

 

A regeneration project of this size can take years to deliver with the master plan stating timescales for each of the sites which ranged from  of short to medium of 2 – 5 years , medium term 5 -10 years and longer term of 10 years plus.

 

The new proposed timeline will depend on what option or options are pursued. If we enter into a development agreement with HBD the development agreement allows for a 12 month pre condition period with an option to extend by six months if agreed by both parties to soft market test, conduct any further site investigation work required and allow for site assembly as reported to Cabinet in November 2020. There is a planning long stop of 18 months from the satisfaction of the pre-condition and there is an overall longstop date on the whole project of ten years. All long stops dates can be waived early on agreement from both parties.

 

Question 5

 

Is the housing still actually deliverable in the light of the latest Environment Agency predictions of Sea Level Rise to 2118?

 

Mr Whitty responded:

 

The only portion of the Southern Gateway Regeneration which was in the flood zone was the school site and the police playing fields and the updated modelling from the Environment Agency does not extend the flood risk any further than those sites which are in flood zone one and two.  Any development of those sites would have to conform to sequential tests as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, that is a Southern Gateway regeneration development or individually.  At this point there are no factors which suggest the area cannot be development but that would be subject to the test as part of the planning application process.

 

The Chairman requested further clarification regarding if the site were brought forward separately and not as part of a masterplan, whether that would change how the sequential test was considered? 

 

Mr Whitty responded as part of the sequential test considering the entire Southern Gateway then an argument could be advanced that no other site was suitable in that it was vital to the regeneration project. If it was not part of a regeneration project, it would not be unacceptable but give the question a different emphasis which would need to be answered by the applicant in the sequential test process.

 

Question 6

 

Why did we not reach out to local businesses with an interest in Chichester who may have been interested in putting forward a local bid?

 

Mrs Hotchkiss responded:

 

Under procurement regulations we need to test the market.  This was explained to any local companies that approached us and were invited to tender. Local companies did express an interest at the beginning of the tender process but did not continue or submit a bid.

 

Question 7

 

Did we appoint professional master planners and regeneration professional at the start of this project?

 

Mrs Hotchkiss responded:

 

Following Cabinet’s approval of funding for this project, David Lock Associates, a planning, master-planning and urban design consultancy was appointed to prepare the masterplan with Peter Brett Associates commissioned to undertake the transport appraisal.

 

JLL was subsequently appointed as property and development advisor and Browne Jacabson as our legal advisors.

 

Question 7

 

Typically how long would a compulsory order take to complete?

 

Mrs Hotchkiss responded:

 

The Council Acquiring Authority (AA) having decided that land is required for a particular purpose or Scheme and that they are prepared to use Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) powers to assist in achieving this. Boundaries are defined and information is gathered.

 

This stage is essentially an information-gathering exercise but as part of the process, the Council may decide to enter into early negotiations with land owners.  Ultimately a Compulsory Purchase Order is an acquisition by last resort and therefore the Council must demonstrate that it has exhausted all other avenues to purchase the land as members will recall from other CPO matters.

 

The Council will then need to go through formal resolution stage for a CPO, this typically takes three months as a minimum.  Land referencing work by an external consultant will then be required and this can take up to another three months depending upon what is identified – possibly longer for a complex site with various potential established rights to investigate.  This activity is recording ownership and occupational details of the land so as to identify all parties with a legal interest or right to occupy the required land so that they can be formally extinguished. This is likely to be more complex in an urban area such as Southern Gateway though legal have already done as much preparatory investigative work to support land referencing as is possible.

 

Once the land referencing has been completed, the Council will make the CPO again through a report to full Council.

 

When making the Order the Authority will also prepare a Statement of Reasons.  The Statement of Reasons will demonstrate that the proposed Scheme and consequently the CPO is in the public interest and will deliver social, environment and economic well-being.  These are the criteria upon which a CPO is judged.  The foundations for this have been carried out but will need to be developed and completed post Land Referencing, to take into account, those elements.  This may add a month to the process.

 

Notices will then need to be served on all owners, leaseholders, tenants and occupiers of affected land as well as any party who may have the right to claim compensation because they own rights which will be interfered with or the value of their land will/may be reduced as a result of works carried out as identified in the Land Referencing.  This is likely to take an additional two months.

 

Within these notices the Authority will specify a time within which objections to the CPO can be made.  This must be at least 21 days but tends to be extended to 28 days from the date the notice is published. A single statutory objection this will trigger a Public Inquiry which would normally add six weeks to the process.  At this time the operation of the process is harder to gauge due to the impact of Covid upon the Ministry and the Planning Inspector and some variations to the statutory timelines have been made under the Coronavirus Act 2020.    

 

As an alternative to an inquiry, objections can be considered by the Planning Inspector through the written representations procedure but this takes a similar time.

 

Following the Inquiry the Inspector prepares a report which is then considered by the Secretary of State, or Confirming Minister for approval or otherwise. The report will make a recommendation regarding the proposed Compulsory Purchase Order.  The Secretary of State will then confirm the Order, possibly with modifications or reject the proposed CPO.  There is no formal deadline for this but it can take up to two months.

 

A reasonable estimate is that taking a CPO through all of the above will be 12 to 14 months at best even if overlapping of work is done to the extent possible and authorisation meetings are able to be delivered and agreed in a timely manner, possibly longer due to delays in the system due to covid in particular if objections are submitted.

 

If confirmed (with or without modifications) then CPO powers will be confirmed or granted to the Council, who then have a period of three years within which to execute the Order.”

 

Question 8

 

Is the whole road structure dependent upon the court buildings and therefore must this be reviewed?

 

Mrs Hotchkiss responded:

 

The road layout can be implemented without the court site.

 

Resolved

 

That Overview and Scrutiny Committee notes the background information contained in the Part I report and makes any recommendations to Cabinet.