Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR – ENTERPRISE

To provide Members with an update on the Churchgate regeneration project. Highlighting their due diligence, consultation and feasibility work that has been completed so far.

RESOLVED: That Council:

(1)   Supported and endorsed the Churchgate Project Board recommendation to discount Option 4 due to it not being financially viable and undertake further work to develop a proposal based upon ‘Option 3’, which includes by default, Options 1 and 2.

(2)   Supported and endorsed the five ‘Development Principles’ that are set out in paragraph 8.5.

(3)   Members approved additional funding for a specialist Project Manager of £120k as set out at 8.13, as this was not identified as part of the 25/26 budget setting process.

REASON FOR DECISIONS: Using the knowledge collated from the public consultation and the technical due diligence carried out by Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH), there are various ways that the site (also known as the Churchgate Regeneration Zone) could be developed. However, for the Council to move forward it is important that the various options are narrowed down according to feasibility. This recommendation allows the Council to proceed with the option that is more likely to succeed based on the evidence.

Audio recording – 1 hour 0 minutes 37 seconds

Councillor Tamsin Thomas, the Executive Member for Enterprise, presented the report entitled ‘Churchgate Viability and Next Steps – Part 1’ and advised that:

·       This report provided an update on the next phase of the Churchgate Regeneration Project.

·       The Council purchased the Churchgate Shopping Centre Leasehold on 1 August 2022.

·       The Project Board had completed the first three stages of the Project Management process and were now in the final stage of delivering the project.

·       Due to its complexity, the Council had appointed expert consultants Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) to assist with delivery of this project.

·       Public consultations were held with 3,700 responses received through surveys and individual responses.

·       Following a viability assessment and combining the results of the consultations, LSH defined five ‘Development Principles’ which had been endorsed by the Project Board.

·       The Council remained committed to a revitalisation of Churchgate and asked LSH to balance viability with vision.

·       Three Project Board workshops were held which have resulted in four development options each of which have been financially appraised by LSH.

·       The report recommended to Council to secure the services of a Project Manger to allow the formal procurement process to commence and to move forward with the preferred Option 3.

Steve Norris, Executive Director at LSH, gave a presentation entitled ‘Churchgate Regeneration Zone’ and advised that:

·       LSH had been appointed to assist the Council with the stages of property and regeneration cycle for Churchgate.

·       The first workshop had been a viability assessment of the site, looking at the final land value of the site and whether the scheme was viable or not viable.

·       The second workshop was an assessment of potential uses for the site.

·       Following the workshops LSH had produced four options for the Council.

·       Option 3, a mixed-use development of plots 1-5, had been selected by the Project Board as the preferred option.

The following Members took part in the debate:

·       Councillor Steve Jarvis

·       Councillor Ralph Muncer

·       Councillor Joe Graziano

·       Councillor Ian Albert

·       Councillor Ruth Brown

·       Councillor Nigel Mason

·       Councillor Daniel Allen

·       Councillor Tamsin Thomas

Points raised during the debate included:

·       This was a step in the right direction with good public consultation.

·       The five Development Principles were the result of the public consultation and these were what the public wanted the Council to achieve.

·       This site was long overdue for development.

·       Although there were concerns regarding achieving 40% of affordable housing and around parking, this project was community focused and sustainable.

·       The Council had paid over market value for the freehold of the Churchgate Shopping Centre.

In response to a point raised, Steve Norris, Executive Director at LSH advised that the next steps for this project was preparation of a Business Plan with milestones for delivery which would be brought to Council in October 2025.

In response to points raised, the Chief Executive advised that the Council had not paid above the market price for the Churchgate Shopping Centre and that the price had been approved by external surveyors.

A point of personal explanation was provided by Councillor Ralph Muncer  in response to points raised by Officers relating to the purchase price of the Churchgate freehold.

Councillor Tamsin Thomas proposed and Councillor Daniel Allen seconded and, following a vote, it was:

RESOLVED: That Council:

(1)   Supported and endorsed the Churchgate Project Board recommendation to discount Option 4 due to it not being financially viable and undertake further work to develop a proposal based upon ‘Option 3’, which includes by default, Options 1 and 2.

(2)   Supported and endorsed the five ‘Development Principles’ that are set out in paragraph 8.5.

(3)   Members approved additional funding for a specialist Project Manager of £120k as set out at 8.13, as this was not identified as part of the 25/26 budget setting process.

REASON FOR DECISIONS: Using the knowledge collated from the public consultation and the technical due diligence carried out by Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH), there are various ways that the site (also known as the Churchgate Regeneration Zone) could be developed. However, for the Council to move forward it is important that the various options are narrowed down according to feasibility. This recommendation allows the Council to proceed with the option that is more likely to succeed based on the evidence.

N.B. Following the conclusion of this item there was a break in proceedings at 21:02 and the meeting reconvened at 21:10. During the break, Councillor Dominic Griffiths left the Chamber and did not return.