Agenda item

Purpose:  For the Executive to review again the Avison Young prepared draft London Road Industrial Estate Development Brief and to note feedback from public consultation which is reflected in the final version of the Development Brief.

Resolved that the publication of the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) Development Brief in its final form post public consultation be approved.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 26 November 2020, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) concerning the draft London Road Industrial Estate Development Brief and any feedback received from public consultation which had been reflected in the final version of the Development Brief.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon in introducing the report stated that it represented the next step in the regeneration of the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) and it would revamp and transform the eastern approach to Newbury Town Centre. It would attract business enterprises and residents to what would be a high quality and first class residential office and business development. Some of the comments received as part of the consultation process had resulted in changes to the Development Brief and they had been set out in the report. It provided clarification on the status of the document in that it was not a planning document and was never intended to be so. This was because the Council had a potential conflict of interest to deal with as landowner and planning authority. A number of other comments had been received in respect of the football ground and the flood mitigation which had been dealt with in the public arena prior to the consultation but nonetheless the brief had been updated to clarify the Council’s position on these areas. Consultation had included direct contact with leaseholders and occupational tenants on the estate and two public Zoom sessions.

Councillor Mackinnon stated that the consultation process had not identified any matters which would alter the Council’s decision to regenerate the LRIE. It was therefore proposed to move forward with the next steps in bringing a proposal to the next Executive meeting in December 2020.

Councillor Howard Woollaston seconded the report.

Councillor Tony Vickers stated that he was excited at the prospect of this very important site being developed but he just wished that it had not taken 10 years to get this far at a cost of £1m. The Council needed to set an example and should be fostering economic growth and supporting local communities. It should set its ambitions higher rather than just securing commercial returns in the short term from capital receipts/income streams. Would the master plan produce economic growth and best value for the community or would it just deliver commercial returns to the Council. Councillor Vickers quoted from the terms of reference given to Avison Young which stated that the requirement was for development proposals to centre on commercial returns. The Council was not just a landowner, it was a planning local authority, and therefore it should not just conform with planning policy it should exceed it. It would be necessary to keep control of the site and go beyond what it had to do rather than looking for short term commercial gain.

Councillor Vickers referred to paragraph 7.25 on page 72 of the agenda. The first bullet point stated that ‘An alternative and suitable replacement facility for the football ground would be required to be provided prior to its disposal and potential redevelopment.’ This had not been included in the previous version of the master plan and he was pleased to see that this had clearly been included as a response to the consultation. He was also pleased that the Lib Dem response in relation to the local development order as a means of building out had been included. This would avoid having to wait for various planning applications to go through the system. In summary Councillor Vickers believed that the Council should be setting an example and going beyond what was required in policy terms. Committing to comply with and exceeding planning policy would in the long run provide better value for money for the district and its communities. The question to Councillor Mackinnon was as landowner the Council should be looking beyond just commercial concerns.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon replied that the Development Brief was never intended to be a planning document. He did not disagree with a lot of what Councillor Vickers had said but he did want to pick up on one point which had been made. Councillor Vickers had said that he was disappointed that the Council had decided to maximise financial returns at the expense of community good such as economic, social or environmental. That was not necessarily the case – Avison Young would need to look at commercial returns as there had to be an element of financial viability. However, as a Council it would also need to look at the good public realm element of the scheme. Councillor Mackinnon referred to the fact that the Liberal Democrats had a seat on the Project Board which was an opportunity for cross party collaboration.

Councillor Steve Masters referred to the fact that many members of the community were passionate about the football ground and the fact that this remained largely unresolved. He suggested that now would be a good time to try and bring the community back on board by apologising for the premature closure of the site as it had been empty and unused for two years. Councillor Ross Mackinnon responded that the Council did have an imminent plan to replace the football ground which would hopefully be announced in the near future. The findings of the Independent Task Group which looked at this concluded that the Council had acted in accordance with legal advice in making the decision to close the football ground.

Councillor Jeff Brooks asked for clarity on whether the Council would look to retain ownership as it had a large amount of ownership already on this area and in retaining it the Council would develop revenue streams for years to come. Councillor Ross Mackinnon confirmed that that remained an option – the Executive had not made a decision on this as yet.

Councillor Lee Dillon stated that long term revenue streams and retaining the freehold of the site would help to shape the future. Retaining the freehold would allow for it to be regenerated again in another hundred years. He noted that the proposal was for a business, commercial and residential development and he wondered what role leisure could play in the development. In particular, what role could a football club play within the whole envelope of that site. Councillor Dillon also felt that it was necessary to make sure that it matched with the upcoming Newbury Master Plan as the LRIE site linked with the town centre. Councillor Ross Mackinnon reiterated that holding the freehold of the site remained an option and he agreed that the Newbury Master Plan and the development of the LRIE were two projects that were closely linked.

Councillor Adrian Abbs referred to viability and the fact that this was included in the terms of reference. If the terms of reference were purely commercial then the site would likely be designed etc. on commercial terms. To say that something was not viable just because it did not deliver an absolute commercial return was based on commercial being the only interest. However, the return could be equally viable based on community benefit. He asked for assurance that viability would not just be driven by the commercial element. Councillor Mackinnon responded that it was necessary to balance two things – the finances of West Berkshire Council and the needs of the community. The decision on this had not been taken as yet and this would be the subject of further discussion at the Executive in December.

Councillor Howard Woollaston felt that this was an opportunity for the Council as a whole to have a major vision for Newbury.

RESOLVED that the publication of the London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) Development Brief in its final form post public consultation be approved.

Other options considered:

The Council should sell its freehold interest in the LRIE.  Existing ground rents are fixed at a good yield and where ground rents are paid to the Council by the leaseholder regardless of occupational rents received by leaseholders.  Any capital receipt could be invested in assets generating similar returns but would only maintain existing income levels and at the same time remove the Council’s ability to bring forward regeneration on this run down part of Newbury. Moreover new owners might sit on existing LRIE freeholds, leaving the estate to further deteriorate and where the Council’s control would be limited to that of planning authority.

To note the contents of the Avison Young Development Brief in its final form and for the Council to decide not to initiate and drive forward regeneration on the LRIE, leave the estate as it is and deal with change if and when it happens in the years ahead.  This approach is likely to be overtaken by events where the Council has to engage and negotiate with leaseholders who will progressively bring forward their own schemes on Council freehold land in the same way FDL and NWN already have.  It is preferable for the Council to be in control of events rather than react to them.