Agenda item

Purpose:  This report details the objectives of development on the London Road Industrial Estate and requests funding to help achieve these objectives through successful development of the site. The project remains a priority as part of the Council Strategy, and this report seeks to provide a way forward to enable development on the site, in a phased approach, following consideration of the Development Brief, and the consultation on this, as well as the Council’s objectives for the site as a whole.

Resolved that the following be approved:

a.         a phased approach option to the development of the site within an overall vision for the development as a whole.

b.         the objectives of the development as per paragraph 5.14.

c.         commissioning a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to help better align development proposals with Planning Policy, to set out estate wide design criteria and infrastructure requirements and for the cost of this work to be found out of annual funding requested in this report.

d.         a one-off budget of £45,000 to provide funding for feasibility services in the 2020-21 financial year including, as appropriate, negotiations with estate stakeholders with commercial interests.

e.         the renaming of the London Road Industrial Estate working in consultation with the public.

Resolved to recommend, for inclusion in the budget papers, a revenue budget of £100,000 per annum over the next three years to provide for consultancy support during the project development where the Council does not have internal resources to provide the specific project resources.

This decision is eligible to be ‘called-in’.  However, if the decision has not been ‘called-in’ by 5.00pm on 29 December 2020, then it will be implemented.

The Executive considered a report (Agenda Item 6) concerning the objectives of development on the London Road Industrial Estate and requested funding to help achieve the objectives through successful development of the site. The project remained a priority as part of the Council Strategy and the report sought to provide a way forward to enable development on the site, in a phased approach, following consideration of the Development Brief, and the consultation on this, as well as the Council’s objectives for the site as a whole.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon in introducing the report stated that whilst there would be a holistic overall vision for the regenerated estate the Council was proposing a phased approach to development of the site on a plot by client basis rather than a comprehensive approach which would mean that the use of compulsory purchase orders would be far less likely and there would be a lower risk to the Council.

Paragraph 5.14 stated that the development of the site was economic development led, where high quality regenerations was of equal importance to financial returns and that a mixed use should include housing. Two budgetary recommendations had also been included – an in-year one-off budget of £45k to provide funding for feasibility studies and negotiations with the stakeholders and then over the next three years a revenue budget of £100k to provide for consultancy support during the project development where the Council did not have the internal resources available. Councillor Mackinnon pointed out that the Council had not ruled out the option of a Local Development Order either.

Councillor Howard Woollaston seconded the report and stated that the London Road Industrial Estate was the prime regeneration site for Newbury. The report quite rightly proposed a phased developed over the next ten years to allow the Council to pick the most appropriate joint venture partners to be selected for the different elements of this 25 acre site. The main driver was going to be economic development on this site which was already designated for employment purposes. This was likely to be facilitated by residential development which would include significant affordable housing on the southern end of the site. The revenue derived from this would act as a catalyst for the infrastructure works which would allow for commercial development on the larger northern end of the site to enable employment opportunities for local residents. The Council would work in partnership with existing occupiers of the site to relocate them over the medium term.

Councillor Jeff Brooks expressed his concerns about the project management element. It was noted that the Task Group had looked at the previous development proposal for the site and project management was found to be wanting. He noted in paragraph 5.13 that there would be a dedicated lead Project Officer but in his opinion this would just be a glorified Quantity Surveyor who would check what was being spent and what was slipping. That would not actually manage the project. The Executive Director (Resources) was the project sponsor which would not be a dedicated role and also a Member lead which could also not be a dedicated role. He therefore had severe concerns about the robustness of the Council’s project management capability and he asked for some reassurance and confidence that the Lead Officer would be capable of undertaking the role. Councillor Mackinnon responded that he had full confidence in the Lead Officer who would be responsible for the day to day management of the project.

Councillor Tony Vickers stated that the Liberal Democrats were very concerned about the lack of clarity over the relationship between the planning side of taking this project forward and the landowner’s responsibility. He noted that the production of a supplementary planning document would take place in the next 6 to 24 months and he asked if further clarity could be provided about the necessary division of responsibility as it was about time that there was some clear planning policy around this. Councillor Ross Mackinnon confirmed that his portfolio would oversee the project from a landowner’s point of view. The report stated that the Council would be preparing the supplementary planning document over the coming months but Councillor Vickers was asking for things that had not yet happened. Councillor Hilary Cole referred to the Local Plan review and in particular paragraph 7.6 of SP20 which stated that the London Road Industrial Estate was an edge of centre designated employment area which had scope for comprehensive regeneration within the plan period to maximise the potential of the site and office development might be appropriate in that context. There was additional supporting text in DC31 Designated Employment Areas (paragraph 12.7) which stated that in addition the London Road Industrial Estate had scope for comprehensive regeneration within the plan period to maximise the potential of the site. Some mixed use development might be appropriate in the context, such that no net loss of employment floorspace resulted from that development. As a Member on the Planning Advisory Group, Councillor Vickers should be fully aware that the Council had to operate as a local planning authority and as a landowner and those divisions were quite clear and definite. The Local Plan review was out for consultation and once the responses to the consultation had been analysed the consultation document would be taken to the Planning Advisory Group to formulate those policies. Councillor Vickers stated that the Project Manager was line managed by the Economic Development Officer who reported to the Head of Planning and Development which in itself seemed to imply that there was a problem. Councillor Ross Mackinnon reiterated that the line management arrangements were what they were but he had full confidence that the Officers would be able to handle those duties responsibly.

Councillor Erik Pattenden noted that Councillor Mackinnon spent a great deal of time answering questions in relation to the fate of the football provision in London Road and he wondered if it was felt that the report could have potentially done more to pacify those concerns and address the needs of the people asking these questions on a regular basis. Councillor Mackinnon responded that he was always happy to answer questions from members of the public. An announcement would be made very shortly in relation to the reprovision of a football facility and therefore the development of the industrial estate and the provision of football in the district would then follow separate paths.

Councillor Adrian Abbs raised concerns about the impact of Covid and the uncertainty as to what the future would hold. Councillor Mackinnon had said that the Council were already committed to spending a further £345k on this project but Councillor Abbs felt that the Council should be thinking of taking a pause to re-evaluate the situation. If the London Road Industrial Estate was a valuable asset to the Council now then it would continue to be a valuable asset. When the Council started on this project it would disrupt the businesses that were currently on the site and the football provision had already been disrupted. He queried where the community value of this development would be. Councillor Mackinnon did not accept that this was a headlong charge as he had just mentioned that there would be a three year budget during which time decisions would need to be made in relation to the precise mix of office accommodation and housing.

RESOLVED that:

1.          The Executive resolved to approve the following:

(a)       a phased approach option to the development of the site within an overall vision for the development as a whole.

(b)       the objectives of the development as per paragraph 5.14.

(c)        commissioning a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to help better align development proposals with Planning Policy, to set out estate wide design criteria and infrastructure requirements and for the cost of this work to be found out of annual funding requested in this report.

(d)       a one-off budget of £45,000 to provide funding for feasibility services in the 2020-21 financial year including, as appropriate, negotiations with estate stakeholders with commercial interests.

(e)       the renaming of the London Road Industrial Estate working in consultation with the public.

2.          That the Executive recommended, for inclusion on the budget papers, a revenue budget of £100,000 per annum over the next three years to provide for consultancy support during the project development where the Council did not have internal resources to provide the specific project resources.

Other options considered:

(1)       The Council could continue with a ‘do nothing’ option of leaving the site as it was and managing leasehold arrangements as they came towards expiry. This had been discounted as it did not support the Council Strategy objectives and the infrastructure on the site would continue to deteriorate.

(2)       Redevelopment could be delivered by a ‘comprehensive approach’ as set out in the report. The comprehensive approach required the Council to acquire all interests on the estate to create one large redevelopment site.  This would require an enormous upfront financial outlay, either via borrowings or in partnership, and where the potential enhanced financial rewards were marginal compared to a phased redevelopment.  Similarly the comprehensive approach was not only more challenging to deliver but where the risks to the Council were greatly increased.  For these reasons the comprehensive approach to redevelopment had been discounted.

(3)       The Council had the option to put the site on the market and seek a sale and capital receipt. This had been discounted at present as it would be unlikely to achieve the Council Strategy objectives, and the current market was very uncertain for potential investors in the site.