Agenda item

To consider any items called-in by the requisite number of Members following the previous Executive meeting.

(Councillors Tony Vickers and Erik Pattenden declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 6 by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, five Elected Members (Councillors Lee Dillon, Alan Macro, Jeff Brooks, Tony Vickers and Erik Pattenden) called in the Executive Decision (EX3978) on the London Road Development Options.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon introduced a report that outlined the details of the objectives of development on the London Road Industrial Estate and requested funding to help achieve the objectives through successful development of the site. He noted that the project remained a priority as part of the Council Strategy, and that 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. He noted that the Executive resolved to approve as follows:

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.

He also noted that the Executive recommended, for inclusion in the budget papers, a revenue budget of £100,000 per annum over the next three years to provide for specialist consultancy support during the project development where the Council does not have internal resources to provide the specific project resources.

Councillor Dillon noted that the call-in mechanism had been used sparingly in recent years. In this case, it was being used to ensure that the Executive were considering the unique set of circumstances surrounding London Road Industrial Estate (LRIE) and to secure confidence that adequate resources were being provided to help manage the project. He noted that the opposition were in favour of the re-development of LRIE and that they wanted to proceed without undue delay. He stated that there were four areas where clarification was required about how the project would be delivered. He thanked Councillors Hilary Cole and Ross Mackinnon for providing written responses in advance of the meeting.

Councillor Jeff Brooks noted that paragraph 5.11 of the report was factually incorrect, since the Liberal Democrats had been removed from the Project Board. In paragraph 5.13, he noted that there would be a dedicated lead project officer rather than project manager, and the project sponsor already had a large portfolio. He suggested that this did not equate to strong project management. He referred to the findings of the OSMC review of the first attempt to develop the LRIE, which had highlighted shortcomings with the project management methodology and experience within the Council, and with document control. He suggested that the Council did not have the project management expertise for a project of this size and that partners would look after their own commercial interests. He suggested more funding should be allocated for additional project management support to protect the Council’s interests and that it was a great risk to do otherwise.

Councillor Vickers introduced points 2 and 3 of the call-in, relating to the need for a stronger “Chinese wall” between the Council as landowner and planning authority, and the unacceptable risks of a phased approach without first undertaking full environmental assessment of the whole site. He indicated that through an FOI request, he had seen details of conversations between the Council and Sport England. He highlighted Sport England’s strong objection to the loss of the football pitch. He also noted that St Modwyn had made plans to incorporate this into its plans, funded through increased housing provision, but this had been rejected by the Planning Authority, and the Council had made it clear that regeneration of the site was not possible with the football ground in place. He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework, which required replacement and funding of facilities lost as part of development. He stated that the land under the football ground was contaminated, so an environmental assessment was needed. He also highlighted the need for green infrastructure on the site.

Councillor Law asked Councillor Vickers to stick to the points in the call-in report.

In regard to the ‘Chinese Wall’, Councillor Vickers stated that senior planning officers involved in pre-application discussions appeared to have a predetermined approach, despite not having a Supplementary Planning Document in place. He suggested that the Council had foregone £1 million of tax revenue every year since Faraday Plaza.

Councillor Law stated that Faraday Plaza had nothing to do with the Executive Report on the future of the LRIE project. He suggested that Councillor Vickers was trying to go back over old ground and the points were not relevant to the debate.

Councillor Vickers stated that the proposed phasing relied on re-developing the football ground first, which was the only piece of green infrastructure on the site, so the Council would immediately be in breach of planning policy. He indicated that he wanted an SPD produced and a thorough environmental impact assessment carried out in parallel to identify where the risks might be, including those relating to planning policy. He suggested that the Council should be more ambitious and have a more intensive development to pay for the football ground to stay.

Councillor Dillon spoke to point 4 of the call-in, which related to a lack of clarity of the market for offices and flats as the longer-term ramifications of the pandemic were not yet understood. He highlighted Savill’s Global Sentiment Survey, which showed that home-working and video conferencing was likely to increase, with Covid-19 accelerating this trend. He also highlighted the economic downturn associated with the pandemic and pointed to the IMF’s report showing that the economy was well below pre-Covid levels. He suggested that the recession would impact on future demand for office space, with a ‘new normal’ post-Covid with less dense office occupation, and increased home working. He suggested that flats would have to be part of the housing mix on the site, but pointed out that the value of flats had fallen during Covid, with larger properties more in demand. He stated that the report did not identify these risks and suggested that they should be considered to ensure the development was fit for the future.

Councillor Brooks noted that paragraph 5.8 did not make reference to project management.

Councillor Mackinnon stated that the Liberal Democrats had been removed from the project board because they had undermined it. Councillor Dillon suggested that ‘undermined’ was an emotive word; they had simply highlighted an alternative approach.

Councillor Mackinnon noted that all points listed in paragraph 5.8 related to project management. He suggested that concerns amounted to semantics about job titles. He noted that the Council had implemented the LRIE task group’s recommendations and that £100,000 would be allocated to project management support. In relation to the ‘Chinese Wall’ he stated that the Council had a standard structure and he had full confidence in the integrity of officers. He expressed disappointment that old ground had been recovered in relation to the football club. In terms of the phased approach, he confirmed that a full environmental assessment would be carried out as part of preparations for the outline planning application. In relation to uncertainty in the marketplace, he noted that perfect information was never available and suggested that now was the right time to invest. He highlighted that the district had performed well in previous recessions and he was confident in the future demand for office space.

Councillor Hilary Cole noted that Councillor Vickers’ comments either did not align to the history of the LRIE or were irrelevant. She stated that there was a clear distinction between the Council as landowner and planning authority. She explained that Economic Development was previously part of her portfolio, but it had been passed to Councillor Mackinnon in recognition of the fact that there could be a conflict of interest. She had also stood down from the LRIE Project Board.

Councillor Steve Masters indicated that he welcomed the call-in as it showed transparency and he considered scrutiny to be healthy for democracy.

Councillor Tom Marino asked Councillor Vickers for examples of where the integrity of the planning department had been compromised previously and if he had any proposals for how this could be improved.

Councillor Vickers explained that he did not question officers’ integrity, but perceptions were important, and there could be a perceived conflict of interest, particularly given the history of the site. He suggested that reporting could be through the Executive Director of Place, since she had no prior involvement in the project.

Councillor Claire Rowles asked if specialist consultancy support for project management would be bought in where needed. Councillor Mackinnon confirmed this was correct. Councillor Rowles indicated that the Corporate Programme Office had been set up in response to the recommendations of the LRIE Task Group. She asked Councillor Brooks what more he wanted the Council to do, especially in an age where consultancy fees were of public concern.

Councillor Brooks expressed surprise that Councillor Mackinnon was so dismissive of the call-in. He noted that £100,000 would only give around 50 days of consultancy support, which would be insufficient for the level of project management required. He suggested that the budget should be doubled.

Councillor James Cole noted that LRIE Task Group’s comments were legitimate criticism at the time. However, the Council had put measures in place to improve project management, so he did not share Councillor Brooks’ concerns. In terms of the effects of the pandemic, he suggested that many people would choose to return to work in offices. He suggested that Newbury would continue to attract technology companies and suggested that choosing not to develop LRIE now would be the wrong approach.

Councillor Gareth Hurley indicated that the project manager’s job title was not as important as having an individual who knew what they were doing and having the right governance structure in place. He suggested that the budget may be reviewed in future. He also suggested that it was vital for West Berkshire to demonstrate that it was ‘open for business’, otherwise business would be attracted to more forward-thinking towns.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that several major projects had been run in the last few years, which had stretched project management expertise very thinly, and he was concerned that the Council may make the same mistake again.

Councillor Marino asked Councillor Dillon if he had raised the concerns picked out in the call-in, when he was part of the Project Board. Councillor Dillon could not recall if they had been raised.

Councillor Lynne Doherty stated that she welcomed scrutiny across the Council, but LRIE had been scrutinised repeatedly. She stressed that the priorities were focused on employment and jobs, inward investment and enabling businesses to grow. She disagreed with Councillor Dillon’s comments. She noted that the LEP had put together a Recovery and Renewal Plan and the opportunities for new infrastructure were now. She highlighted the synergies with other work in the town centre and suggested that having more offices and residential development around the High Street would help it to thrive. She referred to a media article that had highlighted Newbury as a growing tech hub and suggested that now was the time to make the most of opportunities. She expressed a desire for cross-party working to make this project happen.

Councillor Vickers apologised to Councillor Mackinnon for not acknowledging his written response, but indicated that this was not available when the call-in had been made. He was pleased that an environmental impact assessment would be carried out. He noted that on page 24 of the Avison Young Masterplan, Gateway Plaza was within the red line area for which the Council was responsible. He suggested that funding may be available from the developer. In terms of going over old ground, he noted that scrutiny of the project had been on project management rather than planning policy, which had got in the way of development. He concluded by suggesting that the Council had stood in the way of economic growth and had lost Council Tax revenue and jobs.

Responding to Councillor Hurley’s comments, Councillor Brooks indicated that he had been involved in developing the forerunners to the PRINCE project management methodology and so had some knowledge on the subject. He suggested that Council had not previously run a project of this scale. He wanted to see the site developed, but he also wanted to reduce the risk by spending more money to get appropriate project management expertise. He expressed disappointment that the call-in had been treated so dismissively and indicated that the call-in was not politically motivated.

Councillor Dillon noted that job titles did matter and there was a need for a central figure, but the role was not being created for LRIE. He noted that the requirements for post-Covid office accommodation would affect the economic return on the development, but this was not picked up in the brief. He also took issue with Councillor Doherty’s comments about excessive scrutiny of LRIE, but indicated that this was the first time that this aspect had been scrutinised. He stated that the opposition wanted to build back better, but it was important to get the phasing right. He stated that the proposed phasing went against the Council’s own planning policy, so there was a need for clear transparency and a ‘Chinese Wall’ between Economic Development and Planning. He did not feel that the call-in had been frivolous and felt that the written responses had been helpful and had given the opposition members some confidence.

The Chairman noted that many of the recommendations from the LRIE Task Group had been put into effect. He noted that new project management structures and processes were in place and this was the first opportunity to see them in action. He indicated that he had first-hand experience of the Council’s Chinese Walls when he had been Portfolio Holder for Planning and had confidence in them. In relation to the market uncertainties, he suggested that this was a good reason to have phased implementation.

Councillor Dillon made a proposal as per paragraph 2.2 of the call-in report: That a decision on the options should be paused until an environmental assessment of the entire site has been carried out, the fall-out of the pandemic was better understood, and the appropriate project management structure and expertise is in place. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Brooks. At the vote, the proposal was not carried.

An alternative proposal was put forward by Councillor James Cole that OSMC concurred with the Executive decision and that it could be implemented with immediate effect. This was seconded by Councillor Claire Rowles. At the vote, the proposal was carried

RESOLVED that OSMC concurred with the Executive decision and that it could be implemented with immediate effect.