Agenda item

To consider the report of the Chief Executive. (Report to follow.)

The Chief Executive introduced a report seeking Council’s support for recommendations regarding ‘in principle’ decisions to make progress with the Canal Corridor North project.  The report was exempt from publication under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, however a public version of the report, containing all the recommendations in full, had also been published.

 

There was a lengthy question session, with officers responding to Members’ queries.

 

Councillor Blamire, seconded by Councillor Clifford, proposed:

 

“(1)    That Council notes the current position regarding the Canal Corridor North scheme.

 

(2)     That, after considering the information contained within the report and appendices, Council:

 

·         continues to support the scheme’s overall concept as representing an appropriate development solution for the site, in the light of current policies and priorities for the future growth of the district as a whole;

 

·         agrees, in principle, to the financial ‘asks’ from key partners as set out in section 4 of the report; and alongside these

 

·         it is prepared, in principle, to invest (in equity and/or loan capital terms) in the overall scheme, to help achieve an affordable and financially sustainable outcome from the City Council’s perspective.

 

(3)   a)    That officers be authorised to negotiate further with British Land and the University of Lancaster, and other relevant key partners, to inform detailed development of the scheme’s concepts, layout and design and in particular:

 

·         to identify the optimum solution regarding the development boundary for the scheme, and the extent to which the Council’s assets are included;

 

·         to identify the most cost-effective car parking design solution to meet expected capacity needs and to improve financial viability from the Council’s perspective, in context of wider car parking and transport strategy;

 

·         to identify the most appropriate arts hub offer, design solution and operating model with the aim of the facility as a whole being financially viable (i.e. to negate the need for ongoing revenue support in the medium to longer term), in context of the wider cultural offer in the district;

 

·         to develop any further capital financing options (based on PWLB borrowing) to enable the Council to take a longer term stake in the car park and/or the arts hub, if appropriate in support of the above; and

 

·         to develop the most appropriate governance structures for delivering the project, whilst protecting the Council’s interests.

 

b)  Officers be authorised also to pursue other relevant external funding streams such as Arts Council England.

 

c)  The Canal Corridor Reserve be used for the commissioning of ongoing external professional support to advance negotiations.

 

d) Officers report back on the outcome of the above work with a view to presenting Heads of Terms for Council’s consideration as soon as practicable, allowing for appropriate due diligence to be completed.”

 

The Deputy Mayor informed Councillors that Councillor Peter Williamson had submitted an amendment in advance of the meeting, copies of which had been circulated.

 

Councillor Peter Williamson, seconded by Councillor Edwards, proposed the amendment, which was to insert the word ‘explore’ before ‘the financial asks’ in the second bullet point of recommendation (2) and to add a new recommendation (5), as follows:

 

“This council recognises the importance of the businesses in the existing city centre of Lancaster and will maintain its commitment to those businesses alongside any development of the Canal Corridor North site.”

 

The amendment was not accepted by the proposer of the original motion or her seconder.

 

After a long debate on the amendment, the Deputy Mayor called for a vote.  A recorded vote was requested in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.4.

 

The votes were recorded as follows:

 

For the amendment:

Councillors Bateson, Charles, Cooper, Edwards, Guilding, Helme, Jackson (Joan), Parkinson, Rogerson, Sykes, Wild, Wilkinson, Williamson (Peter), Williamson (Phillippa), Yates (15).

 

Against the amendment:

Councillors Armstrong, Ashworth, Atkinson, Biddulph, Blamire, Brayshaw, Brown, Bryning, Burns, Clifford, Clift, Cozler, Denwood, Devey, Frea, Hall, Hanson, Hartley, Kay, Kershaw, Parr, Pattison, Redfern, Reynolds, Sands, Scott, Thynne, Warriner, Whitaker, Whitehead (30).

 

Abstentions:

Councillors Barry, Hamilton-Cox and Jackson (Caroline) (3).

 

Members then debated the original proposition before the Deputy Mayor called for a vote. A recorded vote was requested in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.4. The votes were recorded as follows:

 

For the motion:

Councillors Armstrong, Ashworth, Atkinson, Bateson, Biddulph, Blamire, Brayshaw, Brown, Bryning, Burns, Clifford, Clift, Cozler, Denwood, Devey, Edwards, Frea, Guilding, Hall, Hanson, Hartley, Helme, Kay, Kershaw, Parr, Pattison, Redfern, Reynolds, Rogerson, Sands, Scott, Thynne, Warriner, Whitaker, Whitehead (35).

 

Against the motion:

Councillors Barry, Charles, Cooper, Hamilton-Cox, Caroline Jackson, Sykes, Wild, Wilkinson, Williamson (Peter), Williamson (Phillippa), Yates (11)

 

Abstentions:

Councillors Parkinson and Jackson (Joan) (2).

 

Resolved:

 

(1)     That Council notes the current position regarding the Canal Corridor North scheme.

 

(2)     That, after considering the information contained within the report and appendices, Council:

 

·         continues to support the scheme’s overall concept as representing an appropriate development solution for the site, in the light of current policies and priorities for the future growth of the district as a whole;

 

·         agrees, in principle, to the financial ‘asks’ from key partners as set out in section 4 of the report; and alongside these

 

·         it is prepared, in principle, to invest (in equity and/or loan capital terms) in the overall scheme, to help achieve an affordable and financially sustainable outcome from the City Council’s perspective.

 

(3)      a)     That officers be authorised to negotiate further with British Land and the University of Lancaster, and other relevant key partners, to inform detailed development of the scheme’s concepts, layout and design and in particular:

 

·         to identify the optimum solution regarding the development boundary for the scheme, and the extent to which the Council’s assets are included;

 

·         to identify the most cost-effective car parking design solution to meet expected capacity needs and to improve financial viability from the Council’s perspective, in context of wider car parking and transport strategy;

 

·         to identify the most appropriate arts hub offer, design solution and operating model with the aim of the facility as a whole being financially viable (i.e. to negate the need for ongoing revenue support in the medium to longer term), in context of the wider cultural offer in the district;

 

·         to develop any further capital financing options (based on PWLB borrowing) to enable the Council to take a longer term stake in the car park and/or the arts hub, if appropriate in support of the above; and

 

·         to develop the most appropriate governance structures for delivering the project, whilst protecting the Council’s interests.

 

b)  Officers be authorised also to pursue other relevant external funding streams such as Arts Council England.

 

c)  The Canal Corridor Reserve be used for the commissioning of ongoing external professional support to advance negotiations.

 

d) Officers report back on the outcome of the above work with a view to presenting Heads of Terms for Council’s consideration as soon as practicable, allowing for appropriate due diligence to be completed.