Agenda item

To consider the report of the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Planning.

Councillor Hanson, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning, submitted a report updating Council on the Canal Corridor North Scheme. She reported that, following detailed due diligence work carried out for the scheme and discussions with British Land, there was no viable option for the current scheme which could be recommended to Council for support.

 

There was a lengthy question and answer session, during which the Cabinet Member and the Regeneration Manager responded to questions from Councillors.

 

Councillor Cooper asked Councillor Hanson why there was no mention of the costs of termination of the agreement with British Land. He asked how much that would cost. Councillor Hanson replied that there would be no costs. Councillor Cooper asked that the reply be included in the minutes.

 

Councillor Caroline Jackson asked Councillor Hanson if she would confirm the importance of the Lancaster District Homeless Action facility. Councillor Hanson replied ‘yes, of course.’ Councillor Caroline Jackson asked that Councillor Hanson’s reply be minuted.

 

Councillor Hamilton-Cox asked for more clarity regarding the amount spent on consultants and external advisors for the scheme in 2017/18, as figures of £283,000 and £188,000 had been included in documentation. Councillor Caroline Jackson asked about the process undertaken when commissioning commercial property agents GVA and what the estimated contract value had been. The Chief Officer (Resources) agreed to clarify all these points in a written answer.

 

Councillor Hanson, seconded by Councillor Clifford, proposed:

 

“That Council

 

(1)            Notes that, following detailed due diligence work and discussions with British Land, there is no viable option for the current Canal Corridor North scheme that can be recommended to Council for support.

 

(2)            Notes that, as a consequence of 1 above, the current Development Agreement with British Land will be terminated.

 

(3)            Instructs the Chief Executive to develop a new development and financial framework for the Canal Quarter based on the key principles set out in paragraph 2.3 of this report.

 

(4)            As a consequence of (3) above, instructs the Chief Executive to undertake negotiations and due diligence with British Land for their land and property holdings in the Canal Quarter.

 

(5)            Authorises the use of the Canal Corridor North Reserve to fund any reasonable costs arising from this phase of project development work.

 

(6)            Notes that Cabinet, in consultation with the Canal Corridor Cabinet Liaison Group (to be re-named the Canal Quarter Cabinet Liaison Group) is responsible for overseeing production of the new draft development and financial framework, which shall be reported to councillors when it is complete.

 

(7)            Instructs that, in addition to ongoing key stakeholder engagement, the draft development and financial framework includes a detailed plan for public engagement in line with community consultation best standards with the aim of obtaining wide public participation in plans for the Canal Quarter moving forward.”

 

The Mayor informed Councillors that four amendments had been submitted by the Green Group in advance of the meeting. These had been circulated by email and paper copies were on Members’ tables.

 

Councillor Wilkinson proposed the first amendment, seconded by Councillor Barry, This was in two parts:

 

To replace (6) above with:

 

“An all-party steering group shall take overall responsibility for the canal quarter scheme, including production of the new draft development and financial framework. This group shall report to full council.”

 

And to add to the end of (3) above:

 

“This is to be overseen by the all-party steering group formed by (6) below.”

 

Following debate on the amendment, a recorded vote was requested in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.4.

 

The outcome of the recorded vote was:

 

For the amendment

Councillors Ashworth, Barry, Bateson, Brookes, Charles, Cooper, Edwards, Gardiner, Goodrich, Guilding, Hamilton-Cox,  Caroline Jackson, Joan Jackson, Mace, Mills, Novell, Parkinson, Rogerson, Scott, Sykes, Wild, Wilkinson, Peter Williamson, Phillippa Williamson and Yates (25)

 

Against the amendment

Councillors Biddulph, Blamire, Brayshaw, Brown, Bryning, Burns, Clifford, Clift, Cozler, Denwood, Devey, Frea, Hall, Hanson, Hartley, Hughes, Kay, Kershaw,  Metcalfe, Parr, Pattison, Redfern, Reynolds, Sands, Warriner, Whitaker and Whitehead (27)

 

There were no abstentions.

 

With 25 votes for the amendment and 27 against, the Mayor declared the amendment lost.

 

Since the meeting had been in progress for over two hours at this point, he called for a ten minute adjournment in accordance with council procedure rule 10.1.

 

(The meeting adjourned at 8.10pm and reconvened at 8.22pm: Councillor Knight joined the meeting when it reconvened)

 

The Mayor informed Council he would now take the remaining three amendments, of which advance notice had been given by the Green group. These were all in the form of addendums.

 

Councillor Hamilton-Cox proposed an addendum to (3):

 

“Public consultation should be at the earliest possible stage of the scheme. Council asks that the Winchester model of community consultation – always with due and explicit regard for project viability – is examined with a view to learning from it when undertaking consultation in Lancaster. The aim is to create a development such that the character and scale of the buildings and streets is reflective of what makes Lancaster distinctive.”

 

Councillor Caroline Jackson seconded the amendment, which was not accepted as a friendly amendment by Councillor Hanson. There was some debate on the amendment before a recorded vote was requested, in accordance with council procedure rule 10.1.

 

The result of the vote was:

 

For the amendment

Councillors Ashworth, Barry, Bateson, Brookes, Charles, Cooper, Edwards, Gardiner, Goodrich, Guilding, Hamilton-Cox,  Caroline Jackson, Joan Jackson, Kay, Knight, Mace, Mills, Novell, Parkinson, Rogerson, Scott, Sykes, Wild, Wilkinson, Peter Williamson, Phillippa Williamson and Yates (27)

 

Against the amendment

Councillors Biddulph, Blamire, Brayshaw, Brown, Bryning, Burns, Clifford, Clift, Cozler, Denwood, Devey, Frea, Hall, Hanson, Hartley, Hughes, Kershaw,  Metcalfe, Parr, Pattison, Redfern, Reynolds, Sands, Warriner, Whitaker and Whitehead (26)

 

There were no abstentions.

 

The Mayor declared the amendment carried by 27 votes to 26.

 

Councillor Hamilton-Cox then proposed a further amendment by way of addendum to (3), seconded by Councillor Caroline Jackson:

 

“Full council calls on officers to invite the lead officer on the regeneration of Winchester’s Silver Hill to speak to members at the earliest opportunity so that members can learn from the reasoning and approach of Winchester city council to its own phased, edge-of-centre brownfield regeneration project.

 

Full council seeks, as a matter of principle, that any development masterplan incorporates the essentials of the Preston model, so that the local economy benefits as fully as possible from the project expenditure and outcomes.”

 

The addendum was not accepted as a friendly amendment by Councillor Hanson, who asked the Mayor for a ten minute adjournment at this point, to consult with her group. The Mayor agreed to the request.

 

(The meeting adjourned at 8.55pm and reconvened at 9.15pm)

 

The Mayor asked Councillor Hanson whether, after further consideration, she would now be prepared to accept the addendum proposed by Councillor Hamilton-Cox as a friendly amendment. After some discussion, Councillor Hanson, and her seconder Councillor Clifford, accepted it as a friendly amendment. Councillor Hanson then proposed amending the wording of the second paragraph of the addendum which she had just accepted to:

 

“Full council seeks, as a matter of principle, that any development masterplan takes account of the Preston model, and other models, so that the local economy benefits as fully as possible from the project expenditure and outcomes.”

 

Councillor Clifford seconded this. A vote was taken on the amendment, which was clearly carried.

 

The final amendment from the Green group of which notice had been given in advance of the meeting was then proposed by Councillor Hamilton-Cox, seconded by Councillor Caroline Jackson. This amendment was also in the form of an addendum to the motion:

 

“(8)    Full council calls on officers and the Canal Quarter Cabinet Liaison Group to appraise the need for a new supplementary planning document to guide development to minimise the risk of developers submitting individual and uncoordinated planning applications for sites within the area.”

 

Councillor Hanson and her seconder agreed to accept this additional wording as a friendly amendment to their motion.

 

Councillor Cooper asked if Councillor Hanson would be prepared to accept a friendly amendment to the wording at the start of proposition (4) from “As a consequence of …” to “If required by…”

 

Councillor Cooper’s suggested wording was accepted as a friendly amendment by Councillor Hanson and her seconder.

 

The Mayor asked if there were any further amendments at this point. None were proposed. A vote was then taken on the substantive motion, as amended, which was clearly carried.

 

Resolved:

 

That Council

 

(1)     Notes that, following detailed due diligence work and discussions with British Land, there is no viable option for the current Canal Corridor North scheme that can be recommended to Council for support.

 

(2)     Notes that, as a consequence of 1 above, the current Development Agreement with British Land will be terminated.

 

(3)     Instructs the Chief Executive to develop a new development and financial framework for the Canal Quarter based on the key principles set out in paragraph 2.3 of this report. Public consultation should be at the earliest possible stage of the scheme. Council asks that the Winchester model of community consultation – always with due and explicit regard for project viability – is examined with a view to learning from it when undertaking consultation in Lancaster. The aim is to create a development such that the character and scale of the buildings and streets is reflective of what makes Lancaster distinctive.

 

Full council calls on officers to invite the lead officer on the regeneration of Winchester’s Silver Hill to speak to members at the earliest opportunity so that members can learn from the reasoning and approach of Winchester city council to its own phased, edge-of-centre brownfield regeneration project.

 

Full council seeks, as a matter of principle, that any development masterplan takes account of the Preston model, and other models, so that the local economy benefits as fully as possible from the project expenditure and outcomes.

 

(4)     If required by (3) above, instructs the Chief Executive to undertake negotiations and due diligence with British Land for their land and property holdings in the Canal Quarter.

 

(5)     Authorises the use of the Canal Corridor North Reserve to fund any reasonable costs arising from this phase of project development work.

 

(6)     Notes that Cabinet, in consultation with the Canal Corridor Cabinet Liaison Group (to be re-named the Canal Quarter Cabinet Liaison Group) is responsible for overseeing production of the new draft development and financial framework which shall be reported to councillors when it is complete.

 

(7)     Instructs that, in addition to ongoing key stakeholder engagement, the draft development and financial framework includes a detailed plan for public engagement in line with community consultation best standards with the aim of obtaining wide public participation in plans for the Canal Quarter moving forward.

 

(8)     Full council calls on officers and the Canal Quarter Cabinet Liaison Group to appraise the need for a new supplementary planning document to guide development to minimise the risk of developers submitting individual and uncoordinated planning applications for sites within the area.

 

The Mayor asked that item 13, the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report, be taken next, to allow the Chairman of the Budget and Performance Panel, who had to leave the meeting early, the opportunity to present her part of the report.