Decision details

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Evelyn Archer)

(It was noted that Councillor Roger Mace had previously declared a personal interest in this item). 

The Head of Property Services submitted a report that informed Members of the proposals received to date for the Auction Mart car park and sought direction on how to proceed with the site. 

The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows: 

The schemes were outlined as follows:

·         Option 1 – 91 space public car park and 25 space private car park along with 80 one and two bedroomed retirement apartments over 4 floors with 1^st floor amenity space.  Alternatively, they proposed ground floor retail unit with 1^st and 2^nd floor office / leisure space with 131 public car parking spaces.  Proposed access from the north western end of the site.

·         Option 2 – Ground floor 1286m² food retail with 40 dedicated spaces and 225 public car parking spaces provided in a 3 floor multi storey car park above.  Proposed access to the car park to be at the north western end of the site and access to the food supermarket at the southern end of the site.  The developer had identified and been in discussions with an operator for the food supermarket.  The developer has offered 3 separate financial options for the site including (a) the City Council disposing of the freehold in the site; (b) the City Council retains freehold but is responsible for the construction and related costs of the scheme, paying the developer one years income as a fee, but the City Council would gain the supermarket and the car park as an investment; (c) The City Council grant the developer a long lease of the car park but continue to manage the car park, providing the developer with 55.5% of the income from the enlarged car park and the City Council continues to receive a proportion of the income equating to 44.5% of the car park income.

·         Option 3 – 6327m² of health centre and related accommodation over 6 storeys in a V shaped building with a central pedestrian plaza, with 212 car parking spaces on 3 decks below the building with a yet undefined number of spaces required for the medical centre.  The proposed access to the development will be from the north western end of the site.

·         Option 4 – As an alternative version of option 3, the City Council could work with the North Lancashire Teaching Primary Care Trust to identify a developer who could provide a health facility and car park which would meet the needs of both the PCT and potential occupiers and the City Council.

·         Option 5 - The Vision Board and the County Council, as previously mentioned, have jointly commissioned a report with transport consultants Faber Maunsell.  The final report is due in April, but the initial feedback outlined sees the need for a southern interceptor car park which could require up to 750 – 800 spaces without causing increased queuing on the gyratory system. 

·         Option 6 – Retain the car park in its existing format but re-surface it to provide necessary improvements for customers.

Consultation had taken place with a number of interested parties including the Vision Board, Property Services parking section and Planning Services on the concept and on individual schemes.

At this stage, assessment of the financial options put forward in the various options was not possible without entering into detailed discussions with the various parties involved.  In particular the proposal from the Vision Board had no detail attached to it to understand the viability of the option. 

In terms of option 4, if the City Council were to work with the Primary Care Trust (PCT) to provide a medical centre, then a marketing exercise would be initiated to identify a suitable developer.  This would create and enhance the working relationship between the City Council and external agencies such as the PCT potentially provide a scheme, which would be beneficial and produce best value for both parties.

The preferred officer option was for Members to consider the proposals outlined in the report and indicate their preferred option(s) for the site in order that further negotiations could be undertaken with parties interested in this site.  

It was moved by Councillor Roger Mace and seconded by Councillor Evelyn Archer: -

“(1)   That Cabinet notes (a) the expressions of interest received in respect of the Auction Mart Car Park and (b) the parking requirements in the city centre during the construction phase of the proposed Canal Corridor Scheme.  

(2)     Cabinet recognises that reducing congestion in Lancaster City Centre is a significant priority for the District and requests a further options report when information is available about the possible use of the site as an interceptor car park. 

(3)     Cabinet resolves to retain the car park in its existing format pending the further options report requested above.” 

By way of amendment it was moved by Councillor Jon Barry and seconded by Councillor Maia Whitelegg: -

“That the following wording be added to resolution (2):

and this could include use of part of the site for one of the options considered or for another use such as affordable housing.” 

3 Members (Councillors Jon Barry, John Gilbert and Maia Whitelegg) voted in favour of the amendment and 6 Members (Councillors Evelyn Archer, Eileen Blamire, Abbott Bryning, Tony Johnson, David Kerr and Roger Mace) voted against, whereupon the Chariman declared the amendment lost. 

Members then voted as follows on the original proposition. 

Resolved:

(7 Members voted in favour (Councillors Evelyn Archer, Eileen Blamire, Abbott Bryning, John Gilbert, Tony Johnson, David Kerr and Roger Mace) and 2 Members (Councillors Jon Barry and Maia Whitelegg) abstained from voting):

(1)     That Cabinet notes (a) the expressions of interest received in respect of the Auction Mart Car Park and (b) the parking requirements in the city centre during the construction phase of the proposed Canal Corridor Scheme.

(2)     Cabinet recognises that reducing congestion in Lancaster City Centre is a significant priority for the District and requests a further options report when information is available about the possible use of the site as an interceptor car park. 

(3)     Cabinet resolves to retain the car park in its existing format pending the further options report requested above.

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration). 

Head of Property Services. 

Reason for making the decision:

The decision ensures that the options, as set out in the report, are left open for further consideration, pending further information regarding the interceptor car park.  It also enables Cabinet to consider this matter further once the results of the Faber Maunsell report are published and Lancashire County Council, the Vision Board and the City Council have considered the report.