Agenda item

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Archer)

Report of the Head of Planning Services.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Archer)

The Head of Planning Services report informed Members of outline designs for the improvement of public spaces and routes within the city centre and on the outcome of public consultation and asked Cabinet to decide on how the project should be taken forward.

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

Officers, supported by Gillespies, propose to present and explain the outline design options for each space and route at the meeting. The available options are:

Option 1 - to endorse the thematic approach to the outline design options, noting that in September 2009 Cabinet will be presented for approval with a) an updated brief which will enable the design team to produce more detailed designs based on wider consultation and investigation and b) a recommendation as to what order of priority should be given to each space and route for implementation. Notwithstanding this, to endorse / reject any option or, alternatively, element of an option for more detailed development.

Option 2 not to endorse the thematic approach being taken, nor the detailed development of the outline design options as presented, but, notwithstanding this, to direct how the design work should progress for each space and route drawing on the Gillespies proposals and options as appropriate.

Regarding an Officer preferred option, Officers consider that the Gillespies proposals fit well to the brief given and are innovative and well considered. Option 1 will ensure that the full benefits of the consultation and stakeholder engagement can be taken into account and that officers can investigate potential synergies for the delivery of these proposals both in terms of the physical development and for the longer term management and opportunities for these spaces and routes, including for cultural and social activity and market trading for example. This will ensure that a holistic approach to the management of the town centre will be captured. On this basis officers prefer option 1.

It was moved by Councillor Archer and seconded by Councillor Kerr:-

“That the recommendations, as set out in the report, be approved.”

By way of amendment, Councillor Barry proposed and Councillor Fletcher seconded:

(1)         That Officers be asked to arrange for an alternative version of the City Park plan on Quay Meadow to be produced that does not involve building on the green space of Quay Meadow.

(2)         That, as part of this proposal, the Roman Bath House site be improved so that it becomes an asset to the city.

(3)         That we recognise that the siting of allotments in the Quay Meadow area is a sensitive issue for residents and for potential allotment holders. Thus, full consultation with local residents, users of Quay Meadow, Ward Councillors and other local stakeholders should take place before final plans are put in place.

(4)         That any potential removal of trees around the Castle should be fully consulted on with local residents and stakeholders.

(5)         That some trees are left in Market Street/Market Square and this means that where trees are to be removed that consideration should be given to suitable replacements.

At this point, the Chief Executive declared an interest regarding the Quay Meadow area as a local resident, Councillor Barry declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest as an allotment holder and Councillor Langhorn declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in view of his son’s involvement with the Young Archaeologists’ Club in maintaining the Roman Bath House site.

The mover and seconder of the original motion both accepted Councillor Barry’s amendments (2)-(5) as friendly amendments.

Members then voted on Councillor Barry’s amendment (1). 3 Members (Councillors Barry, Fletcher and Langhorn voted in favour, 5 Members (Councillors Archer, Ashworth, Bryning, Mace and Thomas voted against and 2 Members, (Councillors Blamire and Kerr) abstained, whereupon the Chairman declared amendment (1) lost.

Members then voted as follows:-

Resolved unanimously:

(1)               To endorse the thematic approach to improving spaces and routes in the centre focusing on the themes of “Lancaster Lore and Legends”, “Georgian Gem” and “City Park”.

(2)               To endorse the outline concept designs for specific routes and spaces for further development by the design team

(3)               That, as part of this proposal, the Roman Bath House site be improved so that it becomes an asset to the city.

(4)               That we recognise that the siting of allotments in the Quay Meadow area is a sensitive issue for residents and for potential allotment holders. Thus, full consultation with local residents, users of Quay Meadow, Ward Councillors and other local stakeholders should take place before final plans are put in place.

(5)               That any potential removal of trees around the Castle should be fully consulted on with local residents and stakeholders.

(6)               That some trees are left in Market Street/Market Square and this means that where trees are to be removed that consideration should be given to suitable replacements.

(6)               To note that Cabinet will receive a further report prior to the next stage of design development to direct the recommendations for each route or space and their priority for implementation

(7)               To update general fund revenue budgets to reflect the revised expenditure profile and external funding draw down, subject to authorisation by the external funders NWDA and Lancashire County Council

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Head of Planning Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision provides a steer from Cabinet to allow Officers to take the project forward.