Agenda item

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

Report of Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Included in this public report are 3 appendices exempt from publication. Members are reminded that if they wish to refer to the exempt appendices, they will need to consider exclusion of the press and public from the meeting.

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Thomas)

The Corporate Director (Regeneration) submitted a report updating Members on the current position with the Auction Mart car park and seeking direction on how to proceed with the site.

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

Option 1 – Remarket the Auction Mart car park on the same basis as the previous brief, i.e. as a development opportunity and new car park.  The previous marketing of the site included using public consultation to determine the schemes submitted.  Should Cabinet resolve that option 1 be implemented then Members are asked to consider whether public consultation will be required as part of the assessment of scheme or whether an assessment such as  scoring the feasibility of the schemes is carried out by officers. Remarketing the site may bring forward new proposals and new options for the site.

Option 2 – Reconsider the previous bids and schemes and reopen negotiations with the parties involved to ascertain whether the site and the development opportunity is still of interest to them and try to secure a scheme which would produce a development and maximise the number of car parking spaces on site.  Previous interested parties have put a lot of work into their proposals including schematics and have shown interest in the site since.  However this option may limit the Council’s ability to achieve best value for the site, by excluding new developers who may be interested in the site at the current time.

Option 3 – Revisit an option put forward in the previous report which is for the Council to enter into discussions with North Lancashire Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT) to identify a developer who could provide a health care facility which would meet the needs of both the PCT and the City Council.  This would promote the use of partnership working to provide facilities for the community as well as maximising the number of car parking spaces for the City council in the future and possibly producing best value for both parties. The PCT have expressed concerns that whilst they are interested in a development in this location, an open bidding process by the Council allows developers to propose healthcare solutions that may not provide value for money for the PCT. The PCT have queried whether the Council can therefore work with them to overcome this situation.

Option 4 – The City Council to look at building a multi storey car park to provide a southern interceptor car park for the City.  There are many disadvantages of this option including the large capital input required.  An estimated build cost of £15,000 per car parking space has been obtained which would require capital input of around £11,250,000 on a 750 space car park, if no external funding was forthcoming then the City Council would have to borrow money to finance such a scheme.  In addition it is uncertain whether planning permission could be obtained for a sizeable building which would be required to accommodate the 750 spaces.  There would be increased revenue income with this scheme, however this would be greatly reduced due to the cost of borrowing to fund the project. 

Option 5 – Not market the site for development and leave the car park as it is, but re-surface it to provide much needed improvements for customers. It should be noted however, that formal demarcation of the car park may cause a reduction in income as it is probable that there would be fewer spaces on the car park than are currently available with the informal parking layout that takes place.

Option 1 is the Officer preferred option for the reasons outlined above. Remarketing the site with an updated brief, this may bring forward new proposals and new options for the site including, maximising the number of car parking spaces on site, but will still allow previously interested parties to submit revised development proposals for the land.  In addition Members are asked to consider whether public consultation will be required as part of the assessment of scheme.

The Financial Implications within the report provided more detail on the consequence of Option 4.

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

“(1)      That the report, as it currently stands, be withdrawn 

(2)        That Officers ask the County Council what its position is”

By way of addenda, all of which were accepted as friendly addenda by the mover and seconder of the original motion, Councillor Mace proposed adding to (2) “and consult with the Economy Thematic Group of the Lancaster District Local Strategic Partnership”; Councillor Bryning proposed a further addition to (2) “and the North Lancashire Teaching Primary Care Trust” and Councillor Langhorn proposed adding “(3) That a report be brought back to Cabinet in late Autumn.”

Members then voted:-

Resolved:

(6 Members (Councillors Archer, Bryning, Kerr, Langhorn, Mace and Thomas) voted in favour and 3 Members (Councillors Barry, Blamire and Fletcher) abstained)

(1)        That the report, as it currently stands, be withdrawn

(2)               That Officers ask the County Council what its position is and consult with the Economy Thematic Group of the Lancaster District Local Strategic Partnership and the North Lancashire Teaching Primary Care Trust

(3)        That a report be brought back to Cabinet in late Autumn.”

Officers responsible for effecting the decision:

Corporate Director (Regeneration)

Head of Property Services

Reasons for making the decision:

The decision reflects Cabinet members’ wish to obtain views before considering the matter further later in the year.