Garden Street Report
REPORT OF THE GROUP DIRECTOR, REGENERATION & DEVELOPMENT
1 . ISSUE
1.1 To consider the selection of a preferred developer for the redevelopment of the Garden Street/Tanpits Car Park, Hebden Bridge.
2. NEED FOR A DECISION
2.1 Following Cabinet resolution on 14 February 2004 the Garden Street /Tanpits car parks were placed on the market, with the objective of securing additional off street car parking, funded from a private sector development. The agreed selection procedure has been followed and a preferred developer is now recommended. 2.2 The proposal has proved to be controversial and some objections have been received to the principle of any redevelopment. 3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 To consider whether or not to proceed with the redevelopment process.
And subject to (3. 1) that -
3.2 the development company to be established by Studio BAAD, be appointed as preferred developer for the site, subject to the conditions listed in the report .
3.3 negotiation proceed on heads of terms with Studio BAAD and a valuation of the proposed transfer of land and resultant scheme be prepared for further consideration by Cabinet
4.7 Although less than 100 representations were received, the large majority did not support any of the proposals. (see appendix 1) The comments received were presented to the three developers who were asked to address the concerns in their presentations.
4.8 The panel took the view that at this stage no detailed scheme had been produced and hence many of the valid concerns of those making representations had yet to be addressed. It was therefore decided to apply a traffic lights system in appraising the submissions, with red representing a scheme which does not appear adaptable to meet the requirements of the brief, amber for a scheme which has not fully demonstrated it could meet the brief but shows potential for development and green which demonstrates it has met the brief. The reason for this approach was that the ultimate test of whether or not a satisfactory scheme can be produced will only be established when a planning application is submitted. Whichever developer was selected at this stage would have a great deal of work and hence cost to incur in developing their schemes to this stage, and proving its viability.
4.9 A panel of officers was set up with representatives from the Regeneration Section, Development Control Section, Engineering Services and Land and Property Services of officers and a representative from the Hebden Royd Town Council. The three companies were interviewed on I I March 2005.
4.10 All the schemes were considered in the light of;
4.11 The presentations were inconclusive and a recommendation was deferred pending the submission of additional information. The additional information requested was;
6.1 The results of the consultation period, 04/02/05 until 04/03/05, were made
freely available to the community and interested parties and a reference copy placed in the library. The consultation took two forms; Respondents were asked to answer set questions by ticking the yes/no/no opinion option boxes on each of the following questions; Do you like the design of the development? Do you think the proposal reflects the character of Hebden Bridge and its conservation area? Do you think the proposal relates well to its immediate surroundings and neighbouring buildings? Do you think the proposal makes the best use of the site in general? Do you think the development will be of positive benefit to the town?
The results from these set questions are shown in Appendix 1
Some respondents chose to write their own personal comments on the proposals in addition to/instead of answering the set questions. An exact transcript of all the comments made is available as a background document.
6.2 A letter of objection to all three schemes was received from the MP on 13th May 2005 with a request that Cabinet is made aware of this objection.
6.3 All responses and letters of objection received were made in relation to the schemes as theywere first submitted. Some of these concerns have already been addressed through the submission of the required additional information. Others will be addressed during the extensive community planning exercise that the developers will be expected to enter into following selection.
7.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 The financial offer from Studio BAAD is a development partnership with the Council receiving El on the transfer of the land, then a capital receipt based upon the residual valuation. ( valuation of completed development less costs, including a 20% developer profit. ) The current business plan would give the Council a receipt of around E400k, although a great deal more work is necessary before a final scheme is costed.
7.2 Since the proposal is to establish a separate development company to undertake the development, this would fall into the high risk category. There is a need therefore to ensure procedures are put in place which mitigates any risk. 7.3 Up until the land is transferred and development starts on site, the developer assumes all of the risk.
of their developments. It will therefore require an investigation prior to any transfer. It is proposed that this investigation be funded by the developer, but that it would be accepted as a development cost, and hence be ultimately deducted from the capital receipt to the Council. Details of the investigation will need to be agreed with Engineering Services and a copy of the report made available to the Council on completion.
8.0 CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS
8.1 The development of Garden Street contributes to the council's corporate
vision and is in line with the following corporate priority: To promote sustainable economic growth, respect local heritage and improve our towns, villages and neighbourhoods.
9.1 The proposal is being pursued to help address the shortage of car parking provision in the town and forms part of the Hebden Bridge Traffic Review. The purpose of selecting a preferred developer is to enable one company to work up a scherhe to a position where a planning application can be submitted. The preferred developer will be expected to undertake a public consultation exercise over several months to build up to the formal planning application stage. It is recommended that this company be Studio BAAD.
9.2 Any scheme that goes forward as a planning application will have to seek to address many of the constraints and objections that have been raised during the consultation process so far. The final test of whether the scheme goes ahead or not will be whether the scheme gets planning consent.
Reference: Janet Waggott, Group Director, Regeneration & Development
Date: 11 October 2005