Agenda item

Tracey Crews, Director of Planning (The committee need to review the PID for this project and decide if and how they want to undertake scrutiny)

The Director of Planning acknowledged that the condition of the public realm was an issue that had been raised by many different parties for some time now and the PID represented the start of a project to improve the high street public realm.  With the total masterplan estimated to cost between £2.4m and £3.5m and a budget of only £725k, the whole masterplan area had been divided into six sections; with Rodney Road, along to Cambray Place being identified as a priority area.  Three principal cost options were developed to gauge affordability which were: a lower cost option (using standard highway materials generally, with mid-range quality pre-cast concrete products); a mid cost option (using a mix of mid-range pre-cast concrete products and low cost natural stone products in pedestrian areas) and; a higher cost option (using UK sourced Yorkstone natural stone with local Forest of Dean paving in highlight areas).  She noted that the third option had been benchmarked against other local retail centres such as Gloucester, Hereford, Cirencester and Stroud. 

The Director of Planning gave the following responses to member questions:

·    It was hoped that the contract for the additional £197k match funding from the European Structural Investment Fund would be signed by next week but it was stressed that this was match funding linked to certain criteria. 

·    The difference in cost between the mid and high cost options came as a result of where the Yorkstone was sourced; UK or non-UK products.  Products from India and China offered greater value for money and the council were being careful to ensure that suppliers had adequate policies such as child labour policies, etc. There was also an awareness that this approach had caused delays at the Brewery site and as such initial contact had been made with a number of UK companies that dealt with these suppliers, regarding whether they had a stockpile of appropriate product.  

·    The end result would be a higher level of finish than some areas had at the moment and in order to maximise what could be achieved within the budget, there would be a need to build transitioning of products into the design.

·    The cost difference between the three options was sizeable, with the lower cost option being £500k, the mid cost option being £667 and the high cost option, using the same specification of products to the mid cost option but simply sourcing them from outside of the UK, was £787k.  In the wider context (of the entire highstreet) the mid cost option came in under budget, allowing for work to other areas to be undertaken. 

·    Some highstreet properties did not have rear servicing and as such it would be necessary to continue to allow vehicles (including refuse and bullion vehicles) onto the highstreet.  With the need for continued access for these vehicles, the products had been chosen on that basis, but consideration was being given to how the use of trees and street furniture might necessitate the use of light loaded vehicles and how properties with rear servicing could be encouraged to use it.

·    There was a separate piece of work being undertaken regarding signage for key gateways and the town centre itself.

·    The £725k was a confirmed budget, with £385k from CBC and the rest from GCC.

·    A stakeholder engagement plan had been developed and apologies were given if the relevant GCC members were not being kept informed, as this should not have been the case.

·    A copy of the plan, highlighting the phase 1 area would be circulated to members by email outside of the meeting.

The committee agreed that they would ask for general updates at key junctures in the project, as well as being given sight of any exemption reports that were tabled with the Project Board, as they felt that this would provide a sufficient overview of the project and progress.