Agenda item

An exempt report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety introduced the report regarding the West Cheltenham Urban Extension and the request for the authority to commit £250,000 to establish a programme office and undertake the necessary work streams and actions to maximise the economic outcomes and secure the financial interests of the council. He highlighted the importance of the Cyber Park and the strong government support expressed for the scheme. He also highlighted the benefits to Cheltenham for jobs and housing and the increased income from business rates and council tax which would be a major input to the council finances going forward.

The scheme provided a massive opportunity but there were risks involved which were set out in the report. The biggest risk was that the developers would fail to take forward the scheme. It was important for the council to demonstrate to Government departments that the council were serious about the scheme and would deliver it. Essentially the town was in charge of its own destiny and this council should be driving the agenda to achieve what was best for the people of Cheltenham. It was also important for the council to retain control and ensure it was not taken over by the county council or the BID.

The Leader of the Conservative group expressed his party's full support for the scheme and he felt it was a golden opportunity for Cheltenham and the risk factor of not supporting the recommendations was far greater. The Leader of the PAB group also offered his support and said it was important that the council took charge of the programme in order to avoid fragmentation as the developers would always act in their own interests.

In the debate that followed Members supported the recommendations and the Cabinet Member made the following responses to questions. 

The £250k was needed to get the scheme to the planning application stage and without this intervention it was unlikely that the developers would take any action before January 2019 and this would potentially risk losing government funding and the whole scheme could unravel.

Asked what return on investment the council could expect, the Cabinet Member advised that technically the council’s money was at risk if the application failed to get approval through planning but this was a very unlikely outcome. Depending on the counci’ls approach and how much it was prepared to invest, it could potentially provide some very good returns but no promises could be made.

He advised that the £22 million of government funding for infrastructure work would be focused on junction 11 of the M5 and improving access to the site but all the infrastructure work was not necessarily needed all in one go. Whilst acknowledging the current traffic problems at the Arle Court roundabout he could not support the suggestion of a more drastic solution such as an A40 flyover.

A Member shared the enthusiasm for the benefits the scheme would bring to Cheltenham in terms of jobs and housing but it was a considerable amount of money and therefore there were important questions to be asked. Given the sacrifice of some of the greenbelt if the scheme went ahead, could the council insist that the new development conforms to the highest possible environmental standards for a countryside location. Could consideration also be given to supporting public transport access such as light rail?

The Cabinet Member responded that outline plans already indicated a lot of green open space on the site and the key driver was for a high quality site.

The potential uses for the £250k of funding were set out in section 2.4 of the report and in summary this was a fund for increasing the capacity for delivering those functions in a timely manner.

In response to a question on whether the council could guarantee that only cyber businesses would occupy the sites, the Cabinet Member advised that control would be based on land ownership. He referred to the director of planning who confirmed that all applications would be considered against set criteria and there would be parameters in place for employment.

In response to a question, the director of planning confirmed that the Department of International Trade (DIT) had made representations at the French MIPIM international trade conference. The council was in dialogue with the DIT so could suggest that Cheltenham officers or Members had a role in future MIPIMs. The Cabinet Member agreed to look into this but highlighted that the scheme was part of a national package of which the scheme for Cheltenham was only a part.

In response to a question about whether the removal of the sewage works from Hayden Park was an essential  part of the plans for the Cyber Park, the Cabinet Member advised that initial discussions with the owners of the sewage works, Severn  Trent, had indicated that they were happy to consider closing the site and realising their assets in a reasonable timescale but there were no firm commitment at this stage.

Members asked whether talks on safeguarding plans had opened up and whether the green spaces indicated would benefit local communities and not just employees on the site. The Cabinet Member advised that one of the benefits of the council taking more control of the development was that the authority would be in a better position to consider the needs of local residents far more than any developer would.

A Member was keen that infrastructure plans for transport links were done first and consideration given to transport links to the station and recreational areas. The Cabinet Member confirmed that the government funding was currently focused on improving transport links in to the site from the A40 corridor but it was acknowledged that new local transport links would be necessary to support new housing and employment. There were no concrete plans as yet and further funding would be needed to develop more local schemes.

Asked whether the plans for a cyber park presented increased security threats to the town the Cabinet Member indicated that this had been raised with GCHQ but they had been unwilling to discuss any details. He envisaged that the level of security would be an issue for each user on the site but his vision was not for a prison-like security for the site as a whole.

In his summing up the Cabinet Member thanked members for their support for this very exciting project and it was now down to the council to take control and have a positive influence on the outcome which these recommendations would support.

Upon a vote the recommendations were agreed with one abstention.

RESOLVED THAT

1.    A programme budget of £250,000 be approved for the creation of a multi-disciplinary team to undertake feasibility and due diligence work to review, and actions required to support, the delivery of the West Cheltenham Urban Extension. 

2.    It be endorsed that the Programme’s Senior Responsible Officer be  authorised, in consultation with the Executive Director Finance and Assets and the Borough Solicitor, to spend against the programme budget to procure and facilitate specialist services and teams in order to create a multi-disciplinary team and undertake the necessary work to maximise the economic benefit to Cheltenham, the county and the wider region.