Agenda item

1.

Question from  Mary Nelson to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor McKinlay

By allocating £2 million of the £8 million North Place sale proceeds, are you acknowledging at the same time as making this decision that the only way Boots Corner can become a new Public Square and thus merit that much money being spent on it, is by the implementation of the new bus lane across the front of Boots shop, and that this requires the removal of the pedestrian crossing?

Response from Cabinet Member Development and Safety

The monies allocated are for the public realm in the wider Boots Corner area and so would extend to Pittville Street in the East and Imperial Circus. Should GCC decide to implement the Cheltenham Transport Plan it was clearly with the caveat that Boots Corner would be on an experimental basis. Until such an experiment has concluded and GCC made their final decision as highways authority it is impossible to speculate upon what other measures will be taken. At this moment and during any experiment it is my understanding that the Pelican crossing will remain.

In a supplementary question Mary Nelson referred to the Cabinet Member’s statement that the experiment at Boots Corner retained the pedestrian crossing. She asked if he could confirm that it would not trial the new bus lane at all, only the closure of the inner ring road past Boots. She questioned therefore whether the trial would address any of the safety implications of the new bus lane which required the removal of the crossing?

In response the Cabinet member confirmed that buses would not be trialled at Boots Corner at this stage but other elements of the scheme would be trialled.

2.

Question from Mary Nelson to the Cabinet Member Development and Safety. Councillor McKinlay

By proceeding to allocate money for the creation of a new public square at Boots Corner (within the context of a ‘Key’ decision) do you consider that all the implications of such a potentially dangerous ‘Shared Space’, which is what it must become, have been properly investigated and considered by both CBC and GCC, especially the impact on those in the Equality groups, which includes the elderly and young, as well as those with impairments?

Response from Cabinet Member Development and Safety

As mentioned in the previous question any changes to the highway will ultimately rest with GCC, hence why we are supportive of GCC colleagues and the proposal for an experiment at Boots Corner. CBC has a forum for meeting a range of equality groups who have recently been consulted and supported the proposals associated with the public realm at Brewery II. Boots Corner will naturally follow similar consultation processes should the experiment determine that a public realm space can be created.

In a supplementary question Mary Nelson referred to the Chief Executive’s tweet that the Council was not proposing Shared Space at Boots Corner. She quoted from the Department for Transport Guidance Notes on Shared Space and said that in the light of this it seemed that the existing road layout at Boots Corner must therefore be retained in its current conventional form.  She asked whether the public had therefore been misled and said that the new “public square” could amount to no more than the refurbishment of the existing small triangular shaped pedestrian area connecting from Starbucks to Boots shop, which is just 22 feet wide at its narrowest point; or questioned whether the Council was continuing to disguise its real intentions.

In response the Cabinet Member stated he did not have any knowledge of the Twitter feed. He did say that the style of solution bus lane was similar to that which was in place at the other side of the junction into the Lower High Street, i.e. in front of Tesco.

3.

Question from Ken Pollock to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jordan

If this undisclosed building cannot be occupied straight away by CBC, what is the overriding need to take the building off the owners' hands (and in such sudden haste) eight years before the 'main lessee' disappears?

Response from the Leader of the Council

The Council has explored many options over the years but has failed to find a solution which provides an alternative home which reduces costs.

The building identified suits the Council needs and financially it makes sense to acquire as an investment property until we are ready to move into it at the point the Municipal Offices is ready to be redeveloped.

As you will see from the reports, the Council does not have another viable option. It is unlikely to have another opportunity to acquire the right building which suits our needs and which makes financial sense. In eight years, the owner will undoubtedly take the building to the open market and we may not be in with a chance against institutional investments.

In a supplementary question Ken Pollock asked the Leader if he believed that councillors (the decision-takers) have had adequate time and information to assess and scrutinise the above issues.

In response the Leader stated that if the Council waited any longer there were no guarantees that this opportunity would still exist.  He confirmed that all Members had received all the necessary information to take this decision.

4.

Question from Ken Pollock to Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor Rawson

In Appendix 2, you claim it to be a "prudent view" to assume a "ground rental from a redeveloped site of £175k per annum".  What are the capital costs of effecting that 'redevelopment', and what are the timescales?

Response from the Cabinet Member Finance

The capital costs have yet to be determined. It is anticipated that a redevelopment of the Municipal Offices will have a significant capital cost but that it will be funded from external sources. The £175k is the estimate of income from ground rent which will come to the Council, since we will retain the ground lease very much on the lines of Regent Arcade where we bring in excess of £475k annually for rent. In addition, we anticipate retaining around £200k of any growth in business rates generated from the site once redeveloped. The timescale would be flexible in order to make sure we get a scheme that we are happy with, but three years would be a reasonable estimate of the time needed to get a new development under way. 

In a supplementary question Mr Pollock asked what was the type and scale of development being assumed in order to generate the "anticipated" £200K of business rates from the Municipal Offices and in particular: how big a rearward extension.

In response the Cabinet Member Finance stated that the proposal did not assume change would take place in Royal Place therefore some minor development could be possible at the back of the building. He would ensure that there was a considerable improvement to the current situation. He stated that a range of alternative uses had been considered for the Municipal Offices, both commercial and residential and included retail, leisure, and hospitality although discussions were at a very early stage. He reported that a number of reports on how the redevelopment should be approached would be forthcoming. The Cabinet Member Finance gave the example of the Regent Arcade as a template of what the council was trying to achieve in terms of a joint venture. The aim would be to retain the freehold to ensure future investment income whilst relieving the council of the considerable cost of maintaining the building as it was estimated that £6.5 m of expenditure would be required over the next 20 years.