Agenda item

The Committee is invited to consider and comment on the proposal and recommendations contained in the accompanying paper.

Executive Councillor: S Wakeford

By means of a report by the Head of Economy, Regeneration & Housing Delivery (a copy of which was appended in the Minute Book), The Regeneration Opportunities Report was presented to the Panel.

Councillor Jennings praised the proposal’s substance and that this Company has a proven track record which he approves of but referred to Appendix A‘s missing information. The Panel heard this information was later in the report. He sought clarification as to what the Council are entering, is it providing the £1 million from the reserves immediately or are they recommending moving onto the next stages, then come back to the Panel when they are ready to commit the £1 million. The Panel heard confirmation that the recommendations being heard are to support the principle of working forward and developing proposals, but this would include upfront costs in stage 1 from the reserves. They do not anticipate this will reach £1 million but this has been flagged for stage 1.

Councillor Jennings asked if this issue would be going onto Full Council due to the level of expenditure out of reserves as it is outside of the budget cycle. A supplementary item has been added to the report for Full Council’s reference.

Councillor Taylor expressed her concerns over the report, highlighting that the company were met at the UKREiiF but the Council has not sought anyone else. She acknowledged their impressive track record but wonders why the funds from the reserves of £1 million is being given to a private company when this could be spent on the Council’s own assets, referencing St Neots as an example. The Panel heard that the purpose of the proposal is to stimulate change in our market towns and to unlock a substantial degree of value for residents for market towns and the economy as well as housing elements. It is a rare opportunity to spend in a way that unlocks measures of value. The Council would not be handing money over to a private company but developing proposals and engaging through a consultation process. The Council would seek feedback from residents which would inform what the Council does. The Panel heard that they seek to regenerate the market towns and do not wish to be reliant on grant pots to achieve this and they are confident in working with the selected company.

Councillor Gleadow acknowledged the track record of the proposed company but reflected that it very urban based and not market or conservation areas. She asked if they had experience in a similar region. The Panel heard that a lot of the company’s activity is around Manchester, but they have worked on smaller projects in other areas such as in Farnworth. It was confirmed that they protect heritage assets, choosing to work with the existing buildings around sites such as this rather than demolishing for development. Homes England have given them a substantial funding which shows their confidence in delivery.

Councillor Chapman asked what this project will do that other reports such as the Inner Circle or Charter have not done. He commented that there was a lot of work regarding what can be done but nothing is being delivered. He expressed his support of Councillor Taylor’s comments and asked why the money cannot be spent on implementing projects that are already in the pipeline. The Panel heard this is a delivery proposal which proposes to take the first stage towards implementing ideas from the Master Plans. Partnering with Capital and Centric (C&C) presents a delivery route which is cost effective as it would result in 2 years of interest rather than 30. It is a way of addressing what the market is not delivering.

Councillor Martin confirmed that he has been researching C&C since UKREiiF and expresses his enthusiasm for regeneration in this way, though not necessarily this business case. He referenced Councillor Taylor’s comments regarding paying a private company but confirms that the benefit to the community from the projects they have already completed was greater than the money they had put in, using a ratio cost benefit of 1:3.5. He expressed his pleasure from photos seen of the works that have been done that emulate the styles of the existing structures. He expressed his concerns about the proposal and would like to see how this will look and how this will fit in with the regeneration of the market towns and how this can be utilised to improve those areas. The Panel heard Councillor Martin’s research into this was appreciated and confirmed they would not propose working with C&C if they did not work to compliment the existing structures. The Panel were encouraged to recognise this as an opportunity that there will be further development in our market towns in the future and this gives them the opportunity to influence who does that and what it will look like.

Councillor Taylor expressed her support of Councillor Martin’s findings of C&C’s past projects. Her concern stems from the business plan and how it could affect our residents, using the regeneration of St Neots as an example and the difficulties this presented. She urges the Council to engage with residents through this process as it can be controversial and sought further clarification as to why C&C want to work with the Council and why they need our funds.  The Panel heard that C&C have had great success at public engagement and have a track record of doing this. They were advised that C&C wish to work with local partners, communities and residents in bringing forward things that are wished for and desired locally. The Council would be working collaboratively with them to bring forward to proposals.

Councillor Gleadow reiterated the need for huge local engagement for it to succeed and considers this a reasonable proposal.

Following the discussion, it was

RESOLVED

that the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel be passed to Cabinet for their consideration when making a decision upon the recommendations within the report.

Councillor B Chapman departed the meeting at 21:30.

The meeting was adjourned at 21:30.

The meeting resumed at 21:35.