Decision details

Recommendation for approval of a strategic scheme for the site development of Park Street Car Park and approval of the actions required for progressing a development scheme.

 

Matter for Decision

In July 2016 Strategy & Resource Scrutiny Committee approved the setting up of the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) as a mechanism for the Council to bring forward assets for development. The principles which govern the progression of sites with development opportunities through CIP were approved at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee on 9th October 2017. Park Street Car Park site was one of the General Fund assets to be developed using these approved principles.

 

The CIP Investment Team had developed a strategic Project Plan for the site incorporating a clear development brief to meet the Council’s key objectives in line with planning policy and the Planning Guidance Note for the site. This report outlined the alternative development options for the site, which included refurbishment and redevelopment options and explored the delivery of affordable housing on the site. Alternative options were also considered including the site’s potential for commercial development.

 

The financial viability appraisals for the housing delivery option for affordable housing on this site demonstrated that this option was not viable without significant financial contribution from Council reserves. The net loss of the 20 affordable units, which the Council could have delivered on the site, could be provided elsewhere in the City. This was set out in section 3.5

 

If future development proposals were considered, a commercial development proposal which would provide basement car parking (Council retained ownership) and an above ground development (which might generate a capital receipt for the housing investment programme) might be an option. This would provide the Council with an investment stake that did not rely on prudential borrowing.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        Noted the options proposed and explored by CIP for the redevelopment and refurbishment of Park St Car Park as set out in section 3.3

    ii.        Approved the recommendation made by CIP not to progress the option to deliver housing on the Park St Car Park site as part of a redevelopment option as set out in section 3.3.3

   iii.        Noted that CIP will continue to explore the opportunities for redevelopment on the site including investigating commercial options; to deliver a scheme that met the Council’s Strategic Development Brief for the site and the Council’s wider objectives and, should an agreed scheme be developed, that it be reported to the Strategy & Resources Committee for scrutiny and the opportunity for public input, ahead of a decision by the Leader on the CIP plan.

  iv.        Approved a five year rolling programme for the refurbishment of the car park. The programme would be reviewed and implemented on an annual basis during which time CIP would explore options for redevelopment of the site to identify an option that met the Council’s Strategic Development Brief and wider objectives. A report seeking approval of an option for redevelopment would be presented to a Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in 2018 for a decision to proceed with a preferred option.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategic Director.

 

Members of the Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Stated that the current situation and indecision about the future of the car park appeared to be based around profit.

    ii.        Referred to a report from 2015 which stated that development was feasible at a considerable lower cost. Given that recent investigation had concluded that the work was no longer feasible, the initial report must have been a waste of money. The advice from both investigations appeared to be diametrically different. Asked how much the initial studies had cost.

   iii.        Stated that any new transport strategy would take years to come to fruition so it should not be the basis for the car park development proposals.

 

The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        The recent investigation carried out by Hill Residential sought specialist advice and was much more detailed than previous reports.

    ii.        Advice from Planners dictated that all of the car park would now have to be underground which had not been factored into previous investigations. The additional work required to excavate and build underground significantly raised the cost.

 

The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.        Hill Residential had undertaken the most recent investigation within the parameters requested and confirmed that the development was not feasible.

     ii.        Affirmed the Council’s commitment to exploring development options for Park Street Car Park but not into social housing. The five-year plan allowed the opportunity to see how transport reforms across the city unfolded which would highlight the future requirement for car parking in the city centre.

 

Councillor Bick formally proposed the following amendment to the Officer’s recommendation:

 

Deleted wording struck through and additional wording underlined:

 

     i.        Noted the options proposed and explored by CIP for the redevelopment and refurbishment of Park St Car Park as set out in section 3.3

    ii.        Approved the recommendation made by CIP not to progress the option to deliver housing on the Park St Car Park site as part of a redevelopment option as set out in section 3.3.3

   iii.        Noted that CIP will continue to explore the opportunities for redevelopment on the site including investigating commercial options; to deliver a scheme that met the Council’s Strategic Development Brief for the site and the Council’s wider objectives and, should an agreed scheme be developed, that it be reported to the Strategy & Resources Committee for scrutiny and the opportunity for public input, ahead of a decision by the Leader on the CIP plan.

    ii.        Request further options to be prepared for a mixed redevelopment of the site for housing and underground parking, revisiting the original parameters in the development brief - in particular envisaging fewer car parking spaces; evaluating investment in the car parking provision against the return in car parking income rather than in relation to a subsidy from the housing; and considering alternative development vehicles as options alongside the CIP.

   iii.        Approved a five year rolling programme for the refurbishment of the car park. The programme would be reviewed and implemented on an annual basis during which time CIP the Council would explore options for redevelopment of the site to identify an option that met the Council’s Strategic Development Brief, revised as necessary, and wider objectives. A report seeking approval of an option for redevelopment would be presented to a Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in 2018 for a decision to proceed with a preferred option.

 

In moving their amendment Councillors Bick and Cantrill commented:

       i.        The amendment was based upon the feasibility statement. The redevelopment brief and parameters of the specification should be revised to take a more flexible approach.

     ii.        The business element of the car park should be considered on its own, the housing aspect should not subsidise it.

    iii.        Suggested that options for development should be open to other avenues rather than just the CIP. The revision of wording puts the power back with the Council.

   iv.        Agreed that until a final development decision had been made the car park was in need of refurbishment to be fit for use.

     v.        Raised concern about CIP, as a commercial developer because its interests were different to that of a Local Authority. If there was little to gain economically from the Park Street development they would not view it as viable, the social benefits to the area would not be considered.

   vi.        Stated that the estimation of each unit costing £1million assumed no financial return from the car park as a business.

 

In response to the amendment Councillors said the following:

     i.        Opposition councillors should have distributed the proposed amendment earlier to allow for more thorough consideration.

    ii.        Stated that the new wording constrained flexibility.

   iii.        Suggested that the comments from opposition councillors had been unreasonably critical toward the Hill Residential for undertaking the detailed costing’s especially when they had incurred the cost rather than passing it on to the Council. When looking at the bigger picture, lots of factors needed to be considered, Hill Residential had the expertise to undertake that assessment.

  iv.        Confirmed that the CIP was accountable to Council.

   v.        CIP’s commercial awareness and expertise had been beneficial when assessing the Park Street site because they were able to highlight previously unseen weaknesses. Financial viability was crucial in order for successful delivery.

  vi.        The Council had a limited time to spend the devolved £70million on council housing so it needed to be invested in site which could achieve results quickly otherwise the money would be lost.

 

The Committee rejected the amendment to the recommendation by 4 votes to 2.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.