To receive an update from Stanhope on the Maltings and Central Car Park development.
Minutes:
Gary Bourne Development Director of Stanhope gave an update to the Board, which included:
Recap
The original brief was set by the Core Strategy and a set of proposals had been put forward by Stanhope to develop the whole of Central Carpark and the Maltings and linkages within the City.
Where are we now?
There had been a major game changer, with Henderson acquiring the Maltings site, which had a long leasehold. Stanhope was now working with Henderson and discussions had been far more engaging than with the previous leaseholder. Now that the new Stakeholder was working with Stanhope, there was greater opportunity for whole site regeneration.
Work was unfolding behind the scenes, including two detailed site investigations with the Environment Agency and Consultancy Teams. The results of those investigations had triggered a lot of work to resolve issues which had arisen from those investigations.
Public consultation had played a part in shaping the scheme and future consultation would continue.
Next steps
There would be further engagement with Henderson to look at a more comprehensive solution for the site, involving the Maltings site and the large site owned by the Council. There would be further public consultation once the plans were ready.
Questions and comments included:
· If you were unable to deliver a scheme on the Council owned land how do you propose to deliver a larger scheme now that Henderson were involved? Answer: We now have the opportunity to deliver a more comprehensive scheme which meets the objectives of the Core Strategy, but clearly negotiations take time.
· Since the original brief 10 years ago, had the plans now changed to include more housing, open space and an improved coach park? Answer: Market forces also have an impact on the requirements of the scheme. There would be a mixed retail scheme.
· MP John Glen – It was clear that there were many frustrations with the delays, however, with scale comes complexity. Some markers needed to be laid down and people needed to be shown the plans. Ensuring retail offer was inline with what was required in the city. If there was anything that I could do as your MP to speed up the process, please let me know. Answer: Support from the MP was appreciated. Gary noted that the current delays were caused by a contamination issues on the old brown site area which had been concreted over in the past.
· The coach park was constantly packed solid, it should be left where it was. The small car park area opposite the coach park could be used as the double decker stop. Answer: There was a great deal of consultation with Wilts and Dorset. Part of the Core Strategy was to move the coach park, but to ensure that we maintain a good transport hub. We also need to look at hotel provision and transport to make sure people could stay in the city.
· If the original brief had evolved, was the new plan departing from the original specification? Answer: There was flexibility in the Core Strategy, it was about getting the right balance.
· Salisbury was listed as one of the top ten places to visit in the world, you wont get people visiting if you move the coach park. There would also be an increase of traffic in the city. You should keep the coach park where it is. Answer: The coach park had always been recognised as part of the development plans. There would be a facility within the Maltings scheme for pick up and drop off. There would be a period of transition and we would continue to consult on the plans. The coach park was an underuse of an important city centre site.
· What were the environmental problems you encountered on the site? Answer: Two site investigations had been undertaken, and work with the Environment Agency was ongoing.
· In the original proposal there were only half the number of car parking spaces than currently exist, with proposals for Salt Lane and Brown Street car parks to close, many commuters on the train would use the central car park. There would not be enough spaces. Answer: Part of the key brief was to remove the long term spaces from the central car park. The Council Car Parking Strategy had been reviewed and we have not yet seen the outcome of that.
· What about late night car parking for the night time economy? Answer: There would be night time provision, and there would be discussion with the Playhouse, to make sure we know their requirements.
· Although there was frustration with the lack of progress, it was far better to get it right and take a extra time to ensure we get it right.
· Who bears the cost of the delay? Answer: Stanhope.
· What was the analysis of impact of internet shopping on retail demand? Answer: These issues were analysed quite avidly. There was still demand for bricks and mortar. There were some independent retailers appearing who started online and now wanted to have shops. Fundamentally it was the size of the shops which were changing, as the requirements were getting smaller.
· Do you know what the long stay car parking requirements were? As there was some land near Churchfield’s which could be suited for this use.
· Flooding can cause delays, the Avon flooded significantly more than was thought it would. How did that constrain the housing planned for the site? Answer: There were some constraints due to flooding, however issues could be overcome.
The Chairman thanked Stanhope for the update and invited them back to 10 March 2016 Area Board meeting to give a further update.