Agenda item

The Council is recommended to make the resolution set out in the report at agenda item 10.

Portfolio Holder for Finance, Assets and Property together with Portfolio Holder for Planning & Regeneration and Economic Development; and Co Portfolio Holder for Housing (Delivery). 

113.1   The Mayor advised that paper copies of the updated report were available on member desks. Cllr Merryweather introduced the report advising that the item flows well from the previous discussion on the Economic Development Strategy. He advised the project was allocated for mixed use development in local plan part two. He explained that the Fairground site was currently used as an informal car park and was popular because parking was free but it was neither a fair or sustainable use of a valuable Council asset.

113.2   Cllr Merryweather was pleased to recommend advancement to the next stage of the project following officers considerable work on viable options. The report presented a case for five options recommending pursuing a mixed use development of a new community hub, retail space, 32 residential homes with a Waverley rent mix of 65% of market rent. The retail element would generate valuable revenue income. Other options included the sale of the residential element to a private developer but this would mean losing control of the design and potentially the affordable housing. He emphasised that the report was the transition from feasibility to design and was not seeking approval to start construction.

113.3   Cllr Fairclough seconded the proposal thanking the team for putting the proposal together. He emphasised this was an exciting and ambitious proposal reflecting many of the council’s stated objectives.

113.4   Cllr Weldon highlighted that the report stated the ward affected was Haslemere West and asked that Haslemere East also be included as, although the Fairground site itself  was in Haslemere West, the other two parts affected were in Haslemere East. He agreed with Cllr Merryweather that the status quo on the site of leaving it as a unmade free parking was not acceptable.

113.5   Cllr Atkins advised that she was in favour of providing affordable housing and was passionate about improving economic development in the area but she questioned the merits of the investment and development projects because of significant cost overruns, overpaying for sites and unevolved business cases. She felt there was a lack of vision in maximizing valuable asset bases and asked how we could be considering spending £280,000 let alone committing £21 million when we were not even at the point of procuring a development partner. She had raised a number of questions during the Fairground briefing which she advised had not yet been answered. These questions included “How a proposed scheme, that costs more than it's worth, even before the inclusion of a development partner, who's clearly not going to do this for free, meets our strategic objectives and can be deemed financially viable?”, “How can we attribute just £6,500 value to an important development site?” and “How we can pre-empt a supermarket scheme with historic data and no economic master plan?”. She highlighted that the Economic Development Strategy had suggested that we lack highly flexible lower cost business space and that we knew we were losing businesses and jobs. She suggested some of the reasons for this include no register for land for potential investors to see, an over focus on housing delivery to the detriment of business and a lack of courage to engage with investors. She suggested innovative fresh discussions with potential anchor businesses, that go together with the residential, undertaken by officers and our consultants and subsequently a planning consultant, to work up the right scheme. She was suggesting the right people, to have the right conversations and do this in the right order. She felt this would cost about £50k. Then, when we had a solid scheme and a properly costed plan, it could be brought back to full Council. She highlighted that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result hadn't worked so well for nearly one in 10 councils in England who have warned they may go bust in the next 12 months primarily due to bad investment decisions. She advised that we should stop the ‘tail wagging the dog’ and not approve £21 million of spend based on four-year-old unquantified data and to look at this as a ‘GameChanger’ program site.

113.6   Cllr Robini advised this site was in fact common land which had been purchased by the previous Conservative administration.  He highlighted it was just sitting there and because there's no charge then the commuters get it for nothing. He commented that commuters bring very little to Haslemere as they come along, park, use the train and then go away again. He advised that, as a Ward Councillor, he could not support the continued use of free support for commuters in the area. He agreed that research  was needed on what is required for local Partners but was reassured that we were going to use the space for commercial development and very much needed social and affordable housing. He explained there were only four Brownfield sites in Haslemere and often developers come in with a viability study that doesn't allow housing of an affordable nature. He was pleased to have an opportunity to help local people to have social or affordable housing in the centre of town as well opportunity for a new Youth Centre.

113.7   Cllr Cockburn advised she did not like what was proposed. She agreed that free parking should not be allowed and affordable housing was needed but that a supermarket was not necessary and she raised concern that the Youth Hub would only be successful if it was run correctly and reached out to the young people and involved them in the design and implementation of the hub.

113.8   Cllr Keen advised she was excited by this proposed scheme.

113.9   Cllr Barker-Lomax welcomed the new housing but highlighted that residents had raised concern that the proposal may force commuters onto residential roads. The papers make reference to a car park study! When would we expect to see that?

113.10Cllr Austin welcomed the development of the site and the plans for a youth hub but questioned the evidence for the need of a retail demand as Haslemere had three supermarkets already.  The site was originally allocated for 55 units and she suggested 55 social or affordable homes would be more welcome. She reiterated Cllr Atkins comments around using out of date data to evidence these proposals.

113.11Cllr Follows acknowledged the frustrations of Cllr Robini on the subject of viability assessments. He assured members that we were not currently discussing a specific design and the planning decision at the appropriate time was likely to be thorough. It was suggested members visit Ockford Ridge and see the housing that had been built there and considered the whole person. He advised the Haslemere Council had been running a successful youth provision but just needed a more appropriate building to run it from.

113.12Cllr Palmer advised that he was shocked to hear from another member that we gave too much emphasis to new affordable housing as this was a key priority to reduce our housing waiting list.  The current site is an embarrassment and needed urgent attention. The criticism of having a small supermarket on the site also seemed to be misplaced. We all pay lip service to the idea that it should be possible for communities to obtain the basic services they need in walking distance and here was an example where we were looking at a new development of homes and basic food shop immediately available to them.

113.13 Cllr Williams highlighted this was a site of significant value which in its present form was unsustainable and needs to be used to maximise the benefits to the local community.

113.14Cllr Liz Townsend highlighted that we need to look at the recommendation within the papers which is to just secure a budget estimate and an allocation to move to the next steps. Looking at what something would look like was fruitless as we were nowhere near there. She emphasised we are committed to providing good quality affordable housing.

113.15Cllr Davidson emphasised we were at the beginning of a journey with this site and there would be opportunity, if we follow a reasonable democratic process, to give views on the next steps. He felt the rebuilding and provision of the youth hub was necessary.

113.16 Cllr Martin agreed the Fairground site needed to change and that its current use was inappropriate but that he was suspicious of budget estimates as they could take on a life of their own.  He raised concern that the business case was poorly thought out using old data. He felt the options analysis was inadequate and the proposal would not provide value for money.  He additionally raised concern as to whether a supermarket would come on board as they tend to dislike having apartments above and like to have their own parking provision.

113.17Cllr Busby agreed members were jumping the gun to be discussing the design and that many supermarkets had apartments above.

113.18Cllr Sullivan asked for officers to keep in consideration the traffic flow in the area and parking provision.

113.19Cllr Atkins raised a point of personal explanation as she felt her comments had been misinterpreted by some members. She explained she was merely trying to use her experience here for the benefit of the community. She also advised she had never said that there was an over focus on housing delivery to the detriment of business this comment had come straight out of the economic development strategy as feedback.

113.20Cllr Ken Reed commended the administration on the progress they had made on social housing over the last five years.

113.21Cllr Merryweather then summed up and responded to issues raised by members. He thanked Cllr Weldon for highlighting the site covered Haslemere East as well as West. He raised the issue of the 5,500 planning applications approved which have not been developed as yet and his scepticism that the private sector is capable of delivering on this site. He assured Cllr Atkins that her questions would be responded to.

Cllr Mark Merryweather requested a recorded vote which was supported by Cllrs Follows, Fairclough, Keihl, Robini and Williams.

RESOLVED:

That the Budget estimate of £21,408,334 for the capital works to complete the project including an allocation of £280,410 for the procurement of the required services for the next stage of the project is approved.

For 33

Councillors Beaman, Busby, Clark, Davidson, Duce, Fairclough, Follows, Higgins, Keen, Kiehl, Laughton, Long, Macleod, Merryweather, Mirylees, Morrison, Munro, Murray, Nicholson, Palmer, K. Reed, R. Reed, Paul Rivers, Penny Rivers, Robini, Spence, Steijger, L. Townsend, P, Townsend, Ward, Weldon, White and Williams

Against 7

Councillors Atkins, Austin, Barker-Lomax, Cockburn, Deanus, Martin, Staunton

Abstain 2

Councillors Earwaker and Sullivan