Council

Questions for Councillors

The following questions were asked at the council meeting held on 27th September 2006.

Councillors Barker, Blamire, Bryning, Gilbert, Hanson, Quinton, Sands, Stone voted for the Planning Delivery Agreement at the cabinet meeting held on July 25th.

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR CHRIS COATES TO COUNCILLOR ALEX STONE

In the public opinion survey carried out by developers Centros Miller only 36% of people asked wanted to see more shops in any canal corridor development. Given that the council recently took heed of public opinion with regard to the new town halls proposal, why have you chosen to disregard public opinion and agree to the Castle View shopping development that will increase retail space in Lancaster by a massive 60% ?

In the absence of Councillor Stone at this point in the meeting, Councillor Barker responded: 'The key public consultation is that carried out by the Council to establish the planning brief. This was independent of any developer or pressure group. The outline proposals have the potential to fulfil the requirements of this brief, which is why Councillor Stone supported it. Councillor Stone finds it strange that Councillor Coates suggests that the consultation by a developer should be decisive when, at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee his colleague, Councillor Whitelegg, argued that their methods were deeply flawed.

In any event, the figure of 60% quoted by Councillor Coates, though widely circulated is in fact incorrect. Based on figures in the White Young Green survey the proposed increase in Lancaster floorspace is 45%. This is large, though not as large as Councillor Coates claims. Even if the narrowly defined City Centre boundaries in the Local Plan, which exclude Sainsburys, B&Q, Comet, Halfords and Currys are used the figure only rises to 53%.

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Coates asked that given the answer Councillor Stone had provided, was he agreeing with Councillor Whitelegg that the consultation was worthless.

Councillor Barker responded by stating that Councillor Stone was saying that the key consultation was the one carried out by the Council for the Planning Brief and this was the consultation the Council supported. The consultation carried out by the developers was a requirement to present with their planning application. The Council should not be relying on the developers to provide public opinion but should be carrying out their own consultation for the Planning Brief.

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR CHRIS COATES TO COUNCILLOR IAN BARKER

Do you agree with the statement made by a representative of Halogen, the PR company working for Centros Miller, at the public meeting in the town hall on 10 July 06 that you are a 'champion' of their Castle View scheme for the canal corridor ?

Councillor Barker responded: 'I do not know what was said by Mr Bryson from Halogen at the meeting. So far I have been given four versions which differ in important detail Whatever, was said, however, I do not regard myself as a champion for Centros Miller. Neither they nor anybody else has asked me to be so.'

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Coates went on to ask what Councillor Barker had done to publicly dispel this rumour.

Councillor Barker replied that the developers had not said this and there was not a rumour going around the town. He stated that the rumour was being deliberately spread by pressure groups who were saying he was involved in the scheme in an inappropriate way.These groups continue making these allegations without a shred of evidence and he resented such rumours being spread.

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR CHRIS COATES TO COUNCILLOR PAT QUINTON

How can we expect the public to have any confidence in the councils planning system when a representative of Halogen, the PR company working for Centros Miller, has described the chief planning officer as a "champion" of their Castle View scheme for the canal corridor ?

Councillor Quinton replied: 'The use of the term "champion" in relation to major development schemes is one that has emerged from a number of good practice guidance notes in relation to the handling of major development schemes. The Planning Advisory Service, who have been involved in the Centros Miller development, have endorsed the use of project champions and been clear that the role of champion is to achieve the best outcome for his/her clients. In the case of a Council champion, the clients are the Council, its Cabinet and its Committees. Leadership of this nature has been seen as an essential ingredient in delivering on the Council objectives. The developers, quite naturally, appoints their own champion to look after their shareholders' interests.”

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR CHRIS COATES TO COUNCILLOR EILEEN BLAMIRE

A shopping development the size of Centros Miller's Castle View scheme for the canal corridor will envitably have a negative impact on shopping centres in surrounding towns such as Morecambe and Carnforth leading to a decline in these areas and an increase in community safety problems and attendant anti-social behaviour what do you propose to do to mitigate against this ?

Councillor Blamire replied: 'I am not sure that Councillor Coates means to say that his prediction is that Morecambe and Carnforth will envy the Centros Miller scheme. Maybe he is right. I do not accept that the scheme will have an adverse impact on Morecambe and Carnforth. Lancaster is already the preferred destination for (non-food) comparison shopping throughout the district including Morecambe and Carnforth. It is however to maintain this employment base and stop further loss of retail market share to competing centres such as Preston and the Trafford centre that this is being prepared.

The critical point is that we have yet to see the detail of the scheme. A full planning application will be required to achieve completion of the development agreement.The Page 3 planning process will rigorously test the retail impact across the district, and the Council will require a detailed examination of the proposals and their impact.

There is absolutely no credible basis for stating that community safety and anti-social behaviour will worsen as a result of a shopping scheme which has yet to be finalised. Indeed if, as is likely, the scheme has a beneficial effect on employment in the district it is also likely to have a beneficial effect on community safety.”

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR EMILY HEATH TO COUNCILLOR JANICE HANSON

Why did you agree to give the go ahead to Centros Miller's Castle View scheme for the canal corridor without the traffic impact of the development on the town being considered?

Councillor Hanson responded: 'As has been stated already, Cabinet did not give approval to a scheme but did agree to a development agreement that dealt with the Council's assets. All parties involved are well aware that unless the scheme, when it comes forward to Planning Committee, can convincingly deal with all traffic issues and air quality issues, along with all other planning considerations, then a planning permission will not be forthcoming and the development agreement will not be enacted. Centros Miller have engaged traffic consultants and are working with the County Council’s detailed traffic model for Lancaster City Centre to test out proposals. They are well aware of the fact that final proposals will be independently scrutinised.”

Councillor Heath then asked by way of a supplementary question, that given the whole purpose was to bring people in from surrounding areas to shop, do you really believe it will not increase traffic?

Councillor Hanson responded that neither she or Councillor Heath were qualified traffic engineers and that this would not be happening until 2011 which gave plenty of time for it to be considered.

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR EMILY HEATH TO COUNCILLOR RON SANDS

Why when a majority of people questioned in the public opinion survey carried out by developers Centros Miller wanted to see new leisure facilities in the canal corridor development did you agree to a scheme that has no additional leisure facilities in it at all?

Councillor Sands responded: 'It is worth noting that Cabinet was not being asked to agree to a detailed scheme but to the terms of a development agreement that dealt with the disposal of assets. The key public consultation is however that carried out by the Council to establish the planning brief. This was independent of any developer or pressure group. The detailed provisions within the scheme will be worked up prior to a planning application and will need to be compliant with that development brief Centros Miller will also be required, as part of the planning process, to demonstrate what community consultation they have undertaken and how they have responded to it. It is also the case that the proposals will be fully tested in terms of compliance with the development brief when the planning application is considered by Planning Committee.”

By way of a supplementary question, Councillor Heath asked if Councillor Sands agreed that the Planning Brief was rather vague as it just stated mixed use which covered many different things that could be included in the scheme.

Councillor Sands replied that he had faith in the Planning process.

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR EMILY HEATH TO COUNCILLOR JOHN GILBERT

Why when there is a chronic shortage of affordable housing in the district did you agree to Centros Miller's Castle View scheme for the canal corridor that has so little affordable housing in it ?

In Councillor Gilbert’s absence, Councillor Barker responded: 'At the risk of being repetitive, Cabinet has not agreed to a scheme but has agreed to a development agreement that sets in place a framework for dealing with our property assets. In a planning application, Centros Miller will be expected to comply with policy on affordable housing for new housing developments and make appropriate provision. Preliminary indications are that there are likely to be between 90 and 100 new units. Of these around 30% will be affordable in line with the new higher percentages anticipated in the local development framework. This is an issue which will be tested by Planning Committee in their consideration of the application, along with a range of other important issues.”

QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR EMILY HEATH TO COUNCILLOR ABBOTT BRYNING

Why is there no provision for low-cost workshop space in Centros Miller's plan for the canal corridor to replace the workshops that are due to be demolished on Alfred St?

Councillor Bryning replied: 'As far as I am aware, there is no detailed definitive plan for the scheme so it would be wrong to assume Centros Miller will not propose workshop space in the scheme. The planning brief for the site specifically allows for light industrial and workshop space provided it is not detrimental to the overall aims of the scheme. Compliance with the planning brief will be one of the key tests for any proposal that comes before the Planning Committee. It is also the case that any existing uses affected by a scheme are afforded some protection through the terms on which they occupy space. Cabinet also considered the position of the various occupiers of the site and indicated that it wished to assist them. One of the factors making the development an attractive proposition is the potential to create employment in the district, which I am sure an appropriate extension of the city centre will do.

I believe there was a map in the Lancaster Guardian which showed the Masterplan proposals with space on St Loenardsgate for small workshops for local businesses, dance studios and other enterprises.”