AGENDA ITEM 6

CABINET

19 July 2005

FULL SAIL AHEAD – UPDATE ON PROGRESS AND REVISED GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS AND POOLE BRIDGE REGENERATION AREA ACTION PLAN

1PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1To provide Cabinet with a brief update on the delivery of the Full Sail Ahead scheme and the twin sails bridge and to seek endorsement of revised governance arrangements.

1.2To provide Cabinet with a summary of The Poole Bridge Regeneration Area Action Plan (PBRAAP) and emerging implementation strategy and seek delegated approval for formal public consultation.

2RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that:

2.1Progress on the Full Sail Ahead is noted and a further report is made to Cabinet in the autumn, including a full financial update.

2.2The revised governance arrangements as outlined in the report are endorsed.

2.3That the emerging strategy for delivering the regeneration project forms the basis of issues and options consultation on the Area Action Plan beginning in September and that approval of consultation documentation be delegated to the Head of Strategic Planning in consultation with the Local Economy Portfolio Holder and Policy Director.

3 PROGRESS AND KEY ISSUES

T.W.A. ORDER

3.1Preparations are moving ahead well for the Public Inquiry which begins on 27 September.

  • The Council’s expert witnesses have now all been appointed and are preparing Proofs of Evidence.
  • 21 objectors have submitted their own Statements of Case and have asked to appear at the Inquiry
  • Counsel (Andrew Tait QC) has been appointed and conferences are regularly taking place both in Poole and in London
  • It is intended to put side agreements in place with JJ Gallaghers and PHC to deal with their objections as far as possible
  • Letters have been sent out to all objectors inviting them to meet with the Project Manager to discuss their objection. To date, 6 objectors have taken up this offer.
  • The pre-inquiry meeting took place on Monday 27 June

PROCUREMENT

3.2 The regeneration team is currently investigating the procurement options and seeking external advice. A stage I report is being prepared outlining the options and a stage II report will be ready for September, which will include a risk assessment of the options. Clearly, one option is for JJ Gallagher to procure the core scheme and discussions are taking place with them. They have met with the project team and are working up their assessment of costs in respect of the bridge and core scheme infrastructure to be undertaken and procured through external means in order to prepare their response.

COMPREHENSIVE DELIVERY OF MASTERPLAN

3.2The Council’s adopted implementation strategy is to seek agreement on the comprehensive delivery of the scheme, in line with the masterplan and Local Plan policy, through negotiation with the landowners but to use CPO if this does not prove successful.

3.3The Council is stepping up its negotiations with landowners and rather than continuing to encourage the landowners themselves to come together we have put forward a mechanism that could assist in bringing their sites forward. This mechanism is based around separate planning applications and the negotiation of separate S106 Agreements in a way that does not undermine the comprehensive delivery of the scheme.

3.4Meetings have recently taken place with each of the landowners and they are being invited to sign up to a Memorandum of Understanding with the Council which will provide the basis for more detailed negotiations on how comprehensiveness will be achieved and on their contribution to the overall S106 package.

3.5With regard to JJ Gallagher a meeting took place on the 22 June, and a series of meetings are being arranged to take forward detailed and intensive negotiations. The Council will be appointing external advisors to assist with this. A continued dialogue with the other landowners is ongoing to ensure that land within the regeneration area comes forward in a way that meets the Council’s regeneration objectives.

3.4A case conference was recently held with Bill Hick’s QC on the council’s delivery strategy. He advised that the approach that the Council is following is sound and stressed the importance of the preparation of the Area Action Plan for the central area.

3.5We are continuing to seek the active support of the regional agencies and a further meeting has been arranged for mid July.

POOLE BRIDGE REGENERATION AREA ACTION PLAN

3.6The PBRAAP will provide a statutory vehicle for delivery of the Council’s objectives for the Holes Bay basin area of Poole’s Central Area. It will carry forward policies contained in Poole Local Plan First Alteration adopted March 2004 and importantly set out a delivery mechanism for the Council to pursue its regeneration objectives.Outline strategy is set out above.

3.7The preparation of the PBRAAP requires the ‘front loading’ of consultation in order to aid the participation of stakeholders in the evolution of plan production from the outset of the process. In turn this should lead to an efficient and inclusive process. Stakeholders have already been contacted as to whether they would like to be involved in the Area Action Plan and by what method they would prefer to be involved. The first formal stage of consultation on preferred options will commence in early September for 6 weeks.

3.8In order to carry out this consultation, Cabinet is requested to approve the consultation based on the Council’s agreed implementation strategy set out in section 3 above. It is proposed that the approval of the issues and options paper, based on this strategy, is delegated to the Portfolio Holder in consultation with the Policy Director and the Head of Strategic Planning.

4GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS
THE NEED TO REVIEW GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

4.1As we move into the implementation stage, a need has been identified to secure greater Member engagement in decision making. At the same time the principles of good corporate governance require clear lines of accountability and a robust framework for decision making.

4.2There has been some confusion about the roles of various bodies involved in commenting on the arrangements to date, such as LEOG and TCBAG.

4.3Concerns have also been expressed over the role of the Portfolio Holder and the Leader of the Council as, respectively, Member/Substitute Member of Planning Committee and arrangements have been made to ensure that these conflicts of interests do not arise.

4.4Finally, the new arrangements should separate the roles of Policy and Policy making and Planning Control to ensure probity of decision making, especially around the delivery mechanism and the planning obligations package.

PROPOSALS FOR NEW GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS

4.5There is currently some ambiguity in the role of the existing Steering Group and the Task Group with both groups trespassing to some extent on the other’s territory. It is proposed therefore that the existing Steering Group be dismantled and be replaced with a Full Sail Ahead Project Board. The members of the Project Board will be the Leader of the Council, the Portfolio Holder and a member of the opposition group, the Policy Director, the Project Manager, the Head of Financial Services, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, the Head of Strategic Planning, and the Head of Transportation Services. Other PDs or Service Unit Heads will attend by invitation as relevant. The Project Board will have a director reporting line to Cabinet and will be responsible for setting the direction of policy and strategy with regard to the project and taking decisions within the framework of the Council’s strategies and policies relating to the Regeneration Scheme. The Project Board is not a meeting of the Council within the terms of the Constitution, and therefore formal decisions requiring authority in the normal way will need to be taken by the Portfolio Holder, Cabinet, Council, or other bodies as appropriate such as the Planning Committee.

4.6It is also proposed to maintain the role of the Town Centre Bridge Advisory Group as an information forum and sounding board on major applications and other town centre regeneration issues, although as at present, the Advisory Group has no formal role in the decision making process. It is suggested that LEOG no longer has a defined role with regard to the project since confusion can arise through the blurring of accountabilities if too many groups are involved. However, it will continue to receive regular progress reports. It is suggested however, that all Members of LEOG would continue to be invited to attend TCBAG if they wished.

4.7A diagram showing the inter-relationship of the new bodies is attached to this report.

Bernie Topham

Policy Director

Tim Martin

Head of Legal and Democratic Services

David Ralph

Head of Strategic Planning

Background Papers

None

Created by Bernie TophamCreated on 11/07/2005 10:01\\artemis\democratic\committeeminutes\report\Cabinet\CA190720053Full Sail Ahead.doc