Agenda item

The report seeks to update Members on progress with negotiations with the developers and with the alternative proposals for a Supplementary Planning Document detailing the Council’s vision for the town centre and a pro-active approach to its delivery.

The Committee considered and discussed the report presented by the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management that updated Members on the progress with negotiations with the developers on the alternative proposals for a Supplementary Planning Document that detailed the council’s vision of the town centre.

The following key amendments detailed below would provide sufficient land and flexibility to deliver a town centre for Cranbrook that would be fit for purpose for now and in the future:

·         The availability of parcel TC1 within the north west corner of the town centre to accommodate the extra care facility in lieu of parcel TC4C resulting in an additional 0.64 hectares of land coming to the council;

·         The option to purchase parcels TC3, TC4D, TC4E at market residential land values.  The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised the Consortium would want the values for this land agreed before the signing of the MOU;

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management asked Members to be cautious of the amendments in the MOU and advised that the amendments would rely on a proactive delivery in some form of the town centre and the need to purchase land at a substantially higher value than it would be worth for the intended community, leisure and business used.  He also made Members aware that the Consortium had not delivered an all-weather pitch or the required sports pitch land that had been required in the original S106 agreement.  The Consortium had advised that this was because it had been already provided an all-weather pitch at the education campus and that the Consortium had overlaid the cricket square on the football pitches to save land.  Members noted the cost of delivering an all-weather pitch would cost in the region of £900,000 according to Sport England.

It was highlighted to Members that the S106 infrastructure contributions stated in the report did not reflect the increased offer made by the consortium towards the town council facility, however there remained a significant shortfall in infrastructure funding as part of the MOU and while this could be addressed by reprioritising funding from the expansion areas this would not cover some lower priority infrastructure.

Members noted concerns had been raised by Morrisons Supermarket about other food retailers and that the Consortium were seeking to  restrict food retail sales on EDDC controlled land through the MOU to premises with a gross internal floor area of less than 1,000 sq. ft. This would be for a time limit of 10 years from the date the land is transferred to Morrisons and 5 years from when the supermarket opens and would not include restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, bakeries etc.  It was noted there were only 3 units at Younghayes Place opposite St Martin’s School under 1,000 sq. ft.

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management referred to the Supplementary Planning Document that Members had agreed previously and advised significant progress had been made in producing a draft document that represents the best alternative way of progressing the town centre.  Members noted that the document could be ready for consultation in February 2021.

The Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management advised if Members were minded to accept the Consortium’s offer there would be merit to conclude the work on the Supplementary Planning Document as a guide to town centre developments that can inform future decision making on planning applications and to engage with the community.

Finally the Service Lead – Planning Strategy and Development Management updated Members on further comments received from the Cranbrook Strategic Delivery Board offering their support for the revised offer from the Consortium and read out a verbatim statement from officers at Devon County Council that was made without prejudice and obviously subject to political agreement.

‘Unfortunately we have not had the opportunity to discuss the revised offer with East Devon New Community Partners and there remain some issues to be bottomed out in terms of financial contributions and triggers.  However, we welcome the revised offer, in particular, the early provision of the land and financial contributions towards the construction of a county council facilities building and relocation of the extra care housing.  In the event that your Strategic Planning Committee agrees in principle of the revised MOU the county council will work pragmatically with all parties to ensure a satisfactory outcome.’

The Chair welcomed comments from non-committee members which included comments from the Ward Members:

·         Cranbrook ward member Councillor Kim Bloxham urged Members to accept the Consortium’s proposal to allow the town centre to progress without further delay as this is what the community wants and needs;

·         Cranbrook ward member Councillor Sam Hawkins welcomed the negotiations to develop the town centre and urged Members to accept the offer that was realistic and deliverable.

Other key points made by members outside of the committee included:

·         Much improved MOU;

·         Concerns raised about Morrisons demanding no competition and limiting retail floorspace to 1,000 sq.ft.  It was advised the restriction was gross floor area aimed at direct food sales rather than cafes, restaurants and takeaways.  Members noted that Morrisons would not negogiate on this.

·         Noted support from the majority of residents, town Council, district ward members and ward members on Devon County Council.

The Chairman then heard extensive debate from the Committee Members, including Cranbrook Ward Member Councillor Kevin Blakey, with highlights detailed below.

·         Reference was made to the second bullet point of the council’s obligations on page 30 of the agenda and clarification was sought on why should the council have to pay in excess of the land value for the sites.  In response Mr Nick Duckworth advised when the land had been acquired approximately 5 years ago it was on the basis that we would have a greater scale of retail uses and associated values.  The burden of the value that applied to it at that time still sits on the land and it is anticipated that there would be residential development in the town centre.  Mr Duckworth stressed the Consortium was keen to move forward to deliver retail at the heart of the town and said we have worked very hard in the last 3 months to work towards a vision for the town centre but that it can only be done in a commercial manner and urged Members to accept.

·         Clarification sought on the provision of an all-weather pitch.  In response Mr Duckworth said it hurt to hear that they had not delivered what was expected and made reference to the education campus that had been delivered early.  He advised he could not see why an all-weather pitch could not be delivered in the expansion areas in due course.

·         Question raised about whether the restraint in trade clause is legally enforceable.  It was advised it was enforceable and although the MOU was not a contract documents flowing from it could bind and restrain certain types of use of the land.

·         The vast majority of residents want to see delivery sooner rather than later

·         Comment made why the Consortium cannot give the council the land on an open book basis at its value when they have already made savings of £1.5m.

·         Matters of detail still need to be sorted out including the restraint over the additional retail units and food use.

·         Concerns raised about continuing the SPD in parallel with the MOU as it did not show commitment and a suggestion was made to park the SPD and to use the planning resources the planning department currently have on other things.

·         Reference was made to the 10 emails received from residents in favour of proceeding with the developers offer;

·         Welcome the revised town centre proposal and welcome the extra care provision;

·         The objective is to deliver a town centre that the residents of Cranbrook want that is supported by representatives of the town council and county council

·         Clarification sought on the difference between the commercial value of the sector of land and its value for residential use. It was advised residential value could be in the region of three to four times higher than commercial value.

·         Clarification sought on the viability assessment.  In response Mr Duckworth confirmed a viability sketch had been submitted and advised as the site has been developed we have been measuring the profits and losses against the cost plan across the whole of the Cranbrook development.

·         Concerns raised about the proposal to put a cricket square in the middle of a football pitch.  You cannot play cricket in the middle of a football pitch. It was clarified that this had been agreed some time ago.

·         Reference was made to the infrastructure table on page 30 and how much the council was losing in terms of infrastructure.

·         Concerns raised about the size of the town centre.  In response the Service Lead advised there was potential expansion across the road and into the set- back for the town council offices but stressed the MOU did not fix the size of the square and that this was a matter for further pre-application discussions and a subsequent application.

·         Would like to see bigger outdoor meeting spaces.  The market square is not usable.

It was proposed by Councillor Thomas, seconded by Councillor Moulding (and subsequently by Councillor Skinner when Councillor Moulding left the meeting) that Members:

1.    Support the updated offer from the East Devon New Community Partners.

2.    Agree in principle to the Memorandum of Understanding as proposed by the East Devon New Community Partners and delegate authority to the Chief Executive, Leader and Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning to sign the final MOU on behalf of the Council.

3.    The propose Supplementary Planning Document is indefinitely paused but the work already carried out is used as a guide to development in the Town Centre.

The above motion failed on a recorded vote as follows:

Councillor Allen                       For

Councillor Arnott                     Against

Councillor Blakey                    For

Councillor Chamberlain          Against

Councillor Davey                    Against

Councillor Hayward                Against

Councillor Hookway               Against

Councillor Howe                     For

Councillor Ingham                   For

Councillor Ledger                    Abstain

Councillor McLauchlan           Against

Councillor Moulding                Had left the meeting

Councillor Rylance                 Against

Councillor Skinner                  For

Councillor Thomas                  For

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Arnott and seconded by Councillor Hayward.

RESOLVED:

That Members delegate to the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning, the Leader and Deputy Leader and the Strategic Lead for Planning to negotiate further with the Consortium regarding the Memorandum of Understanding.  The result to come to either Cabinet on 6 January 2021 or a Cabinet held within 14 days of that date and also that the Supplementary Planning Document is noted and kept in reserve pending the result of the Memorandum of Understanding negotiations.