Agenda item

The Director of Planning, Development and Transport will give a presentation on the Waterside development.  Updates will also be given on Pioneer Park and the Brownfield Land Development Approach.

Slides to follow.

The Programme Manager and Head of Development - Planning, Development and Transport gave a presentation on the Waterside development.

The Director of Planning, Development and Transport attended the meeting to assist with the discussion.

Slides were presented (attached).

Other key points included:

• A great deal of activity had taken place developing the Waterside area and Pioneer Park.
• The Waterside development was around 100 acres in area.
• The area had previously become relatively derelict, largely due to the decline of the textile industry in the area.
• The area had been identified as a regeneration priority in the local plan.
• A regeneration strategy had been set out around planning guidance in the area in a very simple and clear way for developers to understand.  This also included the allocation of public space in the area.
• As part of the project, the Council took the opportunity to acquire and restore Friars Mill, which was converted to managed workspace that was managed by the Chamber of Commerce.  In addition to the restored historic buildings, further new-build office space was constructed and been put up for sale.  This was a good scheme in its own right, but was also a statement of intent about the commitment to regenerate.
• A compulsory purchase of 17 acres in the middle of the area was shown on the slide.
• It was clear that the market could not bring the site forward on its own as there were too many individual land interests.  Nonetheless, it was necessary for the site to come forward in order to act as a catalyst to stimulate investments in the surrounding sites.
• This in mind, the Council had set about a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) for a housing and office scheme.  This had focussed on houses rather than apartments as there was an intention to create competition and choice in the market, alongside surrounding privately owned sites which would be predominantly apartment schemes. This development included ‘extra care’ affordable housing.  It also created office space for between 400-500 jobs.  The development of the compulsorily acquired land was halfway through completion, and it was thought it would be complete by 2026.
• A £30m grant had been received from the Leicester City Council Capital Programme and Local Growth Fund and Right to Buy receipts to be invested in affordable housing.
• The Council held the risk for development which had allowed delivery to happen at pace.  The full market value of £11m had been received for the land.
• Since the start of the developments in 2015, around £300m of private sector money had been invested in the city and around 1000 student bed places had been created, as had around 1000 houses and apartments.  Additionally, a great deal of office and leisure space had been created. This created revenue for the Council worth £2m per year.  This represented a good return on the initial investment.
• The Council were in discussions with Homes England and the relevant landowners to develop more offices and homes.
• The former A50 (Woodgate/Northgate Street) is currently being reconstructed to create a High Street environment and make the area feel like a neighbourhood within the city centre.
• As well as being a neighbourhood in its own right, built on brownfield land, the central location of the development would bring people into the city centre and thus support its economy.
• Historically, the city had turned its back on the river, and this development had helped connect people back to it.

The Commission were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• The CPO had public spaces planned within the scheme.  This included a small park with green infrastructure around Soar Island.  Additionally, there were trees on highways throughout the scheme.  The former A50 reconstruction work had also included the planting of street-trees.
• The Council had very limited further land interests in the area and as such the ongoing development of the wider Waterside area was in the hands of the private sector and depended on when they were ready to bring sites forward.  Many of the remaining sites are subject to complex physical constraints such as flood risk and the Council would work with the Environmental Agency and organisations such as Homes England on how they could help, however, it was difficult to put a timescale on completion.  Despite this, members were assured that the development would be completed.
• The Chair congratulated everyone involved for their work, noting that it was a big achievement that set an example for the future.
• In response to a query about contractors using local streets for their vehicles, it was noted that the contractors Keepmoat were using local streets for arrival and departure from the sites.  Councillors were asked to inform the Director of Planning, Development and Transportation if this became an issue for residents.
• With reference to construction work currently underway on the former A50, it was confirmed that when complete the road would be open two ways.
• The site across the road from Slater Street School was proving difficult to get developed.  However, recent discussions with the landowner were more positive and the owner was being helped through issues such as flooding.  Discussions were being enabled through partners.  It was recognised that the site was in need of development as it had become an eyesore.
• There were two listed buildings on the edge of the site.  These had been difficult to develop, but recent discussion had been positive. It was requested that the Commission receive a report on the issues discussed regarding Waterside and the adjoining areas.

Cllr Porter arrived during the discussion of this item.

The Head of Development Projects gave a presentation on Pioneer Park now known as Space Park.

Slides were presented (attached).

Other key points included:

• Proximity to the Space Centre, existing land ownership formed a good baseline from which to bid for significant government funds to enable the council to intervene in the area to promote growth.
• There were parallels between the Waterside and Pioneer Park developments.  Whilst they had different focusses, focussing on different sectors with Waterside having a more residential focus, both were part of the Enterprise Zone, and both showed how brownfield sites could be tackled using the resources that the Council had at its disposal with the backing of government funds.
• The council have in other areas worked with owners and developers to support speculative developments with high job outputs through the  underwriting of leases.
• The Council had been fortunate in blending different types of funding together.
• Partnership working was important, co-ordinating interventions form parties such as the LLEP, Environment Agency and others.
• Planning guidance formed a key part of the Waterside process. In particular producing good, clear guidance that informed landowners and private developers of suitable uses, massing and scale to give confidence to bring forward their own schemes.
• The Council was unusual in its in house experienced and skilled staff who had a track record of identifying opportunities, successfully bid for funding and deliver a range of technical schemes.
• In a recent conversation with Homes England it emerged that they were struggling to find councils across the country who had the correct skill set for development.  Leicester City Council had been asked specifically by Homes England whether it retained internal resource and experience to deliver regeneration and development, which the Council did.

The Commission were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• Planning permission had been received to develop the site of industrial units at Abbey Court to deliver a significant uplift in floorspace in Pioneer Park and work to demolish and clear the site would commence shortly ahead of any potential land sale.
• Docks 1 and 2 were freeholds owned by the Council.
• When good quality office space became available, it was often occupied quickly, however, older office space was more difficult to lease.  Some of this older office space was developed as residential.
• A major challenge in building good quality space was knowing whether rental levels could cover the development cost.
• Regarding sites in and around the city, it was hoped that in future developers could bring forward development, however for the foreseeable future the Council would need to have involvement if there was to be good quality space.
• In terms of allocation of Homes England and Levelling Up grants:
  • £9m went on Pilot House.
  • £17.5m went on the Railway Station.
  • £20m on pioneer park
  • £10m allocated to the St Margarets underpass.
• It was unknown if more levelling-up money would be received.
• A fire had severely damaged Friars Mill in 2012, however, much of what had survived, such as the original iron work supports and floor structures, had been retained in the scheme.  Architects had sensitively adapted the space to make the most of the historic features.  The character of the building was good and award-winning.
• The opportunity to acquire the Friars Mill site had occurred when the 2008 financial crash led the owner to hand ownership back to the bank, whilst at the same time the Council had come into EU Regional Development Funding and as such knew they had the money to convert the property.
• The Friars Mill site had a district heating network across the site providing green heat distributed to buildings through a network of pipes.  this meant that the heating was low-carbon.
• Rainwater flowed into a tank under the Friars Mill car park and then discharged slowly into the river, acting as a flood intervention.  Assessments had been made on flooding of the CPO’d when the river was at peak levels and were satisfactory.  The pedestrian walkway by the river at the CPO’d site was 5-6m wide and deliberately designed to flood in an extreme storm event.  Through this measure, the site provided additional flood storage capacity for the area, and created flood storage that reduced the flood risk from other sites on the network.
• The Dock buildings being delivered with Levelling Up funding at Pioneer Park would be Carbon Zero.  The Ian Marlow site was pure industrial units and would therefore met EPC rating A.
• Previous work undertaken by the council with Local Growth Funding from the LLEP was used to improve the wetlands along the river by Pioneer Park which increased flood storage to offset flood risks.
• No complaints had been received from tenants about the cleanliness of the river.
• The John Ellis site included a Technology and Teaching base within phase 1 with a second phase planned to create additional business space attracting additional Space sector businesses to the campus.
• It was requested that other projects such as Ashton Green and the Railway Station be brought to the Commission for consideration.
• The CPO at Waterside consisted of 17 acres being developed by Keepmoat Homes who were building houses to sell.  140 houses had been built so far. Sales values were high, but as values increased, the Council benefited from this due to an agreement with Keepmoat.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That the comments of the Commission be noted.

3)    That a report on the issues discussed regarding Waterside and the surrounding areas come to the Commission.

4)    That a site visit to the Waterside development be arranged.