The Senior Project Manager will provide an update on the project.
Minutes:
David Beale (Senior Project Manager) and Andy Spencer (Keepmoat) presented an update on the progress of the Waterside regeneration project.
The meeting was reminded of the Council’s ambition to provide a mixed use development at the waterside and that Outline planning consent had been granted.
In respect of the future detailed application, the Council had acquired a majority of the development sites and a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) would be applied for, which it was hoped would allow the Council to acquire the remaining land necessary for the regeneration project to commence.
A Public Inquiry was expected in June 2017, when the Government’s Planning Inspectorate would consider the CPO application. If the CPO was granted in the Council’s favour the site would be handed over to Keepmoat who had been chosen as the preferred developer.
Andy spencer presented an overview of the company’s ethos and provided details and examples of successful development sites elsewhere in the UK.
In respect of the Waterside scheme the likely numbers and styles of housing types were reported. It was noted that a mix development of 288 houses and 50 bed extra care units would be provided alongside 60,000 sq ft of office space and a range of retail facilities.
An initial design layout was presented, including details of the regeneration proposals for the Soar Island.
It was noted that the residential development and associated elements proposed would be of a high quality given the unique nature of the site.
At the conclusion of the presentations, the Chair invited discussion and the following issues were raised by residents:
· Having regard to the numbers of properties and parking, it was confirmed that the Council had been working closely with Keepmoat to ensure that adequate parking would be available. Courtyard areas had been proposed to prevent inappropriate parking on pavements. Physical obstructions, including the planting of trees, would also prevent inconsiderate parking.
It was suggested that the parking available would not be sufficient for the numbers of residential units proposed and in response it was clarified that national policy guidelines had been followed, including the provision of visitor spaces.
· Flood abatement measures had been considered, due to the development directly adjacent close to the waterside. It was noted that safe and improved public access to the waterside was a benefit of the redevelopment proposals.
· Wildlife protection had been considered and concerns that the development would reduce the numbers of wildfowl were noted. It was confirmed that nature conservation groups and other interested parties had been involved in the design proposals and would be consultees in the planning process.
· Concerns in respect of increased noise and disturbance were expressed. In response, comparisons to the existing commercial and industrial activity were noted and it was considered that any noise disturbance from the regeneration site would be less than the noise from the existing uses.
· The proportion of social housing was noted at 50 units within one block. Although meeting the design criteria in the supplementary planning guidance, residents did not feel that this contributed to ‘social housing’ and commented that local people would not be in a position to afford the new residential units. A discussion ensued concerning the likely price range of the housing given the current market for the standard and size of the homes.
· The timescale of the works was estimated at around five years from acquisition and site handover, which was expected to be towards the end of the year.
The position was noted and it was suggested that further updates be presented to future meetings.