Agenda and minutes

The Panel to be notified of any substitute members.

The panel was informed that from the Economic DSP, Mrs Kaberry-Brown was being replaced by Councillor M Taylor and Councillor Mrs Smith was being replaced by Councillor Exton for this meeting only.

The chairman, with the panel’s consent, allowed comments from members of the public to be made after the presentation on the Grantham Masterplan.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Conboy, Kirkman, Lovelock and Mrs Williams.

Members are asked to declare interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

The Scrutiny Officer advised that Grantham members, depending on the nature of the presentation, may have personal interests to declare. He added that members of the Development Control Committee should be aware that what they said at this meeting may have some bearing on any future planning applications, although this would be some time in the future.

Councillor Mrs Wheat declared a personal interest by virtue of her appointment as a director of Grantham Town Centre Management Partnership.

Councillor Ms Gibbins also asked that it be recorded that because she was a resident of Grantham, she may have a potential personal interest.

Presentation by the Grantham Town Centre Manager on the draft Grantham Masterplan.

a)                 The Economic DSP will lead discussion on the content of the draft Masterplan document.

b)                 The Resources DSP will lead discussion on financial implications of the draft Masterplan document.

Copies of the Draft Masterplan for Grantham town centre have been circulated on CD for Panel members and Grantham members only.

The Grantham Town Centre Manager gave a presentation on the final draft of the Grantham Town Centre Masterplan.

·         This was the draft final stage of the document. The masterplan process had started in September/October and funding had been received from Lincolnshire Enterprise. Consultants had been appointed following a tender process and they had completed a baseline review of the town. This had been completed in February 2006, and had identified areas for potential significant step changes for Grantham to succeed as a sub-regional centre.

·         The second stage had been about design and development in core areas of the town.

·         The third stage had been masterplanning, based on conclusions of the previous two stages.

·         The current masterplan had reviewed the previous initial plan. Some proposals had been carried forward but several were out of date and had been discounted. 

·         The strategic element of the plan included the need to be incorporated in the council’s Local Development Framework and creating areas for development that would protect the town centre and its future.

·         The key issues in the plan were:

oDesign: to align with historic themes (e.g. education); address poor arrival points (e.g. railway station); over dominance of traffic; poor connectivity; one dimensional retail offer (which needed to be diversified with leisure and community provisions); and pedestrianisation.

oEconomic and market concerns: potential in Grantham should be taken advantage of; there was a shortage of opportunity sites and stock; office space was an untested market but the baseline review had identified a lack of quality office accommodation.

oTransport: heavy congestion, poor signage etc.

·         The vision was to achieve a bustling and lively centre with an emphasis on traffic calming, generated sites with mixed use; and an alternative transport system.

·         Vision objectives:

obuilding on a connected Grantham (economic, physical, social).

oproviding an exemplary public realm (setting and pedestrian experience).

oImproved east-west linkage.

oCreating a sustainable transport approach with public transport, walking and cycling.

oConsolidating, improving and diversifying the town centre.

oCreating a town of different parts: commercial, historic and natural

oProviding a clear delivery strategy: a robust policy, reduced investment risks, governance and management, key components and developer engagement.

oAppointment of a business champion to champion development across the town. Grantham needed to have a brand to demonstrate that it was going in a forward direction with a coordinated approach.

·         Various groups had been consulted on the masterplan: business club, Grantham Future, the National Trust, civic society, tenants associations, independent retailers and developers.

·         Key projects were:  station point, Grantham Lanes, Green Mile, Car Park Management, Traffic Management, Reduction of Through Traffic, Public Transport, St Peter’s Hill, Market Place, Guildhall, High Street & Westgate, Castlegate square and station square. All were detailed in the masterplan document. 

·         Although not all the projects would be funded by the council, with funding sought from other public organisations and the private sector, the council may want to consider a separate fund to contribute to delivering the strategies. It would also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

To receive comments or views from members of the public at the Panel’s discretion.

One member of the public explained that having recently moved to the town, he found the place friendly and good for shopping and eating. He thought the proposed shuttle system and closure of the bus station was wrong, especially given the existing traffic congestion, and he asked about plans to deal with north-south traffic.

The Town Centre Manager replied that the traffic issues were being addressed and that the masterplan proposed a series of considered changes. He acknowledged that the proposal for single lane traffic on Westgate would divert traffic onto the High Street and Wharf Road but that priorities needed to be made and managed. The Chief Executive added that the shuttle system was a county council proposal and the Westgate scheme would make that area of the town more attractive. A traffic study by the county council will be completed later in the year and would provide a reliable study to assess the impact of the proposed schemes.

Another member of the public explained that he had only heard ‘disabled access’ mentioned once in the presentation. He asked where disabled parking would be allocated in the proposals. The Town Centre Manager explained that the masterplan did provide for disabled parking; the proposals only restricted access to other drivers from the town centre. 

A final comment was received about how town centre facilities, particularly the hospital, were already stretched and yet housing development was increasing. He asked how this was going to be managed.

The Chief Executive explained that the council was working proactively with the Primary Care Trust to assess the impact of town growth on public services and that this was taken into account by the PCT during its decision-making.

The officers present were questioned by the panel, who made the following points and observations.

·         There were no proposals for Watergate House or for the small shops along the east side of the High Street.

·         There was no indication of where the post office sorting office would be relocated if proposals were accepted. This would cause particular problems for vulnerable people having to collect post that could not be delivered.

·         A member explained that royal mail already offered a redelivery service either to a persons home or their local post office. 

·         It appeared as though the proposed new location for the cinema was in place of the conduit.

·         Masterplanning should be able to be done in-house by the council’s officers, as it had already come at a great cost to the council.

·         The masterplan should be a document to prompt public discussion and should therefore not be as detailed and should be less officer-led. The proposals were also too ambitious.

·         The masterplan needed to encompass anticipated town expansion by addressing infrastructure and community provisions. Co-ordination was essential for the whole scheme, before and during development, possibly by an independent person as in Leicester City Council.

·         Pedestrianisation proposals in the Market Place area were not suitable because there would still be single-lane traffic.

·         The bus station should be moved to the railway station and should not be removed altogether from the town.

·         Without an east-west bypass, none of the proposals could be given serious consideration because of the impact on traffic. The Pennine Way linkage would be appropriate for this.

·         What would happen to people’s property affected by the proposals if they did not want to relocate?

·         A list of project priorities would be beneficial to the council to facilitate resource planning in the short and long term.

·         There was a covenant on the land occupied by the Baptist Church and so this should be considered in light of the proposals.

·         The removal of the bus station would have serious implications on the area when school children were waiting for buses at the end of the day.

·         Opening of the front door of the Guildhall could have serious impact on the insurance of many valuable artefacts belonging to the Grantham Charter Trustees.

·         There was concern that leisure and entertainment propsoals, particularly in the Greyfriars area, would cause disturbance to GOPD schemes.

·         The masterplan document was misleading in stating that Grantham Charter Trustees were represented on the Strategy Board.

·         Was Grantham too small to be considered for a Park and Ride scheme?

·         The masterplan did not mention public consultation. The projects would be good for the community, but a lot of people would need consulting.

In response, officers explained:

·         Consultants had considered Watergate House but because the town had been stretched in a north-south direction, focus needed to be on consolidating the core area before other secondary areas were considered. The east-side of the high street posed particular challenges for redevelopment because of fragmentation and economics. However, Watergate was a north side  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The meeting closed at 5.07p.m.