Agenda item

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 gateway, and this had not been addressed in the masterplan. 

·         Relocation of sorting offices had not caused problems elsewhere.

·         There was no intention to move the conduit, just to relocate the cinema in the market place area to achieve step-change improvements in night-time economy. The consultants had already accepted that illustrations within the masterplan document were inadequate.

·         There was always a challenge in striking a balance with costs when producing a masterplan because it needed to be a compelling document to attract investment but without lavish and unnecessary spending. It needed to reflect best-thinking and be at an appropriate standard for inclusion in the Local Development Framework.

·         The masterplan did need to be clearer in explaining that funding would come from other organisations, and not just the district council.

·         The redevelopment of the canal basin site was running complementary to the town centre proposals.

·         The growth agenda for Grantham had been identified by the county council working in partnership with the district council. Infrastructure and resourcing issues were therefore understood by the county. A strategic director and a portfolio holder would be overseeing the whole scheme.

·         The original proposal for total pedestrianisation had been stopped because of costs; it was more feasible to have an experimental scheme.

·         The proposed bus service arranged were good practice from other authorities. In relation to traffic in the market place area, the county council had determined that it was not safe to reroute traffic along Union Street. The decision to relocate the cinema to this area was made after this came to light.

·         Planning permission had been granted for the Pennine Way scheme but this had stalled because planning permission could not be given for the housing because it involved greenfield sites.

·         Relocation was being pursued by negotiation, which was the desired approach. Ultimately, compulsory purchase orders would be required. It was anticipated that no residential properties would be affected.

·         The need for a priority list was acknowledged, although this would take time to complete. Any costing would be indicative because of inflation implications. Consultants were starting to undertake costing analyses of the major proposals. The comments of the Section 151 officer in the report to cabinet number PLA611 were read, as they explained that an evaluation of financial implications would be completed before cabinet’s adoption of the masterplan.

·         The implications for school transport was part of a number of delivery issues that would be addressed during the drawing of detailed plans. Insurance implications at the Guildhall would also be looked into.

·         Officer were conscious of the implications of encouraging night-time economy and this was being considered carefully.

·         The masterplan would be amended to better reflect the membership of the Strategic Board.

·         There was potential for a Park and Train scheme at Gonerby Moore.

·         There had been various consultation and the new masterplan had considered very documents and studies, including the original plan. Formal and structured public consultation would be organised at a later stage.

·         The proposals were potentially achievable because there had already been major developments in Grantham in the past ten years.

·         The council should be looking to the county council to achieve equitable funding for Grantham.

Conclusion:

To forward the points and observations made throughout the meeting to the cabinet for their consideration during discussion on this item at its meeting on 4^th September 2006.