To agree the way forward for the Spring Gardens/Oldbury Road site, including the preparation of development proposals, and to identify any areas that may be declared surplus to service requirements whilst taking account of the current and future requirements for car parking in the Town Centre and the Tewkesbury Town Centre Masterplan: Strategic Framework Document.  

That the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager, in consultation with the Deputy Chief Executive, be instructed:  

1.    to prepare development proposals for the areas edged red on the plan attached to the report, and the wider environment, having regard to the Tewkesbury Town Centre Masterplan: Strategic Framework Document and the primary considerations as highlighted in Paragraph 5.4 of the report;

2.    having regard to the current and future requirements for car parking in the town centre, the Tewkesbury Town Centre Masterplan: Strategic Framework Document and the primary considerations highlighted in Paragraph 5.4 of the report, to identify areas within the sites edged red on the plan attached to the report which may be declared surplus to service requirements; and

3.    to return to a future meeting of the Committee with the information required by Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this resolution.

86.1           The joint report of the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager and the Development Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 1-8, provided information about the areas known as Spring Gardens and Oldbury Road. Members were asked to consider the information provided and instruct the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager, having regard to the Tewkesbury Town Centre Masterplan: Strategic Framework document, to prepare development proposals and identify those areas that may be declared surplus to service requirements, taking into consideration the future requirements for car parking in the town.

86.2           The Finance and Asset Management Group Manger explained that this report was intended to acknowledge the current and future under-utilisation of assets and to give authority to Officers to investigate the best way forward for the sites. It was intended that as much discussion as possible would be held in ‘open’ business as this would ensure the public knew what the intentions were which would hopefully allay their fears about what would happen following the closure and demolition of Cascades. There would be some commercially sensitive information which would need to be considered in confidential business but, as far as possible, this would be kept to a minimum.

86.3           In terms of the sites referred to, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager explained that the Borough Council was the freehold owner of both the Oldbury Road and the Spring Gardens car park sites; which included the lease of land to the Swimming Bath Trust for the Cascades leisure facility. Both sites were key strategic sites within Tewkesbury town centre and yet the quality of ‘place’ in both locations was currently poor and did not generate a positive contribution towards the overall attractiveness of the town. Both sites were extensively used for providing hardstanding car parking facilities with Spring Gardens providing 286 spaces on non-market days and Oldbury Road providing a total of 96 spaces. A large proportion of the Spring Gardens site was currently leased to the Swimming Bath Trust and, in addition to that use, it also hosted a twice weekly market and a large part of the annual Mop Fair which had historic roots within the town. In July 2012 the Council had adopted the Tewkesbury Town Centre Masterplan: Strategic Framework document which included the Spring Gardens and Bishop’s Walk Design and Development Principles document. Those documents identified both sites as being suitable for mixed use development whilst also concentrating on re-establishing the historic grain of Tewkesbury town as well as preserving and enhancing the character of the town; maintaining and mending the continuity of building frontages; improving the quality of the public realm; and maintaining sufficient levels of car parking.

86.4           Following the failure of the contract of sale for the Oldbury Road car park with McCarthy and Stone, and the development of a new leisure on the public service centre site, there was now an opportunity for the Council to review the options for both sites as a wider scheme. In terms of car parking, a review of the strategy had been conducted in 2014. This had included an independent assessment of the usage level of all Borough-owned parking facilities and recommended a series of measures aimed at increasing the usage of car parks and ensuring visitors stayed longer within the towns. The new strategy had had a positive effect with an increase in ticket sales of 3.4% in the first nine months of the year and, in particular, an increase in the longer stay categories; in general, there still remained a significant under usage of car parks across Tewkesbury. The closure of Cascades would free up a large part of the land at Spring Gardens, however, this would also have a significant effect on car parking. Analysis showed that approximately 30% of all ticket sales in Spring Gardens were related to the use of the leisure centre. It was expected that the current parking requirements for leisure usage would migrate to the new location and therefore it was suggested that approximately 95 less spaces would be required as a result. From the analysis that had been undertaken, it was clear that the current under-utilisation of Council assets for car parking provision would soon increase as the Cascades complex closed and the subsequent demolition of the site would add significantly to the over provision. There was currently no identified need, within service activities, to utilise the spare capacity available and it could therefore be concluded that the combined site had the potential for partial redevelopment opportunities.

86.5           A brief for the investigation of development opportunities would be mindful of the principles that had been established within the Masterplan which included: access and ease of movement – repairing the historic grain of Tewkesbury by making places that connected with each other at the town scale and at local level; mixed uses – a complimentary mix of uses that added to the life and vitality of the town centre; character – preservation and enhancement of Tewkesbury’s unique built and natural heritage; wayfinding – connecting and making distinctive and memorable streets, spaces, buildings and landscape to create a strong sense of ‘place’; continuity and enclosure – maintaining and mending the continuity of building frontages to enclose streets and other public spaces and to ensure lively and safe streets; quality of the public realm – creating attractive, safe and uncluttered streets and spaces for all users of the town centre, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists; sustainability – encouraging resource and energy efficient construction and reducing the need to travel by car for short journeys; and functionality – maintaining sufficient levels of car parking, access and servicing for the town centre and new development as it came forward. The development brief would have a vision to create a sustainable, mixed-use development that provided the highest standards of public realm and architecture and embraced the historic character of Tewkesbury in an innovative and modern approach. The potential development would provide a complementary mix of facilities, including retail, housing, car parking and public space as well as improving the existing connections within Tewkesbury town. Critical to the success of any redevelopment was the recognition and protection of the current uses i.e. the twice weekly market, the annual Mop fair, the provision of public conveniences and the provision of sufficient car parking. It was also acknowledged that both car parking sites were currently listed as community assets under the right to bid scheme and any development proposals that included the disposal of the land within the listed assets would need to comply with the requirements of that scheme. A press release had been produced on this issue and to date the feedback received from that and from social media had been relatively positive.

86.6           During the discussion which ensued, a Member questioned what percentage of the site would need to be left undeveloped to meet the needs of the market and the Mop Fair. In response, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager explained that the present lease for the market allowed for the use of 104 car park spaces but the current usage was far smaller than that. The existing market lease was for one year and any development discussions would include talks with the market operator to understand its future needs. The Mop Fair currently utilised the entire car park (although obviously not the area where Cascades stood) but it was considered that there was scope to be more efficient in its layout; this would be discussed with the operator which had indicated that it was keen to work with the Borough Council to consider the future needs of the Fair and what that would mean in terms of the space required. The Finance and Asset Management Group Manager suggested that one third of the land across the two sites may be available for development; this would of course depend on the surface car parking that the Council wished to retain and was therefore only an approximation. In response to a query regarding the discussions that had already taken place, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager advised that the Council had been working with an architect to see what, if anything, would work on the site and this had resulted in some initial drawings but no finalised designs. The work undertaken to date by the architects had been free to the Council but if it wished to move forward to look at more detailed ideas there would be a charge. A Member felt that there was a need to ensure the designs put forward were good and likely to be acceptable to the Council and she questioned whether the initial designs could be shown to Members. In response, she was advised that Members would have the opportunity to see the designs before they were asked to make any formal decisions. Negotiations were still ongoing and the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management would take an oversight role in the development of proposals; he would also ensure that Members of the Committee were kept apprised of developments as the project moved forward. The Finance and Asset Management Group Manager indicated that there was an internal Officer Working Group which was looking at the project and that Group included Planning Officers so this should help ensure any plans that came forward were more likely to be appropriate and acceptable. It was also felt that it should be of comfort to Members that, as it was intended the land should remain within the ownership of the Council, what was developed there, if anything, would be within the control of the Council.

86.7           In terms of the Cascades lease, it had been agreed by the Swimming Bath Trust that it would be relinquished and this was now in the hands of the Trust’s Solicitor to finalise the details. The formal date would be 30 May but it was intended that the agreement would be received before that. In response to a query regarding the right to bid scheme, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager indicated that this would only take effect if the Council looked to dispose of the site but, as the current thinking was to retain and develop it, this would not be something that applied. If the Council did decide to sell the sites then the right to bid would kick in with an initial six week consultation stage followed by a period of six months for someone to put a bid together if they wished to. A Member was encouraged that Officers were considering developing and leasing the site rather than selling it as he felt a valuable income could be gained by using that approach. A Member questioned what was meant by service requirements as mentioned in the recommendations and, in response, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager explained that ultimately this referred to car parking but it also applied to any other service the Council might need the land for. The Member indicated that this was a relatively small site and he questioned whether it had been considered for housing as well as retail, car parking and leisure. In response, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager indicated that the opportunity for housing would depend on planning considerations as well as whether or not there was justification for it. In response to a query, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager indicated that the Holy Trinity Church had approached the Council to express an interest in building a community centre type building in the area. Officers would be meeting with them to understand the needs and that would then be fed into the project for consideration. In respect of the demolition of Cascades, Members were advised that this would happen regardless of the development that took place on the site so those costs would be borne by the Council. Rather than the building being allowed to fall into disrepair over time it was felt that it would be better to demolish it as soon as possible. The building would be decommissioned prior to being demolished and it would have to be surveyed again as it was known that there was some asbestos on the site.

86.8           Accordingly, it was