1. Personal Particulars
Brian Paul Raggett will say:
1.1 I hold a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Town Planning and I am a
Doctor of Philosophy in Urban and Regional Studies.
1.2 I am a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute and
served as the Institute's President in 1999. I am a Member of the
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a Committee Member of the
Compulsory Purchase Association and one of the judges for the
Annual British Council of Shopping Centres Town Centre Environment
Award. I have also been Chairman of the Urban Design Alliance
(during 2000) and have assisted CABE as on 'Enabler', helping to
promote public sector regeneration projects.
1.3 I am an Executive Director with CB Richard Ellis
(formerly CB Hillier Parker) and since the mid 1980's, I have been
responsible for leading the Planning and Public Sector Group. I am
now particularly responsible for advising public sector clients on
development and regeneration projects nationwide.
1.4 CB Richard Ellis' Public Sector team specialises in odvising
a wide range of clients on major development proposals. I hove
personally directed many feasibility studies as well as given
advice to well over 100 local authorities on a variety of planning
and implementation issues. I am currently advising on major
retail-led redevelopment proposals in about 20 locations across the
UK, and my firm's advice on such projects invariably deals with all
stages from their initial inception and design through to the
selection of, and negotiations with, the Council's development
partner; also as to issues relating to land assembly by both
private treaty and through Compulsory Purchase; and, ultimately,
the successful letting and completion of the scheme.
1.5 CB Richard Ellis also acts for many major retailers, for
developers and for institutional clients. Accordingly, my advice to
clients and the evidence which I present to this Inquiry is also
based on a sound commercial understanding of the requirements and
aspirations of a wide range of organisations such as those which
will benefit if this Order and the related Road Closure Order are
confirmed so that this project can proceed.
1.6 I have personally been involved with providing development
consultancy advice to Bath and North East Somerset Council on
matters relating to new retail floorspace in the Southgate area
since 1996 although l have had some knowledge of retail proposals
in the Bath area from a much earlier date. My initial involvement
on development consultancy matters was to lead Hillier Parker's
work in late 1996 and early 1997 on the assessment of the Council's
strategic retail options for the area, and to advise on the options
for scheme implementation, having regard to its planning and
commercial property objectives.
1.7 I am very familiar with Bath and with the properties which
ore the subject of this CPO Inquiry. I have witnessed the changing
patterns of retailing in the city over the last 10-20 years, and in
particular, my colleagues and I have advised the Council on the
Southgate proposals since the mid/late 1990's. I am therefore also
very familiar with the Council's objectives to secure a sustainable
and deliverable solution for this area, through the early
confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order and Rood Closure
Order which are the subject of this Inquiry.
2. Scope of Evidence
2.1 My evidence deals with commercial property considerations
relating to the proposed Southgate scheme, including evidence on
the retail health of the City Centre and demand from potential
occupiers of the new accommodation. It also deals with the
Council's role in this project as property owner and with the part
that it has already played in securing the implementation of the
scheme. My evidence also addresses the reasons for the Council
using compulsory purchase powers, having due regard to the relevant
statutory guidance, as well as the benefits to the City Centre
which will be derived by the early implementation of the scheme. l
have adopted the abbreviations and definitions set out in the
Glossary of Key Terms submitted as CD1 0.9.
2.2 Other witnesses will address in more detail:-
i) The strategic objectives of the Council in its position as
land and property owner in Bath - Andy Nash;
i i) The development plan/planning policy context and the
Council's consideration of the planning application - Roger
Guy;
iii) The role of CGNU/Morley as the Council's partner, including
evidence on scheme funding and implementation - Chris Paterson
(CGNU/Morley);
i.v The site, the retail scheme proposals and the planning
permissions which form the foundation for the Compulsory Purchase
Order and the Road Closure Order - Rodney Carran (Chapman
Taylor);
V) The proposals for the public transport interchange and public
realm in the area to the south of Dorchester Street - Keith
Brownlie (Wilkinson Eyre);
vi) Issues relating to quantitative retail need and capacity and
retail policy - John Adams (Drivers Jonas);
vii) The position reached with individual objectors - Richard
Herbert (Strutt and Parker);
viii) The highways and transportation issues, including the
replacement car parking and bus station, and the scheme servicing
arrangements - David Hunter-Yeats (WSP).
2.3 This evidence is presented from on independent commercial
perspective, in order to show that the Order Land is both suitable
for, and required, in order to secure the carrying out of the
proposed development, redevelopment and improvement, in accordance
with S226(1) (a) of the TCPA 1990 as amended prior to the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (2004 Act). While this Order was
made before the 2004 Act came into force and the new requirements
and the guidance in Circular 06/02004 are therefore not strictly
applicable, I will demonstrate that in all material respects, the
Order complies with both the old and new requirements of S226 of
the TCPA 1990. In particular, the evidence which I and other
witnesses present also makes clear the relevant provisions of the
development plan, the planning permissions which are in place and
other material matters, which together demonstrate that there is no
planning or other impediment preventing the implementation of the
Scheme if the Order is confirmed. My evidence focuses particularly
on the reasons why these interests are 'required' and it also
explains the ways in which the Scheme will secure significant
benefits which will contribute to improving the economic, social
and environmental well-being of the Bath area
2.4 More specifically, my evidence is primarily concerned with
the following matters:-
(i) Background to the Council’s decision to support the Scheme
using Compulsory Purchase powers (set out in Section 3 of my
evidence);
(ii) The current commercial/retail 'health' of Bath City Centre
(Section 4);
(iii) The commercial justification for the inclusion of all the
interests within the Order - i.e. the 'case for comprehensive
treatment' and the reasoning which underpins the case for acquiring
the particular interests which are now the subject of this Order
(Section 5). In this section of my evidence, I also explain how the
Scheme will be 'delivered', based on the terms agreed between
CGNU/Morley and the Council as landowner:
(iv) The qualitative benefits which will be secured for the City
Centre, if the Order is confirmed (Section 6); and
(V) Conclusions as to the principal reasons justifying the
confirmation of the Order and Rood Closure Order - (Section
7).
3. BACKGROUND TO THE COUNCIL'S DECISION TO USE COMPULSORY
PURCHASE POWERS
3.1 On 20 October 2004 the Council made the Order, which was
submitted to the Deputy Prime Minister for confirmation on 29
October 2004. The Council's decision to use its Compulsory Purchase
powers was one of its more recent steps, after many years' evidence
of commitment to this project. . All of this has been focussed on
securing, in the public interest, the redevelopment and improvement
of the Southgate area via a comprehensive mixed-use scheme,
comprising retail, leisure, housing, car parking, a new public
transport interchange and the creation of a new public square. It
is immediately clear from this description that there are many
public benefits which flow from the implementation of the Scheme,
and this Proof of Evidence, together with those prepared by others,
therefore seeks to highlight and explain these public benefits in
full.
3.2 The Council has been well aware of the deficiencies of the
existing retail (and other) accommodation within the Southgate
Centre and the adjoining land for many years. These were described
in the 1988 Bath City Council (Southgate) Objectives, which are set
out in full in CD1O.l. In essence, the key principles are:-
- To provide a major new retail development in the southern part
of the City Centre;
- To include other uses within the development to ensure this
part of the City Centre maintains a lively atmosphere beyond normal
shopping hours;
- To strengthen the links between the public transport
interchanges and the city's core retail area;
- To minimise the effect of traffic congestion and pollution
within the City Centre by resisting any substantial increase in the
provision within the development, thereby assisting the overall
objective of discouraging the use of the private car and
encouraging the use of public transport.
3.3 Since CB Richard Ellis (originally as Hiller Parker and
latterly as CB Hillier Parker) was appointed by the Council in late
1996 as iIs property and development consultants in respect of the
Southgate project, our analysis has also demonstrated that there
are a wide range of reasons why this project should be pursued and
completed. Some of these were highlighted in our original March
1997 Report:-
- The lack of a modern, sizeable departmental store, (the only
existing department store being the small Jollys store in Milsom
Street);
- The absence within the city of retail units of a size and shape
to meet modern retailing needs;
- The conflict between pedestrians and motor vehicles in some
shopping streets;
- Insufficient parking to meet shopper and retailer
requirements;
- A poor shopper environment around the existing Southgate
Centre, with little of architectural quality in either the existing
centre or the adjoining, somewhat unsightly and intrusive Ham
Gardens multi-storey car park.
3.4 In the original (March 1997 ) Hillier Parker report we also
suggested a range of 1 2 key objectives which we considered should
be used to judge any major redevelopment scheme in the Southgate
area. These objectives are still relevant today and are as
follows:-
- To secure an appropriate redevelopment of the Southgate Centre
and surrounding area, as befitting a city with World Heritage
Status;
- To improve the retail and leisure facilities within the city,
and secure, where appropriate, residential and office elements
within the comprehensive scheme, so as to create a balanced, "mixed
use" development;
- To improve pedestrian routes and ensure full access and
'permeability' through the area, especially from Bath Spa Station
to the city centre's retail core;
- To provide a new bus station, as part of an improved public
transport (bus/rail) interchange, which meets the standards likely
to be needed for a bus station in the 2 1 " century;
- To provide appropriate car parking facilities within the
scheme, having regard to the Council's overall parking policies for
the city;
- To retain an appropriate legal title within the new
scheme;
- To maximise the Council's revenue stream from the new
development having regard to its existing level;
- To maintain the Council's current level of revenue from the
Southgate area throughout the development period;
- To create a scheme that brings maximum benefit to the Council's
land and property interests elsewhere within the city centre.
- To create a scheme that has potential in the future for partial
redevelopment or comprehensive redevelopment, and which is not a
monolithic structure that does not allow for this flexibility.
- To ensure that appropriate contributions are secured from the
development, in the form of planning gain, in order to promote the
Council's actions in respect of improvements to car parking,
transportation and traffic management in the city;
- To minimise disruption to the city during the construction
period in order to minimise the negative impacts on the city as a
whole.
3.5 This initial report and advice was prepared for the Council
shortly after CGNU (then known as General Accident) had acquired
the leasehold interest in the existing Southgate Centre and the
freehold of the bus station and other land to the south of
Dorchester Street. As explained elsewhere, notably in Roger Guy's
and Rodney Carran's evidence, between 1997 and 2002 a series of new
designs, with alternative parking and bus station solutions, were
devised, tested and extensively reviewed, each of these having due
regard to the Council's requirements.
3.6 Accordingly, by the time that the September 2003 scheme had
emerged and been tested, all reasonable scheme alternatives had
been properly evaluated. The Scheme which the Council and CGNU
chose to take forward in partnership, and which now underpins this
Order, not only satisfies the original 1988 objectives, but also
meets fully the Council's 12 'commercial ' objectives, as defined
in our 1997 report and listed above. More significantly the Scheme
also meets the Council's other requirements and it accords fully
with the policies of the adopted development plan, as
described In the evidence of Rodney Carran, Roger Guy and
others.
Current Commercial/Retail 'Health' of Bath City Centre
4.1 In this Section of my Proof, I summarise a number of trends
and indicators relating to the retail or commercial health of Bath
city centre. In particular, I show how certain standard indicators
illustrate not only Bath's relative attractiveness but also how, in
other respects it has failed to adapt and is increasingly at risk
for the future, in port due to the absence of major new
redevelopments such as that proposed by the Scheme. The early
implementation of the Scheme will therefore be crucial in
addressing the deficiencies and weaknesses in !he City Centre,
perceived by both shoppers and retailers alike.
4.2 In order to provide evidence as to the urgent need for the
implementation of the Scheme - and to help to explain the relative
deficiencies in the city's shopping which currently exist - l have
examined standard industry sources, such as Experian, Retail PROMIS
and the Focus Database. Some of this evidence shows how Bath's
position, particularly relative to other centres in the region or
other centres of a comparable size/population elsewhere in the UK,
has strengthened or remained stable in recent years, but in other
important respects - notably in regard to the creation of new city
centre retail units - Bath has fallen behind most other centres in
the UK over the last 20 years.
4.3 Since the mid 1990's, the ranking of Bath has, in a number
of respects, been worsening. Around 10 years ago, in the (then
'industry standard') notional shopping centre classification,
calculated by Hillier Parker using national multiple retailer
representation as the indicator, Bath was ranked in the Top 30
centres in the UK (27Ih). Within the South West, Bristol has always
been regarded as the strongest centre, while other major regional
centres such as Exeter and Plymouth have also experienced
relatively decline during this period, pending progress being mode
on their new retail-led redevelopments or regeneration Schemes. In
Bristol, the decision of the Secretary of State on the CPO for the
Broadmead redevelopment is awaited, while in Exeter (at
Princesshay) and Plymouth (at Drake Circus) the schemes ore now
under construction, following CPO Inquiries held (in 2004 and 2003
respectively) and a positive decision by the Secretary of State, in
each case.
4.4 However, Bath has failed to secure major retail
redevelopments, throughout the boom period of the 1980's and
1990's. As a result, it has become less favoured as a retail
destination, and no new retail space has been created close to the
favoured prime area. As the retail demand indicators (see 4.9
below) show, the centre remains popular, with good representation
from a wide range of smaller shops, enabling the city centre to
maintain a 'Top 30' position purely based on overall retail
provision. But the position is different with regard to anchor
stores, where the Retail/PROMIS indicators ranks Bath 93rd
nationally. Thus, it has to be said that Bath does not offer a
sufficiently strong or dynamic focus for retail activity -
particularly when compared with nationwide trends. This deficiency
is particularly significant given the strong economic indicators
and employment/population growth shown across much of the South
West.
4.5 Over the last 10-15 years, the historic fabric of Bath has
been both on attraction and a problem for retailers. I know Bath
well and it is clear that sane new retailers and shoppers have been
attracted to the City Centre but many hove failed to secure the
space that they need because few properties have changed hands over
this period. Nevertheless, the lack of large modern retail property
within the City Centre has meant that there has been (and still is)
considerable pressure to develop out of town floorspace. In a few
cases, both 'bulky' and 'non-bulky' goods retailers have token
space in out of centre locations outside Bath and in port this is a
response to the lock of large modern accommodation in the City
Centre which con meet fully the requirements of such traders. There
remains the risk that the historic fabric of the City Centre will
not be maintained adequately and appropriately if new retail
investment is diverted instead to out of centre locations.
4.6 In addition to Southgate, there are a number of other
city centre or edge of centre opportunities for further retail
development on sites identified in the Draft Replacement Local
Plan, which may be pursued in due course. These include sites
around The Podium and Avon Street. Further afield, new retail
development may also be pursued subsequently at Lower Bristol Road
and at Bath Western Riverside, which I would expect to be focused
primarily on bulky goods retailers, rather than 'high street'
stores which would normally be expected to be guided towards
'sequentially locations closer to the heart of the historic city
centre. All of these projects, once the Scheme has been secured
through the confirmation of this Order, may potentially provide a
good range of complementary retail facilities consistent with
Bath's retail status.
4.7 There are three other Retail/PROMIS rankings which ore
relevant to the consideration of the Order
These indicate that:-
i) Bath is ranked only 53rd out of 200 centres, in terms of
total floorspace in the city centre. Bath also has less floorspace
in the city centre - 11 5,000 sq m (1.24m sq h) - than is shown as
the PMA 'average1 size for a regional centre, which is
approximately 150,550 sq m (1.64m sq h);
i i) Bath is ranked only 124th in terms of the percentage of the
floorspace within the City Centre which can be described as
'managed floorspace'; and
iii) Its ranking falls further, to 155th, when making a
comparison nationwide of the percentage of the total floorspace
that is 'managed'.
The practical impact of these indicators is that, arguably there
is less floorspace in the City Centre than retailers (and shoppers)
would expect, compared with other regional centres. It is also
clear that the lock of space is especially marked in the managed
environment. Whilst many regional centres have around
one-third of their total retail floorspace in a managed environment
(540,000 sq ft out of the total of 1.62m sq ft is the average),
Bath's managed floorspace represents only 18% of its (much lower)
floorspace of 1.24m sq ft.
4.8 The two managed shopping centres which exist in Bath at
present are the existing Southgate Centre and The Podium. The
latter, in particular, fails to attract prime fashion multiples and
mostly comprises a Waitrose store and some small units, so odds
relatively little to the attraction of the City Centre. The
existing Southgate Centre (with around 168,000 sq ft gross retail
floorspace) opened in 1974, and it does have some multiple
retailers. However, it is the subject of this Inquiry because for
many years it has failed to attract new fashion multiples to the
centre, and is a particularly poor environment when compared with
that offered in shopping centres opened in the UK over the last ten
years. Indeed, much of the City Centre's retail stock is now
outmoded, and, with many historic buildings whose fabric needs to
be maintained carefully, here are considerable difficulties in
adapting existing floorspace so as to meet modern trading
requirements in terms of unit size, depth, mezzanines, storage and
other important considerations.
RETAILER
DEMAND, VACANCIES AND
RENTAL
LEVELS
4.9 There are a number of published sources available, giving a
broad indication of the extent of retailer requirements for Bath.
PROMIS/Focus publish a ranking, listing those centres which have
the strongest level of requirements. Since the early 1990's,
retailer demand for Bath has been very strong, in comparison to
other centres. Over the last five years, Bath City Centre has
witnessed particularly strong retailer demand, and PROMIS estimates
that as at January 2005, there were 143 published requirements from
major retailers, thus ranking the city 6Ih among the 200 centres in
its listing. This is a very strong, but fairly typical, finding for
a city centre which has had no new retail floorspace created, to
satisfy such demand, over the last 15 years.
4.10 A very large number of fashion multiples are reported
as continuing to express an interest in taking new premises in Bath
- including H&M, New Look, Zara, Viyella and Mexx, and there
are also speciality retailers such as The Perfume Shop, La Senza,
Stationery Box and Oil & Vinegar, keen to take new or
additional space in the City Centre. Most of these requirements
(and indeed many others) are, realistically, only going to be
satisfied in Bath by the implementation of the Scheme.
4.11 Over the last three years, there have been very few changes
in the prime area, which essentially comprises Stall Street.
C&J Clark have relocated into a larger unit in Union Street,
whilst Sunglass Hut hove also taken a small unit on Stall Street.
Elsewhere, there has been little letting activity in the city
centre close to the prime pitch in recent years, primarily due to
the uncertainty surrounding the redevelopment of Southgate and the
lack of availability of modern, suitably sized units in Stall
Street, Union Street and the Southgate area. In my experience, once
that uncertainty has been removed by the confirmation of the Orders
which are the subject of this Inquiry, the projected 2008-10 phased
opening dates for Southgate will become a reality and there will be
a further rapid surge in retailer interest. In particular, it is
the fashion retailers (both multiple and independent) that will be
attracted to the new managed floorspace in Southgate, and most of
these companies usually plan their new store openings and
commitments around 12-24 months in advance. In terms of retailer
demand, additional firm requirements (over and above the 143+
listed by PROMIS) will therefore probably be logged, once the main
port of the Scheme is ready to start on site in 2006.
4.12 In Bath at present, the problem of uncertainty for
retailers is further compounded, as indicated above, by the lack of
quality space available in or near to the prime pitch. Vacancies in
Bath are at a level well below the UK average. The latest PROMIS
report estimates that the average vacancy level in all regional
centres which it records is 5.6% of total floorspace as at January
2004, whereas in Bath, the vacancy rate is only 4.5% for the city
centre OS a whole. Perhaps more significantly, according to the
January 2004 PROMIS data, and also based on my more recent (March
2005) inspection, so far as I can judge there are currently no
vacant 'standard' shop units within the prime pitch, although there
are one or two very small units vacant, perhaps more suited to
mobile phone operators or similar traders.
4.13 Over the entire period from 1987 to 2004 Bath has matched
the PROMIS 'centre average' for rental growth (at 5% per annum).
During the late 1990's prime rental growth in Bath was stronger
than the average, although, more recently rental growth has been
somewhat less, despite low vacancy and increasing demand, and more
in line with the national picture. The slightly lower rental growth
rates over recent years is likely in part to be explained by a lack
of transactions and an absence of suitable units in the prime
retail area which suit modern retailing requirements.
4.14 The PROMIS report notes that Bath's top Zone A rent at the
end of 2004 was £245 per sq ft Zone A. This compares with a PROMIS
'regional centres average of £241 per sq ft Zone A. Over
recent years there has been little retailer movement in the prime
pitch in part because of the imminent Southgate development and
most lettings that have taken place have been on short term,
flexible leases. Such evidence as does exist suggests that levels
of rent of around £250 Zone A will be exceeded over the coming
years, possibly during the main letting period for the Scheme.
4.15 Bath is, therefore, a retail centre 'under pressure', with
the Scheme providing the solution which will meet trader demand and
remove much of that pressure. The need for new floorspace partly
arises from traders (such as those listed in 4.10) who have so far
been unable to obtain any space in the City Centre. There ore also
many examples of retail companies whose existing accommodation in
Bath falls for below their current 'ideal' requirement. This
applies to department store groups such as Jollys, whose store in
Bath is approximately half the ideal House of Fraser size, and less
than half the ground floor footprint, of their present needs. It
also applies to a number of fashion retailers, some of which trade
from the existing, constrained accommodation within Stall Street or
elsewhere. In a centre like Bath, companies such as Next would
normally be seeking units of at least up to five times the size of
their existing Bath units, in order to stock the full range of
goods expected to be found by shoppers in a store in a top quality
regional destination. International fashion retailers, such as Zara
and H&M, have stated requirements for between 1,350 sq m and
1,950 sq m of accommodation.
4.16 Thus, Bath's future retail offer - without the Scheme
-would be severely constrained, and the City's retail health would
be at risk. Most of the units along Stall Street and Union Street
cannot be readily adopted or extended and the some is true along
Milsom Street, Southgate and in various more secondary locations.
As currently configured the existing Southgate Centre is even less
suited to multiple retailer requirements. The Scheme has therefore
been designed to meet this wide range of retail needs,
incorporating components such as the department store and the other
large stores which will make the city centre as a whole far more
attractive to shoppers and visitors than is presently the case.
Negotiations are proceeding very positively for the new department
store and I am confident that an occupier will be secured shortly.
Terms are also close to being finalised with Boots for both the
temporary and permanent relocation (into the new Scheme) of its
store. This 'second motor anchor' for the new Scheme will further
strengthen the City Centre as a whole - as well as giving
continuity of trading and a much enhanced store to Boots, while
helping to provide a full range of 'local needs shopping'.
Concluding Comments on Commercial/Retail Health of Bath
City Centre
4.17 The Scheme is therefore needed in order to satisfy more
fully the needs of shoppers from all parts of Bath's extensive
catchment area. The analysis contained in earlier shopping studies
and in recent work reinforces the conclusion that there is both an
economic justification for the project and a strong demand from
retailers to take space in the scheme. Bath City Centre cannot
afford to 'punch below its weight' in a competitive retail
environment.
4.18 At a time when the city is facing a very substantial level
of change, through the implementation of a number of major projects
over the next 10 years, it is particularly vital that the Scheme,
which has for many years been the cornerstone of the Council's
policy to improve the retail health of the City Centre, now has the
opportunity to proceed. In turn this will bring wider benefits to
other parts of the City Centre, and these are described more fully
in Section 6 of my evidence.
5 THE CASE FOR COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT
5.1 As I have already explained, all of the Order Land is
required so as to ensure that the Scheme as a whole can be
implemented successfully. In my experience of CPOs over many years,
I have found thaf it is very important for the Council and its
development partner to explain clearly why all the interests
comprised in the CPO have to be brought together under one
ownership.
5.2 The 'Case for Comprehensive Treatment' of the Southgate area
can be divided into a number of components. Each of these is
addressed, in turn, in {his section of my evidence, having regard
to the normal commercial considerations which developers and local
authorities will use to judge proposals of this type:-
5.3 A successful retail scheme, of the requisite scale and
quality can become part of the fabric of Bath and meet the
Council's wider objectives, as well as meeting at least four key
criteria (as set out below). In essence, such a scheme:-
i) must be well related and directly connected by strong
shopping routes for the prime and secondary retail areas,
especially the prime area of Stall Street and, to a lesser
extent, the secondary locations such as Southgate Street, or other
key destinations like the city's rail and bus stations;
ii)must be sufficiently large to provide adequate space and
depth for on anchor department store, for other major shop units or
stores (MSU's), sufficient replacement car parking, and a modern
servicing solution;
iii) must have pedestrian/retail routes which build on natural
and/or established routes;
iv) must have adequate 'critical mass' to ensure 'viability' and
'presence' to attract both retailers and shoppers
alike.
SITE BOUNDARY
5.4 The land-take proposed here is determined by the need to
include all the properties directly affected by the Planning
Consents which underpin this Order. In practice, the properties
affected by both the Planning Consents and the Order have a direct
potential effect on scheme viability and deliverability, but their
inclusion has, in each case, been carefully assessed. As with many
projects, the practicalities of the proposal also mean that the
Order boundary is defined partly by road alignments and, because
these, in turn, define a limited site area, the Scheme therefore
has to be an imaginative multi-level solution.
5.5 CGNU have applied normal commercial criteria to this project
and these are outlined in Section 4.1.1 of Mr Paterson's evidence.
In addition, he has endorsed the criteria, listed in 5.3 above,
which have been highly significant in determining the final scheme
design and footprint. This has, in turn, shaped the planning
permission and hence the Order boundary. Evidence presented by Mr
Corrar sets out the process through which the Planning Consents
were obtained, thus determining the site boundary.
5.6 Much of the site boundary for the Scheme has remained fixed
since 1997, although since that time scheme design and layout has
altered considerably especially around Dorchester Street. In other
words, these long established proposals for the Southgate area have
focused on much the same area for nearly 10 years, and when the
Main Scheme Planning Permission, was granted on 25 September 2003,
this essentially required the same 'core' area of land around the
existing Southgate shopping centre which had been under
consideration for almost a decade. With a consistent planning
strategy, established over many years since decisions 'in
principle' were first taken to support Southgate's redevelopment in
1988, planning permission also in place since September 2003 and a
consistent requirement as to land take for the chosen scheme over
an even longer period, there is no doubt in my view that the need
for 'comprehensive treatment', and for the inclusion of all the
relevant property interests within a confirmed CPO, are both
clearly established.
5.7 l consider that it is also a considerable achievement that
the implementation of this Scheme now depends on the acquisition of
a fairly small number of outstanding interests, yet as a result
there will be very substantial and wide-ranging benefits derived
for Bath. These benefits are described more fully in the next
section of my Proof.
5.8 Another characteristic of the Scheme is that much of the
site is already in use, albeit that some of it is underused or used
at a lower intensity than would be expected close to the prime area
of a city such as Bath. Thus, the proposals, for which this Order
is needed, are consistent with support for higher density mixed use
schemes, contained in the most recent government planning guidance
- and endorsed by other bodies such as CABE. For example, PPS6
paragraph 2.20 states that "Local planning authorities should
formulate planning policies which encourage well-designed and,
where appropriate, higher density multi-storey development within
and around existing centres, including the promotion of mixed use
development and mixed use areas". Later, in the some guidance, at
2.52, local authorities are encouraged to "consider the scope for
effective site assembly using their Compulsory Purchase powers to
ensure that suitable sites within or on the edge of centres are
brought forward for development, including sites that are under
utilised, such as car parks and single storey buildings, which
could be redeveloped for multi-storey, mixed use development". It
is also self evident that this Scheme complies with this new
guidance in all other material respects.
5.9 The Scheme, which also has a significant residential content
(91 units), within the main Southgate site at upper levels on
several of the individual 'blocks', will provide a range of
improvements that will also enhance the mixed use nature of the
City Centre as a whole, in a form which is entirely consistent with
the guidance. Moreover, these improvements will also be achieved in
a way which is consistent with other government policy guidance
(e.g. securing city centre 'affordable' housing), as well as
securing the redevelopment of some areas of underused land such as
along Dorchester Street.
5.10 In a city centre such as Bath, where underused land is in
very short supply, it is, in my judgement also a significant
achievement to have devised a mixed use, high density scheme which
meets the relevant commercial criteria (including those of a major
department store operator) as well as satisfying the Council's
objectives on a relatively constrained site such as this. The
Scheme, for which this Order is needed, is nonetheless of
sufficient size and 'critical mass' to attract effectively both
retailers and shoppers, while successfully satisfying the Council's
design and other planning criteria.
ISSUES RELATING TO THE
EXISTING PREMISES ON THE
SITE
5.11 As indicated above, the Scheme addresses the generally poor
quality and the outmoded nature of the existing retail
accommodation, as well as the underused nature of other existing
floorspace within the Order Land. Other witnesses address
these matters in greater detail. The Order boundary has been
determined, as indicated above, by reference to the scheme which
has secured planning approval. Confirmation of the Order
would mean that:-
- The opportunity exists to replace a range of uses which
includes outmoded (and generally fairly small) shops, a poor
quality multi-storey car park, an outdated bus station and a number
of other rundown or vacant properties. These are all functioning in
an environment which is severely constrained by the dated nature of
the existing building fabric as well as by the limitations of the
location. Instead, there will be attractive open areas, a new
public square, a modern bus station and car park, together with a
new department store and other modern retail premises, which will
all be on a scale and at a density which matches customer
expectations and retailers' needs for a 21" century trading
environment;
- Although certain properties (e.g. first phase of the
redevelopment to create the Proposed Bus Station to the south of
Dorchester Street, so as to provide continuity of bus facilities)
are planned to be progressed in advance of the main scheme, the
properties within the Southgate area are generally not suitable for
piecemeal redevelopment or improvement (for retail or other use).
Only the comprehensive treatment of the entire site enables a wide
range of new accommodation and servicing facilities to be created
and delivered effectively;
- The opportunity exists to create new, efficient and well
managed car parking, a new bus station, an enhanced and attractive
public realm and modern, servicing arrangements which will all be
of benefit both to the tenants of the new Southgate scheme and to
other nearby businesses. Again, these public areas and the Proposed
Bus Station, car parking and servicing arrangements are all
designed to modern standards, and will contrast very favourably
with the present arrangements which ore mostly unattractive,
outdated or difficult to use. In particular, the public realm, the
Proposed Bus Station and replacement facilities in the new car pork
and the service area will together provide a significant overall
uplift in for those using this port of the City Centre.
- The redevelopment also facilitates the creation of a new public
realm area between the Railway Station and the Proposed Bus Station
on Dorchester Street. This (along with a number of other
significant improvements to the station's fabric, described by
others) also creates the opportunity for several of the Victorian
railway vaults to be opened up for commercial and other uses, thus
generating indirect benefits for Network Roil (as landowner and
rail operator), as well as an enhancement of the historic fabric at
a key 'entry point' to the City Centre.
ISSUES RELATING TO RETAINED ADJOINING PROPERTIES
AFFECTED BY THE ORDER
5.12 I have also assessed whether owners and/or occupiers of
adjoining properties may benefit from - or be materially
disadvantaged by - the proposals which form the basis for this
Order. In my view, there are no owners or occupiers of adjoining
(retained) properties whose interests will be significantly
adversely affected by the Scheme, either during construction or
following completion. As other witnesses will explain in greater
detail, there will be some changes to servicing, car parking, means
of escape or other arrangements for a very limited number of
parties, but none of these changes could be described by any of the
objectors as being significantly less satisfactory than their
present arrangements. I believe that this demonstrates both the
creativity and the effectiveness of the design solutions evolved by
the CGNU's design team led by Chaprnan Tqlor, Wilkinson Eyre and
WSP, working in conjunction with the Local Planning Authority and
its consultants.
5.13 In reality, there are several subsidiary benefits
associated with the Scheme, which can only be secured or delivered
for adjoining owners/occupiers, if the Order is confirmed and the
whole project proceeds. These include:.
i) A greatly enhanced environment for pedestrians, not only in
the heart of the new scheme and along Southgate itself, but also
around the Railway Station and in other locations such as New
Orchard Street.
ii) Improved servicing arrangements for retained properties
between Kingston Road and Manvers Street, which will benefit from
better security/management arrangements, with much less disruption
from extensive parked cars.
iii)The consequential improvement in property values which will
follow for those whose properties adjoin or are close to a
successful and high quality retail-led regeneration
scheme.
CONCLUDING
COMMENTS ON THE CASE FOR
COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT:
5.14 Taking these factors together, I conclude that the site
boundary for the Order has been determined, not only based on
scheme design principles which have secured full and proper
planning support in Bath in 2003, but also, where possible, to
reduce the potential impact on retained/adjoining properties such
as the Argyll Hotel.
5.15 The case for comprehensive treatment of the Southgate area,
and the need for the inclusion of all of the plots within the
Order, have been summarised in this section of my Proof and in the
evidence of others. In my opinion, it is particularly significant
that:-
i) The design of the Scheme clearly requires all properties and
interests to be included in the confirmed Order. If any interests
or properties ore omitted from a confirmed Order this would, in my
judgement, mean that the site area would be reduced, the new anchor
stores could not be accommodated within the available area and the
Scheme would not proceed. The consequence of this would be that the
achievement of the policies set out both in the Adopted Local Plan
(June 1997) - CD2.2, and those in the Revised Deposit Draft Local
Bath Replacement Local Plan (October 2003) - CD2.3, examined at the
recent (Spring 2005) Local Plan Inquiry, would be put at risk.
ii) The Scheme will generate a range of benefits for shoppers,
visitors, adjoining owners and others affected by it.
iii) Given the extensive gestation period for the Scheme
(already around 10 years), it would have a materially damaging
effect on the achievement of Bath's planning and investment
policies, set out in the Adopted Local Plan and elsewhere, if this
case for comprehensive treatment were not
supported.
5.16 In my judgement, there is therefore a compelling case in
the public interest for the assembly of the remaining interests
through a confirmed CPO. More than 15 years after it was first
decided that the (previous) Council should support a redevelopment
based on objectives which recognised the inadequacies of the
existing Southgate Centre, it is crucial that the land assembly
process does not now hold up this project any further. This is
especially so as, potentially, the Scheme can make such a positive
difference to Bath, through the benefits which it will bring.
5.17 Finally, it is important to emphasise that CGNU and its
team have made all reasonable efforts to acquire all the interests
within the Order by agreement. Richard Herbert's evidence confirms
that, over many months, both prior to the making of the Order in
October 2004 and subsequently, his clients and his colleagues hove
held detailed negotiations with the retail tenants and others
affected by the Scheme. CGNU remain willing to acquire the
remaining interests through negotiation and they have also agreed
to underwrite all the Council's costs associated with the Order.
This means that, irrespective of whether the outstanding interests
are ultimately compulsorily acquired or acquired by private treaty,
the implementation of the project will not be delayed.
5.18 It is however impractical and unrealistic to assume that
all interests will definitely be acquired by private treaty
negotiation. If such a route were to be relied upon, there would be
no certainty that the overall site - and hence the Scheme - would
be delivered within the foreseeable future.
5.19 It would however clearly be wrong for any local authority
to seek to proceed indefinitely towards its stated aims on
implementing new city centre shopping without making a full
commitment to taking positive action to secure such developments.
Indeed, for some considerable time, the Council has made it clear
that it would if necessary use its Compulsory Purchase powers to
assemble the 100 or so separate freehold and leasehold interests
needed to ensure that the Scheme will be delivered. In March 2003,
the Council's Executive noted the circumstances in which the making
of a CPO may be recommended cind confirmed its "in principle"
support for the making of this Order. More recently on 30 June
2004, the Council Executive resolved to make the Order (conditional
upon a satisfactory indemnity being put in place) and authorised
the Head of Property and Legal Services to (inter alia) finalise
the form of the Order, Order Schedule and maps. The Order was mode
in October 2004, as explained in paragraph 3.1 of this
evidence.
5.20 Given the passage of time since September 2003, when the
Planning Agreement was signed and the Main Scheme Planning
Permission was granted, and, more particularly the 15 years prior
to that, since the first support for a project at Southgate was
endorsed by the (previous) Council, via the 1988 objectives, it is
entirely appropriate that this Order should now be confirmed. The
Council has however not only taken positive steps to ensure the
Scheme's implementation by means of promoting the Order. It has
also agreed financial terms with CGNU and these terms and the key
elements of the development documentation hove recently been
reported to, and approved by, the Council. CB Richard Ellis has
also advised the Council on the terms of this transaction, and our
advice, together with the Council's own in-house report from its
Valuation Manager, has resulted in the formal endorsement of the
basis for this transaction. The Building Agreement will be
completed shortly. Thus, if the Order is confirmed without delay,
the mechanisms are very likely to be in place to secure the rapid
implementation of the Scheme
6. THE QUALITATIVE BENEFITS WHICH WILL BE SECURED FOR BATH
CITY CENTRE IF THE
ORDER IS
CONFIRMED
Key Commercial Issues
Introduction
6.1 The Council and its development partner (CGNU), together
with the wider retailer/investor community, must have certainty in
order to take decisions about how - and where - new commercial
investment should proceed in Bath City Centre. Over 15 years have
passed since preliminary proposals first emerged for the
redevelopment of the Southgate area, and for nearly 10 years the
Council and CGNU (previously known as General Accident) have been
reviewing how best to secure a substantial retail-led regeneration
scheme in a form which meets both parties' objectives.
6.2 Uncertainty for existing tenants and property owners in and
around Southgate is clearly causing damage to investment decisions
affecting this part of the City Centre. It is also likely to be
adversely affecting the retail shopping environment in the wider
area, as works to individual properties nearby are in some cases
probably being held back, pending greater certainty as to the
timescale for implementing the Scheme. Conversely, once this
uncertainty is removed, there will undoubtedly be a positive
'prompt' to activity on adjoining and nearby properties, following
the confirmation of the Order.
6.3 As I have explained, the Scheme must be implemented on a
comprehensive basis. The existing retail floorspace within the
Order Land is generally not capable of being adapted to meet modern
retailing or shopping needs. This is equally true for many of the
properties with the existing Southgate Centre, as well as for those
in Railway Street (beneath the Council's Ham Gardens car park), in
Dorchester Street and within other parts of the Order Land.
A CHANGE OF IMAGE FOR
BATH CITY CENTRE
6.4 Once construction starts at Southgate, there will be a
significant positive impact on the City Centre's image OS a result
of the new Scheme being carried through. This will have an even
greater positive effect once the Scheme is complete, i e. from
around 2010 onwards. Earlier in my Proof, there is reference to the
position which Bath holds in the national and regional retail
hierarchy. My experience across the UK on similar projects to
Southgate leads me to conclude that other comparable towns and
cities have adapted positively to change especially over the past
10-15 years, by accommodating new floorspace (including large
modern retail stores) and hence such city centres have seen their
status change in the riat~onol and regional hierarchy following the
implementation of similar schemes. Bath has, thus far, failed to do
so - and the Scheme is now seen by many retailers and shoppers as
being 'long overdue', and the foundation from which the city can
gradually regain the position it held in the retail rankings some
10-15 years ago.
6.5 The new accommodation provided within Southgate will
reinforce and help to sustain Bath's retail function for many
decades to come. It is likely that other retail and commercial
investment will be attracted to the City Centre once change at
Southgate is under way. This will, in my judgement, not only be of
benefit to the retail sector, but also bring positive results for
the leisure and business sectors.
6.6 Some changes are already occurring, for example, with
improvements in the leisure sector, e.g. at Kingsmead Square.
Elsewhere, there are other 'sequentially preferable' retail-led
redevelopment opportunities available (and partly in the Council's
ownership) at Avon Street/Bath Quays and at The Podium and Cattle
Market on the edge of the City Centre. Further afield, at Bath
Western Riverside, there may be longer term opportunities for large
scale mixed use regeneration, but before this non city-centre site
can be developed, the city first needs to secure the improvement of
areas (such as Southgate) which will enhance its historic heart.
This, above all, will bring about a change of image, via the
positive endorsements that a confirmed CPO will bring.
THE WIDER SOCIAL,
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS
6.7 The steps that the Council has taken to support the CGNU
proposals for Southgate, through the exercise of its compulsory
purchase powers, will also help to address positively the image of
the City Centre, so as to ensure that it is regarded as a location
which increasingly sees significant new large scale projects
proceed to fruition. In contrast, there have been no major new city
centre developments completed in Bath within the last 10-15 years.
This 'gap' has been particularly marked in the retail sector and in
the heart of the 'prime' shopping area. The last city centre retail
scheme, completed in 1990 was The Podium, but this small project is
on the edge of the prime area, and is anchored by a Waitrose
foodstore. The only other city centre retail development in recent
years was the (failed) Colonnades scheme, which in the late 1990s
was replaced by a BhS store.
6.8 More than this there are also likely to be a much wider
range of positive social, economic and environmental consequences
which will follow, once the Scheme has been completed. These will
be spread across the wider city centre area and beyond, bringing
jobs and other opportunities; spin-off benefits for a wide range of
'related businesses' well beyond the Southgate area; and
significant environmental improvements to pedestrians and shoppers,
at the heart of a highly visible part of the City Centre.
6.9 It is, in summary, a rebuilding project on a scale that will
generate a series of effects, both planned and unexpected, over
many decades to come. These impacts are, in my judgement, entirely
consistent with the Council's strategy, goals and aspirations - as
set out in the original 1988 Bath City Council Objectives, our 1997
Southgate Redevelopment Objectives, the original Policy R3
aspirations from the Adopted Local Plan and the more detailed
'development control' tests which were applied when the Main Scheme
Planning Permission was granted. The benefits of such a massive
investment in the built fabric of a heritage city such as Bath will
be of great importance to its future prosperity, and accordingly
they should not be underestimated.
THE BENEFITS OF CREATING A SUCCESSFUL NEW RETAIL
DESTINATION
6.10 In summary, the main retail-related benefits which now will
flow from the Scheme, if the Order is confirmed are:-
i. Bath will have a new retail destination, with over 37,500 sq
m of new retail floorspace plus nearly 6,000 sq m of additional
space for leisure and restaurant uses. Taken together, this will
provide 'depth' to Bath's linear shopping layout and offer
'critical mass' and be a true 'focus' for both retailers and
shoppers who are seeking on enhanced retail experience in the City
Centre.
ii. Bath will have a new department store, creating a
significant attraction which will be dramatically different from
any of the existing major retail stores in Bath, in terms of
format, convenience for shoppers and general attractiveness. Bath
has never benefited from the drawing power of a modern department
store, although the extended Marks and Spencer (now with well over
10,000 sq m (1 07,000 sq ff) of retail space) offers some of the
qualities of such a store It is particularly important to create a
'deliverable' opportunity now, for a new department store in Bath,
which will have a retail floorspace of around 1 1,000 sq m. Where
new department stores have opened in other towns and cities
(e.g. asingstoke, Solihull and Southampton) considerable
benefits have followed for the local retail economy, with evidence
being found (e.g. from the National Survey of Local Shopping
Patterns) in such cases of significant increases in total retail
expenditure in the centres, and for less 'leakage' of durable
expenditure to other, more distant locations; and also of increased
demand from other retail businesses, keen to open new stores and
shore in the success generated by a major new department store
nearby.
iii There will be new purpose-built retail accommodation in the
heart of the City Centre, on a scale not previously experienced in
Bath since the opening of the original Southgate Centre. In
practice, this will be the greatest change Bath has experienced at
any time since the Second World War. This is partly because the new
development will physically integrate with Southgate/New Orchard
Street and thus also link to established and familiar retail
shoppers routes, as well as to the Proposed Bus Station, the
Railway Station, retained/relocated bus stops and taxi ranks. The
integration with the city's existing fabric of such a large scale
improvement to the shopping facilities, is unquestionably a key
benefit of the Scheme, the importance of which must also be highly
valued.
iv. There will be a wide range of modern, well proportioned and
attractive new retail accommodation. Boots will be relocated into a
new larger store potentially offering up to around 25% more retail
accommodation than the existing premises in the Southgate Centre.
Continuity of trade for this major 'anchor' trader has also been
secured. There will also be a good range of other shop units of all
sizes, with about 12 retail/restaurant units exceeding 400 sq m,
and, in addition, there is scope to create many more 'double' units
elsewhere in the scheme by combining adjoining premises.
v. The scheme will include around 724 car parking spaces in the
replacement car park, including 32 spaces for disabled people and
including some other spaces for rail commuters displaced from the
ramp adjacent to the Railway Station. As others describe, this new
improved car park will, in contrast to the existing Ham Gardens car
park and some other City Centre car parks, be provided in a modern,
well-lit and well managed environment. In addition to the new car
parking spaces, there will also be a shopmobility facility and
cycle parking.
vi. The servicing arrangements, created as part of a
purpose-built solution, partly in the basement, will be
specifically designed to meet the current and future requirements
of leading retailers. These facilities, described more fully by Mr
Corran and Mr Hunter-Yeats, will be in contrast to the generally
outdated arrangements which exist today for the properties which
lie within and adjacent to the Order land.
OTHER
BENEFITS
ARISING FROM THE
COMPLETION
OF THE SOUTHGATE
SCHEME
6.11 The Scheme will also help to prompt or facilitate other
improvements which will bring wider benefits to the City Centre.
The terms of the agreements with the Council mean that this covers
a variety of benefits, including those described in Section 5
above.
6.12 Other wider benefits will flow from the implementation of
the Scheme. These are set out in more detail in the summary of the
Planning Agreement, but in broad terms, these should help to meet a
number of the Council's other policy aspirations by:-
- Securing an enhanced pedestrian environment across a wide area
from Stall Street/New Orchard Street in the north to Dorchester
Street and the new bus/railway stations in the south; and from
Manvers Street in the east to Southgate in the west;
- Delivering a significant improvement in urban design quality
throughout a major part of the city centre in part via public
art;
- Delivering a range of transport enhancements and helping to
fund other long term changes to assist bus movements in the City
Centre;
- Enhancing safety and security for pedestrians via C C N and
other measures;
- Promoting sustainable solutions and implementation
methods;
- Facilitating the restoration of unused parts of the Railway
Station fabric and vaults, while enhancing the use and
accessibility of the Railway Station to all customers;
- Creating the potential for increased tourist expenditure in the
City Centre; and
- Ensuring that the City Centre as a whole functions as a true
regional retail destination
6.13 Many of these benefits respond very successful to the
original policy aspirations set out many years ago, and described
in Section 3 of my evidence. All of them are very clearly in the
public interest.
6.14 All of the benefits outlined above will help to drive
forward the positive perception of Bath as a thriving dynamic city
within a buoyant environment for new business growth. None of these
hove been achievable at any time within the lost two decades - and
only the failed attempts by on earlier owner to deliver a much less
environmentally-sensitive solution at Southgate more than 10 years
ago, offered any prospect of a real change in the City Centre's
retail role.
6.15 Now, of last, a 'deliverable' project is within the city's
grasp, and the City Centre has a real opportunity to secure a
substantial range of benefits which can improve its 'retail offer',
to traders and shoppers alike, in a location which is fully
integrated with the 'prime' retail pitch. In describing these
benefits in this section of my Proof, I hove sought to show that if
this Order is confirmed, there will be significant long term
benefits to the City Centre in social, economic and environmental
terms. The scale of new retail floorspace is also justified and
fully supportable having regard to the available retail
expenditure, and the Scheme will be entirely consistent with the
policies set out in the Adopted Local Plan, the Structure Plan and
the Draft Replacement Local Plan.
7 Conclusions
7.1 Retailing makes a major contribution to the economy and
vitality of the city, and the Council considers it essential that
Bath remains competitive and regains ifs lost status, compared with
other regional centres. The Adopted Local Plan policies seek to
protect and enhance this position and the redevelopment of the
Southgate area is a key foundation stone of the Council's retail
strategy. The Scheme will secure the future vitality of the
City Centre and accords with the retail strategy in the Adopted
Local Plan. It will provide quantitative and qualitative
improvements in the provision of shopping in the City Centre, as
well as other benefits such as residential and other uses.
7.2 Forecasts for the growth in population and in per capita
expenditure on durable goods in Bath's catchment area demonstrate
that considerable additional durable goods floorspace can be
readily supported by the time that the Scheme is due to open.
However, without the development of Southgate, the City Centre's
penetration into its catchment area is likely to continue to reduce
and its relative ranking will continue to fall as it has over the
last decade, as a greater proportion of the available expenditure
has increasingly been leaking to other centres in the region such
as Bristol, Swindon and elsewhere. This decline could potentially
accelerate, especially as Bristol (in particular) is proposing a
major redevelopment scheme [now with Home of Fraser as the
confirmed anchor tenant).
7.3 There is strong unmet demand by retailers seeking space in
Bath and the size and configuration of space required by modern
retailers cannot be met within the existing accommodation in the
City Centre. Retail capacity assessments show that there is a
strong quantitative and qualitative need for a new prime city
centre shopping development as well as demand from a range of
retail groups seeking new space in the City Centre.
7.4 Since the mid 1990's, the Council has supported the existing
hierarchy of the City Centre, district centres and local centres.
As a consequence it has promoted redevelopment opportunities in the
City Centre, focusing as its first priority on the Southgate area,
which it identified as being the key to the future prosperity of
the City Centre. This area is considered to have the greatest scope
for redevelopment, to be potentially the most commercially
attractive and, in view of its central location close to Stall
Street and its established retail 'presence', to provide an
opportunity to add depth and better quality to the prime
shopping area without adversely affecting pedestrian flows.
7.5 The Scheme will therefore address all these issues and will
provide a wide range of public benefits, secured through the
implementation of a public/private partnership between the Council
and the head lessee of the existing Southgate Centre, CGNU. Taken
together, these benefits, derived from the proposals which have
planning permission, make a compelling case in the public interest
for the confirmation of this Order.
7.6 Importantly, as this evidence explains, the time is now
right for the implementation of this Scheme. This means that the
Order needs to be confirmed now, so as to facilitate an early
construction start and phased completion 2008-1 0. Much of the land
assembly required for the Scheme has been put in place by CGNU by
agreement, but the remaining uncertainties over delivery now need
to be removed through the confirmation of this Order.
7.7 With a highly experienced and well-resourced development
partner in place, with whom all the necessary development
documentation has been exchanged, the Council is rightly confident
that the Scheme con be delivered without further delay. In turn,
the Secretary of State can be equally certain that confirmation of
the Order is fully justified having regard to the advice set out in
Appendix A to Circular 02/03. 1 believe that this evidence also
amply demonstrates that, had the Order been mode under the new
provisions of the 2004 Act (and the wording from Circular 06/2004
Appendix A had instead been applicable), the Scheme is also highly
likely to contribute to improving the economic, social and
environmental well being of the Council's area.
7.8 I therefore have no hesitation in recommending that this
Order is confirmed without delay.
