Agenda item

Finance and Economic Development – (C-055-2020-21) - to provide an update on progress of key regeneration sites.

The Cabinet consider the options set out within the report and:

(1)           Agreed to the inclusion of the Revenue and Capital implications associated with these schemes within the Cabinet’s Budget and Medium-Term Financial Plans and their Capital Programme proposals for Council; and

(2)           Agreed that subject to Council’s agreement of these plans, to instruct officers to enter detailed negotiations with Qualis and Places Leisure for the delivery of these proposals, with the final form of the agreements to be brought back to Cabinet at a later date for agreement.

The Finance and Economic Development Portfolio Holder introduced the report. This was for a proposed Leisure Centre and a Multi-Storey Car Park in Epping, replacing the aging 1970’s sports facility in the Town which was now approaching the end of its useful life.  Both the sports facility and the car park were critical, in Planning terms, to unlocking the other regeneration sites within the Town.

As the redevelopment of the sports centre site would result in a net deficit in parking spaces, the overall regeneration proposals required the existing surface car park in Cottis Lane to be replaced with a Multi Storey Car Park. 

He pointed out a typo in paragraph 1.4 of the report which should have said Waltham Abbey and not Waltham Forest.

The Portfolio Holder noted that originally it was to be for Qualis to build it and own it and potentially operate or sell back to the council. The report however suggests that we progress negotiations with both Places for Leisure and Qualis to see what would be the best deal we could get to get the sports centre built on a build contract rather than Qualis taking ownership and us having to pay Stamp Duty going in both directions.

Councillor S Kane agreed it was not good having to pay two sets of stamp duty and supported talking to Places for Leisure as well as Qualis, as they had done a very good job for us over the last few years and they were the professionals in this field. Councillor Philip said it was sensible and prudent in avoiding an unnecessary tax burden. It was worth highlighting that a design had gone in with the planning application as Qualis had been working closely with Places for Leisure on this.

Councillor Patel agreed that it was right that they were liaising with Places for Leisure on this, they had done good work for us and were the experts.

Councillor Heap citing paragraph 5.4 of the report asked if Qualis failed, would the council have to bail them out. He was told that was a decision that we would have to make at the time. They were unlikely to fail but it may be a risk. If they did, they would have to come back to the council and we would see what we could do.

Councillor Wixley was interested in the sports centre. He was impressed with the plans shown but noted that Loughton Football Club was not among the user groups listed. Could they be added to the list?  Also, if the car parking was to be free, the disadvantage would be that the non-centre users would also park there. He was told that the list of consultees would be reviewed and noted that car parking would not be free, this was a decision that has yet to be made.

Councillor Jon Whitehouse leant towards the same model as used in Waltham Abbey and Places for Leisure had the experience in doing things like this. He was pleased to see the sports consultants’ report and wanted to know what type of sports hall would be built, would it be large or small. And what sites did the bit about the land title apply to and what were the issues. Councillor Philip replied that this report did not go into detail on the construction, that was for another time. This was also not the place to say we would definitely go with Places for Leisure as we had a second option with Qualis and had to negotiate with both to see what the best offer was. He did not know the detail of the title issues and would get back to Councillor Whitehouse on this. Mr Small added there were some right of way and access issues on Hemnall Street and Bakers Lane.

Councillor Brookes was excited about having a new pool in Epping, but disappointed that plans for a steam room had been dropped. Also, could a small multi-function room be added to the plans.

Councillor Janet Whitehouse referred to the loss of car parking income, did we have enough spaces planned for this centre with the cinema, leisure centre and householders. Was the research adequate that came up with the number of carparking spaces.  Councillor Philip said that it all depended on where the car park ends up after it was constructed. If the council purchased the car park from Qualis then we would retain the income, if it stayed in Qualis’ ownership then we would lose the income. However, as we would have loaned them the money to construct the car park, the they would be paying us interest on that loan. Those two sums are very similar and did not make much of a difference.

Councillor H Whitbread was pleased to see the progress being made. She asked if the issue coming to the full council in February would delay work on the sports centre. She was told that would depend on the result of that meeting.

Decision:

The Cabinet considered the options set out within the report and:

(1)           Agreed to the inclusion of the Revenue and Capital implications associated with these schemes within the Cabinet’s Budget and Medium-Term Financial Plans and their Capital Programme proposals for Council; and

(2)           Agreed that subject to Council’s agreement of these plans, to instruct officers to enter detailed negotiations with Qualis and Places Leisure for the delivery of these proposals, with the final form of the agreements to be brought back to Cabinet at a later date for agreement.

Reasons for Proposed Decision:

This paper considers the options and cost implications and set out a recommended approach, including that provision be made within the Council’s future and long-term revenue and capital spending plans for the Council.

Other Options for Action:

Not to proceed with the proposal.