This report is to follow.
Decision:
(1) To endorse the Stage 2 Shaping Guildford’s Future report and approve proceeding to Stage 3.
(2) To approve the transfer of £3.070 million from the provisional to the approved capital programme to enable the Council to deliver Stage 3 of the programme.
(3) To authorise the Joint Strategic Director of Place, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, to finalise Heads of Terms, Memorandums of Understanding, Terms of Reference, negotiate, sign and complete legal agreements relating to the Shaping Guildford’s Future programme.
(4) To authorise the Joint Strategic Director of Place, in Consultation with the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, to enter into contracts and legal agreements connected with the Shaping Guildford’s Future project as may be necessary at reasonable costs within the approved budget.
(5) To authorise the Joint Strategic Director of Place, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, to review all governance arrangements in relation to the Shaping Guildford’s Future programme.
Reason(s):
· To support the delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan (2021-2025) priorities, by delivering a proactive strategy to address the economic and physical constraints facing the town.
· To ensure that governance arrangements around the Shaping Guildford’s Future programme remain fit for purpose
Other options considered and rejected by the Executive:
OPTION 1: To not endorse the programme and cease work, thereby delaying the delivery of a strategy to support the economic regeneration of Guildford town centre which requires flooding remediation currently blighting major sites. However, it is likely that without such a strategy, sites will remain undeveloped, or development will come forward in an uncoordinated manner and fail to address the substantial existing constraints; and deliver the overarching objectives and greater benefits achievable through a masterplan approach. If the project is abandoned, there would be £2.1m “sunk costs” to be written off.
OPTION 2: To commit the secured SCC grant funding to progress with the Environment Agency Flood Alleviation Scheme feasibility work only. However, without the progression of the wider masterplan work, sites will remain undeveloped, and it would be challenging for the Council to apply for additional grant funding to complement EA funding to support the delivery of the FAS. The broader development potential associated with the flood alleviation work would also not be realised.
Details of any conflict of interest declared by the Leader or lead councillors and any dispensation granted:
None.
Minutes:
Appendix 6 to the report (Stage 3 – Deliverables) which had been marked “to follow” in the report had been published the day before the meeting. A copy of Appendix 6 was attached to this Supplementary Information Sheet.
Before this matter was considered, a presentation was made to the Executive delivered by the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, Councillor John Rigg; the Joint Strategic Director of Place, Dawn Hudd; the Regeneration Lead Officer, Michael Lee-Dixon; along with private sector partners Andreas Markides and David Leonard Architects. A copy of the presentation had been circulated to all councillors earlier in the day.
The meeting heard from the Lead Councillor for Regeneration that the Shaping Guildford’s Future (SGF) project was an holistic initiative designed to address the key challenges facing the town centre in terms of housing need, areas of flood risk, traffic congestion and opportunities for commercial growth. Over the past three years the Council had undertaken work to develop the masterplan including consultation with the community and stakeholders with the aim of reinvigorating the town by ‘opening up’ the riverside; improving alternative, sustainable and affordable transportation, as well as making the centre a more attractive place to live, work and visit. The masterplan included several separate workstreams that needed to be developed in a simultaneous and complementary way.
It was noted that, during recent years, major commercial partners had withdrawn from Guildford and in some circumstances had left buildings that were owned by the Council itself, such as Liongate. Guildford was described as not currently competitive enough to neither retain nor attract new business due to a combination of a lack of appropriate housing and commercial space. There was a lack of starter homes, bedsits, studios and 1 and 2-bedroom affordable homes. The masterplan could deliver up to 2,600 such homes within a 15-minute walk to the town centre with all its amenities and no need for car ownership in contrast to other greenbelt developments.
The masterplan strategy had identified four ‘zones’ in the town centre which might be delivered separately to one another as opportunities arose and with differing development timescales over a five to twenty-year period. It was noted that the masterplan could deliver the holistic benefit to the town that ad-hoc development could not. The Council itself owned much of the freehold land within the zoned areas but would work with partners to deliver its objectives. The Lead Councillor for Regeneration stressed that the Council had a duty to protect the greenbelt areas of the borough by firstly maximising the potential of brownfield sites, especially in the town centre.
The Joint Strategic Director of Place, Dawn Hudd emphasised the positive attractions of Guildford as the county town with a unique character and a GDP contribution of £5.5 billion per year. The town was an attractive place to live and work, but the risk of stagnation had to be addressed. The Guildford economy had been flat lining for the past 5 years and it was important to take action to ensure this did not continue. It was important to address the health and wellbeing of residents, climate change impacts and the importance of biodiversity and the environment. Equally important was to build communities and not just houses. Those matters could only be addressed within a strategic plan that built in resilience, quality and sustainability. The masterplan was supported by extensive community and stakeholder consultation. Further development of the masterplan would be undertaken by the Council with the support of private sector partners. It was noted that collaboration was key to success and the Council would be working with other public sector bodies including the Environment Agency, National Rail, National Highways and Surrey County Council to move the masterplan forwards. Surrey County Council had appointed a designated officer to support the SGF Masterplan. The masterplan supported all the Council’s corporate priorities.
Regeneration Lead Officer, Michael Lee-Dixon set out the scale of the consultation response which ran into many thousands through feed-back via various media. The responses were generally in favour of the Council’s proposals and of ‘opening up’ the riverside, positive leadership with clear strategic ambition was also welcomed. The consultation feedback report was included in the appendices and available on the Shaping Guildford’s Future website.
There had been extensive research into the potential strengths and weaknesses of the town centre undertaken in both Stage 1 and 2 by private sector partners JLL and the University of Surrey. A major commercial driver was affordable housing to buy or rent within a ten-minute walk of the train station. In addition, commercial units close to public transport links and amenities at a price that could attract a variety of suppliers was a key requirement. Co-working and flexible office was a rising demand following the pandemic and it was noted that a new town centre business district could accommodate a quarter of a million square feet of commercial office space. The pressure on retail following the pandemic was recognised and it was suggested that Guildford could nurture independent retailers and experience related offers. Again, it was noted that with regards to hospitality contracting following the pandemic, Guildford had a strong independent sector that should be encouraged. In terms of leisure, research indicated there was demand for a new four-star hotel and it was noted that budget operators had recovered well following the pandemic. Hotel demand would follow and not lead other development. Regarding traditional employment space there was strong demand and low vacancy rates in Guildford. The research outcomes report was included in the appendices and available on the Shaping Guildford’s Future website.
David Leonard set out the vision for place. It was noted that several successful locations had utilised heritage and waterfront settings to key advantage such as Richmond, Cambridge and Amsterdam. A vision for Guildford could include new waterfront settings amongst new public squares and greened areas. The challenges facing Guildford included flooding, congestion, road traffic accidents, lack of town centre greenspace, lack of a civic square, limited cycle and pedestrian connectivity and lack of brownfield sites. Addressing those challenges would be strategic with supporting policy to create the reality in which the vision of place could be realised. Guildford had a history of river flooding which affected around 160 homes and businesses. The meeting heard that the Council had entered into a collaboration with the Environment Agency to tackle the existing flood vulnerability and to create defences to protect any new development. An outline business case would be in place by the end of 2023. Flood protection had been set out on a zonal basis across the masterplan.
Andreas Markides set out the sustainable transport proposals for the masterplan. It was noted that a high quality of living attracted economic growth. Reducing the dominant congestion in the town centre was a key element of the masterplan. The transport strategy had three key objectives; to facilitate town centre growth, to reduce carbon emissions and to improve health. Guildford had the highest levels of road traffic accidents in the county and was the sixth most congested town centre nationwide. A wide range of data from destination surveys had been collected to inform the traffic modelling exercise. It was noted that 44% of those travelling to the town centre by car came from just 2.6 kilometres away. Should those travellers walk or cycle then a large amount of traffic would be removed. There were three options presented for consideration in terms of redesigning the gyratory. All three had the same objectives, to remove the one-way system, ‘opening up’ the river to the town centre, removal of certain lanes used by cars in favour of buses and cycle lanes. Finally, all three options would retain access to the key destinations in the town which were the centre itself, the bus station and the train station. To achieve those outcomes, strategic elements such as ‘park and ‘ride’, park and walk’, active travel, road charging mechanisms and traffic diversions. In conclusion, the masterplan proposals would need ongoing support from Surrey County Council and the public.
David Leonard developed the concept of the ‘sustainable movement corridor’ in terms of linking the town centre to the north, south, east and west of the town by bicycle and on foot which included the proposed new town squares and pedestrian bridges. Many of the routes would be focused on the ‘Guildford Greenwey’ which was a greened route following the course of the river. The ‘Greenwey’ would link the four new development zones, Millmead and Millbrook, Town Wharf, Bedford Wharf and Woodbridge Meadows. These zones would be protected from flooding. The proposals for each zone including new housing, squares and greening were described and set out in the accompanying slides. The social and community benefits, especially of a new town square for Guildford, were set out.
The presentation concluded with the next steps which were the Stage 3 deliverables. The funding required to achieve the strategic objectives would need grant funding. The role of the Council would be as an enabler working with private sector engagement to support the delivery of the masterplan over the coming 20-years. A more detailed area action plan would be developed by the Council’s Planning team including retail and employment studies informed by emerging changes following the pandemic. The area action plan would focus growth in the areas where walking and cycling could be prioritised. The Stage 3 timeline would run from October 2022 to December 2023 to run in parallel with the development of the Environment Agency’s business case.
The report before the Executive sought an endorsement of Stage 2 of the Shaping Guildford’s Future (SGF) Masterplan Strategy and authorisation to proceed to Stage 3. Stage 3 required the transfer of provisional capital funding to approved; closer working relationships and agreements with partners and other agencies; collecting the evidence base for planning policy to reach a point at which external grant funding could be applied for.
There was a discussion regarding the detail of the public consultation undertaken to date in terms of the assumptions within the masterplan that development locations as set out would be acceptable to local people. The Leader of the Council commented that in due course there would be a Regulation 18 and 19 consultation process of the masterplan that would drill down to that level of detail. It was noted that future markets, national policies and other external factors could not be foreseen and could affect the plans as set out currently.
The Council was currently working to develop an Economic Development Strategy for Guildford in addition to the masterplan and it was confirmed that both pieces of work would inform one another and be completely aligned.
The meeting heard that any housing built as a part of the masterplan would be counted as a part of the delivery commitment in the Local Plan and was not additional to that number. There was concern expressed about water and electricity provision for any new development. It was considered that this challenge was likely be a matter for the developer of the site, rather than the Council.
Members of the Executive expressed support for the masterplan with recognition that it was a vision of what was possible rather than a picture of what would eventually happen given inevitable constraints that would arise. The importance of governance around the project was noted and it was suggested that during Stage 3 there should be a review of governance, an identification of key milestones at which progress could be measured and a calculation of the risk to the project. The Leader of the Council was content to add a recommendation to include this proposal. Consequently, the Executive
RESOLVED:
(1) To endorse the Stage 2 Shaping Guildford’s Future report and approve proceeding to Stage 3.
(2) To approve the transfer of £3.070 million from the provisional to the approved capital programme to enable the Council to deliver Stage 3 of the programme.
(3) To authorise the Joint Strategic Director of Place, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, to finalise Heads of Terms, Memorandums of Understanding, Terms of Reference, negotiate, sign and complete legal agreements relating to the Shaping Guildford’s Future programme.
(4) To authorise the Joint Strategic Director of Place, in Consultation with the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, to enter into contracts and legal agreements connected with the Shaping Guildford’s Future project as may be necessary at reasonable costs within the approved budget.
(5) To authorise the Joint Strategic Director of Place, in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Regeneration, to review all governance arrangements in relation to the Shaping Guildford’s Future programme.
Reason(s):
· To support the delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan (2021-2025) priorities, by delivering a proactive strategy to address the economic and physical constraints facing the town.
· To ensure that governance arrangements around the Shaping Guildford’s Future programme remain fit for purpose