The Chair advised the Committee and the witnesses that were in attendance that, at its meeting held on 14 October 2010, the Cabinet had considered a report of the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, which informed Members of the current position with regard to The Sail Project in West Kirby and sought approval to conclude negotiations with the proposed developer. The report set out the background, the present position and contained additional information.

After a vote, the Cabinet (minute 160 refers) –

“Resolved (6:3) – That Cabinet recognises that:

(a)  the primary purpose of the Sail Project has always been the re-provision of the existing Sailing School in a high quality building that responds to the regional and national importance of the Marine Lake;

(b)  Carpenter Investments have worked diligently to develop a scheme that would deliver this outcome through enabling development consisting of a high quality boutique hotel on the Dee Lane Car Park, which would bring in excess of £5m of inward investment and create over 50 jobs;

(c)  economic circumstances beyond the control of either Carpenter Investments or the Council would lead to a revised development scheme which created a significantly increased net loss in car parking in the vicinity; and

(d)  the development has become highly controversial within the local community, which would lead to Carpenter Investments being asked to develop a Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

Cabinet considers that;

(a)  despite the endeavours of Carpenter Investments there appears to be little realistic prospect of a resolution of the car parking issues to our satisfaction;

(b)  making further efforts to resolve this issue may be likely to delay the possible improvement of the Sailing School;

(c)  in these circumstances, it would not be reasonable or appropriate to expect Carpenter Investments to expend further monies on striving to resolve this issue; and

(d)  similarly, it would not be reasonable to require Carpenter Investments to refine and implement its Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement Plan.

Accordingly, the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management be instructed:

(a)  to express the Cabinet’s sincere appreciation and thanks to Carpenter Investments for their considerable commitment to the Sail Project since 2007, but to inform them that the Council will not proceed further with this development; and

(b)  following consultation with the Director of Technical Services and the Director of Corporate Services, to report back to a future Cabinet meeting with options for securing the future enhancement, or retroversion, of the Sailing School, without involving any material net loss of public car parking in the vicinity.”

The Cabinet decision was subsequently called in by the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Labour Group, Councillor S Foulkes and Councillor P Davies.

The Chair referred to additional documentation that had been circulated, which included three Cabinet reports (9 April, 23 April and 24 September 2009), two of which were exempt and had been redacted by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management. In addition, he provided to Members copies of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

Members are asked to consider whether they have personal or prejudicial interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state what they are.

Members are reminded that they should also declare, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, whether they are subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.

Members were asked to consider whether they had personal or prejudicial interests in connection with any item(s) on this agenda and, if so, to declare them and state what they were.

Members were reminded that they should also declare, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, whether they were subject to a party whip in connection with any item(s) to be considered and, if so, to declare it and state the nature of the whipping arrangement.

Councillors Gilchrist, Kenny and Keeley commented that, although they did not have an interest in the call-in item, they were each Members of the Planning Committee; consequently, should a planning application be presented to a future meeting of the Planning Committee in relation to The Sail, they would take no part in the Planning decision process.

No further declarations were made.

The Leader of the Labour Group, Councillor S Foulkes, set out the grounds for the call-in of the Cabinet decision, that –

·  This project was set up to secure a world class sailing school and supporting facilities for the West Kirby Marine Lake, and the Hotel development on the Dee Lane Car Park is the enabling development to achieve that goal.

·  The need for that world class sailing school and supporting facilities for the Marine Lake has not changed and there is no other source of finance available now, or likely to be in the future, given the current financial climate.

·  This project has taken considerable time to develop, is in the last stages before Heads of Terms for the Development Agreement are finalised, and the developer remains committed to the project.

·  Another quality hotel in Wirral would be of benefit because, as the Merseyside Partnership acknowledges, “it would attract investment and bring significant benefits to the tourism offer in Wirral”. This is particularly the case with the advent of the Open Golf.

·  Any development, particularly in this current economic climate, will require a level of compromise in order to achieve the primary goals.

·  There is still time to consider the best way of mitigating the loss of those parking spaces and accompanying traffic issues, provided that any investigation is set in the broader context of the interests of West Kirby as a whole. However, that time has been denied to officers and to the Developer by the Cabinet decision to abort the whole project at this late stage.

·  A rejection of the project at this late stage sends out a very negative message to potential investors in Wirral who may be wary in the future of investing time and money into development projects that can be cancelled in this arbitrary way, and who may believe in future that Wirral politicians are prepared to allow a small and vocal minority, resistant to change, to over-ride the interests of the wider community.

He emphasised his view that the project would be to the benefit of the area, at a time when more needed to be done to help sustain seaside towns such as West Kirby. He suggested that the developer should be allowed the opportunity to work with Council officers in order to address issues of traffic and car parking and he indicated that, in the current economic climate, the Council would be unlikely to be able to fund the redevelopment works that were required to improve the sailing school.

Mr D Brewett – Carpenter Investments

Mr Brewett commented that he had worked on The Sail Project, with Council officers, since 2004. He set out the proposed investment which, in addition to the provision of a new sailing school, would see a first class restaurant on the site. He maintained that the development could be achieved without a significant net loss of parking spaces and commented that the offer was well in excess of the value of the car park. Although shocked at the decision of the Cabinet, Carpenter Investments remained committed to the project, which would create fifty new jobs, and he expressed the view that the opposition to the scheme was from a significant minority.

In response to questions from Members in relation to parking issues, Mr Brewett indicated that the provision of increased on-street parking could be explored further. However, such issues would be addressed within a traffic impact assessment that had not yet been required by the Council. He stated that the small scale of the hotel meant that it was not economically viable to proceed with semi-underground parking that had previously been considered.

Jonty Meisner – Lakeside Orthodontist

Mr Meisner advised the Committee that his business was in a residential location adjacent to the site. He believed that only a vocal minority of residents were opposed to the scheme and he referred to the benefits of such a scheme to West Kirby in terms of civic pride and raising the profile of the town.

The Cabinet Member for Economy and Regeneration referred to a petition in relation to parking problems that had been considered by the Cabinet in 2009. In response, Mr Meisner commented that his business overlooked the Dee Lane car park, which he believed to be significantly underused. Although the opinions expressed were his own, Mr Meisner also stated that most people he had spoken to in the local area were very positive and were fully aware of the benefits of The Sail Project.

Dan Meigh – Head of Drama, Calday Grange Grammar School

Mr Meigh indicated that, in addition to being employed at Calday Grange Grammar School, he had a business in West Kirby and also lived in the area. He believed there to be significant local support for the project and incredulity that the Council did not intend to proceed with the development. He had also sought the views of young people, who were also very supportive and saw the project as a real opportunity for the area

Sarah Beer – Consultant for Carpenter Investments

Mrs Beer advised the Committee that, in 2008, she had undertaken the, as yet, only published consultation exercise in relation to The Sail project. Although it had originally been marked as exempt by the Council, it had subsequently been released following a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. She had sent invitations to 8000 local households to the consultation event at West Kirby Concourse and, out of some 1200 attendees, approximately 600 questionnaires had been completed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

At 8.45pm, the Committee stood adjourned for ten minutes

Councillor J Hale – Ward Councillor (Hoylake and Meols)

Prior to giving evidence to the Committee, Councillor Hale expressed his belief that the redacted exempt reports, referred to by the Chair in his opening remarks, should have been made available to members of the public without redaction. In response, the Chair advised the Committee that he had sought the opinion of the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, with regard to this matter and had complied with the advice that he had received.

Councillor Hale commented that the value of the sailing school was less than the value of the land that was to have been leased to the developer if the loss of parking charges and rental income was taken into account.

He referred to the consultation event at West Kirby Concourse and advised Members that he had inspected every response that had been completed. He noted that there was not an option in the document for respondents to signify their approval separately to the Hotel development and/or the redevelopment of the sailing school. He noted that there were a significant number of positive returns, which contained a comment that they were in favour of the sailing school but not the hotel development.

He had always considered what was right for West Kirby and had never regarded the issue as a personal matter. He referred to previous reports that had been considered by the Cabinet, before the preferred developer had been identified and he claimed that the Director of Technical Services had identified parking as a significant issue.

Councillor Hale referred also to meetings of the West Wirral Area Forum, which had always been very well attended. Although a formal consultation exercise was not undertaken, he commented that views expressed at Area Forum meetings and in response to informal consultation undertaken by ward Councillors, suggested that 95% of people were opposed the Sail project. Councillor Hale believed he was acting for the majority of his electorate and indicated that having actively campaigned on that basis at the local elections in 2008, his majority had not been affected.

Councillor Foulkes commented that the project had always been about an enabling scheme, to raise finance to upgrade the sailing school. He stated that there had always been an acceptance that there could be an impact on parking spaces in order to achieve the wider aims of the project. In response, Councillor Hale stated that because of the impact on parking he had objected to the scheme from the start at the proposed location. He was not prepared to agree to any loss of parking spaces at Dee Lane because, he believed, to do so would be damaging to local businesses.

Michael Maynard – Representative of the Lake Users Group

Mr Maynard advised the Committee that although he did not live in the local area, he used the marine lake, as a windsurfer, on a regular basis. The Lake User Group did not wish to express an opinion in relation to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Councillor Foulkes referred to the report of the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management, which had been considered by the Cabinet on 14 October 2010. The report confirmed that Carpenter Investments had not been required to produce a full transport assessment before signing a development agreement. It would be required as part of the statutory planning process and would provide information on a range of issues including traffic, parking mitigation measures and operating measures.

He expressed the view that the transport assessment would address the issues raised and commented that the scheme represented good value for money. He believed that the Cabinet had acted hastily, without being in possession of all of the relevant information and he stated that it had been wrong for Members to question the character of the developers, who had an excellent record at the Hope Street Hotel/London Carriage Works Restaurant.

Councillor Foulkes expressed concern that the decision of the Cabinet, and the way in which it had been informed, would send a negative signal to other developers who were considering investment locally. He commented that the consultation undertaken by Mrs Beer had highlighted strong local support for the scheme and he believed that it should be given every opportunity to succeed.

Councillor Hodson commented that the current situation dated back to 2003, when consideration was given as to how best to upgrade the sailing school, through the involvement of a private sector partner. He stated that the issue of car parking had always been a prime concern of local residents and that it had never been satisfactorily addressed by the developer. He indicated that although Mr Brewett had stated that there were many possible solutions, he had not submitted a proposal to the satisfaction of the objectors. He confirmed that there had been no contact from the developer with local Councillors and suggested that 95% of local people, as well as lake users, remained opposed to the scheme.

Councillor Hodson stated that local people were not opposed to change, but he indicated that a loss of parking at Dee Lane Car Park would impact throughout the town and would have a detrimental impact on local businesses. In addition, increased public parking on the spur car park would hinder marine lake users.

The Chair referred to the consultation that had been undertaken in 2008, in relation to the proposed development and indicated that it had largely been based on concept documents and plans. He had a clear understanding of the idea of ‘enabling development’ that would allow/fund improvements to the sailing school and he assured the Committee that he had in no way prejudged the issue.

Councillor P Davies reiterated that Carpenter Investments had not been asked by the Council to produce a transport assessment and that it was a wrong decision for the development to be dismissed by the Cabinet on the basis of it not being done. He believed that, out of fairness to the developers, who had invested considerably in the project, it was incumbent upon the Council to allow proper assessments to be undertaken before a final decision was made.

On a motion by Councillor P Gilchrist and seconded by Councillor P Davies, it was –

Resolved (6:4) (Councillors Keeley, Kearney, McCubbin and Williams voting against) –

(1)  That this Overview and Scrutiny Committee believes that the Cabinet should re-examine the issues, paying particular attention to

(a)  the need for a thorough public consultation;

(b)  a rigorous transport assessment of car parking and travel issues.

(2)  That having considered the balance of whether the perceived benefits of the proposal outweigh the perceived drawbacks, on balance, the evidence received suggests an enabling development remains the most appropriate way forward.

(3)  That, in addition Members have noted the storage and changing issues raised by the Lake Users and is concerned that these be addressed.