The Head of Asset Management presented the report of the Director of Regeneration and Place. The report noted that the derelict Grade II listed Hydraulic Tower on Tower Road, Birkenhead was the subject of a proposal from the landowner (Peel) to deliver a Maritime Knowledge Hub, which sought to create a Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) Excellent, industry led, world class centre of excellence for maritime business growth, innovation and sector development. The investment sought would seek to repurpose an existing water-side asset which sat at the heart of the Left Bank regeneration area to create a destination for maritime collaboration, with water access for research and development, testing and training and views across to Liverpool’s iconic skyline. The economic impact assessment contained in the Outline Business Case appended to this report identified that the scheme could deliver net economic benefits of £18.18m, creating 48,750 sq ft of business, teaching and workspace and 275 jobs.

The report noted that the committee had considered the subject matter on 27 March 2024 when it agreed to authorise the Director of Regeneration and Place to further develop the proposals for the development of a Maritime Knowledge Hub on the site of the hydraulic tower with a view to bringing back a more detailed report to a future meeting of this Committee. Members also requested more information on a number of matters including a heritage solution, changing the arrangements around the rent headroom, asset acquisition, loan finance and the creation of an SPV (Special Purchase Vehicle).

The report set out the outcome of this work, specifically, the committee was asked to consider the transaction set out in the report and choose whether or not to agree to the heads of terms. It noted that the ability to proceed with this development was reliant on getting to a position of an agreed Heads of Terms with the Council, an agreed funding model with the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA) which would then be subject to passing the public sector subsidy assessment. In addition, due to a change in circumstances, the developer, Peel, would need to revisit the issues relating to planning consent. Following Committee’s decision there would be a requirement for the LCRCA to consider the matter and consider whether or not it wishes to invest in the scheme.

The Director of Finance added that a lot of work had gone into making the scheme viable and noted that it was an exciting proposition for the area, however the Council’s financial position had to be taken into account, and it could not afford to take these plans forward.

Members noted that it was disappointing that the decision not to proceed was before them, but understood the position the Council was in. They sought clarity on whether development might be considered in the future.

The Director of Finance confirmed that by agreeing the recommendations, it would not mean that development couldn’t be considered in the future, he also noted that Peel would like to look into options for the site in the future. The Assistant Director of Property and Regeneration Investment added that the Council had been in negotiations with Peel for some time and that these would continue.

Resolved – That

1.  The work completed since the previous update to Committee on this matter be noted.

2.  The regeneration benefits that the delivery of a Maritime Knowledge Hub on this site would deliver along with the risks to the Council should the committee choose to progress with the proposal be noted.

3.  The risks to the Council should committee choose to progress the proposal be noted.

4.  The Director of Regeneration and Place be directed to bring discussions on this matter to a close with Peel LLP and not proceed to agree the Heads of Terms.