Agenda item

From the Cabinet, 12 January 2016

Further to Minute 105 of the Cabinet, the City Council considered a report of the Executive Director of Place, which sought approval of the City Centre Area Action Plan for a period of public consultation.  The Plan was attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

At a time when Coventry’s population continued to grow, its city centre would continue to be a focal point, but must respond in order to stop a period of decline, primarily within its retail offer. This was placed in context through the Council’s Shopping and Centres Study (2014), which identified Coventry as the country’s 13^th biggest city but with a retail centre ranked 58th.  As such, there was a clear disparity between the City’s population and the quality of its retail offer.

In recent years however, significant investment in city centre public realm improvements had complemented substantial investments in job creation such as the new Severn Trent head offices and hi-tech business at the University Technology Park.  Likewise, more people were now living in the city centre following delivery of new homes over the last 10 years.  Coventry University also continued to grow, not only in terms of its student numbers, but also its national and global reputation and the size and quality of its campus.

The Area Action Plan looked to build upon these recent successes and provide a platform for the future to help guide and deliver new developments and investment.  It included well known and established proposals such as Friargate, City Centre South and the completion of Belgrade Plaza, but also introduced new ideas and aspirations.  For example, new residential led regeneration around the area north of Corporation Street and Fairfax Street, continued growth of the Technology Park, new approaches to city centre parking provision and longer term aspirations for the regeneration of the northern half of the City’s retail area.

In addition to new buildings, the Area Action Plan provided a fundamental focus on urban and landscape design, environmental quality, protection of historic assets, green infrastructure, water courses and new routes and linkages helping people move around the city centre and its adjoining areas in an easier and more coherent way.  These aspects would all be fundamental in continuing to improve the overall feel and safety of the city centre and the quality of its built environment.

The development of an Area Action Plan was therefore essential to help provide a clear overview of how all these different aspects could work together to improve the city centre whilst shaping and directing future development.  The Cabinet noted however, that the Area Action Plan could not define exactly how specific sites would be developed, but it could set clear markers and provide a firm steer as to how development could be brought forward.  This provided a blueprint for the city centre, allowing it to respond to the rapid change that it was expected to face in the coming years.

In this context, the Area Action Plan had been developed in two specific sections. The first would consider overarching policy guidance focused around the four key areas of city centre heritage; the built environment; the natural environment; and accessibility.

The second section would provide a more detailed overview of the Principal Areas that have been identified around specific characteristics, two further regeneration areas to the north of the city centre, focused around Bishop Street and Fairfax Street; and an area of planned stability with small infill opportunities to the south of the city, focused around Warwick Row.

The version of the Area Action Plan included at Appendix 1 of the report was the Publication Draft, which meant it was the version of the plan the Council believed was suitable to submit for public examination.  It had been developed over a number of years and had full regard to a wide range of consultation responses, a robust evidence base and the Council’s responsibilities under the statutory Duty to Cooperate.

The Plan had been prepared in accordance with relevant National Legislation and Planning Regulations, which meant prior to submission the plan must be published for a statutory period of 6 weeks public engagement (referred to as a period of representations) which would focuse on the Plans “soundness” and “legal compliance”. This would commence on 18^th January 2016.

It would however be necessary to consider all representations to the plan and potentially propose minor amendments prior to its submission to the Secretary of State for Public Examination.  In order to avoid the need for a further report to full Council and the delay to the process that would result, it was intended that the Council delegate responsibility for this to the Executive Director of Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Business, Enterprise and Employment, the Chair of the Business, Enterprise and Economy Scrutiny Board (3) and the Chair of Planning Committee. This delegated power would also include a special meeting of Scrutiny Board 3 and the Planning Committee in March 2016.  In the event that significant issues were highlighted with the Area Action Plan that would affect its legal compliance or overarching soundness and result in the need for major amendments, a further report would be submitted to Cabinet and Council for their consideration.

The following amendment (in italics) was moved by Councillor Blundell, seconded by Councillor Crookes and lost:

Recommendation 2) delete the word “approves” and insert the word “note”;

Recommendation  3) After the words “Authorise a period of” delete the words” six weeks” and insert the words “three months”. Delete the word “statutory”, then delete the remainder of the sentence. Insert the words “to include all aspects of the City Centre Area Action Plan”;

Recommendation 4) Delete part of the first line from “Delegate Authority” up to and including “Chair of Planning Committee” and insert the words “Bring back to Full Council”. In the 5th line, delete the word “minor”. In the 5th line after “amendments to the Area Action Plan”, delete the words in brackets “(where this is necessary to correct any errors and aid clarity)”.

Recommendations now to read:

The Council is recommended to:

1)  Consider the responses received to the City Centre Area Action Plan – The Preferred Approach, which are referenced in Para 3.1 and 3.2, summarised in Appendix 2 and contained in full on the Council’s website;

2)  Note the "City Centre Area Action Plan – Publication Draft (2011-2031)" document;

3)  Authorises a period of three months public engagement to include all aspects of the City Centre Area Action Plan;

4)  Bring back to Full Council to take full account of the responses received to the period of public engagement, propose amendments to the Area Action Plan and submit the plan to the Secretary of State for aperiod of Public Examination.

RESOLVED that the City Council:

1.  Note the responses received to the City Centre Area Action Plan – The Preferred Approach, which are referenced in Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2, and summarised in Appendix 2 (page 719) of the report submitted and contained in full on the Council’s website.

2.  Approve the "City Centre Area Action Plan – Publication Draft (2011-2031)" document.

3.  Authorise a period of six weeks statutory public engagement beginning on 18^th January 2016 and ending on 29^th February 2016.

4.  Delegate to the Executive Director of Place, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Business, Enterprise and Employment, the Chair of Scrutiny Board 3 and the Chair of Planning Committee, to take full account of the responses received to the statutory period of public engagement, propose minor amendments to the Area Action Plan (where this is necessary to correct any errors and aid clarity) and submit the plan to the Secretary of State for a period of Public Examination.

In respect of the above, a recorded vote was required in accordance with Paragraph 18.3 of the City Council's Constitution. The Councillors voting for, against or abstaining in respect of the recommendations were as follows:

For: 32

Against: 10

Abstentions: 0