Agenda item

[To consider a report on the Wolverhampton Investment Prospectus – First Phase Delivery Plan]. 

[Report is marked: To Follow]. 

The Chief Executive gave a presentation on the Wolverhampton Investment Prospectus – First Phase Delivery Plan, a copy of which is attached to the signed minutes.   

The Cabinet Member for Inclusive City Economy gave a statement of his views on the prospectus.

A Board Member asked if the building of St George’s Church would be retained and not demolished.  The Chief Executive responded that it was a grade two listed Church and would be retained within any scheme.  The building added character to the City.

A Board Member referred to the importance of family homes in the City, it was more than flats which were needed in the City.  She wanted more detail on the City Centre West proposals.   She referred to the importance of a new hotel in the City.  If Broad Street Car Park was replaced, she suspected an underground car park might be constructed.  She raised a concern that this could impact on elderly people attending the Theatre.  Some people did not like to use underground car parks.   

The Chief Executive agreed that a balanced housing offer was required in the City.  The Canalside South Scheme by Legal and General was bringing forward 400 units with a mixture of tenures and uses.  The Royal Hospital site would also be a mixture of accommodation.   Distinct quality that was reflective of the housing market in the City was what the Council was aiming to achieve.  The detail would be developed with the developers and they were seeking Cabinet approval to proceed with the approach.  He agreed that more hotel accommodation was required in the City and he believed there was a strong demand.  They were conscious of a need to deliver a balanced car parking model in the City and if Broad Street Car Park was used for other means, it would require parking elsewhere to compensate for the loss.

A Board Member referred to the visit she had attended to the National Brownfield Institute.  She commended the land which had been flattened and was ready to build on.  She did express concern in relation to the type of panelling that she had been shown would be placed on the housing for the Canal Side South modular scheme.  She suggested a pre-planning meeting to discuss the aesthetics of the housing.  The Regeneration Manager responded that there was a pre planning stage coming up.  The Council’s planners would be challenging L&G (Legal and General) on the uniqueness of the product and ensuring that there was a high quality outcome as part of the process. 

The Cabinet Member referred to the excellent relationship the Council had with the architects L&G.  L&G would place on any facade that the Council asked within the limit of the modular design.  On the matter of hotels he referred to the fact that many hotels were a franchise scheme.  It was possible in the future that the Council could ask a developer to build a hotel and then franchise it out.  The Council were keeping their options open.  The Prospectus gave them the ability to enter discussions with private investors and other Government bodies. 

A Board Member referred to the Raddison Hotel on Broad Street in Birmingham which was built and operated by Birmingham City Council.  He wanted the Council to have the same vision.  He thought the Court House in Wolverhampton would be an excellent place for a four-star hotel in Wolverhampton and would stimulate the night time economy and encourage other hotels to be built. 

The Board Member referring to the presentation he had received during the site visit to the National Brownfield Institute commented he had offered advice to the architects, which was to visit the Estate Agents to see what the market wanted.  He felt there was a disconnect between what the architects were proposing for the Canal Side South Scheme and the residents of Wolverhampton.  Flats were not necessarily what the people wanted.  He believed the site could take 240 Homes but not the 380 homes planned.  He was also concerned about the lack of car parking in the proposals.  He requested the Regeneration Team consider these points.

The Cabinet Member responded that the Council did not own the Court House and there were no proposals for a compulsory purchase order.  The proposed housing sites were in or around a transport hub.  He wanted to encourage people to use public transport who lived in the City and for those that wished to visit the City from outside the area.  L&G were offering mixed tenures.  The job of the Council and the Prospectus was to bridge the viability gap.  He spoke in favour of hotels being built in different places in Wolverhampton.  He would take on the points the Member had made about the style of housing being proposed in Canal Side South. 

The Vice-Chair commented that implementation of the prospectus was key.  Without delivery it remained just a delivery plan.  He cited the shelved West Side project as an example.  The West Side project had shown that a residential element was essential to a significant City development scheme.  He believed the current hotel offer in the City was presently inadequate.  He expressed concern that the CBRE report had questioned the viability of a hotel being able to be built by the private sector alone.  Hotel projects had overrun and had gone way beyond original budgets in other places in the country.  New hotels were high risk and he questioned why the Council were not looking to improve the existing offer of hotels.  He referred to the Britannia Hotel in Wolverhampton which had once been the jewel in the Crown in the City, but was now in a much reduced state.  If the Council acquired the hotel there would be an opportunity to turn it into a luxury hotel. 

The Chief Executive responded that there was demand for a new hotel in Wolverhampton.  The way that hotels were funded though was the problem, which caused the dilemma, which meant there was a viability gap.  This either had to be bridged or a time had to be waited for when the situation had changed.  The Council did not own the Britannia and there was no basis for the Council to do a compulsory purchase order.  Britannia Group were not willing to sell any of their hotels in the UK at the present time.  The operating model the Britannia Group had was viable for them as a company, although he did not find it pleasing for the City.  Whether the hotel could be converted to modern day standards was a question which had not been answered as no work had been undertaken to address the question. 

Members referred to the need to bridge the viability gap for hotels by working with partners.  The benefits to the local economy of a newly reopened Civic Halls could not be fully realised without a new hotel.

A Board Member referred to a friend who could not find a hotel room anywhere in the City for less than a £100.  He believed new hotels in the City would help stimulate competition and bring prices down.  He made reference to what the Council had done with the i9 and the i10 for Office space and wanted to see this repeated for hotels. 

A Board Member spoke in support of the L&G modular building design in contrast to views held earlier in the evening.  He did not believe they were designed for people who needed to park cars on the drive.  He felt they were designed for younger commuters.  Solutions were vital to ensure the plan could be delivered. 

The Chief Executive understood the frustrations Members had communicated about delivery.  Time was needed and there were difficult market circumstances at the present time.  The plan was however focused on delivery.  He referred to the success of the i9 and i10 in the delivery of Class A Office space, which no developer had considered before the Council involvement.  It had set the benchmark for Office rates in the City.  This meant any future Office space would be viable as there was now a benchmark.  He hoped private and public funds could unlock a new hotel scheme which would stimulate future hotel development.  He felt due to the demand it was not as risky as some people felt. 

A Board Member referred to empty office space in the City Centre and in particular the Mander Centre, which the West Midlands Pension Fund had vacated to occupy some of the space at the i9.  He asked why this office space was not being utilised.  Whilst he understood that the Council would have to fund some of the projects he stressed it could not be unlimited funding. 

The Chief Executive responded that the plan was enabling discussions to take place with partners, it was not committing funding and certainly not blank cheques.  It was enabling the work to take place, which would ultimately lead to a set of propositions that could be put forward to the Council.  The West Midlands Pension Fund had moved as their office space in the Mander Centre was not fit for purpose.  There was a challenge in how the space was repurposed when it was no longer suitable for its original use of Office space.   

The Cabinet Member added that there was potentially opportunity to turn the office space at the Mander Centre into residential or even a hotel. 

A Board Member stressed the need to move forward and mitigate risk where the Council was able to do so.  Some risk would be needed in order to move forward for a vibrant City.

Resolved: That the comments by Scrutiny Board Members be noted for future consideration by the Executive at the appropriate time.