Sainsbury’s Sec 106 Update

Sainsbury’s Sec 106 Update

I have blogged before about the Sec 106 agreement for Penzance here, and what a bad deal it was for the town, in brief, out of the £1,935,315 that was on offer, only £15,000 went to the town directly.

Since this offer was put to the town by a joint team from Sainsbury’s and Cornwall Council, the Town Council has held meetings to discuss the proposals, with a different set of officers from Cornwall Council assisting with the legal aspects and other issues, following these meeting a different set of proposals were agreed to be put forward. At a further meeting between Sainsbury’s and first set of officers, these revised options were put forward.

Park & Ride

Original offer:

 Dedication of Land for 250 space Park & Ride site with access through store site and £1.2m to construct the Park and Ride.

Revised Offer:

Safeguard land for a 250 space Park & Ride site for a period of 5 years and the contribution of £1.2m (BCI Indexed) to construct the facilities either on site or within the area.

Explanation:

This revised offer provides for the facility to be delivered but enables time to establish, as part of a wider transport strategy for Penzance, if the site is the right location and best park and ride solution for Penzance.

Justification/Background: 

The need for a Park and Ride was originally identified in the Penwith Parking Solutions Report 2005; and subsequently in the Aecom Study (2010) and the draft Penzance and Newlyn Framework (2011).

The above is very important, as I don’t think many people realise that when you go along to one of Cornwall Councils “Consultations” and look at the pretty maps, and fill in the loaded questionnaire, what happens next. Your views are added into a report, report accepted by Cornwall Council, that’s it, you have agreed that Penzance needs a Park & Ride, all the sites identified as being possible for development are now development sites, developer comes forward with application, outcry from everyone, but because you did not object at the “Consultation” you have already agreed to it, it’s in the plan. So when you go to a “Consultations” ( very few do) look at what it is you are agreeing to.

Park and Ride facilities encourage more people to make trips by bus.

 In addition to this proposed facility, there is a proposal to consider the feasibility of providing a Park and Ride facility at Eastern Green which forms part of the draft Penzance and Newlyn Framework (2011).

The Park and Ride site would be targeted at longer term parkers such as employees, day-trippers and ferry passengers thus freeing up parking capacity for short term parkers such as shoppers and other users of the town centre.

The siteing of a P&R at Eastern Green could also provide the option of walking or cycling along the beachfront into the town centre. However its final location and introduction should be part of a wider strategy that has considered complementary actions such as: rationalising parking in central Penzance, establishing a residents parking scheme and a public parking pricing strategy designed to increase the sustainability of the park and ride and discourage inappropriate long-stay parking in and around the town centre particularly the impact of employee car parking within the existing residential areas which will be achieved through the draft Penzance and Newlyn Framework (2011).

Pros: 

• The revised offer provides for the delivery of the facility but offers flexibility in its execution.
• It fits well with the proposed Transport strategy within the draft Penzance and Newlyn Framework (2011).
• Opportunities to support other town centre initiatives/developments
• Potential to alleviate existing parking pressure in Penzance
• Replaces ad-hoc and unmanaged parking solutions within the town to enable economic and regeneration benefits.
• Existing scheduled bus services provided by First and Western Greyhound pass the site
• Site offered is accessible and available on the main approach to town
• Development provides new destination which should be attractive to commercial bus operators
• The Section 106 offer allows flexibility over delivery.

Cons: 

• Early implementation would rely on current bus service level which might not meet target users needs
• Will require strong marketing and support to ensure people use it.

Bus Stops & link Jelbert way

Original Offer: 

Contribution of £213,000 to cover cost of constructing bus stops and pedestrian link between store and

Jelbert Way

Revised offer:

Contribution to cover cost of new bus shelters, pedestrian link and real time information. Savings achieved (to be confirmed by Sainsbury’s £150K) from not constructing lay-bys.

Opportunity for funding to be transferred to other town centre mitigation measures.

Bus Fares

Offer: 

Contribution of £75,315 to subsidise reduced fare stage on buses between site and town centre for a 15 year period

Revised Offer:

£75,315 to subsidise a reduced fair stage from Lugvan to Penzance via Eastern Green and return.

This bus route is under threat, part of the proposed Sainsbury development falls within Lugvan Parish. Will enable people from Lugvan/Longrock to access Penzance Town Centre on a subsidised bus route.

Linkage Improvements Offer: 

Contribution of £225,000 to cover costs of linkage improvements on A30

Current Position: Financial offer remains same but Sainsbury’s to revise proposals to focus on changing environment on A30. e.g reduction of  carriageway widths and provision of better pedestrian links along carriageway to enable reduction in speed limit.

Justification/Background: 

Approach to Penzance is widely accepted to be very poor.

The carriageway looks like an urban motorway with little thought or space given to pedestrians and other users. 

The Framework seeks to create a prominent “boulevard” with enhanced pedestrian, cycling and landscaping features to improve the environment and provide a high quality gateway into Penzance enticing visitors into the town rather than past it.

Pros:

• Proposed reduction in speed from 50 to 30mph between Branwell Roundabout and new store roundabout.
• Improved safety and environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
• Initiates the transformation of the entrance to Penzance.
• First phase towards significant environmental and visual improvements.
• Better pedestrian and cycle routes improve sustainability and health.

Cons:

• Funding proposed would not deliver the complete transformational change envisioned for all of the A30.
• Will require further contributions from other development and sources to improve whole length between Bramwells and Chy-an-Mor.

Replacement Signage

Offer: 

Contribution of £20,000 for replacement signage as required by Highways Agency

Current position:

Highways Agency to advise if costs can be reduced and if so any savings to be savings to be transferred to other mitigation measures.

Justification/Background: 

Signage on the A30 Trunk Road currently directs users to the Heliport site. The loss of the service from the site means these signs will need to be modified. This is a must do requirement.

Pros:

• Required to properly inform traffic users

Cons:

• This is a development cost  rather than of wider public benefit

Contribution to Business Improvement District (BID) Set Up

Offer: 

Contribution of £35,000

Revised Offer:

Contribution of £35,000 to be used to enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre through alternative means.

Justification/Background:

 BID identified by Stakeholders as appropriate. 

It may however be beneficial to review all options available to boost the town centre; alternate opportunities need to be allowed for in the audit of how the contribution is utilised.

Pros:

• A degree of flexibility exists over how the £35,000 is used to enhance the vitality and viability of the town centre.
• A BID could be an option
• Intended to be self financing after start up
• Intended to provide a wider impact than a town centre manager function
• Shown to be successful in other Cornish towns
• Led by local businesses
• Other options need to fully explored first to maximise the effectiveness of the whole town centre contributions package.

Cons:

• Funding will have to be identified to a specific activity that is CIL  compliant
• Need to gain support from local businesses.

Subsidised Town Centre Car Parking

Offer: 

Contribution of £152,000

Current offer:

Contribution of £152,000

Flexibility over the timing and use of the contribution to allow the Town to develop a strategy to secure the maximum benefit from the contribution.

Justification/Background:

Most popular element from Stakeholder meeting.

Based on previous events this would allow up to 19 full day free parking events across all car parks in the town centre. Alternate mixes could include a focus on specific car parks such as Causeway Head which would enable the funding the be used on more days.

Pros:

• Popular
• Can significantly boost town centre trade especially if used strategically and in conjunction with other town centre events, activities and marketing
• Within Councils control – has backing from Cornwall Councils Community Transport Manager.

Cons:

• Expensive and will only support  a number of events
• Requires advertising to be effective

Specialist Advice and Support to Penzance Town Council

Offer:

Contribution of £15,000 for Penzance Town Council to promote the vitality and viability of town centre.

Revised Offer:

Contribution of £15,000 remains but scope widened over funding use providing it remains CIL compliant.

Justification/Background: 

Opportunity for Town Council to have access to technical expertise to help develop strategies and initiatives.

Pros:

• Expertise can be invaluable and prevent pitfalls
• Raises and focuses awareness of potential current opportunities

Cons:

• Lack of support from Town Council
• Needs a clearer focus on delivery of practical benefits that will help enhance the town centre rather than focusing on strategies or reports for reports sake.

From the above you can see that this is a major change in the proposals, Sainsbury’s are currently talking to their legal team to ensure that these revised proposals meet all the requirements of a Sec 106 (Cil) agreement, and are robust enough to withstand a legal challenge from other developers.