View Single Post
Old Posted Jul 3, 2008, 12:42 PM
T-Man T-Man is offline
The Best One.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Telford
Posts: 4
Since SSC has died again I'll put this here. It may be part of the reason that demolition for the V-Building hasn't started yet...

In February 2000, following a call-in inquiry, planning permission was granted in
outline by the Secretary of State for the Arena Central scheme. It comprises the
redevelopment of the site bounded by Broad Street, Bridge Street, Holliday Street
and Suffolk Street Queensway and land south of Holliday Street. A mix of uses is
proposed and the scheme includes a new tower of up to 175 metres height. All
matters were reserved except for access.
A Section 106 agreement was signed at that time, which required the developers to provide the following:

1. A £5m contribution towards public transport improvements.

2. £1m to be paid upon the implementation of development on the site and two further payments of £2m to be paid on completion of the tower, the confirmation of the Transport and Works Act Order for Metro between Snow
Hill and the site or within five years (whichever occurs first).

3. £50,000 towards a feasibility study of public transport improvements.

4. A commitment to enter into a highways agreement to implement off-site highway works.

5. The provision and maintenance of shopmobility services.

6. The provision of public toilets.

7. Public art to a minimum of £100,000 in value.

8. A scheme of CCTV coverage.

9. A minimum requirement to construct residential floorspace.

The former NCP car park site south of Holliday Street has since been developed with a new residential building. In 2004, your Committee agreed an extension of time for the submission of reserved matters pursuant to the outline consent until February 2010, with the legal agreement essentially unaltered.
In October 2007, members approved the tower reserved matters phase (the V building) and agreed an updated masterplan for the scheme as a whole.


The context for the payment of the planning obligation has changed since 2000. The understanding then, when the scheme was predominantly leisure based, was that the leisure and retail elements would be constructed first, followed by the tower. The developers have stated that the V-tower could now be the first building constructed (although this is now uncertain in that the proposed office building phase fronting Broad Street could now commence first).
In addition, the original masterplan envisaged the construction of new deep basement areas on the site. The updated masterplan approved in 2007 included the retention of existing basement parking areas and the adaptation of existing basement structures. The applicants are considering the possibility of remodelling existing underground structures as an advanced works contract in association with the office plots provided on the Broad Street frontage and to deliver the permanent arrangement for undercroft parking associated with that phase.
Lastly, since the Transport and Works Act powers were secured for Metro in 2005, the terms of the existing legal agreement require the developers to provide a single payment of £5m towards public transport improvements. (It has been agreed that this payment would continue towards the funding of the Gateway Project). This would, they state, have a significant impact on their cash flow arrangements compared to the originally anticipated staged payment process. They also state that there is a strong disincentive to undertake substructure works (which would currently trigger the payment of the transport contribution) so far in advance of securing the financing of the office construction or agreeing office tenants.
The developers have therefore requested that your committee give consideration to a supplemental agreement in respect of the following:
1. Amendments to the phasing of payment of the £5m public transport contribution. This would be on the basis that £1.5m would be payable upon implementation of the ‘first building’, then £2m and £1.5m respectively on implementation of the ‘second’ and ‘third’ substantive new buildings on the site. The first, second and third buildings would be defined as each having a minimum gross internal floor area of 10,000m2. The public transport payment would be index linked from the date of implementation of the substructure works.
2. The exclusion of the proposed substructure works from the definition of ‘implementation works’ in the existing agreement. This would allow those works to be completed without triggering the first payment (The ‘implementation works’ definition in the existing agreement allows demolition,
site clearance, site preparation works, setting out of services and the construction of access roads to be completed without triggering payment).
The request for these amendments is a response to changes in circumstances since the original grant of consent in 2000. Whilst it would result in the receipt of the first payment at a later stage than is required by the current agreement, the £5m overall requirement would still be secured. The revised payment trigger arrangements would also increase the likelihood of this major city centre regeneration project proceeding in the current circumstances.
That the Chief Legal Officer be authorised to prepare and seal a supplemental agreement to that attached to application number C/04238/90/OUT, as amended by application number C/04693/04/FUL to include the following:
1. Amendments to the phasing of the £5m public transport contribution as referred to above.
2. The exclusion of the proposed sub structure works from the definition of ‘implementation works’ in the existing agreement.
From here It'll be decided on the 10th.
Reply With Quote