Agenda item

The Executive Director for Growth and Regeneration introduced the item to Members and said this was an enormous project.  Officers had earlier referred to a Joint Delivery Team (JDT) for Temple Quarter and it was confirmed that Colin Molton was currently leading the Team on an interim capacity through the West of England Combined Authority (WECA).  The Delivery Team was made up of representatives from Bristol City Council and Network Rail.  This discussion was about what type of delivery structure model the JDT might become and this decision was essential for what would be the duration of a multi-decade regeneration project.

James Graven from Deloitte attended the meeting and took Members through the published paper that summarised some of the JDT’s early work and provided insights on various delivery vehicle models that have been adopted across the UK to promote urban regeneration.  The case studies fell into five broad areas which were summarises in the published paper.

It was said that there were pros and cons to each individual model, and it was important to get the choice right, however it could take years to set the delivery vehicle up once it had been decided. 

Officers confirmed that the work at Temple Meads Station was already underway which included the enabling works to Temple Island, roof works and a number of other extensive areas, however there were still some decisions to be made about the University Campus.  A recent Cabinet paper reported that a grant application for the Station entrances had been submitted to central Government.  

A Member asked which of the models in the paper would deliver at pace and would be the most efficient at moving things forward.  Officers said that the JDT required a model that allows them the powers to get on with the work.  But an important factor to consider was how much confidence the private sector would have in the model that’s chosen which increased the necessity to select the correct model for Temple Quarter.

The Director added that there were other fundamental issues to consider, such as planning powers but ‘red lines’ could be established on what is and isn’t desirable such as whether the Council want to continue being the landowner.

The Chair commented that this was looking at a lot of different options, levels of flexibility and weighing up the risks and it was therefore quite difficult for Members to get their heads around. 

James Graven said it was a difficult challenge providing confidence to the private sector in terms of the ability to take the programme forward with certainty through potentially different political cycles.  Planning powers were an important local matter but there would be no need to give them up. 

A Member who said they had previous experience of living within and working with these types of structures said he thought that what had been discussed so far had been useful and demonstrated why there was a process to assess what the different pros and cons were.  However, he still didn’t think there was enough information being provided even with the previous briefings and the Member visit that had taken place last year.  In his view there needs to be more of a process for Members to engage in to agree and determine what they are trying to get out this in terms of the objectives and outcomes.  He said a number of key issues were still unclear for example whether there were risks of public land being handed over to private companies or what the appropriate governance structure was or how different perspectives would be brought together or and balanced or accommodated. 

The Director said he recognised a lot of what was being said about the impositions of past development vehicles but this was different and was about Bristol wanting to do something.  This was the start of the conversation and the Cabinet report that had been referred to earlier in the meeting included a ‘vision document’ which explained how the Council is committed to consultation and engagement.  Over the next twelve months there would be a series of discussions with communities and businesses which had already started in St Philips Marsh the previous week with a ‘round table’ discussion with the Cabinet Member.  In the meantime, there was no need to rush into deciding which model was the correct one.

The same Member said he hoped scrutiny would have a continued and collaborative role but asked to what extent were the four bodies involved sharing or giving up their private interests?

David Carter Director of Infrastructure at WECA was invited to comment on what had been asked. In his view this was more about drawing together and pooling all of the interests of the JDT and having multilateral discussions so they don’t have a situation where they are all having to negotiate separately.  This was not so much about giving things up but more of centring together to get them completed even more quickly.  That was partly the point of having the JDT. 

The Chair said she somewhat agreed with what had been said by another Member about there not being enough ‘meat on the bones’ for Members to comment to any great extent. She said it wasn’t that information was being kept from Members but rather it was as had been described still ‘ground zero’.  She added that it may appear the Council is giving something away but it is easily overlooked what it is getting back in return for that.

Colin Molton confirmed the next stage for the JDT was to go through the different models and do a sift for a short-list of options to investigate further and this would take place in May.

It was agreed by all that when the process of sifting and short-listing had been completed this would be brought back to the Member Working Group in the first instance for further discussion before it comes back to the Commission.  

The Chair thanked everyone for their time and contributions.

Resolved:

• That this topic be added to the Commissions work programme in the new municipal year