Agenda item

Councillor Jacobs presented his motion on notice. He said that the project had come to symbolise everything that was wrong with its own relationship with the council. He said that the project was being done to Bishop’s Stortford, not with and had been championed by people who did not live there or were interested in the residents’ concerns. He said that the Delivery Board had met in secret and even the Town Council had withdrawn its support for the project. He believed the project was the reason for the outcome of the local elections in Bishop’s Stortford in May 2023.

Councillor Jacobs said that residents had reasonably assumed that after the election, a change in administration would result in a change of direction for the project and that the administration would take the time to understand the finances and business case to build a better vision for the Old River Lane site. He said that a better vision was still possible as per the steps outlined in the motion. He said this required a change in direction from the new administration and a good start would be a commitment to reassess all capital projects in light of the current finances which was a commitment signed by both parties in the administration in their shared objectives document. He said there had been little transparency in the project previously and the last set of minutes published from the Delivery Board was June 2022. He said that the new membership of the board had not been published nor its meeting schedule. He said that the Board should meet in public with its meeting broadcasted like the council’s committee meeting.

Councillor Jacobs said that development on the site had been promised since 2010 and a few more months of scrutiny was time worth spending. He urged the joint administration to honour its election commitments and do the right thing.

Councillor Estop seconded the motion and said that progress with the development had been tightly constrained by the tender submission which had not been transparent or been scrutinised. The motion pressed for urgent scrutiny of the relationship between the council as landowner and Cityheart as the preferred developer. Councillor Estop said that councillors had now had the benefit of helpful officer briefings with background information which had largely been hidden previously.

Councillor Williamson said that the Old River Lane development was a fantastic project which would deliver real benefits to residents and it was not acceptable that it was being jeopardised by delays. He said that the motion suggested that concerns amongst residents was widespread but questioned where the evidence of this was. He reminded Members that all meetings of the Delivery Board had been minuted and published on the website and disagreed strongly that Members had not had the opportunity to consider the financial and legal implications.

Councillor Williamson added that millions of pounds had been provided by the LEP which added to the credibility of the project. He said that when the Liberal Democrats joined the Council in 2019, they were provided with a position on the Delivery Board which was taken up by Councillor Goldspink and this was a courtesy that had not been extended to the Conservative group this term. He said in terms of consultation with residents, the council had already been through several stages of consultation to help shape the scheme and Members would recall that risks of delaying were made clear in the recent officer briefings. He said that the resolution of the motion would add delays to the scheme with severe financial risks and the Conservatives left a legacy of a project that was ready to go. He said there was nothing to be gained and everything to be lost by not getting on with it.

Councillor Goldspink said she had some sympathy with parts of the preamble to the motion but said she could not support it. She agreed with the first statement that there was widespread concern amongst residents and also that prolonged uncertainty was damaging. She said she could not support point 1 of the resolution about carrying out further due diligence with Cityheart as this would prolong the uncertainty, causing further delay and increasing costs. Councillor Goldspink said she could also not support point 2 either as it would lay the council open to legal challenge. With her objections to points 1 and 2, she said that she could not support the motion.

Councillor Wilson said he was surprised to hear that Councillor Williamson did not think that residents were concerned about the development in Bishop’s Stortford. He said that since the council said that the large theatre element could not be delivered, there had been a lot of concern in the town. He said that there was regret that the URC Hall could not be saved but the council had received advice from a King’s Counsel that it would be dangerous and problematic for it to be saved. He made the point that his role as Executive Member for Resident Engagement was to ensure that the public felt involved and listened to and not feel that they were being imposed on. He wanted to stop that perception and get trust back again.

Councillor Devonshire said that the new administration had not invited the opposition groups onto the Delivery Board which was a lack of transparency and felt that at the very least, the Bishop’s Stortford councillors should be invited onto the Board.

Councillor Wyllie said it was interesting that Councillor Wilson mentioned the URC Hall as it was a Liberal Democrat election pledge to stop the demolition of the hall. He also said it was disappointing that Councillor Crystall had mentioned restoring the trust in local politicians when one party in the joint administration made a pledge and was now backing down on it. He said that Councillor Goldspink sat on the ORL Delivery Board so knew the Hall could not be saved and she should not have promised the people of Bishop’s Stortford something that could not be realised.

Councillor Copley said that if that were true, everyone on the Delivery Board would have known that the URC Hall could not be saved and there were Conservative Members of the Board who went out campaigning for the election also saying that the Hall could be saved. She said that the public were upset at the lack of consultation and Councillor Wilson in his new role will ensure the council was listening to the electorate instead of continually telling them what to do. She said she was pleased to be part of the Board and deliver the project with proper public consultation.

Councillor Goldspink addressed a point of personal explanation in response to Councillor Wyllie’s comments. She said that she was on the ORL Delivery Board and was privy to some information but not about the URC Hall. She said there was a Conservative Councillor on the Board and he proposed a motion at Bishop’s Stortford Town Council to consider buying the Hall to preserve it so he also clearly thought the Hall could be saved.

Councillor Glover-Ward clarified that the membership of the Delivery Board was constituted of the ward members and certain Executive Members. She said that no Conservative councillors held these positions which was why they were not on the Delivery Board.

Councillor Deering said the ORL development was a fantastic project designed to benefit the residents of Bishop’s Stortford and any further delay or dithering would have a huge impact. He said that earlier in the meeting, Councillor Goldspink said the administration were contemplating a delay of nine months and with inflation at 8%, this could equal an additional cost of £900,000. He said the previous administration had left the project on a plate for it to be moved forward.

Councillor Townsend said that parts of the development could be fantastic but he said that most of the concerns comes from residents having been promised a large theatre but this was not possible anymore and so original proposals had been diluted. He said that some aspects of the project were great but times had changed and what was now being offered was not fit for purpose and the administration wanted to deliver a suitable development for the town.

Councillor Swainston said she represented the ward that the development was in and said she could not support the motion which would have financial consequences for the council.

Councillor Crystall said he understood the sentiment of the motion but said he could not support it. He felt that the wording was contradictory. He understood that rapid progress was expected of the new administration but it was also imperative that residents were listened to in the consultation process. He said that the motion did not propose any solutions and within the first few weeks of the new administration, the Delivery Board met and looked at the evidence and impact of different options and made a decision based on the evidence that was available. He said that short pause of six to nine months would allow for genuine and meaningful public consultation. The consultation would be launched imminently, and the retail and housing element of the project had already been submitted as a planning application and would go through the decision making process.  He added that the development agreement was available to all members and had asked for further financial details to be added onto the council’s website.

Councillor Jacobs summed up by saying that the project dated back to 2010 so a few months of further delay to look at the project and decide on reasonable steps moving forward would not be a huge ask. He referred to the council minutes of March 2023 where Councillor Goldspink was recorded saying that it would be foolish to committee the council to 30 years of repayments. He said if it was foolish then, it was foolish now.

At least five Members of the Council requested a recorded vote on the motion under paragraph 3.24.5 of the Constitution. The result was as follows:

FOR

Councillors Clements, Estop, Jacobs, Redfern and Willcocks. (5)

AGAINST

Councillors Adams, Andrews, Brittain, Bull, Burt, Carter, Connolly, Copley, Crystall, Daar, Deering, Devonshire, Dunlop, Glover-Ward, Goldspink, Hollebon, Holt, Hopewell, Horner, Hoskin, Marlow, McAndrew, Nicholls, Parsad-Wyatt, Smith, Stowe, Swainston, Thomas, Townsend, Williamson, Wilson and Wyllie. (32)

ABSTAINED

Councillors Butcher, Cox, Hart, Hill and Williams. (5)

The motion was declared LOST.