Agenda item
Grays South Regeneration Project: Civic Offices Update
Minutes:
The Assistant Director Property
and Development began by describing the Grays South Master Plan
which included high quality places to live and visit. He described
that work on this project would include repurposing the Thameside
complex; and a new underpass for the railway line; increased
housing near the town centre; a new Grays Shopping Centre; and the
new Civic Offices building. He explained that the new Civic Offices
building was critical as it set the tone for development and opened
up governance processes, as well as promoting resident self-service
and releasing land for housing. He added that in 2017, Cabinet had
agreed for the proposal to go to the design stage, and the council
had procured a consultancy team to do this. He mentioned that the
hope was for the new plans to be submitted for planning in spring
2019 and would include consultation with South Essex College and St
Peter and St Paul’s Church among others. He felt this was an
elegant building and would be a bold civic presence in the high
street.
The Assistant Director Property and Development then talked through the designs starting with Page
40 of the agenda and the foyer of the new building, which would be
a large, adaptable space primarily used as a reception and customer
services areas, but could also be used as a venue to hold meetings,
display museum exhibits, or launch activities. He added that a
homeless waiting area would be separate from the foyer to maintain
people’s dignity and give some privacy. A café was
also included in the designs which would be for use by residents,
visitors and members of the public. A registry office was also
being included, as this would move registry services from the
Thameside complex, to open it up for cultural development. He then
described the plans on Page 41 and the separation between Members
and the public, as Members would have their own entrance. In
addition, the Council Chamber was laid out so everybody could see
the Mayor, and the public would feel as if they were part of
proceedings. He added that there would be views of the church, and
could be used after hours for use by the public as it was a very
large venue. He then mentioned that Committee Room 1 could also be
used for weddings or other ceremonies, and this could bring in
extra revenue for the council.
The Assistant Director Property and
Development then discussed the plans on Page 42 and how the Mayors
Parlour would hold a sense of gravitas as the balcony would have
views over the river, Grays town centre and the Church.
Additionally, Members would be able to look into the Council
Chamber from the second floor to give a sense of open democracy. He
described how the Council Chamber would frame the Church, and
provide a link to the heritage of Grays, as well as having views of
the river and the square below. He described how the windows would
be glazed so at night people can see in to give a sense of open
democracy, and bring life to the street as residents could see
people working, bringing activity to Grays particularly during
winter time. He felt that the new designs were modern, open and
airy, but could be used for other functions too. The Assistant
Director Property and Development then turned the Committees
attention to Page 47 and other precedents set, and how the final
façade could look, for example the vertical emphasis and use
of brickwork to link to Grays’ heritage through the use of
materials and textures. He then talked Members through the emerging
model on Page 49 and the bold statement the Civic Offices would
make for people exiting the train station, as well as the new
railway underpass modelled. He summarised by stating the Committee
was asked to comment on cost options in Table A.
The Chair opened discussions by stating that the Committee was not
decision making on this item, but simply understanding the plans
and passing comments on to Cabinet to make the decision. He asked
what the project would look like moving forward and what timelines
were in place. The Assistant Director Property and Development
replied that the report, including Committee comments, would be
going to Cabinet in December, before entering into Non-Statutory
Public Consultation in January. It would then go through the
planning application process in Spring 2019, before awarding the
design and building contract in Summer 2019, with the hope to be
on-site at the end of Summer, with construction work lasting
approximately 2 years.
The Chair then outlined the costs in Table B, and stated that he
felt this was a point of principle as it was a decision of where to
invest resources, and asked where the capital could be invested if
not for this project. The Assistant Director Property and
Development answered that this scheme increased opportunity as it
unlocked potential for residential housing in CO1 and unlocked
development at Thameside. He added that the funds had already been
committed for this scheme, and had received previous approval at
Full Council. He commented that the money invested in this would
enhance the community and the reason for the additional capital was
because of issues that arose at the detailed design stage, for
example the slope of 2.6metres between the ground floor of CO2 and
the new building. The Director for Finance and IT added that no
other projects had been refused because of this project, and the
total number of bids would be agreed this year and come back to the
Corporate O&S Committee in January.
The Chair then considered the move of registry services from
Thameside to the Civic Offices and how this move would open
opportunity. The Assistant Director Property and Development
answered that the registry services currently use a very large
space in the Thameside Centre, and if the service was moved,
Thameside could be used as a cultural hub with multi-use
facilities. It would also increase effectiveness and efficiency,
and increase revenue into the council.
Councillor Gerrish asked if the full business case had been
considered as the perception and reality of this project may be
different. He felt that as the council could not deliver all the
services that residents wished for, but could regenerate the Civic
Offices, it may not send the best message to inhabitants in the
borough. Councillor Duffin expanded on this point that
£205,000 was being spent on what was described in the report
as a grand entrance, and residents may see this and the increase in
their council tax and feel they are not getting value for money. He
felt that the Civic Offices regeneration may not matter to
residents and asked if this was a priority for the council. The
Assistant Director Property and Development replied that the
entrance would be simple and bold, and that the offices would be
designed for residents to utilise as a community asset. He wanted
residents to be proud of the new offices, and as a seat for
democracy in the borough. He felt that the visitor experience was
important, not just for trade but as a space for residents that
could enhance the transactional nature of the building. He
mentioned that the team was considering the foyer area being open
24 hours as a study space for students or a s a place for people to work , and used the
example of the Barbican centre which was regularly used by
residents as well as visitors. The Director of Finance and IT
outlined to Members that this was a capital project, and was not
due to the increase in council tax.
Councillor Duffin added that some residents only interaction with
the council was paying their council tax and many people do not
engage with the Civic Offices building as transactions are
completed over the phone or online. He felt that many residents
would not use the new building, and although 24 hours opening was a
good idea, public transport did not run 24 hours to match this. The
Assistant Director Property and Development replied that there had
been a positive channel shift to online and phone interactions with
residents, but the space created would be multi-use which people
could utilise in different ways.
The Chair asked how people would be encouraged to move south bound
over the railway line, as there were currently businesses situated
on the corner which enticed people. The Assistant Director Property
and Development described the anchor tenant model and how people
would move between them. For example, the Thameside Complex would
be the cultural anchor tenant at the north end of the High Street;
the State, the Shopping Centre and Morrisons would be anchor
tenants in the middle of the High Street; and the new Civic Offices
and the college would be the civic anchor tenant at the south bound
end. He mentioned that the new underpass would also be more
conducive to movement over the railway. He continued and stated
that as activities and events would be taking place within the
Civic Offices it would become a place to go and would create draw.
In addition, talks were currently underway with the Thames Clipper
to introduce a river bus stop in Grays, although this was in the
very early stages, but this could draw people through to the
river.
The Chair asked if the CO1 site would also have capability for
communal areas or events. He also felt that as the new building
would primarily be for administration work, although it would be
busy during the week, it would become quieter outside of working
hours. The Assistant Director Property and Development replied that
the CO1 site would be for residential use only. He stated that the
multi-use committee rooms in the new building it would also be busy
outside of working hours, and would generate revenue. He added that
as CO1 was for residential use it would increase footfall through
the town, would support local businesses, and enhance the vibrancy
of Grays. The Chair asked if discussions had taken place with the
current occupiers, which would be displaced because of the new
building. The Assistant Director Property and Development replied
that the council needed to keep its commercial integrity so were
following processes set out by external advisers. He explained that
the council had engaged with the freeholders of the area and
discussions were ongoing, and that leaseholders would be kept
informed through the freeholder. He added there was a commitment to
engage in more detailed discussions before the acquisition of the
land.
Councillor Duffin felt that the designs looked good, but wanted to
ensure this was sold positively to residents as they may only look
at the headlines, rather than all the good points outlined by the
Assistant Director Property and Development. The Corporate Director
Place stated that it would benefit both residents and visitors, and
although they were currently only in the initial phases, during
planning and consultation residents could understand in greater
detail.
A discussion then began on the detail of the Council Chamber
including how many seats would be available for the public; how
residents would be able to speak or present petitions during
meetings; and the layout of the Chamber itself. A debate began
between Councillor Duffin and Councillor Jefferies over whether an
adversarial style Chamber was the way forward, or if a horseshoe
shape design would work better.
The Chair summarised points made during the discussion and stated
the Committee felt concern over the spend of the project and wished
to see the full business plans, including how it could benefit
residents, services and the borough as a whole. He stated that the
Committee had given detailed feedback on the design of the Council
Chamber and the benefit to residents as a venue.
RESOLVED: That:
1. Commented on the cost options set out in Table A
2. Commented on the report and the Cabinet recommendations which
are:
1.2.1 Note the designs for an extension to CO2 presented
at Appendix A of the report
1.2.2 Agree the cost options set out in Table A at 3.4 below and
agree capital of £1.8m in addition to the £380k agreed
previously
1.2.3 Authorise officers to submit the following:
i. a full planning application for an extension to CO2 based on the
emerging designs contained in appendix A
ii. And an outline planning application for up to 120 new
residential units on the CO1 site
1.2.4 Authorise officers to begin a procurement process for the
appointment of a main building contractor
Supporting documents:
- Grays South Regeneration Project: Civic Offices Update, item 22. PDF 83 KB
- Appendix 1 - Grays South Regeneration Project: Civic Offices Update, item 22. PDF 2 MB