Agenda and minutes
Not all meetings are broadcast. The meetings that will be broadcast are as follows: (a) Council; (b) Cabinet; (c) Dover Joint Transportation Advisory Board; (d) General Purposes Committee; (e) Electoral Matters Committee; (f) Governance Committee; (g) Planning Committee; (h) General Purposes Committee and (i) Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
For those meetings that are being broadcast there will be a link to view the live broadcast under the ‘Media’ heading below. Only those items not restricted on the agenda will be broadcast.
Guidance on how to watch live broadcasts of meetings.
The link to view a recording of a meeting that was broadcast can be found on the Council’s YouTube channel (@doverdc)
PDF 147 KBVenue: HMS Brave Room - Council Offices. View directions
Contact: Kate Batty-Smith Democratic Support Officer
Note: Please note that some of the information provided has been redacted as the Council considers the information is commercially sensitive and therefore falls within the exemption contained within Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 43 provides an exemption from disclosure if to do so could prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including that of the public authority. In applying the exemption contained within Section 43 the Council must consider the public interest test, that is, the public interest in disclosure against that of withholding the information. The Council feels the public interest is in favour of the development progressing and that future negotiations are not affected. The Council therefore feel the public interest is better served by not disclosing this detail. Where information is withheld in the minutes and agenda, it is marked with the phrase 'text redacted'.
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: Councillors R S Walkden and C J Meredith commented that, as members of both the Project Advisory Group (PAG) and the Planning Committee, they were mindful of the potential conflict that could arise when any planning application for the St James's area development came before the Planning Committee. The Solicitor advised that they were not necessarily precluded from participating in consideration of the planning application, provided they approached it with an open mind and were willing to consider fresh arguments put forward at the Committee meeting. |
|
|
Dover Town Centre - Revised Proposals · Background – Previous Scheme · Design Philosophy – Revised Scheme · Layout and Form · Master Planned Approach · Key Issues · Programme · Any Other Business
To consider the attached report of the Director of Regeneration. Minutes: The Chairman explained that the PAG's role was to act in the interests of the Council as landowner of the development site.
The Director of Regeneration presented the report and referred Members to plans on display, advising that a good deal of progress had been made since the Council meeting of 3 November 2010 at which the arrangement with Bond City Limited (BCL) had been extended. Working with the architects, BCL had developed proposals for discussion with working groups involving key stakeholders such as English Heritage, Kent County Council and the Council's Planning team, whose input on development management and conservation issues, amongst other things, had been sought. Restaurateurs and retailers had also been consulted in order to ensure that the proposals were commercially viable, functional and marketable. Stakeholders had indicated their strong support for the scheme. Design and transportation were key considerations, as was the ability of the scheme to meet the requirements of the retail market. This process would, therefore, involve a number of iterations as design and commercial requirements evolved. Members were advised that there had been substantial changes in the residential capabilities of the area, with the Local Development Framework Core Strategy designations at the Waterfront and Connaught Barracks.
Mr Lyons from Lyons Sleeman Hoare advised that the previous scheme had received planning consent, but reservations had been expressed about the design. To address these, the architects had drawn upon an historical plan of the area from 1937. Some aspects of the old street pattern, as well as street frontages and names, had been incorporated into the scheme in order to create a more sympathetic environment for the listed buildings.
The new development moved away from one large anchor retail unit to several smaller ones, with around eight shops proposed along the Townwall Street frontage. The amount of residential accommodation had been reduced to enhance the viability of the scheme. [Text Redacted]. There would be a landscaped town square with castle views for restaurant, leisure and family use. In keeping with the road's heritage, a new town wall with planting would be recreated on Townwall Street. The aim was to have focal buildings with character that would entice passing traffic to stop.
[Text Redacted] It was anticipated that a planning application would be submitted in June 2011, with the aim of a resolution to grant planning permission in September 2011. Work was expected to begin in mid-2012 and be completed by the end of 2013, if an uncontested Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) process was followed (albeit that there would still be a road stopping-up process to follow).
The Director for Development and Public Protection advised that reactions from two key agencies – English Heritage and Kent County Council - in relation to the emerging revised approach were encouraging, but progression of the timetable would be subject to external factors, such as the CPO relating to Burlington House and legal agreements. The CPO could take up to 12 months to complete if objections were received. With ... view the full minutes text for item 2. |