|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canal Regeneration Realism |
|
|
|
4th June 2008
See the Green party District councillors report to tomorrow's Full Council meeting below and the news release here.
Introduction
The canal regeneration provides a tremendous opportunity for bringing social, environmental and economic benefits to Stroud District. Council officers and the administration deserve credit for keeping this project alive in the face of severe set-backs. It is also important to be prepared to take risks in order to deliver real benefits, and so the Green Group supports the principle of ‘canal regeneration’.
The benefits accruing from canal regeneration will depend on whether key outcomes are achieved, such as high quality development, provision of affordable housing, a suitable balance of housing and employment land allocation, connectivity to Stroud and Stonehouse town centres, biodiversity enhancement, a high quality multi-user trail etc. Depending on these issues, regeneration could deliver significant benefits, minimal benefit or indeed a detrimental impact overall given the financial risk and ongoing maintenance liabilities.
Clearly difficult decisions will have to be made, and these have been made more difficult by the funding shortfall for Phase 1B, the downturn in the property market and the inflationary effect of global oil prices on the construction industry.
Tameside have provided an independent verification on the cost side of the project. However there has not been a similar verification of the benefit side of the equation – particularly in relation to a regenerated canal that is either landlocked or a spur of the national network. Tameside (6.3.2) notes that “Some of the anticipated outputs/outcomes seem very specific and very ambitious”
Moreover the financial calculations include figures for ‘Development Land Receipts’. We presume that these estimates have been made in relation to some assumptions in relation to the final use of the land, however it is not clear what these assumptions are[1].
Greens believe that Councillors and the public should ‘know what they are getting’ before committing Council Taxpayers money to this project. Although a lot of work has been undertaken on this project by SDC there is little information readily available in the members room, for example GCC proposals for the A46 roundabout or the results of any consultation already undertaken (Capel Mill). This should include transparency over the assumptions made in the calculations for the development receipts.
Key questions
1. What mooring facilities at Wallbridge and connectivity to Stroud and Stonehouse Town Centre have been included in the cost estimate.
2. What standard of multi-user trail has been included?
3. Given that SDC has disagreed with BW’s cost estimates, has it done an independent check on BW’s benefit estimates[2]? Does it know what allowances have been made for a landlocked or a spur canal in the estimation of benefits[3]?
4. It is noted that the project construction costs were calculated in 2005 at £13,900,000, with £4,500,000 allowed for inflation. Have these inflation calculations been revisited since the beginning of 2008 to take into account the new volatility of global oil prices, and the current economic climate?
5. What if it takes 10 years to reach Saul Junction, will SDC be liable for maintenance of the restored 6 mile stretch (Brimscombe to Ocean). Flooding at the Brecon and Monmouthshire canal has left BWB with a £15M repair bill.
In relation to assumptions made in estimating the £7.567 million Development Land Receipts budgeted for Brimscombe Port[4]:
1. What area of land currently allocated for employment has been assumed to be converted to housing? How many housing units is this likely to represent?
2. What area of land within the Brimscombe AAP has been assumed to remain as employment? How many jobs is this likely to represent? How does this compare with the existing number on jobs on these sites? Is this balance in accordance with the Regional Spatial Strategy?
3. What percentage of affordable housing was included in the land value assumptions?
4. Were any additional[5] energy efficiency standards included in the land value assumptions?
5. What % of the original water area in Brimscombe Port was this value calculated on?
6. What allowance has been made for the recent downturn in property values in the receipt estimates?
Green Party District Councillors 3.6.2008
[1] We note however that Tameside expressed concern over whether the ‘higher value’ uses (mainly residential) may currently fall below the required £1.170 million per acre (Tameside Report para 8.4.2)
[2] According to the Partnership website by 2014 the restoration of the Stroudwater Navigation between Stonehouse and Brimscombe Port will:
· Attract 215,000 extra visitors to the area each year (that is 580 per day).
· Create 21 new permanent jobs in tourism
· Generate £531,000 of additional income from visitors in the local economy each year
· Create 13,800m2 of new work space
· Attract £83 million in private sector investment
· Create 600 new permanent jobs in the private sector
· Conserve 30 historic structures, including bridges and locks
· Help protect rare species including bats, water vole and native crayfish
· Create a 10 mile multi-user trail, enabling all members of the community to benefit from this project
[3] The source material for many of these estimates seem to be from fully connected canals.
[4] Council Papers for 5 June Meeting , Appendix 2, p13.
[5] Additional to the current legal minimum and perhaps in line with the aspirations of the District’s Environmental Strategy.
|
|
|
|
Home 
Reports 
