Minutes:
The Committee considered the undernoted report.
“1 Relevant Background Information
1.1 At its meeting on 21st January 2011 the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee were advised of an interest from Crusaders/Newington and a third party to develop a sports/leisure complex at the North Foreshore. The Committee agreed that officers explore the proposals further and seek Expressions of Interest in this regard.
1.2 A public advertisement was thereafter made on 4 March 2011 inviting Expressions of Interest for Commercial Sports/Recreation uses for a site comprising up to 23 acres. At a subsequent meeting of the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee on 19 August 2011 Members were advised that two submissions for commercial sport/recreation use had been received prior to the closing date.
1.3 The Expressions of Interest stage was the first stage of a site disposal process and was largely intended to explore the nature of interest in the market. The Expression of Interest had indicated a site up to 23 acres would be available but the submissions received indicated that a larger site footprint would be required. It was also evident from the submissions that much more detailed information would be required from the developers in order to demonstrate that the proposed schemes were deliverable, financially and commercially viable and suitable for the environmental conditions of the site and that the developers have a proven track record in the delivery and operation of large scale regeneration projects.
1.4 At the 19th August 2011 Committee it was agreed to move to the second stage of the process and publicly advertise a Developer’s Brief seeking Commercial Leisure and Cultural uses for a defined site. Three site size options were put to the Committee ranging from a 23 acre site to a 39 acre site and it was agreed that in order to fully test the private sector interest that a 39 acre site be made available.
1.5 The Development Brief was subsequently advertised both locally and in Europe with a closing date of 21 November 2011. However no positive responses were received as at the closing date. One of the original developers who had responded to the Expression of Interest advised that he had decided not to go forward. The second party who had responded to the Expression of Interest was Paul Durnien- China Sun Asia Pacific Ltd; Crusaders FC & Newington FC (Durnien). They had proposals for a major sports complex including a stadium for Crusaders Newington together with a digital film post production facility. However they failed to submit a bid in response to the Developers Brief.
1.6 Members were advised, at the meeting of the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee of 9 December 2011, that Durnien had subsequently firmed up the proposals and now required a larger site than that proposed in the Development Brief. Durnien had advised that they had not responded to the Development Brief as they wanted to avoid the risk of a bid for a larger site being contested. They did however say that they remained committed to their scheme and had requested a meeting with the Council and relevant ministers from DCAL, DSD & DETI to explore options. Members agreed that as the Development Brief exercise had been completed the offer of the meeting should at least be taken up as there was potentially substantial investment and job creation associated with the proposal.
1.7 Various meetings and exchanges of correspondence have taken place from this date. The Council met with Durnien / China Sun Asia Pacific Ltd on 19 January 2012; 2 February 2012 and 15 March 2012 to discuss proposals and to request that more detailed information be forwarded to the Council.
1.8 The Council then met with DCAL on 5 April 2011 to discuss proposals and to agree on the best way on taking these forward from a joint Council/DCAL perspective. DCAL had advised that they had met with Mark Langhammer and associates and had received a written proposal from them. They also advised that the Minister Carál Ni Chuilin had agreed in principle to be the lead department in the project and that the Minister was also keen to have sight of the Council’s in depth due diligence on the proposal when completed. It was agreed that due to the nature of the proposal and to avoid duplication in the due diligence exercise that a round table meeting be convened of the relevant government departments, to include DCAL, DETI and DSD and the Council. The Council wrote to Durnien after this meeting to advise him of this and also reiterating the need for due diligence information and requesting that this information (as set out in the previous Development Brief) be provided.
1.9 The subsequent roundtable meeting was held on 29 May 2012 and attended by DCAL, DSD, DETI and the Council. DCAL advised again at this meeting that the Minister had agreed in principle to be the lead department but that she had requested further due diligence information. It was also advised that DCAL had twice written to Mark Langhammer asking for due diligence information but had not received any formal response at that stage. There was a general consensus of support at the meeting for the project if a more robust proposal was submitted and that the government departments, working with the Council, would endeavour to make the project happen should a robust proposal be submitted. It was agreed that the Council would contact Durnien again requesting this information for due diligence.
1.10 A subsequent meeting took place on 12 June 2012 between the Council; DCAL and Durnien / China Sun Asia Pacific Ltd. Durnien advised at this meeting that they were still working up the detail of their project and proposed to set up a new Belfast Limited company and a special delivery company for the site. They also indicated they had funds available for the project and that they would be happy that the land is released on a phased basis. They said they had made inroads into appointing a team of specialists including a commercial agent who would subsequently contact the Council. They further advised that they were well advanced with the indoor arena proposals and had started on the sound stage designs on the media side. Both the Council and DCAL reiterated again the need for more detail and for the due diligence information previously requested.
1.11 Whilst a subsequent meeting did take place on 4 July between the appointed commercial agents and the Council it was in very general terms as the agent had limited details at that time in relation to the proposals.
2 Key Issues
2.1 In meetings with Durnien / China Sun Asia Pacific Ltd they say they remain committed to the project and are currently working up their proposals. However, despite various requests for more detailed information, which Durnien / China Sun Asia Pacific Ltd have said they will provide, this has not, to date been forthcoming.
2.2 There would appear to be a general consensus of support from the relevant government departments (DCAL; DSD; DETI) for the project if a more robust proposal is submitted but these departments have also reiterated the need for more detailed due diligence information in order to properly assess the deliverability and viability of the project.
2.3 The previous Development Brief set out information that was to be provided as part of the developers submission, including financial and funding information, detail of the development proposals, proposed financial return and wider economic benefits; planning, technical and environmental
considerations and risks etc. This is required to assess the viability, deliverability and suitability of any proposal. This information has not, to date, been provided and in the absence of such information a proper evaluation of any development proposal for the site cannot be undertaken.
2.4 Given that the site size requirement may differ from that as originally advertised; together with the time lapse from the date of the last public advertisement of the Development Brief, and the need to try and time limit the return of the requested information, it is recommended that a new Development Brief is publicly advertised setting out a site that may be available (on a phased basis); the due diligence information required and a clear end date for the receipt of this information. It is also recommended that the Brief sets out that the disposal of the land will be on a phased basis, which will be dependent upon completion of development within agreed timescales. It is also proposed that the detail of the revised Development Brief, particularly in relation to the due diligence information being requested, would be agreed in advance with the relevant government departments.
3 Resource Implications
3.1 Financial
The financial implications of any proposed development are unknown at this stage and will be dependent upon the outcome of the Development Brief process.
3.2 Human Resources
Staff Resource, primarily in Property and Projects and Legal Services, to progress.
3.3 Asset and Other Implications
The development of this site represents a major regeneration opportunity for Belfast and has the potential to create significant economic and social benefits
4. Equality and Good Relations Considerations
4.1 None at this time.
5 Recommendations
5.1 It is recommended that Members agree to proceeding with a revised Developers Brief for commercial leisure and cultural purposes for a site at the North Foreshore as outlined above, on the basis of clearly defined time limits for receipt of developers submissions. Further reports will be brought back to Committee following receipt of any submissions.”
After discussion, the Committee adopted the recommendations.
Supporting documents: