Decision details

To consider the report of the Leader of the Council recommending approval for the advertisement of the loss of open space and entering into new leasehold arrangements associated with an expanded Mayflower Park resulting in a net gain in open space.

(i)  That the Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services be authorised to:-

a)  Negotiate and enter into any necessary legal agreements or other legal documentation following consultation with the Senior Manager City Development to acquire land associated with an extended Mayflower Park.

b)  advertise proposals for the appropriation and/or disposal of Public Open Space land respectively under S.122 and S.123 of the Local Government Act 1972; and

(ii)  That the Director of Environment and Economy, after consultation with the appropriate Cabinet Member, be authorised to agree the exact area of land to be disposed of in (b) above.

1.  Creating a waterfront destination is important to the ongoing renaissance and economic well being of the City.  The Royal Pier Waterfront (RPW) development is critical to the aim of reconnecting the City Centre with its waterfront. 

2.  The RPW proposals involve the redesign of Mayflower Park and some development in the existing park, which is designated as Public Open Space (POS).  The Council is required to advertise proposals for the appropriation of POS under S.122 of the Local Government Act 1972 and/or for the disposal of POS under S.123 of the Local Government Act and to consider objections before development could take place.  The proposals also include a significant extension to and reconfiguration of the park.  The extended Mayflower Park will be larger than the existing, by approximately 1 hectare, resulting in no net loss of POS. 

1.  Not advertise the disposal of POS – rejected because without undertaking this process the Council would not be able to progress the RPW proposals in conjunction with its development partner Morgan Sindall Investments Ltd (MSIL).

2.  Not acquire the extended park - rejected because this would mean that a proportion of the park would not be in the Council’s ownership which would affect the Council’s ability to manage and maintain the overall park.