Decision - Princess Promenade Refurbishment (Phase 2) - proposed removal of Upper Banjo and cathodic protection of extended Lower Banjo deck, and original Eastern Promenade structures

Princess Promenade Refurbishment (Phase 2) - proposed removal of Upper Banjo and cathodic protection of extended Lower Banjo deck, and original Eastern Promenade structures

Decision Maker: Council

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Decision:

That the Executive Head Resident and Visitor Services be instructed to invite tenders and let a contract to demolish the upper deck and widen the lower deck of the banjo together with providing cathodic protection to the structural elements of the banjo and eastern promenade. The contract to commence in October 2012 to allow the bango to be open for summer 2013.

Reasons for the decision:

The optimum cost and environmental solution to the defective condition of the upper banjo structure is its complete removal, since such demolition is financially efficient and the loss of the upper tier is considered to return uniformity to the waterfront outlook of Torquay Outer Harbour.

The extension of the lower deck completes the walking surface to link more harmoniously with the sunken garden grounds and removes a sometimes unsightly view for users.

The specification for the cathodic protection system is that it should be fit for purpose for a defined 50 year design life, within principle elements of maintenance at 25 years.

Alternative options considered:

Alternative options were set out in the submitted report.

Implementation:

This decision will come into force and may be implemented on 25 July 2012 unless the call-in procedure is triggered (as set out in Standing Orders in relation to Overview and Scrutiny).

Information:

The first phase of repairs to the eastern promenade and banjo were completed in June 2012. Following the decision of the Council on 31 October 2011 to provide capital funding for phase two to include repairs to the banjo as a whole, a revised design for the repair works had been proposed. The proposed works include the removal of the upper deck of the banjo, together with its supporting columns and the widening of the lower deck, which would improve the environment of Princess Promenade, Torquay.

The exposure of the lower deck is anticipated to bring about a reduction in anti-social behaviour which might otherwise prevail were the lower deck to continue to be enclosed by the upper deck structure.

The Mayor supported the recommendations of the Council made on 12 July 2012, as set out in his decision above.

Interests and Nature of Interests Declared:

None.

Publication date: 17/07/2012

Date of decision: 12/07/2012

Effective from: 25/07/2012

This decision has been called in by:

Councillor Darren Cowell who writes 1. The members are concerned about the apparent lack of community consultation prior to the mayor’s decision regarding the future of the ‘Banjo’ site. 2. What evaluation was made of the potential benefits between a private sector development of the ‘Banjo’ site and a council funded solution? 3. What was the content of the presentation to the Conservative Group, prior to full Council’s consideration of the issue, that was not shared with the other member groups? 4. Why was there no reference in the report to Council (Report for Agenda Item 8, Council meeting held 12 July 2012) to ongoing discussions with promoters of the Ocean Circle development? 5. What is the mayor’s view of the absence of a view from Environment Agency? And, similarly what is the mayor’s view of English Heritage’s refusal to endorse the scheme? "
Councillor Julien Parrott who writes 1. The members are concerned about the apparent lack of community consultation prior to the mayor’s decision regarding the future of the ‘Banjo’ site. 2. What evaluation was made of the potential benefits between a private sector development of the ‘Banjo’ site and a council funded solution? 3. What was the content of the presentation to the Conservative Group, prior to full Council’s consideration of the issue, that was not shared with the other member groups? 4. Why was there no reference in the report to Council (Report for Agenda Item 8, Council meeting held 12 July 2012) to ongoing discussions with promoters of the Ocean Circle development? 5. What is the mayor’s view of the absence of a view from Environment Agency? And, similarly what is the mayor’s view of English Heritage’s refusal to endorse the scheme? "
Councillor Mike Morey who writes 1. The members are concerned about the apparent lack of community consultation prior to the mayor’s decision regarding the future of the ‘Banjo’ site. 2. What evaluation was made of the potential benefits between a private sector development of the ‘Banjo’ site and a council funded solution? 3. What was the content of the presentation to the Conservative Group, prior to full Council’s consideration of the issue, that was not shared with the other member groups? 4. Why was there no reference in the report to Council (Report for Agenda Item 8, Council meeting held 12 July 2012) to ongoing discussions with promoters of the Ocean Circle development? 5. What is the mayor’s view of the absence of a view from Environment Agency? And, similarly what is the mayor’s view of English Heritage’s refusal to endorse the scheme? "
Councillor Matthew James who writes 1. The members are concerned about the apparent lack of community consultation prior to the mayor’s decision regarding the future of the ‘Banjo’ site. 2. What evaluation was made of the potential benefits between a private sector development of the ‘Banjo’ site and a council funded solution? 3. What was the content of the presentation to the Conservative Group, prior to full Council’s consideration of the issue, that was not shared with the other member groups? 4. Why was there no reference in the report to Council (Report for Agenda Item 8, Council meeting held 12 July 2012) to ongoing discussions with promoters of the Ocean Circle development? 5. What is the mayor’s view of the absence of a view from Environment Agency? And, similarly what is the mayor’s view of English Heritage’s refusal to endorse the scheme? " "
Councillor Vic Ellery who writes 1. The members are concerned about the apparent lack of community consultation prior to the mayor’s decision regarding the future of the ‘Banjo’ site. 2. What evaluation was made of the potential benefits between a private sector development of the ‘Banjo’ site and a council funded solution? 3. What was the content of the presentation to the Conservative Group, prior to full Council’s consideration of the issue, that was not shared with the other member groups? 4. Why was there no reference in the report to Council (Report for Agenda Item 8, Council meeting held 12 July 2012) to ongoing discussions with promoters of the Ocean Circle development? 5. What is the mayor’s view of the absence of a view from Environment Agency? And, similarly what is the mayor’s view of English Heritage’s refusal to endorse the scheme?"