Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from A Stansfield, K Apps, G Varley and J Borkoles.

E James attended as a substitute for K Apps.

Members are requested to declare the existence and nature of any disclosable pecuniary interests and/or other interests, not already on their register of interests, in any item on the agenda and withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate time.

None.

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of the Clay Cross Town Board held on 6 December 2024.

RESOLVED –

That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2024 were approved as a true record, subject to clarification that the Low Carbon Challenge Fund (LCCF) contained earmarked funding for providing the Baileys Square project with renewable energy sources, and it being recorded that over £200,000 of investment had been levered from the private sector due the success of the LCCF.

Programme Update

Tris Burdett, Programmes Manager – Programme Management Team

The Board received a programme update on the Clay Cross Town Deal projects, as well as an evaluation of the associated risks moving forward. This included an update on Clay Cross Active, the Town Centre Regeneration project, and the Low Carbon Challenge Fund (LCCF).

The Board heard that building works on Clay cross active had picked up pace as a result of the new contractor coming in. Members heard that the formal contract had been signed with Inside Ltd for the town centre regeneration project and the works were progressing well. The Board heard that the LCCF had closed, and the request made to MHCLG to move the remaining funds had been approved. The top programme risk of rising costs causing budgetary pressures had been eased as a result of funds being transferred from the LCCF. It was shared that the situation would continue to be monitored, and value engineering would continue to be used. Overall, it was felt that the programme was progressing well.

The Board considered the update. Some Members had questions around the progress of the 4G football pitches that would be delivered alongside Clay Cross Active. It was shared that funding for the pitches had been secured and the project was progressing through planning. The difficulties of simultaneously working with two contractors were shared, but there was confidence that the pitches would be delivered after the opening of Clay Cross Active.

Some Members questioned what the impacts would be of any defects that arise against ISG works. The Board heard that the Council would deal with them as and when they came up, but the issue was largely resolved and represented minimal risk.

Some Members had questions around how the current budget allocations were calculated. The Board were updated on how the figures were determined. Members heard that the budget allocation for the A61 was based on the revised entrance works.

RESOLVED –

That the Board noted the update.

Verbal update from Learning Providers

The Board received a presentation on the learning and development offers received as part of the town centre regeneration programme. This included a breakdown of the offers from Derbyshire County Council (DCC) and Chesterfield College. Members heard that the University of Derby was yet to present an offer. The presentation detailed the focus, target audience and outputs of each offer.

The Board considered the presentation. Some Members questioned whether tumultuous circumstances regarding funding represented a high risk to the project. It was shared that workshops had been held with the learning providers and funding had not arisen as a major concern, but the issue would be kept on the radar.

It was highlighted that there was the potential for North East Derbyshire District Council or Rykneld Homes Ltd (RHL) to make use of the learning spaces.

RESOLVED –

That the Board noted the presentation.

Verbal update form Mohammed Mahroof, Head of Property and Estates

The Board received a verbal update from the Head of Property and Estates on the status of the incubation units in Baileys Square. This included an update on the number of units under offer, an overview of the marketing strategies being implemented and an explanation of the challenges that would need to be overcome.

The Board heard that, as a result of soft marketing, 5 of the units were currently under offer. The approach had since shifted to regional marketing which was being done through an agency. Members heard that the agency was in contact with a list of potential suitors, but no offers had come forward yet. In this context, members were updated on a timeline for replacing the executive marketeer should it be necessary.

The Board heard the unique challenges that town centre regeneration projects present. In this context, the vision for the types of businesses inhabiting Baileys Square was clarified. It was shared that the feedback from businesses implied that Clay Cross was not ready for investment yet. It was suggested that the next stage of marketing would focus on advertising the potential of Clay Cross. Members heard that the difficulties the programme was facing were normal at this stage of a town centre regeneration project, and there remained confidence that the right businesses would be attracted to Baileys Square.

The Board considered the update. It was highlighted that the regeneration project would benefit from being advertised at UK REiiF.

Some Members considered whether the right businesses were being approached to take up units in Baileys Square. The current vision was clarified as well as the different challenges when dealing with local and national businesses. In this context the Board discussed the vision for Clay Cross town centre and the types of businesses that would ideally take up residency. Some Members highlighted the need for a magnet business in Block A of Baileys Square. The prospect of opening below full occupation was considered. It was felt that this was preferable to accepting offers from businesses outside of the vision for the project.

The Board considered how Clay Cross should be sold as an area. Members discussed the aspects and draws of Clay Cross that needed to be stressed. It was shared that an information leaflet had been circulated to promote Clay Cross. The challenges of getting the message out were shared but it was clarified that marketing Clay Cross as an area remained a high priority. It was suggested that the rejuvenated Clay Cross Active would draw people to the area and that it would be useful to incentivise them to visit Baileys Square.

The Board considered the contract with the executive marketing agency. Some Members felt that the Council was best placed to market the project and that the contract should be reconsidered sooner than planned. The benefits of pairing with an executive marketing agency were discussed. It was suggested that the marketing agency came with a list of contacts that the Council could not  ...  view the full minutes text for item CXTB/35/24-25

Report from Tris Burdett, Programmes Manager – Programme Management Team

The Board considered a report which informed them of a proposed change in design to a junction in Clay Cross which would enable direct access to town centre parking directly from the A61. The purpose of the report was to obtain Board confirmation to proceed to construct the car park entrance in line with the schedule of works. Members heard that the scheme was affordable and had planning permission with or without the car park access from the A61. The Board were informed of the reasons why the decision on direct access to town centre parking from the A61 could not be delayed any further.

The Board discussed the report. It was suggested that direct access to town centre parking formed an intrinsic part of the regeneration scheme. Some Members suggested that the revised proposal was well designed, at a lower cost and had been through the relevant consultations and processes. In this context, attention was drawn to the support the revised proposal had received from the Highway Authority at the planning stage. It was suggested that the expert’s opinion favoured the revised scheme.

Some Members suggested that the people of Clay Cross, including the Parish Council, were against the proposal. It was felt that the direct access from the A61 would cause further traffic issues on an already busy road. Some Members felt that the proposal did not deliver on value for money and the need for it was low. It was suggested that the proposal would negatively impact disabled parking provisions and the logistics of navigating the carpark.

Some Members highlighted that the new traffic light system being implemented by Derbyshire County Council (DCC) would ease the traffic pressure on the A61 in Clay Cross. In this context, the Board discussed the extent to which direct access to town centre parking would cause wider traffic issues.

Some Members suggested that Clay Cross was currently difficult to navigate and the new entrance to the carpark was critical for direct trade from the A61. In this context, the Board agreed that there needed to be better signposting in Clay Cross. Some Members indicated that the current entrance to the car park presented a danger to pedestrians. It was suggested that this would become a bigger problem once Baileys Square was opened. In this context, some Members stressed that direct access to town centre parking was important to the regeneration scheme as a whole.

At the conclusion of the discussion, the decision to proceed with creating direct access to town centre parking from the A61 was put to a vote and approved.

RESOLVED –

That the Board noted the report.

That the Board wished to proceed with creating direct access to town centre parking from the A61 in line with existing location plans.  

None.

The next meeting of the Clay Cross Town Deal Board will be held in the new Municipal Year.

The next meeting of the Clay Cross Town Deal Board would be held in the new Municipal Year.