Decision details

To consider the report of the Senior Manager – Planning Sustainability and Transport seeking to consider and determine the representations received in relation to the proposed appropriation and subsequent development of Vokes Memorial Gardens and part of Queens Park.

Modified recommendation (ii) decision:

(i)  To note that there were not any objections received in relation to the proposed appropriation of land at Vokes Memorial Gardens and Part of Queens Park Platform Road, as identified in (Appendix 1 – Plan 11ALMO19032).  The appropriation has therefore been completed in respect of this area of land.

(ii)  To delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Economy following consultation with the Platform Road Client Manager to determine the form and extent of an additional area of Vokes Memorial Gardens required within the final design for a Dock Gate 4 entrance and a wider Dock Gate 5 exit. 

(iii)  To delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Economy to instruct the Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services to advertise the appropriation of the additional land determined in accordance with recommendation (ii) above at Vokes Memorial Gardens for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper circulating in the locality.

(iv)  To delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Economy following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport to determine any objections received from the second series of adverts and to make a final decision as to whether or not to approve the appropriation in light of any such objections.

1.  The Cabinet report presented on 17 July 2012 identified an outline design for the road scheme.  Subsequent detailed design has highlighted the need to provide a wider exit than previously proposed, following a review of vehicle movements from the Port.  The re-design will require the inclusion of two small additional areas within Vokes Memorial Gardens of approximately 100 sq m.  As the land is open space, its proposed appropriation to enable its inclusion requires to be advertised and objections considered.

2.  Without this land the road improvement scheme cannot progress as planned, which will result in the loss of Government funding from Regional Growth Fund.

1.  Continue with existing design – rejected as the Port will not be able to service certain clients who use the Port for the shipping of certain goods.  This would have a significant detriment to the Port.

2.  To provide a revised road improvement design – rejected as the Dock Gates 4 and 5 exit cannot be relocated or reconfigured without the additional land.