Express Park Group, clients of Fifield Glyn, have been shortlisted for the Tropicana redevelopment scheme in Weston-super-Mare:
Weston-Super-Mare Press Release: April 14, 2005
A council working group met on Wednesday to consider a number of “expressions of interest” from developers in the Tropicana site in Weston-super-Mare.
In all nine were considered and three were shortlisted to go through to the next stage. They will now work up their initial proposals and make detailed presentations to a panel in June.
In coming to their recommendation to the Executive, the working group of seven councillors took into account evidence provided by the developers on a range of issues. This included their track record and experience, financial position, and viability of their proposals. This is a routine process for projects of this kind and all the companies concerned were asked to provide this basic information within their submission.
The decision making process was completely anonymous with the group making their decision solely on the quality of the evidence provided. It was not until after they had made their recommendations that the names of the preferred developers were revealed.
Express Park Group (EPG): based in London, the company’s first major development was the 105 acre business park in Bridgwater. It has worked with other local authorities including Somerset County and Sedgemoor District Councils.
Greenport Estates Ltd: based in London, the company’s developments include Ocean Plaza in Southport, a £32 million mixed retail and leisure development. The company has also worked with other local authorities and has delivered major schemes in Wandsworth and Hounslow.
Henry Boot Developments: based in Sheffield, in the last three years the company has delivered schemes involving more than one million square feet of commercial development.
David Lawrence, Assistant Director, Development and Environment Directorate said: “There was a big variation in the quality of information provided. The three shortlisted companies each demonstrated they had the relevant experience and financial backing to reach the next stage. They provided full submissions, providing evidence against strict criteria.
“It was disappointing however that some of the developers failed to provide even the most basic information which is required as a matter of routine and was specifically requested. ”
The group was particularly disappointed that no local developers provided enough evidence to reach the next stage, despite high public expectations about their schemes. One developer’s submission consisted of a 400-word letter, while another provided only one paragraph of information. This was insufficient to enable the working group to have any confidence in their ability to deliver a project of this size.
The shortlisted companies will now put together detailed proposals and will have to demonstrate that they have viable, realistic and appropriate schemes.