Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting OXFORD NEWS to 80360 or email us
Never miss anything again. Sign up for our RSS news feeds and Newsletters.
A DEAL has been agreed which puts the Westgate rebuild back on track, councillors will be told next week.
Oxford City Council has renegotiated its financial stake in the project with the Westgate Oxford Alliance (WOA), disposing of the existing car parks on the site and losing the rent it receives from the Westgate Centre in exchange for a stake in future profits of the new shopping centre.
The council’s executive board is due to discuss the details of the agreement in a closed session of its meeting next Wednesday.
The alliance is a 50:50 joint venture between Land Securities and the Crown Estate.
They have also secured the agreement of John Lewis to be the centre’s anchor store.
A timetable published by the council shows that once legal agreements are reached in March, a planning application should be submitted in January 2013, and building work could start in January 2015. The £330m shopping centre could open in April 2017.
The councillor responsible for city development, Colin Cook, said: “This effectively clears the decks and the developers can go back to their board and say, ‘Everything is in place and we are ready to go’.
“It gives them confidence to take things forward to the next stage.”
Find jobs in Oxford, Banbury and Oxfordshire
Search Now »
Make a date in Oxfordshire and find friendship
Search Now »
Find homes in Oxford, Banbury and Oxfordshire
Search Now »
Cars for sale in and around Oxfordshire
Search Now »
Comments (5)
03/02/12
Dilligaf2010 says...
.......or it could be a non-starter yet again, and the only changes we'll see is a drive-through McDonalds.
03/02/12
mandate says...
03/02/12
BigAlBiker says...
But as we all know the council know best.
03/02/12
King Joke says...
03/02/12
Andrew:Oxford says...
So if the City Council has now disposed of the car parks at the Westgate...
Will we see the new owner review pricing to maximise occupancy?
Or is there a hidden restrictive covenant?