Issue - meetings
Churchgate Regeneration Project Update & Next Steps
Meeting: 09/06/2026 - Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Item 12)
12 CHURCHGATE REGENERATION PROJECT UPDATE & NEXT STEPS - PART 1 
PDF 151 KB
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR – ENTERPRISE
To provide an update on the project progress so far, and report on suggested next steps and milestones in preparation for the Cabinet decision in June and Full Council decision in July.
Additional documents:
Decision:
RESOLVED: That the recommendation to Full Council and Cabinet was noted, and that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee also noted the provided update/next steps of the project.
RECOMMENDED TO CABINET: That Cabinet recommends that Council approves the allocation of additional funds, referencing the Part 2 report.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: To ensure that the Overview & Scrutiny Committee are content with the decisions being put forward to Cabinet on 16 June 2026 and to Full Council on 16 July 2026. This report provides an overview of the recent work completed and details how the project team and Project Board propose to move forward – providing the Committee with an opportunity to ask any further details.
Minutes:
Audio recording – 01 hours 03 minutes 38 seconds
Councillor Val Bryant, as Leader of the Council, presented the report entitled ‘Churchgate Regeneration Project Update & Next Steps – Part 1 and advised that:
· Since the consideration of the project at a Full Council meeting in July 2025, they had worked to test the most critical issues of the site such as parking, public realm, the future of the market, governance and long-term sustainability of the town centre.
· The Council was in a stronger position than it was 12 months ago as there was a strong technical and financial evidence base, and a clearer understanding of the site constraints, viability and delivery challenges, market appetite and delivery expectations.
· Soft market engagement recently undertaken had confirmed strong confidence in Hitchin as an attractive town centre regeneration opportunity with long-term potential.
· It was a finely balanced scheme, which required detailed feasibility work and delivery planning, and a proportionate approach to risk before any delivery route was chosen.
· The Council was seeking to appoint specialists with regeneration expertise to work alongside the project team and take it from ambition and planning to delivery and implementation.
· A phased approach would ensure that investment, funding and risk remained proportionate to uncertainty at each stage of the project and reflect the scale and complexity of the opportunity and feedback received from the soft market engagement.
· This would ensure that the project would progress in a measured way by maintaining strategic oversight and decision-making control and reduce uncertainty before any long-term partnership was entered into.
· The recommendations would support the ambition to deliver a viable, high-quality regeneration scheme to support the sustainability and vitality of Hitchin town centre.
The Chair advised that an updated version of this report had been published as a supplementary document.
The following Members asked questions:
· Councillor Claire Winchester
· Councillor Ralph Muncer
· Councillor David Chalmers
· Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason
· Councillor Elizabeth Dennis
In response to questions, the Churchgate Project Manager advised that:
· Viability testing would not decrease the quality or delivery of the project or affordable housing as the regeneration aimed to produce a high-quality mixed-use development that celebrated the market, public realm and heritage of the area.
· The additional funds would allow testing of design quality, viability, and deliverability together rather than separately, while allowing the Council to have strategic oversight over quality control.
In response to questions, the Chief Executive advised that:
· The Secretary of State would place restrictions on the financial decision-making ability of the Council once a shadow authority was created, which would mean signoff from the shadow authority being required for financial decisions over a certain threshold and the potential need for multiple signoffs on this project.
· If they focused on delivering a viable scheme that made sense to the Council, it should also make sense to a shadow authority.
· However, they could not speak on behalf of a shadow authority that did not yet exist and whose purpose would be to oversee the preparation of the unitary authorities. ... view the full minutes text for item 12