Skip to main content

Issue - meetings

CHURCHGATE REGENERATION PROJECT UPDATE & NEXT STEPS - PART 1

 

 

Meeting: 16/07/2026 - Council (Item 28)

28 CHURCHGATE REGENERATION PROJECT UPDATE & NEXT STEPS - PART 1 pdf icon PDF 177 KB

REPORT OF DIRECTOR – ENTERPRISE

 

Since the previous update to Members, further work has been undertaken to assess the viability, deliverability and regeneration potential of the Churchgate site. This report provides an update on that work and seeks approval for the additional funding required to support the next phase of the project.

Decision:

RESOLVED: That Council approved the additional capital/revenue funding set out in the Part 2 report to support the single competitive procurement, comprising of two phases of a partner to assist the Council with the next stage of the Churchgate Regeneration Project.

 

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:

 

(1)       The Council has undertaken significant technical work, specialist studies and preliminary market engagement to inform the next stage of the Churchgate Regeneration Project.

 

(2)       The findings indicate that further feasibility, viability and delivery planning work is required before future decisions can be taken regarding the preferred delivery model and implementation of the regeneration proposals.

 

(3)       Approval is therefore sought for the additional funding required to undertake this next phase of work, enabling future decisions to be informed by robust technical, commercial and financial evidence.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 55 minutes 08 seconds

 

Councillor Tamsin Thomas, as Executive Member for Enterprise, presented Referral 6G and the report entitled ‘Churchgate Regeneration Project Update & Next Steps – Part 1’ and advised that:

 

·                The project would deliver a redeveloped shopping centre and market, revitalised public spaces around the River Hiz, and vital footfall and housing to the area.

·                Thanks were put on record to the Churchgate Project Board, Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet for their input on this stage.

·                Full Council were being asked to approve funding to procure regeneration expertise to undertake detailed analysis for the project in this phase.

·                Work undertaken in the last 12 months had put the project into a fundamentally more stable position as a financial and technical evidence base had been produced and a greater insight into other factors had been achieved.

·                Churchgate was close to full occupancy for the first time in a while, which mirrored the strong developer confidence shown in soft market testing, but it was also recognised that it was a complex and finely balanced scheme where specialist regeneration expertise would be needed to derisk the project and remove cost elements while maintaining overall control.

·                A masterplan would be formulated in this phase from the completed feasibility study, which would allow them to progress the project in a measured and controlled way while further testing viability and deliverability.

·                Any uncertainty of deliverability would be decreased through this phase before a long-term decision on the project was taken.

·                The ambition to deliver a high-quality regeneration scheme that secured the long-term success of Hitchin Town Centre remained unchanged.

 

Councillor Tamsin Thomas proposed the recommendation in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Val Bryant.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Sam Collins

·                Councillor Ralph Muncer

·                Councillor Val Bryant

·                Councillor Ian Albert

·                Councillor Claire Strong

·                Councillor Tim Johnson

·                Councillor Matt Barnes

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·                Hitchin residents were fed up with the amount of time that had been spent on project planning and consultancy.

·                The final part of the project was the riskiest, and they should not lose sight of what was right for the district and its residents in their approach.

·                There had been a £200K overspend on consultants for the project and the administration was seeking to request substantial funding for this phase.

·                The Council was fast approaching a tipping point where any future spending would be absorbed, regardless of the financial burden.

·                All options including site disposal or no affordable housing provision as part of the regeneration would need to be considered to reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

·                Residents of other towns and villages would be questioning whether their communities would receive a multi-million investment in a project in their area as well.

·                It was desired for the project to succeed, but not at any cost.

·                The project had shown transparency as there was a project board, Hitchin residents had been consulted, and 3 member briefing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28