Agenda item

REPORT OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE

[Note: this item was considered after Minute 80]

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the principle of a joint venture regeneration of the Churchgate Centre, with the Council as funder of the regeneration, be supported;

(2)        That the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, the Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Finance and IT, be authorised to progress negotiations with Shearer Property Group on the terms of a potential joint venture regeneration of the Churchgate Centre, subject to Full Council’s final approval of the terms of any proposal; and

(3)        That the proposal to allow the contract for the management of Hitchin Market to expire and for the market to be managed in-house, subject to Cabinet’s approval, be noted.

REASON FOR DECISION: To progress the potential regeneration of the Churchgate Shopping Centre in Hitchin.

[Note: this item was considered after Minute 80]

The Council considered the Part 1 report of the Deputy Chief Executive in respect of the Regeneration of Churchgate Shopping Centre.  The following appendix was submitted with the report:

Appendix A – Indicative Site Plan.

The Executive Member for Finance and IT (Councillor Julian Cunningham) advised that the report was asking the Council to agree, in principle, to a scheme for the redevelopment of Churchgate.  It did not commit the Council in any way, other than further discussions with the Shearer Property Group (SPG).  As and when (and if) the Council was in a position where a scheme was to be proposed for taking forward, the matter would come back before the Council.

The Executive Member for Finance and IT stated that the scheme was two separate, but intertwined projects, one being the regeneration on the existing footprint of the Churchgate Shopping Centre, and the other the redevelopment of the public realm to the rear of the shopping centre, including the position of the Hitchin Market.  He commented that the proposals to regenerate the shopping centre would not work without a market operation and a high quality public realm behind it.  The experience of SPG and the Council’s own consultants was that people would not visit any shopping centre, however wonderful the shops, if it was located in the middle of a “wasteland”.

The Executive Member for Finance and IT felt that it was important that it was recognised that Hitchin was a market town with a 1,000 year history.  There were no plans for the market to be taken out of Hitchin, as the future of the market was integral to the success of the shopping centre.

The Executive Member for Finance and IT commented that the reality of the situation was that the world was changing, as was the retail trade.  Work had been done by the Council’s consultants and the evidence gathered supported the view that there was significant demand for “high end” shops in Hitchin.  Even at this early stage, the consultants considered that there was a scheme that could be developed which made financial sense and delivered the significant social benefit of improving Hitchin Town Centre for all retailers, the market and residents.

The Executive Member for Finance and IT had heard all that had been said about the market by the public speakers earlier in the meeting, and stressed again that the Council recognised the value of Hitchin Market, but just as the retail environment was changing, so was the way in which markets operated.  Any visit to other towns like Hitchin showed that the types of markets operating in those towns were not the same type of market that currently operated in Hitchin.  This was in no way denigrating the current operators and stallholders of Hitchin Market, but the Council’s belief (supported by considerable evidence) was that the nature of markets was changing and because of that, significant work would be needed on the infrastructure to allow that to happen.

The Executive Member for Finance and IT stated that one of the reasons it was felt appropriate to take back Hitchin Market into Council ownership was, if the development was to proceed, it was hoped that it would do so in the near future, and in which case there would be significant disruption to the operation of the market.  It therefore seemed unfair on Hitchin Markets Limited (HML), as a commercial operator, to try and deal with such disruption.  However, going forward, nothing in the report in any way precluded the Council from entering into further arrangements with HML or any other third party for operation of the market.

The Executive Member for Finance and IT stressed that the Council needed to make some decisions.  Was doing nothing acceptable? No, as the current centre was extremely dilapidated, and it would not be in the Council’s interests to be the freeholder of a centre whose rental income would be diminishing.

The Executive Member for Finance and IT advised that there was a question of whether or not the regeneration of a shopping centre was an appropriate development for the Council to take on at the present time.  He reiterated that the Council’s consultants had considered that there was case to be made that the right sort of development at the right sort of cost was something that would not only provide a financial return to the Council, but would also provide a social benefit to Hitchin.

The Executive Member for Finance and IT stated that there was a further question as to whether or not a joint venture was the best way forward.  One of the reasons that the Council was looking at a joint venture was because SPG would bring professional expertise in shopping centre development.  If the Council went down that route, then SPG would be expected to provide virtually all of the commercial information and the commercial expertise to allow the venture to progress in line with the Council’s expectations.

The Executive Member for Finance and IT concluded by advising that there was still a significant amount of work to be done, as set out in the report, and any or all of these had the capacity to throw the scheme off course.  He added that the Council had been trying to resolve the Churchgate issue for some time.  He was unable to say with certainty that this proposed project was the right answer, but the Council could not allow the current situation to continue.

It was moved by Councillor Julian Cunningham, and seconded by Councillor Lynda Needham, that the recommendations contained in the report be approved.

Following debate, during which Councillor Cunningham answered a number of Members’ questions, the Chairman agreed to a request that the recommendations in the motion be voted upon separately.

Upon the recommendations in the motion being voted on separately, it was

RESOLVED:

(1)        That the principle of a joint venture regeneration of the Churchgate Centre, with the Council as funder of the regeneration, be supported;

(2)        That the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chief Finance Officer, the Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Finance and IT, be authorised to progress negotiations with Shearer Property Group on the terms of a potential joint venture regeneration of the Churchgate Centre, subject to Full Council’s final approval of the terms of any proposal; and

(3)        That the proposal to allow the contract for the management of Hitchin Market to expire and for the market to be managed in-house, subject to Cabinet’s approval, be noted.

REASON FOR DECISION: To progress the potential regeneration of the Churchgate Shopping Centre in Hitchin.