Agenda item

Members considered a report investigating the refurbishment of 5-7 Market Place, Gainsborough.

 

The Executive Director for Economic and Commercial Growth gave an introduction to the report.  The building was purchased back in 2013, and had been a cost to the Authority ever since.  Structural repairs were carried out in 2016, and helped formed the current overview of the building.

 

£75,000 of the capital budget spend was from the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) Living Over the Shop fund; a minimum of £72,000 was from the Townscape Heritage Fund, and £15,000 was the grant for Gainsborough Shop Fronts.  The remaining £376,500 was funded from Capital Receipts. 

 

It was envisaged that the proposed refurbishment would lead to a payback for WLDC in 15-25 years.

 

Overview and Scrutiny Committee had made 5 recommendations at their meeting on 12 November.  Two of these recommendations (‘the report should be succinct with 3 clearly identified options’, and ‘a simplified cash flow’) were actioned within the report.  The remaining 3 recommendations were outlined and answered by the Executive Director for Economic and Commercial Growth and the Chairman of the Committee:

 

·         The scheme should have a cost plan – this scheme was at a pre-commencement stage of the works, so there was a good indication of costs.  If the report were approved, then the project would move onto the next stage, and there would be a detailed cost plan as part of the contract;

 

·         Using local labour – this would be selected using a framework scheme;

 

·         A site visit be undertaken prior to any decision being taken – this could potentially prejudice any decision taken by the Planning Committee should those Planning Members on Corporate Policy and Resources Committee be present.

 

Members then provided comment on the report, and asked questions of officers.  Comments against the proposals were provided:

 

·         A great deal of money had been spent on this property already;

 

·         It was hard to see who would want to live in the town centre in market square; conversion into flats was a risk;

 

·         The yearly rental returns were £6000;

 

·         Other options, such as de-listing the property or giving it away should be considered;

 

·         The Brexit process may cast doubts on current figures projected for the development.

 

Comments in favour of the report were provided:

 

·         A similar townscape heritage initiative in Caistor had been transformational in the town;

 

·         Heritage comes at a price; Market Street was in the process of regeneration, and now the buildings in Market Square needed to be looked at as it could be a platform for future development;

 

·         The project had some value over time, and could come with social benefits.  Having people in place in new flats in that area would be beneficial for the town;

 

Officers provided information on the points raised:

 

·         The Townscape Heritage bid has to be highly specific rather than broad.  The approach from WLDC would be specific and be about building repairs;

 

·         Regeneration on other projects in the town was progressing well; the new cinema would take up a large portion of frontage in the town centre;

 

·         Other options had been looked into.  One of these options would be to sell, or to put the property up for auction.  There had been no confirmed interest in the property in previous years.  In addition, because of townscape heritage officers believed it was right to take responsibility for this property rather than transferring ownership to a third party.

 

Another option would be to add this property into the Market Street Renewal project; however this could lead to 5-7 Market Place getting a lower standard of renovation;

 

·         The likelihood of being able to rent the new flats would be looked into;

 

·         Officers were trying to reverse the stigmatisation of the town centre as a place to avoid by the process of regeneration;

 

·         Historic spend on the property was considered in financial terms as ‘sunk’; i.e. these were costs that could not be recovered as they had already been spent.  The money that had already been spent on the property had brought the asset to its current state and should not be included in current or future investment decisions;

 

·         If the property were de-listed, then it would not be looked on favourably by English Heritage;

 

·         Giving the property away with a ‘dowry’ to do the works had also been explored but discounted;

 

·         The conversion of the property would be over three floors, with high quality flats as part of this. The shop unit on the bottom floor was small.  There would be very little else that could be done with this building, other than a ‘shell and core’ renovation, resulting in letting the building as an office.

 

·         Valuation reports always include caveats on risky events such as Brexit.  A decision on this building had been pending for a number of years.

 

At the end of discussion, an alternative recommendation to defer the item to a future date was moved and seconded; this motion to defer the item was put to the vote.  Cllrs Young and Bunney requested that this vote be recorded.  The results were:

 

For deferral: Cllrs Bunney, M Snee and Young.

 

Against deferral: Cllrs Bierley, Devine, Fleetwood, Howitt-Cowan, G McNeill, J McNeill, Milne and Welburn

 

The motion to amend the recommendations was not carried.

 

The vote then reverted back to the original recommendations in the report – these were taken en bloc.  Again, Cllrs Young and Bunney requested that the vote be recorded.  The results were:

 

For: Cllrs Bierley, Devine, Fleetwood, Howitt-Cowan, G McNeill, J McNeill, Milne and Welburn.

 

Against: Cllrs Bunney, M Snee and Young.

 

Therefore, it was:

 

                        RESOLVED to:

 

(1)  Approve the capital budget of up to £538,500 (including £68,500 client owned risk register) and expenditure to obtain:

 

·         a finalised design;

·         statutory approvals; and

·         carry out the associated construction works

 

to convert the current building at 5-7 Market Place, Gainsborough into three flats and a ground floor commercial unit as an ongoing rental stream.  This scheme is to be funded from the capital receipts net of any grant awards received.

 

(2)  Note the recommendations from Overview and Scrutiny Committee.