Agenda item

The Cabinet Member for Property and Public Engagement presented the report.

The High Street Heritage Action Zone in Grantham was funded by Historic England and the Council over 4 years, beginning in May 2020 and completing on 31 March 2024. 

The report outlined successes, challenges and lessons learnt from the delivery of the programme and the additional associated cultural programme funded by Historic England and the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which ran from 2021 to March 2024.

Further details were provided within the appendices of the report. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the following key points

·       The programme delivered successfully shopfront, building regeneration projects to seven properties.

·       Supported significant restoration works to Westgate Hall in Grantham, whereby ongoing repair and restoration of the building for future plans to reopen as a restaurant in 2025.

·       The total grant received from Historic England over the 4-year programme was £672, 719 which was matched by £284,652 in funding from the Council.

·       The total private sector match funding directly leveraged by grant funding through the scheme was £307,000, which was 3 times the value of the private sector match targeted in the original 2019 bid.

·       The recorded added value leveraged through or as a direct result of the scheme was over £370,000, which included the value of additional non grant-funded works carried out on building which received a grant and other buildings encouraged by the involvement of the scheme elsewhere but had no direct grant involvement.

Challenges faced from the programme were Historic England’s restriction on preventing the rollover of underspending to following years of the programme. This impacted the delivery on historic buildings on delivery scheduled works.

In 2022, Historic England changed their policy with regards to programme alterations, and as a result programmes no longer had the flexibility to reallocate funding from areas which were under performing to new projects. This limited the ability of the programme to utilise funding where projects delivered under budget, or where the delivery was unsuccessful, resulting in underspend.

The scheme was a great opportunity for learning, and some of the numerous lessons learned through the delivery of the programme are outlined in the formal Closure Report produced for Historic England, which has been included with this report as Appendix A.

A common criticism of the scheme was that the majority of the funding for shopfront regeneration grants was awarded to one or two larger organisations within the town centre, and it was hard for independent property owners to access funding.

In some instances, this was due to the significant increase in cost of shopfront regeneration projects through the duration of the scheme, which made projects unviable for many independent property owners even with the grant support available.

All potential applicants were offered in person support in understanding the application process and completing the application. However, following a review of the scheme during the closure process, ways that any future scheme could be made more equitable and transparent for applicants were identified.

The HSHAZ Shopfront Regeneration scheme was an open programme, with no fixed deadlines for applications. Applications were accepted for projects up until the point that all grant funding had been allocated, essentially on a first come first served basis for eligible projects. This was in line with the operation of the previous shopfront scheme.

It was noted that the most successful was the capital project and the least successful was community engagement.

The Committee were provided with a presentation of photographs on successful projects, as a result of the scheme. 

Concern was raised on professional bidders were able to secure grants for shopfronts before independent traders. Members were pleased that something had been put into place to negate this.

Comments were raised on the vacant units in The George shopping centre in Grantham and whether the owners were involved in other successful aspects of the scheme.

The report noted the largest threat to the regeneration of the town centre heritage was the continued reduction in resources and funding of local authorities and partner organisations which persist undermining of regeneration which could be achieved. It was felt that the bigger threat was getting a higher footfall for Grantham and for people to spend money when in the town to stimulate business growth.

(Councillor Ben Green declared he worked for the Woodland Trust, however, the closure report would not benefit the company or himself, as the work had already taken place).

A query was raised on how the Council were proactively engaging with the owners of The George shopping centre in Grantham and further investments could be envisaged for the future options of the centre.

The Cabinet Member for Property and Public Engagement highlighted the frustration on lack of legal powers to enforce landowners to complete certain projects when the land is being underutilised.

Further concern was raised on the lack of works being completed The George shopping centre in Grantham. It was felt that any development of the centre could be completed within 10 months.

That the Finance and Economic Overview and Scrutiny Committee:

1. Reviews and endorses this report.

2. Is invited to share any comments they may have on this report with the programme board.