Agenda item

Reason: To note progress on the Chard Gateway Regeneration Scheme and to agree the next steps and resources to progress implementation of the scheme.

(Voting: 9 in favour, 4 against, 1 abstention)

The Chard High Street Heritage Action Zone Project Manager presented the report.  She explained that there was an opportunity for the Gateway Scheme to progress alongside the public realm works taking place as part of the High Street Heritage Action Zone project.  She referred to the gateway being a long term aspiration for the area to be improved and was a priority scheme identified in the Council’s Public Realm Strategy for Chard. 

Since the report considered by the Area West Committee in January 2019, the designs for the eastern gateway had been developed in line with the Council Public Realm Strategy to create an entrance to the town and a safer crossing over Silver Street.  The previous report outlined a rough estimate project cost and the design process which had been developed over the last couple of years had looked at the real costs for implementing the scheme.

During the discussion on the item, comments made by members included the following:

·         The project had been a long term aspiration and dovetailed with the other work taking place in the High Street;

·         This was a good opportunity and was a properly funded and thought-out project;

·         Concerns over the increase in costs;

·         Concerns over the amount of money being taken from the Area West Capital Budget which may leave a shortfall in funding for other projects which may come forward in the future;

·         Queried whether some of the funding from MTIG could be used to contribute towards the cost of the project;

·         Query over the possibility of the pedestrian crossing coming under the Small Improvement Scheme which had been reinstated by Somerset County Council;

·         Grave reservations over the Council spending a substantial amount of money on a project when there were a large number of people in the area who were about to become or were already in a position of unemployment. 

·         There were high levels of poverty in Chard and conerns were expressed over the reputational risk to the Council;

·         The scheme was an important part of the bigger picture for Chard;

·         If changes were not made to the town centre, it was less likely to attract visitors which could result in a downward spiral.

·         That there was a need to smarten up the area and a desire to improve the visual impact but it was not the right time to take the scheme forward.

In response to questions, the Chard High Street Heritage Action Zone Project Manager, Locality Team Leader and the Director of Place informed members of the following:

·         In order to improve the safety of the crossing over Silver Street, the design also took into account the other side of the road which contributed to an increase in costs;

·         The detailed design phase looked at the real costs of the materials and the cost of works etc. which was unknown when the previous report was considered;

·         The cost of materials had increased due to stop start demand associated with covid-19;

·         The figure included 10% contingency which had been incorporated as a buffer;

·         If the scheme were to be approved, there would be £63,802 remaining in the Area West Capital Budget; 

·         An additional top up bid of £25,000 to the Area West capital budget in April would be considered by District Executive through the annual capital budget round;

·         The Locality Team had sought grant funding but no funds had been identified that were relevant for this type of scheme.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed and seconded to approve the recommendations outlined in the report.  A vote was taken and there were 9 votes in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention.

Reason: To note progress on the Chard Gateway Regeneration Scheme and to agree the next steps and resources to progress implementation of the scheme.

(Voting: 9 in favour, 4 against, 1 abstention)