Agenda item

To consider a report regarding the options available to the Council to bring forward the refurbishment and re-use of the former St Giles & St Georges School building in Newcastle Town Centre.

The Committee considered a report regarding the options available to the Council to bring forward the refurbishment and re-use of the former St. Giles and St. Georges School building in Newcastle town centre. There were five options available which the Committee were asked to give consideration to. There was an indicative cost of an estimated £388,700 for a light touch refurbishment of the building to bring it back into use. 

Members asked for clarification as to whether option ‘E’ for housing on the site would entail conversion/refurbishment or demolition. Members considered that both options were possible, but realistically it would be demolition if housing was recommended for the site. The Chair notified the Committee that a letter had been received from Newcastle-under-Lyme Civic Society recommending that the building should not be demolished and its historic elements should be incorporated into any development plans. Members considered that the Civic Society’s views should be taken note of.

Members were of the opinion that further money would be required in addition to the £388,700 indicative cost for the light touch refurbishment. Options were limited and it should be realistically considered to demolish the building. There was a shortage of housing, but the only option for the building would be apartments and this was not viable due to the current apartment market struggling. Officers did emphasise that due the to building being situated in a Conservation Area there would be no clearance for demolition until the site plans for a new building had been approved.

There was consideration by Members that the Borough Museum was situated in the wrong place and would be much better positioned in a town centre location. It was felt that the current site of the Museum in The Brampton was a more marketable site and would be a more desirable place to live. Members were of the opinion that relocating the Museum would increase tourism and footfall in the town centre and considered that moving the museum seemed a logical plan, although the Committee had been advised previously that the idea was not viable. The current market value of the St. Giles and St. Georges building was requested by Members and it was felt that more information was required, as the Committee were being asked to consider selling the site without knowing the current market value. 

Members suggested an indoor market could be established in the building as there was access from the bus station and the Queen’s Gardens. An indoor market would encourage people to visit the bottom part of the town and Members felt the potential increase in footfall should be investigated. The indoor market suggestion was thought to be bold and interesting by other Members who felt that an indoor market would bring employment to the town centre. It was considered that market research would be required to ascertain if the public would use an indoor market, as the nature of markets had changed and it may not be a viable option. It was noted that the building was entirely flat and suitable for disabled access. Members considered that thought would need to be given to what type of market there should be if it was a viable option and a niche market would be preferable than a mixture of different types of stalls. Members requested an indicative cost for converting the building into an indoor market.

Members considered the important issue for them to consider was whether to recommend to Cabinet that the building be cleared or not. The Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document was in place, which meant that any replacement building would need to be in a similar form to the cleared building, and the Council could defend any replacement. It would be preferable not to clear the site but there were ongoing costs for the Council and if a developer were to come forward with suitable plans, then demolition should be considered. Members questioned if it had been ascertained whether there would be any interest in the site should it be cleared. Officers had not explored this previously, but would investigate should the Committee give a steer in that direction. Members would prefer Cabinet to seek options, but could not rule out demolition. More information was required before the Committee could offer a preferred option.

Members considered the structure should be retained if possible, as it had scale and feeling, although it was not a listed building. Options needed to be kept open and more research was required before a decision could be made. Scrutiny could look at the issue again once figures had been obtained for the cost of the museum and indoor market proposals. There was a request from Members that the public be consulted upon about what they would like to see happen to the building.

The Portfolio Holder acknowledged the new suggestions for the site and advised that the new ideas would be introduced to Cabinet. The Portfolio Holder was warming to the idea of relocating the museum, but considered that it could be cost prohibitive. With regard to the indoor market suggestion, a niche market would need to be investigated, but it was noted that markets were experiencing problems. It was considered that the costing information requested by the Committee needed to be ready for Cabinet to consider. The Portfolio Holder agreed with Members that there should be public consultation regarding the issue.

RESOLVED:                        (a) That the information be received.

(b) That the suggestion of the establishment of an indoor market be forwarded to Cabinet for consideration.

(c) That costs be ascertained for the indoor market and museum suggestions.

(d) That it be recommended that public consultation be undertaken regarding options for the site.

(e) That an indication of the likely value of a cleared site be ascertained.

(f) That more information is required before scrutiny can offer a preferred option.