Doncaster Metripolitan Council
Councillors:
56
Wards:
22
Committees:
25
Meetings (2025):
88
Meetings (2024):
113
Meeting
Regeneration & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel - Doncaster
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Monday, 8th July 2024
2:00 PM
Monday, 8th July 2024
2:00 PM
End:
Monday, 8th July 2024
6:00 PM
Monday, 8th July 2024
6:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
08 Jul 2024
08 Jul 2024
Location:
Meeting Attendees
Guest
Mark Whitehouse
Unite
Absent
Vice-Chair
Councillor Iris Beech
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Duncan Anderson
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Conservative Group Leader
Committee Member
Councillor Sophie Liu
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor John Mounsey
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Thomas Noon
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Ian Pearson
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Austen White
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Richard A Jones
In attendance
Agenda
0
A. Items where the Public and Press may not be excluded.
1
Apologies for absence.<br/><br/>
Minutes
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Thomas Noon and Austen White
2
To consider the extent, if any, to which the public and press are to be excluded from the meeting.
Minutes
There were no items on the agenda.
3
Declarations of Interest, if any.
Minutes
There were no declarations of interest made.
4
Minutes of the meeting held on 7th March 2024
Attachments:
- Document Minutes , 07/03/2024 Regeneration & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel 28 Jun 2024
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 7th March 2024, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
5
Public Statements
Minutes
There were no public statements made.
6
Market Asset Management - Markets Presentation
Attachments:
- Document MAM report final 28 Jun 2024
- Document MAM appendix final 28 Jun 2024
Minutes
The Regeneration and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Panel was provided with an update from Raymond Linch, Chief Executive Officer, Market Asset Management Doncaster Ltd through a presentation which covered the following areas.
• Doncaster Market
• Operational Update
• The Wool Market
• The Corn Exchange
• Mexborough Market
A number of questions were asked which covered a range of topics including the following.
Corn Exchange – Members were informed that retail vendors would be sought by trawling social media and online databases for suitable local and regional businesses. It was explained that the type of retail vendors being targeted would include fashion boutiques, and service industries such as hairdressing. Members learnt that there was an efficient team in place dedicated to leasing in Doncaster. Reference was made to open days that would be coming up soon in the future. It was explained that there would also be social media advertising on Facebook seeking interest from Doncaster businesses. Members heard how it was considered important to focus on products and services that fitted in well with that part of the market.
Market Occupancy Rates – In terms of retaining current vendors and attracting future vendors, Members were informed that a similar approach was taken for the Corn Exchange as it was for the rest of the estate. It was noted that there were certain hot spots and that a more selective approach was being taken for the wool market. It was explained that before entering a lease, there were certain steps that were undertaken such as carrying out financial checks, looking at business and shop fitting plans, where appropriate, before prospective tenants agreed terms and entered a lease.
Reference was made to Doncaster Goosehill Market and Crewe Market and the support provided to traders.
Percentage of Lets – Regarding the 88% of rental lets, Members were informed that the only difference between 5 years ago and the current day was the refurbishment of the Corn Exchange and a transfer of empty stalls to Doncaster Goosehill. Members were informed by the CEO that he was not aware that there had been any instances of a physical reduction in market stalls.
A Member referred to a recent survey that supported the market being brought back in-house and commented that traders were leaving to go to retail units as they could no longer afford the rent. Members heard that rents had been increased over the years reflecting how the Council had increased MAMs own rent and that no profit had been made in Doncaster or Mexborough. It was commented that traders who left to go to retail units were the ones who generally benefited more from that move.
Reference was made to the change in the shopping base which included younger and more affluent people as well as the existing shoppers compared to other places.
A Member questioned whether a percentage of revenue was now charged as opposed to rent. Clarification was provided by the CEO that when the wool market was first established, all traders were on a turnover rent approximately 6 months before MAM took over. It was explained that the turnover rents were very low at 2-3% of turnover, and that the national standard for hospitality food halls was 20-25%. Members heard that contracts had not been changed but rents had been modified upwards through a staggered approach, and new traders would go automatically onto 20% of turnover rent. It was noted that it was a commercial decision made by MAM and that existing traders rent increases had been staggered to bring them up to the national average.
It was questioned what could be done in terms of supporting traders whose businesses were not considered viable, such as by deferring an increase in rent. It was noted that this only applied to the wool market and that there needed to be a valid reason to discuss a different type of arrangement with the tenant which should be then made available to all as part of a transparent and open process.
Covid Relief - Members were informed that those traders who were closed during this time were informed about how they could access relief needed for commercial rent. Reference was made to information provided from traders which presented a different picture during the pandemic and the CEO offered to look at that outside of the meeting. It was also commented that information would have been provided by Doncaster Council across the board.
Mexborough Market – Members were informed how efforts had been made over the last 5 years to attract new traders on rental incentive deals, only for traders to leave and the market to return to 60% occupancy a few months later. It was explained that a loss was being generated through a £55,000 income against £320,000 in costs. It was noted that in 2019 when MAM took over the markets that income generated from the market was lower and expenditure was higher than expected.
It was viewed that the Mexborough Market needed to be brought closer to the high street where people could see and access it. Reference was made to the challenges within the Mexborough city centre, with some issues that required further consideration such as the flyover, connectivity, and multi-story car park.
The Executive Director of Place spoke about the commitment of working with MAM in Doncaster and Mexborough to move forward. A Member questioned what plans were in place to achieve that and reference was made to public events and the Mexborough masterplan, although it was recognised that there was a need to consider solutions going forward. There was a brief discussion around historical issues around the car park in Mexborough and what was taking place currently.
ACTION: In respect of developments for the future including the corn exchange Councillor Jones asked whether he could have sight of the rolling 5-year forecast.
RESOLVED That the Panel note the information provided.
.
• Doncaster Market
• Operational Update
• The Wool Market
• The Corn Exchange
• Mexborough Market
A number of questions were asked which covered a range of topics including the following.
Corn Exchange – Members were informed that retail vendors would be sought by trawling social media and online databases for suitable local and regional businesses. It was explained that the type of retail vendors being targeted would include fashion boutiques, and service industries such as hairdressing. Members learnt that there was an efficient team in place dedicated to leasing in Doncaster. Reference was made to open days that would be coming up soon in the future. It was explained that there would also be social media advertising on Facebook seeking interest from Doncaster businesses. Members heard how it was considered important to focus on products and services that fitted in well with that part of the market.
Market Occupancy Rates – In terms of retaining current vendors and attracting future vendors, Members were informed that a similar approach was taken for the Corn Exchange as it was for the rest of the estate. It was noted that there were certain hot spots and that a more selective approach was being taken for the wool market. It was explained that before entering a lease, there were certain steps that were undertaken such as carrying out financial checks, looking at business and shop fitting plans, where appropriate, before prospective tenants agreed terms and entered a lease.
Reference was made to Doncaster Goosehill Market and Crewe Market and the support provided to traders.
Percentage of Lets – Regarding the 88% of rental lets, Members were informed that the only difference between 5 years ago and the current day was the refurbishment of the Corn Exchange and a transfer of empty stalls to Doncaster Goosehill. Members were informed by the CEO that he was not aware that there had been any instances of a physical reduction in market stalls.
A Member referred to a recent survey that supported the market being brought back in-house and commented that traders were leaving to go to retail units as they could no longer afford the rent. Members heard that rents had been increased over the years reflecting how the Council had increased MAMs own rent and that no profit had been made in Doncaster or Mexborough. It was commented that traders who left to go to retail units were the ones who generally benefited more from that move.
Reference was made to the change in the shopping base which included younger and more affluent people as well as the existing shoppers compared to other places.
A Member questioned whether a percentage of revenue was now charged as opposed to rent. Clarification was provided by the CEO that when the wool market was first established, all traders were on a turnover rent approximately 6 months before MAM took over. It was explained that the turnover rents were very low at 2-3% of turnover, and that the national standard for hospitality food halls was 20-25%. Members heard that contracts had not been changed but rents had been modified upwards through a staggered approach, and new traders would go automatically onto 20% of turnover rent. It was noted that it was a commercial decision made by MAM and that existing traders rent increases had been staggered to bring them up to the national average.
It was questioned what could be done in terms of supporting traders whose businesses were not considered viable, such as by deferring an increase in rent. It was noted that this only applied to the wool market and that there needed to be a valid reason to discuss a different type of arrangement with the tenant which should be then made available to all as part of a transparent and open process.
Covid Relief - Members were informed that those traders who were closed during this time were informed about how they could access relief needed for commercial rent. Reference was made to information provided from traders which presented a different picture during the pandemic and the CEO offered to look at that outside of the meeting. It was also commented that information would have been provided by Doncaster Council across the board.
Mexborough Market – Members were informed how efforts had been made over the last 5 years to attract new traders on rental incentive deals, only for traders to leave and the market to return to 60% occupancy a few months later. It was explained that a loss was being generated through a £55,000 income against £320,000 in costs. It was noted that in 2019 when MAM took over the markets that income generated from the market was lower and expenditure was higher than expected.
It was viewed that the Mexborough Market needed to be brought closer to the high street where people could see and access it. Reference was made to the challenges within the Mexborough city centre, with some issues that required further consideration such as the flyover, connectivity, and multi-story car park.
The Executive Director of Place spoke about the commitment of working with MAM in Doncaster and Mexborough to move forward. A Member questioned what plans were in place to achieve that and reference was made to public events and the Mexborough masterplan, although it was recognised that there was a need to consider solutions going forward. There was a brief discussion around historical issues around the car park in Mexborough and what was taking place currently.
ACTION: In respect of developments for the future including the corn exchange Councillor Jones asked whether he could have sight of the rolling 5-year forecast.
RESOLVED That the Panel note the information provided.
.
7
Update for Levelling Up Doncaster North
Attachments:
- Document cover report for levelling up fund final 28 Jun 2024
- Document levelling up presentation final 28 Jun 2024
Minutes
The Panel was asked to consider information provided in relation to Levelling Up Doncaster North that included delivery in Mexborough, Moorends and Brodsworth Miners Welfare Institute.
Several questions were asked which addressed the following issues.
Profit made on Levelling Up Projects – Concern was raised around profits coming out of Levelling Up Projects that were being returned to the SYMCA, as indicated in a previous Cabinet report. It was clarified that the report referred specifically to the Waterfront project as part of the Phase 1 where LUF was linked to additional resources being sought through SYMCA using gainshare (plugging a shortfall to acquire land).
In respect to the gainshare element, Members were informed that the Council was working with SYMCA to understand how that would proceed as the terms and conditions were under negotiation with SYMCA. It was confirmed that it was not in relation to Mexborough nor Brodsworth.
It was explained that LUF was a that helped to make the investments required and the most significant risk of LUF or gainshare was delivering against a particular timescale or output. It was noted how the funding from the initial bid in 2022 was now condensed into 2-year period which was challenging.
Spend and Impact on Other Areas – It was acknowledged that funding streams were often project based and it was questioned how they impacted on the wider connectivity. It was stated that Mexborough was a good example of what could happen through forward thinking and when a masterplan was in place for when funding become available for transport, regeneration, or housing.
It was recognised that a significant amount of money was being spent on the city centre where there was often more of a focus. The Executive Director for Place believed that there was a consolidated piece to be undertaken with SYMCA linking major regeneration schemes to transport planning. It was noted that the funding provided a catalyst and driver, as well as an opportunity to consider what options were available. but that the authority was committed to providing a market provision within Mexborough. It was considered that the next challenge will be about what is going to happen in other towns.
Grand Theatre – Members heard that there was an aspiration to bring the Grand Theatre back as an operational theatre. It was explained that funding paid for investigative work to take place into what the options could include. It was commented that this would involve a great deal of work and mean significant costs going into tens of millions of pounds. Member were informed that a dialogue would be sought with the new owner to see what could be undertaken to bring the theatre back to use. Reference was made to the new iconic office building opposite and strategic gateway. It was noted that there was now clarity on costs to make it safe and accessible as well as options for short, medium, and long-term use such as compartmentalised usage. It was viewed that there needed to be broader piece of work undertaken as well as longer-term consideration around the whole corridor opposite the station.
Heritage Building (Mexborough) – It was clarified that in the original proposal the heritage building was Montague Chambers. Members were informed that following a full engagement exercise, there was a better understanding of numbers. This included concerns raised by the Department of Levelling Up Fund around its inclusion in the bid which resulted in it being removed. It was explained that this meant that the rest of the scheme could be made deliverable within budget and allowed for some flexibility for additional improvements.
Member were informed that the building had been identified as an iconic building within the masterplan. It was noted that dialogue was ongoing regarding the building if LUF was not available as its integrity and safety were considered to be in poor condition and in need of repair.
There was a brief conversation around the challenges of many different types of national funding schemes which had not progressed well, and it was felt that more could be done around joining those schemes up. This would be more of a collective pot on a local, regional, and national basis, for example, transport and connectivity.
Brodsworth Miners Welfare Hall – A Member of the Panel commented that Brodsworth Miners Welfare Hall belonged to the Brodsworth Miners and noted the work being undertaken to bring the building back into community use.
Impact of Planning Applications in Mexborough – Concern was raised around the impact of planning applications within Mexborough that could lead to higher traffic around the bridge/flyover. It was responded that transport planning needed to take account of ongoing and future developments which would impact the transport and flow. In terms of planning applications, it was noted that transport experts had been engaged with and confirmed that there would be no detrimental impact to transport as part of that modelling. It was also stated that as part of individual planning applications, there had to be an assessment of the transport impact which also needed to be validated in case of a future challenge.
Shop Frontage Scheme - Members were informed that an officer had visited Mexborough to look at the scope and it was hoped around 80 businesses would take the scheme up. It was commented that on the assumption approval was given, the scheme would then be administered on the same basis as other schemes and be available to shop front owners to cost out works that would make improvements to the visual presentation with the £10k available.
RESOLVED That the Panel note the information provided.
Several questions were asked which addressed the following issues.
Profit made on Levelling Up Projects – Concern was raised around profits coming out of Levelling Up Projects that were being returned to the SYMCA, as indicated in a previous Cabinet report. It was clarified that the report referred specifically to the Waterfront project as part of the Phase 1 where LUF was linked to additional resources being sought through SYMCA using gainshare (plugging a shortfall to acquire land).
In respect to the gainshare element, Members were informed that the Council was working with SYMCA to understand how that would proceed as the terms and conditions were under negotiation with SYMCA. It was confirmed that it was not in relation to Mexborough nor Brodsworth.
It was explained that LUF was a that helped to make the investments required and the most significant risk of LUF or gainshare was delivering against a particular timescale or output. It was noted how the funding from the initial bid in 2022 was now condensed into 2-year period which was challenging.
Spend and Impact on Other Areas – It was acknowledged that funding streams were often project based and it was questioned how they impacted on the wider connectivity. It was stated that Mexborough was a good example of what could happen through forward thinking and when a masterplan was in place for when funding become available for transport, regeneration, or housing.
It was recognised that a significant amount of money was being spent on the city centre where there was often more of a focus. The Executive Director for Place believed that there was a consolidated piece to be undertaken with SYMCA linking major regeneration schemes to transport planning. It was noted that the funding provided a catalyst and driver, as well as an opportunity to consider what options were available. but that the authority was committed to providing a market provision within Mexborough. It was considered that the next challenge will be about what is going to happen in other towns.
Grand Theatre – Members heard that there was an aspiration to bring the Grand Theatre back as an operational theatre. It was explained that funding paid for investigative work to take place into what the options could include. It was commented that this would involve a great deal of work and mean significant costs going into tens of millions of pounds. Member were informed that a dialogue would be sought with the new owner to see what could be undertaken to bring the theatre back to use. Reference was made to the new iconic office building opposite and strategic gateway. It was noted that there was now clarity on costs to make it safe and accessible as well as options for short, medium, and long-term use such as compartmentalised usage. It was viewed that there needed to be broader piece of work undertaken as well as longer-term consideration around the whole corridor opposite the station.
Heritage Building (Mexborough) – It was clarified that in the original proposal the heritage building was Montague Chambers. Members were informed that following a full engagement exercise, there was a better understanding of numbers. This included concerns raised by the Department of Levelling Up Fund around its inclusion in the bid which resulted in it being removed. It was explained that this meant that the rest of the scheme could be made deliverable within budget and allowed for some flexibility for additional improvements.
Member were informed that the building had been identified as an iconic building within the masterplan. It was noted that dialogue was ongoing regarding the building if LUF was not available as its integrity and safety were considered to be in poor condition and in need of repair.
There was a brief conversation around the challenges of many different types of national funding schemes which had not progressed well, and it was felt that more could be done around joining those schemes up. This would be more of a collective pot on a local, regional, and national basis, for example, transport and connectivity.
Brodsworth Miners Welfare Hall – A Member of the Panel commented that Brodsworth Miners Welfare Hall belonged to the Brodsworth Miners and noted the work being undertaken to bring the building back into community use.
Impact of Planning Applications in Mexborough – Concern was raised around the impact of planning applications within Mexborough that could lead to higher traffic around the bridge/flyover. It was responded that transport planning needed to take account of ongoing and future developments which would impact the transport and flow. In terms of planning applications, it was noted that transport experts had been engaged with and confirmed that there would be no detrimental impact to transport as part of that modelling. It was also stated that as part of individual planning applications, there had to be an assessment of the transport impact which also needed to be validated in case of a future challenge.
Shop Frontage Scheme - Members were informed that an officer had visited Mexborough to look at the scope and it was hoped around 80 businesses would take the scheme up. It was commented that on the assumption approval was given, the scheme would then be administered on the same basis as other schemes and be available to shop front owners to cost out works that would make improvements to the visual presentation with the £10k available.
RESOLVED That the Panel note the information provided.
8
Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions
Attachments:
- Document MASTER WORK PLAN FINAL for R and H 28 Jun 2024
- Document Forward Plan for OSMC 28 Jun 2024
Minutes
The Senior Governance Officer presented the Scrutiny Work Plan and Council’s Forward Plan of Key Decisions to the Panel for its consideration. She explained that work was being undertaken to identify which meetings would host which items and Members would be informed in due course.
RESOLVED: That the report, be noted.
RESOLVED: That the report, be noted.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in