Park Mall Shopping Centre future debated - and way forward agreed by Council

Park Mall’s future was debated at a Full Council meeting last Thursday evening (17 July), brought about by a local petition to save part of the shopping centre.

Ashford Borough Council members acknowledged the strength of feeling, but agreed to continue with plans to demolish the shopping centre in full and redevelop the area so it can play an important part in the wider regeneration of the town centre. (These proposals are subject to the granting of planning permission).

The Park Mall site is not financially sustainable, with annual losses of £700,000 and significant maintenance costs projected of £980,000 by 2026/27 and £9.3 million from 2028 onwards. 

Last week’s decision

A motion was put forward by Cllr Simon Betty, Cabinet Member for Commercial Property & Investment: “That, in view of the points raised in the conclusion section of the report, no further action be taken in response to the Petition and the Council continue to deliver the project as previously agreed. That a report is brought forward to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee within a reasonable timeframe to review the actions taken prior to the notice to close Park Mall and the effectiveness of communication and support given to the tenants’ post decision.

This was seconded by Cllr Chilton, Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee. An amendment was suggested by Cllr Bartlett, which was agreed adding the following further paragraphs:

“The Council acknowledges the strength of feeling behind the petition and is asked to develop and share a plan for the long-term future of Park Mall. It is also asked to commit to supporting every affected business in finding new premises if necessary.

“The Overview and Scrutiny Committee is invited to analyse how this project sits alongside other policies and the Town Centre Reset, as well as to assess what the Council’s aspirations are for Park Mall’s long-term future, building on the significant opportunities we have in Ashford thanks to HS1 and the Designer Outlet. Overview and Scrutiny is also asked to scrutinise the process by which this decision was reached and make recommendations as required. Following this, Cabinet is asked to come forward with proposals for the long-term future of the site within twelve months and to undertake a full consultation with businesses and residents.”

Members were asked to vote on this motion, with 30 voting in favour of the motion, five members voting against and four members abstaining.

Current position

Park Mall’s interconnected structure presents significant challenges for partial demolition, as the shared walls, foundations, and services complicate the separation of retained units. Partial demolition is therefore not a financially viable option, given the substantial maintenance costs associated with any retained units and additional expenditure which is expected to outweigh any potential rental income, even under improved commercial rent conditions. 

A council spokesperson said: “The debate shows how seriously we took the petition proposal. Officers went back and looked in detail at whether a partial demolition was viable, but concluded it simply doesn’t stack up financially, and in fact would continue to be a monetary drain on our resources. 

“Members considered the proposals put forward in the petition but concluded that the best course of action, would be to continue with the complete demolition of the shopping centre complex. We understand the strength of feeling about this, and it is not a decision which has been taken lightly.

“However, there are limitations to the extent of assistance the council can provide, particularly when it comes to subsidising commercial lettings for independent businesses. While we are keen to support valuable community services, we must operate within the legal framework and financial constraints that govern our actions. 

“The process of presenting motions and voting on the Park Mall petition item followed our constitution. As the Solicitor to the Council explained at the meeting, the vote in favour of the first motion moved by Cllr Betty and seconded by Cllr Chilton (and amended by the addition of the paragraphs proposed by Cllr Bartlett) effectively dealt with the matter. There was therefore no constitutional basis for taking a second vote on the matter once the first motion had been voted on and agreed.”