The county town with most empty shops is (allegedly)... Hinckley
OH NO IT ISN’T SAYS COUNCIL AS IT DISPUTES ‘OLD’ FIGURES
A SURVEY of the towns of Leicestershire has concluded that Hinckley currently has the highest number of shops lying empty – a verdict that has been strongly contested by the council.
The survey, which focused on the problem in Hinckley, also examined the health of retail in Loughborough, Melton, Coalville, Lutterworth, Market Harborough and Ashby.
The survey, by members of the Hinckley and District Chamber of Trade, found that in February of this year, 16.5 per cent of ground-floor retail units in Hinckley were empty.
Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council said the latest figure is 10.65 per cent, after new businesses opened.
By comparison the figure for Ashby, which had the lowest proportion of empty shops, was 2.7 per cent.
The second-worst in Leicestershire was found to be Loughborough, but that was doing far better than Hinckley at the time of the survey, with 9.6 per cent of its shops empty.
The report’s authors said that previous figures from 2014 showed that the Hinckley vacancy rate then was 10.2 per cent. As such, it was the only town on the list to have more empty shops now than then.
All six others had seen improving situations, with Ashby seeing the biggest drop, from 8.4 per cent empty units in 2014 to 2.7 per cent now.
The authors linked the vacancy rates to a reduced footfall in the town – again disputed by the council.
The report said: “Aside from the Covid pandemic, whatever happened to Hinckley between 2014 and 2022 appears to have had an unfortunate impact on the town’s centre ability to flourish, whereas a much healthier economic position appears in other Leicestershire towns.”
The authors made several recommendations to Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, including more parking bays for shoppers, more street entertainers and refreshing the town’s market.
They said in conclusion: “Action is needed now to encourage shoppers back into town and urgent steps taken to provide more accessibility.”
Gareth Hancock, a director at Jaspers homeware store, in the town’s main retail area, Castle Street, said: “Our footfall is definitely down by a large margin. Our sales have stayed reasonably well, but we’re one of the few in that respect.”
Jaspers, which took over the old Co-op building at the top of Castle Street, kept the cafeteria area that was popular with shoppers – and this proved to be a masterstroke.
“With the café, it helps to get people through the door every day, it helps fill the shop,” said Gareth.
“There are friends of mine that have shops in Castle Street, that will see two or three people walk through the door in a day. It must be frustrating.”
He said that limited parking was a key part of the problem and suggested that there should be more free parking provided close to the town centre.
Responding to the survey, the council said the town’s latest vacancy rate – recorded in May – was well below the East Midlands average of 15.1 per cent.
It said that since January, 14 businesses had opened in Hinckley, with six more “due to open shortly”.
Council leader Stuart Bray said: “This is not the time to talk down the town centre. That’s why we were dismayed by a report which the Chamber of Trade has produced and published.
“The report is misleading and its data inaccurate. We dispute much of its findings and its conclusions.
“The report also ignores key indicators such as the town’s consistently high footfall figures and repeatedly draws comparisons with areas that have little in common with Hinckley.”
Bill Cullen, the council’s chief executive, said: “The Covid pandemic has had significant impact on high streets up and down the country.
“Through the joint work of the council and its partners, and as the latest vacancy report shows, Hinckley has weathered the storm better than most.”
The research suggested the proportion of ground floor retail space lying empty in the seven county towns was:
Hinckley 16.5 per cent; Loughborough 9.6; Melton 8.4; Coalville 8.3; Lutterworth 4; Market Harborough 3.3; Ashby 2.7.