By compelling property owners to maintain a certain standard of upkeep of the property it will improve the environment in the town and thus improve its appeal to shoppers and shop owners alike. This will, in turn, increase trade in the town and make business more viable not only for national chains but also independent traders. Bury St Edmunds is already a popular tourist destination and improving its appearance even further will only add to this. The bylaw could also be such that properties had to fit to a certain specification and, therefore, national retailers could be pushed (more so than they are already) to ensure their shop front fits in with the image of the town. With the opening of the Cattle Market development this bylaw will improve the appearance of the existing town centre and help maintain its attraction to visiting shoppers. Such an improvement in the town’s appearance will only aid its success in competitions such as Britain in Bloom and thus its profile nationally. It will also discourage discount shops from opening on short term leases and detracting from the retail offer in the town.

Against such a bylaw:

Retail nationally is in something of an economic downturn and, by imposing more regulations, already struggling businesses may find it difficult to make ends meet in the face of this extra expense. This increased red-tape could discourage people from setting up their business in Bury St Edmunds and they may, instead, choose a similar or neighbouring town where such regulations do not exist. This bylaw will also discourage discount shops or businesses on short term leases from opening which, after all, would not survive if there was not a demand for them. The opening of the Cattle Market development will provide new, serviced properties and having such a bylaw in place will put the historic town centre at a commercial disadvantage. Finally, any such bylaw will require enforcement and this will be an increased burden on already stretched public funds.

Personally I think that the idea has some merit. Firstly, whatever the local press may have us believe, trade in Bury St Edmunds is much better than elsewhere in the country. This is not to say that things aren’t difficult but many independent retailers have demonstrated that a good business model can succeed here regardless of the picture nationally. Secondly, any new business that opens will normally have its frontage painted or improved – such a bylaw only asks that this standard is maintained. Thirdly, the argument that improving the image of the town will increase tourism and improve trade is a compelling one. Abbeygate Street, in particular, is one of our town’s most attractive streets but, sadly, many of the properties have been allowed to deteriorate to an extent that many would find unacceptable. Finally, although this requires further investigation, I don’t believe the administration costs will be too onerous – the majority of cases would probably be resolved through the issuing of an enforcement notice. Ultimately, I believe we need to be ambitious in our plans for the town and if we market Bury St Edmunds as the finest market town in England, which it surely is, then a policy like this can only help us achieve our goals.

UPDATE 14/03/2008:

After investigating this further, I have discovered that, while some towns have a bylaw in place governing the upkeep of buildings, such a bylaw is not strictly necessary.

The desired result can, I am reliably informed, be brought about through the proper enforcement of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and, in particular, section 215 of this Act. This does change the onus of this topic somewhat and removes the complex element of introducing a bylaw. The Act applies equally to all properties, not just commercial ones, and has been used very proactively elsewhere. I will continue to investigate this and may make it the subject of a future blog rather than extending this one.