Agenda item

Report of the Director of Finance and Support

To support the original recommendation made in the report to Cabinet on 23 September 2009 to agree to the disposal of the land designated as public open space (edged red upon the plan shown at Appendix 1 of the Cabinet report) by way of a lease, on terms referred to in that report.

Mr Alan Brown addressed Cabinet in his capacity as Chair of Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park.  He called for the Cabinet to decline the proposal  and asked them to support the charitable trust to safeguard the heritage of the park. He claimed that the Cabinet report did not tell the whole story and quoted the Police Area Commander as saying that a café may contribute to crime and disorder and attract criminal enterprise.  He then referred to the high cost of crime prevention in the event that the scheme went ahead as against the relatively small cost of demolishing the existing toilet block.

In response to a question, Mr Brown gave details of the role of the Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park.

Mr Peter Sharpe addressed Cabinet on behalf of local residents and as a member of Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park.  He described current problems of anti-social behaviour in the area and suggested that alcoholics and drug abusers would be likely to frequent the proposed café. He did not think the proposed crime prevention measures would be sufficient.  He pointed out the duty of local authorities to protect communities and called for a rejection of the proposal.

In response to a query as to how the presence of a café would be likely to exacerbate crime problems, Mr Sharpe quoted comments from the Sector Commander for the Safer Communities Team as set out in the report that suggested a potential for increased crime and disorder.

Mavis Wilmhurst addressed Cabinet on behalf of the Northampton Ironstone Railway Trust (NIRT).  She described the work of the Trust and the activities offered at the site. She felt that the proposed commercial enterprise in the car park would compromise funding applications from the Trust for any improvements to their own café, which was integral to their overall income. She referred Cabinet to the NIRT website for further information about their role.

Ms Wilmhurst confirmed that the NIRT café was only open when the trains were running but that they would like to attract more visitors and if they wanted to upgrade the facilities, they would be unlikely to achieve external funding if there was already a commercial café in the park.

Eileen Daily addressed Cabinet on behalf of local residents and in support of the work of the NIRT.  She suggested that improved facilities at NIRT would encourage more people to the park and that an increased volume of use would make it a safer place for all. She asked for groups to work together on this and called for local residents to act as wardens so that the area could be opened up with a potential to cater for a wider range of people. 

Chris Gutowski addressed Cabinet and spoke about the need for trust. He commented on the existing traffic problems and then described his experiences as a victim of crime that he associated with anti social behaviour in the car park. He asserted that the Cabinet report did not put enough emphasis on the recommendations of the Police.

Brian Oldham then addressed Cabinet reminding them that there had been 400 objections to the proposal for the conversion of the toilet block to a café. In addition, the Police, Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park, NIRT and local ward councillors were also against the scheme.  He then questioned why the applicant should be allowed a rent-free period followed by a concessionary rental period. He estimated that the removal of trees and reduction of bunding would cost the council £15,000 – £20,000 and questioned why the scheme was even being considered.

Christine Dalley addressed Cabinet as a resident of the area and user of the park for 25 years. She welcomed the opportunity to attract more people to the park and felt that a café would improve the security of the car park. She did not see traffic as a problem as there was already a zebra crossing in place. She did not want the law-abiding majority to miss out on a facility because of the suggested possibility of criminal activity.

Proposer of the café, Colin Ingle addressed Cabinet.  He pointed out that the toilet block had been a magnet for crime for a number of years.  He maintained that he had no intention of removing bunding or trees. It was his intention to operate a safe and family friendly café that could also double as a visitor centre and attract young people to train in the catering trade.  He had received support for the café from the local PCSO and assured Cabinet that it would be well managed and an enhancement to the park.

Janet Clarke addressed Cabinet, expressing surprise at the catalogue of crime that had been described in her area.  She would welcome a café and suggested that this would bring the park in line with Abington Park, Delapre Abbey and Becketts Park in terms of catering facilities.  She felt that a working café would be better than the current toilet block, which was an eyesore.

Sophie Jelly addressed Cabinet as a park user and dog walker and suggested that a café would be a good thing as a meeting place for family and friends.

Councillor PD Varnsverry addressed Cabinet and gave a history of the troubles in the car park.  He commented that the café was in a secluded position that created a magnet for anti social behaviour.  Referring to the report, he highlighted the 15 planning conditions for the café, including 6 relating to crime prevention.  He asked for the concerns of local community to be listened to and outlined his serious concerns in the event that the café application be allowed to go ahead.

Councillor Hawkins addressed Cabinet commenting that more emphasis should have been put in the report on the heritage value of the park and the ironstone railway site. She hoped that Cabinet would see the importance of the leisure use of the park.

Councillor Mildren addressed Cabinet and asked if the replacement of the existing building with a café would increase crime in the area.  He pointed out that any rent-free period would normally be allocated so that works could be undertaken to develop the premises as a café. He wondered if new toilet facilities might be included in the previously proposed Richmond Scheme.  He advised Cabinet to be mindful of their legal responsibility to maximise income from their assets whilst looking at the issue for the benefit of the community.

Councillor Clarke addressed Cabinet stating that this was a lose, lose situation.  The Council had to take responsibility, along with the police, to address concerns over the anti social behaviour whether or not the application was granted.  He had sympathy with the applicant who had been forced to go through a tortuous route and suggested that the process had been badly managed.

As the relevant portfolio holder, Councillor Perkins presented the report to Cabinet. Before bringing the report back to Cabinet, he had listened to the views of residents and the police and pointed out that the police had no further concerns and were not convinced that a café would add to crime and disorder issues in the area.  He commented that an area did not cause crime; rather it was an individual’s behaviour that was of concern.  He felt that parents should take some responsibility for their children’s actions and he refused to be influenced by a minority of ‘yobs’. He wished to encourage small businesses and confirmed that a discounted rent would be conditional on capital investment in the café. He urged cabinet to accept the recommendations of the report.

It was confirmed that there would be provision for either party to break the lease agreement after one and three years.

Councillor Beardsworth pointed out that many other parks had cafes and that if risks were not taken, then nothing would be achieved. In any case, there was no evidence that the operation of a café would increase crime in the area.

Councillor B Markham stressed the importance of the future development of the park and felt that a café and toilets were needed to encourage additional use of the area.  He commented play areas encouraged vandalism and that some people thought everything caused anti-social behaviour.  The café already had planning consent and it was the Cabinet’s remit to just authorise the lease and terms.

Councillor Crake thanked the Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park for their good work on plans for the park. She asked for all interested parties to work together to give visitors to the park the facilities they needed.

Councillor B Hoare commented that he was unaware of any proposal to remove the bund and it was confirmed that there were no additional costs to those outlined in the report

RESOLVED

To support the original recommendation made in the report to Cabinet on 23 September 2009 to agree to the disposal of the land designated as public open space (edged red upon the plan shown at Appendix 1 of the Cabinet report) by way of a lease, on terms referred to in that report.