Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

(please note the meeting will need to go into exempt session if the committee wish to discuss the business case or exempt risks)

The Chair reminded Members that they would need to go into exempt session if they wanted to discuss the business case or exempt risks.

The Director of Corporate Projects introduced the report which set out the options for the Arle Nursery site. This report followed on from the Cabinet decision in December 2017 to adopt a mixed public realm planting scheme within the Borough thereby reducing the requirement for annual bedding plant stocks to be grown in the Nursery. Annual bedding plants would be retained in the Long Garden and Imperial Gardens.  Falling revenue from the nursery sales of bedding plants for commercial use and the substantial investment required at Arle Nursery had prompted this review. The Cabinet was due to make a decision in July 2018 and the project team welcome feedback and comments on the options presented or the committee’s view on anything missing from the analysis that had been done.

A Member made an observation that there was more priority for affordable housing in the town centre.

A Member asked whether there was a risk that in the future the council may be left with no commercial supplier of bedding plants or that one supplier may have a monopoly and could set prices over the odds. Would the council be able to maintain Cheltenham in bloom and keep the town looking nice?

Officers acknowledged the risk but thought that more nurseries may open as others close. The Cabinet Member Finance added that this could open up new opportunities for local suppliers as there were a number of independent nurseries in the Cheltenham area.

A Member was uncomfortable with the sequence of events which had led to the logical conclusion set out in the report and put the council in an extremely advantageous position. The site had first been taken out of the green belt and the council had underinvested in the nursery to such an extent that it was now financially unviable to maintain it.  There had been strong support to maintain traditional planting in areas of the town. Perennial planting required a lot more maintenance and in his opinion it was already evident from the appearance of such an area in Prestbury that this was inadequate. 

In response to a question from the Chair about how the site would be marketed, officers advised that there will be a full market evaluation and they would look for other agencies who might be able to work with the council to develop the site. The Cabinet Member advised that she was unable to give any more details in public session. She explained that the site also adjoined private land, which already had planning permission for new build, and land owned by GCC. Initially GCC had not been interested in disposing of the land but this situation had now changed and further discussions would take place with the county if the Cabinet made the decision to dispose of the site. The aim would be 40% affordable housing in any new build.

Following a summing up by the Chair it was 

RESOLVED that the report and its recommendations be supported by the committee.