Agenda item

1.

Questions from Mary Nelson

1.              Has this committee been presented with adequate numerical  evidence to convince them of the economic and business justification for CBC allowing Cheltenham Festivals to undertake a massive expansion into both Imperial and Montpellier Gardens (with the unavoidable large scale and continual grass damage this will cause), rather than pursuing the other possible alternatives of

a)              continuing to hire Cheltenham’s other excellent venues – the Everyman, the Parabola Arts Theatre, The Playhouse and the Centaur,     or

b)              moving to a larger and more suitable site for a greatly expanded FestivalVillage e.g. The Racecourse?

Response from Chair of EBI, Councillor Malcolm Stennett

I am not satisfied that the information provided to date is sufficient to enable this committee to make an informed judgement as to the economic and business justification for supporting the restructuring plans proposed for Imperial and Montpellier Gardens.

It is for this reason I have asked for this topic to be included at item 6 of the Agenda for this meeting.

In a supplementary question, Mrs Nelson referred to paragraph 3.1 of the report for agenda item 6 and suggested that it would have been sensible for the council to do their own research on the economic aspects of the festivals but also to obtain a precise figure of how much time a greatly expanded Festival required in both Imperial and Montpellier Gardens,  by drawing up a clear chart or timetable of the proposed number of days required for each festival, including the estimated erection and dismantling times, in order to see if the scale of venues and events proposed is viable in the 75 day time limit being imposed.  This is especially important in the case of MontpellierGardens, where the 75 day limit is already much reduced (to no more than 45 days) by a number of other established events which regularly take place there.   

She believed that the Jazz and Literature Festivals, being large, would  not be able to erect and dismantle within the time limit of around 45 days in Montpellier Gardens, so requested the above information be provided before Cabinet approved these proposals? 

In response the chair indicated that the committee would be examining the first part of her question under agenda item 6 and would request that Cabinet be provided with any relevant information that comes up during the meeting.

2.

Questions from Ken Pollock

1.
It cannot surely be cheaper to pay for the erection and for 75 retention on site of so much additional tentage, in two parks, plus the necessary flooring and raked seating, plus the cost of re-turfing/watering, instead of simply hiring Cheltenham's available venues (already constructed and fitted out), i.e. Everyman, Playhouse and Parabola theatres, plus the Centaur.

It has not been explained whether this claimed 'saving' depends on CF being able to corral a much larger share of the catering income from intensified on-site provision (via its subcontractor rents).

It appears that EBI Scrutiny has still not had any success obtaining (from/via the Cabinet) a financial justification for any the above.

The content (i.e. figures, not generalities or assurances) from the proclaimed "40 minutes presentation" to you by Councillor Whyborn needs to be printed and distributed (at least shortly) before your meeting, to enable constructive discussion.

Do you believe CF has produced a business case explaining why the inevitable damage to Cheltenham's key Gardens has to be tolerated as 'unavoidable in that location' (as harm to a ListedBuilding would have to be justified) ? 

2.

Occupying most of a public park for 75 days per annum is excessive because it represents 35% of the seven ‘Summer Time’ months (April to October), and the Gardens will then have their availability and attractiveness removed for a further third of that key summer period, due to the lawns being yellowed/recovering or dead/reseeded.

(In principle, such loss of amenity should only be considered in one limited area (say 30%) of a very large public park.)

If CF wishes to experiment with the viability of a much larger scale of operation, it should not be permitted to do so at the expense of an irreparable garden feature in a relatively small public park, namely the upper flower-lawn in that 'quarter' of Imperial Gardens which is nearest to the Queen's Hotel/Promenade.

Should not proper consideration still be given to excluding that 'quarter' from degradation, (as is shown to be feasible in my submitted alternative plan, with no major loss of tentage area) ?

Response from Chair of EBI, Councillor Malcolm Stennett

Question 1.

As stated in my reply to the earlier question I am not satisfied that sufficient information has been given to justify the restructuring of either Imperial or MontpellierGardens and have accordingly asked for the issue to be included at item 6 of the Agenda for this meeting.

Question 2.

This question refers to the Environmental impact of the increased usage of both Imperial and MontpellierGardens and as such I have asked for it to be referred to the Chair of the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee for comment  

In a supplementary question, Mr Pollock, queried the committee’s response to question 2 as there was no Environment Committee scheduled before the Cabinet meeting and when he had raised the question at the last meeting of that committee on 13 July they had ducked the issue.   

In response the chair requested officers in consultation with the Cabinet Member Sustainability, provide a written response to Mr Pollock.