Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member (40 mins)

The chair reminded members that the committee should focus on the financial aspects of the strategy and not the environmental aspects which were the remit of another committee. He expressed his disappointment that the information provided to EBI was so much lighter than what had now been published for the Cabinet meeting on 26 July 2011.  Despite the austere times, the council was about to commit £140K of public money into the redesign of Imperial and Montpellier Gardens primarily to meet the expansion needs of Cheltenham Festivals(CF). Before committing this amount of public money the committee needed to understand the value added by the investment to residents in the area and to local residents and visitors to the town who enjoy the Gardens but may have no interest in the festivals.

Another member questioned why an expectation had not been set at the start that in order to obtain funding from the council, CF would need to provide a business case. CF was an independent organisation and should be no different to any other organisation seeking funding from the council. This committee had only been given high-level figures and as such it was impossible to make a judgement and left many questions unanswered.

In response the Cabinet Member Sustainability said that he understood members wanted more information and he had done his best to provide it. He advised that the economic information supplied to the committee was no different to that in the Cabinet report. The economic business case was backed up by research carried out by the consultants on behalf of CF who had concluded that the festivals brought £5.2 million to the local economy, a large sum of money. He suggested that the committee was not trying to evaluate the value of CF but where the festivals were best accommodated. In his view it did not require a great deal of study to conclude that the best option for the economy of Cheltenham was the town centre.

The chair responded that clearly the festivals were important to the economy of the town but there was no way of verifying the figures provided by CF. It was equally important to ensure the Gardens were not compromised as they provided a year-round recreational area for local residents and enhanced the visitor experience which in itself must reflect on the local economy. The important question was the added value from the proposed £140k spend.

The Cabinet Member Sustainability responded that the majority of the £140K spend was for improving the gardens regardless of CF but he acknowledged that some of the infrastructure work would not be required. In relation to the benefits being quoted, the sum of £140K was not huge. He did not consider it was a good use of officer time or council resources to spend money on consultants to verify the figures.

The chair said that the committee had not mentioned consultants and in his view officers within the Council should have been able to provide the information.

In the discussion that followed members suggested that part of the £140K was being invested in what should be considered as public realm improvements.  CF was an important part of the economy of the town and the value of initiating further work to verify the figures was questioned. A compromise solution was being suggested and perhaps this should be sufficient for the remit of this committee. Members suggested that the focus should be on putting controls in place to ensure that the gardens were reinstated following any festivals and there was the appropriate redress for the council if this was not done. The consultation had highlighted that people were very angry when the gardens were left in a poor state after a Festival. It would also be important to ensure that the redesign project was carefully managed and sound project management principles adopted.

The chair asked what assurances could be given to local residents that the council would not be picking up the costs if unforeseen damage occurred for instance due to adverse weather conditions. What would happen if the £140K allocated was insufficient to carry out all the work?

The Cabinet Member Sustainability advised that reinstatement issues were very important and were covered in the revised conditions of usage agreement between the council and CF. Under that agreement the Council would organise the reinstatement work and CF would pay the bill. He had made it clear to officers that he was expecting the work to be completed to time and budget but there was a degree of flexibility for deferring items to a later phase.  There was no other funding available for the work.

The chair referred to a number of risks set out in the Cabinet report with a high score of 16 and asked for the Cabinet Member to comment on the actions being taken to mitigate these risks. He asked what would happen if the CF were so successful that they needed to expand further.

In response the Cabinet Member Sustainability, advised that he was confident that the design was right in terms of density of tents and the appropriate mitigating actions were in place to deal with any potential damage to the gardens. He was confident from the consultation that other park users would not be disadvantaged by the proposed design.   He confirmed that he had made it clear to CF that there was no scope for further expansion in terms of days or space in Montpellier or Imperial Gardens. Therefore CF would have to look at other options which might include Pittville Park or Sandford Park.

The chair invited Paul Jenkins, the Finance Director CF to add any comments.

Mr Jenkins confirmed that all the commitments for any reinstatement work following the festivals was built into their budgets and CF were fully committed to repairing any damage caused and keeping to the terms of the land-use agreement. He wished to put on record that the consultant employed by CF had been fully independent and carried out a comprehensive survey of businesses at different times of the day. There was a 95 to 96% confidence figure attached to their results. CF had not steered the results in any way. The vision of CF was to be a part of Cheltenham town and the ethos of the festivals was to form a hub in the town which would generate a unique atmosphere. The increased usage of Montpellier Gardens would decrease the pressure on Imperial Gardens and this was the reason for deciding to relocate the Jazz Festival. In response to a question about why the CF had stopped using other venues, he said that the cost of the Centaur was an issue but they would still be considering the Everyman Theatre and the Parabola Theatre where appropriate.

Asked whether there was a dispute process in place,  Mr Jenkins said that CF would work together with the council to resolve any differences. The Cabinet Member Sustainability confirmed that any disputes would be resolved by negotiation and it would be an admission of defeat if it became necessary to call in lawyers.

The chair asked the Director Operations, as the officer responsible for any reparation work, whether he was satisfied that he had sufficient staff and resources to carry it out.

The Director Operations responded that yes he was confident that he had the necessary resources given that the cost of any reinstatement work would be met by Cheltenham Festivals.  He highlighted to members that there would always been a delay between a festival or any event in the parks and full recovery after any reinstatement work. The decision to re-turf or re-seed any damaged area in the grass would depend on circumstances. Re-turfing was more expensive but would give a better finish and depending on the extent of the damage if re-turfing was the only option then that would be done.  

Resolved that the committee support the spend of £140K for improvements to the gardens and request that Cabinet take due note of the comments made during this meeting and that steps are taken to ensure that commitments made by Cheltenham Festivals are documented and adhered to in the future.