Decision details

5.1

The committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Neighbourhood  Services seeking approval to the grant of a Tenancy at Will in respect of the Rose Garden Café to Julie Collins on the terms set out in the appendices after consideration of the contents of the Designated Adviser’s Report and satisfying itself that the proposed terms are the best that can be reasonably obtained by the Charity in the circumstances.

5.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Charity Trustee Sub-Committee:-

1. Having considered the commercial terms and the Designated Adviser’s Report (set out in attached Appendices), confirms that the Trustees are satisfied that the proposed terms are the best that can be reasonably obtained by the Charity in the circumstances.

2. Approves the TAW of the Property to the proposed Tenant based on the terms set out in this report.

5.3

Reasons for Decision

5.3.1

The proposal to grant a Tenancy at Will on the same terms as the existing

tenancy for the café:

•       Safeguards the café facility at Graves Park for the short term and avoids vacant building costs and unwanted antisocial behaviour.

•       Secures the income stream by way of a modest rent.

•       Allows continuity of service and staff, providing the take-away café facility within the park for use by the public.

•       Enables the property to continue to be occupied for the purposes of the

charitable objects of the Charity.

•       Complies with the statutory provisions contained within the Act and further with the requirements of the Charity Commission.

5.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

5.4.1

The first option was to close the café, which at this time would be inconsistent with previous decisions of this committee and is clearly not what the users of the park want based on the ongoing work with the Rose Garden Café Partnership.

5.4.2

The second option considered was a competitive tender for a new operator. This

option would lead to a pause in service and the property vacant for a period of

time, leading to income loss, additional costs and public disappointment. In

addition, the limitations of the existing building only able to provide a takeaway

service may not be attractive to operators. It is not known what the

impacts of the restoration and refurbishment will be, so it is not appropriate to

enter into a long-term arrangement at this point.