Purpose

To seek approval from this Committee to
proceed with a marketing exercise to seek licence offers for the
children’s rides.

Content

 

9.1

The Committee
considered a report of the Executive Director of Neighbourhood
Services which requested approval for the commencement of a
marketing exercise to select a new children’s rides operator
within Graves Park.

 

 

9.2

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

(a) 
Notes the contents of the
report;

(b) 
Agrees that approving the commencement of a marketing exercise for
a new children’s rides operator is in the best interest of
the Graves Park Charity, and therefore approves the commencement;
and

(c) 
Notes that a further report will be brought to this Committee
following the marketing process, seeking approval to enter into new
licence agreements with the recommended operator effective from 2nd
May 2026.

 

 

9.3

Reasons for
Decision

 

 

9.3.1

The children’s rides within the park
contributes to the objects of the charity; ‘the provision and
maintenance of a park and recreation ground for use by the public
with the object of improving their conditions of life.’ It
has also become an expected part of visitor’s park
experience.

 

 

9.3.2

Generating an income allows the Council as sole
trustee to support the management and maintenance of the park and
in turn contribute to the charity objects. Offering this prospect
to the market allows the Charity the opportunity to assess what
offer and income might be available to
it.

 

 

9.4

Alternatives Considered and
Rejected

 

 

9.4.1

Alternative Option 1 – Do
nothing
Reasons for rejection: There is the option to not
market the facility and allow the current licence to end on the 1st
May 2026. This would mean there would be no provision for this type
of offer within the park, reduce the options for recreation for
children within the park and would impact on the rental income for
the charity which contributes directly to the management and
maintenance of the park. This would have a detrimental impact on
the quality of the visitor experience. This option has therefore
been rejected.

 

 

9.4.2

Alternative Option 2 – Not to market and
the Charity to provide same or similar
services
Reasons for rejection:  An alternative option would be for the Charity to
operate the facility directly rather than marketing it to a
third-party operator. This approach would require the Charity to
invest in its own equipment and cover ongoing costs including (but
not limited to) staffing, insurance, and maintenance. Due to the
substantial upfront costs and operational demands, this option was
not considered to be in the best interest of the
Charity.