Content

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.