Decision Maker: Charity Trustee Sub-Committee

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: Yes

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: January 20, 2026

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.