Decision:
Resolved: that the repot be noted.
Minutes:
4.1 Gavin Plaskitt (Programme Manager) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:
· The report responded to a number of questions that had been raised about the regeneration of Beckenham Place Park. This included an update on the rationale for the interim use of the mansion building in the park as well as information about the events and activities that were taking place in the park.
· A number of options had been considered for the use of the buildings in the park.
· The option for providing round the clock surveillance and security for the mansion house would have cost more than a quarter of a million pounds a year.
· A second option for property guardianship was considered, which would have required additional spending to make the building habitable.
· A third option for meanwhile use was also considered, which entailed some costs but also enabled the mansion building to host events and activities for park users.
· A pros and cons analysis of each of the options was included in the appendix.
· One of the significant benefits of the meanwhile use option was to attract new audiences to the park and to generate positive feelings about the regeneration.
· The meanwhile use option was chosen (for an initial period of 22 months), this helped the project avoid significant security costs and provided additional time for the consideration for future options for usage of the mansion house.
· It was believed that the audience for activities in the park needed to be better developed before options for the long term use of the mansion could be decided.
· A range of meanwhile activities were currently taking place and the mansion building was being well used.
· Analysis on building usage carried out over the past few weeks demonstrated that a majority of users from Lewisham were from Bellingham and Downham wards.
· It was estimated that over the year more than ten thousand people would use the building.
4.2 Gavin Plaskitt responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:
· Officers had considered a number of options for the meanwhile use of the mansion house. A single provider (which the Council had an existing relationship with) had been considered for the meanwhile management of the mansion house, but they had withdrawn at the last moment.
· The short timescale for the safeguarding of the building and the extremely high potential security costs meant that officers had to act quickly to appoint a meanwhile use provider.
· The meanwhile use provider in the mansion house at present had a record of sustaining activities in buildings that were not in optimum condition.
· There was not a tendering process for the leasing of the meanwhile use contract for the building. Officers had to demonstrate that the contract for the lease was good value of money but there was no requirement for a tendering exercise.
· There were options to adapt the business rates system to encourage meanwhile use (that would be applicable across the borough). One option was to value the social impact of activities taking place alongside the rateable value, in practice, this was very rarely done.
· The park had been in decline for decades. The process of regenerating and rehabilitating the park would take the best part of a decade.
· £20-£25m in funding had been secured to invest in the park. Work was just beginning and not everything would happen at once.
· The Heritage Lottery fund had advised that the decision about the future of the mansion house should not be rushed. It was important to gain a good understanding of the audience for activities in the park. It was likely that over the course of the regeneration scheme, the audience for activities would change.
· Consultation was taking place with stakeholders to address concerns about the application for an events license in the park. The license would enable more of the types of events that were currently being held in the park, rather than any large scale music events or festivals.
4.3 In the Committee discussion, the following key points were also noted:
· Members were concerned about the timing and management of the appointment process for the meanwhile managers of the building.
· Opinions differed between members of the Committee about the appropriateness and the ambition of the medium to long term vision for the use of the mansion house building in the context of the regeneration of the park.
· Several members commented on the excellent variety and high quality of events and activities taking place in the park.
· Members were disappointed that the application for the events license in the park had been delayed.
4.4 Resolved: that the repot be noted.