The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.
For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker and you will be asked to speak before Councillors debate the issue.
We are now live webcasting most of our committee meetings and you are welcome to view and listen to the discussion. The link to each webcast will be available on the meeting webpage, but you can also access them on the Somerset West and Taunton webcasting website.
Minutes:
Steve Martyn spoke on Blenheim Gardens Café – Minehead:-
The Jewel in The Crown
· Blenheim Gardens Café falls within the Wellington Square conservation area of Minehead. Covenants protecting the gardens have been in place since 1911. These state that the gardens are a public park for the pleasure of the people of Minehead. No permanent buildings are allowed. The buildings that are there are of timber construction and include a band stand, café, shelter and toilets. Alcohol may not be consumed within the gardens and the gates are locked at dusk.
The Café:
· There had been a café in the gardens for at least 40 years, run by one family. They were the last tenant who gave SWT notice in 2018 following a rent increase. There was great sadness when it closed particularly among young families with children and the elderly who used the café as a quiet and peaceful meeting place in contrast to the busy Avenue. The café has now been empty for 4 years and it’s condition has visibly deteriorated. This is under SWT’s watch and would never have been allowed to happen in Vivary Park.
SWT‘s Decision To Tender:
· The people of Minehead were not consulted why not?
· Localism Act should have applied, why not ? Public Services (social value) Act was not applied, why not?
The Tender Process:
· Executive Cllr M. Kravis
· Five Expressions of interest
· 20-year lease
· Applicant to repair building
· Applicant to propose rent
· How were the applicants picked? Were any applicants known to the Executive Councillor?
· Has the Executive Councillor had business dealings with any of the applicants before or after the tender?
· Has the Executive Councillor rented, or occupied premises owned by any of the applicants before or after the tender?
· Did the Executive Cllr declare any prejudicial interests before conducting the tender?
· Did the five applicants receive the same brief on the same date?
· Can we see the brief?
The Lease - decision 30/10/20
· The lease was awarded to the proprietors of Bar21 in the Avenue Minehead. The award was made based on the financial value, quality and deliverability of their submission.
· Bar21 is a busy bar with a large outside area of raised decking. It plays very loud music every day of the week. It’s a magnet for groups of young men and a popular venue for stag and hen parties. It’s very noisy and not in keeping with the Wellington Square conservation area. Local people complain about the noise which can be heard right across the town, Blenheim Gardens and North Hill, but nothing is done to stop it. When residents met in Blenheim Gardens for the minute of silence on the Sunday before the Queen’s funeral, loud music continued from Bar21.
· Bar 21 has a history of planning breaches. There were 6 planning enforcements at the time of the tender including its raised decking.
· Did the Executive Cllr take account of the proprietors planning enforcements when making his decision?
· Did the Executive Cllr consider the way Bar21 is run to be compatible with the operation of a café in a quiet park when making his decision?
· According to the proprietors agent the brief was to extend the cafés area. Was this the case?
· Was a requirement to extend the café in the brief to the other applicants?
· The proprietors bid £5875 pa was 3 times higher than the rent paid by the last tenant, who could not make the café pay.
· Was due diligence carried out by the Executive Cllr to determine a realistic market rent and the applicant’s ability to deliver the terms of the lease?
· Did the proprietors bid not raise questions about its financial viability given that the café must adhere to the gardens opening hours and no alcohol rules?
· More than two years have passed since awarding the lease to the proprietors. The café has remained empty and the agreed refurbishment by the proprietors has not been completed.
· Does the Executive Cllr still feel that the proprietors bid represents financial value, quality and deliverability?
· A planning application was made 10/08/22 by Bar21 to turn the café into a 100-seat restaurant open from 7am to 11pm. This application doubled the footprint of the cafe well beyond the area included in the lease. It proposed removing mature trees and laying raised wood decking like Bar21. Over 60 objections were posted on the planning website and a petition against the development with 200 names was presented to MTC. The planning application was withdrawn. We expect another planning application will soon follow.
· The proprietors track record and activities since being chosen to run the café suggest he is not a suitable candidate.
· So far, the lease has not been signed and cannot be signed until agreed refurbishment has been completed.
What Next?
· We believe the tender process was poorly executed and lacked sound judgment.
· We want the lease stopped.
· Such an important and historic public building demands that the people of Minehead must now be consulted to protect its future.
· We understand there was a consultation document circa 2012 which concluded that Blenheim Gardens should remain unchanged. We would like to see this document.
· A group of Minehead residents have expressed an interest in taking over the café with any profits used to support local causes. This deserves consideration.
· The information contained in this document has been sourced from local newspapers, online media and discussions with local residents and has not been fact checked. SWT Asset Management refused to our FOI request for information concerning the lease.
The Portfolio Holder for Economic Development, Planning and Transportation gave the following response:-
The issues that have been presented to us this evening have already been responded to by the Service, and by the Leader of the Council, and responded to through our complaints procedure at both stage 1 and 2, and through Freedom of Information requests. None of the information this evening is new and has been clearly responded to.
Whilst we welcome public participation in our decisions the responses provided have always been clear and transparent, but I will reiterate the headlines for the benefit of the committee.
· The council made the decision to publicly market the opportunity to run the Blenheim Gardens Café, this was advertised in an open fair and transparent manner all documentation was provided equally and in the same timeframe.
· Information was constant with viewings held for parties that requested them so they could assess the building condition.
· The timeline for responses was extended to accommodate Minehead Town Council’s request for more time, all parties were notified of this extension of time which was provided to anyone wishing to bid. We also publicised this extension.
· Potential applicants were not selected to bid, the marketing was public and available to any interested party, there were no exclusions and so to suggest Minehead were not consulted is inaccurate.
· The bid responses were assessed by a panel of officers and the Assets portfolio holder.
· The lease lengths were put forward by the bidders on the basis of the time they felt necessary to recover their refurbishment costs, none of the bids meet the trigger points under the Localism Act so there is no breach in our duties.
· The Council has a duty to achieve best value and has taken a proactive and transparent stance to achieve investment is a property where there was no council budget to make the necessary improvements. It will also achieve an income from this process. The alternative option may have been a permanent closure and demolition.
· To suggest that the council lacked judgement and have executed the process poorly suggests a misunderstanding of the entire process despite the council’s clear, consistent and robust responses. For clarity this is a process that have been successful elsewhere in the district, you only have to look at the café in Goodland Gardens to see how private investment can enhance a public space.
· We are aware that a successful bidder made a planning application that was country to their bid submission. The application was not supported by the Assets team who act as landlord. Members will be aware that anyone can make a planning application on any land with the planning authority being required to consider the application on its merits. From our role as a landlord, we are clear that should the application have been approved we would not allow this work to be delivered as we remain the landowners and our consent would have been required.
· There have been various suggestive statements made about the Executive Member involved in the tender process. This is not the way to raise concerns over the behaviour of a councillor. If the public speaker wished to raise a concern or make a complaint, there is a process to do so which we would be happy to provide to you
· This scheme has not been without its problems, works were paused while an acceptable solution was being sought to create a refurbishment which would comply with the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards.
· We have received an acceptable certificate which means they can continue with works.
· Considerable officer time and resources have gone into responding to these matters and I hope this to be the last contact we receive, however those involved in the complaints have the right to contact the local government ombudsman if they remain unhappy and we are ready to defend our position and share all information with the LGO.