Issue - meetings

To consider the proposals for the Garden Centre submitted by the tenant, Capital Gardens Ltd.

Councillors Beacham and Christophides declared personal and prejudicial interests in this item as they were members of the Council’s Planning Committee.  They left the meeting at this point.

At its meeting on 7^th September 2010 the Committee had received proposals for the development of Garden Centre Ltd including converting old sheds into a retail area and constructing a pergola to shelter bedding plants and had requested clearer drawings including plans showing elevations and details about the scale of the proposals.

Although a representative  of the Garden Centre (who had been invited to be present at the meeting was not in attendance) the Committee heard from Mr Gill on these proposals.  Certain members expressed concerns about the possible impact on the view of the Park and that the proposals did not provide details of  the nature and extent of the proposed franchise, and whether this would be for traditional garden centre  purposes .

RESOLVED

That the Garden Centre’s proposals be recommended in principle to the Board, subject to the Board seeking assurances that the proposals would not interfere with the views of the Park  and that the proposed franchisee would conduct traditional garden centre business activities.

Clerks note:  Councillors Beacham and Christophides returned to the meeting room at this point.

Post meeting note:

3^rd November 2010 – The Managing Director of Capital Gardens Ltd provided written assurance that:

·        When it came to the final design proposals Capital Gardens Ltd would ask the architects to come up with a plan that would not interfere with any of the sight lines from the park.

·        The franchise or franchises will be of a traditional nature.  At present the intention of Capital Gardens was to put an aquatic franchise in the proposed building.