Minutes:
The Chair asked for a brief introduction.
Mr Holder briefly outlined that the charity’s professional team had been engaged in further negotiation with that of Firoka’s over a number of weeks since the Board had considered and agreed those Heads of Terms as the basis of the detailed lease on 27 March 2006.
Mr Holder also advised that in respect of the land to be leased to Firoka and compliance with the sec.36 (6) of the Charities Act 1993, this compliance was under way with the results of such representations being reported to the Board on 4 July 2006. Mr Holder reiterated his previous comments that the purpose of such Notice was to ensure that as many people as possible in the beneficial area of the charity knew of the Trustees plans and had a chance to comment. In response to questions Mr Holder commented that extremely wide publicity had already been given to the Trustees intentions and the plans had been subject to public exhibition and public discussion within both this Statutory, and the Consultative Committee. The approved notice had been exhibited in and around the Palace and Park for 28 days from 28th March 2006. The comments received had been analysed by the General Manager and would be reported back to the Board for further consideration on 4 July 2006.
Ms Hayter sought clarification in terms of the proposed Heads of Terms and the draft lease and how this affected CUFOS building, as no one seemed to know the outcome.
Mr Holder responded that specifically on the issue of CUFOS the footprint did indeed include CUFOS. There had been specific representations made in relation to CUFOS which would be submitted to the Board for consideration together other representations.
In response to points of clarification in terms of the timing of signing of the lease originally proposed as 1st May 2006, Mr Holder advised that this was the date originally proposed by Firoka although this had been in the January 2006 submission document. It was the case that all parties concerned were realistic that the actual completion date would need to be revised at some point as negotiations had been on-going and whilst not overly protracted certain negotiations had been particularly detailed.
Mr Thompson commented that in his view the Board was not going to be given the opportunity to analyse the full raw data submitted in terms of the representations submitted in petition form under the Section 36(6) notice and advertisement. In response Mr Holder advised that all representations would be submitted to the Board on 4 July 2006 and in the case of the petition with 1593 signatures – as each page said the same sentiments and some pages had one signature only a sample of the petition was to be submitted. Councillor Hare asked that he be furnished with a copy of the full petition prior to the meeting on 4 July 2006.
The Chair, in response to the comments expressed and Councillor Peacock’s concerns as to the validity of signatures, stated that it was normally the case that in council meetings only a sample of a petition was submitted. Mr Holder also advised that the original petition had been returned to Mr Thompson and that the copied petition would be placed on the table at the meeting on 4 July 2006.
The Chair summarised and it was:
RESOLVED
i. that a copy of the petition be supplied Councillor Hare in its full and entire form; and
ii. that the verbal update in respect of the future of the asset be noted.