Agenda item

Hunsbury Hill Country Park - Public conveniences

Report of the Director of Finance and Support

Decision:

That consideration of the report be deferred so as to allow further discussions with the Police Crime Prevention Officer to take place and to allow the proposed lessee and the Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park and Northampton Ironstone Railway Trust to discuss the possibility of the lessee being involved with the Trust’s café operation.

Minutes:

Mr Oldham stated that he was objecting to the disposal of land to convert the toilet block into a café as it would be situated just after a sharp bend in the road and believed that the roads in the area would  become a lorry park particularly as the entrance to the car park had a height restriction barrier.  He commented that he believed that lorries would park on the pavements blocking access for the disabled and young mothers with prams and pushchairs.  In turn this would make it dangerous crossing the road.  He believed that a café would attract these situations.  Mr Oldham compared the current situation with Cabinet’s decision earlier in the year to object to quarrying at Milton Malsor on traffic grounds and believed that this situation was not materially different.  He related first hand experience of a near accident due to the driver driving too fast on this stretch of road.

 

Mr Sharpe speaking on behalf of residents and on behalf of the Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park felt that the report was biased against residents.  He noted that residents had lived with the toilets as a magnet for crime, drugs and anti-social behaviour for many years.  He observed that no improvements had been made to the car park as yet.  He also commented that as a car park it did not meet any national standard in terms of crime prevention.  He stated that both Ward Councillors felt that the café in the park would increase crime but the report said the opposite.  Mr Sharp stated that the Head Teacher of the nearby school had indicated that a café was likely to increase problems with truancy.  He also noted the Council’s crime safety document which indicated that the Council would provide residents with a safe environment free of crime.  He requested that Cabinet respond to the community’s concerns positively and that the Council should be supporting the Northampton Ironstone Railway Trust and their facilities.  Councillor Perkins commented that the Council did support the Northampton Ironstone Railway Trust (NIRT) and their café and asked Mr Sharpe in what way supporting NIRT would be different.  Mr Sharpe commented that a café at the NIRT already existed; it was fenced and had CCTV and was well run and managed.  He was aware that the Trust was planning to extend facilities, for example, to provide disabled toilets and extend their opening times.  The Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park had a vision for the park that the Trust supported.  Councillor Perkins asked if Mr Sharpe was aware of any discussions between the proposed lessee and NIRT about the lessee possibly being involved with the Trust’s café operation.  Mr Sharpe indicated he was not aware of any such discussion.

 

Mr Brown, the Chair of the Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park, believed that a café would increase noise, anti-social behaviour and he referred to the poor surface of the existing car park.  He noted the Police’s Crime Prevention Officer’s report which suggested the removal of bunding and a significant number of mature trees which, in Mr Brown’s opinion, amounted to corporate vandalism.  He noted that the park was designated as a wildlife park and believed that the Planning Committee should have considered these issues as well as the provision of green corridors.  Mr Brown referred to a number of the Council’s planning policies, the East Midlands Regional Plan and Northampton Diversity Plan and other documents.  He commented that the Friends had a strategic vision for the park which the Trust formed an important part and they were seeking the Council’s support for it.  He requested that Cabinet did not approve the lease but instead approved demolition of the toilet block.  Councillor Woods noted that Planning Committee had already considered the planning application points and noted that some of the policies quoted by Mr Brown in respect of the Council’s own policies may not be “saved policies” from the old Northampton Plan.

 

Ms Wilmhurst commented that she walked her dog in the park and could not see how a café would of benefit.  She commented that dog walkers tended to use the park early in the morning or later in the evenings when the café would not be open.  Furthermore, as most users came from the immediate vicinity they would have no obvious use for a café.  She noted that Hunsbury Park was not a Premier Park and therefore could not be compared with others such as Salcey Forest; there was no regular warden presence or decent children’s play area.  She noted that the Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park hoped to make a difference and that the Ironstone Railway was an attraction that the Council should be supporting.  It already had a café in a safe area protected from vandalism and queried why Cabinet would support a commercial concern over a facility run by a charity.  She concurred that the toilet block should be demolished.

 

Miss Daly supported comments made by previous speakers and expressed concerns about loutish behaviour that she believed would ensue and the traffic problems.  She commented that this might deter her from using the park and noted the nuisance might become more widespread because of it.  She commented that her garden was adjacent to the park and that this might deter her from enjoying it.  She commented that the Council should not be disposing of this area.

 

Mr Gutowski commented that he had previously objected to the proposal at the Planning Committee stage because of the HGV traffic he believed such a facility would attract.  He commented that the public of Northampton welcomed the opportunity to be consulted but they would not want to be ignored.  He noted that for the Planning Committee between 300 & 400 people had objected as well as the Ward Councillors.  He noted that Councillor P D Varnsverry had recently reiterated views opposing the proposal and requested that Cabinet take note of public concerns.

 

Mr Windhaber as Secretary of NIRT commented that the Trust had been set up some 30 years previously on land leased to it by the Council.  He noted that approximately four years previously the facilities had started to be improved and grants had been obtained to allow improvements for the members of the Trust and the Museum.  He commented that a grant application this year to make improvements to the café had been turned down but some funding had been obtained to make some improvements and to provide disabled toileting.  He noted that currently the railway was open to the public for 25 days per year which the Trust wished to extend and also wished to increase their membership and had plans for a children’s play area; a commercial café virtually next door would affect their likely revenue.  He commented that knowing what currently happened in the park would only be made worse by the presence of a café.  He noted that NIRT could assist the Council in the demolition of the toilets.  Councillor Perkins asked Mr Windhaber if he had any discussions with the lessee as to whether he would invest in the Trust café.  Mr Windhaber commented that this was the first occasion he had heard such a suggestion some adjustments might be needed to be made to make the area secure.  Councillor Perkins suggested that such proposal could improve the situation for the Trust.  Mr Windhaber agreed.  In answer to another question Mr Windhaber indicated that the main objection to a café was that it could damage the income stream to the Trust.

 

Mr Ingle commented that he was the proposed owner of the café and was also a member of Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park.  He noted that originally the Friends had neither been for nor against his proposal and indicated that nobody had actually approached him to discuss his plans for the café.  He felt that the objectors were being misled about it becoming a truck stop and burger bar as well as a “subsidy he would be receiving”.  He commented that none of this was true.  He intended to serve sandwiches, salads and baked potatoes and other food of that type.  He intended to have displays of the park’s heritage and hoped that people who currently parked on the road because of the poor condition of the car park would actually use it.  He noted his café would have a public toilet and a baby changing facility and he hoped that all the parties could work together.  He noted that initially the lease would be for one year in case things did not work out.  He commented that lorries would not be allowed and there was already a sign up that said this.  He noted that many of these issues had been dealt with by the Planning Committee.  Mr Ingle expressed some exasperation, at points made by County Councillor David Hugheston-Roberts that lorries would actually come from the M1 to this particular facility.  Councillor Perkins asked Mr Ingle if anyone had approached him with a view to developing the café of the NIRT.  Mr Ingle commented that he had had a phone call at 4.30pm that afternoon in this respect but couldn’t really comment upon it at such short notice.

 

Councillor Matthews commented that park had seen a gradual decline over the last 15 years when it had been used by a good percentage of people from the Town.  It was also an historic part of the Town.  In the park’s current state it was mainly used by dog walkers but better facilities would attract more people.  He noted that the park did need improvements which also included the car park.  He commented that the Planning Committee had not considered this.  He commented that the issues commented on by the residents would still be present and therefore requested that Cabinet refuse the disposal and lease as the proposal was in the wrong place at the wrong time and suggested that Cabinet should support the Trust in trying to improve its facilities.

 

Councillor P D Varnsverry commented that the toilet block had always been a liability and that in respect of likely crime the important thing was people’s actual experience.  These problems had existed since at least 1984.  He had voted against the planning application at Planning Committee and noted that the Police believed that crime would be attracted to the area.  He referred to an e-mail from the Police Area Commander that there had been a 29% increase in anti-social behaviour in that area.  Councillor P D Varnsverry also noted that the Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park had been reformed and had produced a vision document which was regarded as a benchmark for the future of the park.  He stated that Hills Community Residents Association had recently been formed and hoped to secure a £50,000 grant for improvements, and that NIRT were making improvements and were supported by the other community groups.  He commented that if the lease were agreed the Council might gain marginally from it but there would be future problems for residents.  In answer to a question from Councillor Church, Councillor P D Varnsverry confirmed the information from the Area Police Commander and also further information from when he had been Chair of the Area Neighbourhood Board where the local Police Sergeant had expressed concerns that this area was a hotspot for crime and that the café proposal was likely to worsen this.  He noted that the Police Crime Prevention Officer had contributed to the planning process but their proposals were not designed to prevent crime completely.

 

(Councillors P D Varnsverry and Matthews left the meeting for the remainder of the discussion of this item).

 

Councillor Perkins as the relevant Portfolio Holder submitted a report which sought Cabinet’s authority for the Council to agree to the disposal of an area of land designated as public open space by the grant of a lease for a term of nine years determined by negotiation.  Councillor Perkins commented that the issue was contentious locally and he noted the comments that had been made by the speakers and commented that Cabinet needed to be balanced in the decision that it made. In particular he noted that one of the speakers from the public had commented that this was an opportunity for the Council to demonstrate that it listened to the concerns of the public. Councillor Perkins felt that it was important to remember that in the democratic process it was important to take account of the minority view as well as the majority view and pointed out that the planning permission that had been granted included 15 conditions which were mostly designed to manage the risks and concerns of those against this proposal. This surely was evidence that those against the proposal had been listened too.  He also noted the suggestion that the prospective lessee, the Friends of Hunsbury Country Park and NIRT work together to come to an amicable solution.  Cabinet had to decide whether there was any good reason not to agree to the disposal of the land and he referred to the break clauses in the lease.

 

Councillor Church noted the views that had been expressed and commented that not all of the fears outlined would actually happen.  It was clear that the facility would not be a truck stop and that there were many good examples of cafes operating in parks.  Generally speaking more people being present in parks made them safer and reduced levels of crime.  It was important that Cabinet had regard to the views of the Police, and given the time that had passed by since the planning permission had been granted Cabinet perhaps should have available the current views of the Police’s Crime Prevention Officer.  He noted that the suggestion that the parties worked together had come late in the day and perhaps time should also be allowed to allow a discussion to take place.

 

Councillor Woods noted that although he had cycled through the park many times he had never found it to be dangerous but had noted the effects of anti-social behaviour.  He also concurred with the view that cafes in parks could improve and be a welcome addition to, the facilities provided.

 

RESOLVED:         That consideration of the report be deferred so as to allow further information from the Police’s Crime Prevention Officer and to allow the prospective lessee and Friends of Hunsbury Hill Country Park and NIRT to discuss whether the lessee could operate the Trust’s café facility.

 

(Councillor P D Varnsverry rejoined the meeting).

Supporting documents: