Agenda item

To update Cabinet on the March Future High Street Fund (FHSF) project and to provide members with the information required to make a decision on the location of the March Fountain following consideration of a petition at Full Council.

Appendix 11 to this report comprises exempt information – to exclude the public (including the press) from a meeting of a committee it is necessary for the following proposition to be moved and adopted: “that the public be excluded from the meeting for Items which would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) as indicated.”

Members considered the options for relocation for the fountain following the petition presented to Full Council presented by Councillor Seaton.

Councillor Seaton stated concentration would be on the alternative site options that have been investigated as an alternative to the approved and present location. He recognised and acknowledged the letter received by all Cabinet members from Lindsey Betts and Gary Richmond.

Councillor Seaton stated that it was organised for Cabinet members to be given a guided tour around the alternative site locations within the past week, which was to enable an informed decision to be reached by looking at the sites and not based solely on the written report. He stated that it was investigated moving the fountain position slightly closer to the road but this was rejected due to safety reasons and referred to each of the alternative sites, with their associated risks as detailed in the report.

Councillor Seaton stated that these options have been extensively investigated and based on the difficulties that each of the option sites have produced he proposes that the present location which has been approved should be progressed as planned.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Tierney stated that on lots of the options it was said that it was unlikely that they would be supported, which he presumes means by Historic England, but he would like to understand what their power is, are they advising or must the Council do as it says. Councillor Seaton responded that they are a statutory body but they are an advisory body, which means they possibly would not block a different option, however, it could challenge to the Secretary of State if it did not approve where the fountain was going to be moved to.

·       Councillor Tierney expressed the view that these issues are very personal to towns and as a Wisbech councillor he is always uncomfortable on making a judgement on something that is so personal to a different town but members are in the situation they are in and have to try and make the best decision. He feels it is good that so many options have been investigated and it is unfortunate that the view is taken that Historic England would say no to so many but he would like going forward to speak to them and ask what leeway there is in these matters as this is not going to be the last time this happens and he would like to understand what their appetite is for other suggestions rather than assuming they are going to say no to everything.

·       Councillor Murphy stated that he walked around all the sites and considered all the information provided and, in his opinion, the land outside Iceland is too far out of the centre of March and is already a busy area with existing businesses too close and would be vulnerable to vandalism; outside the Library again this is too far outside the centre, would be hidden and vulnerable to vandalism; West End Park exactly the same reasons as the Library; adjacent to the Market Place is again out of the centre but it tends to be forgotten that the fountain looks smaller in a wide open space and when situated on a smaller space it will look out of character. He referred to the last two positions in Broad Street, where he feels the fountain should be, the riverside area would create, in his view, too many problems with possible subsidence from works on the riverbank, with new designs, new contracts and different planning consents and considerable higher extra costs. Councillor Murphy expressed the opinion after weighing up all the possibilities that the fountain should be moved to the original position that was already agreed and passed with an approved planning application.

·       Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she has read the report and looked at the alternative locations and questioned exactly what clout the statutory body consultee actually has, she has seen many applications over the year and they have not taken action but she recognises because the fountain is in the town centre they look more in-depth at this. She feels it is unsettling as Cabinet members, being very precious about their own towns, having to make decisions on other Fenland towns.

·       Councillor Wallwork agreed with the comments of other councillors and it is really difficult when it is not your home town but she did attend the site visit and looked at all the options. She agrees with the location being where the fountain is proposed to be placed but would like to convey to residents that she does hope when it is finished that they can see that the Council made the right decision because it is a beautiful development and the project itself is going to look stunning when it is finished. Councillor Wallwork made the point that this has not been an easy or a flippant decision but members have taken all the facts, especially the costs, into account.

·       Councillor Miscandlon thanked the officers for arranging the visit to the sites, some of them he dismissed out of hand as they were unsuitable, one or two were mildly interesting and could have worked had more investment been placed in them but he agrees that the current approved location is the proper place for the fountain. He hopes the residents of March appreciate the new location for the fountain when it is in place and hopes it will enhance the town, which he is sure it will.

·       Councillor Boden stated that his attitude towards this issue has changed considerably having seen the report, he did say at Council that Cabinet would look at this and examine it thoroughly and carefully but did not imagine it would produce such a lengthy report. He stated that what he thought he was going to do was a cost benefit analysis to look at the costs of the various alternatives and the benefits from those costs but when he did go through the report and also from some further information what he found was that the Council already has the best solution in front of them and, therefore, the cost involved for the alternatives was irrelevant. Councillor Boden stated that he shares the concern about being over the bridge being too far away and the fountain loses the prominence that it has, which would be the same in West End Park and near the Library and would be seen by far fewer people than is the case currently and he always thought having it near the Market Place would be problematic as it would not fit in there very well and seem out of place, with the Market Place already being a tight area in terms of what it does and the fountain would detract rather than add to the Market Place. He made the point that this left only the alternative of the Riverside location and when this was initially suggested to him he did not think this was a bad idea, still very prominent and the one most likely to appeal subject to the cost, but what he had not considered was that locating the fountain at that site would detract from the War Memorial, which is there for a very particular purpose and if you set a major item such as the fountain that close to it, it clearly changes the nature of the area around the War Memorial. Councillor Boden stated that he hoped it would be possible to look at a small amendment to the proposed location and he did not think it would be unreasonable to look at moving it metres if not centimetres from its current location and somewhat closer to the road and its previous location and he asked for that enquiry to be made, which Councillor Seaton did, and it turns out the original proposal did locate the fountain as close as was possible to the original site, it could not be moved one centimetre closer to the original site because of site line and potential road safety issues. He stated that it was for those reasons that he came to the conclusion that, regardless of what the costs were which were not relevant and regardless of what Historic England might have to say as they are a consultee and have no rights to stop the Council doing whatever it wants to do but do have the opportunity of going to the Secretary of State to stop it, the proposed location is the best location available for the fountain.

·       Councillor Seaton stated that there are two specific reasons for the siting of the fountain and that was to have the least impact on its historic relevance as is possible in the context of its relationship with the roundabout and secondly to incorporate the structure into the new public realm to be enjoyed by members of the public. He feels that a lot of the comments that have been made are very apt especially about Historic England and whilst they are an advisory body there could be objections to it moving elsewhere and were they to go through the Secretary of State it would be at least one may be two years if not more on the timing.

Proposed by Councillor Seaton, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon and AGREED to:

·       note the positive progress of the project as detailed in the report; and

·       instruct officers to progress the project as planned with the current, approved location of the fountain.

(Councillor Benney declared an interest, by virtue of being a member of Planning Committee, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

(Councillor Mrs French declared an interest, by virtue of being Chairman of MATS, and retired from the meeting for the duration of the discussion and voting thereon)

The Chairman and members agreed to this item being brought forward on the agenda.

This item comprised EXEMPT INFORMATION within Appendix 11 which is not for publication by virtue of Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act, 1972 (as amended) but it was not necessary to go into confidential session.