Agenda item

To provide an update on the Outdoor Donation Post project and seek approval from members to progress this project with a view to installing the donation post in the first quarter of the new financial year.

The meeting resumed at 11:20.

The Committee received a report providing an update on the Outdoor Donation Post project and seeking approval from Members to progress the project with a view to installing the donation post in the first quarter of the new financial year.

The Committee considered the following matters:

a)            Installation. The Streetcare Manager explained that the Company providing the donation post would not be responsible for its installation, and that the responsibility and cost of installing it would fall under the Committee. She confirmed that the post would be installed close to the café.

b)            Planning Permission. A Member enquired as to whether planning permission would be required for the post’s installation. The Streetcare Manager confirmed that the matter was being investigated.

c)            Donations. The Streetcare Manager confirmed that the post would provide a means for card donations only, with no option for cash donations.

d)            Donation Amount. The Arts, Culture and Heritage Officer confirmed that the post would be set to a standard donation amount. The Streetcare Manager advised that most donation posts are set to £3 as standard, though suggested that a set amount up to £5 was considerable. Following a question from a Member, The Arts, Culture and Heritage Officer explained that donation posts designed for indoor use at other facilities such as museums provide the option for users to vary the amount that they donate, saying that it could be investigated as to whether that could be an option for the outdoor post at the Park.

e)            Communications. The Streetcare Manager suggested that marketing and public communications would be an important factor in the success of the donation post and its associated fundraising goal. She cited the example of wording used in the messaging employed by the Royal Parks: ‘The magic of a Royal Park is priceless, but it doesn’t come for free’; she suggested that similar messaging could be used for the Nonsuch Park donation post, and that the matter would be considered further.

f)             Reward for Donating. A Member enquired as to whether there was a means to provide something in return to donators, to encourage and reward people’s generosity. The Streetcare Manager explained that the post technology would not allow for that. The Arts, Culture and Heritage Officer suggested that an option could be explored for a QR to be provided next to the posts with a link to information about the Park for people to read.

g)            Power. The Arts, Culture and Heritage Officer explained that solar panels had been explored as an option to power the post, but it was not stable or reliable.

h)            Funding. The Streetcare Manager explained that the Committee was being asked for an estimated £2500 for the post which would constitute 50% of the overall cost. She explained that the money had been found from previous underspending from the Committee’s budget, with the remaining 50% being offered by the Friends of Nonsuch. The total anticipated cost of £5000 would include the cost of the installation of the post.

i)             Buying/Renting. The Streetcare Manager explained that the rental scheme, mentioned at paragraph 4.3 of the report, was not an option, and that the only option was for the outright purchase of the post. She explained that precise costs were not yet known, and further investigations were underway to ascertain the exact financial implications of the post.

j)             Installation Timeframe. A Member enquired as to whether the post, should it be agreed by the Committee at the June meeting, would be installed and ready by the start of the summer holidays. The Arts, Culture and Heritage Officer explained that following Committee agreement, the post would have an anticipated 4-week lead-time prior to installation. The Senior Surveyor added that building consent can take 3 months.

k)            June Report. It was agreed by the Committee that a follow-up report on the donation post would be brought to the June meeting, providing further information from the findings of the investigations and considerations discussed during the debate.

Following consideration, the Committee unanimously resolved to:

(1)          Accept the 50% contribution from the Friends of Nonsuch towards the supply and installation of an outdoor donation post.

The Chair proposed that recommendations 2 and 3 of the report be combined, with wording as follows:

‘Agree to authorise the Committee Clerk and Chair to make the decision for the capital investment of the remaining 50% from the NPJM cttee’s 2024-25 repairs and renewal fund for an outright purchase of the donation post.’

Councillor Louise Phelan seconded the proposal. The Committee agreed (5 for, 1 abstention) to the proposal.

Subsequently, the Committee unanimously resolved to:

(2)          Agree to authorise the Committee Clerk and Chair to make the decision for the capital investment of the remaining 50% from the NPJM cttee’s 2024-25 repairs and renewal fund for an outright purchase of the donation post.

The Committee considered the following matters:

l)             Recommendation 4. The Arts, Culture and Heritage Officer explained that recommendation 4 of the report had been suggested following conversation with the Friends of Nonsuch. The representative of the Friends of Nonsuch explained that a common question they receive from Park visitors is the whereabouts of the Palace – he stated that it is a common misconception that the Mansion House is Nonsuch Palace. He explained that the intention of recommendation 4 was to enable further information to be provided for visitors with respect to the Palace and the Banqueting Suite in the form of panels, maps, information boards, etc. The Committee expressed concern that agreement to recommendation 4 would be too limiting in terms of how the funds raised by the donation post could be used, voicing that, whilst in agreement with the ideas suggested by the Friends, the Committee may wish for the funds to go towards other matters too. The Friends of Nonsuch Representative confirmed that the 50% contribution towards the donation post offered by the Friends was not contingent on the Committee agreeing to recommendation 4.

Subsequently, the Committee voted (1 for, 2 against, and 3 abstentions) on recommendation 4 of the report, “(4) Agree to use any monies raised from public donations towards more interpretation of the Palace and Banqueting Site”, and the recommendation was not carried.