To receive questions from members of the public in accordance with Standing Order No. 12.
Question submitted by Martin Coslett;
At the last meeting of Full Council a petition of 2400 signatures was submitted and a debate was held urging the Council to pause, think again and plot a new and more positive future for Tapton House working with the Friends of Tapton House. Can I ask the Leader of the Council what lessons she drew from the debate and from the 2400 residents signatures and has she considered alternative plans for Tapton House in the light of that debate and petition?
Minutes:
Under Standing Order No. 12, the following question was asked by Martin Coslett:
“At the last meeting of Full Council a petition of 2400 signatures was submitted and a debate was held both urging the Council to pause, think again and plot a new and more positive future for Tapton House working with the Friends of Tapton House. Can I ask the Leader of the Council what lessons she drew from the debate and from the 2400 residents signatures and has she considered alternative plans for Tapton House in the light of that debate and petition?”
Councillor P Gilby provided a verbal response as follows:
· The decision had been delayed to take account of the outcome of the petition debate and the final decision made at the Cabinet meeting on 13 December, 2022.
· The petition debate had provided an opportunity for direct engagement with members, clarification that the Council and the Friends of Tapton House were equally committed to achieving the best outcome for Tapton House, several misconceptions to be dispelled, and further consideration to be given to the boundary treatments.
· A range of proposals had been received for the future use of Tapton House, including converting Tapton House into office accommodation. The petition debate had helped inform the development of the criteria used to evaluate the bids.
· The council’s Cabinet had resolved to approve Stone Castle Enterprises Ltd. proposal, which would see Tapton House restored and converted for residential accommodation, alongside a commitment to retain the parkland for public use and create visitor access to part of the Georgian mansion.
· Stone Castle Enterprises Ltd. had confirmed that no hard boundary would be required and open public access to the parkland would continue. They would also seek to create a public heritage area in the building to ensure its past use as the home of Charles Paxton Markham and George Stephenson was celebrated and the importance of Tapton House to the town’s history commemorated. Stone Castle Enterprises Ltd. had also expressed a keenness to work closely with the council, the Friends of Tapton House and the wider community.
The following supplementary question was asked by Martin Coslett;
How much space would be dedicated to public heritage?
Councillor P Gilby provided a verbal response advising that this had not yet been determined but a request had already been made by the developer to meet with the Friends of Tapton House to discuss the plans.