In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time and with reference to standing order 6 in part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, the Cabinet will receive any questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by 12:00 on the previous working day. The total time allocated for public question time is 15 minutes subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend that period.
Decision:
[DETAILS OF THREE PUBLIC QUESTIONS IN MINUTES]
Minutes:
Three public questions had been submitted, details of which appear below.
The text of the three public questions had been circulated to members, the public and the press immediately prior to the start of this meeting. Mr Dignum invited each person in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out the question before he provided an oral response.
The questions (with the date of submission shown within [ ] at the end of the text) and the answers given by Mr Dignum were as follows.
Alan Green – Chairman of the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee
‘Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee maintains a close interest in Priory Park and has two questions in respect of item 5 on today’s agenda, namely the project initiation document for the proposed enhancement scheme in the north-west corner of the park.
Question One relates to the four air raid shelters. These are part of the local listing for the ‘brick pavilion’ but are proposed for demolition. Why has consideration not been given to retaining these buildings, a fast-disappearing feature of the city’s WWII history and the only ones with public access? The single one could be adapted as the roller store and the three conjoined ones used for historical interpretation or, as now, as an annexe to the main building. Furthermore they are not ‘life expired’ as suggested in section 5.2. In section 8.3 it is stated that further research is needed to establish additional information. I have already carried out that research and am willing to supply the information.
Question Two relates to planning issues surrounding the café. It is stated in section 5.1 that Option 3, which involves demolition of the café, will improve the historic setting of the park, and in section 7.2 that initial feedback on the temporary planning permission is that it unlikely to be renewed on expiry in 2020. What is the justification for these statements? Whilst the café and the grade 1-listed Guildhall can be seen from each other they are not juxtaposed so cannot be seen together. As such the café cannot be considered to affect the historic setting of the Guildhall so there is no valid planning objection on those grounds. Furthermore the café blends well with its surroundings and is not obtrusive, so there is every reason to keep it where - and as - it is.’
[Friday 1 June 2018]
Response by Mr Tony Dignum, the Leader of the Council
(1) ‘The Council’s conservation and design officers have advised that the air raid shelters are not locally listed. There is scope in the proposed project to consider alternative uses for these shelters should that be decided as appropriate; at this early stage there is not a definitive proposal to demolish.’
(2) ‘The options appraisal work has been carried out with input from the Council’s development management officers and planning issues are for them to determine in line with relevant policy. An indication that further planning permission may be ‘unlikely’ should not be taken as a planning decision; such a decision could only be taken if a planning application were submitted. The view reflected in the report merely takes into account initial feedback received during the options appraisal process.’
With respect to Mr Dignum’s response to (1), Mr Green remarked that during the local listing process the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CCAAC) submitted a scoring process which it had undertaken for the consideration of CDC’s Historic Buildings Adviser but the air raid shelters had for some reason not been included in the local list.
Mr Dignum replied that if the shelters were subsequently proposed for demolition, due account would be taken of the CCAAC’s views.
Simon Tooley – President of Chichester Bowling Club (on behalf of Michael John Lewis – Member of Chichester Bowling Club)
‘The Bowls Club has a question about the future use of the brick pavilion, a building in which we have a keen and valid interest.
The Project Initiation Document speaks of ‘retention of the bowls and brick pavilion’. There is no mention of refurbishment to the bowls pavilion, OR to the brick pavilion. It just says RETENTION.
The existing wooden bowls pavilion was built in the 1930s. Its main structural timbers are of concern and the building on its own is too small for our current needs.
Prior to this review, it had been our intention to move into the ‘modern half of the brick pavilion’, so we could create a usable function space and have much-needed bar facilities in order to generate income.
We submitted plans in 2016 for an extension to the brick pavilion. Planning approval and consent was granted, but we cannot move forward, as all is subject to the review of the buildings in the Park.
We at the bowls club are happy to put money into the refurbishment of this building, but we need long-term assurances and security of tenure. We would be happy to make this building available for other functions, and to work with users of the Park and other groups.
We therefore would like to know: what are the intentions for the brick pavilion? Who will be its occupants?’
[Monday 4 June 2018]
Response by Mr Tony Dignum, the Leader of the Council
‘The draft Project Initiation Document proposes that the brick pavilion be retained and used for a café facility, although it is envisaged there could also be scope to include some community/other uses within that space. At present, due to the conceptual nature of the proposals, those potential uses have not been further explored; such ideas would form part of the next stages of consultation should the project proposals be agreed by the Cabinet.’
Dawn and Robert Bunker – Owners and Operators of Fenwick’s Café
The question was asked by Mrs Bunker.
‘During the consultation period last year, the consultant came and spoke with both myself and my husband at the Café on a number of occasions asking questions regarding the Park. His comments to us were that he would be recommending the Café to stay in its current position, maybe with some changes but he would not be recommending the Café to be moved into the existing brick building as it would not be a suitable choice due to location, security and the current layout of the building. We have not been able to see his report on the eight options put to CDC so I have requested this under a FOI request and am currently waiting for this, so my question is: Which option did the consultant favour out of his eight options? CDC has not had to invest any monies at present to provide a café in the Park that fits well with its users and its surroundings, we have been told that the issue with retaining our building lies with the planners not liking our building but as of yet we don’t know what their objections actually are, so again please could you provide their reasons.’
[Monday 4 June 2018]
Response by Mr Tony Dignum, the Leader of the Council
‘The architect appointed to carry out the options appraisal was tasked with preparing a number of possible options for the Council’s further consideration and the architect’s brief was shared with stakeholders at the time of appointment. The brief did not include a requirement for the architect to ‘favour’ or recommend any one particular option.’
Mrs Bunker remarked that she and her husband had been invited to a meeting at CDC on Friday 8 June 2018 with Mr T Whitty (Divisional Manager Development Management) but she wondered if in advance of that meeting they might be given at least some idea of the apparent objections by planning officers to the renewal of planning permission for Fenwick’s Café.
Mr Dignum cautioned against the Cabinet being drawn into planning-related matters. However, in view of Mr Whitty’s presence in the meeting as an observer Mr Dignum invited him to the table. Mr Whitty pointed out that the café had been granted a temporary permission in recognition of both (a) the benefit of a café use in Priory Park and (b) the general review in due course to be undertaken of Priory Park. The café was one of a number of disparate buildings in Priory Park and a further assessment of its impact vis-à-vis other present and prospective uses would need to be undertaken in due course.
[Note End of Public Question Time]