Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

CC/18/02538/FUL - Priory Park, Priory Lane, Chichester, PO19 1BL

Temporary change of use to Christmas ice rink with ancillary food and drink uses, including the installation and removal of ancillary temporary structures.

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

This application had been considered at the previous meeting held on 17 October 2018 and delegated to officers to determine subject to no objection being received from Historic England and no new significant material considerations being raised through third party representations.  However, the application had been brought back to the Committee for determination following material changes made to the proposed temporary ice rink.  These changes included the use of ballast (no detail of fixing was originally proposed and pegs into the ground had subsequently been suggested) to secure the marquee and the relocation of one of the tech zones. 

 

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to further comments from Chichester District Council Environmental Health that included conditions recommended to the Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing  Sub-Committee and CDC Drainage Engineer, 8 further third party objections, applicant’s further supporting information, addendum to conditions 7 and 9, two additional conditions (noise complaint system) and (deliveries/waste collections), and that the recommendation remained to permit subject to the conditions, as amended.

 

Mr Whitty reported a further proposed condition concerning the playing of recorded music that required sound levels, other than agreed live music, not to exceed 5dB(A) above the background level noise 15 minute Leq.  

 

Mr Walling reported that the concerns of Environmental Protection were about the likelihood of an overnight 24/7 operation.  The applicant’s acoustic consultant had undertaken a desk based modelling study.  However, as the study did not involve any noise output for the chiller units or the generator, officers were keen to ensure that the levels outside were reduced by 15db to meet the World Health Organisation and BS8233:2014 standards. Therefore, he advised that there was a sound basis for the noise reduction assumptions and officers were content that the proposed attenuation measures would meet the required standards.  Officers were content that the revised layout met the necessary requirements.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

·         Mr S Ellis – Objector (Mrs Ellis spoke on his behalf)

·         Mr A Green – Objector

·         Mr B Dean – Objector

·         Mr T Bottrill – Objector

·         Mr T Lecompete – Objector

·         Mr P Robinson – Objector

·         Mr S McGee – Supporter

·         Mrs L Wilson – Supporter

·         Mr C Salmon – Supporter

·         Mr C Spink - Supporter

·         Mr A Moss – Chichester District Council member

·         Mr E White – Applicant

 

Officers responded to comments made by the public speakers:

·      Miss Golding advised that the two functions of the Council as landowner and local planning authority were totally separate. The law provided that where the Council was the applicant the Council must consider and decide their own planning applications on an objective basis.

·      Mr Frost referred to the separate statutory processes and advised that the Committee would decide the application on behalf of the Planning Authority and consider the planning issues.  A section of the report set out the other matters that were not material planning considerations.  The Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee would consider the licensing of the event and following that, depending on the approvals given, the Council would then decide if it was appropriate to hire the land to the applicant. He referred to a letter received in relation to a potential Judicial Review and made it clear that the Council’s officers had considered and replied to the contents of the letter and had in very clear terms advised that the proper processes had been followed.  He advised the Committee that the threat of a judicial review was not a planning consideration.

·      Mr Whitty advised that taking a proportionate approach to the local list, all the documentation required had been submitted and considered, and met the necessary requirements.  With regard to national requirements the proposal had met these requirements.

 

Mr Whitty responded to members’ comments and questions:

·      Historic England had considered there would be a small level of harm, but due to the temporary nature of the proposal they had not raised an objection.  They had though, requested that the Planning Authority carefully considered the impact on the heritage asset and in particular the archaeological remains and were happy that their requirements had been met.

·      He explained how the ballast, now proposed to secure the structure, would be used.  The Council’s Archaeology Officer had confirmed he was happy with the proposal and that sinkage into the ground would not be an issue.  The Council’s Drainage Engineer had confirmed that he was satisfied that the proposal would allow surface water to run off and drain into the surrounding ground given the temporary nature of the proposal. He confirmed that the Drainage Engineer had not looked into the issue from a point loading basis or at localised flooding points that might be caused by the structure itself, as this matter would be dealt with under the building regulations. Snow load allowance was a technical structural matter for consideration by the applicant and the building regulations.

·      With regard to concern raised as to whether or not conditions (3 and 11) required details to be submitted could be properly considered in the short timescale, he explained that in the officers view the deadlines would give the officers sufficient time to determine the requirements of the conditions provided the details submitted were sufficient.

·      With regard to a comment made that damaged ground should be re-turfed instead of re-seeded to bring it into use earlier, he advised that officers would need to investigate the appropriateness of such a requirement as part of the discharge of condition (3) or include an informative.

·      With regard to the visual impact of the structures surrounding the noise emitting equipment, they would not have a significant impact on Priory Park due to their being temporary in nature and the benefit to noise attenuation.

·      Mr Whitty advised that with regard to the securing of the proposed perimeter fence and the acoustic fence, in planning terms officers needed to be sure that the pins would not be secured into the ground at a depth of more than 400mm.  

·      Condition 6 could make reference to other protected species other than bats.  The cumulative impact of other events that took place in the Park was not a material planning consideration when considering this application, but in any event officers were of the view that the proposed event was acceptable if cumulative impact was assessed. 

·      He confirmed that reference to food chiller units in the report was incorrect as there were none proposed.

·      The fuelling of the generator was not a planning consideration being a matter for the applicant to make sure it was safe under other legislation.

 

Mr Frost clarified a number of points raised by members.  Members needed to consider the proposals before them and judge them on their merits in terms, for example, of suggesting other venues they may think were more appropriate.  With regard to concerns that the proposal was sited too close to nearby residential dwellings, the issue of noise had been considered carefully over the previous seven weeks and in response to some of the representations received.  A noise management plan for the event and an acoustic assessment in respect of the fixed plant machinery had been prepared and thoroughly assessed by officers.

 

With regard to the fencing around the plant area, Mr Walling advised that there was provision for sound absorbing treatment in the recommendations of the consultant’s acoustic report and these requirements formed part of a proposed condition.  With regard to generator and cooling equipment noise, he explained the process for the assessment of the combined noise calculation, which required approximately the addition of three decibels to the combined noise sources.

 

Mr Frost advised that the development management process involved seeking to identify solutions to problems wherever possible.  The application had been debated over two Committee meetings and all the legitimate material planning considerations had been assessed and negotiated with the applicant where appropriate.  Officers had responded to the representations received and had carried out the necessary consultations with the external and internal consultees.  He considered that the Committee had received sufficient answers and had all the relevant information before them to enable members to make a decision.  He also drew attention to the economic benefits of the proposal, which was a material consideration.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, whilst members remained in support of a Christmas ice rink in principle, a number of members despite having heard the amendments made to the scheme remained particularly concerned about the impact of its proposed location upon the amenity of neighbouring residential properties and the damage that would occur to the ground.  However, the majority of members, having taken into account the amendments made to the scheme since the previous meeting, in particular regarding noise mitigation measures, the protection method of securing the marque structure to the ground and the additional informative to encourage the applicant to consider re-turfing if the Council as land owner considered it to be appropriate, agreed that there were no reasons to refuse the proposal on planning grounds as it was compliant with the Council’s development plan policies.

 

The Committee favoured 1) an amendment to proposed condition 11 to read the same as condition 3 that “within one month of the date of this decision” and, therefore, would require details to be submitted by 14 December 2018, and 2) an additional informative to encourage the applicant to consider re-turfing of the affected ground, subject to investigation by officers as to its suitability.

 

Recommendation to Permit with amended conditions 7, 9 and 11, and three additional conditions (noise complaint system), (deliveries/waste collections) and (playing of recorded music), and one additional informative (re-turfing)agreed.

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page