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:
[FIVE PUBLIC QUESTIONS – DETAILS IN THE MINUTES]
Minutes:
Five public questions had been submitted for this meeting, details of which appear below.
All five questions related to the same subject (which was not an agenda item for this meeting), namely the proposal for a temporary ice rink in the city of Chichester during the forthcoming Christmas season.
The text of the questions had been circulated to CDC members, the public and the press immediately prior to the start of this meeting. Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council) invited each person in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out the question before he provided an oral response.
In view of the number of the questions, Mr Dignum first took the opportunity to explain how public question time was conducted at Cabinet meetings.
He said that members and officers were always pleased to receive public questions at Cabinet meetings as this was an important means whereby the residents or non-domestic ratepayers of Chichester District were able to engage in the democratic process. Although on this occasion there were five questions about a subject which, rather unusually, did not feature on the agenda, nevertheless this was the public’s chance to attend and on due notice ask questions of their elected representatives about matters of local concern. As with other CDC committees and the Council (the Planning Committee had a separate procedure) 15 minutes were set aside at the start of each meeting before the main published business for public questions. It was requested that questions be kept as concise as possible. Unfortunately in recent times there had been a growing trend for questions to take the form of long preambles or statements, which was to be discouraged. However, that was not the case with any of today’s questions, which was appreciated. He summarised how each question (and any supplementary question) would be asked and answered.
The questions (with the date of submission shown within [ ] at the end of the text), any supplementary questions and the answers given by Mr Dignum were as follows.
(1) Sophie Hull
‘Re: Planning application for a temporary change of use of part of Priory Park to a Christmas ice rink with ancillary food and drink uses, including installation and removal of ancillary temporary structures on land at Priory Park Priory Lane Chichester West Sussex [18/02538/FUL]
Are all the members of the Cabinet aware that a group of Regular Users of the Park and nearby Residents of Priory Park (‘Users and Residents’) have instructed a barrister of Lincoln’s Inn London and Pallant Chambers concerning the above-mentioned planning application and have written to Diane Shepherd Chief Executive Chichester District Council a letter written in the spirit of pre-action judicial review protocol? A request has been made for a substantive reply by 4 pm on 14 November 2018 and confirmation that the Council will not issue a decision notice before the receipt of the substantive response.’
[Sunday 4 November 2018]
Response
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) said that Cabinet members were aware of the letter dated 31 October from a group of Users of the Park and nearby Residents of Priory Park. The letter was under consideration by the Council’s Principal Solicitor and the Divisional Development Manager and a reply would be sent as soon as possible.
Notwithstanding that, elements of the proposals had been subject to further amendment by the applicant since the Planning Committee meeting on 17 October 2018. It was considered by officers that those changes amounted to new significant material considerations and so, in accordance with the Planning Committee resolution, the application was to be reported to the next meeting of the Planning Committee on 14 November 2018 for determination.
Supplementary Question
Mrs Hull did not wish to ask a supplementary question
(2) Tom Bottrill
‘I refer to the event management plan provided by the organiser which clearly states that “all temporary structures are being sourced by industry leading experts and will be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations”.
It is noted that English Heritage prohibit ground disturbance below a depth of 40cm.
The manufacturer says they do not have a specific ballast design available for these structures as “free standing” marquees. For the marquee to “comply” with their supplied structural calculations the structure would have to be staked into the ground with 100cm steel ground anchors.
If the organiser is planning on using ballast to anchor the large structure then the recommendation from the manufacturer and the institute of structural engineers would be for a site specific set of structural calculations to be produced by a certified structural engineer in order to ensure that it complies with British and European wind loading standards (BS 6399 Part 2 and DIN-EN 13782).
Questions of safety have been raised about the anchoring of the large temporary structure and justly so given the risk to the public and length of time it will be in situ at a time of year where strong winds and inclement weather are apparent. As hirers of the Park are you totally satisfied that the site management plan for this commercial enterprise is complete and there is robust evidence that the organiser has taken full care in complying with minimum safety standards?’
[Friday 2 November 2018]
Response
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)said that CDC had strict requirements for the hire of land for events. All events had to comply with recognised health and safety standards and a detailed events management plan with risk assessment was required. Hire of CDC land also required compliance with the Code of Practice for outdoor events, having adequate welfare facilities and safeguarding arrangements in place, as well as having appropriate insurance cover. Subject to planning permission and a premises licence being granted, final details of the event management plan would be considered by officers and would have to comply with any planning or licence conditions before a hire of land agreement was entered into by officers.’
Supplementary Question
Mr Bottrill referred to the fact that a new design had been proposed for the rink the previous day. The organiser had supplied calculations but those were generic and did not accord with the revised design. It was recommended that the design be checked by a chartered structural engineer and he asked if CDC would ensure that that happened.
Response
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) said that he was sure officers would look at all those factors if the revised planning application was permitted by CDC’s Planning Committee.
(3) Edward Milward-Oliver
‘My question relates to the proposal to install and operate a temporary ice rink in Priory Park.
The quantity of fuel consumed to run the 24-hour generator for an ice rink is very weather-dependent and a key factor in terms of a Christmas ice rink making or losing money. I am told an average size rink can burn upwards of £100,000 of fuel through that period. When it’s warm, a generator burns more fuel, but there tend to be fewer paying visitors. A couple of degrees above zero can make a huge difference to running costs and margins, and this can’t be accurately predicted. Over the past decade, the mean temperature for December in the South of England has ranged from 0C in 2010 to 10.1C in 2015.
According to the published information I have seen, the District Council’s commercial partner or partners – and there is some confusion who that might be since Edward White as an individual is the applicant for planning permission, S3k Limited is the applicant for the premises licence, and Chice LLP in a letter to Sussex Police dated 2 November says it is the event promoter – none of these has direct experience running and operating a temporary ice rink. Assuming that the commercial partner or partners will be meeting the daily running costs of the proposed rink, is the District Council satisfied that they have the financial means to meet a significant rise in fuel costs in the event of higher than anticipated ambient temperatures during the two months the proposed ice rink is operational?’
[Friday 2 November 2018]
Response
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) clarified that CDC would be contracting with S3K, the planning applicant, and the licence applicant was not part of CDC’s land-holding consideration; these were separate matters which are considered by the relevant committees.
Subject to planning permission and a premises licence being granted, final details of the event management plan would be considered by officers and would have to comply with any planning or licence conditions before entering into a hire of land agreement. The finances of the company had been assessed by officers. In line with all other hire of land for events, the risks associated with costs for staging the event would lie with the contractor and not with CDC.’
First Supplementary Question
Mr Milward-Oliver queried the range of fuel consumption assumed in the business plan submitted
Response
Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) said that it was for the contractor to assess its own financial risk and if it incurred a loss that was not a matter for CDC.
Second Supplementary Question
Mr Milward-Oliver said that his concern was that half-way through the ice rink event the organiser got into financial difficulties and CDC was left with a substantial loss.
Response
Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) said that she did not believe that would be the case. The applicant has been satisfactorily financially vetted by CDC’s Financial Services officers. It was for the applicant to establish its business case by taking all relevant factors into account including how such events were organised elsewhere in the country.
(4) Guy Knight
‘In Great Yarmouth in 2017, the Christmas Ice Rink achieved its goal of increasing town centre footfall but cost £200,000 and brought in £81,000 resulting in a loss of £119,000. Local traders are quoted as being doubtful the increased footfall translated into additional trade. Canterbury's city centre ice rink last year was cancelled by the operator when escalating costs rose from £80,000 to £120,000.
We would like clarification on whether the event is being run by Edward White, S3k Limited or by CHiCE LLP, the latter whom has answered the concerns raised by the police and appears to have been set up specifically for this event. CHiCE LLP would pose a greater risk as an LLP can walk away with no liabilities.
So our question is: what has the Council done to confirm that its commercial partner, be it Edward White, S3k Limited or CHiCE LLP, has the financial means to deliver the proposed ice rink in accordance with the attendant planning and licensing conditions, and are they in a position to meet any losses.’
[Friday 2 November 2018]
Response
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)said that to clarify situation, CDC would be contracting with S3K. The planning applicant and the licence applicant was not part of CDC’s land-holding consideration; those were separate matters which were considered by the relevant committees. CDC had strict requirements for the hire of land for events. All events had to comply with recognised health and safety standards and a detailed events management plan with risk assessment is required. Hire of CDC land also required compliance with the Code of Practice for outdoor events, having adequate welfare facilities and safeguarding arrangements in place, as well as having appropriate insurance cover. Subject to planning permission and a premises licence being granted, CDC would require the proposed contractor S3K Limited to finalise details of the event management plan which would be considered and would have to comply with any planning or licence conditions before a hire of land agreement was entered into. The hire of land agreement and insurance for the event would be in the name of the proposed contractor. A deposit for the event would also be obtained and used for reinstatement of the land if satisfactory reinstatement was not undertaken.
First Supplementary Question
Mr Knight asked what council services CDC would have to cut to make up the shortfall in the event that the applicant chose to walk away from the ice rink event for financial reasons.
Response
Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) said CDC did not expect a major loss to be incurred and she pointed out that if required CDC would use the deposit to reinstate the land.
Second Supplementary Question
Mr Knight asked what was the amount of the deposit taken by CDC.
Response
Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) said that she could not disclose that detail at this time as it was commercially sensitive information between CDC and the contractor.
(5) Mike Sullivan – Friend of Priory Park
‘Priory Park and the Ice Rink
I understand that a financial appraisal was done of the application for the ice rink in Priory Park. At what date was this done? Was this date before the event operator was accepted by CDC as its commercial partner or afterwards? What was the scope of this appraisal?
Given that the application process was very late in starting, were any assurances given by CDC to the event operator, as it would appear he had ordered equipment before the planning application process had begun?
What consideration was given to the hirers of the Guildhall and how and when were they notified that their bookings would be affected by the ice rink? I understand that most did not find out until the proposal was reported in the press.
Were the facts that Priory Park is also a war memorial and the significance of the Centenary of the Park’s donation to the citizens of Chichester ever taken into account?
Also, what is the charge going to be for an ice skating session and for hiring skates and how does this compare with the Bognor Regis ice rink, which is just seven miles away with cheaper car parking? Was this competition for customers taken into consideration in the financial appraisal? (Bognor last year - incl skate hire: £7.50 adults, £6.50 under 14s and OAPs)’
[Sunday 4 November 2018]
Response
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) replied that no assurances had been given to the operator and it would be working at risk. No final decision had been made on the hire of land for an ice skating rink in Priory Park and therefore no agreements for hire of land had been entered into. The hire of land agreement was subject to the relevant permission for planning and licensing being obtained.
Subject to those permissions being granted, CDC would, in line with normal policies and procedures, finalise terms and conditions for the hire of the land before entering into a formal agreement with the contractor. A financial assessment of the organisation had been undertaken based on the risks to CDC. In line with other hire of land agreements a deposit to cover the cost of reinstatement of the ground would be obtained.
All bookings in the Guildhall were proceeding and should the ice skating rink be delivered, the contractor of the ice rink would make adaptations at these times to accommodate those bookings. In fact there was only one booking during that period.
Priory Park was gifted to the Corporation of Chichester in September 1918 by the Duke of Richmond for their leisure and as memorial to the fallen in the First World War. The Park was passed to CDC’s ownership as successor authority to the former corporation of Chichester. There were no restrictions recorded on the title that would prevent the proposed event taking place.
The charges for ice skating and skate hire would be set by the contractor.
Supplementary Question
Mr Sullivan asked if CDC had received any indication what the charges to users would be.
Response
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) and Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) replied that they were wholly unaware of such details.
The immediately foregoing response concluded public question time.
Mr Dignum thanked all residents for their questions and contributions.