Agenda item - BH2013/03930 - Bowling Green, Dyke Road Park, Dyke Road, Hove - Full Planning

Change of use of bowling green (D2) to open air theatre (sui generis) with associated alterations including landscaping and erection of acoustic wall.

RECOMMENDATION – MINDED TO GRANT

Change of use of bowling green (D2) to open air theatre (sui generis) with associated alterations including landscaping and erection of acoustic wall.

(1)                   The Senior Planning Officer, Paul Earp, gave a presentation by reference to photographs plans and elevational drawings. The application was for a change of use for the bowling green at Dyke Road Park to become an open air theatre. The site was located on the west side of Dyke Road and was not in a conservation area, but had residential properties to the north and east. The area was surrounded by quite thick landscaping, and the bowling green was currently fenced off and disused after its closure by the local authority in 2013. At the time of closure local community groups had been asked to put forward plans for alternative uses and this was the only scheme that had come forward; the proposed operator was now a registered charity. The theatre would mainly open May to September, Wednesdays to Saturdays and performances would finish by 2200 hours. It was expected the facility would be used by local artists, performers and schools and the terraces of the amphitheatre would be cut out of the existing land; the base would be lowered by approximately 1.5 metres and the terraces raised by a similar height to create the amphitheatre. The existing bowling green club house would be used as an ancillary office and work shop; there would also be no permanent lighting at the site.

(2)                   The main issues related to the change of use; however, City Parks had no strategy for the alternative use of the site and the amphitheatre was considered an attractive addition to the park. In terms of parking spaces there was some indication from both BAHSVIC and Cardinal Newman School that their car parks could be used in conjunction with the site. In relation to increased transport activity it was recommended that this was managed through a S106 contribution of £26k for pedestrian and cycle improvements. The charity had expressed concerns about this level of contribution and it was agreed that the payments could be phased based on the level of use. In respect of consultation there had been 12 letters of support received and no objections. The applicant had also requested amendments to Conditions 11 and 14 in respect of the maximum number of performances and people; the impact on transport network and the days of operation. The Local Planning Authority considered that these conditions were appropriate and could be monitored; if the conditions proved too restrictive then the applicant would be able to apply for an amendment. The application was recommended to be minded to grant subject to conditions, informatives and the S106 agreement.

Questions for Officers, Debate and Decision Making Process

(3)                   In response to Councillor K. Norman the Senior Planning Officer confirmed the heights of the terracing and went on to explain that the area was very well screened and the terraces would not be higher than the existing wire fence and beyond the site there was a substantial belt of trees that would also form additional screening.

(4)                   In response to Councillor Littman it was confirmed that the ‘Friends of Dyke Road Park’ had not formed part of the statutory consultees, but they had supported the application and the Local Planning Authority were satisfied that a sufficient number of notices had been displayed around the site.

(5)                   Councillor Deane asked about the grassy bank that would be created and it was agreed that the landscaping scheme could include a suggestion that this area be used to form a community garden.

(6)                   In response to queries from Councillor Gilbey the following information was provided: the seating was 70 metres from the road; the terraces would of sufficient size to accommodate wheelchairs and the wider site was wheelchair accessible. The Principal Transport Officer, Steven Shaw, also explained that the proposed S106 contribution was based on balancing the likely use and the transport impact; it was felt that the proposed conditions would allow for the activity to be monitored and for the applicant to apply for a variation if this proved to be too restrictive.

(7)                   Councillor Jones asked about the possibility of extending activities to Sundays as he was of the view this would be important during the summer and festival seasons. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the original application had specified Wednesday to Saturday with some matinee performances in Sundays. Environmental Health Officers had expressed concern about the lack of an acoustic report – whilst the activity was unlikely to create a great deal of noise there was concern in relation to spectators arriving and leaving in the afternoon. The Deputy Development Control Manager noted that the request for regular use on Sundays had been received late in the application process and the Officer appraisal had been based on the original submission and any further recommendation would be difficult without an acoustic report.

(8)                   In response to the Chair the Senior Solicitor, Hilary Woodward, explained that if the application were granted then the applicant would be able to apply for a variation of conditions which would be determined within the usual timescale with reasonable consultation. It was also noted that any additional days of activity would need to be consulted on if they had not formed part of the initial consultation.

(9)                   The Chair and Councillor Hyde suggested an informative that ‘the Committee were sympathetic to the request to operate on Sundays and if the application were granted it would be open to the applicant to request an extension to the days of operation.’

(10)               Councillor Hamilton noted that the numbers at the site would be relatively low and he did not agree with the S106 contributions and the proposed payment triggers. He stated that the scheme was very worthwhile, and he proposed that no S106 contributions be required. The Deputy Development Control Manager noted that the use on the site was new, and although the applicant was a charity they should not be considered or treated differently to any other applicant as the impacts would be the same. It was noted that there had been considerable negotiation and the triggers for the payments was considered an appropriate way forward.

(11)               Councillor Cox noted that he agreed with the comments made by Councillor Hamilton and expressed his concern that the Council should be doing its upmost to facilitate this type of activity and he supported the position that the S106 contributions should be waived.

(12)               Councillor Littman went to suggest that the Committee discuss Conditions 11 & 14, and in particular that Condition 11 be removed. Councillor Duncan noted that he agreed with this approach; the Chair suggested condition 11 could be amended to read “The development hereby approved shall hold a maximum of 15 performances/events each calendar month”. The Senior Solicitor added that changes to Condition 14 may need further consultation.

(13)               Councillor Hamilton reiterated that the S106 contribution should be waived.

(14)               Councillor Wells stated that he thought the scheme was well designed and wished the operator every success.

(15)               The Chair then sought the Committee’s agreement to the waiver of the s106 contribution and his suggested changes to Condition 11 should the application be granted. Firstly the Committee unanimously agreed to remove the S106 contribution from the application. Secondly the Committee unanimously agreed to amend Condition 11 to read ‘The development hereby approved shall hold a maximum of 15 performances/events each calendar year’.

(16)               At this point in the proceedings the Chair invited the applicant to comment; the applicant asked that the application be deferred as they were of the view the Committee had based some of their decisions on inaccuracies. The Senior Solicitor advised that Members should be clear on the information before them and a deferral could be necessary to ensure they had the right information.

(17)               The Committee then agreed unanimously to defer the application to clarify matters. The application would be brought to a future meeting.

177.1    RESOLVED – That the application be deferred to clarify potential matters of inaccuracy.