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.

Ward: Hove Park

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 Planning Officer (Paul Earp) gave a presentation detailing the proposed scheme by reference to diagrams site plans and indicatives. Copies of the previous minutes had been circulated for ease of reference. The Development Control Manager stated that the previous application was deemed to be deferred pending completion of the noise assessment. The comments of Environmental Health in relation to the assessment were set in paragraphs 5.9-5.14 of the report.

 

(2)       Members were reminded that the application related to the former bowling green which was located to the south west corner of Dyke Road Park. The green was a flat piece of land with vegetation around the side and rear boundaries. The site was accessed from the Rose Garden. High fencing ran along the front of the bowling green and the gate was currently locked preventing any access to the space. The existing redundant bowling green had an area of 1444m2 and the wider site, including the adjacent hut and surrounding landscape, added a further 667m2 giving the application site a total area of 2111m2.

 

(3)       It was noted that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting amendments to the proposed planning conditions and removal of the S106 transport payment as set out in the Late Representations List and below: (the applicant’s rationale in requesting these changes was set out in the Late Representations List)

 

·         To remove the requirement for a Section106 Contribution of £26,250 together with the associated Travel Plan and monitoring framework;

 

·         Condition 3 – Amend to allow events to finish at 10pm as originally proposed,

 

·         Condition 4 – Amend to allow up to 22 events per month;

 

·         Condition 5 – Amend to allow up to 6 events per week;

 

·         Condition 8 – Amend to allow up to 5 amplified events per week, whilst noting that there would still be an overarching Condition 7 limiting amplified events to 28 each year. The applicants had stressed  that amplified events would be limited to theatre/live screenings etc.; and

 

·         Condition 11 – The applicants believed that this condition had been included in order to prevent firework displays, and were requesting that it be amended to state “no firework displays.” Stage pyrotechnics formed an integral part of some performances.

 

(4)       The Officer response was that following deferment of the application a Noise Assessment had been submitted which had examined the impact of the proposed use on the residential amenities of neighbouring residents. The proposed conditions were considered necessary to safeguard residential amenity and could be reviewed once the venue was operational. The S106 was intended to provide a contribution towards providing pedestrian and cycle improvements on Dyke Road and considered necessary to provide for the impact generated by the proposed use.

 

(5)       The Chair stated that that in view of the amendments requested by the applicants he proposed that during the debate the Committee should first give consideration to whether or not they wished to remove the requirement that the applicant enter into a S106 agreement and then subsequently to consider each of the proposed conditions in turn in order to agree either the conditions recommended in the report or the proposed amendments. Councillor Jones and Littman concurred that this represented the most appropriate way forward and other Members of the Committee confirmed their agreement.

 

            Questions for Officers

 

(6)       In answer to questions it was explained that should use of the area as an open air theatre cease in the future the area would be re-instated.

 

(7)       Councillor Wealls enquired regarding the decision taken at the meeting of the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee the previous evening in relation to transport measures proposed for the Dyke Road area. The Principal Transport Officer (Steven Shaw) stated that these related primarily to proposed cycle lane facilities and were separate from the issues to be considered in relation to this site. Applicants were required to contribute towards measures to mitigate any material impact that could result. If the venture was successful it would undoubtedly have a material impact on the highway due to an increase in trip generation. It was important to note however that the contribution was required pro-rata over a five year period; if the theatre did not result in that level of movements then the applicants would not be required to pay anything.

 

(8)       Councillor Littman sought clarification regarding proposed times at which performances should cease. It was explained that noise from performances or those leaving an event would be more audible after a time at which traffic noise dipped. Whilst some types of noise might not be noticeable through traffic noise, some would be very noticeable when traffic levels dropped. Crowd noise, for events finishing after 10.00pm were likely to be above ambient and background noise levels and could therefore give rise to nuisance. The conditions proposed were intended to give the applicants flexibility when arranging events whilst avoiding nuisance.

 

(9)       In answer to questions regarding lighting it was explained that this would be brought in for each performance and removed at the conclusion of each run of productions. It was noted that the existing hut would be used as a dressing room and for storage between performances.

 

            Debate and Decision Making Process

 

(10)     Councillor Wealls stated that he considered it inappropriate for the applicants who were a charity to pay towards works which it appeared the Council was intending to fund in any event.

 

(11)     Councillor Cox expressed his agreement with the views put forward by Councillor Wealls.

 

(12)     Councillor Davey stated that whilst inclined not to require the applicant to enter into a S106, he did however consider that they should take responsibility for managing any additional traffic movements arising. It was appropriate for a condition to be added to any permission requiring them to provide a travel plan. The site was not the most easily accessible by public transport, especially in the evening and it was likely therefore that it would generate some additional traffic.

 

(13)     Councillor Phillips stated that on the face of it, it did not seem unreasonable to require a S106 contribution unless/until a trigger figure was reached.

 

(14)     Councillor Hyde stated that she thought the Brighton Open Air Theatre (BOAT) proposals represented an exciting opportunity which would improve the cultural offer available in the city. They were a local charity and in her view should be supported, if they were unable to proceed because conditions proposed were too onerous, that would be unacceptable.

 

(15)     Councillor Hamilton stated that he did not understand why the issue of whether or not the applicant should make a S106 contribution was being revisited. Members had been clearly (and unanimously) of the view when they had discussed the application at their meeting on 2 April 2014 that they did not consider it appropriate for a S106 contribution to be sought. He remained of the view that numbers at the site would be relatively low and did not agree with S106 contributions or the proposed payment triggers, this was a very worthwhile scheme, he did not agree that debate about this should be re-opened

 

(16)     Councillor Cox agreed expressing the same concerns set out by Councillor Hamilton. He considered that the Council should be doing its upmost to facilitate this type of activity and remained of the view that S106 contributions should be waived.

 

(17)     The Development Control Manager (Jeanette Walsh) explained that as the application had been withdrawn pending receipt of a detailed noise assessment, the application needed to be reconsidered. Officers remained of the view that it would be appropriate for S106 contributions to be sought and for the recommended conditions to be applied to any permission granted. Members were unfettered in their decision making and could form a different view. The Legal Adviser to the Committee (Hilary Woodward) concurred.

 

(18)     Councillors Jones and Littman stated that they considered that Officers had followed the proper procedures in bringing issues relating to the proposed S106 to their attention whilst agreeing that it would be appropriate for Members to consider this and the proposed amendments to conditions put forward by the applicants individually as suggested by the Chair.

 

(19)     Councillor Pissaridou stated that she regarded the proposal as an imaginative one which should be supported.

 

(20)     Councillor Littman stated he thought it likely that attendance at performances would be weather dependent, it was likely that they would be more concentrated during certain months of the year (it would be in operation for 5 months), for example in May during the Brighton Festival. It was important that the applicants had the flexibility to do this.

 

(21)     Councillor Cox stated that he hoped that the facility would be well used by local schools and colleges and Councillor Hyde cited the walled garden in Rottingdean, which was used for outdoor performances and was a much loved and well used by the local community. If this resource became established she felt confident that it was likely to be used in the same way and would be popular with schools and colleges, especially for matinee performances.

 

(22)     Councillor Littman also stated that he supported a later finish time for events as he did not consider the time requested by the applicants to be unreasonable or that in view of the distance from the nearest dwelling houses that this was likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of noise disturbance. Other Members concurred in that view.

 

(23)     The Chair stated that he sensed that the mood of the Committee was to remove the requirement for a S106 agreement.

 

(24)     A vote was taken as to whether the Committee wished planning permission to be subject to a S106 agreement and members voted 10 for with 2 abstentions that the requirement for a s106 planning  obligation should be removed, but that the requirement for a Travel Plan to be submitted should be required as a condition.

 

(25)     Each of the conditions on which amendment had been sought by the applicants was then voted on in turn, with a majority of Members agreeing with each proposed amendment. For ease of reference the conditions as agreed are set out in the resolution below.

 

            Condition1 – Unchanged, no amendment requested.

            Condition 2 - Unchanged, no amendment requested.

            Condition 3 – As referred to in paragraph (3) above.

            Condition 4 As referred to in paragraph (3) above.

            Condition 5 As referred to in paragraph (3) above.

            Condition 6 – Unchanged, no amendment requested

            Condition 7 - Unchanged, no amendment requested

            Condition 8 – As referred to  in paragraph (3) above.

            Condition 9 - Unchanged, no amendment requested

            Condition 10 Unchanged, no amendment requested

            Condition 11 As referred to in paragraph (3) above.

            Conditions 12 to 22 – Unchanged, no amendment requested.

 

(26)     The applicants had requested amendments to each of the conditions set out below and Members voted on each of them in turn.

 

79.2    RESOLVED – (1) That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 of the report and the policies and guidance set out in section 7 and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives, Pre-Commencement Conditions and Pre-Occupation Conditions also set out in section 11 of the report save as amended below:

 

            (2)

 

            Condition 3 (As amended)

 

No events shall occur outside of the hours of 09:00 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday and 11:00 to 18:00 on Sundays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Condition 4 (As amended)

 

The development hereby approved shall hold a maximum of 22 performances/events per month. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to ensure that the development has an acceptable impact upon the operation of the transport network and to comply with policies SU10, QD27 and TR1 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Condition 5 (As amended)

 

The development hereby approved shall hold no more than 6 events per week. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Condition 8 (As amended)

 

The development hereby approved shall hold no more than 5 amplified events per week.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

Condition 11 (As amended)

 

There shall be no firework displays involved in any events.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to comply with policies SU10 and QD27 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

 

New Condition: Travel Plan

 

2. That a financial contribution to help finance pedestrian and cycle improvements on Dyke Road was not necessitated by the proposed development and the officer recommended s106 planning obligation to secure the same would not therefore be sought.