Agenda item

Planning Application Documents

Officer Introduction

DO introduced the application for an ice rink and ancillary uses over two years at Imperial Gardens,  in addition to the existing planning permission for the Gardens to be used for 70 days every calendar year.  It is at Committee because the application site is CBC-owned land, and Councillor Mason has requested a Committee decision. The proposed ice rink will operate in the winters of 2020-21 and 2021-22, and take up a quarter of Imperial Gardens.   The original application site included the pond and footpath, but this was subsequently amended to allow better pedestrian access.  The applicant’s position is that the proposal will be a good thing for town, with broad benefits.  As elsewhere in the country, the town centre is struggling to compete, and there is evidence that the Christmas lights turn-on, the big wheel and other events in Imperial Gardens increased footfall to the Cheltenham, bringing benefits to the town centre as a whole.  Residents are concerned about additional use of the Gardens, the effect on residential amenity, highways safety, traffic, impact on the heritage asset and trees, but no objections have been raised by consultees on these issues

 

Public Speaking

Jake Ford,  neighbour, in objection

The three objections raised this evening are detailed in the letter submitted on 13^th August.  First, the impact on neighbouring residents.  Residents in Imperial and Montpellier Square are reliant on on-street parking, with each house allowed two permits per annum.  As things currently stand, residents are constantly competing for spaces during any town hall of festival event, of which there are now five a year.  It is almost impossible to find a free space until after 9.00pm.  There is not enough parking in town to support these events.  Set-up and take-down of event structures sees the suspension of several parking bays.  As a paying resident with a permit, it seems mad that he cannot park on his street, and adding a further 75 days of this is unacceptable.  There is potential for an increase in anti-social behaviour.  Over four years, has been victim of five separate incidents, including burglary and car vandalism, all at night and two during festivals.  The rise in footfall, mainly in the evenings, may lead to a rise in antisocial behaviour, as well as an increase in noise pollution and litter.

 

The second objection relates to the impact of the ice rink on the sensitive central conservative area, and the listed buildings in Imperial Square that define Cheltenham’s regency heritage.  The ice rink will be completely alien to these surroundings, in contrast to the festivals which add to the community and bring a more cultural and educational appeal.

 

The third objection relates to the use of public green space for business.  Cheltenham’s parks are widely used all year round, especially Imperial Square due to its central location and flower displays.  Policy is in place to protect these spaces, and the ice rink installation for 75 days goes completely against these.  If an ice rink is needed in Cheltenham,  an alternative site such as a car park or pedestrianised area should be considered over green land.  There is no need for an artificial ice rink that puts business first and green space second.

 

Kevan Blackadder, Director of Cheltenham BID (applicant), in support

Cheltenham BID has been operating for over three years now, with the aim of attracting people to town and encouraging them to stay longer.  One way this has been done successfully is by holding new events in the town centre, to a attract local and regional audience, such as Light-Up Cheltenham and the Observation Wheel in Imperial Gardens.  An ice rink would be a major additional attraction and significantly improve Cheltenham’s Christmas offering, drawing in new and repeat visitors to skate and also to visit shops, bars and restaurants.  Town centres can no longer rely on traditional retail to thrive and the BID endeavouring to improve the mix of activities in the town centre.  The ice rink in Gloucester Quays attracts between 35,000 and 37,000 skaters each Christmas season, around 60 per cent of which are pre-booked, so a town centre ice rink would bring many thousands of people to Cheltenham who potentially would not come otherwise.

 

Imperial Gardens is the most appropriate location for the ice rink because of its proximity to town centre businesses and car parks, chosen to allow the town centre to benefit;  it is the most logical place to achieve that. Other events that take place in the Gardens, including those run by Cheltenham Festivals, take up most of the available space, but the ice rink would use just 13 per centof the space, leaving 87 per cent free.   The chosen area is as far away as possible from where most of the residents live and is closest to the existing main areas of activity on the Promenade. The main footpaths would not be obstructed and the hope is to use mains power for the rink, both to minimise the noise and to be environmentally friendly. However, if that isn’t possible, super-silent generators  will be used, and will be sited away from the residents.

 

Prior to making the application, the BID consulted with the Friends of Imperial Gardens and amended its proposals in the light of their comments. Cheltenham Trust is keen to be involved,  providing food and drink from the existing bar in the Gardens, which would mean there would be no need to use external operators.  The BID believes the ice rink would bring huge benefits to Cheltenham, its economy and its businesses. With its small footprint at Imperial Gardens, it could operate without having any significant impact on local residents or on the town’s open spaces. 

 

Councillor Mason, ward councillor

Is present to represent local residents, having worked closely with them and at one to endorse the all the points raised by the resident speaker.  Would like to concentrate first on the issue of residents’ trust with the Council.  Some years ago, the Council negotiated a 70-day land use agreement with residents – to which they reluctantly agreed – and since then, new residents buying or leasing their properties in the area do so in the knowledge that the parks will be used for 70 days a year for commercial purposes.  This application is for an additional 75 days – adding up to 40% of the year – and runs a coach and horse through the earlier agreement.  Residents are not against the ice rink itself, but it should be included in the existing 70 days’ LUA, to not break their trust.

 

Turning to the issue of well-being , councillors havespoken many times about improving  the well-being  of the town, and its green space is traditionally used for relaxation, allowing people to enjoy their surroundings.  They cannot do this when looking at commercial ice rink with all the noise it brings.  Rejects the idea that there are no better alternative sites in Cheltenham.  The ice rink at Gloucester works well because it is in the Quays, but Cheltenham has won awards for its gardens, and  commercialising them in this manner will go against that.  This is a conservation officer, and this is creep – officers will confirm whether this can be taken into consideration, but with a little bit here and a little bit there, four years down the line  we could have events on 200 days a year.

 

In addition, the Overview and Scrutiny working task group is looking at CBC’s policies on how to best use its parks, including Imperial Gardens, and considering the issue of commercialisation; the report is due out to go to Cabinet hopefully in January, looking at how to use all parks in town, including Imperial Gardens, and if the ice rink application isn’t rejected tonight, Members may at least consider deferring their decision till January; otherwise he Council end up going against its own policy.

 

Finally, residents are not NIMBYs; they know that the festivals are important to the town, but just request that the use of the Gardens is limited to 70 days, bearing in mind why the parks were originally put there – not for ice rinks.

 

Member debate

DB:  the idea of an ice rink is wonderful and will bring a lot of people into the town, but is concerned about 75 days – it seems a very long time to be adding to use of the park for commercial purposes.  Is wondering about the grass recovery after being covered for 75 days – it will require a lot of rejuvenating; is there any advice about this?  Also would like to know whether any decisions about opening hours has been made?  If it operates late at night, it will be disruptive for residents. 

 

BF:  will support the application.  Imperial Gardens is in the centre of the town, and for years its history – as the Winter Gardens, for dances, roller skating, aircraft manufacture during the war etc – has been as a place of entertainment.  This is no change – it is just the type of entertainment that has changed.  The ice rink will be situated right next door to the Quadrangle, with its new roof-top restaurant and commercial premises on ground floor, so as far as possible from residential properties.

 

Supports FISG and Imperial Gardens - it is a fantastic facility in the centre of town.  The officer said footfall in Cheltenham has increased, and shops and restaurants are not suffering as badly as elsewhere in the country but this is not reason to be complacent. The BID director says the ice rink will pull people in and  benefit the town.  We need to change the way we view our town centres; to survive we have got to adapt, and this will be part of it.  There will be other things which have to change.  Hopefully car parking will be improved, with an increase  in park and ride, so people coming for evening’s entertainment won’t drive home and can enjoy a glass of mulled wine.  Supports whole-heartedly.

 

JP:  not for first time, is confused by this application. It is a full application – and if it was for a house, we would turn down for lack of information.  We don’t know how big the ice rink will be, its opening hours, its power supply – so many unknowns.  It is unacceptable to grant full planning permission for a set-up for which we don’t know the basic details.  Will it be covered or open?  What will the retail outlets around it be?  Until we know, Members can’t form a sound judgement on how it will fit into Imperial Gardens.  Is also concerned about residents’ views; they currently tolerate five festivals a year, squeezed into 70 days, yet this application for an ice rink requires 75 days, which includes 28 days for rigging and de-rigging, and must be quite an extensive operation.  Is concerned with not knowing what power supply is; if it’s not mains, it will rely on generators, which is not good for Cheltenham’s green credentials.  Cannot support the application without more details.

 

MC:  in principle, this is a great idea, and it has to be in the town centre to maximise the effect. Both the daytime and night-time economies will benefit, and as a family activity, it will encourage people to come out together and to keep fit.  Is not convinced about the location, but this is the application before us, and is minded to support

 

RW:  on the face of it, this a wonderful idea – the additional amenity and increase in footfall is not in doubt.  Has concerns however.  The current 70 days’ usage wasn’t chosen by accident, but was hard fought over, taking account of the effect on the Gardens and on the turf. Notes a lot of people have been consulted but not the parks and gardens officer – he should have been, as it is certain that if the ice rink is in place for  75 days, in winter, it will wreck the turf underneath, and for a number of weeks after the event – this is a loss of amenity, although at least it isn’t proposed to be situated in the flower bed area. To support the proposal, would want to have reassurance about reinstatement of the ground afterwards.

 

DS:  shares a lot of JP’s  concerns; there are too many unknowns.  Is concerned for the grass, having seen what happens with the other festivals – with replanting and re-turfing, it takes 2-3 months to recover.  Can actually remember playing lawn tennis on the grass at Montpellier Gardens but certainly couldn’t do this now.  Is also worried about food and alcohol – there are enough outlets around the centre of town, and we don’t need more.  The generators aspect is also worrying, as is the possibility of loud pop music going on to 11.00pm, which won’t please the residents.  Cannot support the proposal.  

 

DO, in response:

-          If the application is permitted, it allow for 75 additional days for fixed 2-year period, including set-up and take-down time; the ice rink itself will not operate for 75 days. The consent will then end after two years;

-          Recollects from pre-app discussions that the rink would operate from the turn-on of the Christmas lights (end November) to the first weekend in January;

-          A land use agreement has been submitted with the planning application,  as required for any activity.  The current permission allows 70 days’ use a year, and there is a LUA attached to any use within the parks.  Consent doesn’t include details on types of structures etc; the LUA requires the applicant to provide information and detail within a specified time, before the event takes place.  This is consistent with the way all events in parks operate;

-          grass and other reinstatement work is covered in the LUA, with repairs required within a certain time space, and a charge imposed if not completed.  The grass will be repaired and re-seeded, with the licensee required to bring it back up to standard;

-          the Parks department was engaged in pre-app discussions, and is in agreement and satisfied that the LUA does/would cover any concerns, including hours of operation and noise control.

 

SC:  can see in principle that an ice rink will be good for the town - an attractive feature, good for bringing people in and for leisure – but has a problem with where it is.  The harm to the grass is a significant issue and will last for some time, and 75 days is a very long time. To keep the ice rink open, significant energy input will be needed, and the carbon costs will be considerable.  If generators are used, they will be on the go all the time, and if they are diesel-powered, will create a lot of pollutants and particulate, which is bad for residents.  If not, and mains power is used, this is also unacceptable.  It would be better if it could be placed elsewhere on a solid surface, and there must be other options, but the main issue is the potential diesel generator running day after day.  To add another 75 days to the current 70 days seems a bit harsh on local residents. 

 

WF: would like to know the reasoning behind the 28 days to set up and take down.  Festivals get all done within 70 days, and this amount of time seems excessive.  What is reason for this?

 

DB:  as Councillor Mason said, Members might want to look at the report of the O&S committee before making decision on this;  it would be helpful to know how things will pan out.

 

DS:  it hasn’t been mentioned yet, but there are two manhole covers in the proposed area, which could need to be accessed and could therefore be problematic.  

 

JP:  to respond to MC, is not opposed to the ice rink and actually thinks the work of BID bringing additional attractions to Cheltenham to be extremely beneficial, but has a problem with this application and the lack of information on size, space requirement, power, etc.  If Members had some idea of these issues, they could maybe have suggested alternative locations.

 

GB: would remind Members that it is not our role to suggest alternative locations.

 

DO, in response: 

-          to reiterate, permission was granted in 2012 granted perm permission for 70 days a year, with LUAs to define size, location, space etc, building in flexibility as events and festivals change;

-          the O&S report is presumably concerned with the medium- to long-term future, but this application is only for two years.  It is up to Members to decide whether it is beneficial to know the outcome of the O&S report before they make a decision;

-          regarding the days to set up and take down, presumes the 28 days will be half at the beginning and half at the end;

-          regarding a possible diesel generator, understands BID is in negotiation with the Trust to secure the electrical supply from the town hall.  If that is not possible, another source of power will be required.  Noise would be controlled through LUA.

 

VA:  thinks the concept is brilliant, bringing young children and families together in the town centre, providing exercise, and with benefits to local economy which cannot be ignored, but has concerns about it coming to Committee now, lacking critical information to make an informed decision  Without knowing the scale which still need to be planned out, or about the power supply, and with the concerns of local residents, it feels premature to be here already.

 

GB:  those issues will be taken up with the LUA.  Is not sure we can do more at this stage.

 

BF:  Councillor Mason mentioned the O&S report about use of open spaces and commercialisation, but a lot of our open spaces have been used for commercial events since they were built – people used to be charged to go into Pittville Park!  How relevant is the O&S report to this application?  If it says this application isn’t valid, we would have to think again, but doesn’t think it will.  The O&S report is something we cannot consider until we see it. Still supports application.  It will help the town, which is already one of the finest shopping and entertainment towns in the country.  We need to keep improving – is  in favour of that.

 

SC:  for him, the deal breaker is the generator – the noise and pollution it would create would be most unpleasant for local residents and shoppers.  Is it possible to have a condition that the ice rink can go ahead with mains electricity but if this isn’t possible,  if can’t?

 

DO, in response: 

-          this would risk holding the applicant to ransom, as there is only one available power supply.  The applicant  needs to negotiate with the Trust to see if the town hall system can be used, but doesn’t know if it will be possible or will overload supply at a busy time of year;

-          the two issues with generators are noise and emissions.  There is room for negotiation here, and if critical, could be agreed with the chair and vice-chair following the decision.  The applicant doesn’t know who the operator is,  and until this is settled, doesn’t know what power source will be used, what the fit-out will be like etc.  It is a chicken and egg situation, and that is the challenge of every application like this.  The system allows flexibility on purpose.  On the issue of the generator, it will put the applicant in a very difficult position for if they can’t secure power supply; would require further discussion.

 

BF:  is not an electrical engineer, but has worked with refrigerated plants – power will be needed to bring the ice down to the required temperature, and then cut in and out as and when needed, as with a fridge freezer – it will not be running 24/7.  Some Members have talked about re-siting the ice rink, but if a generator is needed, it will be the same argument wherever it goes – the same particulates and pollutants.  The ice rink won’t  need a lot of power once it’s been brought down to the correct temperature;  the operator won’t want to waste money unnecessarily on electricity, and it won’t run it at night.

 

GB:  these are technical details which Members are not competent to consider.

 

SW:  agrees with DO – we can’t hold the applicants to ransom, and say if they can’t get power from the national grid, the proposal will be refused; this is blackmail.  A condition to control the noise levels of generators is not unreasonable, however, and an easy compromise between no generators at all and keeping the disruption to a reasonable level. 

 

GB:  all these issues will be dealt with under the LUA and  officers’ jurisdiction, looking at air quality and noise pollution.  Can see that the applicant would like to give some answers to Members’ questions, but protocol does allow any public participation in debates.  Would like to move to the vote.  If Members want to include a condition about power, it might be acceptable to do that rather than take a decision which we will have difficulty with afterwards. 

 

SW:  as said, if this is already in the LUA, is happy with that.  Couldn’t support a proposal to allow the ice rink only if the national grid is used to power it.

 

WF:  another option is to defer – wait for the O&S report in January when we will have more information, talk with the applicant about possible solutions re. power supply.  Is nervous to agree to this without knowing the details.

 

DO, in response : 

-          if Members vote to defer, there is a limited amount of information to find out, as no operator will be found until the permission is in place. However, deferral is better than refusal;

-          also, if they defer to wait for the O&S report, they should remember that CBC owns the land – it is in our gift.  The application would probably be back at Committee in December, before the O&S report is published.  However, Members have the option to defer if that is what they prefer.

 

GB:  deferral doesn’t help in every situation, but has to be proposed before a vote can be taken. 

 

RH:  DB suggested this at the beginning of the debate.

 

GB:  nobody actually proposed it until now. 

 

Vote on WF’s move to defer

6 in support

7 in objection

Not Carried

 

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

6 in support

3 in objection

4 abstentions

PERMIT