Agenda item

Public Speaking:

None.

Member debate:

RG:  had a technical question regarding the dumping of spoilage and debris during construction – would this be transported internally within the site to its new location?

BD:  noted concerns from a constituent regarding noise levels and the positioning of loud-speakers, and asked if anything was going to be done about this.  Was not against the application but thought this matter needed attention.

MS:  as ward councillor for Prestbury, thinks this is a good scheme and fully supports it.  Pleased to have investment in the town from the Jockey Club.   Said there is always going to be some noise when events are taking place, and suggested that the letter referred to by BD was more concerned with other events at the racecourse, such as the Wychwood and Greenbelt festivals.  On race days, tannoy announcements are all part of the excitement, and concern from one neighbour shouldn’t influence this.  Said again that this is a good scheme, and that the Parish Council concerns about the view of the site from different locations are not well founded – in reality, from the top of Cleeve Hill, people will not be aware of any change, and the proposal will provide a good selection of buildings.

BF:  referring the NPPF, was concerned that there will still be a considerable ‘tented village’ at the racecourse – had hoped for more substantial building.  Was also disappointed the parade ring was not in front of the stand, resulting in people being excluded from that part of the proceedings, but realised that this was not a reason to refuse.  Suggested the scheme conflicted with the NPPF’s principle of promoting mixed use and multiple benefits from land – the racecourse is used for everything from a Kiri te Kanawa concert to car boot sales, and would have liked to see something included in the proposal which would make it even more suitable for other uses – adding that the scheme won’t actually make it easier for people to go to the races.

AM:  said Members can’t get into an argument about whether the proposal is or isn’t a radical re-design – it is what it is.  Considers it an improvement on the existing construction, which is old, tired and out of date.  Said the new stand is a nice, contemporary design, and should improve the flow of people behind the stands by a change in the construction of the walkways.  Considers it a good scheme and supports it.

MJC, in response:

-          asked BF which paragraph of the NPPF he was referring to.

BF:  said this was Paragraph 17 – it is mentioned in the officer report.

MJC, in response:

-          toRG’s question about the spoil, said its re-location will be within the racecourse site, and this would be beneficial to Evesham Road.  Did not consider it reasonable for the Authority to condition this, but suggested that an informative would be appropriate, requiring the applicant to use their site where possible;

-          to BD, regarding noise, said MS had answered the question well, and neighbour concerns stem from festivals rather than race meetings.  The neighbour comment related to the tannoy, but this is not used intensively throughout the year – it has been investigated by Environmental Health officers, who have no concerns.  Said it would be too much detail – micro-managing, in the words of Robert Lindsey  – if the Committee tries to influence the position of the tannoy.

BF:  asked for response on his comment on encouraging multiple benefits from use of the land.

MJC, in response:

-          said these comments in the report came from the Policy team, and there is conflict between the Local Plan and the NPPF.  CBC’s Local Plan policy permits development at the racecourse as long as it is principally horse-racing-related; if it wasn’t, it would be a very different proposal.  The Local Plan recognises what the building is and its great importance in the town, and also that the buildings are not dominant in the greenbelt.  Said the proposal isn’t for another Centaur – that would be quite a different application and recommendation – and that the Local Plan policy is positive and pro-active in greenbelt terms.  Said the authority shouldn’t be pushing the racecourse to use its building for different things – this would be against policy.

BF:  said MJC had said the racecourse is used principally for horse-racing, but suggested that if the number of days was counted, this is probably not the case.

LG:  said BF is trying to re-invent the wheel; he would have a point if this was a large green open space with no horse-racing, but the application is for a refurbishment of the racecourse and buildings over 100 years old and long overdue for improvement, with better toilet facilities, improved pedestrian areas, and underground storage and services provided.  He and MS were at one on this.  The race course over the years has been kept within the delineated area – had tried to take it out in the 2007 Greenbelt Review, but the Secretary of State ha`d not agreed and the racecourse remains entirely in the greenbelt.  Said again, this application is about the refurbishment of old buildings – the racecourse does great service to the town, attracts an enormous number of people and will continue to play a very important part in the economic future of the town. 

CC:   said most Members appear to be in support

PT:  said she had recently visited the Hall of Fame at the racecourse, and seen a record of its development over the years – it is amazing to see how different it is to what it was before.  Said the Centaur was designed to be used for other things as well as horse sales, and is a very useful building.   Does not consider the racecourse or new proposal detracts from the greenbelt.  Thought it a shame the stand takes away pedestrian access to the winning enclosure,but supports the application fully.  Said the tented village is partly CBC’s responsibility because of our policy, and if there was an application for permanent buildings, the authority might say no.

Vote taken on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT