Agenda item

The Planning Manager presented a detailed report in relation to the above application. The application had been referred to the Planning Committee by the Planning Manager as the Environmental Health Officer had recommended that the application be refused.

Due to the nature of the application a temporary, two year planning permission had been recommended for approval to allow the impacts of the proposal to be fully assessed.

Letters of both support and objection had been received following public consultation and were detailed within the report.

The Environmental Health Officer had recommended that the application be refused, even if acoustic linings were installed in the marquee, additional mitigation measures would mean that the music levels would still need to be low and would not be suitable for the intended use.

Sports England had also objected to the application as it does not accord with any of the exceptions set out in Sports England’s playing fields policy, paragraph 99 of the National Planning Policy Framework or Policy ITCR7 of the Local Plan as the proposal would result in the loss of a playing field.

The Highway Authority had submitted no objections for the application to be granted for the temporary two year period as this would allow them to fully assess any highway concerns that may arise.

Mr Adam Hind (applicant) attended the meeting and spoke for the application.

Councillor Brian Murray-Carr attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

Mr Andrew hay attended the meeting and spoke against the application on behalf of

Mr Basil Hill.

Moved by Councillor Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor Natalie Hoy

RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED

Reasons for Refusal

1.     The proposal does not accord with any of the exceptions to Sport England’s playing fields policy or with paragraph 99 of the National Planning Policy Framework or Policy ITCR7 (Playing Pitches) in the Local Plan for Bolsover District (2020). As a result the proposal will lead to the loss of an allocated  playing field known as the Shirebrook Recreation Ground, contrary to the  provisions of the development plan.

2.     The noise report submitted with the application recognises there could be issues if the event plays music at the levels found typically with this sort of venue, and it proposes very low internal maximum noise limits, which are unlikely to make the venue viable for the proposed use. There is also no consideration of the noise levels from guests singing and shouting at the venue, only raised voices has been assessed. This is a significant source of noise at entertainment venues, and it is one that is not possible to reasonably mitigate given the nature of the venue. It is not considered possible to use reasonable and enforceable planning conditions that would safeguard neighbouring amenity and the proposal is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy SC1 of the Local Plan for Bolsover District.

Statement of Decision Process

Officers have worked positively and pro-actively with the applicant to address issues raised during the consideration of the application. The proposal has been considered against the policies and guidelines adopted by the Council and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework. The issues were balanced and the application was referred for a decision by Planning Committee as a result of the outstanding objections of Sport England and the Environmental Health Officer. The application was recommended for approval but Planning Committee determined that the harm to amenity from potential noise nuisance arising from the use of the marque structures and the loss of the allocated playing pitches were not outweighed by other material considerations. Therefore Planning Committee resolved to refuse planning permission in accordance with the development plan and national planning policy.

Equalities Statement

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 places a statutory duty on public authorities in the exercise of their functions to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (i.e. “the Public Sector Equality Duty”).

In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the development proposals would have any direct or indirect negative impacts on any person with a protected characteristic or any group of people with a shared protected characteristic.

Human Rights Statement

The specific Articles of the European Commission on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’)

relevant to planning include Article 6 (Right to a fair and public trial within a reasonable time), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1

(Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

It is considered that assessing the effects that a proposal will have on individuals and weighing these against the wider public interest in determining whether development should be allowed to proceed is an inherent part of the decision-making process. In carrying out this ‘balancing exercise’ in the above report, officers are satisfied that the potential for these proposals to affect any individual’s (or any group of individuals’) human rights has been addressed proportionately and in accordance with the requirements of the ECHR.