Change of use of pavilion and erection of a raised deck area to facilitate its use as a cafe/refreshment area, and office and the erection of a wildlife hut

Change of use of pavilion and erection of a raised deck area to facilitate its use as a cafe/refreshment area, and office and the erection of a wildlife hut

Please refer to the late material circulated at the start of the meeting

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the recent site visit and to the information included in the late material. He informed the committee that the application was not seeking removal of the bowling green, nor the main building at the site, and that the civil dispute relating to the proposals should not influence the committee’s decision. Before advising members to base their decision purely on the planning merit of the application, the Development Manager said that the recommendation had been amended to one of delegated authority because the date of expiry of the notice on the bowls club, (Certificate B), did not expire until 27 July 2012.

Public Speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application and as Trustee of Coleford Bowling Club, the first speaker made the following representations on behalf of the bowling club: -

‘The club has been in the Buchanan grounds since 1923 and has been built up overt he years by the hard work and dedication of a large number of local residents. The club is applying to court for a new tenancy, which if granted will include and allow the club to continue to use all of the club’s premises including the bowling green, pavilion, car park and the club house, which was built by the club. In the early years, the members had the use of an old wooden hut to change and shelter in but in 1966, Mr Leonard Craze, a local schoolmaster, donated a sum of money and the pavilion was built specifically as changing rooms, toilets and clubhouse for the Bowling and Tennis Clubs. It has remained as such to this day. The building was provided with water, gas, and electricity by the bowling club at no cost to the Buchanan Trust and it houses the irrigation system for the bowling green. We have also maintained the fabric of the property, installed modern double glazed windows and carpeted the floors, again at no cost to the trust. Should this change of use be given, we will cease to exist as a club for we will have neither our changing facilities nor our utilities. We question how many people are likely to be able to ever want to access the proposed café and refreshment facility during the times put forward by the applicant or who would want to use the café when there is already ample provision for food and refreshments in the main town? This needs to be weighed up against the loss of the clubhouse and the bowling green facilities enjoyed over many years by a group of people who do not have other suitable recreation facilities to accommodate their needs. The bowling clubs facilities are also used by a number of social groups, including those who have put in representations shown at page 37 of the case officer’s report. If the pavilion can no longer be used as changing facilities and as a consequence the bowling club no longer exists, those social groups will lose the opportunity to benefit from the facilities currently offered. On basic health and safety grounds and on practical grounds, the proposal to use the bowling green as a toddler play area and a bowling green is not viable, so if the proposal goes ahead, it will mean the loss to the community of this valued and much used sporting facility. The proposal to site a nature viewing shelter for children in the middle of a car park is ludicrous, especially when the outlook from it is across the valley to a new housing estate and large factory. There are far better places to site it in the surrounding grounds owned by the applicant. The letters of objection show that that there is a clear demand for the bowling green and social facilities provided by the Coleford Bowling Club. If the applicant’s change of use is allowed this long established sports venue used by many older people will be a loss to the community. The loss of changing facilities and the loss of use of the bowling green will be detrimental to the community and I urge members to consider these points and vote against the officer recommendation’.

Speaking in support of the application, the second speaker outlined the background to the proposals and said that the application site was a public amenity for the people of Coleford, whose management had been entrusted to the Buchanan Memorial Trust. He said that the trustees had done everything possible to maintain the site but that it had become increasingly important to make good economical use of its assets by creating new facilities from which it could generate more income. He said that the new arrangements would continue to uphold the tradition of hard work, but would now benefit the whole of the community, including young children. In his statement, the speaker said that:

‘The proposals are for modest refreshment and shelter facilities, with toilets available when the refreshment area is open. When they are implemented they will provide a public amenity, which anyone would expect to see in a large mixed recreation ground. The Trust owns and manages these grounds for the use of the public whatever their age, inclination or affiliation. As a charity, we serve no-one else's interests but those of the public. We are dedicated to preserving and improving the amenity of the grounds to all users, in an environment which is 'as safe as necessary'. We do all that we can to secure that environment against vandalism and any other abuse by minorities. We operate prudently to maximise our income in order to sustain our facilities. We are financially independent and no drain on the public purse. The plans before you will contribute to our annual income, by allowing us to make a modest amount of money from our pavilion once it is open for use, and continue that independence. Making economical use of our assets in the way we propose is the only way to continue the improvements we have made. These have recently included new playground equipment, a new roadway and car park surface, gate automation and a comprehensive grounds maintenance programme. In pursuing our plans we are continuing the tradition of hard work and dedication on the part of many unpaid volunteers who have preserved the open nature of the grounds in the face of many challenges over the years. Finally I come to the objectors, who may not have stated their case sufficiently strongly so I will restate it for them. The Club believes it is so overwhelmingly representative of the community of Coleford that you should refuse consent despite there being no valid planning objection to our proposal. If you agree with them then you will do as they demand, regardless of the consequences for the recreation grounds’.

Local member, Councillor Clive Elsmore, said that it was regrettable that the application had come before the committee today. He said that, whilst there were considerable advantages in the application for some of the people from Coleford, such advantages were at the detriment to other sectors of the community. On this basis, Councillor Elsmore suggested that the application be deferred for six months to enable the associated parties to come to a favourable compromise for all people living in Coleford, and as such, avoid unnecessary and expensive litigation.

Committee consideration

Having disclosed a pecuniary interest, Councillor Paul McMahon, (Ward Member for Coleford East), made several observations before leaving the meeting for consideration of this item. Councillor McMahon endorsed the first speaker’s comments and said that the proposals to replace the changing facilities with an office and café made no sense whatsoever. Acknowledging the advice that had been given by the Development Manager earlier in the meeting, that the application was not seeking removal of the bowling green, Councillor McMahon said that, to use as a children’s play area would almost certainly cause damage to the green. He also said that the erection of a wildlife hut made no sense either, especially when there was little evidence of wildlife at the location. Councillor McMahon said that it had taken years of painstaking hard work, involving several generations of people, to create such a high quality, county standard bowling green. He said that, should the application go ahead, the impact on people of all ages, especially the elderly, would be a tragedy. Reflecting on the value of this historic and prestigious facility, Councillor McMahon said that the bowling club was at the heart of the community, not only for Coleford but for the whole of the Forest of Dean and that it would be detrimental to lose such a facility. Before leaving the meeting, Councillor McMahon urged the committee to refuse the application. 

The general consensus from the committee was that the application had created a rather awkward and difficult situation. Several members said that the unfortunate disagreement between the trustees and the bowling club was regretful and expressed concern that the matter could result in a significant loss to the whole community. Councillor Norman Stephens said that the bowling green was a fantastic facility and that the current situation was an appalling state of affairs for the people of Coleford. He said that there was more than enough space for children to play on a nearby playing field and that he would have liked the matter to have been resolved by the two parties working together with the town council

Councillor David Thomson said that, although there was no valid reason for refusing the application based on planning merit, he did not see the recommendation as a means of going forward and only hoped that the outcome of the decision was that the legal position might become a little clearer.

Councillor Philip Burford made detailed references to CSP 8 of the Core Strategy Policy - Retention of Community Facilities and said that he believed elements of the policy protected the existing facilities at the site in that the application failed to provide a suitable alternative. Later in the meeting, Councillor Burford clarified that he had not been referring to the bowling green when he had made this point but to the changing rooms. Development Manager, Clive Reynolds said that, although the proposed scheme intended to change the layout of the changing room area, there was still sufficient facilities available to the bowling club.

Vote

Councillor Burford proposed that the application be refused and Councillor Jane Horne seconded the proposal. The reason suggested for refusing the application was the loss of the changing room facilities which were a community facility and thus contrary to CPS 8. Councillor Di Martin said that she would have preferred to have deferred the application for the applicant to undertake an economic and community impact assessment, but nevertheless agreed that the current situation was a real dilemma. Development Manager informed the committee that, if refused, the decision would be one of delegated refusal following expiry of the relevant time period relating to the issue of Certificate B. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to authorise delegated refusal of the application for the reasons suggested at the meeting

For (9)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Judy Davis, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin, Norman Stephens and Roger Yeates

Against (2)

Councillors Terry Glastonbury and Arthur Thomas

Abstention (1)

Councillor David Thomson