The Chairman introduced application number 141017, for change of use of land to park including siting of vehicle for hot & cold foods, seating, raised area, perimeter fencing, and siting of a storage shed. The Planning Officer stated to Members that there had been an additional public consultation response received. It was a supportive comment, describing the site as a great addition to the town and an amazing transformation by a local organisation.

The Chairman noted there was one registered speaker, by way of a statement to be read by the Democratic and Civic Officer. The following statement from Mr Steve Ralf, the applicant, was read aloud.

“I would like to say that we are delighted to have transformed this long standing piece of waste land into a community park, in the heart of town, that Gainsborough can be proud of. As custodians of the site and a charitable community organisation we have no desire to upset other local businesses or residents and many have been involved in the development of the park including attending test events and activities.  We look forward to offering a wonderful green space and a range of family activity and events for all.”

The Chairman invited comments from Members of the Committee. There was discussion regarding the merits of the concept however concerns were raised in relation to comments made by the Environmental Health Officers stating the need for customer toilets, whether licences would be needed for food, drink and evening events. It was also highlighted that comments from the Highways Agency were not conclusive nor was it clear whether there was an issue with the site in relation to nearby heritage buildings. A Member of Committee agreed with these comments and, based on concerns that the proposal was not in keeping with the area, proposed refusal of the application.

The Planning Officer noted that concerns regarding food hygiene, licences and provision of customer toilets were not covered by planning legislation and highlighted that the recommendation was to grant the principle of development, subject to deferral back to Officers for resolution of outstanding matters in relation to odour. With regard to concerns of evening events, he highlighted the proposed condition that stated no live event would take place from the site. He also commented that, in relation to concerns of the impact on nearby heritage buildings, the NPPF advised that where the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. He commented that the improvement to the public realm was to be weighed against the harm caused by the structures on site and, in this instance, the benefits to the public realm outweighed the harm identified.  

A Member of Committee enquired about how the odour reports had been conducted and it was confirmed that Environmental Health had requested the odour report and what had been submitted was based on informal assessment by people who had used the site and their judgement as to the impact of any odour. There had been no professional testing and the Environmental Health team had suggested there to be further work undertaken using professional equipment.

There was further discussion regarding the impact of the site on the conservation area, and, whilst this was recognised to be important, it was highlighted that the original plan for the site had been to build flats and there had very recently been a new hotel built on the opposite side of the road. It was suggested that the improvement to the site that had taken place was preferable and less obstructive to the conservation area than other developments. In contrast to this, further concerns were raised regarding the mention of live events to be held on the site and the Member proposal to refuse permission was seconded.

The Chairman invited any other comments from Committee Members. Members reiterated previously stated supportive comments regarding the application and the Officer recommendation was moved and seconded.

With no further comments from Members, the Chairman took the vote for the Officer recommendation to grant permission subject to further odour testing. With six votes against, five votes for and two abstentions, the vote was lost.

The Chairman then took the vote on the second proposal, to refuse permission. With five votes against, six votes for and two abstentions, it was agreed that permission be REFUSED as contrary to LP25, LP26, LP38 and NPP 18.