Agenda item

Construction of 3 no. beach volley ball courts – DEVONSHIRE.

Members were advised that under the section of the report entitled ‘Heritage and Conservation Issues’ it was stated that Historic England agreed with the assessment that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the historic monument. The Historic England response did not explicitly endorse this assessment of the proposal; it stated that the applicant had failed to provide a clear and convincing justification for the proposal to meet the requirement to avoid harm.  It was considered that the grant of temporary planning permission would enable the public benefits of the proposal to be fully assessed through a trial period.  Historic England had subsequently been notified of the amended report and the officer’s recommendation. This communication was acknowledged by the Inspector of Ancient monuments on 22^nd February and no further correspondence had been received from Historic England in respect of this application.

Ms Brachtvogel addressed the committee in objection stating that the proposed volleyball courts would result in an increase in noise and parking issues.  In addition she felt that the fence would not be high enough and that the courts were too close to the Redoubt.

Mr Simpson addressed the committee in objection stating that the location was a tranquil area which would be spoiled by users and spectators of the volleyball courts.  He also felt that the views to the Redoubt would be spoiled.  Mr Simpson also raised concerns on the grounds of noise, security and public safety.

Mr Holland addressed the committee stating that the location was not appropriate and suggested moving the courts to the Sovereign Centre.  He felt that the volleyball courts would spoil the area.

Ms Brown addressed the committee in objection stating that the area was tranquil and quiet which would be spoiled with the introduction of the volleyball courts.  She also expressed concerns about the toilet facilities and drainage in the immediate area.

Ms Wills, Head of Tourism and Enterprise, addressed the committee in response stating that the location was the most appropriate with regard to tidal impact and beach management.  The Redoubt was being transformed into an interactive museum attracting younger visitors to the area.  There would be no more than about eight to ten players at any time managed by the contractor.  It was anticipated that two tournaments may be held per year on one of the courts with spectators accommodated on the remaining courts.  Spinnakers café would be refurbished including the toilet facilities and would manage the bookings for the courts.

RESOLVED: (By 4 votes to 2 with 1 abstention) That permission be granted subject to the following conditions:1) Commencement within three years 2) Temporary planning permission (5 years from date of planning permission), after which the beach must be restored to its present condition 3) Development in accordance with approved plans 4) archaeology 5) Notwithstanding approved plans the area surrounding groynes to be protected to 2m in distance 6) to provide an operational management plan to be submitted and approved by the Council prior to commencement demonstrating how any spectators to the site will be managed to avoid the obstruction of the surrounding seafront promenade 7) The cover for the sand during periods where the proposal is not in use must match the natural colour of the sand 8) no illumination (permanent or temporary) shall be installed at the site unless previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Informative:

1)   You are reminded to consult with the Specialist Advisor (Engineering) to ensure that, following completion of the project sufficient distance is left for heavy machinery to pass along the front of the seafront.

2)   No floodlighting or illumination has been approved by this permission and condition 8 restricts the installation of any temporary illumination at the site. Should you wish to install external lighting around the courts planning permission must be sought.

3)   Temporary permission has been granted in light of the need to demonstrate that the public benefits of the proposal outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting of the nearby scheduled monument and to ensure that the impact of the proposal on the scheduled monument is kept under review.