Agenda item

The Head of Development Management – Community Development Services sought determination of a planning application for works to the West Pier and the buildings on it, comprising: extension and change of use of Building 1 public toilets (sui generis), offices (Class E(g)(i) and artists studios (sui generis) to form restaurant (Class E(b)). Change of use of Building 2 first floor Café storage (Class E(b)) and part of office (Class E(g)(i)) to form artists studios (sui generis) and gallery (Class E(a)). Alterations to Building 3, and change of use of part of industrial/storage (Class B2/B8) within, to form retail (Class E(a)) unit and enlarged Café (Class E(b)). Demolition of Building 4 (storage/warehouse) and Building 5 (bait sheds). Erection of bait shed (new Building 4). Demolition of existing retail kiosks (Building 6) fronting Foreshore Road. Erection of retail kiosk (Class E(a)), public toilets (sui generis) and sub-station (sui generis) building (new Building 7). Alterations to public realm including realignment of parking facilities to provide 81 public car parking spaces which would also be used as a flexible, temporary outdoor event space at West Pier, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, on behalf of North Yorkshire Council.

Providing an update since the publication of the report, the planning officer advised that a further representation had been received calling into question the council’s ability to implement the planning consent.  This matter was already addressed in the report.  He also referred to a committee site visit which had taken place and a further letter of objection received from the Friends of Scarborough Harbour.

The applicant’s agent, Stephen Price, spoke in support of the application.

James Corrigan spoke objecting to the application.

Division Member, Councillor Janet Jefferson also spoke in relation to the application.

During consideration of the above application, the Committee’s discussion centred on the following matters:

·       Whether the proposed development precluded the development of facilities to service the offshore wind industry including the installation of a boat lift (officer reply: any future developments in this respect would be the subject of further planning applications as appropriate.  Approval of this planning application did not preclude further developments on the West Pier which had undergone many changes over time)

·       Concern that the proposed surface water drainage arrangements directed water into the sewers rather than into the sea (officer reply: to direct surface water run off into the sea would have entailed drilling into sheet piling which would undermine the structural integrity of the pier)

·       Why solar panels were not part of the proposed scheme? The application would benefit from an energy statement (officer reply: the provision of solar panels was not a requirement of planning policy – the SBC Local Plan – but the aggressive marine environment may also have been a factor in why solar panels were not proposed)

·       The nature of the proposed restaurant (officer reply: this was not a material planning consideration)

·       Concern at the proposed reduction in floorspace for the fishing industry (officer reply: the size was deemed better suited to serve the needs of the shellfish industry)

·       Concern how the proposed scheme was justified in terms of passing the sequential test in respect of paragraph 91 of the NPPF which directed that the main town centre uses, including retail and leisure uses, should be located in town centres, then at the edge of centre locations (officer reply: officers accepted the applicant’s argument that the development needs to be assessed on an 'aggregated basis', looking at the proposal as a whole rather than as separate elements. Consequently the scheme could not realistically be disaggregated as the regeneration proposal was locationally specific to West Pier)

The decision:

That consideration of the planning application be DEFERRED pending receipt of:

(i)             More detailed analysis of the potential economic gains and losses of the proposed scheme

(ii)            Further clarification and details about the proposed surface water drainage arrangements

(iii)           An energy statement pertaining to the proposed scheme

(iv)           Further clarification and details of how the proposed scheme passes the sequential test in respect of paragraph 91 of the NPPF which directs that the main town centre uses, including retail and leisure uses, should be located in town centres, then at the edge of centre locations; and also of how the proposed scheme passes the sequential and exception tests as per the revised Flood Risk Assessment.

Voting record:

A vote was taken and the motion was declared carried unanimously.

There was a break in the meeting at which point Councillor Timothy arrived.