Agenda item

Change of use of land to form a 12-hole mini-golf course for a period of 7 years. [Guildhall Ward]

Members considered a full application for change of use of land at Central Library Gardens, Museum Street, York, to form a 12-hole mini-golf course for a period of 7 years.

The Development Manger gave a presentation on the application and the Development Officer provided an update that outlined an additional representation from York Civic Trust which maintained their objection.

Public Speakers

Alison Cammiss, CYC officer, spoke in a private capacity in favour of the application.  She explained how the applicant’s volunteer work linked with the social aims of the project.

Susan Brook, Chief Finance Officer, Explore York, spoke in favour of the application.  She informed Members that the expected benefits of the venture would increase revenue and visitor numbers to Explore and would meet the wider aims for visitors to explore, learn and understand.  In response to questions from Members she stated that the resurfaced path would remain at the end of the tenancy, and they had projected a 20-30,000 increase in visitor numbers annually.  She also confirmed that other events took place in the space.

David Finch and Helen Burkitt, spoke in favour of the application as the applicants.  They highlighted their aim to manage the space positively and to broaden the appeal to a wider audience.  They detailed the design of the site and emphasised that it would be fully accessible. 

In response to Members questions, they explained that the application was for 7 years which included a 12-month leeway for set up and to reinstate the site at the end of the lease.  They also clarified the build materials and business hours which would be used.

Officers also explained that the permanent nature of the build meant that it could not be considered a temporary application.  Any required lighting fixtures were manageable through conditions.

Following debate, Cllr Daubeney moved the officer recommendation to refuse the application.  This was seconded by Cllr Orrell.  A vote was taken and with seven votes in favour and one against it was;

Resolved:            That the application be refused.

Reason:              The proposal for a mini-golf course on Library Lawn in the city centre was not supported. There is moderate level of harm within the less than substantial category to the setting of designated heritage assets of the highest significance individually and for their group value in Mint Yard, with monuments spanning York’s 2000-year history. This harm is caused by the removal of the neutral green foil of the lawn and replacement with a busy mini-golf course constructed of artificial materials, including miniature buildings and structures from coloured concrete, with rubber mulch, resin flexi-pave and imprinted concrete surfacing. The statutory duty in Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is a matter of considerable importance and weight. The proposal would be harmful to the significance of the Conservation Area and neither its character nor appearance would be preserved or enhanced and would have an adverse effect on the significance of designated heritage assets. These harms would be less than substantial within the meaning of the NPPF. Any such harm nevertheless is given great weight in accordance with paragraph 199 of the NPPF and fails to be outweighed in the heritage balance with the public benefits of the development. The harm is not clearly and convincingly justified and is not outweighed by sufficient public benefits. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 199 and 202 of the NPPF, the public benefits do not outweigh the great weight to be given to the less than substantial harm identified. It is therefore contrary to Section 16 of the NPPF and emerging policies D4, D5, D8 and D10 of the eLP. Further to this the design is inappropriate for the historic Page 40 Application Reference Number: 21/02758/FUL Item No: 4a context and is thus not in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF and D1 Placemaking.

There is also harm caused by the commercialisation and therefore loss of public open space, which is unique in character, is not surplus to requirements and cannot be replaced with space of equivalent value. As such it is contrary to section 8 of the NPPF and emerging policies DP3 and G15 of the eLP.