Agenda item

Demolition of existing brick pavilion building and erection of a new single storey building for sport and community uses with associated landscaping works.

(Planning application number: P2024/0369/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       Planning Officer advised that since the publication of the agenda local planning authority received comments from Sport England a statutory consultee for developments related and impacting sports facilities.

·       It was noted that Sports England supports the replacement of the pavilion and does not raise a statutory objection to the application because it broadly accords with exception 2 of Council’s Playing Fields Policy and paragraph 103 of the NPPF.

·       In addition Sport England on behalf of ECB and football foundations stated that as a general principle, it supports the design which is largely consistent with its technical specification and involves no loss of green space on a boundary limited site.

·       Meeting was informed of a number of required changes to note is that there is preference towards team changing rooms providing padding up area but no direct sightline to the pitch- a small window being proposed whilst maintaining privacy.

·       It was noted that Sports England had a preference towards officials changing having benching outside of the shower area for minimum two people.

·       England Cricket Board (ECB) supports the replacement of the pavilion with a design that is fully compliant with Council’s technical specification.

·       Planning Officer advised that all these have been discussed with applicants who have no objections to the changes.

·       Meeting was advised that the application site is an open space which is bounded by Turlewray Close to the north-east and Wray Crescent to the south-west. A central path through the park links the two streets with another park providing access from Thorpedale Road. The scale of the park is 2.13 hectares. The park is configured into a main open area to the south which is used for cricket and ac children’s play area to the north. There is an existing single storey brick building which facilities the use of the cricket pitch. The existing building has a footprint of 226sqm.

·       The site is neither statutorily nor locally listed, nor is it located within a designated conservation area; however, it does immediately adjoin the Tollington Park Conservation Area.

·       It was stated that the building has formerly served the existing sports facility of the Open Space (cricket) facility but was deemed structurally unsound in 2018 and as a result has been vacant since. It serves a building footprint of 226sqm and primarily contains changing and shower facilities.

·       The proposed building would be finished in a varied tone grey (Rinko Falls) brickwork with a grey zinc sloping roof and light grey window frames. It would incorporate a podium deck and associated landscaping to the north, east and south. The building would incorporate a shallow-pitched green roof and associated security measures throughout. It would be accessible via the Open Space facing elevation and would incorporate the necessary accessibility measures where necessary.

·       Planning Officer informed Committee that the existing disused building, which was purpose built as a sports pavilion, would be replaced in its entirety as part of the proposal by a new single storey building. The proposed building would have a very similar footprint to the existing and would be positioned in the same location. It would primarily continue to serve as a sports pavilion but would also introduce a new community use with associated accessible facilities.

·       Officers welcome that the previous use of the sports pavilion would be retained at the site and consider the introduction of a new community room to serve as an enhancement of the existing use. Consultations have taken place with Sport England and Policy Officers who have raised no objection towards the combined use of the building as a Sports Pavilion and Community Space.

·       Officers also consider the building to be acceptable on design and conservation grounds. The building would retain its single storey footprint and near identical massing. Although the Council’s Design & Conservation officers have raised an objection towards the new building on the grounds of appearance, most notably due to the appearance of grey brick design that is proposed, officers consider the proposed building has been designed to serve a purpose and would bring a much-needed improvement on the existing situation. It is also noted that the building does not form part of the Tollington Park conservation area and thus, it is considered that there is scope for a contemporary design.

·       The proposal has also been considered to be acceptable on the grounds of amenity. The main point of contention is the introduction of the community use to the building and the resulting impacts this could create to the surrounding occupiers. In this regard, an operational management plan has been obtained by the applicant and a condition has been included to ensure the details of the management plan are adhered to throughout the course of the development.

·       Meeting was informed that the proposal involves the removal of 6 trees, that  Council’s tree officer has been consulted on the removal of these features and has raised no objection owing to the low amenity value of the trees and biodiversity features to be removed, the absence of Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) and the absence of heritage constraints. Notwithstanding, conditions have been recommended for re-planting of tree canopies and associated protection measures.

·       Consultation has also been carried out with the Council’s Sustainability, Inclusive Design, Transport and Refuse Officers with external consultation also taking place with the Design Out Crime officer. All initial points of concern have been addressed and other pre-commencement conditions have been recommended where necessary to finalise details.

·       Associated hard and soft landscaping features are incorporated into the design which includes a new secure side external storage space to accommodate park equipment, with the existing Parks depot space (adjoining the rear elevation) to be retained. 2 no. cycle parking spaces are also included within the building’s perimeter surround. The internal refuse arrangements will be managed by the Council’s parks team but there is space within the rear depot should extra bins be required.

·       On the issue of impact on neighbouring amenity, planning officer advised that the OMP has a service life of ten years which will be reviewed and updated on an annual basis to reflect visitor/stakeholder feedback and the implications for the future management of the park.

·       It was noted that given the predominantly residential nature of the immediate vicinity and the relatively low background sound levels that are in place, officers consider a curfew time of 2130hrs to be reasonable in this location.

·       Committee received a number of objections on the proposal and included the removal of trees which presently protects residents privacy and amenity, trees should be subject to Tree Protection Orders, no specification consultation on the trees with local residents was undertaken, scheme is contrary to council’s net zero policy, removal of trees not compliant with biodiversity net gain, anti social behaviour concerns etc and that scheme should be deferred subject to the bat survey being completed in September.

·       Other objections included the proposed storage facility and its purpose, the images provided as part of the application are inadequate, consultation was undertaken during the pandemic so not enough participation and roof not using solar panels.

·       In response to objectors concerns, the applicant advised that there is a need to re provide certain services acknowledging that consultation was carried out during covid period via zoom, however posters advertising the scheme was put up around the area. On the issue of storage, meeting was advised that this was to replace what existed previously and followed on from feedback from consultation.

·       In addition to the above, applicant informed meeting that the Service has no plans to turn it into commercial use, that it is being promoted and publicised for youth groups and community

·       Meeting was advised that strategy has been developed based on site constraints and the size and scale of the project.

·       With regards to concerns of type of uses of the community space and sports facility, Councillor Klute moved a motion for applicant to provide a sports pitch management plan, this was seconded by Councillor North. Wording of the condition to be delegated to planning officers in conjunction with the Chair.

·       In response to a request from Sports England to reconfigure the layout of the changing room and the shower area, Councillor Klute moved a motion for an additional condition, wording to be delegated to Planning Officers and the Chair. It was seconded by Councillor North.

·       Councillor Convery moved a motion to amend condition 5 regarding the replacement of loss of 6 trees, that at minimum it should be 4 trees for every tree lost and not 2 trees, a total of 24 trees. This was seconded by Councillor North and it was agreed by committee that exact wording be delegated to officers in conjunction with the Chair.

·       With regards the replacement of the canopy of trees, Councillor Convery moved a motion to amend condition 6, that this should be done using suitable species so as to be able to replace the canopy within a period of 7 years and not 10 years. This was seconded by Councillor North and it was agreed by committee that exact wording be delegated to officers in conjunction with the Chair.

Councillor North proposed a motion to grant planning permission subject to the additional condition and amending conditions 5 and 6 stated above. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report