Agenda item
Multi Storey Car Park, Selsdon Way, London, E14 (PA/09/02548)
Decision:
On a vote of 0 for and three against with five abstentions, it was –
RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for construction of 5 x five-a-side floodlit all weather football pitches and ancillary facilities on the upper levels (5B, 6A, 6B, 7A and 7B) of the existing multi-storey car park not be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of the following reasons -
The proposed development would result in:
- Increased parking and traffic congestion created by the proposed use to the surrounding site;
- Unacceptable light pollution/sightline issues;
- Increase on noise nuisance created by the proposed use;
- lack of local usage of the proposed facility.
Councillor Harun Miah left the meeting at 7.40pm.
Meeting adjourned at 7.40pm and reconvened at 7:50pm.
Minutes:
Mr Steve Irvine (Development Control Manager), introduced the report seeking planning permission for construction of 5 x five-a-side floodlit all weather football pitches and ancillary facilities on the upper levels (5B, 6A, 6B, 7A and 7B) of the existing multi-storey car park.
The Chair then invited representations from persons who had registered for speaking rights in accordance with the procedures for hearing objections, as set out in the Council’s Constitution.
Mr Ben Kelly (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application. He advised that the Applicant had sought advice from officers, at the pre application stage, who considered that the scheme would assist the Council’s aim of developing new leisure facilities in the Borough. However, the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that the application would have no adverse impacts. Officers had also asked the applicant to provide a series of additional mitigation measures. They therefore withdrew their application and wrote to residents and as a result agreed to reduce the hours of operation to the minimum level it could be reduced to make it viable. It was feared that the proposal would result in increased anti social behaviour, but this would not materialise. There was demand for this facility in the area. There would be a bar in the premises but it would not serve any alcohol. The Applicant’s team of consultants were very experienced. The Applicant managed a similar facility in central London which was well used and there was no adverse issues with floodlighting. There would be free usage for community groups. Mr Kelly considered that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the surrounding area and therefore considered that it should be granted permission.
Councillor Tim Archer spoke in objection to the application. He advised that he was a ward Councillor for the area. He considered that the site was a commercial and residential area and the proposed scheme would be detrimental to both. It was located in an area where professionals from Canary Wharf would commute in to play football. It would not be a community facility. The facility would be built at eyelevel. The area already had a similar facility and this was sufficient. There would be a noise nuisance and it would create traffic and light pollution which was a huge concern. The local residents had already made complaints about the problems with anti social behaviour around the area and the proposal would add to this, if allowed. The hours of operation would turn the area into a ’24 hour environment’. This was a quite area that usually ‘closes’ at 6pm. People travelling to the site by car would have to use the nearby Controlled Parking Zone. (CPZ) They would therefore be competing with residents for the limited spaces. The size of the pitch was too small and did not meet the requirements of Sports England.
Ms Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed reported as contained in the circulated report, together with the reasons why planning permission was recommended for approval. The proposal would provide a new leisure facility for residents. She referred to the steps carried out to mitigate any adverse impacts. The hours of operation had been reduced. The impact of the development in terms of outlook, privacy noise and light pollution was considered appropriate in relation to the residential amenity of adjacent properties and was in line with policy.
In reply to the representations and the report, Members made the following points.
Councillor Golds expressed concern over the adequacy of the sightlines and loss of open space. He contested the idea that the application provided a innovative way of creating new open space when it would close it off and make people pay for it. He stated that he had received correspondence from residents complaining about lack of community consultation. He queried the impact on Glengall Grove and the Isle of Dogs Bangladeshi Welfare Association. He considered that the development would generate increased parking and traffic congestion in those areas.
Members also expressed concern over the proposed hours of operation. Members considered that the estimated time for clearing the site of patrons of 10pm was unrealistic. It would take a lot longer than this to clear the site. Members were not persuaded by the assurances provided about noise.
Members also feared that the patrons of the development would take up residents parking spaces in the nearby CPZ and there would be a lack of community usage. It was felt that the local community should be given full usage of the facility and there should be opportunities for community use of the building. A clear community use agreement needed to be agreed.
In reply to these points Ms Robertson reported:
- In terms of the consultation, officers had gone beyond what they were required to do as specified in the circulated report.
- There would be no adverse impact in terms of car parking as it was expected that 95% of the customers would use public transport as indicated in the trip rate assessment.
- There would be a car free agreement and opportunities for free usage for community groups.
- Addressed the concerns around floodlighting spillage; anti social behaviour, the size of the function room, vehicle activity and anti social behaviour.
In conclusion, Members considered that the proposal would generate noise nuisance from patrons coming and going during unsociable hours, parking problems and increased traffic congestion in the surrounding areas and there would be unacceptable light pollution.
Consequently after consideration of the representations and the officers report, Members were minded to refuse the application and on a vote of 0 for and three against with five abstentions, it was –
RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for construction of 5 x five-a-side floodlit all weather football pitches and ancillary facilities on the upper levels (5B, 6A, 6B, 7A and 7B) of the existing multi-storey car park not be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of the following reasons -
The proposed development would result in:
- Increased parking and traffic congestion created by the proposed use to the surrounding site;
- Unacceptable light pollution/sightline issues;
- Increase on noise nuisance created by the proposed use;
- lack of local usage of the proposed facility.
Councillor Harun Miah left the meeting at 7.40pm.
Meeting adjourned at 7.40pm and reconvened at 7:50pm.
Supporting documents: