Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report; and an additional condition (or amendments to conditions) to allow the Council to require the removal or relocation of benches if they are found to contribute to ASB and an amendment to condition 10 to add that the Council could make nominations for community usage.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing pavilion and erection of building for indoor sports and fitness

by Stonebridge Boxing Club (SBC) to include gym and sporting facilities, physio, ancillary office space, changing facilities and café.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

i)             The conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

ii)            That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

James Mascall, Planning Officer, introduced the report and set out the proposal.  Members were advised that the application proposed the demolition of the pavilion, which was a two storey building to erect a single story pavilion to be used by Stonebridge Boxing Club.  The new proposals would include 8 new bicycle stands, concrete benches and landscaping.  The supplementary report submitted the previous day addressed the comments made by Brent's Tree Officer originally raising concerns with regard to the location of the proposed development, and the impact this would have on existing trees within King Edward VII Park.  The Committee’s attention was drawn to the 'Trees, Ecology and Landscaping' section of the Committee Report, which discussed how the proposal had been amended to address these concerns.  It was noted that Brent's Tree Officer raised no further concerns.

The Chair thanked James Mascall for introducing the report and subsequently invited Mr Aamir Ali to address the Committee.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                Speaking as the manager of the Stonebridge Boxing Club, Mr Ali explained that the boxing club started in 2009 in Kasinga House and had moved premises on four occasions. Despite constant moves, the club had maintained its membership, which continued to grow.  Mr Ali said that 350 members attended on a weekly basis, with the oldest member being 78 years old.  

·                Mr Ali expressed that the boxing club kept children and young people off the streets and helped them make healthy choices and have a purpose in life.  The boxing club had received much support from large organisations but needed a permanent residence in order to continue to help the community. 

·                The boxing club was happy for a range of sports and activities to take place and for their changing rooms and gym to be used by non-club members.  

·                In summing up, it was felt the proposal would result in the redevelopment of an underutilised park and contribute to the improvement of anti-social behaviour in the park.

The Chair thanked Mr Ali for addressing the Committee and invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

·                In response to a query regarding what steps were in place to deliver the project, Mr Ali stated that he was looking at achievable and affordable figures and fundraising had been undertaken.  There was support from various sports organisations, such as London Marathon and Sports England.  The original build costs were over £2m but it was now £700,000 and Mr Ali felt he shared a good rapport with organisations that were keen to support him.

·                In response to the concerns highlighted in relation to the extra cars and bikes that the new proposal could bring and whether sustainable transport had been considered for patrons, Mr Ali said that he would encourage patrons to use public transport and there would be bike stands as well.

·                In addressing how the membership was retained despite so many moves and what the boxing club fees were, Mr Ali stated that the monthly fees were £45 for under 18’s who were allowed access the club three times per week.  For adults, the fee was £55 and allowed access for six days per week.  In regards to maintaining membership, Mr Ali said that the boxing club was well known and had seven contestants that had won silver and gold medals at competitions giving it a good reputation.

·                To the query of whether the fees were too high, Mr Ali reported that the fees of the boxing club were one of the lowest in London offering a combination of classes and competing opportunities.

·                In regards to a discount for local residents, Mr Ali said that he had formed an agreement with Quintain where the boxing club had reduce the fees to £50 for adults.  He advised that fees had increased recently as they crossed the threshold for the payment of VAT.

·                In response to the concerns highlighted in regards to the park being dark and this possibly causing a safety issue, Mr Ali stated that the next stage would be looking at gaining funding for lighting.

·                In response to a query on how the applicant would deal with rough sleepers sleeping on the proposed benches, Mr Ali stated that the boxing club would likely act as a deterrent to those types of behaviours and was happy to move the benches indoors if asked to do so.

·                In response to the question of how much had already been raised, Mr Ali said that funders were not willing to provide funding until planning permission had been granted.  However, one funder may provide around £600,000 and the London Marathon may provide £250,000.  The gym would still continue to do fundraising, such as gym shows to accrue additional funding.

·                In response to the question of whether Mr Ali would consider applying for a carbon fund to gain solar panels or similar due to the Council’s carbon neutral strategy, Mr Ali stated that he would be happy to look into this further.   

The Chair thanked Mr Ali for responding to the Committee’s queries and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application. 

The following responses were provided:

·                On the issue of how accessible the site was, it was reported that the building was near the main pathway of the park.  Following an infrastructure survey being undertaken, some repairs were completed and the areas with heaviest footfall were repaired.  The footpath was not designed for excessive vehicle access except for grounds maintenance vehicles and those vehicles going to the school located adjacent to the park.

·                In clarifying the issue of noise to neighbours close by, a noise assessment was conducted which looked at two noise sources a) noise from plants during construction, which met building noise standards and b) operational output noise, which was noted by the nuisance control team to be of an acceptable level.

• In response to whether a survey had been conducted in regards to the protected species in the park, officers confirmed an ecology appraisal was undertaken and submitted with the application.  It looked at how a biodiverse environment could be achieved through high quality landscaping, wildlife boxes and nesting for birds and bats.  Ecology on site was low level and the site was not a designated ecological site.  Grass would be mowed regularly and high value trees would be retained.  The wildlife friendly option was proposed and the Ecologist was satisfied by the findings and recommendations.  It had been recommended that a full ecology report be produced before the building was demolished.

·                Regarding the issue of the fire safety documents not being submitted with the application, it was clarified that this was covered through building regulations.  There were evacuation points, access for Fire Fighters and engines and fire hydrants in the park. 

·                Regarding heavy vehicles like fire engines entering the park, it was clarified that emergency vehicles like fire engines and ambulances could enter the park and any damage caused would be fixed later.

·                In regards to sufficient lighting in the park, it was reported that the area around the building could be controlled but further lighting needed to be discussed between the applicant, the park service and the property team.  Work was being done with the Police and design officers around this.  Generally, parks were not lit, and some dark areas were needed for certain animals.  There was currently no funding for additional lighting but if there were to be lighting, it would be sensitively installed so as not to disturb neighbours or any habitats.  Officers added that funding for additional lighting could only be gained through capital funding.

·                In regards to concern about anti-social behaviour, the building was currently derelict, however once it was constructed and had CCTV, this would reduce anti-social behaviour.

·                Regarding the question of why a green roof was not included in the application, it was established that this was due to the design of the building.  The roof would offset to increase more soft landscaping provisions and had to be robust due to risk of vandalism.

·                When asked to explain the community user agreement, it was noted that the applicant was in contact with a football club to see if they wanted to hire facilities and this would be opened up to wider sports clubs.  This agreement would be of benefit to the community.

·                Regarding the removal of four trees in the application, with the new plans trees would be moved two meters to the north and away from the protected area.  One of the four trees was dead so better quality trees would be planted.  The new trees would be secured by two conditions a) to be planted strategically around the park and b) for there to be no impact to the basketball courts.

·                Officers confirmed that the proposal doesn’t rely on car parking and that it is not within the proposals.

·                Officers confirmed that there would be one to two trips a week to service the waste.

·                It was asked if the boxing club ceased to exist, what would happen to the building.  If the building was no longer used as a boxing club, then there would need to be an application to vary the contract to adapt the building for the new user.  A notice could be served to the owner if need be and it was highlighted that the building was leasehold and not freehold.  The current building did not have any architectural significance and was derelict therefore officers considered demolition and refurbishment the best option.

·                The leaseholder would occupy the building and the Council would own it.  The new building would be surrendered back to the Council if the lease finished. 

·                Fields in Trust were not a statutory consultee for the planning application but would need to be consulted at a later stage.  Fields in Trust were supportive of activities that benefitted the community and for which there was access to.  Community use had been considered, such as a café and toilets.

·                Regarding the issue of relocating the four benches if there was antisocial behaviour, there were conditions for hard and soft landscaping.

As there were no further questions from members the Chair then moved on to the vote.

DECISION

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:

(1)     the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report; and an additional condition to allow Neighbourhood Managers the flexibility to remove or relocate benches if they contributed to ASB.  An amendment was also agreed for condition 10, to add that the Council could make nominations for community usage.

Voting on the above decision was as follows: Unanimous in favour.