Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report, together with an amendment to the wording of condition 10 to remove reference to “Plot 01”.

PROPOSAL

Temporary use of land for meanwhile land uses comprising of; an outdoor sports facility (Use Class F2) to provide 5 five-a-side floodlit all weather football pitches with a single storey pavilion building and an ancillary support area; a temporary building for use as a leisure, entertainment and events venue with storage buildings and external plant equipment in an ancillary support area; boundary treatment; shared informal public realm (with new seating, lighting and CCTV) along with provision for cycle parking, accessible car parking, and an internal vehicular access route with vehicular drop off.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolved to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report, together with an amendment to the wording of condition 10 to remove reference to “Plot 01”.

Jasmin Tailor (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for the temporary planning permission for the meanwhile use of the land comprising of an outdoor sports facility (Use Class F2) to provide five 5-a-side floodlit all weather football pitches with a 133sqm single-storey pavilion building and an ancillary support area, a temporary building (3600sqm) for use as a leisure, entertainment and events venue with storage buildings and external plant equipment in an ancillary support area, alterations to the boundary treatment, a central shared informal public realm (with new seating, lighting and CCTV) along with provision for cycle parking, accessible car parking, and an internal vehicular access route with vehicular drop off area. The meanwhile uses would be for a period of 3 years, after which time it is envisaged that these parts of the wider Quintain Wembley Park development could be delivered. Attention was also drawn to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, which outlined amendments to the hours of operation and lighting for Plot 01 and the type of cycle parking spaces. The recommendation remained to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out within the main and updated within the supplementary committee report. Officers then presented slides taken from the drawing pack to illustrate the proposed plans.

The Chair thanked Jasmin Tailor for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to consider a request which had been received to speak on the application and invited Brett Harbutt (who had registered to speak as the applicant’s representative) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• Brett Harbutt began by highlighting that the application sought permission for the temporary and meanwhile use of land within the North Eastern Lands area of the Wembley Park Masterplan, pending the delivery of the permanent development envisaged for the site. The Committee were informed that the proposal introduced two high-quality interim land uses, each situated on its own defined plot.

• It was stated that Plot 1 would accommodate a total of 5 five-a-side football pitches together with a pavilion building providing changing room facilities. Plot 2 would contain a temporary building intended to house a family friendly indoor immersive exhibition. The Committee were advised that both uses would be supported by a shared area of public realm incorporating lighting, closed circuit television, cycle parking, accessible visitor parking and an internally managed access road with provision for vehicular drop off.

• The applicant’s representative stated that the purpose of the application was to transform an underused area of hardstanding into an active, welcoming and beneficial space. Members were informed that both the London Plan and the Brent Local Plan encouraged the use of vacant or underutilised land for temporary purposes where such uses could introduce vitality and social value. Brett Harbutt emphasised that the proposal aligned directly with those policy objectives by creating a vibrant destination for sport, activity and family entertainment during the period before the long-term residential development of the land advanced under the Wembley Park Masterplan.

• In outlining the benefits of the scheme, Brett Harbutt highlighted that the outdoor pitches would provide accessible and affordable local sports provision, which Brent’s planning policies specifically supported. One of the pitches would be made available free of charge to charities, community groups, youth organisations and local schools for the duration of the temporary use. This benefit would be secured by condition and was intended to increase participation in sport and support wellbeing within the local area.

• Turning to Plot 2, the applicant’s representative stated that the immersive exhibition venue would host the Mundo Pixar exhibition, which was internationally recognised and would broaden Wembley’s cultural offer. It was anticipated that the exhibition would reinforce Wembley’s position as a national and international visitor destination. The Committee were informed that job opportunities arising from the venue would be advertised to local residents through Brent Works. In addition, discounted tickets would be offered to local residents and free tickets would be allocated to local schools and charities to promote engagement with the exhibition.

• The representative further advised that the shared public realm supporting the temporary uses had been designed to be safe and inclusive, featuring lighting, landscaping and closed-circuit television, and would be managed and maintained by the Quintain Wembley Park Estate Team.

• In respect of amenity considerations, it was noted that the committee report confirmed that lighting and noise impacts were acceptable, subject to controls secured through the proposed planning conditions.

• Regarding transport matters, Brett Harbutt stated that the site benefitted from strong public transport connections, including bus, rail and Underground services, and that cycle access had been prioritised. Transport impacts had been robustly assessed and, during the application process, the proposed drop-off provision had been reduced to five spaces. This provision was not intended to encourage car use but was a practical response to operational issues locally, designed to prevent unsafe stopping and congestion on the public highway through clear time limits and enforcement. Whilst the development would be promoted as car free, those who needed to travel by car would be directed to existing Pink and Red car parks.

• In concluding his address to the Committee, Brett Harbutt stated that the proposal was a well-designed, policy-compliant, time limited and community focused scheme that would enhance Wembley Park during a transitional period and contribute to Brent’s cultural, leisure and economic objectives. For these reasons, and in line with the officer recommendation, the applicant representative requested that the Committee approve the planning application.

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

• Members noted that there appeared to be limited detail regarding the nature of the public realm elements within the proposal and requested a summary of what was being added, what changes were being made and how it would be ensured that the space would be usable. In addition, members sought information regarding the accessibility of the 5 five-a-side pitches, including the ease of access for bookings and how it would be ensured that residents from different backgrounds across the estate would be able to access the facilities fairly. In response, a member from the applicant’s team explained that the landscaping details for the public realm would be secured through a planning condition requiring the submission of further information within three months of opening. Should planning consent be granted, the applicant would submit the required information within the forthcoming months. It was stated that the public realm would include a central space with seating and areas where individuals could wait prior to attending either the football pitches or the Mundo experience. This area would therefore allow people to congregate and wait for their allocated time slots. It was added that the public realm would include cycle parking and that the internal access road would be clearly marked to ensure that the site was safe and accessible. Visitors would be able to identify where to park and how to navigate the one-way route through the site and back onto the highway.

Brett Harbutt addressed the Member’s second question regarding accessibility to the football pitches and stated that a planning condition had been agreed requiring free of charge access to one of the pitches during specified time limited slots for charities, community groups, youth groups and local schools for the lifetime of the development. This secured the community benefit through the planning process. It was noted that the precise booking system would depend on the operator. However, members were advised that the prospective operator was an established provider of football pitch facilities and would have an online booking platform. It was further added that the operator had expressed a willingness to work with the local community and that discussions were already taking place with the Football Association (FA) regarding opportunities for community activity, including engagement with organisations such as Middlesex Football Association. It was additionally noted that these matters remained subject to contractual agreement.

• Members sought details on which pitch would be offered for community use and what the plans were for the operation of the pitches. In response, a member from the applicant’s team stated that this detail had not yet been finalised, as discussions with the prospective operator were ongoing. It was confirmed that although one pitch would be made available for community use, it did not mean that the same pitch would always be allocated. Depending on bookings and the sizes of groups attending, a different pitch could be provided at different times. The arrangement would therefore be managed flexibly.

• Members then asked whether consideration had been given to restricting the hours of use of the pitch closest to nearby residential developments, in order to reduce noise. In response, a member from the applicant’s team indicated that no such restriction had been proposed. It was confirmed that a noise assessment and lighting assessment had been submitted and reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, who had concluded that the impacts were not significant and that use of the pitches up to 22:30pm was acceptable. It was also noted that the previous use of the football pitches operated until 23:00pm, and that no objections had been received at that time.

• Members sought clarification regarding the meaning of ‘time limited access’ in relation to the free community pitch. In response, a member from the applicant’s team clarified that a planning condition, set out in the committee papers, identified the specific hours during which the free pitch would be available to the community and local schools. These time slots were aligned with the hours of the former football pitch use on the site and had therefore been replicated in the new application.

• Concerns were expressed that, in the event of a maintenance or repair issue affecting the pitch allocated for community use, the operator might delay repairs because the pitch would not be generating revenue. Members were therefore keen to seek details on what measures were in place to ensure that the community benefit would still be delivered. In response, a member from the applicant’s team clarified that there would be no single designated pitch for community use. Instead, community access would apply to one of the five pitches at any given time. Therefore, if one pitch was unavailable due to maintenance or repair, another pitch would be offered in its place for the time slot allocated to community groups.

• The Chair queried how the site would transition at the end of the three year temporary permission period, specifically whether the structures would be recycled or reused elsewhere and how the scheme would connect to the long term masterplan. In response, Brett Harbutt stated that, in relation to the football pitches, there were two principal structures. The pavilion structure was typical of the pavilions used across the operator’s venues in the United Kingdom. It was explained that a similar structure previously used by Power League on the site in 2020 had been demounted and transported to Northumberland for reuse, demonstrating that the pavilion could be recycled. It was further stated that the astro turf may have a limited lifespan but that the sand and hardcore used to form the level base would be reused. In relation to Plot 2, it was highlighted that the leisure venue structure was designed to be demounted and used internationally for a range of purposes including events, sports arenas and exhibitions. The applicant concluded that, with the exception of the astro turf, the majority of materials would be reused at other venues upon the conclusion of the temporary permission.

• As a final query to the applicant’s representative, the Chair questioned what plans were in place to enforce against informal parking. In response, Brett Harbutt stated that the opportunity had been used to implement good estate management practices that were already in place across the wider estate. These included improved lighting and the installation of closed circuit television. It was confirmed that there were 6 accessible parking bays and 5 drop-off bays within the site. It was explained that the closed circuit television cameras operated automatic number plate recognition technology, which would be used to enforce the 3 hour maximum waiting period for accessible bays and the 20 minute maximum waiting period for pick-up and drop-off locations. It was further confirmed that facilities management staff and estate security officers were present throughout the estate and enforced these measures at all times. It was also stated that the estate had full coverage over 24 hours.

The Chair thanked Brett Harbutt and members of the applicant’s team 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, with the following being noted:

• As an initial query, members referred to paragraph 22 of the committee report and the proposed timetable and hours of operation for community groups. It was questioned whether this would be a stipulated condition, given that any period in which the pitches might be unusable could restrict community access. In response, Jasmin Tailor (Career Grade Planning Officer) confirmed that the timetable referred to formed part of Condition 10 of the draft decision notice and that the table had been taken directly from the Operational Management Plan.

• Further clarification was sought on the wording and the drawing referenced within Condition 10, as embers observed that the condition stated that a specific pitch was identified on the drawing, while the applicant had earlier suggested that any 1 of the 4 pitches could be used. Officers presented slides from the drawing pack. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) explained that the site comprised 2 plots. Plot 1 showed 5 five-a-side football pitches. Plot 2 contained the Pixar building. It was clarified that Plot 1 did not refer to any single pitch but to the full set of pitches as shown on the plans.

• Members raised three supplementary questions, with the first question concerning whether the community space would be affordable for the most disadvantaged community groups within Wembley Park, the surrounding neighbourhood and local social housing estates. The second question related to whether the public realm space, once detailed plans had been submitted, would be assessed to ensure that it was usable, accessible and would not encourage antisocial behaviour, particularly in potentially dark or enclosed spaces. The third question concerned the likely increase in demand for loading and unloading created by the two new plots. Members noted that this could lead to a greater number of vehicles stopping on double yellow lines, thereby causing increased traffic and additional related issues, potentially tripling existing pressures on the eastern stretch of Fulton Road. Details were sought on what measures were being taken to ensure that this situation did not arise. In addressing the third question first, Jehan Weerasinghe (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) stated that parking fell within public realm responsibilities and highways enforcement and advised that such matters did not form part of planning considerations and therefore could not be considered by members when determining the application. It was acknowledged that the issue was valid but reiterated that it fell within public highways enforcement rather than the planning process.

John Fletcher (Team Leader Development Control) additionally noted that the site included a dedicated drop off area containing 6 disabled bays and 5 drop off bays, which would reduce pressure on Fulton Road. It was further highlighted that the wider Wembley Estate was a public transport destination and referred to survey findings indicating that only 3% of visitors travelled by car. It was also stated that planning policy did not seek to promote car use.

In addressing the first question, Sean Newton (Development Management Planning Manager) confirmed that Condition 19, as set out on page 104 of the committee report, required the applicant to submit a detailed landscaping plan within 3 months and noted that officers would consider and review the plan on receipt.

• Details were sought on whether local residents living in the Wembley area could be offered a discounted scheme for booking the pitches, to improve accessibility for the wider community. In response, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) explained that there was no policy basis to require discounted access for general residents. It was confirmed that while planning policy could secure community access to facilities, this did not extend to residents in the immediate vicinity. It was further stated that the Council could not request such a discount through planning conditions, although the applicant was free to offer it voluntarily. The Committee, therefore, recommended that the applicant consider offering a discount scheme for Brent residents for at least 1 of the football pitches to provide a meaningful benefit for Brent residents and expressed the hope that the applicant would engage with ward councillors and other stakeholders to identify an appropriate mechanism for implementing such a scheme.

DECISION

Having consider the application, the Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report, together with an amendment to the wording of condition 10 to remove reference to “Plot 01”.

(Voting on the above decision was unanimous).

RECOMMENDATION

(1)  That the applicant considers the introduction of a discount scheme for Brent residents for at least one of the football pitches, in order to provide a meaningful benefit for the local community. The Committee expressed the hope that the applicant would engage with ward councillors and other relevant stakeholders to identify an appropriate mechanism for the implementation of such a scheme.