Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

 

(1)  The conditions and informatives required to secure the matters identified within the main committee report and supplementary report.

 

PROPOSAL

 

Proposed construction of Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) Facility and cricket pitch and netting with fencing and lighting to the school.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

 

(1)  The conditions and informatives required to secure the matters identified within the main committee report and supplementary report.

 

Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for the addition of a multi-use games area facility comprising 2 artificial sports pitches. The pitch to the west had been marked on the plans for football and the pitch on the east had been marked on the plans for hockey. The 2 artificial sport pitches combined would occupy a 126m x 102.5m section of the schools playing field on the southern side of the school site. Ancillary boundary fencing at a height of 4m and floodlights at a height of 15m were proposed for the 2 artificial sport pitches. A 2m acoustic fence was also proposed along the eastern and southern sides of the eastern pitch. In addition, the proposals sought to relocate the existing cricket practice facility, on part of the site used as a playing field and existing cricket pitch. Ball stop fencing at a height of 6m was proposed towards the western boundary, to serve the relocated cricket pitch.

 

Attention was also drawn to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, which noted the receipt of further representations, comprising 12 new objections and 8 additional comments from previous objectors, together with the officers’ responses. The additional representations did not raise any new material planning considerations that would alter the officers’ assessment or recommendation. The recommendation remained to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions and informatives required to secure the matters identified within the main committee report and supplementary report.

 

The Chair thanked Colin Leadbeatter 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 Deborah Nyman (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

 

• Deborah Nyman began by stating that she had resided in Roe Green Village, a valued conservation area since the late 1980s and was speaking on behalf of the Roe Green Village Residents' Association, which represented more than 250 households, together with other nearby residents affected by the proposal.

 

• The speaker expressed that residents were surprised that the application had been brought before the Committee, noting that the Committee had previously considered 2 similar proposals submitted by Kingsbury High School. It was noted that the second scheme had not been supported and was subsequently withdrawn during the appeal process, resulting in an award of costs in favour of the Association by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

• Deborah Nyman advised that many residents objected to the current proposals on the grounds that they were neither environmentally appropriate nor compatible with the character of the local community. It was further noted that these concerns had been set out in detail within representations submitted to Members and the Case Officer.

 

• Whilst emphasising that Roe Green Village had long been an established family community that had consistently supported the school and facilities intended solely for school use, concern was expressed that the current proposals were confusing, ambiguous and lacked sufficient clarity.

 

• The speaker further advised that a sunken gas main had been identified within the application site. In her view, as the infrastructure was located on school land, more stringent Health and Safety Executive (HSE) guidance should apply. It was felt that these requirements had not been adhered to and that, without compliance, the application was invalid and should not proceed.

 

• Deborah Nyman also maintained that the application was misleading, contending that it was not merely a modest proposal to improve school sports facilities but instead represented a significant intensification of use, including provision for commercial community hire. It was considered that such use would be incompatible with the historic suburban character of the neighbourhood and contrary to Brent's Green Neighbourhoods Action Plan, noting that the whole application site was located within the area covered by the Plan.

 

• Concern was also expressed regarding the replacement of natural grassland with a 3G playing surface. Deborah Nyman felt that this conflicted with the environmental objectives of the Green Neighbourhoods Action Plan. Reference was made to other recent sports-related developments within the borough which, in her view, had evolved into disruptive operations and had adversely affected the amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

• In concluding her presentation to the Committee, Deborah Nyman requested that the Committee either refuse the application or defer consideration of the matter in order to enable local residents to comment on the changes made to the original application.

 

The Chair thanked Deborah Nyman for addressing the Committee and then invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented. The following key points were noted:

 

• As an initial question, clarification was sought regarding the speaker’s earlier point in her presentation to the Committee that the application was misleading and lacked clarity. In response, Deborah Nyman clarified that she considered the application to be misleading because a number of matters contained within the original proposals had subsequently changed. It was explained that a new block plan had been introduced only recently and contained a number of elements that did not correspond with the technical documents previously submitted in support of the application. In her view, the revised plan differed significantly from the original proposals and should have been submitted as a new planning application.

 

• Questions were raised from members on whether local residents had been consulted on the revised plans. In response, Deborah Nyman advised that residents had not been consulted on the revised plans and further commented that there had not been a public consultation from the outset of the application process, which she considered disappointing given the level of engagement and communication that residents had historically maintained with the school.

 

• Details were sought from members regarding the potential impact and harm that the proposed development could have on local residents. In response, Deborah Nyman expressed that Roe Green Village was a Conservation Area and highlighted concerns regarding development in close proximity to residential properties. It was noted that, as with a previous application submitted by the school, the proposed development would be located adjacent to the rear boundaries of residents' gardens. It was further mentioned that the original plans had included lighting columns measuring approximately 15 meters in height, whilst the proposed roofs were approximately 7.5 meters high. Whilst acknowledging that Roe Green Village comprised a relatively small community of approximately 250 households, she emphasised the importance that residents attached to the character and appearance of the area.

 

In continuing the response, Dan Hulsmann, supporting the speaker, advised that residents within the conservation area faced limitations in undertaking alterations to their properties that might mitigate the impacts of noise. It was stated that the installation of double glazing was already difficult within the Conservation Area and that residents would therefore be unable to adequately protect themselves from the effects of the proposed development. Concern was expressed that the proposal would have a significant impact on nearby residents through both noise and lighting. It was also stated that the low roof heights within the area enabled sound to travel considerable distances and that local residents already experienced regular disturbance from events held at the school. It was considered difficult for residents to shield themselves from existing noise impacts and it was felt that the proposed development would exacerbate these concerns.

 

• Members requested further information regarding the environmental implications of artificial sports pitches. In response, an additional supporting speaker advised that the intention was to address existing waterlogging issues by excavating the site to a significant depth and installing land drains and associated infrastructure to remove water from the area. In referring to information contained within the committee report, it was indicated that approximately 20,000 sqm of ground would be excavated. Concern was expressed regarding the scale of works required, with it being noted that substantial volumes of material would need to be removed from the site and replaced in order to install an artificial playing surface. It was further stated that the proposed drainage arrangements raised concerns regarding the displacement of surface water. In his view, water removed from the school site would need to be directed elsewhere and he raised concerns regarding the potential implications for neighbouring properties, particularly those in Manor Close, which were situated in close proximity to the site. It was expressed that local residents held strong concerns regarding the potential environmental consequences of the proposal.

 

• Members sought clarification regarding the extent to which existing facilities at the site currently affected neighbouring residents. In response, Deborah Nyman advised that the existing facilities did not have a significant impact on residents. and did not operate late into the evening. Concern was expressed that potential commercial use of the site would result in longer operating hours and increased activity levels.

 

At this stage in proceedings, the Committee agreed to apply the guillotine procedure under Standing Order 62(c) in order to extend the meeting for a period of 30 minutes to enable continued consideration of the planning application and remaining business on the agenda.

 

The Chair then thanked Deborah Nyman for responding to the Committee’s questions and then moved on to consider a further request to speak which had been received from Alex Thomas (who had registered to speak as the applicant), who highlighted the following points:

 

• Alex Thomas (Headteacher, Kingsbury High School) began by expressing his support for the proposed Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) on the school's playing field.

 

• It was noted that the school had worked positively and collaboratively with officers in addressing all matters raised during the assessment of the application and that, as a result of those discussions, amendments had been made to the scheme, including refinements to the positioning of the facilities, in order to achieve an appropriate balance between meeting the school’s needs and protecting the amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

• In setting out the rationale for the proposal, the speaker advised that the existing playing field was no longer fit for purpose. It was explained that substantial areas of the current facility suffered from poor drainage and an uneven surface, rendering them unsuitable for use during both winter and summer periods. As a consequence, the school was frequently unable to meet the demands of students, the curriculum and pupils from the co-located junior and infant schools from Roe Green.

 

• It was highlighted that the proposed MUGA would provide a purpose-built, high-quality sports facility that would significantly enhance sporting opportunities for pupils. The facility would support a broad range of activities, including football, netball, hockey and other physical education programmes. It was further noted that the all-weather surface would enable sport and physical activity to take place throughout the year, reducing disruption caused by adverse weather conditions. The proposed lighting would also facilitate the safe continuation of after-school sport, clubs and activities during the darker winter months.

 

• Alex Thomas further expressed that the proposal would contribute towards the promotion of healthier lifestyles, particularly in light of increasing concerns regarding childhood obesity. It was considered that the facility would support the wellbeing of pupils and assist in the development of teamwork, leadership and sportsmanship skills. It was additionally highlighted that the benefits of the proposal would extend beyond the school community, with the facility also being made available to local sports clubs and community groups, thereby increasing access to high quality sporting provision within the area.

 

• Addressing the design of the scheme, Alex Thomas explained that the proposal had been carefully designed to integrate appropriately within its surroundings. It was noted that the MUGA would be located towards the southern part of the site and would benefit from substantial existing landscaping along the site boundary. It was further explained that this mature vegetation, together with the colour and design of the fencing, would provide effective screening and significantly reduce views from neighbouring residential properties.

 

• The speaker further advised that the lighting strategy had been specifically designed to minimise light spill beyond the site boundaries. Given the significant separation distances between the facility and neighbouring properties, it was noted that officers had concluded that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable impact on residential amenity. It was therefore considered that appropriate mitigation measures had been incorporated into the scheme to ensure that sporting activities could take place without causing unreasonable disturbance to local residents.

 

• In concluding his presentation to the Committee, Alex Thomas highlighted that the proposal had received considerable community support. It was noted that 43 letters of support had been submitted by parents, local residents and sports organisations, demonstrating a significant demand for improved sporting facilities. It was further stated that the proposal would deliver lasting educational, health and community benefits for current and future generations of pupils and local residents and expressed the view that children attending Kingsbury High School should have access to the same opportunities already enjoyed by young people elsewhere in the borough. It was additionally noted that the committee report had confirmed that the proposal complied with the relevant policies of the London Plan 2021 and the Brent Local Plan 2019-41 and therefore requested that members support the officer recommendation and grant planning permission.

 

The Chair thanked Alex Thomas for addressing the Committee and then invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented. The following key points were noted:

 

• As an initial query, members sought clarification regarding the extent of public consultation undertaken in relation to the proposals. In response, Alex Thomas advised that, during 2025, consultation had been undertaken with 89 nearby properties. It was noted that consultation had also included local organisations and associations, including the Friends of Eton Grove Park and the Roe Green Village Association. Members were further advised that notification letters had been issued, a press notice had been published in April 2025 and site notices had been displayed in May 2025. Following amendments made to the proposals in consultation with planning officers, a further round of consultation had been undertaken in January 2026. This had included all those originally consulted together with any additional properties that had submitted representations in response to the initial application.

 

• Further clarification was sought on how many objections had been received from local residents. In response, Alex Thomas advised that around 9 objections had been received. It was noted that the committee report contained a summary of the concerns raised together with the mitigation measures proposed in response to those concerns.

 

• Details were sought on what facilities were currently available at the school. In response, Alex Thomas advised that the school did not currently provide any outdoor all-weather sports facilities. It was explained that the upper school site, accommodating approximately 1,000 pupils, contained a single gymnasium, whilst the lower school site, also serving approximately 1,000 pupils, contained 2 smaller gymnasiums. Members were further advised that the proposed facility would be available for use by the local community and clarified that the school itself would be responsible for managing the bookings and operation of the facility. It was emphasised that the proposal did not involve a commercial operation managed by a third-party organisation.

 

• Members questioned how the school intended to manage the proposed facilities. In response, Tara Randall, supporting the speaker, advised that she had served as Lettings Manager at the school for 10 years. It was stated that the school had extensive experience in managing community use of its facilities and was currently well used by community groups and youth organisations. Members were advised that only within the previous 12 months had any concerns been reported regarding traffic or access arrangements. By way of example, it was noted that a Romanian church had hired facilities at the school on Sunday mornings for approximately 6 years and had operated successfully. Members were further informed that Hindu community groups utilised the site during Navaratri celebrations in October. It was considered that these arrangements were well managed and that the school had adequate parking provision to support such activities. In acknowledging concerns regarding traffic and congestion, reassurance was provided that where complaints had been received, they had been fully investigated, reviewed and responded to by the school. It was suggested that some congestion issues may have been attributable to other events occurring in the wider area, including funfairs and similar activities, rather than to the school's operations.

 

At this point during the proceedings, the Committee agreed to apply the guillotine procedure under Standing Order 62(c) in order to extend the meeting for a further period of 30 minutes to enable continued consideration of the planning application and the remaining business on the agenda.

 

• In continuing, members expressed concern regarding the potential for evening use of the facility to generate noise disturbance for local residents and sought clarification regarding how any complaints would be addressed. In response, Alex Thomas advised that the proposed facility would be located on the Princes Avenue upper school site. It was noted that the site benefited from parking provision and that issues relating to access and parking capacity had been fully assessed within the application. It was confirmed that the parking provision available at the upper school was considered sufficient to meet the anticipated demand arising from community use of the proposed facility. In relation to noise, it was conveyed that specialist reports had been commissioned and assessed as part of the planning application process. It was noted that the findings of those reports, together with the conclusions reached by planning officers, indicated that the anticipated noise levels would not result in detrimental impacts upon neighbouring residents. Tara Randall, supporter of the speaker, added that the proposed hours of operation were already specified within the report and that use of the facility would cease no later than 9pm, with activities potentially ending earlier on some occasions. It was stressed that the school was committed to complying fully with any conditions attached to a planning permission and that no use would take place beyond 9pm, including at weekends.

 

• Referring to concerns regarding flooding, members understood that artificial turf could increase surface water runoff and contribute to flooding. Clarification was sought regarding the applicant's understanding of flood risk associated with the proposal. In response, Tara Randall, supporter of the speaker, advised that the technical reports submitted in support of the application identified a very low, or minimal, flood risk. It was explained that the proposed construction would incorporate a sustainable underground drainage system designed to manage the anticipated levels of surface water. Members were further advised that the planning application documentation detailed how the drainage system would operate and assessed existing flood risk conditions, which were identified as low or minimal. In her view, the sustainable drainage system would address these issues effectively and confidence was expressed in its operation based on the feasibility work that had been undertaken.

 

• Highlighting concerns relating to potential toxic PFAS chemicals associated with artificial turf raised further questions on whether the proposed surface would be an environmentally sustainable product. In response, Tara Randall, supporter of the speaker, expressed that she had also been concerned regarding reports about the use of rubber crumb infill materials, which had first gained attention several years previously. It was explained that the project had not yet progressed to the detailed design stage of the playing surface. However, in her role supporting the school's sustainability objectives and following the introduction of the school's Climate Action Plan in December 2025, Tara Randall emphasised that the school was keen to utilise newer forms of biodegradable or non-toxic turf. It was confirmed that the school was not seeking to install a traditional 3G rubber crumb surface, particularly given that the facility would be used by children and young people.

 

• The Chair then asked the applicant to outline the benefits of the proposed facilities and what potential opportunities pupils would lose if the application was not approved. In response, Alex Thomas advised that almost every secondary school within the borough benefited from similar facilities. It was stated that the school wished to provide the same opportunities for Kingsbury High School students to participate in sport and physical activity throughout the year, rather than only when weather and ground conditions permitted use of the existing playing fields. It was emphasised that the proposal sought to provide pupils at Kingsbury High School with the same sporting opportunities available to young people across Brent and London.

 

The Chair thanked Alex Thomas and Tara Randall 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:

 

• Members were keen to seek details on whether there was an opportunity for conditions to be imposed in relation to the material proposed for use within the artificial turf. In response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) advised that a condition had already been recommended requiring details of the materials to be used for the artificial turf surfaces. Whilst acknowledging the concerns regarding the potential safety implications associated with chemicals and microplastics within artificial turf, it was explained that these matters did not fall within the scope of land use planning and were instead regulated through a separate statutory regime under UK REACH product safety legislation. The Committee were further advised that Sport England, as the statutory consultee for sporting pitches, was undertaking ongoing work to develop a framework regarding the types of sports pitch surfaces to be utilised in future. Members were informed that the recommended condition was consistent with Sport England's consultation response on the application, which was a material consideration that the Council was required to take into account. It was confirmed that, should planning permission be granted, detailed specifications for the pitches would need to be submitted and agreed in consultation with Sport England following the resolution, if planning permission was grant permission.

 

• In response to further questioning regarding the positioning of the sports pitches and the separation distances between the pitches and neighbouring residential properties, officers presented slides taken from the drawing pack to illustrate the proposed block plans. Members were additionally advised that none of the proposed fences would exceed the 45 degree line requirements contained within SPD1. The nearest neighbouring properties were identified as Nos. 38 and 40 Grosvenor Crescent, located approximately 12 meters from the nearest fence, and Nos. 29 and 30 Manor Close, located approximately 11 meters from the nearest fence. Bacon Lane was located approximately 45.45 meters from the nearest fence. Officers further advised that the distance between the edge of the cricket pitch and the site boundary would be 12.84 meters. The distance between the edge of the cricket pitch and the boundary of the nearest property on Grosvenor Crescent would be 18.65 meters. Members were informed that the cricket pitch itself would not be enclosed by fencing, although ball stop fencing would be provided along the relevant boundary. The cricket pitch would otherwise remain open.

 

• In addressing earlier concerns raised by members regarding the proposed hours of operation, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) advised that a planning condition had been recommended, and agreed by the applicant, which would restrict the hours of operation in order to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents and to safeguard ecological interests, including bats and other flying species. Members were further informed that the permitted hours of operation varied throughout the year to reflect ecological considerations, including mating seasons. Colin Leadbeatter detailed that from October to March the facilities would operate between 8am and 9pm, with floodlights required to be switched off no later than 9:15pm. During April, the facilities would operate between 8am and 7:30pm, with floodlights switched off no later than 7:45pm. Between May and August, the facilities would operate between 8am and 8pm, with no floodlighting permitted. During September, the facilities would operate between 8am and 7pm, again with no floodlighting permitted. It was emphasised that floodlighting would only be permitted during the darker months of the year and would be subject to strict controls regarding switch-off times.

 

Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) added that, when originally submitted, the application had proposed operating hours of 8am to 9pm on weekdays and 8am to 11pm at weekends, including the use of floodlighting. Following consideration of consultee responses regarding residential amenity and ecological matters, including impacts on bats and hibernation periods, the proposed operating hours had been reduced and floodlighting had been removed entirely during the summer months.

 

At this stage during the proceedings, the Committee agreed to apply the guillotine procedure under Standing Order 62(c) in order to extend the meeting for a further period of 30 minutes to enable continued consideration of the planning application and the remaining business on the agenda.

 

• In continuing, members referred to Policy G4 of the London Plan concerning protected open space and requested further clarification as to why officers considered the proposal acceptable despite the loss of part of that open space. In response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) advised that the playing field was designated as protected open space under both the Local Plan and London Plan Policy G4, which generally restricted the loss of such land. It was explained that paragraph 104 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) permitted development on playing fields where an assessment demonstrated that the land was surplus to requirements, where equivalent or improved replacement provision was secured, or where alternative sports and recreational provision would generate benefits that clearly outweighed the loss. Officers had relied upon the third of these points. Sport England had confirmed that the proposal satisfied its exception test and considered that the benefits arising from the new facility significantly outweighed the loss of part of the existing playing field, which was not suitable for year-round use. It was further noted that the Football Foundation had confirmed an identified demand for additional MUGA provision across Brent and that England Hockey had also confirmed a requirement for additional hockey facilities, particularly for evening training sessions and weekend use. It was added that the existing cricket provision would be retained and relocated rather than lost.

 

• Views were then sought regarding whether it was felt officers were confident that the proposed planning conditions would adequately mitigate the potential for increased noise nuisance raised by local residents. In response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) highlighted that conditions had been imposed restricting the hours of operation, with activities generally ending before 8pm and only in limited circumstances continuing until 9pm. It was explained that Sport England had established acceptable noise thresholds for residential receptor locations and that a Noise Impact Assessment submitted with the application had demonstrated compliance with those standards. Members were advised that all identified residential receptor groups had been assessed as falling below Sport England's threshold of 50 decibels LAeq (A-weighted Equivalent Continuous Sound Level). Predicted noise levels ranged between 44 and 49 decibels, depending on location. It was noted that there remained an additional margin below the applicable threshold.

Members were further advised that a 2 meter high acoustic barrier would be installed around the hockey pitch, which was the pitch closest to residential properties, excluding the existing cricket facilities. In addition, no amplified sound would be permitted in association with use of the pitches. Taking these mitigation measures together, officers considered the impact on neighbouring residential properties to be acceptable. It was confirmed that this conclusion was supported by the Council's Environmental Health officers.

 

• Details were sought on whether there were any specific heritage or conservation considerations that should be taken into account. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) advised that the impact of the proposal upon the conservation area had been fully assessed. This assessment included consideration of views into and out of the conservation area, including the visibility of floodlighting columns. Officers had considered the siting of the development to be acceptable within the context of the conservation area. Members were advised that, even if some degree of harm were identified, such harm would be categorised as less than substantial and at the lower end of the scale, with the public benefits of the proposal outweighing that harm. It was additionally mentioned that the assessment had considered the impact upon the main school building, which was identified as a non-designated heritage asset. Heritage considerations had been fully reviewed by the Council's Heritage Officer.

 

• As a final query, members questioned whether community rates would be available for use of the proposed facilities. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) advised that Condition 18 required details of the proposed hire charges to be submitted and approved. It was explained that the condition also required the applicant to demonstrate how access to the facility would be provided to a diverse range of community groups and specifically how provision would be made for households on low incomes. Members were informed that reduced rates would be available for low-income families.

 

DECISION

 

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

 

(1)  The conditions and informatives required to secure the matters identified within the main committee report and supplementary report.

 

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: 7 in favour of granting planning permission and 1 in favour of refusal).