Agenda item

Construction of a new exercise and sports facility on part of the Newlands Playing Field.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

Prior to the consideration of this item Councillors Demirci, Hare and Paeacock, declared personal and prejudicial interests as Trustees of Alexandra Palace, and withdrew from the Chamber.

Councillor Newton declared a personal interest.

Councillor Dodds, Vice-Chair, took the Chair for this item.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which gave details of the application, the applicant’s case, the site and its environment, planning history and all of the relevant planning factors and policies.

It was noted that there was an error within the report where the size of the area covered by the adiZone was stated as being 6125sq.m, this should have read 625sq.m.

The Committee agreed that given the large number of objectors for this application and that Mr Marr, Chair of the local Conservation Area Committee, should be given a separate two minutes to give his views.

At the invitation of the Chair Mr Marr spoke in objection to the application and members of the Committee then put questions to Mr Marr.

In response to a question Mr Marr advised that the branding and scale of the proposal would be intrusive and that it was not in keeping with the surrounding area. He considered that there were other, more appropriate sites within Alexandra Park where the proposal could be sited.

At the invitation of the Chair, Ms Helen Allen of 79 Boyton Road spoke in objection to the application and members of the Committee then put questions to Ms Allen.

In response to a question as to why she considered that the application would cause Anti Social Behaviour, Ms Allen advised that the nearby car park already attracted youths who often played loud music until the early hours of the morning causing disturbance to local residents. She felt that it was likely that would increase with the introduction of another area where youths could congregate at night.

At the invitation of the Chair Mr Roger Kemp of 14 Newland House spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor Hare spoke in objection to the application as a local resident and a member of Alexandra Park Board. He noted that this was a historic park that did not provide an appropriate setting for what he considered to be an urban scheme. Although he supported the inclusion of such a facility in the Borough he did not feel that this was the appropriate place for it to be located.

Councillor Monica Whyte, Local Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application and she noted that she also represented other Ward Members. She contended that consultation with residents had been poor and that these plans had only come to the attention of many residents when it was drawn to their attention by a neighbour. Councillor Whyte had asked the local Neighbourhood Manager to arrange two public meetings to discuss the application, as the first meeting had been poorly attended.

Councillor Whyte noted that effective consultation was important to achieving buy-in from the local community and noted that despite of suggestions that residents had identified the need for a sports facility as a key priority; this application was inappropriate and a large section of the local community were against it. She also contended that given the objections received this was not a good use of Section 106 funding.

The Council’s Sports and Recreation Officer advised that the scheme sought to provide a sports facility that would be accessible to a wide range of local residents. The need for additional sports and recreation facilities had been raised by residents of the nearby Campsbourne Estate during consultation on how Section 106 funding should be spent in the area.

As part of this consultation exercise questionnaires had been issued and meetings with young people and elderly people had been held to identify their needs. It was noted that ninety-one questionnaires had been completed and sixty-four of these had indicated that they would be in favour of such a facility being created.

In terms of Anti Social Behaviour the Committee was advised that the Council’s Youth Offending Service (YOS) was supportive of the scheme as it was anticipated that additional facilities would encourage youths to take up positive activities.

The Committee viewed the plans and then discussed the merits of the application.

A series of questions were put the Recreation Officer and the Committee was advised that the primary reason for selecting this site was due to the wish expressed by residents that a sports facility was provided from Section 106 funding. In terms of the positioning of the facility it was noted that the Police Designing Out Crime Team had been consulted and they had advised that an element of overlooking acted as a deterrent to vandals. The site was however situated an acceptable distance from residential properties in terms of planning policy.

The Committee was advised that following a public meeting held with twenty-two residents there had been no changes made to the scheme.

In terms of the maintenance of the facility the Committee was advised that it would be maintained by the Council’s Recreation Services Team and there would be daily safety inspections and litter picks. The equipment would also be fully serviced on a quarterly basis.

With respect to the funding of the scheme the Committee was advised that 50% had come from central Government and 50% had been provided by the Council from Section 106 contributions. There had been a competition process that had been gone through, to obtain Government funding, which had been sponsored by Addidas.

The Assistant Director advised the Committee that the funding for the facility was not a material planning consideration and the application had to be considered on its planning merits. He clarified that local communities were consulted on how Section 106 contributions were spent and noted that this was a key part of determining how this was spent.

The Committee discussed the application further and there was a general consensus that the application was unacceptable in terms of its location and the impact upon the adjacent Conservation Area.

RESOLVED:

That the planning application be refused due to its inappropriate design and location, as it would be visually intrusive and harmful to the character of the Alexandra Park and Palace Conservation Area and because it was considered to be contrary to Policy CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas' of the Haringey Unitary Development Plan.