Agenda item

Ward	Application Number and Address of Development
Copers Cope	(11/02140/OUT) - Kent County Cricket Ground, Worsley Bridge Road, Beckenham

 

The Committee considered the Chief Planner’s report on the following planning application:-

 

Ward	Description of Application
Copers Cope	(11/02140/OUT) 3 detached buildings for use as indoor cricket training centre/multi-function sports/leisure facility, health and fitness centre and conference centre.  Spectator stand for 2000-3000 people.  Car parking.  All weather/floodlit pitches.  48 detached houses OUTLINE at Kent County Cricket Ground, Worsley Bridge Road, Beckenham.

 

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr John Cossa, resident of Worsley Bridge Road who spoke on behalf of a local protest group.

 

Mr Cossa referred to Policy G2 of the Unitary Development Plan in relation to development of Metropolitan Open Land and to paragraph 3D.10 of the London Plan.  Taking these paragraphs into account, Mr Cossa believed there were no special circumstances for the ground to be changed from sport and recreational to housing use.

 

Mr Cossa then referred to the Supplementary Design and Access Statement and commented on the proposed scheme in general.  He ended his representations by outlining the reasons why he thought the application should be refused.

 

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Mr Andrew Braddon, Chairman of Leander Holdings Ltd.  Mr Jamie Clifford, Chief Executive of Kent County Cricket Club (KCCC) was also in attendance.

 

Councillor John Ince asked whether the applicant would be prepared to reduce the amount of new build by amalgamating two buildings into one.  Mr Braddon replied that having analysed four projects over the last two years, the application before Members was the minimum amount of build required to make the project sustainable in the forthcoming years.

 

Mr Braddon informed Members that 26.5% of the land would be used for the proposed application, of which 10.6% would be residential build.  The figure of 26.5% included all sports buildings, houses, gardens and highways.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Simon Fawthrop, Mr Clifford agreed that profit made from the sale of the residential units would enable the club to become sustainable. 

 

Mr Clifford stated that with the new scheme in place, the indoor facilities would attract an increase in participation and although the cricket programme changed year on year, he envisaged an increase in the amount of first class cricket played in the Borough.

 

Mr Clifford confirmed that four football pitches would be lost if the application was granted.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Mrs Manning in relation to the lack of affordable housing, Mr Braddon confirmed that, as agreed by the Council's auditors, no offer in lieu of affordable housing would be made.

 

Councillor Russell Jackson asked Mr Clifford how he proposed to balance membership levels with the rising costs associated with county cricket.  In response, Mr Clifford stated that the club would be playing a certain number of games and that infrastructure costs on a day to day basis were high.  However, players were on short-term contracts and due to the current economic climate, player salaries were decreasing. 

 

Mr Braddon informed Members that funding in the form of grants had been sought but with a negative result.  Grant applications took a long time to process and as a commercial operation, the club could not afford to wait.  Mr Clifford confirmed that little funding was available.

 

Councillor Katy Boughey asked if the profit made from the sale of the units within the housing scheme would be invested in the future of KCCC.  Mr Braddon replied that financial appraisals had been undertaken and a business plan had been externally audited.  KCCC would not make a profit from the residential scheme, the money generated would form the basis for the construction of the development.

 

In response to a general question from Councillor Charles Joel, Mr Braddon confirmed that KCCC/Leander would pay for the supply and erection of the new rear boundary fence and the extension of the side division fences together with any costs associated with the changes to the title deeds of any house owners who were affected.

 

The Chief Planner informed Members that 28 letters of support had been received (mainly from residents of the Gallery and Pavilion flats).  A letter from the Chairman of the Gallery and Pavilion Residents Association was reported at the meeting.

 

A letter from the auditors employed by the Council was also reported at the meeting. In conclusion the auditors had no difficulty in accepting the application as it stood.

 

A letter from Sport England was read at the meeting. Sport England commented that notwithstanding the additional information received, there were insufficient details to satisfy the question of whether the scale of the redevelopment proposed was required to ensure viability.  Sport England therefore asked that the application be deferred until the applicant had provided a full and detailed Playing Field Mitigation Strategy.

 

The Chief Planner reported that all highways, environment agency and viability issues had been, or could be, resolved by mitigating conditions.  It was noted that the application had been amended by documents received on 20/10/11, 24/10/11, 15/11/11 and 16/11/11.

 

Members were reminded that although certain elements of the development were inappropriate, they were being asked to make a decision based on very special circumstances and, if the application were to be permitted, it would be subject to the Direction from the Mayor of London.  The development would also be subject to certain conditions, together with a Section 106 Legal Agreement, the terms of which were reported at the meeting.

 

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Ward Member Councillor Michael Tickner.  Councillor Tickner was aware of the concerns raised by the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, Sport England and local residents.  Several objections were raised by residents whose view would be spoiled by the construction of the housing scheme however, Councillor Tickner acknowledged that the right to a view was not a material planning consideration.

 

Councillor Tickner thanked Leander and KCCC for their excellent public relations skills.

 

The following issues were raised by Councillor Tickner:-

 

•  No undertakings had been received from KCCC that more county cricket matches would be played;

•  The question of whether commercial viability was a direct concern for planning law;

•  Whether the proposal was purely an application to build on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL);

•  Concern that should permission be granted, it would set a precedent for other developers to submit applications;

•  Concern that should permission be granted, there was no assurance that the developers would not submit further applications to build additional housing;

•  Members had not seen the economic viability document;

•  Lack of affordable housing with no re-provision offered elsewhere; and

•  Loss of playing fields.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Tickner believed the application did not warrant very special circumstances and asked Members to refuse the application.

 

Councillor Russell Mellor noted that the application consisted of both appropriate and inappropriate development and acknowledged the need for very special circumstances to be determined.  Councillor Mellor had  some concern with regard to the proposed housing scheme however in support of the application, he stressed that KCCC was responsible for a first class cricket pitch and it was imperative that KCCC be permitted to remain in situ.  He commented that if permission was granted, the new facilities and extra cricket matches played would generate additional revenue to support the continued use of the site.

 

Councillor Simon Fawthrop proposed a motion for refusal on the grounds that the development on MOL was too great and it was imperative that MOL be preserved.

 

The Chairman commented that KCCC was the third best cricket ground in London and that its uniqueness was a "jewel in the Borough's crown".  He added that although there were some concerns, he believed that very special circumstances did exist and he proposed a motion to permit the application.

 

On the grounds that there would be a loss of sporting facilities and that the intensity of the housing scheme and conference facilities were too great, Councillor Lydia Buttinger seconded the motion for refusal.

 

Councillor Charles Joel believed that as cricket playing was seasonable, there were fair grounds to redevelop the site to attract additional sports.  Councillor Joel stated that the three new buildings would be isolated and independent of each other and would be surrounded by openness, foliage and trees.  Councillor Joel seconded the motion for permission.

 

Councillor Mrs Anne Manning stated that if KCCC ceased to exist, it would be a great loss to the young people of the Borough as KCCC worked closely with many schools in the area.

 

Councillor John Getgood was concerned about the loss of four football pitches and in order for the issue of affordable housing to be considered further, Councillor Getgood favoured a deferral of the application.

 

Councillor Katy Boughey was disappointed to note that not all material documents had been made available to Members before the meeting, in particular the figures set out in the viability study.  Councillor Boughey therefore proposed a motion for deferral of the application in order that those documents could be considered.  Councillor Getgood seconded the motion for deferral.

 

A vote in favour of refusing the application was defeated at 8-9.

 

A further vote in favour of permission was defeated at 6-8.

 

Following a third vote in favour of deferral, Members RESOLVED that the application BE DEFERRED without prejudice to any future consideration, for Members to give fuller consideration to all material documents in particular, the financial viability document.