Description of application – Demolition of various single storey office and associated buildings and erection of a new two storey extension to the existing main pavilion building, together with the rationalisation and enlargement of the parking areas.
Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received. Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Michael Tickner, in objection to the application were received at the meeting.
Councillor Tickner supported the Club but in his view the proposed development was an inappropriate overdevelopment due to mass and bulk on Metropolitan Open Land with insufficient parking and contrary to Policy G2 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policies 7.16, 7.17, 7.18 of the London Plan. In his view there were no special circumstances and he referred to pages 11 to 15 of the Chief Planner’s report that listed ninety two issues of concern raised by local residents.
A letter from the Chief Executive of Crystal Palace Football Club in support of the application had been received and circulated to Members. A further letter of support had also been received.
Councillor Mellor objected to the application and confirmed the site was designated MOL land in the Draft Local Plan which was of material consideration. He agreed with Councillor Tickner that the proposed development was an overdevelopment, inappropriate on MOL Land, and there were no very special circumstances and its mass was contrary to the spatial standards of North Copers Cope area. He said that a comparison to other Premier League grounds was also inappropriate.
Councillors Fawthrop and Owen also objected to the application.
Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reason:-
1. The proposal would result in inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land as a result of the overdevelopment of the site by way of the massing and bulk of the proposed extension, coupled with the extension to the parking area, which would result in a loss of openness, detrimental to the character, spatial standards and appearance of this area, of which no very special circumstances exist, thereby contrary to Policy G2 and BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 7.4 and 7.17 of the London Plan.