Agenda item

Description of application – Erection of a covered full-size football pitch, creation of an artificial full-size pitch with floodlighting, and regarding of the site to create a full-size show pitch with spectator seating and six training pitches (two full-size, two ¾ size and two half size).  External alterations and lobby and link extensions to the existing buildings.  Installation of maintenance/store sheds, water tanks and under-pitch infrastructure.  Associated highway and landscaping works.

Oral representations from the Chairman of North Copers’ Cope Road Action Group in objection to the application included the following points:-

·  The proposed indoor pitch building was huge and could not be justified within Metropolitan Open Land.

·  The requirements for Category 1 and Category 2 academies were exactly the same as far as the indoor pitch size was concerned – Crystal Palace was currently Category 2 but it could equally be category 1.  The size of the building would not influence Crystal Palace’s chance of being promoted in the category stage.

·  The new development rules required a pitch to be a minimum of 55m x 35m – more or less the size of the current pitch being used at the national sports centre.

·  There needs to be very special circumstances to erect any building on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL).  Youth development rules may constitute very special circumstances if the new building met the minimum requirements laid down by the rules.  However the significant harm caused to the openness of the MOL by the much larger building proposed would undermine or even eliminate these very special circumstances.

·  The proposed building would enclose a full-sized pitch.  However it was emphasised that a full-sized pitch was not a requirement but instead a recommendation.  The proposed pitch of 160m x 81m was four times bigger than that required by the rules.  The planning harm caused by the much larger pitch undermined the very special circumstances.  The site in question was small and relatively open.  Consequently any building would have an enormous impact.

·  The building proposed by Crystal Palace was larger than any other Category 1 academy in the country.

·  Fulham FC had reduced the height of their building in response to local concerns. 

Oral representations from the Chairman of the Club in support of the application included the following points

·  The aim was to create a Category 1 elite academy for up to 200 boys at any one time who received not only a football education but also  mentoring and supervision – taking them through GCSEs and A-Levels.

·  The club was the focal point of all the clubs in the area and as a result kept a lot of young men active, off the streets and learning about the benefits of team work.

·  A great deal of effort had gone into identifying a site.  The proposed site was very near the first team training ground.  Efforts had been made to make the proposed design palatable to everyone in the area.  The scheme primarily utilised existing buildings.  The proposal did include a large indoor pitch but this was recommended by the Premier League and it was likely that a full-side indoor pitch would be a requirement in the future.  Whilst a full-size pitch was a benefit to the boys using the facility it would also be a benefit to the local community with the site being made available to schools, colleges and community groups out of hours.

·  The current site was run down with poor security and these issues would be solved with the new site which would deliver a beneficial scheme for the community with better security and landscaping – delivering a scheme of which the local community could be proud.

In expressing support for the proposal, Councillor Bennett – as Design and Heritage Champion – questioned the extent to which the Edwardian façade of the pavilion would be retained.  The applicant explained that the pavilion would be a focal point for the community of the academy and whilst the fundamental shape would be retained there would be some modernisation although this would not result in a significant impact on the overall look and feel of the building.

Councillor Harris noted that the Member site visit had provided good insight.

In response to questions from Councillor Harris the applicant stated that he believed the scheme would deliver a genuine improvement for residents in term of traffic, impact of flood lighting, noise, and daytime deliveries.  There would be a full-time security presence at the site and whilst there would be some deliveries it was anticipated that there would be far less than the traffic flow in and out of the current site.  The vast majority of the boys visiting the site would be using public transport and other visitors to the site would be encouraged to use sustainable travel.  The highways authority had given their support to the scheme.

Councillor Huntington-Thresher noted that there had been some concerns from residents regarding the height of the building and sought justification for the proposed design.  In response, the applicant explained that the Club had looked at the other full sized covered pitches that other Premier League Teams had delivered since 2012 and the proposed scheme replicated the standard design that was used.  The reason the building was so high was to prevent the ball from hitting the roof.  There were no columns within the space and the roof therefore included a peak for structural reasons.

The Assistant Director of Planning summarised the report in a brief presentation to the Committee which included the following

·  The site was an existing sports ground and was MOL.  The majority of the proposals did not constitute inappropriate development however, the indoor covered pitch was inappropriate and harmful to the MOL by definition.  Whilst not a requirement the size of pitch proposed was recommended by the Premier League.

·  The report set out in detail why the application was recommended for approval.

·  The Environment Agency had removed their objection and were now satisfied with the proposals.

·  The Tree Officer remained content with the proposals and a Tree Preservation Order was being separately considered for the site and need not delay consideration of this application.

·  The recommendation should also include an additional condition to include a buffer channel along the river and a noise condition relating to the proposed site plant.

·  The proposal was considered to provide a positive sporting community facility which would protect the MOL into the future and was considered acceptable in all planning aspects.

In opening the debate, local ward member, Councillor Russell Mellor, explained that whilst he was not opposed to the recommendation although there were genuine concerns with several aspects of the application.  The site was located in designated MOL also the intended use was permitted within the designation.  The proposed building was too large and if allowed would be the largest in the Country.  The destruction of an area covered by a Tree Preservation Order was a serious concern.  The site proposal for 87 parking spaces, with 6 disabled bays, represented a net reduction of 35 spaces that existed presently.  In the event of the minimum age of children attending falling below 9 would result in an increase in the number of cars accessing the site.  Full details of the proposals for floodlighting needed to be submitted to ensure that there was no detriment to local residents.  Consequently, Councillor Mellor requested deferral for the points of concern to enable them to be addressed and corrected.

Councillor Terry felt it was an interesting application with a lot in its favour but also a few sticking points.  What was proposed was a high quality facility that would support young people in the local area.  The main sticking point for Councillor Terry was the new building on MOL however Councillor Terry did feel that very special circumstances existed to justify the development.  Councillor Terry noted that TfL had suggested that the car parking should be reduced and it would therefore be difficult to refuse the application on highway grounds.  Overall, Councillor Terry felt that it was a positive scheme that was exciting for the Borough.  As such Councillor Terry moved that planning permission be granted as recommended.

Councillor Bennett seconded Councillor Terry’s motion on four grounds: 1. The purpose of the proposals were positive – to help local young people, 2. There were special circumstances to justify development in the MOL, 3. The large size pitch future proofed the development, and 4. For structural reasons the building had to be the proposed high to cover the proposed pitch size.

Councillor Huntington-Thresher expressed disappointment that designers were not able to be more imaginative to try and enable a lower height spanning the proposed area.  However this was not sufficient reason not to welcome the proposal.  Councillor Huntington-Thresher sought clarification concerning the s.106 contribution to achieve carbon zero targets and the Committee were informed that the proposed contribution was a one-off payment.

The motion to approve the application moved by Councillor Terry and seconded by Councillor Bennett was put to the vote and CARRIED.

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE PRIOR COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEM ENT AND REFERRAL TO THE MAYOR OF LONDON as recommended and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Assistant Director (Planning).

Councillor Mellor left the meeting at 9.03pm, at the conclusion of consideration of this item.