Agenda item

Proposal:	Proposed sports and leisure club, with indoor and outdoor tennis courts, sports and leisure building, outdoor swimming pool, with associated parking and access, and landscaping.
Location:	Land at Newbury Rugby Club, Monks Lane, Newbury.
Applicant:	Stax Leisure [Newbury], Ltd.
Recommendation:	The Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to GRANT planning permission, subject to the first completion of a s106 planning obligation.

 

(Councillors Tuck, Allen, Beck and Bairstow declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council who had previously considered the application, however they would consider the application afresh. As their interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Swift-Hook declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Newbury Town Council and Greenham Parish Council who had previously considered the application, but reported that he would view the application afresh on its own merit. He also reported that the agent for this application was also acting for Greenham Parish Council and he therefore had a professional connection. As his interest could be perceived to be prejudicial but was not a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate but would not vote on the matter).

(Councillor Hunneman declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he lived close to the Rugby Club site. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 13/02581/COMIND in respect of a proposed sports and leisure club, with indoor and outdoor swimming pool, with associated parking, access, and landscaping.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Phil Barnet, Parish Council representative, Mr David Mundy and Mr Paul O’Connor, objectors, Mr Sean Bates, supporter, and Mr Steven Smallman, Mr Max Wildsmith and Mr Phil Taylor, applicants/agents, addressed the Committee on this application.

Councillor Hunneman requested clarity regarding the condition that the sports and leisure club be completed prior to the Greenacres site (Agenda Item 4(2)) being closed. Michael Butler replied that it was recognised that streamlining the availability of the two leisure centres would be desirable but that this could not be guaranteed due to their private ownership. However, talks had taken place with the developers and a condition had been suggested to request a maximum of one year between one leisure facility being demolished and the other opening. The NPPF required planning authorities not to place onerous requirements on developers but to give flexibility, and it was considered that this suggested condition was appropriate.

Councillor Beck commented that conditions had not been included relating to hours of work.

Mr Phil Barnet in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Newbury Town Council (NTC) Planning and Highways Committee had considered this application. Members had voiced mixed views but were, in general, unhappy with the re-siting of a popular sports facility and felt that the matter had not been handled well by the applicants and their agents;

·        There was concern that the number of squash courts was being reduced from three to two and no proper viewing area was proposed. It was considered that this would imply to the wider population that squash was not sufficiently important to cater for it, and would limit the opportunities for national competitions to be held in Newbury;

·        NTC could not understand the justification for an outdoor swimming pool;

·        NTC were concerned about the effect of traffic on the surrounding area;

·        When the Falkland surgery lost parking spaces, the Rugby Club offered use of its car park, NTC queried whether the new facility would continue this permission for patients to use the 180 planned parking spaces;

·        NTC questioned whether the new facility would be viable, especially if there was a significant delay between one centre closing and this opening. Members of Greenacres might find alternative facilities.

Councillor Cole asked whether NTC supported the Newbury Vision, as the Vision had highlighted this area as a potential sports quarter for Newbury, and this application therefore helped to meet the aspirations of the Vision. Mr Barnet believed that NTC would have been supportive of the application if it had provided a like for like replacement, but it was not felt that this was the case.

Mr David Mundy and Mr Paul O’Connor in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Mr Mundy represented the Save Our Great Greenacre Institution (SOGGI) campaign and reported that the majority of members wished to keep Greenacres, as it was a community hub and a place to belong to;

·        Mr Mundy listed a number of concerns with the new development, believing that: it did not represent a like for like replacement facility; the proposed layout was inadequate; there was not requirement for the transition between the old and new facilities to be seamless; no consultation had been undertaken with current members of Greenacres; the information provided was inaccurate; the application showed no commitment to Newbury as a centre of sporting excellence; there was no safeguarding for the employees currently working at Greenacres or for members who would need to locate an alternative facility during the interim period.

·        Mr O’Connor was a representative of the Priory Group who owned the Cloisters, a 24 bed rehabilitation unit for West Berkshire residents with long term needs;

·        Mr O’Connor explained that he did not object to the proposal in principle, but he was concerned for the effect on the wellbeing of residents of light and noise pollution from the new facility, and requested that the visual impact not be overlooked. Mr O’Connor considered that the effect of lighting should be checked with the possibility of restricting the hours of lighting.

Councillor von Celsing asked Mr Mundy to elaborate on the errors that he believed had been reported, as the new facility appeared to be an improvement on the old. Mr Mundy listed several areas where he believed errors had been made: A further 40 people were employed at Greenacres on a part time basis; the membership was in the region of 1800, not 1100 as stated; there were double the number of squash players to those stated; and no estimate of usage of either swimming pool or the squash courts had been provided.

Councillor Swift-Hook expressed his concern at the difference in the number of adult members reported, and asked whether Mr Mundy was able to explain the difference. Mr Mundy was not, and added that the numbers also did not include non-members who used the facilities at Greenacres.

Councillor Swift-Hook asked Mr Mundy to explain his statement that members of Greenacres had not been consulted. Mr Mundy understood that although national organisations had been consulted on the proposal, the members had not. He would have wished for members to be asked what they would like at the new site, and queried why an outdoor pool was being provided when he did not believe this was wanted by anyone.

Councillor Hunneman asked whether members of Greenacres would transfer to the new facility if there was no gap between its opening and the closure of Greenacres, and also what would members do if there was a gap. Mr Mundy replied that most members did want a new facility if it was a like for like replacement. He added that if there was a gap, members would be lost, and they would feel let down by the Council’s Planning Officers.

Councillor Garth Simpson asked what the catchment area was for Greenacres. Mr Mundy believed that members lived within approximately a ten mile radius.

Councillor Bairstow asked how many national competitors were training or playing at Greenacres, and how many competitions were held there. Mr Mundy was able to identify four national competitors at adult and junior levels, and estimated that more than 50 competitions took place across a range of sports. Councillor Bairstow asked if these activities could take place at the new venue. Mr Mundy responded that they could not.

Councillor Cole asked Mr O’Connor what consideration was given to the Newbury Vision when the Cloisters was built, as the area had already been identified as a sporting location. Mr O’Connor was not able to comment as he had not been involved in that decision.

Councillor von Celsing asked Mr Mundy to expand on his opinion that the new facility would be inferior to Greenacres. Mr Mundy explained that whilst supportive of the idea of a new facility, he had expected that it would draw on the desire for a centre of excellence. He believed that without a 25 metre swimming pool, and with the arrangement of squash, badminton and tennis courts as they were, this facility could not be classed as a centre of excellence.

The Chairman considered the apparent effect of lighting on the Cloisters. Mr O’Connor informed the Committee that lighting would be seen from some bedrooms and from the patio area and suggested that lighting should not be used after 9pm. Michael Butler advised the Committee that he had acted as Case Officer for the Cloisters planning application and confirmed that the location near to sports facilities and the associated lighting had been made clear, and he had been informed that residents would be interested in activities taking place around the Cloisters site. Michael Butler added that should a subsequent application for flood lighting be received, this would be considered on its merits.

Mr Sean Bates in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Mr Bates was the director of Newbury Rugby Club, a not for profit venture, with members of all age ranges;

·        Mr Bates explained that the club had been financially stretched for some time, having inherited a legacy debt. The proposed development would enable the club to clear these debts and would also offer an opportunity to grow the club and offer more sports on the site;

·        Mr Bates considered that the proposal would provide a world class facility and found it regrettable that objections to it had arisen. The issues appeared to be in relation to whether the facility would provide a like for like replacement, but Mr Bates offered the view that the facility would be larger and offer a greater sporting opportunity. He commented that the new leisure centre had been designed to be a superior facility to Greenacres, but that it could not be designed by members of Greenacres as it needed a broader view.

Councillor Bairstow asked how Mr Bates responded to the argument that the facility had omitted to include a 25 metre swimming pool, and that there was one fewer squash court than at Greenacres. Mr Bates responded that consultation had taken place at the Rugby Club, attended by many Greenacres members. Mr Bates believed that the developer had taken into consideration the comments made through consultation but were not able to include all wishes.

Councillor Swift-Hook asked how Mr Bates related the proposed development with the NPPF which required that any sports buildings should be replaced by the same quantity and quality of sports facilities. Mr Bates explained that he was not able to comment on the requirements of the NPPF, but in his position as ambassador for the Rugby Club he saw the proposal as an opportunity to serve the community with increased sporting opportunities.

Councillor Swift-Hook enquired about the Rugby Club’s plans to increase it’s own sporting facilities. Mr Bates replied that the Rugby Club already catered for children, a new sixth pitch was to be constructed, and talks were underway with the relevant organisations to consider whether the pitches could be used for football or hockey.

Mr Steven Smallman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·        Mr Smallman introduced Mr Taylor, the owner of Greenacres Leisure Club, and Mr Wildsmith, applicant. Mr Smallman was the agent for the development;

·        Mr Smallman explained that the proposed leisure centre was linked to the second application for development on the Greenacres site, and that this included cost linkages;

·        The Greenacres site was a brownfield site, suitable for redevelopment. As it currently housed a leisure centre, this was required to be replaced with a similar facility, or an assessment to demonstrate that the existing facilities were not required;

·        The developments had been subject to considerable consultation including two public exhibitions, and the original plans had been amended as a result of the comments received;

·        The new facility would be of greater quality than the existing facilities at Greenacres. Mr Smallman considered that the only element that had reduced was the number of squash courts, but that the two courts proposed were sufficient for the numbers of squash players currently at Greenacres, and would allow competitions to take place. The additional court was considered surplus to requirements;

·        The new facility placed great emphasis on families and children having access to sport which was in line with Sport England’s aim of increasing participation;

·        The new facility additionally provided community benefits, including a cash injection to the Rugby Club;

·        Mr Smallman recognised that some objections had arisen from existing members of Greenacres, but he considered that the facility would contribute to the wider infrastructure of Newbury.

Councillor Hunneman asked why two swimming pools were included in the plans, but neither would be 25 metres in length. Mr Wildsmith advised that this was a commercial decision based in part on the population, and the associated increase in staffing levels and the size of the building that would be required for a larger pool. Mr Wildsmith went on to inform the Committee that across the leisure centres that he was responsible for, at least half of adult swimmers would choose the outdoor pool in summer months, and it also provided greater flexibility for swimming lessons and other activities. The use of the outdoor pool was of sufficient significance to require outdoor pools to be fitted retrospectively at some locations.

Councillor Swift-Hook remarked on the projected membership numbers, commenting that although the total number of members was expected to increase substantially, there was no associated increase in squash players. Mr Wildsmith replied that the numbers of squash players had been calculated by considering those who would play on a regular basis and that there might be hundreds of casual players in addition. Mr Smallman added that a supply and demand exercise had been conducted by Sports Solutions which had concluded that there was an over provision of squash courts in Newbury. Mr Smallman stated that the developers were not anti-squash and further commented that Greenacres was not considered a centre of excellence for squash. Mr Wildsmith informed the Committee that the facility would provide sporting opportunities for over 1000 juniors and 3500 adults, from the provision of casual sporting activities to professional athletes training facilities. The organisation also provided sports scholarships. There was a desire to develop excellence in people, but also to meet Sports England’s aim of ‘sports for all’.

Councillor Garth Simpson asked how deep the swimming pools were. Mr Wildsmith replied that they were 1.6 metres deep for the full length of the pool.

Councillor Cole asked, in relation to the desire to provide ‘sports for all’, whether there would be an increase in membership fees, and whether Mr Wildsmith considered that this might disenfranchise current Greenacres members. Derek Carnegie advised that the cost of membership was not a planning consideration. Councillor Allen asked whether it would be necessary to be a member to use the facilities. Mr Wildsmith confirmed that this would be the case.

Councillor Allen went on to ask for greater detail regarding the consultation that had taken place. Mr Smallman responded that two public exhibitions had been held, one of which was designed specifically for the existing members of Greenacres, and commented that these exercises had influenced the design of the centre, for example the original design had not included any squash courts.

Councillor Hunneman asked whether it would be possible to ensure a seamless transition between the closure of Greenacres, and the opening of the new facility. Mr Smallman responded that a verbal agreement had been reached that Greenacres would remain open for one year from consent being granted for the new development. However this could not be guaranteed. It was hoped that there would be no more than a two month difference. Michael Butler provided further information, advising that the NPPF required that a degree of flexibility be afforded to developers and that unreasonable conditions should not be place on them. For this reason, it was recommended that a one year difference be conditioned. It was hoped that the time difference would be shorter, but it was not possible to have full control over commercial operations.

Councillor Simpson asked whether the mini-rugby pitches had been a constraint in the positioning of the tennis courts in pairs. Mr Wildsmith replied that this had been the case, along with a desire to position the indoor courts as far from the surgery as possible.

[9:00pm – The Committee was adjourned for a 5 minute break]

Councillor Swift-Hook asked Planning Officers to clarify the linkage between this application and the application on the Greenacres site. Michael Butler advised the Committee that the two applications were to be considered individually and on their own merits and could be decided for or against Officer recommendations. However, if this application for a new sports and leisure centre was to be refused by the Committee, then Officers would amend their recommendation for the application on the Greenacres site to one of recommended refusal.

Speaking as Ward Member, Councillor Swift-Hook raised the following points:

·        Councillor Swift-Hook would be supportive of the application if he had considered that it provided a similar level of facility to that being lost;

·        Given the imminent arrival of 4000 new residents in the area, the new facility would likely be well needed;

·        If the sports centre wanted to be considered as a centre of excellence, it would be required to have improved facilities;

·        The benefits being brought to the Rugby Club were welcomed;

·        Councillor Swift-Hook was encouraged by the comments that every effort would be made to ensure the time gap between the old and new facilities would be kept to a minimum, but he remained concerned that the Committee were being asked to approve a time gap of one year, especially considering the additional time that Greenacres would need to be closed prior to it’s being demolished;

·        Concern remained that the number of squash courts was not being maintained;

·        Councillor Swift-Hook expressed great concern that the development of this facility would be funded by the loss of 12 affordable housing units at the Greenacres site. He did not agree that it was appropriate to assist the funding of a commercial facility through public money (i.e. the loss of affordable housing)

The Chairman advised the Committee that the issue of affordable housing was not relevant to this application, but was relevant to the next application on the Greenacres site. Michael Butler commented that the Committee were being asked to consider whether permission would be granted for a leisure centre on this site. He clarified that it would be the implementation of the application that would link this to the Greenacres application, and it was within the applicant’s rights to do this.

Councillor Swift-Hook requested that the s106 agreement heads be reviewed to remove the link to the other application. Michael Butler suggested that the first header note under the Full Recommendation on page 47 of the agenda pack, linking the two applications, be deleted, and that any linkage be considered only under the Greenacres application. The Committee agreed this amendment.

Councillor Cole asked whether the considerable contribution to Highways would be considered alongside the expected future works on Monks Lane to create an access point to the Sandleford site. Paul Goddard confirmed that the money was a contribution, not a requirement to undertake works, in the knowledge that the Sandleford application was expected. It was also confirmed that the Sandleford development Transport Assessment would be required to take account of any committed development, as was usual practice. Sandleford would then devise works that would accommodate both Sandleford and all committed developments. The contribution from this proposal would then contribute to any works devised.

Councillor Beck proposed that the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be approved. Councillor Cole seconded the proposal. At the vote the proposal was carried. Councillor Swift-Hook requested that his abstention  from voting be recorded.

RESOLVED that The Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to GRANT planning permission, subject to the first completion of the required s 106 planning obligation, whose heads of terms are set out below.

1 - The required funding for highway improvements, as noted in the agenda report.[£127,000]

2 - The implementation on an agreed timescale of the new rugby club sports field provision on site.

If for any reason the required s 106 obligation is not completed by the end of 2014, the application, if expedient, be refused for the following reason.

“Notwithstanding the applicants willingness to do so, the required s106 obligation has not been entered into, which would mitigate the highways impact from the new sports centre, and provide a means of ensuring the implementation of the new centre, plus the new rugby club sports pitches as replacement facilities. Accordingly, the application is contrary to the advice in para 74 of the NPPF of 2012, policies CS5 and 13 in the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026, and the advice in Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development adopted June 2013. It is accordingly unacceptable”.

1.      CONDITIONS

1.      The development shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against the advice in the DMPO of 2010.

2.      No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the proposed development shave been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the details that may have been submitted with the application, and shall where necessary include the submission of samples of glass, plastic and mortar materials. Thereafter the materials used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved samples.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

3.      No development shall commence until details of floor levels in relation to existing and proposed ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed building and the adjacent land in accordance with Policy ADPP2 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

4.      The new sports centre building shall achieve Excellent under BREEAM (or any such equivalent national measure of sustainable building which replaces that scheme). No building shall be occupied until a final Certificate has been issued certifying that BREEAM (or any such equivalent national measure of sustainable building which replaces that scheme) rating of Excellent has been achieved for the development, has been issued and a copy has been provided to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the development contributes to sustainable construction. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS15 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

5.      No development or other operations shall commence on site until a detailed scheme of landscaping for the site is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, an implementation programme and details of written specifications including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub and grass establishment. The scheme shall ensure;

a)     Completion of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season following completion of development.

b)     Any trees shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of Policy CS18 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

6.      No development (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) shall commence on site until a scheme for the protection of trees to be retained is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include a plan showing the location of the protective fencing, and shall specify the type of protective fencing, all in accordance with B.S.5837:2012. Such fencing shall be erected prior to any development works taking place and at least 2 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been erected. It shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of works or until such time as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No activities or storage of materials whatsoever shall take place within the protected areas without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Note: The protective fencing should be as specified at Chapter 6 and detailed in figure 2 of B.S.5837:2012.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with Policy CS18 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

7.      No development shall commence until the applicant has submitted full details of the fire hydrants to be provided on the application site. The approved scheme shall then be implemented as agreed.

Reason: To ensure public safety is protected, in accord with the advice in the NPPF of 2012.

8.      No floodlighting or other form of external lighting scheme shall be installed unless it is in accordance with details which have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include location, height, type and direction of light sources and intensity of illumination. Any lighting, which is so installed, shall not thereafter be altered without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority other than for routine maintenance that does not change its details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and/or highway safety. In accord with policy CS14 in the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

9.      No development shall commence until full details of the following shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

a)     Written details concerning any proposed air handling plant associated with the development including;

(i)                 the proposed number and location of such plant as well as the manufacturer's information and specifications.

(ii)               The acoustic specification of the plant including general sound levels and frequency analysis under conditions likely to be experienced in practice.

(iii)             The intended operating times.

b)     calculations showing the likely impact of noise from the development;

c)      A scheme of works or such other steps as may be necessary to minimise the effects of noise from the development;

The development shall not commence until written approval of a scheme under the above has been given by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure public amenity is respected, in accord with policy OVS6 in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 [saved 2007].

10. No development shall commence until details of the method of discharge of water from the two swimming pools, and the method of intercepting fats, oil and grease, from the building and the car parks, have been submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Council. The development shall then be built out in strict accord with the details so approved.

Reason: To ensure no pollution of the local water system, in accord with the advice in the NPPF.

11. The mitigation measures described in paragraphs 6.3 - 6.22 of the Phase II Reptile and Phase II Bat Survey Report by PV Ecology and dated October 2013 will be implemented in full. No development shall commence on site until detailed Habitat Enhancement and Management, Landscape, and Construction Management Plans have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for prior written approval. Before the first use of the Sports Centre hereby permitted, a report from a qualified ecologist will be submitted to the local planning authority which confirms that the approved mitigation measures have been implemented in full.

Reason: To ensure the protection of species protected by law and to accord with Policy CS17 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.

12.No development shall take place until details of the proposed access(es) into the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  As a first development operation, the vehicular, pedestrian/cycle access and associated engineering operations shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawing(s).

Reason: To ensure that the access(es) into the site are constructed before the approved buildings in the interest of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

13. The sports centre use shall not commence until the vehicle parking and/or turning space have been surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved plan(s).  The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

14. The hours of work for all contractors for the duration of the site development shall, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing, be limited to:

• 7.30am to 6.00pm on Mondays to Fridays 7.30am to 1.00pm on Saturdays and NO work shall be carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason:  In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. In accord with policy CS14 in the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 to 2026.  

The following informatives should also be applied

·        The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations.

·        The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act, 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.