Agenda item

Surrey County Cricket Club, Kennington Oval (Oval) 18/01799/FUL

Officer’s recommendations:

 

1.      Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 containing the planning obligations listed in this report and any direction as may be received from referral to the Health and Safety Executive.

 

2.      Agree to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

 

a.      Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report; and

b.      Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report  pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

3.    In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development, having regard to the heads of terms set out in this report and PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

 

4.    In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within 3 months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in this report and the PAC minutes.

 

 

Minutes:

Case No. 18/01799/FUL (agenda item 4, page 101 of the agenda pack, page 5 of the addendum and page 2 of the second addendum).

 

The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addenda that had been published on Friday 09 Novemberand the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of the existing Lock Laker stand and the erection of a three tier spectator stand and linked four storey buildings for a concourse, club shop, ticket office and hospitality, the net increase of 2,303 seats, the relationship with heritage assets, the application history of the site and proposed changes to the footpath which were reserved by condition.  Members were shown images of the site and its context, proposed floorplans and views, comparisons between the application and previously approved but unimplemented schemes and the proposed materials.  Members viewed samples of the proposed materials with the Conservation and Design Officer and were advised that the final choice of materials was reserved under condition.

 

At 22:00 the Committee elected to proceed with the meeting for a maximum of a further 45 minutes in order to conclude the remaining matters of business.

 

The applicant then provided the following information in support of the application:

·         This was the third application for the site.  The applicant was a long-time occupier of the site and wanted broad support for the application, having conducted discussions and consultations.

·         The application would improve facilities on match days with more toilets and catering, and non-match day events through the provision of space for conferences.  The applicant hosted 1,500 non-match day events per year.

 

Officers and the applicant then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:

·         Construction traffic would enter the site from the south, while traffic for the gasholder site would enter from the northeast.

·         Kennington Oval was closed on major match days to ensure pedestrian safety.

·         The cycle hire docking station was adjacent to the site and would be retained.  Six Sheffield stands would be provided, but given the low modal share for cycling on match days, more cycle parking was not considered necessary.

·         The lift shaft would be higher than the rest of the building to enable access to the upper tier of the stand.  It was set back from the building line by seven metres and the contrasting style would make it a feature.  The signage shown on the images was indicative and was not part of the application.

·         Issues around cyclists’ access on match days would have to be addressed separately to the application, as it was part of the safety management plan.  However, an informative could be added to ask the applicant to consider these issues.

·         Condition 9 required a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which could control the movement of large vehicles.  Given consent had been granted at the gasholder site, it would be expected that the CEMP for this application would consider the movements related to both sites.

·         There were no on-site parking spaces.

·         The details of the improvements for pedestrians had not yet been finalised and would be subject to a S278 application.  Two options were being considered: a raised crossing and widening the footway.

·         The finish of the materials was guaranteed for a minimum of 25 years, as a warranty would not be given for a longer period.  The materials would not need to be replaced after 25 years.

·         The use of the mesh element would provide space between the proposal and the existing pavilion, and would give prominence to the pavilion.

·         The final choice of materials was secured by condition, and officers could work to ensure the closest match to Portland stone possible.

·         The application would achieve a 19,4% carbon reduction, which the Council’s sustainability consultant had advised was the highest possible.  A cash in lieu payment of approximately £30,000 would be made to offset the shortfall.

·         Policy EN4 required non-residential schemes to meet BREEAM ‘Excellent’ standards.  This application did not quite meet this standard, but was higher than the minimum for ‘Very good’.

 

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:

·         Officers should aspire to improve the BREEAM rating.

·         The impact of construction vehicles on cyclists, pedestrians and local schools needed to be considered.  The roads surrounding the site were narrow, with tight corners.

·         The mesh provided a difference in appearance that was difficult to appreciate out of context.  Officers should pay particular attention to the mesh, especially given the significance of the façade of the pavilion.

 

It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Simpson, and

 

RESOLVED, unanimously

 

1.      To APPROVE planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement, any direction as may be received from referral to the Health and Safety Executive and the conditions as outlined in the officer’s report and published addenda and the following:

i.      An additional informative requesting that the Management Plan take into account pedestrian and cyclist safety, particularly at the junction of Harleyford Street and Kennington Oval.

ii.     An additional informative requesting that the Construction and Environmental Management Plan have regard to safety of local schools and the development of the gasholder site.

 

2.      To delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

a.      Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report; and

b.      Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

3.    In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within 3 months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in the report and the PAC minutes.

Supporting documents: