Agenda item

The report before members detailed an application which related to a proposed new public leisure development, including a swimming pool and ice rink, on a site located in Western Road, Romford. The proposals were a culmination of long term ambitions to re-introduce a swimming pool and public leisure facilities back into the centre of Romford. The proposals had been made possible through a land swap arrangement involving other land owned by the Council at Rom Valley Way, which currently housed the existing Romford Ice Rink. The Rom Valley Way site was now subject of a separate planning application, reported separately on the agenda, for a new Morrisons food store and residential development. Whilst both applications were separate there was a strong degree of linkage between the proposals, such that each would be considered with regard to the other.

The application had been through all of the statutory consultation processes, including consultation with the Greater London Authority (GLA) and these consultees were satisfied that the proposed provision of a new leisure facility on the site was entirely acceptable in principle.  A wide range of planning issues, including factors such as design, layout, parking and cycling provision, environmental factors and impact on amenity had been considered, as set out in the report. Detailed consideration had also been given to other factors, such as continuity of ice rink provision and public realm improvements in Western Road which were linked with consideration of the proposals.

Staff were satisfied, having regard to all material factors, that the proposals were acceptable in principle and it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to no contrary direction from the Mayor for London and no call in from the Secretary of State under the notification procedures, the prior completion of a legal agreement with the GLA to secure Heads of Terms set out below and further subject to conditions as set out in the report.

The following updates were provided by officers:-

Officers referred to paragraph 7.3.4 of the report to correct any misapprehension. It was anticipated that the provision of a replacement leisure facility would take up to two years but it could be longer period depending on contractual position and other contingencies.

Officers referred to paragraph 7.4.12 of the report and confirmed that no further comments were received from GLA in respect of revised design.

Officers referred to paragraph 7.9.1 of the report, the reference to Planning Obligations SPD and replaced with reference to the Crossrail SPD which was adopted in April 2013. It was confirmed that this correction does not affect the fact that this development is not liable under the Crossrail SPD.

With its agreement Councillors Andrew Curtin, Jeffrey Tucker and Michael Deon Burton addressed the Committee.

Councillor Burton commented that he welcomed the re-introduction of a swimming pool back into Romford town centre and also stated that sport was an important part of everyday life. Councillor Burton was asked to confine his observations to planning issues related to the proposal and he raised concerns over the impact of overnight emptying of the swimming pool and the disposal of waste from the site.

Councillor Tucker commented that he wanted the project to work but had doubts whether such a large scheme would be profitable for the Council. Councillor Tucker also advised that he had concerns regarding the lack of parking that the proposal offered. He considered that it could not be a viable business without more on site parking provision

Councillor Curtin commented that he supported the recommendations contained in the report as the Council had previously committed to providing sporting facilities in the town centre. Councillor Curtin also advised that the proposal would ensure long term provision of ice skating facilities in the borough. Councillor Curtin considered that the proposal was supported by Development Plan policy that it had been carefully designed, was sustainable and fully accessible.

During the debate members requested further information in respect of CCTV provision, coach/car parking, proximity to the synagogue and other adjacent premises, whether the facility could be used for competitive ice hockey, whether opening hours are controlled, what the rear elevation will look like, provision of disabled access and the effect the proposal would have on other leisure centres in the borough.

In reply officers advised:-

•           That the CCTV proposed in the application would be run independently of the Council’s Town Centre CCTV system.

•           That there were a number of car parks close to the proposed leisure facility and that there were a number of coach parking/drop off areas within the town centre including Grimshaw Way.

•           The boundaries of the application site are in close proximity to some adjacent properties including the synagogue, Chaucer House and Hexagon House.

•           Officers confirmed that the ice rink was designed to accommodate competitive hockey.

•           Officers explained that the hours of operation of the café on the ground floor are controlled by condition however as the facility was of competition standard to facilitate its use by elite athletes outside hour of use by the public a restriction was not considered appropriate.

•           Officers explained that the front and rear facades would not be materially different though as with most large buildings plant is located to the rear so there would be differences.

•           Disabled spaces will be provided approximately 90 metres from the proposed front entrance and there will be a dropping off point closer to the entrance.

Members asked whether elements of the proposal would be cherry picked and that the ice rink element might not be built. Officers explained that the application was detailed and that there was an accordance with plans condition imposed. Members addressing concerns on parking identified a number of town centre sites for both car parking and coach drop off points. Members also pointed out the proximity to public transport links including Romford Station and numerous bus routes. Members sought clarification from the Council’s highway engineers as to whether London Buses were considering routing buses down South Street after 9.30pm. It was confirmed that they are. Mention was also made of the proposal and how it sat within the streetscene. Members also queried possible maintenance issues of the façade of the building.

Members sought clarification of the arrangement in case of injury in light of the proposed floor level of the ice rink. Officers confirmed that each floor would be served by a lift.  Staff clarified seating arrangements and numbers in response to a Member query.  A member raised concerns over the viability of the proposed scheme with the unusual combination of swimming pool and ice rink. The Chair reminded members to confine consideration to the material planning considerations. A member sought some guarantee that the proposed scheme would be delivered. In response officers referred to the obligation which would form part of contractual term with the GLA to provide a facility.

The Committee noted that the development was liable for a Mayoral CIL of £133,920 and RESOLVED that the proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to

A: No direction to the contrary from the Mayor for London (under the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008);

B: No call in from the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009: and

C: Prior completion of a legal agreement under the appropriate enabling statutory powers, including Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011, Section 33 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to secure the following:

*           Secure provision of the new leisure facility

*           Provision of improvement works to Western Road subject to successful bid for funding to Transport for London

*           Provision of a training and recruitment scheme for local people to be  employed during the construction period and operation of the facility.

Subject to recommendations A), B) and C) above that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

The vote for the resolution was carried by 10 votes to 1.

Councillor McGeary voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.