Agenda item

Redevelopment of the site including the demolition of the existing buildings (Use Class D1) to provide a part 2, part 3 storey building including a basement to provide a leisure centre (Use Class D2) with access, car parking (including a decked car park), landscaping and associated works.

Recommendation: Approval + Sec 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved + Section 106

Redevelopment of the site including the demolition of the existing buildings (Use Class D1) to provide a part 2, part 3 storey building including a basement to provide a leisure centre (Use Class D2) with access, car parking (including a decked car park), landscaping and associated works.

It was confirmed that four petitions had been received in relation to this item and these would be considered in two parts – the first part would cover matters related to services provided within the building over which the Committee had limited or no jurisdiction and the second part would cover highways, parking and access arrangements. A total of ten minutes speaking time would be allocated to petitioners.

Officers presented the report and highlighted the information in the addendum. Members were informed that the leisure centre would provide a range of facilities including indoor play pitches, an eight lane swimming pool and splash pool and a rooftop football pitch. There would be no loss of community facilities – the existing youth centre would be relocated within the leisure centre and the existing family centre would be relocated at the Civic Centre. The site lay within the West Drayton Green Conservation Area and the proposal had been identified by the Conservation Officer as resulting in less than substantial harm. The leisure centre would benefit from having a dedicated 199 space, 2 storey car park akin to other leisure centres in the Borough with a dedicated coach bay for larger groups. A pedestrian crossing would provide access to the building. All flooding and water management implications would be fully addressed by means of conditions and a Section 106 Head of Term.

Two petitioners addressed the Committee on behalf of all those who had submitted petitions and highlighted their concerns. Key points raised included:

·         Rowhleys Place was not a suitable entrance point; entrance to the car park and leisure centre from Harmondsworth Road would be a safer option and better for local residents. This could be achieved by building a basement car park the top of which would be level with Harmondsworth Road;

·         The development would take 2 to 3 years. This would impact on residents causing inconvenience and creating mess;

·         Health and safety was a concern – residents would be obliged to walk along muddy paths and this was a trip hazard;

·         Travellers often visited the cemetery and would use the coach stops for parking;

·         If the entrance were on Harmondsworth Road, few trees would be affected as many were no longer there;

·         The current youth centre was much used and vital for young people. The proposed new youth centre located within the leisure centre would not be free of charge; this would deter young people from using it and young people would have nothing to do;

·         The existing vehicle repair centre was very useful for learning new skills;

·         Proposed opening hours from 6 a.m. until 11 p.m. were a matter of concern. Residents feared the leisure centre shutters would create considerable noise pollution;

·         Children often played along Rowlheys Place – the narrowing of the road would cause further traffic difficulties, could delay emergency service vehicles and could lead to additional accidents.

A petitioner had submitted a short written statement regarding library provision which was read out by the Chairman. The petitioner requested that a library be included in the plans for the leisure centre as the current one on Station Road was not fit for purpose. It was stated that a state-of-the-art and up-to-date library would benefit local residents and would encourage more young people to get fit and read.

Ward Councillors Jan Sweeting and Stuart Mathers addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents. Key points raised included:

·         The area already lacked facilities and, as a result of the proposed development, two more facilities would be lost;

·         Local residents would be negatively impacted and quiet cul-de-sacs would be affected by the additional traffic;

·         The entrance to the car park should be located on Harmondsworth Road;

·         Hours should be reduced to 07:00 – 22:30;

·         Residents should be consulted on a parking management scheme;

·         More trees and screening should be introduced to shield residents from noise pollution and to minimise the impact of the rooftop football pitch lighting;

·         Air quality implications should be investigated thoroughly;

·         A useful youth centre would be lost which was popular with vulnerable local young people. The existing car workshop was also well used;

·         Opportunities for young people to partake in activities other than sports (music production etc) would be lost. The new youth provision would be less flexible and young people would not have ownership of the services offered. Young people had not been consulted on this;

·         The input of local residents had been overlooked. The current youth centre could be used as a library.

Members requested further clarification regarding references to the Local Plan. It was confirmed that the Local Plan referred to was the Adopted Plan.

It was confirmed that, should the proposal be approved, the current petition relating to the request for a Parking Management Scheme would be re-directed to Councillor Keith Burrows, the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation without the need for submission of a new petition.

The Head of Planning informed Members that there were already two leisure centres in the Borough which were accessed via a cul-de-sac. This seemed to work well as leisure centres were generally used at all times throughout the day, not exclusively at peak times.

It was noted that trees were an important factor for consideration in terms of the Conservation Area; the access point to the leisure centre could not be sited elsewhere due to the impact on trees in the area. The layout of the proposed scheme had largely been dictated by the requirements of the Trees and Landscape Officer. In respect of the youth centre, Members were informed that Condition 5 addressed some of the residents’ and Ward Councillors’ concerns.

Members welcomed the proposal but requested further clarification on a numbers of points. With regards to security at the site, it was confirmed that the Metropolitan Police had been consulted at pre-application stage and had raised no objections to the proposal. The Committee was informed that shutters would secure the leisure centre at night and the car park would be closed at 23:00. The leisure centre would remain open until 22:00 and all staff would vacate the site by 23:00. The proposed opening hour of 06:00 was to accommodate early morning swimmers and was identical to that of other leisure centres in the Borough.

To address concerns regarding the negative impact of lighting at the site, it was proposed that a Condition be added to ensure that lights were automatically switched off. It was confirmed that the rooftop football pitch would be down-lit and would close at 22:00. Members commented that the lighting should be as unobtrusive as possible to minimise the impact on local residents. Concerns were also raised regarding the potential for noise pollution. It was confirmed that Condition 28 covered external noise and the gym would be located internally on the first floor therefore would not be excessively noisy. It was requested that Condition 28 be amended to reflect internal noise also.

Members raised further concerns regarding the materials to be used at the western elevation which was unprotected by trees. A ‘green wall’ was proposed; this would be aesthetically pleasing and environmentally friendly.

Councillors requested further clarification as to the feasibility of an entrance to the site from Harmondsworth Road at first floor level as suggested by petitioners. It was confirmed that such a proposal would constitute a different planning application altogether and the Committee could only consider the scheme before them. In response to Members’ requests for clarification, it was confirmed that movements of construction vehicles would not coincide with school opening / closing times. It was agreed that a requirement for a Road Safety Audit be included in the Section 106 Head of Term to safeguard visitors to the leisure centre.

In respect of the proposed built out at Rowhleys Place, Members expressed concern regarding accessibility for emergency and refuse vehicles. It was confirmed that the build out had to be of a sufficient size in order to act as a deterrent.

Members raised no further objections to the development. The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously agreed subject to the addendum and the agreed amendments to conditions and the Section 106.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be approved as per officer’s recommendation, addendum and Section 106;

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to amend Section 106 Head of Term 6 in relation to flooding to ensure the basement element was robust;

3.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to add the requirement for a Road Safety Audit to the Highway section of the Section 106;

4.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to add a Condition to ensure lighting is switched off automatically;

5.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to strengthen the wording of Condition 20 to ensure a substantial green wall on the western elevation facing the neighbours – and elsewhere as appropriate;

6.    That the petition in relation to the request for a parking management scheme be passed to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transportation without the need for it to be re-submitted;

7.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning to amend Condition 28 to reflect both internal and external noise.