The planning application for the proposed Five-a-side football pitches on the Holford House site has now been lodged by The Royal Parks Agency & Goals Soccer Centres plc with Westminster City Council
The Royal Parks and Goals Soccer Centres have applied for change of use on the Holford House site from parkland to a multi-sports facility for 10 outdoor artificial pitches for 5-a-side football, short hockey and kwik cricket plus indoor changing, support facilities and a class A3 café (about 230 sq.m). Landscaping, 14 car parking spaces and access are also included. The two organisations have also applied for the demolition of the neighbouring golf and tennis school and its reinstatement as park. A further section includes the proposed upgrading of the existing running track to 400m with two additional 100m lanes and a games court plus high, long and triple jumps in the centre.
The planning documents point out that a transport assessment was not required. Why not?
The applicants state that 30% less traffic will be generated by their development ie 40 vehicles per day compared to the current 60 generated by the golf and tennis school. To state that a development that is 60% larger will generate 30% less traffic is clearly pie in the sky. But what about the increase in the number of cars which will bring in the corporate customer - without whom the centre cannot presumably be profitable? If 100 businessmen come to play after work and at the weekend, that could mean, say, 50 to 60 cars arriving on the Outer Circle with only 14 being able to park inside the compound. Goals ideally expect to have 100 car parking spaces on their sites. Why do they suddenly believe they can manage with only 14?
The site is a long way from underground stations including Baker Street, St. John's Wood and Camden Town. The nearest bus service is the 274, which runs at very irregular intervals along Prince Albert Road. Buses (and commercial vehicles) are only allowed in the Outer Circle by arrangement.
The sports report by PMP gives details of current pitch and some other facilities in Westminster and Camden. Apart from provision in Regent's Park, it is reticent about the equivalent facilities for tennis and golf in the two boroughs. Shouldn't these be taken into account? Where are the nearest indoor and outdoor golf nets? What about the fact that last year the tennis centre in the middle of Regent's Park (as opposed to the golf and tennis school) closed applications for membership?
Regent's Park already has 22 grass football pitches including 10 for adult teams, 11 mini-pitches for children and small-sided games and one mid-size pitch. The Hub building, which is only 200m from the proposed development is a first-class building with changing facilities for 290 people, space for exercise classes and a café.
There should be no reason for a second new building in this part of the park. In its report on Regent's Park in 1993, the Royal Parks Review Group suggested that one building should be able to cater for an improved golf and tennis school and the many grass pitches.
The application makes much of the need and desire to provide facilities for young people and the fact that the proposed 5-a-side football pitches will be make available at a discount for 60% of the time. It adds that it has the support of many schools canvassed in the immediate area. This would seem to go against the evidence. According to information from Camden School Sports department, state schools do not have the staff, transport or time within existing timetables to make use of facilities in the park. The park's grass pitches are already under used. Last year between January and early November, they were only booked 14 times by local state schools and 168 times by private schools.
The proposed pavilion includes a licensed bar and changing rooms
The model, on display last autumn, gave no idea of the size or real impact of the development. The playing area, if approved, will be 95m long running parallel to the Outer Circle and 60m deep. It will cover an area of some 5,700 square metres. The proposed new pavilion and café are more than substantial - 20m by 35m and slopes from 5m at the back to 8m at the front. This building includes a beer and spirits store and beer cellar. Are these facilities also for the children? And what happens if the development fails to get an alcohol licence to cover the opening hours from 9am till 10.30pm or later? Will this be a new Pub in the Park? The ten new courts also represent a huge volume of structure with 24 eight metre high lamp standards with 40 floodlights and netting between 5 and 8m high. Seen in line the netting will not be transparent. (The proposal document gives conflicting details).
The development area involves the felling of approx 65 to 76 trees including oak, horn-beam, crab apple, hawthorn and lime. This must surely represent the largest wholesale destruction of trees on any Westminster planning application. In addition seven trees would be lost in the running track area.
The proposed improvements represent what is normally known as planning gain - a kind of deal offered by or demanded from developers as a sweetener to save the public purse.
The Royal Parks state that they have undertaken wide consultation. Were you consulted before the exhibition last autumn at the Hub? Were the people who play or practise at the golf and tennis school? Were any of the individuals who live within 20 minutes walk of the park? What notices were posted at the entrances of the park and when? Certainly there was a shortage during the Hub exhibition of the present proposals. There was nothing at the entrance nearest the exhibition (and, as it happens, the golf and tennis school and the western end of the zoo.) Nor was there anything outside the Hub itself (at least permanently) to indicate new sports proposals were on show inside. As it was, this recent attempt at wider public consultation - but only of detailed proposals - showed that tennis and golf topped the priority list of the 196 responses. Football came third.
Westminster City Council did not apparently require an acoustic assessment with respect to the planning application. Unlike golf and tennis, football is known for above average level of banter/sound - even without groups of supporters. Is the peaceful enjoyment of people nearby in and outside the park not rated of sufficient importance?
The applicants suggest the removal of the golf and tennis school would have significant benefits for the park and its setting in terms of character, appearance and local views. But what about the loss of these popular facilities? With encouragement and a longer lease than has been the hand-to-mouth existence of recent years, the setting of the golf and tennis school in terms of character, appearance and local views could also provide significant benefits. And the park might benefit from the retention of a much loved quiet area, as would the trees and wildlife known to be present.
The Royal Parks is under pressure from government to raise about £7,000,000 a year to finance in part its running costs. This application is not about the best solution for the park, its character, or people's enjoyment and use of parks as parks, as opposed to recreation grounds or municipal sports facilities. It is about money - money for the Royal Parks and money for the developers, Goals Soccer Centres. It is of course dressed up with worthy causes and high-minded design, if it is possible to sell the concept of 10 artificial 5-a-side football cages as fine design. To make the concept work, the centre has to attract a great deal of commercial business to both pitches and its bar/café.
The Royal Parks Review, chaired by Dame Jennifer Jenkins, generally backed informal, not formal, sports. The expansion of such (formal) facilities would erode the principle of public access and all too easily see the park's unique rural, yet metropolitan character, transformed into something more akin to a municipal park and recreation ground.
If you wish to object please write immediately to...
Kathryn Johnson,
Development Planning Services
Dept. of Planning & City Development,
Westminster City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, SW1E 6QP,
quoting ref nos. O700697/FULL & TP/23163
PLEASE USE A FIRST CLASS STAMP
or email to...
kjohnso@westminster.gov.uk
Warning - Please stick to Planning Issues
While emotion is understandable,
it is important to concentrate objections on planning grounds such as:
At night the pitches will be illuminated by 40 lamps on 24 posts, each 8 metres high
If you live in Westminster also write to your local ward councillor, to the council's leader, Simon Milton, or to Robert Davis, who is believed to be most likely to chair the relevant planning committee.
The application has supporters mainly from official bodies. This of course was the approach taken by the Royal Parks when it applied last year for a virtual blank cheque to the licensing authorities for entertainment and alcohol. Objections in both Westminster and Camden helped to cut back on the number and size of events. The larger events were likely to reduce, if not destroy, normal peaceful enjoyment of the park.
The present proposals will also reduce peaceful enjoyment of the park and destroy an area of parkland, three times the size of the golf and tennis school.
If you have time, it would be good to remind the two MPs, Karen Buck and Frank Dobson (House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA) of the strength of opposition and ask them to pass your letters onto the relevant minister, David Lammy, at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. This department is responsible for managing the Royal Parks on behalf of the Queen.
Only last year, the local MPs attended the annual general meeting of the Friends and said they had both had more letters about this issue than any other in their political careers, including Iraq. They need to know the opposition has, if anything, gathered force. Letters to local, London and national newspapers could be another place to try to persuade the decision-makers of the strength of the opposition.
If Westminster, or any possible subsequent planning inquiry, gives the go ahead, such successful salami tactics on the edge of Regent's Park could set a dreadful precedent.
PS If you really cannot get your letter or email to the council by end of July, please write anyway, because it is very important that they have your views.
| HOME PAGE | BLOG | THE PLAN | Initial Response | BATS | Application Analysis | Paper Article | Trouble | LINKS |
|---|
Created on Sunday 10 December 2006, last edited Wednesday 20 June 2007. Errors & Omissions excepted