Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions

WARD:  Cockfosters

NOTED

1.  The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, reporting information provided by Mr L Cohen regarding membership and use of the club.

2.  Receipt of an objection from David Burrowes MP including:

•  membership levels demonstrated continued demand

•  there was no evidence of bowls use at the site declining

•  this proposal would be contrary to Policy 11 of the Core Strategy

•  the proposal would have an impact on the recreational activity of users

•  questioned the accessibility of alternative facilities

•  the users were elderly and less likely to travel

•  floodlit artificial pitches were provided elsewhere in the borough.

3.  An additional condition would require improvement to the access to permit two way vehicle ingress / egress.

4.  The deputation of Mr Leslie Cohen, on behalf of Bramley bowls club members, including the following points:

a.  Bowls club members were asked to stand to show the number in attendance and concerned about the loss of this facility.

b.  If this facility was demolished a lot of these members would never play bowls again, as they would not play elsewhere.

c.  A petition of 500 names had been drawn up protesting about the proposal, in addition to petitions previously submitted.

d.  The London Mayor had stated that development proposals should protect and enhance facilities that met the needs of users.

e.  Additional information in this report set out details of alternative bowling facilities, but there were numerous reasons why these were not viable alternatives including restricted playing time, already full membership, cost, and travelling distance and expense.

f.  Within two miles there were all weather pitches in a safe facility with ample parking with spare bookings.

g.  Bramley bowls facility was used 8 to 10 hours every day of the week and on Sunday it was used for teaching children to play.

h.  This would be an unsafe location for 5 a side football in view of the large numbers of youngsters already using the neighbouring rugby pitch and what was already a dangerous road and accidents were likely.

5.  Officers confirmed that no petitions had been received by the Planning Department, but that Members could take those mentioned by Mr Cohen into consideration.

6.  The response of Mr Julian Bullock (Agent) and Mr Ben Underwood (Manager), including the following points:

a.  In respect of Core Strategy Policy 11, agreement with the view of the Planning Department that these facilities could be provided elsewhere.

b.  It had been sought to identify current and future numbers of users, and it was believed that the proposal put forward would meet the needs of the whole community.

c.  The Council’s ‘Everybody Active’ strategy set out a strategic vision for 2009-2014, identifying priority actions to be resourced and delivered. Priorities were for everyone to participate in physical activity every day and to inspire young people to be active by providing diverse, exciting and inclusive sports activities. This proposal would meet those criteria.

d.  This facility would be open every day.

e.  Data from Sport England in a report for the last quarter showed a significant drop nationally in numbers participating in bowls on a weekly basis. 17 other sports had shown a reduction in participation in the same period, but bowls showed the highest reduction proportionally.

f.  In terms of use of this facility, a membership of 300 had been quoted, but records showed 120-130 paying members who had purchased a permit to bowl for a 12 month period.

g.  A particularly good and viable alternative provision would be available at the new Edmonton Leisure Centre from Autumn 2011 with better lighting and conditions and other support facilities including a café.

7.  Lengthy discussion by Members focussing on loss of existing facility, the absence of accessible alternatives, and the availability of other all weather facilities in the vicinity.

8.  In response to Members’ queries about the feasibility of retaining a facility for the bowls community on the site in addition to an all weather pitch, officers reported that the applicant had previously advised this would require relocation of the pedestrian footway across the park, but they could be asked to look at the option again.

9.  The advice of the Traffic and Transportation officer of a potential need for more parking spaces if combined facilities were provided.

10.  Members’ concern that they did not have sufficient information to make an analysis of the possible options

11.  The proposal that a decision on the application be deferred, supported unanimously by the Committee.

AGREED that a decision be deferred for the following reasons:

(i)  for the promoter and the club to agree a statement on current levels of use and membership

(ii)  for an analysis of the potential for a combined bowls / all weather pitch facility to be provided

(iii)  information on the availability of places at neighbouring facilities

(iv)  to establish the parking implications of a combined facility.