Agenda item

To receive and consider the report of the Chief Planning Officer for applications for the change of use and conversion of the existing Roundhouse to provide indoor and outdoor leisure facilities for temporary use inclusive of enclosed Padel courts, changing/welfare facilities and external parking.

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use and conversion of the exiting Roundhouse building to provide indoor and outdoor leisure facilities for temporary use inclusive of Padel courts, changing/welfare facilities and external parking.

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

The Panel was informed that the following test should have been included in the recommendation outlined in the report:

In the circumstances where the Section 106 has not been completed within 3 months of the Panel resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the applications shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer.

Issues highlighted in relation to the application included the following:

·  The proposals were for the installation of indoor and outdoor Padel courts.  Padel was the fastest growing sport in the world and is popular in city centre locations.

·  The site was allocated for housing in the Development Plan and was required to be determined by Panel as a departure from the Plan.

·  The Roundhouse building was Grade II listed and was last used as a vehicle hire business. 

·  It was proposed for 5 outdoor courts on what was currently tarmac and hard standing.

·  Details of access and car parking.

·  Land to the front of the site would be used for cycle and pedestrian improvements including the footbridge.

·  There would be five courts inside the building with changing areas, a café and a reception in the centre.  There would not be any harmful building alterations.

·  It was proposed that the Padel courts would be a temporary use for 10 years.  The landowner was not currently offering the land for housing development.

·  Benefits of the proposal included the safeguarding of a heritage building and provision of a leisure facility in a high density residential area.

·  Floor plans showing the court layout and inside layout were displayed.

·  There would be a one way vehicle system through the site.  There would be 28 car parking spaces with 4 disabled spaces.  There would also be cycle parking.

·  There would be areas of landscaping.

·  The large vehicle entrance doors to the Roundhouse would be removed and the original appearance to be reinstated.

·  The lighting columns to the outdoor courts would be 6 metres in height.

In response to questions to officers and the applicant’s representative, the following was discussed:

·  There was no concern regarding the site not being used for housing.  A higher number of units had been achieved in the city centre than what was suggested in the site allocation plan.  There was a health supply of forthcoming housing with the majority under construction or having planning permission.

·  Environmental Health had been consulted regarding noise disturbance from the site.  It was recognised that there was noise disturbance from traffic due to the proximity of the A58.  With regards to potential noise disturbance from the Padel courts, this was difficult to quantify as there was no track record to measure against.  It was recommended that use of the courts be restricted until 9.00 p.m.  Noise levels could be monitored when the site was in operation.

·  The ramp towards the old railway line would be demolished.

·  The time restrictions would attempt to try and control noise disturbance so that residents were not disturbed.

·  Energy use – there would be no heating requirements for the indoor areas and energy use would be relatively small.  There was already a power supply to the roundhouse and the developer promoted the use of low energy lighting and sustainable energy.

·  There was no evidence of what the impact of having an outdoor exercise facility close to a busy road would be with regards to air pollution.  There would be a benefit for people exercising and other activities took place through the city such as jogging and cycling.

·  The applicant would be providing free taster sessions and a program with schools.  The facilities would be all inclusive and equipment could be provided.  Community was high on the agenda and 10% of profits from the centre would be used towards local community projects.

·  The exterior of the building would be cleaned and repaired.  It was hoped to reinstate original fixtures where possible.

·  There would be free sessions available to unemployed/people on low incomes and reductions to other groups including blue badge holders and NHS staff.

In response to comments from the Panel, discussion included the following:

·  Noise disturbance could go on longer than after the terminal hour of use of the courts.

·  This was an imaginative re-use of the building and an opportunity to preserve a heritage building.

·  There could be a more creative approach to landscaping and use of greenspace.

·  Although the site was allocated for housing it seemed reasonable to use the site for such a facility that was aimed at local people.

·  There was scope across the site for more landscaping and planting.

·  The proposals provided an excellent opportunity for re-sue of the site in an area that would be heavily populated.

·  The hours of use proposed had been decided in order to prevent noise disturbance to residents.  Conditions could cover requirements for the time external lighting is to be turned off and for the operator to have a noise management plan.

·  There were still ongoing negotiations with regards to the landscaping and there would be attempts to maximise the amount of planting on site.

·  There could be flexibility with regards to the operating hours between the inside and outside courts.  This could be monitored as part of the noise management plan.

·  There was very little landscaping on the site at the moment and this development would make a significant improvement.

·  The applicant was proposing to put in landscaping where feasible and extend planting proposals to the front of the building.

RESOLVED – That the application be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer for approval subject to the specified conditions set out in Appendices 1 and 2 (and any others which he might consider appropriate) and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to include the following obligations:

·  Travel Plan Review fee of £3,682

·  Transfer of land for A58 footbridge improvement

·  Monitoring fee

In the circumstances where the Section 106 has not been completed within 3 months of the Panel resolution to grant planning permission, the final determination of the applications shall be delegated to the Chief Planning Officer.