Agenda item - BH2022/02299 - Tennis Courts, Hove Park, Old Shoreham Road, Hove - Full Planning

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.       Ward Councillor Brown addressed the committee in support of the application and spoke on behalf of Councillor Bagaeen. The club house was considered a good design for the well run club. It was noted that other park users support the proposals, which includes much needed storage, a space for community groups and toilets. It is considered the works, 6m from the mulberry tree, would be acceptable. Cycle parking was included, and the scheme is acceptable in terms of form and scale. S106 agreement monies are being used on the project. The committee were requested to support the scheme.

3.       Gareth Hall addressed the committee as an objecting resident and stated that they supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application as the white mulberry tree will be affected. The impact on wildlife will be considerable and it is noted that city parks have concerns. Following the demolition of the existing structure the new build will cause damage to the mulberry tree if the application is granted. This is a hedge sparrow location, and the removal of the hedge would have an effect. The committee were requested to refuse the current application and the proposals to be moved to another

location.

4.       Neil Dickson addressed the committee as the agent and noted that new tennis courts and floodlights have been installed and the next step was the pavilion. There have been meetings and correspondence on the proposals. The building will be shared with other users than just the tennis club. The toilets will be good for all. The mulberry tree will be protected by using pile driving technology 6m from the tree. It was noted that the council arboriculturist changed the distance required to 10m. No arboriculturist comments were required for the installation of nearby goal posts. If granted, the club are willing to work with the council as the scheme needs to be a success.

Answers to Committee Member Questions

5.       Councillor Yates was informed that the applicant would work with the council sports and parks and was happy to share the pavilion. The application was being refused on the effect on the mulberry tree.

6.       Councillor Moonan was informed that the football fencing was agreed in 2017. The council arboriculturist stated that the footings for the football pitches will have caused some damage and it was vital to prevent any further damage to the mulberry tree. The proposals will need to be 10m from the tree following a site visit and the measuring of the tree trunk. The case officer noted that moving the scheme 10m away from the tree may affect the viability of the proposals.

7.       Councillor Hugh-Jones was informed by the agent that there were drainage channels on along the sides of the building, electricity and water are already on the site, and the proposed location is ideal for services.

8.       Councillor Shanks was informed by the Park Projects & Strategy Manager that the council were working with business’ in the park, and the plans include toilets, storage and other amenities. It was noted that the site needed a masterplan, which would take time. Joint use is wanted of the pavilion and being located at the table tennis club would be better.

9.       Councillor Allbrooke was informed that it would be a struggle to relocate the building in this meeting as the application red line was for the area of the pavilion not the whole park.

10.      Councillor Theobald was informed that the council arboriculturist was not consulted in 2017 when planning permission was granted for the fencing to the football pitches.

Debate

11.      Councillor Moonan welcomed the tennis club pavilion with toilets; however, they supported the officer recommendation. Not enough detail and the mulberry tree will be under stress. The applicant should work with Parks to find a better site.

12.      Councillor Yates was against haphazard development in the park and considered the position and proposed development not to be suited. A masterplan is needed with more thought to access. The park users need support like the toilets, and mulberry tree needs to be protected. The development is not justified. The councillor supported the officer

recommendation.

13.      Councillor Shanks noted that anything that took away from public space was not good. The councillor supported the refusal.

14.      Councillor Hugh-Jones appreciated all that the tennis club brought to the community and asked that they work with a masterplan. The table tennis club is also a good location. The councillor supported the refusal.

15.      Councillor Theobald considered the proposals to be a good use of the triangle of land and noted that the existing storage unit had not damaged the mulberry tree. There were many supporters and only one objection to this great facility. The committee were requested to defer the application for further discussions.

16.      Councillor Littman considered the proposals to be a good idea, just in the wrong place. The existing storage unit has put the mulberry tree under stress, which was pruned to accommodate the unit. The councillor supported the officer recommendation.

17.      The chair requested a seconder to councillor Theobald’s request to defer. No councillor seconded the motion. There was therefore no vote on the proposed deferment.

Vote

18.      A vote was taken, and by 6 to 1 the committee agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.

19.      RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons:

1.       The proposed development will result in the loss of a Council-owned White Mulberry tree due to it creating an unacceptable accumulation of development around said tree (detrimentally impacting on its root system) and requiring significant pruning. Loss of this tree would represent harm to the visual amenities of the area and local biodiversity, contrary to policies CP10 and CP13 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One, and DM22 and DM37 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two.