Agenda item - BH2011/03861 - American Express Community Stadium

Variation of: conditions 43 of planning permission BH2001/02418 and 38 of planning permission BH2008/02732 to increase the maximum attendance capacity from the existing maximum of 22,500 to a maximum of 30,750 attendees (an increase of 8,250). And;

Conditions 39 of BH2001/02418 and 35 of BH2008/02732 to allow a reduction of the minimum number of car parking spaces required in connection with the stadium within 1.5km of the site from 2,000 down to 1,500 and to increase the maximum number from 2, 200 to 3,000.

Recommendation – MINDED TO GRANT

(1)                   variation of condition 43 of planning permission BH2001/02418 and 38 of planning permission BH2008/02732 to increase the maximum attendance capacity from the existing maximum of 22,500 to a maximum of 30,750 attendees (an increase of 8,250) and Conditions 39 of BH2001/02418 and 35 of BH2008/02732 to allow a reduction of the minimum number of car parking spaces required in connection with the stadium within 1.5km of the site from 2,000 down to 1,500 and to increase the maximum number from 2,200 to 3,000

(2)                   It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

(3)                   The Senior Planning Officer, Kate Brocklebank, drew Members attention to information on the Late List, and gave a presentation detailing the scheme as set out in the report by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings. Since the closure of the Late List additional letters had been received from the ‘Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Highways Agency which had lead to Condition 36 being amended. An additional letter had also been received from the University of Brighton who did not withdraw their objection, and, as such, the recommendation had been altered to include a requirement to wait for consent from the university to the application detailed on the supplement to the late list. It was explained that the additional seating would form part of the current east stand; the physical works themselves did not require permission, but rather the actual use of the seating. To address concerns from East Sussex County Council, Lewes District Council and the Highways Agency it was proposed that improvements be made to the junction of the A27 and the B213. Since the original application there had been a greater than expected use of sustainable transport; upgrades to cycling provision were proposed to increase the number of available spaces to 308 and station improvements at Falmer Station would allow an additional 3500 to use this service by improvements to lengthen the platform to accommodate eight carriage trains. The current park and ride facilities at the Brighton Racecourse were underused and could accommodate an additional 1100 spectators and the club were intending to greater publicise this facility.

(4)                   A controlled parking zone (CPZ) was proposed in North and South Moulsecoomb where a significant level of displacement parking currently occurred on match days; a number of other solutions had also been suggested such as including the price of sustainable transport in the overall ticket price. The disabled parking for the stadium would be monitored through the management plan to ensure it adequately catered for need. It had been concluded there would be no significant changes to levels of noise nuisance or air quality. It was recommended that the Committee be minded to grant the application subject to the amended recommendation on the supplement to the Late List, conditions and informatives in the report and those updated in the Late List.

Public Speakers and Questions

(5)                   Councillor Lepper spoke in her capacity as local Ward Councillor and explained that she was grateful to the club for the active steps taken to address some of the problems in Coldean as the area was within walking distance of the stadium, and currently was used by spectators for parking. She highlighted some of the problems this caused on match days, and explained that there had been occasions when it had been necessary for buses to take alternative routes because of the extent of the problems. She welcomed the conditions addressing these problems, and in particular referenced the additional signage and commitment to monitor the effectiveness of the conditions.

(6)                   Councillor Mo Marsh spoke in her capacity as local Ward Councillor and explained that she was in favour of the general provision of the stadium as it was an important means to create employment for the city; she stated that the situation had progressed since the beginning of 2012 and many concerns were now being addressed. She stated that the only way to solve the parking issues in the Moulsecoomb and Coldean areas was through the introduction of a match day CPZ. She welcomed the introduction of integrated tickets for both the match and the sustainable transport; hoped yellow line enforcement would increase on match days in her Ward and noted that steps had been taken to address anti-social behaviour on match days.

(7)                   Councillor Hawtree asked both Ward Councillors if the report had addressed many of their earlier concerns, and in response it was explained that as Ward Councillors they dealt with much correspondence in relation to these issues, and it was felt that the conditions in the report reflected the steps that had been made address the concerns of local residents. It was also highlighted that monitoring was important as it allowed changes to be made where necessary.

(8)                   Martin Perry spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant; he stated that the stadium had been a substantial success and employed approximately 1000 people; 94% of whom lived within the city; the stadium had also added approximately £24 million into the local economy, and was supplied by 260 local companies. The application sought to build on these successes, and provide another 430 jobs both directly and indirectly. In relation to facilities at the Bridge Community Centre it was explained that the club would be contributing to the costs of the move. It was highlighted that currently 68% of spectators arrived by sustainable transport - with averages for other clubs ranging between 22% and 33% - it was explained that the introduction of the travel voucher included the cost of the sustainable transport in the ticket price. The club were determined to foster positive relationships with local residents and has taken active steps to address local concerns. The application was an important means for the club to further development, and it was asked that the Committee approve it.

(9)                   Councillor Farrow asked how the club would work with the Council to ensure the CPZ effectively addressed the local issues in relation to displacement parking. In response it was explained that, if the scheme was approved following local consultation, the club would be meeting the costs to implement and operate the scheme.

(10)               Councillor Hawtree asked for more information on the rational behind the application for the additional seating; how the current arrangement of temporary parking would be addressed in the long term, and more information on the acoustics at the site. In response it was explained that the club technically operated at full capacity for games; there was a waiting list of fans for season tickets, and the club had aspirations to further its league performance and would need to address the additional demands this would create. In relation to the parking matters it was explained that the club intended to apply for another four year temporary use at the Brighton Racecourse when this permission expired later in the year; however the club were seeking a permanent solution and had identified a potential site. Lastly it was explained that that the additional seating would actually improve the current acoustic arrangements and it was estimated the impact on Falmer Village would reduce by 2dba.

(11)               Councillor Hyde asked if the current park and ride facilities were at capacity, and in response in was explained that the Racecourse site was at capacity, but there was additional scope for increased use at other sites.

(12)               Councillor Cobb asked for more informed on the breakdown of use of sustainable transport between ‘home’ spectators and ‘visiting’ spectators. In response it was explained that the club advertised the stadium car park free for visiting supporters, and the majority of these arrived at matches by organised coach services.

(13)               In response to a query from Councillor Hyde it was explained that there were approximately 30 games played per year.

Questions for Officers

(14)               Councillor Farrow asked how the CPZ would operate in practise, and if the scheme had to be in place before the additional seating could be used at the stadium. In response Officers explained that the first phase of the application could be implemented as there were interim proposals for additional stewarding; the actual practicalities of the scheme were currently unknown as the progression and details were all subject to consultation. Councillor Farrow asked if an additional condition could be attached to request that the use of the additional seating be restricted until the proposed CPZ was in place. The Senior Lawyer, Hilary Woodward, explained that there was no guarantee the CPZ would be agreed as it would be subject to consultation and, as such, to attach a condition to this extent would be unreasonable.

(15)               Councillor Summers enquired in relation to potential changes to the traffic management on Lewes Road, and how this might affect the application. In response it was explained that the consultation was currently taking place; the information would not have been available to the applicant at the point of submission, but the club was a participant in the development of the proposals.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(16)               Councillor Wells highlighted his support of the application, and stated that he hoped the concerns of the local Ward Councillor would be considered as part of the implementation of the application.

(17)               Councillor Hamilton explained that he has attended matches at the club, and used the various sustainable means to access the stadium; he was pleased to report that the arrangements worked well, but hoped a long term permanent solution to the parking facilities could be found.

(18)               Councillor Carden noted his concerns about traffic on the trunk road from Eastbourne though to Portslade, but noted he wished the club every success.

(19)               Councillor Farrow stated that, despite his earlier concerns, he would support the application, and he hoped local residents would support the introduction of the match day CPZ.

(20)               Councillor Hawtree explained that he echoed many of the positive comments made by other Members of the Committee, and stated, from his personal experience, he was pleased to see the facilities being enjoyed by families with children.

(21)               Councillor Summers noted she agreed with the views put forward by Councillor Farrow in relation to the proposed CPZ, as it affected residents in her own Ward; she went on to state that she also echoed some of the concerns of the other local Ward Councillors, but hoped that the club would continue to foster positive relations with the Council.

(22)               Of the twelve Members present it was unanimously agreed that planning permission be granted.

175.2    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and is MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of the s106 Planning Obligation and deeds of variation and  the conditions and informatives all as set out in the Report.