planning report D&P/4125/02 7 August 2017 Barnet Copthall Leisure Centre, Champions Way in the Borough of Barnet planning application no. 16/6074/FUL

Strategic planning application stage II referral Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

The proposal Erection of a two storey leisure centre (Use Class D2) of 5,175 sq.m. on land to west of the existing Barnet Copthall Leisure Centre incorporating swimming, fitness suite, studios, changing facilities, 5 court sports hall, ancillary offices and welfare facilities, reception, cafe and plant, refurbishment and enlargement of the existing car park, demolition of the Copthall Green Spaces Depot, demolition of the existing Barnet Copthall Leisure Centre and return of the site to open space, and associated landscaping.

The applicant The applicant is Barnet Council and the architect is Saunders Boston Architects.

Key dates  Stage 1 report: 19 December 2016.  Committee meeting: 25 January 2017.

Strategic issues summary Green Belt: The Council has resolved to provide land and funding up to £500,000 towards the construction of a new diving facility and has also secured a permanent site for the reprovision of a Gaelic Sports pitch (paragraphs 7-10). Climate change and transport: The issues raised at Stage 1 have been addressed, and the application is now considered to be in accordance with the relevant policies of the London Plan (paragraphs 11-14).

The Council’s decision Barnet Council has resolved to grant permission subject to conditions.

Recommendation That Barnet Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal.

page 1 Context

1 On 9 November 2016 the Mayor of London received documents from Barnet Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 3D.

 Category 3D: Development (a) on land allocated as Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land in the development plan, in proposals for such a plan, or in proposals for the alteration or replacement of such a plan; and (b) which would involve the construction of a building with a floorspace of more than 1,000 square metres or a material change in the use of such a building. 2 On 19 December 2016 the Mayor considered planning report D&P/4125/01, and subsequently advised Barnet Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, with the reasons and remedies set out in paragraph 42 of the above-mentioned report.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. On 25 January 2017, Barnet Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, subject to conditions, and on 25 July 2017 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct Barnet Council under Article 6 to refuse the application. The Mayor has until 7 August 2017 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk.

Update

5 At the consultation stage, Barnet Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons given below:

 Green Belt: The replacement leisure centre is not larger and is therefore considered to be appropriate development; the applicant, however, should demonstrate that the reprovision of a permanent pitch for Gaelic Sports is secured before the proposal can be considered compliant with paragraph 74 of the NPPF and Policy 3.19. The applicant is also required to submit the financial model used to determine the assumptions used in the feasibility report in respect of the lack of provision of diving facilities in the new leisure centre.

 Climate change: Further information is required verifying the carbon dioxide savings. Information on the floor area, location and internal layout of the energy centre and the provision of the roof layout for the proposed PV are also required. Clarification of whether the communal network will be connected to all areas on-site should also be provided.

 Transport: Further clarifications/commitments related to car, coach and cycle parking, and impact assessment are required.

6 Since the Stage 1, GLA officers have engaged in discussion with the applicant, the Council and TfL to address the outstanding issues.

page 2 Green Belt

7 The provision of a replacement leisure facility was supported at the initial consultation, provided the reprovision of a permanent pitch for Gaelic Sports was secured and the submission of robust financial information to justify the exclusion of diving from the proposed leisure centre.

8 Regarding the reprovision of a permanent pitch for Gaelic Sports, the Council’s planning officers secured an agreement with the applicant of the former National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) site to provide a pitch as a condition attached to the grant of planning permission. However, planning permission for the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) application was refused by the Council. The application has subsequently been called-in by the Mayor for his own determination. If planning permission is granted by the Mayor, it is expected that this condition will be retained. In the event that the NIMR application is refused by the Mayor, or a suitable condition not secured, the temporary relocation to Montrose, currently used by St. Kiernan’s GAA Club for training, will become permanent. This proposed action is also set out in the Council’s draft Playing Pitch Strategy 2017, which assesses the provision of facilities for a number of outdoor sports including Gaelic Football.

9 In terms of the diving facility, additional financial information has been submitted as requested. At a meeting of the full Council of London Barnet on 13 December 2016, the Council resolved to ensure the provision of a diving pool in Barnet with land to build it on and a financial contribution up to £500,000 as capital. The land will be provided next to the proposed leisure centre and the diving facility is estimated to cost at least £5 million. The offer made by the Council has been accepted by the #SaveBarnet Diving Petition group, which is now a formal sport charity operating as North London Aquatics and is working directly with five cross party Barnet councillors, including the Deputy Mayor for Barnet

10 The proposed leisure centre will increase the range of sports provision to include badminton, indoor tennis, volleyball, bowls and indoor football, as well as provide an Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) compliant pool. This increase in the range of sports and enhancement of the facilities augur well for increasing participation in and broadening access to sport, especially within groups that show low levels of participation. When assessed in the context of the increased range of sports to be provided at the new leisure centre, the proposed measures to facilitate the reprovision of a diving facility and secure a replacement Gaelic Sports pitch are acceptable.

Climate change

11 Although the carbon dioxide savings exceed the target set within London Plan Policy 5.2, additional information relating to the PV, communal network, energy centre and other matters was requested at the consultation stage. The requested BRUKL sheets have been submitted and all savings verified. Compliance with Part L has been demonstrated through passive design and energy efficiency measures only, and the roof layout for the proposed PV has been submitted. The applicant has also confirmed that the CHP will be placed within the plantroom of the leisure centre and will only serve the related building. Additionally, the gross values for the CHP and the total space and hot water demand of the development have also been provided. The applicant has further confirmed that the CHP is the lead method for heating in the scheme and it has been sized to partially meet the demand of the building.

12 All of the outstanding issues related to energy have therefore been satisfactorily addressed. Furthermore, the proposed sustainable drainage strategy has been secured by condition as recommended at stage 1, and this matter has therefore been fully addressed.

page 3 Transport

13 At Stage 1, issues relating to coach parking, cycle parking, electric vehicle charging points (EVCPs), construction and servicing, and impact assessment required clarification. Conditions have subsequently been secured with respect to EVCPs, a delivery and servicing plan and a construction management plan. The provision of three bays for coach parking is acceptable in this instance, and the development can be accommodated by the existing transport network. Overall, the development is considered to be in accordance with the transport policies of the London Plan. Response to consultation

14 The application was advertised by site and press notices, and 101 consultation letters were sent to local residents. The Council has received 70 responses in relation to the application, of this total 66 are letters of objection and four letters neither supporting nor objecting. The Council has also received an online petition, #SaveBarnetDiving, with over 9,000 signatures objecting to the loss of the diving facility.

15 The representations received by the Council with regards to the application have been set out in detail in the Council’s planning committee report and Addendum Report, and full copies of the individual representations have been made available to the Mayor as part of the statutory referral process. The key issues raised by the consultations are summarised below:

Objections

 Land use: Loss of diving facility is against government policy to encourage sport and exercise and squanders the success of Rio 2016; the nearest diving facilities which are in Luton and Stratford are too far; the loss of the diving faclity results in the loss of other activites, including those for people with disbalities, such as synchronised swimming, water polo and sub aqua activities; and, the sports hall is unnecessary and should be replaced with a diving facility.

 Transport: The site is not easily accessible by public transport given its location; and car parking is unavailable for users of the pool.

 Other: Comments provided at pre-application stage have been ignored; documents on website are hard to navigate; and, there was a lack of publicity for the application.

Responses from statutory and additional consultees

 Highways England: No objection.  Sport England: No objection subject to conditions and an informative.  Historic England (Archaeology): No objection.  Natural England: No objection.  Thames Water: No objection; however, noted that if there are any changes to the surface water or foul water strategies re-consultation will be required.  Environment Agency: No comments.  Metropolitan Police: No objection subject to conditions relating to secure by design accreditation and CCTV.

page 4  and District Archaeological Society: If any remains of archaeological significance are found during excavation, Historic England and this Society should be notified.  Preservation Society: Objects to the loss of the diving facility; recommends that the architectural design of the building be revised; and, supports the replacement of the existing leisure centre with tennis courts rather than the proposed football pitch.  Mill Hill Neighbouring Forum: Welcomes the reprovision of a modern leisure centre; however, there are reservations about the design, transport and access, loss of diving and the capacity of the proposed centre to meet future demand.  Shaftesbury Barnet Harriers: Objects to the removal of the diving pool.

Representations to the Mayor of London

16 In addition to those representations received by the local authority, the Mayor received 32 letters objecting to the proposed development. Some of the respondents submitted additional information in support of their initial letter. The main issue raised by objectors is the loss of the diving facility, despite the popularity of the sport among young people in Barnet; the lack of nearby facilities; and, the loss of other sports and activities that are facilitated by the diving pool, including synchronised swimming, water polo and aqua aerobics. Concerns were also raised about the validity of the financial viability and cost assumptions for the replacement facility.

17 As indicated earlier in this report, the Council has resolved to provide land and partial funding towards the reprovision of a standalone facility for diving. The loss of the diving facility has therefore been satisfactorily addressed. Legal considerations

18 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. Financial considerations

19 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

20 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

page 5 Conclusion

21 The strategic issues raised at consultation stage regarding Green Belt, climate change and transport have been satisfactorily addressed, and appropriate planning conditions have been secured. As such the application complies with the London Plan, and there are no sound reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this particular case.

For further information, contact the GLA Planning Unit (Development & Projects Team): Juliemma McLoughlin, Assistant Director - Planning 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] Sarah Considine, Senior Manager - Development & Projects 020 7983 5751 email [email protected] Shelley Gould, Strategic Planning Manager – Development Decisions 020 7983 4803 email [email protected] Andrew Payne, Case Officer 020 7983 4650 email [email protected]

page 6