Removal of parking condition at Moneyfields Sports Ground, Portsmouth

What was proposed

The application sought to remove the overnight parking condition from permission for sports, community and residential development.

“Construction of: community facility in a part single- & two-storey building to accommodate sports & social club with function hall, bars, kitchen, plantroom/cellar, offices, changing rooms/WCs, boxing ring, gym, spectator stand, two classrooms, ticket office, tea hut and AGP playing pitch & floodlights/fencing (up to 8m high) with provision of new access from Moneyfield Avenue to car park (no.”

“Permission granted under section 73 takes effect as a new, independent permission to carry out the development as previously permitted subject to new or amended conditions. The new permission sits alongside the original permission, which remains intact and unamended. It is open to the applicant to decide whether to implement the new permission or the one originally granted.”

Officer report

The site and current facilities

The sports site has a completed clubhouse shell and several operating facilities, but its café, classrooms and offices remain unfinished.

“The application site is the sports and clubhouse facilities of the Moneyfields sport site development. It should be noted that the original consent granted permission for housing as well as the facilities in question, with that housing exceptionally allowed, noting that the relevant land was in use as part of a playing pitch site. This was thus enabling development to provide relevant funding to support the continued operation of the Moneyfields site as a sports site.”

“Since the grant of the relevant permission, the ownership of the site has been divided with the residential element delivered by a private housebuilder and the sports facilities now owned and run by PITC (Pompey in the Community, a charitable organisation). PITC have taken on the obligation to deliver the sports facilities in line with the planning permission and all other planning obligations associated with the development of the site.”

Officer report

Ownership and earlier decisions

Financial difficulties led to the application, following an earlier refusal to change the same condition while other amendments were approved.

“The application, through seeking to remove Condition 13, is inviting the Council to reconsider the original approved proposal as a whole, against current policy and circumstance and determine whether the scheme would be equally permissible without condition 13 being attached. The requested removal of condition 13 results in no physical changes to the development and is concerned with technical details and site management.”

“Most notably, this application follows a previous application to amend the condition in question (condition 13), but also to amend the design/layout and remove requirements for formal building efficiency certification under reference number 24/00096/VOC. This application was decided by committee in June 2024, and a split decision was issued, which approved the other amendments, but refused to amend condition 13, for the following reason:”

Officer report

Consultation and public views

Sport England and Highways made no comment; one supporter cited community services, while five objectors wanted resident parking retained.

“One support comment was received, which acknowledges the services provided by PITC since the redevelopment of the site and considers that it would unfortunate if these services were degraded through compliance with Condition 13.”

“Five objection comments were received, which can be summarised as wishing the original permission to be upheld and parking provided to residents due to existing strains in the area, and previously being able to park at the facility before its redevelopment.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke, and Councillors Darren Sanders, Leonie Oliver and Kadir spoke against the application.

What members discussed

Members recognised the organisation’s positive work but said parking delivery was the applicant’s responsibility and the condition remained an essential public benefit.

“At the meeting held on 17 October 2018, it was the applicant who proposed the condition. It was noted that the reasons for proposing the condition at that time were not necessarily relevant to the determination of the application before the committee at this hearing. Members had been clear, however, that overnight parking for residents had been regarded as an essential public benefit when the condition was originally imposed.”

“Members’ Comments Members acknowledged the positive work undertaken by PITC and agreed that it was important for the site to be secure. How the parking provision is delivered was, however, a matter for the applicant.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because the applicant had not sufficiently justified removing overnight resident parking and weakening the scheme’s public benefits.

“Members agreed that, in order to ensure the continued delivery of wider public benefits, the condition should remain unchanged. It was also noted that the applicant had been aware of the condition when taking on the site.”

“RESOLVED that the application be refused. REASONS The applicant has not sufficiently justified a departure from Condition 13 to provide overnight parking for residents, the public benefits of which would be weakened by the amendment sought and would therefore fail to provide adequate public benefit required to make the overall original proposal acceptable.”

Minutes