81 homes and sports facility at The Springhouse, Corringham

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing sports club and fields, building replacement sports facilities with floodlighting, and constructing 81 homes with access, parking and landscaping.

“This full planning application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing sports club and all associated buildings including removal of hardstanding and playing fields. Permission is also sought for a replacement Sports and Social Facility (Use Class E), including Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with flood lighting, and associated facilities and 81 new homes (Use Class C3) with associated parking and landscaping.”

“PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing sports club and all associated buildings including removal of hardstanding and playing fields. Replacement Sports and Social Facility (Use Classes E & F2), including 3G Pitch and flood lighting, and associated facilities and 81 new homes (Use Class C3) with associated parking and landscaping.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the replacement facilities, housing contribution, sustainable location and planning obligations acceptable, with affordable housing and some contributions found unviable.

“The proposal would allow for the replacement of the existing and ageing sports facilities would a purpose-built new sports club and would allow for significant improvements when compared to the existing facilities. The proposal would make better use of the space at the site and would also allow for residential development on part of the site which is necessary as enabling development to fund the new sports club and its uses.”

“The 81 dwellings provided through the re-development of the site would contribute to the Council’s housing land supply and identified housing needs. The site benefits from a sustainable location and is within in easy access of Corringham town centre.”

Officer report

Objections and support

Objections concerned amenity, noise, pollution, traffic, parking, drainage, wildlife and loss of open space, while petitions were received both against and in support.

“Loss of views • Loss of light • Loss of privacy • Devaluation of property • Amenity impacts • Noise • Air quality / Pollution • Increase in crime • Loss of parking for the sports club • Drainage connection into unadopted Frost Estate • Impacts on infrastructure • Impacts on local wildlife • Loss of field • Traffic and parking impacts…”

“A petition with 69 signatures has also been received in support of the application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The chair summarised a written objection, and statements were made by a ward councillor and the applicant.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed construction phasing, financial delivery, consultation, community access and timing, while supporting the importance of the sports facilities and noting education concerns.

“Members queried who will be able to access the sports club. The applicant confirmed that social functions will remain for members only, however wider functions would be open to everyone.”

“Members were in favour of the scheme, adding that they thought the sports facilities were important for the community and would add value to the local area. Some Members expressed concern regarding the education objection.”

Minutes

The vote

Nine members voted for the recommendation, with none against and none abstaining.

“Recommendation That the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to GRANT permission for the development subject to those items set out in section 16 of the report namely: A) Completion of a s106 Obligation Agreement and B) Planning Conditions…”

“For (9): Councillors Fletcher, Sisterson, Cherry, Jones, Kelly, Liddiard, J Maney, Panjala, Shinnick Against (0): Abstain (0):”

Minutes