8.12.2020
Sport England provided most of the funds to enable the Sports Centre to be built. Due to an apparent weakness in the conditions attached to the grant, they were not consulted by Camden when the Dalby Street development was considered. Such consultation was seen to be a matter of "good practice" but Camden ignored that fact.
The exchange of correspondence that took place when they eventually heard about the scheme is set out below along with an email sent by us to Sport England on 25.9.08:
Camden's letter to Sport England of 24.7.08 (see below) contained a statement that was so important and so misleading that it could have had a critical impact on the decision to "stop up" Dalby Street (without which the scheme could not proceed). The statement was "The route through Talacre Park is short, well lit and safe". That the statement was made and that it was untrue was confirmed in Camden's reply to an FOI request - see no 36 on the page "FOI Requests Answered". The park is and has, for several years, been locked at dusk (4pm in December). This means it is not available as a route after dark for pedestrians to the Sports Centre. Sport England received this information when they were in contact with the Mayor who had to make the final decision on stopping up. The park is owned and managed by Camden.
From Sport England to Camden dated 11.7.08
Moira Gibb
Chief Executive
LB Camden
Town Hall
Argyll Street
11 July 2008
Our ref: Talacre/2008/01
Your ref:
Dear Ms Gibb
Residential development on land adjacent to Talacre Sports Centre
I write with regard to the above development which has been permitted and is now subject to a ‘stopping up’ application for Dalby Street as part of enabling works. I am very concerned that the development, if it proceeds, will be of serious detriment to the future operational requirements of the centre and the amenity of the public users of the centre.
Camden Council was not required by any planning statute to consult Sport England on this particular planning application. However, given that the proposals concern a sports facility that is of significant use to the borough, and that Sport England has been involved in the development of the centre, it would have been good practice and reasonable to provide us with the opportunity to comment. It is recommended by PPG17 that it is good practice to consult Sport England on development matters that may have an impact on sports and particularly where residential development proposals may risk the use of open space and built community infrastructure.
I have taken time to look at the planning application and it is my view that the development will seriously compromise the future sustainability of the Talacre Centre and the use of the adjacent recreation ground for the development of sport. I consider that there are a plethora of potential impacts that have not been given adequate scrutiny because Sport England was not provided any opportunity to comment. Had Sport England been presented the opportunity to respond to a consultation at the time of submission, we would have submitted an objection in the strongest of terms. The consequences of the development are such that it is likely we would also have sought to refer the matter to the Government Office for London had the development been permitted against our advice.
In terms of future sustainability, it must be noted that Indoor sports facilities such as the Talacre Centre generally have an accepted lifespan of approximately 30 years. In many cases it is possible to extend the lifespan of such facilities after 15-20 years by refurbishment to ensure that facilities meet modern sports standards. Additionally, the building must also be adapted for compliance with future health and safety regulations. The location of the neighbouring development will undoubtedly cause major constraints for any future major refurbishment and replacement in two ways; firstly, the proposed building will create substantial logistical problems for construction access; secondly, the future occupants of the building will without any doubt seek to exercise considerable constraints on any redevelopment or refurbishment process.
Space constraints mean that the permitted development has only been made possible by the onerous responsibilities placed on the applicant by insisting on manned public safety wardens in and around the entrance of the centre. It must be considered a very unfortunate outcome given that people and vehicles accessing both the new building with underground car park and the centre will have to compete for the same limited space. Further this conflict is exacerbated in the area of the turning circle where pedestrians having has to access a narrow path will have to negotiate an environment that is essentially designed for vehicular activity. I will be a disincentive for many vulnerable users of the centre and it is wholly inappropriate for a turning circle for vehicles to be sited within a few metres of a leisure complex entrance. This layout would clearly not meet Sport England design guidance if it were to be proposed at a new sports facility. The design will clearly cause conflicts in periods of significant activity for servicing of both the apartment block and for the operational servicing of the centre as well as acting as a physical impediment to pedestrians wishing to access the centre
The proposed apartment block will overlook a multi-use games area and a wider recreation area that is extensively and intensively used for sporting purposes. The future of this outdoor area stands to be as risk if there is any identified need to intensify use of the space either by way of extended hours of activity or installation of improved floodlighting. The future occupants of this new building will prove to be obstructive of any moves to alter and improve external facilities of the site. The management of the overall site centre and grounds should not be unfairly constrained by inappropriate neighbouring residential development.
As you will know, Sport England has provided quite significant financial support to the Talacre Centre. The terms by which we provide financial support for such developments are normally that the recipient local authorities should protect our investment and do not diminish the value of the lottery award. I have asked my investment colleagues to look at the terms of awards provided to Camden Council for the Talacre Centre over recent years in order to assess if our investments have been placed at risk by the impact of this development permitted by the Council. Had we been fairly consulted on this application we would have provided on the risk to the applicant and council at the appropriate time. Sport England must ensure that where it has made awards to local authorities that such investments are not unreasonably damaged by other development activities permitted by recipient local authorities.
The Council has an opportunity to pull back from the proposed residential block and serve to protect the Talacre’s future sustainability as a public resource by ensuring that the access road remains as it is now. Once this road is removed and the apartment block built the Talacre Centre will be compromised. I would invite you to consider the development in the interest of both the community and for sports development and abandon the stopping up of the current Dalby Road.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Conal Stewart – Planning Manager
T – 020 7273 1953 E – conal.stewart@sportengland.org
From Camden to Sport England 24.7.08
Date: 24 July 2008
Your reference:
Our reference: C&E/RS/CO/L42
Enquiries to: Rachel Stopard
Tel: 020 7974 5621
Fax: 020 7974 5556
Email: rachel.stopard@camden.gov.uk
Conal Stewart
Planning Manager
Sport England
3rd Floor Victoria House
Bloomsbury Square
London WC1B 4SE
Dear Conal Stewart
Residential development on land adjacent to Talacre Sports Centre.
Thank you for your letter to Moira Gibb regarding the residential development on land adjacent to Talacre Sports Centre in Kentish Town. In your letter you raise a number of concerns about the development for which planning permission has been granted and which is currently subject to a proposed “stopping-up” order (for Dalby Street). You state that if the development proceeds you consider that it would be of serious detriment to the future operational requirements of the centre and the amenity of the public users of the centre.
I would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns.
Your first concern was that Camden Council did not consult Sport England regarding this application. This is correct and as you point out in your letter, Sport England is not a statutory consultee for such an application. You state in your letter that you consider that it would have been good practice to consult you on such an application as “the proposals concern a sports facility that is of significant use to the borough”. I am sorry if you feel that you should have been consulted. We did not consult you because we do not consider that the proposal will have any significant impact on Talacre Sports Centre. It is true that the access arrangements will be different but these changes were not, at the time of the planning application, nor subsequently in considering the detailed changes, considered to be to the detriment of the facility or its users.
In relation to access to the sports centre, consideration of this was a key issue in the assessment of the application and the decision made by this Council. The two separate planning permissions (the second was in effect an amendment to the first application) for this site were granted following a careful assessment of the development including its impact. Permission was in each case granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement which among other things dealt with the necessary “stopping-up” of the existing Dalby Street highway and the new access arrangements that would be put in place. The stopping-up orders were subsequently the subject of a public inquiry headed by an independent Inspector. The Inspector concluded that subject to the safeguards put forward in the agreements the proposed stopping up could be satisfactorily proceed. The Council’s view put to that Inquiry and accepted by it was that access to the sports centre would in fact be improved, not least because of the proposed increased separation of pedestrians from vehicles.
Four detailed access plans were considered by the Inspector as part of the arrangements under the Section 106 Agreement. The four plans describe among other things how access to the sports centre will be maintained and protected both during construction and after. The four plans are:
· the Servicing Management Plan, which addresses servicing and use of the new access road that would replace Dalby Street;
· the Temporary Access Plan, which addresses access to Talacre Community Sports Centre during construction;
· the Pedestrian Access Plan, which addresses permanent pedestrian access to the sports centre, and;
· the Permanent Access Plan, which addresses permanent vehicular access to the sports centre.
The four plans would be made legally enforceable by a supplementary Section 106 Agreement, which the inspector took into account in making his positive recommendation. The particular concerns that you raise were among those thoroughly scrutinised by the Inspector. In relation to your concerns about pedestrian access, I would like to make the following points: -
a) The pedestrian path leading to the sport centre also forms the route to the entrance to the new development, for both the residential units and the commercial use on the ground floor (intended to be a doctors’ surgery). It would be 2.5m wide and would have clear through-visibility between Prince of Wales Road and the sports centre foyer. Under the requirements of the Pedestrian Access Plan, it would be lit to an appropriate standard for heavy pedestrian usage, monitored by CCTV and maintained to a high standard for both structural defects and litter and overgrowth from the park. I should also note that children under 8 are not permitted to attend the sports centre unaccompanied by an adult.
b) The new access road would not have footpaths on its margins and pedestrians would be discouraged from using it. The road is quite narrow and not very long, so vehicles would not be expected to gain significant speed along it. The marshals that would be required at the site under the Servicing Management Plan would be expected to monitor usage and encourage pedestrians not to use the access road, directing them to the footpath instead.
With regard to your specific concerns regarding vehicular access, I would comment as follows:
a) Pedestrians would be discouraged from using the access road; however, it would be well lit so any that did chose to use it would be visible to drivers as already said, the road is not very long, so vehicles would not be expected to gain significant speed along it.
b) Under the terms of the supplementary Section 106 Agreement the marshals would be paid for in advance for a period of two years by the developer. It is also a requirement of the agreement that the developer will deposit a large sum of money in a bank account as a ‘bond’. The Council would be able to access this account should the developer default on his obligation to provide the marshals. Even in the worst case scenario of the developer defaulting on year one, the funding of the marshals would be protected for a minimum of 25 years. The mechanism for securing this in the agreement has been checked and confirmed by a leading Counsel.
c) The road would be private, but the Section 106 Agreements would secure permanent rights of way over it to the sports centre in perpetuity. It would have the attributes of a public highway, but would not be maintained by the local authority. The residents of the new block would not be able to restrict access to the sports centre for any refurbishment works as may be required. The residents would also of course be able to comment on any future planning applications for the sports centre. Any objections or comments received would be considered as part of the normal planning process.
d) The access road is wide enough to accommodate any standard delivery vehicle to the sports centre. Larger vehicles would of course have to make special arrangements for access, but this is a common case in inner London and not unreasonable. The access available would have to be a consideration in planning any major refurbishment.
The above being the case, it is not surprising that the independent Inspector as well as the Council’s Development Control Committee and the Executive (Environment) Sub Group who have considered the issues in detail have all concluded that access to the sports centre has been fully and properly assessed.
I hope this reassures you that the Council followed the appropriate procedures in relation to the proposed Dalby Street development and took full account of and carefully considered the potential impact of this on the Talacre Sports Centre.
This also took cognisance of the fact that the Centre is now well established and has built up a large (growing) and loyal following of local people, which we do not believe will be affected by the proposed development. Last year there were just under 250,000 visits and the gymnastics club is now the largest in the country with over 1500 members and a large waiting list.
To ensure that our customers stay loyal we will provide full information about the development process and the alternative access arrangements (during and after the works) well before the proposed development gets under way. There will also be new, public parking provision in nearby Talacre Street for families with young children to drop-off and pick-up from the Centre. The route through Talacre Park is short, well lit and safe.
The success of Talacre is a reflection of our commitment to providing high quality facilities and services in general for our residents and visitors. The huge investment we put into Swiss Cottage Sports Centre a few years ago has seen annual visits there increase to over 1m and it was recently voted the best sports centre in London by Time Out Magazine.
We believe that Kentish Town Sports Centre will be equally as (if not more so) successful and provide similar amenity value once it re-opens in 2010 following its £25m refurbishment. It’s a measure of our strong commitment to sport that a majority of the funding will be made available by the Council. For a borough with significant competing claims, funding of this magnitude is no mean feat and underlines our belief in the value of sport and physical activity.
Our main drivers for all of this are to increase participation in sport and physical activity (in line with our LAA PIs and targets) and improve the health of borough residents. Talacre has a key contribution to make and we are confident that it will, with or without the proposed development.
I have covered all the issues raised in some detail in the light of the very detailed comments you have set out in writing and made public at this late stage. I am concerned that you have taken the step of writing in this way without benefit of a fuller briefing which we would have been very ready to have given you. I think we could have shown you how careful our approach had been. Unfortunately your views including various errors contained in your letter have now been widely publicised. We take our responsibilities as planning and highway authority very seriously, and equally are very concerned at any suggestion that we would take any actions that would harm the success of this or any other sports centre. I think our track record in these areas should have suggested a different approach.
If you have any further queries, please contact Tim Cronin, Development Control Manager on 020 7974 5630 or XXXXX
Yours sincerely
Rachel Stopard
Director, Culture and Environment
From Sport England to Camden 12.11.08. Received after many requests by objectors on 11.12.08
Rachel Stopard
Director of Culture and Environment
London Borough of Camden,
7th Floor,
Town Hall Extension,
Argyle Street,
London WC1H 8EQ
12th November 2008
Dear Rachel,
Residential development adjacent to Talacre Sports Centre, Dalby Street.
Further to the letter sent to Moira Gibb, dated 11th July 2008, and subsequent meeting with you and Fiona Dean, I am writing to confirm Sport England’s position on the proposals to build a residential development adjacent to the Talacre Sports Centre.
You will be fully aware that there is a locally driven movement against the proposals, led by Mr Nick Harding, and he has been extremely active in his attempts to gain Sport England’s support towards the “Talacre under Threat” campaign. Clearly he, with his fellow campaigners is passionate about the Sports Centre and the surrounding area and feels strongly that the proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the access and subsequent usage of the sports facilities.
Following my site visit, facilitated by your colleague, Nigel Robinson, I was left with a level of sympathy for those promoting the argument that this proposed development was inappropriate for the space available and that it has the potential for adversely affecting the usage of the Sports Centre and the facilities in the Park that will be overlooked by the new residents. I do however acknowledge that the Sports Centre will remain visible from the road and that the measures in place to protect the pedestrian access seem entirely appropriate. Can I add that Nigel’s proposal for managing access during construction and for keeping the Centre’s users fully informed seems perfectly acceptable.
Therefore, I do feel that on reflection Sport England is not in a position to formally object, rather we would like to take this opportunity to request that Camden Council make every effort to ensure that the disruption resulting from the development is kept to an absolute minimum and that the Developer contribution on offer is targeted towards the development of sport in the immediate vicinity. We feel this investment should be made following consultation with the local community including Nick Harding. Can I also ask that you keep the GLA informed as I understand they have also been consulted and are mindful to offer an opinion in the very near future.
Can I thank you again for offering Sport England the opportunity to comment and when the next opportunity arises, we are fully briefed on any changes and revisions to timescales.
Yours sincerely,
Andy Sacha
Head of Investment
London Region
T: 020 7273 1959
E: andy.sacha@sportengland.org
Cc: Nigel Robinson
Fiona Dean
Dear Andy
Further to our conversation, I am writing to emphasise how critical I believe the position taken by Sport England could be to the future of the Talacre Sports Centre.
I was pleased to hear that you would be looking at the site. I am sure you will agree (if it is not already apparent) that this development would be a disaster for the Sports Centre. The opposition that I broadly represent, is from those who have contacted me over the months since the public inquiry in January. As far as I know, none of them are affected by the development apart from being supporters of the Sports Centre and the rest of what has been done in the past few years to transform the whole Talacre green space. Although some people have reservations about the development itself, that does not produce the passionate opposition that exists due to its impact on the public amenity, especially the Sports Centre which is seen by all as a huge success
Over the months, I made several attempts to contact Sport England but never managed to get through to anyone. In retrospect, I realise that I should have tried harder since it is far more appropriate that you should be articulating the views of the Sports Centre than an amateur like myself. Not only are you more qualified, but also objectors who are members of the public are inevitably seen as having a selfish “NIMBY” raison d’etre. As you will see from the attached Information Sheet which I keep updated, I have set out what I feel are the main disbenefits from the viewpoint of access to the Sports Centre. However, they are obviously amateur opinions. One thing of interest in looking back, was that the long term impact was hardly thought of until relatively recently. The attitude had been that the Sports Centre would remain exactly as it is with exactly the same users, for all time. All you had to do was to make access possible.
I understood you to say that you had had conversations with the council. I did get hold of a copy of Conal’s letter and the council’s reply. The latter said that there were inaccuracies in his letter. I have reread it and can say with certainty that the only justification for the council saying that is that they disagree on matters of opinion. On facts, he is accurate and he brought out aspects that we had not noticed. I have circulated to all on my data base (ie those who have contacted me over the months) and to all 54 councillors my view that the council is wrong in implying inaccuracy on Sport England’s part.
You should know that it is now impossible to find a single councillor who supports the development, though many will claim it is only of local interest to the wards adjacent to the park. Many buy the council officer’s frequently stated view that planning approval was given and that there was from that point nothing that could be done to change that. We have opposed that view on the grounds that planning permission was conditional on acceptable access arrangements being devised and that manifestly hasn’t happened. Neither, with a development of that size, in that space, could it be devised. Since the public inquiry I have stressed that the council has a duty to “safeguard the public interest” and as a result, the S106 agreement has undergone considerable change. Now, in theory, the owners of the development (flat owners in the future) will have to do anything that is needed to avoid the “public amenity” suffering. Patently impossible but if it were possible, the service charges paid by the flats (already around £9,000 pa for 3 bed flats, due to the marshalling) would be unlimited.
On a different and not entirely frivolous note, you might like to look across the park to the west side when you are there. There is an ugly shed that houses the St Pancras amateur Boxing Club. The site between the existing Dalby St (which goes from the main road to the sports centre entrance) and the railway, would be very suitable for it. The site it is on, is suitable for flats. Perhaps too neat!
Please do not hesitate to ring or email me if there is any help I can give.
Regards
Nick
(I sometimes refer to myself and others as “Talacre under Threat”)
Nick Harding
1 St Anns Gardens
London NW5 4ER