Development Committee - Thursday 26 February 2026, 6:15pm

Development Committee
Thursday, 26th February 2026 at 6:15pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Votes

Speaking:

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you.

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

Start of webcast

Share this agenda point

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Share this agenda point

Webcast Finished

Select an agenda point

Scroll with video

Disclaimer: This transcript was automatically generated, so it may contain errors. Please view the webcast to confirm whether the content is accurate.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the Double Appellate Committee meeting.

My name is Councillor Atbar Hussain.

I'll be chairing this meeting.

The meeting is being webcast live on the Council website and the public and press may follow

the meeting remotely.

I will ask everyone to introduce themselves shortly, but before I do that, I would like

to briefly confirm the protocol for addressing the meeting, including the virtual meeting

procedure.

Participants must address the meeting through myself as a chair.

If you are participating online and interesting me, you must switch your microphone on and may also switch on your camera at that point.

You should keep your microphones and cameras switched off at all other times.

Please do not use the meeting chart facilities. Any information added to the chart facilities will be discarded.

If you experience any technical difficulties, you must contact either myself or the Democratic

Services Officer as soon as possible.

I will now ask the committee members to introduce themselves.

Please can you also state any declaration of interest that you may have in this agenda

item and the nature of the interest.

I ask from my right, Councillor Chaudry.

Thank you, Chair.

And good evening, everyone.

I am Councillor Poulam, Chief of Children of Laroual.

Nothing to declare.

Councillor Mark Francis from Bow East Ward, no declaration.

Councillor Shafi Ahmed from the Whitechapel Ward, nothing to declare.

Council Member Rahman, we have nothing to declare.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, members.

Just for the sake of transparency, I'd like to declare that while I was a committee member

of a cultural recreation back in 2022 and 2023.

I think somewhere in the middle of 2023,

I visited the site as a committee member with officers,

but nothing had materialised at that time.

No informal decision was made.

It just recently made, the formal decision came through,

came through, came through just recently, very recently.

I have no involvement in formal decision making process.

Thank you.

Thank you for that transparency and I understand about the reasons that this was not a decision

that was made.

But can I just ask in the interest of transparency whether the director had drawn up plans or

was asked to draw up plans for this asteroid pitch while you were a cabinet member?

No, nothing had.

No decision, no planning at that time in place.

Thank you.

Which I didn't ask about planning I asked about the directorates whether the directorate itself had

had

Was drawing up plans for a synthetic pitch at that stage in 2023

Could I ask

Juho rally Kenny, mr. Ali Kenny come from on this Kenny coming on that

So the plans for Football Foundation who are the sponsors for this pitch were submitted in January 2025.

And so the drawings and all of that would have materialised when Councillor Kamal Hussain was cabinet member.

Thank you for the clarification. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Francis.

Now to apologies.

Fatima, do you have receiving apologies for absences?

We have received one apology from Mafida Bustin.

I didn't die, Tim.

Mafida Bustin is speaking in objection with regards to this application.

Can we approve the minutes held on the 26th of November 2025?

Thank you, members.

Agenda item 3 are the recommendation and procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance.

I will now ask Paul Beckenham, head of development management planning and building control to

present the guidance.

Over to Paul Beckenham.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair.

Good evening, chair, members, members of the public and officers who are joining us this

evening for this meeting.

This item on the agenda sets out the standing advice for determining planning applications,

including the legal advice that decisions must be made in accordance with the relevant

development plan policies and material planning considerations.

When we go on to consider the reports with recommendations, the procedure for public

speaking will go as follows.

So I will introduce the item with a brief description of the application and a summary

of the recommendation.

Officers will then present the report.

And then anyone registered to speak in objection can address the committee for up to three

minutes each.

And anyone registered to speak in support, including the applicant, can address the committee

for up to three minutes each.

And then the committee can ask points

of clarification of the speakers.

Committee will go on to consider the recommendation

including questions, debate,

and further advice from officers.

And then the committee will reach a decision

based on a majority vote,

and I'll confirm that decision back to the chamber.

In the event that the committee proposes changes

to certain aspects of the officer recommendation,

for example, to add, delete, or amend

planning conditions or obligations,

then the task of formalising those changes

is delegated back to the director

of planning and building control and in the event that the committee did not accept the

officer recommendation, they must state their planning reasons and propose and agree an

alternative course of action.

The committee may be adjourned briefly for any further planning or legal advice and the

task of formalising the committee's alternative decision is also delegated to the director

of planning and building control.

If the committee proposed to make a decision that would seem to go against the provisions

of the development plan or could have any legal implications, then the item may be deferred

for a further report from officers dealing with the committee's proposed course of action.

Chair, there is an update report that's been published and circulated to the committee

this evening.

And that just deals with some additional representations that were received after the main agenda item.

And I'll deal with that when we come to that part of the agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul, for the guidance, presenting the guidance.

Agenda item 4, deferred item, and we have no deferred item to consider tonight.

Agenda item 5, the planning application for decision, we have one application to consider

this evening.

Item 5 .1 is planning application for proposed development of Steppendale Street, London

E14.

So it's the 14 .3bx page from 27 to 48.

I now invite Paul Bakkanam to introduce the application.

Paul, thank you.

Thank you, chair.

So as the chair has mentioned, this is a planning application affecting a site at Steppendale

Street on the Isle of Dogs and the application proposes the creation of a synthetic turf

pitch with associated features including a spectator area, installation of gold storage,

storage container, 4 .5 metre high perimeter fencing, 2 metre high acoustic barrier, additional

gates and LED flood lighting system.

The recommendation to the committee this evening is to grant planning permission subject to

conditions.

Chair, I did mention there was an update report, so with your permission I'll just highlight

that now.

Thank you.

So we received additional representation from a local resident post publishing the main

agenda that raised concerns regarding the possible impact of the proposed development

on two children with diagnosed neurodevelopmental disabilities who are understood to live in

properties in the vicinity of the site, although no specific addresses or medical evidence

has been provided. And the representation drew attention to the council's statutory

duties, not just under the Planning Act, but also under the Equalities Act 2010, Public

Sector Equality Duty and the Children Act 2004 to safeguard and promote welfare. So

So just responding to those, the detail is set out in the report, but the Committee will

know that equalities are a consideration for all decision -making, including planning decisions.

There's no formal requirement for standalone equality impact assessment, but anyone making

the decision must have due regard to the relevant equalities impacts at the point of making

that decision.

We've considered, sorry, officers have considered the matters raised in the representation.

They particularly relate to the potential for noise and disturbance arising from the

development and how that may affect on those children that were mentioned in the representation.

Officers are satisfied on the technical evidence that the mitigation measures proposed through

the designer's scheme will protect the amenities of the surrounding area as a whole, including

occupants who may be more sensitive to noise.

And then in terms of the Children Act 2004, this places a general duty on the council

to ensure its functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote

the welfare of children.

There's no automatic requirement for a formal safeguarding assessment to be undertaken as

part of the planning process because planning legislation is concerned with the use and

development of land.

as committee members will be aware.

However, nevertheless, the concerns raised have been noted.

And where individual safeguarding

and welfare issues arise in connexion

with the implementation of development,

these are more appropriately addressed through engagement

between the developer, effective families,

and the council's director of children's services,

rather than through the planning decision itself.

So, you will see that there is an update

in the recommendation, just to say that in the event

that the committee does agree with the officer recommendation, we would suggest an additional

informative is placed on the decision notice with regard to those matters concerning that

engagement between the applicant, the affected families and the council's director of children's

services.

There are other planning issues raised in the representation, but these have already

been dealt with within the main body of the report.

There was also a comment around the publicity of amendments, but we have done quite a thorough

cheque around our publicity arrangements and we're satisfied that those were dealt with

in accordance with statutory requirements and the Council's statement of community involvement.

I think that just draws to a close what I was going to say on the update report.

It doesn't change the substantive nature of the recommendation, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you Paul for updating, presenting and updating reports on this.

I will now invite Nick Graves, Planning Case Officer to present the application.

Over to Nick.

Thank you Chair, thank you members.

So this application relates to an existing natural grass pitch.

The proposal would replace the existing grass pitch with a synthetic turf pitch.

And ancillary equipment would be installed including new LED flood lighting.

A bit about the site location.

The site is located within Millwall Park, adjacent to Steppendale Street.

The site boundary also includes a gravelled area and a pedestrian path to the south of

the pitch.

And that's on the image on the screen, highlighted by this red wiggly line.

The site is bound by allotment gardens to the north and the rear gardens of Irmond House.

Steffendale Street to the east and the Isle of Dogs family hub and wider Millwall Park to the south.

Woodshoot Farm and Park is located to the west.

This image gives an aerial view of Millwall Park for context. Millwall Park is designated metropolitan open land.

The rectangular pitch is located in the north -eastern corner of Millwall Park, quite visible in that aerial image.

The pitch itself is separate from the main expanse of the park to the south.

The pitch has not been available for public hire since around 2021 when it was closed for renovation works due to an uneven and unsafe playing surface.

However the pitch is still lightly used informally and by dog walkers.

Some more contextual views of the site. This is looking up Steppendale Street North. You can see the pitch on the left hand side and the perimeter fencing which is 5 metres high.

Some more contextual images of the site.

The top left image is the east section of the pitch and its boundary with Steppendale Street with the fencing there.

The top right image is the gravelled area to the south of the pitch.

The bottom right image is views into the pitch from Steppendale Street.

and the bottom left image is on the pitch itself looking north.

So the proposal would replace the existing grass pitch with an all -weather playing service.

The new playing surface would support a variety of pitch arrangements for football, including

line -a -side, seven -a -side and five -a -side. The pitch would include cross -play line markings

to allow up to three five -a -side football games to occur concurrently if needs be.

As well as football, the pitch could also be used for rugby training.

The new pitch would look similar to the indicative image on the right.

The proposal includes the installation of ancillary equipment, including a storage container,

new fencing and six lighting columns to support the LED flood lighting.

The lighting columns would be 12 metres in height.

The existing 5 metre high perimeter fencing would be replaced with 4 .5 metre high fencing of the same appearance.

A 2 metre high timber acoustic barrier would be installed along the boundary with Steppendale Street and along the northern boundary of the pitch.

These are some indicative images of the insular equipment, the floodlighting, the 4 .5 metre

high fencing and the storage container that would be within the pitch area.

During the course of the application the proposal was revised due to concerns about the height

of the proposed acoustic barrier. This has been reduced to two metres and set in from

the boundary with Steppendale Street. A soft landscaping strip would also be introduced

along the boundary in front of the acoustic fence. This relationship is shown in the cross -section

drawing on the screen for context where the people are in the image that is supposed to

Steppendale Street. So the existing low black railings at the back of the pavement along

Steppendale Street would be retained and repainted. The soft landscaping would sit behind the

railings and then the timber acoustic barrier would sit behind the soft landscaping and

And finally the new perimeter fencing would surround the pitch.

The proposal also includes an on -site biodiversity area created in the northern section of the

site between the pitch and the site boundary.

This image is roughly where that would be.

This is in the northern section of the existing pitch.

This area would include new planting for biodiversity purposes.

In terms of public consultation, the surrounding owners and occupiers were notified and the

site notice was displayed.

In total 14 letters received in support of the proposal.

These were largely from local sports clubs and community groups.

Representations made in support noted how the proposal would allow year -round access

due to the all -weather surface and that the new facility would enhance opportunities and

access through underrepresented groups.

Forty -six letters were received objecting to the proposal.

This included a petition signed by local residents.

The issues raised were mainly the impact on neighbouring residential amenity in terms

of increased noise disturbance and also light pollution from the new flood lighting system.

Local residents also raised concerns about the impact on our local highway network in

terms of increased pressures on on street parking from future users of the facility.

In terms of planning assessment the proposal has been assessed against development plan

policies regarding metropolitan open land and community facilities.

The new pitch would replace an existing pitch.

The proposal does not therefore constitute a change of use.

The proposal would re -provide a facility for outdoor sport

which is an appropriate use for metropolitan open land.

The proposal is appropriate to the context of the site

given its established use for sports and recreation.

In terms of community facilities,

the new all -weather pitch would allow year -round usage.

New flood lighting would extend usage into the evenings, particularly during the winter

months.

The new facility would be used by local clubs and community groups as well as being available

for general hire.

The proposal would therefore enhance an existing community facility and enable wider community

access.

The proposal is acceptable in terms of land use in accordance with relevant development

plan policies.

In terms of design and public realm, the proposed ancillary equipment is considered appropriate

for a sports pitch of this nature.

The primitive fencing is similar to the existing fencing.

It would replace and would maintain visibility into the pitch.

As noted, the acoustic barrier has been reduced in height to two metres and set in from the

boundary of Steppendale Street.

This is a more considered response to the public realm along Steppendale Street.

In summary, the proposal is an acceptable form of development in terms of design in

accordance with the relevant policies.

In terms of neighbouring amenity, the separating distance from the pitch to the façades of

the properties that directly face the site on Steppendale Street is approximately 20

metres.

This is considered to be a distance more than sufficient to maintain good levels of privacy.

Notwithstanding this, the introduction of a 2 metre high acoustic barrier along the eastern boundary would screen the pitch

and stop any direct views after the site towards residential properties opposite.

As such there would be no undue amenity impact in terms of overlooking privacy or enclosure.

In terms of the proposed flood lighting, the lighting is designed to minimise glare and light spill.

The flood lighting would only be operational when the facility is in use.

For example, if there are no bookings at 8pm, then the lighting should not be operational.

The lighting would only be needed during months with shorter daylight hours.

The Council's Environmental Health team have reviewed the proposed flood lighting system

and raised no objections in terms of lighting impact on adjacent buildings.

In terms of noise, a noise assessment was submitted in support of the application.

This includes a predicted noise emission from the pitch based on noise level data from various

spotting activities such as men's six -a -side football, football training with 22 players

and rugby training.

The noise levels of these activities were measured at similar pitches elsewhere in the

country.

The maximum noise levels generated during these activities would typically be people's

spices when shouting, noise of ball impacts when hitting the fence and noise from whistles.

The predicted external noise levels on the pitch are measured 4 .5 metres above ground

at the facades of the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the pitch.

This is the facades of the properties on Steppendale Street near the junction with Kingfield Street

and the ground level within the gardens of surrounding properties.

The assessment also includes predicted internal noise levels in those properties near the pitch.

The new facility will be used more intensively than existing and the predicted noise levels from the pitch are therefore expected to be higher compared to the existing situation given that the pitch is not currently in use.

In terms of whether the noise would be at an acceptable level, the noise map on the

screen now shows the noise levels around the pitch.

The yellow sections are where the noise levels could exceed 55 decibels, which the assessment

considers to be the threshold for the onset of noise annoyance.

Noise levels below 55 decibels, which is indicated on the map of the blue and green areas, are

considered to be acceptable levels. The three yellow dots on the nearest noise -sensitive

facades, these are the properties measured to be the closest to the pitch, indicate a

predicted noise level of 56 decibels at 4 .5 metres above ground. That would represent

to one decibel change above 55 decibels.

It should be noted, however, that a noise level change between one and three decibels

is considered to be negligible or barely perceptible to the human ear.

The predicted external internal noise levels from the pitch have been assessed as acceptable

by environmental health and within acceptable noise levels outlined in the local plan.

It is also noted that there is nothing in planning terms that could prevent an increase

in noise levels occurring if the pitch is used again in its current form.

Finally with regards to the acoustic barrier, there were concerns about the height of the

acoustic barrier as originally proposed. Working with the applicant and Environmental Health

to test different barrier heights, it was found that there would be no perceptible difference

with a lower barrier. Given the dominant visual impact of a 4m high barrier along the Steffendale

Street boundary, a lower 2m high barrier was considered to strike a better balance between

visual and residential immunity.

In summary, the proposal would not give rise to any unacceptable immunity impacts in terms

of noise, vibration, lighting, outlook, privacy or enclosure.

In terms of car parking, the local highway network is a controlled parking zone with

residential permits between the hours of 8 .30 and 5 .30 Monday to Friday.

The controlled parking zone is highlighted on this image in red.

Users of the facility and Millwall Park in general can therefore park in the evenings

and at weekends on surrounding streets.

The Council's highway team raised no objections to the proposal.

A travel plan would be secured by condition to ensure there is no negative impact on parking

bays and to ensure users of the facility use public transport.

In addition, to encourage further sustainable transport options, it is considered that some

level of cycle parking should be provided for the facility, details of which would also

be secured by condition.

So in summary the proposal is recommended for approval.

In recognition that the new facility would be more intensely used than existing, the

following conditions are included to mitigate amenity impacts.

And hours of use condition limiting the use of the facility to 9pm to ensure no undue

noise and disturbance during night time hours.

The proposal had originally proposed a 10pm curfew.

Usage of the facility limited to 50 people.

That includes players and spectators and referees.

No amplified and or unamplified music at any time.

And a lighting management plan to ensure that the proposed flood lighting

remains acceptable in terms of light spill.

Thank you very much.

Happy to take any questions from members.

Thank you, Hanik, for presenting the application.

I now invite Oliver Paunter to introduce the Committee in objection to the application.

He has up to three minutes.

Can you hear me more?

Just a note that if councillors are inclined...

Search and

priority

counsellors, can we

ask them to

swap over to your

spaces, please.

Thank you.

Thank you so

much.

Can you

come forward?

I was just saying,

before I

start, I

appreciate the

Councillors

that have

presented

their

presentation

to support

what our

views are

and you

do not

to get lost in what we're saying.

I've done a quick, basically I have my speeches

and my resident speeches here.

If you'd like a copy, I'm obviously gonna speak,

but you can actually have a copy of the speech as well

if any Councillor before us would like it.

Sorry, I'm afraid that can't be allowed.

Sorry?

I'm afraid that can't be allowed.

You're wanting to circulate.

Only officers can present.

Sorry.

Okay.

Are we not allowed to hand you documents at a time?

Okay.

That's fine.

You've done this before, I don't understand why,

I don't understand why counsellors from the city

can't be given a job such as my place.

Sorry, it's considered to be a form of lobbying.

So, it.

Well, we've just had lobbying from the officers.

No, no, no, they've presented an application

and they're not expressing a personal view.

Okay. I accept this decision tonight but I really think it's not right that people are not allowed to give written materials.

They can send materials in advance. There doesn't seem to be any real reason why we shouldn't be able to be given a piece of paper in the committee.

I would like an explanation in writing and I'm happy to have further conversations in between our next committee.

It doesn't seem appropriate.

I feel very passionate because we're just at a weighted presentation.

Obviously, so naturally it's either side is going to be weighted.

And it's a fifteen minute presentation when I can only speak for three.

So it's a very disproportionate amount of time when we're talking about an unbiased process.

Or meant to be.

But I'm...

I understand, but does she really explain?

No, of course, maybe it's lessons learned. It's just maybe something to take forward

Thank you

Also, just one further question with maybe potential inaccuracies, which isn't your fault with the report

We able to comment on that separately. I

Appreciate he said he opened up to counsellors for questions, but I appreciate that we're not counsellors

where is the opportunity to question inaccuracies with the presentation that have only just

been presented?

So the way the presentation, you'll have your three minutes to make your representation,

and that can be however you wish.

So it can be however you want to present that is entirely up to you, of course.

But once you've finished the presentation, then committee members may indeed have further

questions that they'd like to ask you or the officers.

So unless it's a counsellor question, I'm not able to respond directly outside of the

three minutes to the presentation I've received.

Because obviously I've only just seen this, so I've already prepared my speech.

If there's something that you wish to raise in connexion with what's just been presented,

then of course you can raise that, but it has to be within the three minutes.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Oliver and I am speaking on behalf of 86 residents who live directly overlooking

the site and have signed the petition demonstrating clear and widespread concern.

Residents are concerned about the planning harms but also that this proposal does not

demonstrate value for money at a time when Tower Hamlets is under formal audit scrutiny

for financial management.

The application contains no need assessment, no utilisation evidence, no cost benefit analysis

and no long -term maintenance plan despite the high level cost of synthetic pitches.

It also requires off -site biodiversity credits, which will be a two to three times cost, and

complex engineering on peat and high water, ground high water.

This lack of justification is a central concern.

But now turning to planning matters.

First, this is a protected open space, as noted in the presentation.

Although historically marked as a grass pitch, this has long been used safely for child's

play, casual football, dog walking, and community activity.

The policy D .OWS3 requires protection and enhancement of open space.

a fenced bookable surface removes the very informal recreation the space already provides and cannot replace for it.

Second, there is no justifiable evidence of need. We are not opposed to sports provision, but within a one -minute walk

there are already nine existing pitches when split and divisible,

four natural grass pitches, two 3G and three Astro. The applicant has provided no evidence of unmet demand that justifies intensifying provision in their location

and the presentation did not include the full street which shows all related pitches. So it's a biassed slide.

Third, residential amenity impacts are significant.

Six, 12 -metre floodlights running until 9pm would face directly into multi -storey homes.

The applicant's own noise modelling predicts levels reaching a threshold of significant

annoyance, which is not acceptable under WHO, even after mitigation.

The 2 -metre acoustic barrier was chosen for visual reasons because, and quoting their

own report, the scheme cannot protect the residents from the unacceptable noise and

lighting which conflicts with policy D .DH8. Fourth, transport and parking measures will

worsen. The proposal is car -free in name only. Users can legally park on surrounding residential

streets during evenings and weekends. Policy requires developments not to increase parking

pressure and this clearly will. Finally, flood risk and environmental concerns.

The site is already designated as a high flood risk, flood zone 3. Over 41 cubic metres of

water will be held above ground within the enclosure, draining slowly due to the

astro, heat and high groundwater. The drainage strategy does not assess

displacement impact on nearby homes, allotments, habitats, biodiversity gain

and relies solely on off -street site credits or minor enhancements in site

because the on -site delivery is not allowed. In summary the proposal duplicates existing

sports provision, removes valued informal green space, harms local amenity,

increases pressure on residential streets which is at capacity,

introduces flood, noise, light and ecological risks

and crucially does so without demonstrating sufficient local need,

justifying financial decisions or providing value for money.

And on behalf of the residents who asked me to speak,

I respectfully ask the committee refuse this application.

Thank you.

APPLAUSE

Thank you for speaking and objecting of the application.

Can I now ask Hetan Rajguru to just to continue objecting.

And you have up to three minutes when you are ready.

So chair, councillors, thank you for this opportunity for me to speak today.

Hi, my name is Hetan.

I live opposite the proposed development,

and I speak on behalf of my neighbours and local residents.

So we all value this part of Millwall Park.

It's a well -used, much -loved green space.

Local residents have recently planted new trees

and made environmental improvements,

which support the aims of the council to protect open space

and promote community well -being.

But turning this area into a fenced,

artificial plastic pitch with 12 metre high floodlights would take away this space for many locals.

This feels like a step backwards.

Many of us also feel that the planning process has not built trust.

Several residents who live the closest to the site did not receive letters and were not told about changes to the plans.

many only found out the true scale of the proposal through neighbours, not through official comms.

Official letters were only sent after petitions were raised.

And for a development this large, in such a sensitive residential area, this is worrying.

And there are also serious environmental concerns.

The preliminary ecological report confirms the site borders Mutchup Park,

Mutchup Park local nature reserve, as well as two sites of importance for nature conservation,

which are Mutchup Farm and Millwall Park, both being sensitive ecological areas.

The report shows potential impacts on protected species, including bats, and requires bat roosting

tree assessments, which will come at a cost. And the flood lighting would also conflict with

professional lighting guidance as bright high coloured temperature floodlights will disrupt

bats and insects. Lighting this site until 9pm right beside a local nature reserve does

not fit with protecting wildlife. And then the biodiversity net gain assessment shows

the habitat would fall significantly with a deficit of 0 .93 units. This means that the

extra offset credits will have to be bought elsewhere

at a much higher cost.

And this challenges further the value for money.

And furthermore, the significant flood risk,

as my fellow resident mentioned,

raises understandable concerns for nearby allotments,

natural pitches, and challenging, once again,

habitats along the edge of the reserve.

In summary, the site is protected open space, it borders a natural reserve and two conservation areas.

It has long been recognised as highly sensitive and unsuitable for intensive development.

We are not against improving facilities, but improvements should be shaped with the local community in mind and reflect value for money.

Something like a family picnic area or a rose garden or simply open space as it is, but

not simply presented as a finished plan with no consultation.

And for this reason, we respectfully ask the committee to refuse this application.

Thank you.

Thank you for speaking in opposition to the application.

Rajbir, now I invite Councillor Peter Gold to address the committee and objection to

the application.

You have up to three minutes, Councillor.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

I formally must make declarations of interest.

I have nothing to declare regarding this other than the fact I'm the Ward resident, I'm the Ward Councillor, a long term resident

and clearly as a Councillor for many years I know many of the people sitting here.

This application is frankly, and I cannot understand why we've got the idea of the lighting,

firstly everybody is correct, these were football pitches but of course there was no flood lighting there.

So historically people played until darkness and as football is particularly played in the winter

we're talking about they will play up to about 3, 4 and at the most 5 o 'clock of a winter afternoon.

We're going to have this with the flood lighting going on considerably after that time.

There is an example very close by, Oliver mentioned pitches nearby and of course you've got those at George Green School

and I would invite anybody to go to Island Garden Station when the pitches are operative at George Green School

and you will hear the people playing, you hear them shouting for the ball to each other, you can hear the ball firing

you can hear the call back and you can see the lighting from Island Garden Station

but of course if it's at George Green School there's no houses or properties nearby

you've got effectively a dual carriage, not a dual carriage, a very wide road in front

You've got the school and you've got Island Gardens Park.

There's not residents affected by this.

This is incredibly close up to an extremely densely populated area.

Indeed when it was first football pitches, the houses there weren't, as we see, multi -storey houses,

weren't several floors, they were little cottages, the little dockers cottages you would see in Chapel House.

single storey what you see in Kingfield, Bilson Street, they're single storey houses.

Now you've got properties that go one, two and three storeys

and you're going to have these lights, however concealed, in people's bedrooms.

And it is not a wide road like Manchester Road, this is a narrow roadway

so people are pushed up very, very close against it.

The other example for those living in Steppendal Street is the appalling basketball pitch

which has a problem of being used by elements, sometimes in the summer, 24 hours a day.

There are Facebook competitions that come to Steppendal Street and play basketball at 2 and 3 in the morning.

People may shake your heads but I've been raising this for years and I have the correspondence and I have the advert.

People on the Schooner Estate, people living on Steppendale Street, people living on Manchester Road

complain constantly about this. The noise and the lighting for what we have here will exacerbate that.

My view is it should be left as green space as it is. Certainly set it out for football.

Young people can play football but we don't need the flood lights, we don't need the noise.

We certainly don't need this ugly wall because you walk down Steppendale Street and you've got a beautiful view.

You don't need a great big high wall ceiling everything off.

So I would urge members please to consider this carefully and reject the application

this evening.

Thank you.

May I now ask Councillor Murphy de BAST in TLC committee an objection to the application?

You have up to three minutes.

Thank you, Chair.

and I have no declarations of interest other than to say that I was first made aware of this application in

2024

Which I'll come back to in a second. What I want to talk about is about the poor consultation that's been held with residents

I'm not talking about the planning consultation statutory consultation

I'm talking about the council as an applicant who should be promoting best practise in consultation

It has been appalling.

Two years ago I was first made aware of this application.

I said to the officers, consult with residents.

It's really important that you consult with residents.

What have they done? I'll tell you what they've done.

On the website, council website, let's talk.

We all know about that consultation hub.

Did they use that? No.

They put it on Facebook.

They put a form on Facebook that my resident Habiba,

who lives in Urmson House, which you need to show

and you need to be asking questions about, because that bats right onto the pitch.

She knew nothing about it.

I've submitted members' inquiries.

What consultation's been done? Who have you spoken to? Who are these residents?

I've had responses. Oh, we did something on the Samuda Estate.

Samuda Estate is 20 minutes walk away.

No one on the Samuda Estate cares what's going on in Millwall Park.

Oh, we did consultation in Asda. Who did you speak to in Asda?

People come from Stepney to Asda, they come from Mile End to Asda.

Did you speak to local residents? No, they did not.

Erm, Ernst & House, I've mentioned, please ask a question about Ernst & House.

If you can bring that up on the map, I think it's really important to show that there.

I also want to talk about usage. So, when I first started talking to officers about this two years ago,

women and girls wasn't mentioned. It's only suddenly arisen.

women and girls is going to be made a priority apparently.

Well how many women and girls football clubs are there in the borough?

There aren't any on the island, that's for sure.

So how many are actually going to be using this site?

The report talks about community use.

When is that community use going to be given?

At eleven o 'clock in the morning, nine o 'clock in the morning,

when we know that actually this is going to be,

This is all about money. This is all about...

Sorry?

You've got 30 more seconds left.

I've got 30 more seconds because I'm timing myself. Thank you.

The final thing I want to say.

So, in 2024, when I was first made aware of this,

the discussions that were being had were about discussions of turning that pitch

into a five -a -side floodlit pitch with investment from the FA.

Sorry, Chair, but you were cabinet member for Culture and Recreation at that time.

You should not be sitting on this application.

Thank you, Councillor.

My position was explained and clear.

I had no involvement in decision making.

I just made a visit.

Okay, so can I

Can I now invite I

Asked that the staff chair I respect you as a chair of this committee. You've been a good honourable chair of this committee

but I

Really think that we need a ruling from legal that the someone who was the cabinet member at the?

genesis of this project

To be sitting on the committee

If I was in your position chair I would not be sitting in a decision on this committee.

Can I ask for a view from legal please?

Thank you.

Hello, everyone.

We are back in the business again.

Sorry for taking longer than expected.

I have a statement to make.

Until May 2024,

I, Councillor Iqbal Hussain,

was a cabinet member of culture and recreation.

I was aware of the intention

to put proposal forward to Steppendale Street as a community member.

Since becoming chair of this committee, I have not been involved in the development

of proposal and believe that I can determine this application with an open mind.

However, taking advice from the legal team in the interest of the fair, robust and transparent

decision -making process.

I have decided to leave the committee on this occasion

and ask my BASHIO, Councillor Amin Rahman,

to chair the committee to finish this business tonight.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Can I just thank you for making that decision.

I think it's the right decision.

There's no question in my mind about your integrity,

but this is about perception, as you know,

and so I think it's a really good decision to have made.

Vice Chair, I have another query I'd like to make but I'll let you settle in first.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening, everyone.

My name is Councillor Ayman Rahman.

I'll be chairing the meeting now.

Mr Francis.

Thank you very much, Chair.

So I guess thinking about what Councillor Hussain has just said and noting how this

is the Council's own application, it's coming forward from the Executive, from the Mayor.

So I have a question to ask and note that the Mayor's Sports Advisor is also present

in the room as well.

So this is clearly an application that has the support of the mayor presumably of the cabinet as well

So there's a member of the cabinet

On the committee as it stands at the moment. So I would like to ask if this

Application if this proposal has been discussed

I don't think it's been discussed at cabinet, but if it's been discussed at the mayor's advisory board, which is the private meeting of cabinet

Would you like to answer the question?

Tim Clee, Head of Culture, Capital and Projects.

It hasn't gone to any MAP meetings.

No.

Members of advisory board meetings.

And what has it been any cabinet meetings or anything like that

Sorry no

Has it been presented to the mayor and his counsellor would you like to address for me, please?

If it's been presented to the mayor and this team

Has it been

Bill onto this question

So I think that's a good point.

I think that's a good point.

decision to send something through to this committee and then a cabinet member sitting

on that decision.

Isn't that predetermination?

I think we've been advised that it wasn't presented to cabinet, so there should be no

cabinet members involved in that decision.

That's my interpretation of what we just heard.

If I could just clarify that with Mr Allee.

This is not going to map and nothing would go to cabinet without going to map first.

So we are not aware of this going to cabinet.

Stephanie will not go to map.

These are all public meetings.

Let's carry on.

Is that okay?

I invite

Moana Mohammed to address the committee

in support of the application.

You have up to six minutes.

Good evening.

I won't take six minutes, I promise it will be

two.

Good evening.

My name is Moana and I am a player

I am a player from a

women's football team

based here in

Tower Hamlet.

My team won the mayor's cup that was organised

It is how

I have come to be here.

As a woman

and girls football club,

we support

the plans for a new

3G pitch

at Steppendale Street.

Having access to safe,

welcoming and good

facilities isn't just

about football,

it is about

confidence,

belonging.

Having the

space where

they can grow

both on and

off the pitch.

At the moment,

it is incredibly

challenging to

find a way

pictures that are truly suitable for women and girls. We often struggle to book spaces that feel

safe, comfortable and designed with our needs in mind. We are starting up a new Tower Hamlets

Women's League at Stepney Green and this was only possible because one of the men's league gave us

their booking. You talk about how many women's teams are actually going to use this facility,

we currently have five teams in this league and we're going to expand it to eight if we get the

space. A dedicated hub for female football in the borough would make a real difference and make us

feel valued, currently always having to ask the men to move about.

It would give our players a reliable place to train, play and progress, and it would

help us bring even more girls and women into the sport.

We also welcome the plans for acoustic screening and improvements to the changing pavilion.

These features may seem small, but they go a long way in creating an environment where

our players feel secure and respected.

Women's football is growing, but some players are self -conscious of their body image.

The screening will allow them to express themselves, knowing that people will not be looking at

them from outside. A pitch that's well maintained, well used and well lit will

also make the wider area safe for the whole community. As a women's football

team we do not have safety concerns about travelling to Island Gardens to

participate in this activity. We're also pleased that the project encourages

sustainable travel and we encourage most of our players to walk, cycle or use

public transport to get to training and having facilities that actively support

and promote greener ways of travelling feels like a real positive step for the

club and the community. We are happy that this site is closed to Island Gardens

DLR and several busses go past Manchester Road. Finally, we are committed to helping promote the

new pitch so that local girls and women know it's a safe space for them. By working together on

outreach, taster session and local partnerships, we can make sure the benefits of this development

reach as many people as possible. For us, this project isn't just about football, it's about

fairness, equality and equity and providing the right spaces so that women and girls in Tower

Helmets can take part in sports with confidence and pride. We believe the new 3G pitch will bring

and lasting benefits to local residents and help strengthen the future of female football in our borough.

At the moment there just isn't. We play second fiddle to the men.

In all these pitches that you talk about and all these opportunities, there isn't a facility for us to play in,

to practise in, to train in. We can't get regular bookings anywhere.

Women in Talwahamut feel like second -class citizens and you can change that right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Excuse me, excuse me, if this carries on we'll have to tell the people in the gallery to leave.

It's not fair, no, no, it's not fair. Look, you can't speak to the people from the gallery.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Guys, I'm going to tell the people in the gallery again, you're not allowed to discuss like that and shout over.

If you carry on doing that, we are going to have security in the room.

If you're going to carry on doing that, after me telling you guys about three times now, we'll have to have people removed from the room, because we cannot carry on business like that.

I'm not talking to you, I'm not discussing anything with you, just to let you know. I'm not here to discuss anything with you.

Just to understand, are we on hold while security are coming?

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Back to business now.

Do members have any questions for officers, applicants and objectors?

Councillor?

A question for the objectors first of all.

So a couple of questions in fact,

and maybe the councillors might want to respond as well.

Is your objection in principle to the use of this piece of land

as a football pitch, bearing in mind that it hasn't been used

as a football pitch really at all over the last few years,

or is it about elements of the physical changes to the land that you're objecting to most of all?

Thank you, Councillor. So from my perspective, that pitch has been used as a football pitch for many years.

The thing with this application that makes it inappropriate for the area is the floodlights,

the usage of it late in tonight and also the

Impact that it's going to have like 50 people

Playing football is going to have a massive impact on neighbouring properties and I would urge you to look at

Empson house in the location of that

Thank you, thank you very much counsellor I reiterate what I said at the meeting when it was a football pitch earlier

I don't think people object it because a football pitch

there was no flood lighting so it operated on the time when there was natural light around.

But this now to do the flood lighting till late at night with the artificial, well into the evening,

with the artificial lighting, the sound barriers and everything, it changes it completely

from what was an open space where people play to something much more almost industrial.

I think there's a culmination was an X factor of seven points, which I think we

sort of went through. I think it's one the point that it's already in use

and the use case is already there, that it's being used daily by residents. I think

we've also got the flood of the Astro, you've got the lighting issue and then

you've got the acoustic issue which I counted six different policies that it

would be in breach of. Obviously you can take their report and just listen to

but their own surveys define that they are unmanageable levels and if you take into account the

the

disabled child

That is in breach of D DHA. That's factual. That's not that's an impartial point to make

so it's mainly the points of

There's a use already there and the effects are all negative to the local residents. Thank you

So you made a point briefly, I think, about I didn't think that there was any evidence

of demand for this because there are other pitches that are nearby.

I just wondered if you could elaborate what evidence you have that there's not demand.

bearing in mind what we've heard from a representative of one of the women's football teams in the

borough.

No, thank you, Councillor. I think the first thing to say is, I think the lady's left,

but it was great to hear her own enthusiasm for women's football and I, and I'm sure

other residents encourage her to use the current facilities. I think the point is, and I think

it's been classed as lobbying, if I show you, but Google Maps imagery of the local

area will show that there's nine existing pictures and the bidding

process for I think she was noting that there was a issue with booking the

spaces I'm sure that's not a sexist process I'm sure that's linked to

existing teams and if that that doesn't feel related to planning there is a

provision the local Astro and 3D space has availability the local parks have

availability and residents who are actually in present here book that space

formally and there are slots available throughout the week and at the weekend

which they could use. So I believe my residents have no issue with

them using our facilities it's the point that we have to look at value for money

we have to look at existing amenities and is this actually being used for the

amenity it's being described for or is that just an added benefit which has

been pulled in since objections have been taken place but that's me

being impartial not saying that's the reason. Thank you councillor.

Can I add as well, I often walk through Millwall Park, like in the evening, and a lot of the

time the football pitches in Millwall Park aren't in use.

So I know that's anecdotal, but you know, there is an under usage of the current facilities.

Thank you, chair.

Thank you, for your presentation.

My question is to you.

The issues raised mainly

centre around

residential

amenity in terms of

noise

and light

pollution

and impact on

the local

highway network

as a result

of the use of

the facility.

How do you

justify this

one?

And my second

question is to

you.

There's a lot

of physical

changes,

yes.

Does it

contradict

with planning

materials

material consideration.

These physical changes.

Sorry, could you just clarify the second question?

Switch on your mic, please, Councillor.

Switch your mic on, please.

We have seen a lot of physical changes here in this project.

Does it contradict with our planning material consideration?

For example, two -metre high historic barrier, 4 .5 high -pandemeter fencing, a lot of things,

these physical changes have been changed.

that does it to contradict with our planning material consideration.

So I'll start with the second question first.

So in terms of the impacts on I guess the street scene,

the design of the facility or the changes to the facility,

so just to be absolutely clear what we're talking about,

we've got, whilst there is a new perimeter fence,

there's an existing five metre high sort of mesh wire fence,

that will be replaced by a 4 .5 metre high mesh fence.

The key difference really is going to be this acoustic fence which again for clarity at time of the application being submitted

This was four metres high

Through amendments during the course of the application that came down to two metres

So two metres is kind of I mean

It's basically a typical garden fence pretty much and that would be running along the side of the facility along

Steffendale Street all the way along Steffendale Street where the pitch is there'll be that two metre high fence

then that would actually be slightly set back from the existing footwear.

Do you think you could bring it up on the screen?

There's a cross section

which Nick will bring up to show how it's been designed.

What I was just mentioning is that there's a set back, it's about 0 .8 metres

and that would have

a bit of soft landscaping in.

It's not the best cross section but obviously the taller element there is the floodlight

and then you can see, it's not entirely clear but you can see that there's the 4 .5 metre

high fence and then the yellow bit, that's the acoustic fence and then the green is the

soft landscaping and then you move into the existing footway if that's clear.

So just to answer the question in terms of the impact on the street scene, we don't think

there's an overly adverse impact on the street scene arising from a two metre high fence

and soft landscaping.

We don't think that there's any adverse impact that would justify recommending refusal on

design grounds here.

And then, sorry, first question.

So you mentioned in terms of the impact on residential amenity and you put out three

specific points.

So you said the lighting, you said the noise, and the highway, sorry, yeah, of course.

So starting with the lighting, obviously there are flood lights there and that is new.

Undoubtedly that's going to cause impact in terms of light of the area, which will, as

we've set out in the presentation, that's going to go on to, can be go on to nine o 'clock

if the pitch is booked.

If not booked, then it should be turned off,

and that would be secured by a condition.

It's been assessed, we have a team in the council

that looks at light pollution in particular,

and they've looked at that, and they've said that

the way that it will be designed means that

the glare will be kept to a minimum,

but undoubtedly there will be additional lighting impacts,

but they haven't raised any objection on this point.

In terms of the noise, to be clear,

we've got online of people we've got to see the presentation there, we've got Yale Sherlock

who's a member of the environmental health noise team.

Let's just turn his camera on there.

So his team that we consult them, they provided comments on the application.

Essentially as Nick pointed out in the presentation earlier, a noise report was submitted with

the application and it set out where the areas of impact would be over and above the existing

situation and the impacts of the two metre high

acoustic fence and the attenuation that that would provide.

And essentially the conclusions of that are that

it isn't gonna be resulting in what we would consider

to be undue noise impact in this location.

And if you want Yale could expand on that further,

that's why we've asked them to attend tonight

in terms of the assessment that's been undertaken

by council officers, but we, as Nick again

that are set out in the report is three specific things

that I suppose were looked at,

which is in terms of the noise levels

at the nearest residential facade.

So like the properties, that's taken at 4 .5 metres height,

so to mirror the height of a first floor window.

Then we're taking measurements in amenity areas,

so that means gardens,

and then we've taken predicted noise levels

of internal noise that would arise

during the use of the pitch in a worst case scenario.

So that's basically the most intense use of the pitch.

That's been measured by the report

and checked by our Environmental Health Noise Team.

And they've said they don't have any objection

and it's not going to result in any undue,

unacceptable levels of noise that you wouldn't expect

in a location like this.

Highways, or with a facility like this rather,

highways, so our highways,

we've obviously consulted our highways team

and one of the key points about this application

is in a very accessible location.

It's five minutes walk essentially

from the Ireland Gardens DLR.

And we're gonna be securing a travel plan via condition

and the intention of that is that we want the applicant

to work hard to promote sustainable use of the facility.

So one of the other things we're gonna be doing

is increasing the amount of cycle parking around there

and essentially they're gonna have to provide

information to us if consent were granted,

demonstrating how they are going to try and promote the use of sustainable travel via members.

So they're going to be basically told to encourage people who are using the pitch to not bring cars.

Inevitably people will still bring cars, obviously we're aware of that.

But our highways officers have looked at it and looked at what they understand to be parking stress in the area.

Again, they haven't raised an objection on that front.

So that's essentially where we've got to in terms of our officer recommendation.

On that note, can I ask you a question?

So if the lights and the noise conditions were getting out of hand and there was complaints

made, can that condition be reviewed again?

In terms of the conditions, so there isn't necessarily a condition that's going to control

noise, there's just anticipated noise and we're saying that with the mitigation of the

acoustic barrier we don't think it's going to be at unacceptable levels. What we do have

though is essentially a condition which is going to set out like the operational use

of the facility and within that it's going to, for example, what was already mentioned

about limiting the amount of people that can come in and use the pitch at any one time.

And then also there will be things like no whistles policy and no audible music policy

or no amplified music policy which will be secured as part of the condition.

So there will be policies in place about how it should be used,

but for example if there's noise over and above that, that would constitute...

Yale would probably be a really good person to answer that question in terms of like

how that would if there were complaints about noise from the facility that be his team that would look at those complaints and

The process that they go through so it could potentially be something that he could be bringing brought into

Answer the question on that

Before I go to you council, I can ask a question to the applicant

so is it a disuse football pitch currently that you're trying to

make it into a football pitch that is going to be used?

Can you explain that a bit?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, currently it's a disused football pitch.

Back in 2021, the Council received significant funding from the FA

to get the pitch back into use.

After the investment, because of ground conditions,

the pitch was still unsafe, and so it has not been used for football

for several years, but historically it was a football pitch.

So this plan looks to get football back into use using a safe surface that will enable multiple hours of usage.

Previously being a grass football pitch, the maximum amount of usage allowed on grass is seven hours.

So grass pitches in the UK, the guidance said you shouldn't play more than seven hours and so that's a limiting factor.

When we looked at the space and the tower hammers being densely populated with very

limited amount of open spaces and green spaces, we looked at the best combination of surface

that would provide good quality opportunities for people to play at a standard level and

at a higher level and that's why a 3G surface was the option in discussion with the Football

Foundation.

I think it is a question

for the officers too.

I think one you touched on

already.

I just want to understand the fact

about the 50 people limit.

You also mentioned

there will be spectators.

We want to know

whether the pitches

include those spectators

or otherwise.

If you have a football

tournament, you expect it to

have more football.

Is that possible?

the case, number one. Number two question is the lighting in the objection letters,

the lighting had one of the concerns was the lighting pollution. Could you clarify what

that kind of pollution would be? Thank you.

In terms of the first question, yeah, the 50 limit would be everyone on the pitch. So

that would include spectators.

It would include team managers,

if there's a training session,

it would include a referee,

if there's a referee involved.

So yeah, that person limit would be everyone involved.

Obviously we don't know if it would ever

get to that amount of people at any one time,

but that's the condition that would be involved.

And number two, the light,

if I understand the question correctly about light spill,

As I mentioned, the flood lighting will be designed to prevent as much spill as possible

from outside of the pitch in terms of where the flood lighting is pointed and the specific

design of the lighting.

And that will be secured by condition to make sure that flood lighting operates in that

way.

If that was the question you were asking.

Sorry, follow up chair.

If there's an element of pollution there, or what was on it,

from the lighting itself?

Well, no, it's been assessed by environmental health,

there's no adverse impacts on adjacent buildings,

so I mean, I don't know if you can rule out any kind of light spill,

but it's been assessed as being an acceptable level.

Paul, would you like to comment?

Just to clarify with the Councillor, I think when we talk about light pollution, we mean

the effect of the light itself on people's amenity, not pollution, for example, in an

air pollution sense or anything like that.

I've got a question for the objectors.

If there was a strict condition on the lighting, the hours and the management was done properly,

would that address your concerns?

I think to speak first on just being objective and impartial with the lighting, I think it's

I'm happy to be corrected by the officer but I believe it's incorrect to say there's no

conflict because it does conflict with ILP GN08 which is lower lighting near

habitat habitats and following the preliminary ecology assessment which I

believe officers carried out they identified that there are potential bat

roostings and being a local resident I can I can attest I see bats locally

although I'm not an ecologist or arboriculturalist I think it's obviously

it's better, undoubtedly, than being blind at 9pm at night, but I think naturally it is already a space that's currently in use.

The lighting is an additional problem which we don't currently have. Obviously the acoustic is, as their own survey, again being impartial, just referring to what their survey has noted,

It is seen as an above, sorry, and the change in noise level is predicted to result in significant

observed adverse level effect.

So it's the point of, I don't think the objection is the fact of that being there in the first

place, it's the fact of what effect it has on residents and being impartial or irrelevant

of being a resident myself, it's not in line with planning policy and if I was an officer

Another council i wouldn't have gone forward with this as a motion irrelevant of being a objector

Chair if i may add

Since the petition was submitted to the planning team

Residents have been collecting more

Signatures in objection and they've got almost a hundred now and that will continue i'm sure

But what i would say in answer to your question is that because the consultation

Consultation by the applicant has been so poor. We don't know what the local people would feel about it

The consultation hasn't asked people what they think about it

And I would add like the there has been no consultation on the biodiversity

impacts on mud shoot farm either. We have a representative from the farm here tonight if you wanted to ask that as well.

Thank you, I've listened carefully and I gave up my report, I was trying to scroll on my phone, the report of people speaking with the pictures, I can see them up there.

My view is that the more I hear of it, I think the consultation was deeply flawed. For the life of me I cannot understand why something was set up on the Samudra Estate or in ASDA,

which the Smooterer estate is a way away and as Councillor Busting said attracts people from all over the borough and elsewhere

when it would be probably easily done to have set the consultation up at somewhere like say Calder's Wharf

which is a walk of a almost in the vicinity. I think the consultation exercise is flawed.

I think having spoken to people recently, more concerns are arising.

So yes, I understand what is being said, but I think that the whole situation we've got now is so flawed,

it might be better to go back to the drawing board and go back further and consult properly

and see what can be done involving residents as opposed to us sitting in this building this evening.

That's fine. Question for the officers. Can you bring up a picture if you have from where the football pitch is going to be to the first resident's property?

Do you have anything like that?

I think this site location plan would be the best we have in the presentation about the

relationship of the pitch to the properties along Steffendale.

Yes, so the football pitch is here obviously with the whereby busses and then we've got

Steppendale Street, so a road and then the properties are on the opposite side of...

From the pitch to the facade of the properties on Steppendale Street is approximately 20

metres.

What about the other side?

Do you know the other side?

The other side of the pitch, that's Mudchute Park and Farm on the other side of the pitch.

There's a lot of trees and then there's the park.

Thank you.

Do you want us to switch your mic up?

Councillor?

Can I ask the applicant, sorry, so the decision...

You have one meeting please, yeah.

Counsellor.

To discontinue the efforts to bring the grass pitch back into use and to go for a synthetic

Astro instead.

Can you just explain to us what efforts exactly were made to restore this as a grass pitch

that could be used again at a relatively decent level

and relatively continuously as opposed to needing to keep on being taken out of use.

Thank you, Councillor.

So in 2021, the Football Foundation gave a grant over £100 ,000 to try and get that pitch back into use.

So the whole grass was new, slitting took place,

levelling out of the ground and seeding to try and address the undulations that made the pitch unsafe for league football in terms of health and safety.

After that process, when the pitches went back, there was still movement and the pitches were cracking up because of the conditions of the ground.

And that's why the council at that time closed the pitches at the end of the 2021 season.

And it's been disused since then.

So when we looked at the pitch again, because football foundations already funded this pitch once,

to go back to them and ask for funding, again, what they've looked at and said,

look, this pitch needs to have something like a synthetic pitch because they can give a 21 -year guarantee.

Football Foundation's money comes with conditions and you have to use their contractors.

Their contractors give a 21 year guarantee that the pitch will be safe and viable

and if it's unsafe they will come in and fix that pitch.

So Football Foundation this time round has given a grant of £350 ,000 towards this pitch

and London Marathon has given a grant of £150 ,000 towards this pitch.

So half a million pounds of the total cost which is just over 60 %

has come from these investors who sports and football is kind of their core bread and butter.

The other advantage when we looked at this, when we spoke to the rugby club, the rugby

club cannot train in Millwall Park because of the seven hour use.

So the decision was made to try and make this pitch into 40 millimetre grass which allows

rugby training and football matches rather than the shorter use.

So looking at the existing clubs that's there

that's trying to grow and survive to help that amenity

with Football Foundation,

we worked on the longer grass to allow those schools.

So from 2021, efforts were made, there's pictures,

there is evidence in the public domain of the dredging

and the works that happened.

Unfortunately, it wasn't viable.

And that's why we looked at the new opportunity.

And we're very fortunate that Football Foundation

in December 2025 agreed to fund this pitch to the tune of 350 and London Marathon in

December 2025 agreed to fund £150 ,000.

Just in terms of the proposal is 3G and so just to understand, do we have an expert opinion

that this pitch can no longer be used as a grass pitch or is this something that because

Because the opportunity is there for the investment from Football Foundation and London Marathon,

but as you say, they won't just fund an attempt to kind of bring the old grass pitch back.

Is that what's driven this in the first place?

So I wasn't around at 2021.

But from what I've read from the papers, when the pitch was deemed unsafe for health and

safety reasons, that's why that project was stopped after the investment of the £100 ,000.

And so when we went back to Football Foundation, because that's recorded on their system, they wouldn't reinvest in that kind of surface if it's become deemed unviable.

And also with the pitch analysis that's done by the local football facility plan, which every local authority needs to have from the FA, it shows that Tower Hamlets has a deficiency of seven full -time equivalent 3G pitches.

So with all of those factors, the fact that we need seven more 3G pitches in line with our population growth,

those were the factors why Football Foundation insisted in working with us on a synthetic pitch.

I ask as well, you've heard the criticism about the consultation, not the planning consultation,

although there might be issues there, but the consultation by the council corporately with residents

to try to make sure that any local concerns were addressed up front.

Do you have a response to that criticism?

All I can say is when I took this picture,

and I joined the council in 2024,

the information that I saw in terms of the consultation

with the core user groups,

which Football Foundation won't fund the pitch unless there's a demand,

because they want the investment to be secure.

So there was consultation with lots of the football groups.

We've got over 100 football teams in the borough.

So a lot of the consultation would be with the primary users,

which is the football groups.

The consultation in terms of direct residence,

it would have been better if there was direct engagement

and letters sent out to the residents who live there.

That would have been a better approach.

But there was consultation done as part of the football development plan.

there was general consultation because this facility would be a borough -wide facility.

We only have a handful of 3G pitches in the borough,

and we've got seven pitch deficiencies in the borough.

But I totally acknowledge by the things that I've heard today, it could have been better.

Saying that, would the local residents be given the first choice to book the pitch?

Tower Hamlets, as our policy at the moment, if clubs and groups do not have 75 % members from Tower Hamlets,

there is two things. One, they are charged a lot more than local residents, and secondly, in the booking scoring mechanism,

they don't get the 10 points that you'd get and almost on all occasions, teams that have more players from out of the borough do not secure slots.

And this was born out in the Stepney Green pitch allocations two years ago,

where there was a lot of fiasco, because some of the groups that had lower numbers of people

wanted access to the pitch and local groups got access to the pitch,

and there's only one pitch and there's only a certain number of hours.

So our process ensures that local residents, local clubs,

and they have to provide the address with postcodes and details of their participants.

That's how we assess it.

Minimum 75 % of the participants have to be from the borough.

So, you know, local clubs do get the priority in use.

In terms of the community usage agreement,

these are usage for local schools,

local community groups where there will be turn up and play,

where people pay two pounds and they can just spend time on the pitch.

So, there are provisions within the conditions

of Sport England's community usage agreement

that will make sure all of the local residents

do have access to this site as well.

I want you to understand, I don't want to put you on the spot, you said there are 7 3D pitches in Hamlet, do you know where they are?

There are 7 pitch deficiency, so when we look at our population, Sport England has a facility calculator which the planners use as part of the local planning framework.

Based on our population, we've got one of the youngest populations in the country, under 30.

So that study, which is done by the local football facility plan by the London FA,

we've also carried out a strategic leisure needs assessment.

The local plan is part of the local plan as well.

That shows that there is a deficiency of seven full -time equivalent pitches.

So that's the deficiency in the borough.

Even with what we've got, that's a deficiency.

We're not going to address those seven pitches in this one site,

and we're probably not going to be able to address all seven going forward.

We've lost the 3G pitch that was at Cross Harbour by the station.

There's a lot of pitches that are going out of use.

There are very few that are coming into use.

So this would be one that would help address the deficiency.

It's okay.

So it's probably only fair to put my cards on the table

and say that I don't think that this has been handled correctly.

I don't think that there's been a level of engagement up front with residents and I think that the council

needs to reflect on that I

Really powerfully think that there I spent a lot of time on 3g on the

Astro pitches and watching for kids football and all the rest of it and I know that there's an urgent need but my

Observations are from my land from Maybelline green where my kids train from other places like box park

These are well away from residential areas and the noise is loud and it will certainly have a bearing.

I need to say that upfront, rather than attempt to mislead you.

Having heard what you've heard this evening, does the council corporately have a view about this finish time of 9 o 'clock?

potentially seven days a week as I understand it.

Is that something that the council corporately

still thinks is the right finish time?

9 o 'clock, sorry.

So our other sites finish at 10 o 'clock.

Obviously based, Mylands, Technigreen, Poplar, Baths,

it's got rooftop pitch.

So the recommendation or the conditions to close at 9 o 'clock

It's something that obviously the council would have to adhere to, bearing in mind in

the summer months, it doesn't get dark until 9 .30 in terms of daylight.

Even in those periods, the council would have to adhere to the conditions of 9 o 'clock.

Members any more questions?

Would members like to share their thoughts or debate on the application?

Councillor.

Thank you, chair.

Though we have lost our grasp pitch, however, the proposed STP raises no land use conflicts

and would provide enhanced opportunities for year -round sports and recreation at the site

through the provision of high quality multifunctional sports pitch.

So I am supporting this project.

Thank you.

So like I say, I really do recognise that there's a really strong demand but also a

need for increased sports facilities across the whole of Tower Hamlets and I don't know

the area well enough to know for sure but I suspect that there's probably a need in

E14 wider area as well.

But I think that this, all that we can do is make a decision on the application that's

in front of us and if it was a better application I might be minded to support it.

If it was an application that was more restricted in terms of time, in terms of its impact,

in terms of light on neighbouring areas and noise I might be tempted to support it.

But I'm really not persuaded to support this application tonight.

I think the kind of the impact on the surrounding area is too severe and I think that if the

process would have started earlier and would have been more upfront I think

that the council itself would have had to take that in on board in the

application so yeah like I say I think I want to see this done but not in this

way it's too it does breach policy and it does severely affect neighbouring

residents immunity so I'll be voting against it

Thank you, Chair.

I understand the concerns of the residents

regarding the proposed multi -purpose astroturf pitch.

I appreciate the importance of preserving our community's character

and addressing issues like noise and street parking pressures.

However, I also recognise the pressing need

for a modern sports facility in the borough to meet growing demand.

Balancing the community needs and the needs of the community

residents concerns and considering all views and evidence

presented during the planning process,

which I am however mindful of suggesting future applications

that there is more, I know officers and applicants have said about

engaging with third party football teams etc, etc,

but I think it's paramount that local residents within the vicinity

of the pitches are consulted and a lesson is learnt from this process

going forward. I will support the application. I believe this proposal presents an opportunity

to enhance recreational spaces and promote healthy activities for residents, particularly

our younger generation. Thank you. Thank you. Due to being in a football pitch previously,

this brings a disused pitch back into community use, which is a clear benefit in an area with

high demands for sports facility.

The impact on neighbours have been assessed, I'm guessing, by what the officers have said.

And there are control conditions, which I'm happy with what I've heard.

For me, overall, the balance is positive.

For that reason, I will be supporting the officers' recommendation tonight as well.

So now I would like to ask Paul Beckenham and Principal Lawyer Planning Service Governance

to share final thoughts before we move on to the vote.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Members, for giving this application the scrutiny that

it requires.

Just in, I suppose, I don't have a lot to add to that, because I think Members have

gone through the issues and have understood them clearly

and come to express their positions.

In terms of the officer recommendation,

this undoubtedly represents an intensification

of the use of the site, and that will,

as you've seen in the report, generates its own effects

on the surrounding area, we recognise the nature

of the residential area, but we have worked very carefully

with colleagues in other services, including highways

and environmental health noise to look at how those impacts can be mitigated to get

the right balance of bringing the site back into beneficial use given what we've heard

about the deficiency overall in the borough, but protecting residential amenities as best

we can, including through lighting conditions and operating hours conditions.

So on that basis, on balance, we were happy to recommend the application to the committee.

Thank you.

For now we will move into the votes.

Can I see all those in favour of the application?

All those against?

Paul, can you please confirm the committee decision?

»» Thank you, Joseph.

The committee voted on a majority vote of 3 in favour and 1 against the grant planning

permission for the redevelopment of the pitch at Steppenale Street in accordance with the

The next meeting will take place on Thursday, 26 March, 2026.

Thank you very much.

// The Chair, just a quick question if it's okay.

Is there any conditions?

Sorry, is that approved without conditions?

Just so I can understand.

Without condition?

With?

Was there additional conditions following policy issue?

Okay.

Thank you.

Please leave feedback relating to the quality of the webcast (i.e. audio visual elements) only. Comments relating to conduct or contributions of attendees or political statements will be deleted.

Required field

Name

Comments

Need an accessible hCaptcha?
Check available options.
Sign up to hCaptcha or Log in to hChaptcha.

By clicking Send feedback, you agree that Tower Hamlets London Borough Council and Public-i can use the information above to review your feedback and contact you about it. See our Privacy Policy for more details.

Development Committee - Thursday 26 February 2026, 6:15pm - Tower Hamlets Council webcasts

Development CommitteeThursday, 26th February 2026 at 6:15pm

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Twitter

Forums

Speakers

Leave a comment on the quality of this webcast

Votes

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Development Committee
Thursday, 26th February 2026 at 6:15pm