Edgbaston Cricket Ground

– in the House of Commons at 9:45 pm on 23 June 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Mr. Watts.)

Photo of Roger Godsiff Roger Godsiff Labour, Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath 10:00, 23 June 2009

I am most grateful to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the redevelopment of Edgbaston cricket ground, which has generated an enormous amount of interest and concern among the communities surrounding the ground.

The Warwickshire county cricket ground at Edgbaston has both a national and an international reputation. There is no doubt that a facility such as Edgbaston gives added value to the city. However, like other sporting venues in the city, including St. Andrews and Villa Park, Edgbaston is located in a primarily residential area—it is described as leafy—so it has to take account of the impact of its activities on the local community, not least in terms of congestion, parking and noise when matches are held. Although some local residents would prefer the cricket club to relocate elsewhere, I believe that the majority are not opposed to the club remaining at Edgbaston, provided its activities do not impact unreasonably on the residents and the local environment.

The planning application submitted by Warwickshire county cricket club towards the end of 2008 was for

"a new stand incorporating spectator seating, player, media and visitor facilities, museum and library, club shop and offices, conferencing, banqueting and exhibition facilities. The erection of five floodlighting columns and lights. Demolition of two dwelling houses at the Cricket Club and twelve houses on Pershore Road. Erection of mixed use development comprising residential, offices and hotel, retail, restaurants and cafes, pubs and bars as well as leisure facilities and a crèche together with service basement and multi-storey car parking and public plaza and hard and soft landscaping".

I think the House will agree that the application was not for the replacement of old, dilapidated stands, but for a major redevelopment of the ground, which I very much equate with the "Chelsea village" concept incorporated in the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge football ground. The club estimated the cost of the scheme at £32 million.

It is acknowledged that the facilities at Edgbaston needed to be improved and updated. Account also needed to be taken of the stipulation laid down by the England and Wales Cricket Board—the ECB—that if Edgbaston wished to host international day-night matches it would need to install permanent floodlighting bases—not floodlighting pylons—at the ground.

When the planning application went to the council's planning committee on 12 May, there was considerable annoyance locally that discussions and consultations with local residents and community organisations had been limited. At the meeting, the planning application was approved by nine votes to four. However, it had already been revealed that for some time the council's cabinet had been in discussions with the club about the possibility that a £20 million-plus loan might be made available to assist with the redevelopment.

As part of the discussions, a report went to the cabinet on 6 April. Its most important point was that if the council did not make the loan to Warwickshire county cricket club, it

"would mean that if this project were to proceed commercial loans at increased cost will be required and would reduce significantly the scale of any...development."

So a request for a loan of £20 million was being made to the council's cabinet before planning permission had been given for the scheme. Furthermore, the report that went to the council reminded councillors that if they refused to grant the loan of £20 million, it would, as I said,

"significantly reduce the scale of the development."

Surely that puts the council in a very strong position in its negotiations with the Warwickshire county cricket club. The question is, therefore, whether it will use its strength to support the reasonable request of the local community, or give in to what the club is proposing.

After the planning committee approved the application, it was notified to the Government office for the west midlands, and there was a widespread expectation that the application would be called in because of the scale of the development and the fact that that development was taking place at a major national sporting arena. Furthermore, there had been an inquiry by a Government inspector in 2000, when Birmingham city council had resisted the erection of four permanent floodlighting installations of 52 m in height at Edgbaston, and the inspector dismissed the appeal by the Warwickshire county cricket club. The five pylons now being proposed are 50 m in height.

The Secretary of State, in her wisdom, decided that the application should be decided by the city council. I believe there was justification for calling in the application. I know that this view is shared by other local hon. Members and local residents and community groups. Will the Minister therefore explain the reasoning behind not calling in the application, when the previous one in 2000 was called in?

Photo of Lynne Jones Lynne Jones Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak

It is not quite correct to say that the previous application was called in, because the council did not determine the application, so it went to appeal. That is how it found its way to the inspector's desk. However, the council said that

"had it been able to decide the application, it would have refused it on grounds that it would have adversely affected the amenities of occupiers of dwellings in the vicinity by reason of noise and disturbance, visual impact, light pollution and glare from floodlighting, and traffic and parking congestion."

The inspector who decided the appeal dismissed it, agreeing with many of the council's objections. That raises the question why the council approved the current application so quickly.

Photo of Roger Godsiff Roger Godsiff Labour, Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the five questions put by the 14 local resident and forum groups in their joint letter of 6 June to the Government office for the west midlands will receive a response, as they are all relevant to the decision-making process regarding the application?

The application is now in the hands of the city council, and in view of the fact that the Warwickshire county cricket club is seeking a preferential loan from the city, I hope that the Conservative-Liberal-controlled council will insist that before any finance is made available, the club engages in meaningful and ongoing discussions with community groups about how to minimise inconvenience caused by the increasing numbers of spectators attending functions and international matches, and most importantly, that the five floodlight pylons are retractable, rather than permanent.

It appears that a local councillor has already attended a meeting that was held by the council leader on Monday, at which he is alleged to have said that he—the council leader—voted against permanent floodlights when he was a member of the planning committee in 2000. It also appears that assurances were given at that meeting that any loan would be conditional upon further "consultations", as the note says. However, it is not stated with whom those consultations will take place.

Above all, nothing appears to have been said at the meeting about the council's position on permanent or retractable lights. I strongly believe that there is a basic pre-requisite for any loan to be conditional upon retractable lights at Edgbaston. When the Department's inspector considered the appeal by the cricket club to erect four permanent floodlight pylons in 2000, he was scathing in his objections. He stated in paragraph 25 of his report:

"My conclusion is that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area".

In paragraph 27, he said that

"their proximity to residential dwellings would be unacceptably dominating for local residents—many houses would become substantially less pleasant places in which to live."

Most importantly, in paragraph 40 of his report, he states:

"PPG 24 which deals with noise from recreational and sporting activities requires that the enjoyment of the participants should be balanced against the nuisance to other people."

He concludes:

"This I have done, and I find permanent lights to be unacceptable."

I assure the Minister that the rest of the report was equally scathing.

Warwickshire county cricket club, in the planning application that it has now submitted, says that it has considered

"retractable floodlight columns which would retract to a height of 25 m when not in use."

However, it then says, according to the council report, that the technology is unproven for cricket's requirements and goes on to suggest, amazingly, that lights at a height of 25 m would be more obtrusive than lights at 50 m. The club finally ends by saying that unless permission were given for permanently erected floodlights, which it proposes, Edgbaston would lose its test status. That is totally untrue and misleading.

We all know that the home of cricket is Lord's, and the ECB operates from there. Lord's has installed four retractable floodlights, which rise to a height of 48 m when fully erected and are lowered to a height of 29 m when not in use. They take approximately 20 minutes to erect. Furthermore, at the Oval, where the president of Surrey cricket club is the former Prime Minister Sir John Major, retractable lights have also been installed. The company that installed both sets of lights is Abacus Lighting, and it has also installed similar retractable floodlights at other sporting venues throughout the world. In a trade magazine article, its head of marketing, Kelly Herrick, makes a potent point:

"Our new patented telescopic masts proved the perfect solution to overcome the strict planning regulations set out by the local authority. The ground is set in a densely residential area so both the design and lighting overspill had to take in to consideration how the local residents could be affected."

That is exactly the situation at Edgbaston.

Of course, it is more expensive to install retractable floodlights rather than permanent ones, but I put it to the Minister that, if the home of cricket can have retractable floodlights to preserve the attractiveness of St. John's Wood for the people who live there, why is the same consideration not to be given to the people of Balsall Heath and Moseley? If Warwickshire county cricket club were to refuse to make those reasonable concessions, many people living in the area would say that the council should not make any loan available to the club; and I, for one, would totally agree.

Photo of Shahid Malik Shahid Malik Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government 10:13, 23 June 2009

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure—indeed, I consider it an honour—to be the Minister responding to this Adjournment debate, as this is your first such debate in your new and deserved role as Speaker. You are responsible for my carrying out an act that I thought was impossible—namely, voting Conservative three times yesterday. But, I believe that it was a price worth paying. I congratulate my hon. Friend Mr. Godsiff on securing this debate about an issue that I know is important to him, to a number of his constituents and to those living in the area.

I shall provide some background to the redevelopment of Edgbaston cricket ground. I know that my hon. Friend recognises that Edgbaston is one of the key international sporting venues in the west midlands region. The cricket club is considered to be one of the largest of the 18 major county clubs that make up the English domestic cricket structure, and the ground has regularly been used as a test and one-day international venue.

The cricket club estimates that average attendance in 2008 ranged from 1,334 for the Friends Provident trophy to 7,958 for the Twenty20 cup. Test match fixtures average between 12,000 and 17,000 spectators per day, and one-day internationals usually sell out at 21,000 capacity. The club calculates that up to 200,000 spectators visit the stadium per year. It employs 78 full-time staff and a further 20 staff for regular events held at the club, and some 600 temporary staff are employed on each international match day.

The club estimates that the major matches staged in Edgbaston contribute up to £12 million per annum to the local economy. I know that my hon. Friend recognises the value of that to Birmingham in terms of the visitor economy and the prestige of hosting international cricket. However, the club believes that it faces increasing competition in hosting major matches. Historically, test match cricket in England has been held at six locations: the Oval, Lord's, Old Trafford, Trent Bridge, Headingley and Edgbaston. Those venues have been able to rely on the substantial income generated by test match status, but other grounds are now challenging their position.

Against that background, Warwickshire county cricket club needs to redevelop the ground to ensure that it scores highly against the requirements of the England and Wales Cricket Board. The club estimates that major matches account for about 50 per cent. of the income that it generates, and that it is critical to both the city of Birmingham and the future economic stability of the club that it continues to be allocated major matches such as international cricket. Therefore, as my hon. Friend said, the club and its development partner, MCD Regeneration Ltd, made a planning application to Birmingham city council on 11 November 2008 for substantial redevelopment of the cricket ground. The proposals include a new, larger stand, an increase in seating capacity by 4,000 to 25,000, permanent floodlighting, and mixed-use development.

The club considers that mixed-use development is critical to generating sufficient funding to support redevelopment of the stadium. It believes that the proposals would create an estimated 3,000 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent jobs. Given the current recession, that would give an important boost to the local economy. According to an initial economic impact assessment, the proposal will generate additional gross value-added growth of some £60 million over the next 10 years. The proposal would align with the policies in the west midlands economic strategy for promoting Birmingham and encouraging investment and development to improve its competitiveness and its standing as a global city.

The permanent floodlighting would be in the form of five metal floodlighting columns about 50m high, which would be cranked just below the halfway point at an angle of 50(o) to lean over the stand towards the pitch. They would replace the temporary floodlights erected on the back of heavy goods vehicles. The club believes that the more stringent facility requirements of the cricket board will mean that venues will remain viable only when they can provide high-grade international-standard floodlighting. It makes comparisons with other grounds that already have permanent floodlights, or that have planning permission for such facilities. It considers that it has taken into account the concerns that the inspector raised in dismissing the appeal on its earlier application for permanent floodlights in 2000. My hon. Friend mentioned that as well.

I know that the inspector was concerned about harm to the character and appearance of the area, but I am aware that the club sought to examine afresh possible lighting solutions, and that in terms of design and materials used, it considers the concerns expressed by the inspector to have been adequately addressed. I also know that Birmingham city council commissioned a report from the Institute of Lighting Engineers, which concluded that the scheme was acceptable and that nuisance for residents should be minimised. The club has agreed to a condition restricting use of the floodlights to 15 days per year and to no later than 11 pm.

Photo of Roger Godsiff Roger Godsiff Labour, Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath

I hope that the Minister will come to the specific points that I asked him about. I am familiar with the arguments of Warwickshire county cricket club; the chief executive has rehearsed them in front of me. I appreciate the Minister's repeating them, but it is more important that he should address the issues.

Warwickshire county cricket club says that the lights will be used for only 15 days a year. Does the Minister not agree that if the lights are erected and permanent, they will be up for 365 days a year? If it is all right for the people of St. John's Wood not to have permanent floodlights and for the people of Kennington not to have floodlights at the Oval, does the Minister agree that it would not be unreasonable for the same courtesy to be given to the people of Moseley and Balsall Heath?

Photo of Shahid Malik Shahid Malik Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Communities and Local Government

During his speech, my hon. Friend focused constantly on the floodlights. Obviously, the 15-day provision deals with the issue of floodlight pollution, although I recognise that it does not deal with the challenge of the skyline.

I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about aspects of the proposal; I was merely doing some background work, for the sake of completeness, before I get to the points that he is anxious to hear about. He is concerned that the permanent floodlights will have a considerable impact on local residents and be harmful to the skyline. He has also raised concerns about the scale of the mixed-use development and the impact on residential amenities. Let me reassure him that all the representations made on the application were taken into account.

My hon. Friend asked why the Secretary of State ordered an inquiry into the previous application for permanent floodlights, but decided not to call in the current application. As my hon. Friend Lynne Jones pointed out, the 2000 application was not called in; it was subject to appeal on grounds of non-determination by Birmingham. A Government-appointed inspector considered the detailed merits of that proposal, and decided to dismiss the appeal.

The current application is different because the Secretary of State is responsible not for determining the detailed merits of the proposal, but—this is crucial—for deciding whether, under the Government's call-in policy, the application should be called in for the Secretary of State to determine or should be left to the local authority.

Our general approach, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath will be familiar, is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless that is necessary. Parliament has entrusted them with responsibility for the day-to-day planning control in their areas. It is right that, in general, they should be free to carry out their duties responsibly, with the minimum of interference from central Government. However, there will be occasions when we consider it necessary to call in planning applications for the Secretary of State to determine, instead of leaving the decision to the local planning authority. Our policy is to be very selective about calling in planning applications. We will, in general, take the step only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved.

The Secretary of State carefully considered all the matters raised by the cricket club application, and had in front of her Birmingham's report to its planning committee. That made it clear that the advantages and disadvantages, including relevant policy issues, had been fully identified and a conclusion reached on the balance of interests. Having considered all that, the Secretary of State concluded that intervention would not be justified. A non-intervention letter was therefore issued to Birmingham on 4 June.

I stand by that decision. It is right that the matters raised by the application should be resolved at the local level. I am satisfied that the issues raised do not relate to matters of more than local importance that would be more appropriately decided by the Secretary of State rather than Birmingham city council. As my hon. Friend may be aware, however, there is still an opportunity for the local community to help shape the proposals. The cricket club will be required to submit detailed applications on issues such as the height and design of the mixed-use development, which will be subject to full consultation. Birmingham city council has also asked the club to form a residents' liaison group to allow issues of concern to be discussed. He may also be aware that before granting consent, the council is finalising aspects of the section 106 agreement, which covers matters including highway improvements and traffic control.

I know that my hon. Friend is concerned that the Secretary of State's decision was reached in a relatively short period. As I have mentioned, the Secretary of State does not determine the detailed merits of an application. In the case of this application, I am satisfied that all the matters raised were taken into account in the light of call-in policy before the decision was issued.

On traffic, the cricket club will be required to undertake necessary junction improvements and prepare a match-day travel and parking strategy and a travel plan. Taken together with the other measures proposed, it appears that there is an opportunity to minimise the traffic impact. I know that Birmingham city council recognises that the cricket club represents a significant amount of commercial floor space in an out-of-centre location. However, it appears to have balanced the conflict with policies in town centres against the benefits to the area of the various aspects of the development. The development plan policies support the development of Edgbaston as a major cricketing venue, and there is evidence of only limited harm to the viability and vitality of local centres and Birmingham city centre.

In balancing those considerations, the council had to take into account the various views expressed both for and against the proposal. Those included the view of Advantage West Midlands, the regional development agency, with which my hon. Friend is more than familiar, that it was a significant proposal that would not only assist in securing international and major fixtures at Edgbaston but have significant economic spin-offs for the west midlands region.

My hon. Friend mentioned the design of the floodlights. For obvious reasons, as I have stated, I am unable to comment on the various floodlighting options available. On call-in, we carefully considered the whole application to decide whether the proposals raised issues of more than local importance, and we considered that they did not.

I realise that my hon. Friend is disappointed by the decision on the application, but I hope that the debate has demonstrated to his constituents and people in the area that they have a powerful advocate on their behalf.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.