The Development Committee of Tower Hamlets Council met on Thursday 26 February 2026 to discuss a planning application for a new synthetic turf pitch at Stebondale Street, London E14. The committee voted to grant planning permission for the development, subject to conditions.

Stebondale Street Synthetic Turf Pitch

The committee granted planning permission for the creation of a synthetic turf pitch (STP) at Stebondale Street, London E14. The proposal involves replacing an existing natural grass pitch with an all-weather surface, including a spectator area, goal storage, a storage container, 4.5-metre high perimeter fencing, a 2-metre high acoustic barrier, additional gates, and an LED floodlighting system.

The existing grass pitch has been disused since 2021 due to deterioration and an unsafe playing surface. The new STP aims to provide year-round sports and recreation opportunities, supporting various football formats (9v9, 7v7, 5v5) and rugby training. The facility will be managed by the Council's Parks Service and accessible via an online booking system, with priority given to local clubs and targeted groups, including women and girls.

Arguments for the proposal:

• Enhanced Community Facility: The STP would bring a disused pitch back into community use, addressing a deficiency in high-quality, year-round sports facilities in the borough, particularly for women and girls' football.
• Improved Accessibility: The new facility would offer greater accessibility and usability compared to the previous grass pitch, which was prone to waterlogging and closure during winter months.
• Sport England Support: Sport England raised no objection, subject to conditions for a community use agreement and a management and maintenance scheme, indicating the proposal aligns with their Playing Fields Policy.
• Investment: Significant funding has been secured from the Football Foundation and London Marathon, demonstrating external confidence in the project's viability and community benefit.

Arguments against the proposal:

• Residential Amenity Concerns: Objectors raised significant concerns about increased noise from shouting, ball impacts, and crowd noise, as well as light pollution from the floodlighting, which they argued would negatively impact residents, including those with neurodevelopmental disabilities.
• Parking and Highway Impact: Concerns were raised about increased pressure on on-street parking due to users of the facility, particularly during evenings and weekends.
• Environmental Impact: Objections included potential harm to local wildlife habitats and concerns about flood risk due to the site's location in Flood Zone 3a.
• Consultation Issues: Several objectors felt the council's consultation with local residents had been inadequate and that the proposal had not adequately demonstrated local need or value for money.
• Design and Overdevelopment: Some felt the proposed fencing, acoustic barrier, and floodlighting constituted overdevelopment and created an industrial appearance out of character with the area.

Decision:

The committee voted by a majority of three in favour to one against to grant planning permission for the development, subject to a range of conditions. These conditions include time limits for commencement and use, details of cycle storage, a travel plan, a construction and environmental management plan, a surface water drainage strategy, a lighting management plan, and a community use agreement. The hours of use were restricted to 9pm, with floodlights to be switched off at that time, and the total number of people on the pitch at any one time limited to 50.

Key Considerations Raised:

• Noise and Light Pollution: While officers assessed that mitigation measures and conditions would prevent unacceptable impacts, objectors argued that predicted noise levels exceeded acceptable thresholds and that floodlighting would cause undue disturbance.
• Consultation Process: The adequacy of the council's consultation with local residents was a significant point of contention, with objectors arguing for a more robust and direct engagement process.
• Demand for Facilities: While the applicant and supporters highlighted a borough-wide deficiency in 3G pitches and the need for women's and girls' facilities, objectors argued that existing nearby facilities were underutilised and that the need for this specific development had not been sufficiently proven.
• Metropolitan Open Land (MOL): The proposal was assessed against policies protecting MOL, with officers concluding that re-providing a sports facility was an appropriate use, provided it did not adversely impact the openness of the land. The 2-metre high acoustic barrier was deemed acceptable in this regard.
• Equality Act 2010: An update report addressed concerns regarding the potential impact on children with neurodevelopmental disabilities, with officers stating that while equalities are a consideration, specific safeguarding issues are best addressed through engagement between the developer and the Council's Director of Children's Services.

Councillor Kamrul Hussain, who had previously visited the site as a committee member, declared an interest and recused himself from the decision-making process. Councillor Amin Rahman then chaired the remainder of the meeting.