Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional Approval.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed construction of a reduced size multi-use synthetic turf sports pitch with a 3m-4.5m high fence and 6no 12m column floodlights.

Applicant: Mr Norman Patterson.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 185 to 222.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Clarification of timings related to Condition 12;

·           Clarification regarding questions raised by Members during their site visit.

Mike Sheldon, resident, spoke against the application. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the local residents association and that in their opinion they were astonished with the lack of detail and numerous inaccuracies contained within the report. He added that the plan and design statement stated that the proposals would be screened from residential properties via retention of trees. Mike referenced an image from a resident’s garden which showed a low level of screening from the proposed site. Mike was of the opinion that the view from Denby Close had been grossly misrepresented, and that a significant loss of privacy for residents would occur if the application was approved, in particular as the position of the pitch would allow teams and coaches or trainers to be grouped on the west side of the pitch near Denby Close. Mike was of the opinion that the 51m separation distance from the nearest residential property to the proposed site was incorrect, with the real distance being closer to 30m. Mike stated that the bat report had included a light spillage assessment but had not referenced issues surrounding noise. Mike was of the opinion that the noise impact assessment had been undertaken using a computer model which had been modelled from a further corner of the proposed site away from residential properties, and therefore it did not accurately account for the noise of a whistle or a hockey ball hitting a back board.

Maria Gee, Ward Member, submitted a written statement which was in opposition to the application. In her absence, Chris Bowring read out the statement. Maria stated that this application differed from similar local applications such as that of Emmbrook School due to the location of the sports facility to nearby residential housing. Maria added that there was no existing sound barrier to houses in Denby Close, and that the noise impact assessment was not, in her opinion, convincing and urged the Council to undertake its own assessment. Maria asked that should the application be approved that local ward Members be involved in developing a noise management scheme. Maria stated that the assessment of effects on bats, a protected species, had only considered light and omitted noise. Maria asked that an additional assessment of the effects of noise on bats be carried out before the application could be considered. Maria cited safety concerns for school boarders and local residents due to the proposed extended hours and the open planned nature of the existing site, as stated that it was essential for a risk assessment be carried out taking into account the change of use from purely school use to mixed school and commercial use. Maria asked that should light spillage caused concerns, that mitigation methods such as additional planting or variation to operational hours be put in place.

Simon Taylor, Case Officer, stated that the pitch would not be full sized and therefore would attract a low crowd participation. He added that the measurements of the proposed site from the residential properties were taken from an aerial view map, and this distance was measured to be 51m.

Bill Soane queried whether fencing could be erected to help screen residential properties from the proposed development. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – Strategic Development Locations and Planning Delivery, stated that fences could be erected if privacy became an issue, however this was undesirable as the fences could create ‘dead land’ between boundaries which could lead to antisocial behaviour.

In response to Member questions regarding the impact the proposed development would have on nearby bat populations, Connor Corrigan stated that the Council’s Biodiversity Officer had not objected to the proposals including when light and noise was taken into account.

In response to Member questions regarding Sport England’s involvement, Simon Taylor stated that Sport England generally promote dual use facilities with extended operational hours in order to promote community health and engagement with sporting activities.

Carl Doran queried who provided the noise assessment and whether it had identified any unacceptable noise levels. In response, Simon Taylor stated that the applicant had carried out the noise impact assessment and had accepted changes to the application by condition. He added that the assessment had only identified the referee’s whistle as breaching the acceptable noise levels, and as this was to be used infrequently it was deemed acceptable in this instance.

Angus Ross felt that the Committee should have been provided with the noise assessment and its findings in more detail. Connor Corrigan stated that the noise impact assessment document was a very technical document, however the executive summary would cover the key findings and could be provided should Members’ wish.

Wayne Smith was of the opinion that the applicant should have undertaken a comprehensive consultation with local residents with regards to this application. He stated that members needed to know more about Sport England’s involvement with the application, for example regarding hours of use.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey asked that the Committee be provided with specific information with regards to which activities are to take place on the proposed development.

Angus Ross proposed that the application be deferred, in order that clarification of separation distances be provided, the executive summary of the noise impact assessment be provided, Sport England’s involvement relating to requirements of the of the usage of the site (such as hours of use) be clarified and clarification of which activities are proposed to be carried out on site be provided. This was seconded by Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey.

RESOLVED: That application 190673 be deferred, in order that clarification of separation distances be provided, the executive summary of the noise impact assessment be provided, Sport England’s involvement relating to the requirements of the usage of the site (such as hours of use) be clarified and clarification of which activities are proposed to be carried out on site be provided.