Agenda item - BH2013/03280 - Dorothy Stringer School, Loder Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Installation of an artificial turf pitch with associated fencing and floodlighting incorporating alteration to internal access and landscaping works.

RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE

Installation of an artificial turf pitch with associated fencing and floodlighting incorporating alteration to internal access and landscaping works.

1)                      The Senior Planning Officer, Jason Hawkes introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans, photographs and elevational drawings; attention was also drawn to matters on the Late List and additional representations of support from Councillor Pissaridou and ‘Brighton & Hove Friends of the Earth’. The application sought permission for the installation of an artificial turf pitch, and it was noted that Dorothy Stringer School was part of the wider Varndean campus with an additional secondary and primary school on the site. It was noted that the application site was in close proximity to neighbouring residential properties, and there were other existing playing fields on the site. It was noted that the proposed site of the pitch sloped upwards from to west to east, and the application proposed the removal of two elm trees – both of which were the subject of a TPO and part of the national elm collection. The scheme also involved the alignment of the access to the school from Loder Road, and would involve some excavation works. The pitch would mainly be used for football training and coaching, and other community uses. The pitch would be fully enclosed by fencing and this would increase in height above the goals; it was proposed that this would be an oak and steel mesh type fence. To mitigate the loss of the elm trees on the site the applicant was proposing a series of new butterfly havens and the planting of 30 new elm trees along the rear access to the school.

2)                      The application was recommended for refusal on two grounds; firstly in relation to the detrimental impact on neighbours caused from increased noise disturbance and light pollution. Whilst noise and light assessments had been submitted, and it was acknowledged there was an existing level of noise Officers could not be confident that the increased level of noise would be properly managed. Further information was required in relation to the glare form the floodlights; the applicant had submitted proposed hours for use, but Officers were of the view that these were insufficient to address their concerns; nor mitigate to potential increased noise. The second reason for refusal related to the loss of the two mature elm trees; both were described as ‘magnificent’ specimens with at least 40 years of life left; they were also both the subject of TPOs; part of the national elm collection and free from disease. The significant biodiversity measures proposed, and existing, on the site were acknowledged, but it was considered that these measures did not outweigh the loss of the two existing elm trees on the site. For the reasons outlined in the report the application was recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers and Questions

3)                      Mr David MacDonald and Mr Tom Druitt spoke in support of the application in their capacity as local residents; Mr MacDonald stated that he had lived in Loder Road for 15 years, and added that some of the trees which were proposed to be destroyed had been planted at the same time as others were lost when the sports hall was built. It was noted that Varndean School would also have a new artificial pitch that would be of a much lower impact, and the proposed level of noise would be twice as high as the existing levels at the school and the light impact failed to take account of sky glow or glare. Mr Druitt explained that he had been involved in a recent campaign to protect an elm tree in the Seven Dials area of the city; he reiterated that the trees were healthy; the subject of TPOs and part of the national collection. Reference was made to local policy protecting such trees and the habitats they created. Mr Druitt also felt that the removal of the trees would set a bad example to children, and the felling of them would contribute to the loss of public space. The Committee were asked to refuse the application.

4)                      Councillor Ann Norman spoke in opposition to the application in her capacity as the Local Ward Councillor; she stated that she was representing many of her residents in the Withdean Ward who had concerns both about the loss of the trees and the increased disturbance from the pitch. It was also added that the installation of the pitch would add to the number of car journeys in the area and the use of walking and sustainable transport could not be enforced. It was noted that those groups who had opposed the scheme had not been able to enter into dialogue with the school and, whilst the school was considered a good neighbour, the application was considered inappropriate at that point in time. Reference was also made to the lack of information in relation to light pollution, and the Committee were asked to refuse the application.

5)                      Mr Richard Bradford spoke in support of the application in his capacity as the Headteacher at Dorothy Stringer School; he stated that the school was fully aware of the reasons that the application was recommended for refusal, but was of the view that the benefits of the scheme outweighed these. The application sought to clearly meet an identified public health need and tackle childhood obesity; the facility would also provide an all weather sports facility for the city which due to lack of space in the city needed to be at schools. The area was currently a waterlogged field that was not suitable for use in conjunction with sports. The funding for the project was being sought externally, and the facility would be used intensely mostly for children in the local community. Comparisons were also made with the hockey pitch at Blatchington Mill School, and it was noted that the light spillage would be much lower as the gardens were further away. It was considered that the planting of the new trees would have an impact as 50 new trees would be added the national collection.

6)                      In response to questions from Councillor Gilbey it was explained by Mr Bradford that the school currently had a grass pitch for football, but this could not be used all year round, and the lighting levels from the new pitch would not be above those stated in the report. It was also necessary to have a pitch of this size and specification to add to the existing sports offer at the school.

7)                      Councillor Carol Theobald asked Mr Bradford if the pitch could be installed without the removal of the elm trees, and in response it was explained that the trees would have to be removed to accommodate the fully size of the pitch which the funding agreement sought.

8)                      Councillor Duncan asked for more information in relation to biodiversity losses and gains at the site; Mr Bradford explained that the school had introduced 28 new species of butterfly and 100 new species of plants through its biodiversity measures, and the school had also retained the chalk on the site to increase biodiversity. The school was committed to this type of biodiversity and the scheme would add an additional 50 semi-mature trees.

9)                      Mr Bradford confirmed for Councillor Jones that the rationale for the location of the pitch was that the site was currently unusable and below the main grass pitch.

10)                 In response to Councillor Shanks it was confirmed by Mr Bradford that he was unaware of any new pitch at Varndean School, but there was already an Astroturf pitch at that school; it was also noted that the school had held a week long public consultation to discuss the application. The Case Officer also confirmed that the pitch at Varndean was smaller and was not served by permanent flood lights.

Questions for Officers

11)                 It was confirmed for Councillor Shanks that the primary use of the open space was as a school campus, but there was some public access in the evening and at weekends.

12)                 In response to Councillor Wells the distance between the buildings and the proposed pitch was confirmed.

Debate and Decision Making Process

13)                 Councillor Wells stated that he felt the pitch could be accommodated on the site without the need to remove the elm trees; his most serious concerns were in relation to light pollution and the loss of the two elm trees – he also added that on the site visit he had observed a number of other wildlife features around the trees that would be lost. He felt that the gains of the additional trees would still be at the loss of the two existing ones on the site, and this could not be justified. Councillor Wells stated he would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

14)                 Councillor Hyde noted the benefits to public health that the scheme would provide, but she felt the loss of the trees was not acceptable. Her biggest concern related to the amenity of local residents, and the pitch would add a whole new sphere of use at the schools in evenings, weekends and out of term time that would change the situation for local residents. The fencing would also change the use of the fields and the outlook. In summary Councillor Hyde that the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the losses.

15)                 Councillor Carol Theobald noted her own views that school fields should not be used for walking dogs, and she went on to say that the light pollution would be very bad and she objected to the loss of the elm trees; she would be voting in support of the Officer recommendation.

16)                 Councillor Duncan stated that he felt the Officer recommendation was correct and agreed that the trees should be protected.

17)                 Councillor Shanks stated that the decision was difficult, but she disagreed with Councillor Ann Norman’s view that all residents were against the scheme. She added that the school was the most popular in the city and it needed proper sports facilities, and it was necessary for schools to apply for external funding to achieve this. Councillor Shanks went on to add that it was her view that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the loss of the two elm trees and the advantages for young people in the city; she stated she would not support the Officer recommendation.

18)                 Councillor Gilbey stated that the scheme would have been acceptable if it had not proposed the loss of the two elms trees, but given the application before her she felt it appropriate to support the Officer recommendation.

19)                 Councillor Randall noted that the city had 17,000 elm trees and noted the school’s good reputation and green credentials; on balance he felt that the advantages of the scheme outweighed the losses and he would not support the Officer recommendation.

20)                 Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that he had less concern in relation to the lighting on the site, but he was compelled by arguments in relation to the example this would set for young people, and accordingly he would support the Officer recommendation.

21)                 A vote was taken and the recommendation to refuse the application was agreed on a vote of 10 to 2.  

117.2RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the recommendation and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in section 11 and resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reasons for Refusal

              i.           The proposed development would result in the loss of two healthy and mature Elm trees which form part of the National Elm Collection and are covered by a tree preservation order. The trees make an important contribution to the visual amenity of the area. The loss of the trees would be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area and to the objectives of the National Elm Collection. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies QD1, QD2 and QD16 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and Supplementary Planning Document SPD06: Trees & Development Sites.

            ii.           Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the impact of the use of the pitch and the proposed floodlighting will not have a negative impact on the neighbouring amenity, by reason of light pollution and noise disturbance. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies QD27 and SU9 of the Brighton & Hove Local Plan.

Informatives

              i.           In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SS1 of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part One (submission document) the approach to making a decision on this planning application has been to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The Local Planning Authority seeks to approve planning applications which are for sustainable development where possible.