Agenda item - BH2014/00697 - Dorothy Stringer High School, Loder Road, Brighton - Full Planning

Installation of an artificial turf pitch with associated fencing and floodlighting, incorporating landscaping works.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Installation of an artificial turf pitch with associated fencing and floodlighting, incorporating landscaping works.

(1)             The Planning Officer, Jason Hawkes, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings – reference was also made to matters in the late list. It was noted that this was a revised scheme for a new pitch at Dorothy Stringer School; the site was surrounding by residential properties and particular attention was drawn to two mature elm trees and a group of semi-mature elm trees. The previous application had been refused by the Committee for reasons in relation to the loss of the two mature elm trees and insufficient information submitted in relation to the impact of the proposed pitch on the adjacent properties. The proposed pitch in the amended scheme was smaller, and the scheme would require excavation works; the relocation of the butterfly havens, and the removal of some of the semi-mature trees on the site.

(2)             The pitch would primarily be used for football and would accommodate up to 9-aside [adult capacity]. It would mainly be used during the day by the school, and for community use during evenings and weekends. The application required a landscaping scheme, and this included the location of the new trees; butterfly havens and grass banks. The applicant had sought to address the previous reasons for refusal by reducing the size of the pitch and the Council Arboriculturalist was now satisfied that the mature elm trees would be protected during the construction – the application was also the subject of a method statement. In relation to the noise and lighting there was now a full acoustic assessment and the noise assessment had been undertaken using a similar site in Tunbridge Wells. It was considered there would be no significant noise impact on the houses to the north of the site, and there would be some acoustic fencing constructed. Subject to this provision there was no objection from Environmental Health.

(3)             The proposed hours were deemed acceptable, and this scheme was considered to address the issues in relation to glare in two ways. Firstly the scheme now proposed 12 lamps instead of 16, and the secondly the hours of operation had been reduced such that they were now deemed acceptable. Two additional conditions in relation to the use of the site, hours of operation of the floodlighting and the butterfly havens were recommended, and with these additions the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speaker(s) and Questions

(4)             Mr David MacDonald spoke in opposition to the application in his capacity as a local resident. He stated that he lived directly opposite the proposed the pitch and both his children attended local schools. Whilst he and other residents accepted the efforts that had been made to protect the elm trees, it was believed that the pitch was unnecessary and would change the nature of the neighbourhood. Mr MacDonald believed that only 5% of staff and students supported the scheme, and there were already another five pitches located across the wider campus. The noise levels would constantly breach acceptable levels and the minimal standards in relation to noise would not be met. The pitch would open until 2100 hours during weekdays and until 1800 hours at the weekend; these hours were considered excessive and residents would not have adequate respite from the impact. It was considered that the removal of the existing copse could be mitigated if the location was moved to the west, and there should be full details – by way of condition – for the butterfly havens. The Committee were invited to refuse the application for matters in relation to noise, light, habitat and the lack of landscaping details.

(5)             Councillor K. Norman spoke in his capacity as the Local Ward Councillor, and stated that he was representing the overwhelming number of residents against the proposals; he had also been contacted by residents in the neighbouring ward who would be affected by the scheme. It was difficult to justify the need for the scheme, and he considered that this would be one pitch too many on the campus. In relation to mitigation measures it was considered that this would not stop the impact of the additional car use and access from Loder Road. Residents were very concerned about light pollution from the pitch, and it was disappointing that some of the trees to be removed were those that had been conditioned in a previous application for the sports hall.

(6)             In response to Councillor Mac Cafferty it was explained by Councillor K. Norman that his objection did not relate to the principle of the scheme, but rather the specifics of this scheme due to the number of residents that would be affected.

(7)             Mr Richard Bradford and Ms Ros Stephen spoke in support of the application in their capacity as the Headteacher and Deputy Headteacher at the school respectively. Mr Bradford stated that the school was now in a position to reduce the size of the proposed pitch which would protect the mature elm trees; whilst it was acknowledged that there would be some loss of trees to the north it was unlikely that these would mature. The smaller pitch would require less lighting and the height of the lights would be three metres lower. It was believed that the school would still benefit from the smaller pitch as the school was oversubscribed and the facility much needed. The land was unsuitable for sports use for much of the year due to poor drainage and other local schools would also benefit from use of the pitch. It was highlighted that the pitch would not be used for intense commercial activity and the pitch would be a community facility.

(8)             In response to Councillor Cox it was explained by Mr Bradford that the school had held consultation evenings to discuss the proposals, and had discussed the landscaping features with neighbours. Councillor Cox went on to ask about the objection form the Fiveways Local Action Team and Mr Bradford explained that the use of the pitch would not be limited for students and this would provide an important winter sports facility for the school. The pitch would be used all day during for lessons and in the evenings for after school clubs; it was also noted that many of these clubs drew their membership from students at the school.

(9)             Mr Bradford confirmed for Councillor C. Theobald that the pitch could be in use for practise as early as 0700 hours, and there would be school practise classes before and after school.

(10)          Councillor Hyde asked about the hours of operation and Mr Bradford explained that a reduction in the proposed hours had been considered, but a minimum potential operation of 87 hours each week was required for the school to secure the necessary funding.

(11)          Mr Bradford confirmed for Councillor Jones that the material would be porous and grass based.

(12)          Mr Bradford confirmed for Councillor Robins that the pitch would be 9-aside for adult use, and would accommodate 11-aside for under 14 teams.

(13)          Councillor Gilbey asked about the trees that would be planted to replace those being lost, and Mr Bradford explained that it was the intention to plant a line of elm trees along the drive to the school and use trees of a similar size to those being removed to do this.

Questions for Officers

(14)          In response to Councillor Hyde the locations of the acoustic fence were clarified. The materials and distances from the residential properties were also confirmed.

(15)          Councillor Hyde went on to ask about the floodlights and asked what assurance the Committee good be given that the light spillage would be reasonable; she made particular example of another pitch at Blatchington Mill School. In response the Environmental Health Officer, Alun Cance, explained that the illumination levels at the proposed site would be half of that of those at Blatchington Mill. In relation to glare it was explained that there were no standards to measure this, but it was also noted that the light levels were lower for football specifications and the site now proposed 8 lamps instead of 12.

(16)          In response to Councillor C. Theobald the Arboriculturalist, Di Morgan, explained that the semi-mature trees were recorded as ‘native planting’ and not the subject of tree preservation orders.

(17)          Councillor Davey asked for more information in relation to the community use agreement and it was explained that this was a standard condition and Sport England would be consulted in relation to its suitability.

(18)          In response to Councillor Jones the Case Officer clarified that the pitch would be grass type and suitable for all weather conditions

(19)          Councillor Robins asked about the weight that could be given to letters of support or objection that were some distance from the site; in response the Senior Solicitor explained that this did not reduce the weight that could be given and the Committee should consider the content of the letters when they gave consideration of what weight to attach.

(20)          In response to Councillor Gilbey the Environmental Health Officer explained that there would not be any glare from above for the properties that looked down onto the site, and whilst there would be some light spillage this would not be significant.

(21)          In response to Councillor Hyde it was confirmed there were standard conditions on the application to prevent the disturbance of nesting birds.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(22)          Councillor Hyde noted she was torn in relation to the decision and there were many good reasons to support the scheme, but she sympathised with the concerns of residents. She was more assured about the issues relating to light spillage as the nearest houses were some distance away; she added that when the light would be in use it would be dark outside and this was normally when residents would have their curtains closed.

(23)          Councillor Carden noted he would be supporting the Officer recommendation, and such facilities were an important means to help young people stay healthy.

(24)          Councillor Davey stated that he believed the applicant had made efforts to address residents’ concerns, and he welcomed the planting of new trees.

(25)          Councillor Jones noted he had been unable to support the previous scheme, but he now believed the school had gone a long way to address concerns and there was a real need for better sports facilities in the city. The pitch would be a community facility as well used by the school

(26)          Councillor Duncan noted he would support the Officer recommendation, and agreed that the previous scheme was too large for the site. The changes proposed addressed the previous reasons for refusal and he hoped that there could be more positive communication between the school and the local action team.

(27)          Councillor C. Theobald noted that she was pleased the mature elm trees had been retained, but she still had concerns in relation to the loss of the semi-mature trees and the hours of operation. She also expressed concerns in relation to light pollution, but recognised what a good facility this would be.

(28)          Councillor Gilbey stated that she would support the application, but she recognised the concerns of residents as she lived in close proximity to a similar site herself. On balance she felt the impact was minimal and the sports facilities were much needed.

(29)          Councillor Littman noted that he agreed with the comments made by Councillor Hyde, and felt on balance he would support the Officer recommendation and he felt the school had taken adequate steps to protect the residents.

(30)          Councillor Robins stated that he agreed with the comments made by Councillor Carden, and noted that he would support the Officer recommendation.

(31)          A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation that permission be granted was carried on a vote of 11 in favour with one against.

201.1    RESOLVED - 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 GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.

              Note: The Area Planning Manager, Paul Vidler, was not present during the consideration and vote on this application.