Agenda item - BH2017/04102-Varndean College, Surrenden Road, Brighton -Full Planning

Installation of an artificial turf pitch with 4.5 metre perimeter fencing and installation of 8no. 15 metre floodlights, alterations to existing adjacent grass playing pitch.

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Ward Affected: Withdean

              Installation of an artificial turf pitch with 4.5 metre perimeter fencing and installation of 8no. 15 metre floodlights, alterations to existing adjacent grass playing pitch.

(1)          It was noted that this application had formed the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting.

              Officer Presentation

(2)          The Senior Planning Officer, Sonia Gillam, introduced the application and gave a detailed presentation by reference to site plans, aerial photographs showing the changes in level across the site and drawings detailing the location of the artificial turf pitch to be installed, the perimeter fencing and proposed floodlights.

(3)          It was noted that the site was covered by a Tree Preservation Order and that the proposed changes would require the loss of a small hawthorn, plus a horse chestnut tree to the west of the site covered by the order. There would also be some changes to soil levels close to three other trees on the south boundary, this would not however be significant and those trees were not protected by the existing TPO. Overall, the impact of the scheme on the local tree scape was minimal, was supported by Sport England and it was not considered that it would have a detrimental impact. The proposed development was adjacent to the Dorothy Stringer Wildlife Area but would not encroach onto it and the county Ecologist had advised that the scheme could be supported from an ecological perspective; a recommendation to grant approval was now recommended.

              Public Speakers

(4)          Mr Skinner spoke on behalf of neighbouring objectors setting out their objections to the proposed scheme. Explained that locally the proposals were very unpopular and represented an un-neighbourly form of development which would result in significant light pollution to nearby dwellings, until a late hour. The proposed screening was not considered adequate and there were also concerns regarding the impact on wildlife and biodiversity of the area. There would also be an impact on residents arising from the proposed access arrangements, overflow parking and traffic and road safety. To date there had been 7 near miss accidents in the vicinity and this scheme would exacerbate that.

(5)          Councillor Taylor spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor stating that he was in agreement that the proposals would result in loss of amenity and light pollution. There would also be loss of aspect as the current open aspect would be compromised by the screening and lights. He shared objectors concerns in respect of road safety given that access to the site would be via a single metalled trackway which ran past a nursery school. The impact of the proposals would change the character of the site irreparably.

            Questions of Officers

(6)          Councillor Hyde had attended the site visits the previous day and sought clarification regarding the location of Mr Skinner’s property and the location of the bank and fence to the rear. Also, whether the room most impacted a bedroom, would be affected significantly, as when the lights were in operation in the evening the curtains would be closed and the distance to the pitch. Mr Skinner expressed the view that the light would percolate the entire building.

(7)          Councillor Taylor spoke in his capacity as a Local Ward Councillor. An earlier application had been refused and he was in agreement that the proposed scheme would result in loss of amenity, light pollution  to all neighbouring properties and would result in significant additional stress on parking which already over-spilled from the area adjacent to the pitches onto the neighbouring residential streets, especially Draxmont Way and Varndean Holt. The pitches would be accessed from a single trackway which ran past a nursery and would represent an additional hazard. The cumulative impact would change the existing character of the site.

(8)          The applicant’s representative confirmed that they had nothing further to add in support of their application but were happy to answer any questions regarding their scheme.

              Questions of Officers

(9)          In answer to questions it was confirmed that the lighting would be in use outside corecollege hours and it was not considered that it would generate any significant additional traffic movements and the traffic team were satisfied that this could be effectively controlled by the proposed conditions.

(10)       Councillor Miller enquired regarding whether the site would be available for community use. It was explained by the applicant’s representative that significant funding had been made available to the college by the Russell Martin Football Academy in order to support local students in pursuing academic and sports studies in tandem. These facilities would replace update and enhance those currently available but would also be used by some local teams

(11)       In answer.to questions by Councillor Wealls it was explained that it was not anticipated that there would be any additional traffic movements during the college day, there were 86 parking spaces available on site, which were considered sufficient to accommodate those using these facilities. The fencing proposed would block noise and light generated and the lighting would only be in use as conditioned. The pitches would be in use occasionally for workshops at weekends. It was noted that these pitches would also address  an identified lack of sporting provision

(12)       Councillor Page asked whether it was considered that the floodlighting proposed would impact of butterflies and moths on site and it was confirmed that it was not anticipated that this would occur at the lighting and fencing proposed would be sited away from the biodiversity area and wildlife corridors.

(13)       Councillor O’Quinn asked questions regarding the distance from the pitches to the nearest dwelling houses. It was confirmed in answer to further questions that as a consequence of improved technology there would be a reduction in the level of light penetration, lighting would also be angled away from the neighbouring dwellings. The fencing would provide a barrier which would prevent balls from leaving the site.

              Debate and Decision Making Process

(14)       Councillor Hyde stated that the proposed scheme was acceptable, was necessary in order to improve existing facilities and had been designed to minimise any impact on local residents and to respect the biodiversity corridor.

(15)       Councillor C Theobald recognised the concerns of residents but cited the similar facilities provided recently at Patcham School and the need to provide enhanced facilities for students.

(16)       Councillor Page concurred considering that as the neighbouring biodiversity corridor had been respected the scheme was acceptable.

(17)       Councillor O’Quinn noted the measures put into place by the college in order to mitigate any potential nuisance and therefore considered the proposed scheme was acceptable.

(18)       Councillor Moonan stated that she supported the officer recommendation referring to similar arrangements which were in operation at Brighton College which was located in a more densely built up area and had not given rise to any nuisance.

(19)       Councillor Gilbey supported the officer recommendation stating that she was familiar with the application site and did not consider that the proposed use would be detrimental to neighbouring amenity. Similar floodlighting arrangements were in place in respect of pitches located in her ward. The screening prevented balls from landing outside the site and as the lighting was angles away from residential properties located close to the site no complaints of light pollution had been received.

(20)       A vote was taken and the 9 members of the Committee who were present at the meeting voted to grant planning permission.

112.6    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the report and to the Additional Informatives 9, 10 and 11 as set out in the Late/Additional Representations List.

              Note(1): Having declared a prejudicial interest in this application, Councillor Cattell stepped down from the Chair and withdrew from the meeting during consideration of the above application and took no part in the debate or decision making process.

              Note 2: Councillors Inkpin-Leissner and Morgan were not present at the meeting during consideration or determination of the above application.