Agenda item

The planning application was for the creation of a new external sports pitch at the Sports Ground, Fulbridge, Peterborough, with perimeter ball-stop fencing, floodlights, access and outdoor storage for maintenance equipment and onsite vehicular parking. This application had returned to Committee following a resolution of the Committee to grant planning permission, subject to an amendment to the hours of pitch use, and a further consultation response received from Sport England. The hours of use agreed by Committee on 13 October 2015 were:

·         The use of the all-weather sports pitch hearby permitted shall not take place outside the following hours:

                 Monday to Friday – 09:00 to 19:30

                 Saturday / Sunday / Public or Bank Holidays – 10:00 to 19:00

·         All external lighting within the site shall not be used outside the following hours:

                 Monday to Friday – 09:00 to 20:00

                 Saturday / Sunday / Public or Bank Holidays – 10:00 to 19:30

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report. The Development Management Manager provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report.

Councillor Smith, Werrington Neighbourhood Councillor, Councillor Davidson and Councillor Fower, Ward Councillors, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The Committee previously recognised the impact on the amenity of surrounding residences and reduced the hours of operation accordingly.

·         The Committee were urged to adhere to their original resolution.

·         Concern was raised in relation to the potential for noise and light intrusions. It was suggested that a route be provided to allow residents to feed back.

·         In relation to parking facilities, it was suggested that the Voyager Academy be the preferred option for coach parking.

·         It was stated that the Committee should not yield to pressure placed on them by Sport England.

Steve Critchley addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Critchley represented the majority of local residents and objected to any increase in the hours of operation agreed by the Committee previously.

·         An additional 9.5 hours a week, as suggested by Sport England, would have a significant detrimental effect on local residents.

·         There were very few 3G pitches in the Peterborough area. This resulted in a low number of complaints being recorded in relation to them.

·         The Glinton facility was surrounded by open farm land with a low amount of residential occupation. It was not comparable to the application currently before Committee.

·         It was noted that Sport England had said they would not appeal and Mr Critchley asked that the Committee reaffirm their previous decision.

Wendy Newey, Peterborough and District Football League, and Tom Betts, Surfacing Standards, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         It was believed that the proposal would enhance sporting facilities for students and the local area.

·         Mr Betts stated, on behalf of Scott Hudson, that it was essential that the facility remain open until 9:30pm to allow for full and proper access.

·         Ms Newey advised that the facility would be run with the community, with a not for profit Committee set up to support community involvement.

·         The facility would be fully staffed with an office and classroom to deliver training.

·         The Peterborough and District Football League was working closely with the Duke of Edinburgh programme to become an approved activity provider.

·         Mr Betts commented that the Football League intended to be good neighbours, with good security, and visual and acoustic screening.

·         Mr Newey confirmed that no visits had been made to the Glinton site, but it was understood to be of a similar nature.

The Planning Lawyer advised the Committee that the principle of development had been agreed at the Committee held on 13 October 2015. The matter currently before the Committee was solely in relation to the hours of operation.

The Committee discussed the application and suggested that comparisons made to facilities at Glinton and Northborough were misleading. The hours of operation agreed at the previous meeting arose from the high density of residences near the application site. As this situation had not altered, the Committee saw no reason to deviate from their previous decision.

In response to a question the Development Management Manager advised that within the proposal condition 7 required the applicant to demonstrate compliance following a reasonable compliant in relation to light intrusion.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, but subject to the conditions as agreed at the Committee meeting held on 13 October 2015, minute reference 4.2.  The motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (unanimous) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions as agreed at the Committee meeting held on 13 October 2015, minute reference 4.2.

Reasons for the decision

Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

·         the proposal would give rise to a considerable benefit to the wider community through the provision of an enhanced playing facility and the opportunity for usage throughout the year, in accordance with paragraphs 70 and 74 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy CS18 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011);

·         the all-weather pitch and associated facilities would not result in an unacceptable impact upon the character, appearance or visual amenity of the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP2 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

·         the proposal floodlighting would not result in any unacceptable light intrusion to neighbouring properties however it was acknowledged that some increased noise and disturbance would result to residents.  It was considered that this harm was outweighed by the public benefit arising from the improved facilities on the site;

·         the proposal provided adequate on-site parking to meet the needs of the development and would not result in any harm to the safety of the surrounding public highway network, in accordance with Policy CS14 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policies PP12 and PP13 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

·         subject to appropriate mitigation the proposal would not result in any unacceptably harmful impact to ecology present within and surrounding the site, in accordance with paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy CS21 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP16 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012);

·         the proposal, subject to further details being provided, would ensure that surface water run-off was effectively managed and does not increase flood risk elsewhere, in accordance with paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy CS22 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011);

·         adequate archaeological evaluation has taken place to demonstrate that the proposal would not pose a risk to undiscovered buried heritage assets, in accordance with paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy CS17 of the Peterborough Core Strategy DPD (2011) and Policy PP17 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012); and

·         the proposal would not pose any unacceptable risk to established trees and shrubs surrounding the site, in accordance with Policy PP16 of the Peterborough Planning Policies DPD (2012).