Issue - meetings

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

The planning application was for the creation of a new external sports pitch (3G Artificial Grass Pitch) at Sports Ground, Fulbridge Road, Peterborough, with perimeter ball-stop fencing, floodlights (artificial lighting), access and outdoor storage for maintenance equipment and onsite vehicular parking.

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

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

·         Councillor Fower was unimpressed by the lack of alternative proposals put forward and the limited consultation undertaken by the applicant.

·         Sports practices could be encouraged via other means. This development was not considered practical on the proposed location.

·         The proposed entrance and egress could not be practically delivered and there was considered to be limited provision for those with disabilities.

·         Councillor Fower did not believe that the need for sports facilities in the area outweighed the loss of green space. The proposal was not considered to benefit the community.

·         Further consultation with the local residents was needed.

·         Councillor Davidson expressed reservation over the practicality of the proposal, taking into account the risk of flooding. The site was in a flood risk zone.

·         The Councillor appreciated the benefits of the development, however believed that the impact of the traffic on congestion and parking would be significant.

·         Councillor Hedges suggested that the idea of a fall-back position of unrestricted people numbers and hours of use was a fallacy. In real terms the use would increase significantly.

·         It was believed that the development would result in light pollution, noise pollution, loss of peace and loss of view.

·         Councillor Hedges was of the opinion that spectators would stand on the proposed noise attenuation bunds, resulting in a loss of privacy for residents.

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

·         Mr Critchley spoke on behalf of local residents. He believed that over 80% of residents that abutted the site objected to the development.

·         It was considered that the proposals were detrimental to residential amenity in terms of light, noise and traffic.

·         The facility would be open for seven days a week and it was suggested that such facilities elsewhere had attracted complaints.

·         The flood lighting would dramatically alter the appearance of the area.

·         The proposed noise attenuation bunds would result in overlooking, it was suggested, as planting would not prevent spectators from standing on the bunds in the long term.

·         The area was not well served by public transport. The site was considered too small to meet demand.

·         It was asked that the Committee consider alternative sites for the development.

Wendy Newey, Peterborough and District Football League, Mark Norman, Voyager Academy, and Tom Betts, Surfacing Standards, addressed the Committee in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6