Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the development of a 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with perimeter fencing, floodlighting, hardstanding area, storage container, acoustic barrier fence, access pathway, wildlife buffer zone and wildlife pond.

 

 

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the development of a 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) with perimeter fencing, floodlighting, hardstanding area, storage container, acoustic barrier fence, access pathway, wildlife buffer zone and wildlife pond at Prince Henry’s Grammar School, Farnley Lane, Otley.

 

Site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application and there had been a visit to the site for Members of the Panel prior to the meeting.

 

The following was highlighted:

 

·  The application had been brought to the Panel at the request of Ward Members due to the high level of interest in the application.

·  Following the publication of the Agenda there had been a further 10 letters of representation received.  These referred to the potential impact of the development on local residents.

·  The surrounding area was predominantly residential properties.

·  The western boundary of the existing playing pitch comprised a row of mature trees.

·  The closest part of the pitch would be at least 16 metres away from any residential boundaries.

·  It was proposed to use the existing parking to the north of the site.

·  There would be a 4.5 metre fence surrounding the pitch with acoustic fencing alongside residential boundaries.

·  There would be eight 15 metre high floodlights.

·  Pedestrian access would be from the school side of the pitch.

·  Images of the proposed fencing and floodlights were displayed.

·  A diagram showing the light spill from the floodlights was shown.  There would be no light spillage into gardens of adjacent properties.

·  The landscaping and wildlife enhancement proposals were displayed.  There would be widespread tree planting, a pond and wildlife meadow.

·  The officer recommendation for approval was finely balanced but it was felt that the improved sports facilities for the school and wider community coupled with the noise mitigation measures outweighed the potential nuisance for residents.

 

A local resident addressed the Panel with objections to the application.  These included the following:

 

·  The main concern was noise.  There were many homes within 20 metres of the pitch and there would be persistent noise from shouting, whistles and balls hitting the fencing.  This would be until 10 p.m. on weekdays and during the day on weekends.

·  Although there would not be light spillage from the floodlights into the gardens, the floodlighting would still cause visible light pollution.

·  Prince Henry’s Grammar School owned other pitches where they could install an artificial pitch.

·  The proposed fencing would change the whole feel of the area.

·  Otley Rugby Union Club already had an application for four all weather pitches which were located in a more suitable area.

·  The majority of the supporters of the application came from outside Otley.

·  Local residents had employed a noise expert and the Council should follow its own guidance in relation to noise from MUGAs.

·  This proposal would disturb the lives of many residents.

·  In response to questions, the following was discussed:

o  Noise was expected from the school during the daily use and felt to be acceptable.  What was proposed was totally different.

o  There were pitches at Wharfe Meadows Road that could be used and also had recently refurbished changing rooms.

o  The area where the topsoil would be disposed on to was surrounded by residential properties.

o  Noise disturbance was normally only during school hours.  This proposal would involve noise till 10.00 p.m. on a night and all day on weekends.

o  The Council’s guidance on MUGAs was that noise levels should not be increased above normal levels.  The noise expert employed by residents had said that noise levels would be at least 10 decibels higher.  The noise expert had taken account of the noise mitigation measures that would be in place.

 

Following questions to the speaker it was confirmed that the hours of use would terminate at 9.00 p.m. and not 10.00 p.m. as stated.

 

Representatives of the applicant and Otley Town Football Club addressed the Panel.  The following was highlighted:

 

·  The project had been designed with the input of a wide range of local sports clubs.  Voluntary groups and statutory consultees had also been involved to ensure the proposals were appropriate for the setting.

·  Otley currently lacked a facility of this kind and would bring opportunities for girls and women’s groups.

·  Lettings of the existing pitch had already taken place for a number of years without any complaints.

·  The existing pitch was already floodlit.

·  The proposals would prevent people from travelling outside of Otley to use other facilities.

·  The pitch would be used by Prince Henry’s Grammar School and would also be available for use by local primary schools.

·  The proposals would see the pitch move further away from local residents.

·  The acoustic fencing would reduce noise disturbance in comparison to current arrangements.  The use of whistles would not be permitted after 7.00 p.m.

·  Other mitigating conditions including arrangements in place regarding parking, strict control on the times the floodlights were used and a reduction in the proposed hours of operation.

·  The proposals would also bring ecological improvements to the area.

·  In response to questions, the following as highlighted:

o  Whistle usage had been discussed with partner clubs.  There had never been complaints regarding the use of whistles.

o  The main use of the pitches would be for training for young people which would reduce pressure on local grass pitches.  There would be some matches played on the pitches and these were likely to be held on a weekend.

o  It was expected that parents would be in attendance to watch and there were boundaries in place for spectating junior football.

o  There were arrangements for a daily clearing of litter at the site and extra support would be put in place for this.

o  The acoustic barrier had been specifically designed for this site. The use of whistles was the biggest noise impact and this had been addressed.  Further noise surveys could be carried out if the plans were approved.

o  Bringing the time forward for forbidding the use of whistles may be problematic for the variety of organisations that would use the pitch.

o  Otley Town had over 300 players in Junior and Adult Football.  They were currently travelling to Apperley Bridge, Menston, Guiseley, Adel and Horsforth for training.

o  The school already had an environmental maintenance team to maintain the wildlife area and would also use support from an outside company.  There was also involvement with other groups including the West Yorkshire Bat Group.

o  If there was a problem with balls being kicked out of the site, netting could be erected.

o  There had been meetings with key partner clubs to draw up terms of use.  Any problems reported could lead to withdrawal of the use of the facilities.

o  There was a travel plan in place which included parking and using access points for pitch users.

o  Otley Town would be one of the biggest users of the pitch.  There would be a maximum of 40 to 50 people users at any one session for the adult teams.  Many of these lived locally and would not travel by car.  Junior training would be approximately 20 players per session.

o  The site had been chosen had the best parking, changing, security and access.

o  The applicant would be willing to have further monitoring for 6 months should the application be approved.

o  The pitch would not be available for use during open evenings at the school.

 

In response to Members comments and questions, the following was discussed:

 

·  It was suggested that further noise monitoring for 6 months could be included in condition 17 with regards to the noise management plan.

·  The applicant’s representative reported that the car parking management plan stated that the pitch would not be in use when open evenings were held at the school.

·  The car parking management plan had to be agreed with Highways.  Any breaches of condition could enforce enforcement action.  There was some concern that conditions needed to be more watertight to be enforceable.

 

A motion was made and seconded to approve the officer recommendation as outlined in the report with the amendment to condition 17 to ensure that the noise management plan was to be monitored and reviewed after 6 months to see if further noise mitigation measures were required.

 

RESOLVED – That approval of planning permission be deferred and delegated to the Chief Planning Officer subject to the conditions specified in the report (and alteration to or addition of any conditions as deemed appropriate including the amendment to condition 17 to monitor the noise management plan and review the position after 6 months) and the completion of a s106 legal agreement in respect of the planning application within three months from the date of resolution unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Chief Planning Officer to include the following obligation:

 

·  £20,000 contribution (index linked) for traffic management measures (including TROs/parking permit) which are required to manage on-street parking, should issues occur in proximity as a result of the proposed development.

·  £3,183 School Travel Plan monitoring/implementation.

 

(During the discussion of the application, Councillor Campbell informed the Panel that he lived on a road adjacent to the school but did not feel that the proposed development would affect his property.)