The report of the Chief Planning Officer set
out an application for construction of a new community sports hub
including 3No. floodlit artificial grass pitches and 1No. multi-use
PlayZone enclosed by metal ballstop fencing, car parking and associated
landscaping works are also proposed to connect the development to
the wider Green Park, including a lit footpath link from the Redrow
housing development to Austhorpe
Primary School; external sub-station and bin store, on land off
Thorpe Park Approach, Leeds, LS15
Slides, photographs
and diagrams were shown throughout the presentation.
The
Planning Officer presented the application providing the Panel with
the following information:
- The
application had been considered at North and East Plans Panel on
25th August 2022. A copy of the report was included at
Appendix 1 and the minutes of that meeting were appended at
Appendix 2. Members at that meeting had resolved to defer the
matter for:
- Further consultation by the applicant with the
community.
- Information to be provided in relation to parking, floodlighting
and the wider impact of the lighting.
- Lifespan of the pitches, including the impact on climate
emergency of the material to be used.
- Community use for the proposed facilities.
- Since
the meeting in August the applicant had held a consultation and
exhibition event on 11th October 2022, which had
included presentation boards, plans, diagrams and visuals. Since the event further
representations had been received in objection to the
application.
- At the
previous meeting objectors had raised concerns that visitors may
not use the visitor car park and would park on Austhorpe Lane, Barrowby Lane, or other streets to the west of
Green Park. In response to this the applicant had undertaken an
assessment in relation to driving and walking times from these
areas to the proposed car park and Hub (through which the pitches
are accessed). It was their view that it would be difficult to find
parking spaces and would require a longer walking distance to the
Hub making it more inconvenient than using the proposed car park.
It was also noted that some residents during the consultation had
expressed concern about the potential to use the primary school
drop off / pick up and parking area secured through a previous
planning permission.
- Members were advised that conditions securing details of a
traffic and parking monitoring plan and mitigation measures for
Austhorpe Lane and vicinity, and a
Parking Management Plan had been added.
- The
applicant had tried to show the effect of the light spill. Lux
levels had been provided for Members of the light spill and these
were explained for Member’s information. Members were
informed that the proposed pitches would be cut into the plateaux
and additional vegetation would be planted, which would help to
obscure the view of the floodlights. It was acknowledged that the
trees would need time to mature and grow.
- CGI’s had
also been provided in relation to lighting along with drone footage
of similar floodlighting at the Bodington pitches facility. Members were to note
that the Lighting Officer who had spoken at the previous Panel
meeting had said that the lighting proposals did meet current best
practice.
- In
relation to the lifespan of the pitches and the spread of rubber
crumb, the applicant was proposing special grills to capture the
rubber crumb and trekboards to mitigate
the spread from the pitch, and boot scrapers were to be provided
also. Members were advised that the lifespan of the proposed 3G
pitches would be 10 years, subject to usage and maintenance. At the
end of life, the pitch was to be disposed of with a registered
waste carrier.
- Members were informed that it is understood that there are
specialist waste disposal carriers in Leeds and
nationwide. Fundamentally, waste
disposal must be carried out in accordance with current waste and
pollution control legislation.
- Members were reminded – while such matters can be regarded
as material planning considerations and given weight as appropriate
– national guidance emphasises that planning decisions should
(1) assume that other permitting and control regimes work
effectively and (2) enable such regimes to operate, so not
duplicating the role of those regimes.
- Members were advised that one of the revisions to the plans was
for a playzone which would replace the
previously proposed junior 9 aside pitch. The playzone could be used for a variety of sports
including basketball, cricket, hockey, netball, tennis and wheelchair football. The playzone would have less land take, allowing for
more trees to be retained, as well as allowing greater soft
landscaping to be planted to give additional ecological benefits.
The fencing around the playzone would
be the same as for the other pitches with the same height and same
materials.
- It was
also noted that another revision to the plans was to have the
children’s play area close to the Hub.
- Members were informed that since the publication of the agenda a
further 13 letters in objection had been received, the officer
summarised the comments at the conclusion of the
presentation.
The
Public Speaking Protocol had been followed with
regard to speaking rights at the Panel meeting. However, Chair noted that the applicant and the
agent were present at the meeting to provide answers to questions
from Members if required. In response to questions from Members the
Panel were provided with the following information from the
applicant and the agent:
- The
life expectancy of the artificial pitches was 10 years with
maintenance, this was with proposed usage of 20 hours per week.
Grass pitches with proposed usage of 3 hours per week would require
maintenance and seeding where the grass became worn and time for
the grass to grow. It was noted that 153 teams had signed up to use
the facilities, each team would train for up to 1 hour, it would
not be possible to meet the needs of all the teams on a grass
pitch.
- The
model for the Parklife proposal had
been pursued to allow spare capacity for other clubs to play on the
pitches. The applicant proposes to have sustainable sport provision
throughout the city. The Parklife
development would support a lot of training use, which would remove
some of the use from the grass pitches around the city, which could
then be used by other people.
- The
applicant had gone out to all the clubs who had expressed an
interest in using the facility. They were asked to identify their
current training regime setting out the day and time they practice
and play matches. This had informed the modelling undertaken to
date vis-à-vis usage. Each club would be given an
appropriate allocation creating a timetable for use for the
development.
In
response to questions from Members the Panel were provided with the
following information from officers:
- Members were provided with the definition of sustainability in
planning terms quoted from the National Planning Policy
Framework.
- It was
noted that a letter had been received which provided alternative
materials to the proposed artificial grass. The alternatives had
been put to the applicant although the officer was aware that the
Football Foundation funding is reliant on the use of an all-weather
astroturf (3G) surface. The applicant
approached the table to confirm that funding would not be available
from the identified source if this type of 3G pitch was not used at
the facility.
- The
Legal Officer advised the Panel that Section 78 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 denotes who can appeal a planning
decision. It would be the applicant in this case and the applicant
is the Council, separate in its role to the Council as the Local
Planning Authority. Therefore, theoretically it could be the
applicant who could appeal any decision made, but it was noted that
this had never been done at Leeds in relation to a Council planning
application. If not approved it would be likely that the
application would be withdrawn, and the scheme revisited to bring
forward in a different guise.
- In
relation to parking provision at Austhorpe Primary School, it was noted that this
was under a separate planning permission, which also included a
link from the nearby Redrow housing development and to alleviate
current on street parking. It had been suggested at the previous
Panel meeting that visitor use of the school car park could help to
address overspill parking. There was a strong view against this by
some of the residents at the consultation event.
- It was
noted that in relation to bio-diversity net gain this application
had been treated as any other application and the application
accords with current policy.
Members
comments included:
- This
application is a question of whether this is sustainable, and it
would not be realistic to go forward without a funder. There was a
need for children to be able to access all weather pitches
especially in the poorest areas of the city. It was the view that
the environmental concerns raised had not been addressed properly
(albeit the proposals comply with planning policy) and the
materials proposed were of concern, though their use and disposal
are subject to other legislation and statutory bodies.
- In
relation to bio-diversity net gain the Council could have chosen to
voluntarily exceed the policy requirements. The Council should be
taking the lead on this.
- There
was a need to consider the benefits of sport for children and the
need to make more provision. This proposal was one which would help
to deliver the considerable wellbeing benefits for children that
arise from sporting activities.
- Members requested a condition be incorporated such that there
would be a complaints procedure / process available to address
concerns of residents during construction.
The
Chair said that the Panel and officers had listened to the concerns
raised by the residents and officers had worked hard for a better
scheme. The Panel had to consider that application before them and
consider areas of the city who also need this type of facility. It
was acknowledged that this was not perfect, but it was better than
some areas had. Without a funder, it would not be possible to fund
this type of facility. The Chair made mention of the development at
Headingley Stadium in relation to
lighting and said that it had not impacted residents as much as was
feared. He thanked officers for their work on this
scheme.
The
Group Manager (Area Planning) said that a condition in relation to
residents having the ability to raise a concern or a query during
construction could be added.
RESOLVED – To defer and delegate
to the Chief Planning Officer for approval, subject to the
specified conditions set out in the submitted report, and the
additional condition suggested by Members, and any amendments to or
additional conditions that the Chief Planning Officer may consider
appropriate.