Agenda item

Demolition of existing pavilion and development of a new sports pavilion, two fenced and floodlit artificial turf pitches, car, coach and cycle parking and associated landscaping and access improvements

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to:

1. The prior completion, following consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the Code of Conduct and Management Plan relating to use of the sports ground;

2. Referral to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Consultation Directive 2009.

3. The Informatives and Conditions set out in the report.

Mike Chanley (objector), Martin Beaver (for the applicant), and Councillors Tom Bygott and Douglas de Lacey (local Members) addressed the meeting. Mr. Chanley highlighted the significant impact the development would have on the amenity of residents living in Thornton Close by virtue of additional noise and light pollution, and the increase in traffic. He questioned the extent of community use, and argued that no special circumstances had been demonstrated for development in the Green Belt. Mike Chanley made reference to a legal “Topic Note”.

The Planning Lawyer suggested a short adjournment as he was not familiar with the legal “Topic Note 47 (Nuisance Private)” presented. Following this, the Planning Lawyer referred Members to the relevant text, advising that it was not a material planning consideration and that any planning decision would not prejudice the rights of affected individuals subject to there being evidence of likely or actual adverse impact, to seekan injunction, at the discretion of a Judge, to prevent  implementation  of the consent, or damages instead if deemed by the Judge to offer a sufficient remedy.

Mr. Beaver commended what he described as a significant development, decided upon after local consultation, and considering a number of alternative sites. He said that a number of changes had been made to the scheme, and that use constraints had been agreed. A code of conduct had been drawn up.

Councillor de Lacey was concerned about the reality of community use, and its primary beneficiaries. He pointed out that sporting facilities in the Green Belt were only allowed if they preserved that Green Belt and did nothing to conflict with its stated purpose.

Councillor Bygott said that, while progress had been made in addressing noise and light pollution, the proposed 9.30pm close time remained too late.

Members discussed a number of points including thefollowing:

·        Whether the proposal breached the National and Local Green Belt policy

·        The need for very special circumstances to exist for there to be development in the Green BeltThe applicant had dmade particular efforts to address residents’ concerns

·        Opening hours of the facility

·        Concerns about code of conduct and management of the facility

A proposal to prevent use of the sports ground beyond 8pm was not pursued. It was pointed out that this would dramatically reduce its usefulness.

Having spoken with the applicant’s agent, Mr. Beaver agreed that points raised by Members (including the management plan and code of conduct) could be captured by way of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

The Committee gave officers delegated powers to approve the application, subject to:

1. The prior completion, following consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, of a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the Code of Conduct and Management Plan relating to use of the sports ground;

2. Referral to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Consultation Directive 2009.

3. The Informatives and Conditions set out in the report.