Agenda item

Recommended for Approval

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/21/2353/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed at the end of the report and with delegated authority being granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the conditions.

The Principal Planning Officer referred to the additional representations summary and highlighted an error in that there would be six flood lighting columns proposed, not four as stated in the report. She detailed the location of the proposed development and summarised what was adjacent to the site to the west and to the east.

The Principal Planning Officer set out the layout of what was proposed on the site and said that this included a 3G artificial pitch and two flat top bunds to the west which would allow people to view any play taking place. She said that there would be some hedging around the site and Members were advised how the proposed development related to residential properties to the west.

Members were advised that the six 15 metre lighting columns would provide very direct LED lighting and there would be minimal horizontal light spillage and no vertical light spillage. The Principal Planning Officer said that the lighting columns were of a very slim design to limit the visual impact. She said the site was within the metropolitan green belt and the impact on openness was restricted to the fencing, the lighting columns and a small storage building.

Members were advised that the main issues were the impact on the green belt and the impact on openness. The Principal Planning Officer said that the minimal impacts were clearly outweighed by the benefits of a much needed recreational facility. She said that there was good access to public transport and other facilities and the application was therefore acceptable in green belt terms.

Members were advised that another issue was the impact on residential amenity in terms of noise from the pitch and potential light impact. The Principal Planning Officer said that both these matters had been considered by an Environmental Health Officer and comprehensive reports had indicated that the impacts of both noise and light would be well within reasonable limits and would not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Members were referred to the conditions in respect of hours of usage, noise and the complaints procedure being available should any noise problems need to be reported. The Principal Planning Officer said that another issue was drainage as this site was close to an area that was liable to flood. She said that drainage had been looked at in some detail to ensure that the site run off was fully attenuated.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the other main issue was the impact on the natural environment. She said that Natural England and Herts Ecology had looked at the proposals and both organisations had said that the flood lighting was sufficiently shielded to avoid any harm to rare bats and there would no adverse impact on water voles.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the proposed development provided much needed facilities and the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions detailed at the end of the report.

Martin Lindus addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor Goldspink addressed the Committee as the local ward Member.

Councillor Andrews said that he was pleased to see that the matter of the micro plastics had been addressed. He asked about the possibility of the conditions being made tighter to require that the playing surface be made up of organic materials.

Councillor Andrews expressed a concern about the timings of the use of the pitch. He said that he would like to see a cap of 10 pm Monday to Saturday and possible 8 pm on a Sunday, in terms of the lights being switched off and things quietening down.

Councillor Bull said that the proposed development would be a wonderful amenity. He made the point that the concerns expressed would not be as bad as first thought and he was supportive of the application.

Councillor Fernando asked if there were any details or a condition regarding management plan for the pitch. He said that it was his understanding that the crumb on the artificial pitch had to be brushed regularly to ensure even distribution and avoid issues to do with surface drainage.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the submitted plans were for an organic crumb and Officers could add to the relevant condition that the details be referred to the Environment Agency and Environmental Health prior to the discharge of conditions. She said that there were restrictive hours as per conditions six and seven in the report and the LED lights would switch off instantly when not in use.

Members were advised that the there was a drainage strategy and the matter of surface drainage and the brushing of the crumb had not been raised as an issue by the flood authority. The Service Manager said that the management of the pitch fell outside of the remit of planning. An informative requiring the brushing of the crumb could be added to the planning permission.

Councillor commented on the benefits of the scheme and the demand for the facility. He said that the substitution of the organic crumb was a good start and commented at length about developments in LED lighting technology. He also commented on noise pollution asked for more details as to the workings of the noise attenuation proposals.

Councillor Newton said that she was reassured by the conditions as they had addressed her concerns. She asked if there was an absolute need to remove the trees and she also expressed a concern about the impact on any birds that were breeding after the 30^th September. The Principal Planning Officer said that the trees identified for removal had to be removed as they were in the vicinity of the pitch.

Councillor Page raised a question regarding transparency in respect of the Environmental Health consultation and the almost total redaction of their representation on the planning portal. The Principal Planning Officer said that the details removed included extraneous background information and the full details of the Environmental Health Officer.

The Principal Planning Officer said that the proposals for noise attenuation included neoprene linked fencing which would reduce noise and there was a condition for a full noise management plan. She said that Officers did not believe the application would result in excessive noise.

Members were advised that condition 13 was a standard condition meaning that any trees shouldn’t be removed during the months when there were most likely to be nesting birds. The Principal Planning Officer said that birds were protected during nesting periods and trees to be removed must be inspected before they were removed.

Councillor Redfern made a general point that the number of trees should be increased on a two for one basis and asked if this could be conditioned on this application. Councillor Andrews made a further point about the organic crumb to be used on the pitch and the impact on the river. He said that condition three needed a bit more work in respect of details of the organic infill crumb to be used.

The Principal Planning Officer said that in respect of the loss of trees, condition 10 could be amended to pick up the matter of replacement trees. Members were advised that condition three could also be amended on the basis that the details of the organic crumb should be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the Environment Agency and Herts Ecology.

The Chairman made a number of general summary comments based on the points that had been raised in the Member debate in respect of the organic crumb, lighting and shielding and replacement tree planting. The Principal Planning Officer said that in respect of the shielding of the lighting columns, these were a very specific design of lighting column that were shielded by design to minimise light spread. 

Councillor Andrews proposed and Councillor Newton seconded, a motion that application 3/21/2353/FUL be granted, subject to the amended condition three and the conditions detailed at the end of the report and with delegated authority being granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the conditions.

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the motion was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED –that (A) in respect of application 3/21/2353/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the amended condition three and the conditions detailed at the end of the report; and

(B)   delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Building Control to finalise the detail of the conditions detailed in the report submitted.