Agenda item

Proposal:	Proposed change of use of land from agricultural to outdoor recreational and leisure facilities with parking.
Location:	Land North of Englefield Road, Theale.
Applicant:	West Berkshire Council
Recommendation:	Subject to no overriding objections being raised by Highways Officers to DELEGATE to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the schedule of conditions (Section 8.1).

 

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 17/00743/FUL in respect of a proposal for the change of use of land from agricultural to outdoor recreational and leisure facilities with parking.

Emma Nutchey presented the report to Members of the Committee and confirmed that no overriding objections had been raised by Highways Officers and therefore the recommendation was to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission, subject to the schedule of conditions.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Jan Richardson, Parish Council representative, a representative from the adjacent Parish, Ms Pamela Sergent and Ms Natalie Lowe, objectors, and Mr Richard Turner and Mr Greg Bowman, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Councillor Jan Richardson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         There were currently four full sized sports pitches on the site plus parking.

·         Two of the full sized pitches would be lost if the application was approved.

·         If the application was approved, the suggested plans would not provide pitches to the current standard on the site.

·         Youth teams that currently used the facilities on the site progressed through their ages. In two years time it was not known if there would be adequate facilities for under 15 year olds.

·         The parking element of the application was not sufficient and an acceptable solution had not been offered. Cars would be parked two metres away from the run off line and there would be the risk of footballs colliding with vehicles.

·         There would be vehicles parked directly behind the goals, which would not only cause a potential risk to vehicles but would also be a distraction for those playing football on the pitches.

·         The layout of parking provision would prevent emergency vehicles from accessing the site. It was estimated that the emergency services were called to the site at least once every season. 

·         The new plans would cause spectators to park on the close by footpath in attempt to avoid damage to their vehicles if parked on the site.

·         Englefield Parish Council needed to make a decision as to whether to relinquish the land. This was a very complex issue that needed to be considered.

Councillor Pamela Bale noted that the report stated that one undersized football pitch would be lost in the application was approved and queried whether this detail was incorrect. Councillor Richardson confirmed that all pitches currently on the site were full sized and two of these would be lost.

Councillor Keith Chopping was unsure if he had misunderstood and asked for clarification on whether Councillor Richardson had suggested that the application should be for full size pitches. Councillor Richardson confirmed that this was correct. It was felt that two acres was too small for spectator provision. Councillor Chopping further questioned what the Parish Council would like to see with regards to parking on the site. Councillor Richardson stated that the Parish Council did not have an issue with the amount of parking proposed for the site but with the layout of parking spaces, which were too close to the pitch. Councillor Richardson added that there could potentially be 44 cars manoeuvring within the site and this would be dangerous when paired with children retrieving balls.

Councillor Chopping noted that a 1.8 metre fence was proposed for the site and asked Councillor Richardson if she felt this was adequate to deal with balls leaving the pitch. Councillor Richardson had attended many games on the site and was aware that balls often went much higher than this.

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that the current site was to the south of the highway and asked when the four pitches were in use how many cars were on site. Councillor Richardson answered that there would be at least 40 cars on site when all pitches were in use however, alternate pitches were often used. Councillor Bridgman referred to Mrs Richardson’s statement where she had mentioned that eight acres of land were required to accommodate the pitches and parking. Councillor Bridgman asked if the Parish Council had carried out any work with regards to the layout of the site. In response to the question Councillor Richardson reported that the manager of the site was very knowledgeable and had expressed the view that the proposed plans for the site would only accommodate two full size pitches and parking. 

The representative from the adjacent Theale Parish Council confirmed that they had no further comments to add to that which was already included within the report.

Ms Pamela Sergent and Ms Natalie Lowe (Theale Golf Club) in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      Ms Lowe disagreed with the report that the proposal would compliment the area. She was concerned about the level of noise when football games were taking place. Golf was a quiet sport compared to football and therefore would be negatively impacted upon.

·      A pitch had already been lost due to the new school that was proposed for the area.

·      The parking proposed would accommodate three pitches and therefore there was fear that spectators would park on the road or in the golf course’s car park, which would affect customers using the course.

·      Theale Golf Course was responsible for the private drive leading to the course and there was concern that this would become used for parking by those using the football pitches. The golf course’s toilet facilities were already being used by those using the pitches.

·      Ms Sergent stated that there was no evidence that an under 15s football pitch was required and it was not large enough to meet the needs of the local teams.

·      The proposed fencing was inadequate and would make it easy for travellers to enter the site.

·      There was insufficient parking proposed for the site and there was an inadequate amount of room available for vehicle turning places. This would cause vehicles to breach the public right of way or encourage use of the golf course’s parking.

·      Changing facilities were too far away from the site. Young girls were becoming more involved in the sport and needed to be considered before deciding to rule out the need for toilet facilities.

·      Once the new school was built the private road would be used to drop off and collect children from school.

·      Members of the Committee needed to be aware of a recent planning appeal for Lakeside.

·      The site would be extremely difficult to access for emergency vehicles, which could cost lives.

Councillor Bridgman expressed his difficulty with the objections raised. There were currently four pitches on site and Officers were saying that four pitches would remain however, the Parish Council were of the view that there would only be three pitches. Councillor Bridgman did not understand how there would be more vehicles movements than what there was currently. In response to Councillor Bridgman’s queries Ms Sergent reported that the existing car park would be lost and the new car park was not sufficient. If the school was to be built then the area would lose a further five acres. It was anticipated that the school would accommodate 315 to 320 pupils and because it was a new school there would be an increase in vehicle movements. Ms Sergent confirmed that the proposal was for two full sized pitches and one under 15’s pitch.

Councillor Bridgman asked who owned the road leading to the golf course and it was confirmed by Mrs Sergent that this belonged to Englefield Estate who leased Theale Golf Course the land.

Councillor Alan Law agreed that the school would increase traffic to the area and asked whether the access to the school was from the golf course. Ms Sergent reported that there would be no access for collection from the school. There would be a kiss and drop gate but this would only be for use by certain pupils. There would be nowhere else for people to stop outside of the school.

Councillor Graham Pask reminded Members of the Committee that the school was not part of this planning application.

Mr Richard Turner and Mr Greg Bowman in addressing the Committee stated that they had no statement to make however, were happy to receive questions from Members of the Committee. Solicitor, Sharon Armour, stated that in accordance with the Constitution, Members of the Committee were able to ask questions to clarify a point made in a statement. The only other option was for Members to suspend standing orders.

Mr Turner in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·      He invited Members of the Committee to vote in favour of the application and declared that he was happy to receive any questions from Members regarding information contained within the report.

·      Mr Turner confirmed that 12 cars would be able to use the kiss and drop facility at any one time.

Councillor Alan Law asked if Mr Turner would expect anyone to cross the pitches to access the school and in response to this question Mr Turner confirmed that he would not.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe highlighted to Members that the application before them had been submitted by West Berkshire Council (WBC) and therefore the conditions would need to be upheld by WBC. Councillor Metcalfe asked who would be responsible for operational functions such as locking the gate and Mr Turner confirmed that these kinds of functions would be managed by the leaseholder. Mr Turner confirmed that the leasehold would be offered to Theale Parish Council and WBC would not manage the site. Councillor Metcalfe asked how the site would be accessed for grass cutting and Mr Turner confirmed that there would be a gap in the fencing for this purpose.

Councillor Metcalfe further questioned about the car parking spaces. He noted from the report that the spaces would be marked bays however, the plans suggested that the bays would be grassed over. Mr Turner confirmed that an artificial product was being used that would allow grass to grow through it.

Councillor Richard Crumly asked for a response from Mr Turner regarding comments raised about car parking including turning circles, risks to children and cars being parked closed to goal areas. Mr Turner confirmed that the distance between the goal and where cars would be parked was 4.7 metres, which according to guidance provided by the Football Association was sufficient.

Councillor Keith Chopping referred to concerns raised by the Parish Council with regards to overhead power lines and asked Mr Turner for comments on this subject. Mr Turner confirmed that power cables were not a planning consideration and therefore had been excluded from the report however, it had been agreed with the power provider that the lines would be rerouted underground away from the site.

Councillor Lee Dillon highlighted concerns raised by Theale Golf Club and asked Mr Turner if re-locating the site away from the Golf Course had been considered. Mr Turner reported that the piece of land in question was the only option offered by the free-holder.

Councillor Quentin Webb felt that the proposal for parking on the site was not clear. Mr Turner confirmed that how the parking was managed would be in the hands of the Parish Council. There would be eight acres remaining. There would be a gated access to the site once the school had been built, that would ensure parking available during competitions.

Councillor Bale expressed her confusion in the fact that the application had been submitted by WBC however, the pitches would be managed by the Parish Council and the surrounding area and therefore queried if there would need to be an agreement between WBC and the Parish Council. Mr Turner confirmed that there would need to be an agreement between the freeholder and the Parish Council.

Councillor Richard Somner referred to the point made by Councillor Metcalfe regarding the marking of parking spaces. He was aware of the reinforced mesh used at Holybrook however, queried if markings could be made on this material. Mr Turner was unaware if markings could be placed on the materials proposed.

Councillor Bridgman asked if it was correct that after the school was accounted for there would only be space for two full sized pitches and parking. According to aerial dimensions taken through GIS, Mr Turner believed that the space could accommodate more than this.

Councillor Marigold Jaques stated that the Parish Council were concerned that those dropping children at school would use the site as an access route to the school. Mr Turner confirmed that the school would have a traffic plan in place to help ensure this did not happen.

Councillor Dillon read a statement on behalf of the Ward Member, Councillor Alan Macro, who had raised the following points:

·      He apologised for not being able to be present at the meeting.

·      The decision on the application was of personal interest to him as he was a Member of the Parish Council and a Governor at the Primary School.

·      The site in question had been the only one the freeholder had been prepared to lease.

·      He felt that parking provision proposed for the site should be adequate.

·      He was of the view that the application should be approved and permission granted.

Councillor Metcalfe stated that the application Members were considering was within the red lines outlined on the plans for the application however, discussions kept referencing areas that fell outside of these redlines. Members needed to consider if the plot of land was suitable for what was proposed within the application.

Councillor Alan Law stated that according to the Football Associations website a standard football pitch could be a minimum of 90 by 45 metres and what was being proposed was 91 by 61 metres and therefore should be adequate. Councillor Law asked if Officers agreed with this. Planning Officer, David Pearson, expressed his view that an adult game of football could be played on the proposed pitches.

The Chairman asked the Highways Officer if he had any comments to add to the discussion regarding parking provision on the site. Highways Officer Gareth Dowding, stated that grass crete had been mentioned and this plastic system accommodated white markings, as long as the grass was kept short.

Councillor Dillon noted that there was a 1.8 metre mesh fence proposed for the eastern side of the site and asked Officers if they felt this was high enough and whether it might be sensible to increase the height. Emma Nutchey reported that the height of 1.8 metres had been suggested by the Public Rights of Way Officer as it had been felt that the scattered trees and hedge line together with the fence offered sufficient protection.

Councillor Metcalfe expressed that he was in favour of an application that encouraged sport and that health was a key aspect of work undertaken by WBC. Councillor Law concurred with Councillor Metcalfe and proposed that the application should be approved in line with Officers’ recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Crumly and the motion was carried at the vote.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1.     Time Limit

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.       

Reason:  To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.     Plans

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing title numbers:

-               Proposed Site Plan drawing number PL301 rev. 9

-               Hard and Soft Landscape GA drawing number LLD1063/01 rev. 10

-               Detailed Plant Schedule and Planting Specification July 2017

-               Landscape Specification July 2017

-               Gate & Fence Details drawing number PL302 rev. 1

-               Preliminary Ecological Appraisal report, Protected Species Assessment October 2016

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.     Boundary treatment

No development shall commence until a plan to show the addition of a pedestrian gate within the post and rail fence along the southern boundary has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The pitch shall not be bought into use until the fencing has been constructed in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the drawing titled Gate & Fence details drawing number PL302 rev. 1. The boundary treatment shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: The boundary treatments are an important element in the design of the scheme. A pedestrian access at the eastern end of the pitch is considered desirable to allow for easy access onto footpath THEA/7/2 thus minimising the need for people to walk along the access road. This is in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 2006-2026.

4.     Landscaping

All landscape works shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans, schedule of planting and retention, programme of works and other supporting information including drawing numbers LLD1063/01 REV 10 dated 13.10.2016 and supported by the Detailed plant schedule and planting specification ref LLD1063/KM/06.07.17. Any trees, shrubs or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased within five years from completion of this development shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy July 2006-2026.

5.     External Lighting

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no external lighting shall be installed across the site without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To have regard to the setting of the development within the open countryside and to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and wildlife. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

6.     Signage for PROW and cars

The sports pitch hereby approved shall not be bought into use until details of the proposed signage to be erected at the vehicular entrance into the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter constructed and retained in accordance with the approved details. The signage must warn vehicle drivers of the existence of the footpath, and footpath users of the fact that vehicles will be turning into and out of the site across the footpath. The submitted details shall include a plan to show where each sign will be positioned, what it will say and its appearance.

Reason: To ensure the safety of users of footpath THEA/13/1 in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and paragraph 75 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.     Erection of a 1.8m high mesh fence parallel to the parking

No development shall commence until a plan is submitted to show the siting and details of a 1.8m high mesh fence running parallel to the western end of the pitch and the parking spaces. The pitch hereby approved shall not be bought into use until the approved 1.8m high fence has been erected in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect cars parked in proximity to the pitch from stray balls in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 2006-2026 with respect to good design.

8.     Use restriction

The playing field shall be used for Outdoor Sport and for no other purpose (including without limitation any other purpose in Class D2 Use Classes Order 2005, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).

Reason: To protect the playing field from loss and/or damage, to maintain the quality of and secure the safe use of sports pitch. 

9.     Construction and management plan for the pitch

No development shall commence until a construction and management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall provide for:

(a)  A detailed scheme which ensures that the playing field will be provided to an acceptable quality (in terms of soil structure, drainage, cultivation and other associated operations), informed by a detailed assessment of ground conditions (including drainage and topography) of the land proposed for the playing field;

(b)     Details of how the pitch will be maintained and managed

(c)  Details of community use arrangements;

(d)  A programme of implementation.

           

The land shall thereafter be provided and managed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure the quality of the pitches is satisfactory, in accordance with Policy CS18 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

10.  Height restriction across car park is hinged and lockable

The height restriction barrier to be installed at the entrance to the car park shall be hinged and lockable to allow emergency vehicles into and out of the site. This type of barrier shall be retained in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure the site is accessible to emergency vehicles in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

Informative:

No cars shall be parked on or within the legal width of the footpath.