Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for the creation of a floodlit artificial pitch with a 6-lane all weather running track, a football pitch, relocation of cricket nets, extension to sports pavilion balcony and new javelin, discuss, shot put and long jump area alongside the creation of a new store building and additional on-site car parking.  (Additional information received 04.01.21 and 07.01.21 landscape visual impact, archaeology, drainage and planning statement addendum).  

Prior to consideration of the application, the following persons addressed the Committee in accordance with Public Speaking Procedure Rules 3(b):

·         Ms Katherine Atkinson (to object);

·         Mr Charles Wilce (to object);

·         Mr Steve Smith (Head Teacher of Guildford County School) (In Support) and;

·         Mr David Boyd (Head Teacher of Tormead School) (In Support)

The Committee received a presentation from John Busher, Specialist Development Management Majors.  The Committee noted the supplementary late sheets which included a site location plan and an updated block plan.  The application related to works and improvements to the existing sporting complex.  The site was located in the Green Belt as well as within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  The site consisted of a number of running pitches, grass running track and cricket pitches.  There was also a small pavilion building and a car park.  The main changes comprised of a six-lane running track to the north of the site and a new all-weather hockey pitch with fencing around its perimeter and replacing the existing football pitch.  The site would be illuminated by retractable lighting columns spaced out along both sides of the pitch.  The rugby pitch would also be relocated to the centre of the site, a new football pitch in the south-east corner and the existing parking area expanded to accommodate coaches with a new access and turning area and additional parking for approximately 50 vehicles provided on existing hardstanding.  A small extension to the existing balcony on the pavilion building was also proposed.

The proposed lighting for the hockey pitch would be formed of columns that when extended would be a maximum of 13 metres and when retracted 2.8 metres tall.  Condition 9 stated that the lights should only operate from eight o'clock in the evening on Monday to Saturday, not at all on Sundays or on Bank or National Holidays and that the columns should be fully retracted when not in use.  There was also a 3-metre difference in height in the hockey pitch levels. 

Planning Officers had concluded that the proposal due to its use for outdoor sport and recreation would be an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt and would not result in any material harm to its openness.  As the site was also located within the AONB, the NPPF required that great weight be afforded to the conservation and enhancement of its natural beauty, the NPPF also made clear that the AONB should benefit from the highest level of protection.  The majority of the proposal was not considered to impact on the wider natural beauty of the AONB and would have no long term significant adverse impact.  However, it was acknowledged in the officer report that the proposed lighting would result in some harm to the special landscape character of the AONB which resulted from the visual impact of the lighting columns themselves as well as the potential impact of the illumination introducing a light source in views towards the Merrow Downs.  Planning Officers had worked with the applicant to reduce this impact as much as possible through the use of the retractable lighting columns, as well as limiting the hours and days that the lighting could be used on.  These measures were hoped would mitigate the impact to a degree but it would not entirely eliminate the harm to the AONB and AGLV which would result from the proposal. 

It was also noted that residents had raised concerns about light pollution.  The technical documents submitted with the application show that light spillage beyond the pitch would be limited.  No objections had been raised by the County Highway Authority or the Lead Local Flood Authority.   In terms of benefits arising from the scheme it was noted that the proposals would provide improved sporting facilities for schools as well as members of the public.  The proposal would also have benefits in terms of providing greater opportunities for children to become more involved in outdoor sport and foster healthier lifestyles.  It would also allow for the more efficient operation of the field.  The NPPF stated that planning should support development which enabled healthier lifestyles.  Planning Officers considered that that the benefits of the proposal clearly outweighed the harm that would be caused to the AONB in the AGLV and accordingly the application was recommended for approval.

The Chairman permitted Councillor John Redpath to speak in his capacity as Ward Councillor.

The Committee noted concerns raised that there was no local need for the development and that any benefits for the schools must be considered against the significant harm to the protected landscape of the Surrey Hills.  Policy P1 of the Local Plan in line with the NPPF required development proposals within and adjacent to the Surrey Hills AONB to conserve or enhance its special qualities.  There was a big difference between what was desirable and convenient versus actual need.  Both Tormead and Guildford County school can access the four grass pitches at Urnfield and both schools already had excellent facilities on site, including all weather multi-use areas with floodlighting.  Competitive standard facilities existed close to both schools at Spectrum and Surrey Sports Park.   Both had spare capacity.   For 10 years Tormead School had been the largest external customer for hockey pitches at Surrey Sports Park but even so hockey pitch utilisation there was currently only 45 per cent.  Not one local community group had been identified as in need of what this application offers.  Of course Tormead would like to have its own bespoke home ground and as their own website states doing away with the need for hiring astroturf pitches at Surrey Sports Park.  This development would therefore address an inconvenience not an unmet need because both school facilities already offered healthy lifestyles to their students and the community.  In calculating the planning balance, the planning officer incorrectly applied great weight to NPPF paragraph 95 which is a policy designed to increase the number of local school places.  This development did nothing to increase the availability of school places and so this should be removed from the balancing exercise.  The only great weight to be applied in this case was set out in NPPF para 176 which was to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  There was no local need for this development and the benefits were marginal.

The Chairman permitted Councillor John Rigg to speak in his capacity as Ward Councillor.

The Committee noted concerns raised that the application was for a substantial development, on a sensitive site, on a widely visible 400-foot-high ridge line within a nationally protected landscape of the Surrey Hills.  It included a 13-metre floodlight.  Floodlighting and its reflected glare from a 1 hectare of pitch and track would pollute the surrounding AONB and dark skies.  We must give great weight to conserving and enhancing scenic beauty under NPPF paragraph 176 yet the case officer has used floodlighting mitigations for an outer suburban location not an AONB.  Section 1 of the Surrey Hills Management Plan stated that this was one of the most stringent legal tests that could be applied under planning law.   Conservation and enhancement of wildlife was a further consideration and yet the floodlights would be in direct conflict.   The applicant did not quantify any biodiversity net gain as required let alone the 20 percent expected by Surrey Nature Partnership.  The only great weight is drawn from paragraph 95 by ensuring adequate numbers of places at local state funded schools.   There was no great weight applicable to set against the harm.  The case officer refers to potential for community use as the main public benefit, no evidence of a local need had been presented and the development would simply duplicate underused existing facilities at a great cost to the environment and landscape. This was not a minor upgrade to existing facilities.  Nearly 1 hectare of chalk grassland would be excavated and covered with plastic which was an area of nature conservation interest.  The carbon footprint would be considerable, floodlights would be visible for miles.  The intention of paragraph 176 was that there should not be development on the AONB. 

The Committee considered the application and concerns raised that the lighting and its effect on habitat and diversity was unacceptable.  The need for the facilities proposed was questioned also given the high quality sports facilities already available in the area.  Whilst school pupils would be able to play hockey at their local school it would be at the cost of the local wildlife.    The artificial pitch proposed would also be made out of plastic which was not conducive with the setting of a natural environment.  The floodlighting would also provide artificial light that would pollute a dark skies area.  The Committee also noted that the quantum of development had been referred to in the report in varying ways, firstly as improvement, then as redevelopment and then as new development which made it ambiguous.  Plastic grass was perceived to be out of keeping in this hilltop area.

The Committee noted that harm to the AONB and to the landscape character had already been identified in the officer’s report which was not just solely related to the floodlights proposed but was also relevant to the artificial grass surface proposed.  It maybe moderate harm but yet in the report it stated that considerable weight should be afforded to this as per paragraph 176 of the NPPF which also alluded to great weight.  Balanced against that was the significant benefit of the facilities given to the school and there did not appear to be considerable evidence of the fact that the schools were in dire need of these facilities.  The benefits of the scheme therefore did not outweigh the harm. 

The Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed that the terminologies used in the officer’s report regarding the balance of weight were all cited from the NPPF.  In addition, Government required planning officers to accord great weight on the provision of school facilities.

The Committee discussed the Maddox report which stated that the facilities at the University of Surrey ran out next year and would not continue the existing arrangements.  However, the University was not aware of this and confirmed that they would be happy for the school to continue to use their grounds.  In addition, the effect of the proposal on roosting bats, the effect of the lorries on the pitch when carrying out the soil work removal as well as navigating down narrow residential roads to get there.  The Committee was also concerned regarding noise created by the sporting facilities.

The Committee queried how many spaces the existing car park could accommodate and the associated light pollution this would create for local residents.  In addition, how may electric vehicle charging points would be installed and were there any additional lighting plans for around other pitches or the car park.   

The Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed that no other floodlighting was proposed elsewhere on the site and was just for the hockey pitch.  In terms of the existing car parking spaces the application forms indicated that there were 25 existing spaces and would be extended by the proposals.  Regarding the positioning of the nets, planning officers were aware of the Environmental Health comments, however given the close proximity of the football pitch to that boundary, it wasn’t judged to be harmful in planning terms.  It was also confirmed that lights already existed on the front of the pavilion. 

The Committee agreed that the floodlights as proposed and artificial hockey pitch would fail to preserve the natural beauty of the AONB.  The harm caused to the AONB/AGLV was considered to be substantial and such weight needed to be afforded accordingly in the balancing exercise.  Both schools already had access to exemplar sports facilities and therefore the need to provide further enhanced facilities was questioned when balanced against the significant damage caused to the AONB by virtue of the proposal.

A motion was moved to approve the application, but not seconded.  The motion therefore failed. 

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was carried. 

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

RESOLVED to refuse application 20/P/00825 for the following reasons:

1. By virtue of the proposed floodlighting, as well as the artificial nature of the proposed hockey pitch, the proposal would fail to conserve or enhance the natural beauty and special landscape qualities of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As a result, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy P1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2019, the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan and paragraph 176 of the NPPF.

Informatives:

1.    This decision relates to the following plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1908_001; 1908_030; 1908_008; 06; 1908_025; 1908_026; 1908 040; 09 003 REV A; 198 004 REV B; 1908 007 REV A; 1908_002 REV E.

2.    This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Guildford Borough Council seek to take a positive and proactive approach to development proposals. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by: · Offering a pre application advice service · Where pre-application advice has been sought and that advice has been followed we will advise applicants/agents of any further issues arising during the course of the application · Where possible officers will seek minor amendments to overcome issues identified at an early stage in the application process However, Guildford Borough Council will generally not engage in unnecessary negotiation for fundamentally unacceptable proposals or where significant changes to an application is required. In this case pre-application advice was sought and provided which addressed initial issues, the application has been submitted in accordance with that advice, however, further issues were identified during the consultation stage of the application. Officers worked with the applicant to improve the scheme further. However, the Local Planning Authority considers that the harm to the AONB has not been overcome, and the application has been determined as amended.