Agenda item

Extension to existing football club to provide additional weather training pitch area.

Earlier on in the meeting as reported under Minute 24 above, Councillor Goldman had declared for the public record that he was a local Ward Member and that he would be speaking on the application in that capacity. He therefore withdrew from the meeting and retired to the public gallery and took no part whilst the Committee deliberated and made its decision on this application.

The Committee was informed that the proposal was for an extension to the existing Clacton Football Club (FC) in order to provide an additional all weather training pitch area. The Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) was proposed to be located on land which formed part of the Rush Green Safeguarded Open Space and this application was before the Planning Committee as the land was owned by Tendring District Council and because the proposal represented a departure from the development plan.

The Committee was made aware that Policy HP4 of the Local Plan 2013-2033 identified areas of safeguarded open spaces to be protected. The policy stated that development that would result in the loss of the whole or part of areas designated as Safeguarded Open Space would not be permitted unless certain criteria were met. Officers felt that this proposal would result in the permanent loss of a section of safeguarded open space because the scheme included a 4.5 metre fence around the proposed AGP, and its use was exclusively for Clacton FC members and other potential sport users whilst not including the wider public and removing that area of land from general recreational open space use. Whilst the proposal would benefit members of Clacton FC and other potential sport users that might be subject to commercial payment, access to the area by the wider general public would be permanently lost without any replacement.

Officers reminded Members that the proposal would bring some health benefits and benefits to Clacton FC and their members, making the club more agile in respect of their offer and equipping them with a much-needed facility. Against those benefits, the pitch would be sectioned off and the loss of the safeguarded open space would therefore be permanent. Sport England had offered their strong support despite the part loss of the safeguarded open space.

Officers further reminded Members that the proposed development would result in some visual harm due to the fencing and floodlighting proposed and its intrusion outwardly into the remaining open space. The landscaping proposed would be largely ineffective in mitigating that harm, and that weighed further against the proposal. Neutral elements included no harm to neighbouring amenity, there was considered to be sufficient parking provisions and ECC Highways had offered no objections subject to conditions. Similarly, ECC Ecology had not objected to the proposal subject to conditions.

Members were told that, taking all of the detailed considerations above into consideration, Officers had concluded that, on this occasion the principle of development was not acceptable as it failed to comply with Policy HP4 of the Local Plan 2013-2033 and the health benefits and benefits to Clacton FC through the provision of that facility would not outweigh the loss of the safeguarded open space and the character harm.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of refusal.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Planning Officer (NH) in respect of the application.

An update sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting regarding a letter of objection, the plan to the front of the Planning Committee report, confirmation by the Council’s Tree and Landscaping Officer and re-wording of paragraph 8.33 of the Officer report which were as follows:-

1)    “One letter of objection has been received raising the following objections (summarised below):

-          The proposal limits space for those not involved in those activities, further development would limit dog walking areas.

-          Concerns in regards to parking and the overflowing of the car park

-          Concern in regards to the lighting and the impact to the local houses

2)    The plan to the front of the planning committee report should be as follows:

3)    As confirmed by the Council’s tree and landscaping officer, the size of the application site as amended makes provision for new planting on the perimeter of the site.  At the present time, the site layout plan which has been submitted to act as both the red line plan and landscaping (which shows only indicative details and location of planting) and does provide space to enable possible conditions on landscaping.  Furthermore, the Officers’ report paragraph 8.30 states that landscaping would be ineffective to screen the development.  This is corrected to read; the soft landscaping will be ineffective in providing the complete screening of the nature of development, including fence height, floodlighting and the position of the development into the public open space. However, given the opportunity to soften some of the impact, on balance, it is not considered sufficient enough as a reason in itself to warrant a reason for refusal. 

4)    Wording of paragraph

Paragraph 8.33 should read as follows: The proposal includes for a development that has the potential to incorporate renewable energy features. There are no details that accompany the planning application that demonstrate the water, energy and resource efficiency measures that the scheme will incorporate, and a condition requesting details of this is recommended.”

Steve Andrews, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Bernard Goldman, a Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application.

It was moved by Councillor Fowler, seconded by Councillor Alexander and:-

RESOLVED that:-

1)    the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reason(s) as stated in paragraph 10.1 of the Officer report (A.1) and in the Officer update sheet, or varied as necessary to ensure the wording is precise, and reasonable in all other respects, including appropriate updates, so long as the principle of the reasons for refusal as referenced is retained; and

2)    the sending to the applicant of any informative notes as may be deemed necessary.