Agenda item
Preston Manor High School, Carlton Avenue East, Wembley, HA9 8NA (Ref.11/1822)
Decision:
a) Granted planning permission, subject to a s106 legal agreement, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to demonstrate the ability to provide for the s106 terms and meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document by concluding an appropriate agreement, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Installation of a new synthetic turf hockey pitch, the erection of six 14.5m high floodlights and 3m high fencing around the pitch, to be located on the existing playing fields adjacent to Preston Manor High School
|
RECOMMENDATION: (a)Grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, or
(b)If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to demonstrate the ability to provide for the Section 106 terms and meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document by concluding an appropriate agreement, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
|
Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager, informed the Committee that subject to increasing cycle parking provision and an update to the School Travel Plan no objections were raised by the Transportation section. He added that these matters had been fully addressed in the original committee report. He continued that whilst there would be a marginal change in re-levelling the pitch, it was not considered to impact on the amenities of adjoining occupiers.
Neil McClellan also informed members that the applicant had provided a summary that explained the differences between the light spill and glare levels and the different light settings required for hockey compared to other sports. He added that the floodlights would remain switched off when the pitches were not in use. The Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to revisions to conditions 4 and 10 as set out in the tabled supplementary report and to revisions to conditions 3 and 8 as suggested by the Council’s legal officer.
Mr Chris Musto in objecting to the scheme expressed concerns that the floodlighting would adversely impact on the quality of life of adjoining occupiers, adding that the area was not large enough to absorb the impact particularly on an overcast day. He stated that he lived at 25 Holycroft Avenue which abuts the school’s playing fields. In addition to its adverse impact on outlook and noise nuisance that would result from the use of the pitches, Mr Musto stated that due to its close proximity to adjoining properties, the proposal would result in visual intrusion. He submitted that the floodlighting was unnecessary and urged members to refuse the application. He compared the proposal to the Vale Farm sports complex where he felt the floodlighting was a nuisance to local residents.
Mr Ben Lesley, the applicant’s agent gave detailed technical information on the specifications of the floodlights adding that its horizontal fitting would reduce glare intensity to acceptable environmental limits. He continued that the design of its vertical illumination would ensure minimal impact. In conclusion, Mr Lesley assured the Committee that a survey would be conducted following the installation of the floodlights to ensure that they are operating within agreed limitations.
The Area Planning Manager stated that whilst the floodlights would be visible from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties there would be very little direct light pollution. The occupants of the neighbouring properties would see some reflected and diffused light, but that with the measures and restrictions agreed with the applicants this would be within acceptable limits.
Members took note of the measures taken to ensure minimal impact on adjoining occupiers and the contractor’s undertaking to conduct surveys to ensure that the specifications were rigorously adhered to in order to preserve residential amenities.
DECISION: a) Granted planning permission, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement as amended in conditions 4 and 10 as set out in the supplementary report and conditions 3 and 8 as suggested by the Council’s legal officer, or
(b) To delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission if within a reasonable period the applicant fails to demonstrate the ability to provide for the Section 106 terms and meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document by concluding an appropriate agreement. |
Supporting documents: