Agenda item

Installation of 8 no. 15m high floodlights to 3G sports pitch.

The Senior Planning Officer, Henry Jones gave a detailed presentation on the report relating to the abovementioned planning application, a copy of which had been circulated (for copy see file of minutes).  Members noted that the written report was supplemented by a visual presentation which included photographs of the site.  The application was for Installation of 8 no. 15m high floodlights to 3G sports pitch and was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application site was within the Durham City Conservation Area and the Durham City Greenbelt, and highlighted that the 8 floodlights would be arranged in 2 lines, 4 each side of the pitch.  Members were shown photomontages giving an impression of the floodlights within their setting.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the floodlights were of slender design.

It was explained that there had been no objections from statutory consultees, and support had been received from Sport England for the application.  In terms of internal consultees it was noted that Design and Conservation did not object to the application, however, noted some less than substantial harm to heritage assets would be likely to occur as the site is in the setting of Maiden Castle scheduled monument and Durham and Shincliffe Conservation Areas.  The site also contributes to an extent to the setting of the World Heritage Site.  Members noted this less than substantial harm would need to be weighed against the public benefits of the development.

Members noted objections had been received from the City of Durham Trust, local residents with further concern and comment from the World Heritage Site Coordinator. The main issues in summary being: development in the greenbelt; harm to the heritage assets; impact on the World Heritage Site; and the piecemeal nature of the applications being made by the University.  It was noted the application had been requested to be considered by the Committee by Councillor L Brown.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that development within the greenbelt constitute harm, however, the development can remain acceptable provided that there are very special circumstances that clearly outweighed this and any other harm.  In this case the other harm was the harm identified to heritage assets.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that the very special circumstances were that of increased sports participation levels, with floodlighting allowing additional use by the University as well as local groups and clubs.  It was noted that Officers felt that these circumstances outweighed the harm to the greenbelt and the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets and therefore the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out within the report.  The Senior Planning Officer noted a late update in relation to Condition 5, seeking delegated authority so as to amend the wording so that the landscaping scheme be implemented within 1 year of the development rather than within the first available planting season as there was little time to organise this at this late stage in the year.

The Chairman thanked the Senior Planning Officer and asked the Committee Services Officer to read out as statement from Councillor L Brown, the Member that had requested the application be considered by Committee.

“Chair, Colleagues, thank you for your indulgence.  As the Councillor that called this application in to Committee, I am disappointed that I was note advised when the application was coming before you, which explains why I cannot be here in person.  I called this application in for two main reasons.

Firstly, I am uneasy that the University, having unveiled its Masterplan in a blaze of publicity, is auctioning it one small application at a time.  The Chair may well remind you that the application that is before you is the one to be decide, but the maiden Castle site appears to be a culmination of small applications leading to a large and intrusive whole on greenbelt land.

Specifically the previous application to upgrade the pitch is now being cited as the reason to install these floodlights.  If the requirement was there why was it not included in the previous application?

Secondly, I object to the siting of 50 foot high floodlights on greenbelt land.  The floodlights are to be switched off at 10.00pm, which is a mitigating circumstance, but the columns will still be there.  If these flood lights are essential can they not be retractable, surely technology exists to do this.

However, a precedent does exist to refuse permission for floodlights on greenbelt land, as demonstrated in the City of Durham Trust’s objection to this application which I have read.  I would ask that the Committee think long and hard before they vote on the Planning Officer’s recommendation.”

The Chairman noted speakers in attendance to speak in objection to the application, Mr R Cornwell, representing the City of Durham Trust, and Mr C Arthur a local resident.

Mr R Cornwell thanked the Chairman and noted that this case was finely balanced, with the Officer’s report saying so at paragraph 99 which stated: that the development does constitute inappropriate development in the greenbelt and; as a result the development is only acceptable where very special circumstances exist; such circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the greenbelt... is clearly outweighed by other considerations.  Mr R Cornwell asked how could you have a case that is “finely balanced”, yet the other considerations “clearly outweigh” the potential harm.  He added if it’s finely balanced then it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt and the Committee should refuse the application.  It was out that if the floodlights were so essential, why were they not included in the earlier application?

Mr R Cornwell asked had the case for “very special circumstances” been made out?  He noted the support from Sport England was generic and does not address the particular circumstances of the site in any way.  He added that none of the letters of support from the sports clubs specifically mention this planning application, the ones referring to floodlighting referring to the earlier planning application, not this one.

Mr R Cornwell noted that if you were going to find there are very special circumstances you needed to hard evidence, and there wasn’t any.  It was added that it was a very high bar; not a “balance of probabilities” but “clearly outweigh” the harm to the greenbelt.  Mr R Cornwell noted the City of Durham Trust had cited a couple of appeal cases, but noted he would mention one: the Administrative court decision given by Mr Justice Supperstone.  He added that this in fact supported the Trust’s contention and the Officer’s conclusion that this proposal was inappropriate development in the greenbelt.

Mr R Cornwell noted the Trust were asking the committee to refuse, with the reasons being that the Committee did not accept that there are special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm to the greenbelt.  He added that should the Committee decide to approve, they would need to give reasons as to why they did not accept the arguments that the Trust had advanced, as they would need to take advice.

Mr C Arthur noted as a local resident his general plea was in terms of applications being the “thin end of the wedge” and that “creep” should not continue into the greenbelt.  He added that joy of living in the greenbelt was being able to walk in these areas, now under threat.  In terms of practical suggestions, he noted that a band of trees along the riverbank to conceal the site may be of benefit.  He noted that while recent University developments had been very good, and that brown field sites should be developed, this should not stray 1 inch, 1 centimetre into the greenbelt.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and asked Mr Q Slope from Durham University to speak in support of the application.

Mr Q Slope noted Durham University was ranked 8^th within the UK and was a top 100 university worldwide, and being the only University within the County, the benefits to the University were also for the County and region. 

He added the new facilities at Maiden Castle were modern, sustainable and were part of the first elements of a 10 year Estates Masterplan for the University, the Masterplan having been developed with the DCC and stakeholders to maximise the benefits to the area.  It was explained that an aspiration was for the University to have the number one reputation in terms of residential student experience in Europe.

With reference to the application specifically, it was for 8, 15 metre floodlights for the new 3G sports pitch, utilising sensitive LED luminaries and high quality optics to mitigate the impact on the ecology at the site.  Mr Q Slope added that there were very special circumstances and the impact on the greenbelt and conservation area was considered minimal by the local planning authority.  It was noted that the running track would not be without lighting, however without these floodlights the use of the 3G pitch would be limited.  It was noted that the floodlighting would allow for maximum use of the 3G pitch and site, to hold major events and to be able to cope with the expected growth of the University.  It was explained that a number of sports could be facilitated, including Football, American Football, Ultimate Frisbee and Lacrosse amongst others, for the benefit of the University and the wider community.

Mr Q Slope concluded by noting the report, highlighting that very special circumstances had been explained, and asked that the Committee approve the application.

The Chairman thanked Mr Q Slope and asked the Senior Planning Officer to speak in relation to the points that had been made.

The Senior Planning Officer noted in relation to a point made by Mr R Cornwell, paragraph 99 referred to assessment regards a “fine balance”, when looking at the impact on the openness of the greenbelt, in isolation.  He added that the conclusions leading the recommendation came later within the report.  He noted that the application presented that the development did not constitute inappropriate development as there was not an impact on the openness of the greenbelt as such.  The Senior Planning Officer stated that in some views the site already has such a perception of being built up that this could be agreed with.  However, there would be other instances where the impact upon openness would not be preserved which on balance has led officers to conclude the proposal amounted to inappropriate development in the greenbelt.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that whilst all harm to the greenbelt must be given significant weight there is nevertheless different levels of harm.  The very special circumstances needed to clearly outweigh the harm can be proportionate to the level of harm.  In this instance it is considered that the benefits to the University and wider community clearly outweigh the limited degree of harm to the greenbelt and any other harm.  In terms of the case law referred to, the Officer felt there was not a direct comparison to this application.  The criticisms contained within the “Boot/Supperstone case” principally related to where an impact upon the openness of the green belt had been found but that, incorrectly, it was concluded the development was not inappropriate development.  These are not the same circumstances as in this case. 

It was added that in terms of “piecemeal” applications, each application was looked at on its own merits and there was no reason why the Local Authority would not deal with this application.  It was added that the lack of  flexibility the planning permission process in terms of not being able to grant a “part approval” has resulted in the applicant, in the interests of minimising risk, splitting proposals into more than one application.  This is so that the applicant could avoid a situation where none of their proposals gain planning permission.

The Senior Planning Officer noted Mr C Arthur mentioning “the thin end of the wedge” and reiterated that each application was considered on its merits and that within both this and an existing planning permission at the site there is a need for landscaping schemes to be implemented to mitigate the impacts of the development.

The Chairman asked Members of the Committee for their comments and questions as regards the application.

Councillor D Brown asked as regards the material and colour of the floodlight columns, galvanised steel and asked whether other colours and materials, such as concrete, would be more suitable and less intrusive.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that it was felt that metal was the appropriate material and that while paint could be used, for structures of some height, the grey, galvanised colour was the best to blend in.

Councillor D Freeman noted he had heard what the University had said in terms of why it wanted to be a world class university, but had not heard why the University wished to hurt the city it sits in.  He agreed in terms of the comments made as regards piecemeal development and supported the comments within the report that the application represented inappropriate development in the greenbelt.  He noted that when lit up at night it would affect the World Heritage Site and therefore he could not support the application, and did not feel the benefits outweighed the harm to the greenbelt.

Councillor M Davinson asked what height the existing floodlights were at the Maiden Castle site, how many were there and what strength in terms of output they were.  The Senior Planning Officer noted that the ongoing redevelopment of the site includes floodlights of 15m in height, commensurate with those proposed under this application.  In terms of light spillage, the Senior Planning Officer noted that there would be difference at night, however, the applicant had submitted additional submissions in respect to light impact which stated that the light spillage from the more technologically advanced floodlights would be less than the floodlights which previously served the site. The advice of Environment, Health and Consumer Protection had been sought and they had essentially concurred with this stance – the proposed floodlights would be better at pinpointing the light on the required area.

Councillor D Brown moved that the application be approved; he was seconded by Councillor M Davinson.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions as detailed in the Officer’s report to the Committee and the change to Condition 5 as mentioned.