Agenda item

Erection of a 4.5m high FA standard football pitch boundary fence.

The Senior Planning Officer, Leigh Dalby, 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 the erection of a 4.5m high FA standard football pitch boundary fence and was recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

The Chair asked Councillor M Wilkes, Local Member to speak in relation to the application.

Councillor M Wilkes thanked the Chair and Committee and noted he had been asked to refer the application to Committee for determination by the Parish Council, his fellow Ward Councillors and local residents, due to the visual harm the application would cause to the area.  He explained that there was the impact to residential amenity as well as impact in terms of the openness of that green area.  He explained that Policy 26 of the CDP outlined that developments should maintain and respect green infrastructure and added that the construction of a 4.5 metre high fence, approximately 400 metres in length and containing an area of almost two acres of green open space, would have a significant impact.  Councillor M Wilkes noted that it was CDP Policy 31 in relation to visual harm to resident and residential amenity which had created more significant concern.  He added that Policy 31 was clear and stated: ‘Proposals which will have an unacceptable impact such as through overlooking, visual intrusion, visual dominance or loss of light, noise or privacy will not be permitted unless satisfactory mitigation measures can be demonstrated...’. 

Councillor M Wilkes noted there were no measures which could mitigate the visual impact and visual dominance of the proposals and therefore the application could be refused under CDP Policy 21.

Councillor M Wilkes asked Members to note the correspondence between the Council and the applicant, New College Durham (NCD), in respect of the application, where Councillor Officers had worked hard to seek a proposal that would have a lower impact.  He added that NCD had suggested a three metre high fence would be suitable, with the original reason for the request of the fencing being to prevent dog fouling on the football pitch in the open area.  He suggested that a three metre fence should be sufficient to prevent dog fouling and suggested the reason that NCD had not put forward proposals for a three metre fence was that they would need to withdraw their current application and resubmit for the reduced height.  He added that given residents would have to look at the fence for decades he felt that was unreasonable.  Councillor M Wilkes explained that a three metre high fence would not impact visually or in terms of openness as much as the 4.5 metre fence proposed and there were other options, such as having no fence behind residential properties, however, fencing off the sides.  He added that should the fence at the goal end closest to North Terrace be 4.5 metres, to reduce the issues associated with stay footballs, he felt most residents would not object to that option. 

Councillor M Wilkes explained that due to the way Alexandra Terrace sat at a lower level, the relative height of the fencing would be approximately six metres rather than 4.5 metres and therefore he requested that the Committee deferred the application to consider such issues, if NCD were happy to do so, or if they would not wish for a deferral then to refuse the application noting it was contrary to CDP policy 31, supported by Policy 26, in terms of impact upon amenity and openness.

The Chair thanked Councillor M Wilkes and asked Mr Richard Prisk and Mr Alan Perry, local residents to speak in objection to the application.

Mr R Prisk noted he lived at Alexandra Drive and that he was a former Planning Officer with over 30 years’ experience in County Durham.  He explained he and residents strongly objected to the application as it would create a strong urbanising development in an important open space area, integral to the college.  He added it would introduce a cage like structure 100 metres long, 70 metres wide, and 4.5 metres in height.  He noted that the close mesh construction would provide a strong visual barrier across the site and, while accepting that no open space would be lost, its function, openness and visual appearance would be significantly changed by the proposal. 

Mr R Prisk explained that the proposal would make the majority of the playing field not an open space, but an enclosed space, and the land outside of the structure would be less usable as public space and would be likely to receive less maintenance lowering its quality compared to that presently found around the peripheral edges of the site.  He noted that would further degrade the appearance of the land for residents and users of the adjoining footpaths.

Mr R Prisk added that the scale of the fencing was equally of concern, with the 4.5 metre height and its proximity to residential properties meaning that it would have a significant detrimental effect on amenity in terms of the visual intrusion and being overbearing.  He noted the Officer’s report stated the rear gardens of Alexandra Close were 1.5 metres below the playing field and, as a result, the structure would be approximately six metres from those gardens, which was more than the height of their roofs eaves, the equivalent of two and a half times the height of goal posts.  In addition, he noted that the southern end of the site would only be 15-20 metres away from people’s gardens, in very close proximity.  He noted while the report suggested that the fencing was not unusual, it was not a norm and added that there were many examples across County Durham where other arrangements designed to protect sports fields were significantly less intrusive.  Mr R Prisk asked that the Committee fully recognise the specific site characteristics and area in relation to general policy guidance within the CDP, including the site’s suburban and semi-rural setting, the overall design strategy for the college’s development which had maintained building development to the west of the public right of way, a principle that would be undermined by the proposal.  He noted the role of the series of open spaces to the east of the public right of way played into the setting of the college which helped to integrate the large mass buildings with the adjoining residential areas, especially since the extension of the college in 2019.  Mr R Prisk reiterated that the difference in ground levels exacerbated the effect and added that given those facts it was felt that the scheme should be refused as it was contrary to CDP policies as there was adverse impact on the county’s green infrastructure network, Policy 26, and there was conflict with certain criteria in Policy 29 in terms of character, adverse impact and failing to address factors in relation to the views to and from the site, together with maintenance and edge of settlement requirements.  He noted the impact of the visual intrusion was contrary to Policy 31, however, he explained residents were appreciative of the issues that New College wished to address, and his fellow local resident would speak as regards potential solutions.

Mr A Perry noted he too was a resident of Alexandra Close and had lived there for 40 years, with his property backing on to the playing field.  He explained that he supported rejection of the proposals as the sheer height and scale of the fencing would dominate the previously open space between the college and the houses. 

He added that residents would want to look at the way in which they might support any actions the college might take in order to protect the land in question.  Mr A Perry noted residents has some sympathy for the college’s position and wanted them to improve the maintenance of the area and safeguard their fields.  He reiterated that there were alternatives and what residents would ask for was that the college would speak to residents as regards what possibilities would exist and therefore in conclusion residents were asking that the Committee reject the application and ask that New College looked seriously into alternative ways to secure the field and to ensure that the open space was maintained.

The Chair thanked the speakers and asked Mr Paul Bradley and Mr Karl Fairley representing New College Durham to speak in support of their application.

Mr P Bradley thanked the Chair and Committee and noted the college was happy with the Officer’s presentation and recommendation for approval.  He noted New College had a proud tradition of delivering a wide and varied curriculum to their students.  He noted the application sought to enhance the sports facilities that the college provided to help its students achieve their academic goals.  He added that the application supported its curriculum and would allow the college to invest with confidence in the sports pitch that the fence would surround.  Mr P Bradley explained that in would also enhance the community benefits in terms of the use by the community, such as the Little Kickers and Durham County Junior Football Club.  He noted that the college understood the objections and recognised the concerns that had been raised by local residents which they hoped were addressed by the conditions put forward in relation to soft planting as set out in the Planning Officer’s report and presentation.  He noted that residents of North Terrace, to the south-east of the site, had longstanding issues in terms of wayward footballs and it was hoped the proposed fence would mitigate as much as possible while being in line with Football Association (FA) guidelines.

Mr K Fairley noted an additional point in that the proposals before Members represented an application which had been amended through the planning process, the initial application not having the soft planning element and the college welcomed Condition 4 in terms of a schedule relating to the soft planting.  He explained that would help not only in terms of sustainability, but also in terms of biodiversity on the site.  He noted that it would also help in terms of the concerns raised by residents living at Alexandra Terrace in terms of the outlook on to the trees that were proposed to be planted.  He concluded by noting the fencing would help in terms of footballs that entered the back yards of properties at North Terrace.

The Chair thanked the speakers and asked as regards the 4.5 metre height of the fence.  Mr K Fairley noted it was based upon FA regulations as set out by the Officer in his report.  The Chair asked the Committee for their questions and comments.

Councillor N Jones noted that the 4.5 metre height of the fence together with the 1.5 metre difference in ground level between gardens and the playing fields represented the height of one and a half double-decker busses.

Councillor J Elmer asked if the applicant had submitted a landscape / visual impact assessment in relation to the application.  The Principal Planning Officer noted it had not been felt that was necessary in this instance.  Councillor J Elmer noted he felt Members needed sufficient information and would recommend that in future it was requested.  He added he felt that there was simply a need to compromise in terms of the height of the fence and asked if there was any willingness to do so on behalf of the applicant.  The Chair asked if the applicant could respond with Mr K Fairley noted that a height of three metres along the sides of the pitch with 4.5 metre high fencing at each of the goals may help.  Mr R Prisk noted residents were looking for compromise in terms of the amenity of residents.

The Solicitor – Planning and Development noted that the application before Members was for a 4.5 metre high fence and should there be a desire to amend the height of the fence then the application could be deferred with an amended application to come back for the future.  He noted if the applicant did not wish that then Members should make a determination of the application before Committee. 

Councillor A Surtees proposed that the application be deferred to allow for further discussions between the applicant and Planning.  She was seconded by Councillor K Shaw.  Mr K Fairley noted the college would support a deferment.

Upon a vote being taken it was:

RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED.

Councillor C Kay left the meeting at 3.18pm