Agenda item

TheCommitteeconsidereda reportof theSenior PlanningOfficerregarding an application for aproposedartificialgrass pitch(AGP)withperimeterfencing,6 x15m LED lightingcolumns,andhard standingareasat ParkViewUpperSchool and SixthForm,ChurchChare, Chesterle Street(for copyseefileof Minutes).

 

Scott Henderson,SeniorPlanningOfficerprovideda detailedpresentationof theapplicationwhichincludedphotographsof thesite, sitelocation,aerial photo,primaryaccessroutes, siteboundaries,impressionsof theproposed landscaping,tree planting,LEDlightingcolumns,plus associatedworks.

 

Theapplicationhadreceived231 lettersofobjectionand90 lettersof support.

 

 

Membersof theCommitteevisitedthesitepreviouslyand werefamiliar with thelocationandsetting.

 

CouncillorJoplingaskedtheSeniorPlanningOfficeraboutthetotal amount ofplayingpitcheswithinthe county.TheSenior PlanningOfficerresponded that whilehe didnothavethetotalpitchesfigure withinthe countyit was detailedin thereportthat theplayingpitchstrategyoutlinedtheneed for2 pitches inNorthDurham.

 

TheChair thankedtheSeniorPlanningOfficerandinvitedCouncillor Scurfieldto addresstheCommittee.

 

CouncillorScurfieldraisedlocalresidents’concernsandhighlightedtheir expertiseof thelocalarea.

 

Thegeographicallocationof the lettersof support washighlightedwith30% of supportersnotresidingin thecountyincluding noneof the supporterssituatedin theneighbouringestatefromthe proposed application.CouncillorScurfieldexpressedthatshe wasnot againstyoung people playingsportand localfootballteamsin thearea.It hadbeen brought upthat acurrentrestrictionof usingthe gateon romanroad was implementedfrom1990’sfromthe CountyCouncil toaddresshighway concernsand wasstillin place.It wasreportedthatthe currentrestrictions had workedwell inreducinghighwayconcerns.It wasinterpretedthat the reportwas solelybeneficialforthe applicant.Theapplication would lead to a reduction in the availability ofgreen space.It hadbeenoutlinedthatthenatureof usage inartificialpitcheswasfor usagemaximisationandthereforethe plannedoperationalhours of 4pm– 9:30pmthroughoutthe weekand weekendwouldbe fullyutilisedwithnaturalspill overexperienceduntil 10pm.It wasfurtherpointed outthattheproposedapplicationwouldresultin anadditionallevelof usage ofthe sitewhichwouldresultin higherprojected congestion,parking,traffic, andotherhighwayssafetyconcerns.

 

The negativeaffectsto thesocial andmental wellbeingfor thelocalresidentshad beenhighlightedintermsof theaforementionedhighwaysissuesincluding lightpollutionthat hadbeenprojectedtoemanatefrom theproposedLED light columns.It wasfurther raisedthat themain carparkwassituatedin a tightgeographicalfootprintwhich resultedin averytime-consumingprocess tomanoeuvrethe carpark. Thedirectresulthad beenproposedthat user hadusedthehousingestatefor parkingdue to the carparkhavingexcessive congestion.It wasquestionedthat trafficmarshalswerepractically ineffective.It was concededthat noreportedaccidentshadbeen reportedin the vicinityof theschoolduetohighwaysconcernshowever incidentshad beenlocallydiscussedandnoted andwalls hadbeen damaged by parentsdoing schoolruns. Facilitiessuch asthe proposed wouldbebettersituatedawayfrom housingestates.

 

Finally,CouncillorScurfieldagreedwiththeresidentsthatthe current infrastructurewas insufficientfor theproposal,thelocal primaryschool highwayssafetyhadbeen compromised,theincreasedtraffic fromthe developmentemanatedwouldleadto areductionin generalair quality.Park Viewschoolwas aschoolandnota leisurefacility.Therefore,a shortageof classroomsandnot playingpitchesshouldbe prioritised.

 

TheChair thankedCouncillorScurfieldandasked Councillor T Smith, neighbouring Member to address the Committee

 

Councillor Smith informed the Committee that following the sad death of Councillor B Bainbridge she had been requested by Holmlands residents to call the application in to Committee and informed the Committee she agreed with local residents why this development should not proceed.

 

There was no infrastructure for the development, very little car parking and the residential streets did not have the capacity for extra traffic.  There were two primary schools in the immediate locality of this proposed development which, if it went ahead, would result in serious road safety issues for the primary school children.  Councillor Smith was also concerned about the impact the extra traffic would have on the air quality in the area.  Councils were now introducing clean air zones and Councillor Smith asked why should more traffic be allowed into this very small area.

 

The proposal would create traffic congestion and the air quality would deteriorate which was harmful to both children and residents.  Finally, Councillor Smith highlighted that first and foremost Park View School was an educational establishment and not a sporting venue.  Park View was already oversubscribed causing children from Chester le Street needing to travel to Sunderland and Washington which was neither good for the children or the carbon footprint.  Planning considerations had identified a shortage of football pitches and Councillor Smith asked whether a shortage of classroom spaces in Chester le Street had been identified.  Park View School needed more classrooms, not more football pitches.

 

SteveSimpsoninformedthe Committeethathe wasspeakingon behalfof residentsand thathe echoedand whollyagreedwith CouncillorScurfield’s words.A presentationhad beenprovidedillustratingthe neighbouring housingestates,highwaysconcernsandpreviousfirst-handimplicationsof congestedareas.

 

It wasraisedfromthereport thattherewereover200 objectionsfrom residentson theestateincludingthecurrentMP,localCouncillor,and previousCouncillorandtheseshouldnotbe ignored.

 

It wasnotedthattheestate accommodatedparkingassociatedwithtwo churches,threeschools,Chesterle StreetCricketClub allof which were situatedin thenearvicinity.A broadergeographicalpointwasraisedthatthe estatewas situatedbetweenthe towncentre,RiversidePark andPark View CommunityCentreandindirectlyaffectedbythe associatedactivitiesof all three.

 

Thevalidityandrelevanceofthe applicantstrafficsurveyandits timingwas questioned.Governmentguidancerecommendedthatsurveysbe conducted inSpringor Autumnas opposedtothe Julywindowthat thesurveyhadbeen undertaken.A furtherpoint wasraisedthata two-daystreetwisesurvey whichall parametersof thecarparkhad been measuredfor trafficflow,had been excludedfromthereport.

 

Parking congestion wasas a direct consequence of Park View Community Centre which had seen parking capacity exceeded.  The Streetwise survey which had been undertaken calculated the optimum number of parking spaces on the estate using a measure of 5m and 5.5m length in their calculations.  Durham County Council’s own minimum standard was a 6m length.  Using the 6m standard it was estimated on that Saturday afternoon the estate was occupied with parked cars between 130% and 150% of capacity. It was believed that data provided in the report had broken Government and Durham County Council guidelines. In conclusion it was summarised that highways congestion would be amplified and continuous because of an approved application.

 

Objectionsraisedincluded increaseddisturbancefrom noisefora greater durationof time.Thisincludedpre-existingconcernsof shoutingfrom players andspectators,vehiclemovementsand a generalincreasein activityat the siteand uniqueproblemdirectlyfromthis proposalof footballshitting fences.

 

 

A further concernsurroundedthepotentiallightpollutionfrom theLED floodlightsandtheirdirect impactsto the nearbydwellings.Finally,it was commented,asa resultof theapplication,thata lossof privacyfor the nearbydwellingsthroughincreasedusageof thesite wouldoccur.

 

TheChair thankedSteveSimpsonand invited Lewis Pendleton and Jason Palmer to speakin relation totheapplication.

 

LewisPendleton and Jason Palmer echoedthe viewsof theplanningsurveys. While the applicant wasnot anexpert inhighwaysnorlicensing the concerns of local residents were understood.  Theapplicant hadworkedwithconsultantsto minimise thehighwaysissues.

 

Theapplicant respondedto thereferenceof potentiallycircumnavigatingthe long-standinghighwaysrestrictions.It wasoutlinedthatthe sitehad 3gates andthe affectedgate,situatedin themiddleof thesite withtheother 2 situatedat thenorthand southendsof thesite, asstipulatedinthe highways restrictionwouldnot be usedwithinthe parkingmeasuresoutlinedin the application.Theothertwogateswere utilisedin thisapplication.

 

Itwasreiteratedthatthe applicationwasfromPark ViewAcademyand not Chester-le-StreetUnited.

 

A newartificialpitch wasintendedto enhancetheschoolcurriculumby improvedoutcomesforthe learners,increasedavailabilityof provisionby activitiesscheduledall yearround.

 

Thelast twoyears hadbeenverydifficultfor studentsand thecommunity alikeandas peopleemergedfrom thepandemictheproposedupgradeto the sportsfacilitieswouldprovidea boostto physicalmentalandsocial wellbeing.

 

TheChair thankedtheapplicantsand askedthe Committeefor their commentsandquestions.

 

CouncillorWilsonasked ifthecurrentcapacityof carparkingwas70 parking spaces.TheSenior PlanningOfficerconfirmedthatthe figurewasaccurate.

 

CouncillorWilsonquestionedthe capacityof thecarparkingin ahypothetical scenariowhereall the currentamenitiesin thePark ViewCommunity Centrewere tobeutilised atthesametime andaskedwhetherthe car park hadhandledthisdemandpreviously.Additionally,he askedwhetherthe proposedthe 4Gpitchwouldcreatean additionaldemandaboveand beyond thecurrentgrasspitchusageand whetherthe roadwidthsin the highest trafficareascompliantwerewith regulation.

 

TheSenior PlanningOfficer confirmedthatthe roadwidthwascompliantwith nationalguidelines.Theoriginal applicationraisedhighwayconcernsin relationto trafficandparking andopinionshad beensoughthoweveran objectivereportmustbe assimilated.Theoccupancyrateof thecar park from5pmonwardshadbeen70%-80%.Furtherexampleshadbeen raised aboutseveralsimilarscale sitesandtheiradjoiningparkingcapacityviathe Tricsdatabase.Theinformationassembledfromcomparablesiteshad determinedthattheproposedprovisionwassufficientfor thelikelydemands ofthe affectedfacilities.It wasconcludedthat thedemandon thefacilityas wholewould berelativelylightcomparedtoother facilitiesin thearea. This fact wasillustratedbya comparablefacilityinthe area,ChesterMoor FC, onlyhavingthecapacityof 25car parkingspaces. Thiswasexplainedto havebeensuitablefora semi-professionalclub. Onbalanceit was concludedthatthe applicationwithstatisticalfindingsfallingwithinthe recommendedhighwaysboundariesshouldbe approvedfroman objective highways’standpoint.

 

TheSenior PlanningOfficer suggestedthatthe carparkingissuecouldbe alleviatedwithan implementedbookingsystemto managepeakusageand crossovertimes.

 

A responsefromtheapplicantsdescribedthat abookingsystemwasused forthe communitycentreandthat theproposedartificialpitch wouldbe addedtothe system.It wasfurtheraddedthat thegymwas notbookablefor the communityand wassolelyfor schoolusage. ParkViewCommunity Centrehad struggledsince CovidandParkViewAcademyranthe CommunityCentre.TheChester leStreetfootballclub wouldbe auserof the facilitylikeanyoneelse.Therewere3 or 4staff presenton sitein the evening.

 

CouncillorJoplingstatedthatshe understoodthefrustrationsandconcerns oflocal residentsonhighwaysandcongestionissuesandreferencedthe potentialimpactof theproposedLEDlightingcolumnswhich wascontrary toPolicy31 ofthe CountyDurhamPlan.

 

CouncillorSterlingraisedthepreviouslymentionedcrossoverissuesand congestionwitha referencetowardsnaturalbehaviourwith carsand the desireof parkingascloseas possibleto the destination.A further referenceto Policy31of theCountyDurhamPlan wasmade whichresulted inthe technicalspecificationintermsof lighttransmissionand the illuminationof surroundingareaswith theconcern ofthenearesthousewas situated25 metresaway.

 

TheSenior PlanningOfficer respondedthatthe projectedlightlevels that reachedthe facadesof thepropertiesas carriedoutbytheenvironment healthteamcompliedwiththeguidelinesas stipulatedwithin thereportsand thereforeno objectionscouldbe raisedin thereporton anobjective standpoint.

 

CouncillorSterlingrespondedthatshe understoodthat planningwasheldto guidelinesandlawhoweverconsideredthatthe lightpollutionwould havean adverseimpactevenif belowguidelines.

 

TheSenior PlanningOfficer respondedthatthe lightwould notbeam through windowsand wouldonlyilluminatethe exteriorof thedwelling.

 

CouncillorMoistconsideredthat theparkingdiagramwhich hadbeen shown wasmisleadingin termsof limitedparking.He askedwhethertheusageof the artificialgrasspitchwouldonlybe restrictedto 11 aside or whethertraining teams would utilisethefacilityand wouldit beutilisedfor smallside juniorteams? Attendancebyspectatorswouldalsoincreasetrafficas secondaryusageof thesite. Finally,whilethe shortageof pitchesin accordancewiththe playing pitchstrategyhad beenhighlighted,he consideredthatthe twonorth Durham pitchescould bebettersituatedin otherareas of north Durham.

 

CouncillorRobertsremarkedthattheonlywayan artificialpitchwould be financiallysustainablewouldbe byincreasingthe usageof thepitches therefore8 asideteamscouldbe usedthreetimes atthesametime formore income thanone 11a sidegame.Therefore,it wouldbeassumedthatusage wouldbeincreasedaboveand beyondthecurrentlevelsandparking demandwouldincreaseexponentially.Sheaddedthatplasticpitches hada 10-yearlifespanandproceduresmustbeput inplaceforits disposalat the end ofthistime.

 

CouncillorAtkinsonreiteratedthe mainissuesaboutparkingcongestion. CouncillorJoplingfurtherraisedtheparkingsupplyand demandissue. The proposalwouldnot bea likeforlike replacementandusagewouldincrease. Humannaturewouldincreasethe parkingissues furtherbycarsthat were situatedas closeto thefinal destinationaspossible.CouncillorJopling movedthattheapplicationberefusedas itwascontraryto Policies31 and 29of theCountyDurhamPlan.

 

Members asked that ifit theapplicationwas rejectedon highways grounds whether the Council would beable to defendthis onappeal.

 

TheHighwaysOfficerand LegalOfficer bothadvisedthatalthoughthe proposalwouldhavea highwaysimpact,itfell withincurrentregulationsand advisedthat ifthe proposedwasrefusedon highwaysgroundsthis wouldnot besustainableon appeal.

 

 

CouncillorWatsonsuggestedthatthe introductionof aparkingpermit system mayaddresssomeofthe localresidents’concerns.

 

 

CouncillorSterlingsuggestedtheapplicationbe deferreduntila more representativetrafficsurveycouldbe carriedout.

 

CouncillorEarleyconsideredthat theParkViewAcademyhadbeen unfortunatetobe victimsof theirownsuccess.He believedthat an approvedapplicationwould createmore conflictwithlocalresidents.

 

TheLegal OfficersoughtclarityfromMembersonthereasonstheywere proposingfor refusalof theapplication.CouncillorJoplingmovedthatthe applicationberefusedon thegroundsof itsimpact ontheenvironmentand residentialamenityandon thehistoricalsetting.Theimpactonresidential amenityin termsof noiseandlightingpollutionwas contrarytoPolicy31of the CountyDurhamPlan andthe impacton heritageassetswascontraryto Policy44of theCountyDurhamPlan,suchimpact not beingoutweighedby thepublicbenefitof theapplication.SecondedbyCouncillorShaw.

 

 

Upona votebeing takenit was:

 

Resolved

Thatthe applicationbe refusedonthe groundsof itsimpactonthe environmentand residentialamenityandon thehistoricalsetting.The impactonresidentialamenityin termsof noiseandlightingpollutionwas contraryto Policy31of theCountyDurhamPlan andtheimpacton heritage assetswas contrarytoPolicy44 of theCountyDurhamPlan, suchimpact not beingoutweighedby thepublicbenefitof theapplication.