Shawley School’s planning application for artificial grass pitches
Last month we reported that this application was being presented to the Council’s Planning Committee on the 4th September.
The original application, submitted almost two years ago, was for the installation of an astro-turf football pitch behind the school buildings and adjacent to houses in Great Tattenhams, Shawley Way and Upland Way. This matter was taken up by Cllrs Nick Harrison and Jill Bray on behalf of local residents who had attempted to engage with the Leo Academy and alert local residents to these proposals. The application for this development caused great concern from residents in the area with over 200 comments, mainly objections, being made to the planning department.
The school revised its application which was being reviewed at this planning meeting. The only significant change was a modest reduction of hours and limiting the age of users to under 12s. This age limit was only changed on the day before the meeting, so residents did not get the chance to comment on this concession.
The revised application was being recommended by officers to the Planning Committee. After running through the application the presenting officer concluded: “Officers are content that the proposal would not result in the significant adverse or unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents”.
Many local residents attended the meeting and completely filled the public gallery. Local resident, David Kieran, spoke on behalf of residents, He said: “I’m speaking on behalf of 120 residents who are objecting to this planning application because of the detrimental impact it will have on their surroundings by creating harmful noise, light pollution and parking issues which is not in character with this quiet residential area.”
He then went on to identify a number of anomalies that the planners had not properly addressed. For example, one report suggested acoustic screens were not required whilst another said they were necessary to reduce noise.
He went on to point out that the application stated that the existing football pitches were unusable in winter whereas they had been used regularly for district sports events with up to 200 people attending. He went on to point out that the fencing around the pitch was wrongly stated as ranging from 1.5m to 4.5m high whereas it would be 4.5m throughout. This together with 10m high lighting columns would have an impact on the surrounding area.
The school stated that there was a lack of astro turf flood-lit pitches in the Borough, but Mr Kieran reminded the committee that there were four within ten minutes’ walk at the Tadworth Leisure Centre.
He was also critical about the transport study which was totally unrealistic. He estimated that up to 60 vehicles could be on site and parked in the road whilst the facility was operational – far more than the transport report suggested – expecting many to arrive on foot or by bus!
Cllr Harrison remarked: “I think residents are reasonable people and wouldn’t object to the use of the facility by the school itself or in matches with other schools. It is the extended Community Use hours that are problematic. There have been reductions but in the latest proposals we do have over 20 hours when it is not being used by the school and it is available to the community.
“This reduction has been primarily in going back from 9pm to 8pm in the week and dropping Friday use. These are probably hours when there is less demand in the community, so I think the remaining 20-plus community hours will be used close to capacity. This level of demand was confirmed to me by someone who works in youth football. 20 hours is 3 working days, and is a significant proportion of residents waking, relaxation and home life. In my view this interference is too much, without an acoustic barrier in place.
“There are other matters of substance such as lighting and sky glow, flooding, the community use management plan. It is disappointing that issues raised by residents on the operational aspects have not been tackled and worked through before the application has come to committee.”
His presentation was backed up by further comments from Cllr Tim Snuggs who presented grounds for refusal which included unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
The Committee voted 8 to 2 in rejecting the application with 4 abstentions. So this was a result for common-sense. Whilst the planners were correctly following their protocols the Committee agreed with the residents and our councillors that this project is not viable at this location.