6
The Committee received report ES/2396 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/2048/ARM. The Principal Planner (Major Sites) gave a presentation which included the background to the application site, explaining that consent was granted in 2021 in hybrid form under application reference DC/21/0541/FUL. This granted full planning permission for 65 dwellings and a community space with associated access, parking and landscaping. Outline permission was also granted under this permission for redevelopment of the existing sports hall to provide an indoor bowls facility and for a cricket pitch with pavilion on the old playing fields to the west, alongside parking, landscaping and associated works. Matters of access and scale were agreed under the outline permission but the remaining matters; layout, appearance and landscaping were reserved for later submission (referred to as the ‘Reserved Matters’). Conditions relating to the full element of the consent were subsequently varied under applications DC/23/0539/VOC and DC/24/0773/VOC. Following this, the reserved matters for the outline portion of the site were now being submitted for consideration. She referred to the Update sheet on the website which included consultee responses, including from Highways.
The Principal Planner showed maps and photographs of the site, pointing out the properties surrounding the site and the public footpath. She also showed a photograph of the residential units that are currently being constructed.
The Principal Planner explained that the principle for development had already been approved and now they were looking at the approved matters approval element. She explained that the sports hall was to be extended to create an indoor bowls facility and there would be a car park, retention of the scout hut, a new cricket pavilion, play area associated with the residential area, 3 cricket pitches and a container unit for storage. She also pointed out the ball mitigation netting.
She ran through the equipment that would be included in the play area explaining that it would not be surrounded by a fence. She showed a floor plan and designs for the cricket pavilion which would have a pitched roof and small porch, would be clad and have a green roof. The building height was permitted as per outline planning permission. She moved onto the bowls club explaining that in response to comments from neighbours the parapet was removed from two sides and was replaced with a pitched roof and the height reduced to limit the impact on neighbouring residents.
The Principal Planner concluded by running through the material considerations and key issues. She explained that the conditions would limit the concerns raised by consultees and therefore the proposal was recommended for approval.
Councillor Deacon raised concerns about the lack of fencing around the play area and referred to the comment from the cricket club. He was also disappointed that the planning description still referred to 16 parking spaces when it should be 61 and he mentioned this every time the site was discussed. He also asked where the shipping container would be located.
The Principal Planner explained that the cricket club was concerned that children in the play area would spill over onto the cricket pitch. She pointed out that the footpath around the pitch was also not enclosed so there would be people moving through the site that were not fenced off. This was already a risk for the cricket club to manage so it wasn’t felt that enclosing the play area would reduce the risk of public on the pitch. She explained that the guidance material they had consulted, including Make Space for Girls, suggested that enclosing play areas wasn’t inclusive and could be seen as a negative. Therefore it was felt it did not need to be enclosed although there was a condition included to look at boundary landscaping.
The Principal Planner explained that the description which incorrectly stated 16 car parking spaces was there when the application was approved and unfortunately it could not be amended retrospectively. She confirmed that the container would be by the hut.
Councillor Deacon said he would prefer to see the play area fenced off as he could see children running onto the cricket pitch.
Councillor Smithson asked if the play area was protected by the ball mitigation netting. The Principal Planner explained that Sport England hadn’t asked for any further protection outside the ball mitigation netting but that the play area was partially behind the netting.
Councillor Reeves was concerned that the play area looked very cramped. The Principal Planner said there was space between the equipment and it should be noted that the plan included the safety surface.
Councillor Bennett asked how easy it would be to extend the ball mitigation fencing. The Principal Planner said it would require planning permission as it was not permitted development. The Planning Manager said the play area was further on the angle from the wicket which explained why the fencing only went a certain length. It was pointed out that Sport England was the expert who had provided the guidance and were aware of the play area when making their recommendations.
The Chair invited Basil McClean to speak. He explained that he had lived on Valley Walk for 35 years and had objected to the residential element originally. He questioned why additional openings onto the field were being created and was not aware that any residents requested this. He voiced his fears about how this could lead to increased ASB, which they had already experienced, and cited incidents of county lines and drug dealing. He was also concerned about additional car parking on Valley Walk when the cricket pitch was in use which could cause access issues for emergency vehicles.
Councillor Hedgley asked Mr McClean to point out on the map where his property was which he did.
Councillor Smithson asked why the openings were essential. The Principal Planner explained that these were consented through outline planning. The ambition was for the green area to be open outside of the cricket season and allow easier access by foot which would enhance the sustainability. Councillor Smithson said that ASB and drug problems had got worse since 2021 when outline planning was granted so the concerns were real. She asked how much lighting there would be. The Principal Planner pointed out the blue dots on the plan that were lighting bollards. There was lighting around the entire footpath so there would be no dark spots. Because East Suffolk owned the land if there were issues then East Suffolk can take action.
Councillor Bennett explained that this area would become a public space and therefore more public access was justified. Mr McClean said the benefit of not having those openings is that those living in Valley Walk could see who was coming in and out. By increasing the openings more people can get in and it would be harder to monitor.
Dave Martin, the Planning Agent, was invited to speak. He explained the plan was to build a state of the art indoor bowls club on the site of the former sports hall. The building height had been lowered to reduce the visual impact and they had removed the parapet. The facility was designed with sustainability in mind and would provide an inclusive community hub. The new cricket pavilion would be built to ECB and Sport England standards. This was a significant investment in the town and would promote wellbeing and sustainability.
Councillor Reeves asked about the usage of the bowls club as his understanding was that it would only be used for 6 months a year, as most members belonged to outdoor bowls clubs in the summer. East Suffolk Council’s Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained that it would be used all year but there would be greater use in the winter. Councillor Bennett asked if they had any information that suggested with the change in climate if indoor facilities would be utilised more. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager said he didn’t but he was arranging a site visit and would see if there was any research that could be shared.
Councillor Smithson asked if they could guarantee that the play area would be safe for children. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained there were a number of wickets to prevent overuse and the senior teams would use the wickets furthest from the play area. He explained that research was done to establish where the ball mitigation netting should go.
The Chair asked for further information about the site visit. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained it was for Cabinet Members and other Councillors to visit the current bowls club to establish the usage.
Councillor Reeves said he had visited the site and asked if the sports hall would be demolished and rebuilt. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager said an L shape would be retained, the roof would be removed and then the hall extended. The pitched roof would be much lower and would have solar panels. The removal of the walls improved the car parking provision.
The Planning Manager gave some reassurance about the ball mitigation netting, explaining that a study on ball strikes had been undertaken. The netting went from 10m to 8m high and any changes would be quite significant. He stressed it was important to note that it was experts who had advised on the technical details of the netting. In response to residents’ concerns about ASB the new residential blocks would mean there were more people overlooking the site than before.
The Principal Planner reminded Members that the footpath and access points had already been determined by the outline planning permission and so these were not up for determination today.
Councillor Deacon said this would be a huge asset, resolving the issue with the bowls club and provide new facilities. He was very relieved that the hall roof was lower but he still had concerns about the lack of fencing around the play area. He didn’t accept that children wouldn’t wander out into a cricket match and would like it to be fenced off. He also asked if the mitigation netting could be increased in height. He took onboard the seriousness of the residents’ concerns.
The Principal Planner explained that the fencing by the play area was 8m so if it was increased it would have to be given planning permission. Councillor Bennett asked for clarity on the safety fencing and it was explained that the fence tapered down to 8m from 10m.
The Planning Manager said they had taken on board public safety and concerns about crime but they had tried to design out crime. Any ASB would be a police matter and he reminded Members that the footpath permission can’t be revisited. He said the ball mitigation fencing should be considered as proposed but if members wanted the play area enclosed this could be added as a planning condition. He explained that the Supplementary Planning Document did state that some fencing can be acceptable if it decreases risk.
Councillor Hedgley thought that if someone managed to hit a ball into the play area it would hit the headlines! He noted the concerns of the resident and looked to the Felixstowe Councillors for their knowledge of the area and the problems.
Councillor Daly felt it was a very good project to support and agreed with Councillor Hedgley. He pointed out that a study had been done by experts and they should be reassured by it. Cricket was normally a rural activity and they should only have fencing where there was strong evidence to support it. He was minded to support the application.
Councillor Reeves agreed with Councillor Deacon that it would be good to fence off the playground as this would also help prevent dog fouling. Councillor Smithson agreed with Councillor Reeves. She was concerned about children running out into a cricket match and children in the play area may not always be supervised.
Councillor Fisher was invited to speak but he had no comments.
The Principal Planner recommended that the landscaping condition could also include fencing around the play area with accessible gates.
On the proposal of Councillor Deacon, seconded by Councillor Daly it was unanimously
RESOLVED
That the committee resolves the Reserved Matters consent to be APPROVED subject to the below conditions and a condition to be added to secure fencing around play area
Conditions (summarised)
1. Compliance with approved plans
2. Material samples to be submitted. Buildings to be finished with green roofs in accordance with surface water drainage strategy.
3. Car parking to be provided prior to first use
4. Cycle storage details to be submitted and agreed and provided prior to first use
5. Demolition and construction management strategy
6. Hours of use – bowls club (Monday through Sunday 9:00 to 22:30)
7. Hours of use – cricket club (Monday through Sunday 12:00 to 23:00)
8. Senior cricket teams to only play on wickets 1-8
9. Development to be carried out in accordance with arboricultural method statement
10. Landscaping plan including planting plan and method, boundary treatments and car park surface materials
11. Footpath to be delivered prior to first occupation
12. Play equipment to be delivered prior to first occupation of the residential
13. Cricket pitch maintenance and landscape management strategy
14. Car park lighting details including hours of use.
15. Bowls club external lighting details, only to be lit when in use.
16. Infiltration testing and technical design work for drainage strategy