6
The Committee considered report ES/0577 which gate details of the application for the creation of two sports pitches on land at St Felix School in Reydon.
The Principal Planner explained that the application was before Committee due to the significant local interest and because the application related to an extant housing planning permission approved in 2019 that was considered by the Planning Committee of the former Waveney District Council. He advised that since the publication of the update sheet, five further letters had been received but no new material planning issues had been raised. In addition, the update sheet gave details of the revised comments from Sports England and amendments to two of the proposed planning conditions based on Sport England's comments.
Members viewed a presentation which showed a site location plan, aerial views and photographs setting out the layout of the school site and the location proposals including specific details of the proposals together with views from within the site and the surrounding area. There had been extensive pre-application discussions and the proposals before Members provided two pitches; the most low key area within the County Wildlife site was marked as pitch 2 and pitch 1 would be widened with improved quality. The proposed plan for pitch 2 would result in the removal of some trees and the scrubland would be retained outside the pitch itself. The area would need to be enclosed by fencing. Pitch 1 was on an area of grass land already used for sporting activities but not suitable for year-round rugby and football use and the proposed works for seeding and drainage would be dealt with by planning condition to ensure a high quality surface.
The Principal Planner outlined the material planning considerations and key issues including the extant outline permission for an enabling housing development to ensure the continued viability of the school, the housing scheme to be delivered, and mitigation measures to be delivered through replacement sports pitches to provide improved facilities for the school and offset the loss of the existing playing fields. Officers had undertaken an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations and the Council’s Ecologist had concluded that there would be no significant effect on the designated European (Habitats) sites. Approval was being recommended and would include the revised conditions 2 and 3.
The Chairman invited the public speakers to address the Committee.
Mr S Chessher asked that slides and photographs be displayed. Mr Chessher explained that he was speaking on behalf of Reydon Action Group for the Environment (RAGE), a campaign group with 170 members and their concern about the landscape and environmental impacts. The application for the two sports pitches was not directly linked to the housing consent; it was a free-standing application with no requirement to facilitate housing. On its own merits, it was contrary to policy including the Neighbourhood Plan and should be refused. It formed part of the protected sites round the Blyth estuary, including the County Wildlife site and SSSI, and looking further to the south west, the area was nationally protected. If approved, there would be a loss of habitat and 100 year old oak trees, not just the six mentioned but an additional nine trees, were going to be felled. The loss of the trees would be permanent and the loss of habitat could not be mitigated. There was no community benefit and playing field provision would not trump the harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
As Chairman of Reydon Parish Council’s Planning Committee, Mr P O’Hear drew the Committee’s attention to the following points. Reydon Neighbourhood Plan should be given significant weight and the proposal did not meet the conditions in policy RNP5. St Felix School said this was required to support additional housing but there was no application for that. The proposed scheme would cause significant damage to the County Wildlife site and any mitigation would not solve the problem as a replacement habitat could not be provided. Finally, the application was for replacement playing fields; this it was not, as one pitch was already being used, therefore, it could not be classed as new. The Parish Council was shocked that Sport England accepted it. The Committee should support the relevant Local Plan policies to protect fields and the proposal was in breach of policy RNP5 in the Reydon Neighbourhood Plan. The application should be refused.
Mr J Harrison spoke as Headmaster of St Felix School. He stated that the officer’s report provided a fair overview of the proposal and they had worked hard to ensure that quality pitches would be provided with minimum impact. The proposal was for replacing pitches that were not fit for purpose. The school recognised it was part of Reydon and they had worked with the community to allow its use of their facilities. Mr Harrison reminded the Committee that St Felix was a small independent school, a charity not supported by private funding and offered placesincluding £1m in scholarships. The pitches played a key part in the school’s development plan which was most encouraging in an unstable market. The school was a large employer in the area and through investment, it could make a significant contribution to the local area and economy. He asked for the support of Members to endorse the officer’s recommendation for approval.
The Chairman invited questions.
Members questioned the fact that pitch 1 was on top of an existing field and where the athletics track would be located and it seemed that replacement pitches were not being provided but existing pitches repurposed.
Mr Harrison advised that most pitches were multi-purpose with athletics and cricket in the summer. The running track would be perpendicular to the sports pitch. The existing field used for athletics did not use the corners and the significant drop in the land would be levelled and the grass improved for Sport England to accept the proposal. Providing one pitch in that location would reduce the impact on the wildlife site by splitting the development across two areas.
The Ward Member, Councillor Beavan, advised that much had been said by the school and officer but they did not appear to understand local needs. Youth facilities had been provided at the old Reydon site and the Rugby Club had two pitches near the common. The school itself had insufficient students for a 15 a-side rugby team so it was questionable as to why the school would dig up a wildlife site and ignore the local plan. The school was selling land for housing to plug a hole in its finances and with £30,000 fees, it was still not a going concern, such doubt being cast when looking at the school’s accounts. There was no valid reason to accept the planning application on its own merits and it should be refused.
The Chairman invited questions.
Reference was made to this stand-alone application and the reason why it was before the Committee. Clarification was sought on whether the extant housing permission was a material consideration. The Principal Planner advised that the application was a stand-alone application that should be assessed on its own merits, therefore, Members needed to consider the benefits and harms of the proposal and all relevant policies. The Principal Planner advised that it should be acknowledged that the proposed development was delivering an obligation in the Section 106 Agreement in the extant housing permission, which had been drawn up as part of the enabling development for the school to secure re-investment funds bringing its own benefits. The proposal was providing the benefit of improved sports facilities at the school and on its own merits, the officers supported the application.
The Head of Planning and Coastal Management drew Members attention to paragraph 9.5 in the report and the better use of the land to the south of the school buildings, through pitch 1 proposal, lessened the impact on the County Wildlife site. It was accepted that there would be some harm but looking at it overall, the scheme represented a significant improvement over the parameters set within the Section 106 Agreement of the extant housing permission and had been supported by Sport England. Furthermore, the approval of the application would facilitate the delivery of an enabling housing development which would bring further public benefit through re-investment in the school.
During debate, it was suggested that if approval was granted an additional condition be added to ensure that if St Felix ceased to be a school or the pitches were no longer used that the sites be reverted to the previous use. It was further suggested that it could be conditioned that the land could not be built on at any time in the future.
The Head of Planning and Coastal Management advised that if the school ceased to operate, it was a reasonable approach to return the land to County Wildlife site. It would not be possible to insist on no future development and any application would need to be properly considered on merit if one was submitted.
Concerns were raised that this was a stand-alone application and that the proposal was a test on the value of the neighbourhood plans. Reydon Neighbourhood Plan now carried significant weight and the application should not be approved as it was contrary to not only that Plan’s policy but also the Council’s own relevant policies and the NPPF. Any development in an AONB should be a last resort and it was noted that Suffolk Wildlife Trust objected. Members further commented on the need for high quality pitches as sport was vital for the young and in fact people of all ages. The proposal was discharging one condition of the original outline application and it was considered the harm would be outweighed by the benefits. It was disappointing to note the loss of the trees.
The Principal Planner advised that tree protection, replacement planting and its implementation was covered by conditions 11 to 13 outlined in the report.
The Committee noted the amended conditions in the update sheet and with the addition of the request to add a planning condition requiring the site of pitch 2 to be restored to its current state as previously proposed, it was
RESOLVED
That, subject to a Deed of Variation on the existing Section 106 Agreement being agreed and to conditions including but not limited to the following, permission be granted:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans in respect of each element of the development:
• Pitch 2 shall be completed in accordance with Drawing Nos. DR-A-0121P2 and DR-A0120P5, received 23 September 2020; and
• Pitch 1 shall be completed in accordance with Drawing No. DR-A-0050P3 received 16 June 2020.
Reason: for the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.
3. No development to construct Playing Pitch 1 or Playing Pitch 2 (as identified on Drawing Nos. DR-A-0121P2 and DR-A0120P5 and Drawing No. DR-A-0050P3) shall commence until a detailed written specification of the proposed soils structure, drainage, cultivation and other operations associated with grass and sports turf establishment for that pitch and a programme of implementation and maintenance have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with Sport England. Each specification shall be informed by a detailed assessment of ground conditions that identifies any constraints within the land proposed to be developed to create each playing pitch to ensure that the delivery of the specification achieves a playing field that is of a fit for purpose standard. Each pitch shall be constructed in strict accordance with the approved specification for that pitch.
Reason: To ensure that the playing field is prepared to a fit for purpose standard.
4. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures identified within the Ecological Assessment (Small Ecology, June 2020); Botanical Survey (Small Ecology, February 2020); Reptile Survey (Small Ecology, October 2019) and Biodiversity Metric Appraisal (Small Ecology, June 2020).
Reason: To ensure that ecological receptors are adequately protected and enhanced as part of the development.
5. No removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation for active birds' nests immediately before the vegetation is cleared and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site. Any such written confirmation should be submitted to the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that nesting birds are protected.
6. No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following:
a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.
b) Identification of "biodiversity protection zones".
c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements).
d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features.
e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works.
f) Responsible persons and lines of communication.
g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person.
h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.
The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that ecological receptors are adequately protected as part of the development.
7. A landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) for St Felix School Grounds County Wildlife Site shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the local planning authority prior to first use of the development. The content of the LEMP shall include the following:
a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed.
b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management.
c) Aims and objectives of management.
d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives.
e) Prescriptions for management actions.
f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period).
g) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan.
h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures.
The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the longterm implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the long-term ecological value of the County Wildlife Site is maintained and enhanced.
8. No development shall take place within the area indicated [the whole site] until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme of investigation shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:
a. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording
b. The programme for post investigation assessment
c. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording
d. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation
e. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation
f. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
g. The site investigation shall be completed prior to development, or in such other phased arrangement, as agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with WLP8.40 of the Waveney Local Plan (2019).
9. The development shall not be brought into use until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 8 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition.
Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with WLP8.40 of the Waveney Local Plan (2019).
10. Prior to their installation, precise details of the fencing and gates to enclose Pitch 2 (as shown on Drawing Nos. DR-A-0121P2 and DR-A-0120P5) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved detail, and retained in that form, unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA.
Reason: to ensure that the enclosure to pitch 2 is of a design and appearance appropriate for the site context within the AONB.
11. Prior to commencement of the approved development, an updated Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Method Statement, including Tree Protection Plan, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: to ensure retained trees are protected through the construction phase of the development.
12. No development shall commence until precise details of a tree planting scheme (which shall include species, size and numbers of plants to be planted) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure the submission and implementation of a well-designed planting strategy to mitigate the impacts of development, in accordance with WLP8.35 (Landscape Character).
13. The tree/shrub planting scheme (approved under condition 12) shall be implemented not later than the first planting season following commencement of the development (or within such extended period as the local planning authority may allow) and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for a period of 5 years. Any plant material removed, dying or becoming seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced within the first available planting season and shall be retained and maintained.
Reason: To ensure the timely implementation and longer-term maintenance of the planting scheme in accordance with the objectives of WLP8.35 (Landscape Character).
14. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the Local Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination are minimised, in the event that unexpected contamination is found.