application number date of appln committee date ward · 2010-06-23 · chorlton ward proposal...

Manchester City Council List No. 4 Planning and Highways 1 July 2010

of 32

Application Number 093164/FO/2010/S1

Date of Appln 17th May 2010

Committee Date 1st Jul 2010

Ward Chorlton Ward

Proposal Installation of 6 x 15 metre high floodlighting columns, the lighting only

to be used between 3pm and 5pm on Saturdays and between 7pm and 10pm on no more than 12 additional weekday evenings between August and May in each football season.

Location West Didsbury And Chorlton AFC Ground, Brookburn Road, Chorlton

Applicant The Secretary , West Didsbury & Chorlton AFC, C/o 36 Clarendon Road West, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 0RW

Agent Description This application relates to the West Didsbury and Chorlton Football Club Ground on Brookburn Road. The site is broadly rectangular and contains a single grass pitch and a single storey clubhouse. There are a number of trees around the perimeter which are protected by virtue of being in the Chorltonville Conservation Area and two Oak trees at the western end of the site which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Access for both pedestrians and vehicles is from the public footpath linking Brookburn Road, a cul-de-sac at this point, to Jacksons Bridge. There is car parking within the site for approximately 50 cars, although this is not formally laid out. To the north east and south east of the site are the rear gardens of houses on Meadow Bank. Meadow Bank is at a higher level that the football ground and the properties on it have exposed basements giving the impression of the houses being three storey. The rear gardens of these houses slope down to the football ground. To the south west and north west is the Mersey Valley. The south western boundary of the site which adjoins Hardy Farm is formed by a concrete post and panel fence and along the north western boundary is a paladin fence. The site is located within the Chorltonville Conservation Area, the Green Belt and the Mersey Valley, although the site is in private ownership and there is no public access to it. The application itself, seeks approval for the erection of six 15 metre high galvanised steel floodlighting columns, three along each of the long sides of the pitch. The four corner columns would each have double heads and the two located adjacent to the centre line, triple heads. The applicants would wish to use the floodlights between 3.00pm to 5.00pm Saturdays and 7.00pm to 10.00pm for one evening, midweek on not more than 12 occasions in any one football season. The floodlights would be fitted with overspill limiting back shields. At their closest the distance to the nearest house from the proposed lighting columns would be 24 metres. The applicants have advised that the floodlighting is required to comply with the


of 32

regulations for membership of the North West Counties Football League (Vodkat League), to which the club have applied for membership. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) (England) Regulations, as Amended, sets down the criteria to be considered in determining whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is required. In this instance the development has been assessed and it has been concluded that it does not meet the criteria set down in schedule 2 of the regulations and therefore an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required. Consultations Local Residents - Some 154 notification letters were sent out to residents in the Chorltonville Conservation Area and properties overlooking the site. At the time of writing there have been some 314 letters objecting to the proposed development and 53 letters of support. In response to concerns that some information was omitted from the on-line copy of the application, residents have been re-notified. The end date for the re-notification is after the date of the Committee meeting and this is reflected in the recommendation. The grounds for objection can be summarised as follows:- -Floodlighting is not necessary for a community football club and further

commercialisation of the club and industrialisation of the site is inappropriate for the neighbourhood. The expansion will set a precedent for further expansion in the future.

-The site is highly visible from the conservation area and the Mersey Valley and

the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the Green Belt contrary to Green Belt Policy PPG2

-The floodlights will conflict with policy DC18 of the Unitary Development Plan in

terms of their visual impact on the Chorltonville conservation area. -The floodlights will change the character of the area both visually and by

resulting in a more intensive use of the site. -This is an inappropriate location for the club to expand in. -The proposal will adversely impact on the bio-diversity of the Mersey Valley,

particularly bats, and a bat survey is requested. -Recently the Planning and Highways Committee deemed that development on

the adjoining Chorlton Meadows was totally inappropriate and residents feel that for the same reasons this development is also inappropriate.

-It is not just residents adjoining the site who are concerned but the wider

community.


of 32

-There is no trust that the applicant would adhere to any conditions should

permission be granted. -In view of the previous application and the response of residents it is requested

that the application is dealt with by committee. -The floodlights will result in the more intensive use of the site with up to 1000

spectators leading to increased noise and litter both on the site and within the immediate area.

-The activity on the site would carry on much later in the evening causing a loss of

amenity and preventing people and children who go to bed early from sleeping. -The existing building already spoils the area and adding floodlights will spoil it

further. -The proposed development will result in significantly more traffic coming to the

area, trying to access the site via the narrow path. This will result in increased parking on the streets in the immediate area and a corresponding decrease in highway safety. It is also likely that cars will park on the grass verges destroying what is a distinctive part of the character of the conservation area. Brookburn Road is a private highway the upkeep of which is paid for by a private levy. There has been a significant increase in traffic since the completion of the extension to the nearby Brookburn Road Primary School. This is the only area where it is comparatively safe for children to play in the street

-The intensification of use of the sports ground is contrary to the ethos behind the Chorltonville Garden Village Estate and may well be in breach of covenants. The original sale brochure for the development referred to the social wellbeing of residents and the quality of the sports provision within the estate, including tennis courts and the finest bowling green in the area. -The proposed floodlights are within 30 metres of some properties.

-The club has outgrown this site and should move to a more suitable location, and

several writers suggest alternative locations. -There is no mention of the electricity supply for the floodlights. The existing

supply may well have to be improved. -It is considered that the proposal conflicts with policies E1.4, E2.4, E2.1, E2.3,

CB3, CB15, CB16, CB17, CB20, CB23, CB25, CB26, CB31, CB37, CB40, CB44 as well as PPS2

-The ground is already an eyesore with graffiti on the boundary fences. This will

exacerbate the problems and make the site even more unsightly. -Concern that a letter detailing usage was not available until late in the process.


of 32

-Views from properties will be seriously marred by the brightness of the floodlighting. The development will give rise to ‘Sky Glow’, a halo of light scattered in all directions. This scattered light travels very large distances. In addition no consideration appears to have been given to the lie of the land in determining the impact of the lighting.

-Reference is made to the Temple Report to DEFRA which sets down a checklist

of points to be considered and which are not addressed by the applicant. It also recommends that Council’s assessments of such proposal should include, overall character and appearance of an area, residential amenity, disruption to local ecology, effects of high powered sports lighting on housing, restriction of hours of use and lowering the columns when not in use in sensitive area.

-Immediately to the south of the site is a Site of Biological Importance -There are frequently references to the similarity of this proposal to the one earlier

this year which was unanimously rejected by the committee. -Reference is made to their being 600 different species of moths on Mersey

Meadows. -No flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application. -There has been insufficient time for residents to respond -Reference is made to several games in the Vodkat League where attendances

have numbers in the several thousand. -Players regularly trespass in surrounding gardens causing damage to fencing to

retrieve lost balls. -residents are willing, if the club will sell the land, to offer financial support in order

that it can be kept as a wild area. The letters supporting the proposal can be summarised as follows:- -The floodlights would be a massive asset to the club as it strives to improve and

are required if the club is to move to the next level. -The floodlights would only be used for comparatively short periods of time and

therefore would not be the nuisance suggested by objectors. -It is unrealistic that there will be 1000’s of spectators for the matches, most clubs

gates are significantly lower than this. The existing facilities are more than adequate to meet the demands of spectators even in the new league.

-The club is a valuable resource giving old and young alike an opportunity to play

sport.


of 32

-There would be little change from the current usage of the facilities. Ward Members Councillor Sheila Newman - Wishes to record her objections to this planning application. The plans would have a detrimental effect on the local area causing light pollution and a disamenity for local residents and those who use the Chorlton Meadows which is adjacent to the site. The large columns would also have a visual disamenity even when they are not switched on. The proposed development is not suitable on green belt land and in a Conservation area. It will prevent residents having quiet enjoyment their homes and nature lovers from enjoying the Meadows, which is part of the green belt. Wildlife will also be adversely affected by the floodlighting. The floodlights are not essential as the club has played on this ground for many years without the floodlighting. Many residents are concerned that the floodlighting is being installed so that the club can play in a higher league, the Vodkat League. In order to do this the Club needs floodlighting, dug outs (which they have already put in place without planning permission) more car parking and seating. The Club also has to be able to accommodate up to 1,000 spectators. This will mean the Club will function on a semi- professional basis and not as a local recreational activity. The extra matches, spectators and noise will prevent residents from Chorltonville from enjoying their own homes in peace and quiet. As this development falls within the Chorltonville Conservation area any development should seek to maintain or enhance the conservation area. She doesn't see how the proposed 15metre floodlights could in any way be seen to enhance the area. Please consider not just the proposals for floodlighting but what this will mean long term for the area, residents and users of the green belt. Councillor Paul Ankers – Is concerned that light pollution will have a negative effect on a number of residential homes, particularly Meadow Bank (1 - 25), but probably others in the vicinity. The properties are on higher ground than the football pitch, so these properties will be much closer to the light. It has been estimated that even if matches are scheduled to finish at 9.30 pm, but the club would be obliged to play in Cup tournaments like the FA Vase & Vodkat League Challenge Cup, which may result in extra time, penalties and significantly later usage of the floodlights. The proposals are for a light intensity across the pitch of a minimum of 218 lux, some 200 times the light intensities on the location now, as can be seen from the following table provided by the Institution of Lighting Engineers:


of 32

Situation LUXNight time on a dark landscape (remote area, national park) <1 Night time in a rural location 1 Night time on an urban street (suburban) 5 Night time in an urban street (town or city centre) 10 Flood lighting on a stone building 60 WDCAFC pitch with floodlighting 218 But the proposed floodlighting is over-engineered, or gold-plated, as the lighting is almost double that required by the FA ground grading the club has stated it is trying to achieve. That requires light intensity of only 120 lux. There can be no reason whatsoever that light intensities above 120 lux should be countenanced at all, either now or in the future. The proposal to erect these lighting columns is contrary to the intentions of Green Belt policy, PPG2 (3.5) which states that facilities should be essential and unobtrusive and preserve the openness of the land. The recreation ground, which lies within the green belt, has been in continual use for 100 years, at least 50 of those as a football field, without requiring floodlights. The floodlights are therefore not essential, and for this reason alone the application should be rejected. Nor are the lights unobtrusive - they are over 15m tall, made of steel. Even when not in use, they would dominate the landscape, and when turned on, they would obscure all other features. There are many walkers on Chorlton Meadows after 1500 on Saturdays, and their enjoyment of the green belt would be destroyed by the glare of the lighting. The supporting documents state that there is little of evidence of bat activity in the area. In fact, as stated above there are numerous bats around the football field.

This application is likely to damage the amenity of the Chorltonville estate as protected by PPG 17. The development of the Recreation Ground to include floodlights is an essential part of West Didsbury & Chorlton AFC’s stated intention to progress the club into the Vodkat League. Permission to install floodlights will lead directly to greatly increased numbers of spectators, which will negatively impact both the fabric of Chorltonville estate and the amenity to Chorltonville residents.

Councillor Victor Chamberlain - Wishes to make an official objection to the application and requests that the Committee visit the site. He has declared a personal interest in this application and is writing in his capacity as a local resident immediately affected by this development, but also in his capacity as a Chorlton Ward Councillor.

He has made a number of complaints about the way this planning application has been dealt with and these are being addressed separately. He believes the consultation period for the above application has been invalidated because vital information has been withheld from members of the public and Councillors. The document contains information which is essential to properly understand and respond to the application; including the applicant's rationale for wanting the floodlights, the hours of use for the floodlights and detailed information


of 32

about the lighting structures. Furthermore all those people who responded to this application prior to 11 June have been denied the opportunity to take all factors into account and have not been given the opportunity to consider the application as a whole. The document significantly alters the conditions of the application (for example, the finishing time for mid-week use is stated as 2200 on some occasions, whereas in a letter which the applicant sent to neighbours the time is quoted as 2130). While the fault here appears to lie with the Planning Department, not the applicant, the omission of such critical information from the consultation process could invalidate it. He is also deeply concerned about the ‘consultation’ that WDCAFC have suggested they conducted. The applicant has indicated in section 8 of the application form, Neighbour and Community Consultation, that a consultation has taken place. He would like to state quite categorically that the club has at no point sought to “consult” with the local community or nearby residents. Residents merely received a letter informing us of their intentions and he does not consider that to be a consultation. Furthermore the applicant did not ‘consult’ with all the immediate neighbours and the letter was sent after the application was submitted to the planning department.

There are also several other errors in the application: • Q8 Neighbour Consultation. The letter sent to neighbours (which was the only

"consultation" carried out) specifies different hours of use of the floodlights from that specified in the application itself.

• Q10 Materials. There is no information given in the Lighting section as to the materials to be used.

• Q11 Vehicle parking. This says that there will be no change, but given the anticipated increase in spectators, the club should have more specific plans on how to deal with the increased number of cars.

• Q14 Biodiversity. The application says that there no important habitats near the protected development. In fact, there is a site of biological importance (SBI) grade B immediately outside the south-west boundary - this is shown on the club's own plan for the Chorlton Meadows development last year.

• Q22 Site Area. No site area is stated. • A supporting document that the proposed development is a "recreation

function". As stated above it is a full scale business and not for local recreational use.

• It further states that floodlights would be in keeping with football club paraphernalia. This club and several predecessors on the site have managed without lights for 50 years or more.

• Section 3 of the supporting document states that there is little of evidence of bat activity in the area. In fact, as stated above there are numerous bats around the football field.

• Section 4 states that the floodlights are "much smaller in scale" than the changing rooms. Given that they are three times taller, this is clearly not so.

• Section 4. also states that the floodlights are essential facilities for outdoor sport. WDCAFC and other clubs have not found them essential up to this point.

• Although the application states that the lights are 15m high, this document lists the lengths of three shaft components as 3.175m + 9.470m + 3.630m. If this


of 32

represents the actual length of the assembled lighting standard, it is actually 16.275m (over 53 feet) tall.

• The hours of mid-week use are stated here up to 2200; in the letter sent by WDCAFC to neighbours they are quoted up to 2130. The letter states that there would be no use of floodlights on Sundays, while this document makes no mention of Sunday use.

• Omission. The application makes no mention of the power supply to the lights. I am advised that this installation would need a three-phase supply, which is likely to require a separate sub-station. Why is there no mention of this in the application?

He objects to the planning application, on the following grounds: • The development will enable greatly increased use of the recreation ground,

leading to nuisance to residents. • The increased use is destructive to the conservation area status of

Chorltonville • The floodlights themselves will cause a serious loss of amenity to immediate

neighbours • The increased use is destructive to the green belt and local ecology • The planning application itself is materially incomplete

In addition Councillor Chamberlain comments

Nature of the ground

The land in question was originally the recreation ground for the Chorltonville estate. Although it was sold off very many years ago, the ground has been continually used for 100 years for local amateur sporting activity. It adjoins properties on the odd side of Meadow Bank (including the property at which he lives), and until recently he has been comfortable with the level and nature of use and has no objection to local football being played there.

The land lies within the Chorltonville conservation area. The Planning Services leaflet on the area (Manchester's Conservation Areas, Number 26) mentions the recreation ground as integral to the principles of Chorltonville's founders to improve the health and well-being of the occupants. In including the ground within the conservation area boundary, the Planning Service clearly wanted to preserve the historic character of the entire estate as a complete example of a garden village, not just the architectural features of the housing stock.

The central government document PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide states: "When assessing any application for development within the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities may need to consider the implications of cumulative change and the fact that developments that materially detract from the asset’s significance may also damage its economic viability now, or in the future, thereby threatening its ongoing conservation.". The term "heritage asset" includes conservation areas.


of 32

Aims of WDCAFC

The owners of the recreation ground, West Didsbury and Chorlton AFC (WDCAFC) have played football there since 1995. For most of that time they have played at an amateur level, with maximum attendance even at cup matches of fewer than 100 people. However, they have recently stated their intention to move to a semi-professional league (described as the North West Counties Football League in the planning application, but in fact the league now calls itself the Vodkat League).

The Vodkat League operates at a level far above the capacity of Brookburn Rd recreation ground. It allows teams to be made up of professional players, and requires that its members make an admission charge for matches. The maximum attendance quoted for the League's lower division averages at just under 2000 spectators, with one club quoting a record attendance of 4300 (see below). ‘The League requires that a club's ground achieves as a minimum the FA Ground Grade G standard. This includes the floodlights that are the subject of this planning permission, and makes it clear that crowds between 1000 and 2000 should be expected at this level. The application for floodlights should therefore be seen as a critical factor, which would inevitably bring a ten-fold increase of spectators to the recreation ground. Indeed the Vodkat League’s website states that:

“The record attendance for a North West Counties League fixture stood at 1,353 for sixteen years, Radcliffe Borough's First Division Championship decider with Caernarfon Town attracting this gate in 1982-83 season. Workington's pulling power saw them exceed this in their 1998-99 Championship season, the deciding fixture with Mossley seeing 2,281 spectators through the turnstiles at Borough Park. In season 2005-06 the "phenomenal popularity" of new club FC United of Manchester's Division Two championship winning team set a new record with 6,023 spectators at their Saturday home game versus Great Harwood Town. FC United's double winning side of season 2006-07 continued to cause attendances to soar, both in the Challenge Cup and League competition, with 4,058 spectators at Salford City for their NWCFL Premier Division fixture - the best ever attendance for a "night match". The league continues to provide a stepping stone for ambitious clubs”

WDCAFC have consistently exceeded their stated intentions for use of the recreation ground. Lately this has been accompanied by a disregard for the planning process. This has unfortunately been exacerbated by a lack of enforcement from the Planning Department; and he has written to Sir Howard Bernstein about his concerns and has requested a report from the City Solicitor. Examples of this include: • Planning permission for the building on the site was given for changing

facilities and a meeting room (047395/FO/SOUTH2/95). The club now refers to the building on its website as a clubhouse.


of 32

• The club said that they would not need a car park, but park on grass

immediately inside the gate (letter of 24/3/95). However, they built a car park beside the changing rooms (destroying mature black poplars to do so), and additionally park up against the boundaries of neighbouring gardens.

• Club representatives said that they did not intend to apply for a drinks licence or use a bar (notes from meeting of 19/5/95). However, they applied for a licence last year and the building now holds a permanent bar.

• The building is increasingly used for social events at times when matches are not being played, often staying open later than 2300 which is a condition of use of the building. Most recently events occurred on 21/5/10, 22/5/10 and 12/6/10.

• The club is renting out the ground for commercial use as a child care facility. It has not applied for change of use, and has ignored the Planning Department's request that they do so.

• The club has installed advertising hoardings without planning permission, against the government's Planning Policy Guidance 19: Outdoor Advertisement Control.

• The club has built two managers' shelters which require planning permission, but has not applied for permission.

• The club has installed nets behind the goalpost with permanent holes that he believes constitutes a permanent structure and would require planning permission. However despite being told by the Planning Department that these nets would require planning permission the club has refused to apply for them and the Council has failed to enforce planning law.

These examples demonstrate that whatever terms of use are offered by WDCAFC in support of this application, even those stipulated as conditions of planning permission, will not be followed in practice. Local residents can expect to see more frequent use, for longer hours, involving greater numbers of people and more nuisance.

Nuisance to residents

The increased volume of crowds would be severely detrimental both to the amenity of local residents and the fabric of the surrounding estate. Even at the lowest levels, we can expect several hundreds of people at games. The vast majority of these will initially be away supporters, coming by car and not familiar with local roads. The capacity of parking in the ground itself, and the capacity of the single lane bridle-way leading to its gate, will quickly be exceeded. Cars will park throughout the Chorltonville estate, along Claude Road, Brookburn Rd, West Meade and Meadow Bank and possibly further into Chorlton (particularly along Brookburn Road outside of Chorltonville). Even the stated finish time of 10.00 for matches would see these hundreds of people walking past houses up to an hour later. Inevitably these crowds will be noisy, and will drop litter; realistically we can expect a few individuals to indulge in more anti-social behaviour. Some spectators exit the ground through a Meadow Bank garden, causing disturbance on that road also.


of 32

The parking itself will cause serious problems for residents. Already local residents encounter occasional access issues during the start and end of Brookburn School's day. If this application is permitted, we will see roads out of Chorltonville blocked and access for emergency vehicles impeded.

Not all the spectators go home when a match finishes. My experience is that some supporters stay at the ground, and use the bar set up in the changing facility. If this were to take place following a late night game, it is hard to see that the building would be cleared and closed by 23.00, only an hour after a game finishes. The likelihood is that there would be repeated breaches of the planning condition for use the building, with associated noise and nuisance to neighbours much later than the finishing time of the game itself.

Councillor Chamberlain has spoken to a retired Police Officer who was a Ground Commander at many football matches and has extensive knowledge about policing football events. He suggested that the greatest problems were not at big professional clubs but tended to be at smaller venues. These problems included poor provision for car and coach parking, absence of toilet facilities, leading to supporters urinating in resident’s gardens, alleyways and doorways. Litter, particularly beer cans and bottles, or fast food wrappings, was always a problem. Public order problems arising from poor segregation or inadequate stewarding often resulted in running battles in residential streets, or centred on local pubs. Many games attracted illegal street vendors causing obstruction and violent confrontations with other, rival vendors. This is not an exhaustive list of the problems that can be associated with a football match, but they present a worrying catalogue of issues that currently do not exist in this area, but could develop at the same pace as the football club.

Damage to conservation area

If permitted, this application will be destructive to the fabric of the conservation area. Many cars will over-park the kerbs, causing damage to the grass verges and trees which are an integral part of the character of the conservation area. WDCAFC have made no plans to deal with the increased number of cars.

Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment states: "Local planning authorities should take into account the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment." The proposed use as a semi-professional sports facility is nothing like the recreational function for local residents envisaged by Chorltonville's founders and is damaging to the unique character of Chorltonville as a complete example of a garden village.

The Chorltonville conservation area is residential, characterised as an Arts & Crafts movement garden village with no commercial component. Indeed, Manchester's Conservation Areas, Number 26 mentions restrictive covenants which prevent commercial use of the estate (these covenants are still part of the deeds of the recreation ground). Just by entering the Vodkat League, the club would set a precedent for commercial activity within the conservation


of 32

area by charging for entry to the ground. It is not unreasonable to expect catering and other franchises to be added (other Vodkat League clubs mention these facilities at their grounds). The club's desire to increase

commercial use by renting out the ground has been mentioned above. If this application is allowed, it will be impossible to block further commercial ventures within the conservation area, eroding its integrity as a complete garden village and threatening its existence.

Objection on grounds that the floodlighting is contrary to the development

plan, road access is inadequate and highway safety would be jeopardised

Manchester’s UDP Housing policy H2.2 concerns the quality of housing areas. The policy requires that development does not have an adverse effect on a housing area, and if it does, such development is unacceptable. This development would have a material effect on the quality of the whole of Chorltonville as a housing area, due noise, light, increased traffic, and highway safety – particularly as access to the site is via a narrow bridleway used by walkers and children & cyclists accessing the Mersey Valley and from which OFSTED banned cars. This raises enormous concerns about safety of pedestrians and vehicles being put in danger to a much greater degree than current usage as a consequence of the flood lights. The entrance is to the bridleway is through a five bar gate entrance, which cannot take a fire engine, and the additional on-street parking will prevent access by emergency vehicles to much of Chorltonville. Having floodlights on this site could easily cost lives.

Objection of the grounds of commercialisation and change of use

It is clear that the Football Club has been incrementally changing the use of the field over the years, mainly without planning permission even when necessary. He is concerned that this latest application is one step in a continuous development by West Didsbury & Chorlton AFC which is leading to such a change in use of the Recreation Ground, both in volume and the nature of use, that it would seriously harm the amenity of Chorltonville estate as a whole. Planning Policy Statement 5 states that when assessing an application for development within a heritage asset, local planning authorities should consider the implications of cumulative change. The club is no longer primarily a local community club, but intends to enter a semi-professional league, where spectators pay for entry. The FA ground grade H which is applicable to the Vodkat league requires that clubs have a minimum capacity of 1000. Where are 1000+ going to park their vehicles? Where are 1000+ going to find appropriate toilet facilities? Where are 1000+ going to find refreshments, and dispose of their litter? Attendances for local derbies are likely to far surpass the 1000 level, based on attendances for clubs already in that league. Floodlighting would mean that these highly disruptive fixtures can take place in the evening, totally dominating the lives of all in the neighbourhood. This is a highly significant change of use. Whilst the football club is entitled to aspire to greatness, its current home ground is not a


of 32

suitable location for such a change of use and no further development of the site should be permitted.

Loss of amenity from floodlights

As an adjoining neighbour of the ground, he would be among those directly impacted by the floodlights themselves, regardless of the increased traffic they brought. The houses on Meadow Bank are actually on a bank several metres above the level of the recreation ground. This means that the 15m lighting standards are nearly level with the bedroom windows, and residents would be exposed to the full glare of the lights themselves. Although the application says that the lights are fitted with back shields to prevent light spillage, no shields are shown on the pictures of lights, and they are not mentioned as an option on the supplier Abacus' specifications. The lights are only 24-25 metres from the nearest Meadow Bank houses - less than a third of the distance between floodlights and Redland Crescent houses as rejected last year for the Hardy Farm development. Furthermore the application makes no reference to the lay of the land and the lux contour map does not take these geographical factors into account.

The lights will also cause loud noise from the ground until 2200 or later. Residents experience is that this includes continual shouted instructions and abuse, foul language, and car horns being sounded as players leave the ground. The combination of noise and light means that residents will be prevented from sleeping until after a match has finished and all activity has ceased - this could be well after 2300. This is particularly concerning as the immediate area houses many families with young children and vulnerable people.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 expresses that we have a “Right to Respect for Private and Family Life”. This development will invade local residents privacy and family life, with noise and light pollution as well as the disturbance form extra traffic.

Obtrusive light

Obtrusive light is light pollution. Whilst the floodlights proposed claim to reduce light spill outside the main sports field, the effect for residents with a direct view of lights on the opposite side of the ground would be completely dazzling; so too for Mersey Valley users looking towards the ground and seeing the lights facing out towards the meadows on the opposite side of the pitch. But direct light from the floodlights is only one part of the problem, as there would also be perceived glare of the floodlights back from the playing surface. But the main light pollution is from the effect referred to commonly as ‘sky glow’ which is effectively a huge halo of light scattered in all directions from dust particles and water droplets in the atmosphere not to mention scatter from the playing surface and players. This scattered light travels very large distances and is only visible to us by light photons falling directly on the eye retina, rather than as visible beams of light. Thus the ‘sky glow’ will be seen right


of 32

across the meadows in all directions, creating a pool of light. There is no amount of shielding of the luminaries which will prevent this. The only way to prevent this is not to have the floodlights.

1. Intensity of floodlighting

The proposals are for a light intensity across the pitch of a minimum of 218 lux, some 200 times the light intensities on the location now, as can be seen from the following table provided by the Institution of Lighting Engineers:

Situation LUXNight time on a dark landscape (remote area, national park) <1 Night time in a rural location 1 Night time on an urban street (suburban) 5 Night time in an urban street (town or city centre) 10 Flood lighting on a stone building 60 WDCAFC pitch with floodlighting 218

But the proposed floodlighting is over-engineered, or gold-plated, as the lighting is almost double that required by the FA ground grading the club has stated it is trying to achieve. That requires light intensity of only 120 lux. There can be no reason whatsoever that light intensities above 120 lux should be countenanced at all, either now or in the future.

Noise and light pollution and height of the lighting columns: previous refusal

When the Hardy Farm planning application came before the planning committee on 14th January 2010, the committee was minded to refuse the application (before it was withdrawn at the last moment) on the ‘grounds of the loss of amenity to local residents in relation to noise and light pollution and the height of the lighting columns’, amongst other factors. The floodlights proposed here are actually even closer to local residents’ houses than were the Hardy Farm floodlights. These are significant factors, and consistency requires that this application be similarly refused.

Inadequate detail provided in the application

Floodlights need an electricity supply but application is silent on this matter. Councillor Chamberlain has been advised by a qualified electrical contractor that a three-phase supply is required, (the FA documents confirm this), and that the existing changing rooms are unlikely to have such a supply. There is no point approving installation of flood lights which cannot be lit, and such approval should not be given without sufficient information for a fully informed decision to be made.

Damage to the green belt

The government's green belt policy (PPG2 - 3.5) states that facilities should be


of 32

essential and unobtrusive. The recreation ground, which lies within the green belt, has been in continual use for 100 years, at least 50 of those as a football field, without requiring floodlights. The floodlights are therefore not essential, and for this reason alone the application should be rejected. Nor are the lights

unobtrusive - they are over 15m tall, made of steel. Even when not in use, they would dominate the landscape, and when turned on, they would obscure all other features. There are many walkers on Chorlton Meadows after 1500 on Saturdays, and their enjoyment of the green belt would be destroyed by the glare of the lighting.

The lighting would also disturb local wildlife. He is particularly concerned about the impact they would have on local bats which are a protected species. Their flight takes them over the adjoining football field. The Forestry Commission's Woodland Management for Bats states that many species roost in trees, preferring damaged trees and those over 80 years old. This makes it likely that the bats are roosting on trees in the meadows and in the old trees adjoining the football pitch. The Bat Conservation Trust says that lighting can have a harmful effect on bats, impacting on their use of a roost and also their commuting routes and foraging areas. Light falling on a roost access point is likely to delay bats from emerging and thereby shorten the amount of foraging time available to them, which is especially damaging around emergence time as that is when there is a peak in the number of insects. If allowed, this development would be harmful to the local bat population in summer. He also believes the application could severely harm the local Owl population.

While appreciating WDCAFC's desire to advance through the football league structure, it is clear from the evidence above that Brookburn Rd recreation ground is not a suitable or acceptable site to support their next step. The club and the site have historically been for the benefit of the community. He believes that this development would lead to the club becoming semi-professional and would severely change the ethos of the site and local area and would detrimentally impact residential amenity. Given the difficulty of enforcing a breach of planning conditions, he further believes that granting this application even with rigorous conditions would not work and therefore, asks that the Committee reject this planning application outright.

Regulatory and Enforcement Services - Clearly the concern of Environmental Health in relation to this application has been the potential for light disamenity to residential premises adjoining the club grounds, and to an intensification of use of the club grounds arising from the ability of the club, should the application be approved, to make greater use of the grounds to a later time in the evening on a significantly increased basis. The supplementary information submitted by the Club Secretary in a letter dated 10th May 2010 responds in part to these concerns. However, the following conditions should be applied to any approval:

Light The floodlighting installation shall be designed, installed, and operated, so as to prevent disamenity from glare and excessive overspill onto nearby


of 32

residential properties.

Reason - To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. Frequency of Use The supplementary information supplied in Section 3 ‘Frequency of Use’, should be confirmed by way of a condition/s requiring controls on use of the floodlighting as follows:

- Use of the floodlighting to be permitted only between 1st August and 31st May - Saturday –15.00 and 17.00. - Sunday - No use of the floodlighting - Monday to Friday - 19.00 and 22.00, and for a maximum of 12 midweek

games per season. Street Lighting – have made the following comments in respect of the proposed development Day Time Appearance - Given the location of the site, the proposed

external floodlighting columns should be visible from the adjacent properties.

Light Pollution - All external floodlighting of this nature generate some degree of light pollution. As the proposed floodlighting scheme has been designed to be installed with 0 degrees uplift above the horizontal and with back shields there should not be any unreasonably contribute to “sky glow” or light pollution to the adjacent properties. From The Institution of Lighting Engineers “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light (GN01) ” It is recommended that the light trespass (into windows) for an Environmental Zone of E1 (Intrinsically dark landscapes) should not exceed a vertical illuminance of 2 lux (pre-curfew) and 0 lux (post curfew) From the “Abacus” drawing a 2 lux contour line is shown approximately 2m away from the nearest residential property window.

Suitability of Proposed Equipment. - All the proposed equipment is deemed suitable for this type of scheme.

Effect of Proposal on Surrounding Properties - Residents of the nearby properties may observe the lights functioning but should not to be affected by any undue glare.

Remarks - As the proposed floodlights are to be mounted at high level (15m), angled horizontally, are “full cut off” type lanterns and have back shields, the amount of stray light should be reduced considerably.


of 32

The proposed curfew (level of usage) of: 2 hours on Saturday (3.00pm to 5.00pm) and 2.5/3 hours midweek evening (7.00pm to 9.30/10.00pm) seems reasonable and therefore should be acceptable to the surrounding residents.

Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Any comments will be reported. Mersey Valley Wardens Service – Any comments will be reported Chortlon Civic Society – Any comments will be reported Chorltonville Owners Committee – The Committee’s response deals with certain areas only; this is due to the specific brief under which the Owners’ Committee operates. They are charged by the Rules of Chorltonville to preserve the amenities of the estate. In effect, this means that the Committee represents the estate itself, not the residents who live here – our response covers only areas which impact on the amenities. They are not a residents’ association, and do not act as community leaders. Certain aspects of the planning application (for example, ecological issues) are beyond our remit. Where this email does not address specific areas about the application, the Planning Department and Planning Committee should not, therefore, interpret that silence as implied acquiescence by Chorltonville residents. Planning Policy Guidance 17 states “In considering applications for floodlighting, local authorities should ensure that local amenity is protected”. This application is likely to damage the amenity of the Chorltonville estate. The development of the Recreation Ground to include floodlights is an essential part of West Didsbury & Chorlton AFC’s stated intention to progress the club into the Vodkat League. Permission to install floodlights will lead directly to greatly increased numbers of spectators, which will negatively impact both the fabric of Chorltonville estate and the amenity to Chorltonville residents. Larger numbers of vehicles will visit the ground over Brookburn and Claude Roads, including heavier traffic for construction and coaches. The roads of Chorltonville are only lightly made up, with a thin layer of tarmac overlaying soil directly. Heavier vehicles will damage the road surface, and possibly the gullies and sewers beneath. Overflow parking from the ground itself is likely to lead to visitors parking on our verges, damaging the grass and the kerbstones. In addition to this excessive wear and tear, some spectators inevitably drop litter, in itself an abuse of Chorltonville amenities. We are also concerned that this latest application is one step in a continuous development by West Didsbury & Chorlton AFC which, if allowed to progress much further, would lead to such a change in use of the Recreation Ground, both in volume and the nature of use, that it would seriously harm the amenity of Chorltonville estate as a whole. Planning Policy Statement 5 states that when assessing an application for development within a heritage asset, local planning authorities should consider the implications of cumulative change.


of 32

For these reasons we ask you to reject the planning application. Highway Services - Do not object to the proposed development. Design for Security – No objections Issues Whilst this application has generated significant concerns all of which have been noted in the consultations section, the section which follows focuses on planning issues that ought to be given significant weight in the consideration of the application. Unitary Development Plan The relevant part 1 policies within the UDP are: Policy H2.2, which seeks to protect the amenity of residents from the adverse impact of developments, this policy is addressed in the sections on visual amenity, hours of use, noise, intensification of use and light spillage.

Policy E1.4, The Council will control noise levels by ensuring that new developments that generate noise are located away from residential properties this policy is addressed in the section on noise.

Policy E2.1, refers to development within the Green Belt. It states that planning permission will not be granted except in special circumstances for the construction of new buildings for purposes other than agriculture, forestry, and essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. In all instances the Council will ensure that the visual amenities of the Green Belt are not injured by development. See section on the Green Belt.

Policy E2.3, The Council will protect important wildlife habitats. This policy is addressed in the section on ecology. Policy E2.4, states that the Council will ensure that the effects upon wildlife are taken into account when considering development proposals. This policy is addressed in the section on ecology. Policy L1.5, The Council will seek to upgrade other parks and recreational areas, wherever possible making use of private sector finance. This policy applies to all schemes for the works to sports facilities , but does not imply that the alterations are acceptable in all other respects

The following part 2 policies are also relevant: Policy CB1, seeks to safeguard major areas of open land especially in the Mersey Valley and make better use of existing recreational facilities particularly open space.


of 32

Policy CB15, Existing land in the Mersey Valley will be conserved and improved and will for the most part continue in recreational use. Policy CB16, Throughout the valley existing outdoor recreational sites will be improved to cater for mainly informal recreation activities. Policy CB20, that there will be a presumption against recreational activities which could spoil the enjoyment of the Mersey Valley. Approval of such activities will only be considered if there is clear need and they can be sited where no significant disturbance would result.

Policy CB23, The Council will protect, conserve and improve the landscape quality of the valley. Policy CB24, The Council will seek the provision of a more enclosed and varied landscape by amongst others encouraging tree planting. Policy CB25, The Council will encourage tree planting and the provision of refuges for wildlife in sensitive sites which will be kept free of recreational pressure Policy CB40, The Council will oppose any new development which could result in a significant deterioration in, or hinder the improvement of either water or atmospheric quality, or introduce unacceptable noise levels. Policy CB44, Underlines that new development within the Valley shall be of a high standard with careful attention to siting, design, layout and materials. Policies CB1, CB15, CB16, CB20, CB23, CB24, CB25, CB40 and CB44 area Mersey Valley policies that are addressed partly in the section on Green Belt Policy and partly in visual amenity. The following City wide development control policies apply:

Policy DC18, Seeks to protect the City’s Conservation Areas from Inappropriate development. Addressed in the section on the Impact on the Character of the Conservation Area.

Policy DC26, Seeks to protect residents from the harmful affects of noisy developments. Addressed in the section on noise. Regional Spatial Strategy In terms of regional policy, the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West was adopted in September 2008. The Regional Spatial Strategy forms part of the statutory development plan for every Local Authority in the North West and provides a framework for development and investment over the next fifteen to twenty years. The following policy is considered relevant::


of 32

Policy DP4 states that development should build upon existing concentrations of activities and existing infrastructure. Which is the case here. Policy DP7 Which seeks to promote environmental quality. This policy is addressed in the Green Belt Section The Secretary of State has indicated in a letter to all Chief Planning Officers, dated 27th May 2010, that the Government intends to abolish Regional Strategies. However, they remain adopted policy until such time as they are revoked, but the Secretary of State has specifically requested that this letter be regarded as a material planning consideration when making their decisions. National Guidance PPS1 'Delivering Sustainable Development' sets out the overarching policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. Emphasis in placed on the need for good design to ensure, attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places. These are matters addressed throughout the Issues Section.

PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment, This document sets out planning policies on the conservation of the historic environment. This guidance is dealt with in the section on the impact of the development on the conservation area.

PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. These policies complement, but do not replace or override, other national planning policies and should be read in conjunction with other relevant statements of national planning policy. This guidance is addressed in the Green Belt Policy and Ecology Sections. PPG2 'Greenbelt provides guidance on development within the Green Belt. The policy guidance on green belts is restrictive in nature for both the redevelopment of redundant/underused buildings as well as for wholly new development. The main characteristic of a green belt designation is its permanence with the most important attribute being its openness.

There is a general presumption against inappropriate development within the green belt, and any inappropriate development should only be approved in special circumstances. Any applicant should show why development should be granted, particular weight should be applied when making a decision on the likely harm to the green belt of any planning application. For the reasons set out below the proposal is considered to be in accord with the principles set out in PPG2. PPG17 'Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation' - outlines how the planning system can help deliver accessible, high quality and sustainable open spaces and sport and recreation facilities which meet local needs and prevent the erosion of such facilities from insensitive development or the incremental loss of sites. In considering planning applications - either within or adjoining open space, Local Authorities should weigh any benefits being offered to the community against the loss of open space that will occur. The development would provide enhanced football facilities on a site


of 32

that had previously been used for sporting activity and includes a comprehensive landscaping strategy. PPG 24 Planning and Noise This PPG guides local authorities in England on the use of their planning powers to minimise the adverse impact of noise. It outlines the

considerations to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise-sensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise.

Circulars Circular 6/2005 advises Local Planning Authorities to give due weight to the presence of protected species on a development site to reflect EC requirements. This may potentially justify a refusal of planning permission. This section is addressed in the section on Ecology. EU Directives European Community Habitats Directive 1992 requires that UK to maintain a system of strict protection for protected species and their habitats. This is addressed in the Ecology Section of the report. Issues in respect of the submission raised by objectors

Ownership – The applicant has confirmed that the Club was originally called West Didsbury FC and added the Chorlton when it moved to the current site. The site was purchased under the name of West Didsbury FC as that was the then name of the Club. The completion of Certificate A on the application forms is therefore perfectly acceptable and the application is valid.

Prior consultation – there is no requirement in the Town and Country Planning Act for applicants to carried out any form of prior consultation in respect of an application of this type. The consultation was carried out by the Club on its own initiative and any suggested shortcomings in it are not a material consideration in determining this application.

Materials – the materials to be used in the development are often dealt with by condition. However, in response to concerns raised the applicant has been asked to clarify the finish of the columns. Parking – The applicant has indicated that there is no change in the parking provision. Site Area – The application site (site edged red) has been drawn tightly around each of the floodlighting columns. The site area would therefore be measured in square metres rather than hectares. Given the small size of the application site this omission is not significant.

Green Belt Policy


of 32

PPG2 says that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. They help to protect the countryside and can assist in moving towards more sustainable patterns of urban development. There are five purposes of including land in Green Belts:

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and

other urban land. Once Green Belts have been defined, the use of land in them has a positive role to play in fulfilling the following objectives:

to provide opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population;

to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas; to retain attractive landscapes, and enhance landscapes, near to where

people live; to improve damaged and derelict land around towns; to secure nature conservation interest; and to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.

In addition policy E2.1 within the UDP is concerned with preserving the openness of the Green Belt and the Council will only grant planning permission for, amongst others, essential facilities for outdoor sport or recreation which preserve its openness and which do not conflict with the purpose of including land within the green belt. It also sets out that the Council will ensure the visual amenities of the Green Belt are not injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt, which, although they would not prejudice its main purpose, might be inappropriate by reason of their siting, materials or design. The application site forms part of a sports ground, specifically a football pitch, separated from the valley proper by a concrete post and panel fence. The proposed development would ordinarily be viewed as complimentary to the use of land for outdoor recreation, which is itself appropriate development in the Green Belt. In this instance there is an established recreational use associated with the site and clearly the applicant is of the view that the floodlights are essential to the current sports use. Whilst the proposed floodlights are 15 metres high they would primarily be viewed in the context of the sports ground and associated infrastructure. The galvanised finish of the columns which serves to lessen the visual impact together with the restricted hours of use means that the time that they have the potential to be most intrusive is


of 32

limited. In addition and on balance, whilst it is inevitable the lighting would have some presence in the area, its impact would lessened by its immediate context. Having considered the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. It is considered that the proposal will not significantly change the character of this part of the Mersey Valley and proposal will not conflict with the intentions of Green Belt policy or the purposes of including land within it as set out in PPG2 Visual Amenity – The floodlights themselves at 15 metres high are relatively tall and six in number. However, they are comparatively lightweight structures which when viewed against the openness of the Mersey Valley from the houses on Meadow Bank would not in themselves be overly intrusive. The illumination of the pitch will significantly change the outlook for residents during the time when the floodlights are in use, but this is for a limited period. On balance it is not therefore considered that the proposed floodlighting columns would be contrary to the provisions of policy H2.2 of the Unitary Development Plan. When viewed from the Mersey Valley the floodlighting columns would be seen against the backdrop to the houses on Meadow Bank. Again it is not considered that the masts would conflict with policies designed to protect the Green Belt. Impact on the Character of the Conservation Area – The recently published PPS5 describes Conservation Areas as Heritage Assets which the City Council should seek to conserve. Policy DC 18 says that in determining applications in conservation areas it will consider carefully the relationship of new structure to neighbouring buildings, the desirability of retaining existing features. The sports field is part of the history of Chorltonville. In this instance the introduction of the floodlighting columns is not believed to detract from its sense of openness or adversely impact on the setting of any significant features of the conservation area. The impact therefore of the floodlighting on the character of the conservation area is not therefore significant and the proposal conforms to the principles of policy DC18. Its Conservation Area status does not preclude the introduction of associated features, but it is important to assess such in respect of the character of the area. Hours of use – the application has to be considered on the basis of the hours of use applied for. In this respect the usage would be quite restrictive with a maximum of 36 hours use midweek during the whole of the football season. The use on a Saturday which takes place earlier in the day would be less intrusive but would again be limited by the number of home games. To extend the hours of use would require a further application for planning permission. Noise – The floodlighting would enable the pitch to be used later into the evening when generally ambient noise levels are lower and noise can travel further. Consequently there is potential for a loss of amenity from increased noise at night. PPG24 Noise says that local Planning Authorities should take into account the number of occasions that the noise is generated and balance this with the enjoyment of the participants. It goes on to add that the use of conditions to limit hours is appropriate. The Head of Regulatory and Enforcement Services has not indicated that noise would be an issue and given that the use of the site is already authorised


of 32

and that the use late at night would be restricted to 10pm at the latest is it not considered that the proposed development conflicts with policies H2.2, DC26 or the guidance in PPG24. Intensification of use – The floodlighting will enable the pitch to be used for longer, although there are likely to be other factors such as wear and tear on the pitch, which would impact on frequency of use and the amount of intensification that could take place. The applicant is seeking permission to use the floodlighting on a restricted basis, namely 3.00pm to 5.00pm on Saturdays and 7.00pm to 10.00pm one weekday for a maximum of twelve occasions during the football season. This additional usage is not seen as being so significant that it would, on balance, harm the amenity of residents beyond what is currently experienced for the operation of the club. The proposed development would not therefore conflict with policy H2.2. Light Spillage – Floodlighting can by its nature be intrusive, however, modern lighting is designed to focus on the area to be illuminated and to keep spillage to an absolute minimum. An appraisal of the proposed floodlighting scheme has been carried out and the Head of Highway Services is satisfied that there will be no significant light spill or sky glow that would detract from the amenity of residents.. Should planning permission be granted it is recommended that conditions be imposed that require the floodlighting to be directed onto the pitches at all times, restricting the hours of use and requiring them to be fitted with the shields referred to in the application. Ecology – The comments of the Ecology Unit are awaited in terms of any potential impact the proposal could have on the ecology of the area. However, in respect of the impact of floodlighting on bats the report into the previous application ref 091081 said

“With regard to bats, GMEU have indicated that the proposed development would not impact upon any habitats and that the richer feeding areas are to be found down by the river which is away from the proposed development. The impact of floodlighting on bats is not fully understood and can be dependant upon the species. This development should not have a significant impact on the existing bat colonies within the Mersey Valley”

There is no reason to believe that the situation has changed. And it is not anticipated that the additional usage allowed by this proposal would significantly impact on the flora and fauna of the Mersey Valley. Impact on the SBI – Sites of Biological Importance are declared by the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit and have no statutory protection beyond the policies contained within the Unitary Development Plan. However, not withstanding this, impact on the SBI has been considered. In this instance the proposed floodlights will be in excess of 75 metres from the SBI and it is considered that there will be no significant impact.


of 32

Attendance – Concerns have also been raised about the commercialisation of the football ground given the possible increase in crowd attendance and how this would impact on the area. The national ground grading for the Vodkat league is category G. There is no minimum capacity for the ground at this level. There is a minimum requirement of a capacity of 1000 should the club progress to category E, two grades above. From the Vodkat Website the attendances for 2009/2010 season ranged from low 20’s to a maximum of the low 300’s. There appears therefore to be no evidence that the provision of the floodlighting would result in a significant increase in spectators visiting the site and a consequential loss of amenity to residents. Flood risk Zone – Whilst parts of the site are within both floodzone 3 (High Risk) and Floodzone 2 (Low Risk) as the footprint of the development is extremely small there is no potential for it to have implications for flooding and therefore a flood risk assessment is not required. Human Rights Act - The planning system has since the enactment of the Human Rights Act been mindful of the impact its decisions can make on human rights, and to this end all reports in respect of planning applications contain on the implications of the development on the legislation. Power Supply – In response to concerns from residents the applicant has indicated that power for the floodlights would be taken from an existing sub-station (a new sub station was recently constructed as part of the development of the former Brookburn Road Dairy) or that they would use a small generator. The applicant has been advised that the latter would require planning permission. Future expansion of the club – The long terms plans of the club are not a material consideration is determining this application. Future developments may require planning permission at which time their cumulative impact would be considered. Conclusion The principle of improving existing sports facilities generally within the City is in line with City Council policy and National Guidance (Policy L1.5 and PPG17). However, this site is located within the Chorltonville conservation Area, the Mersey Valley and the Green Belt. The site is also adjoined on two sides by the rear gardens of residential properties on Meadow Bank as well as being visible from the rear gardens of properties on Redland Crescent. The main issues therefore are whether the proposed floodlights will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents, the character of the Conservation Area and the openness and flora and fauna of the Mersey Valley/Green Belt The current application has been considered against the relevant policies, both national and local. There is clearly strong local concern about the proposal and these have been set out in this report. However, these issues have been carefully considered in the context of the special nature of the area and whilst there will be an impact, it is not believed this would, on balance, be to such an extent to compromise or harm its character or the amenity of residents in the locality.


of 32

Human Rights Act 1998 considerations – This application needs to be considered against the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Under Article 6, the applicants (and those third parties, including local residents, who have made representations) have the right to a fair hearing and to this end the Committee must give full consideration to their comments. Protocol 1 Article 1, and Article 8 where appropriate, confer(s) a right of respect for a person’s home, other land and business assets. In taking account of all material considerations, including Council policy as set out in the Unitary Development Plan, the Head of Planning has concluded that some rights conferred by these articles on the applicant(s)/objector(s)/resident(s) and other occupiers and owners of nearby land that might be affected may be interfered with but that that interference is in accordance with the law and justified by being in the public interest and on the basis of the planning merits of the development proposal. He believes that any restriction on these rights posed by the approval of the application is proportionate to the wider benefits of approval and that such a decision falls within the margin of discretion afforded to the Council under the Town and Country Planning Acts. Recommendation MINDED TO APPROVE Minded to approve subject to the expiry of the neighbour notification period and the receipt of no further representations raising issues not already addressed. Minded to approve on the basis that the proposal is in accord with the City Council's Unitary Development Plan in particular Policy H2.2, which seeks to protect the amenity of residents from the adverse impact of developments, Policy E1.4, The Council will control noise levels by ensuring that new developments that generate noise are located away from residential properties, Policy E2.1, refers to development within the Green Belt. It states that planning permission will not be granted except in special circumstances for the construction of new buildings for purposes other than agriculture, forestry, and essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation. In all instances the Council will ensure that the visual amenities of the Green Belt are not injured by development, Policy E2.3, The Council will protect important wildlife habitats, Policy E2.4, states that the Council will ensure that the effects upon wildlife are taken into account when considering development proposals, Policy L1.5, The Council will seek to upgrade other parks and recreational areas, wherever possible making use of private sector finance, Policy CB1, seeks to safeguard major areas of open land especially in the Mersey Valley and make better use of existing recreational facilities particularly open space, Policy CB15, Existing land in the Mersey Valley will be conserved and improved and will for the most part continue in recreational use, Policy CB16, Throughout the valley existing outdoor recreational sites will be improved to cater for mainly informal recreation activities, Policy CB20, that there will be a presumption against recreational activities which could spoil the enjoyment of the Mersey Valley. Approval of such activities will only be considered if there is clear need and they can be sited where no significant disturbance would result, Policy CB23, The Council will protect, conserve and improve the landscape quality of the valley, Policy CB24, The Council will seek the


of 32

provision of a more enclosed and varied landscape by amongst others encouraging tree planting, Policy CB25, The Council will encourage tree planting and the provision of refuges for wildlife in sensitive sites which will be kept free of recreational pressure, Policy CB40, The Council will oppose any new development which could result in a significant deterioration in, or hinder the improvement of either water or atmospheric quality, or introduce unacceptable noise levels, Policy CB44, underlines that new development within the Valley shall be of a high standard with careful attention to siting, design, layout and materials, Policy DC18, Seeks to protect the City’s Conservation Areas from Inappropriate development, Policy DC22 The Council will take into account the impact of developments on existing pedestrian routes, Policy DC26, Seeks to protect residents from the harmful affects of noisy developments and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate otherwise. Conditions and/or Reasons 1) The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. Reason - Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following drawings and documents unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as Local Planning Authority: UKS6004/5 and Sports Pack : HL250 15 metre (Double Shaft) . Reason - To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Pursuant to policy H2.2 and L1.2 of the Manchester Unitary Development Plan. 3) The floodlights hereby approve shall only be used during the following hours. 3pm to 5pm on Saturdays and 7pm to 10pm on no more than 12 additional weekday evenings between August and May in each football season. Reason To limit the potential for any loss of amenity to the occupiers of the adjoining residential properties pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester 4) The floodlighting hereby approved shall be fitted with back shields as specified in the application and maintained in accordance with the manufacturers specifications and be directed onto the playing surface at all times.


of 32

Reason To prevent any loss of amenity arising from the floodlights being deflected and shining into nearby residential properties pursuant to policy H2.2 of the Unirtary Development Plan for the City of Manchester. Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 The documents referred to in the course of this report are either contained in the file(s) relating to application ref: 093164/FO/2010/S1 held by planning or are City Council planning policies, the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester, national planning guidance documents, or relevant decisions on other applications or appeals, copies of which are held by the Planning Division. The following residents, businesses and other third parties in the area were consulted/notified on the application: Landscape Practice Group Greater Manchester Ecology Unit Environmental Health MEDC Chorlton Civic Society Chorltonville Owners Committee Mersey Valley Warden Servcie 1 to 21, 2 to 46 Redland Crescent, 3 to 35 Hurstville Road, 67 to 87, 50 to 74 South Drive, 2 to16 South Meade, 1, 3, 5(Flats 1 and 2), 7 to 23, 27 to 35, 2 to 40 Meadow Bank, 1 to 7, 4 to 8 The Willows, 8, 9 The Meade 51 to 57, 54 to 62 Brookburn Road, 1, 3 West Meade, 84 to 102 Hardy Lane, Representations were received from the following third parties: 7 Meadow Bank, Manchester, , , M21 8EF 15 Redland Crescent, Manchester, M21 8DL 22 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8DY 72 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DF 2 The Meade, Manchester, M21 8FA 30 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8BY Flat 7, Allan Court, Ivygreen Road, Manchester, M21 9FR 106 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DF 48 Brookburn Road, Manchester, M21 8FE 15 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8DZ


of 32

41 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8DZ Flat 6, 65 High Lane, Manchester, M21 9EE 9 Mersey Bank Avenue, Manchester, M21 7NS 10 East Meade, Manchester, M21 8GA 33 Chelsfield Grove, Manchester, M21 7SU 5 Cross Road, Manchester, M21 9DH 34 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8DY 11 East Meade, Manchester, M21 8GA 26 Alan Road, Manchester, M20 4WG 12 West Meade, Manchester, M21 8FD 103 Chelsfield Grove, Manchester, M21 7BD 53 Chequers Road, Manchester, M21 9DX 121 Ivygreen Road, Manchester, M21 9FX 30 Judson Avenue, Manchester, M21 7LW 44 Cressfield Way, Manchester, M21 7RW 81 Central Road, Manchester, M20 4YD 27 Reynard Road, Manchester, M21 8DB 35 Hartington Road, Manchester, M21 8UZ 2 Claridge Road, Manchester, M21 9QE 13 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 2 St Clements Road, Manchester, M21 9HU 18 Emery Avenue, Manchester, M21 7LF Flat 6, 40 Warwick Road, Manchester, M21 0AX 20 Woodhead Street, Manchester, M16 7EZ 36 Clarendon Road West, Manchester, M21 0RW 203 Brantingham Road, Manchester, M21 0TT Flat 3, 128 St Werburgh's Road, Manchester, M21 8UQ 13 East Meade, Manchester, M21 8GA 19 Hurstville Road, Manchester, M21 8DJ 28 Redland Crescent, Manchester, M21 8DL 15 Redland Crescent, Manchester, M21 8DL 24 Redland Crescent, Manchester, M21 8DL 83 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8ED 87 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8ED 7 The Willows, Manchester, M21 8FQ 4 The Willows, Manchester, M21 8FQ 3 The Willows, Manchester, M21 8FQ 8 The Meade, Manchester, M21 8FA 18 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EE 10 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8FP 2 South Meade, Manchester, M21 8EB 4 South Meade, Manchester, M21 8EB 9 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 11 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 13 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 15 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 17 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 32 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EE 60 Brookburn Road, Manchester, M21 8FE


of 32

54 Brookburn Road, Manchester, M21 8FE 2 Manchester Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 9JG 95 Edge Road, Stretford, Manchester, M32 8PM 14 Poolcroft, Sale Moor, M33 2LF 25 Meadow Bank, Chorltonville, Manchester, M21 8EF 75 South Drive, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 8ED 79 Claud Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 8DE 65 Provis Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 9EN 38 Redland Crescent, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 8DL 16 Allan Court, Ivygreen Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 9FR 61 Provis Road, Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester, M21 9EN 23 Attercliffe Road, Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester, M21 9FS 27 Hurstville Road, Corlton, Manchester, M21 8DJ 46 Stockton Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 9ED 48 Stockton Road, Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester, M21 9ED 27 Hurstville Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 8DJ 14 Meadow Bank, Chorltonville, Manchester, M21 8FP 25 Brookburn Road, Manchester, M21 8FF 41 Provis Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 9EN 47 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8DZ 30 Meadow Bank, Chorltonville, Manchester, M21 8ZE 10 West Meade, Chorltonville, Manchester, M21 8DF 81 Oldfield Road, Altrincham, Chesire, WA14 4BL 22 Belwood Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 9FN 17 St Clements Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 9HT 12 Redland Crescent, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 8DL 39 South Drive, Chorltonville, Manchester, M21 8DZ C/o Department Of Botany, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD 103 Moss Lane, Altrincham , Cheshire , WA15 8HR Apartment 13, Chorlton View, 6 - 10 Whitelow Road, Manchester, M21 9HQ 33 South Drive, Manchester, , , M21 8DZ 9 Brookburn Road, Manchester, M21 8FF 38 Townsend Road Swinton Manchester, M276SH 62 South Drive, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 8FB 28 St Clements Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 9HU 13 Grange Road, Manchester, M21 9NZ British Pteridological Society, Department Of Botany, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD 40 Redland Crescent, Manchester, M21 8DL 22 Victoria Road, Whalley Range, Manchester, M16 8DP 50 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8FB 69 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DE 4 North Meade, Manchester, M21 8GD 84 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DF 3 Robertshaw Avenue, Manchester, M21 8ET 3 South Meade, Manchester, M21 8EB 2 West Meade, Manchester, M21 8FD 50 Brookburn Road, Manchester, M21 8FE


of 32

12 West Meade, Manchester, M21 8FD 68 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DF 3 East Meade, Manchester, M21 8GA 29 Oakhouse Drive, Manchester, M21 8EN 6 Provis Road, Manchester, M21 9EW 1 South Meade, Manchester, M21 8EB 90 Hardy Lane, Manchester, M21 8DN 5 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 102 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DF Flat 17, Allan Court, Ivygreen Road, Manchester, M21 9FR 24 Oakhouse Drive, Manchester, M21 8EN 1 Neale Road, Manchester, M21 9DP 27 Ivygreen Road, Manchester, M21 9FF 102 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DF 54 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8FB 2 Hurstville Road, Manchester, M21 8DH 36 Hurstville Road, Manchester, M21 8DH Flat 15, Allan Court, Ivygreen Road, Manchester, M21 9FR 45 Neale Road, Manchester, M21 9DP 78 Hardy Lane, Manchester, M21 7GX 35 Reynard Road, Manchester, M21 8DB 78 Hardy Lane, Manchester, M21 7GX 87 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8ED 11 Woodham Road, Manchester, M23 0WS 23 Ivy Court, 53 Beech Road, Manchester, M21 9FL 3 Trafford Mansions, 179 Manchester Road, Chorlton, Manchester, M16 0ED 6 Chorlton Green, Manchester, M21 9HS 54 Brookburn Road, Manchester, M21 8FE 33 Brookburn Road, Manchester, M21 8FF 44 Redland Crescent, Manchester, M21 8DL 34 Chequers Road, Manchester, M21 9DY 46 Brookburn Road, Manchester, M21 8FE 5 The Willows, Manchester, M21 8FQ 24 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EE 38 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EE Flat 8 11 Edge Lane, Chorlton, Manchester, M21 9JH 71 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DE 85 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DE 14 Redland Crescent, Manchester, M21 8DL 32 Neale Road, Manchester, M21 9DQ Flat 9, Allan Court, Ivygreen Road, Manchester, M21 9FR 1 Redland Crescent, Manchester, M21 8DL 25 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 95 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DE 52 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8FB 79 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8ED 30 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EE 7 Littler Avenue, Manchester, M21 7WA 69 - 71 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8ED


of 32

13 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8BZ 19 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 23 Brookburn Road, Manchester, M21 8FF 23 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 7 The Willows, Manchester, M21 8FQ 12 Hardy Lane, Manchester, M21 7JZ 19 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 83 Claude Road, Manchester, M21 8DE 66 South Drive, Manchester, M21 8FB 9 Redland Crescent, Manchester, M21 8DL 29 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF 24 Old Broadway, Withington, Manchester, M20 3DF 5 Mayfield Avenue, Stretford, M32 9HL 4 Millington Gardens, Lymm, Cheshire, WA13 9NJ 16 Willeman Court, Manchester, M5 5BU 49 Kendal Drive, Gatley, SK8 4QJ 45 Canterbury Road, Urmston, M41 7AH 18 Willow Road, Eccles, M30 0WT 12 Churchill Road, Altrincham, WA14 5LT 23 Chapel Street, Heaton Mersey, Stockport, SK4 3AH 1 Conway Close, Firswood, Manchester, M16 0GJ 19 Shrewsbury Court, Old Trafford, M16 7NR 11 Balmoral Avenue, Stretford, M32 0DG 45 Rosslyn Road, Firswood, Manchester, M16 0FY Flat 1, 198 Upper Chorlton Road, Manchester, M16 0FY 125 Bramhall Lane, Stockport, SK2 6HZ 7 Meadow Bank, Manchester, M21 8EF Nb. This lists the addresses from which a representation has been received. In some instances responses were received from more than one person at an address. Relevant Contact Officer : Dave Morris Telephone number : 0161 600 7924 Email : [email protected]

application number date of appln committee date ward · 2010-06-23 · chorlton ward proposal...

Documents