Agenda item

Variation of condition 2 of planning permission K/42974 to allow for different surface material for outdoor sports track, with proposed landscaping to reduce visual impact.

Public Participation

Mr Steve Herniman, spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Hilary Stone, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr Dominic Muns, spoke in objection to the application.

Ms Deborah Bray, Founder and Head  Coach of Lavington Athletics, spoke in support of the application.

Ms Fiona Edington, Secretary of the Wiltshire Athletics Association spoke in support of the application.

Mr Stuart Rackum, Agent, spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Sandra Gamble of West Lavington Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Morgan Jones, Senior Planning Officer, presented a report which recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions for the variation of condition 2 of planning permission K/42974 to allow for different surface material for outdoor sports track, with proposed landscaping to reduce visual impact.

Key details were stated to include the following:

The application site related to the playing fields at Dauntsey’s School, and in particular the athletics track, which was originally granted planning permission on the 5th November 2013 under planning application ref K/42974. The planning permission was granted for the “change of use of agricultural land to use of playing field and outdoor sports facilities”. The planning permission was subject to conditions which required the approved new landscaping scheme to be installed around the periphery of the land along with its future maintenance and management. The planning permission also removed permitted development rights for the erection of any form of means of enclosure on the application land. The application clearly specified that the surface would be grass.

A site plan of the approved location of the athletics track and area was shown to the meeting. The athletics track and area had recently been installed in the approved location, however it had a bright terracotta synthetic surface and area and was surrounded by a white fence which was 1.2m high. The current application therefore sought retrospective planning permission to regularise the appearance of the track and area and the associated fence. The application also proposed some new planting along the south western boundary of the application site in order to screen the track and fence from views from public rights of way on higher ground to the south of the site.

Photos were shown from a nearby right of way, on top of Strawberry Hill, which showed the view of the track and area. A mock up photo was also shown that gave an impression of how the site would look once the proposed landscaping had matured.  

The Council, as Local Planning Authority had requested that further amendments were made to the proposed development, in line with the recommendations of the Parish Council. For example to change the colour of the track to green and to remove the fencing surrounding the track or paint it a less conspicuous colour. The requests were however refused by the applicant.

It was noted that the athletics track would be a valuable resource to the school and community and would promote healthy lifestyles. However, it was unfortunate that the facility as constructed had a much greater visual impact than the grass surface track originally approved. The proposed landscaping would take time to mature.

The landscape and visual impacts of the development were the key material planning considerations of this application. Whilst it was considered the visual impact of the development could be reduced, the scheme must be assessed as submitted, albeit with some updates to the proposed landscape scheme, and on balance it was recommended that planning permission be granted with conditions.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. In response to questions the Officer stated that it was quite clear if you read the application as a whole that it was for grass surfaces only. Officers were unclear as to whether there was a health and safety requirement for a fence around the track. It was also stated that the Committee should consider the application from a clean slate, but you had to take account of what was there. If Councillors thought that the any of the aspects were unacceptable, after taking account of the benefits and weighing these in the balance, for example the white fence or terracotta track and area, then the application should be refused due to the harm caused by the visual impact on the landscape.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views, as detailed above.

In response to public statements the Officer stated that the Council had no issue with private schools, that was not stated anywhere in the report. There was also no issue with the track and area, it was just the colour of it, the synthetic surface and the surrounding fence. It was regrettable that track had been installed without planning permission. The Committee could not insist on a replacement, it could just look at this application to see if it was appropriate. If the application was refused, enforcement action could be taken, however the Council could not specify what there should be afterwards. The Officer recommendation was closely balanced. One should take into account any harm caused by the visual impact balanced against the benefit of the facility. Officers felt that the proposed mitigation would make the application acceptable.

Cllr Mark Connolly proposed a motion to grant planning permission as per the officer recommendation, this was seconded by Cllr Chris Williams.

A debate followed where many issues and views were discussed, including; that the track was a massive change which harmed the landscape; that the school and their agents were at fault; that there was no evidence that the track had to be red with a white fence; that the school had been instructed years ago to implement planting but had not done so; that the Committee and Council did not have any bias against private schools; astonishment was expressed that the school had allowed this to happen; it was acknowledged that the track would be of benefit to the school and community; it was felt that the school should have consulted with the parish council and Wiltshire Council prior to installing the track, the proper planning requirements had been breached and the visual harm to the landscape outweighed the benefit of the track.

At the conclusion of the debate the proposed motion did not pass.

Therefore, Cllr Nick Fogg OBE proposed a motion that the application be refused, against officer recommendation, because the application did not comply with Core Policy 51 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, as it had a harmful impact on the landscape character. The motion was seconded by Cllr Paul Oatway QPM.

At the conclusion of the debate it was;

Resolved

To refuse planning permission, against officer recommendation, for the following reasons:

The development, by reason of the bright and unsympathetic colours used for the athletics area and perimeter fencing, and the size of the area covered,  creates a discordant element in the landscape that has an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. This is exacerbated by its location at the interface of the countryside and the school grounds, and its prominence in views from nearby public rights of way, particularly those on the higher ground to the south. The mitigation measures proposed would not only take a lengthy time to provide any mitigation, but even when mature, would not be able to adequately mitigate the adverse impacts identified. The development therefore conflicts with the policies of the development plan, specifically  Core Policies 51 and 57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, and with national planning policy in paragraphs 127, 130 & 170 of the National Planning Policy Framework.