Agenda item

Development of new artificial pitches, non-turf cricket nets and fencing. (As amplified by supporting information received 06 June 2023). Amended with further biodiversity net gain details submitted to demonstrate compliance with Policy.

The committee considered planning application P22/S2582/FUL for the development of new artificial pitches, non-turf cricket nets and fencing (as amplified by supporting information received 06 June 2023) amended with further biodiversity net gain details submitted to demonstrate compliance with Policy, on land at Shiplake College, Reading Road, Shiplake.  

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting. 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application was brought to the committee due to objection of Shiplake Parish Council. The concerns of the parish focused on the visual impact of the development on the character of the area the ecological harm caused by the artificial turf.

The planning officer informed the committee that the site was agricultural but had extant planning permission, secured in 2021, for the conversion of the field into a grass playing field. He also highlighted that the application would provide a sporting facility for the college which would also be open to the wider community on occasions. The planning officer indicated that the wider community use aspect of the development was given planning weight and formed a significant part in his decision on the application.

Due to the conditioned landscaping and external lighting restriction, the visual impact on the area was considered to be acceptable. On ecology, the planning officer was satisfied that the loss of ecology onsite could be offset by provisions offsite and that the ecologist had studied the plans in detail and had no objection to the application.

As the application complied with all local plan policies and as it was acceptable in terms of ecology and its visual impact, the planning officer recommended that the application be approved.

Councillor Chris Penrose spoke on behalf of Shiplake Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

Neil Boddington, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. 

The committee asked for clarity around the biodiversity net gain achieved by the application and the long-term ecological consequences of the artificial turf. In response, the planning officer noted that the artificial playing field could be reversed over time, but that the application was for playing fields and that was how he assessed the application. In addition, it was emphasised that the ecology team had considered the application in depth and that the application had reached a point where they had no objections. Specifically, the planning officer noted that they could not achieve a biodiversity net-gain onsite, but that it would be provided off-site as compensation. Members noted that the presence of the ecology officer at the meeting would be helpful for similar applications in order to help answer the more technical questions.

In response to questions about if there would be more habitat lost with the installation of a grass playing field or artificial turf, the planning officer responded that both would have ecological impacts, but that the artificial turf would have a larger one. The planning officer also indicated that the college would not need to travel to Reading for playing fields and that this was a consideration in his recommendations.

The committee debated the application and several members believed that the proposed fencing around the site was out of character with the surrounding area. In addition, the fields distance from the college was also raised as a potential issue.

Although concerns were raised about the biodiversity impacts of the artificial turf, the committee were satisfied that these impacts had been properly investigated by the ecologist and planning officer and had been mitigated as much as possible. In addition, they noted that biodiversity net gain was being achieved through the application.

A motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application on the grounds that it would have a negative visual impact on character and appearance of the area. However, the committee did not believe this to be sufficient grounds for refusal as the scheme could be softened through a landscaping condition. 

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was not carried on being put to the vote with the chair issuing his casting vote. 

Overall, the committee considered that the landscaping condition of the scheme would ensure that the visual impact of the development was acceptable, and they were also satisfied with the suggested condition to prevent any external lighting. For these reasons, and the lack of objection from the ecology officer, the committee agreed that the application should be approved, subject to conditions.

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote. 

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/S2582/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

1. Commencement 3 years - Full Planning Permission

2. Approved plans

3. Materials as on plan

4. No external lighting

5. Surface water drainage works (details required)

6. Biodiversity Management and Monitoring Plan

7. Ecology (Mitigation)

8. Landscaping Scheme (trees and shrubs only)

9. Sport Field - Management and Maintenance Scheme

10. Removal of Permitted Development rights