The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee had undertaken a site visit in the morning prior to the start of the meeting.  This application was for the creation of an Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) for Multi-Sport Activity and installation of 6 x 18-metre high floodlighting columns, creation of a hard standing, formation of topsoil bund, erection of 5-metre high ball stop fencing and installation of 1.2 metre high barriers to artificial grass pitch.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and referred to the additional information included in the late representations submitted. The information included submissions from the Platt Lane/MMU Campus Residents Association. A letter had also been received from Councillor Ilyas (Ward Councillor).

A representative of the Platt Lane/MMU Campus Residents Association addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Reference was made to problems experienced by residents resulting from visitor parking in areas around Platt Lane. The parking causes gridlock and the existing parking in the complex could not cope with the demand. In addition, coaches were using residential streets to park. Concerns were expressed regarding the noise levels generated from the use of the pitches which did not match the levels projected within the planning report. The flood lighting proposed is 18 metres from the nearest residential properties in an area that is already impacted by light pollution from the complex. The point was made that the close proximity of the lighting would affect children trying to sleep in the houses adjacent to the complex. The current flood lighting is 55 metres from the nearest residential property.

Councillor M Sharif Mahamed (Moss Side Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee and stated that there would be a detrimental impact on the residents of Moss Side living adjacent to the complex from the proposed development. Reference was made to increases in light pollution, noise levels and car parking problems resulting from the constant use of the complex.

The applicant addressed the Committee and informed the meeting that a total of £2million had already been invested in the Platt Lane Complex and the proposal would improve the facilities further. MMU had not received any complaints relating to noise levels, parking or light pollution. In acknowledging the points raised, additional conditions had been added to the application to address resident’s concerns.

The Planning Officer reported that the conditions added to the application would address concerns raised. The additional conditions would require car park marshals and additional cycle parking stands. The proposal included an Environmental Health assessment on noise levels and this had been determined the levels to be acceptable. The floodlighting proposed was a modern design, however a condition could be added to address the lighting scheme if complaints were subsequently received.

The Chair invited members of the Committee to comment on the application.

Members referred to the pricing policy at the facility and the reasons for proposing to install a bund on one side of the pitch and not the other. Members also commented on the 18 metre distance of the flood lighting poles from properties and the potential use of offensive language by visitors to the complex which may be heard by residents. Concerns were expressed on the issues of parking and other highway issues and the use of the pitch throughout the year and the impact this could have on the amenity of local residents in particular the family routines.

It was reported that the pricing policy was not a planning matter and the installation of a bund was proposed as way of screening the pitch from resident’s properties adjacent to the complex to mitigate concerns raised. With regard to complaints about the use of anti-social behaviour and language, a condition could be explored in the application for the introduction of a resident reporting mechanism.

Decision

Minded to refuse for the reasons that the proposed development would impact on neighbouring properties with a loss of amenity. The Committee agreed that the proposal was therefore in conflict with policies Policy DM1 - Development Management, DC26.1 (Noise) and SP1 -- Spatial Principles.

(The Head of Planning has been requested to submit a report which addresses the concerns raised and whether there are reasons for refusal which could be sustained.)