Agenda item

To consider the report of the City Development Manager.

The City Development Manager presented the application for two Bays of fine mesh protective golf netting 20 metres high, lattice supports (x3) over a total length of 60 metres to provide protection from stray golf balls for nearby dwellings.

Responding to Members, he confirmed that the netting would be screened by new, semi mature trees of approximately seven metres in height which were likely to grow further. Although the Club intended initially to provide a 10 metre high netting it may, in the future, increase to 20 metres should the problem with stray balls persist. Three pillars were required for the proposed length and were of the necessary design to support the proposed height. The normal colour of the netting was black. It was noted that the idea of residents entering into an agreement with the Golf Club to accept that, if netting was not provided, the Club could not be considered responsible in the event of damage to property and/or personal injury had not been raised.

Members were circulated with an update sheet - attached to minutes.

Councillor Leadbetter, having given notice under Standing Order No.44, spoke on the item. He raised the following points, referring to a number of photos provide by the objector:-

• the application mirrors that of an earlier request for netting when a compromise had been reached between the Club and the house builder resulting in a reduction in netting height;
• one photo showed properties within 14 metres of the fence and the access road adjacent to the 9^th hole, another showed the line of good and stray shots and another showed the visual impact with the inclusion of existing trees although there had not been any reference to their replacement;
• a partial solution has been provided through the realignment of the 9^th hole which has all but stopped stray balls so it would be sensible for the club to pursue further options such as only permitting the exclusive use of the tee by experienced golfers which could negate the need for netting. Moving the hole closer to the tee would be the ideal solution and this option should be pursued and monitored. It will also mean less of a financial outlay for the club;
• residents have questioned the credibility of the analysis provided by the professional consultant and whether the nets will be an adequate deterant;
• as the applicant is seeking initially to provide only a 10 meter netting the residents are questioning why permission is also sought for 20 metres; and
• application should be turned down and the alternative solution of moving the tee put forward adopted.

Mr Forrow spoke against the application. He raised the following points:-

• there will be an adverse visual impact - for one resident of Holland Park this fence would be 16 metres away from their back garden and in plain view. The top would be much higher than 45 degrees up, and you would have to crane your neck to see it. For several other residents, enjoying their gardens and looking out of west-facing windows would be utterly oppressive;
• the photos show how dominant the netting would be within the local landscape;
• the trees partly screening the netting will be gone soon - they are old trees, and the golf club haven’t planted successors. These trees - together with the rest along the same boundary - will soon be felled, or fall over. When that happens, not only will this netting become exposed, but another planning application can be expected for an additional 90 metre length of golf safety netting, as there will be no protection for the left hand boundary of the 9th hole;
• the effectiveness of the proposed netting in stopping stray balls is questionable. Checking the supporting technical reports carefully, there are conclusions which are incorrectly drawn. For example, the proposed netting has an effective height of 14 metres not 20. The reason for this is that the 9th hole slopes downwards, and where the netting is proposed to be, it is six metres lower than the tee;
• the consultant’s analysis assumes the ground is level. Clearly it is not. A golf ball which would normally reach 20 metres high by the time it gets to the netting, will be 6 metres higher than that, measured from the ground;
• using the consultant’s own data, it means that at least two thirds of tee shots made by men will reach over 14 metres height. The netting would not stop the majority of those and, as a result, the consultant’s conclusion that “the 20 metres high proposed fence is reasonable…”, is wrong;
• the stray ball problem does not require the northerly arm of the netting at all, and the southern arm won’t stop many balls from escaping onto the new access road anyway;
• arguably, a solution has already been found by the golf club as no balls have been seen to have escaped into Holland Park since the new tee position came into operation even if it turns out that it is not a complete solution, it is believed that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the current proposal should be refused on the grounds that it does not solve the problem; and
• as another option, the 9th hole could be shortened, which would take the whole danger area out of the equation. This would have a lesser effect on the viability of the golf course than the club might have the Committee believe.

He responded to Members’ queries:-

• believe the position of the tee was changed about six months ago; and
• there was insufficient time to obtain professional advice on behalf of the residents as they were notified too late in the process.

Mr Gammon spoke in support of the application. He raised the following points:-

·         speaking as Chairman of Exeter Golf and Country Club which fully supports the application which has been submitted on its behalf by Heritage Homes;

·         the responsibility for Health & Safety in these circumstances rests solely with the Club and, on such critical issues, the Club has always sought to act upon informed professional advice. In this respect, the Club has continued to employ the services of internationally renowned Golf Architect Tom MacKenzie of MacKenzie Ebert who has been the lead advisor to the Club throughout this difficult period and he also designed and supervised the extensive alterations to our golf course. Without his help and guidance, the Club would have needed to seriously consider moving from its location in the City;

·         Tom has advised the Club ever since the problem with the 9^th hole arose and has specifically responded on the information submitted by the Holland Park resident’s in their briefing note. His advice has remained firm in respect of the need for the safety netting and the Club has to follow his advice in order to comply with both its Health and Safety policy and Insurer’s requirements. Planning consent is therefore needed in order to phase in the erection of this relatively short length of safety netting, firstly 10 metre high and, if necessary, 20 meter high, to ensure full protection of neighbours in Holland Park. From an aesthetic viewpoint, seven metre high trees will be planted in the gap where the dead trees have been removed and this will provide an immediate visual barrier between the netting and Holland Park, with the netting to be sited entirely on golf course land; and 

·         the Club would have also liked to avoid erecting the netting, particularly as it  has to pay for it, but this is ultimately a matter of survival for the Club.

He responded to Members’ queries:-

• moving the tee has not completely eradicated the problem of stray balls;
• although the re-alignment of the tee has helped, the professional consultants advise that the netting is necessary as further protection;
• the Club has a Golf Course Manager and a Golf Manager but it is not possible to log all incidents of straying balls. Because of the problems with stray balls moving the tee was implemented to assist and this has helped the situation but some balls still go astray and the problem has not gone away;
• regarding the suggested shortening of the hole, a previous reconfiguration of the course resulted in a reduction in its length which is now considered to be at a minimum beyond which people may no longer wish to play. Any further changes will be the thin end of the wedge and members and the general public will seek to use other courses;
• it is not considered that the proposed netting will be particularly obtrusive and there will not be overarching cross bars linking the three posts as shown on the circulated photograph;
• the standard netting colour is black which is not considered to be particularly visually intrusive and the towers are galvanised to prevent rusting - these could be painted green;
• this is the only part of the course that is at risk;
• at least seven of the 10 metres will be covered by trees. The total cost of a 20 metre fence will be approximately £60,000 which can be fitted in two sections, the second 10 metre section to be affixed on top of the first 10 metres if required. A 20 metre fence is recommended by the consultants but the Club have opted not to implement this immediately but to wait and see the effect of the 10 metre fence;
• confirm that change to the tee occurred about six months ago;
• the golf course is at 20% capacity at the moment and wishes to implement any consent in time for the busier period from April on;
• strongly refute claim that the consultant did not take into account the change in ground level on the 9^th hole as he is an expert;
• the Club takes its responsibilities seriously and is properly insured but it is necessary to show that all necessary precautions have been taken should any claims for personal injury or property damage be received;
• the Club will do everything to avoid incidents and will continue to monitor the situation; and
• the new tee is all weather and in operation all year round and requires maintenance.

Members referred to the difficulty in determining a threshold for a netting, noting that an initially suggested height of 30 metres for the previous application for a netting had been deemed too high. They recognised that there was a need for the club to protect itself from potential claims and that a protective netting along with the other measures taken would help limit the number of stray balls straying into neighbouring residential property.

The recommendation was for approval, subject to the conditions as set out in the report.

RESOLVED that planning permission for two Bays of fine mesh protective golf netting on 20 metre high; lattice supports (x3) over a total length of 60 metres to provide protection from stray golf balls for nearby dwellings be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:-

(1)        The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Reason:  To ensure compliance with sections 91-92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.Approved drawings.

(2)        The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in strict accordance with the submitted details received by the Local Planning Authority on 21st February and 27th March 20 (dwg. nos EGCC - Nets Loc Plan, 9th Hole Netting Survey Site Plan, 9th Hole Netting Survey Elevation, tower base foundation details, and tower elevation) as modified by other conditions of this consent.

            Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings.

(3)        Prior to the installation of the protective netting hereby approved a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include details of a timeframe for its implementation and on-going maintenance arrangements. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme.

            Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.