Agenda item

To consider the report of the Strategic Director for Place.

 

The Assistant Service Lead – Development Management (Major Projects) presented the application for Development comprising change of use to golf driving range including construction of an 8 bay and 2 bay facility incorporating equipment store and car park (Variation of condition 2 of 21/1676/FUL to change the surface material of the car park from grasscrete or similar to recycled plastic cell gravel).

 

Members received a presentation which included:-

• site location plan;
• aerial view;
• Riverside & Ludwell Valley Parks Masterplan 2016-2026;
• existing gate/location of access;
• existing access road looking south;
• view of site from existing access looking east;
• approved site layout;
• proposed change and suggested colour;
• approved planting plan;
• views towards site from Ludwell Valley Park; and
• officer recommendation.

 

The Assistant Service Lead – Development Management (Major Projects) responded to questions from Members as follows:-

·         the applicant felt that grasscrete was not ideal in terms of possible run-off and heating up the soil;

·         there would be worms in the soil under the gravel;

·         the remit of the Committee with regard to the present application was to consider visual harm and sustainability of drainage;

·         no ecology report was required for this application;

·         the Committee could only assess what the developer wanted to build;

·         there was previous experience of the proposed material at the golf driving range; and

·         if the present application was refused, the applicant would have to revert to the original application “or similar”.

 

Speaking under Standing Order 44, Councillor Wardle made the following points:-

·         he had been strongly opposed to the original application;

·         several objectors had wanted to attend the present meeting but were unable to do so;

·         the location was an oasis of calm;

·         the proposal was a small change which had a cumulative effect;

·         residents did not agree that vehicles driving on gravel was acceptable; and

·         no reason had been given for this application being made.

 

In responses to questions from Members, Councillor Wood made the following

further comments:-

·         it was essential to establish how green the new material was; and

·         residents had now accepted grasscrete.

 

Speaking in favour of the application, Mr Peter Lacey made the following comments:-

·         changes in the weather had forced the club to review its options;

·         also, changes in the weather had resulted in rain-sodden grass surfaces, where previously the grass was playable all year round;

·         the National Trust had distanced themselves from a product similar to grasscrete;

·         the proposed changes were compatible with the landscape;

·         the noise arising from cars driving on the gravel had been overstated;

·         a 15-metre wide tree belt adjacent to the Tollards Road boundary would provide visual and sound screening; and

·         cars approaching the site would do so at low speed.

 

Mr Lacey responded to Members’ questions as follows:-

·         the gravel itself was made of stone and would be resting on recycled plastic cells;

·         the gravel would be locally sourced (near Plympton);

·         the plastic cells had been heavily advertised as being made of recycled plastic;

·         the biggest problem with grasscrete was the weather (i.e. 25ml of rain became 50ml in impact);

·         the club’s groundsman did not believe the option of combining plastic cells and grass was viable as the grass would only come to the top of the plastic;

·         a significant land drainage scheme was in place;

·         the new proposal was also more compliant in terms of wheelchair access;

·         grasscrete had to be bedded on gravel and its formation included burnt off plastic;

·         the applicant had received no evidence as to whether the plastic in the proposal would break down into microplastics;

·         the applicant based their faith on the National Trust using the gravel and plastic cells in their car parks;

·         a total of 13,000 vehicles had used the site last year, averaging between 7 and 8 in every single hour;

·         the drainage would be the same for both systems;

·         it was not possible to answer with real confidence how gravel could be prevented from travelling;

·         while gravel was cheaper, this was not the motivation for the new proposal;

·         the area size concerned was 45m x 16.5m;

·         the applicant would not be amenable to having other plants or herbs in the grasscrete.

 

During debate, Members expressed the following views:-

·         residents’ concerns needed to be considered;

·         the link with the National Trust was tenuous;

·         the public speaker had not sufficiently demonstrated why the club should get rid of the grasscrete;

·         the original application mentioned “grasscrete or similar” and it appeared that the applicant had not considered alternative surfaces;

·         gravel spillage was a risk as it could not be contained;

·         vehicles turning on the gravel would cause increased noise levels;

·         alternative surfaces such as GrassPave had not been considered;

·         disability needed to be taken into account; and

·         gravel was not accessible for wheelchair users.

 

 

The Assistant Service Lead – Development Management (Major Projects) clarified that, if the golf club wanted to submit a proposal involving plastic cells and grass, this would fall under “or similar” in the original application, and no new application would be needed.

 

The Chair made the following comments:-

·         the embedded carbon of the concrete was a concern;

·         it should be noted that the plastic in the new proposal was recycled;

·         although gravel was slightly proud, there was not much risk of spillage; and

·         he expressed a preference for the new proposal.

 

The recommendation was for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the update sheet.

 

The Chair moved and Councillor Mitchell seconded the recommendation, which

was voted upon and DEFEATED.

 

The Strategic Director for Place advised Members that they would now have to explicitly formulate reasons for refusal. He offered to word a note on technical issues and clarified that the reasons could include unacceptable appearance and adverse noise impact. He also suggested that Members could vote on the reasons for refusal only and delegate the exact wording in the notice of refusal to Planning Officers.

 

A Member remarked that the reason for refusal in terms of the distinctiveness of Ludwell Valley Park was essentially within the officer report.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Hughes and seconded by Councillor Jobson that:-

1.    the application be refused on grounds that:-

                    i.       the impact of the change on the character and local distinctiveness of Ludwell Valley Park is a negative one;

                   ii.      the impact of the noise is unacceptable to the surrounding neighbours who have already expressed concerns; and

                  iii.       there isn’t enough information given about the sustainable construction of the new proposal;

2.    that the exact wording of the decision based on these reasons be delegated to Planning Officers.

 

On a vote, the recommendations were CARRIED.

 

RESOLVED that planning permission for Development comprising change of use to golf driving range including construction of an 8 bay and 2 bay facility incorporating equipment store and car park (Variation of condition 2 of 21/1676/FUL to change the surface material of the car park from grasscrete or similar to recycled plastic cell gravel) be refused for the reasons listed during the meeting.