Agenda item

(Councillor Mullan, who had declared an interest in this application, withdrew from the table whilst it was under discussion and took no part in the debate or decision-making process.)

            The Chairperson advised that an Environmental Health officer was in attendance.

            Councillor Mullan indicated that she wished to speak on the matter and accordingly, the Committee agreed.

            The case officer outlined the proposal for a 3G pitch with 2.4m perimeter fencing, 15m high ballstop fencing, floodlighting (20m high masts), single storey extension to existing changing rooms, re-siting of existing storage container and landscaping along boundary with Knock Eden Park. She advised that the site was located within Cherryvale playing fields, off the Ravenhill Road in East Belfast.

            The case officer informed the Committee that, after the agenda had been published, 6 further representations had been received (5 objections and 1 non-committal) which outlined the following objections:

·        the drainage assessment and storm water calculation information was flawed as had been based on a statement that there was no watercourse within Cherryvale;

·        a neighbouring resident had had house insurance declined due to water gathering in garden from Cherryvale following heavy rain;

·        there had been a failure to consider proper construction of ‘grass’ pitch, that the new grass pitch required same engineering works as the 3G pitch, and there would be a potential for drainage and noise issues;

·        a shortfall in parking provided. On-street parking provision capacity / impact on cycle parking;

·        Receipt of a Belfast Telegraph article which highlighted the potential health risks of use of rubber crumb dressing to the 3G pitch and recommended that Council consider alternative dressing material;

·        The over-provision of 3G pitches in this area -  the new 3G pitch at Aquinas was part-funded by the Council and Ulster Rugby and is already available for hire by the same people for whom it was claimed that Cherryvale 3G was needed; and

·        The subdivision of the park with security fencing reducing access for most users and - the visual impact of the lighting, fencing and masts on the ambience of the park and the Area of Townscape Character.

            The case officer outlined the response of the Planning Department to the aforementioned issues raised, as outlined in the Late Items Report Pack.

            It was noted that the application, in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, had been presented to the Committee since the Council was the applicant.

            The Committee received representation from Ms. A. Givan, acting on behalf of a group of individual users of Cherryvale and those residents whose homes adjoin Cherryvale. She outlined a range of objections to the proposal which related to flaws in the application, the potential for flooding, the watercourse outlined in the Council’s deeds, flooding of gardens, permanent sand bagging and requests for insurance quotes refused. She suggested that the drainage scheme was not adequate, formed part of the Loop River floodplain, and that there should have been an environmental statement. She suggested that the group of residents felt vulnerable to flooding and the Council would be responsible if their homes were inundated with water. She suggested that the scheme assumed to maintain the discharge rate but measurements and calculations had not been completed for the stream that flows in and through Cherryvale. She suggested that the reason for the 3G pitch was the only way to get GAA funding for the sand based grass match pitch, the proposal would increase traffic and spectators at the end of their gardens, and also had the potential for anti-social behaviour.

            The Committee received further representation from Ms. P. Haughan, acting on behalf of the Knock Eden Park residents opposed to the proposed location of the pitch within the site. She outlined a range of objections to the proposal which related to the location of the pitch, light and noise pollution from two existing floodlit pitches in the vicinity and the Kingspan Stadium. She suggested that the density of flood lit pitches within a confined area, close to residential housing, was unprecedented anywhere else in Northern Ireland.  She suggested that this proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents, and the residents group had submitted four noise reports to this effect. She suggested that the Council’s Environmental Health service had been given the casting vote on the surveys and the Council surveys were not based on projected usage. She suggested that the Committee should protect residents and move the pitch to another location within the park.

            The Committee received representations from Mr. S. Reynolds, Glentoran Football Academy Committee Member, Ms. E. Rogers, a young user of the park, and Mr. K. Kelly, local resident, in support of the proposal. Mr. Reynolds suggested that the facility would be used as a training area for young people and multiple teams, and would provide proper access to a shared space and increase involvement of Football at the Academy.  Ms. E. Rogers welcomed the development and outlined a range of issues in support of the application which included usage throughout the year, the benefits of an all-weather pitch, non-cancellation of games, and the potential to improve health and wellbeing of youth and general population. She suggested that the proposal was a place to facilitate various sports for current and future residents, would increase participation, and had the potential for decreasing anti-social behaviour incidents.

            In addition, the Committee received representation from Councillor Mullan. She outlined her support for the application and suggested that there had been considerable debate and meetings surrounding the location of the site for a number of years, however, she welcomed the playing facilities at the park. She suggested that Cherryvale had existed as a playing field for a long time, and supported the application for future use. She suggested that the new development should address the risk of flooding and conditions of opening hours adhered to.  She suggested that it was a safe space for many users and had the potential for many activities and that, in regards to the variations considered, this model was the only workable one.

            During discussion, the Environmental Health Officer answered a range of Members’ questions regarding the location of the 3G Pitch and the light and noise disruption. He advised that the application assessment had been based on the proposal outlined in the report and not against any alternative. Issues were raised regarding accumulative light pollution levels, potential noise pollution levels and consideration for the reports which had been submitted by residents. H clarified that the cumulative impact assessment referred to, had taken into account surrounding light disruption. In terms of noise levels, a range of measurements were considered for example during games with spectators and during two summer camps which had been held in the park.

            With regards to the allegations of bias by the Environmental Health Officer, alleged by the objectors in assessing the Council application, the Divisional Solicitor confirmed that this was standard practice throughout the UK, and there were a number of safeguards in place to ensure council applications were properly scrutinised, such as Council applications not being delegated to officers, and any application that was significantly contrary to the development plan would be submitted to the Department for a robust decision. She reminded the Committee that the Committee could make a decision contrary to the case officer’s recommendation and it was the Planning Committee that made the decision not the Environmental Health Service. 

            During further discussion, the case officer answered a range of Members’ questions regarding alternative locations for the 3G pitch, landscaping around the pitch and the boundary between the proposed pitch and housing. 

            The Director advised that it was not the role of the Planning Committee to decide on the optimum location for the pitch, and it could only consider the application which had been submitted.

Proposal

            Moved by Councillor McAteer,

            Seconded by Councillor Garrett,

      That the Committee agrees to approve the application, subject to the imposing of the conditions set out in the case officer’s report.

            On a vote by show of hands nine Members voted for the proposal and two against and it was declared carried.

            (Meeting adjourned for 10 minutes at this point)