Section 2 – Application Summary

Location Streatham Hill And Clapham High School 42 Abbotswood Road London SW16 1AW

Ward St Leonards

Proposal Application Installation of 8 floodlights to the all weather sports pitch.

Applicant The Girls Day School Trust

Agent Ms Zoe Smith 100 Rochester Row, London, SW1P 1JP

Date valid 13 July 2010

Case Officer Ms Caron Sanders

Application Reference

10/02395/RG4

Recommendation(s) GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS

Constraints Green Chains Metropolitan Open Land

Advert Publication Date

30th July 2010

Site Notice posted on

3rd August 2010

Drawing numbers 01, 02, 03, 05, CC4217 Rev. 02, Project/Scheme Ref LIZ0104208, 1074LS, Bat Activity Survey Report and Design & Access Statement.

Section 3 – Committee Report 3.1 Summary of Main Issues

• Land use: The principle of the use of the proposal within the context of the Metropolitan Open Land, Open Space and Green Chains and community benefit;

• Ecology impacts on the biodiversity of the playing field and Tooting Bec Common;

• The effect of the proposal on the appearance of the playing field, the street scene in general and the wider vicinity;

• The impact upon residential amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of visual intrusion, light pollution and noise and disturbance; and;

• Implications for highway safety and parking, and; 3.2 Details of Application Site 3.2.1 The application site comprises Streatham Hill and Clapham High School for

Girls and consists of a complex of buildings ranging from single, two and three stories in height with associated amenity spaces, a playing field and parking provision.

3.2.2 The northern part of the school site comprises an ancillary playing field, which

is leased to the school by the London Borough of Lambeth. This field is approximately 155 metres wide (east-west) and 190 metres long (north-south). On the northern part of the field is a single storey pavilion and hard surface tennis courts with associated fencing. In the southern corner is the all weather sports pitch bounded by a wire mesh fence and to its immediate south are the main school buildings. The pitch is approximately 63m wide (east-west) and 100m long (north-south) and provides capacity for up to three sports playing pitches. The main access into the site is from Abbotswood Road on the eastern side of the school buildings. The school also has vehicular access, to the south, from a cul-de-sac described as ‘The Spinney’.

3.2.3 The playing field is bounded by Abbotswood Road to the east and a railway

line to the west. The railway line denotes the borough boundary with the London Borough of Wandsworth and beyond this lies Tooting Bec Common some 50m away from the application site. To the north of the playing field is Woodfield Recreation Ground and the perimeter of residential houses and gardens located on the western side of Abbotswood Road, some 50 metres away. There are further residential houses located on Abbotswood Road, over 60 metres away, facing the application site.

3.2.4 The playing field is designated as Metropolitan Open Land ‘MOL’, Open

Space ‘Private or School Playing Fields or Courts’ and a ‘Green Chain’. Woodfield Recreation Ground to the north is also subject to the same designations.

3.2.5 The school site is not located within a Conservation Area; however the

boundary of Streatham Park and Garrads Road Conservation Area (No.12) is

to the south of the principal school buildings. The site does not contain, or is near to, any Listed Buildings.

3.2.6 Abbotswood Road is an unclassified access road with no on street parking restrictions apart from 'School Keep Clear’ markings along part of the school frontage. 3.3 Proposal 3.3.1 Planning permission is sought for the installation of 8 floodlight columns to the

existing all weather sports pitch. Each floodlight column would stand at 13 metres in height and would include 2-3 floodlight arrays. The 4 corners of the pitch would comprise the 2 floodlight arrays and the other 4 floodlight columns would comprise 3 floodlight arrays. The floodlight columns would be constructed in galvanised steel. There are no other physical changes proposed to the sports field.

3.3.2 It is proposed that the floodlit pitch would serve as a dual use facility serving

the school itself, Lambeth schools and community groups. The proposed operating times are until to 9pm Monday to Friday and until 7pm Saturday to Sunday. It is anticipated that the lights would be switched on around 3pm in winter months.

3.3.3 This scheme differs from the previous application [ref.09/02516/FUL] on the

following points;

• The floodlighting columns have been reduced in height from 15m to 13m.

• A Bat Activity Survey Report has been submitted with this application.

• A topographical study and contextual elevation drawings have been provided in this submission.

• A noise impact assessment has been provided with this submission. 3.4 Relevant Planning History 3.4.1 09/02516/FUL: Planning permission was refused under delegated powers on

11th September 2009 for: ‘Installation of 8 floodlights to the all weather sports pitch’. The application was refused for the following reasons;

1. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not damage

the biodiversity and the environment to an unacceptable degree, by harming a site of importance for nature conservation and a habitat which supports protected bats which are a priority species for protection in Lambeth’s Biodiversity Action Plan. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 50 and 52 of the Unitary Development Plan and London Plan policies 3D.8 and 3D.14.

2. It has not been demonstrated that the proposal, by reason of its

siting, scale, height and design would not result in a visually intrusive and incongruous form development, whereby it neither respects the character of host site, the natural character of Tooting Bec Common or the established street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 26, 31 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan and London Plan policies 4B.1 and 4B.8.

3. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed hours of use would not give rise to unacceptable noise and general disturbance which would be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding residential properties. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies 7 and 54 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3.4.2 08/02118/RG4: Planning permission granted under delegated powers on 28th

July 2008 for: ‘Formation of an all-weather hockey pitch and associated fencing comprising 4.5m high weldmesh fencing behind the goals and 3m high weldmesh around the remainder of the pitch including formation of three pedestrian gates to replace existing grass football pitch’. Implemented.

3.4.3 00/02243/FUL: Planning permission granted at the Planning Applications

Committee meeting on 8th March 2001 for: ‘Demolition of existing single storey school block and erection of new 2 storey school building providing a music recital hall, students common room, seminar, practice rooms, classrooms and ancillary accommodation’.

Implemented. 3.4.5 99/00597/FUL: Planning permission granted under delegated powers on 10th

May 1999 for: ‘Erection of single-storey extension in north-east section of main building between dining hall and kitchen’.

3.4.6 96/03186/PLANAP: Planning permission granted on 12th July 1996 planning

permission was granted for the ‘erection of a two storey sports hall building and associated landscaping’. Implemented.

3.4.7 Woodfield Recreation Ground to the north is subject to the following recent planning history: 07/02524/FUL: Planning permission refused by the Planning Applications Committee meeting in March 2009 for: Retention of single storey building and use for school purposes, for a further period’ on the following grounds: ‘The continued long-term use of the land for school purposes would result in the unacceptable loss of the wider availability of use of the recreation space’.

‘The retention of the school building by reason of its width, height and bulk detracts from the Metropolitan Open Land by failing to maintain its openness’

‘The unorthodox lack of a defined secure school boundary and external lighting of play and access areas is prejudicial to the safe and secure use of the land for the long term schooling of young children’

3.5 Consultations 3.5.1 The application has been advertised by way of two site notices, which were

displayed in the vicinity of the site on 3rd August 2010. A press notice was published in the local press (South London Press) on 30th July 2010.

3.5.2 Occupiers of the following properties in the neighbouring vicinity were

consulted by letter (46 in total):

• 26-38 and 44-54 (evens) and 29-53 Abbotswood Road;

• 40, 45, 47 Hoadly Road;

• 3-5 ‘The Spinney’;

• School Keepers House Abbotswood Road. 3.5.3 The Streatham Society were notified of the application but have not

responded. 3.5.4 The following Statutory Consultees were consulted:

• LB of Wandsworth: No formal written response received at the time of finalising the Committee report.

• Natural England: No objections raised subject to a condition in regard to lighting.

• Network Rail: No response received at the time of finalising the Committee report.

• Sport England: No response received at the time of finalising the Committee report.

3.5.5 The following internal departments were consulted:

• Parks and Open Spaces: No in principle objections raised.

• Transport and Highways: No in principle objections raised.

• Planning Policy: No in principle objections raised.

• Regulatory Services: No in principle objections raised.

• Conservation and Design: No comments made.

• Crime Prevention Unit: No in principle objections raised.

• Sports: No response received at the time of writing the Officer report.

• Education Asset Management: No response received at the time of writing the Officer report.

3.5.6 The observations of the Statutory and Council’s internal consultees are

reported within the relevant sections of the report. 3.5.7 Summary of the neighbour consultation process, at the time of finalising this

report:

No. Letters sent No. of Objections No. in support

46 17 0

3.5.8 A total of no. 17 representations have been received from local residents,

Tooting Bec Management Advisory Committee (MAC), Abbottswood Residents Association and Councillor Clyne. The following material planning objections were raised:

• Light pollution • Loss of visual amenity • Ecology impacts • Noise and disturbance • Parking pressures • Traffic congestion • Highway safety impact Anti Social behaviour

• Absence of mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the scheme.

The application has been called into Planning Committee by Councillor Bennett.

3.6 Planning Policy Considerations National Planning Policy The following national policy guidance is considered relevant to the determination of the application: 3.6.1 PPS1- (Delivering Sustainable Development) sets out the Government's

overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. It promotes good design that ensures attractive, usable, durable and adaptable places.

3.6.2 PPG 2- (Greenbelt) outlines the history and extent of Green Belts and

explains their purposes. It describes how Green Belts are designated and their land safeguarded. Green Belt land-use objectives are outlined and the presumption against inappropriate development is set out.

3.6.3 PPS5 – (Planning and the Historic Environment) recognises the value of the

historic environment and recognises that it needs to be managed intelligently and in way that fully realises its contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of the nation.

3.6.4 PPG 9 – (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation) main objective is to

promote sustainable development by ensuring that biological and geological diversity are conserved and enhanced.

3.6.5 PPG 13 - (Transport) objectives are to integrate planning and transport at the

national, regional, strategic and local level and to promote more sustainable transport choices both for carrying people and for moving freight.

3.6.6 PPG 17 – (Open Space, Sport and Outdoor Recreation) seeks to protect

existing recreation space and considers that the recreational quality of open spaces can be eroded by insensitive development or incremental loss of the site.

3.6.7 PPG 24 – (Planning and Noise) outlines the use of planning powers to

minimise the adverse impact of noise. It outlines the consideration to be taken into account in determining planning applications both for noise sensitive developments and for those activities which generate noise. The London Plan (as amended 2008)

3.6.8 The London Plan was consolidated in February 2008 and now includes

alterations that have been made since it was adopted in February 2004. The London Plan is the Mayor's development strategy for Greater London and provides strategic planning guidance for development and use of land and buildings within the London region.

3.6.9 It seeks to accommodate significant growth in ways that respect and improve

London's diverse heritage while delivering a sustainable world city and,

proposes to achieve this through sensitive intensification of development in locations well served by public transport. All Borough plan policies are required to be in general conformity with the London Plan policies.

3.6.10 The key polices of the plan considered relevant in this case are: Policy 3A.18 (Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities)

Policy 3C.1 (Integrating transport and development) Policy 3D.8 (Realising the value of open space and green infrastructure) Policy 3D.10 (Metropolitan Open Land) Policy 3D.14 (Biodiversity and nature conservation)

Policy 4B.1 (Design principles for a compact city) Policy 4B.5 (Creating and inclusive environment) Policy 4B.8 (Respect local context and communities) Policy 4B.12 (Heritage conservation)

Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Saved Beyond 5th August 2010

3.6.11 The following policies are considered relevant to this application: Policy 1: The Vision for Lambeth Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9: Transport Impact Policy 26: Community Facilities Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout Policy 32: Community Safety/designing out crime Policy 33: Building Scale and Design Policy 38: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas. Policy 47: Conservation Areas Policy 50: Open Space Policy 52: Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment

Planning considerations 3.7 Land Use Considerations 3.7.1 The main land use issues relate to the principle of the introduction of

floodlights with respect to community benefits and the preservation of the Metropolitan Open Land, Open Space and Green Chain.

3.7.2 The supporting statement outlines that the existing all weather pitch the

subject of this application, along with the field is used by the school continually on a daily basis. The facilities are open for community use at the weekends and evenings during the summer months. The applicant asserts that the inclusion of floodlighting would enable the pitch to be used to its full potential for both the school and the community.

3.7.3 Policy 26 relates to community facilities and states that ‘the development and

improvement of facilities for the community is supported and promoted’. It states that ‘proposals for new or improved education facilities will be permitted provided that the site or buildings are appropriate for their intended use, and that the nature and scale of the proposal, including hours of operation, do not unacceptably harm the amenities of the area through noise, disturbance, or traffic generation’.

3.7.4 The proposed development would expand the use of the all weather sports field, and in officers’ opinion, improve this facility which would enhance the sporting opportunities for the local community therefore achieving compliance with policy 26 in land use terms subject to meeting other UDP policy.

3.7.5 The application site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land which is the

highest category of open land within the built up area of London. Such a designation seeks to protect the character of open land which has a strategic importance and a significance (generally because of its size and catchment area) extending across a significant part of the London area.

3.7.6 Policy 3D.10 of the London Plan states that essential facilities for appropriate

uses will only be acceptable where they do not have an adverse effect on the openness of the MOL. In addition it states that MOL should be given the same protection as the green belt and PPG2 states that only essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation are acceptable.

3.7.7 Policy 50 (Open Space and Sports Facilities) states that the Council will

protect Open Space in the Borough (as identified on the Proposals Map) from inappropriate built development which includes:

i) Development which would result in the loss of or damage to open space. 3.7.8 The policy further states that in exceptional cases, some development on

open space may be permitted if it comprises: i. Small scale development that is ancillary to the use and enjoyment of the open space;

ii. Development that facilitates or enhances public access; iii. Development that makes compensatory provision for replacement

open space; iv. Selective development of housing where significant regeneration or community benefits will be achieved; v. Development which protects the nature conservation value and biodiversity of the land. 3.7.9 In addition part (c) of the policy considers that in the case of sites designated

as Green Chains the improvement of open spaces will be supported. 3.7.10 The proposal is for the installation of 8 floodlighting columns at 13m in height

sited around the perimeter of the existing all weather sports pitch. The facility would be used in association with the outdoor sports facility and would include lighting structures commonly associated with outdoor sports pitches. Additionally the facility would serve the existing school use and would also provide extended provision of the sports pitch in the evenings for the wider community therefore increasing sporting benefit. Taking into account the need for all year round sporting facilities it is considered that the proposed development would result in a facility that is ancillary to the operation of the sports pitch. In addition the linear design of the lighting columns would not erode the openness of the MOL to an unacceptable degree and would enhance the land as useable open space for sporting purposes.

3.7.11 As per the previous application [ref. 09/02516/FUL], whilst the scheme would

not be prejudicial to UDP in land use terms, the acceptability of the scheme is contingent upon ensuring that the floodlights do not adversely impact on

ecology, on the visual amenity of the surrounding area in design terms, the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers and the functioning of the local road network.

3.8 Ecology 3.8.1 The site is classified as Metropolitan Open Land, Open Space and Green

Chain. Its western site boundary adjoins the borough boundary between Wandsworth, whereby a railway line bounds the entire western boundary, beyond is Tooting Bec Common.

3.8.2 Policy 50, Open Spaces and Sports Facilities also address ecological impacts

and within part (v) states that some development on open space sites may be permitted if it protects the nature conservation value and biodiversity of the land. Policy 52 (Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment) states that all proposals, where relevant, will be assessed in terms of their impact on nature conservation. Part (b) of the policy states:

‘development that would have a significant adverse impact on badgers, other protected species or Biodiversity Action Plan priority species that are uncommon, declining or under threat in London, will be refused, unless steps to secure the protection of the species are implemented’.

3.8.3 Bats are identified as a Biodiversity Action Plan priority species within

Lambeth and are protected by Schedules 1, 5, 7 and 8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended. Bats are also a European Protected Species and as such receive the highest protection under both UK and European Law and it is an offence to damage, destroy or obstruct access to bat roosts and/or deliberately disturb bats.

3.8.4 The previous application [ref. 09/02516/RG4], was refused due to the

applicants failure to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an adverse impact on the habitat which supports protected bats, through lack of supporting information which indicated otherwise. The proposal was considered to run contrary to UDP policies 50 and 52 and London Plan policies 3D.8 and 3D.14.

3.8.5 Natural England, which is a Government Agency that works to conserve and

enhance biodiversity and landscapes, have advised that Tooting Bec Common (within the Borough of Wandsworth) is a Site of Interest for Nature Conservation (SINC) and is a recorded bat feeding and roosting area. Records also indicate that the Common is also designated as a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation ('Met Sites'): The northern and western edges of the application site are identified as having mature tree belts which can also be used as foraging areas. Linear features such as railway lines and tree belts, as adjacent to this site, are often used as forage and ‘commuting’ routes by bats.

3.8.6 This application has now been supported by a bat survey; undertaken by

Hone Ecology Ltd. This survey was undertaken in May and from discussions with Natural England, this would have been when the bats are active. The bat survey is considered acceptable to Natural England who have noted ‘the recommendations contained under section 5 can also be accepted’. Section 5 of the Bat Activity Survey Report principally referred to measures to minimise light spill onto areas of vegetation use by bats for commuting and foraging,

through the use of hoods/ filters and low pressure sodium lamps instead of high pressure sodium lamps where possible. Whilst Natural England have not objected to the application they have noted as a minimum, a condition to secure a suitable lighting scheme with minimal external lighting, restricted to low lux, hooded lighting that is Passive Infra-Red sensitive, or time activated would be recommended.

3.8.7 The Councils Ecology Officer has stated that:

‘The applicant has ensured that a baseline survey was undertaken of the application site as to survey existing bat activity and to define which areas of the application site are currently used by bats, and whether there would be any adverse effects from the proposed floodlighting. The survey also includes conclusions and recommendations to reduce or avoid any adverse effects upon resident bat populations and their prey.

The bat survey concludes that bat activity, whilst present on or near the site, would not be significantly affected by the installation of new floodlighting. Existing bat commuting routes are not planned for removal or fragmentation as part of the planned works, and there is no intention to remove any good quality bat feeding habitat (e.g. rough meadow grassland, boundary scrub or hedgerows)’.

The Ecology team further stated that: ‘We would be able to support this

application provided the applicant could confirm the final specifications for the type of lamp and filtering system to be installed in floodlighting units, where the aim is to minimise not only adverse effects upon bats but also upon excessive illumination of the surrounding areas. This could be a commitment in writing or through a condition of consent to be discharged at a later stage’.

3.8.8 In this instance the submission of a ‘Bat Activity Survey Report’ has

ascertained the level of activity of bats around the site and recommended mitigation measures which could be achieved within the site. The conclusions drawn within the survey were as follows;

“The amenity grassland which dominates the site provides limited value for bats as it is regularly mown and thus provides limited value for insects upon which bats feed. This is reflected in the activity from the nocturnal bat record flying over the playing field not feeding together with the majority of the bat activity which was confined to the tree lined boundaries of the site where insects are likely to be more abundant. The security lighting of the main school building along the southern boundary was significant and likely to deter bats from feeding close to the building and the southern boundary of the hockey pitch however the western tree line is used by bats for commuting and foraging therefore spill from the proposed lighting should be kept to a minimum along the western boundary of the site”.

3.8.9 In summary, the results from the survey suggest that the floodlighting could

be accommodated within the site and that would not result in detriment to local ecology. The survey provided appears to have addressed concerns raised in the previous application and related reason for refusal number one, and provides assurance that mitigation measures recommended could be achieved within the site. Furthermore, the proposal is supported by the Council’s Ecology team and Natural England and subject to a condition on the

final specifications for the type of lamp and filtering system to be installed in floodlighting units, is considered acceptable. In this case it is considered that subject to the condition on lighting the proposal would accord with Policies 50 and 52 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010 and London Plan Policies 3D.8 and 3D.14.

3.9 Design 3.9.1 Policy 31 (part d) of the UDP considers that development should not prejudice

the architectural character of the area, having regard to its overall urban or suburban characteristics. In addition policy 33 states that new development should be of a high quality design and contribute positively to its surrounding locale.

3.9.2 The playing field of Streatham Hill & Clapham High School for Girls and the

adjoining Woodfield Recreation Ground to the north form a green visual link to the adjoining Tooting Bec Common. The character of the application site is that of a typical playing field and observes dense tree coverage providing a visual border to Tooting Bec Common along the western boundary. To the south are the principle school buildings and to the north is the open playing field of Abbotswood Recreation Ground. Opposite the site across Abbotswood Road and to the north east is residential development consisting of inter-war suburban semi detached houses set in a regular development pattern.

3.9.3 The existing all weather sports pitch is located in the south eastern corner of

the playing field and is bounded by a 3 and partly 4 metre high boundary fence. The fence is constructed in black metal mesh and due to its perforated design appears visually unobtrusive against the tree lined background. It is located over 60m from the boundary of Abbotswood Road to the east.

3.9.4 Due to the open nature of the playing field which to a large extent forms a

visual extension of Tooting Bec Common, such characteristics contribute to making the application site an attractive facility for users. In addition, the application site is highly prominent within the suburban streetscene of Abbotswood Road as it has a long site boundary. The scheme proposes the installation of eight floodlighting columns at 13m in height which would be located on the east and western sides of the pitch. The previous application proposed columns standing at 15m in height, thus this proposal has been revised to incorporate a reduction of 2m in height.

3.9.5 The previous application [ref. 09/02516/FUL], raised concerns that the

application had not been supported with a visual impact study, CGI’s (computer generated images) or any contextual elevations of the columns with respect to the playing field, Tooting Bec Common, the school buildings, or the surrounding residential development. It was noted that the columns would be sited in a prominent and exposed location and would be visible from Abbotswood Road and Tooting Bec Common. By failure to provide a visual impact study it was considered that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the installation of the floodlighting columns would not appear visually intrusive or incongruous in terms of the site and its surrounds.

3.9.6 In this case the applicants have commissioned Twickenham Surveys to

provide a topographical survey of the playing field which includes Abbotswood Road levels and heights of the houses overlooking the site. The

trees (on the field site) have also been plotted and include their height and canopy spread. The study illustrates that the base of the floodlighting columns would be up to approximately 1.8 metres below Abbottswood Road pavement level.

3.9.7 Contextual drawings have been provided showing the proposed floodlighting

in relation to the trees to the rear of the site and Tooting Bec Common and in relation to the rear/ north elevation of the school. This illustrates that the floodlighting columns, when viewed in context of the school, would not be taller than the highest part of the school building. It is considered that when the proposed floodlights are viewed in context with the school buildings they would not appear visually prominent; they are also no higher than the tallest existing trees within Tooting Bec Common, and as such would not appear overbearing or dominant within the site.

3.9.8 The contextual drawings illustrate that the proposed floodlights would appear

in parts taller than the trees within Tooting Bec Common. With regard to the proposals impact on Tooting Bec Common, it is noted that between the proposed floodlights and Tooting Bec Common, there is a band of mature trees and areas of thick shrubbery, followed by a public footpath and a another band of trees and then the railway cutting. The drawing no. 03 illustrates the proximity of the proposed floodlight to the southwest corner of the pitch and from this drawing it has been has been assessed that the nearest floodlighting column (on the north west corner of the pitch) would be approximately 50 metres from the Tooting Bec Common boundary. Taking account of the trees and foliage within Tooting Bec Common that exists along the boundaries, views of the floodlighting columns would be largely obscured. Even when the trees are bare it is considered that the density of the wooded area would provide only minimal views of the structures. The floodlighting columns are narrow structures, and on balance, it is considered that when viewed against the backdrop of the trees they would not appear significantly obtrusive.

3.9.9 The school site is not located within a conservation area; however the

boundary of Streatham Park and Garrads Road Conservation Area No.12 is to the south of the principal school buildings some 75 metres away. There is also a conservation area located in the Borough of Wandsworth to the southwest of the site. Due to the separation distances involved it is considered that the scheme would not adversely impact on the setting of this conservation area.

3.9.10 In this instance, the reduction in height of the floodlighting columns from 15m

to 13m, together with the illustrative drawings which display the proposal in context of its surroundings, has demonstrated satisfactorily that the proposal would not be harmful to the visual amenity of the area and have overcome the previous reason for refusal number 2. Whilst these structures would be an intervention within the surrounding area, the setback from the street scene along Abbotswood Road and when viewed in context it is considered that they would not appear obtrusive and on balance the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the minimal loss of visual amenity.

3.9.11 In light of the above, officers consider that the scheme would not, subject to

conditions on materials and appearance of the lighting columns, prejudice policies 31 and 33 of the UDP, and the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

3.10 Residential Amenity 3.10.1 Part (i) of Policy 26 states that… ‘proposals for new or improved education

facilities will be permitted provided that the site or buildings are appropriate for their intended use, and that the nature and scale of the proposal including hours of operation, do not unacceptably harm the amenities of the area through noise, disturbance or traffic generation’. Additionally Policy 7 states that the right of people to the quiet enjoyment of their homes will be respected.

3.10.2 Furthermore, policy 33 states that development should protect the residential

amenity of existing and future residents by having an acceptable standard of privacy, having an acceptable impact on daylight and sunlight, not creating unacceptable overlooking and not creating an undue sense of enclosure.

3.10.3 It is considered that the residential properties that would potentially be most

impacted upon from an approved scheme are those which observe front outlook onto the site. These being properties located on the opposite side of Abbotswood Road (No’s 35-49). In addition No. 38 Abbotswood Road rear boundary adjoins the site to the north east.

Light Pollution:

3.10.4 The proposed floodlights would operate until 9pm Mondays to Fridays and

until 7pm Saturdays to Sundays. SurfaceLux Limited have provided justification for the height of the lighting columns and in their letter dated 10th September 2010 they noted “the ramification of reducing the column height is that the luminaire body has to be angled vertically. The amount of vertical lift is dependant upon the column height but the Thom luminaire proposed cannot operate efficiently on a shorter column due to the size of the pitch. If a shorter column was used the amount of glare from the luminaire would be severe and light spill would be increased outside the playing area. Lowering the columns for this type of application below 13 metres is not recommended in line with the manufacturers design and not something Surfacelux Ltd would get involved with. We have used this type of lighting since its launch in 2004 and it is the best available on the UK market. We have carried out some ninety per cent of our works with it and we are confident in the knowledge of its operating parameters. Columns lower than 13 metres would give no end of glare problems”.

3.10.5 The Councils Environmental Health Officer has visited the application site and

has commented that:

‘I am happy with the recommendation made in the lighting report. Residential properties are a distance away from the pitch. The floodlights are facing down and aiming at the pitch. Residence may see a bright area a distance away from their properties, the light contour shows that light has no impact on the residential properties nearby’.

3.10.6 In light of the above officer comments it is considered that the proposed

illumination from the floodlights would not result in significant loss of amenity to occupiers of nearby residential properties.

Noise and disturbance: 3.10.7 PPG24 states the impact of noise is a material consideration in the

determination of planning applications. Whilst the exact number of community users at anyone time is unknown it is recognised that it is a single pitch and thus only a limited number of games can take place at any time. In the consideration of the previous application the following was noted “the supporting statement outlines that it is anticipated that a maximum of two teams would play on each pitch. This would comprise 22 people per pitch and it is possible that some people would overlap if they arrive early for their match and this could result in a total number of 66 people using the facility at any one time. Additionally it is stated that there are likely to be few spectators, however numbers would be reduced as there is no seating provided”.

3.10.8 The previous application was not supported with a noise assessment study or

justification demonstrating that the scheme would not result in undue noise impacts to the surrounding residential occupiers and the application was refused on this basis. In this case, a noise impact assessment has been undertaken and a report prepared by Hygensis consultants has been submitted. The assessment undertaken included a sound meter set up to measure the noise levels before during and after the period of play. The submitted report concluded “Based on the available evidence the use of the all weather pitch for the proposed extended hours is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on a local environment that is already exposed to high levels of community noise from various sources”. The Council’s Environmental Health Noise Pollution Officer was consulted on the issue of noise and disturbance and noted the following; ‘I refer to noise disturbance to residential properties arising from the use of the pitch. I have studies the noise report and noise level measured during continuous use of the pitch for four hours. The noise measurements provided over this sample period did not produce a negative impact to neighbouring residential properties. With reference to the proposed future use of the pitch I cannot foresee further concerns once it functions in an acceptable manner’.

3.10.9 As regards to the potential impact of noise it is considered that the

submission of the noise impact assessment, provides some indication of the levels of noise expected from within the site together with the reduced proposed operational hours of the lighting columns, has addressed and overcome the previous concerns with regard to the potential impact on surrounding residential occupiers in terms of undue noise. On this basis the scheme would not be prejudicial to the aims of policies 7 and 26 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

Visual impact

3.10.10 Given the proposal’s slender column design and the separation distances

involved of over 50m from the nearest residential occupiers to the north east (No.38 Abbotswood Road) and a separation distance of over 70m from those facing the pitch on Abbotswood Road the scheme would not result in an undue sense of enclosure or an acceptable loss of daylight/sunlight and overshadowing impact.

3.10.11 Within the previous application [ref. 09/02516/FUL], there was concerns

raised with regards to the potential visual impact of the proposal and it was concluded that the failure to demonstrate that the scheme would not appear

visually intrusive with respect to the surrounding streetscene the proposal would not be consistent with policy aims of 33. In this case a topographical study has been undertaken; this has demonstrated that topographically, the site is on a gradient, sloping down from Abbottswood Road. The all weather pitch is an average of 1.8 metres below the pavement, along the eastern boundary of the site (Abbottswood Road boundary).

3.10.12 The visual impact of the proposed columns has been illustrated by

contextual elevation drawings. A drawing showing the view from Abbottswood Road, which shows the proposed floodlighting in context with the backdrop of Tooting Bec Common and the School buildings, has been provided.

3.10.13 In this case it is considered that with regards to the noticeable fall in ground

level within the site, combined with the set back from the boundary with Abbottswood Road and the reduction in height of the floodlighting column from 15 metres to 13 metres, it has been demonstrated that the visual impact of the floodlighting would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of surrounding residential occupiers. The contextual drawings provided with this application illustrates that the proposed lighting columns would not be taller than the highest point of the school buildings or appear visually obtrusive when viewed within the surrounding environment with the mature trees within and adjoining the site within Tooting Bec Common.

3.10.14 It is considered that the previous concerns with regards to the visual impact

of the proposal have been addressed by this application. In this case it is believed that the proposed floodlighting scheme would not result in a visually intrusive development. When viewed in context with the surrounding environment it is considered that the proposed floodlighting would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of surrounding residential occupiers and thus would not be prejudicial to the aims of policies 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

3.11 Highways and Transportation 3.11.1 Policies 9, 10 and 14 of the UDP require developments and their need to be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation, impact on road congestion and public transport availability. The Council’s parking standards for a community use are assessed on a case by case basis. 3.11.2 The site is located within an area of very poor transport accessibility (PTAL

score of 1) and generally Abbotswood road is a relatively quiet residential road. There are no parking restrictions or road markings apart from ‘School Keep Clear’ markings along part of the school frontage. A number of forecourt car parking spaces have vehicle crossovers. Generally, it is considered that kerbside car parking is not intensive.

3.11.3 The submitted information outlines that there is no parking within the sports field enclosure and parking within the school site is made available for community users outside of school hours. 3.11.4 The Council's Transport Officer considers that traffic congestion is unlikely to result from the installation of floodlights to the all-weather pitch. It is stated that:

‘I have assessed the application and can confirm that the proposed floodlighting will not create a distraction to passing traffic and will therefore not give rise to traffic safety issues. Additional traffic movements generated by the proposed use will be safely accommodated on the existing highway network and highway works are not considered necessary. Although there is likely to be an increase in demand for on-street parking during the evening whilst the flood-lit sports pitch is in use, there is no reported evening parking stress in the immediate vicinity of the site and the scheme is unlikely to result in unacceptable parking stress’.

‘In summary, Transport Planning have no objection to the proposed scheme’.

‘In the event of granting planning permission it is recommend that a condition is imposed requiring the existing School Travel Plan to be amended to take account of the proposed evening community use of the sports pitches be attached’.

3.11.5 Under the consented scheme in 2008 (08/02118/RG4) involving the formation

of an all-weather hockey pitch and associated fencing, in order to protect the character of the nearby conservation area and the amenity of residents in the cul-de-sac to the south (The Spinney) conditions were imposed restricting vehicular access onto The Spinney. Notwithstanding more fundamental the applicant will be reminded by way of an informative that they shall operate in accordance with this condition.

3.11.6 In absence of comment from Network Rail, it is considered that no in principle objections are raised with regard to the impact of the scheme on the adjacent railway line. 3.11.7 Policy 14 of the UDP requires that in the case of community facilities cycle

parking requirements are assessed on a case by case basis. In this instance whilst the use of sports pitch is in situ, the scheme would involve the intensification of the site and cycle storage facilities would be required. Given the size of the school site, it is considered that there would be suitable space to provide secure cycle spaces without causing undue harm to the MOL, Open Space and character of the playing field. In the event of granting planning permission a condition could be imposed securing secure cycle storage. It is likely that twenty spaces would be required.

3.11.8 In summary, given the overall ancillary use of the scheme in conjunction with

the main use of the school and the predicted numbers of users outside school hours, that a travel plan could be secured in the event of granting consent and that the UDP car parking standards are maximum it is considered the scheme would not generate unacceptable parking or traffic implications. Therefore the proposal would not prejudice UDP policies 9, 14 and 26 of the UDP.

3.12 Secure by Design 3.12.1 Policy 32 of the UDP requires that developments should enhance community safety. Development will not be permitted where opportunities for crime are created or where it results in an increased risk of public disorder. This requirement is contained within Section 17 of The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which imposes an obligation on the local planning authority to consider crime and disorder reduction in the assessment of planning applications.

3.12.2 The Councils Crime Prevention Officer has been consulted on the proposal and has raised no objections to the proposal. It is considered that the proposal is not likely to result in any undue implications in terms of community safety and crime issues.

3.13 Accessibility 3.13.1 Policy 31 (Streets, Character and Layout) part (f) address Access for All and

states that the layout and design of development should include full access for the whole community including the disabled, the elderly and parents with children. If the development was acceptable in all other respects, such matters securing suitable access, such as level access and ramps onto the pitch could reasonably be secured by condition.

3.14 Whether the previous reasons for refusal have been overcome 3.14.1 The first reason for refusal related to the failure to demonstrate that the

proposal would not damage the biodiversity and the environment to an unacceptable degree, by harming a site of importance for nature conservation and a habitat which supports protected bats which are a priority species for protection in Lambeth’s Biodiversity Action Plan. In this instance a Bat Activity Survey Report has been submitted with this application, this has demonstrated that the proposed scheme could be accommodated within the site and not to the detriment of the local ecology. This survey appears to have addressed concerns raised in the previous application and reason for refusal and provides assurance that mitigation measures recommended could be achieved within the site. In this case it’s considered that subject to the condition on lighting the proposal would accord with Policies 50 and 52 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010 and London Plan Policies 3D.8 and 3D.14.

3.14.2 The second reason for refusal related to the failure of the scheme to

demonstrate that the siting, scale, height and design would not result in a visually intrusive and incongruous form development. The height of the lighting has been reduced from 15 metres as in the previous scheme to 13 metres. In this case a topographical study and elevation drawings showing the scheme in context within the surrounding environment have been provided. When viewed in context with the surrounding environment it is considered that the proposed floodlighting would not be detrimental to the visual amenity of surrounding residential occupiers and thus would not be prejudicial to the aims of policies 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

3.14.3 The third reason for refusal referred to the failure to demonstrate that the

proposed hours of operation would not give rise unacceptable noise and general disturbance which would be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding residential properties. In this case the proposed hours of use of the floodlighting has been reduced upon from the previous scheme, the proposed switching off time has been changed from 10.00pm to 9.00pm on Mondays – Fridays. Further to this a noise impact assessment has been submitted with this application which concludes that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on a local environment that is already exposed to high levels of community noise from various sources. As such it is considered that the proposed scheme has overcome this reason for refusal and the

proposal is considered to accord with Policy 7 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

3.15 Conclusion: 3.15.1 Taking into account the need for all year round sporting facilities it is

considered that the proposed development would result in a facility that is ancillary to the operation of sports pitch, which would not erode the openness of the MOL to an unacceptable degree and would enhance the land as useable open space for sporting purposes.

3.15.2 The technical information provided has demonstrated that proposed

floodlighting columns would not unduly impact upon the amenity of neighbouring properties in terms of light pollution impacts.

3.15.3 Due to the nature of the proposal it is also considered the scheme would not generate unacceptable parking or traffic implications. 3.15.4 The application has demonstrated that the proposal subject to a condition on

lighting would not result in an adverse impact on the habitat which supports protected bats and which is a priority species for protection under the Biodiversity Action Plan.

3.15.6 This application has been supported with contextual elevations of the

columns with respect to the playing field, Tooting Bec Common and the school buildings. Whilst the columns would be sited in a prominent and exposed location it has been demonstrated that the installation of floodlighting columns would not, with regard to the topography of the land and the contextual elevation drawings provided, appear visually intrusive when viewed in context of the surrounding environment.

3.15.7 Lastly the submission has been supported by a noise impact assessment and

combined with the reduced operational hours of the proposed floodlighting, has demonstrated that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable noise and general disturbance which would be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding residential properties.

3.15.8 In light of the above it is recommended that planning permission is granted. 3.16 Recommendation: 3.16.1 Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions.

Summary of Reasons

In deciding to grant planning permission, the Council has had regard to the relevant Policies of the Development Plan and all other relevant material considerations. Having weighed the merits of the proposal in the context of these issues, it is considered that planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed below. In reaching this decision the following Policies were relevant:

Policy 1: The Vision for Lambeth Policy 7: Protection of Residential Amenity Policy 9: Transport Impact

Policy 26: Community Facilities Policy 31: Streets, Character and Layout Policy 32: Community Safety/designing out crime Policy 33: Building Scale and Design Policy 38: Design in Existing Residential/Mixed Use Areas. Policy 47: Conservation Areas Policy 50: Open Space Policy 52: Protection and Enhancement of the Natural Environment

Conditions

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later

than the expiration of three years beginning from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.)

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans listed in this notice. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. No development shall take place until details including the final specification for the type of lamp unit and glass filter mechanism to be installed in each individual lighting column has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order to minimise adverse effects upon bat populations and the environment in accordance with Policies 50 and 52 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

4. The floodlighting hereby permitted shall not operate between the hours of

21:00pm – 07:00am Monday – Friday and 19:00pm – 0:700am Saturday – Sunday and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers in accordance Policies 7 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

5. There shall be no amplified sound, speech or music which is audible at the

nearest noise sensitive property.

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the surrounding area in accordance with Policy 7 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

6. No development shall take place until details of a storage facility for secure

cycle parking has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to ensure suitable provisions are made for sustainable modes of transport and to protect the amenity of surrounding residential occupiers in accordance with Policies 14 and 33 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

7. No development shall take place until an amended School Travel Plan has

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to take account of the proposed evening community use of the sports pitches. The measures, monitoring and review mechanisms approved in the Travel Plan shall be fully implemented prior to the floodlighting hereby permitted being operational and shall be so maintained for the duration of the use, unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained to any variation.

Reason: To ensure that the travel arrangements to the school are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements in accordance with Policy 9 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

8. Details of level access onto the pitch shall be submitted to and approved in writing by

the Local Planning Authority and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Reason: In order to provide access for the whole community including disabled, the elderly and parents with children in accordance with Policy 31 of the Unitary Development Plan: Policies Saved Beyond 5th August 2010.

Informatives

1. You are reminded of condition 5 attached to planning approval ref. 08/02118/RG4

which reads as follows;

The car park gates at the end of The Spinney shall not be other than locked shut between the hours of 7pm and 8am daily. Reason: In order to protect the character of the nearby designated Conservation Area and the amenities of neighbouring properties.