Artificial grass pitch at Haydon School, Eastcote, Pinner

“The application seeks planning permission for the construction of a 3G artificial grass pitch (AGP) measuring 97m x 61m and associated development, including: a hardstanding viewing and goal storage areas; 4.5m-high fencing to the perimeter of the facility with a 1.2m-high internal fence; six 13m-high floodlighting columns ; maintenance / sports equipment store located within the fenced facility enclosure ; access pathways; and the relocation of two existing artificial…”

“The proposed AGP would be used by Haydon School during normal school hours for curricular and extracurricular sport, with community use proposed outside school hours through pre -arranged bookings and organised sports activities.”

“The wider Haydon School site occupies an approximately 9.9 hectare irregularly shaped and sloping plot located on the northeast side of Wiltshire Lane in Northwood. The school comprises a number of large linked and detached classroom blocks, ranging from single -storey to three storeys in height, located towards the northwest corner of the site.”

“The application site itself comprises an area of 0.65 hectares located to the east of the school buildings and comprising a part of the existing school playing field. The site gradient falls to the south and east with a fall of approximately 6m between its outer northwest and southeast corners.”

“Of particular relevance to the current application is planning application ref. 9556/APP/2014/3306 for the ‘construction of an external 3G Artificial Turf Pitch (ATP) with fencing, floodlighting and a storage container ’, which was refused permission on 10 th December 2014. The application was refused for the following two reasons:”

“The submission fails to fully address how the effects of the change of levels across the site will affect the installation of the astro turf pitch, and flood lights, such that it can be demonstrated that it would not have an unacceptable impact on visual and residential amenity.”

“The proposed development would provide enhanced all-weather sports facilities for Haydon School and the wider community, delivering significant educational, recreational and community benefits through increased year -round participation in sport. The proposal is supported in principle and Sport England has raised no objection , noting that the sporting benefits of the proposal outweigh the limited loss and reconfiguration of existing playing field land.”

“However, the proposal has been reduced in scale and repositioned further away from neighbouring residential properties compared to the previously refused scheme, and is supported by technical assessments relating to visual impact, noise, lighting, drainage, ecology and highways. Subject to the recommended planning conditions , it is considered that the identified impacts would not result in significant or unacceptable harm.”

“Sport England: N o objection, subject to conditions. Sport England acknowledged that the proposal would result in the loss of some natural playing field land and impacts to existing cricket wickets, athletics markings and a rugby pitch; however, it considered that there is an identified need for additional AGP provision within the Borough and that the proposal would provide benefits…”

“Members referenced a similar application at another school whereby floodlights had to be portable and asked if this had been considered in this application. Officers advised that the two applications were different in the distance to the boundary with residential properties. The current application had a 63M distance and so was very different from the other mentioned application.”

“Members asked about parking. It was noted that the facility would be open for community use and asked if this would include access to on-site parking. Officers confirmed community access to the car park which included 143 spaces. An accumulation survey had identified that approximately half of the car park would be used at peak times. Therefore, there were no highways concerns.”

“Officers’ recommendations were moved, seconded and when put to a vote, agreed.”

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved…”