Five football pitches at Land To The South of Two Mile Ash Road, Horsham

What was proposed

The application sought five football pitches on agricultural land, with parking, a new access, cycle storage, security gates, toilets and planting.

“The application seeks full planning permission for the following playing pitches and associated infrastructure. - The change of use of agricultural land to five pitches of differing sizes to allow for different age groups. - 55 parking spaces on a MOT Type 1 surface (crushed stones). - A covered cycle store for up to 14 cycles. - Security Gates. - Tree planting. - Two waterless composting toilets.”

Officer report

The site

The field lies outside Southwater’s built-up area, beside rural roads, the Downs Link, trees, hedgerows and nearby heritage assets.

“This application relates to an agricultural field located immediately south of Two Mile Ash at the point it crosses the Downs Link. Two Mile Ash runs along the northern and western field boundaries, with Marlpost Road running alongside the eastern field boundary. The Bax Castle public house, a locally listed building, lies to the northeast of the field, on the opposite side of the Downslink.”

“The site falls outside of the built-up area boundary for Southwater and other than being within an amber and red Great Crested Newt Impact Risk Zone is not subject to any environmental, ecological and/or heritage designations.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the site was not well related to Southwater, harmed the rural landscape, lacked ecological information and had no biodiversity agreement.

“However, Officers do not consider that this site is suitable and well related to an existing settlement, as required by HDPF Policy 43. Principally, the site is not sustainably located, with access to the nearby Downs Link via grass verges along a country road where visibility for pedestrians and cyclists to cross to the Downs Link is poor.”

“Considering all matters in the round, the proposed significant level of activity would be contrary to Policy 26, whilst the proposal would alter the nature of the site with detriment to the surrounding rural landscape character contrary to Policies 25, 32 and 33 of the HDPF. Further, the site is not well related to Southwater and does not provide for realistic access by sustainable transport modes.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three members of the public spoke against the proposal, three spoke in support, and Southwater Parish Council objected.

Members’ concerns

Members discussed future floodlighting, pedestrian safety, private-car reliance, disturbance and whether replacement trees provided enough biodiversity.

“Members raised concerns regarding the possibility of future floodlighting on the site and the impact this would have on the countryside location and neighbouring properties.”

“Members discussed safe access of pedestrians to the site, and concerns relating to sustainability and disturbance as the lack of public transport would encourage reliance on private car use.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee resolved to refuse the application in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“That DC/25/0638 be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.”

Minutes

Why it was refused

The proposal was considered unsustainable, harmful to the rural landscape and unsupported by sufficient protected-species information or a biodiversity agreement.

“The proposed development, by reason of the visual impact from the formal layout of pitches, associated paraphernalia including planting, the 55 space car park, site access, and noise from vehicles and users, would introduce a significant level of activity into this tranquil rural location, to the detriment of the landscape character of the area, contrary to policies 25, 26, 32 and 33 of the HDPF.”

“Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no adverse impact on priority and protected species and its habitat, contrary to Policy 31 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (2015).”

Officer report