Community sports court at The Beacon School, Picquets Way, Banstead

What was proposed

The application proposed a synthetic multi-use games area with fencing, landscaping, extended community use and no artificial lighting.

“This is a full application for provision of new Multi Use Games Area (MUGA ) to the existing tarmac games court and car park, with associated landscaping. The new synthetic surface MUGA would be 56.5m x 47.75m and would be constructed to allow outdoor PE to be played all year round and the proposal includes extended hours of use of the new facility for the ability of the school to make the MUGA available for community use.”

“The new MUGA would accommodate sufficient playing surface for either four tennis courts, two netball courts or a five a side football court. Surrounding the MUGA would be a 3m high mesh fence. No artificial lighting is proposed under this application.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The proposal occupied existing tennis courts and parking at a secondary school, with homes nearby and recreation ground to the west.

“The site is a substantial two storey secondary school (Beacon School) set on the western side of Picquets Way in Banstead. The southern end of the school, where the proposal relates to, is presently used for tennis courts and a car parking area . The court is surrounded by a mesh fence and there is a boundary of mature trees and hedging along the southern boundary. The site decreases gradually to the south.”

“The surrounding area is predominantly residential to the east, north and south. To the west (rear) of the site is Tattenham Recreation Ground.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

Earlier applications included a sports hall, solar panels, a crossover extension and an LED beacon, with the sports hall approved in 2014.

“21/02661/F Erect an LED operated beacon flame in front of the school. It will consist of a metal pole cemented into a 1 cubic metre hole, within the earmarked red zone which is currently a flower bed, with a basket on top housing an acrylic covering of LED lights signifying a beacon. Approved with conditions 01.12.2021”

“13/01943/F Proposed sports hall built on existing hard standing playground Approved with conditions 23.01.2014”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, Sport England, ecology and flood-risk consultees raised no objection, subject to conditions in some cases.

“Sport England: Sport England raises no objection to this application as it is considered to meet exception 5 of our Playing Fields Policy and to accord with Paragraph 104 of the NPPF.”

“SCC Flood Risk, Planning and Consenting Team: No objection subject to recommended condition…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the proposal over parking and congestion, while the headteacher supported improved school sport and community access.

What members discussed

Members discussed community impacts, operating hours, parking, possible future lighting, levelling and the need for a travel plan.

“Any adverse effects on the local community; • Hours of use should be the same as the hours of light as there was no lighting being installed; • Concern about the loss of parking on the site;”

“The Committee concurred that a travel plan should be submitted, and the development should not commence prior to this submission.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee resolved to grant planning permission subject to the recommendation, addendum and additional conditions.

“RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as per the recommendation and addendum, with additional condition requiring:”

“The proposed development shall not commence until a Travel Plan has been submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with the sustainable development aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Surrey County Council's "Travel Plans Good Practice Guide".”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Permission was granted because the development was considered consistent with the development plan and no public-interest reason justified refusal.

“The development hereby permitted has been assessed against development plan policies DES1, DES8, NHE2, NHE3, OSR3, INF2, TAP1, CCF2 and material considerations, including third party representations. It has been concluded that the development is in accordance with the development plan and there are no material considerations that justify refusal in the public interest.”

Officer report

Additional requirements

The committee added a pre-commencement travel plan, consultation with ward members and the chair, and landscaping details to maintain the front hedgerow.

“The Travel Plan is to be agreed in consultation with Ward Members and Chairman.”

Minutes