Artificial grass sports pitch at Westfield Football Club, Kingfield, Woking

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing the existing natural grass football pitch with an artificial 3G sports surface.

“PROPOSAL: Installation of artificial grass (3G) sports pitch in place of the existing natural grass pitch.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The pitch is at Westfield Football Club within Woking Park, beside the leisure centre and near residential properties.

“The application relates to the site used by Westfield Football Club located to the rear of the Woking Leisure Centre. The site is owned by Woking Borough Council and is part of Woking Park grounds.”

“The wider site is approximately 1.74 hectares in area and comprises one enclosed football pitch and training pitch. The club house for Westfield Football Club and other leisure facilities lie to the north of the site. The site has residential properties to the south and east and the leisure centre to the north.”

Officer report

Earlier planning permissions

Earlier permissions covered wider improvements, including flood protection, access works, community facilities and landscaping.

“PLAN/2006/1241 - Demolition of existing sports pavilion and disused greenhouses. Construction of new flood protection works and flood water storage areas. Construction of 2No new vehicular/pedestrian access bridges, remodelling of existing car park, access road and service areas. Construction of new community facilities together with external works and landscaping.”

“PLAN/2010/0541 - Extension of time to begin development under Planning Permission PLAN/2006/1241 for the demolition of existing sports pavilion and disused greenhouses. Construction of new flood protection works and flood water storage areas. Construction of 2No new vehicular/pedestrian access bridges, remodelling of existing car park, access road and service areas. Construction of new community facilities together with external works and landscaping.”

Officer report

Advice from consultees

Consultees raised no objection or recommended controls covering environmental health, highways, sport, wildlife and drainage.

“WBC Environmental Health Team: Make reference to no proposed changes to the hours of use for the flood lighting but indicate that if there is no proposed change to the hours or intensity of use, Environmental Health would have no adverse comments, as it is understood that the site would continue to comply with the residential amenity safeguards established under the original planning permission (PLAN/2006/1241) (09.09.2025)”

“Sport England: Raise no objection to the application because it is considered to accord with exception 5 of our Playing Fields Policy and paragraph 104 of the NPPF.”

Officer report

Concerns from neighbours

Seven objections raised concerns about use, noise, lighting, construction, drainage, microplastics, biodiversity, commercialisation and transparency.

“Transport Assessment & Construction Impact • While the Transport Assessment covers the completed pitch’s use, it does not cover the construction phase’s traffic, noise, and disruption. • Reference errors and missing documents (Traffic Management Plan) cause doubt about the reliability of submitted materials. • The assessment omits key impacts: transport of enormous soil volumes, import of construction material, and project timescales.”

“Environmental Impact: Microplastics, Biodiversity & Ecology • The application omits a section on “Biodiversity and Ecology” in its Planning Appraisal, with no conclusions or technical assessment present. This is highlighted as a significant omission raising questions about impacts to biodiversity and ecological value. • Environmental risks are identified, particularly concerning microplastics.”

Officer report

Public speakers

One person spoke against the application and another spoke in support.

What members discussed

Members discussed the origin of usage restrictions and whether replacing grass would affect biodiversity.

“During discussion, Members queried the origin of the restriction on usage frequency. The Planning Officer advised that, based on research, this did not appear to be a planning condition but may form part of the lease. Any variation to usage constraints would require a separate planning application and public consultation.”

“The Committee questioned the biodiversity impact of replacing the grass pitch. The Planning Officer confirmed that, while the base value of the turf pitch was low, the applicant had demonstrated a biodiversity net gain of 10%, to be secured by condition and monitored in consultation with Surrey Wildlife Trust. Specific measures would be detailed in the biodiversity net gain plan required by condition.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted planning permission subject to the report’s conditions and a unilateral undertaking for biodiversity management and monitoring.

“That planning permission be GRANTED planning subject to:”

“(ii) A Unilateral Undertaking to secure: · A Biodiversity Net Gain Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (BNG HMMP) · BNG Monitoring Contribution…”

Minutes