Agenda item

Installation of a 30m x 3.65m fully carpeted single bay practice facility and fully enclosed single bay cricket cage with heavy duty galvanized tubular uprights and netting. Single pedestrian gate. White netting added behind bowler to act as a sight screen and install three protective sheets around each side of the batting end.

Ulgham Playing Field, Ulgham Lane, Ulgham, Northumberland

NE61 3BG

Installation of a 30m x 3.65m fully carpeted single bay practice facility and fully enclosed single bay cricket cage with heavy duty galvanized tubular uprights and netting. Single pedestrian gate. White netting added behind bowler to act as a sight screen and install three protective sheets around each side of the batting end.

Ulgham Playing Field, Ulgham Lane, Ulgham, Northumberland

NE61 3BG

An introduction to the report was provided by R Soulsby, Planning Officer with the aid of a power point presentation.  There were no updates provided.

S Miles of 3 Manor Court, Ulgham addressed the Committee speaking on behalf of her husband and herself in objection to the application.  Her comments included the following:-

·       It was not shown on the plan how close the structure would be to their home as whilst it showed the whole boundary of number 6 Manor Court it did not identify their property which was closest.  The proposed facility would only a matter of feet away from their boundary and approximately 48’ from their conservatory and would infringe on their quality of life and privacy.

·       A garden seating area, which was used on a regular basis, was only feet from where the structure would be sited.

·       There would be a constant noise of “bat on ball” during practice sessions.

·       The size of the structure would be approximately 6’6” higher than their hedge and 12’ wide only a matter of feet from their boundary and would be visible from anywhere in their garden and all rear windows of their home and would greatly impact on their outlook 365 days per year.

·       The cricket club had been there when they had bought their property 27 years ago and up until now they had not had any cause to complain about the normal matches or any of the other activities and functions held on the play field area.

·       The structure could affect the resale value of their property.

·       They appreciated that the cricket club was trying to involve younger players to get involved in the sport, but the majority of supporters of the scheme did not live in the Village let alone have the prospect of a structure this size almost in their back garden.  They did not object to the installation of a practice net but asked that it be relocated somewhere else, possibly where the old practice net had been stored.  If the structure was erected in that location then the existing band of trees would muffle the noise and it would not have any visual effect from their home.

·       The report gave the impression that there were existing trees that would shield the structure from their view, however currently there were no trees that would shield the view.  The applicant had previously stated to them that some of the trees on the boundary would be removed to facilitate the structure and therefore the outlook from their garden would be of a steel netted structure not trees and greenery.  He had also advised that some conifers around the tennis courts would be removed and this would also impact on them as these muffled the sounds from the tennis court.

·       It had also been stated that the current mobile net facility was close to the proposed facility and therefore noise levels would not dramatically increase, however that had not been used for some considerable time and was not in the same location.

·       The nets would only be used and be of benefit to the cricket club from April to September but the eyesore for them would be there 365 days a year and would be permanently detrimental to themselves and other occupants of Manor Court.

M O’Brien addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application.  He advised that he had lived next to the ground for over 30 years and whilst balls were regularly hit into his garden he still supported the application.  He drew attention to and read out the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report. 

S Land also addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application. His comments included the following:-

·       The application had been made with the sustainability of the cricket club in mind, as currently of 60 players, only 15% of them were junior members.

·       The club had played a pivotal role in the community since its founding in 1977, providing bar facilities and use of the pavilion for wider community events and the club also having responsibility for the maintenance of the grassed areas on the recreation ground.

·       The cricket club currently had no practice facility which was a major part of any local cricket club and which was a major attraction to players as it enabled them to practice and most importantly allowed junior players to develop their game.  Ulgham was trying to retain junior players to secure its future after having previously lost players to competing clubs with practice facilities. It was also hoped that the installation of the new net facility would help to attract new players into the club.

·       The application had gained support from the Planning Officer who believed that the application should be approved and Public Protection had no objections.  There had also been support from within the Village.

·       The objectors wished for the net to be situated at the far end of the field parallel to the football pitch however this was not possible. After consultation with Ulgham Parish Council they had rejected that proposal for several reasons such as that the installation of the permanent facility away from the cricket pavilion would take land away from other sports areas that were often used by families in the village; and to have the facility away from the proposed area would have a significant environmental impact as there were several mature trees which would need to be removed or significantly pruned.

·       Concerns raised by the objectors around noise had been noted and there were plans in place to limit the usage of the facility and two lockable gates would be incorporated to limit access.  The facility would be used on Thursday evenings 17:30 until 20:00 and Saturdays and Sundays 11:00 until 12:45 with it being locked at all other times. 

·       There was already a shipping container on the site of the proposed facility which was more visually intrusive with no complaints received.

·       In respect of foul language as had been noted by one objector it was clarified that this had not been raised with the club and that Ulgham Cricket Club had a behaviour policy in place which mirrored other cricket establishments and they did not tolerate offence language.  The club was trying to create an inclusive environment where all were welcome and the use of foul or offensive language did not encourage that.

·       The objectors failed to mention the close proximity of the tennis courts which was open to the public all year around with unrestricted access which would be equally, if not more disruptive to the neighbouring properties than a time restricted cricket facility.

·       Regarding the issue of children congregating around the net facility as had been mentioned by some objectors, it was the club’s belief that the installation of this facility would not increase the number of children using the recreation ground and usage of the net itself would be restricted as it would be locked.

Members were reminded that the application had been assessed on its current proposed location and that the application for decision was that before them.

Councillor Wearmouth proposed acceptance of the recommendation to approve as outlined in the report, which was seconded by Councillor Dodd.

In response to objections it was suggested that conditions be included in relation to the times the facility could be used, and also that the structure should be removed if it was unused for 12 months or had fallen into disrepair.  It was not felt that a condition was necessary in relation to the times of use as any noise nuisance would be addressed by Public Protection.  In relation to the structure being removed if not used or had fallen into disrepair, it was not felt appropriate to condition the removal if it had not been used within 12 months but Councillors Wearmouth and Dodd were agreeable to an amendment to the proposal to include an additional condition with wording delegated to the Director of Planning regarding removal of the structure if it was unused within a timescale to be determined or had fallen into disrepair. 

A vote was taken on the proposal to grant permission as outlined in the report with an additional condition with the wording delegated to the Director of Planning regarding the removal of the structure if unused within a timescale to be determined or had fallen into disrepair as follows: FOR 8; AGAINST 0; ABSTAIN 1. 

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report and additional condition with the wording delegated to the Director of Planning regarding the removal of the structure if unused within a timescale to be determined or had fallen into disrepair.