Agenda item - BH2025/02499 - Longhill School, Falmer Road, Rottingdean, Brighton - Full Planning

1.   The case officer introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.   Terry Rose addressed the committee as an objecting neighbour and stated that they considered the proposals fail to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The noise impact has not been assessed and therefore conflicts with policy. The acoustic assessment is not robust, and seven properties have bedrooms nearby. There is no parking or travel plan. Any overspill parking will be on the school field. The proposals will unbalance this quite area. The committee are asked to pause the application and reconsider the proposals.

3.   Neighbouring Ward Councillor Allen addressed the committee in support of the application and stated that the proposals created an opportunity for Longhill School to have a pitch that would benefit not only the school but community as well. The proposed 3G pitch will be safe and reliable with less muddy fields and more use. There will be social, educational and health benefits. The committee was urged to approve.

4.   Ward Councillor Fishleigh addressed the committee in objection and stated that the proposed rubber crumb was not safe to use, and the committee should refuse the application. The councillor supports grass roots sports, nature conservation and the Living Coast. The rubber crumb was not compatible with the environment, and an alternative should be used. Like Councillor Allen, the councillor recognised the issues.

5.   David Downes addressed the committee as a representative of Woodingdean Wanderers Football Club and stated that the pitch would offer not just football but a community club to belong to for 6-year-olds to seniors. The club are very proud of their large girls’ team, and they champion female and disabled membership. Grass pitches are unreliable; an all-weather pitch would be better. The committee were asked to approve the application.

6.   Rachelle Otulakowski addressed the committee as Longhill School’s headteacher and stated that they believe the heart of the community was the school and this should be a community lead decision. The 3G pitch would be good, giving opportunities for the pupils and clubs to exercise all year round and broaden the school’s abilities to care for the students.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

7.   Councillor Cattell was informed that national policy does not prevent use as risks of using rubber crumb have not been established in the UK. The agent stated that the crumb collected in the anti-toxic grill will be collected and redistributed across the field. It was noted that alternatives were available, and some were being used across the UK. However, the crumb has been banned in European Union, but not in the UK. There were mitigation measures in the design of the scheme.

8.   Councillor Robinson was informed by the school manager that a lot of work had been put into noise mitigation, with signs on the pitch, netting, kick boards and reduced bookings after 7pm. The football season is August to May and lettings for later times will naturally reduce.

9.   Councillor Theobald was informed that the distance to the closest house was approximately 45/50 metres and 90 metres from the centre of the pitch. Saturday will be added to condition 18: The floodlighting hereby permitted shall not be in use except between the hours of 09:00 to 21:00 Monday to Friday and 09:00 to 20:00 on Saturdays, Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays.

10. Councillor Pickett was informed by the school manager that the football foundation regulations require the school to have funds available to change the material if needed later. It was noted that new trees will be planted for muffle sound.

11. Councillor Earthey was informed by the agent that the anti-toxic grills are affective, and rain will not wash the crumb away. It was noted that not all pitches have detox boxes/grills. The case officer stated the school car park had 75 spaces and the field would only be used once or twice a year.

12. Councillor Nann was informed that the cost of alternative materials was not known and the committee needed to look at the application before them. It was noted by the school manager that the football foundation was looking at alternatives.

13. Councillor Thomson was informed by the school manager that the netting/skirting was to contain the crumb. The parents watching matches would be seated in the covered area outside the leisure centre, at the far end of the field away from residential properties. It was noted that no whistles would be used after 7pm by condition, as there would be no matches, only training sessions.

14. The head of Planning informed the committee they should only consider the application before them.

Debate

15. Councillor Theobald considered more trees would be good. The facility was good and it was noted that there were no objections from the Parish Council, Sports England, or the South Downs National Park. The all-year-round pitch was good for the school. The councillor supported the application.

16. Councillor Robinson stated they had looked at Blatchington Mill’s pitch and noted resident’s objections. The mitigations methods forming part of the scheme seem good. The councillor supported the application as the area and school need it.

17. Councillor Sheard considered traffic to be an issue; however, the idea of the pitch was smashing. It was noted that there was a community need for the facility. The councillor considered the school was noisy anyway and mitigations could be made if issues arise later. The councillor supported the application.

18. Councillor Nann supported the application.

19. Councillor Parrott supported the application.

20. Councillor Cattell considered the benefits to fantastic. The councillor supported the application.

21. Councillor Earthey was torn as they agreed with the idea but not the toxicity of the rubber crumb.

22. Councillor Pickett was torn as they considered the proposals to be a good scheme, however, the crumb was an issue.

23. Councillor Thomson considered the scheme to be good and supported the application.

Vote

24. A vote was held and by 7 to 2 the committee agreed to grant planning permission.

25. RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to be MINDED TO GRANT planning permission subject to the applicant entering into a Memorandum of Understanding or a decision taken by the Cabinet/Director of Property and Finance of the council to ensure delivery of the Head of Term set out in the report, and also subject to the Conditions and Informatives as set out in the report.