ORCHARD PARK AND GREENWOOD

00007568S

Thomas Ferens Academy, 540 Hall Road, Kingston Upon Hull, HU6 9BP,

Retention of artificial (30m x 2.74m; 90ft x 9ft)

Sewell Construction

SUMMARY

- Retention of artificial cricket wicket (30m x 2.74m; 90ft x 9ft). - Comments submitted. - Recommended for refusal.

SITE

Thomas Ferens Academy, Hall Road (former Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields) - The application site is located on the south side of Hall Road and to the west of Beverley Road. The Thomas Ferens Academy site encompasses playing fields and other outdoor facilities.

The Academy's outdoor facilities include grassed pipe-drained pitches with specification in accordance with Sport England's 'Natural Turf for Sport' (with pitch markings indicating 1 senior & 2 junior football pitches, 1 junior rugby pitch, athletics areas, and a cricket facility), a floodlit MUGA, a floodlit synthetic turf pitch (3G surfacing, with football pitch markings), and five cricket practice nets.

PROPOSAL

Retention of artificial cricket wicket (30m x 2.74m; 90ft x 9ft) -

The artificial cricket wicket is located in the playing field area to the east of the main Academy building.

This planning application has been submitted with regard to the retention of the single artificial cricket wicket at the Thomas Ferens Academy site, which is currently contrary to (& in breach of) the previously approved planning permission for the Academy development. The approved development involves a cricket field (: 92m boundary to boundary) with a cricket square including 9 grass & 1 artificial wicket.

PLANNING HISTORY

Application 7568Q, 1. Application to address all Reserved Matters following approval of Outline application 7568P, involving:- Erection of part 2 storey, part 3 storey Academy (secondary school) building with sport and playing pitch facilities, car park, energy centre, and associated landscaping, located on North-Western part of Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields, 2. Variation of condition 43, 44, & 45 Outline approval 7568P, Approved 2010.

Application 7568P, Outline application - 1. Erection of secondary school / academy building (part 2- storey, part 3-storey) with associated play facilities, located on north-western part of Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields (following demolition of existing buildings); 2. Formation of new park and playing pitch areas (including green corridors) in nearby locations, Approved with conditions 2010.

Application 7568N, Erection of two storey building to provide secondary school (outline application - details of layout and access submitted), Refused 2008.

REPRESENTATIONS

Sport England -

This is a retrospective application for a single artificial wicket at this school site. This has changed from the original 2009/10 approved plans that showed a 9 wicket table alongside one synthetic strip. Sport England has treated this as an application that triggers our statutory role as the site includes a range of pitches above the statutory size.

This new Academy originally came forward under the council's Building Schools for the Future programme and a plan developed for the new school on an existing playing field site, previously known as Princess Elizabeth playing fields. In developing the sporting offer the Council's sport & leisure team worked closely with the England & Wales Cricket board and this site was prioritised for ECB investment, with a sports hall large enough to support cricket net tracking infrastructure. As part of this it was recognised there should be some external offer for the sport, and so natural turf was included in the plans.

As the detailed Reserved Matters plans were finalised it was clear there was to be some external space left outside the school boundaries to compensate for the loss of public recreation space the proposal would create. In hindsight Sport England now realises that this division of the site has compromised the ability to create an ECB league standard cricket pitch and boundary on the school playing fields. The remaining playing field space is simply not large enough. To assist Sport England in making a response on this application we have worked with Daniel Musson, the Facilities Manager for the ECB, to consider all permutations possible.

A summary of the ECB's comments are set out below: The playing field as laid out is insufficient in size to accommodate a grass cricket square and the school installed an ECB Approved artificial match play wicket at the advice of ECB. This wicket is of sufficient standard to accommodate league play and up to 100 matches per year. The only way that a grass square that meets ECB minimum boundary size (and is therefore acceptable for school and community use) can be constructed would be to remove the boundary fence, construct additional outfield area and remove relevant trees. ECB considers that this would be disproportionately expensive for any benefit gained and it should also be noted that it would increase running costs by circa £10k per annum to maintain the new square. It should be noted that constructing a new grass square with a boundary size of less than the designated minimum would not be considered suitable for league or community level play by ECB. Whilst there are exceptions made for historic grounds on occasion, the minimum boundary size is a necessary feature of any new for both the integrity of the game and for health and safety reasons. The installation of a grass square would also have a minimal benefit to the cricket community as the site as set up is not fit for purpose for a Club ground (in particular there is no adjacent pavilion/changing/spectating facility). If the ground was to provide a home for Club cricket this should have been a design priority and, despite the encouragement of the Yorkshire Cricket Board and ECB for this option, it was not considered a priority by the applicants at the time. Therefore, as this existing facility is considered to be fit for purpose and proportionate by ECB, we fully support the retrospective application to retain the existing artificial wicket.

Having discussed this matter with council planners further, Sport England were asked whether a revised proposal of 3 to 4 additional wickets would still be beneficial or secondly whether the whole pitch could be relocated or reoriented slightly to accommodate a better boundary size. The ECB had the following further comments to make: o Re-orientation of the square would be absolutely unacceptable and self defeating. North-South orientation is necessary for safe play, particularly in the evening when the sun is setting. o Page 8 of our guide to construction and maintenance of fine turf explains the adjacency issue in full, but briefly, playing on an adjacent pitch consecutively means that the last used pitch is likely to be damaged and unable to recover. Grass wickets have a maximum carrying capacity of 5 games per season if they are maintained properly - hence the minimum square construction recommended is 6 wickets. o In this particular instance there is no additional benefit to be gained by the cricket community at all - the synthetic pitch is an ECB Approved System and is therefore able to carry the maximum number of games that could be played on the ground in all reasonable probability. o Furthermore, constructing 3 or 4 grass wickets will take the ground out of play for up to a full season. Construction requires a significant period of establishment where the site will need to be fenced off. o This is not a viable proposal and hence we do not support it. If further money is to be invested in cricket in Hull (which we absolutely welcome) then we would rather see an alternative project to improve existing sites or perhaps provide a new synthetic pitch elsewhere (the cost of establishing 3 or 4 grass wickets would easily cover 2 synthetic ECB Approved Systems).

Based on these detailed ECB comments, although we are very disappointed indeed on the decision to bisect the playing field made at the Reserved Matters stage, which make the full boundary and wicket combination impossible; as this is not a matter for consideration at this stage, we do not feel we can raise an objection to this application.

However we would seek the investment is used instead to create either an on-site team shelter and bag storage area, which would support informal use of the site for the ECB's 'last man stands' version of the game; or as the ECB propose a new synthetic wicket at another site. A team shelter provides an area for batsmen to wait and pad up, which speeds up the game and prevents players walking a long way from the changing rooms where changing is not adjacent the pitch. Normally the cricket pavilion is well located to prevent a detached team shelter being needed but, with this site arrangement this is not possible. If either option is used consultation with the ECB on siting and design would be essential.

Based on the above we consider this proposal can comply with our policy exception E3, set out below. E3 - Only affects land incapable of forming a pitch The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming, or forming part of, a playing pitch, and does not result in the loss of or inability to make use of any playing pitch (including the maintenance and adequate safety margins), a reduction in the size of the playing area of any playing pitch or the loss of any other sporting/ancillary facilities on site.

This being the case, Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to this application.

HCC Sports Development - No comments submitted at the time of writing this report (comments expected prior to Committee).

Hull Sports Advisory Council - No comments submitted.

HCC Highways DC - Comments submitted (an additional car park management scheme has been recommended, to be addressed via conditions).

APPLICANTS CASE

The applicants have submitted a Planning Statement.

The Planning Statement indicates the following:

Policy - It is contended that the proposal is compliant with development plan (including Hull Local Plan) policies and the NPPF. Hull Local Plan policies NE1, CF1, & CF9 are indicated as key policies.

Proposed development and use - The application is for the retention of an artificial cricket match wicket consisting of a carpeted playing surface on a porous aggregate base with playing dimensions of 30m by 2.74m. The artificial wicket is part of a significant investment of over £250,000 on the site by the English Cricket Board (ECB) towards cricket facilities, also including a five lane practice facility with nets and sports hall practice provision. It provides capacity for up to 100 games a year by the Academy and the community. It is a high specification ECB Approved System which is considered suitable for adult league cricket by the ECB. The approved outline permission showed an indicative layout of 1 cricket pitch with 5 wickets. The approved site layout under the approval of reserved matters (application 7568Q) showed 9 grass wickets and 1 artificial wicket (drawing no 06082-LP-00-GP-010 rev01). However, the documents submitted with this application made it clear that this was an initial layout which had not been the subject of completed Academy, community or National Governing Body involvement.

The site area for the Academy had been reduced at outline approval stage by some 2.2ha from its initial area in order to maximise retained public open space. This provided a challenge for the designers to try to fit into the allotted space a school that met Government guidelines on building area, play space and sports provision before any formal approval for details or funding had been confirmed. The detail of provision was worked up through 2011 when funding approval for the Academy had been given. It was at this time that giving priority to cricket provision in this location as part of the overall BSF sports investment was put forward, with the potential of grant funding from outside the BSF programme towards specific projects such as an ECB grant for cricket. Even then it was important not to prejudice the provision for other sports such as football and rugby. The net result was a very constrained site with implications for the space available for both school facilities and the sports provision.

However this had to be balanced with the Council's desire to retain as much publicly accessible open space as possible and the need to provide the amount of hard and soft play space that schools have to provide to meet Department for Education standards. In practice the hard surfaced play provision for the Academy is below the national standard in order to maximise the grass areas. The approved sports facilities layout has been implemented, but one implication of the eventual layout was that it was not possible to achieve the additional area needed for the boundary to serve grass wickets in addition to the artificial wicket for which the boundary was shown on the approved plans. There can be no compromise on the provision of a minimum boundary as this is for safety reasons for spectators and players. This decision was determined by the ECB and YCB (Yorkshire Cricket Board) who have a Service Level Agreement for primary use of the facilities. Additional boundary area would be needed both to the west and east of the artificial wicket to enable any grass wickets to be used. In practice a minimum of 6 wickets is needed for grass wickets to be used. The potential boundary to serve grass wickets is fixed to the east by the new fence line and public open space beyond. The potential boundary to the west is constrained by the new Multi Use Games Area which is used by both the Academy and the public.

Compliance with Development Plan Policy - It has already been established that the proposal complies with national policy and guidance. The key Local Plan policies are NE1, CF1 and CF9. Policy NE1 lists 4 tests for development on Urban Greenspace over 0.25 hectares: (i) loss of sporting or recreation facilities - not applicable, as this is an enhancement of the situation prior to the development as it enables more intensive use of the cricket pitch and a higher standard of playing surface. In addition the drainage of the playing field area has been repaired. (ii) adverse effect on nature conservation - the wicket only affects a small part of the playing field which is grass and there is therefore little impact on the natural environment. (iii) loss of a link between other areas of Urban Greenspace - the wicket does not cause any loss of linkage. (iv) adverse effect on the amenity or character of an area and in particular the loss of an important view or sense of openness - the wicket does not have any visual impact on openness or view. Policy CF1 lists 7 criteria for judging community facility development. These will be addressed in turn. (i) impact on local amenity - the wicket location does not affect the amenity of residents or the area. (ii) impact on the built and natural environment - the wicket only affects a small part of the playing field which is grass and there is therefore little impact on the natural environment. (iii) design - the artificial wicket is not visible from outside the site so does not impact visually on the playing field area. (iv) parking, servicing and access - not applicable. (v) traffic generation and road safety - not applicable. (vi) danger to health or life - not applicable. (vii) risk of pollution - not applicable.

It is also clear that the cricket facilities are being well used.

Merits of single artificial wicket as opposed to multiple grass pitches - It is accepted that the approved plans showed 9 grass wickets and an artificial one. However, these were produced some 2 years before the site was brought into use. The approved planning application also set out the process that would be followed to check the final proposals against the requirements of potential users. The result of consultations with the ECB, the YCB and Sport England as the permission came to be implemented was that the site would not provide sufficient boundary space for such a layout. Furthermore the new school would not provide the kind of adjacent changing facilities, pavilion and social facilities that is needed for league cricket. The advice of the ECB, and a condition of their grant for the cricket facilities, was that the type of artificial wicket should be a high specification one from an ECB approved supplier. Drawings submitted prior to development commencing to comply with conditions on landscaping show the layout had already been amended to just the artificial wicket. Unfortunately there was no formal submission until now to regularise the amendments to the cricket facilities. This was not a deliberate decision. With so many different partners involved in the scheme, it was simply an oversight for which the partners apologise.

It is clear from the advice received from Daniel Musson, the ECB Regional Funding & Facilities Manager, that the design of the outdoor facilities was amended 'on the advice of the ECB' when it was identified that 'there was insufficient space for appropriate boundary sizes with a 9 pitch grass square'. He also advised that the artificial wicket 'is a high spec ECB approved system and is considered suitable for adult league cricket by ECB'. He comments that: 'It is entirely misconceived to assume that the provision of a small number of grass wickets will make the site suitable for league cricket or other extended use'. 'The simple fact is that the site is not large enough for a grass square due to the other pitch sports provision and ECB do not support installing pitches on a new site without the minimum boundary size being able to be met for both the integrity of the game and potential ball strike issues'. This advice is from the pre-eminent source of guidance on pitch provision in the country - the England and Wales Cricket Board. Their grant aid has created a facility that is used by the YCB for cricket coaching and play. To alter the layout by adding grass wickets in a way that could compromise both the integrity of the game and safety of both players and spectators would clearly be counter-productive and, in planning terms, would be unjustifiable and unreasonable.

Alternative locations for cricket provision - Since the application was approved and the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy was produced, there has been significant investment in facilities for cricket in two other locations. The City Council's Oak Road site was subject to drainage problems, but this is now being greatly improved. Most significantly the former William Gee school site, now part of the rebuilt Kelvin Hall School complex, has artificial and grass wickets, and changing rooms/social facilities. Both sites have plenty of spare capacity for cricket use by league teams, enabling the Thomas Ferens Academy site to concentrate more on coaching and training, but still enabling matches to be played on a pitch with a capacity of up to 100 games per year. In contrast the ECB advise that a grass wicket has a maximum carrying capacity of 5 full day matches per year, so one team needs a minimum of 6 grass wickets. However the ECB also advises that the Thomas Ferens site is too small for the operation of 6 grass wickets. Therefore the single artificial wicket is the most suitable solution to allow maximum usage and comply with recommended boundaries. The provision of additional grass wickets would therefore be a costly and pointless exercise. Not only would there be a capital cost of re-laying the ground to provide them, the revenue cost of maintaining them would be significant. The ECB say they would be likely to be unsustainable in terms of maintenance.

Summary & Conclusion - The pitch layout submitted with the planning application was an initial one and the application stated that it was to be tested against the results of consultations. Those consultations led to the conclusion that a single artificial wicket was the best option given that the site area was not sufficient to provide grass wickets in a safe manner. The facilities provided were designed and constructed to meet (and exceed) ECB standards and were supported by an ECB grant. They are operated in accordance with a 15 year agreement between the Academy and the YCB and have proved to be delivering high quality sports provision for the Academy and the community. The provision of grass wickets in addition to the artificial wicket is not necessary, as the artificial wicket provides a high quality playing surface that has a greater capacity than 6 grass wickets. The provision of public open space and other sports facilities on the Academy site has constrained the area of the cricket pitch. The ECB advises that the site is not large enough for a grass square and they do not support installing pitches without the minimum boundary size being met for both the integrity of the game and safety issues. It is unfortunate that the amended plans showing the single artificial wicket that were submitted to Planning to comply with other conditions were not formally submitted before the wicket was constructed. This was not a deliberate attempt to fail to comply with the approved plans. However, the fact is that the provision on the ground meets the requirements of the pre-eminent authority in this sport - the ECB - and they make the case that the provision of grass pitches is neither needed nor safe. The provision of grass pitches would compromise the existing facility, leading to safety problems that would jeopardise the current support of the YCB and ECB and would therefore be counter-productive. In such circumstances insisting on the provision of any additional grass pitches would be unsustainable, irrational and in planning terms unreasonable. The artificial wicket complies with local and national policy and approval should be granted. (to accompany the Planning Statement, a copy of a Service Level Agreement with the Yorkshire Cricket Board and a copy of an email from the ECB have also been submitted).

PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Hull Local Plan (May 2000 / saved policies 27 September 2007): -

G1 - Unless material considerations indicate otherwise 1. development complying with plan allowed 2. development complying with some policies allowed if benefits outweigh disbenefits 3. development not complying with plan not allowed. G2 - Allow development subject to location and detailed considerations being acceptable. G4 - Compatible with predominant land use. NE1 - Protect Urban Greenspace above 0.25 ha. NE3 - Urban Greenspace - (i) overriding justification, (ii) equivalent community benefit. NE8 - (a) Development resulting in loss of outdoor sport and recreation facilities only allowed if: i) excess of sport/recreation facilities in area; ii) redeveloping small part of site best way of retaining/improving remainder; or iii) alternative equivalent community benefit provided (b) Providing new, and improving existing outdoor sport and recreation facilities encouraged. BE1 - Design must be acceptable. BE6 - Good landscaping required CF1 - Community facility development allowed subject to details. CF5 - (a) Major community facility development allowed if: (i) within easy reach of areas of need; (ii) good access to public transport. (b) Local community facility development serving local needs and within easy walking distance of housing areas allowed. CF9 - Secondary school development allowed if located and designed to maximise convenience for local community.

Other material considerations: -

National Planning Policy Framework

NPPF1 - Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions (para 2).

NPPF2 - The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development (para 6).

NPPF3 - At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Approve development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant permission unless adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific policies in NPPF indicate development should be restricted (para 14).

NPPF4 - Twelve core planning principles (para 17).

NPPF5 - Deliver sustainable development (paras 18 to 22).

NPPF10 - Require good design (paras 56 to 68).

NPPF11 - Promote healthy communities (paras 69 to 78).

NPPF13 - Conserve and enhance the natural environment (paras 109 to 125).

HCC Playing Pitch Strategy (2010-2021)

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Thomas Ferens Academy is part of the Hull Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. Approximately £400m has been committed for investment in Hull.

This planning application proposes the retention of a single artificial cricket wicket at the Thomas Ferens Academy site (the former Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields site).

The installed artificial cricket wicket is contrary to (and in breach of) the previously approved planning permission for the Academy development. The approved development (application 7568Q) involves a cricket field (91m+ boundary to boundary) with a cricket square (at the centre of the cricket field) including 9 grass wickets & 1 artificial wicket.

Planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

It is considered that the starting point for this application should be an appraisal of the planning history for this site, and a review of the justification for the planning permissions previously granted.

The recent planning permissions for this site are key material considerations in the determination of this application - alongside relevant planning policy & guidance, comments submitted, and any other related matters.

This application is fully connected to the previous applications at the site - particularly when taking into account the current breach of planning permission. The reasoning which led to the previous approval of the Thomas Ferens Academy development is also relevant in the determination of this application (ie: compensatory greenspace / new & enhanced sports & recreation facilities / community benefits / etc). Although this current application may not appear to be particularly significant, the proposal goes some way towards the heart of the matter with regard to the approval of an Academy development on this site.

The timeline of planning matters relating to the Thomas Ferens Academy (former Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields) site is as follows:

2008 - Outline application (00007568N) - Refused:- - Reasons for refusal - unacceptable impacts upon urban greenspace, development resulting in loss of sporting & recreation facilities (Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields), and deficiency of off-site provision to provide equivalent community benefit.

2009 - Outline application (00007568P) - Approved:- - Academy site (& proposed Academy building) were relocated further to the north-west (adjacent to Hall Road, reducing the amount of existing greenspace taken within the Academy site, & retaining more public greenspace to the south & east), - Impact on Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields greenspace was reduced, and an increase in the overall application site area was also achieved, through the inclusion of a neighbouring car park & offices (from 7.21ha originally to 7.40ha), - Also, importantly, a cricket field with a 40m+ boundary, a square, & 5 wickets (4 grass, 1 artificial) was included in this Outline application, which demonstrated the viability of providing such a facility within the re-planned Academy site (which formed part of the justification for developing an Academy on the Princess Elizabeth playing field - a playing field that historically had cricket facilities, according to information held).

2010 - Reserved Matters application (00007568Q) - Approved:- - The approved Reserved Matters application includes specific details for the cricket facility, showing a 10 wicket square (9 grass, 1 artificial) and a 45.82m (50 yards) boundary (91m/100 yards from boundary to boundary) on the approved plans. The details submitted with this Reserved Matters application demonstrate that a cricket facility including grass wickets is a viable proposal for this site - & all relevant consultees, including Sport England, welcomed this.

2011 - Planning Conditions compliance/discharge phase (00007568P & 00007568Q):- - Plans & details submitted to address planning conditions indicate the same pitch layouts & sports facilities as the approved Reserved Matters application - plans & details were accepted (following consultation with Sport England), and the relevant conditions were discharged (with the expectation that the cricket facility would be provided as approved). A Sports Development Plan was also submitted to comply with the planning conditions, which indicates that several cricket clubs are set to use the cricket pitches during the cricket season (which, again, indicates that the approved cricket layout is a viable facility).

2012 - 2013 - Post-approval (& operation/occupation of the site):- - HCC Planning is informed that the cricket facility at the site has not been implemented as approved. - Thomas Ferens Academy and HCC BSF are informed that the diminished cricket facility is in breach of the planning permission. - Submission of an application is invited, to address the breach of planning permission (leading to the submission of the current application).

In planning terms, the Thomas Ferens Academy development was considered acceptable & justified for clear reasons - provision of a community facility with compensatory greenspace in the local area, new & enhanced sports & recreation facilities, and clear community benefits, which outweighed the loss of playing field.

With regard to sports facility specification and meeting the current sports pitch criteria of bodies including Sport England & the England & Wales Cricket Board (and with regard to the comments submitted) the justification forwarded by the applicants (ie: the applicant's case) for the single artificial cricket wicket should certainly be taken into account and given appropriate weight.

However, in the wider planning context, and in light of the planning history of this application site (as indicated above), it is considered that the installation (& retention) of a single artificial cricket wicket does not satisfactorily correspond with the justification previously submitted by the applicants for the approved Academy development.

The type, quality, and amount of the sports facilities at the site (including cricket) remain an important element of the justification for the overall Academy development.

The applicant's case for the Academy development (at the outline application stage) included the following with regard to sporting facilities & planning policies: With regard to Policy NE8 of the Local Plan (which indicates that development resulting in the loss of outdoor sport and recreation facilities should only be allowed if criteria are met) - 'a material consideration is that releasing part of the Princess Elizabeth playing fields for the development will enable the improvement in the playing field provision. The BSF proposal is aiming to satisfy both of these, by replacing more than the equivalent lost playing field provision of at least equal quality in the local area, and providing state-of-the-art indoor and outdoor sports facilities'. 'The existing playing facilities at Princess Elizabeth playing fields that are affected by the development are: 2 x grass cricket squares; 2 x football pitches; 1 x multi-use all weather floodlit pitch … New high quality facilities to be provided at the academy that will have public access are: 1 x cricket square (national cricket standard); artificial cricket wicket (national cricket standard)' … 'This represents a substantial enhancement of the facilities available to the local school community and, because these facilities are to be made generally available for wider public use, the wider community will benefit as well' ...

With regard to planning policies, it is considered that Local Plan policies NE1 and NE8 remain relevant.

The applicants have indicated (in the submitted planning statement) that Policy NE1 (i) (with regard to development on urban greenspace above 0.25ha & loss of sporting or recreation facilities) is 'not applicable' as 'the artificial wicket is an enhancement of the situation prior to the development, as it enables more intensive use of the cricket pitch and a higher standard of playing surface'. However, the indication that the artificial wicket would be a 'higher standard of playing surface' than the two grass cricket squares that existed prior to the development is not considered to be wholly justifiable. The artificial surface could be deemed a more suitable & durable facility in certain situations (to accompany the use of the Academy's approved cricket square facility, and as a reserve facility), but it is considered that the approved cricket facility - including grass wickets - would provide a higher standard of playing surface overall, which would satisfactorily compensate for the previous loss of grass wickets at the site. It is considered that the loss of sporting & recreation facilities that resulted from the Academy development on the former Princess Elizabeth playing fields - which was adequately compensated for in the approved scheme - remains a valid consideration. Therefore, it can be considered that the proposed single artificial wicket does not satisfactorily meet the requirements of policy NE1.

Policy NE8 emphasises that development resulting in the loss of outdoor sport and recreation facilities should only be allowed if there is an excess of such facilities in an area, or if alternative provision of equivalent community benefit is provided. Therefore, it can also be considered that the proposal to retain the single artificial wicket doesn't satisfactorily meet the requirements of policy NE8.

The HCC Playing Pitch Strategy (2010-2021) which has been produced for the city, indicates that 'there is a shortage of higher quality cricket facilities, & the cricket fields at private clubs are in great demand', and 'the main issue and major concern with all local cricketers, the England & Wales Cricket Board (ECB), & the Yorkshire Cricket Board, is the demise of many local grounds - and more concerning is the loss of quality facilities'. The Playing Pitch Strategy also indicates that, given the construction and maintenance of cricket squares can sometimes be costly, 'quality cricket facilities should be focused on key locations, such as specialist academies'.

Sport England (and the ECB) have commented on this application (see Representations above). However, in light of the submitted comments, it is considered that there are some contradictions and inconsistencies in the approach of the sporting organisations towards these matters. At the outline and reserved matters stages Sport England indicated that good quality (or equivalent) sporting facilities should be required to mitigate for the loss of playing field (particularly with regard to cricket facilities), and throughout the planning process Sport England appraised the sports facilities at the Thomas Ferens Academy site - finding them suitable and acceptable (including the playing field area). Therefore, the absence of an objection to the single artificial wicket proposed in this application could be deemed contradictory. It is understood that Sport England's response to this application is essentially based on ECB comments, which predominantly relate to the size of the Academy's playing area, the suitability of the pitch surface (in light of ECB guidance), use & maintenance issues, and costs/investment. Much of the applicant's case also refers to comments made by the ECB regarding these matters. However, whilst the ECB's comments on current criteria/specification regarding playing areas for cricket should, of course, be afforded reasonable weight, it is considered that the previously determined planning permissions for this site (which were justified in light of planning policy - including the sports facilities, which were accepted by Sport England & found to be appropriate), and the continuing need for higher quality sport facilities in the city (including cricket facilities), are more weighty considerations with regard to the determination of this current application.

Further to this, the applicants, Sport England, and the ECB, have submitted comments contending that the size of the playing area for cricket at the Academy site is insufficient for the installation of grass wickets, and that a reduction in the dimensions of the Thomas Ferens Academy site during the planning process is responsible for this issue. However, although the Academy site was re-planned and was relocated within the Princess Elizabeth playing fields site, it must be clarified that the playing area available for the Academy's cricket facility did not change throughout the entire planning process for the development (with regard to the outline stage, and the reserved matters approval). All consultees throughout the planning process accepted the playing field layouts. Furthermore, it is understood that a minimum outfield boundary of 45.82m (50 yds) from the central area of the cricket field has been achieved at the Academy site (appearing to meet the requirements for a senior/adult cricket field - in accordance with Law 19 of the rules of cricket). It is also understood that boundaries for cricket do not strictly have to conform to an 'oval' shape. There is scope to the west of the cricket facility for additional outfield space (if required). It is considered that a lesser degree of weight could be attached to the indicated ECB comments (as endorsed by the applicants & Sport England), given that such comments were not submitted prior to a decision being reached for the approved development at the Academy site.

Essentially, in this case, a relevant matter for consideration is whether the balance should be weighted towards technical guidance on sports facilities, or towards acceptable compensation for the loss of the original playing field (as previously approved - in line with relevant planning policies).

It is considered that, in light of the previous acceptance of the sports facilities at Thomas Ferens Academy by all involved (including relevant consultees) prior to this current application, at this stage there are no reasonable planning grounds for accepting a diminished sports facility. There is no reason in planning terms to consider that what was previously justified is now unjustified.

The applicants have indicated - the provision of grass pitches would compromise the existing artificial wicket facility, leading to safety problems that would jeopardise the current support of the ECB and YCB and would therefore be counter-productive. In such circumstances, insisting on the provision of grass pitches would be unsustainable, irrational, and in planning terms, unreasonable. However, these sports facilities were not deemed unsustainable, irrational, or unreasonable when they were previously proposed as part of the justification for the approved Academy development (by the same applicants).

If Committee members consider that extra weight should be attached to the submitted Sport England & ECB comments, and if Committee members consider that a full cricket square with 9 grass wickets alongside the existing artificial wicket may be unviable, in that eventuality, it should be considered whether the retention of a single artificial wicket is acceptable as an element of the compensation for the original impact on sport & recreation facilities, or whether (i) an unspecified number of grass wickets should be provided (potentially 3 - 6) at the site, or (ii) alternative sport & recreation compensation should be provided at the site.

The applicants have indicated that the cricket facilities at Kelvin Hall School (William Gee site) are of a high quality and include grass & artificial wickets, with changing rooms/social facilities. It is also indicated that the site has spare capacity for cricket use by league teams. This is considered to be relevant, however, the Kelvin Hall School cricket facilities are not considered to be direct compensation for the approved Thomas Ferens Academy development.

As this time, the installation of a single artificial cricket wicket at Thomas Ferens Academy remains in breach of the planning permission for the site.

In light of the appraisal above, it is considered that the proposal to retain the single artificial cricket wicket instead of implementing the approved cricket facility would not comply with Local Plan policies.

If this application is refused, given that the cricket facility at the site would remain in breach of the Thomas Ferens Academy planning permission, the Council would consider enforcement action, and the applicant would have the right to appeal.

Highways / Traffic / Transport:

Highways impacts were assessed (in principle) at the Outline stage, and specific conditions have previously been imposed. Comments have been submitted regarding the potential additional use of the cricket facilities, and the potential need for a further car park management scheme. If necessary, this matter could be addressed via conditions.

Design / Conservation:

No implications.

Flood Risk:

No implications.

Biodiversity:

Given the details of the proposal and the characteristics of the site it is considered that there would be no adverse impact on areas or species of ecological significance.

Crime & Disorder:

Given the nature of the proposal it is considered that there would not be, or likely to be, an increase in crime or disorder or the potential for such an increase.

Equalities:

This proposal has been considered against the duty of the Council to consider equality issues. This development is considered to comply with these requirements.

Energy efficiency & Renewables:

No implications.

DMPO Article 31 Statement:

The local planning authority have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application in the following way(s): Engaging in pre-application discussions with the applicants. Discussing potential solutions with the applicants during the processing of the application. Requested additional information from the developer in response to concerns with the proposal. The local planning authority works with applicants in a positive and proactive manner, based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with planning applications.

RECOMMENDATION

Recommend Refusal for the following reasons:

1 The proposed retention of the artificial cricket wicket would be unacceptable compensation for the loss of sports & recreation facilities resulting from the Thomas Ferens Academy development, and would not be reasonably justified in terms of providing adequate community benefits, and would therefore not comply with policies G1 NE1, NE8 CF1, or CF9 of the Local Plan.