03594/25/FUL: View the Plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note: If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

Applicant:                          Sis Pitches

Location:                           Playground Furlongs Road, Sutton on Sea, Lincs

Recommendation:             Approve with Conditions.

Officer:                             Kathryn White

N.B. Councillor Sam Kemp rejoined the Meeting at 12:18pm.

N.B. Having declared an interest for the following item, Councillor Robert

Watson left the Meeting at 12:18pm.

Application Type:     Full Planning Permission

Proposal:                Planning Permission - Construction of a MUGA for football and rugby with associated fencing and floodlighting.

Location:                 Playground, Furlongs Road, Sutton on Sea

Applicant:                Sis Pitches

Members received an application for Full Planning Permission - Construction of a MUGA for football and rugby with associated fencing and floodlighting at Playground, Furlongs Road, Sutton on Sea.

The application was presented to Committee in the interests of transparency as East Lindsey District Council owned the site.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

• Principle of development and feasibility of other sites.
• Impact on the character and appearance of the area.
• Impact on residential amenity.
• Impact on the highway network.
• Flood risk and surface water drainage.
• Ecology and biodiversity net gain.

Members were referred to the additional information contained on pages 6 to 7 of the Supplementary Agenda.

Michelle Walker, Deputy Development Manager, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 77 to 78 of the report refer.

Mike Gallagher spoke in objection to the application.

Members were invited to ask questions.

-        A Member queried what the outcome of the speaker’s straw poll had been.  Mr Gallagher explained that he had been surprised by how many residents of the two nearby roads would be affected by both light pollution and noise.  He further reported that they had knocked on nearly every door and of the fourteen households that responded, only two were opposed to the siting of the proposed pitch.  Those two households considered the proposal to be inappropriate and more concerningly, they had been unaware that the project was still scheduled to proceed.

Mr Gallagher added that he had asked a local Councillor why the pitch had not been located in its originally proposed position near the Seaview Colonnade, where the existing tennis court was situated.  Mr Gallagher reported that the Councillor had explained that the Colonnade was intended to remain a quiet area and that the pitch was considered more appropriate within a general sports zone.  Mr Gallagher stated that he had found this explanation difficult to accept, given that residents of the two affected roads were largely seeking peace and quiet, with the area being predominantly one of retirement housing.

-        Following a query as to whether the management of the site would improve were the site to be formally developed into a multi-use games area (MUGA), Mr Gallagher responded that he did not believe this would necessarily be the case. Mr Gallagher explained that a key issue would be identifying an organisation willing to manage the facility, noting that the Playing Fields Association had indicated that they did not wish to take on the responsibility, despite having been originally expected to administer bookings and oversee the associated online payment system.  Mr Gallagher informed Members that as the existing children’s play area could not currently be kept clean and tidy, he did not consider that a more complex facility would be adequately maintained without dedicated oversight.

Mr Gallagher further commented that when the former pitch had been located near the Colonnade, it had predominantly attracted teenage users rather than younger children or mixed-age groups.  He expressed concern that the level of respect and care shown by that age group for such facilities had historically been limited.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-        A Member requested some clarification regarding the ownership and application arrangements for the proposed facility, noting that although the land belonged to East Lindsey District Council, the application had been submitted by an external agent.  The Deputy Development Manager explained that they were not in a position to confirm who would ultimately manage the site, but it was understood that if the district council operated it, it would likely be through its usual leisure services provider. 

-        Following a query on who was funding the project, the Deputy Development Manager advised Members that funding sources were not a material planning consideration and would not be confirmed within the planning process.

-        Members expressed concern that the proposed installation would be placed on existing open playing fields and questioned whether the construction of fencing and surfacing was necessary, particularly given the nearby beach and other open spaces. 

Following which, the application was Proposed for refusal against officer recommendation.

The Deputy Development Manager responded that the key purpose of the facility was to provide an artificial surface capable of year?round use.  She emphasised that the structured environment, flat surface and lighting would increase accessibility, especially for users with mobility difficulties, given that the natural ground conditions would not provide comparable stability or safety.

-        A Member commented that the development would be a beneficial investment that would enhance an existing playing field and provide opportunities for the community.

Following which, the application was Proposed for approval in line with officer recommendation.

-        A Member stated that they would support the proposal only if the fencing were removed, as the fencing implied controlled access and potential cost barriers.

Further discussion ensued and differing views were expressed by Members. Some considered that the proposed facility would enhance the area and provide valuable recreational opportunities. Others maintained that the green space should remain open and freely accessible without the need for a paid or controlled facility.

-        A Member explained that small MUGA facilities were commonly used abroad by older residents, disabled residents and young children and that fencing was often required to reduce antisocial behaviour, prevent misuse, and ensure safe containment during organised sessions.  They raised the need for conditions controlling lighting and noise to protect neighbouring residents and indicated their support for the application.

Following which, the application was Seconded for approval in line with officer recommendation.

-        Further discussion then followed on the merits of fencing, with one Member commenting that evidence on the effectiveness of fencing to deter antisocial behaviour was mixed. Another Member indicated support for refusal, arguing that the proposed facility was too small and insufficiently suited to its purpose.

Following which, the application was Seconded for refusal against officer recommendation.

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval in line with officer recommendation was as follows:

Approval:         4 In favour            5 Against           2 Abstention 

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for refusal against officer recommendation due to the impact on nearby residents was carried.

Refusal:          5 In favour            4 Against              2 Abstention