![](/sites/www.timloughton.com/files/styles/gallery_large/public/public_meetings_1.jpg?itok=l7OWj-d6)
Local Conservative councillors and I arranged a public meeting at United Reformed Church, Cokeham Road, Sompting, which was attended by approximately 80 local residents, following concerns from constituents about the impact of the new 3G pitch proposed for the Sir Robert Woodard Academy site. The pitch has been put forward as a result of the Section 106 planning gain money from the Brighton & Hove Albion (B&H) Training Academy in Mash Barn where the resulting £1.4m is to be used for sporting activities and facilities in Adur.
After it was agreed at the meeting of the Joint Strategic Committee of Adur District and Worthing Borough Councils on 22 July 2014 that the SWRA would be identified as the preferred site, £700,000 was provisionally allocated to the 3G pitch primarily for football use. This followed a study of possible locations in tandem with the Playing Pitch Strategy prepared by consultants KKP in 2014. This decision was further discussed by Adur District Council in 2014 in public session and no councillors voted against this proposal. Indeed, it was a strong requirement from Lancing and Sompting councillors that the pitch should be located within those villages, as the pitches sold by the Council on Mash Barn to house the B&HFC Academy were in Lancing.
Joining me on the platform was the Leader of Adur Council, Cllr Neil Parkin, Cabinet member, Cllr Dave Simmons, who is also chairman of the School Council at SRWA, Lancing Councillor, Carol Albury, and Sompting Councillor, Brian Boggis.
Following concerns being raised by residents at the earlier ‘Talk to Tim’ public meeting at Sompting Village Hall on 9 January 2016, I organised the public meeting, arranged for the Academy to hold further drop-in consultation sessions to explain the project to local residents, distributed details of the planning application in an ‘In Touch’ community leaflet and arranged for the planning consultation period to be extended to the end of this week (Friday 12 February 2016). The planning application is now unlikely to come before Adur’s planning Committee before 14 March 2016 at the earliest.
This was an inevitably heated meeting, particularly since many residents felt that they had not been kept properly informed about an application that could impact on their local community.
I started the meeting by running through a number of updates I had been made aware of following meetings I held with councillors, planning officers, residents and staff at the school. I also stated that I thought the application could have been handled much better. However it is up to ward councillors to make sure that their residents are made aware of such schemes and how they can register any objections. Clearly, this has not happened in Sompting, indeed no Sompting councillors attended meetings or voted against the proposals when they were raised on several occasions.
Whilst the issue had been flagged up several times, including in the local media, it was clear that the long delay between initial scoping for sites and the resulting planning application had meant many people were unaware exactly what was being proposed. This was unfortunate and that is why I was keen to give constituents as much information as possible and guide them as to how they could object and on what grounds their complaints would register most strongly. I also promised that Sompting Conservatives would continue to feed through information about the application to local residents and would also take away a number of main issues raised at the meeting to discuss with the school and Council.
I also expressed frustration with a number of people who had been going round saying that this is scheme had already been decided, i.e. ‘a stich up’, when it is clear that there are a number of aspects that still need to be altered for it to have less impact if the proposal is to go through. Whilst I supported the pitch in principle and saw this as the best site I certainly wanted to see changes to the application. I suggested that this could come in the form of a changed final application going to committee or the Adur Planning Committee deciding to ask for further information or making certain conditions to the application if it is not rejected or approved outright. Residents have organised a local action group to engage a specialist in planning law, who could help organise their objections to the application. I welcomed this and also suggested that residents should write as many formal objection letters to the Planning Committee as possible, as opposed to relying on a petition which may only be counted as one objection.
A number of people had claimed that the application was just a big profit making enterprise for the SRWA. I explained that the school is run as an educational trust by a charity and cannot – by law – make a profit. There would be a community agreement with Adur specifying who the pitch should be available to and a pricing structure similar to the arrangement with B&HFC which has to make its community pitch available for 85 hours a week. Any charges made would be to cover maintenance and running costs (staffing, repairs etc), as well as a ‘sinking fund’ to pay for a replacement surface when it had worn out. If there is any surplus after this it would go to Adur District Council where it would be ring-fenced for spending on sporting facilities in the district.
In addition, there was some confusion about the additional work planned to build the multi-use games area on the west side of the school close to Abbey Road, mostly for netball and tennis use. This was in fact given planning approval back in 2010 and has not been built due to a lack of funds, although funds are now available. This planning consent is for the life of the school, which means it does not require further permission and does not form part of the planning application.
The following is a brief list of the main issues arising:
Traffic congestion:
An independent transport assessment report accompanied the application and suggested there would be no material impact on traffic on adjacent highways. Notwithstanding, this there is a problem with traffic congestion in the whole area between the SRWA and the Globe Primary Academy nearby, particularly at the start and end of the school day, in particular there are problems in the narrow Upper Boundstone Lane. This needs to be addressed quite separately from what happens about the 3G pitch application.
I reported that I had attended a meeting at the Globe Primary Academy the previous Friday together, along with ward Councillors Albury and Dollemore, representatives from the 2 schools and from the Highways Department, which is the responsibility of West Sussex. The Globe had sent out a survey to local residents for their views and this had received a good response. Subsequently, a transport plan is being drawn up by both schools jointly and this would need widespread public consultation. In any case, the schools already have walk/bike to school rates of around 85-88% of their students. It had already been decided that the area around the SRWA is to become a School Safe Zone later this year but clearly other measures were needed. It is important to stress that absolutely no decisions have been made or options progressed so rumours about Upper Boundstone Lane being blocked off from the A27 were completely wild and in any case hugely impractical.
Noise and hours of use:
This is likely to be a big material factor and more expert advice should be sought from the planning consultant, in particular over what extended periods will higher decibel noise be a factor. The school is proposing a bund to ‘shield ‘Upper Boundstone Lane with a rough terrace for any spectators to sit down. In addition, there will be additional tree and hedge planting although residents remain sceptical after the school removed previous hedging with no proper notice or explanation.
The late hours of use especially proposed for Sunday seem excessive and it is highly likely these will have to be changed. During the day in normal weekdays, it is envisaged that the pitch will be used by the Academy and other primary schools that do not have access to all weather pitches and are keen to use it. Questions were raised about pressures on traffic if it is used for tournaments by other local schools.
Parking:
As with traffic congestion, there is a problem with parking pressures now which needs to be included in the travel plans. The plans include an additional car park in the north east corner accessible from the top of Upper Boundstone Lane with room for parking and turning coaches and 25 spaces. The practicality of this has been challenged by the highways report and further work will have to be done. The Academy say they will be able to use this for coaches picking up students for other purposes, which would otherwise park in the road. In addition, they are planning to open up the existing Academy car parks for general use out of hours, which will provide a further 162 spaces.
Residents were sceptical about this as they claim staff members are currently not using their own staff car park, which is putting further pressure on residents parking in their own street. In order to better police this in future, the school claim that they will be asking staff to have stickers identifying them as staff cars. All users of the 3G pitch will be obliged to use the in-school parking and if they do not then they will not be permitted to use the facility again. In any case, they anticipate that most users will be local and will arrive by foot or car rather than coachloads of players and supporters. The problem is essentially one of better enforcement now and in the future.
Floodlighting:
Again many residents were concerned about the effect of light pollution and referenced the effect of the floodlights at the Culver Road pitch for the new 3G pitch there. Further detail needs to be provided on this but the floodlights proposed here are shorter and more directional. The Culver Road lights are in fact due to be replaced at a cost of £40,000 shortly.
Environmental/Ecological/flooding impact:
Reports on all the factors had to be provided as part of the planning application and had not thrown up any material objections, though residents questioned what wildlife was on the site including bats. However this has been a school site for some time. There were also questions about various excavation works going on in the new earth before it was seeded which apparently was to do with some contaminated earth having been brought in which needed replacing. Another statutory consultee Southern Water had produced a report which did not raise any complications about drainage and land drains would be included in the scheme.
Residents raised the issue of a report from the US which had linked 3G pitches with cancer but this turns out to be only extreme cases where the surface is made from recycled tyres treated with a certain cocktail of chemicals and such pitches were not allowed in the UK in any case.
Miscellaneous:
There were also a number of questions raised about whether the planning application was compliant with European Human Rights particularly around rights to privacy and property value depreciation. Again this is something which the planning consultant can advise on and Planning officers have to have regard to. The Planning Committee Chairman, Councillor Boggis, said he would ensure that residents had as fair an airing of their concerns as possible and would invite their spokesmen/women to make presentations before the committee and potentially a bigger venue would need to be used at the Community Centre.
A resident who is a trained referee questioned whether players would be able to afford the footwear required for using the 3G pitch surface.
The meeting closed after about two and a half hours, before which I thanked everyone for coming and for the frank discussion. Whatever differences they had over the pitch his job is to make sure everyone has as much information as possible and know how to make their objections known in the most effective way.
The Planning Application number is AWDM/1883/15 and is accessible on Adur Council’s planning website at http;//www.adur-worthing.gov.uk/planning/applications/view.