Agenda item

The Planning Officer (EP) delivered her report and the update sheet that had previously been circulated to the membership and speakers. 

The Chair thanked the officer and invited the committee to ask questions.

There was a question asked about the location of the borehole, this was clarified on the plans.

The Chair then invited Peter Bradley to speak against the application.

Peter Bradley introduced himself as being a local resident and stated that most of the residents had lived there for many years.  He continued to say that there had been a significant expansion of the club in recent years, with more people playing and with maintenance taking place from 6am.  Local residents had been aggrieved and imposed upon by this.  He commented that while they saw the advantages of a sprinkler system they believed it would create an unacceptable noise disturbance especially when operated on the closest two courts.  The residents believed that this would be intrusive especially when the park was not busy and that the residents did not believe the times were reasonable and would like an 8pm to 7am curfew, which they believed, should be enforced.

The Chair thanked Mr. Bradley and invited Simon Hathrell to speak.

Simon Hathrell stated that he wanted to focus on evidence from other locations with similar circumstances. His first example was from another croquet club, in Alexandra Park on suburban land in a large public park.  That croquet club has seven courts, all of which were located less than 50m from the nearest house, with the closest only 10m from the nearest court.  This club operated an automatic irrigation system and had done for many years.  The system they use was identical to the one that had been proposed for use by the Watford club.  It was used with no restrictions on time, in the summer the other croquet club had routinely used their sprinklers from 4am.  They had never had any noise complaints.  Furthermore, information from that club demonstrated that the booster pump, which drove the system, could only be heard when standing  next to it.

The second example he cited was in Watford, in Cassiobury Park itself. The Watford Bowls Club, which had had an automatic irrigation system for many years, again operating without restriction.  He indicated that this was also located close to residential properties, again with no complaints and also highlighted that it had been installed by Watford Borough Council. 

Mr. Hathrell continued to give examples of other croquet clubs and other sites in Watford which had similar or deeper boreholes and had also had no complaints. 

The Chair thanked Mr. Hathrell and invited Councillor Kloss to speak.

Councillor Kloss thanked the Chair and introduced himself to the committee and those in attendance.  He stated he was representing the residents.  He summarised the complaints that had been passed to him as being three-fold.  The first issue was the trees, which he believed had been dealt with by the officer’s report.  The second was the noise from the pumps, which he also believed had been dealt with.   The third was the noise from the sprinkler nozzles; he stated that there was no data available on this and that the environmental health officer’s opinion was not based in fact.  He echoed the local residents and asked for an earlier curfew.  He believed that the root cause of the concerns was more than just about the sprinkler system and that it was also about neighbourly issues between the residents and the croquet club; however, the councillor accepted that these were not planning issues.

The Chair thanked Councillor Kloss.  He addressed the third issue; stating that he understood why there would be no data with the number of variables involved and found it interesting that there were a number of examples of similar or the same systems being used with no restrictions or complaints.   The Chair questioned why there was a time restriction at all and if having one would penalise the croquet club unfairly compared with the bowls club.

The Planning Officer stated that the time condition was a preventative measure; once the system had been installed, they would be able to apply to have it removed if it was demonstrated no issues had occurred. The Development Management Manager added that without the condition in place any potential issues or complaints could potentially prevent use of the system, therefore the conditions allow for better control.

The Chair confirmed with the Planning Officer that the hours had been accepted by the club.

There was a question from the committee on the working times during the construction phase; it was clarified that these would comply with normal construction hours. 

It was also clarified that the suggested hours of operation for the sprinklers complied with the normal night time period suggested by Environmental Health.

A member of the committee also commented that a large part of the role of the committee was to weigh up the potential for harm.  The councillor stated he struggled to understand how the noise would affect the nearest house and that as the croquet club had been willing to work with residents he believed that they should go ahead as planned, and believed that the objection was more about the other issues between the residents and the club than the sprinklers.  

The Chair moved for the committee to vote on his motion.

On being put to the committee, the application was granted. 

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions

Conditions:

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

1. Time limit

The development to which this permission relates shall be begun within a period of three years commencing on the date of this permission.

2. Approved drawings

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings:

Site Location Plan, 172216-6000L-VERTICLE, GRUNDFOS SUBMERSIBLE BOOSTER SPECIFICATION, GRUNDFOS Installation and Operating Instructions, GRUNDFOS PRODUCT SPECIFICATION (Product No. 96510201), RAIN BIRD 5000 Series Rotors Technical Specifications, RAIN BIRD 5000 Series MPR Nozzles Technical Specifications, proposed outline irrigation layout, existing side elevation, proposed side elevation, existing rear elevation, proposed rear elevation, proposed ground floor plan, roof plan, existing front elevation, proposed front elevation, existing floor plan, existing floor plan, existing site section, proposed site section.

3. Materials

All the external surfaces of the development shall be finished in materials to match the colour, texture and style of the existing building.

4. Operation time limit

The automated irrigation system, pumps and water tanks hereby approved shall only be operated from 07:00 to 23:00 hours on any day.

5. Tree protection plan

No development on site shall commence until details and a method statement in respect of tree protection measures (including ground protection) relating to trees located within and adjacent to the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The tree protection measures approved under this condition shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any works and shall be maintained as such at all times whilst the construction works take place.

6. Adequate isolation of the borehole pump

No development on site shall commence until details of adequate isolation methods to prevent ground borne noise in respect of the pump in the borehole have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These measures shall be installed and retained at all times.