RFU Planning Application Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) NWWRA AGM - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
rfu planning application artificial grass pitch agp
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

RFU Planning Application Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) NWWRA AGM - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 02, 2023 379 likes •742 views

RFU Planning Application Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) NWWRA AGM October, 2018 1 18/P0183, January 2018 Major Development 1. What? 2. Where? 3. Policy & Issues 4. Who is affected? 5. Representations 6. PAC 7.

slide-1
SLIDE 1

NWWRA

AGM October, 2018

RFU Planning Application Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP)

1

slide-2
SLIDE 2

18/P0183, January 2018

Major Development

  • 1. What?
  • 2. Where?
  • 3. Policy & Issues
  • 4. Who is affected?
  • 5. Representations
  • 6. PAC
  • 7. Next steps
slide-3
SLIDE 3

CONTEXT

  • NWWRA approach is
  • Pro sport and children’s sport
  • Pro Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)
  • Pro ecology
  • Pro traffic safety
  • Pro residents’ amenity
  • Objective: Ensure an ideal balance
slide-4
SLIDE 4
  • 1. What?
  • RFU application (+ 30 year pitch lease to WRFC)
  • Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) - 8,754 m2, raised
  • Fencing - white, 1.2m high, 3 rails, 360 m

perimeter + advertising

  • Tarmac surround - >1000 m2, black
  • Floodlights - 6
  • Raised earth + mounds (2) xx cu. m.

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

What more?

  • Dugouts - 2
  • Steel storage container + advertising
  • 30m2 side view
  • New 15m high floodlights (6)
  • Earth bunds - 2, measuring 860 m3

each (64L x 10W x 2H)

slide-6
SLIDE 6
slide-7
SLIDE 7
slide-8
SLIDE 8
slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • 2. WHERE?
  • Where?
slide-10
SLIDE 10
slide-11
SLIDE 11
slide-12
SLIDE 12
slide-13
SLIDE 13
slide-14
SLIDE 14
  • 3. MOL policy
  • Merton: “protect and enhance the Borough’s open space network

including MOL, parks and other open spaces”

  • London Mayor: “strongly supports protection from development

having an adverse impact on openness of MOL”

  • “Strongest protection should be given to London’s MOL and

inappropriate development refused”

  • “Essential ancillary facilities will only be acceptable where they

maintain the openness of MOL”

  • Visual intrusiveness - no
  • Non-turf pitches (2015): “further erosion of open character of MOL”
slide-15
SLIDE 15
  • 3. ISSUES
  • MOL policies breached: openness, access, building
  • Ecology: flora, fauna*, SINC*, LNR*, light pollution
  • Site access solely via 6 narrow, unadopted NWWRA

roads

  • Two-way traffic congestion + safety risks increased
  • * (Bats, badgers, nesting birds, Site of Importance for

Nature Conservation, Local Nature Reserve)

  • Parking inadequate
  • Traffic congestion, safety
slide-16
SLIDE 16
slide-17
SLIDE 17
slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19
slide-20
SLIDE 20
slide-21
SLIDE 21
slide-22
SLIDE 22
slide-23
SLIDE 23
slide-24
SLIDE 24
slide-25
SLIDE 25
slide-26
SLIDE 26
slide-27
SLIDE 27
slide-28
SLIDE 28

–Johnny Appleseed

“Type a quote here.”

slide-29
SLIDE 29
slide-30
SLIDE 30
slide-31
SLIDE 31
  • 4. WHO IS AFFECTED?
  • NWWRA residents (>800) in
  • Barham, Hood, Preston
  • Drax, Ellerton, Almer, Wolsey
  • Beverley, Holland, Copse
  • + RAWW residents (>200) in
  • Burdett, Melville, Lindisfarne, C. Park

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Who is affected ?(2)

  • Village Ward
  • 8,000 residents
  • 3,670 households
  • 4,860 cars
  • NWWRA (1,400 residents, 850 cars?)
slide-33
SLIDE 33
  • 5. Representations
  • Against approval - around 65,

>90% NWWRA residents

  • Detailed, planning-based
  • bjections
  • Support approval - around 65,

>60% not LBM residents

slide-34
SLIDE 34
  • 6. PAC
  • October?
  • Case Officer recommending

approval, (subject to conditions)

  • No case officer report published yet
  • 3 speakers allowed
slide-35
SLIDE 35
  • 7. NEXT STEPS
  • NWWRA to
  • Keep proactive, involved, for all
  • Keep members informed
  • Speak at PAC, for all (9 roads +)
  • Further action depending on PAC
  • utcome