Erection of 2.4m high perimeter fence

1. Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Approved Plans The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the following plans and specifications and shall relate to no other plans. a) Location Plan (received 1st December 2025) b) Proposed Fencing Details (256-2401 Drawing No. 01) (received 1st December 2025) Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development and for the avoidance of doubt.
3. REASON FOR APPROVAL The proposed development of a new 2.4-metre-high fence between the new Southlands site and the Unity City Academy site is considered to be appropriate as it is in full accordance with national and local planning policies, statements and guidance. In particular, the proposals meet the National Planning Policy Framework, and the policies regarding sustainable development, the efficient use of land, appropriate scales of development, the protection of open spaces of different characters and uses, good quality design, whilst proposing a fence development that would not be out of scale and character within the surrounding area, and would not be detrimental to the local and residential amenities of the local area. Issues of principle regarding the layout and design of the fence have been analysed fully and are not considered, on balance, to give rise to any inappropriate or undue affects. Accordingly, the Local Planning Authority considers that there are no material planning considerations that would override the general assumption that development be approved unless other material factors determine otherwise.
4. Informative: Sport England • The path running north to south has already intersected the playing field in the location where a pitch was marked – it has already had a prejudicial impact on the playing field however this has been supported by Secretary of State. • The repurposed fencing to the south and the fencing proposed to run along the eastern edge of the pathway will have no more impact on the ability to • mark and use football pitches than the extent of negative impact already caused by the path itself. • There is however significant impact caused by the fence line to the western edge. Previous plans have proposed this fenceline further south towards the edge of the grass pitch. This appears to have been proposed further north closer to the North Ormesby FC pavilion, however there does not appear to be a rationale for why. Even with the divisive impact of the path, the club could’ve marked a pitch either side of the path and just moved the locations – this is no longer possible if the western side is moved outside of the school field and into the MFC Foundation. The plan does not propose a pitch in this location. The movement across the fenceline out of the club/school maintained area means it is lost to the club’s regular use. • It appears that this fence has been constructed already despite this application requesting permission for its erection. • There are a number of direct issues to be aware of, some material in planning terms and some notable context. Based on current NRFA understanding: - The club already does not have access to the full extent of pitches at the school at any one time. Use of pitches is rotated in different locations as required to prevent overuse etc. This proposal takes one area with pitches out of the school field. - The club receives a £32,768 total grant award from FF for maintenance of the grass pitches at UCA from 2023-2029. This includes the pitches within the area to be annexed from the school field - https://pitchpower.org.uk/gen/21024/7Zh02_zQqLLaFz-hGkeipZdE1S8/pdf/1/1. This reduction could now reduce the grant from FF and will have an impact on FF T&Cs. - That MFC Foundation would make the grass pitch to the south available to North Ormesby FC. However, this is by choice and we are not aware this access is secured by agreement, nor is the price charged for access. - That the school agreed to gift the land to the Council/MFC Foundation on the basis that a second 3G would be developed within the MFC Foundation fenceline, as recommended by the previous PPS and as previously proposed in past applications until subsequent applications have scaled this back to grass provision. The land appears to be annexed here with no positive use or pitch marked in the space, it is simply lost to access. • Ultimately, the club would lose unobstructed access to the number of pitches it requires. The Academy has seemingly relinquished the land on the understanding that it would be for the development of a second 3G in mitigation for the loss of playing field at Marton Avenue – a second 3G has not come forward nor has Marton Avenue been mitigated in any way yet to our knowledge. With no existing pitches shown on the plan north of the proposed fenced grass pitch, there is no clear rationale why the fenceline has to be so northwards. It may be to accommodate a second 3G pitch within the fenceline which is intended to be brought forward in future, but this is not made clear what this space is intended for as to why it can’t remain accessible pitches.

No related records were published in this section.