DATCHWORTH PARISH COUNCIL
Parish
Clerk: Mrs Lesley Chambers JP
Datchworth
Hertfordshire
SG3 6SU
email:
Telephone: 01438 811757
For the attention of Ms S Defoe
Department of Development
Control
East Herts District Council
Wallfields,
Hertford SG13 8EQ
By Email & Post
25
January 2006
Dear
Ms Defoe,
Land Rear of Datchworth Green –
Datchworth Sports Club
Your ref: 3/05/0082/FP/SD
We
refer to your letter dated 4 January 2006 inviting this Council (DPC) to
comment on the amended details submitted by the applicant, Datchworth Sports
Club (DSC). DPC welcomes the progress that the amended details represent towards
DSC providing adequate information for the matter to be determined.
We
understand that you are about to report to your Development Control Committee
to enable this matter to be determined. Our detailed comments are made on this
assumption.
As
the level of local interest has confirmed, the outcome of this application, both
in principle and in detail, is of great significance to the immediate and
longer term well-being of the heart of the village.
We
consider much of our letter to you dated 24 February 2005 (available on line at
- www.datchworth.info/sportsclubobjectlettersent050225.htm)
to be still applicable and ask you to refer to it and take it into account in
arriving at your recommendations. For clarity, we attach a further copy of our annotated
aerial photograph showing the parts of the village directly affect by the
application. This document is also available on line at –
www.datchworth.info/SportsClubPhotomarkedup.jpg
.
In
our letter of 24 February 2005 we raised the following concerns –
1.
The present
inadequate provision and management of parking during DSC rugby events and the detrimental
effect of changing the status quo without a step-change by DSC in dealing with
this aspect.
2.
The need for
alternative access and guaranteed overflow parking if the rugby pitches are to
be consolidated behind the DSC club house - and if alternative access and
parking can not be realised, the benefits from a traffic point of view of the
rugby pitches remaining where they are.
3.
The need to
clarify and secure by condition a number of detailed points.
Several
meetings have taken place between DPC and representatives of DSC. The key issue
between DPC and DSC remains adequate provision and control of parking for the
traffic generated by DSC rugby events. There are also a number of detailed
points that we discussed with DSC that have not yet been reflected in the
amended information now circulated.
DSC
has told us that they have consulted with your highways colleagues about the
alternative accesses suggested at 4a, b & c of our letter of 24 February
2005 and been told that these would not be acceptable to Highways. Given that
access to the club house and guaranteeing adequate parking for large rugby
events are such key issues which, in planning terms the alternatives would have
answered, we ask for a written comment about these from your colleagues before
consideration of this matter proceeds further.
Our
further representations regarding the application and the amended details sent
on 4 January 2006 are as follows –
1.
This Council submits that the points in
appendix A should be considered in
detail by EHDC and DSC and
reflected into a further revised and agreed application bundle before this
matter is considered for determination.
2.
Unless DSC is
prepared to formally and practically take responsibility for the traffic and
visitors that it generates, this Council
urges the officers of EHDC to recommend refusal of the application on the
basis that the diversity of locations presently used for DSC rugby is safer and
less disruptive to the village – for reasoning and support please see appendix
B.
3.
If EHDC officers are minded to recommend approval or
the Development Control Committee is minded to grant approval, DPC requests that any approval be conditioned to
achieve the suggestions made by DPC in appendix C.
DPC supports the granting of consent embodying
the changes set out in appendix B and the suggested conditions set out in
appendix C, but not without these.
We
would like to meet with you to discuss the above before you prepare your report
to the Members of the EHDC Planning Committee.
Yours
sincerely
_____________________________________
Viv
Marshall (Chairman Planning Committee)
Copies
to - Cllr Tony Jackson
Datchworth Sports Club
APPENDIX A
Matters requiring correction,
clarification and / or amendment
This
Council is of the opinion that the DSC application should not be determined
until the following points on the amended Plans and in the related Supplementary
Statement (referenced Plans A, B & C dated October 2005 and “Supplementary
Statement in Support of the Application for Planning Permission”, all date
stamped as received by EHDC on 9 November 2005) have been corrected, clarified and
/ or amended. A number of these points have been discussed between DPC and DSC
but are not yet reflected in the documents sent to you in November 2005.
1.
Plans
a.
Amend - Plan B - which is marked up to show the “red and blue land”, to also show the
areas north of the village hall which include relevant areas that are the
subject of the application and that are controlled by DSC – see the attached
aerial photo, also at – www.datchworth.info/SportsClubPhotomarkedup.jpg.
Reasoning – EHDC needs this
information to i) consider the impact of relocating the rugby pitch, ii) to
identify the areas of parking referred to in DSC’s supplementary statement and iii)
locate beyond doubt the rugby pitch that the application proposes should be
relinquished.
b.
Amend - Plan B to show revised car park layout and
fencing attached as appendix
DPC-A1. We include at the end of this appendix a marked up copy of part
of the plan of the extend DSC car park on which we show a suggested revised
layout and also how we consider the car park should be fenced on its western
boundaries in a similar manner to that proposed for the northern boundary of
the new playing areas. The Plans should also show that notices will be visibly
but discretely displayed requiring those using the car park not to block the
route to the gate which is required for use by emergency vehicles. Reasoning – We have two concerns here.
Firstly, as the entrance to the changing rooms is located on the north side of
the club house and the entrance to the field shown in the northwest corner of
the car park, players will either pass close to the residential property to the
north of the car park (59 Datchworth Green) or trample over the new planting.
Given past complaints about foul language from players as they go to and from
games, we wish to keep pedestrian traffic away from the north boundary. Secondly
we are concerned about controlling un-authorised vehicular access to the field.
Relocating the gate to the new playing areas and providing fencing to protect
the planting whilst it gets established will answer these concerns. The revised
location for the gate also gives a more direct and open access for emergency
vehicles and the suggested notices will help to maintain this.
c.
Amend all Plans to show provision for Cycle Parking. We would suggest that this should be near the club
house and consists of stands or hoops to which 10 cycles can be locked. Reasoning – DPC has been asked by a
member of the public to secure this as part of DSC’s scheme, it will provide
for reducing car use and is in accordance with EHDC’s adopted policy M10.
d.
Clarify - on all Plans - where the clubs maintenance equipment (tractors and
grass cutting equipment etc) is / will be stored and how it will access the new
and existing fields. Reasoning – We
are concerned that proper consideration be given as to whether maintenance
equipment will be allowed to cross the “green lane” and if so how and where.
e.
Amend – all Plans – to show the size, style and
location of the proposed composting area. Reasoning
– We wish to comment on the location and detail of this before the application
is determined – see 2m below.
f.
Amend – all Plans – to show the location and
extent of the “fallow strip” referred to in 3.35 of the Supplemental Agreement.
Reasoning – We are concerned to
ensure that this is implemented and maintained, that there is no doubt about
its location and extent and that it is practical in conjunction with the
proposed pitch locations and sizes.
2.
Supplementary Statement
a.
Generally – We
assume that if an approval is granted it will include a provision that the
approval will be implemented in accordance with the approved Plans and the
Supplementary Statement. We therefore submit that the following changes are
essential before this matter is considered for determination – see condition proposal
at appendix C1.
b.
Comment on 1.6 – We propose above that this
pitch be identified on a location plan – see 1a and that, if permission is to
be granted, ceasing use of it needs to be secured by a specific condition– see condition
proposal at appendix C2. Reasoning – We
are concerned to avoid any doubt as to what is to be given up and to ensure
that use of it is relinquished at an appropriate time so that an approval does
not facilitate further growth of DSC’s activities.
c.
Comment on 1.8 – See “limitation of contemporaneous use” condition proposal at appendix
C3.
d.
Comment on 1.10 – This gives the potential for a theoretical maximum of 10 contemporaneous
mini-rugby games. Given the present difficulties that dispersed traffic
associated particularly with mini-rugby events gives, this is unacceptable to
this Council. See “limitation of contemporaneous use” condition proposal at
appendix C3.
e.
Comment on 1.12 – We note that the proposal here is for internal alterations within the
existing clubhouse footprint. DPC submits that building control approval for
these works should be obtained before any works are started on site to
implement the works shown on the Plans and described in the Supplementary
Statement. See condition proposal at appendix C4. Reasoning – We are concerned that the facilities required and the
internal space need has not been tested in any detail, particularly regarding
compliance with part M (disabled access) of the Building Regulations. If this
were to lead to a need to increase the club house foot print after the extended
car park had been built the options available for this are likely to be
unacceptable to this Council.
f.
Clarify 1.15 – The key issues in this application relate to the rugby activities if
DSC. Amend this section to include what % of the rugby section live within a
5-mile radius. Reasoning – This
information will indicate the extent to which what is proposed by DSC will
benefit the immediate community and enable this application to be considered in
relation to EHDC’s adopted policy RA2 (II) (c).
g.
Comment on 1.16 - See condition proposal at appendix C5. Any further expansion of DSC’s
activities would be totally unacceptable to this Council. A change of status of
DSC would inevitable lead to this. We therefore submit that any approval
granted should be personal to DSC and limited to use by a registered Community
Amateur Sports Club.
h.
Comment on 3.6.3 and 3.6.11 regarding drainage – These works are clearly essential but will, we submit
lead to significant extra accelerated water run-off which will be concentrated
in the SW corner of the field next to the “green lane”. This lane is already
subject to flooding. Can EHDC please confirm that it’s engineering, environmental,
footpaths and landscape officers have been consulted and confirmed that they
are satisfied with DSC’s proposal for the disposal of land drainage waters from
the area in question. We submit that DSC’s application should not be determined
until this has been confirmed. Reasoning
– The concentration of extra land drainage waters in an already boggy area
seems to this Council to be undesirable especially given the tentative
undertaking at 3.9 of the Supplemental Statement regarding improving drainage –
see 2l below and condition proposal at appendix C6.
i.
Comment on 3.6.11 – Construction traffic - see condition proposal at appendix C7. Reasoning – Options exist for routes other than access via the
private road that could minimise unnecessary disturbance to the adjoining
residents.
j.
Correct 3.7 – post and wire fence – We submit that this should read “post and rail fence”.
Reasoning – post and rail is shown
on the Plans and this is in our view more appropriate in this rural location -
see condition proposal at appendix C8
k.
Amend 3.8
– to read “A new post and rail fence will be constructed to enclose the western
boundary of the extended car park and a hedge planted next to it. The hedge
will be as in 3.7 above. A lorry width gate will be included in the fence where
shown on the plan. This will be used to provide access for emergency vehicles
and pedestrian traffic only. It shall be kept locked except when the playing
areas are in use.” Reasoning – as at
1b above.
l.
Comment on 3.9. – We note that DSC says here that “planting … may include a small coppice
… to improve drainage.” From discussion with DSC it is our understanding that this
is the sole proposed means of dealing with the extra / accelerated drainage
waters. We submit that any approval of DSC’s application should be conditional
upon EHDC approving the ultimate means of disposing of land drainage waters. Reasoning – The concentration of extra
land drainage waters in an already boggy area seems to this Council to be
undesirable especially given the tentative undertaking here to improving
drainage – see 2h above and condition proposal at appendix C6.
m. Amend 3.12 - by adding the words after … new pitches “as shown on the Plans. Reasoning – We wish to comment on the location and detail of this before the application is determined – see 1d above.
n. Clarify 3.13 and 3.14 – We presume that the “engineering drawings are the Plans? These do not contain maintenance information - see condition proposal at appendix C8. Reasoning – We are concerned to ensure that planting is established as proposed and properly maintained including DSC replacing any failed stock.
o. Comment on 3.21 – DPC welcomes these proposals - parking is we submit the key issue in this application. We consider it essential to secure the agreement and long term provision of appropriate event management arrangements either by condition or a section 106 agreement. Reasoning - See appendix B below and condition proposals at appendix C9 and C10.
p. Comment on 3.26 – The statements here are incorrect. DSC has the right to use the road by virtue of a lease granted to it by DPC. The access road is the joint responsibility of those given the right to use it to cross the village green. This was reiterated in a Deed between DPC and DSC dated 21 February 1983. In simple terms, the road surface belongs to and is the responsibility of those whose properties it serves but the land under is retained by DPC. Dealing with the maintenance of this road should be treated as outwith the scope of the DSC application. Reasoning – What is proposed by DSC is of no benefit to DPC and thus nor to the wider community, but would be as between DSC and the other properties that the road serves. DPC is currently taking advice as to the best way of managing the road to the benefit of all the properties that it serves.
q. Amend 3.27 - by adding the words at the end …”other than as provided for in sections 3.24 and 3.25”. Reasoning – For consistency and the avoidance of doubt as to what is intended.
r. Comment on 3.28 – This is an important point on which DPC is taking advice – see condition proposal at appendix C11. Reasoning – DPC is concerned to ensure that any approval can and, if it is, will be implemented as a whole.
s. Amend 3.30 – by deleting the second sentence and replacing it with the following -”In addition, a permanent notice will be maintained on each post requesting members of the public to kindly use an alternative route marked to the west of the rugby pitch when the pitch is in use.” Reasoning – We consider that this is a more practical approach as the posting of notices about future matches is likely to fail over time.
t. Comment on 3.31 and 3.32 – We do not accept these statements - see 2h and 2l above - also condition proposal at appendix C6. Reasoning - By definition, the works proposed at 3.6.3 and 3.6.11 will be more efficient than the existing combination of evaporation and natural drainage assisted by the existing agricultural land drains – otherwise further work would not be proposed by DSC! It seems to this Council that the effect of what is proposed will be to reduce some of the flow to the existing land drains and thus the discharge into the green lane – which we welcome – but it will significantly increase the speed and quantity of discharge to the SW corner of the field and hence to this area of the green lane. See 2h & 2l above.
u.
Clarify / amend 3.33 – It may be appropriate to replace the existing wording
“directly from the club house” with “as shown on the Plans”. Reasoning – see 1b, 1c and 1e above.
v.
Amend 3.35 – by adding at the start of the section “As shown on the Plans. Reasoning – see 1f above.
w. Comment on
3.36 – See 2r above. Reasoning – DPC is concerned to ensure
that any approval can and, if it is, will be implemented as a whole.
x.
Comment on 3.37, 3.38 and 3.39 (this is also relevant
to 3.40 to 3.43 inclusive) – See 2e
above. Reasoning – We are concerned
that the facilities required and the internal space need has not been tested in
any detail particularly regarding compliance with part M (disabled access) of
the Building Regulations. If this were to lead to a need to increase the club
house foot print after the extended car park had been built the options
available for this are likely to be unacceptable to this Council.
y.
Comment on 3.40 to 3.43 inclusive – DPC supports the objectives set out here but submits
that these are neither the only nor the over-riding considerations. We also submit
that whether or not there would be a net reduction in risk and thus a gain in
people safety is not clear cut. The impact on adjoining residents of
concentrating access to nearly all DSC rugby via the existing private road also
needs to be taken into account. Reasoning
– See the final paragraph of appendix B below.
z.
Comment on 4.1.3 and 4.4 – DPC has suggested further meetings with DSC to
discuss the details of its submission but this has not been taken up by DSC. Reasoning – This is mentioned here solely
to explain why such detailed and extensive representations are required.
aa. Comment on
4.5 - This Council is of the opinion
that the DSC application should not be determined until the points covered in
this appendix (A) have been corrected, clarified and / or amended. Reasoning - A number of these have been
discussed between DPC and DSC are not yet reflected on the documents sent to
you in November 2005. This Council is concerned to ensure that any approval granted
is clear and practical and can be fully implemented, operated and maintained
for the long term.
bb. Comment on
4.6.1 – See 2a above. Reasoning – To avoid doubt as to what
is to be given up and to ensure that it is at an appropriate time.
cc. Clarify /
amend 4.6.1 – As drafted this could
be read to be seeking to use the floodlit pitch for playing matches at
night. This is not acceptable to this
Council. See “limitation of contemporaneous use” proposal at appendix C3.
dd. Comment on 4.6.2 – See 2o above. Reasoning - See Appendix B below and
condition proposal at appendix C3.
Comment on Appendix 2 of the
Supplementary Statement – copy attached as appendix DPC-A2 – See the final paragraph of appendix B below. Reasoning – Evidence exists that the
parking capacity required for DSC’s largest rugby events has been circa 300 not
230 maximum. A recent DSC rugby event generated nearly 350 parked cars – see
attached appendix DPC-B2.
APPENDICES DPC-A1 AND DPC-A2 GO HERE
APPENDIX B
Traffic and Parking
DPC
generally accepts “Appendix 2 – Datchworth Sports Club – Car Parking
Requirements and Capacity” included with the bundle sent to us by EHDC on 4
January 2006 – see copy attached as appendix DPC-A2.
This document supports a reduction in the size of the extended and improved car
park next to the club house from 70 to 50 and thus reduces the impact on the
householders who share the use of the private road with DSC.
However
we ask EHDC to note that the maximum shown in the DSC document is 230. DPC
records show that approaching 300 cars have visited the area of Datchworth Green
for DSC rugby on several occasions in the past – see appendix DPC-B1.
The maximum recorded has recently reached nearly 350 - see appendix DPC-B2.
DSC has stated that car numbers can be reduced by DSC programming its events
differently (although the 350 recently was without a clash of events!). This Council submits that the offer to
programme events to minimise cars needs to be secured by condition. See
“limitation of contemporaneous use” proposal at appendix C3.
The
DSC document confirms that there are a significant number of events each year –
15 in total or say every other week during the rugby season – when parking for
100 cars or more is required. Records show that the road adjoining Datchworth
Green has a capacity of about 40 to 50 cars when (as is essential) passing
places are maintained. With DSC’s own car park increased to circa 50 these two
areas can accommodate 8 of the predicted 15 annual events. The other 7 events
can only be accommodated if supplementary parking for circa 150 cars can be
secured. The Village Hall car park may be in use for its own events and is
insufficient to fully satisfy what is required. Also the condition of the field
to the north of the village hall may, in the event, be unsuitable for parking.
We understand that the village hall and the owner of the field have made their
own representations to EHDC about the fact that the availability of these
facilities for DSC’s use can not be guaranteed.
Several
meetings have taken place between DPC and representatives of DSC. The key issue
between us remains the provision and control of parking for large rugby events.
We have made it clear that DPC expects DSC to significantly improve its past
approach to this which has been to “let matters take their course”.
We
have taken “soundings” about the use of the village green for occasional
supplementary parking and it is clear that this would be strongly opposed in
the village.
We
have explained to DSC that given the size of the village, its roads and the
limited parking available, we expect it to “professionally” train and deploy stewards
for its events when these are needed. The club has identified that there is potential
to plan events to avoid unnecessary clashes and thus reduce the number of cars
on key days. DPC welcomes this. Discussions are ongoing about how best to
realise this intent.
Unless DSC is prepared formally and
legally, by planning condition and / or a section 106 agreement, to take
responsibility for the traffic it generates, DPC urges EHDC to refuse DSC’s
application on the basis that the present locations used for DSC rugby are
safer and less disruptive to the village because they disperse rather than
focus vehicular and foot traffic.
This is particularly so for the large mini-rugby events which by their nature
generate a disproportionately high amount of traffic. We attach a copy of a letter
from a concerned resident supporting the view that the status quo is preferable
– see appendix DPC-B2.
This Council submits that the pattern
of traffic and parking generated by DSC will change if DSC’s proposals are
implemented and that to grant approval without securing adequate undertakings from
DSC regarding the ongoing management of its traffic and parking would be
contrary to EHDC’s adopted policies RA2 (2) (c) and M11. We recognise that permissions already exist for the
activities that DSC wishes to re-locate. However it is this Councils opinion
that the proposal will lead to a significant “re-focusing” of vehicular and
related pedestrian traffic from the existing pitch behind the village hall to
DSC’s proposed access via the private road across the village green and to thus
to their extended car park. We are particularly concerned that the proposed
changes will, as shown in DSC’s schedule of “Parking Requirements and Capacity”
(appendix DPC-A2
attached), result in passengers from the cars parked in the field behind the
village hall, for the predicted 7 large events, crossing and re-crossing the
Woolmer Green / Watton Road to get to and from the new main pitch. At a
conservative estimate, this could be upwards of 200 people. We submit that a rigorous
assessment of the potential impact of this aspect of DSC’s application should
be made against EHDC’s adopted policies and in particular policy M11. If you
propose to re-consult your highways colleagues regarding this aspect we would
welcome the opportunity to meet them on site to view the areas in question.
APPENDICES DPC-B1 AND DPC-B2 GO HERE
APPENDIX C
Proposed Conditions
Clearly
the “nub” of achieving an approval which stands best chance of being acceptable
to both the applicant and other interested parties, in particular those who
will live with the consequences of it, lies in the conditions attached to it.
This Council therefore asks EHDC, if it
is minded to approve DSC’s application (but only after dealing with the
corrections, clarifications and / or amendments suggested in appendix A above)
to include in any approval, conditions that address the following points. We would ask EHDC to settle suitable wording as the
following is an indication of what this Council would wish to achieve rather
than of fully considered and enforceable wording for such planning conditions.
1.
Generally
– Any approval granted shall, if implemented be done so in full and maintained
and operated in accordance with the approved Plans, Supplemental Statement and
other conditions attached to the approval.
Reasoning – We are concerned
to ensure that what is proposed in
the final agreed submission documents is realised and continues to be delivered
by DSC in the long term so that the community does not suffer as a result of a partial
and short lived implementation of an approval that is based on the perceived intent
of the submission documents alone.
2.
Pitch to be given up – No part of the works approved may be brought into
use until the second rugby pitch to the north of the village hall [edged red and hatched green] on the Plans
has been taken out of use and all equipment associated with the playing of
sport removed from and kept clear of it. Reasoning
– We are concerned to avoid doubt as to what is to be given up and to
ensure that it is relinquished at an appropriate time.
3.
Limitation of contemporaneous use - No more than two pairs of teams may use any of DSC’s
facilities at any one time and within any 4 hour period. If events for different teams are to take
place during succeeding morning, afternoon and / or evening periods, no event
may start within 4 hours of the start of a previous event. The floodlit pitch, when
requiring floodlighting, may only be used for training and not for the playing
of competitive events under floodlit light.
Reasoning – This Council
submits that in the interest of safety and to prevent adverse effects on the
local environment, including nearby residential properties, there is an
over-riding need to limit, control and manage traffic, parking and pedestrian
movements generated by DSC and to ensure that the activities of DSC do not
increase. We submit that as part of achieving these objectives it is essential
to limit by planning condition/s and / or a section 106 agreement, the number
of contemporaneous events that DSC may host on the land which it controls in
this Parish.
4.
Prior approval of internal works to the club house – No site works to implement this approval may
commence until a Building Control approval for the internal alterations to the
club house has been obtained and DSC has confirmed to DPC that this approval
does not necessitate any expansion of the existing club house foot print nor
alteration of the works shown on the Plans and described in the Supplementary
Statement. Reasoning – We are
concerned that the facilities required and the internal space need has not been
tested in any detail particularly regarding compliance with part M (disabled
access) of the Building Regulations. If this were to lead to a need to increase
the club house foot print after the extended car park had been built the
options available for this are likely to be unacceptable to this Council.
5.
Community Amateur Sports Club Status – The uses permitted on the land shown edged both
blue and red on Plan B shall be personal to DSC and this approval will continue
only as long as it remains a registered community amateur sports club. Reasoning – Any further expansion of
DSC’s activities would be unacceptable to this Council We submit that a change
of status of DSC would inevitable lead to expansion. We therefore submit that
this is an appropriate way of guarding against further expansion.
6.
Disposal of Land Drainage Waters - No site works to implement this approval may
commence until EHDC confirms that it is satisfied that the method of disposing
of land drained water’s to the SW corner sump is appropriate and adequate. Reasoning – The concentration of extra
land drainage waters in an already boggy area seems to this Council to be
undesirable especially given the tentative undertaking at 3.9 of the
Supplemental Statement regarding improving drainage.
7.
Construction Traffic - No site works to implement this approval may
commence until EHDC confirms that it is satisfied with DSC’s proposed access
route and construction traffic management plan. Reasoning – At 3.6 of its Supplemental Statement, DSC sets out the
outline specification for the work on the new rugby pitch. This implies a
significant number of lorry movements delivering plant and materials. We submit
that this needs proper planning and control. Options exist for routes other
than access via the private road that could minimise unnecessary disturbance to
the adjoining residents.
8.
Fencing and Hedges – shall be installed as shown on the Plans. The post and rail fencing
shall be constructed in timber to a design that is similar to that used for
enclosing agricultural and equine fields in this area. The hedging shall be
properly cultivated by DSC until it is fully established including replacing
any stock in it that dies and thereafter shall be properly maintained and
regularly cut to keep an appropriate shape and height. Reasoning – We are keen to ensure that this important part of the
proposed scheme is carried out appropriately and thereafter nurtured and
properly maintained by DSC.
9.
Event Management Plans (which shall be understood to
include traffic management and parking) - No site works to implement this approval may commence until –
a.
DSC has
appointed a responsible person to review and take charge of the ongoing
planning and management of DSC’s routine and special events. The objectives
will be to –
i.
minimise
risk to road users and to DSC’s members and visitors,
ii.
ensure that
adequate signing is in place to direct visitors to parking and safe pedestrian
routes,
iii.
ensure that
nearby residents are able to come and go from their properties,
iv.
ensure that
cars do not park on Datchworth Green other than the number permitted in DSC’s
car park
v.
ensure that
the best use is made of the parking available to DSC and that cars are so
directed when they arrive - and
vi.
regulate the
flow of traffic to and from the club house so that it and access to it do not
become over-loaded.
b. DSC has sought and fully considered the written
advice of EHDC’s Safety Advisory Team (see
http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/pressrel/2003/030603_Events%20Guide.htm
) including the advice given in its guide to planning “Safe and Successful Events” (see http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/council/Guide%20to%20Safe%20and%20Successful%20Events.pdf)
c. DSC has prepared separate formal risk assessments and
event management plans in accordance with the principles of - http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/council/Appendix2RISKASSESSMENTMODEL.doc for its small (not more than 70 cars
expected), medium (not more than100 cars expected) and large (more than 100
cars expected) events. These plans shall include providing for the following –
i.
When it is reasonable
to expect more than 70 cars for an event hosted on land in the Parish that is
controlled by DSC, DSC will implement not less than the following signing and stewarding
arrangements –
1.
A named suitable
trained person (e.g. trained by the police, RFU etc.) shall be in charge of planning
for the event and on the day when signing and stewarding is expected to be
required.
2.
As pre-approved
by EHDC and Herts Highways, properly made and visible temporary signs (such as
those available from the AA or RAC) shall be deployed to ensure that the
availability and location of off-road parking for the DSC event is readily
apparent to those needing to park and that safe pedestrian routes from and to
these areas are identified. These signs shall be put out in sufficient time
before the event and removed immediately after the event.
3.
Stewards shall
be deployed to place cones marked “no parking” along the Green to reserve two
adequate passing places for vehicles and to ensure that these remain in place
whilst the event is in progress.
4.
Stewards shall
also be deployed to assist traffic to find available parking in the DSC car
park and elsewhere.
5.
DSC shall ensure
that all stewards are properly trained, clearly identified as officials of DSC
(e.g. by wearing suitably worded high-viz vests) and at least one steward in
each area is in radio communication with the person in charge of stewarding so
that availability and need for parking can be properly coordinated and so that
assistance can be sought, if required.
6.
Stewards shall
be deployed to assist at road crossing points where required.
ii.
Events at which
it is reasonable to expect more than 100 cars may only be held on land
controlled by DSC in the Parish when sufficient off road supplementary parking
is available and when event management as condition ci) above is in operation,
and in addition to coning-off as 9c3 above, no-parking cones are also placed at
frequent intervals along the north side of the road through the green.
d.
DSC has informed
and consulted with DPC and the residents of Datchworth Green about the outcomes
under and proposals resulting from b and c above and acted on any
representations made to it about its event management plans. These are also to
be approved by EHDC SAT.
e.
NOTE – DPC accepts that the above may be
better dealt with by a section 106 agreement. If EHDC is proposing this we
would wish to contribute to the content of such an agreement.
Reasoning – see 10 below.
10. Events – The continuation of the uses permitted by any
approval granted shall be conditional on DSC establishing, operating and
reviewing as appropriate (with re-consultation as at 9d above) the event
management plans agreed and approved at 9d above.
Reasoning –
The only guaranteed parking
available to DSC will be 50 spaces in its own car park and about 50 spaces on
the road adjoining the village green. As this is only 2 cars wide, parking on this
public road needs stewarding to ensure that adequate passing places are
maintained when more than 30 or so cars are likely to park on it during a DSC
event. It is unreasonable and unsafe for DSC to hold events that are likely to
generate more than 100 cars needing to park when they can not guarantee to
provide the necessary parking that their event will require.
11. Statutory Approvals
- No site works to implement this
approval may commence until DPC has confirmed that it has higher approval or
may and does give approval for the proposed works to the private access road to
the club house car park. Reasoning – DPC
is concerned to ensure that any approval can and will be implemented as a
whole.
