My contribution to Charnock Richard Golf Course / Wigan Athletic Academy 14/00641/FULMAJ

I am not, in principle, opposed to the application to develop a Football facility on the Charnock Richard, 18 hole, Golf Course land, especially as change of use from agricultural to what it is today went largely unopposed when the planning application for the Golf Course was approved.

I do however have several concerns regarding the plans that have been submitted and their impact on the Green Belt. I hope these concerns will be taken into account by the Planning Officers, when making a recommendation, and the members of the Development Control members Committee, when making a decision.

In common with all golf courses, Charnock Richard Golf Course comprised areas of finely tended greens, regularly mowed fairways and significant areas of rough, with long grass, hedgerows, trees and natural flora and fauna, much of which was left untended, the golf course was frequently unplayable due to it being waterlogged. The result was a significant area of natural wildlife habitat and also a landscape in keeping with the surrounding fields. In its current state, the many acres that were the Golf Course is even more of a wildlife haven.

The proposed football academy involves the generation of a large area of uninterrupted, finely tended and drained, football pitches, which will not only be without any features but will also employ a grass not endemic to, or in keeping with, the surrounding area.

The change can be clearly seen when comparing pages 5 and 6 of the Design and Access Statement. Page 5 is as it was when the golf course existed and looks in keeping with the surrounding area, page 6 is the proposed layout where all the natural features have been destroyed leaving a featureless, flat, uninterrupted expanse of unnatural grass and artificial turf.

During its existence several planning applications were submitted to alter the Golf Course, many were approved, some withdrawn and some refused. Those refused include the application for a temporary pay kiosk at tee 1 and extensions to the existing buildings. The extensions to the existing buildings were less than that part of the current application that alters the existing buildings, the refusals were because the applications were inappropriate in the Green Belt.

The temporary kiosk application was refused, as it was also considered inappropriate in the green belt and the land was described by the planning officer, not only as being in the green belt but, as an area of special landscape located within the green belt.

The proposed building alteration and the addition of a new indoor pitch, regardless of whether it is full size or not, result in a volume increase in excess of that suggested in planning policy, as it is volume that has an impact on openness of green belt not floor area.

There is no doubt that the application, not only the existing building alteration and in-particular the indoor pitch, but also the significant change to the openness that would come about through removal of natural breaks in the landscape which feature throughout the surrounding area, is inappropriate in the green belt. The applicant has therefore to demonstrate that there are very special circumstances that outweigh the harm to the green belt. Provision of outdoor sport may be considered a very special circumstance and we need to question whether an indoor pitch is essential for what is an outdoor sport, it might be good to have but is it essential? A vast expanse of uninterrupted playing fields and a large number of pitches simulating potential opposition grounds, enabled through the removal of natural breaks, may be good to have, but are they essential?

Football is an outdoor sport, as is Golf, and whilst planning policy may have changed the need to protect green belt not only remains but is increasingly important. The land remains the same land, on which a temporary kiosk was refused, so must still be an area of special landscape, worthy of protection.

There must be some way that a football academy can be developed whilst retaining many of the existing features, that Chorley Council Planners have previously confirmed to be part of an area of very special landscape. Pitches must be able to be laid out such that they are separated by existing, or even replanted, hedgerows and lines of trees, thereby retaining wildlife corridors and natural habitats. It must also be possible to provide some community use or benefit, previously there was a restaurant, retail golf shop and a sporting facility, open to anyone who chose to join, or pay to play; this football academy proposal does nothing even similar.

In summary, the application being inappropriate in the green belt is without question what is at question is whether the applicant can demonstrate very special circumstances that outweigh harm to the green belt, provision of outdoor sport being one of those very special circumstances.

I have little doubt that with some modification to the plans, to provide community use or benefit, obviously respecting the need for privacy of the elite players, and to protect the area, as described by Chorley Council’s Planning Officers as an area of special landscape, the application could become appropriate in the green belt.