Brighton, Hove And Sussex Sixth Form College (BHASVIC) is to commission an extra sound survey after hundreds of people objected to a proposed sports pitch over fears of noise blighting shows staged by a popular outdoor theatre.
More than 900 people have objected to BHASVIC’s plans for an artificial grass pitch and multi-use games area on it sports field between Old Shoreham Road, Hove, and Dyke Road.
The site backs on to Dyke Road Park, home of Brighton Open Air Theatre (BOAT) which has also cited potential noise affecting performances.
BHASVIC principal William Baldwin said that the college needed to provide “first-class” facilities for students to compete with other providers, as well as create a community facility.
Currently, the sports pitches are not considered up to the standard of other sixth-form colleges and students are bused out to other facilities.
In a statement on the college website, it said that the theatre was already surrounded by playing fields and floodlit sports facilities in the park.
The theatre is already shielded from BHASVIC’s proposed new courts by mature trees and a sports pavilion.
The statement said: “The pitch will be dug down into the slope of the playing fields, creating a significant barrier between it and the theatre.
“The prevailing wind will take noise across the pitch and away from the theatre.
“Our noise management plan suggests there is enough acoustic attenuation as part of the pitch design to ensure that it will not lead to the disruption that BOAT claims.
“We did not deliberately avoid naming BOAT in the noise report. Instead they were not named because modelling shows that they are not impacted by it.”
A noise impact assessment zone image shows the effect on BOAT would be less than 50 decibels which is equivalent to the hum of a refrigerator, moderate rainfall or a quiet office.
In response to BOAT’s concerns the college is to commission an expanded noise impact analysis specifically around any impact on the theatre.
This would be additional to the correctly supplied noise reports commissioned as part of the planning application.
Mr Baldwin said: “I think many people have engaged with this story without engaging with the facts.
“Rather than look at a detailed noise impact assessment, people have gone with speculation from BOAT that this development will ‘render acoustic performance unviable’ when in reality the pitch has been designed to avoid that.”
Before submitting its application, BHASVIC consulted residents, stakeholders and user groups over three months last summer.
Planning conditions would require community use. A draft community use agreement, submitted as part of the application, would permit sports until 10pm from Monday to Thursday, until 6pm on Saturdays and 2pm on Sundays.
BOAT has welcomed the expanded noise impact analysis in response to a public outcry.
The solution put forward by BOAT is to restrict use of the pitches during the theatre’s summer season which would not affect student use and allow community hire from October to April.
Regarding the neighbouring sports facilities, BOAT have said that the park and Cardinal Newman School’s tennis courts are further away from the theatre and do not host regular matches during evenings and weekends.
BOAT general manager Will Mytum said: “BHASVIC’s assertion that use of the pitches would have no impact on BOAT is clearly absurd and reveals an incredible lack of understanding.
“We have over 11 years of experience running an outdoor theatre so we know intimately how noise travels in the park and what an inherent danger to our future these pitches would be.
“We would not be objecting so strongly if this wasn’t the case and the overwhelming number of objections from the public (almost 900 at time of writing) indicates the strength of feeling among the community.
“BHASVIC speaks of creating a community asset but in doing so would destroy an already established and beloved community asset.”
The application is available to view and for comment by searching for BH2025/02901 on the council website.
BHASVIC have to engage with BOAT and come to an amicable solution. 900 have so far registered their anger at the possible effect on the myriad events/shows at BOAT which is a National Treasure for Brighton and Hove and has huge support.
What a load of rubbish. BOAT is a much loved and frequented facility. There has never been interference from the tennis courts but they are not in the same proximity as the new proposed sports facilities with noise and lights. Why did they not look into this in the first place
Principal William Baldwin is just out to make a quick buck. He justifies the pitch as being to an improvememt on BHASVIC student facilities, but we know damn well this will be a cash cow. If the facilities are that bad, why were they not sorted out before? Why all of a sudden you have decided to do an extended sound impact assesment? You had the opportunity to do this before and chose not to because you didn’t expect so many objections? Sorry I don’t buy it. At the very least you need to compromise on use times
They did explain. A sound assessment showed BOAT was unaffected. To show goodwill, an extended one that focuses on BOAT specifically is being done. It’ll likely show the same result, logically speaking, but it unquestionably shuts down that argument.
Can’t wait for this new report. Principal Baldwin says “The impact on BOAT will be be less than 50db, which is roughly equivalent to the hum of a refrigerator.” I have a feeling this will not be the case. But I could be wrong. And I guess if they had made a comprehensive study to begin with the 1000+ objections might have been significantly less.
I’m reminded of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to uphold the appeal regarding the Gasworks. In their report, they noted that ‘the volume of public comments does not, in itself, constitute a strong argument.’
Meaning one good argument could defeat a thousand bad ones.
To be fair, commissioning an expanded noise impact analysis specifically around any impact on the theatre seems very reasonable.
Very similar to the recent Rottingdean battle, where an objector made some very good points about the environmental toxicity of artificial pitches and offered a natural alternative. https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2024/12/09/pitch-battle-as-artificial-school-playing-field-divides-community/
It seems eminently sensible to move forward with this initiative. It should have been considered beforehand and any meaningful engagement with BOAT could have highlighted the issues. As the plans stand & given the amount of opposition, I don’t think that planning should be granted. It beggars the question about the level of communication and consultation with interested parties. Imo the college and especially their agents have been negligent in their responsibilities. Let us not forget that this is public money.
The noise argument is easily countered by the noise assessment. The reason BOAT weren’t consulted with is sound. There’s not a strong objectionable ground. It’s been proven repeatedly that volume of feeling is not grounds for objection. There’s no evidence to suggest malfeasance or neglect.
So as it stands, there’s no problem with the plans. The expanded analysis is a respectful courtesy.
But noise and light pollution are valid objections. No-one suggested malfeasance nor neglect. It just seems that public money used to engage consultants who failed to envisage any impact on the surroundings is a waste. Anyone familiar with the environs could and should have foreseen this issue as is evidenced by this retrospective action. That is negligence not neglect and certainly not malfeasance which is a very different legal matter!
In a world where young people are watching how bully tactics and poor communication has led to tragedy and disaster, you would think an educational facility would welcome the chance to show how compromise and open communication is the key to any negotiation. Instead there is evidence of them shying away and ignoring suggestions. Poor teachings from BHASVIC!
Jeez Mr Baldwin, if you’re as condescending to your students as you to anyone here daring to question your reasoning, motives and empathy, they have my deepest sympathy. Please show a bit of humility and respect, you can very simply sort this by committing to avoid overlap with BOAT’s season/opening times and moving the location to the Old Shoreham Road end of your playing field. In these odd global might is right times, show a bit of genuine leadership, for your student community and this fabulous city. .
The obfuscation by Mr Baldwin really grates.
He says “We did not deliberately avoid naming BOAT in the noise report. Instead they were not named because modelling shows that they are not impacted by it.” Well, this is true of the residential properties on Dyke Road, which are further away, and as it turns out ARE specifically mentioned in the assessment. So why mention them and not BOAT??
Leadership is about owning your mistakes, acknowledging the strength of community feeling, and engaging in finding a solution, rather than making finger-pointy blanket statements such as “I think many people have engaged with this story without engaging with the facts.” Many people – myself included- have read all of the planning docs. This situation has arisen because BHASVIC and their agents have looked away from their neighbourly responsibilities.