PLANS for an artificial turf pitch (ATP) at Amery Hill School have received the thumbs down from Alton town councillors.

Despite a proven need, and while considered a good idea in principle, the proposed ATP, they say, Òis in the wrong placeÓ.

People power served to sway councillor opinion when the matter came up for discussion during last WednesdayÕs ATC planning committee meeting and the hope is, that having stood by their electorate, Hampshire County Council, as the ultimate decision makers, will honour that decision.

ÒThe weight of numbers in opposition should leave us in no doubt that if Amery Hill needs floodlighting for the ATP to be a viable proposition, then it is in the wrong location,Ó said Paddy Mendham.

It was standing room only at the meeting in the Town Hall when representatives of the Local ResidentsÕ Action Group presented their objections to the application for a floodlit ATP on the Amery School playing field.

It would, they said, severely affect their entitlement, under The Human Rights Act 1998, to Òthe peaceful enjoymentÓ of their properties.

While acknowledging the fact that an ATP would be an asset for Amery Hill pupils, Greenfields Avenue resident Philip Larking told the meeting that some 65 properties backed on to the school sports field and they would all be affected to a greater or lesser degree by noise and light pollution.

The requirement by the school to install floodlighting, to enable the facility to be let out to other users at weekends and in the evenings, as a commercial enterprise to subsidise maintenance and running costs, was key to their opposition.

ÒIf Alton needs this facility then it should be put somewhere more appropriate where it wonÕt interfere with the amenities of local residents. The applicants should not have the right to blight peopleÕs lives and put a blot on the landscape,Ó said Mr Larking.

Ros Hall, who lives at The Cloisters, pointed out that the 15 m high floodlighting pylons would not only have a detrimental impact on her own property which backs immediately on to the playing field but would Òalter the skyline for ever in Alton,Ó and damage the surrounding Conservation Area.

The Alton Society had also written to express concerns over noise and light pollution, particularly of neighbouring Flood Meadows.

The conclusion drawn by the residentsÕ action group was that the Amery Hill sports field was not large enough to accommodate a floodlit ATP and that any additional traffic generated by use of such a pitch would Òcause chaosÓ on surrounding roads.

They suggest that Anstey Park, Jubilee Fields or EggarÕs School would provide far more suitable sites which would not interfere in the same way with local residentsÕ amenities.

Speaking out in support of the need in Alton for an all weather pitch, Alton Hockey Club representative Robin Glanfield said that the club had not been able to play in Alton for 20 years because the Hockey Association insisted that league matches be played on astroturf.As a result, club numbers had fallen.

ÒWe appreciate the concerns expressed by residents but I believe the noise levels will not be a high as you think,Ó he said.

While acknowledging that EggarÕs had more land available for this sort of development, Dave Crocker pointed out that it was not up to the council to tell Amery Hill that it should put its pitch elsewhere.

He confirmed Mr GlanfieldÕs argument that there was a definite proven need in Alton for an ATP and it was not just hockey players who would benefit from it. The problem, however, was one of finance.

While Alton Town Council could possibly provide the land, it did not have the sort of money currently available to Amery Hill School to build such a pitch.

ÒI do not have a problem with the pitch itself but the floodlighting, positioned as it would be so close to the boundary, is unacceptable,Ó he said.