URGENT BUSINESS

REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –

TUESDAY 19 SEPTEMBER 2006

TCP/22221/E – P/00566/04

Demolition of golf driving range structure, single storey extension to form replacement golf driving range, proposed floodlighting, Westridge Golf Centre, Brading Road, Ryde

Officer: Mr S Cornwell, Enforcement Team Leader Tel: (01983) 823552

Summary

To consider a request by the site operator for limited use of the floodlights without complying with the planning condition which requires the installation of an earth bund and landscaping which is to act as a screen along the eastern boundary of the site eliminating any direct views of the floodlights from the east.

Background

Members may recall that they have considered this site over the past 2 years most recently in the autumn of 2005. I will nevertheless set out a brief summary of the planning history relating to this site before going on to the current request.

At the 13 July 2004 Development Control Committee meeting, Members considered a report on a planning application for a redevelopment of the site as outlined above. During the consideration of the planning application, the impact of operating the lights was noted as a contentious issue.

Having considered all the details placed in front of them including a number of representations, Members resolved to grant conditional planning permission and the decision notice was issued dated 16 July 2004. Whilst the replacement of the golf driving range structure, and single storey extension was given full planning permission the proposed flood light arrangement was only given temporary consent expiring 31 July 2007. This was to enable the impact to be reviewed at a later date. In addition to the other conditions relating to the floodlights, conditions 4 and 9 are particularly relevant to the consideration of this report.

Condition 4 states:

“The floodlights hereby approved shall not be operated after 21.00 hrs.”

Condition 9 states:

“No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a schedule of landscaping and earth mounding to be carried out along the eastern boundaries of the site. Such an agreed scheme to be fully carried out in the first planting season following the implementation of the development. Any trees which within a period of five years from the completion of development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.”

The reason behind both conditions was to protect the amenities of nearby residential properties.

In early November 2004 the Local Planning Authority received a complaint alleging that light pollution problems in the Seaview area were worse than ever following the installation of the new lights. During the investigation that followed it was identified that details of the landscaping and the nature of the earth bund had not been agreed. In early March 2005 a report was considered by the planning committee at which time Members agreed not to initiate any enforcement action with regards to non-compliance with condition 9 subject to limited use of the lights. The situation was assisted by the installation of some diffuser screens immediately in front of the lights which reduced their glare effect when viewed to the east. At that time, this was considered to be a practicable and acceptable solution to what was thought to be a short term problem.

The final detail with regards to the installation of the bund was submitted on 1 April 2005. In order to screen properties to the east from a direct line of sight of the lights it was found necessary to form a bund approximately 100m long on the eastern boundary with a 65m return on the southeastern boundary. The bund would range in height from 9.91m at its northern end up to 11.29m at its southern end. Whilst the direct line of sight would be obstructed the bund would not eliminate the halo effect. Work started on the importation of material to form the bund in early 2005.

In September 2005 officers were invited to a meeting with the operator and his agent at which time it was confirmed that the new screen bund was only 50% complete. Accordingly, the operator requested that the Local Planning Authority consider allowing him to operate the lights without the earth bund being fully in place in accordance with the same arrangements that had taken place over the previous winter period. To summarise, the lights would be switched off on Mondays to Fridays inclusive no later than 20.30 hrs (instead of 21.00 hrs) and on Saturday and Sundays at 18.30 hrs (instead of 21.00 hrs). The operator also confirmed that the lights would not be used after 31 March 2006.

The precise time during the late afternoon/early evening when the lights are switched on is influenced by the time of year. This was reflected in the information submitted by the agent which relates to the time when the lights are required.

· In June and July the lights are not required at all.

· In August and May the lights are switched on between 20.00 hrs and 21.00 hrs.

· In September and April the lights are switched on between 19.00 hrs and 20.00 hrs.

· In October and March the lights are switched on between 18.00 hrs and 19.00 hrs.

· In November and February the lights are switched on between 17.00 hrs and 18.00 hrs.

· In December and January the lights are switched on between 16.00 hrs and 17.00 hrs.

The report was considered at 4 October 2005 Development Control Committee Meeting at which time Members deferred the consideration of this item to enable a site inspection to take place and for them to reconsider the matter at 29 November 2005 meeting. At the subsequent meeting, Members agreed not to enforce compliance with condition 9 and also asked officers to review the situation earlier than originally anticipated in order that an indication could be given if the operator was making satisfactory progress towards completion of the bund in preparation for the use of the lights in the autumn of 2006.

Current Request

Following a telephone conversation, on 1 September 2006 I attended a meeting with the operator of the Westridge Golf Centre and his agent. At that meeting the following points were made.

• Close to completing the bund in certain areas but not in others.
• So far imported approximately 48,000 tons of the 60,000 tons of clean spoil material that is needed. Therefore, still 12,000 – 15,000 tons required.
• A number of development sites anticipated to provide material did not get consent.
• Quantity of material available varies, e.g. in the last two weeks of August imported 4,000 tons. If this level maintained, estimate would complete bund by beginning of November.
• Operator would wish to have limited use of lights starting at the end of September but does not wish to switch them on without committee clearance.
• Operator wishes to remind committee that last year had 400 signature petition in support.

Planning Policy Background

The following Unitary Development Plan Policies are considered relevant:

• G10 – Potential Conflict Between Proposed Development and Existing Surrounding Uses.
• D1 - Standards of Design
• D14 – Light Spillage

Circular 11/95 – The Use of Conditions for Planning Permission sets out the six tests for conditions. The principle behind the imposition of a condition is that in considering whether a condition is necessary, the Local Authority should ask itself whether planning permission would have been refused if a condition were not imposed.

PPG18 – Enforcing Planning Control indicates that Local Planning Authorities have a general discretion to take enforcement action when they regarded as expedient. In making this decision, authorities should be guided by a number of considerations including:

• The commissioner for local administration (The Local Ombudsman) has held in a number of investigating cases that they is maladministration if the authority fails to take effective enforcement action which was plainly necessary.

• In considering any enforcement action the decisive issue would be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the existing use of land and buildings meriting protection in the public interest.

• Enforcement action should be commensurate to the breach of planning control to which it relates.

PPG18 also advises that authorities should consider the impact of enforcement on small businesses or self-employed people. In that context, it encourages negotiations to explore whether a business can be allowed to continue operating acceptably on a site at its current level of activity or perhaps less intensively. Only if a mutually satisfactory compromise cannot be reached, should formal enforcement action be considered.

Representations

The Local Planning Authority has undertaken a limited consultation exercise writing to people who commented when the original application was being considered and also to those parties who have contacted the Council since November 2004 expressing a concern over the degree of light pollution they have been suffering. These letters went out on Friday 8 September 2006 with a request that any views be submitted by the 18 September 2006.

At the time of writing this report one response had been received from CPRE. Main points summarised below:

• Question how long LPA can continue to accommodate the breaches by turning a blind eye.
• Consider ample compliance time has already been provided.
• Even when the bund is built will not stop skyward spillage.
• LPA fully entitled to rescind planning consent as being in continuing breach of condition which would allow new conditions to be imposed addressing of light spillage more effectively.
• Our view is lights should now stay off until there is full compliance with current planning conditions.

In addition, CPRE attached copy of their letter of 29 September 2005. That letter sets out the CPRE prospective that the whole situation indicating a business justification should be provided by the operator that a Section 106 Agreement should be signed and that the driving range spot lights are not the only issue that should be addressed. Letter also expresses concern that matters being considered as urgent business items without giving the option for public speaking.

Options

1. Not to agree to the request to waive the requirement that the earth bund be in position before the lights are in use and to advise the operator that any such use of the lights will result in enforcement action to ensure that they are not used.

2. To agree to the request by the operator not to enforce full compliance with condition 9 of P/0566/04 – TCP/22221/E on the understanding that the lights are only used with the diffuser screens in place and switched off by 20.30 hrs on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and by 18.30 hrs on Saturdays and not used at all on Sundays.

3a. In anticipation of the projected completion of the project by 1 November 2006 to reconsider this item at the 21 November 2006 development control sub-committee meeting.

3b. To advise the operator that in the intervening time up until 21 November 2006 that enforcement action will not be taken with regards to the use of the lights providing the diffusers screens are in place and the lights are switched off by 20.30 hrs on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and by 18.30 hrs on Saturdays and not used at all on Sundays.

Conclusion

The condition requires the installation of the earth bund was imposed to protect the amenities of residents living east of the site. The nature of the use is such that the lights point horizontally down the driving range and consequently residents in that direction experience the equivalent of facing car head lights head on.

The solution that was arrived at over the last two winters was only anticipated as a temporary measure but unfortunately, as the time draws near when the operator wishes to use the lights again the bund has not been finished. Members will note from the information outlined above that a projected completion date should be reached in November (subject to the availability of material).

During the consideration of the previous request the Local Planning Authority has sought to balance the potential impact of not being able to use the facility on the business against the loss of amenities that may be suffered by local residents. Member may recall that as part of this process we toured the local area at the beginning of November 2005 looking back towards the golf driving range and the lights from a number of vantage points.

As part of the meeting on 1 September 2006 the lights were switched on and a number of locations visited in the Nettlestone area to try and assess the visual impact. Obviously, with all the trees still carrying their foliage and with the visit taking place during daylight hours the results are not totally reliable. This is particularly so at the Eddington Road area where it did not seem possible to view the lights. However, from Orchard Tree Close it was possible to see the two outer lights (numbers 1 and 5) whilst from Nettlestone Green it was possible to see lights numbers 2, 4 and 5. On Seaview Lane all five could be seen although two were partly screened by trees. Members will appreciate that the situation will change as more material is brought onto the site and Members will be given a further verbal update at the meeting.

I note the limited use which the operator proposes to make of the lights through September and October. For this reason and the possibility that the situation could be resolved in November I am proposing that Members advise the operator that the matter will be deferred until the 21 November 2006 meeting but in the mean time will take no enforcement action against them should he operate within the confines of the hours limitations set out above. On the basis that the operator will clearly seek to minimise the use of the lights to save energy costs I believe there will be a self imposed limitation on the level of usage.

In coming to this recommendation consideration has been given to the human rights of the parties concerned. Whilst it is acknowledged that local residents will experience some loss of amenity by virtue of the fact that the lights are operated without the earth bund and landscape screen this is not to the full level of intensity or use and consideration has been given to the impact on the applicants business. Accordingly, the recommendation outlined below is considered to be a proportional response to the situation.

Recommendation

3a. In anticipation of the projected completion of the project by 1 November 2006 to reconsider this item at the 21 November 2006 development control sub-committee meeting.

3b. To advise the operator that in the intervening time up until 21 November 2006 that enforcement action will not be taken with regards to the use of the lights providing the diffusers screens are in place and the lights are switched off by 20.30 hrs on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and by 18.30 hrs on Saturdays and not used at all on Sundays.