REPORT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE –
TUESDAY 04 OCTOBER 2005
|
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) 823592
Summary
To
consider a request by the site operator for limited use of the flood lights
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.
Background
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 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 the single storey extension was given
full planning permission the proposed flood light arrangement was only given
temporary consent expiring on 31 July 2007. This was to enable the impact to be
reviewed at a later date. In addition to other conditions relating to the flood
lights 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 commencement of development. Any trees which within a period of 5
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 Seaview were worse than ever following the
installation of the new light. The
initial investigation revealed that the details to be agreed had not been
submitted as required before the installation of the new lights. The
construction of the bund and its planting was required in the first planting
season, i.e. by end of March 2005, so initially that part of the condition was
not breached. Through November and December 2004 and through January, February
and March 2005 the Local Planning Authority was investigating and corresponding
with the site operator and a number of interested parties on this matter. In
late January 2005 a scheme showing the proposed bund was submitted but this was
rejected as it was considered unsatisfactory. In late February 2005 faced with
the possibility of action by the Local Planning Authority requiring the lights
to be switched off, the operator fitted a number of diffuser screens across the
front of the lights which did reduce their impact to some degree. Obviously,
the diffusers did not eliminate the direct line of sight of the light from the
Nettlestone/Seaview area as this would only be addressed by the installation of
the earth bund. In discussion with the operator in early March 2005, it was
agreed that if the lights were operated up until 31 March 2005 for a limited
time (Mondays to Fridays) up until 2030hrs and not at weekends after 1830 hrs then
the Council would not initiate any enforcement action. After this date they
would be switched off and not re-used until all the planning conditions were
satisfied. On balance, this was considered to be an acceptable solution to what
was at that time considered to be short term problem.
The final
detail with regards to the installation of the bund was submitted on 1 April
2005. The details showed a proposal for a structure approximately 100m long on
the eastern boundary with a return 65m long on the south eastern boundary. The
bund would range in height from 9.91m at its northern end to 11.29m at its
southern end. Information was submitted to show that a structure of this size
would obstruct a direct line of sight from the properties in the Nettlestone
area of the light units. Obviously, it would not eliminate the halo effect. After
clarification on the engineering detail of building such a feature, the
submitted details were accepted as partial compliance with the planning condition
with the two remaining areas identified as firstly the landscaping details and
secondly the issue with regard to the screening to be provided beyond the
northern edge of the bund that would protect the amenities of the properties
off Bullen Road. For Members information in March the importation of material
to form the bund had already commenced in recognition of the magnitude of
material that would be required to form an effective screen.
The
operator adhered to the agreement as specified above.
On 15
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 is only 50%
complete and due to general ground conditions, no major progress is likely to
be made over the winter months. Accordingly, the operator is requesting that
the Local Planning Authority consider allowing him to operate the lights
without the earth bund being in place. A letter from the agent makes the
following points (summarised) with your officer’s commentary attached.
·
The
new screening bund is now about 50% complete with materials brought in from
sites in and around the Ryde area. It is not cost effective to bring material
from beyond Ryde, Sandown and Shanklin due to transport costs – (The Local
Planning Authority: cost is not a planning consideration.)
·
Had
anticipated a greater supply of material from a number of sites but their
development has been delayed – (LPA: this is not a planning consideration.)
·
Material
will be run into Westridge while the weather is dry. However, on wet days
lorries cannot gain access to the tipping area. Whilst a certain amount of
stock piling can take place concerned lorry movements will transfer mud onto
the main road outside Tescos creating a traffic hazard – (LPA: the operator can
install temporary roadways and/or wheel washes.)
·
Anticipated
remaining spoil to be brought into the site from early spring 2006 so that the
bund can be completed by late summer 2006 – (LPA: Members will place such
weight on this as they consider appropriate in light of progress to date.)
·
Operator
accepted if allowed to put the flood lights back on over the dark Winter nights
will reduce the number of hours so that Monday to Friday they will be switched
off at 20.30 hrs instead of 21.00 hrs and on Saturday and Sunday 18.30 hrs
instead of 21.00 hrs. – (LPA: this is a matter for Members to consider.)
·
With
the nights drawing in and over the winter customers cannot use the course and
turn to the range for golf practice. If the range had no flood lights during
the winter time business would suffer considerably and some staff would need to
be laid off. Driving ranges in general all over the country rely on risk trade
during the winter months to balance out the lack of summer trade – (LPA: this
is not a planning consideration and the operator’s business model risk
assessment should have allowed for a failure to comply with conditions and
service of enforcement proceedings.)
A further
letter has been received sent from the operator’s agent with a graph depicting
the variable times throughout the year when lights are used. These are as
follows:
In June
& July - Lights are not required at all.
In August
& May - Lights switched on between 2000 hrs and 2100 hrs. Switched off at
2100 hrs
In
September & April - Lights switched on between 1900 hrs and 2000 hrs.
Switched off at 2100 hrs
In
October & March - Lights switched on between 1800 hrs and 1900 hrs.
Switched off at 2100 hrs
In
November & February - Lights switched on between 1700 hrs & 1800 hrs.
Switched off at 2100 hrs
In
December & January - Lights switched on between 1600 hrs and 1700 hrs.
Switched off at 2100 hrs
Planning Policy Background
The
following Unitary Development Plan Policies are considered relevant:
G10 Potential conflict between proposed development
and existing surround 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 any condition is that in
considering whether a condition is necessary the 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 regard it 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 there is maladministration if the authority
fails to take effective enforcement action which was plainly necessary.
·
In
considering any enforcement action the decisive issue should 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 he
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
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 concern
over the degree of light pollution they have been suffering. The deadline for
these comments is the 3 October 2005. To date one representation has been
received objecting to the proposal making the following points:
·
Even
with lights switched off at 2030 hrs and 1830 hrs sunset evenings will be badly
polluted.
·
Operator
shown total disregard to planning authority and everyone affected by intrusive
lights.
·
Questionable
if he will manage to complete work by 2006.
Any
further representations received will be reported at the meeting.
Options
|
|
The condition requiring the installation of the earth bund
was imposed to protect the amenities of residents east of 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 headlights head on.
The solution that was arrived at over last winter was only
considered as a temporary measure for a limited period of time and allowed
residents some assurance that the situation would not arise again. Although not
specified by the operator, I would anticipate that very shortly if not already,
he would wish to switch on the lights and continue to operate them until 31
March 2006.
Clearly, the Local Planning Authority must consider the
impact of enforcing the condition on any business. However, this has to be
balanced against the adverse impact that the lights have on the amenities of
local residents. This is clearly a difficult balance to make. Based on the
assessment over the last winter the lights will clearly be seen from a number
of public vantage points in the Nettlestone area. With regards to the impact
from private residential properties, I consider that over the winter months
residents would be less likely to use conservatories later into the evening and
as the nights close in would be more likely to close their curtains and
therefore it would not be normal to expect the light pollution to invade into the
residential properties.
There is nevertheless general concern over light pollution
in the wider locality. At this time of year with the trees still in leaf it is
not possible to fully assess the potential visual impact of allowing the lights
to operate over the coming winter months. Furthermore, if Members wished to
visit the area to assess for themselves the potential impact then such a visit
could not take place in the early part of the evening. Accordingly, it is
considered that the impact of the lights on the general area is only likely to
emerge after most if not all of the trees have shed their leaves and the clocks
have gone back. This is reflected in the recommendation above. Obviously, if
Members agree to this recommendation, it would be appropriate to advise the
operator that subject to keeping within the hours he had specified that the
Council would not during this period of deferment take enforcement action
against the business.
However, Members are advised that floodlighting is often an
integral part of any golf driving range application, and certainly appears to
have been so in the case of this application. There is also the established
doctrine that a condition which effectively negates permission is to be
regarded as unreasonable (see Circular 11/95, para. 35). In this instance
permanent permission was given to the driving range but the lights were
restricted to a 3 year period, using the rationale that if found unacceptable
no doubt the LPA would then contemplate further restrictions on their use or,
in extremes, have them removed altogether given the test of reasonableness set
out in Circular 11/95.
In coming to this recommendation consideration has been
given to the human rights or the parties concerned. Whilst I acknowledge that
in the intervening period local residents will experience a loss of amenity by
virtue of the fact that the lights are operated without the earth bund and
landscape screen consideration has been given to the impact on the applicants
business and pending any final decision by the Development Control Committee
such a situation is considered proportionate.
|
Recommendation In recognition of the fact that
the trees are still carrying their leaves which would not enable a full
assessment of the potential impact of operating the lights and secondly in
recognition that the nights have not drawn In as much as they would be, to
defer consideration of this request until the 1 November 2005 Development
Control Committee Meeting. Such a deferment would also enable Members individually
or collectively to visit the site to assess the degree of impact. To advise the operator that until
the consideration of this proposal no enforcement action will be initiated
against them on the understanding that the lights are not used after 2030 hrs
on Mondays to Fridays, after 1830 hrs on Saturdays and at no time on a
Sunday. |
ANDREW ASHCROFT
Head of Planning
Services