|
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 |
Members will recall considering this application at the last meeting where a decision was taken to defer in order to enable Officers to further investigate the matter before the application is determined.
The
proposal represents a significant investment in terms of an important
recreational/tourist facility and the applicant mindful of the timetable that
he would have to adhere to to carry out the necessary work has asked that
Members now determine the application.
The report
considered by Members at the last meeting is attached as an appendix.
The decision to defer consideration at the last meeting arose from (written) representations from a small number of residents living in Nettlestone who allege that the existing facility was a significant source of light pollution causing them a loss of amenity. The Ward Member supported this view and together with other Members of the Committee put forward various suggestions on how the situation could be improved in order to mitigate or eliminate any light pollution from the improved facility in an easterly direction towards properties on the western edge of the built up area of Nettlestone approximately one mile away.
The Development Control Manager wrote to the applicant focussing on three key areas:
Notwithstanding the technical information submitted as part of the application it was decided to give the applicant the following advice:
…, if you are to pursue the application in the submitted form, you need to be able to establish that the proposed installation compared with the existing system will not only improve facilities for people using the golf driving range, but will also lessen the degree of light pollution for people whose property enjoys a westerly aspect across the valley looking back towards Westridge. I appreciate that my colleague covered this in his report but you (or your advisers) need to provide easily understandable lay evidence to support the arguments that new arrangements will actually reduce the level of pollution or impact suffered by residents living between 1,600 metres from the site. It appears to me that if you are able to establish a positive outcome on this particular issue, then there is no sustainable objection to the application, even if Nettlestone residents maintain their objections.
In accordance with
the instruction from Members the letter then outlined possible alternatives
which had been suggested by Members.
The applicant has submitted a written response indicating that for good reasons he is not prepared to amend the scheme in terms of the overall layout and the floodlighting arrangements but he is agreeable to some form of landscaping/planting, he has made two specific requests:
He states that he awaits the same positive response from Members as he has received form professional Officers.
He has also provided us with a summary prepared by the Lighting Consultant which includes the following observations:
Existing floodlights are 1000W high pressure
sodium parabolick type and are of a design used in the 1970’s. they are for no
glare control or internal baffles to shield the lamp from areas outside the
range facility.
The proposed improvements to the lighting include
changing the existing floodlights to a modern equivalent produced by Abacus
Lighting Limited.
The AL5900 Series Challenger 3 floodlight uses the same colour light source s the existing system, however, advanced in reflector and lamp technology have led to reductions in the size of the floodlight and the control of glare.
The proposed floodlight also
includes an internal baffle and can be fitted with an external hood to reduce
the effect of upward light, and direct glare towards residential properties.
One of the key observations in this part of the supporting information
includes a comment that, in the view of the consultant, “it would be prudent to
change all of the existing equipment as a more efficient and environmentally
friendly solution can be achieved.” The consultant is of the view that the
proposed floodlighting arrangements will not increase the levels of glare
currently experienced by residents and if fitted with suitable hoods will offer
greater light pollution control than the present situation.
Regrettably it is not possible to provide Members will individual copies of the lengthy technical report provided by the consultant at the time of submission of the application however, the report will be made available fro Members inspection prior to the meeting. In my view there is sufficient information in the last report and this latest report to enable Members to make a decision on the application.
Notwithstanding the submission of written representations prior to the
matter being considered by Members as well as addressing the Members at the
last meeting the Chairman for the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has
made further detailed representations. These comments can be summarised in the
following terms:
1. To grant conditional planning permission in accordance with the recommendation set out in the appended report considered by Members at the last meeting with additional conditions as follows:
2. To refuse permission.
Since this matter
was deferred three weeks ago the Development Control Manager has investigated
the situation and had detailed discussions with the applicant.
In principle there is clearly no objection to the provision of an improved facility in this particular location.
The only outstanding issue relates to the proposed floodlighting arrangements for the new extended range.
It is apparent that the existing arrangements are not ideal but attention should be focussed on the latest application and the new floodlighting plan. On the basis of the technical information provided by the applicant and his consultants both before and since the last meeting it is apparent that the proposed development will not only provide an improved facility for existing and future users of the driving range but will also minimise any potentially damaging effects on residents living to the east of the site arising from light pollution. It is my view that the imposition of appropriate conditions will achieve this particular objective.
If due regard is given to the factors included in the earlier report and this report it will be clearly very difficult to justify refusing planning permission on this particular issue if technical expertise and the imposition of appropriate conditions can prove that the redevelopment of the facility with the provision of modern floodlighting equipment will not have a detrimental effect on residents who live a considerable distance from the site. Consequently suggestions relating to the reorientation of the driving range or changes to the positioning of the proposed floodlighting are difficult to justify and, in any case, have been discounted by the applicant.
Notwithstanding the comments contained in the preceding paragraph the review of the application undertaken by the Development Control Manager has been a worthwhile exercise inasmuch as we are able to reaffirm our recommendation for conditional approval based on information provided by the applicant’ consultant in conjunction with the cooperation of the applicant we can now impose further conditions in connection with agreeing details of the floodlighting for the whole site before the new driving range is brought into use and also achieving a degree of landscaping/planting to reduce the visual impact of the operating facility during hours of darkness.
To grant conditional
planning permission in accordance with the recommendation set out in the
appended report considered by Members at the last meeting with additional
conditions as follows:
· That all illumination/lighting/floodlighting on the facility should be replaced with new lighting in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before the replacement driving range is brought into use.
· That a landscaping/planting scheme to mitigate against any alleged or potential light pollution be agreed with the Council before the replacement driving range is brought into use with the necessary landscaping (land moulding etc.) carried out within three months to be followed by planting during the first available planting season.