Agenda item

EP introduced the application as above, to add six retractable floodlights to the existing hockey pitch.  These would to 15m high when extended, 3.5m when retracted, with controls on usage – until 7.00pm Monday to Friday, and until 6.00pm on Saturdays. A lighting report was submitted with the application; its findings have been verified and are acceptable.  Officers accept that the proposal will have some impact on neighbours, but deem this to be temporary.  There are no objections from highways officers.  On balance, the application is considered to be acceptable.

Public Speaking

Dr Sally James, neighbour, in objection

Although this proposal will cause personal distress to those living close to the site due to light intrusion to their properties, neighbours are more concerned about the harm to the conservation area brought about by 15m-high floodlights, which will dwarf houses and trees and dominate the skyline.  This will have an overwhelmingly negative impact and be quite out of keeping with the conservation area.  The NPPF sets out that new development should have positive impact, but there is no public benefit from this application, and the school’s undoubted economic success is clearly not dependant on the installation of these floodlights.  On the contrary, the proposal will cause harm, and in conditions of mist and drizzle, the light level will be as much as 50 lux.  Any need for these lights has not been demonstrated – the school desires them rather than needs them, even though pupils prefer indoor sports to outdoor team-based activity.  If hockey was timetabled for the morning, the question could be asked as to why a second pitch is needed at all?  In addition to this, there are potential road safety concerns when the floodlights are illuminated, causing bright light and dark shadow to fall between buildings on the adjacent road near the junction.  This can be lethal, as the eye takes time to react.  With additional traffic from visiting schools, all road users will be at risk from accident and injury.    If this application is permitted, in an E2 zone in a conservation area, it will set a new precedent for Cheltenham, and floodlights will be allowed anywhere by referencing this decision.  For these reasons, the application must be refused.

Miss Jardine Young, applicant, in support

The subject of this application was first introduced as part of integrated plan for all sport, health and fitness facilities, in November 2015.   The floodlighting element of the scheme was subsequently withdrawn before Planning Committee, to allow for the College’s lighting consultant to respond to questions from the independent lighting consultant appointed by CBC officers – did not want to put the College’s name to an application whose technical specifications were complicated, and for which there was not agreement between two professionals.  All elements of the floodlighting scheme, including light spillage, lux factors and the light source, have now been re-examined by council’s independent consultant – defers to their expertise on those technical aspects.  The question as the need for this application is very important.  For over 20 years, CLC has sought additional floodlighting, but thus far not been successful.  However, with new technology and an enormous amount of work to demonstrate via the  justification statement, the  case has hopefully been made more clearly and the evidence stands up to scrutiny.  As a girls-only school , have never had pitches for cricket or rugby, and space is finite.  If there was a cheaper, easier or more straightforward way to achieve improvement to the health and fitness programme in the school, it would have been promoted before the submission of this application. 

Councillor Mason, ward councillor, in objection

Just over a year ago, it was a relief that the tricky issue of floodlighting was withdrawn from the Ladies College application for sports hall.  The NPPF states that any application in a conservation area should have a public benefit, but there is none here.  The college says there is a need for this facility, but after the sports hall is completed, it will have threehockey pitches to use out of daylight hours.  This conservation area currently has a lighting zone level classed as E2, and this issue is not fully explored in the report.  PPG Paragraph 13 states that when assessing any application for development which may affect the setting of a heritage asset, LPAs may need to consider the impact of cumulative change, threatening its ongoing conservation.  A heritage asset is defined as a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified with a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions.  The Guidance for Conservation Areas allows the Committee to think about future applications.  Normally, whether a school wishes to install floodlights that don’t meet the relevant sporting body’s minimum standards isn’t a planning issue; these floodlights just meet planning requirements but not England Hockey’s safety standards of 350 Lux.  There is a strong likelihood, therefore, that if this application is permitted, a future application will be made as CLC has a duty of care to ensure a safe playing area.  The point here is that as soon as the floodlights applied for today are switched on, the area will no longer be classed as E2, and even brighter floodlights will be permissible, with far-reaching effects of light pollution on a number of roads.  Future applications will not be considered by today’s standards.

There is a sense of déjà vu with this application: the previous sports hall application and the application for floodlights at Well Place tennis courts, which back onto residential properties.    This was rejected at appeal, with the Inspector stating that after dark, the courts would normally be silent, and activity and noise in consequence of introducing floodlights would cause irritation, disturbance, and possibly domestic difficulties with small children at bedtime.  He also said a brightly lit space in close proximity with surrounding houses would have a negative effect on the living conditions of those residents and be contrary to Local Plan Policy CP4.  These lights were only 8m high.  The precedent of this appeal decision gives grounds for refusal. 

CBC has dealt with other applications for floodlighting in residential areas.  At Dean Close, where a light level of 2 lux – the level this application will bring - would have hit a neighbouring house, CBC requested the removal of the pitch to reduce the level to 1 lux.  Residents in Eldorado Crescent were offered some protection from a previous CLC application from the installation of a bund and the sinking of the pitch below ground level.  However, the residents of Christ Church Road are being offered nothing at all.

Member debate

CN: are we certain that the 5 lux limit does not apply to gardens?  What lux levels actually apply in gardens?  The residents of 17 Christ Church Road have had a conversation with English Hockey regarding new regulations and the minimum light intensity required for play.  Can officers comment on that?

KS:  Dr James raised the issue of light spillage between buildings.  The junction opposite is perilous even during the day.  Has this been considered by Highways?

PB:  is interested in officer comments on the relevance of the application referred to by Councillor Mason. 

EP in response:

-       Regarding the 5 lux limit, the issue here is that British Standard advice refers to light falling on properties, while other guidance refers to light falling on windows.  Officers looked at appeals round the country, all of which referred to windows, not gardens.  The Environmental Health team also refers to windows.  Officers are happy with their interpretation;

-       Regarding the query about the 350 lux the speaker mentioned, it is understood that the objectors have spoken to England Hockey who informed them that they are currently working on new guidance which may change the recommended lux levels. However, this is not available at present, and the applicants have designed the scheme  to meet 300 lux in line with present guidelines.  In any event it is not the planning authority’s role or requirement to comment on what light level the applicant wants to propose;

-       Regarding the light at the junction, there is a paragraph in the blue update including a comment about this from Highways.  Officers are happy that the light spillage will have no adverse impact.  Neither are they concerned about the impact of coaches;

-       Regarding the question about the Lux levels in the garden, with reference to number  17 – 25 lux line clips corner of site, and depends on what part of the garden a person is standing in;

-       Regarding the Well Place appeal, this was very different:  the site is smaller – a pocket of land between residential properties – and the lights were required until 8.00pm.  This would have had an additional impact, and there was a specific reference in that appeal that if a 7.00pm limit had been proposed, this would have been materially different. 

BF:  this is an application where Members have to make a judgement.  They must look at what the application is actually for:  floodlighting until 7.00pm.  This is not as long as normal street-lighting times, and won’t be every night.  Has sympathy for the people who live nearby, but the college has been there a very long time, and this is what people get when they live near a sports complex; the lights at Bournside School sports facility stay on until 10.00pm.  One of the representations referred to peregrines and bats in the area; has done some research and learnt that peregrines are surviving better in urban locations than rural, as street lighting enables them to hunt for longer and increase the chance of them having a better diet.  Other nocturnal creatures also have a better chance of survival in towns for the same reason.  Cheltenham Ladies College is an integral part of the town, and in his opinion, this application is not overly intrusive.  On balance, will support the officer recommendation; 7.00pm is not that late, and CLC has done all it can to appease the neighbours.  Notes that some trees in the area need to be pollarded, and suggests a taller hedge may help, but this is down to CLC management, not CBC.

KH:   agrees with BF.  As Committee Members will know, likes listed buildings and conservation areas, and always pays particular attention to any application regarding them, but cannot be persuaded that this application will cause unacceptable harm to the conservation area.  The lights are retractable, not there all the time, and both can and will be taken down between use.  As BF has said, they will not be used after 7.00pm; has lived and worked near floodlit pitches which are in use much later than this.  Cannot think that it will cause any harm to young children’s bedtimes.  The lights will only be needed for a few months of the year, and cannot see that they will have too much of a negative effect on the living conditions of local residents.  Wants to support the endeavour of the applicant in what it is trying to do; it can’t be denied that this is an elite school, but this should make no difference.  The floodlights will support the pupils and promote sport.  Is happy to support it. 

CN:  does not consider this application quite as black and white as the previous one, and consideration is much more finely balanced.  CLC has worked hard at addressing the problems which caused them to withdraw the floodlighting element of the previous application.  The retracted masts will be 1m shorter, backspill has been addressed, and buffering to reduce the noise.  This is a conservation area, but the conservation officer, environmental health and lighting consultant are all content, and the school is a major asset to the town.  All this is on one side of the case, but on the other side, it is clear that the light spillage into neighbouring gardens will be high– and although this may not be shining directly through a window, it is still a lot of light in these gardens.  On Planning View it was clear that the loss of amenity will have a big impact on these houses.  As ever, there is a balance to be considered between the benefits to the school and to the town – though in this case, there are no public benefits – and the undeniable harm to the unfortunate residents living nearby. 

PB:  cannot believe that CLC would have spent so much effort and money – for which credit must be given – to get to where we are today with this planning application.  They must need this facility; they would not be proposing it otherwise.  It is a shame that the facility won’t be open to the public although that would of course result in even greater problems for the local residents.  CLC contributes greatly to the town, and even though there is no public benefit from this proposal, and the impact should be marginal as by definition, the lights will only be on at night.  On balance, as CLC has gone so far to placate the local needs, is happy to support the application.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

11 in support

1 in objection

3 abstentions

PERMIT

The meeting ended at 7.25pm.