Agenda item - BH2025/01757 - Tennis Courts, St Anns Well Gardens, Somerhill Road, Hove - Full Planning

1.        The Planning Team Leader introduced the application to the committee.

Speakers

2.        Graeme Kerr addressed the committee as a resident and stated that they were disappointed by the officer’s report, and seven nights a week for 365 days a year was excessive. The residents, who live in the 6 blocks of flats neighbouring the tennis courts, have not been consulted on 365 days a year. There has been no noise assessment, or site visit by the committee and no way of asking questions.

3.        Caroline Davies addressed the committee as a resident and stated that their main concern was that no detailed measurements have been taken regarding the distance from the tennis courts to the nearest residential properties. The application should therefore be invalid. The committee were asked to make a site visit before making a decision.

4.        Mari Quashie addressed the committee as a resident and stated that the impact assessment should have been submitted earlier. Under the equality act, the tennis courts would be considered noisy. By 6pm in the winter months there is a hiatus and residents can look at the stars, which will not be possible if there is light pollution. The committee were requested to make a site visit before making a decision.

5.        Ward Councillor Muten addressed the committee and stated they felt a compromise could be made, with an 8pm finish time instead of the submitted 10pm, which is too late, and reducing the number of days per week. Mitigations are needed.

6.        Ward Councillor Barton Ahmad addressed the committee and requested the committee vote against the application and visit the resident’s homes before making a decision. The suggested 8pm finish time is good. The councillor stated they were not anti-sport or tennis and considered that the gardens were well loved. There seems to have been a total lack of consultation, and the residents have been let down by the applicant. The biodiversity of the gardens is very good, including bats and birds. Dark skies should be a key consideration. The councillor objected to the application.

7.        Conrad Brunner addressed the committee as the applicant and stated that they were a reputable tennis company. Families use the courts between 6-9pm, a popular time. The court lighting needs to be good in winter as the darkness stops play. Lighting will allow tennis to continue. No bookings will be taken after 9pm. The lighting proposed is a modern design. The courts will encourage more social activity.

Answers to Committee Members Questions

8.        Councillor Lyons was informed by the lighting designer that the lighting would be the same as at Dyke Park, using Philips OptiVision lights, and they would be acting under very strict guidance. The case officer stated that the timings at Drove Way were till 9pm Monday to Sunday (including Bank Holidays), Dyke Road was open till 9pm and Hove Park was 10pm. The Planning Manager stated that each application should be looked at individually. It was noted the county ecologist had no objections. Under national guidance condition 8 required two bat boxes and two bird nesting boxes. Condition 9 required at least one bee brick and condition 4 required all ecological measures and/or works to be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Ecological Review Report.

9.        Councillor Shanks was informed by the applicant that the court lights would not be turned on if there were no bookings. Currently the lights are on till 9pm. The applicant confirmed it was one court, one light.

10.    Councillor Sheard was informed that the light mapping worked horizontally. The light readings reducing rapidly away from the courts. The Environmental Health team have assessed the application against Institute for Lighting Professionals guidance as if it were in a rural location, which is the restrictive and have no objections. It was noted that one Holly tree will be lost and condition 5 requires a Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP). It was noted that no post installation report was required and information submitted was acceptable.

11.    Councillor Pickett was informed that measurements were taken from the scaled drawings submitted by the applicant. It was noted that an equality assessment was not required. It was considered there was no discrimination. Details of light spillage are to be submitted, and if there is harm, the environmental health team can action. It was noted that the lights will have cowls on the back of each light to reduce glare. The lighting designer stated that the Philips OptiVision lights were the best. It was noted the installing company could not be controlled by condition.

12.    Councillor Parrott was informed that the if issues arise, then resident can report to environmental health, who will take assessments. The applicant stated they fulfil community interest needs and friends of the company have been informed of the proposals. There have been three public meetings, and the lights have been restricted to 9pm. The company represents the residents who enjoy the gardens and playing tennis. It was noted by the planning team leader that the correct public consultation had been undertaken. The applicant stated a small storage shed would be constructed on the land the between Sunnyhill Road and the tennis courts as this was considered the most discrete location with minimal intrusion. It was noted there was a full tree assessment submitted and there were no objections by the arboricultural officer.

13.    Councillor Winder was informed that increase in noise levels was not considered unacceptable and the tennis courts are available during the day. It was noted by the planning manager that the lights will be conditioned for tennis only.

14.    Councillor Nann was informed that it was not reasonable to add a condition allowing residents to complain directly to the company.

15.    Councillor Thomson was informed by the applicant that they were happy to talk to residents and stated that the Lux levels would be at factory setting. The lighting designer stated that the 8m height was needed and the lights would have a direct focus down onto the court, with no lighting into the sky. The installation would be carried out under strict guidance. It was considered that the glare would be less than street lighting on resident’s windows. The lights would be set at a maximum of 650 to prevent any nuisance to residents.

16.    Councillor Earthey was informed by the applicant that they had spoken to Ward Councillor Muten and Barton Ahmad and were happy to talk further.

Debate

17.    Councillor Lyons supported the application as they considered 9pm was fair considering other parks in the city. The councillor was satisfied with the lighting expert’s responses and considered there would not be much play in winter anyway.

18.    Councillor Sheard stated on the plus side the local community would be able to play tennis late, and on the negative side there were concerns. The councillor stated they were leaning towards granting planning permission.

19. Councillor Shanks requested an 8pm or 8.30pm finish time.

20. Councillor Pickett stated they were not opposed to tennis in the evening, however, there was not consultation with residents. The councillor requested an 8pm or 8.30pm finish time.

21. Councillor Nann considered there was no planning reason to not vote for the application. The councillor asked the applicant to talk to residents.

22.  Councillor Parrott considered there was no planning reason to refuse the application. The councillor was disappointed there had been no consultation with residents, and considered conversations were better.

23.  Councillor Thomson noted there were opposing views on the application.

24.  Councillor Winder stated that they wanted the application to work for all, as the proposal was good and they wanted the residents to feel better.

Motions

25.  Councillor Nann proposed a motion, seconded by Councillor Lyons, to amend condition 6 to include a post installation survey.

26.  A vote was held and the committee agreed the motion unanimously.

27.  Councillor Pickett proposed a motion, seconded by Councillor Shanks, to reduce the finish time to 8pm.

28.  A vote was held and by 3 to 6 against the motion was not agreed.

Vote

29.  A vote was held and the committee agreed unanimously to grant planning permission as amended.

30.  RESOLVED: That the Committee has taken into consideration and agrees with the reasons for the recommendation set out in the report and resolves to GRANT planning permission subject to the Conditions and Informatives in the report.