Agenda item - BH2015/02509 - Pavilion & Avenue Lawn Tennis Club, 19 The Droveway, Hove - Full Planning

Installation of 8no eight metre high floodlights to courts 6, 7 and 8.

RECOMMNEDATION – GRANT

Installation of 8no eight metre high floodlights to courts 6, 7 and 8.

              Officer Presentation

1)               The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to plans and drawings, an aerial view was also provided to give a better understanding of the vegetation surrounding the site. The impact on neighbouring amenity was deemed to be acceptable, and the conditions in the report proposed restricting the level of light and the hours of use. The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.

Questions for Officers

2)               In response to Councillor Barradell it was confirmed that the baffles under the lights would reduce the light to a level the ecologist considered acceptable in relation to bat foraging and commuting.

3)               In response to Councillor Bennett the height of the existing lights was confirmed. It was also confirmed there had no complaints in relation to the existing light levels, and no statutory nuisance established.

4)               In response to Councillor West it was confirmed that the proposed lights would be the same height as the existing ones of the floodlit courts. In relation to sustainable transport there were several bus routes and intermittent cycle routes which was considered as good as the general provision across the city.

5)               In response to Councillor Wares it was confirmed that use of the courts was restricted to members of the tennis club and proportionate weight should be given to the increase in provision; however, this wasn’t to say that it outweighed the potential harm. 

6)               It was confirmed for Councillor Bennett that no harmful impact in terms of transport had been identified in relation to the application.

7)               In response to Councillor Hamilton it was confirmed that the hours of use would be restricted to those of the existing floodlights.

8)               In response to Councillor Morris it was confirmed that the current operation of the lights was by token; which stopped them being used in excess of the court usage.

Debate and Decision Making Process

9)               Councillor Bennett noted the huge impact this type of light pollution could have on resident’s lives; she stated that the club already had floodlights and that she would not support the Officer recommendation.

10)            Councillor Wares stated that he had observed high levels of illumination when he visited the site; he had concerns for the overall cumulative impact on amenity for the residents in the area and for these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation.

11)            Councillor West noted he had concerns in relation to traffic on the Droveway and the impact on ecology – for these reasons he would not support the Officer recommendation. 

12)            Councillor Miller stated he would not support the Officer recommendation and was of the view that the impact on the Droveway had not been fully considered.

13)            Councillor O’Quinn stated that this level of light could be intrusive into resident’s homes; for this reason she would not support the Officer recommendation.

14)            Councillor Inkpin-Leissner stated he would not support the Officer recommendation.

15)            Councillor Morris also stated that he had visited the site at night time and was alarmed by the levels of the light; for this, and the others reasons highlighted in the debate, he would not support the Officer recommendation.

16)            Councillor Barradell stated that she was not convinced that this would add to traffic issues in the area, but she still had concerns in relation to ecology.

17)            Councillor C. Theobald stated that the additional impact on residents was unfair and she would not support the Officer recommendation.

18)            The Chair noted the additional lights would add to the cumulative impact and she would not support the Officer recommendation.

19)            A vote was taken by the eleven Members present on the Officer recommendation that permission be granted and this was not carried on a vote of 2 in support with 9 against. Councillor Bennett proposed reasons for refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Inkpin-Leissner, a short adjournment was then held to allow the Chair, Councillor Bennett, Councillor Inkpin-Leissner; the Planning & Building Control Applications Manager; the Solicitor; the Principal Planning Officer and the Technical Officer to draft the reasons in full. These were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they reflected those that had been put forward. A recorded vote was then held and Councillors: Cattell, O’Quinn, C. Theobald, Bennett, Inkpin-Leissner, West, Miller, Morris and Wares voted that permission be refused; Councillors: Barradell and Hamilton voted that permission not be refused.

142.3    RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below:

Reason 1

              The proposed lighting will result in a development having an adverse cumulative impact on the amenities of nearby residents by reason of the resulting total overall visible light levels.  The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies QD26 and QD27 of the saved Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

              Reason 2

              The development will result in an increased and detrimental noise and disturbance impact on nearby residents.  This development is therefore contrary to Policies SU10 and QD27 of the saved Brighton & Hove Local Plan 2005.

Note: Councillor Mac Cafferty was not present at the meeting.