Loading document...
1.1 The site defined in red on plan 01 represents the bowling green at Breagle Glen together with the walkway around it, part of which is covered (the northern edge of the green and part of the western edge). To the north of the green is a grassed slope and to the north of this is a machine shed. To the east of the green are residential dwellings - numbers 25, 27 and 28, Sunnydale Avenue are the closest properties. To the south is the cafe associated with the green and to the west is the car park associated with the glen, the green and the cafe. The site is accessed from St. George's Crescent by a roadway which leads downhill to a hard surfaced car park which rises uphill towards the bowling green.
2.1 Proposed is the removal of condition three of the approval for the erection of the floodlights. This states:
The lights and poles closest to Sunnydale Avenue, lights referred to as 1 and 2 in the approved drawings, may be erected no earlier than 1st April in any year and must be lowered to their horizontal position no later than 15th May and then may be raised no earlier than 15th August and must be lowered to their horizontal position no later than 30th September in any year. The lights may not be illuminated later than 2130hrs or earlier than 1700hrs on any day.
2.2 The applicants wish to increase the use of the bowling green and seek to remove this condition such that the lights and poles nearest to Sunnydale Avenue can remain upright all year long. They also wish to be able to have the lights illuminated up to 2300hrs based upon a 1830hrs start which will allow for a 4 hour competition with 30 minute contingency. They do now wish to run competitions all year round and every day of the week but cannot formulate wording which would cater for every eventuality.
3.1 PA 88/1645 proposed the installation of floodlights and was refused initially, the refusal supported by the Commissioners, on the basis that the lighting would be intrusive to the residents of Sunnydale Avenue. On review, a compromise was reached and the two lights furthest from Sunnydale Avenue were permitted on a permanent basis and the two closest to the residential properties were permitted on a temporary basis, the standards being mobile units and removed at the end of each evening's play.
3.2 There was a reported incident of the lights not being removed in accordance with the condition, in 1989.
3.3 PA 91/0712 proposed the installation of four new lights, each 7.5m high. This was recommended for refusal but was permitted with no conditions regarding the removal or switching off of the lighting. A review was sought and the approval confirmed but with a condition added to require that the floodlights were erected no sooner than 1st April and taken down no later than 15th September in any one year with the two closest to Sunnydale Avenue removed between 31st May and 1st August, presumably when they would not be needed.
3.4 The applicant wrote to the Planning Office in May 2005 requesting permission for the changing of the conditions so that the lighting would be erected from 15th March, two weeks earlier than permitted and taken down by 15th October, 2 weeks after originally required. The response provided was that in order to change the condition, a new application would be needed. The club's response to this was to have erected new permanent lighting without submitting any application, despite the advice given and in spite of the contentious planning
history and the detailed nature of the conditions on the previous approval, of which the applicant was clearly aware otherwise they would not have written to the Department in May 2005. Retrospective planning permission was sought for these lights under PA 07/0694 and was refused on appeal (see attached).
3.5 The appeal inspector concluded that he understood that "the previous illumination was accepted by local residents as it was a more subdued light source and possibly angled in a friendlier manner than the presently installed lights." He went on to observe that the light B in the south western corner shone into number 27 and that as the lights would be shining at times before residents would normally close their curtains, this would be an unacceptable intrusion into the amenities of number 27. He also concluded that all of the lights would have an unacceptable impact on the main bedroom and rear living room of number 28. He went on then to discuss the impact of the poles on which the lights were mounted. He concluded that poles A and D which are those closest to Sunnydale Avenue were visible and visually intrusive from the adjacent properties and should not be approved on a permanent basis. He recommended that a compromise would be to erect them only for a temporary period at the start and towards the end of the playing season and that they should be taken down when not needed in the middle of the summer and throughout the winter.
3.6 The applicants abided by the enforcement action and de-constructed the poles within the appointed time following the issue of the refusal on appeal.
3.7 A further application was then submitted for the same four poles as previously erected but in slightly different positions than as previously proposed - PA 09/00979. Pole A which is closest to 25, Sunnydale Avenue was moved further into the green along the eastern side, pole B was relocated along the southern edge of the green, pole C moved further along the northern edge and pole D which is that closest to number 28, Sunnydale Avenue was moved further down the eastern side. The effect of these changes in position and orientation is that none of the lights faced or shone towards Sunnydale Avenue. There was a lighting pole closer to number 25 and number 27 than previously and the pole previously closest to number 28 was half way along the rear boundary rather than alongside the northern end of the garden.
3.8 The lights are hinged at a point 1.6m above ground level with a total height of 8m on top of which is perched the lighting head. The new poles are around 300mm higher than the original lights which were approved under PA 88/1645.
3.9 Following the refusal of PA 07/0694 the applicant employed Philips Lighting Solutions to consider amending the lighting scheme to take account of the concerns raised previously regarding the appearance of the poles and the impact of the light itself. They advised to retain the poles in the corners of the green but this was not accepted by the applicant on the basis that the position of the poles had previously resulted in light shining into the windows of property in Sunnydale Avenue. The poles closest to Sunnydale Avenue (previously referred to as A and D and now referred to as 1 and 2 respectively, are to be erected at the beginning of April and retained for a period of 6 weeks then lowered until mid August for another period of 6 weeks until the end of September when they will be lowered again. The other two poles are retained permanently but only illuminated between April and mid May and mid August and the end of September.
3.10 This application, PA 09/00979 was approved subject to conditions requiring that the poles closest to Sunnydale Avenue are de-mounted outside the periods 1st April to 15th May and 15th August to 30th September in any year. This was subject to an objection from the owners of 28, Sunnydale Avenue but no appeal was requested of the approval issued.
REPRESENTATIONS
4.1 Port Erin Commissioners indicate that they support the application.
4.2 The owners of 28, Sunnydale Avenue object to the application on the basis that the approved scheme represented the compromise which the previous inspector had considered acceptable and the intensification of the use of the lighting would undermine the long term planning purposes of protecting the amenity of residents from having to view the "visually intrusive and dominating features" all year round and from having to experience the completely unregulated use of the floodlighting and associated light pollution and state that there is light overspill into their property and a considerable increase in brightness in the neighbourhood. They describe the green as already been well used by the Club's five teams, by non-members and visiting competitors all in compliance with the conditions and already hold competitions including at the weekends. They suggest that the poles are designed to be lowered and raised and in any case are only required to do so twice a year. They conclude by stating that there have been conditions in place on the use of the floodlights for over 20 years and the conditions were introduced as a compromise and as "fair" and represents a reasonable balance between the use of the green and the amenities of the adjacent neighbours.
5.1 The starting point is the existing situation regarding the regulation of the use of the green and the lighting and whether there have been any change in circumstances to warrant changing these conditions. The conditions were attached following concerns which were raised by neighbours regarding the impact of the poles and the lighting and have been observed by the club. Whilst the club may wish to make better use of their facilities, unless there have been a change in circumstances to warrant a change in the conditions, it is difficult to see how the amenities of the neighbours will be affected less by the proposals than they would have been when the conditions were attached in the first place.
5.2 It is within the objectives of the Strategic Plan to encourage the provision of opportunities for recreation and leisure and generally it is commendable that the use of the bowling green should be optimised. However, it must be borne in mind that the facilities are very close to a number of residential properties and that the relationship of the lighting with these properties has been previously examined and it has been found that there needs to be regulation in terms of the use of the lighting.
5.3 As such, it is considered that it has not been demonstrated that there has been any change in circumstances to warrant a variation or removal the conditions and as such the application should be refused.
6.1 The local authority, Port Erin Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
6.2 The Highway Authority is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d.
6.3 The owners of 28, Sunnydale Avenue are immediately adjacent to the site and as such should be afforded party status.
The lighting was approved subject to there being in place conditions regarding the illumination of the lights and the erection of the lighting poles in order to protect the amenities of those
living closest thereto. It is not considered that there has been any change in circumstances to warrant reducing the level of control and to do so would result in an adverse impact on the living conditions of those close to the site.
Scale 1:1089
1:1089
| m | 14 | 28 | 42 | 56 | 70 | 84 |
:unt Havelock, Douglas, IM1 2SF
| Comments | Not Set |
| Date | 23 July 2014 |
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown