Agenda item

To consider an application for installation of 4no. floodlights at show tennis court.

Application for the installation of 4no. floodlights at show tennis court

This application, and applications 2022/1456/FUL - installation of 4no. floodlights at triple court and 2022/1521/FUL - installation of 6no. floodlights at hockey pitch, were presented by the Planning Officer and debated by the Planning Committee all together. The votes were taken individually for each application.

The Officer’s Report stated that these applications had been referred to the Planning Committee because the Town Council supported the applications whereas the recommendation by the Planning Officer was to refuse them all.

Three applications had been submitted for floodlights in close proximity to each other at this site. These were:

1. 2022/1521/FUL - 6 floodlights at hockey pitch

2. 2022/1456/FUL - 4 floodlights at triple court/netball courts

3. 2022/1455/FUL - 4 floodlights at show tennis court

The applications proposed to operate the lighting as needed between 7am and 8pm.

The Report continued that the sites were outside the development limits of Glastonbury. They were designated as Open Space (protected under LP1 policy DP16) and were within the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar catchment area. Glastonbury Tor was located approximately 1.2 km to the northwest of the proposed developments and was a Special Landscape Feature, scheduled monument and St Michael’s Church Tower was Grade I listed. There were various other heritage assets in proximity to the sites, including listed buildings scheduled monuments and the Glastonbury Conservation Area.

There had been objections to the applications from the Council’s Conservation and Ecology Officers and 1 letter of objection from a local resident had been received. Objections included:

• Harm to ecology
• Harm to landscape and rural character
• Inadequate mitigation proposed.

In conclusion, the Officer’s Report said that the benefits of these proposals included enhanced facilities and increased use of sports pitches. This may result in some increased sports provision to the local area. However, it was recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for all 3 applications due to the landscape harm identified, heritage harms which are not outweighed by public benefits and insufficient information submitted to demonstrate there would not be harm to protected species.

The officer informed the committee of additional information that has been submitted since the publication of the Officer Report. This included the submission of a community use agreement. The officer confirmed that this additional information did not alter the conclusions reached in the report.

The Committee was then addressed by the applicant’s agent who made the following points:

• The floodlights would enhance the sporting facilities.
• They will only be used during the winter at the timings specified, i.e. would be switched off by 8pm every evening.
• The applicant had commissioned a detailed ecology survey which found that the proposals were acceptable under current ecology legislation.
• The impact on the heritage asset would be minimal. There had been no objections by Historic England.
• The school is committed to encourage the use of the facilities the community.

During the discussion which followed, Members made a number of points, including the following:

• The site would be visible from the Tor and will have a detrimental effect on the heritage asset of the Tor and Church.
• Support for Millfield School which has been very generous with its facilities.
• Not many people will be climbing the Tor in the hours of darkness during the winter months.
• The height of the floodlights seems too high and would impact on the neighbour’s amenity.
• Acknowledge that they would provide some public benefit.
• The 400 lux will have light spill into surrounding hedgerows and major detrimental effect on the ecology of the area.
• The view from the Tor at sunset would be ruined and public amenity would be affected.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Adan Boyden to defer the application for more information on the effects of ecology and protected species, but this was not seconded.

It was proposed by Councillor Susannah Hart and seconded by Councillor Bente Height to approve the application, contrary to the Officer’s Recommendation. On being put to the vote the proposal was not carried with 5 votes in favour and 7 vote against the proposal.

Councillor Helen Kay then proposed to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation, with an additional reason being the impact on dark skies. This was seconded by Councillor Edric Hobbs. On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 7 votes in favour and 5 votes against.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2022/1455/FUL be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer’s Recommendation with an additional reason for refusal being the impact on dark skies.