Skip to main content

Agenda item

26/00853/FP MORRISONS SUPERSTORE , BROADWAY, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY, HERTFORDSHIRE, SG6 3TS

REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION MANAGER

Installation of floodlights.

Decision:

RESOLVED: That application 26/00853/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons, with delegated authority granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal:

 

A)        The proposed floodlights and poles would have an unacceptable adverse intensification and visual impact appearing out of context and harmful to the locality as well as causing harm to nearby residential amenity, failing to comply with the provisions of Policies D1 and D3 of the Local Plan and Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

B)        The erection of the floodlight poles prior to the grant of planning permission is unacceptable intentional development and is given substantial weight in accordance with the advice contained in Policy DM8.2 of the NPPF.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 03 hours 02 minutes 41 seconds

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) provided a verbal update on matters relating to Application 26/00853/FP and advised that an amended plan had been received, which reduced the number of floodlights from 7 to 5, with four by the EV chargers, and one by the zebra crossing.

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) then presented the report in respect of Application 26/00853/FP accompanied by a visual presentation consisting of plans and photographs.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·             Councillor Ruth Brown

·             Councillor Tom Tyson

·             Councillor Emma Fernandes

·             Councillor Claire Winchester

·             Councillor Martin Prescott

 

In response to questions, the Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:

 

·             The floodlight poles had already been installed, but the floodlights had not.

·             A condition could be recommended to have a back shield on the floodlights to stop light from spilling onto nearby houses.

·             Floodlights were needed to light a darker corner of the car park during evenings.

·             A sign on each EV charger detailed that they could not be used before 7am or after 10pm.

 

The Chair invited the Public Objector, Ms Jackie Sayers to speak against the application. Ms Sayers thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             Paragraph 4.3.3 of the report stated that the Applicant had previously confirmed that lighting would not be required for the EV charging units but had proceeded to erect them unlawfully anyway.

·             Some of the previous floodlights were switched off almost immediately after installation due to the impact on neighbours, and the proposed floodlights were much stronger.

·             Back shields would not prevent spill of lighting onto nearby houses.

·             The Committee should refuse the application citing the harmful impact to the living conditions of residents, contrary to the Local Plan and revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·             Previous flood lighting was completely random in timing.

 

In response to a point of clarification from Councillor Tom Tyson, Ms Sayers advised that the proposed middle floodlight column would have 3 lights on it and could not imagine that the proposed floodlighting would be any weaker or less intrusive than the previous ones.

 

The Chair advised that they were approaching the 10.30pm cut as per Section 4.8.24(g) of the Constitution and advised that they would proceed with Agenda Items 9 and 10 and defer Agenda Items 11, 12 and 13 to a future meeting.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Sayers for their presentation and invited the Member Advocate Objector, Councillor David Chalmers, to speak against the application. Councillor Chalmers thanked the Chair for the opportunity and provided the Committee with a verbal presentation, and highlighted the following:

 

·             The application raised important questions on residential amenity and the integrity of the planning process.

·             The Committee were being asked to approve floodlights after being assured that they would not be required.

·             Lighting poles had been installed before planning permission had been obtained, and Planning Enforcement Officers had to intervene to stop further works.

·             The deciduous tree line would not stop lighting from shining directly into neighbouring gardens during the winter.

·             Wildlife in the area, which formed part of its character, would be disturbed by the flood lighting.

·             Each application had been presented as a separate planning matter, but neighbours felt the cumulative effect of this as it was becoming an increasingly intensive industrial area, which should not be allowed through incremental applications.

·             There was no compelling justification for why additional floodlights were needed.

 

N.B. Councillor Clare Billing left the Chamber at 22:28.

 

Councillor Claire Winchester proposed to refuse permission on the grounds of adverse impacts to the character of the area, and residential amenity through unnecessary floodlighting on nearby residential properties and gardens, and this was seconded by Councillor Martin Prescott

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Development Management) advised that:

 

·             The draft reason for refusal could be that the proposed floodlights and poles would have an unacceptable adverse intensification and visual impact appearing out of context and harmful to the locality as well as causing harm to nearby residential amenity, failing to comply with the provisions of Policies D1 and D3 of the Local Plan and Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

·             Delegated authority should be granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal.

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Sites) advised that another reason for refusal could also be based on Policy DM8.2 of the NPPF if Members deemed that the erection of the floodlight poles prior to the grant of planning permission was unauthorised intentional development, and weight could be given to this.

 

Councillor Claire Winchester, as the proposer, agreed to the suggested reasons for refusal and to grant delegated authority to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons, which was also accepted by Councillor Martin Prescott, as the seconder.

 

N.B. Councillor Clare Billing returned to the Chamber at 22:32 and did not participate in the debate or vote on this item.

 

As part of the debate, Councillor Emma Fernandes highlighted that this application was egregious as the Committee had previously been told that floodlighting was not needed.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That application 26/00853/FP be REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons, with delegated authority granted to the Development and Conservation Manager to finalise the reasons for refusal:

 

A)          The proposed floodlights and poles would have an unacceptable adverse intensification and visual impact appearing out of context and harmful to the locality as well as causing harm to nearby residential amenity, failing to comply with the provisions of Policies D1 and D3 of the Local Plan and Policy DP3.1 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

B)          The erection of the floodlight poles prior to the grant of planning permission is unacceptable intentional development and is given substantial weight in accordance with the advice contained in Policy DM8.2 of the NPPF.

Supporting documents: