Loading document...
Site Visit: Monday 22^{\text {nd }} and Thursday 25^{\text {th }} evening September 2014.
PA 88/1645, on review approved floodlighting, subject to the standards closest to Sunnydale Avenue being mobile units, removed after any evening's play. The Department's records refer to a reported incidence of non-compliance in 1989. PA 91/0712, on review confirmed approval of four new 7.5 m high lighting units, subject to them being erected in any year no sooner than 1^{\text {st }} April and taken down no later than 15^{\text {th }} September, with the two closest to Sunnydale Avenue removed between 31^{\text {st }} May and 1^{\text {st }} August. The current Case Officer's report assumes, logically, that this final requirement reflected a perceived lack of need for evening lighting during that middle period of the summer season. In 2005 the Club requested to be allowed to extend the authorised period by two weeks at either end, but were advised that this would require a planning application. New permanent lighting was then erected but PA 07/0694 refused retrospective approval on appeal. Those poles were then removed in compliance with enforcement action. PA 09/00979B approved re-erection of the four poles in revised locations around the green. They are some 8.0 m high, hinged part way up to facilitate lowering. The owners of 28 Sunnydale Avenue objected to the application but no appeal was made against the approval, which is subject to 4 conditions. Conditions 1 and 2 were the normal time limit and defined the approved drawings. Conditions 3 and 4 state: 3. 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 1^{\text {st }} April in any year and must be lowered to their horizontal position no later than 15^{\text {th }} May and then may be raised no earlier than 15^{\text {th }} August and must be lowered to their horizontal position no later than 30^{\text {th }} September in any year. The lights may not be illuminated later than 2130 hrs or earlier than 1700 hrs on any one day. 4. The existing vegetation on and around the proposed pole numbered 2 [behind 28 Sunnydale Avenue] must be retained and maintained so as to help screen the proposed pole. If any trees or plants are removed or die, they must be replaced by the same or similar species in the next planting season.
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.
recognised that not all, or perhaps even any, of the suggested variations will be found acceptable. If variation 2 is rejected, regarding winter bowls, then it would be possible to raise the lights at the beginning of each season and lower them at the end. Whilst not ideal this would at least halve the number of such operations and lengthen the mechanisms' life. 9. The Club provides a facility for the whole community, and like all others has to adapt to increasing competitions and pastimes and the Island's changing environment. The Island's Outdoor Winter League, based at Nobles Park, is thriving, and there are examples in the UK playing under floodlights. These matches and social play normally finish around 1630 hrs , with lighting only needed for perhaps an hour around the shortest day. The 1700 hrs requested is just to provide some occasional flexibility. Removing Condition 3 would not result in major increased use of the lights. 10. The Planning Authority: the starting point is to consider whether there has been any changed circumstance to warrant amending the existing regulation of the floodlights. Condition 3 was imposed in response to concern by neighbours and has been observed by the Club. Whilst the Club may wish to make increased use of their facilities, it is difficult to see how the neighbours' amenities would now be affected less than they would have been when the condition was imposed. The Strategic Plan encourages opportunities for recreation and leisure, and in principle increased use of the green is commendable, but it is very close to residential properties, where the impact has been previously examined and Condition 3 found necessary. 11. Messrs Edward and Paul Haley, of 28 Sunnydale Avenue: they strongly object. Planning and Appeal decisions spanning 20 years recognised the need for a "fair compromise" by the previous planning inspector. It is fundamental to the planning approval. If the Club now has intentions for increased activity then Condition 3 is needed more than ever, serving its long term planning aim of protecting the amenity of residents from i) having to view these visually intrusive and dominating features every day of the year, and ii) the additional early evening and late-night light pollution that would result, again throughout the year. 12. The columns appear to have given good service to date, and some maintenance should not be unexpected. If that is impracticable, then the Club should have chosen its lighting units more carefully; the need to have done so will have been apparent from the lengthy planning history. The Club has complied with Condition 3 and its predecessor for over 20 years, even when all four columns had to be raised and lowered. Condition 3 requires this only with respect to two of them, twice annually. Any proper maintenance regime would require this at least once a year. 13. They object to the variations now being suggested by the Club. As regards suggestions 1 and 2, the purpose of Condition 3 is not to increase revenue for the Commissioners but, as evidenced by two decades of planning decisions, to achieve a reasonable balance between use of the green and the impact on neighbours. It is doubtful whether there is a demand for winter bowling, certainly insufficient to make much difference to the Commissioners' income. If there is a desire to play in the winter this can be accommodated during daylight hours, although the green's winter condition and maintenance requirements would limit opportunities, and any associated use of the floodlights would have a considerable effect on neighbours. Bowling is a summer activity for good reason, and it seems likely that the winter suggestion is simply to bolster the Club's request to keep the columns in situ year round.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 Chapter 10: Sport, Recreation, Open Space and Community Facilities opens with the sentence: "The quality of life on the Island and the quality of our environment are improved by attractive open space and by facilities for recreation and other community purposes. Its Recreation Policy 1 opens: "Area Plans should incorporate an assessment of the indoor and outdoor sport and recreation needs of the plan area ...". Background work for the Area Plan for the South 2013 undertook such an assessment, including with respect to bowling greens, concluding at its paragraph 8.5 .1 that: "In general, the South has adequate provision of, and access to, sports facilities, although it is accepted that these facilities will continually need upgrading". The bowling green accords with its land use designation in the Area Plan, and accordingly the assessment of these proposals are subject to a favourable presumption in Strategic Plan General Policy 2, but subject in particular to its requirement ( g ) not to "affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality." The appeal turns on balancing these important safeguards against the underlying desirability of enhancing these sports facilities.
There should be no question of rescinding Condition 3 altogether, and nor has the Club pursued such an outcome. I well understand that the presence, even unilluminated, of the two columns at times when they currently have to be lowered, would be most unwelcome to the occupants of 28 Sunnydale Avenue. Objectively assessed, however, only the uppermost part of those columns, and their lanterns, can be glimpsed above the height and spread of vegetation now behind their home. Even in the depths of winter, any prominence will be substantially fragmented. I reach similar conclusions with respect to No 27, and note the lack of objection from its occupants. Column 1, the further from No 28, is very prominent behind No 25, but this is quite evidently something chosen by the active Club member or members living there, whose home has a clear view over the green and a direct access to it. Were the property to change hands, the situation would be evident to incoming residents, who could if they wished readily erect a fence and undertake planting. Further afield the impact of the unilluminated columns is negligible.
As well as the only modest impacts now of the unilluminated columns, it should be borne in mind that in many ways the bowling-green is a desirable land use behind these gardens. It will be tranquil most of the time, far from raucous when in use, and unlikely to be subject to proposals for built development, at least while it remains a viable facility. From the Club's perspective, every lowering and raising of these columns must represent quite an arduous task, with a high expectation of wear and tear on the hinge mechanisms. My assessment is that requiring the two lighting poles to be lowered intermittently is not, or at any rate is no longer, warranted.
The issue of when the lights may be used is less straightforward, for the obvious reason that they are then far more prominent with a spread of illumination beyond the Club's boundary to and into the adjoining homes. Considering each of the Club's suggestions in turn, allowing the lights to be on until 2300 hrs would be a step too far, even for just 4 occasions during a normal bowling season. The current cut off time of 1930 leaves residents a reasonable amount of their evening unaffected by floodlighting but does not prevent the Club from holding matches until, say, 2200 hrs, or a little later, under natural light during the height of the season. The Island's latest sunset time is just before 2200 hr , around the time of the longest day, followed normally by a period of usable twilight.
The second suggestion could see the lights on for up to 3 hours during some winter evenings, since the Island's earliest sunset is just before 1600 hrs around the time of the shortest day. The illumination would contrast then with darker winter evenings, increasing its prominence, and in any event the introduction of a winter season would be a substantial and fundamental change to the use of the green, evidently not contemplated previously. In my view, such a change should not be introduced as a side wind to the considerations regarding Condition 3, but ought to require an application in its own right, subject to public notification and opportunities for specific comment.
On the third, the Island's sunset on 15^{\text {th }} May (the earlier start sought) is about 2115 hrs lengthening to about 2130 hrs on 24th May (the existing start date evidently selected for this reason). Sunset on 25th July (the existing resumption date, again evidently so selected) is about 2130 hrs shortening to just before 2100 hrs on 15th August (the later termination date being sought). It is not difficult to visualise that during the additional days being sought, within a normal playing season, there may be overcast evenings when play becomes difficult very shortly after sunset. Permitting the lights to be on, as and when necessary, during those periods would cause only a moderate impact. It's reasonable to assume that the Club would not incur the wasted cost of operating the lights unnecessarily on a fine light evening, and even when required this would be likely to be for only a short duration, finishing in line with the established expectation of 2130 hrs . This third suggestion is a reasonable one, with a balance of issues favourable to it.
I have had regard to the PA 07/694 inspector's report, but that was into a scheme previous to PA 09/00979/B to which Condition 3 was attached, and it was at a time when the vegetation behind 28 Sunnydale Avenue was less developed than now. I am not familiar with the lights at Castle Rushen School, which do not affect the situation at Breagle Glen. Neither that previous report nor any of the other matters raised has caused me to alter my conclusions regarding the current appeal assessed on its own merits.
Alan Langton DipTP CEng MRTPI MICE MCIHT Inspector
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
