Application No.: | 04 / 00282 / R | | :-- | :-- | | Applicant: | Maughold Commissioners | | Proposal: | Erection of two column street lights at entrance to car park (Retrospective) | | Site Address: | Maughold Parish Field Maughold Ramsey | ### Considerations Case Officer : Sarah Corlett Expected Decision Level: Committee Decision ### Written Representations We have received 14 private representations for this application. ### Consultations Consultee : Highways Division Notes: no views, no adverse traffic impacts Consultee : Maughold Commissioners Notes: comments ### Policy
Officer's Report
The site represents Maughold Commissioners' parish field which has had permission for use as a car park complete with surfacing and access PA01/2173). Previously permission was granted for the erection of a flagpole (PA 97/02335) and the creation of a pedestrian access (PA 97/0140).
Proposed now is retrospective approval for the installation of two street lights which have been erected such that they face inwards from the road into the car park. The reason for this is to illuminate the car park and make it safe for users.
However, as the lights appear to be connected to the main streetlighting they come on at dusk and stay on until 11 regardless of whether the car park is being used. This has caused a light nuisance to neighbours and even those further afield have noted the impact on the environment and the sky.
The lights certainly appear excessive considering the limited area which requires to be illuminated and the times when this needs to be activated. Also, the appearance of the lighting is out of place in the heart of the conservation area in terms of its modern appearance. It differs even from the appearance of
the existing street lighting in the village the poles which is green. I have consulted the Conservation Section and they would agree that the poles are unattractive and out of place.
Lower level lighting within the car park possibly in the style of illuminated bollards which are only activated when the car park is in use would be acceptable.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision : Refused
Date of Recommendation : 11.03 .2004
Recommendation :
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval <br> N : Notes attached to conditions <br> R : Reasons for refusal <br> 0 : Notes attached to refusals
R 1.
The introduction of the lighting has caused nuisance to those living close to the site, introducing light pollution which is excessive considering the area which needs to be illuminated both in terms of the amount of light which is provided and the times at which the standards are illuminated.
R 2.
In addition, the lights are in appearance and function, what could normally be found within a built up area. The site lies within Maughold's Conservation Area where street furniture should be carefully designed to be sympathetic to the rural environment. The new lights do not respect the style or colour of the existing street lighting and are therefore out of place within this sensitive area.
N 3.
This refusal is without prejudice to a scheme which removes the existing lighting and replaces it with lighting within the car park which is low level, possibly contained within bollards, which only illuminates the car park and which is only activated when the car park is being officially used.
N 4.
As the lighting has already been installed and planning permission has been refused, the lighting must be removed within one month of the date of this notice becoming final.
Application No:
040282
Page of
Views Expressed - Name
Invite Inform
App.
☑
Det Highways
☑
Mr & Ms Craine
☑
J Walker
☑
Mr & Ms Pemberton
☑
Revd. O. Green
☑
Mr & Mr Mackenzie
☑
Mrs Smalley & Mr Conn
☑
Mr Daines & Mr Dineas
☑
Mr & Ms Ryzak
☑
Miss Young & Mr McCann
☑
Mr & Ms Plague
☑
Mr & Ms Greensmith
☑
Mr & Ms Barnes
☑
Mr & Ms Pleasdale
☑
Pam Kemit
☑
B and S Kelly (late)
☑
Manfield Cons
☑
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
