Department of Local Government and the Environment

Rheynn Reiltys Ynnydagh as y Chymmyltaght

Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF. Tel: (01624) 685859 Fax: (01624) 685873 E-mail: [email protected] Chief Executive K. A. Kinrade

Please reply to the Chief Executive

Our ref: KAK/MC

31st July 2008.

Dear Sir/Madam,

ON APPEAL: PA07/694 – Port Erin Bowling Club – Retention of new floodlighting, Port Erin Bowling Club, Breagle Glen, St. Mary's Road, Port Erin

I refer to the recent appeal hearing in respect of the above planning application.

In accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, I am enclosing herewith a copy of the report of the person appointed to hear this appeal.

The Minister has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, he has directed that the refusal of the application under Article 6 of the Town & Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 should be confirmed.

Additionally, the Minister has noted and accepted the advice of the appointed person in relation to enforcement, as set out in paragraph 26 of the report. Accordingly, he has directed that all of the posts and lights must be removed before the 2nd of October 2008. Failure to comply with this direction will result in consideration being given to enforcement action in accordance with Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999.

Yours faithfully

K. Kinrade

Chief Executive.

Please see over for circulation list/......

1. Mrs. D. M. Benson, Hon. Sec., Port Erin Bowling Club, 22 Sunnydale Avenue, Port Erin;
2. Port Erin Village Commissioners;
3. Mr. T. Hendriksen, 27 Sunnydale Avenue, Port Erin;
4. Mr. P. Haley, 24 Clifton Street, Preston;
5. Mr. E. Haley, 28 Sunnydale Avenue, Port Erin;
6. W. and C. Ferguson, 24 Sunnydale Avenue, Port Erin, IM9 6EU;
7. Highways & Traffic Division, DOT, Sea Terminal Buildings
8. Secretary, Planning Committee;
9. Chairman and Members of the Planning Committee;
10. Secretary, Planning Appeals Inspectorate;
11. Mr. T. O'Hanlon, Treasury;
12. The Editor, Isle of Man Newspapers, Peel Road, Douglas;
13. Manx Radio Newsroom, Douglas Head, Douglas;
14. Mrs. J. Clague, 6 Thomas Keig Road, Johnny Watterson's Lane, Douglas, Isle of Man;
15. Radio 3FM, 45 Victoria Street, Douglas, IM1 3RS;
16. Energy FM, 100 Market Street, Douglas, IM1 1PH.

Report of an Inquiry, held on the 24^{\text {th }} June 2008, into an appeal by Port Erin Bowling Club against the refusal of full planning approval for the retention of new floodlighting at The Bowling Green, Breagle Glen, Port Erin.

Present:

For the Appellant: Mrs Diane M Benson, Honorary Secretary, 22 Sunnydale Avenue; Mr Allan Costain, President & Chairman; Mrs Anne Arnold, Treasurer; and Mr Bernard Durcan, Committee Member

For the Planning Department:Miss Sarah E Corlett, Planning Officer. Individual Objectors: Mr Tony Hendriksen, 27 Sunnydale Avenue, Port Erin Mr Paul Haley, 24 Clifton Street, Preston; and Mr Edward Haley, 28 Sunnydale Avenue, Port Erin

The relevant facts and material considerations are summarised as follows:

The Appeal Site

1: The site is the bowling green within Breagle Glen recreation area. To the east are the dwellings of 24,25,27 and 28 Sunnydale Avenue. To the west is open space and to the north and south are buildings associated with the open space uses.

The Proposed Development

2. The proposal has been implemented and comprises an 8 m high post at each corner of the bowling green with a single 1 kW light at the top. In order to assist to overcome light intrusion difficulties, shades have been placed on the lights nearest the dwellings. In order to facilitate maintenance the masts can be lowered to the ground. The lights cannot not be lowered or removed, when not in use.
3. For the purpose of description, in the south-east corner is light A, in the south-west corner is light B, in the north-west corner is light C and in the north-east corner is light D. Lights \mathrm{C} & \mathrm{D} are outside the defined area of the green; lights \mathrm{A} & \mathrm{~B} are within the defined area of the green.

Planning History, Consultations and Planning Policy

4. Flood lights were permitted under PA 88/1645 and 91/0712. The approvals were issued after Review and discussions leading to compromises. Both approvals were limited by planning conditions, which were sometimes breached. The masts closest to the dwellings were dismantled when not in use, latterly only during the winter months.
5. The Port Erin Commissioners objected because of the light pollution to the adjacent dwellings. The occupants of Nos. 24, 26 and 28 Sunnydale Avenue objected on similar grounds and also wanted the posts removed during the winter months. The occupant of No 24 has since moved and present occupant is a bowling club member.
6. The site lies within a designated Open Space in the Port Erin Local Plan 1990.

The Case for the Appellant

7. The Club leases the bowling green from the Commissioners and does not have sole use rights. The green was created in 1983 and a natural progression was to install floodlights to allow participation in some leagues. Floodlighting has been installed since 1988. Planning permission was sought after the installation of the new lights as it was thought by the Club that the lights could be replaced under the previous planning permission.
8. The existing lights were becoming unsafe. A Lottery Grant ( 75 % ) has allowed the purchase and installation of more efficient lighting (total cost £ 12,000 ). The lights would be in use between the beginning of April and the end of September on probably not more than 30 occasions at the beginning and end of the match season.
9. There is no IoM Government guidance on the provision of floodlighting for sports facilities. In the UK, DEFRA states that floodlighting is essential if communities are to make maximum use of many sports grounds, subject to evaluation under the planning process for approval.
10. It is considered that the existing posts provide the 'best practical means' in terms of shielding and limiting the use of the lights. Three options for the lights were offered by the contractor and with hindsight the club had not enquired sufficiently into the types of light and their operation. They are designed to be lowered for maintenance but cannot be stored lowered or removed. The Commissioners' Foreman would not allow the lights to be stored in their lowered position on grounds of health and safety and vandalism. They are switched off on the conclusion of a match, normally about 9.00 p.m. except for the light near the car park which is left on for the safety of persons leaving the pavilion and car park. The lights were never switched on for practice, only matches.
11. The luminosity has been increased by about 17 % from the previous bulbs. The shade on the light A, closest to 26 Sumydale Avenue, has reduced the light emission to No 27. The residents of 2 properties have objected while some 16 properties are in close proximity.
12. Some 300 players use the green in evenings over the course of the year, plus the 60 Club members. Some clubs come to use the illuminated green because the clubs have not got floodlights at their home greens.

The Case for the Planning Department

13. The present proposal conflicts with the requirements of the previous approval, which required the lights to be removed in the winter and the two lights closest to dwellings to be removed during the high summer months. The present proposal has fewer light bulbs but they have a higher luminosity and the lights are about 0.5 m higher, on posts about 0.3 m taller. The lights have been hooded in order to reduce light pollution to the neighbouring dwellings. However, it is considered that there is still unacceptable light pollution of the living room of No. 27 from light B and the bedrooms of No. 28 from lights A & D.
14. The height of the masts and lamps is visually unacceptable from the rear of the adjacent dwellings on an all-year-round basis.

The Case for the Commissioners of Port Erin (written submissions)

15. Initially, the Commissioners said that following site visits the Commissioners were of the opinion that the lights gave off an unacceptable level of light pollution to the neighbouring dwellings, which was considered intrusive and un-neighbourly development. The Commissioners were not opposed to the erection of floodlights per se, but considered any proposal should not have an adverse effect on the adjoining property owners.
16. Just before the Inquiry, the Commissioners submitted a Supplementary Statement of Case which stated that they had visited the green when the adjusted lights were viewed. As a

result the Commissioners in June 2008 resolved to withdraw their opposition to the proposal. It was hoped that further shading could be carried out to further reduce light shining into the garden of 28 Sunnydale Avenue.

The Case for the Objectors

17. Messrs Haley considered the posts were an unacceptable visual intrusion all the year round and the increased light intensity (luminosity) was unacceptable, particularly from the lights on the opposite side of the green by the car park ( B & C ) and that closest to his garden (D). The Commissioners had considered the lights unacceptable on each of their visits to his property. They had not visited before the recent change of opinion. The lights were of a wide beam and not average or narrow beam.
18. Mr Hendriksen stated that the lights gave rise to excessive light pollution within his home, such that they had had to move the TV because it could not be viewed with the lights on. The screens on the lights look very amateurish and unsightly additions. The screen on light A has reduced the light pollution to his property, but the light from B is still unacceptably obtrusive. He could not look at the lights because he suffers from migraine headaches. They are turned on early in the evening -7.00 to 7.30 \mathrm{p} . \mathrm{m}. when they are to be used and because of their brightness, they have to draw the living room curtains when it is daylight outside.
19. The old lights were yellow in colour these are a blue light.
20. It is considered that the lights should only be switched on when it is dusk and not before.
21. The masts are unsightly and now never removed.

INSPECTOR'S ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSION

22. I inspected the site and its surroundings on the 23^{\text {rd }} June 2008 and the evening of the 25^{\text {th }} June when the lights were illuminated for me. In my consideration of all the submissions and representations made, it seems to me that the main issues are: (a) the potential light pollution; and (b) the visual appearance of the posts from neighbouring dwellings.
23. (a) I understand that the previous illumination was accepted by the local residents as it was a more subdued light source and possibly angled in a friendlier manner than the presently installed lights. I observed that with the present lights illuminated that each light had an impact on either No 27 or No 28 Sunnydale Avenue. I judged that light A was well screened as far as No 27 was concerned but that the luminosity of light B had an impact because of the angle of view from within the living room. I conclude that as the lights have to be turned on relatively early in the evening that the nuisance to the occupiers of the rear living room of No 27 is unacceptable as the lights would be illuminated before the house curtains naturally would be drawn. Lights A, B, C and D have varying effects on the living conditions of the occupier of No 28 . On balance, I consider the lights have an unacceptable effect on the garden, rear living room and main bedroom. The adverse effect of the lights is magnified because the lights are erected to illuminate the green but the living accommodation of the local residents is at a marginally lower level than the green. I conclude that the high 'blue' luminosity from lights A, B, C and D have unacceptable adverse effects on the living conditions of the residents of Nos. 27 and 28.
24. (b) The original lights were erected in pairs on demountable posts. The posts were removed for the winter and those posts closest to the dwellings were also demounted for the summer in accordance with planning conditions. The currently installed posts are slightly taller and contain a single light source. However, where the lights have been screened by side panels, the light heads appear to me to be more visually intrusive than the previous

lights, as shown in the submitted photograph. Standing in the garden of No. 28, I judged that light D and its post were particularly intrusive. The posts and lights of A and D are visually intrusive in the outlook from within Nos. 27 and 28. Light A and its post are visible from the gardens of Nos. 27 and 28. In my opinion, the posts and lights B & C are not visually intrusive from the gardens or dwellings of Nos. 27 and 28. In weighing the evidence and my findings at my site visit, I judge that the posts and light units on A and D are unacceptably visually intrusive to the occupants of Nos. 27 and 28 and the posts should not be permanently retained.

25. In conclusion, I consider some weight has to be given to the continued use of the bowling green through the use of floodlights. However, this use has to be tempered by the visual intrusion and annoyance through illumination to the local residents. No objection was received from the current occupiers of Nos. 24 and 25, but I would judge from my site visit to the bowling green that the visual impact of the post and light A must have some adverse impact on the occupiers of No 25. It is unfortunate for the Club that it did not enquire in more depth about the nature and operation of the proposed new lights. On balance, I consider that the local residents' living conditions are so adversely affected by the posts and lights A and D that these should not be approved on a permanent basis. I consider that the previous arrangement of the lights being erected for a limited period at the beginning and end of the playing season and being removed at other times was a fair compromise. As this is no longer possible on health and safety grounds, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed and the posts and lights removed.

26. Illumination is not required until the end of August and then for a limited period. Therefore, in order to assist the Bowling Club to fulfil its fixtures for 2008, the posts and lights should remain until the end of September. However, I consider it only fair to the local residents that all the posts and lights are removed by, or on, Wednesday 1st October 2008.

27. I have considered all the other matters raised at the Inquiry and in the submissions but they are not such as to affect my recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION

28. I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Department to refuse the application. I further recommend that all the posts are removed by, or on, Wednesday 1st October 2008.

John S Turner Independent Inspector

1st July 2008