Policy DM5 - Light Pollution

The positive approach in broad terms towards applications for floodlighting for sports and other leisure faciltiies is welcomed as such lighting enables sports facilities to be used in the evenings and other periods of limited daylight which coincides with peak periods of community use of such facilities. This approach would be consistent with paragraphs 70 and 73 of the NPPF. Criteria (i) and (iii) in the policy are considered to be appropriate for assessing the acceptability of sports lighting schemes as they cover the key issues that should be considered.

However, objection is made to criterion (ii) which only permits schemes where there is a curfew time of 10.00 p.m. In practice, the majority of floodlit sports facilities would not need to extend the hours of use beyond 10.00 p.m. in order to meet community needs. However, there are some facilities such as artificial grass pitches where there is still demand for use after 10.00 p.m in order to meet community needs (it should be noted that this rarely extends beyond 11.00 p.m. in practice). The proposed 10.00 p.m. curfew in the policy would introduce a presumption against such proposals even where they could demonstrate that the impact on residential amenity, environment etc could be avoided or mitigated through the other criteria. This is considered a potentially unreasonable policy restriction as each scheme should be considered on its merits and the policy as worded implies that all sports lighting applications which have hours of use beyond 10.00 pm will be resisted regardless of their merits and the ability to demonstrate that any impact could be satisfactorily addressed. Conversely, there may be some schemes which due to their characteristics justify the imposition of a curfew before 10.00 pm. The policy curfew would therefore be too inflexible to respond to the characteristics of individual proposals. Instead, planning conditions should be used for imposing restrictions on hours of use for individual schemes because they can be justified in the context of the particular planning application.

Due to rigid nature of criterion (ii) and the presumption it would introduce against development that could otherwise be acceptable in all other respects, the policy is not considered to accord with the effective or conformity with national policy tests of soundness.

It is also requested that paragraph 2.45 of the supporting text provides a reference to Sport England's 'Artificial Sports Lighting' guidance (2012) http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/artificial-sports-facilities/ as this has recently been prepared in consultation with th sports and lighting bodies and provides detailed specialist advice on sports lighting schemes which may assist applicants and local planning authorities.

The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 modifies Section 62 of the 1990 Act to ensure that the information required by a Local Planning Authority at the application stage is "reasonable having regard, in particular, to the nature and scale of the proposed development .....". It is important therefore that Development Management Policies do not introduce requirements for applicants that would not comply with the requirements of the Act.

Policy DM5 seeks information in respect of lighting at the application stage. Specifically it refers to an "appropriately detailed lighting scheme" alongside full planning applications, and "an appropriately detailed lighting strategy" alongside outline applications (para 2.45).

Policy DM5 goes on to state that when making an outline application, the applicant "must submit ..." an appropriately detailed strategy. However, not every application (whether full or outline) has any lighting implications, and therefore requiring details of lighting (whether full details or a strategy) will not always be relevant. The policy should be amended to refelect the fact that such details will only be required where necessary. Requiring lighting schemes for every proposal, regardless of their relevance, is incompatible with s62 of the 1990 Act.

The policy goes on to state that applications must demonstrate "no adverse impact", but as far as we are aware, there is no commonly accepted standard by which an 'adverse impact' can be measured, and clearly there are some forms of development (such as sports floodlighting) where an adverse impact in some form or other is inevitable, but where the benefits of the development outweigh that impact.

Overall, we agree that the impact of lighting is an appropriate consideration in the determination of an application, and that it is important that, where lighting is likely to be a key consideration, information is submitted to enable that impact to be judged. But as currently worded, Policy DM5 and its supporting text appear to be both unduly onerous (or potentially unduly onerous) in the information required at the application stage, and potentially unworkable in terms of the 'no adverse impact' test that is being sought.

Paragrah 2.35 to 2.46, Table 4, 4th paragraph of Policy DM5

Paras 2.35 to 2.37 are misleading in appearing to protect local residents from intrusive artificial light into eg. Bedrooms all night, such comfort not borne out by succeeding paragraphs.

Paras. 2.38 to 2.41, all of Table 4 minus the last paragraph, are a straight crib from defendants' submission in a law case where they sought to justify all night illumination of an executive house close with several lamp posts that lit up neighbouring bedrooms, by quoting ILE Environmental Zone Guidance, plus misleading pictures, to suggest the immediate area was urban, so nuisance was in order. (Opponents' adviser had shown otherwise and offered ILE guidance on Curfew to solve the problem). Use of a misleading defence in an LPA Management Development document appears to aid developers at others' expense and is not acceptable. Nor is paragraph 2.42 rejection of ILE 'Curfew' guidance, from same case (reducing or switching off at agreed time) as unreasonable, inappropriate, found to be acceptable. Planning guidance does not obviate nuisance anywhere, rural or urban.

Paragraph 2.44 says lighting should be "minimum necessary for safety and working purposes". That's fine in daytime for residential or commercial purposes. But at night - 'residential safety and security':- closes have high walls, electronic gates; they and other dwellings have alarms, CCTV (latter no longer need artificial light), so 24 hour lighting is unnecessary, though closes could have short stemmed downward lights ('full cut off') for nocturnal access. "Working hours":- Residential premises are not commercial/industrial and should not have intrusive working at night.

RDC Replacement Plan 2006 - unlike 2013 Development Management document, ordains rejects Light Pollution and does not differentiate between so called 'Zones' through the District, at paragraphs 11.21 to 11.22. It's Policy PN 7 stipulates lighting schemes should be submitted as part of any planning application. Any schemes adversely affecting: Residential and commercial areas, nature conservation, highway safety, night sky would be refused. But 2013 Development Management document at paragraph 2.45 says: "A detailed lighting scheme should accompany all full planning applications.but may not always be necessary", leaving the way open for anything.

Contrary to 2013 document, 2006 Replacement Plan does not influentially set out ILE Environmental Zones in full, but instead paragraph 11.23 says "developers should also note contents of Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution". A footnote has a list of sources, including ILE Environment Zones, to which ILE append a caveat: "NB These notes are intended as guidance only values given should be given consideration with all other factors in lighting design. Lighting is a complex subject with both objective/subjective criteria to be considered. Notes are therefore no substitute for professionally assessed, designed lighting, where may be conflicting visual requirements need to be balanced" - a very different picture from blanket setting out of Zones in 2013 Plan document. Light Pollution details in 20130 Development Management consultation are even briefer.

It is apparent in this and other matters that the Council are biased in favour of developments, past and future, against existing residents. Disturbingly this and other environmental problems have arisen to a number of existing dwellings following nearby development for which Council and other statutory bodies have denied responsibility. If that to make them leave so intrusive development can be extended?