Agenda item

The application was for the installation of external lighting. (Additional Plan - Rec'd 31/08/2017.)

This application would normally have been determined under the Council's Scheme of Delegation for Officers. However, it was reported to the Planning Applications Committee at the request of Cllr Valerie White.

A site visit took place at the site.

Members were advised of the following updates:

‘The Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer, following a visit to the site and surrounding properties when the lighting was switched on, has objected to the proposal on the following grounds:

·        The lighting design specification indicates a 20 Lux level for the car park and 40 Lux in the drive thru area.  This level of illumination appears to be the level required in high usage car parks/roads where other commercial or retail units share the space.  Whilst there is no absolute standard, other guidance indicates design levels of between 5 and 10 Lux to be sufficient for shared outdoor car parks which would seem to be a more appropriate level bearing in mind that the proposal relates to a stand-alone unit.

·        The design achieves an average level of 23 lux in the car park and 46 Lux in the drive thru.  As such, it over-achieves the standards, which may lead to unnecessary brightness.  The scheme may be over designed and there is doubt that for the scale of the development, the correct design level has been selected.

·        Unlike 121 London Road, the obtrusive light spill onto 125 London Road has not been assessed.  The average light level of the windows here is predicted to be 20 Lux against the stated design criteria of 10 Lux which is unacceptably high.

·        The lighting levels in the garden areas of 121 London Road are stated as between 0 to 1 Lux.  There is serious doubt this is correct since this garden area is clearly lit by spill such that reported local practice by the outlet has been not to turn on lights in here in order to prevent disturbance.

·        The assessment makes reference to the use of back baffles in order to prevent light spillage.  These have only recently been fitted and whilst the report indicated that baffles completely obscure light spill, it is clear that they do not work in preventing back spill.

·        If permission were to be granted, alternative fittings of lower power and/or design would be required and a compliance report could be requested.  However, such compliance would not preclude the Council taking additional action to prevent artificial light nuisance under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Following a site visit in the evening when the external lighting was switched on, it became apparent when viewed from surrounding residential properties that some of the nuisance came from lighting on the opposite side of the site shining across the site towards the respective residential properties.  Such impact from the lighting, it would appear, cannot be baffled.

AMENDED REFUSAL REASON:

It has not been demonstrated that the external lighting provided under this application is genuinely needed to meet minimum requirements of health and safety legislation.  The external lighting, by reason of the number of light columns, their predominant location close to residential boundaries, the height and effect of illumination, is considered to be intrusive to and have an adverse visual impact on the conditions of occupiers of adjoining residential properties, resulting in an adverse impact on residential amenity and failing to comply with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012, the National Planning Policy Framework and supporting Planning Practice Guidance.’

Members were concerned about the height and intensity of the lighting and the impact it had on neighbouring properties.

Resolved that application 17/0705 be refused for the reasons as amended and as set out in the report of the Executive Head – Regulatory.

Note 1

The recommendation to refuse the application as amended was proposed by Councillor Katia Malcaus Cooper and seconded by Councillor Valerie White.

Note 2

In accordance with Part 4, Section D, paragraph 18 of the Constitution, the voting in relation to the application was as follows:

Voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse the application as amended:

Councillors Vivienne Chapman, Colin Dougan, Surinder Gandhum, Edward Hawkins, Jonathan Lytle, Katia Malcaus Cooper, Max Nelson, Adrian Page, Robin Perry, Ian Sams, Conrad Sturt, PatTedder, Victoria Wheeler and Valerie White.