Agenda item

Erection of 8no 15 metre high sports flood light columns. [Clifton Ward]

Members considered a full application by St Peters School for the erection of 8 no. 15metre-high sports flood light columns.

The Development Manager gave a presentation on the plans and provided an update that contained a revision to planning condition 6 referring to the lighting design and also removed informative 2. 

In response to questions from members he confirmed the picture included in the lighting assessment was a visualisation provided by the applicant.  He explained that the lighting design must conform to the guidance note contained in the update and the informative had been removed as the regulations did not apply to proposals below 25 square metres; the calculation had been provided by the agent for the applicant. The location of the tree line planting was also confirmed to members.

Public Speaker

Jeremy Walker, the applicant and Headmaster of St Peter’s School, explained that the floodlights would provide more opportunities for students of the school and members of the public to take part in sport, noting that it would also reduce the number of coach journeys currently undertaken, thus reducing traffic in the area.  He stated that there had been no complaints regarding the existing temporary flood lights and that they were keen to make the ecological improvements to the site with the tree planting.

In response to questions from members, he confirmed that they had not received any complaints in relation to the flood lights or related generators.  His associates confirmed that onsite parking was available for those members of the public using the pitches and the opening hours had been agreed up to 8pm. They also explained that the new lights would be 15m tall, to reduce light spill and meet the requirements of hockey’s national governing body.

Following debate, Cllr Warters proposed the officer recommendation to approve the application, subject to the tabled amendment to condition six, the deletion of informative two as outlined in the update.  Also, a variation to condition five was required to specify that the bat boxes were sited on existing trees with the trigger point for this to be delegated to the Development Manager.  Condition two also required amendment to include reference to the floodlighting plan and the floodlight elevation plan.  The Chair seconded the proposal.   On being put to a vote, members voted unanimously in favour, and it was:

Resolved:             That the application be approved, subject to the amendments outlined above.

Reason:               The proposal would provide sport and curriculum benefits to students of the school in line with Policy HW3 of the Local Plan enabling students and visiting teams to play hockey into the early evening as part of the school curriculum and as part of local leagues. The proposal would also potentially free-up pitch use at other sites currently used by St Peters School which is of minor benefit.  There is not considered to be any harmful impacts on the setting of the conservation area or the listed buildings within the school estate.  Regard has been given to the withdrawal of the proposed floodlights when originally considered in 2008, however there is no written appraisal of the harm that they identified by the then Conservation Officer.  The current application is accompanied by a Heritage Impact Assessment. The floodlights would introduce 15m high engineered columns into the area of the school estate which is a sensitive location forming part of the landscaped river corridor of the River Ouse flood plain which is characterised by its sense of openness. The location is adjacent to existing school buildings, and the existing pitch and fencing has an engineered appearance. The lighting is designed to be limited to the pitch to limit light spill and skyglow. On balance whilst there would be some harm to the landscape character of the River Ouse corridor and erosion of the open character of the site, the impact of the floodlights would not be so harmful as to justify the refusal of the application. 

Other matters including ecology, impact on residential amenity and highways and access are considered to be acceptable and where necessary mitigated by recommended planning conditions.