Decision details

Planning Applications: Regulation 3

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No


WSCC/030/18/SWInstallation of new lighting layout to the existing car parking area. The Glebe Primary School, Church Lane, Southwick, West Sussex BN42 4GB


79.1   The committee considered a report by the Head of Planning Services.  This item had been deferred at the previous meeting.  The report was introduced by Sam Dumbrell, Planning Officer, who gave a presentation on the proposals, details of the consultation and key issues in respect of the application.


79.2   The Chairman advised members that Debbie Kennard, one of the local members, had objected to this application.


79.3   Barry Candy, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  At the Chairman’s discretion, photographs from Mr Candy were circulated to committee members.  Objections include: on the planning portal, as a matter of public record, there was a conversation between the architect and the project officer about the lack of a brief for the lighting; the ‘Secured by Design’ standard is inappropriate for a small school car park and causes nuisance to residents; the scale of the columns is inappropriate and intrusive and bollards would be more in keeping with the environment.  There was already a separate fenced pathway for children and no vehicle movements during school hours so the arguments for this proposal were inconsistent.  The Chair of Governors had said the lighting columns were not required and the contractor had not involved the Head Teacher who would be happy with an alternative design.  The report implied that lighting was being installed for health and safety reasons - there are no health and safety standards for car parks; if there were, the majority of schools would not comply.  This committee was the final safety net for the community and for the 11 objectors.  There have been no amendments to the application other than rotating the lighting through 90 degrees; side baffles were in original application.  The issues of height, scale and lighting intensity have not been addressed.  Mr David Simmons, member for Southwick, objected to the application.


79.4   David Seaman, architect, Seaman Partnership, spoke in support of the application.  The height of the columns had been reduced from 5 to 4 metres and they had proposed the installation of side and rear baffles which would protect adjacent properties.  If the height of the columns was reduced further, this would require the installation of additional columns in order to achieve the minimum required lux level.  The columns would be painted dark green (they were currently galvanised); the fittings changed to powder coated black and the T-bar rotated through 90 degrees to reduce the line of sight from adjacent properties.  The bulbs would be cool white rather than bright white.


79.5   Andy Prager, Paine Manwaring, the lighting designers/contractors spoke in support of the application and reiterated the points made by
Mr Seaman.  The lighting was not a security lighting installation rather it was to illuminate the car park for safety purposes.  Side shields would be fitted so no light would escape the school boundaries.  If the height of the columns was reduced more columns would be required.  If bollards were installed instead, more would be required to achieve the light levels needed.  Changing the bulbs from cool to warm white would be less harsh and the sensor would be relocated to ensure the lights did not come on during the daylight.


79.6   During the debate, committee members raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers, where applicable:


Height of lighting columns


Point raised – Can the applicant be required to reduce the height of the lighting columns?


Response – Members were advised that the scheme as submitted should be considered.  Adur District Council offered no further comments and does not consider that the lighting will have an adverse impact on residential amenity.  If the height of the columns was reduced, there would be a need for additional lighting columns in order to provide the required level of light.


Hours of operation


Point raised – Clarification of the hours of operation of the lighting columns was requested.


Response – Members were referred to page 80 (and Condition 7) of the committee report which states that the lighting columns will be turned off between the hours of 21:15 and 07:00 and at all times when the car park is not being used for educational purposes.


Refusal of Regulation 3 application


Point raised – Can the committee refuse a Regulation 3 application?


Response – If, in the committee’s opinion, all the options to remedy the concerns have been examined and are not deemed to be suitable, the committee should propose an ‘in principle’ refusal.  The applicant would then need to consider whether to accept that decision and withdraw the application.  If not, the full County Council procedure would be invoked and the application would need to be considered and decided at the next County Council meeting.


Condition to ensure rotation of light fittings


Points raised Where, in proposed condition 2 (page 78 of the committee report), is the rotation of the fittings (as per section 4.5 on page 75 of the report) referred to?


Response – There is no specific mention and condition 2 could be amended to include that requirement.


79.7   Ms Lord proposed that condition 2 is amended, in consultation with the Chairman, to take account of the wording about rotating the fittings included in section 4.5, page 75 of the report.  This was seconded by
Mr Barrett-Miles, put to the committee and approved unanimously.


79.8   The substantive recommendation, as amended by the change to condition 2, was proposed by Mr Atkins and seconded by Mr Patel.  It was put to the committee and approved unanimously.


79.9  Resolved – that:


a)     planning permission is granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of Committee Report from 11 September 2018 (repeated in Appendix Ato the Supplementary Report and incorporating the proposed amendments to Condition 2 (Approved Plans/Documents) and the previously-approved amendment to Condition 5 (Tree Protection Statement)); and


b)     subject to Condition 2 being amended to ensure the fittings are rotated by 90 degrees to reduce their visibility from Oldfield Crescent and incorporate both side and rear baffles to ensure light is directed only into the car parking area and not into adjacent residential properties; the final wording of this condition to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman.


(Lt Col Barton, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in relation to this item, left the meeting table whilst this item was considered and determined.)


Publication date: 04/12/2018

Date of decision: 06/11/2018

Decided at meeting: 06/11/2018 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: