Decision details

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

70.1   The Committee considered a report, as amended by the agenda update sheet, by the Head of Planning Services (copy appended to the signed minutes).  The report was introduced by Sam Dumbrell, Planner who provided a presentation on the proposals, details of consultation and key issues in respect of the application. 

70.2   Mr Barry Candy, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.  The need for lighting is accepted, but the tall lighting columns in the car are intrusive and impact on residents’ amenity; they should be replaced with bollard style lighting.  A school governor has stated that the tall lighting columns in the car park had not been a requirement.  The installation of lighting was sub contracted to a company based in Birmingham that has stated it is not prepared to amend the design which was done without any visit to the location.  A consultation was then carried out, but the design has not been changed.  The Head Teacher has stated that she was not engaged regarding the design, and would be happy with an alternative.  The tall columns are out of scale with the size of the car park.  The intensity of the lamps in the lighting columns is greater than that of the nearby highway lighting.  Residents’ objections are supported by their current County Councillor, and by a previous one as well.  The Committee is urged to either prevent the use of the tall lighting columns in the car park or impose restrictions on their height.

70.3   Mr David Simmons, Member for Southwick spoke on the application.  He requested that this matter be brought before the Committee.  The tall lighting columns in the car park cause a loss of amenity to local residents and can be said to have a significant impact on adjacent properties.  Shielding of lamps on tall columns does not prevent light spill.  Due process has not been followed: the lighting columns were installed without planning permission and without consultation.  Consideration of the impact has not included the floodlights on front of the school.  Lighting levels are unacceptable; only ‘adequate’ lighting is required and this could be obtained by use of bollard lighting in the car park.  Where bollard lighting is proposed along the access road, which next to walls and vegetation, it is considered adequate.  The bollard lighting has no impact on the adjacent Conservation Area and so should be used throughout.  The person in support of the application lives on the school site.  The designers/engineers did not even visit the site before the tall lighting columns were installed.  The part of the application recommending lighting columns in the car park should be rejected.

70.4   In response to points made by the speakers, Planning Officers clarified the following:

·         On the last point made Mr Simmons, the Committee is required to consider the acceptability of the whole application.

·         In relation to suggested bollard lighting for the car park, the WSCC Street Lighting Team has stated that bollard lighting can be blocked by parked cars and this may obscure a small person/child. 

·         As soon as Planning Officers were made aware of the installation of the lighting in the car park without planning permission the school was advised to submit an application to regularise the matter.

·         The WSCC Street Lighting Team has acknowledged that the column lighting is brighter than lighting on the adjacent highway but that it is not overly bright.  Baffles on their eastern side as well as timings, as required in condition 7 – Hours of Use, will limit the impact.

·         Painting the columns green, as required in condition 3 – Finishes, could help alleviate concerns about the industrial look of the lighting columns.

70.5   During the debate the Committee raised the points below and clarification was provided by the Planning Officers, where applicable:

Lamp intensity

Point raised – Shielding of lamps (baffles) does not work well or it has only a limited effect.

Response – None given.

Height of lighting columns in the car park

Point raised – The height of the lighting columns in the car park seems excessive, even at the proposed reduction to 4m.  It was agreed that bollard lighting for the car park could prove a risk to small people/children.  The designers did a poor job and the design could be improved.

Response – None given.

Conservation area

Point raised – There is a lack of information about the impact of the development on the Conservation Area, such as location of Listed Buildings and the church.

Response – The impact of the proposed lighting, upon the conservation area and on Listed Buildings was highlighted, as were the comments of Adur District Council (Planning & Environmental Health) and the WSCC Archaeologist, neither of whom raised any concerns.

Bat survey

Points raised – Why has a bat survey not been carried out, especially given the significant impact that lighting can have on bats?

Response – The WSCC Ecologist was not consulted on the need for a bat survey because these are generally only required for major works, such as demolition of buildings where there might be roosts.  Lighting is generally installed under permitted development and therefore, in most instances, a bat survey is not undertaken.

Five year replanting and maintenance plan

Points raised – Condition 5 – Tree Protection Statement should be amended, based on standard wording, requiring a five year replanting and maintenance plan.

Response – Should the Committee wish to propose this then this would be reasonable.

70.6  Mr S Oakley proposed that Condition 5 – Tree Protection Statement should be amended, based on standard wording, requiring a five year replanting and maintenance plan.  This was seconded by Mr Barrett-Miles, and put to the Committee and approved unanimously.  The final form of wording of the condition was delegated to the County Planning Team Manager.

70.7   Mr Barrett-Miles proposed that the item be deferred on the following grounds:

·         Pending further investigation into the impact of the design on the conservation area, listed buildings and surroundings adjacent to the site;

·         To ascertain whether or not a bat survey is required; and

·         To further investigate the impact on residential amenity caused by the current light spill and height of the lighting columns in the car park and to establish a way of mitigating this.

The proposal to defer was seconded by Lt. Cdr. Atkins.  The Committee voted on the proposal to defer the item, which was approved by a majority.

70.8   Deferred – for the reasons set out Minute 70.7 above, as stated by the Committee.

70.9   The Committee recessed at 2.35 p.m. and reconvened at 2.46 p.m.