Report to: Planning Committee 25th July 2019

Report of: Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

Subject: APPLICATION 19/00195/FUL: RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF AN ANTIQUE LAMPPOST AND 6 LOW LEVEL LIGHTING BOLLARDS AT WORCESTER EARLY YEARS CENTRE, MANOR FARM, MALVERN ROAD

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant a temporary planning permission for one year, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10 of this report.

2. Background

2.1 The application has been referred to the Planning Committee because it has been called in by Councillor Alan Amos due to concerns about potential impacts on neighbouring properties.

2.2 The application was validated on the 1st April 2019 and expired on the 27th May 2019. The proposals were originally submitted as two separate applications, but the applicant has agreed to merge them into one. An extension of time for determination of the application has been agreed to 26th July 2019

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The application site is located at Manor Farm, off Malvern Road and in the Bedwardine Ward to the south west of the City Centre. The wider area is largely agricultural with some commercial uses and housing.

3.2 The site is located within the Riverside Conservation Area and on the site of the Battle of Worcester. The site is also located within the Green Space Network and thereby the subject of environmental policy SWDP 38 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

3.3 The site is in use as the Worcester Early Years Centre, providing care and educational facilities for children aged under 5. There are external areas used for play and two car parks serving staff and visitors.

4. The Proposal

4.1 The application follows enforcement investigations into the impact on neighbouring properties from a lamppost that has been erected on the site. The lamppost in question is a historical city streetlamp that has been transferred to Manor Farm to provide lighting to the car park and the access path to the Early Years Centre.

The applicant has advised that the lamppost was installed to provide additional lighting following an accident to a parent visiting the site after dark. There is a similar lamppost in the car park of the Citizens swimming pool car park in Weir Lane.

4.2 The lamppost has already been installed and is around 5m in height. It was cut down from its previous height of 7m. It is a straight lamppost with a lantern on the top with 6 faces. Yellow tinted glass has been installed in order to reduce the brightness of the lamp. The column has been painted a bright red colour.

4.3 Six low level lighting bollards have also been installed in the car park and these are included in the application. The plan submitted shows four bollards alongside the car park. The site visit confirmed that there were also two further bollards on the other side of the site adjacent to the access road. These are shown in the site photos.

4.4 In accordance with Article 15 (7) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), full details of the application have been published on the Council’s website. As such, Members will have had the opportunity to review the submitted plans and documents in order to familiarise themselves with the proposals prior to consideration and determination of the application accordingly.

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:

The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) which was adopted in February 2016, and;

The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted in December 2012.

South Worcestershire Development Plan

5.3 The following policies set out in the South Worcestershire Development Plan are of relevance -

SWDP6 Historic EnvironmentSWDP21 DesignSWDP24 Managing the Historic EnvironmentSWDP38 Green Space

5.4 Policy SWDP6 seeks to conserve and enhance heritage assets, including conservation areas.

5.5 Policy SWDP 21 requires all development, amongst other matters, to achieve a high standard of design, having regard to the character of the area and to harmonise with its environment.

5.6 Policy SWDP24 seeks to manage potential impacts to heritage assets, such as conservation areas.

5.7 Policy SWDP38 seeks to restrict the development of Green Space and any proposal must not compromise the essential quality and character of the Green Space.

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework

5.8 The latest version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into effect in February 2019. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision takers and is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications.

5.9 The NPPF outlines a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. The Government believes that sustainable development can play three critical roles in England: an economic role, contributing to a strong, responsive, competitive economy; a social role, supporting vibrant and healthy communities; and an environmental role, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

5.10 Paragraph 38 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to seek the delivery of sustainable development.

5.11 With regard to design paragraph 127 (f) states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments:

‘f) create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote healthand well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users;and where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine thequality of life or community cohesion and resilience.’

5.12 Paragraph 180 advises:

‘Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development isappropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (includingcumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the naturalenvironment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area toimpacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should:

a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting fromnoise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverseimpacts on health and the quality of life;

b) identify and protect tranquil areas which have remained relatively undisturbedby noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason;and

c) limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.’

2. National Planning Practice Guidance

5.13 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that comprises, amongst other matters: Design, Health and Wellbeing, Light pollution, and Use of planning conditions.

3. Supplementary Planning Documents

5.14 The following Supplementary Planning Documents are relevant to the application proposals:-

Design Quality SPD

The Design Quality SPD was adopted on 5th March 2018 and replaces the previous Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 3: Design (SPG3). Both documents encourage high standards of design for development proposals in accordance with the aims and interests that the NPPF seeks to protect and promote in this regard. The Design Quality SPD is consistent with the planning policies in the SWDP.

Planning for Health in South Worcestershire SPD

The Planning for Health SPD - primarily focuses on the principal links between planning and health. It provides guidance and interpretation of the SWDP from a public health perspective. The SPD addresses following nine health and wellbeing principles:

Sustainable development Urban form - design and the public realm Housing and employment Age-friendly environments for the elderly and those living with dementia Community facilities Green infrastructure and play spaces/recreation Air quality, noise, light and water management Active travel Encouraging healthier food choices

With regard to air quality, noise, light and water management the SPD states, amongst other matters, that proposals should consider mitigation measures for any light pollution that could be caused as a result of development (Policy Guidance Box 7: Air Quality, Noise, Light and Water Management).

6. Planning History

6.1 The application site has been the subject of the following previous application:

P14C0106 - Creation of a new Early Years Centre on land at Bennetts Farm and Change of Use of adjacent agricultural land to D1 (Educational) use. Approved under delegated powers, subject to conditions on 21st August 2014.

6.2 The following enforcement case is also directly relevant to this proposal:

ENF/202/18/C – Erection of high level light pole. Received 8th November 2018.

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the proposals:-

Neighbours and other third party comments: Objections have been received from the residents of 18 and 20 Crane Drive and Lyttleton House as follows:

18 Crane Drive:

“Since the erection of the lamp posts, undertaken without any consent, the light output has illuminated my home, both externally and internally into my kitchen and rear rooms, environmental visited, they had to correct their statement that the light intrusion did not reach limits prescribed, this is because there are none and the lamp, even with the screen causes light pollution right across the school car park, across my neighbours garden and into my home.

Impact, we suffer light pollution on a major scale. The lamp unit is simply the wrong design to provide guided and focussed light onto the path and car park, it emits light in 360 degrees, illuminates the sky, the fields and homes, The two pictures as attached were taken this week, this is in the day light, at night it is far worse. In addition, the bright colours whilst matching the fence is not in keeping with the area, the low level fence colours are not visible from our homes, but as per pictures the lamppost is, and it is a blot on the rural landscape. All high level school painted external surfaces are dull not primary coloured. The lamppost has been recycled and but for the issues raised by the neighbours would have not had an application raised, and be on extensively. For years there has never been a need for extra lighting, so why now, and why this old feature ???? Previous approved lighting, is merely about a metre high, and output has never been an issue. This light is merely a feature, a "land mark" if extra lighting is to be installed, it must comply with the existing low level 1 metre high, directed light, and not a 360 degree illuminate the whole area "light house" construction, which causes light pollution on a gigantic scale, even with its recently added filter incorporated. Any extra lights need to not pass any light across hundreds of meters into our homes, and should provide non intrusive very localised light, on a lamp post that is discrete, say dark brown, or even galvanised steel as per standard lamp posts, be fitted with a lamp unit that directs light down ward to the are needing the illumination. What is there today is an awful bright coloured lamp standard, and with a lamp head that causes light pollution across a very long way, making it easy for a criminal in the dark to see into our property as well, this is unsafe as well”.

Following the Case Officer’s visit to the site on 13th May 2019 the following additional comments have been received:

“I was pleased you were able to see for yourself the impact the light has on our homes during your visit last night.

I had no problem allowing you to see the impact from my ground floor, as well as my upstairs rooms.

As you know, the time of the year meant it was not completely dark, yet what you could see still was a significant impact to my home, which is some significant distance away from the location of the light source, indeed my home is passed the edge of the car park, and another house over yet the light impact, even with the filter fitted is significant. I trust when Andy showed you his direct impact after you left my home you noticed the detriment he endures.

You mentioned you would submit your comments to the planning committee, l was minded you have not shared any thoughts with us though at the end of your visit. To summarise, my comments l made to you were as follows: The applicant did not turn on all outside lights they use, in essence the total

light pollution from the location is worse than you observed, their domed wall lights also invade my home, they did not use all of their outside lights, therefore by perhaps their design for the demonstration, they over emphasised the importance of this one high powered light in their need for light… on reflection actually meant the dependency on the item was shown in their favour.

The light impact remains significant, even in the ¾ natural light due to the time of the year.

The light is wrong: It is a 360 degree in any plane light head, it flood lights not only the car

park, but all surrounding homes. The light source is at a height that is far too high.

If the council were to fit lights along a road way, path way, then these would be grey posts, with lower light output, directed light units that guide light to a direct area, of course they would not be designed to illuminate homes, neither would the council use one light to illuminate such a vast area. I question, why should the approach be any different in respect of this location under question? The council would not do it, why should Worcester Early Years Centre??

I suggested at our meeting that the light was the wrong design, in the wrong location. The light head is not suitable to illuminate the area in question, the post is far too high and the light pollution even illuminates the field behind it, in essence wrong in every reasonable test.

The applicant has actually also now installed lower level lights. This makes the item in question redundant.

Other comments: As intimated above, the light in question is possibly now redundant, due to the

addition of numerous other low level lights. The light in question is on the grass area to the school side of the car park,

actually positioned over a path way, which can be adequately illuminated by low level lights.

If you look at the river seven walk way where the lights are installed by the houses close to the Diglis hotel then all lights are low level projecting light down wards.

I am certain this light is not needed, the additional low level lights cover the car park, BUT in the event some additional light is justified, it should be much lower in height, of lower output, with a light head to direct the illumination away from homes.

Any and all timings should be tied to the school opening hours when used for school purposes only, with an allowance of say an hour after school, a short time before opening only.

Thanks once again”

Further comments on re-consultation with the bollard lighting added to the application:

The document dated 22 March states "bollards have been blacked out on the track side to avoid light pollution onto the track and private gardens beyond" The application of planning includes the High level Antique lamp post. It is essential that the same work must be also applied to that Antique lamp post, blacked out on the track side to avoid light pollution onto the track and private gardens beyond"

This is one over all lighting scheme, and what is recognised by Environmental Officer for the low lights MUST be applied to the High level Antique Lamp unit as this item is the cause of all concerns. It cannot be applied to one part and not the other.

On point of note, since the submission of the original objections, there has been much correspondence where even High ways department was asked to take a view, the Council would not be allowed to use such high level lights on the road side, so why here?

Information relating to lighting of car parks was also sent as the original planning review date was subsequently moved, full consideration must be applied, it cannot be that the applicant makes full consideration for the low level lights, as per the Environmental department, yet no such consideration is given to the high level Antique light.

Lyttleton House:

“We are writing in objection to the retrospective planning application above. We are immediate neighbours and the lights shine directly into our property. Whilst the application is specifically in respect of the recently erected ‘antique’ lamppost, we would like to also highlight that there are other elements of the lighting scheme at the Early Years Centre which we find a nuisance and for which we do not believe there has been appropriate planning approval.

Background

For quite some time we have found the security lighting at the Nursery very intrusive – particularly the lights which are attached to the building itself. There is clearly a need for security lighting for the car parking area, particularly around drop off and collection times during the winter months.

However, these lights shine straight at our property and they are poorly situated / directed making it difficult for us to see areas at the front of our house adequately. They should be directed downwards and shielded from neighbouring properties. However, we do note that majority of the ‘bollard’ type lights are appropriate for lighting the car park.

We note that the original planning application for the Early Years Centre was granted subject to the provision of an external lighting scheme. We do not believe that such a scheme was subsequently submitted (save for lighting in the car park), yet the planning application was signed off. The lights on the outside of the building shine directly outward and into our property. Downlighters would provide the necessary lighting for the building entrance and security.

Furthermore, it seems that on close examination of the original planning scheme, much of the screening and landscaping which was set out in the plans has simply not happened.

The Lamppost

Late in 2018 we noticed that an additional lamppost had been erected which shines indiscriminately at a high level. It is not only extremely bright, and indeed as one drives over the Carrington Bridge, this is the brightest light on the horizon! Some change has been made as it is now bright yellow ratherthan white – although the post itself is a very bright red and completely incongruous in its current setting.

There have been progressive improvements in glare from street lights in recent decades to reduce light pollution. This light is more reminiscent of the harsh 1970’s street lighting. As the application states – it is indeed an antique. It is excessive and inefficient as it does not just add to the car park lighting, but provides unwelcome light pollution to our home and garden.

The correct solution would be to install low level directional lighting which provides adequate illumination across the entrance and the car park. I understand this is the intention, which would render the antique lamppost completely unnecessary.

Specific concerns

1. The lamp post light shines brightly in through all our front rooms – 5 bedrooms face the front of the house.2. The light illuminates our front garden. Paradoxically this has the opposite effect to a security light as it is pointing towards the house – rather than out from it. This gives rise to a security risk for us, as it is sometimes difficult to see out past the glare of the lights. Put another way – people can see in but we can’t see out.3. The light is very distracting if you are walking outside in the early evening – the glare makes it difficult to see things properly without a torch4. Without a couple of conifers in our front garden the problem would be far worse – unfortunately we need to remove these soon as they have become overgrown and our property will then be floodlight across the front by the security lights.

5. We are concerned about the impact the light pollution will have on wildlife, particularly the local bat population that frequents our garden and we believe roost in the old farm buildings next to the nursery.

Hours of use

We note that the applicant has referred to restricted hours of use in the application. It is our experience that these hours are simply not maintained. The timing of the lights is variable and is certainly NOT limited to the hours which is claimed on the application. This light has been left on at weekends and last week was on past 8pm.

It is not practical to place a time restriction on the use of this light as this will never be monitored and it is difficult to see what sanctions would be taken in the event that such a condition were breached.

Summary

It is our view that this light is not necessary for security and is quite simply a nuisance and an eyesore. Unfortunately the height of the lamppost is such that it is impossible for us to shield ourselves against this by erecting a fence.

We would urge the council to review all the external lighting to the nursery to ensure that this is appropriate for security requirements and that any lighting is shielded from the neighbouring properties by the installation of a wooden fence. There should be no lighting at a high level.”

20 Crane Drive:

7.2 The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the proposals:-

Landscape and Biodiversity Adviser: No comments

Worcestershire Regulatory Services (Nuisance): “While the lamp post does not appear to have been designed with the Institute of Lighting Engineers Guidance on Obtrusive Lighting in mind, given the proposed limited operational hours and the conclusion of the WRS Nuisance Team, that in their opinion light from the lamp does not constitute a statutory nuisance at nearby receptors, I have no objection to the application in terms of light nuisance. I would recommend that the proposed operating times detailed in the submitted Lamp Post Specification document are conditioned”.

“No objection to the application relating to the low level (1m) lighting bollards in terms of light nuisance”.

7.3 Members have been given the opportunity to read all representations that have been received in full. At the time of writing this report no other consultation responses have been received. Any additional responses received will be reported to members verbally or in the form of a late paper, subject to the date of receipt.

7.4 In assessing the proposal due regard has been given to local residents comments as material planning considerations. Nevertheless, I am also mindful that decisions should not be made solely on the basis of the number of representations, whether they are for or against a proposal. The Localism Act has not changed this, nor has it changed the advice that local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission unless it is founded on valid planning reasons.

8. Comments of Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

8.1 Policy SWDP1 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan sets out overarching sustainable development principles and these are consistent with the Framework. The various impacts of the development have to be assessed and the benefit and adverse impacts considered, to establish whether what is proposed is sustainable development. Taking the above matters into account I consider the main issues raised by the proposal relate to whether the development would be sustainable, having regard to the 3 dimensions of sustainability set out in the Framework: economic, social and environmental, in particular with regard to:

1. The economic role;

2. The social role: Residential amenity

3. The environmental role: the character and appearance of the Conservation Area; biodiversity and the Green Network

These issues will now each be considered in turn.

Sustainable Development

1. The economic role

8.2 The Worcester Early Years Centre is a successful business which provides day time care for children under the age of 5. It currently employs 40 full time staff and 20 part time staff, resulting in a full time equivalent of 52. As such, it provides some benefit to the local economy in terms of employment opportunities. However, the proposal relates to the lighting of the footpath and car park rather than the expansion of the business itself and accordingly I attach limited weight to the economic aspect of the proposals.

2. The social role

8.3 The Worcester Early Years Centre provides a much-needed and high quality education and care facility for young children from the Worcester area. As a consequence, it has important social roles which weigh in favour of granting planning permission. However, one must also consider the impact of the development on nearby residents.

Residential Amenity

8.4 There have been 3 objections submitted by the residents of the 3 nearest residential properties. Lyttleton House is around 70m from the lamppost and Nos.18 and 20 Crane Drive are around 90m away.

8.5 A site visit was carried out on 13th May 2019 at 21.30 with Worcestershire Regulatory Services to assess the impact of the lamppost and bollard lighting around the Early Years Centre in hours of darkness. These lights are all on the same circuit so go on and off at the same time. The lighting was also viewed from the inside of 18 Crane Drive and the garden of Lyttleton House. My findings of the visit in relation to the lamppost can be summarised as follows:

There is a clear need for lighting to the car park and to the path from the car park to the Early Years Centre. It was difficult to see without the lights, even on an evening that was not completely dark.

The applicant has installed a 5m high lamppost with a lantern on top. The lantern is of an historic design and shines in all directions.

Whilst the lantern had a filter fitted it was still very bright when seen within the site. Worcestershire Regulatory Services expressed concern that this could constitute a nuisance and has suggested reducing the wattage of the bulb from 100 watts to 50 watts to reduce its impact. Controlling the hours of use would also reduce impacts on neighbours.

It was not possible to look at the bollard lights on their own as they are on the same circuit as the lamppost. However, I consider that lighting is needed to light the main path to the Early Years Centre and that there are some parts of the car park that would be quite dark without the lamppost.

In relation to Lyttleton House the lamppost appears very bright, although at the time of my visit it was partially obscured by trees. Reducing the wattage and requiring time limits by condition would help to manage this impact.

In relation to No.18, the lamp shines directly into the rear kitchen window. It appears bright, but is at a distance of around 90m. Reducing the wattage and requiring time limits by condition would help to manage this impact.

No.20 is slightly closer to the lamp, but I was not able to view it from there. However, reducing the wattage and requiring time limits by condition would help to manage impact.

8.6 The applicant has stated in the application that the lamppost would only be used on weekdays during the winter months and then no earlier than 07.00 or later than 19.00, being used only to aid parents when collecting children from the Centre. I propose to restrict the usage to these times by the application of a condition.

8.7 Worcestershire Regulatory Services was consulted and did not consider that the lamppost constituted a statutory nuisance, but recommended that constraints were applied to its operating hours and has suggested reducing the wattage of the bulb from 100 watts to 50 watts to reduce its impact. This was agreed on site by the applicant.

8.8 However, it has not been possible to assess the impact of the lighting in the winter months when the nights would be much darker or the impact of a reduction in the wattage of the bulb to 50 watts in terms of glare to neighbouring properties and whether the reduction would be sufficient to light the entrance to the nursery or if a further lower wattage bulb would be sufficient and therefore have less of an effect on neighbouring properties.

Concerns have also been raised by neighbouring residents that no lighting impact assessment has been undertaken for the application. In this regard, an assessment to rate the functionality of the light in question would have to be based on trialling different wattages of bulbs. However, in practice due to the varying levels of background light due to the differences in cloud cover, moon lighting, other lights on or in the building and the assessors own light sensitivity and current level of night vision adjustment etc. would make such an assessment highly subjective.

8.9 For these reasons, it is recommended that permission is granted for a temporary period of one year in order to allow for the lighting to be assessed when operational in the winter months and to inform whether the lamppost is required and, if so, its acceptability and whether further adjustments or mitigation measures are required, such as the introduction of baffles, reduction in the height of the lamp, different wattages and/or types of bulbs, etc.

8.10 However, it should be noted that the applicant is not agreeable to a temporary one year permission on the grounds that ‘it will only delay the decision for another year’. However, the agreement of the applicant is not required. Whilst this would, of course, be preferable, nevertheless under section 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the local planning authority may grant planning permission for a specified temporary period only. Planning Practice Guidance: Use of planning conditions also advises:

“Circumstances where a temporary permission may be appropriate include where a trial run is needed in order to assess the effect of the development on the area or where it is expected that the planning circumstances will change in a particular way at the end of that period.”

“It will rarely be justifiable to grant a second temporary permission – further permissions should normally be granted permanently or refused if there is clear justification for doing so. There is no presumption that a temporary grant of planning of planning permission should be granted permanently.”

8.11 The government’s policy on the use of conditions in planning permissions is set out in paragraph 54 of the National Planning Policy Framework that states:

“Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions”.

8.12 Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework states:

“Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are:

1. necessary;2. relevant to planning and;3. to the development to be permitted;4. enforceable;5. precise and;6. reasonable in all other respects.”

These are known as ‘the 6 tests’ and, in my opinion, the recommended conditions satisfy these requirements.

3. The environmental role

The character and appearance of the Conservation Area

8.13 The site is located within the Riverside Conservation Area and therefore policies SWDP6 and SWDP24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan apply. These policies seek to conserve and enhance heritage assets such as conservation areas.

8.14 Whilst the lamppost and bollard lighting are visible within the car park area and to some extent from surrounding dwellings, nevertheless neither is of a scale that appears unduly prominent. Although the lamppost may be considered to be an incongruous feature in the wider farm setting of the site, accentuated by its colour finish, nevertheless I do not consider that this, in itself, renders the lamppost unacceptable in the immediate context of the site and its siting adjacent to the Early Years Centre.

8.15 In my opinion, the lamppost has a minimal impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area when lit and unlit and would also have no significant impact on the Battle of Worcester battlefield site.

Biodiversity and the Green Network

8.16 No issues have been raised by the Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Adviser in relation to the proposal. Whilst there could be a minor impact on wildlife, the hours of use proposed should be sufficient to minimise the impact.

8.17 I consider that it would be consistent with Policy SWDP 38 of the SWDP, which seeks to ensure that developments for community use do not compromise the essential quality and character of the green space.

9. Conclusion

9.1 I acknowledge all comments received as part of the consultation process and consider all material planning issues have been considered in the determination of this application.

9.2 Due to the concerns raised by the adjacent residents and the uncertainty of the impacts of the lighting during the winter months, it is recommended that a temporary one year permission is granted. This will enable the impact of the lamppost to be reviewed when operational in the winter months and with the lower wattage bulb proposed, together with any other recommended measures.

10. Recommended Conditions

10.1 In the event that members resolve to grant planning permission the following conditions are recommended:

1. The planning permission hereby approved shall be for a limited period of one year from the date of this permission.

Reason: To allow the lighting that has been installed to be assessed when operational in the winter months and to assess the need for the lamppost or whether any further adjustments or mitigation measures are required to achieve a satisfactory form of development with regard to the safety of users of the car park and neighbouring residents amenities in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

2. Unless where required or allowed by other conditions attached to this permission, the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the information (including details on the proposed materials) provided on the application form and the following plans/drawings/documents:

Planning Application Diagram; Lamp Post Specification, and; Bollards Specification.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to secure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

3. The lamppost and lighting bollards approved by this application shall not be illuminated at any time before 07.00 in the morning or after 19.00 in the evening and shall not be illuminated at any time on weekends or on bank holidays or during the period from 1st May to 1st October annually.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

4. The lamppost approved by this application shall be fitted with a bulb of not more than 50W at any time.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

Ward: BedwardineContact Officer: Colin Blundel Tel: 01905 722231,

Email: colin.blundel@worcester.gov.ukBackground Papers: None