Loading document...
December 2011
Hugh Logan Architects Bridge Court 10 Bridge Street Castletown Isle of Man IM9 1AX
1.0 Background 2.0 Car Park Lighting 3.0 Access Road Lighting
1.1 A planning application, No 10/00917/B, was turned down on appeal on 19 April 2011. These planning applications address the concerns highlighted in the Inspector's Conclusions in his Report to the (Deputy) Minister. A copy of the Inspectors Report and the covering letter from the Chief Executive can be found at Appendix A
1.2 The Reasons given for Refusal were twofold, being
2.1 The proposal that was rejected at appeal was for lighting from 6m high columns to provide an average illuminance of 20 lux on the ground. Whilst content with the type of low spill fittings proposed the Inspector expressed concern with the resultant brightness of the illuminated surfaces on the edge of unlit countryside. The Inspector considered that the 6m high columns proposed were of less relevance in respect of the urbanising influence because, 'they would largely be seen through and against the backdrop of trees'. Nevertheless, he suggested that consideration be given to a bollard lighting scheme.
2.2 What is now proposed is lighting from 5m high poles with LAD lamps in low spill fittings to provide an average illuminance of 5 lux which is sufficient in an area of low crime potential, but could be supplemented were this to change in the future. The difference in brightness between a 5 lux and a 20 lux environment is very significant and is indicated in photographs provided at Appendix D. This will satisfy all the Inspector's concerns. Consideration was given to a bollard lighting scheme which was found to be more expensive and incapable of suitable upgrade should crime levels increase in the future. Application Drawings and details of the proposed lighting can be found at Appendices B and C.
3.1 The proposal that was rejected at appeal was for lighting from 5m high columns to provide an average illuminance of 20 lux on the ground. The Inspector considered that, 'Lamp standards would be an intrusive feature in the landscape here, which is open countryside.' and suggested that adequate illumination could be provided from bollard fittings.
3.2 In considering this matter the Inspector appears not to take account of the line of trees immediately to the west of the first part of the access road which would have the same minimising effect as those to the north of the car park. Furthermore, what the Inspector was unable to take account of was the now proposed zoning of field 424844 for housing development in the Draft Southern Area plan drawn up by the Planning Authority. When this site is developed the access road will be on the edge of, rather than in, open countryside, as is the car park.
3.3 What is now proposed is lighting from 4m high poles with LAD lamps in low spill fittings to provide an average illuminance of 5 lux which is sufficient in an area of low crime potential, but could be supplemented were this to change in the future. It is also proposed to extend the line of trees along the line of the railway line to provide a continuous backdrop of trees to the lighting columns when viewed from the countryside. The difference in brightness between a 5 lux and a 20 lux environment is very significant and is indicated in photographs provided at Appendix D. This will satisfy all the Inspector's concerns. Consideration was given to a bollard lighting scheme which was found to be more expensive and incapable of suitable upgrade should crime levels increase in the future. Application Drawings and details of the proposed lighting can be found at Appendices B and C.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
