A tennis club's appeal against Cheshire East Council's decision to refuse them planning permission for floodlights has been dismissed.
Lindow Lawn Tennis Club initially sought permission in October 2012 for the erection of 12 floodlights to serve all 3 of their tennis courts. They subsequently stated they would limit use of the lighting until 9.45pm, install telescopic floodlight masts that would retract from 8m height during play to 3.5m height when not in use and to floodlight only two of the courts. However, no revised plans or a formal indication as to which two courts would be floodlit were submitted at this time.
Whilst the Club later submitted new and revised material during the appeal process, showing floodlighting to two courts and recalculated light spillage assessments, this was considered to be too late for the interested third parties to have the opportunity to consider and formally respond to.
Hence the decision to refuse the application, dated 17th December 2012, was based on the plans initially submitted with the application and the revised details received on 4th December 2012. The inspector considering the appeal made his decision on the same basis as the Council and did not take into consideration the revised material submitted during the appeal process.
In his report for this appeal, the Planning Inspectorate stated "It is important in the interests of natural justice that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially the scheme that was considered by the Council after the views of interested people had been sought. I consider the set of revisions submitted during the appeal process are such as to be tantamount to a new planning application.
"The grounds of appeal imply recognition of this. To consider the revisions proposed in this appeal would deprive those who should have been consulted on the changed development the opportunity of such consultation and would prejudice them. I consider the appeal must be decided on the basis of the proposal set out formally within the application as determined by the Council, as described above."
Therefore the appeal was refused on the grounds that the proposed floodlighting would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of surrounding residents.
The Inspector concluded "I have taken full account of the considerations raised in favour of the scheme. These include the health and sporting benefits for club members, guests and visitors including schoolchildren of being able to play during the evenings throughout the year; the long-established nature of the tennis club and the understandable desire to improve its facilities for the benefit of users; the potential economic benefits to the club of extra revenue generated by the longer playing periods; the presence of existing street lighting close to surrounding houses; the possibility of imposing conditions on a permission; and the significant numbers signing a petition of support.
"The appellant also refers to the presence of floodlights at tennis and cricket clubs elsewhere but provides no details; in any case, my decision must be made on the merits of this scheme in its particular context. Overall, whether taken individually or in combination, I find these matters are not sufficient to outweigh the clear-cut and continuing harm that would arise. Therefore, the appeal before me must fail."
