The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways) will

submit a report (Document “L”) which sets out a full application for

the installation of eleven, 10-metre high lighting columns and associated light fittings, with two columns to incorporate security camera systems at the former Braithwaite Edge Quarry, Black Hill Lane, Keighley.

Recommended –

That the application refused for the reasons as set out in Appendix 1 to Document “L”.

(Richard Holiday - 01274 434605)

The Assistant Director (Planning, Transportation & Highways)
submitted a report (Document “L”) which set out a full application for
the installation of eleven, 10-metre high lighting columns and
associated light fittings, with two columns to incorporate security
camera systems at the former Braithwaite Edge Quarry, Black Hill
Lane, Keighley.

In setting out the application, the senior planning officer submitted photographs showing the lighting columns in situ and its impact on the Green Belt, together with a site plan and a satellite image showing the car parking area and access layout. It was stressed that Members were only dealing with the lighting columns and the CCTV cameras that had been installed, and no aspects relating to the operation of the cemetery or existing enforcement issues were being considered.

It was stressed that the works applied for had already been carried out without prior planning consent, despite the fact that a scheme of  low level lighting had been approved as part of the original cemetery application. And could still be implemented whether or not the lighting proposed by this application was approved.

By virtue of its visual impact on the Green Belt, the application was recommended for refusal;  given that it was an exposed site and the columns were visible during the day and when in use, caused light pollution and would impact on the biodiversity of the wider area;  any exception to Green Belt policy had not been met through the application, and it was therefore recommended for refusal, for the reasons set out in the Assistant Director’s technical report.

In response to a question on how the lighting columns compared to the normal urban street lighting, it was pointed out that these columns were considerably higher than the normal street lighting columns and that they were more comparable to those taller columns you would associate with a city centre setting and were considerably brighter in nature.

In response to a question on when the lighting columns were switched on, it was pointed out that they were only switched on when there was a funeral ceremony being undertaken at the site.

The Senior Planning Officer stressed that Members were not just looking at the visual impact of the lights when they were on, but also their impact on the openness of the Green Belt, as they were visible and prominent during daylight hours, as had been demonstrated by the photographs.

In response to a question regarding the impact of the lighting columns on the biodiversity of the area during use, it was stated that the biodiversity officer had concurred that 11 bright lights would have an impact on the biodiversity area and the nearby tarn, however a full ecological assessment had not been included with the application.  In addition it was felt that the low level lighting would be more appropriate given its location in the Green Belt and the impact on wildlife would be minimised.

An objector was present at the meeting and urged Members to refuse the application before them on the grounds that this was a retrospective planning application and the reasons for refusing the application were very clearly set out in the technical report; adding that this was a former landfill site and as such methane migration could cause an explosion, if they interacted with the lighting columns; that lighting of this nature was not prominent in other cemeteries in the district and no case had been made why there should be an exception made in this case; he also expressed concerns that the nature of the lighting columns could confuse aircraft, as it brightness and layout resembled that of a landing strip, and that the prevalence of bats in the vicinity was another reasons why the application should be refused.

The applicant’s agent was also present at the meeting and stated that the 11 lighting columns, 10 metres in length were slender in nature and their appearance were similar to the urban street lighting; that permission to use the site had been granted and the lights were only used for short durations and worked on a timer; that similar lights were operational in other similar locations and in his opinion did not affect the openness of the Green Belt;  that they were happy for a management plan to be imposed to minimise any impact on the biodiversity of the area, stressing that this much needed community facility required this type of lighting for its effective functionality, otherwise it would not have been installed, as the original low level lighting had failed to provide adequate lighting, particularly as funerals can be undertaken during the evenings.

In response to a question why the lighting had been considered necessary now as the original cemetery application had been approved in 2014, it was stated by the applicant’s representative that it was felt that a safe and secure environment was needed for users, hence the lighting had been installed following use of the site.

In response to a question regarding low level lighting, the Senior Planning Officer stated that as part of the original application, the low level lighting scheme had been approved, and there was no justification given then for the need for this type of lighting column. 

A Member stated that it was imperative that those with a physical or visual impairment were fully able to participate in a funeral service, particularly during hours of darkness, and on that basis she could see the rationale for the lighting columns on grounds of health and safety.

The Senior Planning Officer stated in response that such reasons as identified by the applicant did not override the impact the lighting columns would have on the Green Belt.

There was a lengthy discussion on the biodiversity impact of the lighting columns, with a number of Members suggesting that any impact was likely to be minimal, in particular as the lights would only be operational for a given time period. 

Some Members suggested that the application could be deferred to allow the applicant to submit an application with a revised scheme, which incorporated shorter columns than the ones that had been installed, and which were more sympathetic to the Green Belt. 

Members however felt that special circumstances applied in this case to justify approval of the application on health and safety grounds, and that given the time limited use of the lighting, the impact would be greatly reduced, and it was therefore:

Resolved –

That the application be approved for the reasons in paras (i) to (iv) and subject to the additional condition set out below:

(i)           That the proposed lighting columns would improve visibility for visitors to the site, in particular for users with a physical or visual impairment, and as such, are considered appropriate facilities for a cemetery and would not be harmful to the Green Belt.

(ii)          That the proposed lighting columns would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape character of the area.    

(iii)        A condition can be included to ensure that the proposed lighting

columns would not adversely impact on the biodiversity of the site, the surrounding area and the Keighley Tarn by use of appropriate buffering and biodiversity mitigation measures. This potential impact is further limited as the lighting columns would only be switched on when there was a funeral taking place.

(iv)        The condition proposed in (iii) above would minimise any light pollution to a level that can be accepted.

Conditions -

1) The lighting columns as approved shall not be brought into use/illuminated unless and until a scheme including a Lighting Assessment accompanied by an Ecological Assessment is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this permission.

The Lighting Assessment and Ecological Assessment shall include:

•            Drawing showing proposed light spill to site;

•            Illumination levels cd/m and inclination angle;

•            Detailed specification of full cut-off buffer to lighting column; and,

•            Ecological Assessment including mitigation measures where necessary to prevent harm to wildlife.

The scheme as approved shall be implemented within 3 months of the discharge of the condition, in full accordance with the approved details, and shall be retained and used as approved in perpetuity.

Reason: To limit light pollution, sky glow, obtrusive light, spill light / trespass light and glare, to mitigate detrimental impact to local wildlife and to provide a safe level of illuminance for visitors to the site.

ACTION: Assistant Director Planning, Transportation and Highways