Appeal 6002380

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site includes a detached property with a large front garden adjacent the public highway of [site address] . The proposal includes the installation of a tennis and basketball court. This would be enclosed by metal fencing and floodlights of 2.75 metres (m) and 7.5m heights respectively. I understand that the Council does not take issue with the court element of the scheme; rather, it is the fence and floodlights which form the reason for refusal.

The east side of [site address] includes a number of predominantly detached properties in what resembles an enclave formed by woodland and local roads. The west side of [site address] is notably more open, with agricultural fields to three sides of the appeal property. Development to the north, south and west is much more sporadic and is generally formed of isolated farmsteads, some detached dwellings and agricultural buildings. Along with irregular field patterns and woodland pockets, the local landscape character is therefore predominantly rural and tranquil.

The lighting columns in particular would be of significant height while both features would be of an industrial character due to the proposed materials. It stands to reason that the lights would be used during hours of low light or darkness. When viewed from [site address] , the floodlights would be experienced as bright and jarring features against the otherwise dark and tranquil countryside character in the background. As such, the extent of light spillage and intensity within what is otherwise an essentially darker and more tranquil environment would be significant. The lighting would exacerbate the incongruent character of the lights in particular, which along with the fence would be more often associated with built up and commercial areas rather than a rural location. Taken together, the lights and fencing would be incongruous to the rural character of the area.

On my site visit, I observed that the front garden where the court would be located was bound by vegetation and due to the land levels of the road and garden, visibility into the site was not readily apparent. However, while visibility can be interpreted as outwardly visible qualities, character is the sum of all the qualities which distinguish an area. As such, whether something is visible is but one aspect of assessing the impact on local landscape. In any event, while the fence may be largely screened from public view by the vegetation lining the boundary, I have concerns that at 7.5m, the lights would be readily apparent in the area even during daytime hours.

My attention is drawn to other tennis courts in the area which were evidently were granted planning permission by the Council. However, I have very little information on these before me, such as plans and drawings. Neither of the examples given was readily apparent from public vantage points on my site visit. Moreover, it is unclear as to whether they include lighting, or the circumstances of their approvals. I have assessed the proposal on its own merits, and to my mind the local area is predominantly rural, and the proposal would be harmful to the inherent qualities of the landscape.

I note the response from the Council’s environmental protection consultee regarding conditions to control impacts from the lighting. The reasons given for the conditions relate to control of light spill on the living conditions of nearby residents and nature conservation, as well as the local landscape. However, the planning officer dealing with the application is not obliged to follow this advice. In any event, I have found harm to local landscape character from the fencing and lighting apparatus and the control of lighting would not be effective when they are not illuminated.

I am advised of a fallback position whereby the appellant could install leylandii hedges of over 3m height along the boundary. It is asserted that this would be more harmful to the character and appearance of the area than the fencing as well as possibly detrimental to highway safety and light. I agree that fallback positions are worthy of being material considerations. However, the weight that should be assigned to them is still a matter for the decision maker and should be relative to the prospects of them being implemented. I don’t dispute that the fallback proposal is a material consideration and I have duly considered it as such. I would not equate hedging with metal fencing as it would not serve the same purpose in this context, nor would it be more harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As a fallback position, this does not add any weight in favour of the scheme.

To conclude on this main issue, the floodlights would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. This conflicts with policies ASP6 and CSP1 of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and [name] 2006-2026 (adopted October 2009) and policy DC2 of the Chapel and [name], Maer and Aston, and Whitmore Neighbourhood Development Plan (adopted January 2019). These seek proposals to be well designed so as to respect the character, identity and context of its surroundings with regard, amongst other things, to scale and materials. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks development proposals to be sympathetic to local character.

There were no objections to the scheme from statutory consultees or the local Parish Council. Be that as it may, given the main issues this does not mean the proposal would not be harmful as it is a subjective assessment and unrelated to the matters said consultees would assess.

The appellant is aggrieved at the Council’s handling of the planning application, including concerns of discrimination as well as a lack of communication. There are no details on what the concerns relating to discrimination are specifically related to, other than other tennis courts being approved in the area. In my assessment, I have regard to the planning merits of the case, and while consistency in decision making is important, it does not follow that development that is considered harmful should be approved. Each case is assessed on its own merits, and while other similar developments have evidently been approved by the Council, there was no substantive information on any of these before me. In any event, the Council will have its own procedures for complaints, and it is not my role to mediate disputes of that type.

The proposal would be contrary to the development plan taken as a whole. Any benefits of the scheme would be inherently private in any event. Therefore, there are no material considerations to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan and on balance, the appeal is dismissed.