Appeal 6005426

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the installation of floodlighting on a padel (sports) court at [site address] , [address], Blythburgh, Suffolk, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/3733/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the schedule at the end of this decision.

I have amended the description of development in my decision above to remove superfluous content, in the interests of accuracy and conciseness.

The floodlighting subject of this appeal is already in situ, which I was able to observe on site. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The padel court in situ was granted planning permission1 in 2025. One of the conditions imposed, restricted the installation of external lighting unless a lighting design strategy for biodiversity was approved in writing by the Council. National Landscape effects were not named as a reason for its inclusion.

The appellant attempted to discharge this condition through a further submission2. This was refused, albeit the full details of this are not before me. The appellant asserts they were then advised to submit a full planning application instead, which is the subject of this appeal. The evidence before me indicates that the Council are satisfied that the proposal would have no adverse effect on biodiversity. From what I have read and seen, I have no reason to find differently on this matter.

Consequently, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the Suffolk and [name] and Heaths National Landscape, with particular regard to its dark skies. 1 Planning Ref: DC/25/0166/FUL 2 Planning Ref: DC/25/2088/DRC

The appeal site comprises a modern two storey detached dwelling and its generous grounds, located in a rural area within the Suffolk and [name] and Heaths National Landscape (Coast and [name]), formerly known as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

A statutory duty under section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and as amended by Clause 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023, requires me to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape. This duty is also reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that states great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape.

The special qualities of the Coast and [name] include landscape views and scenic beauty, a sense of remoteness, peace and tranquillity, and dark night skies. The wider landscape surrounding the appeal site is predominately characterised by open fields bound by trees and hedgerows, water bodies and scattered settlement patterns. Immediately north of the appeal site is the A1095 highway (also known as [site address] and [address]) which the appeal site takes its vehicular accesses off.

Located to the western end of the garden curtilage, the padel court design features a sleek black metal frame with reinforced glass and mesh fencing. The four floodlights are integrated within the frame, extending above the court with each column supporting a pair of lights at around 6 metres high, angled towards the court and each fitted with a custom glare shield. Whilst the floodlights protrude above the padel court structure, it is positioned within a depressed basin with raised banks on two sides and existing screening to the east, thus significantly reducing the prominence of both the court and its associated lighting from the public realm.

It is common ground the lighting columns themselves cause no adverse effect on the Coast and [name]. Notwithstanding the Council’s clear expectation that external lighting would be necessary, evident through the imposition of the lighting condition on the original padel court planning permission, it now raises concerns relating to its effects. In this regard, the appellant has sought to provide a bespoke analysis of the actual impacts. Moreover, at my site visit I was able to view the lights during the hours of darkness to enable me to form my own judgement.

There is no dispute that illumination of the padel court results in a greater effect on its surroundings than in the absence of lighting. However, the measured illumination levels are well below 1 lux, and I note that the National Landscape Team raised no objection, confirming that at such levels, the scheme would not give rise to significant light spill into the surrounding area. Photographic evidence demonstrates that the glare shields are effective in containing light spill, both upwards into the tree canopies and laterally towards the surroundings, including the A1095 highway, which my site observations corroborate.

The site is also well contained by existing vegetation, restricting views from most vantage points. The lighting is perceptible from the north. However, in the context of the host dwelling with its expansive use of glazing and its location immediately beside an A-class road which accommodates traffic during hours of darkness, the effects are not unduly urbanising. The low level of luminance means the lights are not widely experienced, which is further tempered by the intermittent nature of its use.

Indeed, the appellant already operates a lighting curfew. This can be formalised into a condition to restrict the hours of use, to minimise and avoid any unnecessary lighting, thus retaining the dark night skies of the Coast and [name]. The proposed additional landscaping alongside the northern boundary with the roadside would further assist in containing the minimal residual light spill to within the site and provide an ecological enhancement.

Subject to these conditions which would secure the mitigation and avoidance measures, I am satisfied that the effect of the proposal on the Coast and [name] is acceptable. In coming to this view, I find that the special qualities of the Coast and [name] would be preserved. Accordingly, I find the proposal complies with Policy SCLP10.4 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (adopted 2020).

Amongst other things, this provides that development will not be permitted where it would have a significant adverse impact on the natural beauty and special qualities of the [name] and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, that cannot be adequately mitigated. It also seeks to protect and enhance the tranquillity and dark skies, with exterior lighting expected to be appropriate and sensitive to protecting the intrinsic darkness of the rural landscape character. It follows that I find no conflict with the Framework, particularly Paragraphs 189 and 198, which amongst other things seek to limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.

Evidence indicates that the site lies directly adjacent to Minsmere-Walberswick Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, Ramsar, Site of Special Scientific Interest and a National Nature Reserve. It also falls within the zone of influence of a number of other European protected habitat sites. These are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended. A Habitat Regulation Assessment is therefore necessary.

The adjacent site is designated for its notable bird populations, including bittern, marsh harrier, avocet, and white-fronted goose. The conservation objectives note the main operations that may cause deterioration or disturbance are coastal squeeze, public access - leading to increased recreational disturbance, nitrogen deposition and water pollution.

Given the small scale and domestic nature of the development which relates only to lighting, there would be a negligible risk of nitrogen deposition or water pollution. As a domestic development that can only lawfully operate as incidental to the enjoyment of [site address] , there is a negligible risk of recreational pressure from public access, and it has been demonstrated through the appeal that the effects of the lighting would not reach the protected sites.

Consequently, likely significant effects on the integrity of the habitat sites can be screened out and it is not necessary for me to undertake an Appropriate Assessment. Despite some inconsistencies within the Council’s HRA, I note that the Council’s ecological advisers have reached the same conclusion.

The Council have suggested several conditions. I have considered these in relation to the tests set out in the Framework, made changes to some, not included them all and imposed additional conditions for the reasons set out below.

As the development has already begun, the standard three-year condition for implementation is not necessary and I have not imposed it.

The plans show proposed additional planting along the northern boundary. Whilst not suggested by the Council, I consider that conditions to secure its provision and initial establishment are necessary to minimise the effects of the development on the surroundings. Consequently, these form conditions No’s 1 and 2.

A condition restricting the hours of illumination to between 08:00 and 20:00 is suggested by the Council to protect the dark night skies of the Coast and [name]. I find this to be too restrictive. I have therefore amended it ([name]. 3) to better reflect the appellants self-imposed curfew. As the term ‘dusk’ is imprecise, I have utilised 21:30 to meet the tests of the Framework.

The appellant does not suggest an early morning start time for lighting. However, I have taken 07:00 as being reasonable. As the lighting is already installed, I have amended the Council’s suggested condition (my condition No. 4), to require it to be retained in accordance with the approved details. [name]. 5 controls the level of illumination and is reasonable and necessary.

The Council suggest a condition restricting its use to the domestic enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. However, as the proposal relates to the illumination only and not the provision of the padel court, I find this is not necessary or proportionate. In any event, other powers are open to the Council should any material change of use occur that is deemed harmful. Therefore, I have not imposed it,

For clarity, I have imposed a condition (No. 6) detailing the plans and documents upon which this decision is based.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The soft landscaping works shown on drawing no. 25-8-06 [name] shall be carried out as approved within three months of this approval or in the first available planting season, whichever is earliest.

If, within a period of five years from the date of planting, the tree or plant (or any tree planted in replacement for it) is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree or plant of the same size and species as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place within the first planting season following the removal, uprooting, destruction or death of the original tree or plant unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

The floodlighting hereby approved shall not be operated outside of the hours of 07:00 to 21:30 on any day.

The floodlighting hereby approved, shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the document entitled ‘Lighting system: illumination compliance’ dated 30 September 2025, unless it is uninstalled and removed from the site.

No replacement luminaries or lamps shall be installed unless they are of equal or lower luminance and comply with the approved lighting specification.

The development hereby permitted relates to the following drawings and documents: [name] 25-8-06 [name], 25-8-07 [name] and 25-8-01 [name] and the ‘Lighting system: illumination compliance’ document dated 30 September 2025. End of conditions schedule