FURTHER BLOWS TO SKY-BEAMS
| Chester
Local Officer Andrew Bate sends us some interesting extracts from
the planning inspectorate’s report and recommendations to the DETR on
the subject of a "skybeam" set up on the roof of a wine bar
in Chester. Similar devices have now been outlawed in several places in
the UK, and objections may be made under the headings of damage to the
environment, traffic safety and advertising regulations. Those appealing
against such installations might like to quote the report, extracts from
which are printed here.
From: Report to John Prescott, Secretary of State at the DETR, from M. Rowe, Planning Inspectorate. Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992: appeal by (operator...against refusal of Chester City Council...to grant consent for "Space Flower" searchlight display. Chester City Council refused consent in December 1997 for the following reasons:... "the display is contrary to the aims of the city lighting strategy by virtue of its dominant appearance and detrimental impact on the character of the Chester City Conservation Area..." The astronomical societies (objecting) were in no doubt that these lights were used as an "advertisement" ...(they said that) the display had been backed up by press advertisements to "follow the beams"...the impact from the source was a disproportionate amount of deliberately spilled light...the movement of the beams was intrusive even at a distance of 5 miles. It has been questioned whether the light display constitutes an "advertisement" within the statutory definition. This is of course a matter for the Secretary of State and his legal advisers...my own comments are given below. ...the important word listed in section 336 of the Act is "sign". It seems unrealistic to exclude intangible representations and signs, and it is now clear from the earlier judgment Judge Rich, Yarmouth - ed.) that the display of light is capable of being a "sign". ...I am satisfied that the beams in this case are intended to indicate the premises from which they are displayed, and |
...the impact of these powerful beams...is particularly intrusive and has a seriously detrimental impact on...the city centre.... They also obtrude into the night sky from other vantage points... the effect of this moving and visually arresting display is also clearly very displeasing to local astronomers and others who appreciate the night sky. I conclude that the display is incompatible with the conservation status of Chester city centre, and detrimental to the general interests of amenity. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. The CfDS frequently receives reports of similar displays either in operation without planning permission, or are being planned. There are several aspects in this report that can be utilised when objecting to similar schemes. The issues in this particular case can be summarised as follows: Dominant appearance; contrary to lighting strategy; detrimental impact on character of conservation area; advertisement; deliberate light spill; intrusive movement of light; displeasing to local astronomers and others. With the number of sky-beams now being rejected at either the planning stage or at appeal, the task of removing these hideous lighting schemes from our night-skies is made just a little easier. CfDS Changes at British Standards Dr. Chris Baddiley has stepped down from the BSI Standards Committee after many years of championing the CfDS cause. The CfDS owes Chris an enormous debt of gratitude for his quite efficient work which helped to see many of our campaign principles embodied in the B.S 5489. Many will know this standard is often quoted amongst lighting engineers. His place is taken by Roy Henderson and thanks are extended to Roy for stepping into this post which is an important cornerstone to the campaign.
|
| Campaign for Dark Skies Newsletter | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | |