Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

18/2469/FUL | The erection of a freestanding lighting column which features two 50W floodlights that illuminate the ancillary area of the Axminster Ready-Mix Concrete Plant (Exact date of construction is not known, so general date of alternate plant design completion is selected.) | Axminster Plant Whitford Road Kilmington Axminster EX13 7RG
  • Total Consulted: 0
  • Comments Received: 4
  • Objections: 4
  • Supporting: 0

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All

Mrs Claire Dainton (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 05 Dec 2018

We object to this retrospective planning application.

This elevated lighting column can only be for use during non daylight hours and would therefore seem unnecessary given the stated operating hours of 7am to 5pm. However, the Plant is clearly operating outside these hours as evidenced by the lorry traffic, both earlier and later in the day.

We support the view stated by other objectors that the regular use of retrospective applications sets or reinforces an unfortunate precedent and effectively bypasses the planning system.

In recent months we have noticed an increase in noise levels from the Plant and heavy goods vehicle traffic passing through the village. The road between the Plant and the A35 is too narrow to allow 2 lorries to pass each other, and there is no pavement.

Mr Richard Quincey (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 05 Dec 2018

We strongly object to this planning application.

As a close neighbour we object to this retrospective planning application on the grounds that the floodlighting is causing light pollution which is detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring properties and to wildlife. The use of lighting in Kilmington has always been limited and there are no streetlights. The floodlighting that has already been erected at this site, without planning permission, is not in keeping with the village. It is also not consistent with past planning requirements placed upon property in Kilmington which had their external lighting closely scrutinised to ensure that it was limited and shielded such that it had minimal impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties and also on wildlife, in particular bats.

The planning application refers to the hours of operation of the lighting as being between 07.00 - 17.00hrs. The operation of the lighting is often outside of these stated times.

Furthermore, in recent months the site owner has fully cleared a large area of woodland that had previously provided some shielding from direct light pollution from the concrete works. This is making the light pollution worse for neighbouring properties. If more woodland is cleared this will exacerbate the problem.

It is of great concern to us that in recent years there have been a surprising number of retrospective applications for this site and other commercial sites nearby. It would appear that retrospective applications are being used as a means to circumvent the normal planning approval and consultation process. We strongly object to this. If continual approval of retrospective planning applications occurs it will surely undermine the planning process and condone the practice.

Mr Richard Stenning (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 26 Nov 2018

I refer you to planning application 17/2398/FUL for the installation of containers on this site.
The Delegated Report on this application recommended refusal and one of the grounds for doing so was the visual impact of the proposed lighting. The report described three significant drawbacks :
1. Harmful visual impact contrary to policy E5 and Strategy 46
2. The illuminated lighting being not fitted with cowls and contrary to policy EN14 and Strategy 46
3.The potential harmful impact on wildlife, especially bats.

The following comment was added : "as the the lighting has already been installed it should be required to be removed..."

The lighting referred to was, of course, the existing on site lighting referred to in this application. The reasons for refusal still apply.

There is another issue and this is with timing. The application states that the operating hours are 7am-5pm and infers that the lights will be automatically set to these times. The lights are regularly on outside these times and indeed there was a bright light shining from the site as I drove past Hills Farm this evening at 7.30.

If they do need lights I suggest they are properly installed and attenuated and kept strictly to the operating hours and in the meantime be removed as per the previous recommendations.

But it should be sufficient to work daylight hours anyway

Dr Emma Styles (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 09 Nov 2018

I object to this application, due to the light pollution caused by the lighting. We are able to see these lights that illuminate the site, that sometime stay on past 8pm at night. It is not just us humans that are affected by these lights but we are ware of bats and other nocturnal animals in the area that would be disturbed by such light pollution.

Yet again it is surprising that this has been allowed to be constructed in the parish without prior planning, moreover the site has a huge variety of nature, these laws are in place to protect the them and the local community.
This is a heavy vehicle plant that has seen huge developments over the last few years, particularly after a period of inactivity when the site was refurnished (around 2015) it is surprising and concerning to see so many 'retrospective' applications. I hope that this is investigated further by Kilmington Parish Council and East Devon.

an Idox solution