Floodlights planning application on Alleyns astro turf pitch

[DJKillaQueen]

Peckham Rye is an entirely different matter and is already used by schools who book the pitches both during the week and at weekends. The issue with Peckham Rye is over subscription of the facilities that already exist in a public park. It is not a sports ground and any use by Harris would require turning existing parkland (not designated for sports use) in sports ground.....that is the issue.

Alleyns are not applying to do any such thing (nor is it applying to build new facilities on open metropolitain land) so can not see how that is at all relevant to the discussion taking place in this thread as H has already pointed out too. If you are looking for hypocracy in my views you are failing miserably.

Why not try sticking to the details of the application? Which simply are (to remind you again) the use of lighting on EXISTING pitches.

[murphy]

You are right, Alleyn's are not applying to build on Metropolotian Open Land - they got that through last time

Maybe one of the the EXISTING pitches in Peckham Park could be turned into an astroturf pitch and then maybe over subscription wouldn't be as much of an issue :))

[DJKillaQueen]

Err the pitches are already booked out astro turf or not. The park also closes at dusk to everyone.....

[Huguenot]

Ah well murphy, it may have escaped you, but this is a public chat forum not a planning hearing.

It's a place to share views and opinions. I probably wouldn't protest too much about the counterpoints placed on this thread by people who disagree with you.

Instead I would celebrate that it has helped you clarify your position, and reminded you that the planning committee are generally unlikely to be swayed by the list of supposed grievances you have against Alleyns.

I'm genuinely shocked at the amount of irrational abuse aimed at the school.

There are many things worth complaining about in the world, but a school trying to provide sporting facilites for children up to 6.30pm isn't one of them.

And on that subject, I'm both entitled to my opinion, and justified in sharing it with you.

[Huguenot]

By the way, there's been a lot of chat about defending 'Metropolitan Open Land'

However, it's a clear part of the Mayor's strategy that this should be used for sports or leisure facilities.

[Jeremy]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are many things worth complaining about in

> the world, but a school trying to provide sporting

> facilites for children up to 6.30pm isn't one of

> them.

Yep. I really can't figure out why a floodlit sports pitch - up to 6:30pm - is causing so much fuss.

Surely getting kids involved with constructive activities is rather more important than a handful of over-sensitive neighbours.

[duncanm]

I completely agree Huguenot,let there be light!

[EDfor]

gosh we do have a severe case of outriders for Alleyn's don't we...

the point is not about the provision of sports facilities - they already exist - the point is about having 15 metre floodlights creating a block of high intensity artificial light in the middle of a residential conservation area...

so over to our good councillors who must balance the many needs of the community......

[Huguenot]

'Outriders for Alleyns'?

Don't be an idiot. That's like calling me a sockpuppet for a nuclear company because I think the anti-nuclear campaign is poorly informed and largely superstitious.

As an outsider, I've merely seen a completely disproportionate and misinformed attack on a school.

I agree with "over to our good councillors who must balance the many needs of the community" , but I've also seen councillors make poor decisions because of the misplaced antagonism of witch-burners.

[James Barber]

The planning application has a very full report on light levels and includes LUX (measurement of light level) contour map.

Please do take a look. It doesn't appear ot paint the bleak picture people are worried about.

[bob]

James they wouldn't paint a bleak picture it would be the same as shooting them selves in the foot???

Bob s

[James Barber]

I think the lighting consultants would be taking an exceptionally high risk with their business to produce anything other than a professional report.

Any lighting professionals reading this thread who could take a look at the report and critique it?

As a councillor who sites on planning committees reading this report or the probable council officers precis would be reassured that that angle wasn't a problem.

Shame no one makes telescopic lamp columns that just pop up when required.

[mikeb]

Call me a cynic, but I am unsurprised that Alleyn's released an 'independent' report that supported their application. If a group of concerned local residents asked another respected lighting consultant to prepare an alternative 'independent' report, then I would also be unsurprised when that one concluded there could indeed be a problem.

It's why you don't rely on a survey prepared by the seller of a property - you commission your own. Also known as 'opinion shopping'.

Are there any lighting professionals on the EDF who could comment? The technicalities of the report itself were somewhat beyond me...

[Huguenot]

I think it's somewhat missing the point to get bogged down in the lighting report.

The point is that it's only up to 6.30pm at night. There should be absolutely zero concerns about 'light pollution' at this time of day. It's ridiculous.

Sure if they want to extend it into later in the evening it may become an issue - but I suspect noise pollution will be more of an issue at that time.

However, this request is only about a 6.30pm cut off, and really shouldn't be blown out of all proportion.

[bob]

MikeB

some what similar thoughts

Bob S

[murphy]

Despite objections from what I hear was over 100 local residents, as expected the floodlights have been approved.

[James Barber]

This application had 27 objections and one supporter from neighbours as per the council officers report pages 163-177 - http://moderngov.southwarksites.com/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=4005&T=10

I've read the officers report and all the oducmentation of the applicant. Street lighting produces light levels of circa 15 lux at the worst affect home and the floodlighting when on will have 1-2 lux falling at that worst affect homes front door. As council officers said 'minimal impact'.

[murphy]

Not really just 27 objections Mr Barber - 27 written objections and a petition of well over 100 local residents, you are right about 1 supporter though.

[Jeremy]

Common sense prevails.

[sillywoman]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Common sense prevails.

or 'money talks' depending on your standpoint . . .

[Townleygreen]

Sillywoman,

In what sense does "money talk" in this case?

There is no sense that Southwark would have approved it unless it was reasonable on planning grounds.

Or are you suggesting the school bribed the Labour council?? Rather unlikely.

I think we should be told!

[aspidistra]

Councillors these days fear they'll be had for costs if the applicant goes to appeal and wins. At least, that's what some councillors in neighbouring boroughs have told me, in connection with some high-profile planning cases.

In that sense, money certainly does talk.

[James Barber]

Councillors are always mindful that when refusing planning permission against council officer advice to grant permission that they absolutely must have sound planning reasons to do this. Else any appeal would be successful and costs awarded against the council. This is as it should be. This deters any political grandstanding.

I looked at this scheme as I also had concerns about light pollution and I could not see any grounds for refusal.

[DaveR]

What a great thread

The combination of nimbyism and conspiracy theories from the objectors is so typically old-fashioned, suburban, small-minded English, I've come over all nostalgic.

[sillywoman]

No, not suggesting bribery & corruption. Just weariness at witnessing time & again the ability of a large institution with a lot of money at their disposal to walk all over the wishes of their much smaller neighbours. I wasn't really suggesting that they pay under the table to get what they want, rather that if you have such large sums at your disposal you're able to get what you want by whatever means possible - even if it takes a while. You've got the money to keep going & going 'till you get it.

As a near neighbour over 15 years I've watched Alleyns buy up local residential property (at an overinflated price so no-one else would look at it) to extend their land, develop buildings taking away their staff parking so that Hillsborough & Thornecombe Rd have become congested all the time, not just school pick up time, they've built a theatre which adds to the increase in parking and disruption (incidentally, our local primary is using the Theatre for their end of term production this year, and for the first time they are having to charge parents for tickets in order to subsidise the cost of using it - so much for benefit to the community), don't even get me started on the sports facilities. As a local resident and someone who's life is very much based in and around Alleyns local community I have been dismayed to watch them expand and develop services for the very privileged children who attend & their families seemingly unchecked. If they offered any benefits at all to the local community then I'd feel much less uneasy. Sadly I see none & the few that were (the swimming pool) have been eroded & withdrawn. Their ethos is so clear that maybe Alleyns should consider new signage - "If you can't pay, you're not welcome".