Hive

The best threads archived for eternal enjoyment.
Mem Beespod
Posts: 3190
Joined: 24 Jan 2011, 18:20

Re: Hive

Post: # 84404Post Mem Beespod »

Reading the rationale about the height of floodlights then it makes a lot of sense. Doesn't make sense why they would pick up on that one!
BeesPod - Best in Non League podcast 2023
https://linktr.ee/beespod

Member of Bring Barnet Back campaign.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61557502963938
Moonchild_Bee

Re: Hive

Post: # 84405Post Moonchild_Bee »

Picking up on later comments - it seems largely fair enough?

"Officers agree, on balance, with this assessment subject to specific provisions and
conditions that would be required (as set out above). Officers also consider that the
scope of the amendments being sought can properly be considered within the provisions
set out by the government under S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act for material
minor amendments. In respect of the majority of the works contained in this application
officers consider the proposals are acceptable having regard to the development plan
and all other material considerations.


However, in the absence of the requested information regarding the impact of light from
the new, higher floodlights, and notwithstanding conclusions surrounding the visual
impact (upon the character and appearance of the area) the application does not provide
information that enables officers to conclude that the amended floodlights to the stadium
satisfy the requirements of policy DM1C and DM48A. Given that the representations
suggest that glare from existing lighting is already giving rise to disturbance of sleep
patterns in properties surrounding the site, this lack of information is significant. The
Environmental protection team of the Council has concluded that without this information
(requested during the processing of this application), the proposals should be refused.

Given the clear policy requirement for floodlights to not have an unacceptable impact
upon the amenity of residents, the current application is not able to demonstrate that it
satisfies the requirements of the development plan for the area. There are considered to
be no material planning reasons to justify setting aside this policy objective in this case.

The application is therefore recommended for refusal."
1983
Posts: 89
Joined: 18 Nov 2012, 09:44

Re: Hive

Post: # 84406Post 1983 »

Plan showing the 2008 floodlights and the recently added ones:
Attachments
hive.JPG
lyonsdownbee
Posts: 584
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 02:19

Re: Hive

Post: # 84407Post lyonsdownbee »

So it's only then floodlights that are the issue.
Do Abacus do sale and return.
Moonchild_Bee

Re: Hive

Post: # 84408Post Moonchild_Bee »

Surely we can just dig 10 metre deep holes for them :whistle:
1983
Posts: 89
Joined: 18 Nov 2012, 09:44

Re: Hive

Post: # 84412Post 1983 »

Sounds like the club and Abacus are to blame for failing to provide the necessary paperwork, which was requested by the planning officers.
User avatar
ninestein
Posts: 6936
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 20:00

Re: Hive

Post: # 84416Post ninestein »

The proposed idea being debated is better for everyone. LUL must see the benefit of it as they get no light spill from the Eastern floods. The technology that goes into manufacturing sports light fittings has moved on at such a pace in recent years. Each flood will be individually "aimed" at a certain part of the pitch. If you look towards that flood from a wide angle you'll get hardly any glare at all.

To me, the only issue here is that retrospective permission cannot currently be recommended for acceptance until the necessary lighting design and photometrics are completed properly and submitted. To me there's just a delay in the date that we get official permission to install them. In the meantime, we carry on as we are...? But can we use the floodlights we have installed in the hope of retrospective planning permission...?
Barnet showing all the flair of Rupert-the-Bears trousers, but lots more style!
hoofer2
Posts: 5258
Joined: 01 Feb 2011, 13:48

Re: Hive

Post: # 84417Post hoofer2 »

ninestein wrote:The proposed idea being debated is better for everyone. LUL must see the benefit of it as they get no light spill from the Eastern floods. The technology that goes into manufacturing sports light fittings has moved on at such a pace in recent years. Each flood will be individually "aimed" at a certain part of the pitch. If you look towards that flood from a wide angle you'll get hardly any glare at all.

To me, the only issue here is that retrospective permission cannot currently be recommended for acceptance until the necessary lighting design and photometrics are completed properly and submitted. To me there's just a delay in the date that we get official permission to install them. In the meantime, we carry on as we are...? But can we use the floodlights we have installed in the hope of retrospective planning permission...?
If we do not get the required permission, I suggest focussing each lamp into a separate upstairs bedroom in each of the NIMBYS houses so that they can really appreciate what light pollution is.

I am sure I saw a plan with revised floodlight scope that had more lines that Keith Richard's face looking down toward the pitch as part of The Hive plans? It was rather bewildering. Surely a simulation on a computer using architectural software package is the answer!
User avatar
pauln50
Posts: 1304
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 15:36
Location: Bedford

Re: Hive

Post: # 84418Post pauln50 »

If we do not get the required permission, I suggest focussing each lamp into a separate upstairs bedroom in each of the NIMBYS houses so that they can really appreciate what light pollution is.

:ohlord: Love it Hoofer!!
WelwynBee
Posts: 1066
Joined: 23 Feb 2012, 22:24

Re: Hive

Post: # 84420Post WelwynBee »

That was indeed a quality post, I'm still laughing.
User avatar
BeesKnees
Posts: 6602
Joined: 17 Apr 2012, 16:49

Re: Hive

Post: # 84427Post BeesKnees »

Drink license for west stand granted :)
User avatar
pauln50
Posts: 1304
Joined: 22 Jan 2011, 15:36
Location: Bedford

Re: Hive

Post: # 84428Post pauln50 »

BarnetSteve wrote:Drink license for west stand granted :)
Mines a pint!!
User avatar
John_c
Posts: 4989
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 08:23

Re: Hive

Post: # 84435Post John_c »

BarnetSteve wrote:Drink license for west stand granted :)
Yay. Most important news of all :D
Proud Sponsor of Luisma Villa Lopez's Football Conference Winning Away Shirt. Season 2014/15

Proud Winner of the Sponsor Marvin Armstrong Shirt Raffle 2023/24

Worlds best Prediction League player
User avatar
BeesKnees
Posts: 6602
Joined: 17 Apr 2012, 16:49

Re: Hive

Post: # 84459Post BeesKnees »

1983 wrote:Sounds like the club and Abacus are to blame for failing to provide the necessary paperwork, which was requested by the planning officers.
The last information from Abacus states that the vertical light will be less than 2 lux. I think they believed that would be sufficent and it didnt need a further report. Sounds a bit daft, of course the floodlights will be visible, just like a torch pointed at the floor is visible from a long way off but you are still in the dark. As far as I can tell TK has bought the best floodlights possible to avoid light pollution, these guys provide the lighting for Lords Cricket ground so they should know what they are doing.
User avatar
Reckless
Posts: 2851
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:53
Location: Potters Bar
Contact:

Re: Hive

Post: # 84532Post Reckless »

John_c wrote:
BarnetSteve wrote:Drink license for west stand granted :)
Yay. Most important news of all :D
Just remember to bring you wallet son.............................
Post Reply