Floodlights plan for outdoor riding arena rejected

COUNCILLORS have knocked back plans to install five metre high floodlights in a rural Anglesey hamlet, after concerns were raised by neighbours.

Meeting on Wednesday, Anglesey Council’s planning committee had been asked to approve proposals for six of the structures to light up an outdoor horse manege (or all-weather riding arena) during the winter months.

The plans were for the existing horse training facility at Ty’n Ffordd in Elim, a relatively isolated hamlet in rural north west Anglesey, about a mile from Llanddeusant and three from Llyn Alaw.

But despite assurances that the lights would be for private use and only on between 5pm and 8pm during the winter months, concerns were raised by community leaders.

Tref Alaw Community Council raised opposition, citing a lack of light pollution assessment as well as the impact on the wider community, whilst seeking assurances it would remain for private use only.

In a statement, read to the virtual meeting, neighbour Paula Bond said Elim doesn’t possess any local amenities and was served by a single track road, but the proposals were “not in keeping” with the “unspoilt beauty” of the community.

“There can’t be many hamlets on Ynys Môn to have managed to retain such character and charm,” she said.

“Floodlights are acceptable on a football field or sports arena but normally built in a non-residential area or close to a town or city.

“There are no floodlit maneges with planning permission on Môn sitting in a hamlet so close to dwellings.”

Local councillors also objected to the plans, with Cllr John Griffith describing the plans as “wholly unsuitable” and Cllr Ken Hughes adamant that the proposals would impact on neighbouring homes.

During the debate, concerns were also raised over the potential impact on Anglesey’s ‘dark skies’ status, with light pollution known to severely affect the ability to stargaze.

Planning officers had recommended approval, however, noting their view that “on balance” the application complied with the relevant planning policies. The report went on to state: “It is not considered the proposed development will impact upon surrounding amenities nor any neighbouring properties to such a degree as to warrant a refusal.”

But members went against their advice and voted 5-3 to reject the application. As a result, the item will be presented for re-consideration at the next committee meeting on November 4, following a month’s “cooling off” period.