External lighting variation at Kings Court, Burrows Lane, Gomshall, Shere

What was proposed

The application sought to vary a planning condition so one external light could remain on Unit 4a, subject to continued control over other lighting.

“This application has been submitted following report of an alleged breach of condition 3 of planning permission 21/P/00258 at Unit 4a Kings Court (EN/23/00489), where a motion sensor light has been affixed to the building above the entrance way.”

“No external lighting shall be installed on the site or affixed to any buildings on the site except for the light affixed to unit 4a shown in the submitted light position drawing received 29/08/2025, unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority by letter.”

Officer report

The site

The site contains office and residential units with parking, is surrounded by homes, and lies in the Green Belt, Surrey Hills National Landscape and AGLV.

“The application site is situated on the western side of Burrows Lane, to the south of Gomshall. The site comprises a mix of office and residential units, with associated car parking. The site itself is roughly rectangular in shape and is 0.3 hectares in size. The site is elevated above Burrows Lane by approximately one metre, but is itself relatively flat.”

“The site sits within the Green Belt, the Surrey Hills National Landscape (formerly AONB), an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).”

Officer report

Planning history

The site was approved for industrial and office development, with later permissions changing operating hours, landscaping, windows and some residential uses.

“Planning permission was originally granted for the redevelopment of the Kings Yard site with new buildings for light industrial use in 2005 (05/P/01686).”

“Minor changes to the consented scheme have been approved under the non-material amendment applications referenced above. Section 73 applications referenced above to vary hours of opening, landscaping and window treatments have also been approved. 21/P/00258 is the last section.73 application to be approved on the site relating to the original permission.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the small, motion-sensored, timed light would not harm landscape character or neighbouring living conditions and further lighting would remain controlled.

“Given the scale and nature of the light that has been installed above the entranceway of Unit 4a, it is not considered that it would have a harmful impact on the Green Belt, the character of the…”

“Given that the light is motion sensored, on a timer and faces onto car parking associated with the site and does not shine directly into any neighbouring residential properties, it is not considered that the light has an unacceptable, adverse impact on neighbour amenity.”

Officer report

What people said

The parish council and 26 objectors raised concerns including neighbour amenity, highway safety, dark skies, light pollution, wildlife and rural character; five people supported the proposal.

“The proposed varied condition would still ensure the Local Planning Authority have control over any additional provision of external lighting in the site.] • Impact on neighbouring amenity • Area subject to Dark Skies • Light pollution • Resultant intensification of the site [Officer Note: Varying condition 3 would not result in any increase in units or change in the use of the site.] • Impact on rural character • Inappropriate in rural setting • Impact on National Landscape…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A person addressed the committee to object, and a local ward councillor also spoke against the application.

Committee discussion

Members considered whether the light helped staff leave safely, its effects on residents and wildlife, and whether it should be restricted to business hours with a short grace period.

“The Committee discussed the application, and considered the purpose of the light, with some noting that it had been put forward as a measure to assist staff leaving the premises at the end of the working day rather than for security purposes. Members expressed concern about the potential impact of the light on nearby residents and wildlife, particularly if it was triggered outside of operating hours.”

“Some Members felt alternative safety measures could be put in place without the use of external lighting, while others considered the light acceptable provided it was restricted to operating only when the business was open. There was discussion about allowing a short “grace period” beyond closing time to enable staff to leave safely.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application with the report’s conditions and an additional restriction requiring the light to operate only during business hours and no later than 20.15.

“The Chair moved the motion to approve application 25/P/00063 subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report, with the additional condition restricting operation of the light to within business hours and no later than 20.15 Councillor Bigmore seconded the motion which was carried.”

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/00063 be approved subject to the conditions and reasons as detailed in the report, with the additional condition restricting operation of the light to within business hours and no later than 20.15.”

Minutes