Decision details

The Committee received a Section 73 application.

 

The application sought approval to remove condition 33 of permission 13/1041/S73 (noise levels in external leisure/amenity areas).

 

The Officer referred to additional third party representations contained in the amendment sheet.

 

The Committee received a representation in objection to the application from a local resident.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Solutions to mitigate noise levels had not been looked at.

     ii.          In June 2016 his family enjoyed a summer on the private balconies, in late 2016 the road opened to traffic and he has not been able to spend time on the private balcony.

   iii.          Noise levels were 4 times larger than those recommended by the World Health Organisation. These were very serious noise levels.

   iv.          The developer was seeking to remove a condition that they never intended to comply with.

    v.          The balcony was an important part of the flats floor space.

   vi.          Will lose a massive quality of life and potentially reduced value of the flat.

 

Colin Campbell (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Ann Sinnott (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                 She was struck by the difference between what the Objectors had said and what the Applicant’s Agent had said. 

ii.               Despite what the guidelines said the road was incredibly narrow and noise levels were dreadful.

iii.             Could not understand why the advice of the Environmental Health Officer was disregarded, they stated that further information was required and advised that winter gardens should have been in place.

iv.             The request for the condition to be lifted pre-supposed that the noise issue would not change but the noise in the area would only get worse.

v.              The condition should remain.

 

Richard Robertson (Petersfield Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee about the application:

i.                 When residents bought and moved into the properties it was with the benefit of condition 33 and the balcony being an amenity space.

ii.               Outdoor noise levels were not to exceed 60db.

iii.             Rejected the contention that balconies did not form part of the amenity space. They were large enough to be used as an amenity space and were used as such.

iv.             Turning the balcony into a winter garden would be inappropriate. Acoustic barriers could be fitted and have the same mitigating effect.

v.              The developer had chosen to do nothing.

vi.             During pre-application discussions there was a formal response regarding careful acoustic mitigation to achieve 50db limit but this was not incorporated into the design.

vii.           The British standard had been addressed by Environmental Health Officers but this should be designed to the lowest practical level.

viii.         The developer could lay particular tarmac down which created less noise and the speed bumps could be changed.

ix.             The amenity space behind the flats was public open space this was different to amenity space provided by the balcony.

x.              Mitigation measures did exist and there should be a condition requiring an acoustic panel in the balcony if the application was approved.

xi.             An increase in noise from 50-60db was a 200% increase.

xii.           Referred to a planning appeal decision where the inspector thought an unacceptable noise environment was dependant on not opening windows.

xiii.         Requested a deferral for the Committee to consider the planning appeal decision and also questioned if the correct people were notified as the number of residences notified of the application was limited to 3 or 4 residencies in Northern Road.   

 

The Committee:

Decided not to defer the application as Cllr Robertson had suggested as it was a long standing application already.

 

Resolved (unanimously) to refuse the application contrary to the officer recommendation for the following reasons:

 

Condition 33 should not be removed because this would result in the continued harmful noise levels having an adverse effect on the amenity of the occupants of the existing flats contrary to Cambridge Local Plan (2006) policy 4/13.