Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
79 20/04395/PRI18A - Cambridge Railway Station PDF 192 KB
Minutes:
The Committee
received an application for the Prior Approval for the erection of a building
to enclose a new Carriage Wash Machine (CWM). The CWM building would be located
on a section of track linking the two separate north and south yards of the
Cambridge Rail depot, which are divided by Mill Road bridge.
The Senior Planner
updated his report by referring to revised condition and recommendation wording
on the Amendment Sheet and to amended wording of Condition 3 in his
presentation.
The Committee received representations in objection to the application
from the following:
· Resident
of Eastern Street.
· A
representative from Quash the Trainwash Community
Organisation.
The representations covered the following issues:
i.
An
industrial facility does not belong in a residential area that is itself in the
centre of a conservation area. More appropriate land for its location at
Cambridge North was sold, with only transport organisations consulted; not the
community or Councillors. Even when the Mill Road bridge works were proposed in
2018, this facility was largely obfuscated. Had it been raised then, the community would have asked many more questions.
ii.
This
application has come before the Committee due to the effort and expense of
residents. Even then, approval is sought only for two buildings rather than the
industrial facility with which they are interdependent. It is not just two
buildings. Residents were being asked to accept continuous noise, vibration, and
chemical outputs. Plus the visual blight of a 35m
metre long and 8.5m metre high building and associated plant, lit up all night,
just metres from their back fences.
iii.
This
was a significant change. twelve carriage trains would arrive constantly to be
cleaned 24/7, 365 days a year. Cleaning would peak with four trains an hour
being cleaned at anti-social times of between
3:30am to 6am. While lorries were no longer allowed to idle in streets,
residents were expected to tolerate trains idling in the depot 24/7. Residents
accepted that living alongside the railway brought noise and they wanted an
efficient railway. Residents felt like collateral damage in the railways’
strategic plan.
iv.
Railways need to respect the
communities they serve, and so residents objected to the application and
proposed conditions as set out in their written representations.
v.
Asked for the following:
a.
Visual
alignment with the surrounding built environment - brick-effect walls and slate
coloured roofs; dark brown or green fencing.
b.
Maximum
physical noise attenuation of the buildings, and acoustic fences at entrance
and exit especially along the whole length of the sidings. Following the
precautionary principle, this should be done now, and should not await
post-operation tests.
c.
On-going
noise assessments to hold the operators to the claimed 44dB during cleaning and
38dB background.
d.
O-ngoing vibration assessments of the integrity of
foundations and walls of houses.
e.
Operations
should be limited to Monday – Friday, with a maximum of two trains per hour.
vi.
Residents
already suffered from almost seven day a week construction noise from both this
and Ironworks, exacerbated by working from home during a pandemic. This
facility raised the prospect that at no point in the future residents would be
assured of a rest from noise, vibration, visual, light, and chemical pollution.
Residents appealed to the Committee to impose reasonable conditions and not
allow this facility to operate at the long-term cost of injury to the
community.
vii.
Expressed particular
concern that chemicals/spray from train cleaning operations would be
spread (by wind) to residents’ gardens. This and train cleaning operations
would impact on residents’ amenity space. The situation would be exacerbated by
lockdown where residents were forced to stay at home and so would be frequently
disturbed by day and night time train cleaning work.
viii.
GTR had
repeatedly been asked to confirm what chemicals would be used in train cleaning
but they had not engaged with residents on this issue.
ix.
Re-iterated that:
a.
Residents’ sleep could be
interrupted.
b.
Residents wanted maximum
mitigation of cleaning processes to avoid impact on their amenity.
Councillors Bird
and McQueen temporarily left the meeting due to a disruption in their receipt
of the remote meeting delivery. They participated in the discussion,
but did not vote on the
recommendation.
Councillor Porrer
proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation that prior to the
full operation of the CWM that further noise monitoring and washing vapour
assessments are undertaken.
This amendment was carried
by 6 votes to 0.
The Committee:
Resolved by (6 votes to 0) to grant the application prior approval in accordance with the Officer recommendation,
for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report, subject to:
i.
the
planning conditions set out in the Officer’s report and the Amendment Sheet;
ii.
an additional Condition: Prior to
commencement of development of the CWM building above slab level, the colour
and finish of the external materials to be used in the construction of the
building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The building shall be built in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the appearance of the
building does not harm the visual amenity of the area (Cambridge Local Plan
2018, policies 55 and 61);
iii.
an additional Informative: The applicants are
recommended that prior to the full operation of the CWM that further noise
monitoring and washing vapour assessments are undertaken to establish the
operational noise levels of the CWM and its vapour impacts. They utilise reasonable endeavours to
implement any additional mitigation as appropriate; and
iv. delegated authority to Officers to draft the conditions and informatives in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Spokes.