Skip to main content

Agenda item

22/02749/REM- Employment Land East Of Spratsgate Lane, Cirencester

Proposal

Application for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the employment area to the east of Spratsgate Lane Cirencester Gloucestershire

 

Case Officer

Anthony Keown

 

Ward Member

Councillor Gary Selwyn

 

Recommendation

Refuse

Minutes:

 

The application was for the approval of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the employment area to the east of Spratsgate Lane, Cirencester, Gloucestershire.

 

Case Officer introduced the item.  The Case Officer explained that the application was part of The Steadings development, which required sustainable, high-quality mixed-use development.  This application related to the first of three Employment Areas within The Steadings, were it to receive permission.  At the meeting in March 2024, Members delegated authority to the Interim Head of Planning Services, in consultation with the Chair of Planning and Licensing Committee, to determine this application subject to a number of caveats.  One of those caveats was agreement of a satisfactory scheme for controlling noise emitted from the development.

 

The Council’s Environmental Regulatory Services (ERS) lead on this application left the Council in March 2024.  Officers therefore appointed independent noise consultants Nova Acoustics Limited to provide specialist acoustic advice on the application.  Nova provided advice in a Technical Memo dated the 8th of May.  It responds to the Applicants’ noise evidence, and also sets out the findings of Nova’s assessment of the site.

 

Having reviewed Nova’s Technical Memo, officers advised the Applicants on six measures that would need to be incorporated within the scheme for controlling noise.  Of those measures, three could be secured through conditions attached to any approval of reserved matters.  The remaining three could not be satisfactorily addressed by conditions.  The Case Officer explained how these three contested measures were preventing officers from recommending approval of this application.  As the Applicants were not prepared to agree the measures in question, officers had no choice but to recommend refusal.  The Case Officer explained that the preferred approach was to agree a satisfactory scheme for controlling noise, which would allow officers to support this application.

 

James Hicks, the agent, addressed the Committee.  The agent stated that the application had been referred to the Committee over a difference of opinion on the interpretation of condition 68 (Noise) attached to the outline planning permission 16/00054/OUT.  The agent did not feel that the officer’s assessment was correct, stating that he believed the critical noise threshold should be 55 decibels (dBA).  The agent stated that if this application was not permitted, the Applicants would appeal against the Council’s decision, and apply for costs.

 

Member Questions

 

The Case Officer described the three contested measures:

  • precluding use of the service yards (including deliveries) between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00;

 

  • subsequent submission and approval of Noise Management Plans (NMPs) prior to use; and
  • reducing noise emissions from use of the service yards at units 2 and 3 in particular.

 

The Case Officer explained how the Applicants did not consider these measures to be necessary.  He explained that the difference of opinion stemmed from different interpretations of condition 68, which refers to two different British Standards.  That condition requires the scheme for controlling noise to be based on the noise rating and methodology laid out in British Standard (BS) 4142.  It also states that the scheme should ensure that noise levels in the nearest gardens and public open spaces do not exceed 55 dBA LAeq (1 hour) when measured at any period.  This general noise threshold is referred to within BS 8233.

 

The Case Officer explained how BS 4142 is the appropriate standard for assessing industrial and commercial sound, and how it incorporates a methodology for assessing impacts on neighbouring noise-sensitive properties.  That methodology is context-specific; i.e. significance depends on the margin by which the rating sound level exceeds the background sound level, and the context in which the sound occurs.  In effect, the background sound level is critical.  Whereas the general noise threshold referred to within BS 8233 is not context-specific.

 

The Case Officer explained how in this case the daytime background sound level is 37 dBA.  Under the BS 4142 methodology for assessing impacts, exceeding the background sound level by 10 dBA indicates significant adverse impacts.  The Case Officer explained why giving primacy to the 55 dBA threshold would therefore be inappropriate and irresponsible in this case.  In effect, a scheme for controlling noise could be completely ineffectual in preventing significant adverse impacts on neighbouring residential properties, and still meet the second stipulation within condition 68 (which in this case would allow exceedance of up to 18 dBA).  This would fly in the face of the stated reason for imposing condition 68 in the first place.  The Case Officer also pointed out that the BS 4142 methodology is entirely consistent with the approach advocated in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which is cited in the reason for imposing condition 68.

 

The Case Officer had therefore concluded that the second stipulation within condition 68 should not be interpreted as the critical threshold, and one that should overrule the findings of a BS 4142 assessment.  Conversely, the Applicants considered that the 55 dBA threshold was the critical consideration, and should be used to determine whether a scheme of noise mitigation is acceptable.

 

The Case Officer explained why the Applicants’ proposed hours of operation (i.e. pursuant to outline planning permission condition 65), which form part of the proposed scheme of noise mitigation, were not considered acceptable.  He also explained the importance of NMPs, given the nature of the noise concerns in this case.  The Interim Head of Planning described how the Applicants had previously submitted a scheme of noise mitigation, which included a commitment to NMPs.  However, that scheme had been submitted on a ‘without prejudice’ basis, and the commitment to NMPs had subsequently been withdrawn.

 

Members asked questions of the Case Officer and other officers, who responded as follows.

 

  • Members asked whether background sound levels within the rear gardens of nearby residential properties within Orchard Field had been recorded.  The Case Officer explained that the Applicants’ noise consultant had only recorded the background sound levels at one location within the application site.  Nova Acoustics Limited had relied on that data when assessing the proposals.
  • The Interim Head of Legal Services explained that until the application was determined, the Committee could reach a different conclusion to the one they reached in March.
  • Members asked whether different parts of the site could be treated differently, depending on potential impacts.  The Case Officer explained how use of the service yards at units 2 and 3 posed a particular concern, especially as those yards could be in use between 19:00 and 23:00 each evening.  This was one of the reasons why NMPs were considered important, as they would allow measures to be tailored to the risks/issued involved (e.g. evening period loading and unloading activities).
  • Members asked whether there was still a prospect of reaching agreement with the Applicants on the contested points.  The Case Officer described how the Applicants had been given an opportunity to resolve the contested issues, but that they had instead requested that the application be considered again at the July Committee meeting.  Officers had therefore concluded that the Applicants wanted the Council to determine the application as proposed in July.
  • Members asked whether the interpretation of condition 68 had been tested in court.  The Case Officer explained that the interpretation of condition 68 had not been tested in that way.  He went on to explain how the courts have previously found that there are no special rules for the interpretation of planning conditions.  A key question is what a reasonable reader would understand the words to mean when reading the condition in the context of other conditions and of the consent as a whole.
  • The Interim Head of Legal Services explained how the Council had taken legal advice on whether it could impose conditions to address the contested matters.  The Council had been advised that imposing additional conditions on any approval of reserved matters (i.e. to secure a more effective scheme for controlling noise) would be inappropriate - given outline planning permission conditions 65 and 68.

 

Members observed that the issues were technical and detailed.  The Interim Head of Planning summarised the position as follows.  The Applicants wanted the Council to accept a scheme for controlling noise, which officers consider to be inadequate.  The consequence of accepting the Applicants’ position would be that the development could generate more noise and for a longer period.

 

Members expressed disappointment that at this early stage in the implementation of The Steadings, the Committee was being threatened with an appeal and an application for costs.

 

Councillor Fowles left the room at 17:40.

 

Member Comments

 

Councillor Coleman proposed refusing the application.

 

Councillor Andrew Maclean seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED: To REFUSE the application.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages