Variation of existing condition 4 of CW03/0620/F to allow a variation in noise levels.

Variation of existing condition 4 of CW03/0620/F to allow a variation in noise levels.

The Central Team Leader reported the receipt of correspondence from Councillor D.B. Wilcox and summarised its contents; Councillor Wilcox had indicated that he was satisfied with the up-dated report and the proposed amended condition.

Councillor Mrs. P.A. Andrews, a Local Member, felt that the views of the Local Members were most relevant to this application.  She noted the work undertaken by the Principal Environmental Health Officer but felt that the concerns resulting from this application provided an object lesson regarding the difficulties of having industrial and residential uses in such close proximity.  Councillor Mrs. Andrews noted that the Sub-Committee had given careful consideration to conditions attached to planning application CW2003/0620/F and did not feel that there was any reason to change them.  Councillors Mrs. S.P.A. Daniels and Ms. A.M. Toon, the other Local Members, endorsed these views.

The Principal Environmental Health Officer noted the concerns of Members but emphasised that the intrusive noise experienced by local residents was most likely from the printing and extrusion process at Gelpack and not from the silos and feed-pipes to which this application related.  He explained that, given the dominant level of noise from other parts of the operation, it was difficult to measure the noise emanating from silos and, therefore, enforcement of the condition in question would be unfeasible.

There was a brief discussion about the methods used to obtain noise measurements.  Councillor Ms. Toon expressed concern that approval of this application would give the wrong impression that noise levels from Gelpack Excelsior Ltd were considered acceptable.

In response to a question from Councillor Mrs. M.D. Lloyd-Hayes, the Principal Environmental Health Officer confirmed that Environmental Health and Trading Standards had received no noise complaints recently from local residents but the letters of objection received by Planning Services indicated that there were concerns.

Councillor P.J. Edwards noted that a number of objections raised by the local residents related to noise from other activities on site and suggested that discussions be held to investigate whether some of these problems could be voluntarily ameliorated by the applicant.  The Chairman suggested that this should be pursued whatever the outcome of the Sub-Committee’s decision.  Councillor Mrs. Andrews suggested that a way forward might be to defer consideration of the application to assess the whole issue of noise management on the site.

The Principal Environmental Health Officer commented that there might be room for discussion but this would be outside the remit of this application.  He noted, however, that isolating the noise of the silos would be unachievable unless the constant activities on the site were ceased for a time.

Councillor Edwards noted that this application had been deferred before and felt that matters needed to be moved on, subject to the applicant being encouraged to address some of the other issues regarding the operation.

Councillor Ms. Toon suggested that, if the noise from the silos and feed-pipes was so insignificant, there might not actually be a need for the application in the first place.

Councillor Mrs. Andrews proposed that the application be refused on the basis that the existing conditions were adequate.  In response, the Central Team Leader urged caution as it might be difficult to defend this reason for refusal given the professional advice that had been received and he suggested that deferral for further discussions might be a better option; he added that this was regrettable given the time that the application had been in the system.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred for further discussions with the applicant.