The applications below have been called into Planning Review committee by 12 councillors: Councillors Hollingsworth, Upton, Kennedy, Fooks, Simm, Taylor, Clarkson, Sinclair, Henwood, Tanner, Lygo and Turner.

The reason for the call in was given as:

“…….. the (West Area Planning) Committee decided to go against officer advice, which argued that a refusal of the application was not defensible at appeal. The minutes record that: “The Head of Planning & Regulatory Services reminded the Committee that a vote against the officer recommendation was likely to prompt NR to launch an appeal and that there were potential risks of an adverse award of costs against the Council from the decision. If that was the case then the officers involved in the NR applications would not be able to support those decisions at appeal as the position of the Council at appeal would be irreconcilable with the professional advice provided by those officers. The Council would need to appoint a new team of advisers to support those members of the Committee presenting the Council’s case at appeal.”

The advice from officers is that an appeal against the Council is very likely to be upheld, and as the minutes above make clear, the potential costs of such an appeal may be very substantial indeed, especially if the Council is made to pay the costs of Network Rail into the bargain. When the professional judgement of officers is that they cannot support a decision made by members, I think it is incumbent on members to take every opportunity to review that decision to be sure that it is the right one.”

The attached report and appendices covers both of the East West Rail Phase 1 applications included on this agenda.

A covering report and a legal advice note will be published in a supplement to these papers.

The Committee considered two applications for the Noise Scheme of Assessments: 16/02507/CND for route section H and 16/02509/CND for route section I-1.

The two applications have been called-in to the Planning Review Committee on the grounds that the West Area Planning Committee decision of 21 February 2017 had retained conditions relating to rail damping and restrictions on train services against officer advice, which argued that approval with those conditions or refusal of the applications was not defensible at appeal.

The Planning Officer presented the report, setting out the background to the applications and the nature of the professional advice from officers.  The Planning Officer explained that Network Rail (NR) had resubmitted the approved Noise Scheme of Assessments with additional information so that the issues around the conditions imposed on previous approvals of those schemes concerning rail damping and restricting rail services could be reconsidered. This was regarded as best practice being an attempt to eliminate or minimise outstanding differences between the applicant and the planning authority.

The Planning Officer explained that, in essence, the two decisions before the Committee were to determine:

1.    Whether rail damping is reasonably practicable in the current circumstances where noise barriers and noise insulation are already installed

2.    Whether it is reasonable to retain a planning condition which restricts the pattern of rail services

The Planning Officer then referred the Committee to the advice from Queen’s Counsel:

·         The Noise and Vibration Monitoring Policy (NVMP) does not require ‘at source’ mitigation if the other measures already provided will achieve the objectives of the NVMP (para 77)

·         The NVMP does not require any assessments to address any future increases in train services and that these potential changes do not need to be modelled (paragraph 84 of his Advice).

·         Network Rail can increase services without being in breach of condition 19 of the deemed planning permission, and do not need to seek further consent (paragraph 85 of his Advice).

In conclusion the Planning Officer explained that the officer assessment was that:

·         the existing barriers and insulation meet the requirements of the NVMP (in both route sections H and I-1) apart from at one Noise Sensitive Receptor (NSR) in section H where the residual (post barrier) noise impact is 3dB. Given that at that one NSR the benefit of rail damping would be a ‘just-noticeable’ noise reduction, the likely costs of providing rail damping make it not reasonably practicable.

·         there is no legal basis for the imposition of the condition to restrict train numbers.

The Environmental Health Officer gave a detailed presentation explaining the technical issues relating to the two applications.

The following local residents spoke against the two applications: Caroline Robertson, Greg Kaser, Mike Gotch, Paul Buckley, Jeremy Thorowgood, Adrian Olsen and Keith Dancey.

Representatives from Network Rail, Paul Panini and Ian Gilder, spoke in support of the two applications.

The Committee asked questions of the officers and Network Rail representatives about the details of the two applications.

The Committee discussion noted, but was not limited to,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25

Site address:      16/02509/CND for route section I-1

Proposal:            Details submitted in compliance with condition 19 item 2 (operational noise and vibration) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

Officer recommendation:

to approve this application and condition 19 be partially approved in relation to the Noise Scheme of Assessment for route section I-1 for the following reasons:

1.    The submitted Noise Scheme of Assessment is considered to be robust and has demonstrated that the required standards of noise mitigation set out in the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011) will be achieved subject to the installation of the specified mitigation measures. 

2.    The Council considers that the proposal accords with the policies of the development plan as summarised below.  It has taken into consideration all other material matters, including matters raised in response to consultation and publicity and advice from Queens Counsel and external technical advisors.  Any harm that the development would otherwise give rise to can be offset by the conditions imposed.

Subject to the following condition, which has been imposed for the reason stated:

1.         Development in accordance with submitted details

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/02509/CND application and condition 19 be partially approved in relation to the Noise Scheme of Assessment for route section I-1 for the reasons set out below and following condition:

Reasons:

1.         The submitted Noise Scheme of Assessment is considered to be robust and has demonstrated that the required standards of noise mitigation set out in the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011) will be achieved subject to the installation of the specified mitigation measures. 

2.         The Council considers that the proposal accords with the policies of the development plan as summarised below.  It has taken into consideration all other material matters, including matters raised in response to consultation and publicity and advice from Queens Counsel and external technical advisors.  Any harm that the development would otherwise give rise to can be offset by the conditions imposed.

Condition:

1.      Development in accordance with submitted details

Site address:           16/02507/CND for route section H

Proposal:      Details submitted in compliance with condition 19 item 2 (operational noise and vibration) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

Officer recommendation:

to approve this application and condition 19 be partially approved in relation to the Noise Scheme of Assessment for route section H for the following reasons:

1.    The submitted Noise Scheme of Assessment is considered to be robust and has demonstrated that the required standards of noise mitigation set out in the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011) will be achieved subject to the installation of the specified mitigation measures. 

2.    The Council considers that the proposal accords with the policies of the development plan as summarised below.  It has taken into consideration all other material matters, including matters raised in response to consultation and publicity and advice from Queens Counsel and external technical advisors.  Any harm that the development would otherwise give rise to can be offset by the conditions imposed.

Subject to the following condition, which has been imposed for the reason stated:

1.         Development in accordance with submitted details

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/02507/CND application and condition 19 be partially approved in relation to the Noise Scheme of Assessment for route section H for the reasons set out below and following condition:

Reasons:

1.         The submitted Noise Scheme of Assessment is considered to be robust and has demonstrated that the required standards of noise mitigation set out in the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011) will be achieved subject to the installation of the specified mitigation measures. 

2.         The Council considers that the proposal accords with the policies of the development plan as summarised below.  It has taken into consideration all other material matters, including matters raised in response to consultation and publicity and advice from Queens Counsel and external technical advisors.  Any harm that the development would otherwise give rise to can be offset by the conditions imposed.

Condition:

1.      Development in accordance with submitted details

Informative (site specific):

1.         That Network Rail should liaise with Mr Keith Dancey (resident of Quadrangle House here) to explore possible mitigation measures to address the noise levels at his property (specifically his front door and bedroom window).

The attached report and appendices covers both of the

East West Rail Phase 1 applications included on this agenda.

Discussion

The Committee considered two applications for the Noise Scheme of Assessments: H 16/02507/CND for route section H and 16/02509/CND for route section I-1.

The Planning Officer presented the report. In summary she explained the nature of the applications and the officer advice as set out in the report to committee.  She explained that Network Rail (NR) had resubmitted the approved Noise Scheme of Assessments with additional information so that the issues around the conditions imposed on previous approvals of those schemes concerning rail damping and restricting rail services can be reconsidered. This was regarded as best practice being an attempt to eliminate or minimise outstanding differences between the applicant and the planning authority.

The Planning Officer explained that the Council had consulted Queen’s Counsel on the two applications and had asked Arup to comment on specific technical matters in NR’s Supplementary Statement.  That technical advice from Arup was taken into account by Queen’s Counsel.

The Planning Officer then referred the Committee to the key points in the advice from Queen’s Counsel:

Rail damping

·         The NVMP does not require ‘at source’ mitigation if the other measures already provided will achieve the objectives of the NVMP

·         “At source” is preferred but where it is not sufficient to mitigate noise impacts or not reasonably practicable, other measures will be considered – there is no suggestion that if not sufficient “at source” has to be used first and then additions to it provided”

·         [the NVMP] “cannot be construed as requiring both [barriers and rail damping] to be provided”

·         In respect of residual noise a “significant impact” means 5dB or above

·         Rail damping may mitigate noise impacts by 2.5dB

·         A 3dB difference is at the margin of perceptibility

·         The NVMP standards concern internal, not external noise levels

·         For those who already have noise insulation, open window noise will be reduced

·         At one house there will be noise reduction from 5db to less than 3db

Train services

·         the NVMP does not require any assessments to address any future increases in service and these potential changes do not need to be modelled

·         NR can increase services without being in breach of condition 19 of the deemed planning permission, and do not need to seek further consent

The following residents spoke against the two applications: Mike Gotch, Michael Drolet, Jackie Gray, Adrian Olsen, Jeremy Thorowgood and Paul Buckley.

Representatives from Network Rail, Ian Gilder and Paul Panini, were present to answer questions relating to the application.

The Committee asked questions of the officers and Network Rail representatives about the details of the two applications.

In reaching its decisions, the Committee considered all of the information put before it.

In debate members of the Committee indicated that they were not minded to accept the officer recommendation to approve the schemes of assessment without conditions relating to rail damping and restriction of train services.  This was because they did not consider that NR had demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that the provision of rail damping was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101

Site address:      16/02509/CND for route section I-1

Proposal:            Details submitted in compliance with condition 19 item 2 (operational noise and vibration) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to approve this application and condition 19 be partially approved in relation to the Noise Scheme of Assessment for route section I-1 for the following reasons:

1.    The submitted Noise Scheme of Assessment is considered to be robust and has demonstrated that the required standards of noise mitigation set out in the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011) will be achieved subject to the installation of the specified mitigation measures. 

2.    The Council considers that the proposal accords with the policies of the development plan as summarised below.  It has taken into consideration all other material matters, including matters raised in response to consultation and publicity and advice from Queens Counsel and external technical advisors.  Any harm that the development would otherwise give rise to can be offset by the conditions imposed.

Subject to the following condition, which has been imposed for the reason stated:

1.         Development in accordance with submitted details

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/02507/CND and condition 19 be partially approved in relation to the Noise Schemes of Assessment for route section H for the reasons stated in the report and subject to the following amended conditions which have been imposed for the reasons given:

1        The development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the documents titled "Noise Scheme of  Assessment for  Route  Section  1/1,  Main  Report" and  "Annexes  A-E  and  G"  (ref 0221083/11.11-07) dated 2nd December 2015; "East-West Rail: Baseline Acoustic Survey, Network Rail" (ref 5114534 2015/May/06) dated 20th July 2015; the further details contained in the report (and Appendix 1 to the report) of the Independent Expert darea- 1st December 2015; and Figures 1.1 (version A01, dated 04/08/2015) 5.1a (version A02 dated 06/08/2015) 5.1b (version A02 dated 28/09/2015) and 5.2 (version A01, dated 06/08/2015). In the event of conflict between these drawings and other documents the four August/September 2015 drawings shall prevail; and as between the other documents, the later produced document shall prevail.

Reason: the Noise Scheme of Assessment has been prepared upon the basis of these details and deviation from them would not necessarily result in the standards of noise mitigation required by the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011) being achieved.

2        Within three months of this partial approval under condition 19 of the deemed planning permission, proposals shall be submitted for the written approval of   the local planning authority showing how at-source noise attenuation by rail dampening to at least the standard achievable by the use of Tata Silenttrack can be incorporated into the scheme.  The development to which this approval relates shall not be brought into operation EITHER without that written approval having been obtained and other than in accordance with such approved details OR without the Council having given written confirmation that it is satisfied that the provision of such rail dampening is not reasonably practicable.

Reason: The local planning authority is not satisfied that rail dampening as an at source mitigation measure has been shown to not be reasonably practicable in the absence of any attempt on the part of the applicant to secure approval for the use of such a measure.

3.      Passenger train movements on Section I-1 between 0700 hours and 2300 hours shall not be in excess of 8 movements per hour. Freight train movements between 2300 hours 0700 hours on the following day shall not exceed 8.

Reason: to ensure compliance with condition 19 of the planning permission deemed to have been granted (ref TWA/10/APP/01)

Site address:           16/02507/CND for route section H

Proposal:                 Details submitted in compliance with condition 19 item 2 (operational noise and vibration) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to approve this application and condition 19 be partially approved in relation to the Noise Scheme of Assessment for route section H for the following reasons:

1.    The submitted Noise Scheme of Assessment is considered to be robust and has demonstrated that the required standards of noise mitigation set out in the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011) will be achieved subject to the installation of the specified mitigation measures. 

2.    The Council considers that the proposal accords with the policies of the development plan as summarised below.  It has taken into consideration all other material matters, including matters raised in response to consultation and publicity and advice from Queens Counsel and external technical advisors.  Any harm that the development would otherwise give rise to can be offset by the conditions imposed.

Subject to the following condition, which has been imposed for the reason stated:

1.         Development in accordance with submitted details

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/02507/CND and condition 19 be partially approved in relation to the Noise Schemes of Assessment for route section H for the reasons stated in the report and subject to the following amended conditions whichhave beenimposed forthe reasonsstated:

1.    Development in accordance with submitted details

The developmentis tobe carriedout strictlyin accordancewith thedocuments titled "Noise Schemeof Assessmentfor RouteSection H"(ref 0221083/11/H06)  dated 6 March 2015;the ERMfurther technicalnote submittedto theCouncil on5 May2015 titled "Technical Noteto ProvideInformation onthe Effectof Relocatingthe Woodstock Road Crossover(ref 0221083/H07)and drawingnumbers 0221083_SecH_Sheet24_Ver1,0221083_SecH_Sheet25_Ver1, 0221083_SecH_Sheet26_Ver1and 0221083_SecH_Sheet27_Ver1all datedMay 2015. Inthe eventof conflictbetween thesedrawings andother documentsthe four May2015 drawingsshall prevailand asbetween theother documentsthe later produceddocument shallprevail.

Reason:the Noise Schemeof Assessmenthas beenprepared uponthe basisof these details anddeviation fromthem wouldnot necessarilyresult inthe standardsof vibration mitigation requiredby theNoise andVibration MitigationPolicy (January 2011) beingachieved.

2. Withinthree monthsof thispartial approvalunder condition19 ofthe deemed planning permission,proposals shallbe submittedfor thewritten approvalof  the local planningauthority showinghow at-sourcenoise attenuationby raildampening to at leastthe standardachievable bythe useof TataSilentrail canbe incorporatedinto the scheme.  Thedevelopment towhich thisapproval relatesshall notbe broughtinto operation EITHER withoutthat writtenapproval havingbeen obtainedand otherthan in accordancewith suchapproved detailsOR withoutthe Councilhaving givenwritten confirmationthat itis satisfiedthat theprovision ofsuch raildampening isnot reasonably practicable.

Reason:The localplanning authorityis notsatisfied thatrail dampeningas anat source mitigation measurehas beenshown tonot bereasonably practicablein the absenceof anyattempt onthe partof theapplicant tosecure approvalfor theuse of sucha measure.

3.    Passenger train movements on Section H between 0700 hours and 2300 hours shall not be in excess of 8 movements per hour. Freight train movements between 2300 hours 0700 hours on the following day shall not exceed 8.

Reason: to ensure compliance with condition 19 of the planning permission deemed to have been granted (ref TWA/10/APP/01)

The Committee considered two applications for Noise and Vibration Schemes of Assessment for route section 1-2 of Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester.

The Planning Officer presented the report and briefed the Committee on the reasons supporting the proposal to include a condition requiring the implementation of at source noise mitigation in the form of rail damping.

John Howson (County Councillor St Margaret’s Division and representative of Rewley Park Management Company) spoke against the applications.  Representatives from Network Rail and its advisers (Jonathan Davies and Ian Gilder) gave a presentation in support of the applications.

The Committee asked questions of the officers and Network Rail about the detail of the applications.

Decisions

In reaching their decision, the Committee considered the officers report and presentation and the address of the public speakers and made the following observations:

·           There was a need for consistency in determining the applications relating to sections H, I-1 and I-2

·           Network Rail had not yet submitted a convincing case to demonstrate that the installation of rail damping as an at source mitigation measure  was not reasonably practicable

·           The Council, as local planning authority, had been placed in a very difficult position by the Secretary of State’s decision to grant deemed planning permission for EWRP1

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

Site address:           Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester (Appendix 1)

Proposal:                 Details submitted in compliance with condition 1 (Noise and Vibration - route section I/2) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chilterns Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

Officer recommendation:

Reasons for approval – Vibration Scheme of Assessment – 16/01635/CND

1          The submitted Vibration Scheme of Assessment is considered to be robust and has demonstrated that the required standards of vibration mitigation set out in the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy will be achieved. Taking into account the representations made by all parties, the adopted policies of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 which seek to preserve residential amenity where properties are close to vibration-generating development, and the requirements of condition 19 of deemed planning permission TWA/10/APP/01, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a condition requiring development in accordance with submitted details.

 2         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals.  Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Condition:

1          Development in accordance with application documents

The Committee resolved to approve the application for the following reasons and subject to the conditions listed:

1.         The submitted Vibration Scheme of Assessment is considered to be robust and has demonstrated that the required standards of vibration mitigation set out in the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy will be achieved. Taking into account the representations made by all parties, the adopted policies of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 which seek to preserve residential amenity where properties are close to vibration-generating development, and the requirements of condition 19 of deemed planning permission TWA/10/APP/01, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a condition requiring development in accordance with submitted details.

2.         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals. Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Condition:

1.         Development in accordance with application documents

Site address:           Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester (Appendix 1)

Proposal:                 Details submitted in compliance with condition 1 (Noise and Vibration - route section I/2) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chilterns Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to approve this application for the following reasons and subject to the conditions listed:

Reasons for approval – Noise Scheme of Assessment - 16/01634/CND

1.         The submitted Noise Scheme of Assessment is considered to be robust. It predicts that the operational noise from EWRP1 will cause increases of 3dB or more at a number of properties in route section I-2; but predicts no increases of 5dB or more at any properties in route section I-2. No noise mitigation is proposed. Taking into account the representations made by all parties, the adopted policies of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 which seek to preserve residential amenity where properties are close to noise generating development, and the requirements of condition 19 of deemed planning permission TWA/10/APP/01, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions requiring development in accordance with submitted details, and the submission of proposals for the installation of rail damping.

2.         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals.  Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions:

1.    Development in accordance with application documents

2.    Implementation of rail damping

The Committee resolved to approve the application for the following reasons and subject to the conditions listed:

1.         The submitted Noise Scheme of Assessment is considered to be robust. It predicts that the operational noise from EWRP1 will cause increases of 3dB or more at a number of properties in route section I-2; but predicts no increases of 5dB or more at any properties in route section I-2. No noise mitigation is proposed. Taking into account the representations made by all parties, the adopted policies of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 which seek to preserve residential amenity where properties are close to noise generating development, and the requirements of condition 19 of deemed planning permission TWA/10/APP/01, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions requiring development in accordance with submitted details, and the submission of proposals for the installation of rail damping.

2.         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals. Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions:

1. Development in accordance with application documents

2.    Implementation of rail damping

The following five applications were considered and determined by the West Area Planning Committee on 13 September 2016.

These five applications have been called-in to the Planning Review Committee by the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services who considers that a review is appropriate to ensure consistency in decision making for similar types of applications/development.

The Committee considered five applications from Network Rail to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring on route sections H and I-1.

The Chair made the following introductory remarks:

• Planning Review Committee (PRC) had been convened to consider only the merits of these five applications which had been “called in” by the Head of Planning & Regulatory Services on the grounds that a review was appropriate to ensure consistency in decision making for similar types of applications
• the PRC should be mindful of the importance of ensuring consistency when determining these five applications
• The five separate applications from Network Rail were seeking variations or removals to some (but not all) of the conditions applied to the previous approvals made by West Area Planning Committee (WAPC) in June 2015 and Feb 2016; for example the condition restricting the number of passenger and freight trains on the line was not for review by the Planning Review Committee (PRC) and stands as agreed at WAPC
• Appendix 2 presented the draft terms of an Unilateral Undertaking (UU) but it was important to note that this was the current proposal as submitted by Network Rail; it was not presented for approval by PRC as it lacked sufficient detail; the actual detailed terms of the agreed UU would be negotiated by planning officers (just as they would for any other s106 agreement) and the final UU would be signed off by the Head of Planning & Regulatory Services and the Chair of PRC.

The Officers presented the report and set out the background to the applications to be determined.  They highlighted the following points:

• Condition 19 was imposed by the Secretary of State to ensure that operational noise and vibration are adequately mitigated at residential and other noise sensitive premises

·         Condition 19 and the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy require monitoring of any mitigation that is installed at 6 and 18 months after services start in EWRP1 and again after services start in EWRP2: this must be undertaken because the Secretary of State requires it and is not impacted by any decision taken by the local planning authority

·         In route sections H and I-1 the implications are that:

o   vibration monitoring is not required because no vibration mitigation installed

o   monitoring is required of the noise reduction performance of installed barriers and property insulation

·         WAPC wanted additional monitoring of the operation of the rail line not just of the mitigation installed and imposed a condition requiring continuous monitoring of noise and vibration for 6 years

·         Officers had advised the WAPC when it was considering applying a condition requiring additional monitoring, that in their opinion this form of condition would not meet the legal or policy tests of the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework

·         Network Rail was now applying to vary this condition to revert back to the requirements of condition 19 (with a voluntary enhancement in the form of a Unilateral Undertaking)

The Council’s legal advisor then briefed the Committee and advised them that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9

Site address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Appendix 1 – route sections H and I-1

Proposal:                  Applications under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring in route sections H and I-1.

Officer recommendation:

Planning Review Committee is recommended to approve this application 16/01409/VAR for the following reasons and subject to and including:

·         the conditions listed below

Reasons for Approval

1          The proposed monitoring makes satisfactory provision to help secure a reasonable level of mitigation of the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on local residents.

2          Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals. Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions

1.      Development in accordance with application documents

2.      Implementation of SilentTrack

3.      Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme

On being put to the vote a majority of the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/01409/VAR: Noise monitoring route section I-1 (re - 15/03503/CND, Condition 4) subject to the following conditions:

1.      Development in accordance with application documents

2.      Implementation of SilentTrack

3.      Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme

Site address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Appendix 1 – route sections H and I-1

Proposal:                  Applications under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring in route sections H and I-1.

Officer recommendation:

Planning Review Committee is recommended to approve this application 16/01412/VAR for the following reasons and subject to and including:

·         the conditions listed below

Reasons for Approval

1          The proposed monitoring makes satisfactory provision to help secure a reasonable level of mitigation of the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on local residents.

2          Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals. Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions

1.         Development in accordance with application documents

On being put to the vote a majority of the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/01412/VAR: Vibration monitoring on plain line, route section I-1 (re - 15/03587/CND, Condition 3) subject to the following conditions:

1.    Development in accordance with application documents

Site address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Appendix 1 – route sections H and I-1

Proposal:                  Applications under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring in route sections H and I-1.

Officer recommendation:

Planning Review Committee is recommended to approve this application 16/01406/VAR for the following reasons and subject to and including:

·         the conditions listed below

Reasons for Approval

1          The proposed monitoring makes satisfactory provision to help secure a reasonable level of mitigation of the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on local residents.

2          Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals. Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions

1.      Development in accordance with application documents

2.      Implementation of SilentTrack

3.      Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme

On being put to the vote a majority of the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/01406/VAR: Noise monitoring route section H (re - 15/00956/CND, Condition 4) subject to the following conditions:

1.      Development in accordance with application documents

2.      Implementation of SilentTrack

3.      Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme

Site address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Appendix 1 – route sections H and I-1

Proposal:                  Applications under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring in route sections H and I-1.

Officer recommendation:

Planning Review Committee is recommended to approve this application 16/01411/VAR for the following reasons and subject to and including:

·         the conditions listed below

Reasons for Approval

1          The proposed monitoring makes satisfactory provision to help secure a reasonable level of mitigation of the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on local residents.

2          Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals. Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions

1.         Development in accordance with application documents

On being put to the vote a majority of the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/01411/VAR: Vibration monitoring at switches and crossings, route section H (re - 14/00232/CND, Condition 3) subject to the following conditions:

1.         Development in accordance with application documents

Site address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Appendix 1 – route sections H and I-1

Proposal:                  Applications under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring in route sections H and I-1.

Officer recommendation:

Planning Review Committee is recommended to approve this application 16/01410/VAR for the following reasons and subject to and including:

·         the conditions listed below

and

·         conclusion of a Unilateral Undertaking (to monitor vibration for four days at 3 properties close to the line in route section H) the decision upon which to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services in consultation with the Chair of Planning Review Committee

Reasons for Approval

1          The proposed monitoring makes satisfactory provision to help secure a reasonable level of mitigation of the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on local residents.

2          Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals. Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions

1          Development in accordance with application documents

2          Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme

On being put to the vote a majority of the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/01410/VAR: Vibration monitoring on plain line, route section H (re - 13/03202/CND, Condition 3) subject to the following conditions as amended below:

1.      Development in accordance with application documents

2.      Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme

In addition:

·         the conclusion of a Unilateral Undertaking (to monitor vibration for four days at 3 properties close to the line in route section H and/or at other locations to be mutually agreed) the decision upon which to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services in consultation with the Chair of Planning Review Committee.

Note re appendices

·         Appendix 1 is common to agenda items 3 and 4 (found on page 35)

·         Appendices 2 and 3 are common to agenda items 3, 4 and 5 (pages 37 and 39)

·         Appendix 4 and 5 a, b, c  are specific to this report (pages 53, 63 - 77)

Discussion

The Committee considered two applications for the removal of conditions in relation to the use of ‘Tata SilentTrack’ in route sections H and I-1.

The Planning Officer presented the report. In summary she explained that that planning officers’ were not saying that the use of ‘Tata SilentTrack’ was reasonably practicable but that the applicant had not submitted a convincing case that the use of ‘Tata SilentTrack’ was not reasonably practicable for use on route sections H and I-1.

The following residents spoke against the application: Mr Mike Gotch, Mr Keith Dancey, Mr Paul Buckley, Mr Adrian Olsen.

Representatives from Network Rail gave a presentation in support of the application.

The Committee asked questions of the officers and Network Rail representatives about the details of the applications.

In reaching their decisions, the Committee considered the officers report and presentation, the address of the public speakers and the presentation by Network Rail. 

The Committee concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated to the Council’s overall satisfaction that the use of ‘Tata SilentTrack’ was not reasonably practicable for use on route sections H and I-1.

Decisions

Note re appendices

·         Appendix 1 is common to agenda items 3 and 4 (found on page 35)

·         Appendices 2 and 3 are common to agenda items 3, 4 and 5 (pages 37 and 39)

Discussion

The Committee considered five applications to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring on route sections H and I-1.

The Planning Officer presented the report. She reminded the Committee that when they had approved the original applications subject to the condition to which these variations refer they had been advised by officers that the condition would not meet the legal or policy tests of the National Planning Policy Framework.  She advised that officers remained of that view and for that reason were recommending approval of the applications to vary that condition.  She said that in respect of application 16/01410/VAR (vibration monitoring on the plain line, route H) the applicant had indictated that they were prepared to conclude a Unilateral Undertaking to conduct some additional vibration monitoring.

The following residents spoke against the application: Mr Mike Gotch, Mr Keith Dancey, Mr Paul Buckley, Mr Michael Drolet, Mr Adrian Olsen.

Representatives from Network Rail gave a presentation in support of the applications.

The Committee asked questions of the officers and Network Rail representatives about the details of each of the applications.

In reaching their decisions, the Committee considered the officers report, presentation and the address of the public speakers.

The Committee concluded that in respect of the following applications it was reasonable to remove or vary the conditions previously imposed as the proposed monitoring arrangements were in line with the original deemed permission condition 19 (1, 6):

16/01410/VAR

16/01411/VAR

16/01406/VAR

16/01412/VAR

However, in regard to application 16/01412/VAR the Committee were mindful of the statements from local residents about the high levels of vibration experienced, and they considered that it was unreasonable to dispense with any vibration monitoring arrangements for plain route, section I-1 purely on the basis of modelling assumptions.  

Decisions

Note re appendices

·         Appendix 1 is specific to this report (page 103)

·         Appendices 2 and 3 are common to all reports (pages 37 and 39)

Discussion

The Committee considered two applications for Noise and Vibration Scheme of Assessments for route 1-2.

The Planning Officer presented the report. She informed the Committee that officers were proposing an amendment to the published recommendation to include the following condition:

Within three months of this approval, proposals shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority showing how at-source noise attenuation by rail damping to at least the standard achievable by the use of Tata SilentTrack can be incorporated into the scheme.  The development to which this approval relates shall not be brought into operation EITHER without that written approval having been obtained and other than in accordance with such approved details OR without the Council having given written confirmation that it is satisfied that the provision of such rail dampening is not reasonably practicable.

She explained that as the case for not installing ‘Tata SilentTrack’ on route sections H and I-1 had not been made by Network Rail it followed that the same requirement should apply, by condition, to route section I-2.

Mr Keith Dancey, resident, spoke against the application.  Representatives from Network Rail gave a presentation in support of the application.

The Committee asked questions of the officers about the details of the application and in particular to determine the legal and planning policy reasons for the proposed amendment to the recommendation to include the requirement to show how at-source noise attenuation by rail damping to at least the standard achievable by the use of Tata SilentTrack can be incorporated into the schemes.

In reaching their decision, the Committee considered the officers report, presentation and the address of the public speakers.

The Committee concluded that officers had not provided sufficient justification for their recommendation to impose a condition to incorporate Tata SilentTrack on route I-2.

Decisions

Site address:   Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester Appendix 1

Proposal:          Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove condition 2 of 15/03503/CND in relation to the use of 'Tata SilentTrack' in Section I-1.

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to refuse this application 16/01861/VAR (route-section I-1) for the following reason:

1          It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that the provision of rail damping is not reasonably practicable for route-section H/I-1. While it may be reasonable to expect that rail damping will provide additional noise attenuation, and that safety and safe working conditions would not prevent the installation of rail damping, insufficient regard has been given in the application to local conditions and the financial considerations of installing rail damping. The application is therefore contrary to policies CP6 and CP10 of the adopted Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016, and policies CS13 and CS27 of the adopted Core Strategy 2026.

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to refuse planning application 16/01861/VAR: to remove condition 2 of 15/03503/CND in relation to the use of 'Tata SilentTrack' in Section I-1 for the following reason:

It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that the provision of rail damping is not reasonably practicable for route-section I-1. While it may be reasonable to expect that rail damping will provide additional noise attenuation, and that safety and safe working conditions would not prevent the installation of rail damping, insufficient regard has been given in the application to local conditions and the financial considerations of installing rail damping. The application is therefore contrary to policies CP6 and CP10 of the adopted Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016, and policies CS13 and CS27 of the adopted Core Strategy 2026.

Site address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Appendix 1 – route sections H and I-1

Proposal:                  Applications under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring in route sections H and I-1.

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to approve this application 16/01409/VAR for the following reasons and subject to and including:

·         the conditions listed below (conditions are in part dependent on the determination of applications 16/01858/VAR and 16/01861/VAR earlier in this Agenda); and,

·         conclusion of a Unilateral Undertaking (to monitor vibration for four days at 3 properties close to the line in route section H) the decision upon which to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Reasons for Approval

 1         The proposed monitoring makes satisfactory provision to help secure a reasonable level of mitigation of the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on local residents.

 2         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals.  Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions (to be applied as relevant to the permissions being varied):

1          Development in accordance with application documents

2          Implementation of SilentTrack

(dependent on the determination of applications 16/01858/VAR and 16/01861/VAR earlier on this Agenda)

3          Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme.

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/01409/VAR: Noise monitoring route section I-1 (re-15/03503/CND, Condition 4) subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

1.    Development in accordance with application documents

2.    Implementation of SilentTrack

3.    Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme.

Site address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Appendix 1 – route sections H and I-1

Proposal:                  Applications under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring in route sections H and I-1.

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to approve this application 16/01412/VAR for the following reasons and subject to and including:

·         the conditions listed below (conditions are in part dependent on the determination of applications 16/01858/VAR and 16/01861/VAR earlier in this Agenda); and,

·         conclusion of a Unilateral Undertaking (to monitor vibration for four days at 3 properties close to the line in route section H) the decision upon which to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Reasons for Approval

 1         The proposed monitoring makes satisfactory provision to help secure a reasonable level of mitigation of the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on local residents.

 2         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals.  Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions (to be applied as relevant to the permissions being varied):

1          Development in accordance with application documents

2          not applicable to this application

3          not applicable to this application

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed the resolution as set out below.

The Committee resolved to refuse planning application 16/01412/VAR: Vibration monitoring on plain line, route section I-1(re - 15/03587/CND, Condition 3) for the following reason: that in view of the statements from local residents about the high levels of vibration experienced it was unreasonable to dispense with any vibration monitoring arrangements for plain line, route section I-1 purely on the basis of modelling assumptions.

Site address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Appendix 1 – route sections H and I-1

Proposal:                  Applications under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring in route sections H and I-1.

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to approve this application 16/01406/VAR for the following reasons and subject to and including:

·         the conditions listed below (conditions are in part dependent on the determination of applications 16/01858/VAR and 16/01861/VAR earlier in this Agenda); and,

·         conclusion of a Unilateral Undertaking (to monitor vibration for four days at 3 properties close to the line in route section H) the decision upon which to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Reasons for Approval

 1         The proposed monitoring makes satisfactory provision to help secure a reasonable level of mitigation of the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on local residents.

 2         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals.  Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions (to be applied as relevant to the permissions being varied):

1          Development in accordance with application documents

2          Implementation of SilentTrack

(dependent on the determination of applications 16/01858/VAR and 16/01861/VAR earlier on this Agenda)

3          Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme.

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/01406/VAR: Noise monitoring route section H (re - 15/00956/CND, Condition 4) subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

1.    Development in accordance with application documents

2.    Implementation of SilentTrack

3.    Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme.

Site address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Appendix 1 – route sections H and I-1

Proposal:                  Applications under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring in route sections H and I-1.

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to approve this application 16/01411/VAR for the following reasons and subject to and including:

·         the conditions listed below (conditions are in part dependent on the determination of applications 16/01858/VAR and 16/01861/VAR earlier in this Agenda); and,

·         conclusion of a Unilateral Undertaking (to monitor vibration for four days at 3 properties close to the line in route section H) the decision upon which to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Reasons for Approval

 1         The proposed monitoring makes satisfactory provision to help secure a reasonable level of mitigation of the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on local residents.

 2         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals.  Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions (to be applied as relevant to the permissions being varied):

1          Development in accordance with application documents

2          not applicable to this application

3          not applicable to this application

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/01411/VAR: Vibration monitoring at switches and crossings, route section H (re - 14/00232/CND, Condition 3) subject to the following condition:

Conditions:

1.    Development in accordance with application documents

Site address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Appendix 1 – route sections H and I-1

Proposal:                  Applications under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 to vary conditions in relation to noise and vibration monitoring in route sections H and I-1.

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to approve this application 16/01410/VAR for the following reasons and subject to and including:

·         the conditions listed below (conditions are in part dependent on the determination of applications 16/01858/VAR and 16/01861/VAR earlier in this Agenda); and

·         conclusion of a Unilateral Undertaking (to monitor vibration for four days at 3 properties close to the line in route section H) the decision upon which to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services:

Reasons for Approval

 1         The proposed monitoring makes satisfactory provision to help secure a reasonable level of mitigation of the noise and vibration impacts of the scheme on local residents.

 2         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals.  Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions (to be applied as relevant to the permissions being varied):

1          Development in accordance with application documents

2          not applicable to this application

3          Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to approve application 16/01410/VAR:  Vibration monitoring on plain line, route section H (re - 13/03202/CND, Condition 3) subject to the following conditions as amended below:

·         the conclusion of a Unilateral Undertaking (to monitor vibration for four days at 3 properties close to the line in route section H) the decision upon which to be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services in consultation with the Chair of West Area Planning Committee

and

Conditions:

1.            Development in accordance with application documents

2.            Monitoring in accordance with submitted scheme

Site address:           Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester – Section I-2

Proposal:                  Details submitted in compliance with condition 1 (Noise and Vibration - route section I/2) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chilterns Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to approve this application for the following reasons and subject to the condition listed:

Reasons for approval

1          The submitted Noise and Vibration Schemes of Assessment are considered to be robust and have demonstrated that the required standards of noise mitigation set out in the Policy will be achieved. 

 2         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals.  Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions:

1          Development in accordance with application documents

Notwithstanding the officer recommendation, as amended, for approval and on being put to the vote, the Committee resolved to defer determination of application 16/01635/CND: Vibration Scheme of Assessment for route section I-2 to allow planning officers to provide more detail on the legal and planning reasons for recommending approval subject to a condition requiring at-source mitigation.

Site address:           Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester – Section I-2

Proposal:                  Details submitted in compliance with condition 1 (Noise and Vibration - route section I/2) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chilterns Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to approve this application for the following reasons and subject to the condition listed:

Reasons for approval

1          The submitted Noise and Vibration Schemes of Assessment are considered to be robust and have demonstrated that the required standards of noise mitigation set out in the Policy will be achieved. 

 2         Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals.  Officers have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report, that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.

Conditions:

1          Development in accordance with application documents

Notwithstanding the officer recommendation for approval, as amended with condition, and on being put to the vote, the Committee resolved to defer determination of application 16/01634/CND: Noise Scheme of Assessment for route section I-2 to allow planning officers to provide more detail on the legal and planning reasons for recommending approval subject to a condition requiring at-source mitigation.

Site address:      Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester Appendix 1

Proposal:            Application under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to remove condition 2 of 15/00956/CND in relation to the use of 'Tata SilentTrack' in Section H.

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to refuse this application 16/01858/VAR (route-section H) for the following reason:

1          It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that the provision of rail damping is not reasonably practicable for route-section H/I-1. While it may be reasonable to expect that rail damping will provide additional noise attenuation, and that safety and safe working conditions would not prevent the installation of rail damping, insufficient regard has been given in the application to local conditions and the financial considerations of installing rail damping. The application is therefore contrary to policies CP6 and CP10 of the adopted Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016, and policies CS13 and CS27 of the adopted Core Strategy 2026.

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The Committee resolved to refuse planning application 16/01858/VAR: to remove condition 2 of 15/00956/CND in relation to the use of 'Tata SilentTrack' in Section H for the following reason:

It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that the provision of rail damping is not reasonably practicable for route-section H. While it may be reasonable to expect that rail damping will provide additional noise attenuation, and that safety and safe working conditions would not prevent the installation of rail damping, insufficient regard has been given in the application to local conditions and the financial considerations of installing rail damping. The application is therefore contrary to policies CP6 and CP10 of the adopted Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016, and policies CS13 and CS27 of the adopted Core Strategy 2026.

Network Rail applications for East West Rail Phase 1:

This is a technical briefing for Oxford City Councillors on the above applications submitted by Network Rail.

This is open to the public and you are welcome to attend. However, this is not a meeting where anyone present can participate in the discussion. There is no need to inform the Council that you will be attending.

The briefing will be given by council officers.

There will be an opportunity for councillors to ask questions.

If time permits there will be an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions but not to make statements.

Application details

To see the application details on the Council’s website, follow the links on www.oxford.gov.uk to view and comment on planning applications then enter the application reference number in the search box.

Committee meeting

These nine applications will be decided by the West Area Planning Committee at their meeting on Tuesday 13 September starting at 6.00pm.  The agenda for that meeting was published on 5 September 2016:

http://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=4097

Information about the meeting, including how to register to speak to the committee is available here: http://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=144&Year=0

Site Address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Section I1

Proposals:   Details submitted in compliance with condition 19(2) (Noise - Section I1) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

Officer Recommendation:

CONDITION 19 BE PARTIALLY DISCHARGED IN RELATION TO THE NOISE SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT FOR SECTION I1.

For the following reasons:

1          The Noise Scheme of Assessment for route section I1 is considered to be robust and has demonstrated that the required standards of noise mitigation set out in the Policy will be achieved subject to the installation of the specified mitigation measures. It is confirmed that prior to and in connection with the granting of this consent, the Council has taken the Environmental Statement and other relevant environmental information into account.

2          The Council considers that the proposal accords with the policies of the development plan as summarised below.  It has taken into consideration all other material matters, including matters raised in response to consultation and publicity.  Any material harm that the development would otherwise give rise to can be offset by the conditions imposed.

subject to the following conditions, which have been imposed for the reasons stated:-

1          The development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the documents titled "Noise Scheme of Assessment for Route Section I/1, Main Report” and “Annexes A-E and G" (ref 0221083/11.I1-07) dated 2nd December 2015; "East-West Rail: Baseline Acoustic Survey, Network Rail” (ref 5114534 2015/May/06) dated 20th July 2015; the further details contained in the report (and Appendix 1 to the report) of the Independent Expert dated 1st December 2015; and Figures 1.1 (version A01, dated 04/08/2015) 5.1a (version A02 dated 06/08/2015) 5.1b (version A02 dated 28/09/2015) and 5.2 (version A01, dated 06/08/2015). In the event of conflict between these drawings and other documents the four August/September 2015 drawings shall prevail; and as between the other documents, the later produced document shall prevail.

Reason: the Noise Scheme of Assessment has been prepared upon the basis of these details and deviation from them would not necessarily result in the standards of noise mitigation required by the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011) being achieved.

2          Within three months of this partial approval under condition 19 of the deemed planning permission, proposals shall be submitted for the written approval of  the local planning authority showing how at-source noise attenuation by rail dampening to at least the standard achievable by the use of Tata Silentrack can be incorporated into the scheme.  The development to which this approval relates shall not be brought into operation EITHER without that written approval having been obtained and other than in accordance with such approved details OR without the Council having given written confirmation that it is satisfied that the provision of such rail dampening is not reasonably practicable.

Reason: The local planning authority is not satisfied that rail dampening as an at source mitigation measure  ...  view the full agenda text for item 100

Councillor Hollingsworth resumed his seat and Councillor Darke left the meeting.

The Committee considered an application setting out details submitted in compliance with condition 19(2) (Noise - Section I1) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) for Section I1 of the Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester.

The Planning Officer reported that since the publication of the agenda a representation had been received from Nicola Blackwood MP reiterating local concerns; and a representation concerning the methodology and data used in the Schemes of Assessment, and the lack of mitigation proposed in respect of a crossover some 250 metres north of Cox’s Ground known as crossover 9180 which was considered in advance of the meeting.

She reminded the Committee that as with similar applications the Schemes of Assessment generate theoretical predictions by putting current baseline measurements, together with information on the proposed number and pattern of train movements (‘the reasonable planning scenario’) into an agreed prediction methodology but cannot measure actual operational noise and vibration because the trains are not yet running. They are used to enable any required mitigation to be determined and built into the scheme before the new rail services start. The reasonable planning scenario, and the acceptable noise and vibration thresholds, and monitoring requirements were decided by the Secretary of State in granting the original planning permission, and are set out in the approved Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (included as Appendix 5 to both reports). The prediction methodology and the approach to mitigation employed in in the Schemes of Assessment for route section I1 are the same as those employed for route section H. Both Schemes of Assessment for route section I1 have been judged to be robust by the relevant Independent Experts. She outlined the details of the proposed 2.5m high barriers and showed the approximate line of these and confirmed the exact locations would be submitted and agreed.

Adrian Olsen, a local resident, spoke of his concerns over the application.

Andy Milne, representing Network Rail, spoke in support of the application.

The Committee asked questions and debated this and the following application together. They noted Network Rail’s likely challenges to the conditions on permissions on Section H.

The Committee noted that there was no requirement to provide noise barriers at the school playground as it counted as open space, barriers should be provided along that stretch and an informative added to request this.

The Committee resolved that:

An informative be added that barriers should be provided along the stretch adjacent to the school playground to improve the amenity.

CONDITION 19 BE PARTIALLY DISCHARGED IN RELATION TO THE NOISE SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT FOR SECTION I1.

subject to the following conditions, which have been imposed for the reasons stated:-

1          The development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the documents titled "Noise Scheme of Assessment for Route Section I/1, Main Report” and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100

Site Address:           Chiltern Railway From Oxford To Bicester Section I1

Proposals:   Details submitted in compliance with condition 19(2) (Vibration - Section I1) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

Officer Recommendation:

CONDITION 19 BE PARTIALLY DISCHARGED IN RELATION TO THE VIBRATION SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT FOR SECTION I1.

For the following reasons:

1          The Vibration Scheme of Assessment for route section I1 is considered to be robust and has demonstrated that the required standards set out in the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy will be achieved. It is confirmed that prior to and in connection with the granting of this consent, the Council has taken the Environmental Statement and other relevant environmental information into account.

2          The Council considers that the proposal accords with the policies of the development plan as summarised below.  It has taken into consideration all other material matters, including matters raised in response to consultation and publicity.  Any material harm that the development would otherwise give rise to can be offset by the conditions imposed.

subject to the following conditions, which have been imposed for the reasons stated:-

1          The development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the documents titled:

a.         Plain Line Vibration Assessment and Mitigation Report (ref 5114534- ATK-VIB-RPT-80001 rev P07);

b.         Vibration from Switches & Crossings - Assessment and Mitigation Report (ref 5114534-ATK-VIB-RPT- 80003 rev A01);

c.         Cover letter dated 28th November 2013 that sets out the monitoring scheme;

d.         Report by Chris Jones (Independent Expert, Vibration) on Schemes of Assessment for Plain Line and Switches and Crossings, Report-on-the-vibration-schems-of-assessment-CJCJ-15-05-2014-final.doc; and,

e.         Atkins Technical Note: Predicted Vibration Levels at Section I, Estimated Vibration Levels at Section I Rev 05 (issue) (3).docx.

Reason: the vibration scheme of assessment has been prepared upon the basis of these details and the potential for deviation from them would not result in the achievement of the standards of vibration mitigation required by the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011).

2          Passenger train movements on Section I1 between 0700 hours and 2300 hours shall not be in excess of 8 movements per hour. Freight train movements between 2300 hours 0700 hours on the following day shall not exceed 8.

Reason - to ensure compliance with condition 19 of the planning permission deemed to have been granted (ref TWA/10/APP/01)

3          Section I1shall not be made available for use by trains until provision for continuous monitoring of vibration has been effected for vibration sensitive properties throughout section I1 in accordance with a scheme previously approved in writing by the Council.  The results of such monitoring shall be provided to the Council on each of six months, eighteen months, thirty months, forty-two months, fifty-four months, sixty-six months and seventy-eight months from the date on which Section I1 is first made available for use for trains.  In the event that the monitoring results provided to the Council exceed  ...  view the full agenda text for item 101

The Committee considered an application setting out details submitted in compliance with condition 19(2) (Vibration - Section I1) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) for Section I1 of the Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester.

The presentation, speakers, and discussion for Minute 100 had also covered the matters in this application.

The Committee resolved that:

CONDITION 19 BE PARTIALLY DISCHARGED IN RELATION TO THE VIBRATION SCHEME OF ASSESSMENT FOR SECTION I1.

subject to the following conditions, which have been imposed for the reasons stated:-

1          The development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the documents titled:

a.         Plain Line Vibration Assessment and Mitigation Report (ref 5114534- ATK-VIB-RPT-80001 rev P07);

b.         Vibration from Switches & Crossings - Assessment and Mitigation Report (ref 5114534-ATK-VIB-RPT- 80003 rev A01);

c.         Cover letter dated 28th November 2013 that sets out the monitoring scheme;

d.         Report by Chris Jones (Independent Expert, Vibration) on Schemes of Assessment for Plain Line and Switches and Crossings, Report-on-the-vibration-schems-of-assessment-CJCJ-15-05-2014-final.doc; and,

e.         Atkins Technical Note: Predicted Vibration Levels at Section I, Estimated Vibration Levels at Section I Rev 05 (issue) (3).docx.

Reason: the vibration scheme of assessment has been prepared upon the basis of these details and the potential for deviation from them would not result in the achievement of the standards of vibration mitigation required by the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011).

2          Passenger train movements on Section I1 between 0700 hours and 2300 hours shall not be in excess of 8 movements per hour. Freight train movements between 2300 hours 0700 hours on the following day shall not exceed 8.

Reason - to ensure compliance with condition 19 of the planning permission deemed to have been granted (ref TWA/10/APP/01)

3          Section I1shall not be made available for use by trains until provision for continuous monitoring of vibration has been effected for vibration sensitive properties throughout section I1 in accordance with a scheme previously approved in writing by the Council.  The results of such monitoring shall be provided to the Council on each of six months, eighteen months, thirty months, forty-two months, fifty-four months, sixty-six months and seventy-eight months from the date on which Section I1 is first made available for use for trains.  In the event that the monitoring results provided to the Council exceed the vibration thresholds in the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy then additional mitigation measures shall be effected within six months in order to ensure that those levels are not again exceeded.

Reason: to ensure compliance with condition 19 of the planning permission deemed to have been granted (ref TWA/10/APP/01)

Site Address: Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester – Section H

Proposal:                      

Application 15/03110/CND: Detail submitted in compliance with Condition 19, Part 13 (Noise barriers- Route Section H) of TWA Ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990)

Officer Recommendation:

That condition 19(13) be partially discharged in relation to the details of the size, appearance and location of the noise barriers in Section H.

The Committee considered application for 15/03110/CND - details submitted in compliance with Condition 19, Part 13 (Noise barriers- Route Section H) of TWA Ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) – setting out proposed design and confirming the location of the noise barriers along Section H of the railway line.

The Planning Officer reported on a number of points including:

·         The location and size of the proposed noise barriers were fundamental to the acceptability of the Noise Scheme of Assessment (NSoA) and thus were approved at that time. Network Rail confirm that the location of the barriers as shown match exactly the approved locations in the approved NSoA.

·         The effectiveness of the mitigation in the NSoA was based on the relative height of the tops of barriers compared to receptors. This was based on the existing ground levels at the time. Sections of the cuttings and embankments had been re-profiled during works. Any permission will clarify that the barriers must be installed exactly as approved including maintaining the approved heights of the top of the barrier and distances relative to the receptors. Otherwise a new assessment must be carried out to check noise mitigation is satisfactory.

·         Changes to the size, height, relative position, and composition of the barriers from that previously agreed in accordance with the calculations from the independent expert could compromise their effectiveness and reduce the mitigation.

·         She therefore recommended a condition clarifying that nothing in this approval sanctions any departure from the approved NSoA, in particular there is to be no departure from the specified location and height of the barriers relative to the receptors.

At the discretion of the Chair, speakers against and speakers in support of the application were permitted to speak for up to ten minutes per group.

Keith Dancey, Ian Robinson, Mike Lewis, and Michael Drolet, residents living near the railway line, addressed the Committee and explained their concerns about the details of the barriers alongside Quadrangle House and Bladon Close.

Robert Mole, on behalf of Network Rail, spoke in support of the application.

The Committee asked questions of officers for clarification and to satisfy themselves that residents’ concerns were adequately addressed and that approving the scheme with the recommended condition fulfilled the requirements of the NSoA.

Amongst other points, officers confirmed that:

·         There were permissible tolerances on the final location and size but it was not possible to revisit the approved scheme;

·         At 1 Upper Close only the approved location (vertical and horizontal) would provide the required mitigation: any departure from this as a result of permanent changes to the bank would require further assessment.

·         At Bladon Close the overlap in the barriers had been shown to be as long as was required to be effective in mitigating noise: Network Rail could not be required to go beyond the requirements of the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84

Site Address:Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester Section I (see appendix 1)

Proposal:Details submitted in compliance with condition 3 (Individual scheme Sections) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

The Committee is asked to consider and determine the acceptability of splitting the approved section I into two parts: I1 and I2 as shown in Appendix 2. It is proposed that section I1 extends from Oxford North Junction down to the Aristotle Lane crossing; and section I2 extends from there down to the original end point at section J just north of the Station.

Officer recommendation: that the application be approved.

Councillor Brown arrived during this item and took no part in the debate or decision.

The Committee considered a report and a late submission from Network Rail setting out details submitted in compliance with condition 3 (Individual scheme Sections) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) relating to Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester Section I andthe acceptability of splitting at Aristotle Lane the approved section I into two parts: I1 and I2 as shown.

Andy Milne, representing Network Rail, spoke in support of the application and answered questions.

The Committee noted that although works have started in section I2 under assumed permitted development rights, Network Rail has given an undertaking to provide a noise assessment for the proposed Section I2 and to implement any mitigation indicated. The Committee agreed to add a condition as set out below to secure noise and vibration assessment and any mitigation indicated.

The Committee resolved to approve application 15/01978/CND with the following conditions:

1.    That within three months of the issuing of permission, noise and vibration schemes of assessment, together with identification if mitigation measures, are compiled in compliance with Condition 19 of TWA/10/APP/01 and submitted and approved. All railway related works and activities in section “I2” including any mitigation measures identified, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schemes and this condition prior to the passage of trains in section “I2”.

Site address: Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester (Wolvercote Ward)

Proposal: Details submitted in compliance with condition 19 (Operational Noise: section H) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) (15/00956/CND).

Officer recommendation: Condition 19 be partially discharged in relation to the noise scheme of assessment for section H subject to the following conditions, which have been imposed for the reasons stated

1.    The development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the documents titled “Noise Scheme of Assessment for Route Section H” (ref 0221083/11/H06) dated 6 March 2015; the ERM further technical note submitted to the Council on 5 May 2015 titled “Technical Note to Provide Information on the Effect of Relocating the Woodstock Road Crossover (ref 0221083/H07) and drawing numbers 0221083_SecH_Sheet24_Ver1, 0221083_SecH_Sheet25_Ver1, 0221083_SecH_Sheet26_Ver1 and 0221083_SecH_Sheet27_Ver1 all dated May 2015.  In the event of conflict between these drawings and other documents the four May 2015 drawings shall prevail and as between the other documents the later produced document shall prevail.

Reason: the Noise Scheme of Assessment has been prepared upon the basis of these details and deviation from them would not necessarily result in the standards of vibration mitigation required by the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011) being achieved

2.    Within three months of this partial approval under condition 19 of the deemed planning permission, proposals shall be submitted for the written approval of  the local planning authority showing how at-source noise attenuation by rail dampening to at least the standard achievable by the use of Tata Silentrail can be incorporated into the scheme.  The development to which this approval relates shall not be brought into operation EITHER without that written approval having been obtained and other than in accordance with such approved details OR without the Council having given written confirmation that it is satisfied that the provision of such rail dampening is not reasonably practicable.

Reason: The local planning authority is not satisfied that rail dampening as an at source mitigation measure has been shown to not be reasonably practicable in the absence of any attempt on the part of the applicant to secure approval for the use of such a measure.

The Committee considered a report and appendices detailing an application for approval under planning permission TWA/10/APP/01 for the provision of a railway at Oxford (Section H of the scheme).

The Committee also had eight submissions from members of the public and two from the applicant sent to the clerk for circulation after the publication of the agenda. Members also had the presentation from the open technical briefing on the key issues held on 11 June 2015 which five members had attended.

The planning officer said that all matters were covered in the introduction to the previous item.

Keith Dancey, local resident, spoke against the application. His points included the need for higher barriers; good quality barriers with advice taken from agencies which used these; and monitoring to check effectiveness well into the future.

Andy Milne, representing Network Rail, and Graham Cross, representing Chiltern Railways, said all matters were covered in their statements on the previous item.

Members of the committee questioned officers to clarify their understanding of points in the application, the assessments, and the objectors’ representations, and to satisfy themselves as to the constraints on their decision.

Officers referred the Committee to their previous presentation and advice.

The Committee debated the applications, taking into account the officer’s report, supporting appendices, and advice from officers. A motion to accept the officer’s recommendation with three further conditions was proposed and seconded. Committee members were of the view that the applications could be approve but that the same arguments applied to this application as to the two previously considered, and so the same additional two conditions should be added to this permission. After debate and clarification of the mitigation measures proposed an amendment to add the first two conditions only, and not include the third because officers advised they had sufficient powers and therefore this was not necessary, was agreed.

These were:

1.    Condition 2 on permissions13/03202/CND and 14/00232/CND as finalised by officers.

Reason  - to ensure compliance with Condition 19.

2.    Condition 3 on permissions13/03202/CND and 14/00232/CND as finalised by officers.

Reason - to ensure compliance with Condition 19.

The Committee resolved that condition 19 be partially discharged in relation to the noise scheme of assessment for section H (applications 15/00956/CND) subject to the following full and summary conditions, and to authorise the planning officer to attach the agreed wording of conditions 2 and 3 (above in full; below in summary) in consultation with the legal adviser, Chair and Vice-Chair and then to issue the decisions:

1.    The development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the documents titled “Noise Scheme of Assessment for Route Section H” (ref 0221083/11/H06) dated 6 March 2015; the ERM further technical note submitted to the Council on 5 May 2015 titled “Technical Note to Provide Information on the Effect of Relocating the Woodstock Road Crossover (ref 0221083/H07) and drawing numbers 0221083_SecH_Sheet24_Ver1, 0221083_SecH_Sheet25_Ver1, 0221083_SecH_Sheet26_Ver1 and 0221083_SecH_Sheet27_Ver1 all dated May 2015.  In the event of conflict between these drawings and other documents the four May  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19

Site address: Chiltern Railway from Oxford to Bicester (Wolvercote Ward)

Proposal: Details submitted in compliance with condition 19 (Operational Noise and Vibration) of TWA ref: TWA/10/APP/01 (The Chiltern Railways (Bicester to Oxford Improvements) Order - deemed planning permission granted under section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

13/03202/CND – vibration: plain line, section H

14/00232/CND – vibration: switches + crossings, section H

Officer recommendation: that condition 19 be partially discharged in relation to the vibration schemes of assessment for section H subject to the following condition, which has been imposed for the reason stated below

1.    The development is to be carried out strictly in accordance with the documents titled “East-West Rail; Phase 1 Chiltern Railways Company Limited Plain Line Vibration Assessment and Mitigation” (ref 5114534-ATK-VIB-RPT-80001 rev P07) dated 16 January 2014; “East-West Rail; Phase 1 Chiltern Railways Company Limited Vibration from Switches & Crossings – Assessment and Mitigation” (ref 5114534-ATK-VIB-RPT-80003 rev A01) dated 21 January 2014; the ERM letter to the Council dated 29 April 2015 (including the Atkins Technical Note titled “East West Rail Phase 1: Vibration Assessment for Proposed Relocation of Switches and Crossings in Section H” dated 28 April 2015); and drawing numbers 0221083_SecH_Sheet24_Ver1, 0221083_SecH_Sheet25_Ver1, 0221083_SecH_Sheet26_Ver1 and 0221083_SecH_Sheet27_Ver1 all dated May 2015.  In the event of conflict between these drawings and other documents the four May 2015 drawings shall prevail and as between the other documents the later produced document shall prevail.

Reason – the vibration scheme of assessment has been prepared upon the basis of these drawings and the potential for deviation from them would not result in the achievement of the standards of vibration mitigation required by the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Policy (January 2011).

and with the addition of the following informative:

1.    The Applicant is advised that its offer to monitor vibration effects of the development is regarded as highly desirable and the results should be provided to the local planning authority and publicised generally.

The Committee considered a report and appendices detailing two applications for approvals under planning permission TWA/10/APP/01 for the provision of a railway at Oxford (Section H of the scheme).

The Committee also had eight submissions from members of the public and two from the applicant sent to the clerk for circulation after the publication of the agenda. Members also had the presentation from the open technical briefing on the key issues held on 11 June 2015 which five members had attended.

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted the key issues and points for consideration contained in this. She also highlighted those issues outside the scope of the three applications (the two considered here and the one considered as the next item) which could not be taken into account including HS2; and drew attention to the relevant parts of the Secretary of State’s decision and the strict limits this imposed on the Council’s discharging of these conditions.

With the agreement of the committee, the Chair extended the time permitted for addresses objecting to and in support of the application to 33 minutes, with a three minute limit for each objector, to allow all those registered the opportunity to make their comments. Consent had been sought and obtained from all concerned save for Keith Dancey to use this opportunity to make comments concerning both this item and the next.

Paul Buckley, Patricia Feeney, Michael Drolet, Caroline Robertson, John Keyes, Keith Dancey, Neil Butterfield, Chris Irwin, and Lyn Bibbings, all local residents, spoke against the application.

Their points included:

·         The assumptions, far from being cautious, did not include the heavy stone trains currently running on the line which created noise and vibration significantly in excess of the acceptable VDVs.

·         The assumptions were not in line with current practice and published timetabled movements. Network Rail was not forthcoming on future movements and had produced unrealistic assertions.

·         Heavy freight trains would exceed the vibration thresholds – the stone trains in particular would exceed these.

·         A reasonable planning scenario would assume a similar pattern to the present and that a doubled track would result in increased train movements.

·         The inspector imposed Condition 19 to protect residents from unacceptable noise or vibration.

·         Measurements were not taken at or near residents’ homes or of subsurface vibrations from trains in tunnels and cuttings: the assumptions were therefore wrong. Building parameters used were wrong. Discharging the conditions was a threat to public safety.

·         One resident said his house shook every time a train passed despite having a garden between the house and railway. He was disappointed with the small sample size and the number of assumptions and had no confidence in the calculations.

·         There was no consideration given to the usability of outside spaces or the need to open windows. Noise and vibration had serious effects on residents’ physical and mental health.

·         This decision had implications for Section I of the line.

·         There should be guarantees that no heavy stone trains would run.

·         There should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18