The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, outlined the procedure, and introduced officers and committee members. 

Registered speakers confirmed if they wished to make one address covering either application or both applications, or wished to make two addresses, one for each application.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Tanner (substitute Councillor Henwood).

There were no declarations of interest made.

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.

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.