Councillor Gant submitted apologies and Councillor Fooks substituted for him.

Councillor Paule submitted apologies.

There were no declarations.

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.