There were no apologies for absence.

There were no declarations of interest.

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:           16/02507/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).

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

To approve as a true and accurate record the minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2017.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2017 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.