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 reasonably practicable and they were concerned that the modelling did not reflect the possible future increase in train services.

The meeting adjourned at 7.35pm to allow officers to consider the likely consequences should the Committee reject the officer recommendation to approve the two applications and to provide advice as to the risks and issues that might arise in that event.

Councillor Price left the meeting at 7.35pm.

The meeting reconvened at 7.45pm.

Decisions

When the meeting resumed the Planning Officer advised the Committee that if they were minded to go against the officer recommendation then rather than refuse the applications it would be more procedurally appropriate to approve the Noise Scheme of Assessment applications subject to the original conditions requiring rail damping and a restriction on train services.  It was also clarified that a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted details should also be imposed.

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.

A proposal was made and seconded that the two applications be approved subject to the previous conditions on rail damping, restricting train services and works in accordance with the submitted details, the reasons for imposition for those conditions being the same as provided in the context of the previous approvals.

On being put to the vote a majority of the Committee agreed that proposal.