Agenda item

To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

 

Note:   A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

 

Robert Theed referred to Application 23/00636/FULL) 

Q1. Why was the Public Health comment from July 13th not mentioned in the officers report. This comment includes important information regarding the expected background noise level in rural locations, which is contrary to that of the Noise Report. Specifically the following sentence:

“We know that in remote rural areas the background noise level during the evenings and into the night is around 18-22dBa, not the assumed 25-30dBa in the report.”

The latest Noise report did amend the assumed noise level to 20-25dB, but this is still contrary to those from Public Health. Whilst there is an overlap between the noise report and those stated by Public Health, it is the high estimate of 25dB that the Noise report uses in its assumptions on expected sound levels above background which lies outside those stated by Public Health.

The assumed level of sound attenuation (insulation) of the barn used in the Noise Report analysis are “likely to be limited to circa 5-10dB.” However it appears to be the maximum level of 10dB that is used in subsequent calculations to arrive at the final sound level at the sensitive receptors. In the comments from the 10th May Public Health  state “building itself affords little or no noise insulation properties.” and clearly a value of 0dB is used in the calculations done as part of the 13th of July comments from Public Health. The 85dB Internal sound level limit from the latest Noise Report still results in a sound level of 33dB at the nearest sensitive receptor when using the 0dB attenuation assumption. Even at a more generous value of 5dB for attenuation which wasn't previously used by Public Health we would expect a value of 28dB at the nearest sensitive receptor. Note that at the top of the aforementioned background sound level assumption of 22dB, both of these estimates are more than 5dB above background which is the guideline limit mentioned in the Noise Report itself, specifically the following.

“The most appropriate UK guidance document for the control of music noise at events is c, produced by The Noise Council. This document states the following at Note 5 of Table 1, at Section 3.1: ‘For indoor venues used for up to about 30 events per calendar year an MNL (music noise level) not exceeding the background noise by more than 5dB(A) over a fifteen minute period is recommended for events finishing no later than 2300 hours.”

Q2. Why were Public Health and the planning officer happy to accept the sound limit of 85dB at the venue when it clearly results in more than 5dB above background sound levels when using assumptions they themselves have stated?  Specifically more likely between 6-15dB above background under those assumptions or a more than doubling of the perceived sound level at the nearest sensitive receptor.

Jo Treweek referred to Application 23/00636FULL

Q1. Horseriding is a really important local activity and access to quiet lanes with low levels of traffic is a particular feature of this area (increasingly rare) that has attracted many horseriders and equestrian businesses to base themselves here.  As Chair of our local riding club (Kentisbeare Riding Club), I want to know what consideration has been given to risk of accidents when wedding guests’ vehicles on assumed/ planned access routes to the venue meet horseriders on the narrow and currently quiet lanes our members are accustomed to use, as well as other local equestrian businesses, including a racing yard?

 

Q2. When deciding on conditions to limit disturbance, what consideration has been given to the local Serotine bat roost at Stowford. This is a priority species. Under the provisions of the Environment Act, national and local priority species and habitats should be a material consideration when determining planning applications. Has disturbance been considered at all or commented on by ecologists?

 

Q3. Please explain how introducing a new and significant source of noise and light pollution can possibly be considered compatible with DM22 and the need to safeguard the special features of the Blackdown Hills AONB, including peaceful enjoyment of the landscape and dark night skies? Health and safety provisions to limit noise after 11 are irrelevant in this regard.

 

Q4. If we are to accept un-necessary noise and light pollution affecting the AONB, shouldn’t we expect strict controls on both? Where are the conditions requiring modern, downward directed lighting or restricting outside lighting, even light displays? It is concerning that we are expected to take this on trust.

 

Q5. For those of us who enjoy walking in the AONB, taking in the views, this building is already a disruptive element, visible from miles around, hence the level of objection. It stands out starkly on entering Kentisbeare Village and is also an obvious intrusion from most of the footpaths along the Blackdown Hills escarpment. It couldn’t be more prominent, and this is without its attendant traffic, noise and light during events.

Please explain, therefore, how it is possible to conclude it is inconspicuous and should be considered innocuous in the landscape?

 

Q6. Given its impacts on the AONB, why is this proposal being treated as if it is a standard application, without any special consideration being given to safeguarding the AONB? In this context is not appropriate for the planning system to take tangible action to limit cumulative impacts of noise and light pollution?

 

Godfrey Whitehouse referred to Application 22/02374/MFUL

 

Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question in relation to the Dean Hill Two Tree Solar Farm application Ref 22/02374/MFUL. 

 

I am a retired chartered engineer who specialised in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

 

I refer you to the short supporting comment that I submitted on 1st November. If it is not included in the reports pack, I have copies here if needed.

 

My question is as follows:

 

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) states that 

“Between 24GW and 39GW of the Government's 70GW solar energy target is likely to be generated by ground mounted panels, compared to between 7GW and 22GW that is expected to be delivered by rooftop solar installations.” 

 

Would you agree that roof mounted solar cannot deliver the scale of solar energy that we require and that field scale installations such as the Dean Hill proposal are an essential part of the energy mix for tackling climate change?

Nick Smith referred to Application 23/00636/FULL

Were permission to be given for the change of use and events take place based on the restriction applied to the application, e.g. limits on number of events per year, noise levels, time limitation on noise etc., what safeguards are in place to ensure these restrictions are adhered to, where is the onus to demonstrate the restrictions are kept to and what redress is there should the restrictions be broken?

 

Carrie Martindale referred to Application 23/00636/FULL

 

Q1: Why hasn’t a proper noise survey been carried out?

All we have as residents to go on is a biased  ‘Noise Management Plan’ that has been bought and paid for by the applicant and is therefore in favour of the change of venue going ahead; and the experience of an event held there by the applicant last summer. 

 

I live in the hamlet of Stowford Water, 500km away from the proposed venue, and we found the wedding held at the venue during last summer extremely disruptive and an unacceptable level of noise.

 

Was it tranquil? No. Was it an acceptable level of noise for a family with 3 very small children? No. Would I be happy to accept this kind of noise (and possibly worse) on a weekly basis throughout the summer? Absolutely not.

 

The level of noise that emanated from that barn to our house was such that we could hear conversations, along with banging music. 

 

Q2: Why is it presumed to be acceptable that local residents can put up with this level of noise up until 11pm throughout the summer months? Does this presume that we are not able to spend time in our (currently) peaceful gardens on a summer afternoon and evening? Are we not allowed to sleep with our windows open? A one-off event is one thing but the prospect of having to put up with this every weekend is heartbreaking.

 

Stuart McFadzean referred to Application 23/00636/FULL

 

Q1 Do you accept that DM9 is not met? Your report is ambiguous on this point.

 

Q2 We are told that DM22 sets a higher bar than DM9. What does this mean?

 

Q3 What features of the character and appearance of this location are relevant if we are to judge whether the proposal respects them?

 

The proposal affects the AONB. The Blackdown Hills Partnership reminds us that tranquillity and remoteness of the AONB are some of the special qualities for which it was designated.

 

Q4. Is the tranquillity of the setting of this proposal a relevant aspect of the character of this location and therefore an aspect of its character that must be respected in order for DM22 to be satisfied?

 

Q5. What acoustic numeric parameters define tranquillity?

 

Q6. Do these parameters have the same value at 9 pm, 10 pm, 11 pm and 12am?

 

Q7. Do the noise conditions recommended by your public health team ensure that Tranquillity is measurably achieved?

 

Q8. If Tranquillity cannot be measurably achieved, how is it to be respected? How can this be conditioned and enforced? Your plan requires this if DM22 is to be met.

 

Para 4.91 supporting Policy DM27 Protected Landscapes states that ‘Development should not in any way undermine the special qualities that led to the designation of this landscape as AONB. We thus therefore have the requirements to promote (DM9), respect (DM22) and not in any way undermine the special qualities (DM27) of the place in which this building sits.

 

Q9. How do you judge if the special qualities of the AONB are not in any way going to be undermined by this development if your report provides you with no analysis of this question.

 

Q10. Is the Vision in your local plan material to the determination of this application?

 

Q11. Your Vision requires you to ‘maintain attractive countryside’. What are the attractive features of this countryside location and how does this proposal maintain them?

 

Q12. Do the attractive features of this location include this shed?

 

Your Vision requires you to ‘ensure that social and environmental benefits of development are optimised’.

 

Q13. Could a development in this location that harms the special qualities of the AONB have optimal environmental benefits?

 

Q14. Could a development that harms successful neighbouring businesses have optimal social benefits?

 

Q15. Could a development that diminishes the integrity of the asset of the AONB for future generations have optimal social benefits?

 

Policy S1k requires that landscapes including the Blackdown Hills AONB are protected and enhanced and that there is no noise or visual harm to the natural environment.

 

Q16. Does this proposal cause no noise or visual harm to the natural environment?

 

Q17. Does this proposal cause some noise or visual harm to the natural environment?

 

Q18. Policy S1h requires good sustainable design that respects local character, heritage, surroundings and materials. What design features of this proposal satisfy these requirements? Are these features ‘good’?

 

Q19 How are the Design Principles of DM1 met when DM 9 is not met?

 

Justin Gillett – referred to Application 23/00636/FULL

 

I have heard that there will be measures put in place to stop noise beyond 11pm.  How will this be policed effectively?

 

The Chair advised that the questions would be answered during the application.

 

 

.