Statement from Councillor Will Roberts, Leamington Willes (Planning Application W/21/0590, Land South Of Chesterton Gardens)
Summary of statement
I appreciate the complexities of this application, but AC Lloyd have still failed to address the reasons why this committee refused it in February. I’m not seeking for this committee to refuse this application, but to take note of the areas AC Lloyd still need address and add them as conditions.
One of these if the committee is minded to grant, is to ask that it would include the condition:
“No building or groundworks will be able to go ahead until a second vehicle access route is built, that will act as the only haul road to the site.”
Statement
Whilst I’m not speaking at the planning meeting for W/21/0590 Land South of Chesterton Gardens, I felt it important to voice concerns for many residents and highlight where the latest application has failed to address the issues raised by a single access route to the new development site.
This is not about stopping the development because of the houses, but the developer providing safe and sustainable access routes to the site. The current plan with only one access route fails to do this and whilst AC Lloyd have listened since their last application, they have failed to address all the issues around noise and amenity.
Where have AC Lloyd done noise assessments?
AC Lloyd started by only doing noise assessments at a few sites, they have now included 3 more sites since their last planning application was refused. Although, they have failed to do noise assessment on key parts of the route where it is highly likely noise levels will surpass the SOAEL (Significant Observed Adverse Level) as shown below.
 |
 |
The two areas in red show where noise assessments haven’t been done yet.
The first one shown by the circle, on the St Fremund Way & Chesterton Drive junction, where a property sits on this junction and currently suffers from noise pollution. With the increase in traffic this pollution will increase and a noise survey is needed to access the impact on this property.
The second area shown between the two red lines is on St Fremund Way where the houses create a canyon effect. This area is near two areas where noise assessments have been done and shows why a noise assessment is needed here.
The Chart below shows the results of these two noise surveys conducted by AC Lloyd.
 |
 |
Withy Bank sits opposite an open space just before the entrance to the area shown between the two red lines on St Fremund Way. It shows future noise levels to sit just below the SOAEL level.
Emperor Boulevard is similar to St Fremund Way, but has a smaller canyon effect compared with St Fremund Way. The chart shows future noise levels peak past the SOAEL level, so it make sense this will happen to a greater degree with St Fremund Way.
Why didn’t AC Lloyd commission a noise assessment on St Fremund Way?
Whilst the new application does suggest some mitigation measures to address the noise pollution, we do not know if they will be enough to address the noise pollution on both these two red spots.
Without this information the planning committee cannot make a fair decision on this application.
Brimstone End – expected to keep their triple-glazed windows shut
As we know the first application W/21/0617 was refused and one of the reasons was the impact to amenity, especially to the homes on Brimstone End who would be detrimentally impacted by noise pollution. The suggestion in this application is to provide triple glazing and that windows should remain closed. This effectively means residents become prisoners in their own homes, not allowed to open their windows or enjoy gardens without suffering from adverse noise pollution.
I also take issue with the officers report that states:
‘The predicted noise impacts are slightly off-set by the fact that the ground floor rooms of the existing properties overlooking the roadside are largely limited to kitchen and breakfast rooms where there are no specific noise guidelines/criteria, however, there is the occasional dining room, lounge or study where noise criteria thresholds would apply during the daytime.
The above statement applies to 1 - 6 Brimstone End, but the actual make-up of these house according to noise assessment is:
- Living Room & Breakfast Room
- Living Room & Breakfast Room
- Living Room & Study
- Kitchen & Study
- Breakfast Room
- Breakfast Room
Contrary to what the report says it is not the ‘occasional’ room where noise guidelines apply, but over 50% of these rooms. Why is this being watered down in the report?
Application contrary to policy B3
It is plain to see that the impact of noise pollution runs along the whole of the single access route and has not been fully investigated in places. Some of the mitigation measures are hostile to residents, whilst we don’t know if others will reduce the noise pollution. This clearly goes against B3 in the local plan.
Of course, this is just the impact on residents living along the single access route with the additional traffic from the development and not from the construction traffic, which will of course be worse as this traffic will be 40 ton lorries.
Holes in the Construction management plan
The Construction Management Plan says deliveries will be stopped stop between 08:30 -9:30 and 15:00 - 16:30 (term time) & 15:00 - 16:00 (outside of term).
The construction site will be operating from 07:30 -17:00 and several safety questions are raised:
- Deliveries will be allowed to arrive to site between 07:30 & 08:30, this is surely a time when many people are leaving homes to go to work or travelling to school?.
- It's mentioned that only two vehicles will be allowed on site except when during peak deliveries. What defines a peak delivery and how often will this happen?
- When construction / delivery vehicles are waiting to get on site, where will they be staged? During the construction of Chesterton Gardens, many of these vehicles were parked up on the roadside on St Fremund Way and Chesterton Drive.
The single access route effectively makes the school route from Chesterton Drive to Brimstone End part of the building site. This is a major safety concern.
As I said at the beginning of this, this is not about building the houses, but about the single access route and the impact it will have on the many residents living along its route or use it on a daily basis.
Options for the committee
To make a fair decision for the people who live in the area and will be affected by this development, I would ask that this committee:
1) Defers making a decision until noise assessments have been carried out along the whole of the single route access, including the areas marked by red above.
2) Use this time to bring in an independent contractor to verify the noise levels and that the mitigation measures will be effective, where AC Lloyd’s noise assessments have been close to the SOAEL level. This is a sensitive planning application with potential harmful impacts on resident’s health & wellbeing.
Acquiring a second a second access route is the solution here.
Therefore, it makes sense that this development should not go ahead without a second access route, wherever it might be. Something that could realistically be acquired within 5 years, which is the term allowed for this development to start if granted.
Instead of refusing this application, the committee could add a condition which will mean it is able to grant this application. The condition could read along the lines:
3) “No building or groundworks will be able to go ahead until a second vehicle access route is built for reasons of noise and amenity.”
And
4) The Construction Management Plan should state.
“Construction vehicles will only use the second access route to travel to and from the construction site.”
I appreciate this is a difficult planning decision, but this has the potential to significantly negatively impact the lives of many Warwick District residents on a daily basis effecting their health & wellbeing.
I strongly ask this committee to not allow residents to be left in the lurch by a planning system that doesn’t protect their health and wellbeing. A fair decision can only be made with all the evidence gathered and certified.
