Noise Impacts On the basis of advice from EH Officers, it is considered that subject to a robust noise management plan, the proposed testing facility could be operated in a manner that maintains an appropriate standard of residential amenity for residents within the locality. Whilst it would not be possible to eliminate all noise for residents, it is considered that subject to the mitigation measures proposed and the recommended conditions, the adverse effects on living conditions would not be unacceptable. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in this respect with regards to Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014.
Other elements of the proposal also have the potential to create noise and disturbance, such as the hotel or the evaluation centre, or from associated plant/machinery. It is considered that residential amenity can be protected to an acceptable standard from these other uses through either conditions, or where applicable, at the detailed design stage.
Members will recall that the meeting of the Development Panel on 9 December 2014 that had been arranged to consider this application was cancelled. The decision to cancel the meeting was taken following the receipt, from a local resident on 8 December, of a judicial review pre-action letter claiming the officer report contained errors of law which, if not corrected would make any subsequent decision by the Council to grant planning permission unlawful and that a challenge to this decision would be made.
To ensure that the issues raised were fully considered and that Members were properly advised before making a decision, the report has therefore been updated and amended to include further information and clarification to ensure the concerns that had been highlighted are fully addressed.
It is considered that the report sets out a robust assessment of the application and provides a sound legal basis on which members can determine the application.
Members will note from the attached appendix that a number of neighbour representations refer to the proposal being used as a motor sports venue or for motor sports activities. It is important to note the distinction, the principal use of the proposed track is for a testing and evaluation facility for rally, track and road cars, with some ancillary corporate uses. The principal use of the proposed track is not as a motor sports venue or for motor sports activities and an approved noise management regime would ensure that this is not the case.
Allerdale Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions relating to noise management, contamination/remediation, odour control, lighting, etc.
The proposal has the potential to generate noise from a number of different sources, including but not limited to; demolition of existing buildings, construction of all aspects of the proposal, operation and use of the hotel, operation and use of the evaluation centre, external plant areas, operation and use of offices and future expansion space, and in particular, the outdoor proving and testing facility for track and rally cars, and road cars, and ancillary recreational noise associated with driving of cars associated with corporate events, as well as increased noise arising from the intensified use of the site, particularly vehicles entering and exiting.
The proposed testing facility is considered to have the most potential for noise generation. In relation to residential properties within Dovenby village, the testing track at its closest point will be approx. 250m (to Linden House) on the A594. Nearest properties within the village itself will be approx. 310m from the testing track at its closest point (1 The Cottages). With regards to the proximity of other villages, Bridekirk, Tallentire, Papcastle and Little Broughton are all within 2km of the Dovenby Hall Estate.
With regards to the assessment of noise, the NPPF at Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by amongst other things, ‘preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of noise pollution.’
Paragraph 123 states that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions; recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.
Further advice in relation to noise is provided within the online Planning Practice Guidance: Noise. This advice references the Noise Policy Statement and outlines the consideration of noise in respect to ‘Observed Effects Levels’. In particular, the advice indicates that:
where the perception of noise is noticeable and intrusive (observed adverse effect), the noise should be mitigated and reduced to a minimum.
where the perception of noise is noticeable and disruptive (significant observed adverse effect), the noise should be avoided.
where the perception of noise is noticeable and very disruptive (unacceptable adverse effect), the noise should be prevented.
Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan 2014 seeks to prevent development which amongst other things, would result in pollution or hazards which prejudice the health and safety of communities and their environments, or result in a detrimental effect on the local area in terms of visual amenity, distinctive character or environmental quality. Further, policy S12 requires that the extension or intensification of existing business should not result in overriding adverse impacts on the surrounding area.
With regards to this issue, the applicant has provided a number of reports, including:
A Noise Management Plan
An Assessment of Community Noise Levels
Environmental Statement - Main Statement Volume II (Chapter 8 Noise)
Noise Technical Appendix Volume 3
Construction Environmental Impact Management Plan
The supporting information provided by M Sport indicates the following in terms of their requirements to achieve a successful development:
potential evaluation requirements for up to 416 vehicle tests per annum for M Sport rally car production, plus private customer vehicle testing. This document states that the majority of testing and evaluation will be carried out by cars fitted with attenuators to control noise emissions. In addition the GT 3 Series potential requirements will be 400+ vehicle tests per annum, thus totalling approx. 900 vehicles tests per annum across Rally and GT 3 Series. In addition are the opportunities for production car evaluation. This usage reflects the existing demands from current and expected contracts in 2014/15.
A key requirement of the investment plan is to provide for business growth across wider motor sport sectors, road car development, increased sponsorship/franchise and production of rally/race vehicles for the team competition and private customers. It is thus intended as part of the business model to seek an increased requirement of 20% over the next 5 years.
10 corporate/sponsor events per year, all of which are stated as requiring a driver experience; most events are for two to three days; this is likely to increase in the future and would involve the current contractual requirement for the two principal WRC drivers to support sponsor events for 30 days each per year. These are likely to be the same events and would thus involve some 30 driver days. To this can be added visits by motor clubs including those who specialise in particular marques. These would normally be a single day activity but again require a driving experience. Provision needs to be made for a minimum of 10 such visits per annum (day event).
M-Sport are seeking permission for 126 days use above the applicable noise limit relevant to the current operation (45dB at the nearest noise sensitive property)) (see pyramid below for more detail).
Hours of operation are sought between 8.30am and 5pm during summertime (BST) and 8.30am and 7pm wintertime (GMT), but additional limitations in the hours of use are proposed specific to the requested noise categories.
The following pyramid has been provided by the applicant and sets out their request with regard to noise limits/categories for their operations:
5.2 The uses shall be limited as set out below:
I. Category 1 activity shall not exceed six days in any calendar year.
II. Category 2 activity shall not exceed forty five days in any calendar year.
III. Category 3 activity shall not exceed seventy five days in any calendar year.
IV. Category 4 activity is unrestricted.
5.3 The Categories referred to are defined as follows:
I. Category 1 – A residential noise level of 75dB(A) hourly LAeq shall apply at any noise sensitive property. This category of use shall only occur between the days of Monday to Friday on no more than one day every two months (unused days cannot be carried forward) and no more than three consecutive hours of use during the day. Cat 1 use is only permitted between 10.00 hours and 16.00 hours. After each cat 1 track use day there will be at least three days of no track use other than category 4 use
II. Category 2 – A residential noise level of 55 dB(A) hourly LAeq shall apply at any noise sensitive property. This category of use shall only occur between the days of Monday to Friday on no more than one day of use per week and no more than five consecutive hours use during the day. Cat 2 use is only permitted between 09.30 hours and 16.30 hours. After each cat 2 track use day there will be at least one day of no track use other than category 4 use
III. Category 3 – A residential noise level of 50 dB(A) hourly LAeq shall apply at any noise sensitive property. This category of use shall only occur between the days of Monday to Saturday on no more than two days use per week and no more than seven consecutive hours of use during the day. There shall only be one Saturday use per month. After each cat 3 track use day there will be at least one day of no track use other than category 4 use
IV. Category 4 – A residential noise level of 43 dB(A) hourly LAeq shall apply at any noise sensitive property. Unrestricted use between the days of Monday and Saturday and within the hours of use limitations set out below
There shall be no category 1, 2, 3 or 4 usage permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Saturdays shall be restricted to Category 3 and 4 use only.
The proposal has a number of measures to provide noise mitigation from the external testing facility, including:
A specifically developed silencer, which would be used where practicable on vehicles using the test facility. The silencer has shown a noise reduction of 16-20dB.
Earth bunding to sections of the test track facility, approx. 3.0m – 3.5m in height.
Noise Management Plan, including the pyramid approach setting out when certain noise levels can be generated, on which days and for how long (see above).
The specifically developed silencer would not be used for all testing purposes, as it may affect engine performance. Nor is it understood that the silencer would be used by private cars visiting the premises as part of ‘events’ for Motor Clubs etc. The development of this silencer is however important in assisting M Sport to comply with the noise management regime proposed.
The submitted ‘Noise Technical Appendix’ is the detailed report that provides the applicant’s assessment of the significance of the predicted noise effects of the proposal. The report is summarised as follows:
Use of the testing facility (external)
The assessment criteria for the test track uses LAeq 1 Hour for comparison of existing and proposed noise levels.
In terms of absolute noise level criteria, a noise level of 55 dBLAeq,1hour has been applied as the threshold above which a significant effect will occur.
Where noise levels at receptors are predicted to be between 3 to 4.9dB above existing LAeq levels, the effects are considered to be moderate, with an effect level at ‘Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level’. Where noise levels are greater than 5dB above existing LAeq 1 Hour, the effects are considered to be major, with an effect level at ‘Unacceptable Observed Adverse Effect Level’.
Effects of ‘Moderate’ or greater are considered to be significant in EIA terms, albeit Table 2.2 states that only noise levels of 55dB or above, are considered to be moderate/major and therefore ‘significant’.
The tranquillity of the site and immediate surroundings is assessed as falling within CPRE Zones 5 to 6, medium sensitivity.
For existing commercial occupiers within the Dovenby Hall Estate, external noise levels at Sutton, Pattinson & The Theatre will be similar to those of receptor R2. The predicted noise levels tested are external to the buildings and, therefore, the tenants will experience lower levels of noise. The construction of these buildings are masonry with double glazed windows which will have a sound reduction from the building structure in the region of 30dB. Based on the unmitigated scenario from the test track, the predicted noise level inside the commercial premises as a result of the use of the test and evaluation facility will be 25dBLAeq,1hour and the noise effect will be negligible.
Baseline Noise Monitoring indicates levels at Dovenby Village of 34-46dB LA90 1hour, and 53-62dB LAeq 1 hour.
In relation to motor sport noise, measured trackside noise levels of a WRC is stated as 81/82dB LAeq 1 hour). In a fully unmitigated scenario, Moderate to Major impacts are predicted at 4 out of 8 representative receptor locations, with combined noise levels above 55dBLAeq 1 hour, at all locations.
With a 16dB reduction from the fitted super silencer, the anticipated trackside source noise level would be 66dBLAeq 1 Hour. In a mitigated scenario incorporating the fitted silencer, ‘Negligible’ impacts are predicted for the 8 representative receptor locations. (Table 4.3)
Paragraph 4.15 states that testing with a fitted silencer will comprise the vast majority of the operating time of the test facility.
Use of the MEC facility
Operations will be undertaken internally and it is assumed that roller shutter doors will remain predominantly shut.
Predicted daytime & night-time noise levels are stated to be within required criteria, resulting in a ‘Negligible’ impact.
Road Traffic Noise
Increased road traffic noise as a result of the development (as opposed to without the development) is anticipated to trigger a difference ranging from 0.1 – 1.1dB in the short term and 0.1 – 0.9 in the long term, for the 8 representative receptors. These effects are considered to be ‘Negligible to Minor’.
External Plant (for the MEC, future expansion space, the office and the hotel)
Emission levels for plant in relation to each use are provided, along with noise rating levels for the plant at 11 representative receptor locations, daytime and night-time.
For all receptors, noise levels would be at or below 35dB (daytime) and 30dB (night-time)
These effects are considered to be ‘Negligible’
Proposed Hotel – Internal Noise levels
Internal noise criteria for the hotel to be defined by the end user. The external testing facility is predicted to generate noise levels at this location of 49dB, and the MEC 19dB.
Assuming a 15dB attenuation from an openable window, it is predicted that internal noise levels will fall below 35dB LAeq 16Hour criteria referred to within BS 8233 for good resting conditions during the daytime period.
Higher levels of noise reduction would be achievable with ventilation that does not rely on open windows.
There will be periods when noise from the proposed facility will be audible, however, impacts will be only short term duration and transient.
Negligible change from other noise sources.
On this basis, it is considered that the proposed scheme will not significantly change the character of adjacent footpaths, with no ‘significant’ effects.
The submitted Construction Environmental Management Plan will provide methods of working and control to address construction noise effects.
Specific mitigation for the construction of the hotel would include a 2.5m hoarding to act as a barrier between the construction works and the houses at receptor location 8., reducing site noise levels to 65dB LAeq,
Such measures are considered to limit any ‘Significant’ effects.
Paragraph 4.3 states that when the silencer is not in use, effects which are significant are likely, therefore noise bunds are proposed to minimise noise as far as practicable.
With bunding (and without the silencer), combined noise levels at the 8 receptors vary from 53 – 57dB LAeq 1 Hour. These impacts are assessed ranging from Minor to Moderate (Moderate for two properties only on the basis that no difference in levels exceeds 5dB). Where the significance of effect is moderate, to the south of the testing and evaluation facility (R1 and R7), the predicted noise level are below 55 dBLAeq,1hour. Therefore, residual effects which are significant are not predicted with or without the use of a super silencer.
Table 4.11 predicts that with bunding and a silencer, there will Negligible effects at all 8 receptor locations.
60dB days and No Limit days will provide a safety margin, should the anticipated 55dBLAeq 1 Hour be exceeded.
The Noise Management Plan guarantees a maximum amount of noise in any year.
Nominated testing facility controller to ensure compliance.
Predicted effects for both construction and operation are not considered to be ‘significant’.
In assessing the potential adverse impacts relating to noise, it is important to note that the relevant test relates to the Development Plan in terms of protection of residential amenity/residents’ living conditions to an appropriate standard and not whether the proposal will result in a ‘nuisance’. ‘Nuisance’ is a separate test under differing legislation (the Environmental Protection Act, 1990).
The element of the proposal which is considered to have the most potential for noise generation is the external testing facility. There is no single criterion to determine the acceptability or otherwise of noise levels from particular sorts of activity associated with vehicle testing relating to motor sports/road cars or for motor sports and recreation. Various planning appeal decisions and case law exists on the subject, but invariably relates to proposals with different circumstances to this current proposal, including differing forms of vehicle activity, areas with a differing noise character, sites with differing physical characteristics or sites where noisy activities have been established historically.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines indicate that moderate or serious annoyance would be negligible at levels below 50-55dB (A). However, noise emissions associated with vehicle testing relating to motor sport/road cars or for motor sports and recreation are not a steady continuous noise, it is of a non-continuous nature, with the potential for distinct tones.
Albeit the Dovenby Hall Estate contains a number of existing commercial uses, and the A594 to the north of the site is noted, the local area remains rural in character, generally quiet, with relatively low background noise levels.
A number of concerns are noted with the Noise Technical Appendix:
Calculations have been based on “neutral‟ weather conditions although it is acknowledged that during varying wind conditions a +/- 7dB correction could occur. The assessment states that noise predictions of vehicles using the testing and evaluation facility are based on a worst case scenario, but it is unclear how this can be the case if “neutral” wind conditions have been relied on. The effect of wind direction on noise has the potential to alter the noise levels experienced within the community, both in a positive and negative manner (whether upwind or downwind of the noise source). This could have implications for the achievable reduction in noise levels from trackside to the community from the testing facility and it could mean that the effects of noise within the assessment have been underestimated.
Concerns that the assessment methodology applied may be overly simplistic for such an unpredictable noise source.
1. A comparison of existing noise levels to proposed noise levels using LAeq 1 hour has been used. The assessment of effects within the Noise Impact Assessment does not provide a comparison of background noise levels (L90) (i.e. the noise level experienced 90% of the time) to the source noise level. Background levels (L90) at nearby properties are lower than levels expressed using the LAeq 1 hour (average noise level over 1 hour). The assessment does not include a penalty for tonal characteristics associated with this type of noise source.
2. Use of LAeq 1 hour for predicted noise within the assessment gives a noise average over 1 hour and does not therefore recognise noise peaks, as indicated by LAMax.
3. The submission states, ‘In terms of absolute noise level criteria, a noise level of 55 dBLAeq, 1hour has been applied as the threshold above which a significant effect will occur, referencing the WHO Guidelines. However, the WHO guidelines assume a continuous noise source, the testing of vehicles proposed would not be continuous and may contain characteristics potentially harmful to amenity despite achieving the average hourly level.
Whilst some information has been provided on background and maximum levels within the supporting appendix, these do not form part of the main assessment of effects within the NIA/ES.
The sections of the assessment entitled ‘Motor Sport Noise’ consider the significance of effects arising from a World Rally Car (WRC) with and without a silencer/bunding, on the basis that this will be the loudest vehicle used for ‘testing’ purposes. However, the application seeks permission for other uses that do not relate to testing, such as corporate events or use by motor clubs. The assessment does not consider other cars that are likely to use the test track which may have higher noise levels. This could mean that the effects of noise within the assessment have been underestimated.
The sections of the assessment entitled ‘Motor Sport Noise’ do not consider Category 1 Days where noise in the community could reach up to 75dB for 6 days of the year, nor does it assess whether these effects will be significant/harmful to residential amenity.
The submitted assessment indicates that moderate adverse effects will result from an increase greater than 3dB but less than 5dbLAeq, subject to a minimum noise level of 55dB. Moderate adverse effects equate to a ‘Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level, which should be avoided’. Major adverse effects will result from an increase greater than 5dbLAeq, subject to a minimum noise level of 55dB. Major adverse effects are stated as equating to an ‘Unacceptable Observed Adverse Effect Level, which should be prevented’. Category 1 activity (6 days per year at 75dB LAeq) would therefore have a Major adverse effect equating to an ‘Unacceptable Observed Adverse Effect Level, which guidance recommends should be prevented. No justification/assessment as to the acceptability or otherwise of this is provided within the applicant’s submission.
A comparison of the background level to the source level for all categories would indicate a greater magnitude of change to the noise environment than comparison with the hourly average, resulting in a greater overall effect, potentially falling within ‘moderate’ or ‘major’ adverse effects (equating to a Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level, which should be avoided’ or an Unacceptable Observed Adverse Effect Level, which should be prevented’), when the WHO guidelines of 55dB are not relied on.
The queries/concerns raised in the reports prepared by MAS Environmental and Clarke Saunders Acoustics are also noted.
The proposal sets categories for use relating to noise levels and the number of days that these noise levels can be reached. These noise levels would relate to the community, but would be achieved by monitoring trackside noise and securing a reduction in noise levels from trackside to the community. The key issue for the Council is therefore to assess whether the community levels proposed would be acceptable in relation to the living conditions of nearby residents. However, the robustness of the assessment prepared by the applicant is critical to understanding the likely effects of the proposed community levels and whether the reduction in noise levels from trackside to the community is achievable. Ultimately the applicant would be responsible for complying with any applied community levels should permission be granted, but it would not be appropriate for the Council to give planning permission to the scheme if it considered that the necessary reduction from trackside to the community could not be achieved.
Advice on the proposal has been sought from Environmental Health. EH Officers advise that having considered all the information submitted and subsequent discussions with the applicant , the main objective was to consider the impact on surrounding amenity and where possible to minimise the impact of this development. Due consideration was given to the issues raised by objectors, and these concerns were reflected in their recommendations to restrict and control the proposed operations on site. This proposal is unique in some respects as EH Officers are not aware that such a testing facility exists within the UK, therefore it is not possible to make a direct comparison to other similar operations.
Account has been taken of the most appropriate assessment criteria in accordance with current UK guidance. EH Officers advise that the use of the test track will meet World Health Organisation (WHO) guideline values, with the exception of Category 1 days which are now limited to 6 days per annum, with only 1 day every 2 months (and to a
maximum of three hours a day). It is the view of Environmental Health that the World Health Organisation Guidelines (WHO) and British Standard Code of Practice BS8233: 2014 are the correct guidance documents for the applicant to reference, which they have with their category 2, 3 and 4 days. There have been discussions regarding the use of BS4142 ,the Standard describes a method for rating and assessing sound of an industrial and/or commercial nature. The revised standard (4th Edition Oct 2014) is not intended to be applied to the rating and assessment of sound from all forms of motorsport or indeed the assessment of low frequency noise which is associated with vehicle emissions.
Environmental Health Officers have advised that having considered the scope of the WHO guidelines for community noise it is clear that they are designed to protect people from the harmful effects of noise in non-industrial environments. The guidance acknowledges typical neighbourhood noise such as sports events including motor sports. When setting community noise guidelines it is considered necessary to take account of specific effects such as interference with communication, sleep disturbance effects, annoyance responses amongst other factors.
The guideline values for daytime assessment of noise exposure are based on a 16 hour period, compared to a maximum exposure of five hours as detailed within Category 2 whereby “the residential noise level of LAeq of 55 DBA” is “for no more than one day per week and no more than 5 consecutive hours”.
In respect of outdoor amenity areas subject to a noise level of 55 dB(A) it is considered to cause annoyance at this level when exposure is over a 16 hour period which is not the case with the M Sport proposals given the restriction of operation to a maximum of five consecutive hours.
As part of their assessment, EH Officers have considered the operational restrictions of motor sport venues elsewhere within the UK, however this information had to be treated with caution as this proposal is not a motorsport venue and only a test facility with restricted days and times of operation. Recommended conditions require an operational Noise Management Plan to be in place at the proposed facility prior to first use. This document is a working document and will be updated regularly. EH Officers have set out community levels which must be complied with, and which will provide a satisfactory standard of amenity.
As part of the assessment for compliance with the community levels consideration needs to be given to the nature of the noise source. It is recommended that A weighted maximum noise levels (LAmax) are adopted as a measurement parameter when dealing with intermittent noise sources as references in the WHO guidelines for Community Noise. The issue of maximum noise levels is considered in the applicant’s submission as this is a relevant factor in the calculation of LAeq levels.
EH Officers have recommended a range of noise control measures to control noise levels within the community, and to control activities on site. A Noise Management Plan has been submitted and is considered acceptable in relation to the broad principles and community levels established within the document. A final version of this would be required to be agreed by condition to ensure some additional control measures including consideration of maximum noise levels and for example the type of vehicles and activity permitted at the track can be incorporated if necessary to ensure that the agreed community levels are complied with. The Noise Management Plan would also be subject to regular review to ensure ongoing monitoring and compliance. The Noise Management Plan makes provision for the day to day operational management of the site, including a complaints procedure, monitoring, and would incorporate measures to account for wind conditions on site.
On the basis of advice from EH Officers, it is considered that subject to a robust noise management plan, the proposed testing facility could be operated in a manner that maintains an appropriate standard of residential amenity for residents within the locality. Whilst it would not be possible to eliminate all noise for residents, it is considered that subject to the mitigation measures proposed and the recommended conditions, the adverse effects on living conditions would not be unacceptable. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in this respect with regards to Policy S32 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) 2014.
Other elements of the proposal have the potential to create noise and disturbance, such as the hotel or the evaluation centre, or from associated plant/machinery.
With regards to the evaluation centre, Environmental Health is satisfied that suitable conditions can be applied to minimise noise emissions to an acceptable level.
With regards to the hotel, offices and future expansion space, the layout of these elements are indicative at this stage, but indicative measurements suggest separation distances from the hotel to the nearest dwelling at approx. 60m and in excess of 80m for the proposed expansion space (further for the offices). Parking and circulation areas for the hotel could potentially be closer depending on the finalised layout. Amenity issues for these elements of the scheme would need to be fully considered at the detailed design stage, but based on the separation distances involved, it is considered that noise and disturbance from these uses could be adequately mitigated by design or controlled through conditions. Environmental Health concur with this and have recommended a number of conditions in this respect.
Overall, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to policy S32 subject to conditions.
It is noted from a number of public representations that concerns are raised in respect to the applicant’s submission and whether the requirements of the LPA’s Scoping Opinion/Request for additional information have been met. Advice from EH Officers relating to the applicability of BS4142 has been provided above. Officers are satisfied that a sufficient level of information has been provided with the proposal to allow an appropriate level of assessment.
The impacts of noise in relation to residential amenity have been considered in the section above.
With regards to potential overlooking and oppressiveness, only the proposed hotel is sufficiently close to have any possible implications in this regard. Although siting of the hotel has been reserved for subsequent approval, the illustrative plans suggest that a 60m separation could be achieved between the proposed hotel and the nearest housing. This distance, combined with existing and proposed planting are considered sufficient to ensure that a satisfactory relationship could be achieved so as to ensure that the proposed hotel building would not be overbearing or result in overlooking to neighbouring residents.
There is potential for disturbance through lighting/dust/odour etc, particularly at the construction phase, but also during operation. However, it is considered that these issues could be adequately dealt with at the reserved matters stage or through condition, should planning permission be granted.
Notwithstanding the issue of noise therefore, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to Policy S32 insofar as it relates to providing an appropriate standard of residential amenity.
A number of representations received refer to alleged errors of fact, misleading and absent information in the application submission. All representations received have been assessed and are summarised in Appendix 2. A number of the alleged errors and omissions are considered to be inaccurate, based on misunderstandings, or do not materially affect the assessment of the planning application. It is considered that all relevant material planning considerations are addressed in the report.
Where adverse effects have been identified in relation to noise, ecology/biodiversity (including species/habitat, ancient woodland, trees and woodland), landscape and heritage assets, these adverse effects vary in their significance and the relevant polices allow weight to be given to the mitigation and compensation measure proposed and the economic benefits of the scheme.