Recommendation:  Conditional Approval

Proposal: Application for Variation of Conditions 8 (details of walls, fences and other means of enclosure), 10 (details of hard and soft landscape details) and 21 (details of Noise Mitigation) of Planning Permission 160011 (Shinfield Eastern Relief Road (ERR)) to allow for amendments to details of such which were previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

Applicant:University of Reading

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 13 to 34.

The Committee was advised that the Members Update included:

·         Clarification of reason for the listing of the application by Councillor Pollock;

·         Clarification regarding wet weather and noise levels;

·         Updated information regarding mature tree planting;

·         Proposed additional condition that the developer monitors the operational noise impact of the road upon Oatlands Road properties within 6 months of the road opening and submit results no later than 8 months after the road opening. If the noise environments experienced were within 3dBLA10, 18h further mitigation measures be implemented in accordance with a scheme of mitigation that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority;

·         Proposed amendment to condition 2 to update plan numbers.

Nigel Boyer, Shinfield Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.  He stated that the Noise Impact Assessment was based on current traffic volumes and would not take into account any growth in traffic volume in future, in particular a possible 100 gravel truck movements per day by Cemex UK.  He also expressed concern about the impact of increased noise caused by poorly maintained roads, vehicle braking and acceleration and the light pollution that might be visible at night over previously open country.

Mark Chatfield, Oatlands Road Residents Committee, spoke in objection to the application.  He asked why the application had not been presented as a Material Planning Consideration when the original plan had been approved.  He also questioned why acoustic fencing was not considered necessary.

Councillor Anthony Pollock, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application.  He stated that the Noise Impact Assessment did not take into account future traffic volume and that the noise increase adopted as the significance criteria in the Environmental Statement would be passed.  As an adopted road, the cost of any further noise mitigation would fall on the Council, so he suggested that the original plan, including its noise mitigation measures, be adhered to.

In response to Member questions, the Service Manager, Highways Development Management stated that the question of braking and acceleration had been previously examined but was not part of the application, these matters are also addressed through the detailed design stage of the scheme and where appropriate amendments would have been made.  There is also a requirement for a Stage 3 Road Safety Audit to be carried out by the developer prior to the opening of the road.  The Head of Development Management and Regulatory Services advised that that the road already had planning permission and that light and the visual impact had been previously considered.  In regards to the issue of light pollution, the Planning Officer outlined the relative distances of the road from residences and stated that as the road went North-South and there would be no street lighting, that the impact of light pollution would be minimal.  With regards to traffic levels the Service Manager, Highways Development Management indicated that this issue had been previously taken into account as the ERR forms mitigation in line with the Council’s Core Strategy.

Members raised questions as to whether planned builds of housing stock in Shinfield West had been taken into account as part of the Noise Impact Assessment and how the completion date of the ERR might be affected should the application be refused. In response to Members’ questions, the Officer indicated that the Noise Impact Assessment to support the application had taken into account the new houses. However, the proposed condition would require this position be monitored and if the noise exceeds the limits proposed, the developer would either need to implement the measures outlined in the original planning application or apply to implement alternative measures to mitigate the impact of the noise.

In regard to acoustic fencing the Head of Development Management and Regulatory Services stated that experts had indicated that acoustic fencing was not required.  This had been tested by WSP who had agreed with the technical advice submitted. She indicated that refusal of the application would provide an opportunity to appeal the decision which could lead to a delay in completion of the road.   

Members requested that the monitoring of noise levels should include periods of time when there were wet roads and at night.

RESOLVED: That application No. 162004 be approved, subject to the conditions set out on Agenda pages 14 to 21, with condition 2 amended and the additional condition as set out in the Members’ Update.