Back to top arrow icon Back to top
  1. Home
  2. Agenda item
 Menu

Agenda item

2021/2790: 118 Curtain Road, Hackney, London EC2A 3PJ

Decision:

RESOLVED:

 

The details were approved.

Minutes:

7.1  PROPOSAL: Submission of details pursuant to condition 15 (demolition and construction management plan) attached to planning permission 2018/0363.

 

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS: Additional documents have been submitted which include further noise and vibration survey details.

 

7.2  The Planning Services’ Deputy Team Leader, Major Projects, introduced the report. During the presentation reference was made to the addendum which stated that further correspondence from representatives from Strongroom Studios has been received.

 

7.3  The Sub-Committee first heard from a representative speaking on behalf of the objectors, Strongroom Studios. They were concerned about the results of the noise and vibration assessment undertaken by the applicant.

 

7.4  The applicant first spoke about the history of the proposals and the benefits the scheme would bring to the local area. The applicant had submitted a Demolition and Construction Management Plan (DCMP) and they had put in place a number of additional provisions in order to address the noise and vibration issues.

 

7.5  During the discussion phase the following points were raised:

·  The focus of the Sub-Committee was on the issue of whether the applicant was able to demonstrate that they would be able to carry out works on site without exceeding the agreed noise and vibration thresholds;

·  It was stated by the applicant that it was common practice in the acoustic industry to round off measured data to the nearest whole decibel. The Sub-Committee noted that this would include a margin of error;

·  The objector’s acoustic expert stated that the applicant’s own data showed that the readings were two decibels over the threshold. The objector’s acoustic expert was of the view that this was unacceptable;

·  The objector’s legal representative was of the view that the wording of the condition had been misinterpreted by officers in their assessment. The Council’s Legal Officer advised members that they were satisfied that the wording of the condition had been interpreted appropriately.

·  The Sub-Committee recognised that they did not want to unreasonably stifle development because of issues around noise and vibration. Noise and disturbance from construction activities was identified as a material planning issue but it was accepted that it would not have an impact so severely that it would outweigh the benefits of any planning permission granted. Nonetheless, the committee was reminded that they needed to be satisfied that the requirements of the conditions need to be met;

·  In most cases there would be other options available to address the sensitive noise issue, however, the Sub-Committee were being asked to make a decision on the option before them in the published papers, as per the requirements of the planning system;

·  The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer had assessed the technical data provided by the applicant and the objector, and had concluded that the methodology in the noise and vibration testing was acceptable and demonstrated that the development could be undertaken in accordance with the agreed thresholds;

·  Construction on site was expected to last two years. The applicant re-iterated that the DCMP was not the only safeguard in place. They explained how monitoring equipment would be placed on site so if they were triggered construction work would stop;

·  It was clarified that the most significant impacts in the application before the Sub-Committee were likely to be during the demolition rather than construction phase;

·  The condition in question went beyond that normally used to mitigate the impacts of construction on adjoining occupiers. ;

·  In the event of a breach of the noise and vibration thresholds, the Council’s Enforcement and Environmental Health teams could intervene.

 

Vote:

 

For:    Cllr Bell, Cllr Chauhan, Cllr Levy, Cllr Race, Cllr Stops and Cllr Young.

Against:  None.

Abstention: None.

 

RESOLVED:

 

The details were approved.

Supporting documents: