Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
AGREED to approve the application subject to the conditions laid out in the report. 4.6 The meeting ended at 10.34am.
1.1 Apologies were received from Councillors Jon James and Chris Tew.
2.1 No interests were declared.
3.1 The minutes were confirmed as a true and accurate record.
Decision as recorded
AGREED to approve the application subject to the conditions laid out in the report. 4.6 The meeting ended at 10.34am.
4.1 The Chair confirmed that a Site Inspection Panel met at the location on 28 June, the notes of which were included within the report. 4.2 The P presented his report whilst sharing his screen, displayed photographs and plans of the site. 4.3 The Chair invited Ms Menghi to put forward her representations. In summary she raised the following points:- · Her front door and lounge was approximately 20 metres from the track, with the garden extending further down to 10 meters; the gate was right opposite the cottage. It stood to reason that the sound sample should have been taken there. · She took her own readings and from the front door it reached within 60 decibels. The readings were taken out of curiosity as whilst she was working from home, the noise was really affecting her concentration. · If they considered the noise still excessive, were they expected to source and purchase sound monitoring equipment which could run into thousands of pounds, and it needed calibrating too. · What was stopping Ms Menghi or any other neighbours applying to change agricultural land to a motocross track, similar to the one in existence. Once a precedence was set it was difficult to reject future proposals. · She didn’t take any joy in speaking against the application but if granted then it would never be revoked. · They were the closest neighbours affected by the track and it had already compromised the enjoyment of their home for two and a half years, as well as their social life. They no longer invited friends around because they didn’t know whether they would be disturbed by noise or dust; it just added to their stress. · The track was used by two or three bikes and sometimes specialist UTV vehicles. It was almost happening daily and sometimes for hours at a time. She had gathered evidence. · Noise complaints were filed but it still didn’t stop the situation. · If granted they would be subjected to another two years of noise and dust. After that period, potentially for the rest of their time in their home. · Ms Menghi asked the Committee to consider what they would do in her situation, with the issue outside their property. 4.4 Following questions from Members, the P, HoP&D and SEHO responded as follows: · The site was entirely private with a front gate to the driveway. · If the application was granted then the conditions could l be monitored, which was something the residents would more than likely do anyway. If the conditions were breached then action could be taken on the applicant with possible prosecution proceedings. It would be granted on a temporary use to allow the site to be monitored and reconsidered at the end of the temporary period. Members could then choose not to renew but in the interim, enforcement action could be taken. · The application was conditioned tightly, so it was deemed quite onerous on the applicant. If further conditions were applied relating to specific times of the day, this may be regarded as unreasonable. Ultimately, what they were trying to achieve was to prevent it from becoming a nuisance; taking place all day, every day and all week. · Noise level readings were taken from the exhaust of the motorbike, from the property and from a location at Pen-y-Vale Barn which they thought would be representative of the nearest property; all of which were not considered to adversely affect amenity. Taking into account the restrictions to the times the track could be used, the amounts and frequency, it wasn’t seen as unreasonable to allow the amount of noise it would create. The site was situated within the countryside where there was an expectancy of machinery; grass cutting, hedge trimming, etc. which wasn’t able to be predicted or limited and so in that context, the noise from the bike and with the restrictions being applied it wasn’t deemed as unreasonable. 4.5 Members unanimously AGREED to approve the application subject to the conditions laid out in the report. 4.6 The meeting ended at 10.34am.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.