The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing that presented an application relating to the erection of an 8.3-metre-high building to house two padel tennis courts, with associated lighting and infrastructure.

At its meeting held on 16 February 2023, the Committee deferred the application and requested the Director of Planning to submit a more detailed report regarding noise mitigation.

The Planning Officer noted that additional information was now contained within the report to show the impact from noise for residents would be within acceptable limits.

An objector attended and addressed the Committee on the application, raising concerns about the noise the development would create. A noise report had been commissioned by objectors and it was felt this had been left out of the published report. Concerns were also raised about the damage caused to the conservation area by this application.

The applicant attended and addressed the Committee, noting that noise impact was a consideration when choosing the location for this application. Acoustic testing was completed from outside the court, not inside, which would provide further noise mitigation, therefore providing a worst-case scenario. There was a proposed planning condition to provide further acoustic testing once the courts were constructed to ensure compliance. Further mitigation measures were available if noise levels were found to be not compliant. The applicant also addressed concerns relating to the conservation area.

Councillor Hilal addressed the Committee as ward councillor, raising resident concerns relating to noise and that the noise report submitted by local residents had been seemingly left out of the published report. Councillor Hilal requested the Committee had a site visit to determine if the application would have a detrimental impact on the local area.

The Planning Officer noted that a full and detailed, robust noise assessment was submitted as part of the planning application. They stated that colleagues in Environmental Protection were satisfied that the noise impact was within acceptable limits. The report commissioned by objectors was also considered in detail, but this did not change the conclusions of Environmental Protection. Once constructed, a verification report would be required to ensure that the correct mitigation was incorporated and an acoustic fence was also required to be erected next to the nearby residential gardens to provide further protection. In terms of the conservation area impact, this was fully assessed and considered to be acceptable, with the public benefits of the application outweighing any harm.

Councillors Flanagan and Leech sought clarity on how the acoustic report commissioned by objectors had been considered. Councillor Leech also suggested a site visit would be beneficial to the Committee.

The Planning Officer stated that their colleagues in Environmental Protection had fully assessed the report provided by the applicant and were happy that the conclusions of that report were correct. The report commissioned by the objectors did not change those conclusions.

The Director of Planning explained that the Committee had been provided with the conclusions of professionals in environmental health.

Councillor Davies raised similar concerns related to the noise report commissioned by objectors.

The Planning Officer stated that both the applicant’s and objector’s reports had been fully considered by colleagues in environmental health. The report commissioned by objector’s had not changed the conclusions they reached from the applicant’s report.

Councillor Flanagan stated that he felt a site visit not to be beneficial to the Committee as the application had been deferred based on noise and the impact of that could not be seen without it being built. Councillor Flanagan suggested that he would be minded to approve, provided a condition was added for the Council to appoint an independent expert to assess both the applicant’s and objectors’ noise reports, with the Chair and Director of Planning to then determine whether the noise impacts were acceptable.

Councillor Davies questioned if 50 decibels were the requirement for noise levels and if there was a possibility for swearing to be heard from the courts within neighbouring homes and their gardens.

The Planning Officer noted the information provided by the published report relating to the noise report. They stated that swearing was a management issue, and it was not appropriate to refuse a planning application based on this.

Councillor Andrews requested the legal position relating to Councillor Flanagan’s proposal. The Committee were informed that was not a condition that could be imposed and were reminded that council officers were the independent assessor.

Councillor Flanagan withdrew his proposal.

Councillor Andrews moved the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

Councillor Leech requested that an additional condition be imposed for additional noise mitigation measures to be implemented.

The Planning Officer stated that the conditions of the application required a verification report once constructed. They noted that safeguards were already built into the conditions as part of the application before the Committee.

The Director of Planning assured members that all representations received are looked at in great deal.

Councillor Dar seconded Councillor Andrew’s proposal to move the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

Decision 

The Committee resolved to approve the application as set out in the reports submitted.