Agenda item

This application is for the erection of new boiler flue in connection with installation of new biomass boiler permitted under reference GU14/P/00439 without complying with Condition 3 (hours of operation of the boiler) and Condition 4 (Noise levels of proposed boiler).

 

The recommendation is to PERMIT subject to conditions.

 

 

It was agreed to bring this item forward on the agenda as there were a number of public speakers for the application.

 

An update sheet was tabled and is attached as Annex 1 to the Minutes.

 

Declarations of interest:

None.

 

Officers:

Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager

Nancy El-Shatoury, Principal Lawyer

Caroline Smith, Transport Development Planning Team Manager

 

Phil Evans, Senior Director at RPS (County Noise Consultant)

 

Speakers:

 

Chris Freeman, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application.  The following points were made:

 

·         Lived at Aspen Close for 12-13 years and enjoyed the peace and quiet of the neighbourhood.

·         Objections to the constant 30dB of noise which will emanate from this installation as it will be intrusive, particularly at weekends and at night.

·         He works with extraction systems and believes the noise from this has not been taken into account.

·         The height differential between Aspen Close and the depot meant that the flue would be at the same height as his bedroom windows.

·         The prevailing winds would lead fumes to blow through the open bedroom windows.

·         Many documents had failed to mention his property which was the closest to the site. 

·         Delivery of wood pellets should be restricted to working hours.

·         The photos in the update sheet were misleading as they were taken from the lowest point.

 

Marion Kinge spoke on behalf of John Bralsford, a local resident.  The following points were made:

 

·         Mr Bralsford and his wife had lived in Aspen Close for 25 years.

·         They were very concerned about the proposed removal of condition 3 due to the likely increase in noise and disturbance from the boiler and deliveries.

·         The plans do not take account of recent extensions to their house.

 

Arthur Kinge, a local resident, made representations in objection to the application.  The following points were made:

 

·         Lived at Aspen Close for over 37 years.  This was in close proximity to the boiler.

·         He had been horrified by the size of the flue and now at the proposal to remove and amend conditions.  These conditions had bene imposed to protect local residents.

·         The 24/7 droning noise of the boiler would be intolerable, as would be the deliveries by the tipper.

·         Reports by experts were complicated and misleading.

·         As his property would be higher than the flue, it will be covered in smoke.

·         There was a high risk of explosion when the materials were delivered.

·         He would like to live in his property without the threat of noise, fumes, and possible explosions.

 

Paul Hasley, Energy Manager for Property Services, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He raised the following points:

 

·         Planning permission had already been granted for the biomass boiler and this application was simply to relax conditions.

·         The application does not mean that the boiler will be used 24/7 all year round but only when it is needed to provide heat.  This would be particularly at colder times of the year.  Residents would be unlikely to have their windows open.

·         The relaxation of condition 3 is intended to maximise the efficiency of the boiler.

·         The boiler would be generally inaudible against ambient noise.

·         Deliveries would be expected to happen during working hours.

 

The local Member had not registered to speak.

 

Key points raised during the discussion:

 

1.    The Planning Development Control Team Manager introduced the report and highlighted that this application was simply to relax and amend conditions.  Extant planning permission for the biomass boiler has already been granted.  Noise was the key material consideration that the committee should debate.  Visual impact was dealt with when the original planning permission was granted.  While this report did not mention restrictions, this was within the original application.  However, to reassure the committee and residents, an additional condition could be agreed specifying that deliveries of wood pellets should be made between 7am and 6pm only.  This was supported by the committee.

2.    The County Noise Consultant outlined how noise assessments had been made and the formula applied by the Consultant to establish that noise levels would not lead to sleep disturbance.

3.    Officers confirmed that deliveries would take place once every 14 weeks and would be daytime only.  Therefore, this would not lead to a loss of residential amenity.

4.    Officers confirmed that the distances used from the source of noise to relevant properties were accurate.

5.    It was queried whether 24/7 usage was necessary if it was not planned to operate the boiler continuously.  Officers informed the committee that the applicant was seeking flexibility through the relaxation of conditions.  The committee needed to consider if approving this would cause any harm.  Officers’ recommendation is that there is no case to not approve this application.

6.    Members discussed the subjectivity regarding intolerable levels of noise and that this was dependent on what one was accustomed to.  It was suggested that there was a good reason for having set conditions against use of the boiler at night.

7.    Members requested clarification with regard to Figure 1 and the photos in the update sheet.  Officers confirmed that the photograph of the gate was next to property 25 on Figure 1.  There were other structures at ground level along this boundary eg bins and storage structures.  

8.    The County Noise Consultant informed the committee that the building between the site and the residential properties would act as a barrier to noise and would have been taken into account in the modelling.  He reiterated that it was unlikely that the boiler would be audible externally.

9.    A Member supported the use of woo fuel and informed the committee that noise had never been a problem at any of the facilities he had seen.  This included a facility with a much larger boiler than the one planned for in this application.  He queried why the applicant did not realise initially that the most economic way to run a biomass boiler was 24/7.

10.  The County Noise Consultant confirmed that the existence of a new conservatory did not make a material difference to the noise assessment.

11.  The Planning Development Control Team Manager confirmed that an air quality assessment was considered as part of the original application.  This had found that there would be no significant impact.

 

Actions/Further information to be provided:

None.

 

 RESOLVED:

 

That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and County Planning General Regulations 1992, application no. GU14/P/01399 be PERMITTED subject to conditions for the reasons set out in the report, and including the addition of condition 4:

 

Deliveries of wood pellets should be made between 7am and 6pm only. 

 

Reason: To ensure the protection of nearby residential properties in accordance with Policy G1(3) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11.30am for a short break and reconvened at 11.40am.