Plans for 69 homes in Warwick thrown out due to noise concerns for future residents

Members of Warwick District Council’s planning committee said they struggled to understand how planning officers – the authority's employed professionals – had recommended granting permission for developer Taylor Wimpey’s proposal for land off Goggbridge Lane, Warwick.

The small parcel of green space, currently allocated for employment use, is between Goggbridge Lane and the A46.

There would have been 42 homes for the open market and 27 affordable homes.

The council’s own report states mechanical ventilation would be required to provide fresh air as an alternative to opening windows due to noise from the A46, something picked up on by Cllr James Kennedy.

Reading from the report, he said: “In conclusion, the environmental health officer has stated that whilst a technical solution has been provided, there is a question whether the reliance on closed windows and alternative ventilation for large parts of the day and night provides a high standard of amenity and acceptable living standards for future residential occupiers.

“(Planning) officers have considered this approach and clearly acknowledge this concern. It is a subjective approach and in assessing this, officers note that the technical solution does achieve the required mitigation.”

Cllr Kennedy also asked: “It would be very helpful to know whether children playing in the back gardens are going to be able to breathe anything approaching clean air or not.”

On air quality, Sandip Sahota, a business manager in the council’s development services who presented the application, said: “The environmental health officer does a very rigorous and thorough analysis of all of these kinds of issues when assessing planning applications.

“Our reliance is on him as the technical expert and he hasn’t come forward with an objection in that regard. Our assumption is that he has taken that into account.”

On noise, Mr Sahota later acknowledged: “The report doesn’t try to say that the development provides high standards of amenity, it is acknowledged that when the windows are open that it does fall below acceptable standards. It is a matter of planning judgement whether we consider there are factors to mitigate that.”

Cllr Kennedy followed up by asking: “So that means for residents, day and night, if they are to have an acceptable level of noise they must keep all of their back windows closed?”

Mr Sahota replied: “Yes.”

Cllr Kennedy later quoted a report on air quality.

“Further work to characterise air quality at the site would be helpful to provide clarity about likely air quality at the facades of the closest proposed properties and the consequent potential for exposure to air quality,” he read, adding: “To me, that sets off all sorts of alarm bells.”

Cllr Terry Morris, vice-chair of the planning committee, delivered a withering assessment.

“It is fundamentally flawed and I have to say, I am not sensing confidence from our planning officer in putting this one forward,” he said.

“My question is would any committee member, planning officer, agent for the applicant or senior executive want to live in one of these homes? I think we know the answer.

“They are woefully short when it comes to amenity for a whole number of reasons – lack of usable outside pace, lack of ventilation to open windows.”

Councillors were unanimous in rejecting the plans, listing concerns over noise, air pollution, a lack of open space, flood risk and insufficient justification for changing the use from employment land.

They also noted that the acoustic fence proposed to mitigate noise would not have been high enough.