QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| THE QUEEN
on the application of
|- and -
Jack Parker (instructed by Mrs Virginia Meldrum, Cornwall Council) for the Defendant
The Interested party did not appear and was not represented
Hearing dates: 17th May 2016
Crown Copyright ©
MR JUSTICE GILBART :
a. the site, the application and proposals;
b. the noise issue;
c. the Officer's report and the Committee hearing;
d. the planning permission;
e. submissions by Mr Cosgrove for the Claimant;
f. submissions by Mr Parker for the Defendant
g. discussion and conclusions.
(a) The site, the application and proposals
a. during school hours; by the school;
b. Saturday mornings: children's football club training drills followed by 10 minutes' kickabout;
c. Newquay AFC Under 7s up to Under 10s: Saturdays and Sundays from 10 am to about 3 pm. ThEy currently play on the playing field on pitches next to the eastern boundary;
d. Newquay Hockey Club would play matches on Saturday or Sunday afternoons;
e. the playing fields would be available to local sports clubs;
f. the floodlights would not operate after 9.30 pm.
(b) The noise issue
a. LAeq T: an expression of the average noise level over a time period T. The noise meter takes the noises in the period T and derives an average. However it is logarithmic, so that the average lies in the upper part of the scale of the noises measured or predicted. LAeq is widely used to determine the ambient noise level. Common values of T are 1 hr and 16 hr, among others;
b. LAmax. That is the peak level of a noise created by an event;
c. LA90: that is the noise level exceeded for 90% of the time and is often referred to as the background level. (But in some cases the LAeq T figure is referred to as a background level, which will usually be greater than the L90 figure. Plainly, the greater the value of T, the greater the influence of the events other than peaks, and the more representative it is of a background level).
a. the use of WHO guidelines on community noise with BS 8233 "Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings." The WHO guidelines, which are expressed in LAeq, set a level for the external areas of buildings at 55dB LAeq in the hours of 0700 to 2300 to avoid serious annoyance, and one of 50dB LAeq to avoid moderate annoyance. BS 8233 gives a figure for "background" noise levels for suitable internal conditions: of 35db LAeq 16 hr for resting (so used in the living room) or 40 db LAeq 16 hr for a dining room. One may then see how the predicted noise level would be perceived externally or internally;
b. another approach is given in BS 4142 "Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas." It takes the predicted noise level at the receptor point in question. It calculates the time for which the activity in question will be carried on (in this case it was assumed to be for 10 mins in an hour) and then in appropriate cases adds 5dBA to the predicted noise level to account for the frequency, character or duration of the noise sources (here the use of whistles). That level is then compared to the background noise level measured on the LA90 index. If the exceedance is over a certain level, it advises that complaints are likely.
"a subjective increase in noise levels may at times be perceived by local residents, the worst case predicted noise levels from the proposed pitch were "within the guideline targets most commonly used for assessments of this nature. It can therefore be stated that the proposed development should not be refused on the grounds of noise."
a. The method of assessing noise events against background levels had been agreed with the Environmental Health Officer to be inappropriate. It was wrong to use BS 4142, because this was not the introduction of a new source of noise to the site. Sporting activity was already present;
b. It could be expected that for most of the time noise would be at the "normal case" levels;
c. The proposed noise attenuation measures would attenuate noise levels from those currently experienced;
d. Spectator noise was not modelled because there would not be competitive matches during the newly extended evening hours;
e. As to internal noise levels and the effect of attenuation, Mach Acoustics is a leading British consultancy dealing with the topic of noise attenuation by windows. If one took the widely accepted figure of 15 dBA, the effect would be to reduce an external level of 50 dBA to 35 dBA, which is an entirely appropriate level for an internal noise climate for the hours during which the pitch would be used;
f. The ISVR application of BS 4142 was not what had been accepted by the local authority, and was therefore not addressed specifically;
g. Given the fact that there were currently no restrictions on the extent of activities on the sports pitches, the creation of the noise barriers represented " a significant improvement over the existing scenario;"
h. It disagreed with Solent Acoustics on the use of the baseline;
i. It pointed out that Newquay FC did use the pitches for training;
j. It resisted the idea of making an allowance for peaks of noise. While it was accepted that peaks of noise do occur during sports activity, the noise level during sports activity was fairly constant. That was in some ways comparable to road traffic noise where a steady LAeq exists, albeit with intermittent peaks. For that reason, it was right to use BS 8233 on internal noise levels. The time when one looked at peaks was in considering sleep disturbance, when LAmax was commonly used, but that was between 2300 and 0700 when the sports pitch would not be used. An assessment based on LAmax would not be feasible as it would vary wildly between different kinds of noise and selection of a figure to model would be speculative only;
k. The use of whistles occurs in the existing noise climate anyway, and thus the proposal would not introduce a new source of noise. In fact the new barriers would provide more attenuation of the existing whistle noise. The noise barriers could have a chain link fence on the side facing the pitch, thus removing the noise of balls hitting the barrier.
" The report takes into account men shouting, but what about whistles (+5dB tonal) and spectators shouting on the northern and southern side of the pitch?"
She also thought that the internal level predicted in the first Mach Acoustics report (24dB) was too low.
"My colleague has now had a chance to look at the reports and responses from both acoustic consultants.
I am satisfied with all the responses regarding the floodlights.
With regards to the acoustic responses both acoustic consultants have valid points but I have 2 concerns:
1. In the winter months there (are) currently no activities on the outside areas/playing fields when it is dark, currently it is dark at 16:30 hrs and the area is extremely quiet as soon as it is dark, whilst Environmental Health has no objection to the facility, provided the facility is built with the appropriate attenuation measures (i.e, acoustic fence) for use during the day, however I would consider that 22:00 hrs is too late and this hour should be brought forwards.
2. MACH have stated that the facility is intended only for training purposes and whistles would not be used, I would suggest it is condition(ed) for no use of whistles outside of school hours.
3. Floodlights should also be conditioned to an earlier time and should be installed in accordance to the light report."
" I have looked at the additional information and I have no further comments / recommendations to add to my previous recommendations."
"72 Assessment of the proposed development is challenging as activities will take place on a relatively sporadic basis. This means that noise levels generated will vary from day to day, and from week to week. Establishing a worst case is therefore essential in ensuring that the assess ent of the proposed development is robust.
73. A summary of the full report is set out below:
Environmental Noise Modelling
74. In order to provide predictions for noise levels from the proposed all-weather sports pitch, a noise modelling assessment has been conducted using CadnaA noise prediction software. The software allows for the propagation of sound to be calculated over a scaled model of a site, including topographical features, buildings and areas of absorption. Sources of noise can be represented in a model in various ways, including point sources. A point source is specified in a particular location in the model, with a specific sound power.
75. Newquay Football Club is seen to constitute the highest level of activity for the proposed pitch. Information provided indicates that the maximum number of people within the proposed pitch would be 28 (24 players and 4 coaches). 28 point sources have therefore been placed within the proposed pitch area at evenly spaced locations. I n order to establish a worst case, each point source has been given the sam e sound power. This sound power is equal to the sound energy produced by a human male shouting.
76. During most sporting events, all individuals will at some point generate noise. Despite this fact, it would not be expected that all individuals would be active at the same time. Under normal circumstances, it would be expected that only a small percentage of individuals would be actively making noise at any one time.
Assessment against World Health Organisation Guidelines
77. Noise levels at residential receptors should not norm ally exceed 50 dBA during the day (0700 - 2300). It should be noted that these levels may at times be exceeded due to existing noise levels on site.
78. It should be noted that the barriers forming the East and West boundaries of the proposed pitch have been modelled as solid. This means that they play a significant role in attenuating noise propagation towards residential receivers. In order to enable compliance with WHO guidelines with a worst case for activity noise, these barriers should be solid, and at least 4 metres in height.
79. Predicted noise from the pitch has been compared to the recommendations of the World Health Organisation, as well as the internal noise level targets contained within BS8233.
80. The acoustics assessment has indicated that although a subjective increase in noise levels m ay at tim es be perceived by local residents, the worst case predicted noise levels from the proposed pitch are within the guideline targets most commonly used for assessments of this nature.
a. Paragraph 72
"1.1 Comment: The noise model presented so far is far from being a worst case as it will be argued below (see 1.6).
b. Paragraph 74
"1.2 Comment: This noise modelling software is typically used for the assessment of transportation and industrial noise sources, which have very different nature to that of sport activities. Hence a sporting activity noise model calculated with CadnaA should be treated with caution."
c. Paragraph 75
"1.3 Comment: The sources are being modelled as continuous, when it is the discontinuous nature of sporting noise (shouting, whistles) that it is of concern to the residents. The level being reported is time-averaged (LAeq), and thus its tonality and impulsive nature is disregarded, especially from spectators and refereeing. The modelling of only 28 sources seems at odds with the 'worst case' claim. No spectators in the viewing are or refereeing are taken into account.
1.4 Assessments of this type of sporting events have been done previously using maximum levels such as LAmax, instead of time-averaged continuous levels as reported .." (reference was made to an assessment where WHO levels were used but LAmax levels fior sleep disturbance were applied to daytime activity as a conservative approach)
d. Paragraph 78
"1.5 The realistic impact of the proposed noise barriers would be at most 5 dB of attenuation due to diffraction issues. It is crucial to note that even with this attenuation, the tonality and impulsivity characteristics of whistling or shouting would not be mitigated."
e. Paragraph 79
"1.6 Comment: The noise level targets referenced to BS8233:2014  are incorrectly set. From the standard (our emphasis)
"7.7.1 Dwelling houses, flats and rooms in residential use
This subclause applies to external noise as it affects the internal acoustic environment from sources without a specific character, previously termed 'anonymous noise'.Occupants are usually more tolerant of noise without a specific character than, for example, that from neighbours which can trigger complex emotional reactions. ..NOTE Noise has a specific character if it contains features such as a distinguishable, discrete and continuous tone, is irregular enough to attract attention, or has strong low frequency content, in which case lower noise limits might be appropriate.1.7 It must be noted that whistling and shouting, which are unavoidable in team sport activities, are used with the specific purpose of attracting attention. The noise model, presented as worst case, treats sources from sport practitioners as being continuous, like the rumble of a car's engine. However the problem arising from this activities" (sic) "is the discontinuous nature (whistling and shouting) which can be equated to a car's horn or emergency siren.1.8 Establishing a penalty of +5dB to whistling due to tonality is nowadays considered conservative. A referee's whistle has not only a tonal but an impulsive and irregular nature which is bound to make it very noticeable. Commercial whistles can easily be heard within a mile in normal sound propagation conditions.1.9 As argued in 1.3, the use of time-averaged sound energy levels such as LAeq for setting limits in this case is inadequate. For example a half-second instance of whistling every hour during night-time in a very quiet room would barely change the (time-averaged) night time equivalent level (LAeq), however it would cause serious disturbance to the occupants of said room .2.0 CONCLUSIONSWe would conclude that the ( ) modelling of the sporting activity as a continuous sound source is fundamentally flawed and does not reflect a 'worst case'. The number of sources modelled and their character are inadequate and the performance of the noise barriers is unrealistic.Furthermore to establish limits based on continuous time-averaged levels is against the spirit of British Standard BS8233:2014 (see 1.6)Commercial sporting activity outside daylight hours introduces a new source in the environment, and this source would be more noticeable than noise without a specific character [i.e. traffic noise) due to the source type (shouting whistling etc.)"
"Please see comments below;
1.1 This is an opinion and does not have any supporting evidence.1.2 Is the applicant able to provide evidence to support this opinion?1.3 My view is that continuous modelling is an acceptable measurement parameter. Whilst noise sources may vary throughout the game there is generally a continuous noise throughout a sporting event.1.4 Refer to 1.31.5 No additional comments1.6 Consideration should be always be given the duration of the events and time of day and weighted accordingly.1.7 This is the same point as raised in 1.31.8 No additional comments to make1.9 This is the same point as raised in 1.3 and 1.7 -- no additional comments."
(c) The Officer's report and the Committee hearing
a. Site Description
c. Relevant constraints
d. Relevant planning/enforcement history
e. Relevant local/national policy guidance
h. Assessment of key planning issues
i. Principle of development
ii. Neighbour amenity
2. Noise (including Planning Conditions)
iv. Biodiversity/protected species
v. Surface water Drainage
i. Procedural matters
j. Planning Balance/Overall Conclusion
k. Recommendation with Conditions.
Planning permission is sought for the construction of a full size all-weather synthetic pitch with associated floodlights and external store within the Treviglas Community College sports field. The main issues of concern raised by local residents and the town council relate to noise and light pollution generated when the pitch is being used by local clubs outside of school hours.
The sports field is not subject to any conditions restricting hours of operation. The use of the floodlights would be subject to a condition requiring them to be turned off at 21.30 hours in order to protect the amenities of the neighbouring properties and to reduce any impact on protected species (bats) which may be using the boundary hedges as commuting routes to feeding sites. Environmental Health raises no objections to the floodlights subject to the imposition of a condition to control hours of use.
In terms of noise the field can currently be used by the school at any time in the evening and weekends. However the introduction of the floodlights would allow games to be played after dark and therefore the use of the new pitch would introduce a level of noise not currently experienced by the local residents. Environmental Health has suggested the granting of planning permission be subject to a condition restricting the use of whistles however this is not a reasonable request nor enforceable. By restricting the use of the floodlights to 21.30 hours will in itself restrict the use of the site beyond this time.
There is adequate parking on site for after school activities which would not impact upon the current parking arrangement in the locality. The application has been assessed by the Highways Officer who raises no objection.
Sport England has re-considered the application in the light of its playing fields policy following additional information provided by the applicant and agent.
The issue regarding cricket ..
The physical location of the new facility has been identified to complement the Sports Hub building (which provides changing for the (pitch) and has been carefully located to reduce impact on surrounding uses in relation to sports lighting and noise, and ecology. Other locations were considered on the site.
Community availability has been confirmed within the application, The site has existing community use of sports facilities, The facility would also be used by primary schools in the area as well as clubs, Sport England would seek a planning condition to ensure community use. As such Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to this application, subject to conditions being attached to the decision notice (if the Council are minded to approve the application)"
"The Local Planning Authority has received additional correspondence relating to noise
Both documents have been acknowledged by the case officer and subsequently considered by the Environmental Health Officer ..
Environmental Health 30 July 2015
No additional comments
The planning authority is aware of the health issues of a local resident which is supported by a hospital letter which suggests that the development may have an impact on this individuals sleeping pattern.
The parents of this individual suggest that council take into account the child's legal rights into and at the minimum restrict this development until 7pm.
The health and wellbeing of the community is considered when assessing development proposals. The Council will ensure that no serious noise disamenity will result from development both from the existing noise or future noise (where development involves a site where noise levels are likely to increase) and from light pollution from the floodlights
In this case the likely increase in noise has been mitigated by the 4.5m high timber acoustic fence along the east and west boundaries which will result in a significant level of noise attenuation
The barriers have been included to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties as a whole and including the property- of the local resident with the specific health issues."
"86 The Noise Impact Assessment states that the facility is intended only for training purposes and whistles would not be used. The Environmental Health Officer recommends the granting of planning permission should be subject to a planning condition for no use of whistles outside of school hours.
87 The school field is currently free from any out of hours operating conditions and could be used for activities in the summer months until 9.30pm when it starts to get dark.
88 Paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework states "Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are:
1 necessary ;
2 relevant to planning and;
3 to the development to be permitted:
5 precise and;
6. reasonable in all other respects.
89 The policy requirement above is referred to in this guidance as the six tests.
90 It is the view of the Enforcement Group Leader that a condition restricting the use of whistles does not meet the six tests in this instance.
91 The pitch area is located within the existing playing field area, where there are no restrictive conditions. Therefore, unless it was witnessed that someone on the new pitch was using a whistle it would be difficult to distinguish whether it was from the pitch or from any other area of the playing fields, making it a difficult condition to enforce.
92 However, the enforceability of a condition is only one element. The main concern would be whether it would be reasonable to restrict the use of whistles on the new pitch when they could be used in the surrounding areas with no restriction the opinion in this case is that it would not be reasonable.
93 In light of the above advice provided by the Enforcement Group Leader and the concerns raised by the Environmental Health Officer the granting of planning permission will be subject to the following condition in order to protect the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties;
94 'The floodlights approved as part of this development will not be switched on between the hours of 21:30 in the evening and 08;30 the following morning.'"
"32. The Claimant afforded the Defendant multiple opportunities to meaningfully engage with the character of the noise arising from the Development and to address the shortcomings in the Interested Party's noise impact assessment. Through the application process, the Claimant submitted expert noise reports dated October 2014, 6 November 2014, 5 December 2014 and 27 July 2015. These reports, inter alia, raised doubts about the assessment methodology adopted by the Interested Party's noise consultants and indicated that the noise levels associated with the Development were likely to be understated.
33. As pointed out in the Claimant's expert reports, noise from sporting activities is sporadic or non-continuous and therefore more noticeable than continuous sources of noise such as traffic, on which the Interested Party's noise assessment was predicated. As further pointed out by the Claimant's expert reports, the Interested Party's noise models did not take into account other sources of noise aside from shouting. The Defendant was made aware that this was unreflective of the actual noise sources associated with the Development, which would also include noise generated by spectators as well as whistles.
34. In addition to written evidence, these shortcomings in the interested Party's noise evidence were highlighted in oral submissions to the Committee by the Claimant's representative. In particular, the Claimant's representative underscored that the Interested Party's noise assessment failed to account for the impulsive and tonal noise which arises from the use of whistles."
"A full and detailed debate ensued, the main points of which were noted as follows
(i) the proposal would benefit both the school and community, it was considered that a restriction on the use of the floodlights to 7.00 pm was too early;(ii) the facility would provide a benefit to children In the area, promoting sport, exercise and team work;(iii) there was overall support for the development, however, there was a need to restrict the use of the pitch to prevent matches being played in the evenings to reduce noise pollution;(iv) it was suggested that the proposed conditions be amended or an additional condition be imposed to restrict the time when matches could be played;(v) it was acknowledged that there were concerns from residents regarding the proposal. The applicant had sited the pitch in the middle of the sports field to mitigate its impact:(vi) the proposal would provide a facility for the broader area, there was an increasing need for recreational space due to the increasing developments in the area. The committee should look to restrict the activities that generate an unacceptable level of noise.
In response to issues raised in debate, the Committee was advised that an additional condition could be imposed to prevent competitive matches being played after 7.00pm."
" RESOLVED That Application No. PA14/l0437 be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report and the following additional condition:-
10. No competitive matches as part of a scheduled league or championship programme shall be undertaken on the pitch hereby approved after 7pm.
Reason; In the interests of the amenity of adjoining neighbours and in accordance with saved policy 37 of the Restormel Local Plan 2001 and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
The reason given by the Proposer for wishing to approve the above application was that the issues raised in the report had been balanced against the harm that the proposal would have upon the amenities of neighbouring residential properties and whether this would outweigh the benefits of the scheme to the local community. With all the evidence now tested and having undertaken the necessary planning balance, there were insufficient grounds for refusing this application. Given the above and having regard to all other matters raised, it had been concluded that the proposed development should be supported subject to conditions."
(d) The planning permission
a. Condition 2 required that the floodlights be switched off from 21.30 pm until 08.30 am;
b. Condition 5 required that before the development was brought into use, the noise barriers and noise attenuation panels should be erected in accordance with the approved plans, and thereafter retained.
c. Condition 7 reads
"prior to the commencement of the development a Community Use Agreement shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Agreement shall include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by non-school users/non-members, management responsibilities and include a mechanism for review. The development shall not be used at any other time than in strict compliance with the approved agreement."
d. Condition 9 prevents the use of the pitch approved for competitive matches as part of a scheduled league or championship programme, after 7.00 pm and before 8.00 am.
(e ) Submissions by Mr Cosgrove for the Claimant
a. Ground 1 :The Defendant irrationally determined that a restriction of the use of whistles did not meet the "six tests" for imposing planning conditions;
b. Ground 2: the officer's report failed to deal adequately or fairly with the evidence about potential noise generation;
c. Ground 4: condition 7 is unintelligible. It is imprecise and fails to deal with what occurs during the hours not specified in the agreement.
"The legal principles relevant to this ground are well-trodden. They are as follows.
i) Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that planning authorities, in dealing with an application for planning permission, must have regard to all "material considerations". What amounts to a material consideration is a question of law. Statements of central government policy are material considerations. Since March 2012, such statements are set out mainly in the National Planning Policy Framework ("the NPPF").ii) Whereas what amounts to a material consideration is a matter of law the weight to be given to such considerations the part any particular material consideration should play in the decision-making process, if any is a question of planning judgment, and is a matter entirely for those to whom Parliament has assigned the task of planning decision-making. They are democratically elected bodies (e.g. a committee of councillors), or persons accountable such a body; and it is an important principle that planning decisions, which inevitably involve the public interest, are made by those who are ultimately democratically accountable (see, e.g. R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions  2 AC 295 at , per Lord Hoffmann; and R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council  UKSC 2 at , per Baroness Hale). Thus, an application for judicial review does not provide an open opportunity for a disappointed party to contest the planning merits of a decision. The court will intervene, and will only intervene, on conventional public law grounds, which focus on process; and, if a challenge is successful, the court will usually quash the decision and send the matter back to the planning decision-maker to redetermine the planning application lawfully.iii) A local planning authority usually delegates its planning functions to a planning committee of councillors, who act on the basis of information provided by case officers in the form of a report. Such a report usually also includes a recommendation as to how the application should be dealt with. In the absence of contrary evidence, it is a reasonable inference that, where a recommendation is adopted, members of the planning committee follow the reasoning of the report. The officers' report is therefore often a crucial document. It has to be sufficiently clear and full to enable councillors to understand the important issues and the material considerations that bear upon them; and decide those issues within the limits of planning judgment that the law allows them. Whilst the report must be sufficient for those purposes, the courts have stressed the need for reports to be concise and focused, and the dangers of reports being too long, elaborate or defensive:" [T]he courts should not impose too high a standard upon such reports, for otherwise their whole purpose will be defeated: the councillors either will not read them or will not have a clear enough grasp of the issues to make a decision for themselves." (Morge at , per Baroness Hale)."The court should focus on the substance of a report by officers given in the present sort of context, to see whether it has sufficiently drawn councillors' attention to the proper approach required by the law and material considerations, rather than to insist upon an elaborate citation of underlying background materials. Otherwise, there will be a danger that officers will draft reports with excessive defensiveness, lengthening them and over-burdening them with quotation of materials, which may have a tendency to undermine the willingness and ability of busy council members to read and digest them effectively." (R (Maxwell) v Wiltshire Council  EWHC 1840 (Admin) at , per Sales J).The assessment of how much and what information should go into a report to enable it to perform its function is itself a matter for the officers, exercising their own expert judgment (R v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre (2000) 80 P&CR 500 at page 509)iv) Of course, if the material included is insufficient to enable the Planning Committee to perform its function, or if it is misleading, the decision taken by the Committee on the basis of a report may be challengeable. However:"[A]n application for judicial review based on criticisms of the planning officers' report will not normally begin to merit consideration unless the overall effect of the report significantly misleads the committee about material matters which thereafter are left uncorrected at the meeting of the planning committee before the relevant decision is taken" (Oxton Farms, Samuel Smiths Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Selby District Council  EWCA Civ 4004  EG 60, per Judge LJ).v) Furthermore, when challenged, officers' reports are not to be subjected to the same exegesis that might be appropriate for the interpretation of a statute: what is required is a fair reading of the report as a whole (R (Zurich Assurance Limited trading as Threadneedle Property Investments) v North Lincolnshire Council  EWHC 3708 (Admin) at ).vi) In construing reports, it also has to be borne in mind that they are addressed to a "knowledgeable readership", including council members "who, by virtue of that membership, may be expected to have a substantial local and background knowledge" (Fabre at page 509, per Sullivan J as he then was). That background knowledge includes "a working knowledge of the statutory test" for determination of a planning application (Oxton Farms, per Pill LJ). Furthermore, in deciding whether they have got sufficient information to make a properly informed decision or request further information or analysis, again that involves the exercise of judgment on their part. Given the experience and expertise of Planning Committee members is coupled with the fact that they are democratically elected, the judicial approach to challenges to their decisions should be marked by particular prudence and caution (see Bishops Stortford Civic Federation v East Hertfordshire District Council  EWHC 348 (Admin) at - per Cranston J).
a. There was no adequate analysis of noise impact
b. The report was misleading with regard to the concerns of the Environmental Health Officer.
(e) Mr Parker's submissions for Cornwall Council
(g) Discussion and Conclusions
a. Did the Committee have the material on which to address the noise impact of the proposal ?
b. Was the Committee misled about the concerns of the Environmental Health Officer ?
"The development shall not be used at any other time than in strict compliance with the approved agreement."
If what the Council intended was that it should not be used outside the times specified, it should have read
"The development shall not be used otherwise than in strict compliance with the approved agreement."