We have now received a further communication from Hydroplan apologising for the lack of consultation about the Louvres and stating unequivocally their commitment to ensuring that the scheme complies with the noise limits laid out in the original planning consent. This was their answers to residents’ questions.
Who exactly made the decision to alter the position of the louvres? Hydroplan, or more specifically our design team, once the electrical requirements became clear.
When was this decision taken? I’m not sure exactly but it was some time before the louvres were fitted.
Why was no planning consent sought for this alteration? I am responsible for planning within the company and I wasn’t made aware of the change – hence no consent was sought.
The back wall is now full because you have reduced its length by 2 meters. This is true but this was to suit the new orientation (as requested by the planning authority) and this decision was made before the louvres were moved.
Can I also ask why no consideration was given to alternative positioning of RMU to allow the specific provisions of Condition 13 to be met? The decision was taken to locate this behind the building for ease of electrical connection (being adjacent to the transformer) and also to hide it from view. However, I concede that you should have been consulted on this first.
What empirical testing/evidence do you currently have that the baffles will enable the scheme to be compliant with noise constraint levels? As outlined in the noise report, our assumptions are based on operating schemes with the same noise reduction measures.
It is good that the developer is communicating again and goes to show what copying the MSP on your emails can do to help things along 🙂