Decision details

The Chair moved Item 4 forward in proceedings for the benefit of the public present at the meeting.

Councillor Freeman spoke to the report regarding Mortimer’s Gate and said the electricity sub-station was situated in his Ward. He said the noise emanating from the sub-station had caused significant problems for many residents on the surrounding housing development, which had led to a complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s report recommended that the Council find a lasting solution to the issue, although this was not a legal obligation but rather a moral one. He said that the developer had failed to engage with the Council in order to resolve the problem, and while the Council should not take responsibility, the damage to affected residents’ quality of life could not be allowed to continue. He urged members to take the moral approach and support funding the works which would reduce the noise by 20db. He proposed the recommendation to Cabinet that the Council funded the remedial works up to a sum as stipulated in confidential Appendix C and approved the additional expenditure.

Councillor Gregory seconded the proposal.

Members discussed the proposal to fund the remedial works. The following points were raised:

·        The developer was a wealthy corporate body and should fund the remedial works.

·        The issue before members was essentially a moral one; the Ombudsman’s findings were not legally enforceable.

·        It should not fall to the tax-payer to remedy this problem and concerns were raised that this could set a precedent. A request was made for a report outlining spend on this issue.

·        The issue was between private home owners and the developer.

·        The “Buyer Beware” attitude was not appropriate here as the planning conditions imposed on the developer had not been adequate. It would fall to the Council to be the “refuge” for those affected.

·        The Council was looking at implementing measures to ensure this would not happen again. One proposal was to oblige developers to sign a “truth and honesty” statement during the application process.

·        The developer had been approached many times in order to find a solution; they had refuted all responsibility in every instance and were unwilling to assist residents who lived on their development.

·        This was a difficult decision with compelling arguments on both sides. This was reflected in the debate and public speaking statements at Scrutiny Committee on 22 August 2023, whereby a cross-party recommendation had been approved to fund the remedial works. Primarily, this was a moral argument as the Council was not legally responsible to fund the works.

Councillor Freeman was invited to speak before the Chair took the matter to a vote. He urged members to support the recommendation to fund the works without accepting liability.

RESOLVED: to recommend to Cabinet that the Council funds the remedial works up to a sum as stipulated in confidential Appendix C and approves the additional expenditure.