Stirling Observer

Leeway offered to Kerse Road work

Councillor­s relax condition aimed at reducing night noise

- Kaiya Marjoriban­ks

Councillor­s have reluctantl­y agreed to relax a condition originally aimed to protect residents near Kerse Road bridge from night-work noise by Network Rail.

Stirling Council’s planning panel unanimousl­y approved a variation of a condition on its planning consent last week.

The original condition was a bid to minimise disruption to residents of Nelson Place, but the panel agreed Network Rail’s applicatio­n for a variation to relax working-hour restrictio­ns after being told the original condition was “impossible” to comply with.

However, some members expressed their dismay at a lack of communicat­ion with the residents by Network Rail over the change and their disappoint­ment that the request had come forward in the first place.

The Kerse Road bridge route will be fully closed for a six-month period next year and partially closed for several months to facilitate electrific­ation of the railway

Council planners told the panel certain works had to be carried out during ‘nightshift’ periods to get the work done within timescales.

Councillor Maureen Bennison (right) said: “The applicant has said it makes it impossible to undertake the works on time. Why isn’t Network Rail sorting this out, why does it need to be the council?My personal opinion is that we gave them enough concession­s and they just need to get on with it.”

She also raised concern that it was the third variation of a planning condition from a developer she had seen since becoming a member of the panel earlier this year, despite being originally assured it was an unusual occurrence. Panel chair Councillor Alasdair Macpherson said: “My concerns about this proposed condition is enforcabil­ity. There has been no public consultati­on or communicat­ion about work in residents’ back gardens, so I would love to know how we can enforce a public communicat­ions strategy because it seems to have failed already. “My concern with this applicatio­n is that the conditions put on to protect the amenity of residents have already failed.”

Councillor Douglas Dodds said: “Coming from Bridge of Allan, Network Rail has done a lot of work there and there have been mighty problems with noise at night and it has been an absolute nightmare. I have a feeling this is going to be the same.

“We have had issues with swearing and joviality in the middle of the night and we need to take some form of responsibi­lity to ensure Network Rail are held accountabl­e.”

Councillor Neil Benny said given there were around 20-30 households affected it should be “straightfo­rward” for Network Rail to gets its communicat­ion right, and it was important they knock on doors and write to them, adding: “The people of the broader Stirling community also need the assurance that this is going to be completed quickly as do the people who use the railway.”

Planners said, in a report: “The difficulty is the complexity of working on a live railway. It’s a balance between residentia­l amenity and getting works done quickly.”

Head of legal services Iain Strachan told the panel while granting the condition would not guarantee the work would be completed on time it, “from Network Rail’s perspectiv­e it will ‘enable’ them to complete it in that time”.

The panel unanimousl­y approved the variation, however Councillor Bennison said she had been “very tempted to move for refusal and tell Network Rail to get its act together”.

When the plans were granted earlier this year conditions included no work audible outwith the site boundary between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 6pm on Saturdays with no works audible outwith the site on Sundays or bank holidays.

Under the variation no works will be allowed to take place unless a communicat­ion plan giving locals forewarnin­g of the work has been approved by the planning authority and ‘nightshift’ working periods will be restricted to a maximum of six consecutiv­e days in a sevenday period. There will also be noise monitoring and mitigation measures.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom