minutes - City of Stirling

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL
18 SEPTEMBER 2012
Consultation/Communication Implications
The application was advertised for a period of 21 days, in accordance with the Council’s
‘Planning Consultation Procedure’. At the conclusion of the advertising period, seven (7)
submissions were received and are summarised in the table below. A petitioning letter
containing five (5) signatures was also submitted (ECM Doc No. 2911833).
Submission
Number
1
2
3
Submission Details
No objections with this proposal and has
no further recommendation for this
application.
The noise of having students learning
musical instruments behind a housing
residential area which is within an earshot
is not an ideal situation especially during
summer when windows and doors are
open. Object to after hour sessions.
The proposed development would
increase parking. At times parking is
overflowing from one (1) side of the road
to the other.
The Music Academy could also cause
noise disturbance to adjoining tenants.
Officer's Comment
Noted. No further comment.
Noted. The applicant has provided the
operating hours of the Music Academy.
Noise emissions will be required to
comply with the Environmental Protection
(Noise) Regulations 1997.
Noted. The proposal results in a parking
shortfall in terms of Scheme
requirements. However, there appears to
be no perceived or actual parking issues
on site.
The development will be required to
comply with the Environmental Protection
(Noise) Regulations 1997.
Noted. Noise emissions will be required
to comply with the Environmental
Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.
4
5
6
Concerned about noise and parking.
Concerned that the noise will affect
property values.
As a nearby landowner concerns are
raised in relation to noise, in particular
drumming. At times unable to open doors
and windows in the evening or on the
weekend.
Concerned that the Music Academy will
have an adverse impact on the re-sale
value of the property.
Object on the basis that the noise levels
are too high and cause problems.
The proposal results in a parking shortfall
in terms of Scheme requirements.
However, there appears to be no
perceived or actual parking issues on
site.
The reduction in property values cannot
be substantiated and is not a planning
argument to refuse a development.
Noted. It is understood that the room
used for drum tuition is no longer located
at the rear of the premises. In addition
noise emissions will be required to
comply with the Environmental Protection
(Noise) Regulations 1997.
The reduction in property values cannot
be substantiated and is not a planning
argument to refuse a development.
Noted. Noise emissions will be required
to comply with the Environmental
Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.
203