Issue - meetings

This report sets out the options available to the Council which include, if necessary, to fund further substantial statutory nuisance investigations into noise or dust complaints arising from business located in Epsom Chalk Pit.

Following consideration, the Committee resolved (6 for, 1 abstaining, and the Chair not voting) to:

(1)          To note the motion referred to this Committee by Full Council and, in light of the options set out at section 8.8 of the report, make no resolution or recommendation following a debate on that motion.

(2)          Submit a request to Strategy and Resources Committee that funding be allocated from limited Council reserves to instruct external noise consultants to conduct a fresh investigation based upon the activities on the site and that significant complaints continue despite the buildings being constructed and commissioned. It is anticipated that further investigations may require a substantial financial commitment of taxpayer’s funds of up to £140,000, as set-out in section 10 of the report.

The Committee received a report setting out the options available to the Council which include, if necessary, to fund further substantial statutory nuisance investigations into noise or dust complaints arising from business located in Epsom Chalk Pit.

As the proposer of the original motion referred to the Environment Committee by Full Council, Councillor Bernie Muir, who was in attendance at the meeting, opened the debate on the matter.

The Committee considered the following matters:

a)            Options set out in the report. Following consideration, Members suggested that they would be minded to choose ‘option 3’, as set out at section 8.8 of the report.

Councillor Bernie Muir exercised her right of reply in response to the debate.

Following consideration, the Committee unanimously resolved to:

(1)          Note the motion referred to the Committee by Full Council and, in light of the options set out at section 8.8 of the report, make no resolution or recommendation following a debate on that motion.

The Committee considered the following matters:

a)            Definition of ‘significant complaints’. It was the feeling of the Committee, following consideration, that the definition of what constitutes ‘significant complaints’, as written at 8.8.3 of the report, would be determined by the professional opinion of Council Officers.

Following consideration, the Chair proposed that the Committee agree to option 3, as set out at paragraph 8.8.3 of the report. Councillor Julie Morris seconded the proposal.

Subsequently, the Committee resolved (6 for, 1 abstaining, and the Chair not voting) to:

(2)          Submit a request to Strategy and Resources Committee that funding be allocated from limited Council reserves to instruct external noise consultants to conduct a fresh investigation based upon the activities on the site should significant complaints continue despite the buildings being constructed and commissioned. It is anticipated that further investigations may require a substantial financial commitment of taxpayer’s funds of up to £140,000, as set-out in section 10 of the report.

Councillor Kieran Persand requested that his vote in favour of the proposal be recorded.

This report sets out the options available to the Council which include, if necessary, to fund further substantial statutory nuisance investigations into noise or dust complaints arising from business located in Epsom Chalk Pit.

The Committee voted (5 for, 1 against, 1 abstention, and the Chair not voting) to defer consideration of the matter until the next ordinary meeting of the committee.

The Chair announced that in light of recent enforcement activity resulting in an abatement notice being served on an operator at the chalk pit, he proposed that consideration of the matter be deferred until the next ordinary meeting of the committee, stating he was conscious of the Councillor and public interest surrounding the matter and was keen to ensure that the proposed motion be debated in full consideration of the circumstances, including the impact of the recently served abatement notice.

The Committee voted (5 for, 1 against, 1 abstention, and the Chair not voting) to defer consideration of the matter until the next ordinary meeting of the committee.

Following the Committee’s decision on the matter, Councillor Kieran Persand requested that his vote against the proposal be recorded in the minutes.