Noise barrier is given approval

0
Have your say

A DECISION to reject controversial plans to build a noise-barrier wall at Bakewell’s Agricultural Business Centre has been overturned on appeal.

The wall, which is up to 5.5 metres high in one section, was proposed by Derbyshire Dales District Council in January for the centre to “improve the day to day operation” at the centre, which deals in the buying and selling of livestock.

Despite the district council saying it was in response to complaints of noise during Monday markets, the plans were criticised by nearby residents and Bakewell Town Council.

It was eventually turned down by the Peak District National Park authority on the grounds of its appearance and design, that it would have an “unacceptable adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding conservation area and wider landscape”. However, following an appeal, the barrier has now been granted.

Running largely across the length of the northern section of the site, its heights varies from 3.5 metres up to 5.5 metres.

Some residents on Coombs Road on the side of where the wall is to be built voiced their disapproval.

Diane Gilmore contacted the Mercury this week and said: “The majority of Coombs Road residents are against the proposal.

“The noise barrier itself is going to rise to a height of 5.5m at its highest making it an incredible eyesore. It is proposed to be a koko wall, the type used alongside motorways, with ivy eventually growing up it, although this is acknowledged to take a number of years.

“To our knowledge this is an unproven method of restricting noise and would almost certainly force sound waves above houses on Coombs Road, eventually hitting houses higher up along Station Road.

“As a resident of Coombs Road I’m totally opposed to this development, not only because of the negative visual impact but also on the proposed wasteful and selfish use of our money.”

“A conservative estimate of the cost of this barrier is approximately £400,000 – an extortionate amount of local taxpayer’s money at such times when local schools and amenities are struggling for funding.”