10 October (Part 1) - Crook Log Golf Pods
Now that the dust has settled on the withdrawal of Golf Pods from last
Thursday’s Planning Committee Agenda it is time to assess the situation.
It is inconceivable that the application has been withdrawn which means that in
all probability the Planning Officer will be belatedly assessing the noise
issues, assisted by the documentation
submitted by Reform UK. It includes the medical research that 110dB is the
critical threshold beyond which hearing damage can occur and that the latest
titanium drivers can reach 130dB.
The Reform UK official sent a copy of the company’s own report to Planning
Committee Members as there was no evidence that they had been properly informed
of it beforehand. The report was based on the company’s hired consultant’s visit to their Cranham facility before it opened. The
Cranham pods are not comparable to those proposed for Crook Log,
they being sited on an existing Golf Course. No Council has yet been stupid
enough to authorise Golf Pods within 50 feet of houses. Sound levels of 102dB
were recorded and among the comments in the report are…
• The robot movements were not reliably measurable given the sound from the M25.
[So no real idea of the actual sound levels.]
• There is a metallic “clang” sound for around six seconds until all the
balls have been released.
• The owners are expecting 40%
use on average, but there is likely to be times of 100% occupancy. [Another guess.]
• The owners are also expecting no more
than 70 balls per bay, (when in use) per hour, and a 20/80 split between drivers
and irons. [Guessing again and drivers are much louder. 70 balls per bay is 700
balls for every hour of intensive use. One every five seconds.]
• According to the initial estimation, therefore, there
is a chance of an adverse impact. Not necessarily a significant one, but not
necessarily low, either.
So the consultant concedes that his report is based on a very different installation, that
much of it is estimation and there could very well be an adverse noise impact.
Yet the Planning Officer decided that it was appropriate to keep Planning
Committee Members in ignorance.
If you argued that Bexley's Planning Department was corrupt I would be very
short of ammunition with which to refute the suggestion.