Issue - meetings

The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended that in respect of application 3/22/2067/FUL, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out at the end of the report.

The Planning Officer summarised the main considerations pertinent to the application and presented a series of slides and visuals in respect of the proposed development. He said that the temporary vehicle access bridge was a replacement for a timber bridge that had been removed.

The Planning Officer said that access to the site was constrained by River Stort and the railway line. He summarised the appearance of the bridge and said that there was a neutral impact in visual terms.

The Planning Officer detailed the key policy considerations and said that the nearest residential property was 20 metres away. Members were advised that a concern had been expressed in respect of noise from cyclists using the footbridge. The Planning Officer stated that Officers considered that neighbour amenity would not be affected.

The Planning Officer talked about the flood risk assessments and the sequential test. Members were advised that there would be a minor loss of car parking spaces and no loss of riverbank. The Planning Officer said that the application was policy compliant and there would be compensatory parking and landscaping to compensate for the loss of hedging.

Councillor Stowe expressed a concern regarding the noise of the bridge surface and asked what could be done to mitigate the noise of the footway. Councillor Copley commented on the possibility of a rubber matting to mitigate the noise. She also commented on the signage and said that this was often ignored by users of the bridge.

The Planning Officer said that some sort of noise absorbent surface would be a possibility. He reminded Members that the existing surface did allow drainage and there would have to be some kind of compromise in that respect.

Councillor Copley explained that the signage and the road markings were incorrect, and the signage was directing pedestrians over the roadway. The Planning Officer explained that this was private land, and this would not be a matter for the highway authority. It would however be within the gift of the council to look into updating the road markings.

Councillor Watson said that the roadway section of the bridge was not particular friendly for cyclists. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was signage asking cyclists to dismount and proceed on foot. He said that there was no designated separate route for cyclists.

Councillor Devonshire said that the arrows directing the users of the bridge did need to be clarified as the instructions were confusing on both sides of the bridge. Councillor Estop said that the area between the bridges had the potential to be unsightly. She asked if this issue could be addressed via the landscaping condition.

The Planning Officer explained that there was a small of riverbank being retained and this could be used for planting and replacement hedging. The Chairman suggested that condition 2 be modified  ...  view the full minutes text for item 278