Agenda item

Recommended for Approval.

Nigel Giles addressed the Committee against the application.  Richard Tew spoke for the application.

The Director of Neighbourhood Services recommended that, in respect of application 3/12/0424/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report now submitted.

The Director referred Members to the additional representations schedule.  Members were reminded that the Committee had previously indicated an unwillingness to pursue enforcement action, which the Director emphasised, did not constitute an approval of planning permission.

The Director advised that the only permission that had been in place was the authority granted to Network Rail to use the Council’s land when installing the footbridge.  Members were reminded of the important distinction between planning issues and management issues relating to the new footbridge.

In response to a query from Councillor D Andrews, the Director stated that the most relevant issue for Members was the making good of the site.  Officers had suggested a landscaping condition to encourage appropriate treatment for the area surrounding the footbridge.  Officers had anticipated this might very likely involve the planting of grass.

The Director advised that any views regarding the use of the land around the footbridge was only speculation and was not a valid planning issue.  Members were advised that the various services that surrounded the bridge had resulted in a wider span for the bridge due to where foundations could be adequately installed on the site.

In response to a comment from Councillor S Rutland–Barsby, the Director stated that any intention to use the padlocked area of land for storage or any other use would require planning permission.

Councillor A Burlton commented on what steps could be taken to prevent the hazard of water collecting on the flat sections of the bridge.  Councillor T Page commended the applicant for installing the bridge quickly to address the issue of pedestrian safety.  However, he criticised the applicant for vacating the site without restoring it to a tidy state.

Councillor T Page stated that a planting scheme for trees and shrubs would take away some of the starkness of the new footbridge.  He also stated that he was concerned that the width of the ramps would allow for other uses that could endanger pedestrians.

Councillor T Page queried whether pinch points should be installed, given that there was a skate park close to the bridge.  Councillor S Rutland–Barsby stressed that the width of the ramps was probably necessary to accommodate wheelchair users.

The Director referred to the extent of the site and stated that the Council did own land adjacent to the footbridge so land could be made available for further landscaping if the Council was supportive of that approach.

The Director reminded Members that Officers would have to consult with colleagues in other service areas.  Officers were mindful of the adjacent public open space at Grange Paddocks and the importance of not compromising other users of that open space.

The Director confirmed that installing barriers or pinch points on the ramped areas of the bridge to avoid inappropriate uses could in turn act as a barrier to legitimate users of the bridge.  Members were reminded that the bridge met all modern standards and introducing barriers would be inappropriate.

Councillor G Jones referred to the importance of wildlife and archaeological surveys, as well as other steps normally undertaken prior to the granting of a planning permission.  He stated that he was pleased the applicant’s representative was present to hear his concerns.  He referred to the potential for accidents involving cyclists as he had observed an example of a cyclist arriving at the bridge at considerable speed.

Councillor G Jones stated that the green colour used for the bridge helped to mask the structure.  However, the yellow handrails were inappropriate and additional landscaping plus a more appropriate shade of green for the whole bridge would make the structure less visible from a distance.

The Director confirmed that a condition regarding the colour treatment of the bridge could be applied and Officers could amend the wording of the landscaping condition.  Officers could also have a dialogue with colleagues regarding the planting of vegetation on other land adjacent to the bridge.  Members were supportive of Officers carrying out these tasks.

In response to a query from Councillor M Alexander in respect of condition 4, the Director confirmed that, as far as officers were aware, no lighting had been fixed to the bridge

After being put to the meeting and a vote taken, the Committee supported the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood Services as now submitted.

RESOLVED – that in respect of application 3/12/0424/FP, planning permission be granted subject to the following amended conditions:

1.            Within two months of the date of this decision, full details of soft landscaping to replace that which was removed from the site, and the adjoining public open space to the west of the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include (a) Planting plans (b) Written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) (c) Schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate (d) Implementation timetables. Thereafter the development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

        Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscape design, in accordance with policies ENV1, ENV2 and ENV11 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

2.            Landscape works implementation (4P13).

3.            The measures set out in the Habitat Management Plan - Reptiles (Appendix D JBA Consulting Bespoke Ecological Report, Draft Report dated July 2012), or such other measures as may be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable that shall be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.  That timetable shall be submitted within six months of the date of this permission.

        Reason:To protect the habitats of protected species in accordance with Policy ENV16 of the Eat Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007

4.            No external lighting shall be provided without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

        Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with policy ENV23 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

5.            Within two months of the date of this decision, details of the colour to be applied to the handrails of the footbridge and ramps hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Once agreed, those details shall be implemented within a further period of one month.

        Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development in accordance with policy ENV1 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007.

6.            Approved Plans (2E10) insert:- “Site Location Plan, 1NR/121979/FAR/DRG/1AB/0021 A01, 1004-UA004342/01, 2003-UA004342/01, 2004-UA004342/01, 2005-UA004342/01 and 2006-UA004342/01.”

        Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, drawings and specifications.

Summary of Reasons for Decision

The proposal has been considered with regard to the policies of the Development Plan (East of England Plan May 2008, Hertfordshire County Structure Plan, Minerals Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the saved policies of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007, in particular policies GBC1, ENV1, ENV2, ENV11, ENV14, ENV16, ENV17, ENV18, ENV21, ENV23, BH1, BH6 and LRC9). The balance of the considerations having regard to those policies and the National Planning Policy Framework is that permission should be granted.