Agenda item

The Committee considered an application under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 (as amended) for a proposed replacement bridge to provide upgraded shared use pedestrian and cycle bridge access over the A38 corridor with associated active travel improvements on land between Fordhouse Road west of the A38 and Carnforth Road east of the A38, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire.

 

The report set out the background of the proposal, the proposal itself, the relevant planning policy and details of the site, consultations and representations.

 

The report set out the Development Management Team Manager’s comments in relation to Traffic, Highway Safety and Public Rights of Way, Residential Amenity and Visual Impacts, Ecology and Biodiversity, Water Environment and Flood Risk, Historic Environment, Other Matters – Crime and Safety, Human Rights Act 1998, and Obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

 

The Development Management Team Manager concluded that proposed Scheme 5 formed part of the Bromsgrove town wide improvement scheme known as the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme (BREP), which aimed to improve connectivity between the west and east sides of the A38 for both pedestrians and cyclists. The primary driver being to improve connectivity for Non- Motorised Users (NMUs) travelling across the A38. The proposed bridge link was a key element of the Bromsgrove Route Enhancement Programme (BREP).

 

The proposal included the replacement of a non-compliant footbridge connecting Fordhouse Road to Carnforth Road, and was to include higher parapets, approach ramps, stairs and associated highway improvements all in accordance with the requirements of CD 353 of DRMB and LTN 1/20.

 

The scale and massing of the replacement cycle / footbridge was similar to that of the existing bridge in terms of height and location and would not be an unacceptable or overbearing feature that would detract from residential amenity. The scheme would encourage sustainable and active travel, improving transport options for local residents and encouraging further local leisure trips, facilitating a step change in the levels of cycling and walking and helping to contribute to improved health and wellbeing.

 

Based on the advice of National Highways, Sustrans, the County Highways Officer, the County Footpath Officer and the Ramblers Association, the Development Management Team Manager was satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic, highway safety or Public Rights of Way, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions regarding conformity with submitted plans, a CEMP, lighting scheme, SuDS scheme, Road Safety Audits Stage 2 and Stage 3, and temporary diversion of footway, in accordance with Sections 8 and 9 of the NPPF and Policy BDP 16 of the Bromsgrove District Plan.

 

The Development Management Team Manager considered that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and based on the advice of the County Landscape Officer, Bromsgrove District Council and Worcestershire Regulatory Services, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the local area and would improve connectivity for NMUs travelling across the A38 in accordance with Section 12 of the NPPF, Policies BDP 19 and Policy BDP 25 of the Bromsgrove District Plan.

 

Based on the advice of the County Ecologist and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, the Development Management Team Manager considered that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on ecology and biodiversity at the site or within the surrounding area and would enhance the application site’s value for biodiversity in accordance with Section 15 of the NPPF and Policies BDP 19 and Policy BDP 21 of the Bromsgrove District Plan.

 

Based on the advice of Severn Trent Water and North Worcestershire Water Management, the Development Management Team Manager considered that there would be no adverse effects on the water environment, subject to the imposition of appropriate drainage conditions requiring a detailed drainage strategy for surface water and SuDS management plan, in accordance with Section 14 of the NPPF and Policy BDP 23 of the Bromsgrove District Plan.

 

Based on the advice of the County Archaeologist and Bromsgrove District Conservation Officer, the Development Management Team Manager considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon heritage assets in accordance with Section 16 of the NPPF and Policy BDP 20 of the Bromsgrove District Plan.

 

Taking into account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies BDP 1, BDP 6, BDP 12, BDP 16, BDP 17, BDP 19, BDP 20, BDP 21, BDP 22, BDP 23, BDP 24 and BDP 25 of the adopted Bromsgrove District Plan, it was considered that the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies or highway safety.

 

The representative of the Development Management Team Manager introduced the report and highlighted an error in the report as total height of the bridge would measure approximately 8.8m not 14.4m.

 

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

 

·         The proposal provided vital improvements to walking and cycling infrastructure in Bromsgrove. There were issues associated with lighting and safety in the locality which had been addressed in the application. The main issue was how cyclists and other modes of transport were separated from pedestrians on the bridge, particularly with regard to lighting at night and the dangers of pedestrians being surprised by cyclists etc coming up behind them. The representative of the County Highways Officer responded that it was proposed to have improved lighting on the bridge. It was not proposed to segregate cyclists and pedestrians as it would be a shared-use bridge which fully complied with LTN 1/20, the appropriate Government guidance for an Active Travel bridge based on the anticipated usage. The proposed use of “share with care” signposting had worked with other similar cycle/footbridges

·         In response to a query about the prevention of access to the bridge for motorbikes, the representative of the County Highways Officer commented that bollards would be in situ to prevent motorcycle access but positioned so they would not prevent access by cyclists

·         The proposed bridge would be wider than the existing bridge and wider than Government 3.5m guidance which would benefit dual use

·         The proposed gradient of the bridge was welcomed in terms of access for elderly residents

·         A concern was expressed from experience in other countries about the dangers associated with the speed of cyclists on non-segregated bridges. It was queried whether some sort of separation marking could be introduced. The Development Management Team Manager responded that the County Highways Officer had indicated that marked segregation was not well-observed and pedestrians encountered greater conflict than on unsegregated facilities due to increased cycle speeds therefore the use of white line segregation had not been recommended. When non-segregation was in place pedestrians/cyclist tended to police themselves. Two road safety audits had been commissioned which should pick up any issues

·         The proposals for lighting the bridge were welcomed and would not have a negative impact on bats

·         Experience had shown that mixed use facilities tended to work because people tended to be more aware of their surroundings

·         Mr Mark Gory, a representative of the applicant explained that line-marking had been considered but it was found that pedestrians or cyclist tended to consider that that was their route so if for example a child wandered into the cyclist lane then it created a conflict. In addition, pedestrians did not always like to be told which side of the bridge they should be on. The “share with care” approach meant that people were more likely to be aware that someone might approach from behind. The 4 metre width of the proposed bridge gave plenty of space for people travelling in both directions. Mr Nick Secker, a representative of the applicant added that the guidance and best practice standards issued by the Government suggested that shared use was appropriate and this design met the required standard

·         In response to a query, the Development Management Team Manager confirmed that the proposed downlight lighting located in the handrails would be bat-friendly. It was not intended to use red lighting. The County Ecologist added that bats were mostly intolerant of lighting. The scheme proposed the most sensitively designed lighting strategy which minimised light spill and directed light only where it was needed to reduce the impact on wildlife

·         A local councillor commented that he had not had any negative feedback from local residents about the proposed bridge. The current bridge was old, ugly, outdated, steep, dark and unfriendly for female users at night. The sympathetic design of the lighting on the bridge was welcomed.

 

RESOLVED thatplanning permission be granted for proposed replacement bridge to provide upgraded shared access over the A38 corridor with associated active travel improvements on land between Fordhouse Road west of the A38 and Carnforth Road east of the A38, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire subject to the following conditions:

 

Commencement

 

1)        The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission;

 

2)        The developer shall notify the County Planning Authority of the start date of commencement of the development in writing within 5 working days following the commencement of the development;

 

Approved Plans and Details

3)        The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on submitted drawings numbered: 3014-BUR-GEN-S5-DR-C-0106, Rev S4-P2.0 (Red and Blue Line Plan);3014-BUR-GEN-S5-DR-C-0105, Rev S4-P5.0 (Red line Boundary Plan);3014-BUR-GEN-S5-DR-C-0109, Rev S4-P3.0 (Amended Proposed Site Location Plan);3014-BUR-SBR-S5-DR-S-1721, Rev S4-P5.0 (Bridge Sections Plan); 3014-BUR-SBR-S5-DR-S-1720, Rev S4-P4.0 (Bridge Long Section Plan);3014-BUR-HML-S5-DR-C-0710, S4-Rev P3.0 (Geometric Layout Long Section); 3014-BUR-HKF-ZZ-DR-C-1150, Rev S4-P3.0 (Kerbs Footways & Paved Areas Sheet 1); 3014-BUR-HKF-ZZ-DR-C-1151, Rev S4-P3.0 (Kerbs Footways & Paved Areas Sheet 2);3014-BUR-HKF-ZZ-DR-C-1152, Rev S4-P3.0 (Kerbs Footways & Paved Areas Sheet 3); 3014-BUR-HKF-S5-DR-C-1101, Rev S4-P3.0 (Kerbs Footways & Paved Areas General Arrangement); 3014-BUR-HFE-ZZ-DR-C-0350, Rev P3 (Fencing Standard Details - Sheet 1);3014-BUR-HFE-S5-DR-C-0301, Rev P4 (Fencing General Arrangement Plan); 3014-BUR-HGT-S5-DR-C-0601, Reve P2 (Earthworks General Arrangement Plan); 3014-BUR-HGT-ZZ-DR-C-0650, Rev P2 (Earthworks Standard Details Sheet 1); 3014-BUR-HML-S5-DR-C-0701, Rev S4-P3.0 (Road Geometry General Arrangement Plan); 3014-BUR-HMK-S5-DR-C-1201, Rev S4-P3.0 (General Arrangement - Road Markings); 3014-BUR-GEN-S5-DR-C-0100, Rev S4-P5.0 (General Arrangement Overview Plan); 3014-BUR-GEN-S5-DR-C-0101, Rev S4-P4.0 (General Arrangement Plan - Sheet 1); 3014-BUR-HRR-S5-DR-C-0401, Rev S4-P3.0 (General Arrangement Plan - Sheet 2);  3014-BUR-SBR-S5-DR-S-1701, Rev S4-P4.0 (Proposed General Arrangement Plan); 3014-BUR-HSC-S5-DR-C-0201, Rev S4-P3.0 (Site Clearance General Arrangement Plan); 3014-BUR-GEN-S5-DR-C-0104, Rev S4-P4.0 (Temporary Works Plan);  3014-BUR-HRR-S5-DR-C-0405, Rev S4-P2.0(Scheme Bollards Locations General Arrangement Plan); 1979-DFL-HLG-XX-DR-EO-13002, Rev S3-P04 (Lighting Layout Plan); 3014-BUR-HDG-S5-DR-D-0502, Rev S4-P6.0 (Amended Proposed Surface Water General Arrangement Plan Sheet 1); 3014-BUR-HDG-S5-DR-D-0503, Rev S4-P6.0 (Amended Drainage Proposed Water General Arrangement Plan Sheet 2); 61014-DWG-LS-Sch5-002, Rev P2-S3 (Landscape Proposals – Seeding); 61014-DWG-LP-Sch5-001 Rev P7-S3 (Landscape Proposals – Planting); except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission;

 

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

4)        Notwithstanding the submitted details no development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to the County Planning Authority and approved in writing. The approved CEMP shall be implemented for the duration of the construction works. The CEMP shall include the following:

 

Biodiversity

                             i.   Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.

                            ii.   Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”;

                          iii.    Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction. These shall be submitted in the form of a set of ‘Precautionary Method Statements’, which shall include:

·         Methods for habitat manipulation, to remove suitability for reptiles and to provide contingency processes in the event of discovery of great crested newt or other protected species;

·         Precautionary working methods with regard to badgers and hedgehogs, to include both pre-commencement inspections in and around working areas and to confirm measures to be employed so as to protect badgers from becoming trapped in open excavations and/or pipes or culverts.

·         Soft felling measures for any trees identified with Potential Bat Roosting Features (low value Potential Roosting Feature only);

·         Vegetation clearance with regards nesting birds; confirming that no vegetation clearance shall take place between March 1st and August 31st inclusively, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation for active birds’ nests immediately before the vegetation is cleared and provided written confirmation that no birds shall be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site. Any such written confirmation to be submitted to the County Planning Authority; and

·         A biosecurity protocol to detail measures to minimize or remove the risk of introducing non-native species into a particular area during the construction, operational or decommissioning phases of a project;

 

                          iv.    The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features;

                            v.   The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works;

                          vi.    Responsible persons and lines of communication;

                         vii.    The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person;

                       viii.   Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs;

 

            Dust

                          ix.    A Dust and Air Quality Management Plan (DMP) in accordance with Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) guidance;

 

            Noise and Vibration

                            x.   A scheme to minimise and mitigate the impacts of noise and vibration;

 

Highways

                          xi.    Measures to ensure that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other detritus on the public highway;

                         xii.    Details of site operative parking areas, material storage areas and the location of site operatives’ facilities (offices, toilets etc);

                       xiii.   The hours that delivery vehicles will be permitted to arrive and depart, and arrangements for unloading and manoeuvring;

                       xiv.   Details of any temporary construction accesses and their reinstatement;

 

Water Environment

                         xv.    Measures to be undertaken to ensure that any pollution and silt generated by the construction works shall not adversely affect groundwater and surface waterbodies;

 

Lighting

                       xvi.   Construction phase lighting strategy, which shall include measures to mitigate impact of the lighting or disturbance through glare and upon light-sensitive flora and fauna (particularly linear vegetated features and tree BT1);and

 

Hours of Working

                      xvii.   A scheme providing the days and hours of construction operations;

 

 

Landscape and Biodiversity

5)        Notwithstanding the submitted details, a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing within 3 months of commencement of development. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The LEMP shall include the following:

 

                             i.      Description and evaluation of features to be managed for their biodiversity value. To include both created and retained vegetation. New habitats shall include native species rich grassland, woodland and woodland edge, hedgerow tree and shrub planting. The LEMP shall illustrate the location, extent and planting specifications of these habitats. Hedgerow and woodland features should be underplanted with an appropriate ground flora mix;

                            ii.      Aims and objectives of management;

                          iii.       Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives;

                          iv.       Prescriptions for management actions;

                            v.      Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period);

                          vi.       Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan;

                         vii.       Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures, including clearly defined and appropriate criteria and quantified measures of ‘success’ against which the performance and effectiveness of the LEMP can be judged;

 

Where it is intended to create semi-natural habitats, all species used in the planting proposals shall be locally native species of local provenance, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority. No peat or insecticides or fungicides to be used. No fertilisers to be used in areas of wildflowers, any topsoil used in these locations should be of low fertility. Tree guards should be biodegradable or, the LEMP shall identify a date at the termination of aftercare period when all plastic tree guards are to be removed. Monitoring of ecological features including grassland, woodland, wetland, hedgerow and any installed boxes or habitat refuges are to be undertaken and reported by a Suitable Qualified Ecologist;

 

The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan shall be secured by the developer with the body(ies) responsible for LEMP delivery. The LEMP shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or any remedial action shall be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details;

 

A brief Statement of Conformity is to be submitted to the County Planning Authority which reviews measures implemented and their effectiveness against stated success criteria at the end of the LEMP aftercare period;

 

Lighting

6)        Notwithstanding the submitted details a Lighting Strategy shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing prior to being installed. The lighting strategy shall specify operational phase lighting with specific reference to how the design selected shall avoid lighting impact upon any features likely to be of value for commuting/foraging bats, specifically (but not exhaustively) to include site boundaries, waterbodies, linear vegetated features and identified trees containing Potential Roosting Feature. The detailed lighting strategy shall show how and where external lighting shall be installed, through provision of appropriate contour plans and technical specifications which confirm location, height, spread, lux power (in horizontal and vertical elevations on any features identified to be of particular value to wildlife), lighting spectra and glare rating. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme;

 

Design

7)        Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, detailed design drawings of the bridge, ramps, landings, steps, including materials, colour, finishes, size, and cross section of the bridge parapets shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

8)        Notwithstanding the submitted details, within 1 month of commencement of the development hereby approved, a schedule and / or samples of all surfacing materials shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval in writing. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

 

Water Environment

9)        No works or development shall take place until a scheme for a surface water drainage strategy for the proposed development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The strategy shall include details of surface water drainage measures, including for hardstanding areas, and shall include the results of an assessment into the potential of disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system (SuDS). If possible, infiltration techniques are to be used and the plan shall include the details and results of field percolation tests. If a connection to a sewer system is proposed, then evidence shall be submitted of the in-principle approval of Severn Trent Water for this connection. The scheme should include run off treatment proposals for surface water drainage. The approved surface water drainage scheme shall be implemented prior to the use of the development hereby approved and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved scheme;

 

10)      No works in connection with site drainage shall commence until a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) management plan which shall include details on future management responsibilities, together with maintenance schedules for all SuDS features and associated pipework has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. This plan shall detail the strategy that will be followed to facilitate the optimal functionality and performance of the SuDS scheme throughout its lifetime. The approved SuDS management plan shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved terms and conditions and the SuDS scheme shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance plan thereafter;

 

Highways

11)      The development hereby approved shall not commence construction until a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit report, together with the Designer’s Response, for the detailed design has been submitted to the County Planning Authority;

 

12)      Upon completion of the development hereby approved, a Stage 3 Road Safety Audit report, together with the Designer’s Response, for the construction of the scheme shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority within 35 days of the official opening date; and

 

13)      The development hereby approved shall not commence until details of how existing footways and permissive routes affected by construction work will be kept open, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. Details shall be provided to show temporary diversions, free from any obstruction, in a safe condition for use by members of the public and clearly signed. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.