Agenda item

Replacement of 1.8m footpath/cyclepath with 3.6m wide footpath/ cyclepath with associated alterations to bridge abutments,

ramps and stair access arrangements.
[Micklegate, Guildhall and Holgate Ward][Site Visit]

[Note: Councillor Flinders withdrew from the meeting during consideration of this item and took no part in the debate or decision thereon.]

Members considered a major full application by Network Rail(Infrastructure) Ltd for the replacement of the 1.8m footpath/cyclepath with a 3.6m wide footpath/cyclepath with associated alterations to bridge abutments, ramps and stair access arrangements at  Scarborough Bridge, Earlsborough Terrace, York.

Officers advised Members that there had been additional representation from York Civic Trust, who cited concern regarding the impact on vistas, loss of the existing Victorian lattice ironwork, lack of clarity over materials and colour including iron work and stone, changes to the parapets above the abutments and creation of a bottleneck at either side of the embankment. The Trust also suggested that where possible, alterations were reversible to give the ability to understand the changes that were are important to the bridge’s history. Officers outlined their responses to the concerns raised by the Trust. In response to the Trust’s suggestion that the alterations to the bridge be reversible, Officers explained that it was unclear whether the alterations could be reversible and there was a risk that this could result in further loss of historic fabric.

Officers gave an explanation of the layout of the bridge, including the locations of ramps, lighting and step access for pedestrians.

In response to questions from Members, Officers clarified that:

·        There was a condition in place for the finish of the materials

·        There was a restriction on where the cycle path could be situated. It was noted that there was no engineering option to further widen the path.

·        That the end pier had moved back by 1m.

Members were advised that the recommendation had been revised to delegate authority for the Assistant Director to approve the application following the receipt of consultation responses from the Holgate and Guildhall Planning Panels or after the expiry of the consultation period if no response is received within the time period.  If any issues or objections are raised which are not covered in the officer’s report these issues the approval shall be in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Tony Clarke, Head of Transport at City of York Council, spoke in support of the application, noting that the bridge was the only traffic free bridge in the city centre. He explained that the bridge had been funded through a number of authorities and was time limited to 2018. He advised that the current bridge was widely used and was inadequate for a number of users, specifically wheelchair users and people with pushchairs. He added that the main objective was provide step free and traffic free access during high river levels and noted that there had been a positive response to the proposals during consultation. It was anticipated that the bridge would be completed in February 2019.

Resolved:

                             i.        That authority be delegated to the Assistant Director to approve the application following the receipt of consultation responses from the Holgate and Guildhall Planning Panels, or after the expiry of the consultation period if no responses are received within the time period. 

                            ii.        That should any issues or objections be raised by the Holgate and Guildhall Planning Panels which are  not covered in the officer’s report, that approval by the Assistant Director be made in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Reason:

                     i.        The proposal will result in less than substantial harm to designated and non-designated heritage assets. Considerable weight has been given to their conservation under the requirements of the Act and the NPPF.  It is demonstrated that the works to improve the crossing over the bridge, for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled users will be of a substantial benefit to the public and achieve wider Council aims, in terms of facilitating greater accessibility for and to sustainable transport modes.  It is therefore considered that in the planning balance the public benefits outweigh the less than substantial harm and that paragraphs 132, 134 and 135 of the NPPF have been satisfied.  

                               ii.            The development raises some concerns in regards to the environmental impacts.  This position is balanced. It achieves the aims of improving local access routes for pedestrian and cyclists and those with disabilities across the river, providing a greater range of sustainable transport options and will help to alleviate vehicle/cycle conflict in other parts of the city.  However this is balanced with the loss of trees on both the northern and southern embankments.  Along with the loss of the trees, one of the trees to be removed contains two unused bat boxes. 

                          iii.            On balance weighing the environmental and heritage impacts of the proposal against the public benefits of providing improved sustainable transport option for pedestrian, cycling and disabled access along the river Ouse, the application is considered to be acceptable and accords with national policies contained within the NPPF, and local policies contained within the DCLP 2005 and the 2018 Draft Local Plan. The proposals are considered to preserve this part of the Central Historic Core Conservation Areain accordance with Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.