development control and regulatory board …politics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s33242/d little...

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

18TH DECEMBER 2008

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

APPLICATION UNDER REGULATION 13 OF THE PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) REGULATIONS 1990

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT APPLICATION NO. & DATE: 2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) - 4th August 2008

PROPOSAL: Application for Conservation Area Consent for the

demolition of an existing brick built footbridge and replacement with a new footbridge (including the temporary diversion of a public right of way).

LOCATION: Little Lane, Packington. (North West Leicestershire District) APPLICANT: Leicestershire County Council MAIN ISSUES: Flood risk, loss of historic structure, impact upon

the conservation area and impact upon ecological interests.

RECOMMENDATION: The County Planning Authority has no objection to

the demolition of the footbridge, subject to the conditions set out in appendix.

Circulation Under Local Issues Alert Procedures Mr. N. J. Rushton CC Officer to Contact Mr. D. Szymanski (Tel: 0116 305 7050) E-Mail [email protected]

D

DC&REG. BOARD 18/12/2008

2

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued

PART B – MAIN REPORT Background 1. The village of Packington lies around 1 mile to the south of Ashby-de-la-Zouch.

The village has historically experienced the effects of flooding from the Gilwiskaw Brook, which flows in a southerly direction through the village. A feasibility study carried out by the Environment Agency in November 2001 assessed the hydrology and hydraulics of the Gilwiskaw Brook catchment. A further feasibility study was carried out in August 2003 on behalf of Packington Parish Council to investigate a number of possible options to prevent/mitigate flooding. The study considered a number of possible solutions including flood storage, raised embankments, restructuring certain bridges and the removal of a tree. The details that were considered were as follows:

(i) Flood Storage One option was to create a flood storage structure immediately downstream

of the A42. For cost and regulatory reasons schemes considered were under 25,000m3 in volume. Such a facility would be able to protect the village from a 1 in 5 year flood event. Given the land constraints a pump facility would be required to empty the structure, therefore it was not considered financially feasible.

An on-line storage facility was considered (that would run adjacent to the

water course). However, there were significant logistical difficulties including finding sufficient room to create the capacity and the inducement of raised water levels upstream, thereby creating an additional flooding problem.

(ii) Raised embankments (on eastern and western banks) This option exacerbated flood events above a 1 in 30 year return period,

particularly upstream of the proposed embankments. This would also exacerbate the flooding downstream of the Bridge Street Bridge unless suitable compensation storage could be provided elsewhere.

(iii) Limited raised embankments along the lowest stretch of the eastern bank in

Packington The model showed that this increased the flow capacity to prevent 1 in 2

and 1 in 10 year events. By allowing more of the field area upstream of the village to flood, it would be possible to readily accommodate the loss of the floodplain area due to the gardens not flooding.

(iv) Re-structuring/raising Little Lane and/or Hall Lane Bridges These structures were identified in anecdotal statements as possible points

of flow constriction. The removal of Little Lane Bridge would reduce the water levels by 4cm and 10cm for 1 in 10 and 1 in 30 year events respectively. This does not prevent flooding at higher flows but would reduce extent and depth of flooding. Raising the soffit of the listed Hall Lane bridge would reduce levels by the same amount. The combination of the two events would reduce levels by 6cm (1 in 10 year event) and 18cm (1 in 30 year event).


3

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued


4

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued


5

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued

(v) The removal of a tree off Mill Street This was considered to impede the flow by some 26% during the 1 in 10

year and 1 in 30 year flood event, causing increases in localised water levels upstream. The applicant confirms that this has been removed.

2. The replacement of Little Lane bridge has been the subject of previous applications by the Highway Authority. In June 2006 the applicant submitted proposals (ref. nos. 2006/0877/07 and 2006/0878/07) for the demolition of the bridge and replacement with a hardwood single span structure which would sit upon brick abutments. This application was withdrawn by the applicant following an objection from North West Leicestershire District Council.

3. More recently the Highway Authority submitted fresh proposals for the demolition of the bridge and its replacement with a new bridge (ref. nos. 2008/0021/07 and 2008/0023/07) in January 2008. This application was refused at the Board meeting of 14th February 2008. The Board considered that the applicant should investigate alternative options that would not involve the loss of the historic bridge. The reason for refusal was that the proposed development would involve the loss of an historic structure and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Description of Proposal and Site

4. At the request of the Environment Agency the County Highway Authority is seeking Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of Little Lane footbridge and the erection of a replacement single span timber footbridge. The erection of the footbridge would be permitted development, but the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that authorities must have regard to the replacement development when considering applications for the demolition of an unlisted building in a Conservation Area.

5. The footbridge is located at the western end of Little Lane footpath O69 which links Mill Street and High Street. The bridge is within the designated Packington Conservation Area and is identified in the District Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal as an ‘unlisted building of interest’. The Bridge is a twin arch brick built structure with a central brick pier that spans the Gilwiskaw Brook.

6. The proposed replacement footbridge would be of a solid timber construction using sustainable hardwood and is aesthetically similar to the footbridge installed at Bridge Street, 125m south of Little Lane. The existing brick abutments would remain and be built up using bricks reclaimed from the arch demolition. The proposed bridge would provide a maximum clear opening for water flowing in the brook. The soffit level is designed to be as high as possible taking into account the constraining factors of the maximum gradient of the existing footway and the tie-in with the narrow footway of Little Lane itself. The removal of the existing central pier would eliminate the constriction to the flow.

7. The parapets are proposed to be open, with solid vertical infill spindles at maximum spacings. The open nature of this parapet arrangement would allow water to flow over the deck and then discharge downstream. They are designed to conform to current design and safety standards and are therefore higher than the existing parapets. It is proposed that the existing railings either side of the railings are replaced with new railings.


6

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued 8. The applicant states that compliance with current design guidance and health

and safety considerations prevents the possibility of designing a "humped back” brick structure. The applicant has also considered dredging the channel. However, watercourses will quickly silt back to their natural levels, and at Packington this is determined by inverts and structures. Therefore this is not an option in this location. Minor works are also being considered to the channel to reduce bank levels to provide an escape route for water. However, these are still under consideration.

9. The applicant has submitted an ecological survey with the application together

with a method statement for the demolition and construction works to mitigate any impacts upon protected species.

10. The application also includes an explanation of the benefits to reducing flooding

of the proposed development produced by the consultants commissioned by the Parish Council in 2003, which are as follows.

• Blockage is very likely to occur during a flooding event. If a 75% blockage were to occur during a 1 in 10 year flooding event this would raise the water level by 32cm for up to 450m upstream (compared to a 1 in 20 year event under existing conditions). With a blockage of the bridge, properties would be at risk from flooding at much lower return period flood events.

• The key findings support the recommendation for raising Little Lane Bridge, which would result in an overall reduction of flood risks in Packington, particularly during blockage conditions.

• There are currently 5 properties upstream of the Little Lane bridge that are at risk from flooding from the watercourse at a 1 in 100 year event. With climate change (which could happen in the next 10 to 50 years) this could increase to 10 properties.

• If the bridge is raised or removed, at a 1 in 10 year flood event 1 or 2 houses may not be flooded. However all 5 houses would have a reduced flood depth. At a 1 in 30 year flood event, 2 or 3 houses may not be flooded and again all 5 properties would have reduced flooding depths with the bridge raised.

11. According to the consultants who prepared the study, five properties have been

flooded in the last 10 years on two occasions. Planning Policy 12. National Planning Guidance relevant to the application is set out in Planning

Policy Guidance (PPG) Note 15 (Planning and The Historic Environment). The Development Plan in this instance is made up of the East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (EMRSS) (adopted March 2005), the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan (LLRSP) (adopted March 2005) and the North West Leicestershire Local Plan (NWLLP) (adopted August 2002). The most relevant policies for this development are set out below.

13. PPG15 (Planning and The Historic Environment) sets out Government policies

for the identification and protection of historic buildings, conservation areas, and other elements of the historic environment. Paragraphs 2.11 – 2.15 set out the


7

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued general procedures and principles for planning authorities considering

applications affecting historic buildings and structures. It reminds authorities that they are required by section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. In the case of unlisted buildings in conservation areas, consent for the demolition of a building may involve consideration of what is to take its place.

14. Paragraphs 4.14 – 4.20 advises planning authorities on the use of planning

powers in Conservation Areas and the assessment of development proposals. Authorities must give a high priority to the objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. If any proposed development would conflict with that objective, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission, though in exceptional cases the presumption may be overridden in favour of development which is desirable on the ground of some other public interest.

15. Paragraphs 4.25 – 4.29 provides advice on demolition in Conservation Areas. It

specifically states that the general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. Proposals to demolish such buildings should be assessed against the same broad criteria as listed buildings (paras. 3.16 – 3.19). Normally, consent to demolish should not be granted, unless there are acceptable plans for redevelopment.

16. The application site lies within the limits to development of Packington, as

designated in the North West Leicestershire Local Plan under Policy S2. This requires development proposals to comply with other policies of the plan.

17. Policy E4 states that in the determination of planning applications regard will be

had to the wider setting, character of surroundings in terms of scale, design, height, massing, materials, spaces between and around buildings, and the street scene generally.

18. Policy E30 states that development will not be permitted which would increase

the risk of flooding and remove extra discharge capacity from the floodplains of the Gilwiskaw Brook unless as part of the development the developer provides appropriate mitigation measures to protect the land from such effects.

19. The Little Lane bridge is identified in the District Council’s published Packington

Conservation Area Appraisal as an ‘Unlisted Building of Architectural or Historic Interest which is considered to make a positive contribution to the streetscape of the area’ within the Conservation Area.

Consultations 20. The applicant has submitted an amendment to the proposal (the removal of

feature brick walls and replacement with metal railings) and some additional information/clarification. Where consultees views to the amendment is different to those on the original submission the amended comments are included.


8

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued North West Leicestershire District Council 21. North West Leicestershire District Council raises no objection to the principle of

the application provided that the County Planning Authority is satisfied that the benefits of removing the existing bridge outweigh the concerns about its loss. However, the District Council considers that the latest proposal has a greater adverse impact on the Conservation Area than previous schemes and the original proposal (as amended) has the least harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Packington Parish Council 22. No objection. Environment Agency

23. No objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to ground levels,

storage of materials, removal of surplus material, and advice regarding the requirement for Appropriate Assessment.

Natural England 24. Natural England has no objection to the proposal because it is considered that,

either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, it would not be likely to have a significant effect on the internationally important interest features of the River Mease Special Areas of Conservation, or any of the features of special scientific interest of the River Mease SSSI, as long as the submitted method statements are followed.

Central Networks 25. No objection subject to informative advice. Rights of Way Advice 26. No objection subject to informative advice. Ecological Advice

27. Agrees with the recommendations outlined in both the ecological report and the

method statement document. In addition it is recommended that a watch for all protected species be maintained throughout the development. Field data indicates that the proposed development should have no impact on any known sites of ecological importance.

Heritage Advice 28. Historic brick bridges make a positive contribution to the character and

appearance of the Packington Conservation Area; two are statutorily listed. The proposal to remove the existing brick bridge is likely to harm, rather than preserve or enhance the Packington Conservation Area. A replacement timber


9

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued bridge elsewhere in the village serves to illustrate the harmful impact such

changes can have on the historic environment. If it is resolved that the principle of removing the bridge is acceptable, it is suggested that its replacement should be designed to complement the remaining historic bridges and maintain some degree of local distinctiveness.

29. It is noted that the latest proposal retains separate railings leading up to the

bridge but the historic brick bridge is to be replaced with a timber structure. The replacement is not in keeping with the essential character of the historic bridges in the village. Suggestion is made that a brick parapet with openings, similar to one near Wistow Hall, might provide the basis of an acceptable compromise in this case. The proposed amendments do not overcome this.

Publicity 30. The proposal for the demolition of the bridge has been advertised in the local

press, together with site notices and neighbour notification letters posted on the 7th August 2008. Four letters of representation have been received during the specified time period. One letter sets out objection to the proposed development, which raises the following concerns:

• The new bridge and associated railings would be out of keeping with other bridges and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and village as a whole.

• There does not appear to be satisfactory evidence that the removal of the bridge would have anything more than a marginal beneficial impact upon the flow and that it is not the overall solution. This in itself does not represent a sufficient justification for removing the bridge.

• The work to remove the bridge would be premature, in light of the large scale housing proposals/applications in the area.

• It is requested that if the bridge is removed, then the results are monitored to confirm that its removal was necessary.

31. Three letters of representation (including one from a member of FLOAT (the

Packington Flood Action Group)) in support of the application have also been submitted which explains that the proposal is backed by the Environment Agency, Local Councillors, the MP and the FLOAT action group. Reference is made to flooding events, specifically in 2000, 2001 and 2007 and the nature of peak flows. Most recently there was a flood in September 2008 in which five properties were flooded. It is believed that the flood events are occurring with more frequency. It is acknowledged that the removal of the bridge will not solve all the issues, however, it could make a considerable difference. An account is also given of a flood event in October 2008 where water was said to be 2ft from the height of the Bridge. Information has also been provided in the form of editions of the ‘Packington Post’ that refer to flooding events, together with some photographs of flood events.

32. Given the limited extent of the amended proposals, and additional information,

this was sent to those who expressed an interest in the application previously. Three further letters of representation were received, two in support and one in objection to the proposals.


10

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued 33. One letter in support of the proposals refers to flooding worsening with the

continued urbanisation of Ashby and solutions offered by the promoters of a large scale residential development off Packington Nook Lane. The other letter of support comments on the limited value of the bridge and its effect on constriction. The letter of objection refers to future development in Ashby exacerbating flooding. The proposed development is insufficient to resolve current flooding and would only make a limited improvement. The amendment which removes brick feature walls further means that even less of the old bridge would be retained.

Assessment 34. As explained in paragraphs 2 – 3 above the proposed removal of the bridge has

been the subject of previous applications. The justification for the demolition of the existing bridge and the need for a new single span structure is explained in paragraph 1 above.

35. In the report to the Board meeting of 14th February 2008, the officer’s report

explained that …The Little Lane footbridge is set back from Mill Street and is surrounded by vegetation and mature trees. The bridge is not prominent from Mill Street and it could be argued that it does not significantly contribute to the overall character and setting of the Conservation Area. Although the loss of this historic bridge would be regrettable, it has to be weighed against the benefits of reducing flooding… These views remain.

36. In the previous report to the Board meeting it was also explained that…Historic

brick bridges make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Packington Conservation Area… The proposal to remove the existing brick bridge at Little Lane is regrettable from a building conservation point of view, although it is noted that its demolition will increase flow capacity of the brook during flood events…If it is resolved that the existing bridge ought to be demolished, any replacement structure should be carefully designed, using appropriate materials preferably to complement the remaining historic bridges and maintain some degree of local distinctiveness. Clearly, the replacement bridge is a more standard design and not in keeping with the essential character of the historic bridges in the village. These views remain due to the similarity between the proposed new bridge to that subject of the previous application.

37. At the meeting the Board refused the application for Conservation Area Consent

because “The proposed development would involve the loss of an historic structure and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.” The applicant sought to override this impact by submitting an improved design of bridge together with additional information about the need for the development. The modifications added as a visual improvement by the applicant (the feature brick walls) have been removed due to their adverse visual impact.

38. The benefits to the removal of Little Lane bridge are summarised in paragraph

10. The assessment suggests that if the bridge is altered as proposed, then of 5 houses, 1 or 2 houses may not be flooded and all 5 houses would have a reduced flood depth in a 1 in 10 year flood event. At a 1 in 30 year flood event, 2


11

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued or 3 houses may not be flooded and again all 5 houses would have reduced

flooding depths. With climate change (which is predicted to occur in the next 10 – 50 years) it is considered that 10 houses could be at risk of flooding in the future.

39. It should be noted however, that notwithstanding the removal of the willow tree

referred to in paragraph 2(v), there already appears to be an increase in frequency of the flood events. Apparently 5 properties have flooded in the last 10 years on two occasions. On this basis there would appear to be an increasingly pressing need to address the issue of flooding in Packington. On the basis of the above evidence there would appear to be a limited benefit to altering the bridge.

Alternative solutions 40. The applicant has also considered options other than removing the bridge. One

of the more feasible options that the applicant considered was the construction of an embankment. However, the applicant has stated that they envisage problems in implementing this through obtaining permission from land owners and conservation bodies. The applicant has also given consideration to the issue of dredging the bed of the watercourse. However, the watercourses generally revert back to their natural level in a relatively short period of time, therefore dredging is generally not an option. In the case of Packington the level of the bed is determined by inverts at structures (i.e. bridges). For this reason dredging would not be an appropriate option.

41. A number of bridge designs have been considered including a brick bridge and

modifications to the original bridge. A brick bridge without a central pier could not be constructed within the constrained site in accordance with health and safety considerations for footpath gradients. Furthermore a brick parapet wall would not achieve the degree of openness to allow water to freely flow through it. The proposed timber bridge would ensure minimal obstruction to water flow during flood events. The open parapets would allow water to flow over and through the bridge thereby reducing the backing up of the water upstream.

42. Therefore, whilst the proposed footbridge would not be in keeping with the other

brick bridges in the area, it appears to be the most appropriate solution to the flooding problem. Furthermore, the wooden appearance would not be unduly prominent or out of character with the surrounding vegetation, and would be appropriate in terms of scale. Therefore the impact (of the new bridge) upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is considered to be minimal.

Ecological Issues 43. The Gilwiskaw Brook is a tributary to the River Mease SAC (Special Area of

Conservation) which is protected under European legislation, with the lower reaches of the brook designated as a SSSI. This requires the County Planning Authority to consider the need for an ‘Appropriate Assessment’ of the impact of the proposed development. Appropriate Assessment assesses the implications for a site in view of its conservation objectives and must be made in respect of any decision to be taken for any consent, permission or other authorisation (e.g. planning application determination) for a plan or project which:


12

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued

• either alone or in combination with other plans or projects would be likely to have a significant effect on a European Site, and

• is not directly connected with the management of the site for nature conservation.

44. The applicant has submitted an Ecological Survey and demolition and

construction Method Statement. The Ecological Survey confirms that bats, Water Voles and White Clawed Crayfish were not present at the site at the time of survey. The survey makes general recommendations relating to (inter-alia) preventing cross contamination of crayfish plague, provision of straw bales and booms to prevent debris and leakage flowing down stream and the drying of straw bales. The demolition and construction Method Statement includes the main recommendations of the ecology survey together with additional measures to ensure no debris or fines wash downstream or liquid enters the brook.

45. Natural England has assessed whether the proposals would be likely to have a

significant effect on the River Mease SAC. Natural England states that if the mitigation as proposed in the method statement is followed, the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the River Mease. Accordingly they raise no objection. Therefore, having regard to the proposed development and the River Mease SAC and SSSI, it is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact subject to appropriately worded conditions. Accordingly no detailed Appropriate Assessment is required.

Miscellaneous issues 46. Representations make reference to potential new housing developments in the

locality, namely land off Packington Nook, which is being promoted by a private developer. Such land is not allocated in the adopted North West Leicestershire Local Plan and there is no extant planning permission for the development. Given the District Council is currently consulting on the Core Strategy, it appears that there is currently no firm prospect of the development taking place, or in the form that would exacerbate or prevent flooding. Should the development be considered as part of the Local Development Framework process then it is assumed that its impact will be taken into account.

47. One representation asks that the results of the development are monitored. This

would appear inappropriate once the original bridge has been removed, although no doubt there will be continual monitoring of the flood levels within this general location.

Conclusion 48. There is a clear need for the replacement bridge in terms of the reduction in flood

levels, such benefits would be increased through the reduction in blockages. The existing bridge does not contribute significantly to the overall character and setting of the Conservation Area. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed new bridge is the most appropriate solution given the design requirements and constraints of other solutions, and in terms of the design of the new bridge. On balance, whilst the loss of this historic bridge is regrettable, it is


13

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued considered that the benefits to the area in terms of reduced flooding outweigh the

limited adverse impact on the Conservation Area. The proposed development would also, not have an adverse impact upon the River Mease SAC and SSSI subject to appropriate conditions.

Recommendation

A. The application for Conservation Area Consent, together with the views of

the County Planning Authority and the responses received as a result of consultations and publicity for the proposal, be forwarded to the Secretary of State via North West Leicestershire District Council. She should be informed that the County Planning Authority has no objection to the proposal subject to the conditions, as set out in appendix.

B. The planning application for the erection of a timber bridge be permitted

subject to the prior approval of the Conservation Area Consent by the Secretary of State and the conditions, as set out in the appendix.

C. As required by the Town and Country Planning (General Development

Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended) a summary of the:

(i) Policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision, as follows:

North West Leicestershire Local Plan Policies S2, E4 and E30;

(ii) Reasons for the grant of planning permission are as follows:

• The contribution of the bridge to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is limited.

• Given the limited visibility of the application site and the design of the proposed new bridge, its impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area is limited.

• The proposed development would bring benefits in terms of reducing the frequency and magnitude of flooding in the locality.

• The proposed development is considered the most appropriate method by which to reduce flooding in the area, in the context of alternative solutions.

• Natural England has been asked for their advice on the impact of the scheme on the River Mease SAC. It is Natural England’s opinion that if the mitigation as proposed in the method statement submitted with the application is followed, then the proposal will not have an adverse effect on the River Mease SAC.

• Overall, there would be no adverse impact upon protected species or the River Mease SAC.

• Having regard to the relevant policies of the development plan and other material considerations, on balance the proposed development is considered acceptable.


14

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued

Conditions

1. The demolition works hereby permitted shall be begun within three years from the date of any consent.

2. Within three months of the bridge being removed, a replacement bridge shall be erected, in accordance with the details contained in the submitted application No. 2008/1187/07 as amended by the plan/drawing 3072/4A dated 32 July 2008, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Director of Community Services.

3. The demolition of the footbridge and installation of the replacement footbridge shall be carried out in accordance with the method statement submitted with the application No. 2008/1187/07

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Director of Community Services, all site preparation, movement of materials and machinery and construction and demolition works within the site in connection with the approved development, shall only take place between 0800 – 1800 hours (Monday to Friday) and 0800 – 1400hrs on Saturdays. No such activities shall take place at any time on Sundays or Statutory Public or Bank Holidays.

5. With the exception of the bridge construction and any footpath line and level alterations required to tie in to these works, there must be no raising of ground levels within that part of the site liable to flood, during any flood event causing out of bank flows, up to the 100 year (1% chance in any one year) flood (Flood Zone 3).

6. With the exception referred to below, there shall be no storage of any materials including soil within that part of the site liable to flood, during any flood event causing out of bank flows, up to the 100 year (1% chance in any one year) flood (Flood Zone 3). An exception to this requirement shall be for a temporary period (maximum 2 weeks) and provided that the material is placed in broken heaps parallel to the direction of flood flow.

7. Any surplus excavated material produced as a result of constructing this bridge, must be removed off site to a location outside the 100 year (1% chance in any one year) flood plain outline (Flood Zone 3).

Reasons

1. To ensure the demolition of the footbridge is carried out in a reasonable time period.

2. To ensure the development is carried out in a reasonable time period and to ensure a safe and satisfactory form of development.

3. To protect important features of ecological interest of the River Mease SAC.

4. In the interests of the amenity of the locality and to protect the amenity of nearby residents.

5,6 To ensure that there will be no increased risk of flooding to other land or &7 properties due to impedance of flood flows and/or reduction of flood storage

capacity.

APPENDIX


15

2008/1187/07 (2008/L327/07) – continued Notes to Applicant

Central Networks has Network within the proposed site. For new developments and ground works you should contact Energy Services, New Business/Diversions Team, Toll End Road, Tipton, DY4 0HH.

In the interests of public safety, a request for the temporary diversion of footpath O69, should be submitted to the Northern Area Highways Office at Mountsorrel at least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of the works to the bridge. A suitable alternative route for pedestrians will need to be identified, and clearly signed in time for the Order to be brought into operation.

A watching brief should be maintained by the developer/applicant throughout the course of the works. If at any point protected species are discovered works should cease and English Nature be contacted. ________________________________________________________________


16

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND REGULATORY BOARD

The considerations set out below apply to all preceding applications.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

Unless otherwise stated in the report there are no discernible equal opportunities implications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DISABLED PERSONS

On all educational proposals the Director of Children’s Services and the Director of Resources will be informed as follows:

Note to Applicant Department

Your attention is drawn to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Person’s Act 1970, the Design Note 18 “Access for the Disabled People to Educational Buildings” 1984 and to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. You are advised to contact the County Council’s Assistant Personnel Officer (Disabled People) if you require further advice on this aspect of the proposal.

COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS

Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a very broad duty on all local authorities 'to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area'. Unless otherwise stated in the report, there are no discernible implications for crime reduction or community safety.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Unless otherwise stated in the report the background papers used in the preparation of this report are available on the relevant planning application files.

SECTION 38(6) OF PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004

Members are reminded that Section 38(6) of the 2004 Act requires that:

“If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”

Any relevant provisions of the development plan (i.e. the Regional Spatial Strategy, Structure Plan or any approved Local Plans) are identified in the individual reports.

The circumstances in which the Board is required to “have regard” to the development plan are given in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

Section 70(2) : determination of applications; Section 77(4) : called-in applications (applying s. 70); Section 79(4) : planning appeals (applying s. 70); Section 81(3) : provisions relating to compensation directions by Secretary of State (this

section is repealed by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991); Section 91(2) : power to vary period in statutory condition requiring development to be

begun; Section 92(6) : power to vary applicable period for outline planning permission; Section 97(2) : revocation or modification of planning permission; Section 102(1) : discontinuance orders; Section 172(1) : enforcement notices; Section 177(2) : Secretary of State’s power to grant planning permission on enforcement

appeal; Section 226(2) : compulsory acquisition of land for planning purposes; Section 294(3) : special enforcement notices in relation to Crown land; Sched. 9 para (1) : minerals discontinuance orders.

development control and regulatory board …politics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s33242/d little...

Documents