Agenda item

Replacement of the Glade Bridge at the Glade Bridge over the River Colne, adjacent Grand Union Canal off Church Street, Rickmansworth.

Recommendation: that planning permission be approved subject to conditions.

The application was for replacement of the Glade Bridge at the Glade Bridge over the River Colne, adjacent Grand Union Canal off Church Street, Rickmansworth.

The Planning Officer reported that there were no updates.

Committee Members asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions included the following:

·         Several Committee Members expressed concern about the absence of information relating to the colour and finish of the proposed new bridge, which was considered to be fundamental to the application.  Whilst there was a condition requiring details and samples to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any building operations, the Planning Committee would have no role in deciding their appropriateness.  Given that the Council was the landowner and applicant, and the importance of the site to members of the public, the view was expressed that the Committee should have a greater role in determining these details.   It was noted that the Canal and River Trust had also commented on the lack of clarity regarding the proposed colour, and the significant impact which the colours and materials used could have on the appearance of the bridge and its prominence in the landscape.

·         The Planning Officer responded that the attachment of a condition requiring details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority was not unusual.  Additionally, and for clarity, whilst the Council was the applicant it was the LPA which was the deciding authority, and the two were not the same.   Should the Committee consider it appropriate, an informative could be added setting out any preference with regard to colour palettes, for example.   However, the Planning Officer expressed the opinion that deferral of the application to allow the applicant to provide full details before the application was determined would be unlikely to be considered reasonable.  The applicant was unable to tender contracts for the works until planning permission was granted, and it was only at that stage that options regarding the details of the bridge could be fully assessed.  Additionally, there may be limitations arising from, for example, accessibility requirements in relation to colours and materials which would only become evident during the tender process.

·         In debate it was recommended that an informative should be added to reflect the Committee’s opinion that the bridge colour should take account of the following comment submitted by the Canal and River Trust: ‘it appears that the current bridge has weathered over time, and this end result colour should be considered in the selection, rather than matching the more vibrant colour of new wood’.

·         A Committee Member recommended that, if possible, any scheduled works should take place in quieter times of the year (for example, avoiding the school holidays) and it was questioned whether this could be required of the applicant.  The Planning Officer responded that this would be unlikely to be considered reasonable if conditioned.  However, an informative could be included which requested that the applicant give consideration to the time of year when works would take place. 

·         In response to a Member’s suggestion that Condition 4 should be amended to require the applicant to give consideration to the comments of the Canal and River Trust in relation to the bridge’s appearance (rather than including it as an informative) Planning Officers cautioned against this approach, noting that the wording may be open to challenge and that the Canal and River Trust was satisfied with the Council’s own wording being used in relation to the conditioning of materials.  Whilst there was a limit to the extent to which the Committee could reasonably make requirements of the applicant in relation to the colour and materials of the bridge, Members were encouraged to raise any concerns, or express their views, directly to relevant officers in the Leisure Team.

Councillor Whately-Smith moved, and Councillor Smith seconded, that the application be approved subject to conditions and with additional informatives requesting (i) that the applicant should have regard to the comments of the Canal and River Trust in relation to the bridge’s appearance and (ii) that the applicant give consideration to the time of year during which works take place.

On being put to the vote this was carried, the voting being 5 in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to conditions and with additional informatives requesting (i) that the applicant should have regard to the comments of the Canal and River Trust in relation to the bridge’s appearance and (ii) that the applicant give consideration to the time of year during which works take place.