Address:       Land at Chase Farm, east of High Street and land to the east of the A507, Arlesey (nearest postcode SG15 6XS)

Erection of new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the A507.

Applicant:     Telereal Ventures Ltd

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/02681/FULL for the erection of a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the A507 on land at Chase Farm, east of High Street and on land to the east of the A507, Arlesey.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional comments set out in the Late Sheet.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Arlesey Town Council and the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.  A Member sought clarification from the applicant’s agent as to whether the bridge would be lit overnight.  He referred to an existing cycle bridge across the bypass and how the lighting, which was on all night, did not appear to be necessary and was, therefore, entirely wasteful.  Another Member asked if the applicant’s agent was aware of the bridge crossing the A507 at Ridgmont.  In response the agent stated that he was familiar with the bridge to a limited degree.  The Member expressed disappointment as she felt the bridge was both a model example of a crossing for pedestrians and cyclists and aesthetically pleasing.

(Note: at this point in the proceedings Councillor Young declared an interest in the application because of his extensive involvement in the preparation of the Arlesey Master Plan and because he knew the applicant’s agent).

A Member, in response to what had been said by the applicant’s agent in his representation, referred to the Late Sheet and the concerns expressed by the landscaping officer regarding aspects of the proposed bridge and the officer’s suggestion that the opportunity be taken to secure a bespoke design.  The Member sought clarification on why this differed from what had been stated by the applicant’s agent in his representation.  The Member then raised the issue of the bridge not being designed for use by horse riders.  He stated that, whilst there were no bridleways immediately to the western side of the bridge, it was proposed to enhance their provision under the developing Arlesey Green Wheel proposals.  The bridge would therefore become an important bridleway access.  In response the applicant’s agent stated that his comments were based on the content of the planning officer’s report and he had not seen the Late Sheet.

The above Member, now speaking as a ward Member, thanked the Executive Member for Regeneration for his intervention which had resulted in the provision of a bridge at this site.  However, he felt that the applicant had failed to deliver a satisfactory design which would look attractive within the landscape, especially when examples of more aesthetically pleasing crossings could be seen elsewhere on the A507 in Central Bedfordshire.  He concurred with the concerns expressed by the Town Council representative regarding the quality of the bridge design.  The ward Member felt that insufficient thought had been given to the community’s aspirations for the bridge and that as Arlesey was expanding, and would possibly continue to do, he would wish to see an attractive, bespoke design to replace what was proposed.  The ward Member also referred to the proposed extended Green Wheel for the area which included provision for horse riders and sought the provision of a bridge built to BD37 standard so it could accommodate horse riders.  He also referred to the open stilt design on the eastern side of the proposed bridge and stated that this, coupled with the bridge being unlit at night, would encourage anti-social behaviour.   He stated that he was unable to support the application.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         The planning officer’s comment that, currently, there was no design code for the Arlesey Cross development and that the brief for the bridge in the Masterplan only stated that there should be a crossing over/under the A507.  No details were provided regarding the design.  The guidance contained in the Masterplan and the planning approval for the relief road stated the bridge would be used by pedestrians and cyclists.  Horse riders were not mentioned.  With regard to the Green Wheel and the development of bridleway provision to the west of the A507 the planning officer reiterated that he had relied on the explicit guidance set out in the planning approval for the relief road.

·         The planning officer’s explanation that Countryside Services had no objection to the revised bridge alignment and how the stilted ramp design entered Etonbury Wood on the western side.  Some trees had already been removed to accommodate the proposed design.

·         The ward Member’s comment that the existing bridleway provision to the eastern side of the A507 was referred to within the officer’s report and that it appeared incongruous not to take account of this.  Further, the Countryside Service had raised concerns. He then asked if the proposed provision of public art on the bridge was being used to hide its poor design when it would be better to build a well-designed bridge.

·         A Member’s confirmation that the brief did not call for a bridleway.  However, he commented that requirements changed and that as the Etonbury Green Wheel would require a bridleway link he felt it sensible that riders were also catered for.

(Note: Councillor N Young stated at this point that he would not vote on this application because of his close involvement in the preparation of the Master Plan).

·         Another Member’s comment that the design brief was either correct or not and if, as was being suggested, that it was not, then it a major error had been made which had led to a substantial waste of money in the form of the design fee.  He also suggested that if horse riders required a bridleway as a function of the bridge they should have become involved at an appropriate time in the design stage.    With regard to the stilted ramp element of the design, he felt that needed to be placed in context and the illustrative graphics of the bridge presented to the Committee were not as complete as they should be.  The Member referred to the trees that would be present on either side and the impression that the bridge user would have of crossing in to the wooded area and being exposed to the adjacent countryside.  The stilts would not be seen by the bridge users and the use of stilts would not require the major removal of existing trees.  In contrast the use of earth banking would be more prominent in its impact.  In conclusion he asked that timber was not used for the deck surface of the bridge because it became slimy and slippery and difficult for cyclists.  He also commented that the graphics used failed to depict the proposed design to its benefit and indicated his support for the proposal.

·         Another Member’s reference to the objections received from Countryside Services and the Green Infrastructure and Rights of Way officers to the application and how, therefore, objections to the proposed bridge had been received from all officers who dealt with footpaths and rights of way issues.  Despite this, the Committee was being asked to approve the application.   The Member went on to express major criticism of the bridge design placed before the Committee.  She referred to an existing award winning wooden clad bridge which crossed the A507 at Ridgmont and which, she claimed, sat well within the landscape.  She described the means by which it gained height to cross the road which needed only a limited requirement for land and queried why a similar design had not been adopted for this location.  She supported the rejection of the application and, mindful of the forthcoming extensive housing growth in the area and the need for place making by the Council to be as good as it could be,  the submission of a new attractive design which enabled the new bridge to be used as a bridleway link.

·         Comment by a Member that the level of objection reported by a previous Member was not as high as suggested in the main report.  He queried why officer views might differ in the Late Sheet and were contrary to those originally submitted.  He stressed that such responses should be submitted at the proper stage in the process so that the design could be influenced.  The Member also stressed that the point of the bridge was not to be visible and win awards but to merge into the woodland and be as invisible as was possible.  He also queried why a design brief had been issued which appeared to be flawed and why, if the bridge was meant to be a bridleway, this requirement had not been included in the design brief.  The application could not therefore be rejected on the grounds of its architecture but could be refused because an incorrect design brief had been issued.

·         A local Member’s view that the planning for the bridge undertaken by the applicant had been muddled.  He referred to the forthcoming referendum on Arlesey’s Neighbourhood Plan in two weeks and the applicant’s failure to recognise the local aspirations contained in that document, which included the design of bridges, and how important the bridge was as a gateway into the new community.  In addition the bridge would be used by local children going to and from Etonbury School.

·         A Member commented that there was no mention of bridleways in the Neighbourhood Plan, either for or against.  He expressed concern that, whilst there had been public support for walking and cycling in response to the public consultation on the bridge, the Committee was possibly introducing a new use in the form of horse riding which had not been before the public when their opinions were sought.  He also commented that there were sometimes concerns on horse traffic being in inappropriate locations and, given the bridge formed part of the route to a school, he queried whether parents would support the sharing of the bridge with horse riders.

·         The planning officer’s statement that he was not aware of any policy document which required the bridge to be used as a bridleway.  He suggested that if the Committee wished to refuse permission then it should focus on Members’ belief that the current design failed to meet the aspirations set out in the Neighbourhood Plan and that the bridge should be reflective of the rural nature of the area.

·         It was suggested that, if refused, an advisory be added the applicant should meet with the Town Council to discuss the aspirations within the Neighbourhood Plan and with the school regarding the possible use of the bridge as a bridleway.

It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of poor quality design.

On being put to the vote 9 Members voted for refusal, 1 voted against and 1 abstained.

(Note: Councillor Young did not vote on this application).

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/02681/FULL relating to land at Chase Farm, east of High Street and on land to the east of the A507, Arlesey be refused as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.