Agenda item

Proposed footbridge over the River Colne at the north end of Little Britain Lake.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be refused.

Proposed footbridge over the River Colne at the north end of Little Britain Lake.

Officers introduced the application, highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for approval.

A representative on behalf of the petitioners, Baron Randall of Uxbridge, spoke in objection of the application. It was noted that intention of the bridge was to give access to environmental agencies monitoring the far side of the island. However, it was submitted that there was already access granted to the Environment Agency for them to access the island via a padlocked gate and this had been used by them previously. The Local Authority had done an excellent job around maintaining Little Britain and it was highlighted that there may be a red listed bird that would come back as that was the last place it had been seen. It was acknowledged that the bridge would be unsuitable for housing and it was unlikely that the Local Authority would develop on the land. Although the bridge would be padlocked, concerns were raised regarding the safety as there was a risk of people being able to jump across and gain access.  It was questioned why this site was being looked at when there were already a number of other issues affecting residents including fly tipping, litter and it was suggested that CCTV would enhance this area further. The Local Authority was urged to withdraw their application.

Responding to questions from the Committee, it was explained that the petitioners were unsure why the bridge was being built and the Environment Agency already had access to the area. It was noted that when the application came before Committee in 2017, officers had indicated that the reason the bridge was being opened was to allow public access. The impact on the biodiversity were explored at that point. There was a concern that once the bridge was there it would open the risk to other issues in an area of good habitat such as dogs and predators that might cause harm to species already there.

Members were mindful of the recent motion that took place at a Council meeting where all parties were in agreement regarding climate change and a programme and strategy for conservation was being drawn up. The information regarding flood risks needed to be reassessed in light of the new climate change decision. There was a concern that there had been no human contact with species habitating in Little Britain which might cause harm. The application would cause ecological damage and counter the climate change motion, given that there was clear evidence of litter and abuse.

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that the key consideration in this application was not whether there was a need but rather if the application complied with planning policies. The recommendation for approval was supported by conditions that would prevent unfettered public access and conditions 10, 11, and 13 mitigated ecological harm. This was a result of concerns regarding ecological harm that were previously raised by the Committee. Although it was not essential to demonstrate need, it was explained that there was still a need to be able to access the bridge by the Environment Agency to undertake their work. It was also emphasised that there would be no loss of trees.

It was noted that there was already a bridge there that was fit for purpose and it was questioned why this extra bridge was required. It was reiterated that access was required by the Environment Agency however they did already have access via another bridge that was on private land. The Committee questioned how often access would be required by the Environment Agency to enable them to do what they needed to do.

Members discussed deferring the item, however were advised that deferring the application would need to be on ecological grounds and the conditions recommended regulated this. 

Concerns were raised regarding environmental impacts of the proposed development on the unique location. Members considered whether they could grant the application and then review it in a year to consider what the impact was. Although the conditions proposed were good, questions were raised regarding the enforceability of them. Officers explained that the Council’s enforcement team would enforce the conditions, the presence of wardens would protect the area and it was in the Council’s interest to enforce the conditions.

The Legal Advisor cautioned the Committee in relation to property issues and explained that as the proposed the bridge was on land owned by the Council, access and control had to be agreed by the Council. In the past the Environmental Agency had to serve statuary notices to gain access to the land via the bridge already in place as the access had been restricted. Further, the Committee was advised that there was public interest in the Council and Environmental Agency being able to carry out works to improve the area without delay. The Committee was reminded to judge the case on material planning considerations and if Members were minded to refuse the application then clear refusal reasons needed to be provided.

It was noted that the weir had been maintained for a period of time and access in the past had been made possible. The Committee discussed Hillingdon planning policies HE1 heritage, policy EM3 and the Natural and Environmental Rural Communities Act 2006 s41 and some Members were of the view that this did not conform to Hillingdon’s planning policies.

Officers and the Legal Advisor clarified the impact of the proposed planning policies and appropriateness of them in considering the application. It was emphasised that the application could only be rejected on planning considerations.

A motion to refuse the application was made on the basis that the application did not meet Hillingdon Planning Policies HE1 and EM3 was moved and seconded. When put to a vote there were four votes in favour, one vote in against and three abstentions.

RESOLVED: That the application be refused on the grounds that they did not meet Hillingdon Planning Policies HE1 and EM3. Delegated authority was given to the Head of Planning to issue to the Chairman and Labour Lead the exact wording of the reason for refusal.