Agenda item

Request for approval of  'bringing scheduled works and depots into use' (Paragraph 9) under Condition imposed by Schedule 17 to the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017 relating to the diversion of the National Grid ZC overhead power line in the Colne Valley .(Schedule 1 Work No. 2/4B) -a temporary bridge over the River Colne).

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the following informative:

1.    The proposed development includes measures relating to protected species. The proposals must be designed in accordance with any protected species licence and ecological standards for the project.

Request for approval of ‘bringing scheduled works and depots into use’ (Paragraph 9) under Condition imposed by Schedule 17 to the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 relating to the diversion of the National Grid ZC overhead power line in the Colne Valley (Schedule 1 Work No. 2/4B – a temporary bridge over the River Colne).

Officers presented the application noting that it related to scheduled works approved by Parliament. Members were advised that scheduled works had to be brought before the local authority planning committee prior to being brought into use. The proposed bridge would be a sizeable structure with concrete footings; however it was confirmed that it would be temporary and would be removed at a later stage. Some surrounding vegetation would have to be removed but the impact was relatively small. It was noted that the Environment Agency had given consent and all mitigation measures had been, or would be, employed to offset any harm caused by the works.

The Sub-Committee was advised that the principal concerns related to the ecological impact as a result of eastern abutment and the flood risk due to impacts on water conveyance. In terms of the ecological impact, a method statement had been submitted setting out how HS2 Ltd planned to mitigate harm. With regards to the flood risk, the Environment Agency had raised no objections or concerns. The recommendation was to approve the application subjective to an informative.

The Borough Solicitor addressed the Sub-Committee advising Members that sufficient information had been submitted by HS2 Ltd in relation to this application. On the basis of all the information before the Sub-Committee, it was clear that the bridge was of a temporary nature. It had also been described as such in Schedule 1 of the High Speed 2 Act. Should it later transpire that it was in fact a permanent structure, the bridge would have been incorrectly described and Parliament misled.  The Council could then take enforcement action under its powers under the Town and Country Planning Act.

The Borough Solicitor informed Members that this was a straightforward application governed by Paragraph 9 of Schedule 17 of the Act. It was confirmed that Paragraph 9 set out two situations in which the Council must approve an application – in this case there were no reasonably practicable measures for mitigating the effect on the environment or local amenity that needed to be taken into account. Paragraph 9 also set out the statutory grounds for which the application could be refused. No grounds for refusal existed in this case. It was confirmed that it was lawful for Members to agree the officer’s recommendation for approval. 

In response to questioning from the Sub-Committee, the Borough Solicitor advised that it would be difficult to justify the imposition of a Condition in relation to the lifespan of the temporary bridge, since the Council would have to be satisfied that is was expedient to do so on the grounds that the scheme ought to be modified to preserve the local environment or local amenity, to preserve a site of archaeological or historical interest or in the interests of nature conservation and that the scheme was reasonably capable of being so modified. There was no evidence before the Sub-Committee that any of these factors applied and it would therefore not be lawful to impose a Condition in this case.

Members noted that the proposal was for the bridge to be in use for 15 months. Should it continue to be in use after the 15 months had elapsed, the matter could be discussed again at that time.

The Sub-Committee sought further clarification since only one informative had been mentioned in the report but two had been referenced in the presentation. It was confirmed that there was only one informative –the method statement was being brought into line with the details submitted as part of the application. If HS2 Ltd did not comply with the method statement, enforcement action could be taken.

The Sub-Committee agreed that, in light of legal advice, there were no grounds for refusal. The officer’s recommendation was therefore moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, unanimously approved.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the following informative:

1.    The proposed development includes measures relating to protected species. The proposals must be designed in accordance with any protected species licence and ecological standards for the project.