Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Development of a road bridge over the Bristol to Birmingham mainline railway North of Ashchurch, Tewkesbury (Ashchurch Bridge over Rail - ABoR), including temporary haul roads for construction vehicles, site compounds, security fencing, surface water drainage channels and attenuation ponds.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

64.2           This was an application for the development of a road bridge over the Bristol to Birmingham mainline railway north of Ashchurch, Tewkesbury (Ashchurch Bridge over Rail - ABoR), including temporary haul roads for construction vehicles, site compounds, security fencing, surface water drainage channels and attenuation ponds.

64.3           The Development Manager apologised for the formatting of the original report and confirmed that the words in the amended report were exactly the same only the formatting had changed with additional paragraph numbers etc.  He also confirmed that the site fell within two Parishes; Northway and Ashchurch Rural. He explained that the application site extended to approximately 18 hectares and was located to the north and east of Northway, either side of, and over, the Birmingham to Bristol railway line about 1km north of Ashchurch railway station. Other than the railway, the site comprised agricultural land. The proposals included the construction of a bridge over the railway line, embankments, temporary haul roads, temporary construction site compounds, attenuation ponds and drainage channels, and security fencing. The bridge deck would not receive a final running surface and would not be formally connected to the highway network at this stage. Protective security fencing was proposed to secure the bridge structure until such time as it was brought into use and, following completion, the haul roads and compounds would be removed and the land reinstated. The Development Manager showed the Committee detailed plans relating to the location and development proposals including layout and explained these in detail to Members. He indicated that the need for the bridge arose from the Tewkesbury Garden Town which was awarded Garden Town status by the government in March 2019; it was fair to say this was an unusual scenario with the bridge proposal coming in advance of the rest of the Garden Town proposals. The bridge was being progressed as the first phase of the proposals as set out in the Tewkesbury Area Draft Concept Masterplan (TADCM). The government had awarded the Council £8.1million of funding through the Housing Infrastructure Fund to deliver a bridge as part of the Northern Access Link Road shown in the draft Masterplan to unlock the delivery of new housing and it was necessary for the funding to be spent by the end of 2022. The delivery of the Garden Town was one of the priorities and objectives set out in the Council Plan – one of the specific objectives was to deliver the first phase of the ‘bridge project’, in line with the funding requirements. Members were being asked to consider the bridge structure itself and the impacts of the construction of it. Whilst clearly the bridge was intended to serve a particular function in the future, at this stage it was not certain what level of development it would serve, although Phase 1 of the masterplan would deliver over 3,000 homes and 46 hectares of employment land to help meet requirements in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) in the period to 2031 and beyond. Impacts related to the wider Garden Town proposals would be considered in any future planning applications for that development. A number of concerns had been raised through the process and those were summarised in the report. Firstly, there had been questions about governance, and whether the Council should be dealing with the application, the Development Manager advised that it was entirely appropriate and lawful for the Council to determine the application in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. As with all applications considered by the Council, decisions must be made in an open and transparent way taking into account all material considerations. Concerns had also been raised regarding the use of public funds - whilst this was not a material planning consideration it was a matter of record that public funds had been awarded specifically for the project. In respect of drainage, Officers had worked with the applicant’s advisers to ensure that the scheme included the best possible drainage solution and both the Lead Local Flood Authority and Environment Agency had commented that the proposals were not exemplar from a drainage perspective. The applicant had provided additional information and explained that the drainage scheme would be further developed over time when the next stages of the Garden Town were brought forward. Whilst it was recognised that the current drainage proposals were not considered to be exemplar, the Lead Local Flood Authority was happy that the drainage proposals were acceptable in line with current policies. On that basis, there would be no robust reason to withhold permission. Nevertheless, it was likely that an exemplar scheme was capable of being secured in the future once additional land had become available and condition 31 was recommended which would achieve this. In terms of landscape, objections had been raised principally in relation to impacts on views from nearby residential viewpoints and from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - Bredon Hill in particular. Clearly the bridge and embankments would be visible and this would result in significant harm from certain viewpoints. This harm could be tempered by appropriate landscaping and conditions were suggested to cater for this. Given the distance involved, and that the proposal would be read in the context of the existing residential and commercial development at Northway, Ashchurch Camp and the permitted development south of the A46, it was considered that any harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be very limited. While issues related to the wider development that the bridge was intended to serve were for another day, objections had been made about the impact on the highway network during construction. Clearly this was a significant proposal which would attract a high number of vehicular, including HGV, movements. Nevertheless, these movements would be split across the highway network to reduce impacts on a single location. Subject to a construction traffic management plan and technical details of the site accesses and passing bays on Hardwick Bank Road, Highways England and Gloucestershire County Council as the Highway Authority had raised no objection. All potential impacts on living conditions at the nearest residential properties had been assessed and the Environmental Health Officer was satisfied that there would be no undue impacts subject to a Construction Management Plan which, again, would be secured by condition. In respect of ecology, Natural England had raised no objection, subject to appropriate mitigation, in respect of potential impacts on the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation. Whilst some habitats would be affected through the loss of trees/hedgerows as a result of the proposal, mitigation could be secured through an ecological management plan to offset those losses once again to be secured by condition. There would also be some medium to low level harm though less than substantial harm to listed buildings at Northway Mill and Mill House, however, it was considered that these harms were clearly outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. In conclusion, the Development Manager advised that there were significant benefits arising from this development in enabling the delivery of the Masterplan and Garden Communities programme and ensuring that the necessary infrastructure was in place to achieve well planned development and that the delivery timescale of the Masterplan was maintained. There were also benefits arising through job creation during the construction process which would provide economic benefits to the area. The objections of the local community were noted and there were harms as set out in the report which were not underestimated, however, overall Officers concluded that the benefits of the proposals, including the benefits of progressing the proposals at the current time, outweighed those identified harms and it was therefore recommended that the application be permitted.

64.4           The Chair invited a Planning Officer to read the submission made through the public speaking scheme by Northway Parish Council. Northway Parish Council objected to the application due to lack of information provided to allow for an informed decision, based on insufficient details showing how new road networks would connect to the proposed bridge, except for the temporary construction roads to the works, and the fact that the Community Involvement Statement Section 2.1 stated that ‘The proposed bridge location is in the centre of an area earmarked in the Tewkesbury Area Draft Concept Masterplan January 2018 for future housing development to the north of the existing town of Ashchurch’, which was now incorrect, due to the Ministry of Defence site no longer being available for housing, possibly meaning that the Garden Town was no longer feasible. The Parish Council was concerned that roads in Northway, already under pressure, would be used more as a rat-run as people accessing the M5 from Bredon and Mitton often used Northway to avoid the A38/A46. It would appear that the last Traffic Assessment was undertaken in 2017 was not an accurate reflection of usage.  With the addition of 826 houses north of Ashchurch, plus up to 1,000 at Mitton, The Park to Shannon Way would be used to access the M5 at Junction 9.  People from the new houses were not likely to drive to Aston Cross to access the M5 and, with the regular congestion on the A46, the bridge and link roads would encourage more people to bypass the A46. The increased traffic would further increase the risk to local residents wishing to access Joan’s Field Conservation Area at Hardwick Bank Road, where there was no footpath allowing safe access. Northway Parish Council regularly raised concerns about the inadequate cycle lane over Northway Lane motorway bridge and, with the increased traffic flow that the proposed bridge would bring, there would be an increased risk to cyclists. The proposal referred to an off-line link road from a new M5 junction south of Junction 9 and joining the A46 east of Aston Cross.  This was now delayed and, with no timeline for it, created more uncertainties with unknown impacts on the future road network. The proposed development site was often waterlogged as well as close to watercourses that, when backed up, would have a knock-on effect resulting in more flooding in Northway and Tewkesbury. There were concerns that the planned works would generate increased pollution as well as impacting on local wildlife such as deer and displacing bats and more particularly affecting the health and wellbeing of residents. Once built, the bridge would be unused for an undefined period resulting in possible deterioration to the structure. Although surrounded by security fencing it may attract anti-social behaviour, possibly putting trains at risk. A last-minute artist impression had appeared providing a limited timescale to allow consideration of the full impact of the bridge to the Parish and surrounding areas as well as residents overlooking it. The public consultation, which was cancelled due to COVID-19, would have allowed the best opportunity for residents to look at plans and speak to experts and the alternative method used had resulted in 436 out of 2,600 people responding to an invitation letter sent out by Tewkesbury Borough Council.  The Borough Council’s own results showed how strong the opposition was to the proposed bridge and it was hoped the consultation was more than just a ‘tick box’ exercise as part of the Borough Council’s community engagement.  Northway Parish Council stood with residents in opposing the development.

64.5           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. She explained that the most important point to remember was that the provision of a new bridge over the railway line in Ashchurch had already been approved in the Transport Strategy (DS7) which formed part of the adopted Joint Core Strategy. The approved strategy included capacity improvements to M5 Junction 9 and the A46; the proposed bridge; a new northern link road; and the opportunity to close the Grange Road level crossing which was an important safety objective. Therefore, the proposed bridge formed an integral part of the Transport Strategy and, through government funding, the Council now had the opportunity to deliver on the first part of the strategy, with the construction of the rail bridge. These measures would need to work as a package to improve the capacity of the local road network, improve local connectivity and ease pressure on the A46, which had been a long-term objective of the Council and the local communities of Tewkesbury Borough. The housing shortfall in the Borough was currently estimated at approximately 1,100 homes. The transport interventions and early investment in the associated infrastructure, would enable Tewkesbury Borough to support its future growth more robustly, whether associated with planned or speculative development. This would also enable the early phases of the growth management plan for the area and the emerging Tewkesbury Garden Town initiative, which was due to be promoted through the upcoming Joint Core Strategy Review. It was made clear in the Planning Officer’s report that there were substantial benefits in seeking to ensure that necessary infrastructure was in place to achieve well planned development. Tewkesbury Borough Council had achieved a significant milestone in securing government support through the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) for the delivery of the bridge, and this opportunity should not be lost. It was also important to grasp this opportunity to deliver the bridge early in the strategic development programme, to secure the required possessions of the railway line well in advance and, in that regard, it was worth noting that the applicant had established a strong working relationship with Network Rail, to ensure the design and construction programme for the new bridge crossing aligned with its governance procedures. In conclusion, she advised that the Planning Officer’s report demonstrated that all technical issues associated with the proposed development, had been addressed and resolved in liaison and agreement with the relevant Officers of the Council and statutory bodies. On behalf of the applicant, she respectively requested that the Committee support the proposals, to secure a key element of the planned Joint Core Strategy Transport Strategy that was so greatly needed, as well as preparing appropriately for future development by delivering vital infrastructure first, as part of a coherent, forward planned development approach.

64.6           A proposal was made and seconded that the application should be permitted on the basis that this was a priority in the Council’s Master Plan and Local Plan; the houses in this area needed to be built by 2031 and the Garden Town would go ahead and this bridge was necessary to facilitate planned growth. One of the Local Ward Member’s within which part of this development fell, reminded Members that each application had to be taken on its own merits and stressed that this was an application for a bridge and haul roads, it was not for a bridge and Garden Town nor was it for a bridge and finished roads or a bridge which would help with the traffic problems in the Northway and Ashchurch area. Unfortunately the Member then experienced technical difficulties and was unable to continue expressing her views on the application. Another Member questioned whether he was correct in assuming that; little weight could be placed on the Local Plan as it stood at the moment due to the stage that it was at; no weight could be placed on the Tewkesbury Area Draft Concept Masterplan with regard to this application and unfortunately, due to the current stage of the JCS Review, little weight could be given to this document. The Development Manager stated that, as Members would be aware, the Tewkesbury Borough Plan was currently at examination so was at an advanced stage and there was reference to Ashchurch as being a focus for new development within that plan but in terms of the TADCM and the JCS Review little weight could be attributed to those documents in terms of the statutory weight to be applied. However, as Members had previously been advised, with any material consideration or any consideration in determining planning applications the weight was for the decision-maker to decide as well as how much weight to give to any particular factor. Although not a planning document, as mentioned earlier the Council Plan prioritised the bridge, but in terms of statutory weight the Member was correct in his assumption that little weight should be afforded to the Masterplan and JCS Review. A Member indicated that he could not support this application as in his view this bridge was unnecessary, there were other options which would cost a lot less and would provide a more efficient way of handling the traffic from the potential 800+ houses supposedly to be released by the construction of this bridge. He indicated that his main concern was traffic as most vehicle movements would need to get to the A46 and this would be via the residential estate of Northway which would be a disaster in terms of congestion, pollution and safety. The only other route out would be down the Bredon Road to a small already inadequate mini roundabout at the Black Bear in Tewkesbury. There was also concern from some of the Parish Councils in Worcestershire that some traffic would use their villages as a rat run. He maintained that the traffic issues could not be underestimated and would end up causing major problems; 826 houses could mean an additional 1600 cars. He referred to the significant landscape harm as the bridge would be 3 double decker buses high and in his view a blot on the landscape did not even begin to describe the impact. There were concerns about ecology, proximity to listed buildings, drainage and flooding to name just a few; all the Parishes which surrounded this application in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire had voiced their valid objections yet there was a recommendation to permit the application. The Member indicated that it seemed to him this was the latest version of the Emperor’s New Clothes and it should be rejected allowing the Council to look very seriously at the alternatives. The Development Manager referenced the Councillor mentioning 826 houses and stressed that it was not clear what amount of development the proposed bridge would serve but in any event the application before the Committee currently was for the construction of a bridge and the impact of that construction. He understood that this was a difficult scenario considering a bridge structure which did not link to any of the surrounding road network but would in the future be enabling developments; this was about getting the infrastructure in early to deal with future development but that future development and the impacts of it were not relevant currently and could not be considered as part of the application before the Committee today. A Member questioned why finance had been raised when this was not a planning consideration but since it had been raised he asked a number of questions in relation to contributions from the permissions already granted to the south of the A46 and the percentage of the cost of the proposed new link road from the bridge that would be received from phase one of the Garden Town development. The Development Manager indicated that in terms of finance per se this was not a material consideration but it had been mentioned in terms of the opportunity that was afforded by the grant funding to get the infrastructure in place at an early stage which was often a concern and criticism about infrastructure not being provided at an early stage of development. In respect of existing permissions granted there would be no direct contributions from those developments that had been permitted with the relevant S106 obligations which were in place at the time but whether there would be any CIL receipts arising from them would be another issue. In terms of the precise location of the bridge this was the chosen area of the applicant and the County Council but anything beyond the bridge in terms of anything which would connect to it was still open to consultation and would be part of the consultations going forward on the Masterplan and the JCS Review. Currently the need for a bridge over the railway to the north of Northway had been identified in the location as set out in the application but anything beyond that was yet to be determined and would be subject to consultation in the future.

64.7           A debate ensued on why the application should be refused and particular reference was made to Paragraph 8.27 of the report which stated that points made by the local community were not material to the application; a Member completely disagreed with this statement as he felt on balance they were very relevant and he highlighted comments from the Bredon Hill Conservation Group in relation to lack of sequencing, negative impacts on the highway network and poor use of public funds and the Pamington Residents Association in relation to the Statement of Community Involvement not reflecting the responses from the community. He made reference to the concerns of the Environment Agency about the extent of information provided and the suitability of the drainage proposals in the context of national guidance and the Council’s own Flood Risk Management Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). He indicated that the report stated that without the benefit of detailed hydraulic modelling, which would be undertaken at the detailed design stage, it was not known if the drainage scheme would be viable or whether balancing ponds and Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDs) would need to be moved. Whilst the land was predominantly flood zone one it also included areas of flood zones two and three, yet Officers considered that a flood risk sequential test was not required which the Member vehemently disagreed with in the light of the Environment Agency’s comments. Finally, in relation to the benefits and harms the Member stated that the TADCM was an evidenced based document which bore no weight; the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) lent weight but only in the short term, the significant harm to the landscape weighed against the overall planning balance, the detrimental impact on residential amenity weighed against the proposal, the ecological impact weighed against the proposal, harm to heritage assets had been identified and, in the words of the Officer report, considerable importance and weight should be afforded to this harm in the decision-making process; all these matters led the Member to support a refusal of this application. Other Members disagreed with the views of the previous speaker and felt that the Committee should consider whether the design, scale and size of the bridge would fit in with the location; reference was made to the photographs which visualised the bridge onto the existing landscape and, in the view of one Member, demonstrated minimal harmful impact on the surrounding area. Mention was made of the fact that the only other alternative crossing of this railway line was further to the south and that was an unmanned crossing and he felt that the proposed bridge was a significant improvement and should be supported. A Member referred to the statement made by the Development Manager concerning the fact that the Committee should only consider the application before it for a bridge and not the traffic impact that might arise from the use of the bridge in the future and maintained that he could not support that view as it was essential to consider the implications that would flow from this application; there were two significant other routes which would take traffic out of this area and a bridge was not required. The seconder of the proposal to permit this application explained why he was in support of it; he indicated that Officers had been honest about the planning harms most significantly to the landscape and other matters in relation to heritage, ecology etc. but the fundamental balance was massively in favour of the bridge as a project in its own right. He maintained that many of the objections were about things which may happen later but this application needed to be considered on its own merits and the planning balance was very much in favour of the proposal; the greatest harm identified was landscape but the visualisation pictures showed that this was not unacceptable in terms of the overall area and not that significant to warrant refusal. In addition, the key to this matter was the fact that the bridge was an integral part of an overall Transport Strategy which set out a clear process for dealing with many of the issues raised in particular traffic which was something further down the line when other applications would be received and considered on their own merit.

64.8           As the Local Ward Member that had been experiencing technical difficulties was still doing so, and the Committee was keen to hear her views, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11.10am to allow some time to see if the problems could be resolved.

64.9           The meeting reconvened at 11.25 when all Members confirmed as present at the start of the meeting were in attendance.

64.10         It was proposed and seconded that this application be deferred until the next meeting as, whilst the Local Ward Member had heard the presentation, speakers and some of the debate it would be necessary to start the debate again to ensure she had heard it all and was able to vote on the application. A Member pointed out that rather than starting again at another meeting, the debate could be started again today instead. Upon being put to the vote, the motion to defer to the next meeting was lost and accordingly the debate on this application was restarted.

64.11         Upon the invitation of the Chair, the proposer and seconder of the motion to permit the application confirmed that they wished to proceed with their proposal following which the Local Ward Member was invited to present her views. She reiterated that this application was for a bridge and haul roads in order for the materials to construct the bridge to be transported to the development site; she stressed that this was the only thing being debated at today’s meeting and nothing else. It was necessary for each application to be taken on its own merit and she reminded the Committee that the bridge would be three double decker buses high which was not insignificant in the context of the open countryside with views from Northway and Ashchurch. She was also concerned about flooding in the area as, although the bridge itself would be built in flood zone one, the haul road particularly at the entrance from Hardwick Bank Road was in flood zone two, the SUDs relief ponds would be built to the north of the proposed bridge site and the drainage would run into the Carrant Brook also to the north; she reminded the Committee that in 2007 this entire area all the way down to Hardwick Bank Road,  to the M5 by the side of it and the housing estate to the south was completely underwater. Having drainage supplies running into the Carrant Brook to the north would not help this situation; the Brook then carried on around to run to the side of Northway Mill which was very close to the motorway and this was where the excess water would run, there was no way that the balancing ponds proposed would help this situation particularly as in the last few weeks that area had been underwater. There had been surveys due to be carried out in this area which could not take place because it had been underwater. The Local Ward Member was also very concerned about the safety of the haul roads particularly the one to the west which adjoined Hardwick Bank Road; it came out at a junction yet there was no definitive information on how it would join that junction which would be particularly relevant for heavy goods vehicles coming over the motorway bridge from the Bredon Road wanting to turn left onto the haul road, having spoken to the designers she was of the view that there was no way this could actually be done safely, the construction vehicles would need to pull right out into the path of oncoming traffic in order to make a left turn. This particular area of the road had seen multiple accidents including a fatality; traffic coming from the Bredon Road was usually quite speedy 40/50 miles an hour and then there was a bend; right opposite the haul road was Northway’s Nature Reserve which was an area very popular with adults, children and dog walkers, it was currently very dangerous as there was no pedestrian access across the road and coming from the park you could not see the traffic coming round the bend which was why there were so many accidents, the addition of construction traffic accessing the haul road would only exacerbate this situation. She maintained that the application was premature and the Planning Committee had a responsibility to ensure the safety of residents and traffic and that there would be no excessive flooding; in respect of the haul road to the west it was indicated in the application that the drainage would be to the sides of the road which, as this whole road went across fields, meant it would exacerbate flooding because the water could not go anywhere other than towards Northway. In conclusion, she stated that this application was only coming forward because Homes England had given the Council money to build a bridge but the County Council did not believe the funding was sufficient and Tewkesbury Borough Council could be liable for any overspend, promises had been made by Homes England on land assembly and buying land in this area but those promises had not been met; there were so many unknowns and uncertainties that could result in this being a bridge to nowhere with incredible harm to the countryside, the environment and the residents of Northway. Other Members repeated their comments made earlier in the debate and the Development Manager also repeated comments he had made in response in order that the Local Ward Member was fully aware of all relevant information before voting on the motion to permit the application. The representative from the Local Lead Flood Authority indicated that the bridge would introduce an impermeable surface with the tarmac and therefore the proposal to take the water away was for it to run into two balancing ponds which in turn would discharge into the Carrant Brook to the north of the site at a restricted rate calculated to the same level as the surface water currently left the site and entered the Brook so there would be no additional impact as a result of putting in an impermeable surface. In relation to the comments about the drainage proposals not being exemplar, the applicant had provided some technical explanation as to why this was the case and as the proposal was typical of many seen around the County the Local Lead Flood Authority was satisfied to recommend no objection subject to a detailed design submission to clarify some of the calculations when more detail was known.

64.12         Following further debate on the benefits and harms of this proposal, a request was made for a recorded vote which was supported by the required number of Members. Upon the motion to permit the application being put the voting was recorded as follows:

64.13         It was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.