Agenda item

Proposal: Construction of a new footbridge with associated ramp, stepped access, and landscaping, involving demolition of the existing bridge.

Recommendation: GRANT

Cllr Cawley-Harrison moved to the public seating area.

The Committee considered an application for the construction of a new footbridge with associated ramp, stepped access, and landscaping, involving demolition of the existing bridge.

Laurence Ackrill, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         The Committee enquired about the heritage significance of the Victorian railway bridge. The Principal Conservation Officer explained that there were different levels of designation and that this structure had local, not national importance, and was a non-designated heritage asset. It was noted that the bridge had symbolic value but had been significantly altered over time and had lost some of its character. It was also noted that the bridge needed to be used regularly by a number of users and that the retention of the existing bridge would have serious health and safety implications. It was highlighted that the most important heritage asset for the site was the conservation area, which was a nationally designated heritage asset, and that the loss of the bridge would secure better and safer use of the conservation area.

·         In relation to the location of the ramp, it was noted that seven additional areas had been considered. It was explained that the slope and topography of Stanhope Road meant that it was not considered viable to locate the ramp in the northwest corner of the site. It was added that the applicant might be able to provide further information about this process.

Cathy Meeus spoke in objection to the application. She stated that she did not object to the replacement of the bridge but was objecting to the loss of green space, the location of the ramp, and the significant destruction of trees and vegetation. It was noted that the Friends of the Parkland Walk challenged the use of this location for new entrance infrastructure, particularly in the context of climate change and biodiversity policies. It was stated that the council had failed to review alternative access options and had not provided these options as part of the consultations with other groups, including wheelchair users. Cathy Meeus added that the Friends of the Parkland Walk position had been supported in a petition signed by 450 people. It was suggested that the accesses at Holmesdale Road, Blythwood Road, and Oxford Road could be upgraded and would provide better accessible entrance options. It was also proposed that a long access path could be included on the southwest of the site, with wheelchair access provided elsewhere.

Cathy Meeus commented that the experts involved in judging the suitability of the proposal were part of the council or the applicant team and were not independent. It was also stated that the Planning Sub Committee had visited the site but it was felt that objectors should have been present to provide an alternative view. It was added that the proposals were considered to be in conflict with several key policies and that planting replacement trees offsite did not address the loss of trees in Parkland Walk.

Giovanna Iozzi spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the council had a net zero goal for carbon emissions and that mature trees should be valued. It was noted that, following some recent works in Parkland Walk, a significant number of trees had been lost. She noted that there were a number of benefits to preserving trees, including flood prevention, absorption of carbon dioxide, animal habitats, and soil filtering. It was stated that Parkland Walk was not a park but was a corridor and nature reserve and it was felt that it should have a special degree of care. It was commented that, as a result of the proposal, several mature trees would be removed, including the locally loved oak, the ‘monster tree’. Attention was drawn to the strength of public feeling against this application and it was highlighted that the provision of street trees would not be an appropriate replacement.

It was noted that Haringey Council had stated that a five metre area around the entrances to the bridge should be kept clear of trees but it was questioned whether this was based on any ecological advice. It was stated that other boroughs were providing better ecological protection, such as the Tower Hamlets green bridge to replace connecting roads to Mile End Park. Giovanna Iozzi commented that the biodiversity net gain figures were flawed and that the habitat survey had been undertaken out of the optimal season. It was asked that the current proposal was rejected and replaced with a more creative and forward thinking alternative. It was suggested that the council should work with specialist ecologists in order to put nature at the centre of the designs.

Cllr Hare spoke in objection to the application. He queried the choice of the footpath route on the southeast side of the site. It was noted that a gently sloping path up the bank, which was already informally marked by people using this route, would be a suitable alternative and would allow oak 105 to be retained. It was added that the oak, alongside the high wall abutting the cottage, would prevent viewing both into and out of the cottage; Cllr Hare stated that he had pursued this suggestion with the officer but this had not been accepted. It was noted that the briefings to councillors did not include this option or the option on the southwest corner.

In relation to biodiversity, Cllr Hare queried the accuracy of the suggestion that habitat units would increase by 13.04% and noted that all information provided should be carefully examined. It was queried whether disability compliance was required and how this was balanced against the damage to the park; it was also enquired whether any demand analysis had been undertaken with disability organisations. Cllr Hare stated that the proposals were very unpopular locally and he suggested three conditions. Firstly, he asked that a report was provided on the two gently sloping path options. If this suggestion was impractical, he asked that a report was provided on a combination of stepped access between the landings of the proposed zigzag path to obviate the need for the southwest corner path. Cllr Hare also requested that native ivy be planted on the wing walls to deter graffiti, benefit biodiversity, and for visual greening, in addition to the proposed planting.

Cllr Cawley-Harrison spoke in objection to the application. He explained that trees were routinely cut down but that the level of objection in this case was unique which demonstrated the significance of these mature trees, particularly the oak which could be classified as a Grade A tree. He noted that the council had declared a climate emergency in 2019 which included the protection of trees, biodiversity, and unique green spaces such as Parkland Walk. In addition to the removal of trees, Cllr Cawley-Harrison stated that the designs were still flawed. It was noted that the design included an urbanised, concrete ramp which would replace the existing, natural-style steps and which would not be sympathetic to the surroundings. It was felt that the design process provided little consideration of alternative designs to mitigate the issues raised by objectors, such as a longer access path in top left quadrant, southeast quadrant, an access point beyond the formal outline of the development, or an access path underneath and within the bridge.

Cllr Cawley-Harrison stated that the bridge surface would be made of concrete and extend far beyond the bridge at a level higher than the existing path and would put further trees in jeopardy of removal. He noted that this would result in the loss of five additional trees and, although this was mentioned in the tree report, it was noted mentioned in the committee report. It was commented that the report explained that the oak and its root plate would be at risk due to this surfacing but it was stated that this was specific to the proposed surfacing and could be mitigated with vaulted surface or grid filter. Cllr Cawley-Harrison asked the Committee to refuse the application based on its failure to comply with policy DM19 and the strength of residents’ views.

In response to the points raised in the objections and subsequent questions, the following responses were provided:

·         In relation to the question of whether disability compliance was necessary or whether it could be provided offsite, the Head of Development Management noted that both the applicant and the Local Planning Authority had equalities obligations. It was stated that there were strong policy presumptions in favour of providing accessibility.

·         Cathy Meeus stated that there were three alternative areas where useful wheelchair access could be provided and could give meaningful access to Parkland Walk, rather than a high specification ramp.

·         Some members of the Committee enquired whether wheelchair access at the alternative locations would also need to be built to the same specifications as the proposed ramp. Cathy Meeus commented that the alternative locations mentioned had a more amenable gradient and location and would result in less destruction of trees and green space.

·         It was noted that the oak tree, or monster tree, was covered in Russian vine and it was queried whether the tree would survive in several years. The Principal Tree and Conservation Manager explained that Russian vine did not kill trees but it did suppress their growth and degrade their quality and health. It was commented that the oak tree was covered in the vine which had caused branches to come out of the tree top sporadically and it was not considered that the tree was in good health. It was added that, if the tree was to be retained, the vine would need to be completely removed and the tree would need to be monitored.

At this point, Cllr Cawley-Harrison left the room.

Simon Farrow, applicant team, addressed the Committee. He explained that extensive studies had revealed that the current bridge structure was unsuitable and every effort had been made to ensure that the new bridge design responded to the local environment and local needs. It was noted that there had been pre-application conversations with the council, councillors, and local groups which had informed the simple but attractive design. It was stated that the proposal had a sustainable design with a 120 year life expectancy and would maximise the public realm, including accessibility and useability.

It was explained that several options had been studied against the set criteria and an assessment had concluded that the current proposal was the most suitable and would improve access for all, including wheelchair users. Simon Farrow acknowledged the concerns and objections raised, particularly the loss of trees but it was stated that a balance had to be struck between the need to replace the bridge, design standards for ramps and steps, and the protection of biodiversity. It was noted that the mature oak would be removed due to its proximity to the bridge and the resulting change in levels. However, it was explained that the proposal would concentrate the access works and minimise the impacts of development on other trees. It was added that the landscaping designs would result in a 10% net gain in biodiversity and would provide additional street trees and it was considered that the development would increase biodiversity overall.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to the options explored for the access ramp, Sam Neal, Project Manager, stated that multiple options had been assessed. It was highlighted that there was an evaluation matrix for this assessment which was informed by the results of a public consultation in 2020. It was noted that sustainability and biodiversity had been allocated additional weighting based on the results of this consultation. It was added that the issues considered as part of the assessment included overlooking, personal safety, natural surveillance, and the potential conflict between those cycling and walking. Sam Neal noted that multiple options were considered but that, in a number of locations, the topography of the land meant that the zigzag path or ramps required would have involved removing an excessive number of trees. It was added that, due to the location of the T105 oak tree, it was already affected by the construction of the bridge and the proposal therefore minimised the impact on trees and provided improved accessibility.

·         It was confirmed that it was planned to retain the felled oak tree on site for other uses, such as a natural barrier to prevent footpath degradation and to improve biodiversity and to create a natural habitat.

Following a vote with 6 votes in favour and 2 votes against, it was

RESOLVED

To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives.

Cllr Cawley-Harrison did not take part in the voting and re-entered the room at the end of the item.