AGENDA ITEM .6a......

DR/80/10

committee DEVELOPMENT & REGULATION date 17 December 2010

COUNTY COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT Proposal: Construction of a combined foot and cycle bridge, approach ramps and connecting foot/cycleway between Mill Park Drive and Charter Way, adjacent to Braintree Freeport Railway Station, over the Braintree to branch railway. Location: Adjacent to Freeport Railway Station, Charter Way, Freeport, Braintree, Essex Ref: CC/BTE/107/10

Report by Head of Environmental Planning Enquiries to: Naomi Allen Tel: 01245 437543

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, Crown Copyright reserved Essex County Council, Chelmsford Licence L000 19602 DR/80/10 1

1. BACKGROUND & SITE

The application site is located adjacent to the Braintree Freeport Retail/Leisure park, at the south east corner of the town of Braintree. The application site is located towards the south western corner of Freeport, and is split into two sides by the Braintree-Witham train line. The Braintree Freeport train station is adjacent to the application site to the north.

To the east of the site lies Braintree Freeport with access to the site via Charter Way, which runs along the boundary of the Freeport shopping area. To the south east of the site is a large area of car parking associated with the retail and leisure area within Freeport. To the west of the site lies the Heathlands residential estate. This is a large estate, which is still in the process of being constructed. Access to the site from the west is via Mill Park Drive, which runs north-south through the estate.

The eastern part of the site is open area, landscaped in association with the development of Freeport train station. The western part of the site is open grassed area, accessed from Mill Park Drive through a narrow walled path running up towards the station area before the area opens out in front of the residential properties along Reed Meadows. Where the land is open, there is a group of 4 mature oak trees, covered by a group Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Mature trees and hedgerow run alongside the rail embankments on both sides. The land level at the western side of the train lines is lower than the land level at the eastern side by approximately 2 metres.

During the approval of the Heathlands residential scheme (ref: 07/00985/FUL & 2005/1074/FUL), a section 106 agreement dated 29 October 2007 was put in place, which sets out, amongst other aspects, the requirement for the provision of land and a financial contribution towards for a foot/cycleway over the railway line.

2. PROPOSAL

This application is for full permission for the construction of a foot/cycleway over the railway line. The crossing would be just to the south of the Braintree Freeport Railway Station. The bridge would connect the residential road Mill Park Drive, to the west, with Charter Way, Freeport, to the east.

The construction would be of steel “Warren” truss design, and would be 3 metres wide, which would accommodate shared use by both pedestrians and cyclists. The level of the land is higher to the east than the west, and therefore ramps would be required on the west. These ramps would have a brick retaining wall underneath the ramp, and would have full height (approximately 3 metre) timber screening to the south elevation and a steel parapet to the north (approximately 1.2 metres). There would be steps leading to ground level from the platform at the western end between the two sloping suspended ramps. The bridge structure would include shielding and mesh to protect adjacent properties and the railway line. Where the bridge crosses the railway line, it would be steel and solid panels, in compliance with requirements. Exact colours and materials have not been specified.

DR/80/10 2

The bridge and path would be compliant with accessibility requirements of the Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 and the floor of the bridge would be covered with a non-slip material.

On the eastern side of the site, a footpath would run from the bridge towards Charter Way, and along Charter Way to meet the existing footpath. A set of steps would be incorporated to meet the existing slope that goes down to the train station. There would also be a grasscrete access road to enable access to the foul sewer on the rail embankment.

Lighting would be included as part of the construction to ensure safety of users of the bridge although this has not been submitted and would be developed if permission is granted. A soft landscaping/planting scheme would also be implemented, although details have not yet been finalised.

The original design of the bridge was a more linear arrangement, running closer to the wall of the nearby residential property to the north. During pre-application design stages, it became apparent that there was an easement in place in relation to the adjacent residential property that required a 3 metre gap adjacent to the boundary wall to allow for maintenance. This then took the bridge and the suspended ramps away from the back of the properties to the north, but closer to those to the fronts of those to the south.

The bridge itself would be constructed from prefabricated sections, and constructed on the Freeport side of the railway tracks before being lifted into place using a crane.

3. POLICIES

The following policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy (the Plan) adopted May 2008 (RSS) and the Braintree District Local Plan Review, saved policies only, adopted July 2005 (BLP) provide the development plan framework for this application. The following policies are of relevance to this application:

RSS BLP Biodiversity ENV3 Quality in the Built Environment ENV7 Towns Other than Key Centres & Rural Areas SS4 Regional Transport Strategy T1 Parking T14 Pedestrian Network RLP49 Cycleways RLP50 Public Transport RLP52 Freeport Special Policy Area RLP57 Braintree Branch Line Improvement RLP60 Pollution RLP62 External Lighting RLP65 Landscape Features & Habitats RLP80 Trees, Woods, Grass & Hedgerows RLP81

DR/80/10 3

Protected Species RLP84 Layout and Design of Development RLP90 Accessibility RLP92

4. CONSULTATIONS

BRAINTREE DISTRICT COUNCIL – No objection, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to lighting, submission of ecological survey, tree survey and tree protection being imposed.

ESSEX POLICE – No objection in principle, but raise concerns about risk of increase in anti-social behaviour, crime in the local area, and the need for high quality CCTV to be installed.

NETWORK RAIL – No comments received.

WITHAM & BRAINTREE RAIL USERS ASSOCIATION – No objection.

COUNTY COUNCIL‟S NOISE CONSULTANT – No objection, although additional information requested.

HIGHWAY AUTHORITY (Public Rights of Way) – No objection Comment: It is noted that there is no intention to adopt the footway/cycleway as a Public Right of Way.

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (Ecology) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection, subject to an additional badger survey prior to commencement of development to identify whether the nearby sett is active

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (Trees) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – Any comments received will be reported.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT (Landscape & Urban Design) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection.

HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT (Archaeology) ENVIRONMENT, SUSTAINABILITY AND HIGHWAYS – No objection.

LOCAL MEMBER – BRAINTREE – Braintree Eastern – Any comments received will be reported.

LOCAL MEMBER – BRAINTREE – Braintree Town – Any comments received will be reported.

5. REPRESENTATIONS

Three hundred and forty six properties were directly notified of the application. Fourteen letters of representation have been received. These relate to planning issues covering the following matters:

DR/80/10 4

Observation Comment Increased risk of crime See appraisal

Increased risk of anti-social behaviour including See appraisal graffiti, loitering, vandalism, damage to property and littering

Concern over threat of gangs of youths See appraisal congregating in area and intimidating behaviour

Noise, particularly late at night See appraisal

Potential for increased parking pressure on See appraisal residential roads, particularly if commuters use residential roads for parking if Freeport start to charge

Support improved access to rail station and See appraisal shops/leisure facilities

Improved cycle routes to access Cressing area See appraisal

Would welcome parking restriction See appraisal

Support proposal and told bridge would be built See appraisal when house purchased

Told bridge wouldn‟t happen when house See appraisal purchased, or would happen in a different location

Waste of money and unnecessary See appraisal

Existing levels of noise nuisance from Freeport See appraisal

Stones and other waste thrown into gardens See appraisal

Money should be spent on improvements at Not a material planning Braintree station instead consideration in relation to this application

Query whether no EIA needed- submission does not Screening Opinion request refer to it was submitted prior to application submission and it was determined EIA not required

DR/80/10 5

Findings of public consultation not taken on board See appraisal

Double yellow lines would cause problems for See appraisal residents.

The Housing Association that owns the houses along Reed Meadows was also contacted during the consultation, but at the time of writing the report had not commented.

A petition was submitted, although without a covering letter. The signatures have therefore been taken to support the views held within the letter of the objector who organised the petition, views which are set out in the above table.

6. APPRAISAL

The key issues for consideration are:

A. Need & Principle B. Impacts on Amenity C. Design & Visual Impact D. Ecology E. Accessibility F. Highways Impacts

A NEED & PRINCIPLE

The section 106 agreement (s.106) attached to the development of the Heathlands residential estate requires, amongst other things, the provision of the land and a financial contribution towards the construction of a footbridge connecting the residential estate and the Braintree Freeport train station and retail/leisure park. Furthermore, the provision of the footbridge has been identified in BLP policy RLP60 (Braintree Branch Line Improvement) and features on the proposals map. It is noted that a letter of representation was received indicating that objections were raised at the time of the bridge‟s inclusion within the BLP, although it is considered that these would have been fully appraised by Braintree District Council (BDC) at the time and that their conclusion led to the inclusion of the proposal.

Letters of representation have been received objecting to the proposals as unnecessary expenditure that would be better spent elsewhere, and that the bridge would not be useful. Other letters of representation have been received supporting the proposed development and indicating the value of the bridge to improve access between the residential area and Freeport train station and retail/leisure park. This mix of views is reflected within the public consultation feedback. It is noted that the funding has been allocated already and would be lost if not used for the purpose for which it has been allocated, with the portion of money from the developer returned. The total funding would be from a mixture of sources including the residential estate developer, Braintree District Council (BDC) and Essex County Council (ECC).

Given that the current alternative access is a route approximately 1.5 kilometres via

DR/80/10 6

local roads, it is considered that the proposed development would improve access and would be in compliance with policies RLP49 (Pedestrian Networks) and RLP50 (Cycleways) which seek to improve footpath and cycle networks, with improvements being sought by planning agreements where necessary.

BDC supports the principle of the proposed development. The Witham and Braintree Rail Users Association supports the application, particularly to ease congestion on the roads between the residential estate and around Freeport as they consider that it would enable users to walk as opposed to drive between the residential estate and the retail and leisure facilities and the rail station.

Letters of representation have been received indicating that purchasers of residential properties in the estate had been told about the bridge and the location in some circumstances, but in other circumstances had been told that it would not be built or that it would be built in an alternative location. The location for the proposed bridge has been identified within policy documents and also within the plans for the residential estate. While some people may have been misinformed at the time of purchasing their house, it is not considered a valid material consideration upon which to base a refusal of this application.

It is considered that the need for the bridge has been established through its inclusion in the local policy framework and in order to comply with the requirements of the s.106 attached to the residential development scheme at Heathlands. While it is noted that not all residents support the application, as indicated within letters of representation received, it is considered that the bridge would improve access between the residential development and the Freeport train station, retail and leisure park, and that the principle of the proposed development is therefore acceptable.

B IMPACTS ON AMENITY

BLP policy RLP62 (Pollution) restricts development that would, or would be likely to, give rise to pollution including noise, smell, fumes, vibration or other consequences unless preventative measures have been taken to ensure that any discharge or emission would not cause harm to land use and that there is not an unacceptable risk of uncontrolled discharges or emissions which could cause harm to the land use.

BLP policy RLP90 (Layout and Design of Development) requires, inter-alia, that development will not have an unacceptable or undue impact on the amenity of nearby properties. The policy also requires the design of development to be sympathetic to surrounding uses and development in terms of scale and design.

The nearest residential properties that would be likely to be impacted as a result of the proposed development would be those fronting on the development site along Reed Meadows, and those that side or back on to the site from Mill Park Drive.

Noise: Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise (PPG24) indicates that planning authorities should ensure that development would not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance by means of noise.

DR/80/10 7

During construction, it is likely that the nearest residential properties would experience an increase in noise as a result of the construction of the suspended ramps and the footpath. Should permission be granted, it is considered that it would be appropriate to limit the working hours by means of an appropriately worded condition in order to minimise detrimental impacts, a view reflected in BDC‟s response.

The applicant indicates that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) would be produced setting out how the construction would take place to minimise detrimental impacts on the local area, including the noise associated with the development. Should permission be granted, it is considered appropriate that this should be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the County Planning Authority (CPA) in order to ensure detrimental impacts as a result of the construction would be minimised and mitigated against where necessary.

During the pre-application consultation, a local resident raised concerns with views from the bridge to their house/garden. As a result, full height timber fencing would be incorporated into the design and would be erected along the south elevation of the bridge as a visual screen. This would also double up as a noise attenuation barrier which would limit noise of people crossing the bridge for the residential properties to the south.

Letters of representation have been received raising concerns with the potential increase in noise as a result of the proposed development due to the footfall and voices of people using the bridge. It is not considered that footfall would result in a significant level of noise due to the floor surface of the suspended bridge that would be reinforced concrete with non-slip surfacing and waterproofing. Barriers would be in place to prevent motorised vehicles such as motorbikes/quad bikes using the bridge, and these barriers would also require cyclists to dismount while using the bridge, which would reduce noise. It is noted that there are leisure facilities at Freeport and that people may come back late at night and be noisy, but it is considered that the measures proposed including selection of materials and additional screening would mitigate against the additional noise.

A letter of representation has been received indicating that there is an existing level of nuisance noise already due to people using cars in car park at Freeport. While it is acknowledged that this application could increase some aspects of noise in the area, vehicles would not be able to use the bridge and so it is not considered that the bridge would result in an increase in this noise.

In respect of „voice noise‟, ECC‟s noise consultant does not object to the proposed development, but recommends the collection of noise monitoring data to assess background levels prior to construction of the bridge in order to assess the impacts if concerns are raised in the future. Nonetheless, it is not considered appropriate to impose such a condition as such disturbance would either be a statutory nuisance or a disturbance of the peace, being respectively a matter for BDC to investigate under environmental health legislation or the police. The council‟s noise consultant would, however, expect to see the CEMP prior to construction in order to assess the impacts of the construction.

DR/80/10 8

Lighting: BLP policy RLP65 (External Lighting) permits development incorporating external lighting only where it is required as an integral part of the development, and requires that low energy lighting is used, spill and glare is minimised, intensity is no greater than necessary and that there should be no unacceptable impact on natural ecosystems or amenity of nearby residents. RLP90 (Layout and Design of Development) requires, inter-alia, the design and level of lighting proposals to be in context with the local area.

The applicant has indicated that the foot/cycle path would be lit in accordance with BS EN13201:2003 (Road Lighting) and BS 5489:2003 (Code of Practice for the Design of Road Lighting), and that it would comprise nine 50 watt bulbs along the path on 6 metre high towers, with five 28 watt bulbs on the structure itself. The exact locations and designs of these lights have not been specified.

The lights would need to be bright enough to enable good visibility and Essex Police have requested that the lighting should also be adequate to enable a high quality CCTV system to be installed and used. Notwithstanding that, the lights should also be designed and placed to avoid glare or spill to the extent that there would be detrimental impacts on local residents. Furthermore, Network Rail has standards that would be required to be complied with to avoid glare to drivers of trains. It is noted that in some circumstances lighting can also have detrimental impacts on ecology, but given the setting of the railway, the local residential properties and the Freeport site, it is considered that this would be unlikely in this case. Notwithstanding that, it would be considered appropriate to ensure that any lighting used would be directed away from trees and potential bat roosts.

It is considered that, if permission is granted, a condition should be imposed to require the applicant to submit details of the final lighting design to enable further consultation with appropriate organisations to ensure that the various requirements for the lighting, as above, are achieved and, subject to an appropriate condition being imposed, the proposed development complies with BLP policies RLP65 and RLP90.

Litter: Another concern raised by several respondents to the consultation is the risk of an increase in rubbish and litter in the area. One letter indicates that debris and litter are already thrown into gardens and that the bridge would exacerbate this problem.

These concerns were also raised during pre-application consultation and the applicant has proposed that the bridge itself, and the upper most ramp on the west side of the site, would be covered with mesh panels which would reduce the risk of materials, rubbish or debris being thrown into neighbouring gardens and would also ensure that material was not thrown onto the tracks causing a risk to trains.

There could be a risk of litter being dropped, which would increase as number of users increase. However the addition of bins within the development site has not been proposed and while the bridge would increase the number of people using the area, it is not considered that the litter would happen as a direct impact of the development.

DR/80/10 9

Other Impacts on Amenity: It is not considered that there would be a significant risk of detrimental impacts on amenity by means of dust pollution, although during the construction there would be soil movement and felling of trees which could result in release of dust. The applicant has indicated that a dust management scheme would be included within the CEMP, and it is therefore considered that, if permission is granted, that requirement to submit the CEMP for the purposes of noise limitation would have the benefit of assessing the potential impacts and mitigation of dust production at the same time.

Due to the nature of the construction, the railway would need to be closed temporarily when the crane swings the bridge into place. It is noted that this would be likely to happen outside of the hours during which operations would be allowed to normally take place. As a result, if permission is granted, it is considered appropriate to allow works to take place outside the normal hours, in exceptional circumstances. The work outside these hours would be likely to happen just once, and would be relatively short lived and so while this would lead to impacts on the amenity of local residents in particular, due to the longevity it is considered that the impacts would be acceptable.

Conclusion on amenity impact: It is considered that the requirement for the applicant to submit the CEMP for approval prior to construction would limit impacts during construction by means of dust, noise, vibration, and other impacts. Due to the selection of materials and design considerations, it is further considered that noise post-construction would be limited. The details of lighting would be required to be approved to allow adequate surveillance, while minimising the risk of glare and spill to either local residents or drivers of the trains. It is therefore considered that, with the imposition of appropriately worded conditions, there would be no unacceptable impacts on the amenity of local residents or users of the nearby buildings, Freeport or the train station, and as a result that the proposed development would be in compliance with BLP policies RLP62 (Pollution), RLP65 (External Lighting) and RLP90 (Layout and Design of Development) and the aims and objectives of PPG24.

C DESIGN & VISUAL IMPACT

Appearance: RSS policy ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment) requires development to have regard to the needs and well being of all sectors of the community.

BLP policy RLP90 (Layout and Design of Development) seeks to ensure that development reflects or enhances local distinctiveness, is of a high standard of design and materials and is in harmony with the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The site on the west of the railway is currently an open grassed area with a wall to the south and residential properties and walls to the north. To the east of the tracks is a landscaped area of grass and trees adjacent to the train station. The rail embankments are lined with trees and hedgerows. As a result, the development would introduce built structures into what is currently open area. The land level is

DR/80/10 10

lower to the west than the east, hence the requirement for the suspended ramp and steps to the west. The external appearance of the ramps would be brick faced walls, with metal fencing on top, although the exact colours have not been specified in the application and as a result, if permission is granted, these details would be required to be submitted by means of a condition. It is noted that Network Rail has specifications which could control the appearance of the bridge where it would cross the tracks.

It is considered that the appearance of the bridge and foot/cycle path would be acceptable in terms of scale given the context of the local residential properties and boundary walls, and that the brick work of the ramps should be selected to reflect the existing brickwork. It is considered that the steps to the western end of the suspended ramp, proposed as a post submission amendment, would improve the appearance of the elevation from the west with so that instead of a solid wall, it would be broken up with an angled elevation. The ends of the bridge would be open to allow natural light in and would improve surveillance of people using the bridge. From the east, it is not considered that the development would have a significant impact on the appearance of the area. As a result, it is considered that with the imposition of a condition requiring details of materials and colours to be submitted if permission is granted, the development would fit with the context of the existing development in the area and would be acceptable and in compliance with policies RLP90 and ENV7.

BLP policy RLP80 (Landscape Features and Habitats) requires applications to include an assessment on their impact on landscape and wildlife, to show that the development would not have detrimental impacts on distinctive landscape features or habitats, and mitigate where there is a necessity. Where additional landscaping is proposed, it should incorporate indigenous planting and native species.

No landscaping scheme has been submitted as part of the application, although the applicant has expressed their intent to develop and implement one. The Council‟s design and landscape officers consider this approach to be acceptable and do not object to the proposal. Landscape details could be required to be submitted under a condition if permission is granted. One oak tree would be removed from the centre of the currently open area to the west of the site, and smaller trees and hedgerow would be removed from the embankments. In addition, an area of grass would be lost. It is considered that an acceptable landscaping scheme could be developed to mitigate for these losses, while having regard to safety aspects including, for example, avoiding large plants or shrubs that could conceal people. Overall, it is considered that a landscaping scheme could be developed which would ensure that the development would be in compliance with the aims and objectives of policy RLP80.

Accessibility for All Users: BLP policy RLP52 (Public Transport) encourages improvements for access to public transport for people whose mobility is impaired. BLP policy RLP92 (Accessibility) requires development to be fully accessible for people whose mobility is impaired. Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) seeks development that meets the needs of all users in the community.

DR/80/10 11

The footbridge would be fully compliant with the access requirements of the Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 in terms of angles of ramps and walkway, and material used. It would therefore enable the use of the bridge and improve access from the residential estate to the train station and the retail and leisure facilities at Freeport for all potential users and as result it is considered it would be in compliance with policies RLP52 and RLP92, as well as the aims and objectives of PPS1.

Safety for Users and Local Residents: RLP90 (Layout and Design of Development) requires, inter-alia, layout and design to promote a safe and secure environment, focussing on crime reduction and prevention. RSS policy ENV7 (Quality in the Built Environment) requires development design to address crime prevention, community safety and public health. PPS1 seeks to create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

Pre-application consultation and letters received in response to the application consultation have shown that local residents are concerned about the potential for crime and anti-social behaviour to increase in the area as a result of the proposed development. The anti-social behaviour could include graffiti, vandalism and the threat of gangs of youths congregating and either threatening or carrying out aggressive behaviour.

Essex Police acknowledge these concerns and while not objecting to the application in principle, would like to see, in particular, an adequate level of lighting to enable the use of high quality CCTV system to be installed.

While it is acknowledged that the timber fencing would be erected as a visual and noise screening measure, it would also limit views into the bridge, where the police would rather see the whole structure open. Lighting and meeting Network Rail‟s requirements would also be difficult to achieve with a fully open structure. Notwithstanding that, with good lighting along the bridge and the ramps, open views at either end to allow informal surveillance of the site and the installation of a CCTV system, it is considered that there would be enough deterrents in place to reduce the likelihood of youths congregating and carrying out threatening behaviour.

It is therefore considered that the installation of a suitable surveillance system at the site could be a requirement to allay the concerns of both the local residents and Essex Police, and as a result that it could be appropriate to require details of the lighting and surveillance system by means of an appropriately worded condition in order for the development to be acceptable and in compliance with BLP policy RLP90 and RSS policy ENV7.

D ECOLOGY & WILDLIFE

Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9) seeks to conserve and enhance the diversity of England‟s wildlife, by sustaining and improving the quality and extent of natural habitat and the species it supports. It goes on to state that Local Planning Authorities should take measures to ensure

DR/80/10 12

that protected species are protected from adverse effects of development and should refuse permission unless the need and benefits of the development would outweigh any potential harm.

Flora: BLP policy RLP81 (Trees, Woodlands, Grasslands and Hedgerow) seeks to protect existing planting, and requires replacement where trees would be lost. BDC will protect trees where necessary by means of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

The site is currently open grassed area with some trees of varying sizes and ages. The development would see the loss of several trees and an area of hedgerow along the rail embankments, and would also see the loss of an oak tree in the open area to the west to allow for the ramp. An assessment of the site was submitted with the application and identifies that the oak tree is within a group of 4 oak trees covered by a group TPO. The trees to the east of the site that would be removed are all young and it is considered that these should be replaced with equivalent specimens, details of which would be agreed within a landscaping scheme.

It is considered that it would be necessary to submit full details of the proposed removal of these trees and the implications on the remaining trees, as well as details lf the protection of those trees that would be retained. No details of the TPO removal have been submitted, but BDC has not objected to the principle of removing the trees. It is noted that one of the oak trees shows signs of Acute Oak Decline and this tree would need to be removed.

As above, it is considered that the submission, approval and subsequent implementation of a landscaping scheme would ensure that the loss of the planting would be mitigated against, and with the submission of details in relation to the protection of the remaining trees, it is considered that the development would comply with the aims and objectives of policy RLP81.

Fauna, including Protected Species: RSS policy ENV3 (Biodiversity) requires consideration to be given to potential effects of development on the conservation of habitats and species outside designated sites, and on species protected by law.

BLP policy RLP84 (Protected Species) restricts development where there would be an adverse impact on badgers or species protected under UK or European legislation or Biodiversity Action Plans. The policy goes on to require all applicants where protected species could be affected to submit an assessment.

A wildlife assessment has been carried out, comprising a survey and analysis of findings from the site survey. This particularly looked at the presence of and potential impacts upon badgers, bats, nesting birds and reptiles.

A badger sett was identified near to the site and as a result it would be necessary to ensure that it was not being used at the time of the development, and in particular that no additional outlying setts had been built closer to the application site, since the original survey was carried out over 12 months ago.. The Council‟s Ecology Officer recommends that an additional survey should be carried out prior to development to ensure that this is the case. If badgers were found, the applicant would need to take appropriate action prior to construction starting to protect the

DR/80/10 13

badgers, a view supported by BDC.

Several of the trees that would be removed were found to have potential for roosting bats. Prior to the removal of any of these trees, they should be assessed for bats and again, appropriate mitigation taken if bats are found to be roosting. Furthermore, the trees to be retained should be protected to ensure that potential roosts are protected. The assessment recommendations indicate that trees on the embankments and to the east of the site that have lower potential for bat roosts should only be removed during the winter (November to February) to minimise potential damage to potential roosts.

The trees that would be removed showed potential to support nesting birds. Clearance of trees, shrubs or undergrowth should be carried out between September to February inclusive to reduce the risk to nesting birds unless otherwise approved by the CPA. It is considered that this would be appropriate to control by condition.

The assessment indicates that it is unlikely that reptiles or Great Crested Newts would be found at the site, although if any were found, a trained ecologist should be notified.

ECC‟s ecologist does not object to the proposals, but would expect that a badger survey would be carried out prior to works commencing to ensure that no new setts have been dug closer to the works site. It is considered appropriate to require this by a condition requiring the details to be submitted of a survey within two weeks prior of commencement if permission is granted.

With the imposition of appropriate conditions as indicated above, it is considered that protected species and their habitats would be protected at the site and therefore that the proposed development would be in compliance with policies ENV3 and RLP84. If permission is granted and protected species are found during the construction of the proposed development, development would need to stop and ecological advice would need to be sought.

E ACCESSIBILITY

RSS policy SS4 (Towns other than Key Centres and Rural Areas) seeks to improve towns‟ accessibility, especially by public transport. Policy T1 (Regional Transport Strategy) seeks, inter-alia, to encourage the efficient use of existing transport infrastructure and to increase the proportion of the region‟s movements by public transport, walking and cycling and provide safe, efficient and sustainable movement between homes, workplaces, town centres and other key destinations.

BLP policies RLP49 (Pedestrian Networks) and RLP50 (Cycleways) seek to improve footpath and cycle networks around the district, requiring them to be safe, convenient and accessible.

A letter of representation was received supporting the application and its improvement for accessing both Freeport station and retail/leisure park, but also other cycle areas in the wider area. It is considered that the foot/cycle way would

DR/80/10 14

improve access for residents in that area of Braintree to both the station for access to the train line, Freeport bus stops for access to the local area, and the shops and leisure facilities at the retail park. It would be accessible for all users including pedestrians, cyclists and users with mobility problems. As a result, it is considered that the proposed development would be in compliance with RSS policies SS4 and T1, and BLP policies RLP49 and RLP50.

BLP policy RLP57 (Freeport Special Policy Area) refers to the area to the east of the application site which is allocated to be used for a public transport interchange to serve Freeport. With a bridge over the railway, this would have the additional benefit of providing the adjacent residential estate with improved access by foot or cycle to this interchange.

F HIGHWAYS IMPACTS

RSS policy T14 (Parking) encourages the use of parking controls to help manage transport demand and influence travel change alongside measures to improve public transport accessibility, walking and cycling.

The supporting text in the BLP states that the intention is to increase capacity of the train line, which would see an increase in use at the train station as reflected in policy RLP60 (Braintree Branch Line Improvement).

Currently, commuters use the car park at Freeport without charge. It is understood that there have been discussions in relation to a potential change to this arrangement whereby people could still use the car park for free when they are visiting the shops and leisure facilities, but that all day parking would be charged for. The Highway Authority and several local residents raised concerns that with the introduction of a footbridge, that people would start parking along the residential roads on Heathlands estate and crossing the railway at the proposed bridge. The concern is that this would cause dangerous road conditions and could also encourage an increase in petty crime such as theft from cars or damage to cars, a view raised by Essex Police. In order to prevent this, in the event of Freeport starting to charge, the Highway Authority has indicated that it could be possible, once the estate roads have been adopted, to impose a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) such as a single yellow line restricting parking for a certain time per day. It is noted that double yellow lines, which would restrict parking for residents and their guests, would not be appropriate. The implementation of a TRO would be possible once the highways on the estate have been adopted as public highway. In order to implement the TRO, the Highway Authority would require a memorandum of understanding from the applicant to be prepared to guarantee availability of funding as and when necessary. The applicant has been informed of this. The Highway Authority would expect a Memorandum of Understanding from the applicant to ensure that the funding would be available to put this in place when the time comes to ensure compliance with RSS policy T14. Such a Memorandum of Understanding could be required prior to granting planning permission.

An access route would need to be retained for Anglian Water Services to reach their foul sewer point along the rail embankment within the site. The applicant has

DR/80/10 15

proposed a turning head, covered with grasscrete, which over time should allow the grass to grow through thus maintaining a suitable access, without having to leave a significant hard paved area.

7. CONCLUSION

During the construction of the proposed bridge, it is considered that the CEMP would ensure that impacts would be minimised and mitigated against where necessary.

The main concerns associated with the use of the bridge would include noise, parking and safety. It is considered that noise would be mitigated against by means of the proposed design choices and development of the screening fencing. The lights would need to be bright enough to provide lighting for a surveillance system, but not so bright or positioned such that they would have unacceptable impacts on the amenity at nearby residential properties or dazzle or distract train drivers. It is considered that it would be appropriate to require details of security measures to be submitted by means of imposition of a condition. With the requirement of suitable lighting and a surveillance system, it is considered that the safety concerns of local residents and Essex Police would be addressed.

With the implementation of a TRO, commuters would not be able to use residential roads for car parking without risk of fines and it is considered that this would limit potential detrimental impacts on car parking and road safety in the local residential area.

The initial ecological assessment identified potential aspects of value at the site. If permission is granted, it is considered that conditions could be imposed to re- assess the site for presence of badgers and bats prior to development starting to ensure that there would be no harm to species present at the site.

Details of final materials and external appearance could be required if permission is granted, to ensure that the development would be acceptable in visual terms.

Overall it is considered that the need for the bridge is established as set out in the legal agreement and policy references. Furthermore, it is considered that with the imposition of appropriately worded conditions, that the detrimental impacts could be controlled, minimised and mitigated against where necessary to ensure that the proposed development would be in compliance with the relevant policies in the framework and would not have unacceptable impacts on amenity, ecology or safety in the area.

8. RECOMMENDED

That pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of five years from the date of the permission. Written notification of the date of

DR/80/10 16

commencement shall be sent to the County Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the application dated 08/10/2010, together with:

Drawing number BR1786/00A, dated September 2010; Drawing number BR1786/01A, dated 17/11/2010; Drawing number BR1786/02A, dated 17/11/2010; Drawing number BR1786/PA/11A, dated 15/11/2010; Drawing number BR1786/PA/12B, dated 15/11/2010; Drawing number BR1786/PA/101A, dated 17/11/2010; Drawing number BR1786/PA/102A, dated 17/11/2010; Drawing number BR1786/PA/103A, dated 16/11/2010; Drawing number BR1786/PA/104A, dated 16/11/2010; Drawing number BR1786/PA/105A, dated Sep 2010; Supporting Statement, including Design and Access Statement, dated 1 October 2010; Public Involvement Programme document, dated 1 October 2010; Public Consultation Statement, dated 1 October 2010; Public Report, dated September 2010; Environmental Constraints Report, dated 01 April 2010;

and in accordance with any non-material amendment(s) as may be subsequently approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, except as varied by the following conditions: -

3. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority the development hereby permitted shall only be constructed during the following times:

0730 – 1800 hours Monday to Friday 0730 – 1300 hours Saturday

and at no other times on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Should the construction works be required outside these hours, approval in writing shall be sought from the County Planning Authority at least two weeks prior to the commencement of works outside these times, providing details of date(s), times and length of operations.

4. No development shall take place until details of materials to be used for the external appearance of the structure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The details shall include the materials, colours and finishes to be used on the structure walls and floor and fences. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

5. During the construction of the development hereby permitted no commercial

DR/80/10 17

vehicle shall leave the site unless its wheels and underside chassis are clean to prevent materials, including mud and debris, being deposited on the highway.

6. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, plant, equipment and machinery involved with the construction of the development hereby permitted shall only operate during the hours permitted under condition 3 of this permission. No vehicle, plant equipment or machinery shall be operated at the site unless it has been fitted with and uses an effective silencer. All vehicles, plant and machinery shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer‟s specification at all times.

7. No fixed lighting shall be erected or installed until details of the location, height, aiming angles, design, sensors, luminance and energy efficiency measures have been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The details shall ensure the lighting is designed to minimise the potential nuisance of light spillage on adjoining properties. The lighting shall thereafter be erected, installed and operated in accordance with the approved details.

8. Prior to the completion of the development hereby permitted, details of a site security surveillance system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved system prior to the bridge being available for public use.

9. All lighting shall be angled away from trees or potential bat roosting areas.

10. No development shall take place until a scheme to minimise dust emissions and noise during the construction of the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of all dust suppression measures and details of measures to limit the noise emitted as a result of the construction, along with details of any mitigation measures. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

11. No development shall take place until a landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of areas to be planted with species, sizes, spacing, protection and programme of implementation. The scheme shall also include details of any existing trees and hedgerows on site and the immediate adjoining land to be retained together with measures for their protection during the construction of the development. The scheme shall be implemented within the first available planting season (October to March inclusive) following completion of the development hereby permitted in accordance with the approved details and maintained thereafter in accordance with condition 12 of this permission.

12. Any tree or shrub forming part of a landscaping scheme approved in connection with the development under condition 11 of this permission that

DR/80/10 18

dies, is damaged, diseased or removed within the duration of five years during and after the completion of the development shall be replaced during the next available planting season (October to March inclusive) with a tree or shrub to agreed in advance by the County Planning Authority.

13. No development or any preliminary groundworks shall take place until:

a) All trees to be retained during the construction works have been protected by fencing of the „HERAS‟ type. The fencing shall be erected around the trees and positioned from the trees in accordance with British Standard 5837 “Trees in Relation to Construction”; and

b) Notices have been erected on the fencing stating “Protected Area (no operations within fenced area)”

Notwithstanding the above, no materials shall be stored or activity shall take place within the area enclosed by the fencing. No alteration, removal or repositioning of the fencing shall take place during the construction period without the prior written consent of the County Planning Authority.

14. Any excavation work carried out beneath the crown spread of a tree shall be undertaken using hand tools only, working around tree roots so as to prevent damage or injury to the tree root. No tree root with a diameter greater than 25mm shall be severed unless agreed in advance in writing by the County Planning Authority.

15. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority, no retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree‟s branches, stems or roots be pruned.

16. No works to trees or works within the root protection area of a tree (RPA as defined in BS5837) shall take place unless written notification of the date of the proposed works has been provided to the County Planning Authority within 7 days of the works to trees or works within the root protection area taking place.

17. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following:

a) Fires shall not be lit within 10 metres of the nearest point of the canopy of any retained tree; b) Equipment, signage, fencing, tree protection barriers, materials, components, vehicles or structures shall not be attached to or supported by a retained tree; and c) Mixing of cement or use of other materials or substances shall not take place within a root protection area of a tree (RPA as defined in BS5837) or close enough to a RPA that seepage or displacement of those materials or substances could cause them to enter a RPA.

18. No construction or removal of trees/hedgerows shall be carried out on site between the 1st March and 31st August inclusive in any year, unless otherwise

DR/80/10 19

approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.

19. No development shall take place until a survey of the application site, to establish the presence or otherwise of badgers and bats, has been carried out. The findings and conclusions of the survey shall be submitted to the County Planning Authority for approval prior to the commencement of the development and in any case no later than one month of the completion of the survey. Should the survey reveal that badgers and/or bats are present, measures shall be provided to mitigate and/or compensate for the impact of the development upon the identified species. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved findings and conclusions, including any measures to mitigate and/or compensate for the impact of the development upon the identified rare or protected species.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Consultation replies Representations Ref: P/DC/Naomi Allen/CC/BTE/107/10 LOCAL MEMBER NOTIFICATION

BRAINTREE – Braintree Eastern

BRAINTREE – Braintree Town

DR/80/10 20