Replacement pedestrian bridge at Church Street, Rickmansworth

“Relevant planning history 1.1 None. Site description 2.1 The application site is located on the southern side of Riverside Drive, Rickmansworth. The site has an irregular shape and relates to the existing pedestrian access from Riverside Drive to the Glade Bridge. The existing bridge provides access over the Rivers Chess onto the towpath of the Grand Union canal.”

“It is also proposed to change the materials from a wooden structure to recycled plastics/composite structure. The bridge would have a maximum height of 2.3m above ground level. Three low quality trees are proposed for removal to facilitate the works. Amended plans were received during the course of the application to increase the base of the bridge and to include a mammal ledge. Consultation 4.1 Statutory Consultation…”

“Planning Analysis 7.1 Impact on Green Belt 7.1.1 The application site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 142 of the NPPF states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts.”

“Flood Risk 7.8.1 Policy DM8 of the DMP LDD sets out that development will only be permitted where it would not be subject to unacceptable risk of flooding; and would not unacceptably exacerbate risk of flooding elsewhere. Where practicable existing flood risks should be reduced. The application site is located in Flood Zone 3b (highest risk of flooding).”

“Several Committee Members expressed concern about the absence of information relating to the colour and finish of the proposed new bridge, which was considered to be fundamental to the application. Whilst there was a condition requiring details and samples to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any building operations, the Planning Committee would have no role in deciding their appropriateness.”

“The Planning Officer responded that the attachment of a condition requiring details to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority was not unusual. Additionally, and for clarity, whilst the Council was the applicant it was the LPA which was the deciding authority, and the two were not the same. Should the Committee consider it appropriate, an informative could be added setting out any preference with regard to colour palettes, for example.”

“Councillor Whately-Smith moved, and Councillor Smith seconded, that the application be approved subject to conditions and with additional informatives requesting (i) that the applicant should have regard to the comments of the Canal and River Trust in relation to the bridge’s appearance and (ii) that the applicant give consideration to the time of year during which works take place.”

“That the application be approved subject to conditions and with additional informatives requesting (i) that the applicant should have regard to the comments of the Canal and River Trust in relation to the bridge’s appearance and (ii) that the applicant give consideration to the time of year during which works take place.”