Agenda item

Replacement of bridge; erection of retaining wall and repositioned steps in front of shooting box

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer regarding the replacement of Smiddy Burn Bridge; erection of retaining wall and repositioned steps in front of shooting box, Stanhope Common, Stanhope, Weardale (for copy see file of minutes).

The Planning Officer gave a detailed presentation of the application which included a site location plan, aerial view of the site and various photographs.

The Planning Officer confirmed that since the report had been published an additional 5 comments had been received all concerning the demolition of the bridge and suggesting that the bridge was instead repaired.

Mr C O’Donovan, objector, considered the bridge a historical asset to the area and not in disrepair.  He confirmed that it had suffered damage due to previous workings and he considered the report to be biased and based on the structure of the bridge without consideration of its heritage.  He confirmed that the ecology had been assessed one month after the shooting season had started, which would have inevitably caused wildlife to flee.  In addition he felt that the Committee should be aware that the cost of the ecology report had been funded by the Applicant. 

Mr O’Donovan referred to the reasons for approval as being contrary to Part 12 of the NPPF which gave AONB’s the highest status of protection.  He also considered that it was unfair to make a decision on the condition of the bridge in the absence of a structural survey.

Mr C Hemingway, objector, confirmed that the bridge needed some attention as it had been subjected to some damage over the years.  He agreed that some of the damage looked deliberate, however on close inpection, he considered the stonework to be immaculate.  The bridge did not require demolition and it was an important people.  He likened the proposal to legalised vandalism.  Mr Hemingway added that the shooting box was constructed with a corregated tin roof and not slate as described in the report.

The Agent, Ms N Allan, spoke on behalf of the Applicant and confirmed that the bridge was used by people from the Estate, Commoners and members of the public.  There was no doubt that it was a valued landscape feature, however the Estate had the responsibility to ensure the bridge was safe.  A Chartered Engineer had carried out the assessment on the structure of the bridge and had confirmed that should further storm damage be sustained, the arch would potentially collapse.  Ms Allen fundamentally disagreed with the statement that the bridge was immaculate – it was in severe disrepair, with bulges and missing stones, rendering it unsafe.

Ms Allen confirmed that the bridge had no protection because it had no listed status.  Furthermore the landowner did not require permission to demolish the bridge and were under no obligation to rebuild it.  No objections had been raised by statutory consultees and should the application be approved there would be no loss of access or grazing.  The opinions on the structure of the bridge were misunderstandings and not evidence based.  The Applicant was seeking to replace the bridge in order to make it safe and last for another 100 years.

Councillor Shuttleworth was the Local Member and reminded the Committee that the bridge had been there for more than 100 years in its current state.  He referred to the Estate as being an important part of the economy, providing jobs and business in the area, but he saw no reason for the bridge to be demolished. 

Councillor Patterson was surprised, given the history of the area, that the bridge was not a listed structure and acknowledged that in the eyes of the community, it had the same significance.  She referred to the absence of a structural report and considered that there was not enough evidence to confirm that the bridge needed a complete rebuild.  Councillor Patterson added that although no permission was required to demolish the bridge, the Applicant did require permission to build one. 

In response to a question from Councillor Brown, Ms Allen confirmed that the stonework would be reclaimed and reused to erect the new bridge.  The stone mason would essentially be rebuilding the bridge in exactly the same way, using the same materials.  The majority of the stone was fit to be reused however where it was not, similar reclaimed stone would be sourced.

Councillor Clare appreciated the comments from objectors, however the bridge was built for traffic which was appropriate at the time and not for the weight of modern day vehicles.  The reasons for refusal did not outweigh the significant economical reasons put forward for the reconstruction and he acknowledged that the bridge was being replaced with a like for like construction, with only a slight difference in alignment, hence it would have the same visual impact.

Councillor Patterson moved a recommendation to refuse the application given the AONB status of the area, on the grounds that the replacement bridge would not conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the area.

The recommendation to refuse was seconded by Councilllor Shuttleworth and upon a vote being taken the motion was lost.

Councillor Clare considered there was impact on visual amenity, however with no protected heritage status and in the absence of a valid reason to refuse, he moved the recommendation to approve the application.

Councillor Martin confirmed that although he was a traditionalist and would rather the bridge be repaired to retain its character, the proposal would ensure that the development would preserve the masonry and ensure that it lasted even longer.  He therefore seconded the recommendation to approve.

Upon a vote being taken there was an equality of votes, therefore upon the Chairman using his casting vote, it was;

Resolved:

That the application be APPROVEDsubject to the conditions outlined in the report.