North Yorkshire Council
Community Development Services
Selby and Ainsty Area Planning Committee
9th October 2024
ZG2024/0183/FUL - Completion of the infilling of former railway bridge using engineering fill and foam concrete, with an associated embankment formed on the eastern side with associated works to trees in the 'TPO 2a/1982 Newton Kyme' and replacement planting on land off A659 (part retrospective) at LAND OFF A659 AND RUDGATE NEWTON KYME
ON BEHALF OF NORTH YORKSHIRE COUNCIL
Report of the Assistant Director Planning – Community Development Services
|
1.0 Purpose of the Report
1.1 To determine a planning application for completion of the infilling of former railway bridge using engineering fill and foam concrete, with an associated embankment formed on the eastern side with associated works to trees in the 'TPO 2a/1982 Newton Kyme' and replacement planting on land off A659 (part retrospective) at land off the A659 and Rudgate at Newton Kyme.
1.2 The application is referred to Planning Committee by the Head of Development Management as it raises significant planning issues. |
2.0 SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions listed below.
2.1. The application has been submitted by National Highways and relates to works already undertaken to infill the underside of a former railway bridge at off A659 (part retrospective) at land off the A659 and Rudgate at Newton Kyme. The works have been undertaken with the exception of the replacement tree planting and provision of the bat boxes.
2.2. The main considerations of the application relate to the impact of the scheme on the Green Belt, the Locally Important Landscape Area, loss of trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order and impact of the works on the non-designated heritage asset of the railway bridge itself.
2.3. The proposal infills the structure, does not impact on any defined access routes nor does it on its own prevent such linkages as the ground level is raised on the other side of the structure. The scheme is considered to accord with the relevant policies in the Selby Local Plan and Core Strategy and with National Planning Policy Framework and it is considered acceptable in principle. The concerns raised by interested parties have been taken into account and conditions have been recommended to ensure the impacts of the development are managed in terms of replacement planting and ecological mitigation.
3.0 Preliminary Matters
3.1. Access to the case file on Public Access can be found here - ZG2024/0183/FUL | Completion of the infilling of former railway bridge using engineering fill and foam concrete, with an associated embankment formed on the eastern side with associated works to trees in the 'TPO 2a/1982 Newton Kyme' and replacement planting on land off A659 (part retrospective) | Land Off A659 And Rudgate Newton Kyme (selby.gov.uk)
3.2. The application has been made following investigation by the Council’s Planning Enforcement Team, which confirmed that the works carried out required planning permission as they did not benefit from permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 19 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
4.0 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
4.1. The bridge structure is located within a rural area, approximately 1km southwest of the village of Newton Kyme and is approximately 3km to the northwest of Tadcaster. The bridge carries an unclassified public road (Rudgate) over the disused former Church Fenton to Harrogate branch line, which was part of the former York and North Midlands Railway.
4.2. The Rudgate road bridge is a brick arch overbridge on an unclassified road. The segmental profiled arch barrel is constructed from brick with stone voussoirs. The arch is supported on gravity type abutments constructed of regularly coursed stone. The parapets, wingwalls and spandrels are also constructed of well-coursed ashlar stonework this design is thought to be typical of bridges built in this period. Underneath the bridge are the remains of the former Harrogate–Church Fenton Railway Line.
4.3. The bridge was built over the Harrogate to Church Fenton branch line of York & North Midlands Railway circa 1848. The bridge would be one of many railway bridges constructed at the time to facilitate the York & North Midlands Railway.
4.4. The bridge structure is largely obstructed from view the works to infill have been completed on site and there are limited views available of the structure from public vantage points.
4.5. It is understood from the Planning Statement that “the former railway cutting to the west of the structure had previously been infilled by third parties and which partially extended under the structure prior to the applicants taking over management of the structure. These works raised the cutting level in line with surrounding ground levels and left a steeply sloping embankment underneath the arch”. Officers have considered these works and consider these to be lawful and therefore outside the time period within which enforcement action could be taken.
4.6. There are established trees surrounding the bridge structure and steep slopes lead down to the resultant ground level. The area where the infilling has occurred is adjacent to and within G1 on TPO2a/1982 which is an area mainly consisting of hazel, ash and sycamore located on the disused railway line stretching from Rudgate Bridge to Lacerne Farm to the west.
4.7. The sites are located outside the development limits of any settlement, within the open countryside and within the Green Belt and “Locally Important Landscape Area” as defined by the Selby District Local Plan (2005). It is also on potentially contaminated land as a result of railway uses, and within an area safeguarded to building stone and limestone extract. The site is also within an impact zone for a SSSI (FID 62) and consultation zones for National Grid and Leeds East Airport.
5.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
5.1. This application site is spilt between the works to complete the infill the bridge (which have been undertaken) and parcels of land where new tree planting will be undertaken.
5.2. The scheme is set out on the following:
Location Plan Ref B28380DE-GG-0007-Rev PO2
Existing Sections Ref B28380DE-GG-0003-Rev PO1
Existing Site Plan Ref B28380DE-GG-0001-Rev PO1
Proposed Site Plan Ref B28380DE-GG-0004-Rev PO2
Proposed Sections Ref B28380DE-GG-0006-Rev PO1
Proposed Elevations Ref B28380DE-GG-0005-Rev PO1
Landscape Plan Ref B28380DE-CFH1/12-LAN-021-02 Rev PO2
5.3. The following reports have been submitted in support of the application:
Planning Support Statement (ref 0451538 Rev 0) prepared by Jacobs dated February 2024
Tree Survey Report (ref 0451539 Rev P03) prepared by Jacobs dated 12th February 2024
Heritage Assessment (ref B38380SS Rev 04) prepared by Jacobs dated 1st February 2024
Ecology Survey (ref CFH1/12 Rev 1) prepared by Jacobs dated 9th May 2023
5.4. The applicants also submitted two further Statements:
National Highways response to Representations from Statutory Consultees and Third Parties (Rev 1)” received in July 2024
National Highways response to further representations from THREG” in September 2024 which was a rebuttal to the comments made by the heritage Group on the National Highways submission in July 2024.
These have been considered by Officers in the assessment of the application.
5.5. The red line for the works for the completion of the infilling shows encompasses an area of land to the west of the bridge and an area to the east and the under section of the bridge under the highway. The works to complete the infill of the bridge have been undertaken and the materials used where a granular fill which was then compacted and then a 150mm topsoil was added to the resultant embankment. There was also a concrete block wall added to retain foam from the concrete pour which filled the top section under the bridge. The parapet was repointed on the both the eastern and western elevation. There is a small section of earth fill between the stone arch and the road above which is earth fill. Details of the works are set out on the submitted drawings.
5.6. The proposed areas for the planting of trees as proposed mitigation for the loss of tree within the TPO as a result of the works are located to the north west of the application site – one to the east of Station House fronting the A659 and one to the south west of Station House A659. The proposed tree planting is shown on submitted Landscape Plan (Ref B28380DE-CFH1/12-LAN-021-02 Rev PO2) which also confirms the grouping of trees that were removed to facilitate the works all of which were to the east of the bridge on the northern embankment section as well as the provision of four bat boxes. The Landscape Plan shows the provision of three trees of each of the parcels (with indicative locations noted) and these are noted in the specification to be:
Area to East of Station House 2 Common Beech, 2 English Oak and 1 Elm
Area to West of Station House 2 English Oak, 2 Common Beech and 1 Elm
Area to the West of Bridge 3 Elm
These trees have girths of 10-12cm and minimum height of 300-350cm. Details are also set out of planting approaches, management and maintenance based on a 10 year period.
5.7. As noted above the works have been undertaken on site and the submitted Planning Statement includes photographs of the site prior to the works and now that the work has been completed. Officers have not been able to view the site from the dismantled rail bed due to access restrictions and on health and safety grounds. A site visit has been undertaken to view the works from Rudgate and to consider the context of the site and the location of the proposed tree planting.
6.0 PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Adopted Development Plan
6.2. The Adopted Development Plan for this site is:
- Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted 22nd October 2013)
- Those policies in the Selby District Local Plan (adopted on 8 February 2005) which were saved by the direction of the Secretary of State and which have not been superseded by the Core Strategy
- Minerals and Waste Joint Plan (adopted 16 February 2022)
Emerging Development Plan – Material Consideration
6.3 The Emerging Development Plan for this site is:
- Selby District Council Local Plan publication version 2022 (Reg 19)
6.4 On 17 September 2019, Selby District Council agreed to prepare a new Local Plan. Consultation on issues and options took place early in 2020 and further consultation took place on preferred options and additional sites in 2021. The Pre-submission Publication Local Plan (under Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2012, as amended), including supporting documents, associated evidence base and background papers, was subject to formal consultation that ended on 28th October 2022. A further round of consultation on a revised Regulation 19 Publication Local Plan was undertaken in March 2024 and the responses are now being considered. Following any necessary minor modifications being made it is intended that the plan will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination.
6.5 In accordance with paragraph 48 of the NPPF, given the stage of preparation following the consultation process and depending on the extent of unresolved objections to policies and their degree of consistency with the policies in the NPPF, the policies contained within the emerging Local Plan can be given weight as a material consideration in decision making and, if relevant, will be referred to in the body of the report.
- The North Yorkshire Local Plan
6.6 No weight can be applied in respect of this document at the current time as it is at an early stage of preparation.
Guidance - Material Considerations
6.7 Relevant guidance for this application is:
- National Planning Policy Framework December 2023 (NPPF)
- National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)
6.8 On 30 July 2024, the Government announced in a Ministerial statement its intention to reform the planning system, including making changes through a Planning and Infrastructure Bill in the first session and revising the NPPF with the key aim of delivering the Government’s commitment to build new homes. Such Ministerial statements can be material to the determination of planning applications. The proposed revisions to the NPPF were subject to consultation which closed on the 24 September 2024. At this time, whilst the Ministerial statement is acknowledged, it is noted that the December 2023 iteration of the NPPF remains until such time as revised legislation is passed and / or policy is published.
7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES
7.1. The following consultation responses have been received and have been summarised below.
7.2. Newton Kyme Parish Council - No comments made and note that the work has already been carried out.
7.3. NYC Highways – Confirmed that the Bridges team has reviewed the proposal and has no concerns regarding the Structural infilling of former railway bridge and there are no objections to the application including to the TPO works.
7.4. NYC Conservation Officer – A series of comments have been received on the application from the NYC Conservation Officer. Final comments (dated 28th August 2024) advised that “having reviewed the additional information the heritage objection can be removed as the additional landscaping would go some way to improving the works carried out. The scheme is considered acceptable”.
7.5. NYC Archaeology – A series of comments have been received on the application from the NYC Archaeology Officer. Final comments noted the following observations on Section 3.1 of the additional information:-
Paragraph 1. Nowhere in my original response do I state that I consider the bridge a candidate for statutory listing. I merely point out the Historic England guidance on this matter. In my original correspondence I agreed that the bridge is a 'non-designated heritage asset' but note that it may meet some of the criteria for listing.
Paragraph 3. I completely disagree with the statement that absence of a HER entry is a factor in establishing the level of significance of a heritage asset. The lack of coverage of certain monument classes within HERs is a result of lack of resources within local authorities rather than a conscious decision to omit features due to a low significance.
Penultimate paragraph. I take the point that the correct NPPF paragraph to apply is 209 and note that the closing paragraph of my original response recommends that a balanced view is taken.
7.6. NYC Tree Officer – a series of comments have been received on the application from the NYC Tree Officer. Final comments (dated 10th September 2024) advised that he was “content to support the amended landscape scheme to include the extra trees. While not ideal (to the non-consented felling) if we look to TPO these trees it will provide for some longer-term replacements that will have the space to mature as opposed to being part of the existing woodland”.
7.7. NYC Ecology – a series of comments have been received on the application from the NYC Tree Officer. Final comments dated 6th August 2024 ) advised that:
“I am pleased to see that compensation has now been built into the proposals in order to offset the loss of potential bat roost features that were present within the structure. This will include artificial bat roost units mounted on trees in close proximity to the structure. It is also noted that additional compensatory trees are being included within the landscape scheme. I am pleased to see that these will be native species appropriate to the local area. Overall, I am now satisfied that the ecological impacts of the scheme will be mitigated and compensated”.
7.8. Ainsty Internal Drainage Board – (13th March 2024) – advised that the application site is outside the Board’s area, that there are no Board maintained watercourses in the vicinity and as such it is not considered that the proposal will have a material effect on the Board’s operation and therefore they confirmed that they have no comments on the application.
7.9. National Grid – (4th April 2024) – no objection to the proposal that is nearby overhead lines.
7.10. National Gas – initial comments on the 13th March 2024 noted that the development was within the high risk zone for their apparatus. However, on the 20th March 2024 they advised that they had no objection to the proposal despite it being within close proximity to a high-pressure gas pipeline- feeder.
7.11. Yorkshire Water – (9th April 2024) - Confirmed no comments on the application.
Local Representation
7.12. The application has been subject of site notices and press notices, and comments from 148 individuals (as of 11th September 2024) have been received, as well as comments from a series of interest groups associated with heritage and railway heritage. A detailed summary of these responses can be found at Appendix A, but an overview is provided below:
7.13. Comments have been received from heritage / railway interest groups including “Save Britain’s Heritage” and the “HRE Group”. In summary, these focus on the need for the works to be undertaken, the impact on the heritage asset, the use by Highways England of permitted development rights and the loss of the ability to access the structure / railbed as a public route.
7.14. Third party comments focus on the principle of development and the conflict with green belt policy, heritage considerations and the age of the structure potentially being a Non Designated Heritage Asset that is an irreplaceable resource to be conserved in line with national and local policy, the failure of the proposal to consider the engineering implications of the infilling, the works being undertaken using non environmentally friendly materials, felling of protected trees and prevention of wildlife being able to pass under the bridge, impact on the highway, effect on a tourist destination, and the way in which National Highways has undertaken the works which is an abuse of authority and considered to be an act of vandalism.
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
9.0 MAIN ISSUES
9.1. The key considerations in the assessment of this application are:
- Appropriateness of the Works to Stabilise the Structure
- Impact on Heritage Asset
- Impact on Trees and Tree Mitigation
- Protected Species, Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain
- Impact on the Character and Form of Locality including Locally Important Landscape Area (LILA)
- Highways Impact
- Impact on Residential Amenity
- Drainage and Flood Risk
- Minerals and Waste
- Contamination
- Gas and Power Infrastructure
- Other issues arising from Objections and Consultations
10.0 ASSESSMENT
Principle of Development
10.1. As engineering operations in the Green Belt then the relevant policies in respect to the principle of development include the presumption in favour of sustainable development under Policies SP1 and SP3 of the Core Strategy and national policy contained within the NPPF.
10.2. Policy SP1 of the Core Strategy outlines the positive approach that the Council will take when considering development proposals, reflecting the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF at paragraph 11. This means approving development that accords with an up-to-date local plan.
10.3. Policy SP3B of the Core Strategy states, “In accordance with the NPPF, within the defined Green Belt, planning permission will not be granted for inappropriate development unless the applicant has demonstrated that very special circumstances exist to justify why permission should be granted”.
10.4. The decision-making process when considering proposals for development in the Green Belt is in three stages, and is as follows: -
a. It must be determined whether the development is appropriate or inappropriate development in the Green Belt;
b. If the development is appropriate, the application should be determined on its own merits;
c. If the development is inappropriate, the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt applies and the development should not be permitted unless there are very special circumstances which clearly outweigh the presumption against it.
10.5. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except for in very special circumstances. Paragraph 153 of the NPPF states that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
10.6. Paragraph 155 of the NPPF sets out that certain forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.
10.7. In terms of the purposes of the Green Belt noted within Paragraph 155 then these are set out in Paragraph 143 of the NPPF as being:
a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
10.8. The scheme is considered to be an engineering operation within the Green Belt and therefore it is considered to be appropriate development within the Green Belt under Paragraph 155.
10.9. In terms of whether the scheme preserves the openness of the Green Belt then it is considered that the works do not impact on the openness of the Green Belt given their minimal encroachment beyond the arch itself and given that the regraded area of land results in a vegetated embankment which blends into the landscape and surrounding context.
10.10. In terms of any conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt then it is not considered that the scheme results in any impact on these purposes in terms of Paragraph 155, given that it is infilling of the underside of the railway bridge structure and although some infill is beyond the arch this is treated in such a manner as to not represent encroachment or be detrimental to the purpose of the Green Belt or to impact on it in terms of openness.
10.11. On this basis, the scheme is considered appropriate development in the Green Belt that does not impact on openness nor on any of the purposes of Green Belt as defined in the NPPF. Therefore, the principle of development can in accepted as being in accordance with the Policies SP1 and SP3 of the Core Strategy and thus in accordance with the development plan subject to all other technical matters being acceptable.
Section 149 of The Equality Act 2010
10.12. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 Local Planning Authorities must have due regard to the following when making decisions: (i) eliminating discrimination, harassment and victimisation; (ii) advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (iii) fostering good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics are: age (normally young or older people), disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation.
10.13. The development the subject of this application would not result in a negative effect on any persons or on persons with The Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics.
Highways Matters and Appropriateness of the Works to Stabilise the Structure
10.14. The works that have been undertaken by Highways England have been justified as being works required to stabilise the structure which supports an adopted highway. Policy ENV1(2) of the Local Plan requires that account should be taken of the “relationship of the proposal to the highway, the proposed means of access, the need for road / junction improvements in the vicinity of the site and the arrangements to be made for car parking”. In this case the main consideration is whether the works impact on the use of the highway.
10.15. The works were undertaken by the Applicants utilising Permitted Development Rights afforded by Part 19 Class Q and the application has been requested by the Council on the basis that the works are to be retained.
10.16. In order to determine whether the infilling of the bridge was the most appropriate method of stabilizing the structure then the first stage is to assess whether such an approach was justified in the context of the Applicants survey data on the condition of the bridge.
10.17. Highways England have argued in their submissions that the approach taken was the most appropriate approach given the condition of the bridge so as to secure its longer-term stability as a structure supporting a road, and they have included evidence of survey findings have been provided in support of this application.
10.18. Objectors have questioned whether there was such evidence in place, when the works were undertaken, and they have asserted that the approach that has been taken was a standardised approach and was not done in the context of robust justifications. They have also questioned the assessments that have been provided and whether they are appropriate given the design of the bridge itself.
10.19. The Council’s Highways Officers in considering the application, have discussed the application with Officers from the Council’s Bridges and Design Service, and as a result of these discussions it has been confirmed that there are no objections to the scheme in highways terms.
10.20. Bridges & Design Services have indicated that Highways England should have made submissions pursuant to the Highways Act (via Form 6) to agree the works given they are works to a highways structure. Although such submissions have not been made and these are still required, this is not a matter that Committee can take into account in considering the application given that this falls under legislation out with the planning system.
10.21. As it stands the works are completed and the road bridge is operational for traffic use, so there is a public benefit in terms of keeping the bridge safe for use arising from the works that have been undertaken as they secure the bridges stability for the longer term. The benefit of this being the case is at the core of the position of the applicants, as is the assertion that the works were the most appropriate method to stabilise the bridge.
10.22. The Council has no evidence to suggest that there was an alternative approach that could have been taken that would have secured this benefit of long-term stabilization of the structure and the applicants have provided a justification for their approach. In this context, on balance, it is considered that although there may have been alternative options the approach used has been justified by the applicants.
10.23. On this basis it is considered that the scheme is acceptable in highways terms, accords with Policy ENV1(2) of the Local Plan and there is no evidence before the Authority to take an alternative view on the proposals.
Impact on Heritage Asset
10.24. The bridge is not recorded within the North Yorkshire Historic Environment Record (HER) and is not contained on the statutory list of buildings under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 either.
10.25. In commenting on the application then the Conservation Officer have noted that
“given the age and of the bridge and although is not considered to be worthy national protection the former railway bridge may have some local significance and be considered to hold some historic value, evidential, aesthetic and communal value”
10.26. In addition, the Heritage Officer has advised that:
“The proposed infilling of the railway arch has had several impacts. It prevents access to the underside of the arch and our understanding and appreciation of its method of construction. It has also obscured the entire face of the bridge including all masonry elements up to parapet level, which are now concealed beneath a substantial embankment. In the terms of the NPPF (para's 205 & 209), the infilling of the bridge and construction of the retaining embankment constitutes harm. It is difficult to assess if this should be considered 'substantial harm' or 'less than substantial harm' as it is not clear how reversible the infill and embankment works are and if the removal of this material would in fact cause greater harm. In forming a balanced planning decision, the local authority should consider the level of harm to the significance of the historic bridge. This could potentially be 'substantial harm' to a non-designated heritage asset of at least local to regional significance (NPPF para. 209)”.
10.27. Further justification for the works and assessment of the impacts have been submitted by the Applicants and the Council’s Conservation Officer has noted no objections to the scheme and although the Heritage Officer has commented on the submissions there is no objection from an archaeological perspective either.
10.28. Paragraph 209 of the NPPF states the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining applications. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
10.29. It is considered that the bridge does hold some local historical value, and as such the Committee should consider whether there is public benefit arising from the development that has been undertaken and whether these works are acceptable if retained or not.
10.30. In the context of the comments from heritage officers then it is considered that the approach utilised by Network Rail to infill the bridge is acceptable in heritage terms and it is considered that the applicants have fully justified to the scheme to the satisfaction of the statutory consultees.
10.31. A further factor which should be considered in assessing the scheme and its impacts is the affect the scheme has on the ability to view the underside of the arch and the ability to use the railbed as a right of way for users such as pedestrians and cyclists. In commenting on the application then third parties have noted that the works have resulted in the loss of a potential / existing pedestrian and cycle links under the bridge either as part of a SUSTRANS link or a public right of way. The Heritage Officer has also noted that the works prevent access for the public to view the underneath of the structure or to view the arch elevation.
10.32. In terms of the loss of ability to walk / cycle etc under the structure then a route through the bridge arch was not available prior to the works undertaken by National Highways in 2021 as a result of the ground raising that has occurred on the eastern side which prevented access through the whole arch. There is no legally defined right of way under the bridge, and it is not defined as being part of the any formalised route. In addition, access to view the underside of the arch prior to the works being undertaken was only possible via third party land or through climbing down embankments. The elevation of the arch would have been visible by looking over the structure from the road / side embankment, but this view would be highly limited when travelling / walking over the structure unless the user specifically stopped to look over the parapet or moved onto the verges / embankment itself.
10.33. Ultimately, the proposed works have not restricted a legally defined right of way and nor has the work prevented creation of such a linkage given that ground level changes have already occurred on the eastern side of the structure that are unlawful from enforcement and prohibit such a link being provided. In addition, although there has been an impact on the ability to appreciate the structure from public vantage points / underneath this has to be considered as part of the planning balance and consideration of the public benefits arising from the development.
10.34. On balance, it is considered that the works are acceptable and given the scheme has not restricted a legally defined right of way and nor has the work prevented creation of such a linkage given that ground level changes have already occurred on the eastern side of the structure. On this basis the scheme is considered to be acceptable and to accord with local and NPPF policy.
Impact on Trees and Tree Mitigation
10.35. Policy ENV1 states that proposals for development will be permitted provided a good quality of development would be achieved, and that in considering proposals the Council will “the effect upon the character of the area” and “the standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surrounding and associated landscaping”. Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy aims to safeguard and enhance the natural environment. Paragraph 180 of the NPPF seeks planning decisions to contribute to and enhance the local environment by, inter alia, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem service, including from trees and woodland.
10.36. The works undertaken by National Highways impacted on trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order Ref 'Tree Preservation Order 2a/1982” (TPO). The works resulted in the loss of circa 13 within the TPO adjacent to the structure.
10.37. The scheme as submitted shows replacement tree planting in three locations – adjacent to the structure, to the south-west of Station House and the east of Station House. The proposed planting is all located within land within the red line, albeit within land not in the ownership of National Highways, but within ownerships upon which the required notices have been served of the application.
10.38. The Tree Officer has considered the revised proposed replacement planting and following provision of revised plans has confirmed that the replacement planting is acceptable as compensation for the tree loss which arose when the works were undertaken to infill the structure and create the external area embankment.
10.39. The proposed tree planting, as a replacement for trees within an existing TPO should be protected via a new TPO as well as a condition on any consent to require replacement planting of these trees within a stated period over and above the standard 5-year period normally utilised in landscaping conditions. It is considered in this instance that a condition noting a 10-year period (which is consistent with the submitted Landscaping Plan) would be appropriate alongside a TPO for the replacement planting under a Section 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012 which would mean that the order would take effect from the point where the replacement planting is planted.
10.40. On this basis, it is considered that appropriate replacement planting has been secured, are acceptable and to accord with local and NPPF policy, subject to the tree being covered by a TPO once planted.
Protected Species, Ecology and Biodiversity Net Gain
10.41. Local Plan Policy ENV1 requires account is taken of the potential loss, or adverse effect upon, significant wildlife habitats.
10.42. The foreword to Core Strategy Policy SP2 states the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and natural resources is a basic principle of national planning guidance, which can also influence the location of development. Policy SP18 requires the high quality and local distinctiveness of the natural and man-made environment will be sustained by promoting effective stewardship of the District’s wildlife by a) safeguarding international, national and locally protected sites for nature conservation, including SINCs, from inappropriate development. b) Ensuring developments retain, protect and enhance features of biological and geological interest and provide appropriate management of these features and that unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated and compensated for, on or off-site. c) Ensuring development seeks to produce a net gain in biodiversity by designing-in wildlife and retaining the natural interest of a site where appropriate.
10.43. NPPF paragraph 180 requires decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing sites of biodiversity value in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan; minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures.
10.44. NPPF paragraph 186 requires when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused.
10.45. The development plan policies are consistent with the NPPF and are given significant weight.
10.46. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) requires the LPA to determine if the proposal may affect the protected features of a habitats site before deciding whether to permit development. This requires consideration of whether the proposal is likely to have significant effects on that site. This consideration – typically referred to as the ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment screening’ – should take into account the potential effects both of the proposal itself and in combination with other proposals.
10.47. The Ecology Officer in initially commenting on the application noted the submitted Ecology Report which noted features of bat roost potential (both summer and for hibernation) and that whilst there were no bats present when the works were completed the potential roost features will have been lost and as such the Council would expect to see compensation provided via mitigation such as artificial bat roost. It was also noted that there should be net gain through an increase in the total number of trees planted. On this basis additional enhancement (net gain) was sought from the Applicants as part of the negotiation with the Applicants.
10.48. The revised Landscape Plan provided by the Applicants in August 2024 showed the provision of bat boxes which are considered to be appropriate mitigation by the Council’s Ecologist, to offset the loss of potential bat roost features that were present within the structure through both the boxes and the native planting.
10.49. On this basis the scheme is considered to accord with the noted local policies and NPPF guidance on the basis that the ecological impacts of the scheme will be mitigated and compensated.
Impact on the Character and Form of Locality including Locally Important Landscape Area (LILA)
10.50. The site sits within the open countryside and there are a number of isolated dwelling along Rudgate as well as a dwelling to the north-west of the bridge located on the A659. As noted above the bridge sits under the road known as Rudgate and over the dismantled railway line.
10.51. Policy ENV1 states that proposals for development will be permitted provided a good quality of development would be achieved, and that in considering proposals the Council will “the effect upon the character of the area” and “the standard of layout, design and materials in relation to the site and its surrounding and associated landscaping”.
10.52. Policy ENV15 of the Local Plan (2005) states that “Within the locally important landscape areas, as defined on the proposals map, priority will be given to the conservation and enhancement of the character and quality of the landscape. Particular attention should be paid to the design, layout, landscaping of development and the use of materials in order to minimise its impact and to enhance the traditional character of buildings and landscape in the area.”
10.53. Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy sets out the context for the consideration of applications for works related to historic assets which contribute most to the distinct character of the setting and of acknowledge importance.
10.54. NPPF paragraph 174 requires policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by (a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes (in a manner commensurate with their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan).
10.55. The site sits in the “West Selby Limestone Ridge” Character 8 as defined in the Selby Landscape Character Assessment (2019) (LCA) and within the Locally Important Landscape Area (LILA) covered by Policy ENV15 of the Selby District Local Plan (2005).
10.56. The Landscape Character Assessment (2019) notes this area to be of varied topography which undulates throughout the character area, creating a medium-large-scale rolling landscape rising up from the relatively low-lying and flat land in the east, to higher elevations in the interior of the Limestone Ridge to the west. The area is noted in the LCA (2019) as being an area of natural character which has a lower sensitivity to changes due to the highly undulating landscape in which new features would likely be screened by intervening topography. It is also noted in the LCA that “Woodland on the upper slopes of the limestone ridge contributes greatly towards the character of the landscape and LILA, and often dominates the distant skylines. Therefore, this woodland would be highly sensitive to changes from new features and development in the landscape.”
10.57. The works undertaken to infill the bridge are largely underneath the structure and are within the railway cutting for the dismantled railway line. The works have revegetated and replacement tree planting is proposed as part of the scheme to mitigate the trees lost when the works were undertaken.
10.58. It is considered that the works as already undertaken have had no impact on the character of the area, there has been revegetation of the external slope of the infill and the impact of the loss of the trees has been mitigated through the proposed replacement planting. The scheme has therefore been no significant detrimental impact on the character and quality of the landscape within the LILA as a result of the scheme and there has been no impact on the character of the area.
10.59. On this basis the scheme is considered to accord with Policies ENV1 and ENV15 of the Selby District Local Plan, SP18 of the Core Strategy as well as Paragraph 174 of the NPPF.
Impact on Residential Amenity
10.60. The bridge lies in the open countryside outside any village. There is a single dwelling to the west (Paddock House) and Station House to the north-west. The infill works have been completed on site and there are no impacts on the nearby dwellings in terms of residential amenity given that the works are on the former rail bed. The proposed tree planting either side of Station House and to the west of the bridge structure will also not impact on the amenity of the nearby dwellings. Therefore, there is no conflict with any local or national policies protecting residential amenity. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would not contravene Convention rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 in terms of the right to private and family life.
Drainage and Flood Risk
10.61. The site lies in Flood Zone 1, an area of low flood risk, and consultations have not highlighted any issues associated with flood risk or drainage as a result of the works that have been undertaken. The works sit within an embanked area and will not have in the view of Officers impacted on the drainage of any surrounding sensitive users or land use. Therefore, the is no conflict with local and national planning policies relating to drainage and flood risk.
Minerals and Waste
10.62. The site lies within an area identified on the Minerals and Waste Local Plan as being safeguarded for “building stone” and “limestone”. The nature of the works are small scale and are not in an area where such resources could be extracted or exploited. As such the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of the protection of asset policies within the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
Contamination
10.63. The site is identified as potentially contaminated due to its former railway use on the Council’s records. Given the nature of the works then even if the application was not retrospective the most the Council would have sought in terms of conditions would have been an unexpected contamination condition to ensure any unexpected exposure to contamination was effectively managed. Therefore, there is no conflict with local and national planning policies relating to land contamination.
Gas and Power Infrastructure
10.64. The site lies in a consultation area as a result of “national grid gas pipelines. Consultations have confirmed that there is no objection to the scheme from National Grid.
Other issues arising from Objections and Consultations
10.65. The comments received from third parties are set out in the report at Section 7.1 to 7.5 inclusive and these have been largely considered in the assessment above, the remaining matters are also noted and responded below.
Non-material matters raised in Objections – these are considered to be:
i. setting of precedent.
ii. that the materials used are not environmentally friendly.
iii. that National Highways are not fit for purpose as an organisation.
Weight Limit on the Bridge – objections have stated that there is no need for a weight limit on the bridge. This is not a matter for the consideration of the planning application.
Natural Justice / Avoidance of Planning Application Process – the applicants made submissions under Part Q and this application was requested by the Council upon further consideration. The Applicants have submitted the application and worked with Officers to provide additional information. They have not avoided the process and have worked with the Authority. The application has been consulted upon and advertised in line with requirements.
Loss of Tourist Attraction – the bridge is not part of a footpath route or tourist provision, and the development has had no impact on tourism provision.
Need for Parliamentary Approval – the determination of the planning application is a matter for the responsible body, which is the Local Planning Authority.
Demolition of the Structure – the works have not demolished the structure.
Moving material to the site had an environmental impact – the works are now complete and given the scale of the development the impact would have been minimal and not for significant period of time to result in a significant impact on the limited receptors in the vicinity of the site.
11.0 PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION
11.1 The works are considered to be an engineering operation within the Green Belt which is appropriate development under Paragraph 155 of the NPPF. The works preserves the openness of the Green Belt given their minimal encroachment beyond the arch itself and given that the regraded area of land results in a vegetated embankment which blends into the landscape and surrounding context. There is also no conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt given that the works are infilling of the underside of the railway bridge structure and although some infill is beyond the arch this is treated in such a manner as to not represent encroachment or be detrimental to the purpose of the Green Belt or to impact on it in terms of openness. It is also considered that the scheme has not negatively impacted on the character and appearance of the area or on the locally important landscape area.
11.2 There are no highways, landscape or ecological objections to the scheme and the replacement planting and ecological mitigation (by way of bat boxes) can be delivered via Condition. In addition, the longer-term protection of the replacement trees can also be secured via the servicing of a Tree Preservation Order once the trees are in situ.
11.3 The heritage impacts of the scheme have been fully considered and the impact has to be considered in the context of the structure not being listed. It is it is considered that the approach utilised by Network Rail to infill the bridge is acceptable in heritage terms and it is considered that the applicants have fully justified to the scheme to the satisfaction of the statutory consultees.
11.4 The ground level changes on the opposite side of the bridge have been in place for in excess of 10 years then on balance it is not considered that there is any loss of a pedestrian route and although some impact on the possibility to view the underside of the structure in part from the road (by hanging over the bridge) or by access the rail bed down the embankment is not considered that works result in the loss of a possible access route for pedestrian / cyclist / horses. As such, the scheme has not restricted a legally defined right of way and nor has the work prevented creation of such a linkage given that ground level changes have already occurred on the eastern side of the structure. On this basis the scheme is considered to be acceptable and to accord with local and NPPF policy.
11.5 Having also considered all relevant technical matters, outlined above, it is co9nsidered that the scheme is acceptable and there are no technical constraints that warrant the refusal of the application.
11.6 In addition, the proposal would not adversely impact persons protected under Section 149 of The Equalities Act 2010, noting that there is no change proposed to the parking situation in terms of disabled parking bays and an improvement to the street clutter and surfacing of the forecourts. Further, the application would not contravene any Convention Rights contained in the Human Rights Act 1990 in terms of the right to private and family life or the right to life.
11.7 On balance, taking into account all of the above material planning considerations, the proposal is considered acceptable development in accordance with both local and national planning policies and as such is recommended accordingly.
12.0 RECOMMENDATION
12.1 That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions listed below:
Recommended conditions:
01 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications listed below:
· Location Plan (ref B38380DE-GG-0007 Rev P02)
· Proposed Site Plan (ref B38380DE-GG-0004 Rev 02)
· Proposed Sections (ref B38380DE-GG-0006 Rev 01
· Proposed Elevations (ref B38380DE-GG-0005 Rev 01
· Landscape Plan (ref B38380DE-CFH1/12-LAN-021-P02)
Reason:
To ensure that no departure is made from the details approved and that the whole of the development is carried out, in order to ensure the development accords with Selby Local Plan Policy ENV1.
02 The approved Landscape Scheme and Ecological Mitigation (as shown on Plan ref B38380DE-CFH1/12-LAN-021-P02) shall be implemented within a period of six months of the date of this decision notice. Subsequently, any new trees, or plants, which within a period of ten years from the substantial completion of the planting die or are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with the specified size and species as shown on the Plan.
Reason:
The replacement landscape scheme is required to address impacts on trees subject to TPO and the ecological mitigation is required to facilitate habitat creation having had regard to Policies ENV1 and of the Selby District Local Plan.
Target Determination Date: 16th October 2024
Case Officer: Yvonne Naylor, Yvonne.naylor@northyorks.gov.uk
Appendix A – Appendix A – Detailed Summary of Comments from HER Group and Save British Heritage
Appendix
B - Proposed Site Plan
APPENDIX A
Detailed Summary of Comments from HER Group and Save British Heritage and third party comments
The following sets out the detailed summary of the comments from the HRE Group and save Britain’s Heritage and other interested third parties.
HRE Group – Object on the grounds that:
· There was no evidence that the works were required as “emergency work”.
· Highways England have misused powers afforded to them under Part Q.
· As the works were to be retained over 12 months then Highways England should have been required to make an application and not allowed to undertake the works under permitted development
· A more sensitive approach should have been taken to the infill the bridge structure if such works were necessary, but this is not considered to be the case as the evidence from inspection reports does not indicate that there was any immediate risk and references other works that could be done to address issues that were evident with the bridge.
· There is a weight limit that should have been considered in assessing if it was necessary to undertake such infilling to the structure.
· The structure is of historic value which has not been accounted for in the works that have been undertaken.
· The works have impacted on trees (some of which are already lost) and the future of others have been jeopardised as a result of the works.
· The works have prevented the route being a potential option for SUSTRANS routes in the area as the opportunity to use the route is lost as a result of the works that have been undertaken.
· The scheme is not acceptable in Green Belt terms as there are no very special circumstances to justify the development.
· The development is contrary to the approach of the Selby District Core Strategy in terms of sustainable development, design, character of the area and the consideration of impacts on heritage assets.
· The development is contrary to the approach of the NPPF in terms of conservation and enjoyment of heritage assets, the consideration of schemes for works to assets and the impact on the assets of the works.
Additional comments of objection from the HRE Group received on the 5th August 2024 and on the 13th September 2024. The comments of the 5th August 2024 can be summarised as follows:
· The previous backfilling of the approach cutting obscured the bridge’s north-west elevation and parts of the abutment faces, but - in the same way that NH’s concrete infill is “fully reversible” - the loose material used to backfill the cutting could - from a practical perspective - also be removed, fully revealing the bridge.
· Maintain that the bridge could at least meet some of the listing criteria.
· The previous backfilling of the approach cutting - which included a slope extending beneath the span - did not prevent access under the arch as is demonstrated.
· by Jacobs’ inspection report from 10 October 2017, which includes several photographs of the abutments and arch soffit taken by an engineer standing on the slope. Access under the arch has only been prevented by NH’s unauthorised development of 2021.
· NH fails to make clear that the engineering and historical circumstances at Congham bridge were very different to Rudgate bridge.
· The scheme remains unjustified National Highways have utilised Part Q incorrectly.
· NH should have properly evaluated the likelihood of overloading before carrying out the works, so as not to burden the taxpayer with unnecessary expense and inflict harm on a heritage asset. Given the prevailing constraints, that likelihood was extremely low.
· The recorded defects/issues are commonplace and easily remedied at modest cost. The bridge was in fair condition and certainly not a cause for concern.
· There were no “very special circumstances” at Rudgate that warranted the infilling of a historic bridge within the green belt, whilst felling protected trees without authority. There is no evidence that safety was in any way a driver for the scheme despite it being undertaken unlawfully under emergency PD rights.
The comments of the 13th September 2024 can be summarised as follows:
· The submissions made by National Highways (NH) are still inaccurate.
· The arguments made on whether the structure is worthy of listing made by NE are not accepted.
· The September submissions by NH are inaccurate and mis-represent the position of the Heritage Group.
· Restate view that the misuse of permitted development rights for non-emergency works that were always intended to be permanent is a relevant consideration in determining this planning application.
Save Britain’s Heritage – Object on the grounds that:
· The bridge to be a non-designated heritage asset of high local importance and the impact of the infilling to be substantially harmful in heritage terms without adequate justification provided for this harm.
· The total infilling without planning permission is poor planning practice, reflecting widespread concern over the applicant’s unjustified and unsympathetic approach to managing and maintaining historic structures like this and elsewhere in the country.
· This application fails to protect the historic environment and should be refused.
· We support the HRE Group’s objection to the application, and their expert opinion that this is an important non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) built by a pioneering railway engineer. The bridge is a historically significant survival from the Harrogate to Church Fenton line which was closed in the 1960s as part of the Beeching cuts.
· The scale of harm or loss is the total loss of a NDHA whose local heritage significance is considerable. Accordingly, SAVE considers that infilling is a disproportionate approach which cannot satisfy the balancing exercise of NPPF Paragraph 209.
· It is considered that previous inspections did not indicate structural concerns to warrant infilling and there is insufficient justification for such an extreme action to outweigh the harm caused and fails to comply with heritage policies and tests set out in the NPPF.
· The application does not enhance or better reveal the bridge or the historic route of the former railway line and so fails to remain sympathetic to local character and history, as outlined within Paragraph 135 of the NPPF and contravenes Policy SP18 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan.
· The application does not conserve the distinct character of the district, which is enhanced by this historically important survival from the Church Fenton-Harrogate line. The application fails to comply with local and national planning policy.
Third party comments include:
Principle of Development
· The works conflict with green belt policy and are contrary to Paragraph 152 of the NPPF as there are no very special circumstances.
· The scheme is contrary to SP2, SP3, SP4, SP13, SP18 and SP19 of the Selby Core Strategy Local Plan.
· The supposed justification put forward retrospectively by Highways England is at odds with its initial assessment of the state of the bridge, from which one might reasonably infer that it is acting in bad faith.
Heritage
· All buildings and structures of this age (1846) are potentially Non Designated Heritage Assets and therefore a material consideration in terms of any planning application.
· The skew design of the bridge is of significant engineering interest and is a special characteristic of the bridge and it should have been repaired so also could be inspected.
· The application documents fail to consider the engineering implications of infilling suggesting the work is ' To prevent further deterioration' when in fact the work has covered up the main engineering element ' The Arch'.
· Heritage or non-heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate and the works have resulted in the loss of an asset and are vandalism by a public body and works should be reversed.
· The scheme is contrary to Paragraph 195 of the NPPF which recognises that heritage assets "are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations."
· The scheme is contrary to Policy SP18 of the Core Strategy and Paragraph 209 of the NPPF in terms of the impact of the heritage asset.
· Would have been far more economical to simply maintain the structure and also to preserve it for historical purposes and possible future use.
· Details of the stonework which is now entombed in concrete is unavailable for study as a result of this application. There is no provision in the works to protect the stonework which is stated to have moderate value.
· This was wilful, underhand and duplicitous damage to a historical artefact. The bridge should be sympathetically repaired as an important heritage asset, restoring its availability for any possible repurposing.
· This much admired bridge is a near unique example of its designer's work and is on a minor track with minimal road traffic.
· Unnecessary infill work to a structure of archaeological interest .
· All that was needed was a new fence.
Landscape and Character of the Area
· The scheme is contrary to Paragraph 135(c) of the NPPF which states that "Planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments...are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting..."
· Ugly and brutal infilling in a green belt area impeding routes for wildlife, protected trees felled illegally.
Highways
· Works impact on highways
· The infill also prevents the use of the bridge in future sustainable transport projects / recreational routes for the benefit of all and under SUSTRANS.
· There is no need for a 32ton limit on this bridge.
Trees
· They have illegally removed trees and works have impacted on others that remain as a result of changes in ground levels.
· They also cut down and/or damaged trees within a tree preservation area.
· The contractor felled and damaged trees in an area protected by Tree Preservation Orders, without authority.
Ecology
· Infilling the bridge prevents wildlife passing under it.
Residential Amenity
· Works impact on residential amenity.
Use of Permitted Development Rights
· The undertaking of the works using Permitted Development Rights is abuse of authority – the works were not emergency works and they saw it as a liability the works were always going to be permanent and took place 5 months after contact was made with the Council.
· No evidence provided that the works were needed to be undertaken as “emergency works.”
· Inspectors who visited the site prior to the works only recommended fence repairs not these works they were not emergency works and were not required.
· National Highways have abused their position and wasted money in an irresponsible fashion and should undo the damage they have done.
· Works were not intended to be temporary.
· Urge the authority to ignore the extant works and treat this application as applicable to the structure prior to the infill. The applicant should gain no benefit from having flouted or manipulated the planning system; indeed perhaps such behaviour should weigh against the application so as to deter repetition.
Other Matters
· Support the comments of the HER Group on the application.
· Works not in the best interest of natural justice.
· The application represents an underhand way of dealing with asset management that in no way benefits the local community and wastes thousands of pounds of money from the public purse – was never temporary or emergency works.
· National Highways have caused untold damage to the environment and wasted a huge amount of public money on a completely unnecessary dumping of concrete under a heritage structure, under false pretences.
· Once again NH has ridden roughshod over local opinion and planning regulations to destroy important industrial heritage.
· Baseless excuses they've provided must not be allowed to protect them from the fact than they've committed a serious act of vandalism, and lied to the public and the Local Authority in doing so.
· Environmentally the bridge has a certain embodied energy, (energy taken to quarry, manufacture and construct the bridge) that has been put at risk by the infilling and bringing forward the potential need to demolish the bridge at considerable further energy requirements, infilling is therefore not a sustainable solution.
· Granting permission must be opposed on grounds of proposing an inappropriate engineering solution that is not in the public interest.
· If allowed this will set a precedent.
· A message needs to be given to Highways England that they cannot get away with their high handed "what are you going to do about it" attitude.
· This is a tourist attraction and site for walking groups it is a shame that the bridge was infilled.
· The bridge should be restored without further damage to it or the protected trees surrounding it.
· The materials used are not environmentally friendly
· There was nothing wrong with the bridge structurally, under which a public route of access existed and which the infilling has blocked.
· National Highways is not fit for purpose – look what they are doing to Stonehenge.
· National Highways have done this before at Great Musgrave Bridge
· this will mean any hope of re-establishment of line is ended.
· Conservative repair would have been far more economical.
· Sympathetic reinstatement/refurbishment of the structure should be undertaken to maintain the structure for future amenity , all at lower cost and commensurate with lower loadings than considered by Highways England
· Their own advisors stated that the bridge only needed a fence repair.
· Given that we are moving to a low/nil carbon future, then redundant railway routes are necessary to keep clear of obstructions to allow for future use by cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders.
· If an act of parliament is required in order for a railway line to be created, operated or closed. Then surely an act of parliament is required for any part of a former railway line to be restored back into the condition it would have been in, prior to the coming of that railway, that would prevent any potential future reopening as a railway or other use along that particular linear route that has been created.
· Since this application seeks permission to infill the land subject to this application (under the bridge) to prior railway levels thus reversing the creation of this linear route granted by an act of Parliament. Therefore of the opinion that Parliamentary approval may be required!
· This bridge sits upon a line that I believe should be brought back into use to facilitate a rail service between Leeds and Wetherby for both passengers and freight. The amount of line that OFFICIAL could be reused for this purpose and the amount of new line that would be required, remains to be seen. However, any line would likely use this section of line that this bridge sits upon, between the West side of Tadcaster and the East side of Wetherby which is relatively intact!
· Moving material to the site to undertake the works will have environmental impacts.
· Unnecessary demolition of structure.