ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD PLANNING COMMITTEE

MAIDENHEAD DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL

26 September 2012 Item: 14 Application No.:

11/02183/FULL

Location: Maidenhead Waterways From Blackamoor Lane To Green Lane Maidenhead Proposal: Restoration and enhancement of the waterways channels, including: new weir and

lock, boat rollers and fish pass at Green Lane; new winding hole and day moorings; removal of the weir at Town Moor and beneath York Road Bridge, selective works to widen, deepen and line channels to create a minimum 1.3m deep draught navigable channel, formation of new towpath along the east side of Moor Cut, alterations to raise height of Library footbridge and two pipe bridges; demolition of Chapel Arches footbridge and works to trees within the Town Centre Conservation Area; new surfacing, landscaping and associated works, temporary vehicle accesses and construction compounds.

Applicant: Mr Davenport-Maidenhead Waterways Restoration Group Agent: Not Applicable Parish/Ward: Oldfield Ward If you have a question about this report, please contact: Peter Carey on 01628 796771 or at peter.carey@rbwm.gov.uk 1. SUMMMARY 1.1 At the 13th June 2012 Maidenhead DC Panel, the proposal to restore and enhance the 2.1km ring

of the York Stream and the Moor Cut/Maidenhead Flood Relief Channel (MFRC) to a navigable standard to support boating and to become a valuable amenity for the town was approved by Councillors subject to: 1) the applicant entering into a legal agreement to secure mitigation for the submerged/part submerged outfalls and the submission for a long term management and maintenance plan including the securing of a body to carry out the plan; and, 2) an exemption being granted under Article 4.7 of the Waterways Framework (WFD) and the River Thames Basin Management Plan following further evidence of the economic and rejuvenation benefits and that there are no viable/feasible alternatives to the proposal being provided to demonstrate that the proposals outweigh the failure to meet water quality targets.

1.2 Since the Panel meeting progress has been made by the applicant working with the Council to

address the outstanding matters – feasible mitigation has been identified for the outfalls and further evidence has been provided for the Article 4.7 exemption. However, the applicant considers that the completion of a legal agreement provides onerous obligations on them. The applicant maintains that a legal agreement is not necessary and that conditions of the planning permission would achieve the same outcome for minimising flood risk in respect of the outfalls and ensuring the future management and maintenance of the waterway in the interests of the environment, visual amenity and the safety of future users.

1.3 Officers consider that a legal agreement is the preferred route to secure the outstanding matters.

This report provides Panel with an alternative approach of using ‘Grampian’ style conditions (a planning condition attached to a decision notice that prevents the start of a development until off-site works have been completed on land not controlled by the applicant) but Officers consider that the use of such conditions would be less effective and could result in enforcement problems at a later date. The Barrister who previously advised the Panel to use a legal agreement has re-iterated advice that “a Grampian condition is clearly inadequate and unsuitable in this case”.

1.4 In terms of the Waterways Framework Directive, the applicant has provided further evidence of

the economic and rejuvenation benefits and the disproportionate cost of alternatives to the proposal. The Environment Agency (EA) – being the body responsible for water quality – reviewed the version of the assessment but felt it was too qualitative. The applicant is in the process of drawing up a more robust assessment using a cost / benefit analysis commonly used

163

by the EA. Once the analysis is completed the results will be required to be ratified and this will take place in early October; it will then be possible to conclude the matters necessary under Article 4.7 of the WFD.

1.5 There are no other outstanding matters – a copy of the original report is appended to this agenda

item as a background document. The conditions as originally recommended and subsequently amended by Panel are condition in Section 4 of this report.

The recommendation is amended accordingly:

It is recommended the Panel authorises the Development Control Manager:

1. To grant permission subject to:

a) the conditions in Section 4 of the report

b) an exemption being granted under Article 4.7 of the Waterways Framework Directive (WFD) and River Thames Basin Management Plan

OR

2. To grant planning permission subject to:

a) satisfactory mitigation measures to resolve the submergence/part submergence of the outfalls and secured through a satisfactory legal agreement

b) an exemption being granted under Article 4.7 of the Waterways Framework Directive (WFD) and River Thames Basin Management Plan; and,

c) a satisfactory legal agreement to secure submission of details of the long term management and maintenance of the development and the appointment of a Trust to oversee its implementation.

d) the conditions in Section 4 of this report except those relating to outfalls and future management/maintenance of the waterways.

3. To refuse planning permission if the matters identified in 1.above are not satisfactorily resolved due to the harm to aquatic habitats and failure to comply with the WFD and River Thames Basin Management Plan.

OR

4. To refuse planning permission if the matters identified in 2. above are not satisfactorily resolved due to increase in flood risk to people and property, harm to aquatic habitats and failure to comply with the WFD and River Thames Basin Management Plan, and that the long term management and maintenance of the development will not be able to be secured which could lead to environmental harm.

2. EXPLANATION Progress since the Maidenhead DC Panel Meeting Meetings 2.1 A working group to assist the applicant to progress the outstanding matters comprising of

representatives of the Council and Maidenhead Waterways Restoration Group (MWRG) has met 3 times since the Panel meeting on: 22nd June, 26th July and 31st August. MWRG also met Officers on 28th June to undertake an assessment of the mitigation for the outfalls. In addition, discussions have taken place with the Environment Agency and a Solicitor who was instructed to draft the legal agreement on behalf of the Council.

164

Issues 2.2 The main issue relates to the best approach to secure the mitigation for the outfalls and the future

management and maintenance of the waterways. The report also provides a progress update in respect of the exemption necessary under Article 4.7 of the Waterways Framework Directive

Securing the mitigation of the outfalls and future management and maintenance of the waterways A) Outfalls 2.3 As set out in the report to the MDC of the 13th June 2012 (see Appendix B), the raising of the

water level within the two channels would lead to the full and partial submergence of a number of outfalls. Such outfalls primarily provide drainage for the public highway and from a number of buildings and their car parks. It is necessary that such outfalls have the appropriate storage/conveyance to cater for overland flows of water. For more detail see paragraphs 6.49 to 6.54 of the main report.

2.4 When the application was originally reported to the Panel it was not known whether there were

technically feasible options available that could be constructed to ensure that there would not be an increase in flood risk. Since the Panel meeting an outline of measures to be used for mitigation has been put forward by the applicant. The outcome of the assessment is that it would be possible to implement solutions such as alterations to the height of the outfall, enlargement for storage of waters of the outfall and pumping stations.

B) Maintenance and Management of the Waterway 2.5 Once the scheme is constructed and operational, maintenance will be an important aspect for

aesthetic and environmental reasons, as well as in the interests of the safety of future users. In order to achieve this, it will be necessary for a maintenance and management plan to be drawn up and for a management company or Trust to be appointed to carry out the requirements of the plan in perpetuity.

C) Options 2.6 If conditions were considered the appropriate route by the Panel, then the wording is set out

below: Condition 26

No development shall commence until a landscape management plan, including the named management company, long term design objectives, management responsibilities, timescales and maintenance schedules for the channel to enable the free flow of water, its banks and adjoining land have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management plan shall take effect from the completion of the first phase and then each subsequent phase and then carried out as approved in perpetuity and the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of any changes in name and personnel of the management company.

Condition 31

No development shall commence until full details of measures to ensure the continued effective operation of all outfalls during both the construction and operational phases have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be installed as approved prior to any raising of water levels and shall be permanently retained and maintained in effective working order thereafter.

165

2.7 The wording of the outfall condition requires full details of the mitigation to be submitted before commencement of development and then prohibits the raising of the water levels until the mitigation measures for the outfalls have been implemented. In respect of management and maintenance, the condition requires full details to be provided and a body to carry out the plan to be appointed before development commences.

2.8 The wording of the conditions would provide safeguards by preventing the implementation of the

scheme relating to the raising of the water level; it is the raising of the water level that could result in flood risk if the outfalls are not altered. With respect to the maintenance/management, the requirements of the condition would mean that the agreed plan is carried out following completion of the first phase. The requirements could not be left to a later trigger, for example the raising of the water level, because of the phased approach to the construction; the phased approach will mean that it will be necessary for the channels to be kept clear and tidy as each part is completed and before the water level is raised.

2.9 However, the main risk in respect of using conditions instead of a legal agreement is that the

conditions could be claimed to be ultra vires because they require works outside of the application site on land which the applicant does not control and because conditions should not be used to secure ongoing requirements. This would then mean that the Council would not be able to legally enforce the requirements of each of the conditions.

2.10 Section 72 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) allows conditions to be

imposed on a grant of planning permission for regulating the development or use of any land under the control of the applicant (whether or not it is land in respect of which the application was made). ‘Control’ does not necessarily require ownership but in agreeing to the use of regulating land outside of the red line it would be necessary for the LPA to be satisfied that the condition can be complied with.

2.11 The land affected by the outfall mitigation is not within the ownership of the applicant. While some

land is owned by the Council or within the public highway which the applicant could have the benefit of ‘controlling’, the majority of the affected land is within private ownership. While stated above control does not necessarily require ownership, Officers consider that there is not sufficient control for the applicant over the land in question.

2.12 In the case of both the outfalls and the maintenance/management, because there would be on-

going requirements post the development and contractual arrangements such matters should not be left to a condition.

2.13 The regulation of both of these matters should be secured through a legal agreement. A legal

agreement was in the process of being drafted that would have required the final detailed solutions for the outfall mitigation to be provided before commencement of the development and a prohibition on raising the level of the water until the mitigation had been implemented. From obtaining further legal advice it has become clear that it will not be necessary for all the third parties who own/control the outfalls to be signatories to the legal agreement leaving it to be an agreement between the Council and MWRG. Instead, it is felt that a clause could be drafted that would require the applicant prior to constructing the waterway to provide evidence to the Council that each party has given their consent to the implementation of the detailed solutions of the mitigation. Only a legal agreement could secure this as Circular advice on conditions is clear that conditions should not be used to obtain authorisation from another body. The Barrister who advised the Panel in respect of the need for a S106 to cover both matters remains of the view that it would be inadequate and unsuitable in this case to use Grampian style conditions.

Waterways Framework Directive and The River Thames Basin Management Plan 2.14 As the proposals will result in lower biodiversity and a possible lowering of habitat or species

value the waterbody of the York Stream will remain of ‘poor ecological status’. As it will not be able to reach the objective of ‘good ecological potential’ by 2027, an exemption through Article 4.7 of the WFD is required.

166

2.15 At the time of reporting the application to the Panel, the applicant had largely met the exemption conditions as set out in Article 4.7 with the exception of a qualitative and monetised case being made in respect of the economic and rejuvenation benefits required for condition c) ‘sustainable development benefits’ and condition d) that alternatives to the proposal being either technically infeasible or resulting in a disproportionate cost.

2.16 The applicant had produced further evidence of the economic and rejuvenation benefits and the

disproportionate costs of alternatives to the proposal. While the EA felt that the additional evidence was useful, it has advised that the assessment is still too qualitative. The applicant is in the process of drawing up a more robust assessment of the proposal considered against alternatives using a cost / benefit analysis commonly used by the EA. It will be necessary for a review of the results to be ratified by a third party and as such it will be distributed to the steering group for the Rejuvenation of Maidenhead (PRoM) as it is made up of people with a variety of interests. Once the assessment is ratified it will then be possible to conclude the matters necessary under Article 4.7 of the WFD.

3. APPENDICES TO THIS REPORT

Appendix A - Site location plan Appendix B – Original report for application11/02183

4. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within five years from the date of this

permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

(as amended), a period of five years is necessary to enable the applicant to obtain the appropriate funding.

2 No development shall commence until details of the phasing for the delivery of the scheme have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The phasing shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the specifics of each phase is understood and the associated environmental impact that is required to be mitigated and/or managed as set out in condition 4. Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14, ARCH2; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4, MTC13, MTC14

3 The scheme shall be completed in its entirety in accordance with the approved plans and

conditions within five years of the commencement of the development and on completion of the scheme the water levels shall be raised in the 'ring' to a nominal 21.9 AOD.

Reason: In the interests of minimising environmental disruption and as completion of the entire scheme is necessary in order that there would not be any unacceptable flood risk. Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14, ARCH2, Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4, MTC13, MTC14

4 No development shall commence until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan

(CEMP) incorporating site investigation, site preparation and details of mitigation, implementation and management of construction activities that covers each of the phases as identified as approved under condition 2 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The CEMP shall include: A. Ecological management measures which shall incorporate the results of further surveys on

protected species prior to any site clearance and construction for any phase and appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures,

B. Landscape restoration and enhancement measures of all construction, working and storage

areas and all other new planting and hard landscaping. For the soft landscaping such details shall include a planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated

167

with the establishment of planting). For the hard landscaping such details shall include contours and levels, any means of enclosure, paths including widths and surface specifications and minor artefacts including any temporary siting and re-siting of such artefacts (e.g. furniture, signage, lighting and bins),

C. Tree and hedgerow protection measures, which shall include an updated British Standard-

compliant Tree Survey and Implications Assessment that takes into account the detailed design of the bank and footpath alterations (see B. and E. respectively), and subsequent Arboricultural Method Statement for retained trees and hedgerows, and an updated tree works schedule,

D. A method statement for the removal/eradication of Japanese Knotweed, Himalayan Balsam

and Orange Balsam including any measures to prevent the spread of this invasive species, E. Details of the bank alterations and dredging along the channel including the lining, the lining

materials and measures to stabilise the slopes of the bank, the paths, moorings, canoe launches and measures to minimise bank erosion from the wash of boats. Such details shall include a description of the works and cross-sections at 10 metre intervals (or other such intervals as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority) showing the proposed grading and mounding of the land along with the levels and contours to be formed in the context of existing vegetation and the surrounding landform,

F. Contamination, pollution control and waste management measures, G. Dust, vehicle and plant emissions management measures, H. Archaeological investigation, mitigation and management as well as details of any fixings to

Brunel’s Railway Bridge, I. Noise and vibration mitigation, J. Traffic and movement management plan detailing temporary haul routes, layout of the

compounds including visibility splays, how demolition and construction traffic will be accommodated, temporary diversions of footpaths and cycleways, and wheel washing facilities at the exit/entry of haul routes and compounds,

K. Temporary lighting, L. Measures to safeguard the structural integrity, and effective operation, of all bridges across

the waterway that are to be retained, M. Measures required in the interests of the health and safety of users of the waterway and

adjoining paths/cycleways, N. Measures to avoid stagnation of water to the south of the Chapel Arches and the full details

(including plans, cross sections and descriptions) of the lock, bypass channel, fish ladder and weir by Green Lane,

O. Details of the external materials to be used in the construction of the bypass channel, fish

ladder, lock, weir and moorings, P. Minerals recycling strategy, and Q. Details of the appointed Clerk of Environmental Works. The approved details A), E), L), N) and O) shall be carried out in accordance with the approved

details and retained thereafter. In accordance with approved details B) all hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in accordance with a timetable which has been previously submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In terms of details C) and K) such measures shall be removed once all works have been completed and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials are removed from the site.

168

In terms of details D), F), G), I) , J) and P) shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. In terms of N), the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved measures and shall be retained and maintained in effective working order thereafter. The approve details for M) shall be constructed immediately following completion of the bank alterations and construction of the paths (as phased accordingly) and shall be permanently retained in effective working order thereafter.

Reason: To protect the environmental interests and amenity of the area and for highway safety

and convenience, designing out crime, health and safety and inclusive design interests and to ensure the free flow of water and for recreational value. Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14, ARCH2, Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4, MTC13, MTC14

5 For the purposes of Condition 4, a ‘retained tree’ and ‘retained hedge’ means an existing tree

and hedge that is to be retained in accordance with approved plans and particulars. No retained tree or hedge shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without consent, or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within 5 years from the completion of each phase (as agreed as part of condition 2) hereby permitted shall be replaced with tree(s) of an appropriate size, species and planted in the same place as has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA2, GB2, DG1, N6; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4.

6 Any trees or plants secured as part of the landscaping under condition 4 B) which are removed,

die or become seriously damaged or defective shall be replaced within the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA2, LB2, DG1, GB2, N6, N7, R14, Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4

7 Notwithstanding the submitted plans no development shall commence until details of the new

ramps and bridges have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The ramps and bridges are:

a) the part of the Green Way adjoining 1 Bridge Avenue linking to the High Street, b) the footbridge from the Green Way to the area adjacent to the Maudsley Memorial fountain, c) the ramp from the Green Way to Crown Lane, d) the ramps underneath the bridge either side of Forlease Road, e) Ramp along Town Moor to serve the mooring, and f) Ramp on the north side of Brunel’s Bridge by Forlease Road. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained

thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in the interests of the safety of

future users and for inclusive design. Relevant Policies - Local Plan: CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, R14, T7, Area Action Plan: MTC3, MTC4, MTC14

8 The channel widening to the south of Chapel Arches shall not take place until redevelopment

has been completed in its entirety at 1 Bridge Avenue or satisfactory alternative arrangements are achieved to secure a minimum footpath width of 1.5m on this section or any other alternative solution to secure satisfactory access arrangements.

Reason: In order to provide satisfactory footpath widths in the interests of the safety of future users and for inclusive design. Relevant Policies - Local Plan: CA2, GB2, DG1, R14, T7, Area Action Plan: MTC3, MTC4, MTC14

9 The number of HGV movements using the haul routes shall not exceed 100 movement in any

one day (50 in and 50 out). Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and to minimise the impact on air

quality from dust. Relevant Policies - Local Plan T5, NAP3, Area Action Plan MTC4. 10 No development shall commence until the haul routes have been the subject of a highway

condition report prepared in accordance with Section 59 of the Highway Act 1980, and this shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

169

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience. Relevant Policies - Local Plan T5; Area Action Plan MTC4

11 The scheme shall involve a maximum of 10,000 cubic metres of imported mineral and a

maximum of 45,120 cubic metres of exported waste. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience. Relevant Policies - Local Plan T5;

Area Action Plan MTC4 12 The material to be imported and deposited on the site shall be clean and uncontaminated. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and the

neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. Relevant Policy - Local Plan NAP4; Area Action Plan MTC4.

13 No development shall commence until details other piling methods have been submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the protected of controlled waters from contamination. Relevant Policy - Local Plan NAP4

14 No development shall commence until full details of the bypass channel and trash screen have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such detail shall include demonstrating that the sizing of the bypass channel will provide the agreed level of mitigation up to the 1 in 100 plus climate change flood level. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and prior to any raising of water levels and shall be permanently retained and maintained in effective working order thereafter.

Reason: To minimise flood risk. Relevant Policies - Local Plan F1; Area Action Plan MTC4 15 The water level within the waterway shall be maintained at a nominal 21.9 metres AOD once the

weir has been installed and is operational. Reason: To ensure a constant water level in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and

ecological value. Relevant Policies: Local Plan GB2, DG1, Area Action Plan: MTC3, MTC4 16 No development shall commence until details of any back pumping of water and pollution control

facilities at the weir/lock have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable water level can be maintained in times of low flow by backpumping in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and ecological value. Relevant Policies - Local Plan GB2, DG1; Area Action Plan: MTC3, MTC4.

17 There shall be no abstraction from any water source to help maintain the water level as required

under condition 15. Reason: It is not necessary to abstract water for this proposal but any abstraction could have

environmental impacts that have not been assessed as part of this application. Relevant Policies - Local Plan GB2; Area Action Plan MTC4.

18 Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required

to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 19 to 23 have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing, until condition 20 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

19 An investigation and risk assessment of existing contamination, in addition to any assessment

provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in

170

writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include: - a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination, - an assessment of the potential risks to, - human health - property (existing or proposed) including bridges, livestock, crops and adjoining land, - groundwaters and surface waters, - ecological systems, - archaeological sites and ancient monuments, - an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model

procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11'). 20 A detailed contaminated land remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for

intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable or works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

21 The approved contaminated land remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its

terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification

report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

22 In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved

development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately in writing to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 19, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 21, which is the subject of the approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification

report must be prepared which is the subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 21.

23 A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the

proposed remediation over a period of 5 years, and the provision of reports on the same shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval.

Following completion of the measure identified in that scheme and when the remediation

objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

The must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and Environment Agency's 'Model

Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11'. Reason: For conditions 18 to 23: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users

of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors. Relevant Policy - Local Plan NAP4; Area Action Plan MTC4

24 Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

171

Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no fence, gate, wall or other means of enclosure other than that approved under condition 4 shall be erected on the site without planning permission having first been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the location, form, design and materials are appropriate for the character and appearance of the area, and in the interests of designing out crime and for users of the new paths and to minimise flood risk. Local Plan CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4.

25 No development shall commence until a timetable has been submitted to and approved in writing

by the Local Planning Authority setting out the appropriate stages at which monitoring of the effectiveness of the measures to mitigate the environmental impact of the development will be undertaken. Once monitoring has been undertaken at each stage, a report detailing the success of the mitigation measures including any further mitigation as may be necessary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If further mitigation is required it shall be carried out as approved and retained or maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the environmental interests and amenity of the area. Relevant Policies Local Plan: CA2, LB2, GB1, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14, ARCH2; Area Action Plan: MTC3, MTC4.

26 No development shall commence until a landscape management plan, including the named

management company, long term design objectives, management responsibilities, timescales and maintenance schedules for the channel to enable the free flow of water, its banks and adjoining land have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management plan shall take effect from the completion of the first phase and then each subsequent phase and then carried out as approved in perpetuity and the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of any changes in name and personnel of the management company.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and recreational value, the maintenance of the water body, to minimise flooding and to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures. Relevant Policies Local Plan CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14, ARCH2; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4, MTC13, MTC14.

27 Notwithstanding condition 4, no development shall commence until a Mitigation Scheme has

been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for the implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in Section 5 and Appendix A of the Water Framework Directive Compliance Report (Golder Associates report ref 09514100227.601/A.2, April 2012). Specifically where the ‘Management Plan’ or ‘Measure Incorporated within Design’ covers the following measures details shall be provided as follows: A) Installation of a fish pass at Green Lane lock/weir. The design must:- Allow multi-species passage of riverine coarse fish such as dace, chubb and roach- Allow passage at all stages of the life-cycle of eels (see European Eel Regulations 2009) including juvenile eels.- Be in an agreed location and of an agreed type- plan for maintaining flow over the fish pass during lower flow conditions B) The management plan should:- Ongoing monitoring of the physical form of the channel which should then be used to inform adaptive management measures of the channel- Silt management measures- Monitoring of vegetation to ensure it establishes in line with the management plan and to inform future management. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Mitigation Scheme and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of minimising the impact on biodiversity and to secure opportunities for biodiversity in and around the water body ‘GB106039023510 Cut (Binfield to River Thames Confluence) and Maidenhead Ditch’.

28 No development shall commence until a scheme for the detailed design for all the service

crossings along the channels has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall demonstrate that the designs will minimise the obstruction of flow and the collection of debris in the channel. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and prior to any raising of water levels. It shall thereafter be retained and maintained.

Reason: To avoid an adverse impact on in channel flows during a flood event and to ensure the risk of flooding is not increase. Relevant Policies - Area Action Plan MTC4.

172

29 Notwithstanding the submitted plans, there shall not be a construction compound to the north of

the former Symantec building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area as this area is to be landscaped as part

of the development at the former Symantec building. Relevant Policies - Local Plan DG1 and Area Action Plan MTC4.

30 No development shall commence until details of the following works to the West of Green Lane

Bridge have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: 1) the weir and 2) the weir and lock. The details of both 1) and 2) of this condition shall also include details of the bypass channel, fish pass and boat roller. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, plans and other conditions. Thereafter these structures shall be retained as operational.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to minimise the impact on biodiversity and in order to reduce flood risk. Relevant Policies - Local Plan DG1, GB2, F1; Area Action Plan MTC4.

31 No development shall commence until full details of measures to ensure the continued effective

operation of all outfalls during both the construction and operational phases has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be installed as approved prior to any raising of water levels and shall be permanently retained and maintained in effective working order thereafter.

Reason: To minimise flood risk. Relevant Policies - Area Action Plan MTC4. Informatives 1 The applicant is advised that the granting of planning permission does not give consent to divert

or obstruct a public right of way. To divert a public right of way an application must be made for this under S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Until an Order has been confirmed, every public right of way must remain open, unobstructed and on their legal alignment at all times.

2 Your attention is drawn to the document ‘Under Lock and Quay’ which was produced by the

Metropolitan Police and British Waterways in response in crime problems around waterways. In considering submission of details to comply with conditions regard should be paid to this document.

3 All archaeological work should be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced contractor. 4 The attention of the applicant is drawn to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980 which enables

the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic. 5 Contaminated matter that is excavated, recovered or disposed of, is controlled waste. Therefore

its handling, transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste management legislation, which includes: Duty of Care Regulations 1991; Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005; and, Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.

All contaminated materials should be adequately characterised both chemically and physically,

and that the permitting status of any proposed off site operations is clear. 6 The applicant is advised that details of the Council's requirements for Site Waste Management

Plans and Waste Minimisation Statements can be found in the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Sustainable Design & Construction Supplementary Planning Document, viewable at:http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/pp_sustainable_design_and_construction_spd.htm

7 Pursuant to S278 of the Highways Act 1980, now works may commence within the limits of the

public highway without the formal written agreement of the County Council as Highway Authority. 8 Pursuant to Section 149 and 151 of the Highways Act 1980, necessary action must be taken to

173

ensure that mud or other extraneous material is not carroued out of the site and deposited on the public highway. Should such deposits occur, all reasonable steps must be taken to maintain the roads in the vicinity of the site to a satisfactory level of cleanliness.

9 In order to improve the waterway as a potential urban fishery, the Environment Agency through

its Area Fisheries, Recreation and Biodiversity team would like to offer its help and advice to the applicant to produce a fisheries management plan. Fisheries advisory publications can be found at the following websites: www.environment-agency.gov.uk www.ifm.org.uk/ and www.bdaa.co.uk

10 In line with the gravel removal policy, the Environment Agency through its Area Fisheries,

Recreation and Biodiversity team would recommend that the extracted gravels could be used to benefit an area of channel outside of the application site to improve flow-dependent habitats.

11 The applicant should contact the Environment Agency to obtain the appropriate

consents/licences (Flood Defence Consent, Water Resources Permit, Section 60 Licence, etc.) 12 The Environment Agency recommends that consideration be given to the fish pass being a

furnished brush pass which has the benefit of being passable to canoes and eels. The form and dimension of the pass should be agreed with the Environment Agency through its Area Fisheries, Recreation and Biodiversity team advised by the National Fish Pass Panel (NFPP). Should the fish not be in accordance with best practice or is novel or unconventional, detailed considered by the NFPP, and subsequent monitoring, is likely to be required before approval is given.

174

The case file can be viewed at the Council’s Customer Service Centres or on the Council’s website at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk 11/02183/FULL Maidenhead Waterways From Blackamoor Lane To Green Lane Maidenhead

Organisation Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Department Planning & Development Comments Date 19 September 2012

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Licence Number 1000188017, 2011

SLA Number 1000188017, 2011

175

1

ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD PLANNING COMMITTEE

MAIDENHEAD DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PANEL

13 June 2012 Item: 1 Application No.:

11/02183/FULL

Location: Maidenhead Waterways From Blackamoor Lane To Green Lane Maidenhead Proposal: Restoration and enhancement of the waterways channels, including: new weir and

lock, boat rollers and fish pass at Green Lane; new winding hole and day moorings; removal of the weir at Town Moor and beneath York Road Bridge; selective works to widen, deepen and line channels to create a minimum 1.3m deep draught navigable channel; formation of new towpath along the east side of Moor Cut; alterations to raise height of Library footbridge and two pipe bridges; demolition of Chapel Arches footbridge and works to trees within the Town Centre Conservation Area; new surfacing, landscaping and associated works; temporary vehicle accesses and construction compounds.

Applicant: Mr Davenport-Maidenhead Waterways Restoration Group Agent: Mr John Alsop - Golder Associates (UK) Ltd Parish/Ward: Oldfield Ward If you have a question about this report, please contact: Peter Carey on 01628 796771 or at peter.carey@rbwm.gov.uk 1. SUMMARY The proposed development 1.1 The proposal is to restore and enhance the 2.1km ring of the York Stream and the Moor

Cut/Maidenhead Flood Relief Channel (MFRC) to a navigable standard to support boating and to become a valuable amenity for the town.

1.2 The area covered by the planning application for this development is shown in Appendix A. It

relates to the reaches of the York Stream and the Moor Cut/MFRC between their upstream diffluence in the north (by the Town Moor) and their downstream confluence in the south (at Green Lane Bridge). Whilst largely in a natural and overgrown state, the existing channels can also be described as being in a poor condition. The Moor Cut/MFRC is permanently dry now that its function has been taken over by the Jubilee River. However, the York Stream does have a shallow, flowing body of water. The application also includes the paths and planted areas that adjoin the channels.

1.3 The development will enable navigation by small boats such as canoes and punts. But in order to

minimise future environmental disruption, the scheme is designed in this application to achieve the long term vision for the waterways to be navigable by narrow boats (referred to as Phase 2). The later phase will require the raising of road bridges which will be the subject of a future application.

1.4 In order to stabilise the water levels within the ring, a lock and weir system is proposed to the

west of the Green Lane Bridge and two existing weirs will be removed. The lock will only be built as part of the Phase 2 works. Attached to the weir/lock will be a fish ladder, and a bypass channel to mitigate any slight increase in flood waters that may occur in the area above the weir.

1.5 Other aspects of the development include the provision of moorings, boat launching areas at

Green Lane and to the south of the Chapel Arches Bridge, alterations to existing paths and a new path created within the MFRC/Moor Cut channel.

177

2

The applicant and its vision 1.6 The applicant, the Maidenhead Waterways Restoration Group (MWRG), is a charitable

organisation that was established in 2006 with a vision “to bring the Thames into town”. The MWRG state that the aspiration of the Waterways Project is to:

- Create an accessible green corridor suitable for boat and water related activities, walking and

cycling; - Increase the attraction of Maidenhead town centre; and

- Help to stimulate regeneration.

1.7 Since the organisation was formed it has worked, and will continue to work, with various interests

to help formalise and realise its vision. Such interests include the Environment Agency which has navigation and flood responsibilities and RBWM which maintains the existing footpaths, along with various owners of the multiple uses within the application site.

Environmental impacts

1.8 Due to the size, nature and location of the scheme the applicant was required to undertake an

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposals. The results of the EIA were incorporated into an Environmental Statement (ES) that was submitted with the application. It emerged during consideration of the application that further information was required in order to determine the application and as such the applicant submitted further evidence in support of the case for the scheme.

1.9 The ES details the assessment of the significant impacts of the development at each stage i.e.

construction and operation. It identifies the current situation (known as the baseline), the nature of the impacts and the measures to mitigate and limit the impacts in each case. The following is a brief summary of each of the impacts.

Landscape and Visual impacts 1.10 There will be some improvements to the landscape and to views as a result of the presence of a

more substantial body of water in the ring. In addition, subject to securing final design details by condition for the engineering works to the banks and, once planting on the banks has matured, there will not be any harmful impacts. However, the proposals will result in the majority of trees being removed, with limited opportunities for meaningful replacement tree planting. As the existing tree planting is visible over a much greater distance than the channels – being a noticeable ‘green’ feature above and between buildings and within existing spaces – more weight is given to this as a defining aspect of the landscape. Officers consider that the overall impact to be ‘major adverse’ whereas the ES describes it as being ‘moderately beneficial’.

Ecology 1.11 No evidence was found of water voles, reptiles or badgers during the ecological surveys that

were undertaken. However, there was evidence of bats, breeding birds and various moths. Through stringent work practices during construction and the implementation of other mitigation measures, along with further surveys of the ecological habitat prior to any construction (including any additional mitigation), there will not be any significant harm to these protected species.

1.12 The construction of the weir and the lock at Green Lane will alter the watercourse in the York

Steam from a flowing water body (lotic) to a standing/slower flowing water body (lentic). The change from a lotic to a lentic water body will harm existing aquatic habitats particularly the protected species, the Bullhead Cotus Gobio; the proposals will result in lower biodiversity whilst also representing a possible lowering of habitat value.

178

3

1.13 The proposals will not contribute towards meeting the objective of improving the ecological potential as set out in the River Thames Basin Management Plan (RTBMP). The law does allow an exemption to meeting the requirements of the RTBMP subject to meeting four conditions as set out in Article 4.7 of the European Commission Waterways Framework Directive. Two of the conditions have not been met at this present time, and a third condition has been partially met. Until satisfactory details have been submitted in respect of the outstanding conditions of Article 4.7 it is recommended that planning permission and the exemption under Article 4.7 cannot be granted.

Flooding 1.14 In terms of fluvial flooding, the scheme will largely result in betterment to flood levels throughout

the town centre. But the original modelling shows that there will be a 0.12m rise in flood levels upstream of the weir/lock. However, further modelling by the applicant for this local area shows that there will not be an increase in flood levels; the assumption is that the outputs from the original model are within the tolerances of the models. However, a bypass channel is proposed to allow flood waters to pass around the weir/lock. Subject to no objection being raised by the Environment Agency, the proposals are acceptable on fluvial flood risk grounds.

1.15 There are a number of outfalls along the waterway that drain surface water into the channel. The

raising of the water level will lead to full and partial submergence of the outfalls. The loss of storage/conveyance could result in flooding occurring from manholes which would result in overland flow of water that could pose a risk to property and public safety. Mitigation has not been established for the outfalls.

1.16 While the applicant considers that a condition could be attached requiring details of the mitigation

measures for the outfalls to be submitted at a later stage because there will be technical solutions available, Officers consider that it is necessary to establish whether such solutions are feasible and can be secured in a satisfactory way before the application is determined. To attach a condition that the applicant then could not comply with because it transpires that there are not feasible solutions would render the condition unenforceable and the scheme could lead to harmful surface water flooding which could damage property and/or flood roads which could lead to accidents.

1.17 It is considered that it is unlikely that the lining of the channel beds and sides will lead to

increased ground water levels in the water table because the flows are likely to be alongside the channels. However, this is subject to confirmation by the EA.

Water resources 1.18 The evidence presented by the applicant shows that there should be sufficient water flowing into

the ring without the need to abstract water from the River Thames. During the infrequent times of low flows, pumps could be used at the weir/lock to pump the water upstream to avoid stagnation and algae blooms. A pollution monitoring system will also be necessary given the close proximity of the weir/lock to an effluent outfall.

Air quality 1.19 Given the limit on the number of HGVs during the construction phase and with appropriate

mitigation of moveable screens to protect the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties from construction activities, it is not considered that there would be a harmful impact. It is also considered that during the operational phase emissions from any motorised boats should be at a tolerable level.

Impact on heritage assets (Listed buildings, Conservation Areas and non-designated heritage assets)

1.20 The most important assets are the Grade II listed Maidenhead library, the Conservation Area,

Brunel’s bridges and the Moorbridge bridge. During the construction phase there will be some temporary, negative impacts because equipment and excavation will affect the quality of existing

179

4

views. In terms of the operational phase it is considered that the more substantial body of water will improve the appearance of the bridges. It is not considered that the new bridge by the library which needs to be raised higher compared to the submitted plans – the details of which will be secured by condition – would harm the setting of the listed building. Within the Conservation Area the removal of the footbridge and the presence of an improved waterway will preserve its appearance. The loss of the mature Horse Chestnut tree is regrettable but it is considered that there is sufficient space for a suitable replacement.

Archaeology 1.21 From current evidence there are no particular archaeological remains of value. However, the

applicant has agreed to undertake a scheme of archaeological works to enable any ‘preservation by record’ in case there are deposits below ground which may become unearthed during construction work. As such it is not considered that there would be any harmful impact on archaeology.

Minerals and waste 1.22 The proposals will result in both importation and exportation of materials. In the worse case

scenario that excavated/dredged material cannot be re-used on site to form the widened footpaths and re-profiled channels, and that the maximum amount of clay for the lining of the channel is imported then there will be a minor, adverse impact in respect of mineral extraction and diversion of waste to landfill. However, conditions are recommended to limit the amount of material that can be imported and exported, and for a waste and mineral recycling strategy to be provided.

Noise and vibration 1.23 The applicant advises that the construction works will take place in five phases. The highest

predicted noise levels will be in the final phase. Noise screens and other mitigation measures will be used to limit the impact on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby residential properties. However, with the mitigation in place the residents at Langdale Close will still experience noise levels above the recommended level during phase 5. As such living conditions will be affected, however, the impact is such that it will be temporary and for this reason is considered acceptable. The construction activities will take place between 9am to 5pm on Mondays to Fridays when most people are at work and this will help to minimise the impact. Furthermore, given separation distances between the working areas and nearby neighbouring properties, there will not be any significant impact from vibration. In terms of the operational phase while exact number of vessels using the waterways is not known, any increase in noise may be largely masked by local transport noises.

Contamination 1.24 The ES recognises the limitations of the investigations in respect of contamination. Therefore, to

ensure that there will be no harmful impacts from disturbance and mobilisation of contaminants, a further risk assessment and mitigation will be necessary. This can be secured via a condition.

Highway safety and convenience, and accessibility 1.25 Conditions are recommended to limit the number of HGV movements, the submission of details

relating to the compounds and details to protect the foundations/weep holes of various bridges that could be affected by the proposals to ensure that highway safety and convenience would not be harmed.

1.26 At a number of locations the minimum 3.5m width paths, as recommended in the Waterways

Planning Guidance, will not be able to be achieved. While this is unfortunate, it is considered that the proposals will still enhance leisure and recreational activities particularly as a result of the new path created within the Moor Cut/MFRC channel. Conditions are recommended to secure the new and re-aligned paths along with details of widths, surfacing materials and safety measures.

180

5

1.27 A number of the proposed ramps need to be re-designed and new ones provided to allow for an

inclusive environment this will be secured by condition. In addition, the proposals will result in the need to stop up the Green Way public right of way behind the Colonnade building. Concerns have been raised by consultees in respect of this matter because the alternative route for this path along Crown Lane is considered to be less desirable. It is accepted that using the route via Crown Lane and the new ramp to the Green Way is not the preferred solution. However, it is still acceptable as it is designated as part of the Green Way – it has footpaths on both sides of the road and the ramp should be a feasible option. It is not considered that this route would be harmful to the creation of an inclusive environment.

1.28 In terms of boating activities, it is considered that the proposals will not discriminate against any

members of the community. The area of concern expressed by consultees is access to the jetty to the south of Chapel Arches. Whilst it will not be possible for some people with disabilities to access this area from the High Street, boats could be launched from the moorings that lie to the south of the jetty and could be accessed from the open space to the north of the library.

Other matters 1.29 There will be large areas that will not experience high levels of natural surveillance. However, this

is quite common for paths alongside waterways. Details to ensure the safety of the community to ensure paths are wide and straight as possible and well lit will need to be submitted by condition. It is not considered that there are any conflicts with the Equality Act 2011 as a result of the proposals and a condition is recommended to ensure future management and maintenance of the proposals.

Balancing exercise 1.30 The majority of the environmental interests that would be affected by this development will be

adequately mitigated for and limited through details submitted via conditions. However, substantial harm has been indentified to the aquatic habitat and to landscape and visual interests. The scheme will also fail to achieve ‘good ecological potential’ as required by the RTBMP.

1.31 While substantial harm has been identified in respect of two aspects of the environment, there are sustainable development benefits that would accrue from the scheme that can be afforded significant weight in favour of the proposals. Article 4.7 of the WFD uses the same test needed to justify an exemption for the failure to achieve good ecological status as required by the RTBMP. This requires a balance to be made against any benefits to human health, to the maintenance of human safety or to sustainable development. In this particular case, it is the first benefit (human health) and last benefit (sustainable development) that are applicable. The wide ranging benefits that outweigh the harm and failure to meet the RTBMP objective of ‘good ecological potential’ are summarised below. - Enhanced recreational and leisure activities/opportunities and the likely increase in fitness

levels and an enhanced sense of well-being of members of the community. - There is a strong possibility that there will be economic benefits although the applicant has

not provided any evidence. - In terms of general rejuvenation benefits the waterways are part of the overall vision for

improving the town centre and will play a vital role in future proposals within the 3 Opportunity Areas that are allocated for development.

- The proposals will also result in betterment in flood risk terms across the town centre.

- Some weight needs to be afforded to the amount of support from the community for the

proposals.

181

6

1.32 Before the exemption made under Article 4.7 can be approved more information is required in respect of the economic and rejuvenation benefits. The case presented by the applicant is too qualitative and requires more quantitative and monetised information in respect to these benefits. In addition, further information is also required in respect of why there are not any feasible or financially viable alternatives that would achieve the same type of scheme (this is another requirement of the exemption conditions of Article 4.7). Through the submission of the satisfactory outstanding information and with the mitigation secured, the EA should then be able to agree to putting the scheme forward in the review of the RTBMP.

1.33 It is recommended that planning permission cannot be granted until a satisfactory case is made

for an exemption as local planning authorities are duty bound to consider the RTBMP in decision making and because of the outstanding issues with the submergence/partial submergence of the outfalls and that the EA confirms that there would not be any unacceptable flood risk. It is considered that the final approval of these matters could be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development.

It is recommended the Panel authorises the Head of Planning & Development:

1.

To grant planning permission subject to:

a) Confirmation of no objection from the Environment Agency on flood risk grounds;

b) satisfactory mitigation measures to resolve the submergence/part submergence of the outfalls;

c) an exemption being granted under Article 4.7 of the Waterways Framework Directive (WFD) for failure to comply with the objectives of WFD and River Thames Basin Management Plan; and,

d) the conditions in Section 10 of this report and any relevant conditions/legal agreements required to satisfy items b) and c) in this resolution.

2. To refuse planning permission on the grounds of increase flood risk to people and

property, harm to aquatic habitats and failure to comply with the RTBMP.

2. REASON FOR PANEL DETERMINATION

• The Council’s Constitution does not give the Head of Planning & Development delegated powers to determine the application in the way recommended; such decisions can only be made by the Panel.

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 3.1 The application site consists of the York Stream and Moor Cut channels, their banks, and the

paths and planted areas which adjoin them. It extends from Town Moor in the north, at a point just north of the diffluence of the two channels, to Green Lane in the south, just south of their confluence. The 2 waterways form a loop some 2.1 km in length.

3.2 The Moor Cut is now permanently dry with the water flow diverted down the York Stream channel

by means of a small weir located at the diffluence. The Moor Cut no longer operates as a flood relief channel as this function is performed by the Jubilee River. The York Stream is a tributary of the River Thames. It is a shallow stream that has at times been dry during low flows on the main river.

3.3 From the junction at Town Moor, the Moor Cut branch of the waterway runs southwards across

the moor, passing underneath the A4 dual carriage way at Bridge Road and the balustraded

182

7

bridge at Moorbridge Road. The Moor Cut channel continues down between Waitrose and the Waldeck Road Industrial Area and under the railway embankment to Stafferton Way. There is no public access to much of the southern section of Moor Cut, but there are informal footpaths alongside the northern section at Town Moor and also between Forlease Road and Green Lane.

3.4 The two channels rejoin at the confluence just above Green Lane. The waterway then widens

out becoming Bray Cut, which continues southwards beyond the application site until it eventually rejoins the River Thames alongside Bray Marina.

3.5 The York Stream runs south from the diffluence with the Moor Cut through a mix of commercial,

residential and community buildings and then between Hines Meadow car park and commercial development on the eastern side, underneath the Colonnade and out at Chapel Arches. The channel then continues down behind the library and the Council offices and under York Road (which has a weir beneath it) and the railway embankment to Stafferton Way. It meets up with the Moor Cut again next to the allotments that are located to the northwest of Green Lane. The Green Way linking Bray and Cookham runs alongside the York Stream through the town centre.

3.6 At the diffluence with the York Stream and Moor Cut, to the north is the Maidenhead Ditch and

beyond this is the Strand Water then there is the White Brook that crosses Widbrook Common. The White Brook links to the River Thames.

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND ANY RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The applicant, the Maidenhead Waterways Restoration Group (MWRG) is a charitable

organisation with a vision “to bring the Thames into (Maidenhead) town”. The proposal is to restore and enhance the York Stream and Moor Cut from the current low water flows and dry conditions in the respective ‘channels’ to a navigable standard for leisure use to support small boats such as canoes, punts and open launches. It will be necessary to line the channels in order to minimise leakage from the bed and to avoid raised water levels impacting on the groundwater table.

4.2 The proposals will also partially achieve the long-term vision of MWRG – referred to as Phase 2

– for the waterways to be navigable by narrow boats as there will be dredging and widening for this purpose, along with the raising of pipe bridges. The overall water depth except for certain bridges will be 1.3m and two way sections will be a minimum width of 7.2m and one way sections will be a minimum of 3.3m. The works are necessary as part of this planning application to avoid repeated disruption to the environment. However, the waterways will only be navigable by narrow boats following alterations to a number of bridges to achieve the necessary headroom. Phase 2 will be subject to an application at a later date.

4.3 To stabilise the water levels within the town centre ring, a lock and weir system will be required to

the west of the Green Lane Bridge. However, the lock will only be built as part of the Phase 2 works. To enable small boats to pass through individually without the water loss caused by opening the lock, boat rollers are proposed by the lock and weir. In addition, to allow the movement of fish and other invertebrates through the waterway a fish ladder is also provided in conjunction with these works. A bypass channel is proposed to mitigate any slight increase in flood water levels that may occur in the area above the weir.

4.4 The following paragraphs set out the description of the waterway proposals in a clockwise

direction around ‘the ring’ starting and finishing at the lock and weir at Green Lane. Green Lane lock and weir to Stafferton Way Bridge 4.5 An area at the confluence of the York Stream and the Maidenhead Ditch will be rounded off. The

path will be re-aligned by moving it further southwards to achieve the necessary width of the channel for two way movement. The overall footpath width will increase from 1.48m to 2m with a 1m wide verge. A number of trees in this area will be removed but there is scope for some replacement tree planting.

183

8

Stafferton Way Bridge to the Railway Arches (West) 4.6 The first part from Stafferton Way Bridge will be one way but will widen to a two way width. The

pipe bridge will be raised. A number of trees will be removed but there is scope for some replacement planting. The proposal does not include any alterations to the path alignment here and there will be no alterations to the railway bridge.

Railway Arches (West) to York Road Bridge 4.7 This will be a two way section with moorings on the bankside adjacent to the Spiritualist Church

and St. John’s Ambulance Centre. A number of trees will be removed and this area provides very limited opportunities for replacement tree planting. The weir beneath York Road bridge will be removed to enable one way navigation and for allowing water to pass along the channel.

York Road Bridge to the Chapel Arches Bridge 4.8 This area would be a two way section which will result in the raising of the footbridge across the

York Stream. Beyond the footbridge will be moorings. The area to the south of the Chapel Arches Bridge will be altered by cutting back the bank and the provision of a seating area and a jetty. The Horse Chestnut tree within the bank will be removed and the steps from the High Street will be altered. The western arch will be opened up to allow water to flow and the existing footbridge will be removed.

4.9 Through discussions with the applicant it is agreed that the widening of the channel at this point

will only happen when a minimum footpath width of 1.5m can be achieved on the eastern side of the water. The applicant has also agreed that there will be a ramp to the High Street instead of steps which will be secured by a condition. A number of trees will be removed on the western bank and there may be some impact on the long term health of the London Plane trees on the eastern side.

Chapel Arches to St Cloud Way Bridge 4.10 The Green Way currently crosses the High Street by the Chapel Arches then along Crown Lane.

The right of way then crosses behind the Colonnade building and the route continues along the Stream between the Hines Meadow Car Park and the gym via a ramp. As this section of the path will be submerged within the waterway, the right of way is to be stopped up. The alternative route will be Crown Lane and then via a ramp by the exit to the car park (the road bridge) then back onto the path – the resultant path and ramp will increase in width from 1.4m to 2m. This section of the waterway will be 3.3m in width.

St Cloud Way Bridge to the diffluence of the York Stream and Maidenhead Ditch 4.11 Under St. Cloud Way it is necessary to construct a trough to protect the path from flooding. The

waterway will be widened along this section to become a two way section. It will be necessary to remove a number of trees on the western bank of the site. To allow the water to flow into the waterway the weir at the confluence will be removed.

The diffluence to Bridge Road Bridge 4.12 The nose will be rounded off and close to this position will be a winding hole. A current public

right of way will be diverted around the winding hole. Beyond the winding hole, in a south easterly direction, for the next 200m the excavated material from the channel bed will be used to create a new path on the eastern side of the channel. From the new path will be a ramp and steps to an area of moorings. The moorings will be on a stretch from the new path to the northern side of the Bridge Road Bridge. The navigable waterway along this section will be two way.

184

9

Bridge Road Bridge to the Railway Arches (East) 4.13 There is a current platform beneath Bridge Road Bridge and Moorbridge Road Bridge that will be

used as part of the continuation of the path from the Town Moor but a 2m path width will not be able to be achieved for these sections. For the rest of the channel the excavated material from the channel bed will be used to create a new path of approximately 2m on the eastern side of the bank. This will then tie into an existing ramp the path will widen to 3m on the eastern side of the channel. The curved walls on the northern side of the bridge will be removed.

Railway Arches (East) to Forlease Road 4.14 For the section from the Railway Arches (East) to Forlease Road a galvanised steel walkway is

proposed on the eastern side of the waterway which will be 2m narrowing to around 1.4m in width. It will also be necessary to raise a pipe bridge within this section. There will also be steps in this area from the top of the bank just to the south side of the Forlease Road bridge.

Forlease Road to the confluence of the York Stream and Maidenhead Ditch 4.15 Beneath the bridge will be a trough to protect the path from flooding. From the trough will be a

ramp on the eastern side of the waterway. The channel will be widened to allow for two way navigation. A number of moorings are proposed on the eastern side of the channel. The alterations to the banks will mean that a number of trees will be removed.

Temporary vehicular access and compounds for the construction phase plus phasing of the

construction of the scheme 4.16 A total of six vehicular access points will be created and two compounds at the Town Moor and at

Green Lane. 4.17 The applicant has indicated that the construction of the scheme will be phased in the following

way: - Phase 1 (Diversion) – flows diverted into whichever channel is not under construction.

- Phase 2 (Pumping) – the constructed section will be de-watered and the flows diverted from the storm water outlets.

- Phase 3 (Piling) – where it is not possible to have banks that are sloped or lined with

gabions it will be necessary to use sheet piles.

- Phase 4 (Excavation) – in this phase the channel will be widened and deepened. - Phase 5 (Lining) – the channel bed and bank sides to be lined. Alternatives to the proposed development 4.18 It is a requirement of the EIA process to consider alternatives to the proposal. The ES states that

the project could not be situated at an alternate location as it is based upon the improvement of the existing waterways. In addition, the ES advises that irrespective of the aim of the project, to create a new waterway would not be practicable nor financially viable.

4.19 The applicant considered alternative approaches to create the ‘ring’ such as using a single reach,

a shallower/narrower channel, a larger system with direct links to the River Thames, raising of bridges and overbanks to avoid lowering the channel bed and use of a series of locks to raise water levels. The applicant has provided a qualitative argument against each approach with issues ranging from financial viability to increased flood risk.

185

10

5 MAIN RELEVANT STRATEGIES AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION

Local Area Agreement 5.1 The recommendation would contribute to the achievement of these selected priorities of the

Council and its partners:

Create cleaner, greener and safer public spaces

Promote healthy lifestyles

Promoting sustainable lifestyles and behaviours

Tackling inequalities and exclusion

More information on these priorities can be found at: http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/partnerships_laa.htm

Royal Borough Local Plan

5.2 The main planning considerations applying to the site and the associated policies are:

Pollution and Development

High risk of flooding

Conservation Area

Listed Building

Protected Trees

Leisure and Community Facilities

Wildlife Heritage Site

NAP3, NAP4 F1 CA2 LB2 N6 R14 N9

Maidenhead Town Centre Area Action Plan (AAP) 5.3 The main planning considerations applying to the site and the associated policies are:

Greening

Waterways

Community Culture and Leisure Accessibility

Opportunity Areas

MTC2 MTC3 MTC13 MTC14 OA3, OA5,

OA6 5.4 Supplementary planning documents adopted by the Council relevant to the proposal are:

• Sustainable Design and Construction • Planning for an Ageing Population • Interpretation of Policy F1 – Areas liable to flooding

More information on these documents can be found at: http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/pp_supplementary_planning.htm

Other Local Strategies or Publications

5.5 Other Strategies or publications relevant to the proposal are:

• RBWM Landscape Character Assessment – view using link at paragraph 5.4 • RBWM Townscape Assessment - view using link at paragraph 5.4 • RBWM Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – view using link at paragraph 5.4 • Maidenhead Town Centre Conservation Area appraisal – view at

http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/pp_conservation_consultation_appraisals.htm • RBWM Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan – view at

186

11

http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/prow_improvement_plan.htm 6. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATION 6.1 The applicant undertook an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) because this was necessary

given the size, nature and location of this scheme. The results of the EIA are incorporated into an Environmental Statement (ES) that was submitted with the application. It emerged during consideration of the application that further information was required in order to determine the application and as such the applicant submitted further evidence to support the case for the scheme.

6.2 The ES details the assessment of the significant impacts of the development at each stage i.e.

construction and operation. It identifies the current situation (known as the baseline), the nature of the impacts, whether these are direct and indirect, temporary or permanent and the measures to mitigate the impacts in each case. The ES also provides an outline of alternatives to the development and the reasons for selecting this scheme.

6.3 The report firstly assesses the principle of the development and then subsequent sections

examine the various environmental and other impacts arising from the scheme. The role of the planning system is to reconcile often competing objectives and for this reason at the end of the report will be consideration of the ‘balancing exercise’.

6.4 The key issues for consideration are:

i The acceptability of the development in principle ii Landscape and visual impacts iii Ecological impacts iv Flooding v Water Resources vi Air Quality vii Impact on Heritage Assets

viii Archaeology

ix Noise and vibration x Contamination xi Highway safety and convenience, and accessibility xii Other material considerations

The acceptability of the development in principle 6.5 The geographical extent of the proposals is described in Section 3 of the Report and shown at

appendix A. The majority of the scheme will be located within central and suburban Maidenhead but the area immediately to the south of the site is within the countryside

6.6 There are no specific policies in either the Local Plan or the AAP which promote the whole

restoration and enhancement of the York Stream and Moor Cut and neither is there a policy which against the principle of the proposals. However, it is well established through various documents namely ‘A Vision for Maidenhead Town Centre’, the ‘AAP’ and the ‘Maidenhead

187

12

Waterways Framework Planning Brief’ that part of the overall strategy for the rejuvenation of Maidenhead Town Centre is to improve and re-integrate the waterways into the townscape to enhance the environment and to provide a feature around which recreation and leisure activities can be encouraged.

Secondary Shopping Frontages and Employment Areas 6.7 Within central Maidenhead the waterway passes a variety of land use designations. The York

Stream branch passes directly through the Secondary Shopping Frontages of the High Street. The Moor Cut branch passes between the employment area of Reform Road/Oldfield Road. In addition, both The Moor Cut and York Stream are adjacent to the Howarth Road Industrial Area. The proposals will not have any direct impacts on the Shopping Frontages nor for the operation of the employment areas.

Opportunity Areas 6.8 The waterways and adjoining land will also pass through three areas that are allocated in the

AAP for mixed use development, namely the York Road Opportunity Area (Policy OA3), the High Street East / York Stream Opportunity Area (Policy OA5) and Stafferton Way Opportunity Area (OA6). An important aspect of future development within these areas is the integration of the waterway and for the developments to create an appropriate waterside setting. Therefore, the proposals are an important part of these allocated sites around which future development will need to be appropriately sited.

Green Belt 6.9 The southern section of the proposals between Green Lane Bridge and Stafferton Way are

located in the countryside which is designated as Green Belt. The nature of the proposals within this part of the site to provide a restored waterway with banks and new paths along with a lock and weir, fish ladder, bypass channel and boat rollers are appropriate forms of development in the Green Belt.

6.10 This scheme will provide essential facilities for outdoor recreation and incorporates

engineering/other operations that will maintain the openness of the Green Belt. The alterations to the landform which will be largely widening a watercourse, the creation of banks and new paths including any barriers for safety will not by their very nature have a harmful impact on openness. In addition, the construction of man-made structures to control the flow / movement of water and to enable the recreational activities to take place will not significantly compromise the openness of the Green Belt because these will be largely no higher than the surrounding ground levels.

6.11 In addition, given that the proposals will be of a minor nature that maintain openness, there will

not be any conflict with any of the relevant purposes of including land in the Green Belt namely: 1) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; 2) to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another and 3) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

6.12 It is considered that the proposals would be an in accordance with Policies GB1 and GB2 of the

Local Plan. Other matters 6.13 There are other constraints within the application site notably flood risk, a Wildlife Heritage Site,

the Maidenhead Town Centre Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings. In addition close to the site towards the South East is the Bray Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and further downstream is the Bray Pennyroyal SSSI. The impact on these aspects and other environmental impacts arising from this scheme are set out in the subsequent sections.

Landscape and visual impacts

188

13

6.14 There will be two distinct phases that will have landscape and visual impacts: the construction phase and the operational phase. Landscape impact is an assessment of the likely effects on key landscape features that contribute to the character of the area. The visual impact relates to an assessment of the change of views (a visual receptor as referred to in this section of the report is the person that will experience or receive the change/impact).

6.15 The ES does not set out the expected impacts during the construction phase. However, the

construction phase will have a negative impact on both the landscape and visual receptors, but the impact will only be a temporary one from activities such as earth movements, storage of materials and construction traffic and machinery.

6.16 The applicant from site observations has identified six discrete character areas which define the

existing local landscape character setting. Planning Officers agree with the assessment – these areas are LCA1 Town Moor (public park and open space), LCA2 Light Industrial Areas (generally with their backs to the waterway), LCA3 Town Centre Commercial (generally facing the waterway), LCA4 Large Scale Industrial/Commercial/Retail Parks, LCA5 Edge of Town Centre Residential and LCA6 Town Centre Residential.

6.17 In terms of visual receptors, the ES identifies these as residents at properties surrounding the Town Moor, within the town centre and edge of centre. In addition, other visual receptors listed are recreational users and workers at the various commercial premises. Officers agree with the conclusions of the ES that views of the waterway itself are largely restricted from outside the application site with the exception of the Town Moor. However, the ES fails to acknowledge that the corridors of trees within the ring are visible from a number of medium distance viewpoints both public and private.

6.18 The waterway runs through the six character areas. The western part of the ring is narrow with the eastern part – the man made channel – being much wider. On the whole the waterway corridor has a verdant appearance from the trees and other planting that can be found on both sides of the channels, although less so on the stretch through the Town Moor and on the western bank alongside the Hines Meadow Car Park. Beyond the trees and planting are a number of buildings and a variety of boundary treatments.

6.19 Where widening of the channel is necessary and/or further investigation identifies stability

problems, the banks will be re-engineered. The applicant has advised that the preferred gradient will be 1:2. There will be parts of the waterway where vertical banks will be required such as at inset mooring locations, the winding hole at the diffluence on the Town Moor and below Chapel Arches for the widened channel. The applicant has also advised that where the increased depth of the widened channel would cause the sloping banks to conflict with the path edges or extend outside of the application site then it will be necessary to provide vertical banks.

6.20 The banks will be sloped. Sloped banks are typical features of waterways. In the early stages following construction there would be a noticeable short term adverse impact because the slopes are likely to have a raw appearance until the planting becomes established. But once the planting has matured these will integrate into the landscape. The planting will be befitting to a waterside setting will also be beneficial. In the terms of vertical edges to banks, these would not have a harmful impact because they are common features within a waterside setting. Subject to a condition requiring the submission of the full details of the banks within the ring, there would not be a harmful impact on the townscape from this form of engineering.

6.21 The proposals involve the widening of parts of the channels, the removal of existing overgrown vegetation within the channel such as reeds and the creation of a slow flowing body of water. In addition, along the channel will be new and re-aligned footpaths and ramps, minor artefacts such as benches, bins and public art. Furthermore, there will be the new lock and weir and associated structures. These aspects of the proposals will either improve the overall appearance of the channel itself or have a neutral impact. Overall, there would be a positive improvement to the townscape and visual receptors.

6.22 In terms of the impact on vegetation cover, the original Tree Report recommends that a total of 77 individual trees and 20 groups of trees be removed for arboricultural reasons (typically health

189

14

and safety) and for certain trees and vegetation to be treated to promote healthy growth and development.

6.23 In the consultation response, the Tree Officer raised concerns about the quality of the submission for assessing the impact on the existing trees. The Officer pointed out that the assessment should have also analysed the impact on the trees from the various works such as excavation, re-profiling of banks and paths/ramps. While some details of the scheme have not been finalised, a further assessment was made of the likely worse case scenario of the impact on the trees along the waterway following two joint site visits with the applicant and the Tree Officer. As a result, the Tree Survey has been updated by the applicant. This shows that there will be the total loss of 112 individual trees (out of a total of 140 individual trees that line the channels) and a partial loss of 33 groups (out of 51 groups of trees that line the channels), with a further 9 trees and 2 groups being noted as potentially requiring removal subject to detailed design.

6.24 While the number of trees to be removed has been revised since the ES was produced, the ES recognised that the effect on existing vegetation would be significant. The ES points out that the majority of trees to be removed are in a poor condition (the majority being classed as Category B and C trees) with trees that have fallen into the waterway or are struggling to find light because of overgrown dense conditions. However, the Tree Officer disagrees with this stating that the grading should be raised to properly reflect their value within the riparian habitat. The Tree Officer also points out that the trees line both channels and make a very important contribution to the local landscape, creating an accessible green corridor. The trees can be seen over the rooftops and from nearby roads, footpaths, public open spaces and parks.

6.25 It is accepted that there are some damaged trees, some low grade trees and some struggling for survival because of the overgrown conditions within parts of the corridor. However, the collective loss of the majority of the trees will dramatically change the appearance of the verdant aspect of the channel. There are also some important individual trees which are of value to the townscape that will be lost such as the Horse Chestnut by the Chapel Arches and a Poplar on the Town Moor. In addition, a group of trees which are subject to a TPO on the west bank of the Moor Cut south of Moorbridge Road will need to be removed.

6.26 The applicant has provided indicative plans of proposed new landscaping within the application

site. This, the applicant argues, once established will help to mitigate the impact. It is considered that the indicative landscaping plans overstate the potential to replace the lost tree planting. This is particularly the case along the MFRC between Moorbridge Bridge to the Railway Arches (East) where this part of the channel will be largely devoid of trees because there is not sufficient space on the western side of the bank for replanting and there will be limited scope for planting on the new bank on the eastern side. Along the stretch of the Maidenhead Ditch, York Stream and from the confluence to Railway Arches (East) the Tree Officer considers that there will be some scope for tree planting within the new banks with smaller species being more likely. There will be scope within the Town Moor on the eastern side of the channel for a good level of tree planting.

6.27 While the ES states that the applicant believes there will be slight benefits to the landscape/townscape character and a moderately beneficial visual impact, Officers disagree because the current channel which is very verdant will be significantly altered to a harmful level. The current verdant corridor is a noticeable part of the landscape/townscape and the potential for replacement tree planting will not sufficiently mitigate – even on maturity – the loss proposed as part of this application.

6.28 The impact would also be harmful from viewpoints because of the loss of the trees and there will be an opening up of views of buildings such those within the industrial areas. There will be some new landscape and improvement to visual receptors from the flowing body of water but these will be contained to local views. As the existing tree planting is visible over a much greater distance and a defining aspect as a green corridor through the town more weight is given to this aspect. Overall, Officers would describe the impact based on the approach to assessing the magnitude of landscape and visual impacts as ‘major adverse’. As such, the proposals conflict with Policy DG1 5) and 11) of the Local Plan because the proposals will harm public views of the existing townscape and will harm the character of the area as a result of the loss of the trees which are considered to be an important feature. There is also a conflict with Policy N6 of the Local Plan

190

15

which recognises the amenity value of trees. As there is a conflict with these policies of the Local Plan, Policy GB2 6) is not satisfied, where the proposal is partially within the Green Belt.

Ecological impacts

6.29 The results of the ecological surveys are that no evidence was found of water voles, reptiles or

badgers. However, there was evidence of bats and breeding birds. The following sets out the impact on these species during both the construction and operational phases. There are no relevant policies in the Local Plan nor the AAP but one of the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is for planning to contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

Bats 6.30 The site provides optimal roosting, foraging and commuting habitat to a number of bat species.

The ES states that the site is likely to be an important commuting and population recruitment resource with the linear nature of the site and vegetation allowing bats to move both northerly and southerly. A roost of Daubenton’s bats was found during field surveys and twelve trees were identified as having ‘moderate’ potential for bat roosting.

6.31 Construction noise and vibration is likely to be localised and temporary which could result in

some disturbance. However, the greatest impact will arise as a result of the removal of a large number of trees and vegetation which could fragment the commuting and foraging habitat available to the bats. Of the twelve trees identified as potential for having bat roosts, one tree has already been removed (a willow) and the other ten will need to be removed to allow the enlarged channel to be built. As such only one tree with moderate potential for bat roosting will be retained. There will be no disruption to the bats in the Railway Arches. In terms of the operational phase, the impact will arise from the noise of the boats, an increase in low maintenance grassland and hard landscaping, and lighting.

6.32 The Council’s Ecologist has advised that if the removal of the trees is unavoidable the suggested mitigation should be sufficient to mitigate any adverse impact. The proposals are: stringent working practices during construction, undertaking the construction activities during certain times of the year, placement of bat boxes and using best practice guidance for lighting. However, it is likely that the suggested mitigation of ‘no net loss’ of semi-natural vegetation will be harder to achieve because of the limited space for new planting. Therefore, there may be some harm to the bats but the Ecologist has advised that this could be mitigated through off-site planting to complete gaps between hedges and/or the creation of new areas of woodland and scrub. There may be scope to achieve this on Council owned land such as Town Moor. Riparian terrestrial habitat

6.33 There will be a direct loss of habitat and an increase in habitat fragmentation to a variety of bird species as a result of the loss of trees and the reduction of scrub such as bramble and elder. In addition, the loss of bank-side vegetation will potentially limit larval feeding requirements for species such as the ghost moth that rely on ruderal habitats to fulfil their life cycles. During the operational phase, the riparian terrestrial habitat will be affected by increases in activity and landscape management techniques. To mitigate the impact, the proposal include a Japanese Knotweed management strategy, the creation of 600 square metres of scrub, natural colonisation of ruderal species, planting of a number of trees, and the provision of feeding perches and ‘habitat piles’. While it is unlikely that all the suggested semi-natural planting will be able to be achieved within the application site it would not significantly affect the riparian habitat. But, the increase in human activity is likely to have some harm on the habitat creation of birds.

6.34 The Ecologist advises that given the mobile nature of many animals, further protected species surveys should be undertaken prior to construction works. As such a condition is recommended to secure follow up surveys to be submitted along with a full mitigation strategy if species are encountered that could be affected by the proposals.

191

16

Aquatic habitat 6.35 The construction of the weir (and subsequently a lock) at Green Lane will alter the watercourse in

the York Stream from a flowing water body (lotic) to a standing/slower flowing water body (lentic). This will change the aquatic habitat through the reduction of the European protected species of the Bullhead Cotus gobio because this species favours fast-flowing, clear, shallow water. While eels were not noted during observational fish surveys it is likely that this species resides and migrate up and downstream within the site. In addition, juvenile fish species were observed in the stream along with 41 invertebrate taxa. All these species would be affected by the scheme.

6.36 In terms of species that rely on the aquatic habitat, kingfisher that was recorded as being present

during surveys in 2010 – this species relies on juvenile fish for feeding. Also present are the small square spot moth and the dusky brocade moth which rely on the presence of reedy canary grass and damp marshy places.

6.37 The Council’s Ecologist has criticised the ecological assessment as it fails to adequately review the fluvial/geomorphological implications of the scheme. However, the Environment Agency (EA) has informally advised that while the preferred choice would have been to assess the deterioration risks, the same conclusion would have been reached in respect of the ecological value that would arise from this scheme. Waterways Framework Directive

6.38 The Waterway Framework Directive (WFD) is a European Union directive which commits EU member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies by 2015. The WFD is implemented in England through River Basin Management Plans. The York Stream is part of a 19.65km specific waterbody that is identified in the local River Thames Basin Management Plan (RTBMP). However, the MFRC/Moor Cut is excluded. The RTBMP currently assess the York Stream as being of ‘poor ecological status’, with the objective of achieving ‘good ecological potential’ by 2027 and ‘good chemical status’ by 2015.

6.39 The proposals will result in lower biodiversity while also representing a possible lowering of habitat or species ‘value’ in this part of the waterbody as a result of the harm to protected species. The result of this development is that the objectives of the RTBMP will not be able to be met and the waterbody remains of ‘poor ecological status’. The WFD through Article 4.7 allows for an exemption to meeting the requirements of the River Basin Management Plan, although this is in direct conflict with the NPPF which states at paragraph 118 that where significant harm cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or compensated for then planning permission should be refused.

6.40 Article 4.7 advises that Member States are not in breach of the Directive when the following conditions are met:

a) all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impact;

b) the reasons for the modifications or alterations are set out and explained in the RTBMP;

c) the reasons for the modifications or alterations are of overriding public interest and/or the benefits to the environment and to society of achieving the objectives are outweighed by the benefits to human health, to the maintenance of human safety or to sustainable development; and,

d) the beneficial objectives served by the modifications or alterations of the water body cannot for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate cost be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option.

192

17

6.41 As part of the Article 4.7 exemption, the applicant has undertaken a Water Framework Directive

Compliance Assessment. The Compliance Assessment sets out where the mitigation contained in the RTBMP will be achieved and where there will be a conflict. Some of the mitigation measures that can be complied with as part of this scheme are: vegetation control techniques, removal of invasive species, sediment management strategies and measures to enable fish to access waters upstream and downstream of the weir/lock. The EA has informally advised that the mitigation is acceptable. Subject to securing the mitigation measures via condition, it is considered that condition a) is complied with.

6.42 Condition c) is referred to in paragraphs 6.119 to 6.132 sets out the justification for the scheme based on the benefits to sustainable development arising from it outweighing the benefits of the RTBMP (without the ‘interference’ of the waterways scheme). The outstanding conditions that have not been assessed are b) and d). In terms of b), this project is not currently referred to in the RTBMP but will need to be incorporated by the Environment Agency in the next review of the plan. Turning to condition d) the applicant has not provided any evidence to justify whether there is a better environmental option that has been discounted due to technical feasibility or disproportionate cost. The following is a table summarising the position in respect of the conditions of the WFD:

Conditions Compliance a) Yes, the mitigation has been informally agreed with the EA and a

condition is recommended to secure it is carried out. b) Yes, subject to the EA advising that this scheme will be referred to in

the next review of the RTBMP. c) Partially – see paragraphs 6.119 to 6.132 d) No, further details will need to be submitted by the applicant.

6.43 Until the outstanding evidence is provided and the project is set out in the RTBMP it is not

considered that the exemption under Article 4.7 of the WFD is met. Under Regulation 17 of The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) 2003, the decision maker must have regard to RTBMPs in exercising its functions. In this case the development would not comply with the RTBMP and therefore until the requirements of Article 4.7 are met it is considered that the Council cannot determine the planning application. It should be noted that while there is a conflict with national planning policy contained in the NPPF it is quite reasonable to consider whether there are other material considerations that weigh in favour of approving the development. As referred to in paragraph 6.42 above this is addressed towards the end of the consideration of the main issues.

Flooding Fluvial 6.44 Hydraulic modelling shows that in a 1 in 100 flood year event the scheme will, as a result of the

deepening and widening of the channel, result in a reduction in water levels throughout the town centre; such levels are expected to be lower by between 20mm and 430mm. This betterment in flood levels is welcome. However, the modelling shows that upstream of the weir that there will be an increase in the flood level by approximately 0.12m. To mitigate for the increase in water at this point, a 2m wide and 1.1m deep bypass channel is proposed to allow floodwaters to pass around the structure during a 1 in 50 flood event. The bypass will reduce ponding behind the weir so that flood waters return to existing levels.

6.45 While the EA has not raised a specific objection on flood risk grounds, it has sought clarification

regarding an assessment of the exact flood risk and whether further mitigation might be necessary. The Council’s Flood Risk Manager, however, has raised an objection on the grounds that the scheme should be designed to either result in no increase in flood levels or a situation of betterment (i.e. lower flood levels). This approach reflects Policy MTC4 of the AAP which states

193

18

that developments should not increase flood risk and reduce flood risk where possible. In addition, the Flood Risk Manager advises that his appointed consultant hydrologist (WSP) also raised concerns in respect of the hydraulic model used by the applicant to assess the impacts. These concerns included: more detail required on the interaction between the York Stream, Moor Cut/MFRC and River Thames; inconsistencies with inflows; and, no consideration of local surface water runoff into the watercourses.

6.46 While the concerns of the hydrologist appointed by the Flood Risk Manager are noted, the EA

has reviewed these and considers that there would be a negligible effect on the results of the model from changing boundary conditions. Therefore, given the stance of the EA – as statutory consultee that gives advice and support to Local Planning Authorities in determining planning applications – the hydraulic model is ‘fit for purpose’ and the outputs can be relied upon for assessing flood risk.

6.47 As a result of the issues with the flood levels upstream of the weir, the applicant’s hydrologist undertook further modelling but specifically for this area of the channel. The results of this bespoke model show that with the bypass channel in place there would not be an increase in flood levels which indicates that the increase as shown on the outputs from the original model are to do with tolerances within the design of models.

6.48 The background information on the model build is currently being reviewed by the EA to establish whether it is ‘fit for purpose’. At the time of writing this report, the EA has not formally commented on this matter. Therefore subject to the EA being satisfied with the model, no objection is raised to the proposals in respect of flood risk as overall the scheme either provides no worsening of flood levels (area around the weir) and betterment for elsewhere across the town centre. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy F1 of the Local Plan and Policy MTC4 of the AAP.

Surface water outfalls 6.49 There are a number of outfalls along the waterway that drain into the channel. As a result of the

proposals, WSP advise that:

- 12 outfalls would be fully submerged - 8 outfalls would be partially submerged

- 9 outfalls would have a freeboard of less than 300mm.

6.50 Full or partial submergence of outfalls will result in a loss of storage and conveyance for the

system upstream of the sewer. This loss of storage/conveyance could result in flooding occurring upstream sooner from surface water manholes, which would result in overland flow of waters and posing a risk to properties and public safety in the vicinity of the surface water system. WSP has also advised that the submergence of outfalls could result in sediment settling within these drains.

6.51 The applicant has advised that it has held discussions with RBWM and Thames Water, as both

organisations own a number of the outfalls, to establish the likely mitigation. Officers are not clear on the extent of discussions the applicant has held with the other owners of the outfalls in terms of solutions. The ES proposes re-grading and diversion of the sewers and in certain cases a pumping system but these are not specific to an individual outfall.

6.52 Officers consider that it is reasonable to use a condition to secure the mitigation to prevent surface water flooding, however, it is necessary for the specific solutions to be identified prior to determining the application. The current mitigation is too generic. It is important to ensure that each sewer can be adapted and that these works can be delivered in a satisfactory way. Both WSP and the EA advise that before a condition is imposed the Council must be satisfied that the mitigation is feasible.

6.53 Therefore, it is recommended that further investigation takes place into the bespoke design solutions for each outfall prior to formally determining the application and delegated powers are

194

19

requested accordingly. While the applicant considers that a condition could be attached to the permission requiring details to be submitted once the decision has been issued, should it not be possible to mitigate the impacts without works outside of the red line boundary then this would make the condition ultra vires and the Council would not be able to legally enforce the mitigation. Surface water flooding on roads could lead to accidents and in the case of property could damage goods which would not be acceptable.

6.54 Provided satisfactory bespoke solutions can be identified for the outfalls there would be no

conflict for this aspect of flooding in relation to Policy MTC4 of the AAP. Groundwater Flooding 6.55 Part of the works to ensure that the water level in the channel will be able to be maintained at

21.9m AOD involve lining the channel bed and sides. WSP have commented that while the lining of the channel will prevent seepage into the ground waters, it could also intercept existing subsurface flows and prevent water from the neighbouring soils entering the channel. This could lead to a backing up of water within the water table and result in flooding which would have an impact on properties within the vicinity of the watercourse, particularly for those with basements.

6.56 WSP have requested that groundwater modelling be undertaken to assess the impacts. However, the EA – as ground water flood risk advisors – have stated that the connectivity between the groundwater and the river is minimal in both channels. Given this, the EA has advised informally that groundwater flow direction is along the watercourse and that is unlikely that the lining will have an adverse impact on ground water levels in the local area when the water table is elevated. The EA conclude that it is not necessary to undertake further assessments and this is accepted. For this aspect of flooding, the proposal accords with Policy MTC4 of the AAP.

Water Resources 6.57 The availability of water to feed the ring to a water level of 21.9m AOD is essential for the

success of the scheme for navigation purposes. The ES refers to the Water Resources Study that was undertaken in 2007 for the applicant. Based on the data that was available at the time, forecasts were made for the projected water demand arising from the proposals using a number of assumptions and an estimation of losses (seepages, evaporation, leakage through the lock and the loss of water from the lock when the gates are opened).

6.58 The projected water demands are a minimum of 13.3 litres per second (based on fully lined channels and two locks) and a maximum of 52.9 litres per second (based on no lining of the channels and a single lock). As pointed out in a Clarification Statement on Water Resources and Supply by the applicant, since the water demands were calculated the scheme now proposes lining and also a much smaller lock. While the demand has not been re-calculated the maximum amount is a worse case scenario.

6.59 The ES concludes that local surface and groundwater will be very limited and as such these local water sources will not be sufficient to maintain the water levels within the ring. It goes on to further conclude that it will be necessary to abstract a maximum of 220 litres per second from the River Thames controlled via sluices. Since the ES was written, the EA has provided to the applicant flow and groundwater monitoring data from 2006 to 2009 taken from a point just above the ring; the data shows that the average flow is 108 litres per second with the lowest reading of 19 litres per second in the late summer of 2006 and the highest flow at 262 litres per second in the winter of 2008.

6.60 Based on the 2006 to 2008 data it is considered that this constitutes sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the water level will be able to be maintained at 21.9 AOD from existing flows. However, there may be a few days during the year when the flows feeding the ring will drop but during these situations it would be possible to use pumps to re-direct the water upstream to avoid stagnation and algae blooms. While there is a nearby effluent outfall at Green Lane, the ES advises that there would be a low risk to water quality from backpumping. It is recommended in

195

20

the ES that the use of pumps could incorporate a pollution monitoring system. Both the pumps and monitoring solution could be secured by a condition.

6.61 Therefore, there will not be any harm to existing or likely future water resources as a result of this scheme because it will not be necessary to abstract water. The applicant has advised that the EA has confirmed that it is more likely that a transfer, rather than an abstraction, licence will be required. The applicant will continue to take flow measurements in the northern feeder channels to inform the application for the licence. It is therefore considered that the scheme contributes to the NPPF principle of conserving the natural environment.

Air Quality 6.62 The main two types of air pollution will arise from vehicle emissions and dust. As the number of

daily vehicular movements will be 50 in and 50 out, there would not be a harmful level of emissions into the air. Nevertheless, the applicant has assessed current background concentrates of particulate matter surrounding the site and such concentrations are considered to be significantly below the UK Air Quality objectives. There will be no unacceptable impact from vehicle emissions upon air quality in the Maidenhead Air Quality Management Area.

6.63 In terms of dust, the potential sources include: the loading and transferring of material removed,

stockpiling; re-suspended dust caused by HGVs on access roads when the wind direction is not favourable and restoration. The sensitive receptors are at: Blackamoor Lane, Green Lane, Forlease Road, Langdale Close, Fotherby Court and York Road. Stafferton Way is described as being a sensitive receptor but at the low end (with the others at the mid level) of the classification of sensitivity. The main mitigation is to use noise screens to control the spread of dust (see paragraph 6.82 for more detail). The overall impact with mitigation and because of the short term/phased nature of the works is considered to be neutral for the mid level sensitive receptors and slight for the low level one. The impact will also be temporary and reversible.

6.64 While air quality levels should be tolerable during the operational phase from emissions from

motorised boats, the nature of the development to become a useable waterway will mean an increase in activity which is necessary for recreation purposes and to increase the activity within the town centre. The impact will be of a permanent nature.

6.65 The proposals are considered to comply with Policy NAP3 of the Local Plan as there will be no

an unacceptable level of air pollution.

Impact on Heritage Assets (Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and non-designated Heritage Assets)

6.66 Within the application site there are no listed buildings but there are a number within 500m of it.

The area of the application site around the Chapel Arches is within the eastern end of the Maidenhead Town Centre Conservation Area. In addition, the ES identifies the following heritage assets, namely: the weirs, the Chapel Arches, the Moor Arches Bridge, a sluice gate end wall and Brunel’s brick built railway bridges over the York Stream and Moor Cut/MFRC.

6.67 The nearest listed building is the Grade II building, Maidenhead Library. The widening and

restoration of the York Stream will have no impact on the setting of the listed building; in fact with the improved body of water it may improve its setting although this would be of a minor scale. Through discussions with the applicant, it has been agreed that the proposed raised bridge to the North East of the Library will be re-designed so that a ramp can be provided from the Green Way to Maudsley Gardens (details to be provided via condition).

6.68 The new bridge would therefore be a higher structure than the one that is currently proposed.

While, in views from the Green Way, part of the building will be obscured by the new bridge, this would not materially affect the setting of the listed building which is already partly compromised by the stepped arrangement of the green space and the memorial fountain. The proposal therefore accords with Policy LB2 of the Local Plan.

196

21

6.69 In terms of this part of the Conservation Area, the important features are the existing trees and the Chapel Arches. A flowing body of water would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Chapel Arches. The removal of the footbridge which currently severs views of the Chapel Arches would be a beneficial improvement. It will be important to ensure that appropriate materials are used to construct the jetty and the altered access from the High Street.

6.70 The loss of existing trees which are important for views into and out of the Conservation Area are

regrettable, however, there is scope for replacement tree planting on the western bank by the area of open space and within the area to the south of the Chapel Arches. As the vegetation matures in time, this will mitigate the loss.

6.71 In terms of the Conservation Area the proposals will preserve its character and appearance.

Conditions are recommended to secure details of new materials and planting to ensure that the scheme complies with Policy CA2 1), 4) and 6).

6.72 The ES also concludes that there will be a minor beneficial impact to the setting of Brunel’s

bridges and the Moor Arches Bridge from the flowing body of water. However, as it will be necessary to fix structures to Brunel’s bridges, a condition is recommended requiring details to be submitted to ensure that there will be no harm. In terms of the sluice gate end wall and the weirs it is agreed that these are of negligible value so their removal would not be harmful. It is not considered that there would be any conflict with aspects of the NPPF which seek to conserve the historic environment. Indeed the NPPF also refers to enhancing the historic environment which this scheme will do in terms of the non-designated heritage assets.

6.73 In the construction phase, the siting of construction equipment and the actual excavation and associated activities will have a temporary, negative impact on the heritage assets. As such there is no conflict with the above-mentioned policies.

Archaeology 6.74 To inform the assessment of the impact on archaeology, the ES includes the evidence of a desk-

based assessment of historic records. It also provides information from geological data (taken from borehole surveys in York Stream and north of Blackamoor Lane and test pits in the Moor Cut) that has been used to further inform whether there is potential within the application site for archaeological remains.

6.75 The ES refers to a total of eight potential sites of archaeological interest of which three would be

directly impacted by the works of construction. However, the archaeologist concludes that the three sites are either of negligible value and are likely to be largely or wholly destroyed as a result of previous works or of unknown value or existence. These are the former field boundary ditches, a 20th Century Warehouse and the Maidenhead section of the former Cookham and Bray canal.

6.76 While from the current evidence there are no particular archaeological remains of value, the applicant has agreed to undertake a scheme of archaeological works to enable ‘preservation by record’ in case there are deposits below ground which may become unearthed during the construction work. The scope and strategy for this will be agreed as part of the details in the Construction and Environmental Management Plan; as such the proposal accords with Policy ARCH2 of the Local Plan. Minerals and Waste

6.77 In terms of the dredging and/or excavation a total of 45,120 cubic metres of material, be predominantly silt dredgings and gravel this will need to be removed from the site. As referred to in the description of the development a lining is required – the preferred options are either a full clay liner or a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). If a GCL is used then less material will need to be imported and less material will need to be extracted. But based on the full clay liner in a worse case scenario of the anticipated 400mm thickness, 10,000 cubic metres of clay will need to be imported.

197

22

6.78 The material to be excavated will be re-used to form the new banks and paths. However, the specific amount that will be required to form the new banks is not known at present because the designs for these are yet to be finalised. In addition, the exact composition of the excavated/dredged material and whether any of it is contaminated will only be able to be established during the works. Wherever it is possible the applicant has agreed to recycle material as this is a better environmental solution to disposal. However, it will be inevitable that there will be some disposal. If waste material cannot be recycled and/or recovered then non-renewable resources will need to be imported. This would result in a minor, adverse impact but would not conflict with Waste Local Plan policy WLP6 which requires development to re-use/recycle waste. However, to ensure that material is reused on site, a condition is recommended that will restrict importation to clay only.

6.79 If a full clay lining is required, there will be a minor, adverse impact as this is a non-renewable resource. The applicant will endeavour to obtain extracted clay from other local projects to use on the site to mitigate the impact. As clay is a limited resource, it is considered reasonable to attach a condition that will require a maximum amount to be imported for the development.

6.80 In the worse case scenario that excavated/dredged material cannot be re-used and the maximum amount of clay is to be imported then there will be a minor, adverse impact. However, the impact will be limited as far as possible through the Construction and Environmental Management Plan in which the applicant will be required to set out a waste and mineral recycling strategy. The use of a condition to limit the amount of imported clay will also help to minimise environmental disruption. Such an approach will meet the planning principle as set out in the NPPF of conserving the natural environment.

Noise and Vibration 6.81 As set out in paragraph 4.17 of this report, the applicant intends to carry out the construction

activities in five phases. The main sources of noise from across the phases will be excavators, vehicular traffic, a water pump, a mobile crane and a Bomag roller.

6.82 The impact of the increase in ambient noise has been assessed on noise sensitive properties at

Green Lane, Forlease Road, Langdale Close, Cedars Road, Blackamoor Lane, Fotherby Court and York Road. The applicant has calculated that the maximum permissible noise at each receptor should be 65 dB(A).

6.83 Of the five phases, the highest predicted noise levels are expected to occur during the final

phase of construction. To limit the noise, the main mitigation proposed would be temporary portable noise screens that would be placed at the outer edge of the application sites and moved to shield the nearest noise sensitive receptors.

6.84 With the mitigation in place, it is predicted that the noise sensitive properties at Langdale Close

would be affected at Phase 5 where the noise levels will reach 67.4 dB(A). In all other cases noise levels will be below the acceptable level of 65 dB(A).

6.85 The applicant has advised that where sheet piling operations are required that these would be inserted into the ground using the hydraulic press method rather than by the drop-hammer method. Based on information provided by the Federation of Piling Specialists and the Steel Piling Group, it is predicted that using this method should not result in any significant vibration impact given the separation distances to neighbouring properties.

6.86 However, the applicant has advised that there is limited data in respect of vibration for the press-

in method and as local ground conditions may require a different method of piling, it is proposed that a scheme of vibration mitigation/monitoring will be undertaken at key receptors as part of the Construction and Environmental Management Plan.

6.87 In addition to the noise screens and the monitoring of vibration, other mitigation measures will

include for example: keeping plant and equipment in good working order; limiting hours of construction; where possible ensuring the separation distances to noise sensitive receptors are

198

23

as great as possible; and using materials and cabins to act as barriers. This will further help to mitigate noise and vibration from the construction activities.

6.88 In terms of the operational phase while the exact number of vessels using the waterways is not

known, any increase in noise may be largely masked by local transport noises such as road traffic and from the trains.

6.89 There will be a significant impact in terms of noise on Langdale Close residents during the construction phase, it will be temporary and a reversible situation. Noise levels should be tolerable during the operational phase, the nature of the development to become a useable waterway will mean an increase in activity which is necessary for recreation purposes and to increase the activity within the town centre which will be of a permanent nature. With appropriate vibration mitigation and monitoring during the construction phase there should not be an unacceptable impact. The proposals are considered to accord with Policy NAP3 of the Local Plan. Contamination

6.90 There has been some limited testing for contaminants in both the York Stream and the Moor Cut/MFRC. The limited tests that were undertaken show that within the York Stream the samples of extracted material can be classified as non-hazardous and in the Moor Cut/MFRC there are elevated concentrations of metals, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (a mix of hydrocarbons that are found in crude oil) and Polycylic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (these are formed during natural processes primarily from incomplete combustion of organic materials).

6.91 The ES recognises the limitations of the investigations and states that based on the review of the history of the area there could be potential sources of previously unidentified contamination. It also points out that construction activities have the potential to lead to contamination namely spillages of fuels, oils or lubricants and run-off e.g. increase in suspended solids, and importation of materials. Policy NAP4 of the Local Plan states that planning permission should not be granted for development that would pose an unacceptable risk to ground water and/or a detrimental effect on surface water. The NPPF also states that where a site is affected by contamination the responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer. It also requires ground conditions and remediation to be taken into account in decision making.

6.92 It is considered that existing contamination or previously unidentified contamination is likely to be localised. To ensure that there will be no harmful impacts from disturbance and mobilisation of contaminants, various types of mitigation are proposed including, further risk assessment and mitigation, the employment of good practice construction methods. In addition, any restoration material will be fully tested to ensure it is ‘clean’. With appropriate mitigation, there will be a neutral or slight adverse impact on ground conditions and human health.

6.93 During the operational phase, there is potential for contamination from oil spillages from boats and unauthorised waste disposal. The ES recognises that there is no clear way to mitigate the effects of unregulated activities and records the potential impact as neutral or slight adverse. Highway safety and convenience, and accessibility Construction Works

6.94 The main traffic impacts will arise from the delivery of plant, importation and exportation of materials and journeys by construction workers. With the restriction on the number of HGV movements of 50 in and 50 out per day along with further details to be provided in the Construction and Environmental Management Plan of the temporary compounds and entry/exit arrangements onto the highway network there will be no harmful impact on local roads.

6.95 In terms of the compounds, one is proposed at Green Lane and one on the Town Moor. In addition, an office compound is proposed on land adjoining the site of the former Symantec building. The owners of the land to the north of the Symantec building have raised an objection on the grounds that the MWRG temporary office compound may affect their ability to re-

199

24

landscape this area which is a requirement of their permission to refurbish and extend the offices. MWRG have requested that the Council varies the condition in order to allow a delay in planting of this area. However, the Council does not have the power to unilaterally vary the requirements of the legal agreement in respect of this area – this can only be done through the applicant applying for such an amendment.

6.96 Officers have been in discussions recently with the owners of the site who have indicated that the approved development and landscaping will start in the autumn 2012 with completion by September 2013. Therefore, the landscaping will be in place prior to any work commencing on the waterways so it will be necessary for the applicant to find an alternative location for the offices. There may be scope within the proposed compounds given that office accommodation should not take up a significant area of land. The applicant has proposed an alternative compound for the offices off Blackamoor Lane which is the site of the former Ray Social Club. However, as this site is outside of the red line it cannot be secured as part of this application and therefore it would not be reasonable to place a condition on any permission requiring details to be submitted of the temporary offices. Bridges

6.97 There are a number of bridges that cross the waterways and a number of paths that run alongside the ring. The lowering of the channel bed, the lining and the raising of the water level within the ring has the potential to impact on these existing structures. Based on existing plans of most of the bridges, the applicant has provided further information which sets out the likely structural alterations that may be required. In addition, the applicant has identified which bridges have weepholes that could be affected by the proposals. It is also important to ensure that the banks will be stable to avoid any sudden collapse which would affect safety for users. It is considered that it is both necessary and reasonable to secure the details to ensure the on-going structural integrity of the bridges and the stability of the banks. Accessibility

6.98 The Maidenhead Waterways Framework Planning Guidance states that where feasible dual use paths of a minimum of 3.5m for people and cyclists should be provided alongside the waterway. Due to the requirement for the minimum target width of a 7.2m channel to allow for two way navigation, there are a number of locations where footpath widths will not achieve the recommended minimum width of 3.5m. Section 4 of this report sets out where alterations are required to existing paths and the width of newly created ones.

6.99 The Public Rights of Way Officer notes that some of the proposed dual paths have widths of less than the 3.5m standard. While it is agreed it is unfortunate that wider paths cannot be provided, the proposals reflect the balance between the requirements of users of the paths and making the most of the opportunities to create a useable waterway.

6.100 Largely on the Green Way other than the re-alignment of the stretch between Green Lane and Stafferton Way, and a narrowing but maintaining a minimum of 1.5m by the bridge across the York Stream there will not be any other material changes to the current path widths of this recreational route. Where the widening needs to take place to the south of the Chapel Arches, this will result in a narrowing of the path to below 1m which would be unacceptable so a condition is recommended that will not permit the widening until a path of a minimum of 1.5m is secured using land at 1 Bridge Avenue. There will, however, be an improvement to the Saint Cloud Way underpass where the footpath will be widened from 1.4 to 2m and the headroom increased from 1.9m to 2.1m.

6.101 In terms of access along the Green Way for those persons with impairments, the applicant has agreed to amend the plans (details to be submitted via condition) to provide a ramp instead of steps leading up to the High Street to the east of the Chapel Arches and to redesign the proposed ramp across the York Stream to provide level access from the Green Way to St Ives Road and into the green space (the current proposal is for a bridge that ties into the existing steps and which would not provide for an inclusive environment). In addition, with the realigned

200

25

footpath between Green Lane and Stafferton Way, a ramp will be required to the west of Green Lane due to the level changes.

6.102 Concerns have been raised by consultees in respect of the proposed stopping up of the Green Way route at the rear of the Colonnade (High Street) which leads down a ramp between the gym building and the Hines Meadow car park. While there is an existing alternative Green Way route along Crown Lane, the Access Forum state that the public right of way took a number of years to secure and is preferred as Crown Lane has narrow footpaths and carries a significant amount of traffic during peak hours thereby making it less desirable. The Forum also questions the feasibility of the new ramp from Crown Lane onto the Green Way that forms part of this application.

6.103 It is accepted by Planning Officers that using the route via Crown Lane and the new ramp is not the preferred solution. However, it is still acceptable as it is designated as part of the Green Way - it has footpaths on both sides of the road and the new ramp to the path along the stream should be a feasible option. It is not considered that this route would be harmful to the creation of an inclusive environment.

6.104 In terms of the route along the Moor Cut/MFRC, it will be necessary to re-route a public footpath around the winding hole. The rest of the path will then continue along the Town Moor and along a newly created path on the eastern side of the bank. This path will be largely 2m in width but there will be places where this cannot be achieved, such as the underpass of Moorbridge bridge where the path width will be 1.38m wide and from the Railway Arches (East) to Forlease Road underpass where a 1.38m width will be provided. It will be necessary to provide ramps at the Town Moor north of Moorbridge Bridge and north of the Railway Arches (East) and south of the Forlease Road underpass.

6.105 The Public Rights of Way Officer has commented that the re-alignment of the public right of way between Green Lane and Stafferton Way will require stopping up of the existing path and verge. This will also be the case for the Public Right of Way to the rear of the Colonnade building. The Officer has also stated that in a number of places along the route permission will be required from various owners to enable ramps and paths to be constructed. It is recognised that for those sections of paths to be stopped up the applicant will need to apply for Stopping Up Orders under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and that if objections are received the Orders will need to be referred to the Secretary of State.

6.106 Conditions and informatives are recommended to secure the new and re-aligned paths along with submission of details of the widths, surfacing materials and safety measures. In addition, the applicant will also be required to submit details of temporary diversions of footpaths during construction of the proposals.

6.107 In terms of the boating activities, there is a boat roller at Green Lane and a jetty to the south of Chapel Arches. Given the level surface at Green Lane this will allow for those with physical impairments to gain access to the waterway. It will not be possible for those with physical impairments to gain access to the jetty from either the Green Way or the High Street. A ramp or lift would not be visibly acceptable as it would obscure views of the Chapel Arches which are an important feature. However, it should be noted that there will be accessible moorings to the south of the jetty – it will therefore be possible for boats to be transferred to the moorings from the jetty to provide a safe access to the waterway.

6.108 There will be a number of moorings within the ring. For the moorings on the Town Moor it will be necessary for the applicant to provide a ramped access – this will be secured by a condition. In the case of the other moorings across the ring, these will be accessible except for the ones near to Fotherby Court which will only be accessible from the water by those using boats. As set out above, the scheme will lead to an inclusive environment for those people wishing to participate in boating activities.

6.109 The Access Advisory Forum (AAF) have recommended a number of conditions should planning permission be approved to address concerns in respect of inclusivity. Planning Officers agree that it is reasonable and necessary to request full details of the paths and ramps and safety

201

26

measures for the footpaths and where there is restricted headroom for underpasses to be submitted for approval and it would be reasonable to consult with the AAF at that stage in respect of the proposals. For the reasons set out above, Planning Officers do not consider that these proposals would exclude any members of the community in terms of accessibility and therefore it is not necessary or reasonable to require further details other than those requested by conditions.

6.110 It is not considered that the proposals will not harm highway safety or discriminate on

accessibility grounds and as such the proposals comply with policy DG1 of the Local Plan and Policies MTC4 and MTC14 of the AAP. The scheme results in the need for a re-alignment of two rights of way. It is unfortunate that it will be necessary to stop up one right of way and as such this results in a conflict with Policy R14 of the Local Plan which seeks to safeguard existing rights of way. However, an acceptable alternative route will be available. In terms of other aspects of Policy R14 while the loss of trees will affect amenity to some extent for users of the Green Way, there will be other improvements such as the more substantial body of water. Other material considerations Safety and security

6.111 Policy MTC4 of the AAP requires developments to be suitable in terms of crime prevention and community safety and security. Policy DG1 of the Local Plan requires new public spaces to have a good level of surveillance.

6.112 The part of the waterway that is within the town centre will benefit from reasonable levels of natural surveillance from adjacent buildings and general activity of people. However, there will be large areas that will not experience the same level of natural surveillance. It is quite common for paths alongside waterways to be subject to less natural surveillance. It will be important to ensure that these will be as straight and wide as possible to give good forward visibility. Minor artefacts such as seating and public art will also need to be sited careful across the application site. Some limited lighting will also be necessary particularly in the section between Moorbridge bridge and Forlease Road.

6.113 The Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser considers that CCTV should be provided at the York Road section and Chapel Arches. However, this area experiences relatively good levels of natural surveillance give the town centre location and as such it is not considered CCTV is necessary. Furthermore, adjacent to the waterway within this part of the town there will be the opportunity to improve natural surveillance from developments that will come forward during the plan period. Equality assessment

6.114 Local Planning Authorities are required to pay regard to the Equality Act in carrying out its function. The applicant considers that other than those with a disability, all other so-called protected characteristics will not be significantly affected by this proposal. The assessment on disability is covered in paragraphs 6.98 to 6.110 of this report.

6.115 Officers also consider that the scheme will have an impact on the protected characteristics of ‘age’ and ‘pregnancy and maternity’. However, this is for accessibility only. Accessibility is covered in paragraphs 6.98 to 6.110 and as such it is not considered that the proposals will inhibit those younger and older members of society and women who are pregnant or those people looking after toddlers and children.

Management and maintenance

6.116 Once the scheme is constructed and operational, maintenance will be required to ensure the correct flow of water and for other environmental interests. In addition boating and public access infrastructure will require maintenance to ensure its quality and for safety of users. To ensure the future management and maintenance of the waterway, a condition is recommended requiring the submission of a plan that will set out the management company details, its responsibilities and the management/maintenance regime.

202

27

Amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties

6.117 There is a mix of neighbouring commercial and residential properties that are along both sides of

the channels. Throughout the report there is reference to the impact on amenities of the occupiers during both the construction and operational phases – see paragraphs 6.14 to 6.28 (landscape and visual impacts), 6.62 to 6.65 (air quality), 6.81 to 6.89 (noise and vibration impacts), 6.90 to 6.93 (contamination), 6.111 to 6.113 (safety and security).

6.118 For the most part, the impacts can be limited through the implementation of mitigation measures,

however, the main impacts are the loss of the trees which will affect the outlook from a number of properties particularly where views are opened up of industrial premises. There will also be some temporary, but noisy construction activities which will be noticeable to the residents of Langdale Close for the duration of the works. During the operational phase there will be an increase in the amount of activity along the paths and as a result of boating activities. Overall, this increase in the amount of activity is not considered harmful to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance nor to air quality. It is unlikely that there will be any significant overlooking to residential properties because of the presence of boundary treatments that will restrict views into gardens and the dwellings.

Balancing exercise

6.119 The majority of the environmental interests that would be affected by this development will be able to be adequately mitigated for and limited, through details submitted by condition. The same is also true for other matters such as highway safety, accessibility and community security and safety interests.

6.120 As set out in the report the proposal would result in substantial harm to the aquatic habitat as a result of the change in flow regime of the watercourse and the scheme would not enable ‘good ecological potential’ to be met as required by the RTBMP. In addition, the proposal would also cause substantial harm to the landscape and visual aspects in this part of Maidenhead as a result of the loss of a significant number of trees which have individual and collective value. This substantial harm cannot be adequately mitigated for and as such results in a conflict with policies of the Local Plan and AAP.

6.121 While substantial harm has been identified in respect of two aspects of the environment, there are sustainable development benefits that would accrue from the scheme that can be afforded significant weight in favour of the proposals. Article 4.7 of the WFD uses the same test needed to justify an exemption for the failure to achieve good ecological status as required by the RTBMP. This requires a balance to be made against any benefits to human health, to the maintenance of human safety or to sustainable development.

6.122 Guidance on the implementation of the WFD advises that to address condition c. requires the

assessment of the benefits and other costs to be based on an appropriate mix of qualitative, quantitative and, in some cases, monetised information. The guidance advises that the information necessary should be proportional and feasible to collect. The assessment

6.123 From a social perspective, the scheme will provide enhanced recreational and leisure activities/opportunities through the provision of new paths, improved accessibility and boating opportunities in what will be a properly managed and maintained environment. At present, anecdotal evidence would suggest that large sections of the community do not use the existing facilities; the waters are too shallow for boating and because of the largely unkempt feel to the stream and adjoining land which is primarily as a result of poor riparian management.

203

28

6.124 Enhanced recreational and leisure resources are likely to mean for some people improved levels of fitness. It may also lead to enhanced well-being as a result of the presence of a more significant waterbody and through creating a place to visit, relax and enjoy. This will result in health benefits.

6.125 While the applicant has not provided evidence to support the assertion that there will be economic benefits, it is likely that the scheme will attract an increased number of visitors who in turn will support local business. During the construction phase there will also be some benefits to the economy as a result of the applicant using local businesses and materials.

6.126 In terms of more general rejuvenation benefits it has been identified in the first main issue of this report that the restored waterway is an important part of the overall vision for improving the town centre. The waterway will also play a vital role in future proposals within the 3 Opportunity Areas that are allocated for mixed use developments, as it is likely to increase land values.

6.127 Officers consider that it is highly likely that the applicant can demonstrate both economic and

rejuvenation benefits. However, the case presented by the applicant is too qualitative and requires more quantitative and monetised information. This is considered both proportional and feasible to collect.

6.128 Some environmental enhancements in the proposals will result in betterment of flood levels which is considered important for safeguarding people and property from flood risk.

6.129 Some weight should also be afforded to the amount of support from the community for the scheme. While it is quite probable that there may be some duplication of individual supporters throughout the consultation exercises undertaken by the Council and the applicant, the following sets out the volume of feedback:

- 48 letters of support on the application consultation exercises - 107 signatures obtained by the applicant from an i-petition - 298 signatures recorded on the Public Consultation Event Feedback - 5 comments made through YouTube and the Maidenhead Advertiser Website

6.130 Planning Officers consider that the social, economic, rejuvenation and the betterment to flood risk

along with the support from the community for the scheme that provide more wide ranging benefits that outweigh the harm to the aquatic habitat, the failure to achieve ‘good ecological potential’ as required by the RTBMP, and to landscape and visual amenity.

6.131 Before the exemption made under Article 4.7 can be approved more information is required in

respect of the economic and rejuvenation benefits. The case presented by the applicant is too qualitative and requires more quantitative and monetised information in respect to these benefits. In addition, further information is also required in respect of why there are not any feasible or financially viable alternatives that would achieve the same type of scheme (this is another requirement of the exemption conditions of Article 4.7). Through the submission of the satisfactory outstanding information and with the mitigation secured, the EA should then be able to agree to putting the scheme forward in the review of the RTBMP.

6.132 It is recommended that planning permission cannot be granted until a satisfactory case is made

for an exemption as local planning authorities are duty bound to consider the RTBMP in decision making and because of the outstanding issues with the submergence/partial submergence of the outfalls and that the EA confirms that there would not be any unacceptable flood risk. It is considered that the final approval of these matters could be delegated to the Head of Planning and Development.

7. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT Comments from interested parties 136 occupiers were notified directly of the application.

204

29

The application was advertised in the Maidenhead and Windsor Advertisers on 25 August 2011 and it was subsequently advertised again on receipt of the additional information on 10th May 2012.

The planning officer posted 24 statutory notices advertising the application at various points

around the site on 24 August 2011

The following sets out the comments received at the time of writing the report. Any further representations that are made will be reported within the Update Report to Councillors.

49 letters in total (43 letters on the first consultation) were received supporting the application, the comments are summarised below with the figure in brackets representing the number of people making the comment. It should also be noted that there are some instances where people have commented under both consultations.

Comment Where in the report this is considered

1. In support of project (45) Noted 2 Support the principle of project (1) Noted 3. Will attract business and benefit whole town (24) Noted 4. Will reduce flooding (2) Noted and see

paragraph 6.44 5. Provides for much needed maintenance of the flood relief

channel Noted

6. Improves views and brings river back into the town (5) This matter is covered in paragraph 6.14 to 6.28

7. Additional wildlife benefits (2) This matter is covered in paragraph 6.29 to 6.43

8. Will improve degraded watercourses (12) This matter is covered in paragraph 6.14 to 6.28.

9. Will attract visitors (8) Noted. 10. Provides recreational opportunities for all (12) Noted 11. Will help link to Thames Noted. 12. Will extend safe areas that can be used for canoe training (2) Noted. 13. Such an enhancement would be a bonus but will be marred by

the presence of the skip business in Green Lane which would make it hazardous for leisure users (1).

Noted

14. Some cafes, sculpture trails etc along the route would be good (1)

Noted, proposals by others on sites adjacent to the waterway are likely to lead to complementary developments

15. My client has a number of land interests in the area and supports this well considered proposal that is essential to the achievement of the aspirations of the AAP, particularly at the eastern end of the town. A number of the projects he is considering have the potential to complement this project by adding further improvements to public access and through opening up areas adjacent to the York Stream. If permission is not granted, or is delayed further, that would jeopardise the achievement of the aims of the AAP and stall the regeneration process. (1)

Noted and welcomed. However, Officers consider that the application cannot be formally determined until the outstanding matters have been satisfactorily addressed.

16. As a privately financed initiative this will save the town the cost of maintenance of the channels (1).

Noted

205

30

17. Previous schemes and failures of planning have led to a contravention of flood plain regulations (1).

This is not relevant to the determination of the application.

18. The scheme will increase the Borough’s rateable value and should be welcomed by Council tax payers (1).

This is not relevant to the determination of the application.

19. This scheme will restore Maidenheads’ tourist trade (1). Noted 20. This waterway was well used in the past (1). Noted 21. It will be important to prevent underlying clay and peat beds

from drying out as this would cause subsidence damage to buildings (1).

There is no evidence presented that this impact would occur as a result of the proposals.

3 letters (2 letters by the same objector) were received objecting to the application, summarised as:

Comment Where in the report this is considered

1. No proper availability of water for the success of the proposal; problems associated with water flow in the Maidenhead Ditch span several centuries. No formal agreements reached with Environment Agency (EA) on water availability. No abstraction licence granted by EA

See paragraphs 6.57 to 6.61

2. Claims with respect to navigation rights along the length of the Maidenhead Ditch have not been substantiated. There are errors and omissions in the statements produced. Water comes from various sources inc drainage, water level flow, sewers, especially at Green Lane. This cannot be described as “waters of the Thames”. The words “main river” in the application is simply a term applied by the EA for its “responsibility” for the condition of the ditch

The EA have advised in a letter of 30th June 2009 that the waterways can be used for navigation purposes under the Thames Conservancy Act 1932. It is not considered that there are any significant errors or omissions in the application.

3. No proper regard paid to how the waterway would be used. There are potential safety problems relating to traffic direction and boating activity in general, by day and night, and in secluded areas, harming amenities of people and property. Health risks from people paddling or swimming in the deeper water. Potential parking issues associated with people transporting boats unresolved especially at Green Lane.

The proposals clearly identify how the waterway will be used. A condition is recommended in order to secure measures to protect people in the interests of health and safety. There are a range of public car parks in the area which could serve the main boat launch at the Chapel Arches. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be parking issues from people

206

31

transporting small boats at Green Lane.

4. Claimed economic benefits unsupported by evidence. Why should people come to Chapel Arches to watch the boats when the Thames is just up the road. The project costs cannot be justified, especially from public sources.

The application does not assess the economic benefits of the enhanced/restored waterway. It is agreed that further justification is required as part of the balancing exercise. The project costs are not material in the determination of the application and there is no evidence presented by the objector that the scheme is unviable. The proposals will enhance recreational / leisure facilities and it will be a matter for individuals to decide whether they spend their leisure time.

5. Whole length of the ditch is a Wildlife Heritage Site and Council has a “duty of care”, The EIA does not cover this adequately as whole waterway will be affected by boat traffic, intrusion of people to the detriment of wildlife habitats. Proposal will lead to urbanisation of the area and there is open country and rural area to the north and south with varying habitats and species. This would be destroyed.

This has been adequately covered in the EIA. See paragraphs 6.14 to 6.43

6. Queries future maintenance responsibilities and cites problems in the past in relation to this. Better to leave the waterway to people and animals not boats too.

See paragraphs 6.116

7. It’s just a new version of the Summerleaze proposal to restore a canal from Bourne End to Bray

This is not relevant to the determination of the application.

8. Jubilee River is available for boating Noted but this is not relevant to the determination of the application as there is not a planning policy on restricting boating activities.

9. Increase in water levels sufficient to allow boats will cause a flood hazard

See paragraphs 6.44 to 6.48

10. Major engineering works needed inc bridge renewal. Concern over costs and whether an allegedly quoted figure would be sufficient. Difficulties caused by different land ownerships

The project costs are not material in the determination of the application and there is no evidence presented by the objector that the scheme is unviable.

11. The whole escapade seems to be a nasty and unnecessary venture which obliges the vain wishes of very few persons but will not benefit public as a whole and will incur substantial debt to the public

This is not relevant to the determination of the application.

207

32

12. The intention is to only complete parts of the scheme leaving a potential flooding problem.

There is no evidence to suggest that the scheme will only be partially completed. However, a condition is recommended requiring completion of the entire scheme within 3 years of commencement of the development.

13.

Suggested alternative lock design which would be able to cope with flooding better.

There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. The scheme has been considered and the lock design is acceptable subject to a condition requiring submission of full details.

14. The EA want a fish ladder but doubt that there would be enough water for a salmon ladder. A very long slope would take less water but would be more of a minnow ladder than a salmon ladder.

The EA is satisfied with a fish ladder subject to the detailed design being submitted via a condition.

15. Raise points about volunteers and the work they will be doing to remove extracted material. It is suggested that volunteers could steer tugs and gravel barges and drive dumper trucks to the barges.

The appointment of persons to undertake the construction work is outside the control of the Local Planning Authority. This will be a matter for the applicant.

16. The scheme ignores flood control and that it will have to be drained in an emergency. The lock must therefore not be an after thought. It should be a guillotine gate as used in Leipzig, Germany. This is a much better type of lock during flooding events.

See point 13. above

17. The applicant will not get permission from Network Rail to lower the inverts for the Brunel bridges. These are historic structures on bad foundations. The applicant does not propose their own new arch through the embankment.

The details of any structural alterations will be secured by a condition and the applicant will need the consent of any owners. However, in this Phase the applicant advises that there should not be a need for structural changes to Brunel’s bridges.

2 letters were received commenting on the application, summarised as:

Comment Where in the report this is considered

1. As owners of 18 Fotherby Court who back onto the river and whose ownership extends to the water’s edge we are directly affected. However, we are unable to form a view on the nature and extent of how we will be affected whilst we are still in

An enforcement notice in relation to this unauthorised development has now

208

33

discussions about the refusal of our application for retrospective permission for a wall/fence and extension of an outbuilding. We cannot support this proposal until we know the outcome of this and therefore must object.

been served and appealed. It is not considered that development or process has any relationship with this application

2 Comments on the original submission: My clients are the owners of part of the application site which is annotated as an office compound on drawings R2.2.0 and CTX1. The legal agreement associated with the planning permission for the development of my client’s site requires this land to be landscaped. Although my client supports the overall scheme we would request an alternative location is found for the office compound and this could interfere with my client’s development. Comments on the re-consultation material: My client is working towards developing the approved scheme and would not wish for any time constraints to be imposed. A contractor is in the process of being appointed and works are due to re-commence in September 2012. As previously stated, my client is supportive of the overall works to improve the waterways and request that an alternative location is found and that the application is amended further.

This relates to the former Symantec office building on St Cloud Way where planning permission 07/02786 involving extension and refurbishment has been commenced but works have been in abeyance for some time. The legal agreement requires the area of land to the N of the building, between the site and the flood relief channel to be landscaped in accordance with previously approved details prior to occupation of the building.

Statutory consultees

Consultee Comment Where in the report this is considered

Highway Authority

No objection but raise the following points: - A Construction and Environmental

Management Plan will need to be submitted to cover the construction phase works e.g. transportation of the excavated material and parking and turning for HGVs.

- There are areas where headroom cannot be achieved so signage will be necessary.

- Path widths and gradients should meet appropriate standards

- A structural assessment to determine the impact on the integrity of the structures close to the water course was previously requested.

See paragraphs 6.94 to 6.110

209

34

Environment Agency

Raise the following list of omissions and clarifications: - Absence of a WFD Compliance Assessment. - Further details of the fish pass to be provided.

- Not all the impacts of abstraction have been assessed.

- The FRA must assess the impact of the increased flood levels.

- Pre- and post- mitigation discharge rates

should be compared. Mitigation methods and the practicality of them should be assessed for the outfalls.

- A culvert should be used instead of a bypass - The bypass should be designed with a trash

screen

- The merits of both underground and over-channel service pipes should be considered.

- There should be a clear understanding of the

management and maintenance responsibilities

- Raise questions in respect of the final design and asset management

- Applicant to consider where there are opportunities to reduce the number of narrowed sections in the interests of flood risks.

- Pollution prevention methods should be

considered and information provided at this stage.

See paragraphs 6.35 to 6.43 To be covered by conditions Not necessary following submission of further evidence – see paragraphs 6.57 to 6.61. See paragraphs 6.44 to 6.48 Agree. Mitigation needs to be established before permission is granted. See paragraphs 6.49 to 6.54. Not necessary and details of bypass to be secured by condition. The application needs to be determined in accordance with the submitted details. A management/maintenance plan will be secured by condition. This will be covered in the management/maintenance plan and other conditions. The application needs to be determined in accordance with the submitted details. To be secured by condition.

210

35

Natural England

No objection and comment: - There is unlikely to be a negative impact on

the Bray Meadow SSSI - The LPA will need to be satisfied that any

hydrological changes will not have a negative impact on important locally and nationally designated habitats.

- The views of the Council’s ecologist should be sought in respect of the impact on the Local Wildlife Sites of the Greenway Corridor and York Stream, and protected species.

6.29 to 6.43

Other consultees and organisations

Consultee Comment Where in the report this is considered

RBWM Public Rights of Way Officer

The proposals would affect a number of existing public rights of way

- footpath 89 which runs from Stafferton Way to Green Lane is part of the Green Way and National Cycle Route 4; the works in this area will result in the need to stop up the existing right of way and a subsequent new order to re-align the path further southwards close to the allotments. The footpath should be increased in width from 3m to 3.5m to comply with the Waterways Framework.

- footpath 77 which runs from York Road and across the currently footbridge over the York Stream will be affected as a result of the proposed ramp. It is recommended that the proposed ramp should replace the entire set of steps to create an inclusive environment to enable access to St Ives Road, the amenity space and the Green Way. The ramp will also lead to a reduction in the width of the Green Way footpath – it should be maintained at 2m.

- footpath 3c forms part of the Green Way and runs across the High Street and at the rear of the Colonnade where it then re-joins the Green Way. This footpath will need to be subject to a stopping up order because the part of the Green Way to the north of the Colonnade will be form part of the new banks to the waterway. The existing alternative route along Crown Lane may well be considered to be inferior to the existing route.

- footpath 3b will be widened which is welcome but details will need to be provided of the pumping mechanism to prevent flooding within the underpass. It is noted that the land upon which the ramp will be constructed is outside of the applicant’s control.

The proposal to create a new 2m wide footpath along the Moor Cut is welcome as it would add to the local footpath network. The ramps should ensure that an inclusive environment is secured but care will be needed in respect of the surfacing materials and other measures to ensure a safe environment for users.

See paragraphs 6.98 to 6.110

211

36

Some of the land upon which the path would be constructed is within private ownership – it is recommended that further discussions take place with the owners so that the footpath could be dedicated as a public right of way.

RBWM Local Access Forum

The LAF welcomes and supports the proposals but raises the following issues:

- the Panel needs to satisfy itself that the new 2m wide footpath on the Moor Cut could be achieved as a continuous path. The paths should also be as close to the new waterway as possible.

- Footpath 5A on the Town Moor will be severed by the winding hole and as such it is recommended that the route of the path is diverted around this part of the scheme.

- footpath 3C took a long time to achieve and is a more attractive route to the alternative footpath 3B along Crown Lane. Crown Lane has narrow walkways and is heavily used b vehicular traffic. The use of footpath 3B and the ramp from the car park bridge would not be a suitable arrangement and a retrograde step undoing the past work that secured a virtually traffic free route. A suggested alternative is to route a new path through the gym site and the LAF would like to point out that a ramp for footpath 3B was previously ruled out as not being technically feasible because it would undermine adjacent land.

- Path surfaces need appropriate materials and safety measures where footpaths are below 2m in width.

- The footbridge behind the library should be raised as a ramp to enable access to Maudsley Gardens.

- The proposed steps from the High Street to the Green Way (adjacent to the former cinema site of 1 Bridge Avenue) should be replaced with a ramp.

- Achieving the water flow is essential so as not to permit free standing water which would raise health and aesthetic concerns.

- Maintenance of paths is important. - Landscaping should be planted in a way that it

will lead to overgrowing and should not hinder forward visibility for security/safety reasons.

The AAF have requested the following conditions of any planning permission:

- A more detailed and robust approach to the Design and Access Statement e.g. incorporating solutions to concerns.

- Clarification as to how the scheme can be accessed by the entire community

- Where compliance with the current Equality legislation is at risk, the AAF requires the applicant to demonstrate alternative access

- All paths must conform to highest standards of accessibility

See paragraphs 6.98 to 6.110

212

37

- The AAF to be consulted as this project progresses

RBWM Access Officer

No objection subject to: the conditions requested by the Access Advisory Forum are adopted; access to the waterside on both sides and to the jetty at Chapel Arches is provided for all residents; and, access from the Library area to the waterside is made possible for residents with impaired mobility by the provision of a lift.

See paragraphs 6.98 to 6.110

RBWM Environmental Protection Officer

No objection subject to the submission, by way of a requirement of a condition, of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan that will cover matters such as dust and noise mitigation.

See paragraphs 6.62 to 6.65 and 6.81 to 6.89 and condition 4

RBWM Conservation Officer

No objection but comments: - any works or removal of trees will need careful

consideration and discussions with the Tree Officer

- Any new steps and ramps would need to be designed carefully and be constructed of high quality materials so as not to detract from the listed library building and the Conservation Area. There is no objection to the demolition of the bridge that is currently in the Conservation Area close to the Chapel Arches.

See paragraphs 6.66 to 6.73

Police Crime Prevention

Design Adviser

No objection but raise the following points: - CCTV should be provided particularly at York

Road and Chapel Arches - There should be natural surveillance of seating

and public art.

See paragraphs 6.111 to 6.113

Berkshire Archaeology

No objection subject to a condition which will required submission of a written scheme of investigation as the site falls within an area of archaeological interest where it is necessary to preserve by record any archaeological remains.

See paragraphs 6.74 to 6.76

Ecologists (Jacobs)

Comments on the original submission: Terrestrial – no objection subject to conditions to secure appropriate mitigation and for further surveys to be undertaken prior to any works taking place given that a 5 year permission has been requested. Geomorphology – inadequate information has been provided in respect of river morphology with the impacts of deepening / widening or ponding a watercourse need to be stated and mitigation explored. The assessment of this impact affects other parts of the environment notably ecology and water quality. The impacts on hydromorphology are not made and whilst this is a Heavily Modified Water Body it still needs to achieve ‘Good Ecological Potential’. Aquatic – the assessment of the baseline and potential impacts is sufficient but the lack of fisheries data weakens the Environmental Statement. In addition, the impoundment is likely to result in

See paragraphs 6.29 to 6.43

213

38

widespread community shift and habitat fragmentation. The placement of weirs is likely to result in increased sediment and turbidity and a decrease in the channel’s aquatic biological quality. Comments on the re-consultation material: Advise that where possible all trees with moderate or greater bat roost potential should be retained. But where this is unavoidable the mitigation as set out in the ES should be implemented in full. Any compensation planting should seek to create unbroken corridors of vegetation. If sufficient planting is not possible due to limited space enhancements could included off-site planting.

RBWM Tree Officer

Comments on the original submission: Object on the grounds that there is not sufficient detail in order to determine the true extent of the tree loss. However, significant tree loss would occur and the feasibility of replacement tree planting is questionable. Comments on the re-consultation material: The Tree Survey has been updated and as such even more trees will be lost. Such an extensive loss of would be harmful to the character and amenity of the area and remove a green corridor through the town centre. There are insufficient areas for an adequate amount of replacement planting because of the constraints of the scheme. Object as the development is contrary to Policies N6 and DG1 of the Local Plan.

See paragraphs 6.14 to 6.28

Maidenhead Civic Society

Support the principle of the scheme. Stress need to ensure adequate water flow will be available and that EA are committed to this. Responsibilities for long term management and maintenance need to be established. Historically problems have occurred where responsibilities of EA and RBWM overlap e.g unauthorised moorings. If narrow boats are allowed then day mooring must be enforced. Trust application will be an incentive to developers to come forward with attractive schemes as envisaged in the AAP. In this context support 5 year permission.

Noted See paragraphs 6.57 to 6.61 See paragraphs 6.116 This is not a matter that is relevant to the determination of the application. A 5 year planning permission is agreed.

Maidenhead and District Chamber of Commerce

Strongly supports proposal which will enhance the town centre environment and add value to redevelopment sites nearby. Scheme will be important to overall regeneration of the town. Chamber’s planning committee supports holistic approach to any development in the town and recently adopted AAP takes a great step towards

Noted Noted

214

39

such an approach. Should improve “policing” of the waterway and reduce dumping. Have no doubts it has the support of all the business community and the vast majority of residents.

Noted Noted

Amenity Societies

Comments on the original submission: Welcome plans and believe it will be an attractive feature. Concerned that the ditch is part of an awkward man made stream system that may continue to dry out and the ES does not pay enough regard to this. No matter what water enters the White Brook the amount that reaches the town is dependent on how unobstructed the watercourse is. Would have liked to see more detail on the maintenance regime to be implemented to keep the water flowing in all the streams north of Maidenhead. Once the flow stops algal blooms inc potentially the toxic blue/green alga are likely to occur in warmer weather. Comments that EA have previously declined to carry out maintenance work for amenity reasons. Aquatic weeds could be a hazard for boats with propellers. Concerned that liner to the waterway is robust enough to cope should dredging later be needed. Concerned over long term management responsibilities as EA unlikely to have funds to do this. Landscape plan shows Green Way route incorrectly Winding hole at N end should be moved to the E of the footbridge thereby avoiding need for footpath diversion. Welcome watertight route under St Cloud Way. Against diversion of Green Way up a new ramp near Hines Meadow Car park exit. This reverts to the previous road route that was a temporary measure. Green Way was designed to be traffic free. If the stream has to be widened the Green Way should be routed through the Chapel Arches bridge and if space is insufficient be on a suspended path above the stream. Welcome landscaping and make some points of detail. Comments made on the ecology section of the ES; believes further investigation of the position relating to newts is required. Regret likely impact on fish in York Stream as this is used as a nursery area. Concerned as to how engineering features will

Noted It would not be reasonable to require the applicant to undertake maintenance works outside of the application site that are the responsibility of the EA. In respect of low flows see paragraph 6.57 to 6.61 This would be a maintenance matter for the appointed body. Noted but does not affect the application. A footpath diversion will resolve this Noted Noted. The assessment has been made on the basis of the submitted plans. This is addressed at paragraphs 6.102 to 6.103. Noted. See paragraphs 6.14 to 6.28 There are unlikely to be newts present because of the fish that are in the stream. The water body will

215

40

overcome adverse impact of slow or static water movement. Comments on the re-consultation material: The proposed channel will have a significant impact on ecology that cannot be adequately mitigated or compensated for in accordance with the requirements of the WFD. Further technical information should be submitted to RBWM. Agree that with the EA that the assessment and mitigation of the impacts on aquatic ecology and river hydromorphology are inadequate. Do not understand the emphasis placed on the ecology of the Maidenhead Ditch by the EA. Clarification is required in respect of the engineering works to improve the flow from the north into the town centre channels. This includes details of any lining of the White Brook. It should be noted that lining will cause environmental disruption and complicate future removal of silt. Regular maintenance of the banks will be necessary – who will do it and who will pay for it? Clarification is required in respect of responsibilities for the maintenance as the EA have failed in the past. What measures can the applicant put in place to ameliorate drought? Concern that previous droughts have left the stream bed exposed leading to mud and smells. The Landscape Plan incorrectly shows the position of the Green Way. It should be corrected. The winding hole should be move eastwards to avoid having to divert the public right of way. Welcome the plan to provide a watertight route under St. Cloud Way. The stopping up on the Green Way north of the Colonnade is unacceptable. The Green Way was designed to be a streamside and traffic free route and the requirement to use Crown Lane would not achieve this. The Green Way route should be routed through the Chapel Arches Bridge on a suspended path above the stream instead of using the Crown Lane route.

become a slow/static. See paragraphs 6.38 to 6.43 and 6.119 to 6.132 See paragraph 6.37. The Maidenhead Ditch is part of the waterbody identified in the RTBMP. See paragraphs 6.57 to 6.61. It will not be necessary to undertake any works in the channels to the north of the application site. See paragraph 6.116 There should be sufficient flows of water into the ring. See paragraphs 6.57 to 6.61. It is not necessary to amend this plan. It will be necessary to divert the public footpath. See paragraph 6.105 Noted See paragraphs 6.102 to 6.103. The proposals have been considered on the basis of the submitted plans and concluded that there will not be any significant detrimental harm for users to the Green Way.

216

41

Sport and Recreation Alliance

Supports the aims of the project to allow canoes and other small craft to use the waterway. Publicity surrounding the Olympic Games should stimulate interest in rowing and canoeing. Welcome that ES balances sometimes conflicting requirements for wildlife protection with maximising accessibility and opportunities for sport and recreation. Supports use of developer contributions to fund the development.

Noted Noted Noted Noted

Canoe England

Comments on the original submission: Enthusiastic support for scheme that will provide new and much needed local facilities for what is a growing sport, particularly for youngsters. Note project will also regenerate flora and fauna and improve fish and wildlife havens. Such schemes have been very successful elsewhere Activity by canoeists deters crime and helps improve health and fitness without harming the environment. Comments on the re-consultation material: The scheme will be good for the area and good for canoeists. It is not clear from the plans how canoe access and transfer will be achieved at Green Lane. It is essential to provide easy access and levels to enable canoes to be handled to and from the adjoining footpath and the area by the rollers both into and from the main River Thames. Green Lane is currently used by canoeists and there is an expectation that this will continue.

Noted See paragraphs 6.29 to 6.43 Noted Noted Noted Green Lane will continue to be available for canoe launches. The levels between the water and bankside upstream of the weir should enable an appropriate launch. Notwithstanding this condition 4 requires the submission of canoe launches.

Rt Hon Theresa May

MP

Supports project as a key element of and catalyst for the wider rejuvenation of Maidenhead to make it an attractive place to live and work. Believes there is widespread support for the project, inc from the business community, following extensive consultation. Will address problems of litter, debris and vandalism No increase in flood risk and possibly some improvement EA have approved in principle the abstraction of water

Noted Noted Noted Noted See paragraphs 6.57

217

42

from the Thames Improved biodiversity

to 6.61 See paragraphs 6.29 to 6.43

8. APPENDICES TO THIS REPORT

• Appendix A - Site location plan • Appendix B – Layout plan • Appendix C – Artist Images of the lock/weir at Green Lane, and the area south of Chapel

Arches Bridge • Appendix D – Some key plans and cross sections along part of the ring

Documents associated with the application can be viewed at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/pam/search.jsp by entering the application number shown at the top of this report without the suffix letters. 9. CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION IF PERMISSION IS GRANTED REASONS ;; 1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced within five years from the date of this

permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

(as amended), a period of five years is necessary to enable the applicant to obtain the appropriate funding.

2 No development shall commence until details of the phasing for the delivery of the scheme have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The phasing shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the specifics of each phase is understood and the associated environmental impact that is required to be mitigated and/or managed as set out in condition 4. Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14, ARCH2; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4, MTC13, MTC14

3 The scheme shall be completed in its entirety within three years of the commencement of the development.

Reason: In the interests of minimising environmental disruption and as completion of the entire scheme is necessary in order that there would not be any unacceptable flood risk. Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14, ARCH2; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4, MTC13, MTC14

4 No development shall commence until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan

(CEMP) incorporating site investigation, site preparation and details of mitigation, implementation and management of construction activities that covers each of the phases as identified as approved under condition 2 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The CEMP shall include: A. Ecological management measures which shall incorporate the results of further surveys on

protected species prior to any site clearance and construction for any phase and appropriate mitigation measures;

B. Landscape restoration and enhancement measures of all construction, working and storage

areas and all other new planting and hard landscaping. For the soft landscaping such details shall include a planting plan, specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with the establishment of planting). For the hard landscaping such details shall include contours and levels, any means of enclosure, paths including widths and surface specifications and minor

218

43

artefacts including any temporary siting and re-siting of such artefacts (e.g. furniture, signage, lighting and bins);

C. Tree and hedgerow protection measures, which shall include an updated British Standard-

compliant Tree Survey and Implications Assessment that takes into account the detailed design of the bank and footpath alterations (see B. and E. respectively), and subsequent Arboricultural Method Statement for retained trees and hedgerows, and an updated tree works schedule;

D. A method statement for the removal/eradication of Japanese Knotweed including any

measures to prevent the spread of this invasive species; E. Details of the bank alterations along the channel including the lining and measures to stabilise

the slopes of the bank, the paths, moorings, canoe launches and measures to minimise bank erosion from the wash of boats. Such details shall include cross-sections at 10 metre intervals showing the proposed grading and mounding of the land along with the levels and contours to be formed in the context of existing vegetation and the surrounding landform;

F. Contamination, pollution control and waste management measures; G. Dust, vehicle and plant emissions management measures;

H. Archaeological investigation, mitigation and management as well as details of any fixings to Brunel’s Railway Bridge;

I. Noise and vibration mitigation;

J. Traffic and movement management plan detailing temporary haul routes, layout of the compounds including visibility splays, how demolition and construction traffic will be accommodated, temporary diversions of footpaths and cycleways, and wheel washing facilities at the exit/entry of haul routes and compounds;

K. Temporary lighting;

L. Measures to safeguard the structural integrity, and effective operation, of all bridges across the waterway that are to be retained;

M. Measures required in the interests of the health and safety of users of the waterway and

adjoining paths/cycleways;

N. Measures to avoid stagnation of water to the south of the Chapel Arches and the full details of the lock, bypass channel, fish ladder and weir by Green Lane;

O. Details of the external materials to be used in the construction of the bypass channel, fish

ladder, lock, weir and moorings; P. Minerals recycling strategy; and Q. Details of the appointed Clerk of Environmental Works. The approved details A), E), L), N) and O) shall be carried out in accordance with the approved

details and retained thereafter. In accordance with approved details B) all hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in accordance with a timetable which has been previously submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In terms of details C) and K) such measures shall be removed once all works have been completed and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials are removed from the site. In terms of details D), F), G), I) , J) and P) shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. In terms of N), the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved measures and shall be retained and maintained in effective working order thereafter. The approve details for M) shall be constructed immediately following completion of the bank alterations and construction of the paths (as phased accordingly) and shall be permanently

219

44

retained in effective working order thereafter. Reason: To protect the environmental interests and amenity of the area and for highway safety

and convenience, designing out crime, health and safety and inclusive design interests and to ensure the free flow of water and for recreational value. Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14, ARCH2; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4, MTC13, MTC14

5 For the purposes of Condition 4, a ‘retained tree’ and ‘retained hedge’ means an existing tree

and hedge that is to be retained in accordance with approved plans and particulars. No retained tree or hedge shall be felled, uprooted, wilfully damaged or destroyed, cut back in any way or removed without consent, or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within 5 years from the completion of the development hereby permitted shall be replaced with tree(s) of an appropriate size, species and planted in the same place as has previously been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA2, GB2, DG1, N6; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4.

6 Any trees or plants secured as part of the landscaping under condition 4 B) which are removed,

die or become seriously damaged or defective shall be replaced within the next planting season with others of species, size and number as originally approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. Relevant Policies - Local Plan CA2, LB2, DG1, GB2, N6, N7, R14; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4

7 Notwithstanding the submitted plans no development shall commence until details of the new

ramps and bridges have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The ramps and bridges are:

a) the part of the Green Way adjoining 1 Bridge Avenue linking to the High Street; b) the footbridge from the Green Way to the area adjacent to the Maudsley Memorial fountain; c) the ramp from the Green Way to Crown Lane; d) the ramps underneath the bridge either side of Forlease Road; e) Ramp along Town Moor to serve the mooring; and f) Ramp on the north side of Brunel’s Bridge by Forlease Road. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained

thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in the interests of the safety of

future users and for inclusive design. Relevant Policies - Local Plan: CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, R14, T7; Area Action Plan: MTC3, MTC4, MTC14

8 The channel widening to the south of Chapel Arches shall not take place until redevelopment

has been completed in its entirety at 1 Bridge Avenue or satisfactory alternative arrangements are achieved to secure a minimum footpath width of 1.5m on this section.

Reason: In order to provide satisfactory footpath widths in the interests of the safety of future users and for inclusive design. Relevant Policies - Local Plan: CA2, GB2, DG1, R14, T7; Area Action Plan: MTC3, MTC4, MTC14

9 The number of HGV movements using the haul routes shall not exceed 100 movement in any

one day (50 in and 50 out). Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience and to minimise the impact on air

quality from dust. Relevant Policies - Local Plan T5, NAP3; Area Action Plan MTC4. 10 No development shall commence until the haul routes have been the subject of a highway

condition report prepared in accordance with Section 59 of the Highway Act 1980, and this shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience. Relevant Policies - Local Plan T5; Area Action Plan MTC4

11 The scheme shall involve a maximum of 10,000 cubic metres of imported mineral and a

maximum of 45,120 cubic metres of exported waste. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and convenience. Relevant Policies - Local Plan T5;

Area Action Plan MTC4

220

45

12 The material to be imported and deposited on the site shall be clean and uncontaminated. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and the

neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. Relevant Policy - Local Plan NAP4; Area Action Plan MTC4.

13 Piling using penetrative methods shall not be permitted. Reason: To ensure the protected of controlled waters from contamination. Relevant Policy -

Local Plan NAP4 14 No development shall commence until full details of the bypass channel have been submitted to

and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and prior to any raising of water levels and shall be permanently retained and maintained in effective working order thereafter.

Reason: To minimise flood risk. Relevant Policies - Local Plan F1; Area Action Plan MTC4 15 The water level within the waterway shall be maintained at 21.9 metres AOD. Reason: To ensure a constant water level in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and

ecological value. Relevant Policies – Local Plan GB2, DG1; Area Action Plan: MTC3, MTC4 16 No development shall commence until details of the back pumping of water and pollution control

facilities at the weir/lock have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable water level can be maintained in times of low flow by backpumping in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and ecological value. Relevant Policies - Local Plan GB2, DG1; Area Action Plan: MTC3, MTC4

17 There shall be no abstraction from any water source to help maintain the water level as required

under condition 15. Reason: It is not necessary to abstract water for this proposal but any abstraction could have

environmental impacts that have not been assessed as part of this application. Relevant Policies - Local Plan GB2; Area Action Plan MTC4

18 No development shall commence until details of public art have been submitted to and approved

in writing by the Local Planning Authority including notification of lead artist(s) and/or public art consultant(s), Public Art Statement, consultation statement, submission of detailed designs and de-commissioning schedule. All works of public shall be completed and in place in accordance with a timetable for implementation that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. Relevant Policies – Local Plan: CA2, LB2; Area Action Plan: MTC1, MTC4

19 Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required

to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 20 to 24 have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing, until condition 20 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

20 An investigation and risk assessment of existing contamination, in addition to any assessment

provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

- a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; - an assessment of the potential risks to: - human health; - property (existing or proposed) including bridges, livestock, crops and adjoining land;

221

46

- groundwaters and surface waters; - ecological systems; - archaeological sites and ancient monuments; - an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model

procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11). 21 A detailed contaminated land remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for

intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable or works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

22 The approved contaminated land remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its

terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification

report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

23 In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved

development that was not previously identified it must be reported immediately in writing to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 20, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 21, which is the subject of the approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification

report must be prepared which is the subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 22.

24 A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the

proposed remediation over a period of 5 years, and the provision of reports on the same shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written approval.

Following completion of the measure identified in that scheme and when the remediation

objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

The must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and Environment Agency’s ‘Model

Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11’. Reason: For conditions 19 to 24: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users

of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors. Relevant Policy - Local Plan NAP4; Area Action Plan MTC4

25 Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order 1995 ( or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no fence, gate, wall or other means of enclosure other than that approved under condition 4 shall be erected on the site without planning permission having first been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the location, form, design and materials are appropriate for the character and appearance of the area, and in the interests of designing out crime and for users of the new

222

47

paths and to minimise flood risk. Local Plan CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4

26 No development shall commence until a timetable has been submitted to and approved in writing

by the Local Planning Authority setting out the appropriate stages at which monitoring of the effectiveness of the measures to mitigate the environmental impact of the development will be undertaken. Once monitoring has been undertaken at each stage, a report detailing the success of the mitigation measures including any further mitigation as may be necessary shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If further mitigation is required it shall be carried out as approved and retained or maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the environmental interests and amenity of the area. Relevant Policies – Local Plan: CA2, LB2, GB1, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14, ARCH2; Area Action Plan: MTC3, MTC4

27 No development shall commence until a landscape management plan, including the named

management company, long term design objectives, management responsibilities, timescales and maintenance schedules for the channel to enable the free flow of water, its banks and adjoining land have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management plan shall take effect from the completion of the first phase and then each subsequent phase and then carried out as approved in perpetuity and the Local Planning Authority shall be notified of any changes in name and personnel of the management company.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and recreational value, the maintenance of the water body, to minimise flooding and to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures. Relevant Policies – Local Plan CA2, LB2, GB2, DG1, N6, N7, F1, NAP3, NAP4, R14, T5, T7, R14, ARCH2; Area Action Plan MTC3, MTC4, MTC13, MTC14

28 Notwithstanding condition 4, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the

mitigation measures as set out in the Waterways Framework Directive Compliance Assessment. Reason: In the interests of ecological enhancement of the York Stream water body. Informatives 1 The applicant is advised that the granting of planning permission does not give consent to divert

or obstruct a public right of way. To divert a public right of way an application must be made for this under S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Until an Order has been confirmed, every public right of way must remain open, unobstructed and on their legal alignment at all times.

2 Your attention is drawn to the document ‘Under Lock and Quay’ which was produced by the

Metropolitan Police and British Waterways in response in crime problems around waterways. In considering submission of details to comply with conditions regard should be paid to this document.

3 All archaeological work should be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced contractor. 4 The attention of the applicant is drawn to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980 which enables

the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic. 5 Contaminated matter that is excavated, recovered or disposed of, is controlled waste. Therefore

its handling, transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste management legislation, which includes: Duty of Care Regulations 1991; Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005; and, Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007.

All contaminated materials should be adequately characterised both chemically and physically, and that the

permitting status of any proposed off site operations is clear.

223

The case file can be viewed at the Council’s Customer Service Centres or on the Council’s website at http://www.rbwm.gov.uk 11/02183/FULL Maidenhead Waterways From Blackamoor Lane to Green Lane Maidenhead

Organisation Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Department Planning & Development Comments Date 2 February 2012

is map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material on behalf of the controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Licence Number 1000188017, 2011 SLA Number 1000188017, 2011

48 224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240