Agenda item

Construction of a two-platform railway station including: ramped pedestrian access, new highway access; modifications to existing highways including pedestrian footways; provision of parking for cars, electric vehicles, motorcycles, cycles, and taxis and other associated works. Construction of facilities ancillary to the station including, lighting, soft and hard landscaping, surface and subsurface drainage, utilities and other services, boundary treatment and other associated works

Bedlington Railway Station, Station Street, Bedlington, Northumberland

NE22 5UZ

Construction of a two-platform railway station including: ramped pedestrian access, new highway access; modifications to existing highways including pedestrian footways; provision of parking for cars, electric vehicles, motorcycles, cycles, and taxis and other associated works. Construction of facilities ancillary to the station including, lighting, soft and hard landscaping, surface and subsurface drainage, utilities and other services, boundary treatment and other associated works

Bedlington Railway Station, Station Street, Bedlington, Northumberland

NE22 5UZ

G. Halliday, Consultant Planner provided an introduction to the report with the aid of a power point presentation which included visualisations of the proposed development.  Updates were provided as follows:

·       East Bedlington Parish Council had now advised that they were in support of the application.

·       A letter had been received from Mr Orr, Consultant for Ward Hadaway who were acting on behalf of Bernicia Group in their objection to the application.  The letter set out comments relating to noise impacts and requesting that any decision should be deferred until the severity and cumulative impacts had been assessed in detail and all appropriate information had been put before the Committee.  They further suggested that if Members were minded to approve the application a further three conditions be imposed on any permission granted.  A full copy of the letter was available on the planning portal.

Members were advised that a Main Contractor had only just been appointed and if permission was granted they would be building six stations and other associated works with the detailed programming of the various works still to be decided.  The information that was known at the current time had been included in the Committee Report and whilst this was not complete it was the best that was available.  The main issue was the proximity to Sleekburn House and whilst there would be some impact during the construction and operational phases proposals to mitigate these were the subject of conditions and these were appropriate to use with the final detail to be provided at a later date.  It was not wrong to make a decision based on the information provided.

Councillor J Foster joined the meeting at 3.45 pm and did not take any part on deciding this application. 

F Orr, Consultant for Ward Hadaway addressed the Committee speaking in objection to the application.  His comments included the following:

·       Members would be aware of the very familiar social landlord role that Bernicia had and of the very good working relationship it had with the Council which  was valued. It shared the same desire to bring the best to the County and its people and both Bernicia and the Local Authority had a responsibility to their residents. 

·       Bernicia objected to the application in respect of the interests of its residents which it felt would “fall between the cracks of the planning position and the Transport and Works Order”. They asked that Members took time to consider the needs of the 29 residents of Sleekburn House, the majority of which were over 75 years of age with the oldest being 93. Many of the residents were in poor health, were disabled or had some learning disability, 5 were housebound and over half of the residents had care packages in place. 

·       At the closest point Sleekburn House was only 3.25m from the proposed station with some residents spending most of their time in living rooms.  Currently there were only a limited number of passing freight trains which did not stop and had limited effect on residents amenity which would be a stark contrast during both during the construction and operation of the new station which would have a severe and damaging effect on amenity and their health.

·       There was insufficient detailed information on the programme of works, however it was known that there would be an 18 month programme of regular non stop work over a 79 hour period over weekends from Thursday evenings to Monday mornings.  This would have a significant effect and render Sleekburn House uninhabitable during that period with the closest working area just 1.55m from residents’ windows. 

·       He requested that the consideration of the application be delayed until more detail and the effects of the construction phase were known, or a model form of condition was used to establish noise limits which must not be exceeded.

·       Noise consultants had undertaken additional measurements and following this suggested draft conditions which had been submitted to the Council today which required mitigation at Sleekburn House to achieve appropriate noise levels or the relocation of residents during the construction process.

·       During the operation there would be 62 new stops at the station and together with the operation of the level crossing this would have a significant effect on residents.

·       The impact of the PA system, which needed to be louder than background noise would be like having the PA announcements amplified directly outside residents’ windows every 5 minutes of the waking day.

·       Residents’ living conditions would be adversely affected as at present they looked out over soft landscaping and instead they would be looking out to a 3.5m high fence and would have over 200 PA announcements and 330 noise events in total each day. Residents in other locations similar to this had described it as psychological torture and of having to spend their lives behind closed windows which was not acceptable.

·       He asked that the application be deferred until the mitigation was known or planning conditions to achieve specific noise levels on both the construction and operational phases were included.

A Healey, Planning consultant, addressed the Committee speaking in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.  Her comments included the following:

·       The proposed station at Bedlington was one of six new stations proposed as part of plans to reintroduce passenger services between Newcastle and Ashington. It was envisaged that there would be a half-hourly service with an anticipated journey time of 35 minutes between Ashington and Newcastle.

·       The application before the Committee had been the subject of extensive consultations both before and after the planning submission. The proposals had also been the subject of a significant public consultation exercise where several hundred people wrote to support the overall scheme, with 128 representations specifically supporting the proposals at Bedlington.

·       The applicant had listened to the concerns raised by residents and had sought to identify alternative sites which were appropriate to provide for anticipated car parking demand. This culminated in the withdrawal of the site on Ravensworth Street and the submission of a separate application for a car park on Liddle’s Street which was also being considered at today’s Committee.

·       The applicant acknowledged the concerns raised by objectors related to noise and other residential amenity impacts and had worked with the local planning authority to agree appropriate conditions to ensure appropriate mitigation measures were implemented.  The applicant was working with representatives of Bernicia to provide assurances that the project would work with them as part of the schemes to discharge those conditions.  The report confirmed that the proposed mitigation measures were considered appropriate by Public Protection, subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions.

·       The submitted scheme was the only scheme technically possible to deliver a railway station at this location. The information submitted confirmed this to be the case and had been acknowledged by officers.

·       The submitted documents provided a robust case which demonstrated the application was in accordance with relevant planning policies, with the Transport Assessment including information on passenger demand.

·       Officers had accepted the modelling basis for the car park demand and were content to recommend approval, subject to conditions.

·       The station and wider scheme would deliver the transport infrastructure required to attract inward investment, create additional employment opportunities, enhance economic vitality and encourage further economic growth in Bedlington Station, Bedlington and South East Northumberland. The proposed new station, adjacent to the site of the original railway station, respected the local townscape and historical importance of the line’s industrial heritage.

·       Policies within both the Wansbeck Local Plan and emerging NLP identified Bedlington Station as a safeguarded location for a future railway station. The station was sustainable development which both national and local planning policies confirm should be supported.  There were no objections from statutory consultees and when balancing the objections made to the application against the significant economic, social and environmental benefits of the scheme, we believe the application ought to be approved.

·       The application had been thoroughly assessed and found to be in accordance with the relevant planning policies and there were no material considerations to indicate permission should not be granted subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s report.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee the following information was noted:

·       It was proposed that the taxi drop off point would be the northern end of the Park Terrace car park which would give direct access to the northern ramp of the southbound platform.

·       A survey undertaken in respect of the existing car parks had shown that they were usually at 80% occupancy and it would be necessary for  additional car parking to be provided. The 67 spaces proposed had been modelled close to the maximum modelling requirement undertaken and had been agreed by Highways.

·       The approach to making a planning decision was to look to see if the location was the correct one for the proposed development.  Consultees, including Public Protection had accepted, in principle, that this was an acceptable location for a railway station.  In respect of the concern raised by the speaker on the lack of how the works would be undertaken, it was accepted that not all details were available, however it was usual to attach conditions for a Construction Management Plan and Noise Management Plan to be submitted and agreed as part of the discharge of conditions.   The public speaker had requested that noise limits be set, however Officers advised that Members look at this as part of the reserved matters when limits could be imposed which would be based on evidence.  A PA system was required to be provided and would also be the subject of reserved matters and would allow different ways of utilising equipment to be considered as part of a detailed scheme.

·       Any relocation of residents from Sleekburn House during the construction phase would be a matter for the applicant to consider with Bernicia and was not for discussion as part of the planning decision. 

·       During the construction phase it would be necessary for the boundary of the site to be 1.55m away from Sleekburn House in order to construct the platform, however afterwards the distance would be approximately 4.5m – 5m away.  As much detail as possible had been sought and the information given was all that the applicant was able to provide at the current time.  The 79 hours of construction time over the weekend was to allow freight trains to continue to use the rail line.  The applicant had advised that work would not take place every weekend or for all 79 hours and when works were being undertaken a shift pattern would be in operation.

·       The provision of bollards on the section outside the station in the location of the pedestrian crossing could be considered as part of the Section 278 agreement.

·       Consultation had been undertaken with households and it was not thought that the school had been consulted.

·       If Members were minded to support the application, it was clarified that all car parks associated with the Northumberland Line would have car park management plans and if it became clear that there were issues with displacement onto local roads then there would be the potential to look at introducing residents only schemes.

·       Detailed investigation work had been undertaken in respect of the positioning of the station and a major constraint had been the forking of the railway line and the safety considerations of this.  Alternatives had been discounted due to operational and safety issues prior to submission. Members were reminded they needed to consider the merits of the scheme which was in front of them and if they thought it was wrong and this could be evidenced then they would need to refuse the application.  It had been an exhaustive process with a lot of public consultation being undertaken and the application had come forward at the end of the process and not at the beginning.

·       The business case put forward to Government for financial support for the whole Northumberland Line was based on the economic benefit for the area and was the justification for the entire case and this was the reason it had been supported.

·       Modelling of the parking provision had been based on free parking. The commitment from Cabinet had been that the parking would be initially free and then this would be reviewed.  No assumption could be made on the results of the review. Prior to any changes in strategy, details of clear mitigation would be required including how to handle displacement if charges for parking were introduced in order to protect residential amenity and this was covered by a planning condition.

·       Assessments had been undertaken at all level crossing points by both Network Rail and Highways with the Bedlington South crossing to be upgraded and the footway widened as much as possible with new barriers installed to ensure the safety of pedestrians.

·       Bernicia were requesting that the application be deferred until the scheme could be properly worked out or to use the conditions that they were suggesting.  Officers advised against the use of these as it might be wished to use more or less onerous ones as part of the construction management plan which would be secured by a condition.  The principle had been looked at by Public Protection who had no objections subject to conditions as outlined in the report.   Attention was drawn to the well-used conditions 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 which would be attached to any permission granted and addressed the concerns of the public speaker.   The construction management plan would normally be agreed at officer level, however assurance was provided by the Interim Executive Director of Planning & Local Services that details of the construction management plan and schemes within the aforementioned conditions would also be discussed with the Chair and Vice-Chair in order to ensure that the concerns expressed by Members had been adequately addressed.

Councillor Wallace advised that he had listened to the questions and answers provided, attended the site visit and had listened to residents, and wished to propose acceptance of the recommendation to approve the application subject to the conditions as outlined in the Officer’s report.   This was seconded by Councillor Dodd.

During debate, Members in the most part supported and welcomed the application and the benefits the opening of the line for passengers would bring.  Councillor Ball advised that whilst she supported the opening of the line did not feel that this station was in the right place and as there were a number of issues still to be addressed would have preferred to have deferred consideration of the application.

In summing up, Councillor Wallace advised that Bernicia had not raised their concerns with East Bedlington Parish Council, who would have taken them forward and he made a plea that the car parking remained free for the lifetime of the station.

A vote was taken on the motion to approve the application as outlined in the report as follows:- FOR 11; AGAINST 1; ABSTENSION 0.

RESOLVED that the application be GRANTED for the reasons and with the conditions as outlined in the report.

A short recess was held at this point.