Issue - meetings

The Committee received a report from John Richards, Senior Engineer and James Ogle, Project Officer regarding the Footbridge across Hobson’s Brook. This report outlined recommendations that required Committee determination in relation to the potential introduction of a pedestrian footbridge across Hobson’s Brook near Kingfisher Way. 

 

It outlined a range of benefits for the City Council in delivering the project rather than the grant applicant, Accordia Bridge Group. It then sought a decision from the Area Committee on whether to proceed with the project and support the additional funding required.

 

The Officers reminded the Committee that the planning consent had already been approved and the report was focussed on the decisions to be made in relation to the use of s106 funding.

 

A number of written comments both in support (6) and objection (1) to the proposal had been received prior to the Committee. 

 

The Committee noted a slight amendment to recommendation 2.2 as follows (additional wording in bold):

 

Support the prioritisation of up to an additional £25,000 s106 funding contribution needed to deliver the project (see 4.4 and 5.1).

      

Officers responded to the following questions and comments regarding the report:

 

1.   Kerry Galloway

Had protection of wildlife on the Accordia side of the

Brook been considered?

Officers considered the improved through route and better access to Empty common would be an overall improvement with little impact on wildlife.

 

2.   Ian Cray

The City Ecologist had made no comment on this matter and better access should encourage increased walking.

 

3.   Professor Raymond Goldstein

                     i.        Dr Pesci and I have been leading the opposition to this bridge for the past seven years and we ask you to reject this proposal and stop the bridge project. City Council planners appear to not understand the basic legal issues surrounding the land on which the bridge would sit, from the validity of the Trinity Covenant which forbids any bridges in the area to the issue of who even owns the land itself.

                   ii.        Errors and omissions in the original planning applications were offences punishable by fines of up to £5,000 this was ignored by planners.

                  iii.        The Hobson’s Brook Corridor 10 year vision that was sent out for consultation, details the unique ecological character of the corridor, calling it a resource of national importance and uniqueness, particularly for the wildlife found there.

                  iv.        One of the original stated reasons for the bridge was to give greater access to the area by Accordia residents. Chief among those areas was Clare Wood. Clare Wood is no longer accessible. Clare College was forced to close off the wood to protect itself from liability arising explicitly from the bridge.

                   v.        Raised concerns about the use of the Hobsons Brook Corridor by people walking their dogs, which can despoil the area and drive away wildlife. There are nearly 1000 residents in Accordia, and a very large number of them have dogs.

                  vi.        A member of the Hobson’s Conduit Trust has stated that he was very concerned about this bridge and was in complete sympathy with my objections. 

                vii.        The draft 10 year vision document discusses the fact that with climate change there will be more frequent flooding of the very area that the bridge would sit, and yet in order to allow the bridge to fit in the extremely tight area now envisaged, the city planners waived national rules about the clearance under such bridges to allow it to fit.

              viii.        A fourth point about ecology is the fact, pointed out in objections raised by BENERA residents, that there is already a serious problem with parking congestion on their side of the brook, and the likelihood is that the bridge would simply become a thoroughfare for people parking in the BENERA area. Cambridge Assessment Centre will soon open, with something like 3,000 employees and fewer than 200 parking spaces.

                 ix.        The bridge was designed to be accessible to wheelchairs, but the path on the other side often floods in the winter and is likely to do so more in the future due to climate change (as stated in the consultation document).

                   x.        Regarding the need to move the bridge location in light of Clare’s refusal to grant permission page 13, Q8, Appendix C document within the report says, “This can be overcome by moving the bridge a few metres north onto land wholly owned by City Council.” This was a false statement. The City and the University of Cambridge are joint leaseholders of the land under a deed dating to 1610.

                 xi.        The author of the report, told me that there were certain legal issues and “risks” that the City Council was investigating regarding the bridge. What are the legal issues that are still outstanding? What risks were being considered?

                xii.        A simple study using Google maps would show that the presence of the bridge in its proposed location would save perhaps 80 meters of walking for the typical person traversing from the BENERA area up to Brooklands Avenue at the edge of Accordia. So, does the council plan to spend more than £50,000 of public money and risk the fragile ecology of the corridor simply to save less than one minute’s walking time?

 

Project Officer stated that the report was accurate and the risks associated with the project low. The Council either owns the land to both sides of the proposed bridge site or in the case of the 6ft strip are joint leaseholders. Two legal agreements are required to enable build of the bridge to commence.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

 

Councillor Moore: Planning applications could be granted regardless of who owned the land. Agreeing funding and planning would not necessarily ensure that the bridge would be build.

 

Councillor Adey: Welcomed the opportunity to hear public views and to discuss the ‘value for money’ of the project.

 

Councillor Ashton: Other well used paths support sensitive wildlife without any noticeable impact he cited the example of Snakey Path (pathway connecting Romsey to Cherry Hinton)

 

Councillor Pippas: The majority of residents would benefit from the proposal.

 

Officers confirmed that the decision on the current bridge proposals is not expected to have any impact on the Hobson’s Conduit Trust Vision Document and therefore is not relevant to the decision before the Committee. The decision before the Committee was the approval of additional funding. The spend to-date had been around £5,500 on legal fees.

 

The Committee

Resolved (unanimously) to:

 

     i.        Note and support the delivery arrangements now proposed as outlined in the report.

 

    ii.        Support the prioritisation of up to an additional £25,000 s106 funding contribution needed to deliver the project

 

   iii.        Note that progress was also subject to obtaining necessary consents.