DELEGATED REPORT

 SUMMARY:
The application seeks planning permission for a shared walking and cycle path as an extension of the existing Crab and Winkle cycle network following the route of the former Crab and Winkle railway line that ran between Canterbury and Whitstable. The application has been referred to Committee given the large amount of public interest generated by the application, both in support and objecting to the proposal.

The main issues are: the potential impact the use may have upon the amenities of adjoining and nearby occupiers; the proposal's impact upon the character of the area, including the conservation area and protected open space designation; and implications upon matters relating to ecology and arboriculture, including the Tree Preservation Order designation.

RECOMMENDATION:
To receive the report of the Development Control (Site Visits) Panel, namely:

SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site forms part of the historic Crab and Winkle railway line that ran from Whitstable Harbour to Canterbury West Station. A large section of the former railway route up to the application site has been converted to a cycle route. The existing route comes to an end at Ivy House Road where cyclists are required to continue their journey towards the seafront via the highways of the surrounding largely residential area. A substantial length of the site lies within the Whitstable - Canterbury Railway Conservation Area.

A considerable length of the linear shaped application site stretching from All Saints Close/Ivy House Road at the south of the application site and northward to The Sidings is largely overgrown with trees and shrubs. This section of the application site includes areas of established planting as well as open space to the south of Old Bridge Road. Old Bridge Road and Teynham Road dissect the application site of its southern end with these roads set within the abutments of the former railway bridges which crossed them. The route embankment is elevated where it would cross the Old Bridge Road, the railway line and Teynham Road and gradually declines in height as it continues northwards. To the north of Teynham Road an embankment with trees and scrub separates the houses in Clare Road and Station Road, with this vegetation grown over the route that once formed the railway line. A rear access road serving properties fronting Clare Road runs parallel with this embankment. Towards the northern end of the application site the existing housing development known as The Sidings is situated upon the former railway line route. Beyond The Sidings to the north a mix of formal and informal pathways dissect a natural open grassed area situated behind residential properties that front Northwood Road, Station Road and Tower Parade. The route would link up with existing rear services roads of these three streets.

The application site can be accessed via a variety of existing passageways and accesses between residential properties and other buildings that surround the application site.  

This section of the disused railway line has been left for many years and has naturally regenerated with vegetation. The area is currently under-managed with signs of various amounts of fly-tipped waste and litter throughout the length of the site.  

In general the adjacent areas are characterised by residential development with mainly two-storey terraced and semi-detached dwellings abutting the site. There are a small number of other premises/uses in the locality.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The application has been submitted by Sustrans on behalf of the applicant, The Crab and Winkle Line Trust, who seek planning permission for a shared use walking and cycle path to run along the former route of the railway line. This route would essentially run north/south linking with the existing Crab and Winkle public path at All Saints Close/Ivy House Road and ending at two exit points, one at Tower Parade and the other at Northwood Road rear service roads/pedestrian walkways.  

The proposed route is intended to be served by a variety of existing pedestrian and vehicular accesses which currently allow for public access to the application site between properties within the surrounding area. A new access onto the path is proposed through the existing grassed open space at the south side of Old Bridge Road. A further new link was originally proposed leading from the northern platform at Whitstable Railway Station, however this has now been omitted. A further access is proposed from the pedestrian footpath to the north of Teynham Road. The proposed route would continue along the highway within the existing residential cul-de-sac known as The Sidings which interrupts the former line of the railway towards the application's northern end. The route is proposed to have two access points at its north end, one via an existing public walkway between Nos. 5a and 5b Tower Parade and a second over a rear vehicular access between flatted developments known as Coleman Court and Mariners Lee exiting onto Northwood Road.

The proposed route is anticipated to be around three metres in width to accommodate dual usage, widening to seven metres north of The Sidings to allow for vehicular movement. Where possible the existing vegetation is to be retained, however some vegetation is to be removed to accommodate the new pathway. New supplement planting and landscaping is proposed along the route.  

The route is to be lit by lighting columns in order to ensure that it may be used safely by cyclists and pedestrians, particularly during the hours of darkness. Five metre high lamp-posts spaced between 37 and 44 metres along the route are proposed.    

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Planning permission was granted on 08 June 2006 (Ref No CA/06/00538/WHI) for the reinstatement of two bridges extending from Teynham Road to Old Bridge Road.  This permission has recently expired. Before that planning permission was refused for residential development (Ref No CA/00/00211/WHI) adjacent to the existing Teynham Road bridge abutments, to the rear of Clare Road, on the grounds of the negative impact the proposal would have on the character of the conservation area and on highway related issues. This refusal was subsequently upheld at appeal. This proposal followed a previous refusal (Ref No CA/98/00063/WHI) for residential development on the same site that was also refused and upheld at appeal.

The cycle route between Canterbury and Whitstable has been planned for some time but it was not until 1997 that a working group from Canterbury City Council, Kent County Council, Kent Stour Countryside Partnership and Sustrans was formed. In the same year, a charity entitled The Crab and Winkle Line Trust was created to promote the line and to make it accessible to the public. The construction of the route took place in 1999. The existing route uses about one third of the old railway line, although The Crab and Winkle Line Trust is working with local landowners and organisations to bring more of the line into use. This existing route forms is part of Route 1 (Inverness to Dover) National Cycle Network, developed by Sustrans and its partner organisations.  

THE APPLICANT'S CASE
The application has been supported by Ecology Reports, namely an ecological scoping survey, a reptile survey, bat potential report and bat activity survey report, a tree survey, a landscape report and townscape and visual impact assessment.  

Ecological Survey - The report concluded: -

 there may be some potential to support reptiles at one place along the route along the eastern edge adjoining a garden;
 the site has a high potential to support breeding birds, since the habitat represents an area of undisturbed dense scrub;
 the site has a low potential to support badgers with no sign of badger activity evident at the visit to suggest otherwise;
 the trees have low potential to support bat roosts, since they comprise predominantly hawthorn species, with a few ash; and,
 due to the lack of suitable habitats there is a low potential for the site to support notable invertebrates.

Reptile Survey - The survey was conducted between September 19th 2007 and 12th October 2007. The proposed improvements to the Crab and Winkle Line within Whitstable have the potential to cause disturbance to, and temporary loss of, suitable habitats. However, vegetation removal may have a positive impact on reptile species providing more basking and foraging opportunities. Mitigation can be providing by trapping and translocation to adjoining habitats that are to remain undisturbed.    

The Crab and Winkle Line provides suitable commuting and foraging habitat for bats, although vegetation removal would not significantly affect the value of the linear feature subject to maintaining a continuous corridor of vegetation. The establishment of the cycle path may in fact contribute to the diversity of woodland edge habitats thereby increasing the potential for flying insects and food for bats. Following assessment it is considered that no roosts would be damaged or disturbed by the clearance of vegetation. If, however, signs of bats are discovered during the works then works should stop until further investigation has been undertaken. Prior to the removal of vegetation within Section 4 (a length of route between Old Bridge Road and Teynham Road which could not be surveyed due to Network Rail ownership of this section) a bat roost potential scoping survey must be undertaken. This will determine what, if any, other measures are necessary.

It is recommended that the use of lighting be avoided to minimise the potential impacts on commuting and foraging bats. However, if it is deemed necessary that lighting is required for reasons of safety advice is provided as to how this could be undertaken. The use of low pressure sodium lamps is suggested. Upward lighting should be avoided. Hoods should be fitted to direct light downward and the height and spacing of columns should also be considered.  

Bat Activity Report - A field survey has been carried out following the Bat Conservation Trusts bat survey guidelines and Natural Englands Bat Mitigation Guidelines. This demonstrates that the site is suitable habitat for foraging. In March 2008 a tree survey of each individual tree was carried out and concluded to have low bat roost potential. It is therefore unlikely that bats are actually roosting in the trees within this woodland strip.  

Removal of trees may significantly affect the movement of bats while foraging, commuting and breeding. The recommendations of the report are that tree lines along the route should be maintained where possible undertaking works on one side of the landscaped strip at a time. A minimum of 5 bat boxes should be installed on remaining mature trees to attract different bat species.  

Landscaping Report - The site is to be cleared of debris. Low level clearance of scrub and bindweed would be carried out to ensure only the minimum destructive clearance. It is recognised that some trees would be lost, however this is to be mitigated by the planting of new large stock native trees, providing a visual screen for adjacent properties. A regime of coppicing for all unhealthy tree groups outside the immediate construction zone will also be followed to allow natural regeneration of the existing vegetation. Hand digging in tree route areas will avoid damage to roots allowing the installation of a trench of cable duct associated with the lighting of the route.  

Tree Survey - The survey aimed to include trees/groups of trees with a diameter of 75mm or more and areas of smaller under-storey shrubs and field layer vegetation. The survey and further site visits were undertaken in January and March 2008 and February 2009. The site consists of mixed broadleaves with a small evergreen shrub element occupying most of the site (save for its northern end which would run through existing service heads). A total of 155 individually identified trees, 120 groups of mixed tree species, 15 groups of under-storey and 24 groups of field layer scrub were surveyed. A breakdown of the species diversity, their age, grading classification, previous maintenance and tree protection measures are addressed within the report.  

Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment - It is noted that the proposed route and the previous approved bridges form separate applications, however the assessment incorporates the impacts of both. The southern end is well vegetated with the northern part of the site less so. It is recognised that the route follows the existing embankment of the former railway line. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in place has been taken into account; other trees not covered by the TPO fall within the conservation area and are therefore afforded protection. The report assesses the impact of views from residential properties and the impact of the resulting visibility from the proposed path and bridges into private gardens and accommodation. Overall, it is considered that the quality of the southern character zone would be improved by both the proposed route and the proposed bridges. Lighting may be slightly visible at night and in the winter, however this is an urbanised area by character. There would be a slight improvement to the northern character zone as a better quality surfacing of the existing path. This represents a slight further urbanisation, but would be in keeping with the area's character. It is not considered that there would be a significant increase in the availability of views into properties from the route in comparison with the current situation. It is acknowledged that there would be filtered views into private gardens and towards property windows from the route resulting in slight loss of privacy. It is also recognised that initially there would need to be significant loss of vegetation around the bridges to allow for construction and this will open up views from the proposed bridges into the private gardens and towards windows of nearby properties. However with proposed additional planting this would not be a long-term situation.

PLANNING POLICIES
The southern part of the application site between Ivy House Road and The Sidings is designated a conservation area (Whitstable - Canterbury Railway Conservation Area). The existing landscaping north of Teynham Road extending up to The Sidings is subject to a blanket Tree Preservation Order (No. 6 of 1988). A Protected Existing Open Space designation is shown from The Sidings southwards stretching beyond Ivy House Road, with a small area between Old Bridge Road and the railway track omitted. The site also falls within part of an area known to be at risk from flooding.  

The current Local Plan indicates a commitment to provide a dedicated cycle route extending from the existing route where it currently terminates at Ivy House Road and ending just south of The Sidings exiting onto Station Road close to the junction with Diamond Road.

The Council has an approved Walking and Cycling Strategy and the Crab and Winkle route is an identified scheme that forms part of the extension of the Crab & Winkle Way, from Old Bridge Road to Station Road.  

Policy BE1 of the Canterbury District Local Plan requires proposals to be of a high standard of design avoiding unduly interfering, disturbing or conflicting with adjoining uses. This Policy also requires consideration to be given to the landscape character of the locality and the way the proposed development is integrated into the landscape as well as ensuring the integration of natural features, including trees to strengthen local distinctiveness, character and biodiversity. Matters of safety and security are also relevant. Policy BE1 of The South East Plan reflects these aims and seeks the use of opportunities to provide significant improvements to the built environment that would enhance the quality of life in urban areas, improve green infrastructure, create public realm, support design solutions to create distinctiveness and a sense of place.  

The site is identified as a cycle and pedestrian route (in part) on the Proposals Map of the Canterbury District Local Plan and is subject to Policy C3 which safeguards land for proposed pedestrian and cycle routes. Such routes aim to encourage sustainable public movement by healthier means and discourages the use of car for travel. The aim is to provide a comprehensive network of routes within urban areas to enable individuals to traverse the built-up area safely.  

Policy T1 of The South East Plan seeks, through various development plan documents, to encourage more sustainable patters of development and improve all levels of accessibility. Policy T2 aims to improve mobility management to achieve a rebalancing of the transport system in favour of sustainable modes. A number of initiatives are listed, which includes (v) improvements in the extent and quality of pedestrian and cycle routes.  

Policy BE7 of the Local Plan requires development that affects the setting, or views into and out of a conservation area to preserve or enhance all features that contribute positively to the area's character or appearance. This includes trees and landscapes and encourages the removal of unsightly or negative features. Policy BE6 of The South East Plan seeks to protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment and the contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness and sense of place. Proposals that make sensitive use of historic assets through regeneration, particularly where these bring redundant or under-used buildings and areas into appropriate use should be encouraged.

Policy BE2 of the Canterbury District Local Plan seeks to ensure that functional, visually successful public realm space is created with a strong sense of place as part of new developments. Part (a) of this policy advises the retention and incorporation of pubic rights of way and the creation of a connected open space and pedestrian/cyclist circulation system related, where appropriate, to a landscaped framework having regard to safety and security. Part (b) wishes to maximise the opportunity for all areas of the public realm to be subject to natural surveillance. Part (d) encourages new lighting as a means to improve pubic safety; however this should not adversely affect residential amenities or sites of nature conservation value.  

Policy C6 of The South East Plan encourages amongst other matters identifying opportunities and planning for routes within and between settlements, seeking to reduce car use for shorter journeys, and where possible, making new routes multi-functional to allow for benefits for multiple users and contribute to the wider objectives of green infrastructure.  

Policies CC6 and CC8 of The South East Plan seek to promote the creation of sustainable and distinctive communities. Policy CC8 further advises that Local Authorities and partners are encouraged to work together to provide and manage connected and substantial networks of accessible multi-functional green space. Networks should be planned to include both existing and new green infrastructure. These need to be planned and managed to deliver the widest range of linked environmental and social benefits including conservation and enhancing biodiversity as well as landscape, recreation, social and cultural benefits to underpin individual and community health and well-being. They will be created and managed as a framework of green spaces and other natural features that will boost the sustainable development settlements and increase the environmental capacity of the locality and region as a whole, helping communities to be more resilient to the effects of climate change.  

Policy C24 of the Local Plan aims to protect areas of existing open space, unless it can be demonstrated that there would be no material harm to the contribution the protected open space makes to the visual or recreational amenity of the area.

Policy NE1 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that where development proposals are being considered at sites known or likely to have protected habitats or species developers will be expected to carry out a survey and present proposals for mitigation. Policy NE2 of the Local Plan advises that where proposals involve the loss of semi-natural habitat, development will be required to provide equivalent areas of habitat on or adjacent to the development site. Policy NRM5 of The South East Plan seeks to avoid loss to biodiversity and actively pursues opportunities to achieve a net gain.  

In flood risk areas Policy C32 of the Local Plan resists developments on land that has not been previously developed. Minor developments will be permitted subject to the provision of other local plan policies. Each case will be treated on its own merits on the particular circumstances that apply having regard to the risks attached. Policy NRM4 of The South East Plan seeks to manage flood risk in areas known to be problematic.  

Canterbury District Transport Action Plan (2004) identifies the route as a cycle route.

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
The occupiers of nearby properties were notified of the application and press and site notices undertaken both when the application was first received in October 2007 and again in May this year when amended/addition plans/details had been received. The application has been advertised as affecting the character and appearance of a conservation area.  

Initially almost 300 letters of representation were received as a result of local consultation with residents. A petition comprising 842 signatures was also received in support of the proposal.  

In summary the general comments made by the 144 representations in support of the proposal related to: -

 Economic benefits of route in terms of tourism.
 Improvement in road safety as alternative route for cyclists/pedestrians.
 Clean up of overgrown and derelict previously developed land.
 Provide direct link between Old Town and Harbour and better overall linkage of the route.
 Development would encourage wildlife and biodiversity.
 Health and environmental benefits by reducing reliance on cars and allowing more cycling/walking.
 The historical importance of the Crab and Winkle railway line to be maintained.

In summary, the objections by the 164 representations to the application related to: -

 Concern over damage to wildlife and wildlife habitat.
 Lack of privacy, especially towards rear of Clare Road properties due to removal of trees.
 Ecological report has not been properly considered.
 The TPO protection being disregarded and the plans do not show which trees would be removed.
 The proposed lighting would create light pollution and will be problematic for bats.
 The route is not needed given the existing Stream Walk route and the fact that the bridges essential to the scheme have not been built.
 Concerns over the increase in crime, anti-social behaviour and vandalism.
 Concerns that a tarmac path would create additional flooding issues.

Following the second round of consultation two petitions including 135 and 122 signatures have been submitted by The Crab and Winkle Line Trust indicating support of the application. The Council has also received a petition signed by 1252 persons objecting to the proposed extension of the cycle path.

In summary the following supportive comments have been made within 115 letters of representation: -

 This is a leisure enhancement opportunity and will open up space for the community's enjoyment, similar enjoyment has benefited the public by the creation of the rest of the route.
 There are health benefits of cycling and walking and being in the fresh air.
 The proposal will encourage less car usage reducing pollution and CO2 gases along with congestion.
 The route will encourage tourism and bring visitors to the area.
 This would be a safe route non-polluted, particularly in respect of child well-being.
 Easy access would be created across town allowing access to schools, supermarkets, etc, and would link with the wider cycle/pedestrian networks.
 This is a more attractive route for the less mobile to utilise.
 The proposal will reduce fly-tipping in the area and tidy up the locality.
 The existing habitat is poor and the proposal will improve vegetation and wildlife habitat.
 This proposal will reinstate a heritage path and bridges, it is not fitting to the former life of the railway line if the route stops short of the harbour.
 The route is allocated in the Local Plan as a cycle route.
 The route will provide increased public access to parkland and flora and fauna.
 Literature presented in support of the application is well presented and thorough surveys show that no harm will take place to ecology or landscaping.
 Many households that back onto the route would have easy access to this facility.

The following 97 objections  were received to the scheme and are summarised below:-

 Some lamp-posts proposed at the northern part of the route will obstruct the free movement of vehicles.
 The information presented on website is hard to understand/decipher and could be better.
 A full public consultation exercise with the public, councillors and other individuals/bodies has not taken place, residents have not attended a public meeting that the applicant has implied has been held.
 Residents feel bullied by the applicant.
 Canterbury City Council is promoting the route behind the scenes.
 Lack of time to properly consider the application, especially as the applicant had 20 months to consider and submit new details, with residents only having initially 3 weeks, later revised to over 6 weeks, to evaluate documentation and submit a representation.

 The proposal is invalid as the necessary documents have not been submitted and those submitted are inaccurate.
 Other routes (Honeybourne Line, Cheltenham, Cuckoo Trail, Sussex and the Bristol to Bath Cycle Path) where both petty and serious crimes as well as anti-social behaviour have been major issues.
 The scheme would result in the destruction of habitat used by birds and an adverse impact on bats, slowworms, stag beetles, reptiles, foxes and badgers. The loss of the habitat is also considered contrary to advice within PPS9 - Biodiversity. No bird nesting survey has been undertaken.  
 There would be more removal of trees/landscaping than the tree report suggests.  
 The various surveys were carried out at the wrong time of the year, in particular the Ecological Survey, of which a further survey, as recommended, has not been carried out. Further to this an independent expert did not carry out the surveys. Concern was also expressed that there were no studies undertaken to assess the potential demand for the route.
 The proposed scheme would result in a loss of privacy, particularly along the rear of Clare Road with views into the rear gardens of the properties but also at ground and first-floor level. This would contravene Section 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights as enshrined by the Human Rights Act 1998.
 The proposed development would increase the risk of flooding, especially for gardens opposite the site by replacing earth with hard standing or similar material.
 The path would create a haven for crime and anti-social behaviour. The proposed path would also create an opportunity for crime to the rear of the properties and provide a quick escape route for burglars.
 The planning permission for bridges, which would allow the creation of the cycle path in its entirety, has now lapsed.   
 There would be no tangible benefit from the new path.
 The proposal is costly and a waste of Council resources at a time of economic hardship. In this respect the Council has not properly considered alternative sites, in particular Stream Walk. Further to this the proposed path is too wide.
 The site would create unnecessary light and noise pollution. The proposed bollards would create access difficulties for vehicles coming out of garages/drives. There has also been no consideration of how site traffic would access the site, nor the impact that this may have on residents' amenity.
 The proposed route would be dangerous for pedestrians using the route and children at The Sidings.

Additional new comments received since committee on 18 August 2009

Since the submission of the officer report to the committee which met on 18 August 2009 the following comments have been received regarding specifics contained within the officer report which are disputed, objected to or are considered inaccurate by the three representees.

 The report states a large section of the railway has been converted, whereas in fact only a third has been converted to a cycle route.
 The report omits that the exit onto Tower Parade is pedestrian only as it is via steps.

    The report states that 'some vegetation' would be removed, however 81% of the vegetation will be removed, partially removed or cut       back. In addition nearly 70% of trees that are of fair quality would be removed or partially removed, and overall 81% of trees would be removed, partially removed or cut back. Furthermore reference to the tree survey does not give the true figure of 1262 trees. Although the report states that there would be no long term loss of vegetation the applicants survey suggests that it would be 15 years before the vegetation grew back. The omission of the length of time gives a false a favourable impression to members.
 The previous permission refusal does not mention that one reason for refusal was loss of trees, even though the current proposal would result in the loss of far more trees.
 No bird survey has been carried out yet this has been recommended by the Council's Countryside Officer and the original Ecology report in 2007. The report does not mention that the woodland supports 30 species of birds, 4 of which are contained within the RSPB's Red Book.
 With regards to the bats, the report omits the fact the Kent Wildlife Trust regards the removal of vegetation as 'perverse'. Furthermore the report does not mention that the applicant ignored advice from the Council's Countryside Officer to use the Kent Bat Group for the survey, instead using a generalist consultancy, Jacobs.

 The report implies that the impact of views from residential gardens has been carried out, however no survey has been carried out from the affected properties.
 It is unprofessional for the case officer to suggest that the character of the 'Southern Character Zone' would be improved, when this is contrary to the majority of representations made. The report refers to the area as being urbanised, in terms of the proposed lighting, yet this is contrary to the existing situation where the area is currently dark. Furthermore there is no mention of the Countryside Officers objections to the lighting plans.
 The report states that there would be no significant increase in available views into properties, but this is factually incorrect as there is currently no path through the woods.
   The proposed route does not follow that shown in the Local Plan, as stated in the officer report, as it goes through The Sidings. The report does not mention the danger to children at The Sidings, as stated in Policy BE1, yet this is not referred to in the report.
 It has not been made clear that no surveys have been carried out in terms of the numbers using the site. The report also states that the site is within a mile of a number of schools, but fails to state that some of these are served by the existing route at Steam Walk.
 The report contradicts itself in that the proposal cannot offer additional surveillance in terms of residents overlooking the site whilst at the  same  time not lead to a loss of privacy for residents.
 The report omits a number of policies referring to biodiversity and loss of habitat, including D1, D29, D33, D36, D37, R8 and R9.
 Concerns have been raised in that representations were accepted after the closing of the representations period, and that the petition submitted by the Crab & Winkle Trust was not subject to the same stringent requirements as other submitted. It is also stated that the presentation of the representations in the officer's report have not been accurately shown.  
 It is not the case that all surveys were carried out at the correct time of year, in particular the tree survey was carried out during sub-optimal months.
 The planning application from 2007 is still invalid and the period for representations for the consultation previously is invalid as these took place when the application was incorrectly registered.
 The officer's report is meant to be impartial, yet it is clear that this is not the case, from page 2 onwards.  

The Whitstable Society supports the proposal. The application has been transformed by the work and information that has been undertaken. The landscape strategy is dramatically altered from that of an artificial avenue to one based on enhancement of the natural flora, both for ecological reasons and because this mitigates much of the permanent and temporary damage to privacy that the previous scheme would have involved. The curving of the path to avoid major trees is commendable. The privacy of locals is desired to be kept with solutions found to ensure that both privacy of residents is retained alongside the efficient working of the path. It is suggested a condition be imposed in areas where the embankment is high/route traverses the bridges that a 2 metre fence (or alternative screen solid to eye level) be established on either side of the path until such times as the foliage has matured at eye level along the path.  

The Open Space Society has received many complaints from members of the public. It has been noted that it is important to ensure that the path is safe for use by both users and especially pedestrians. A physical barrier is suggested to best accommodate this.   

Kent Wildlife Trust originally noted that the disused railway line is not a designated wildlife site although it is an important local wildlife habitat and considered that the scheme failed to ensure the proposal is undertaken sensitively with due regard given to existing wildlife habitats in the area. Following re-consultation note is made to the Ecological Scoping Survey Report.  Since 2007 a considerable amount of impact assessment and detailed design work has been undertaken and now many more features of the proposal are acceptable to the Trust.  

The Trust cannot withdraw its original objection for two reasons. The first reason being the impact of the wholesale clearance of vegetation along a 160m section of the corridor in the vicinity of the road and railway crossings. The second concern of replacement trees as in the short term the proposed works around the embankment will reduce significantly the amount of habitat available for breeding birds and interrupt the established foraging routine of bats. The linkage of the habitat north of the road/rail crossings with open spaces and the countryside to the south will be seriously compromised. The illumination of the cycle way is also likely to harm bat activity.    

Kent Bat Group objects following the second consultation to the proposal for two main reasons. The proposal would interrupt the flight line and foraging habitat for bats due to the proposed clearance of parts of the site and the proposed illumination of the site will harm the value of the corridor for bats. Members of the Group monitored the site between April 2003 and October 2004 and the resulting report suggested that bats feed and commute along the site and use the tree line as a sonar guide.

Kent Police supports the application and considers that the proposal would cause no rise in crime. In fact it would increase natural surveillance and improve the amenities of local residents and visitors to the area.

Canterbury Ramblers have written in response to the second round of consultation advising that the majority of members at the AGM support the proposal and would like to support the application.

Spokes (East Kent Cycle Campaign) support the application. This proposal, along with reinstating the bridges, will have a great benefit for all. It will make the area more accessible and prevent having to make use of roads providing a safer route for those travelling both towards the harbour and Canterbury. There are too many positive aspects and benefits to this proposal to refuse it. The environmental issues have been taken into account. The claims of the route devaluing neighbouring property and potential for crime are not supported.  

The Crab and Winkle Line Trust has written in support of its application.

TECHNICAL CONSULTATIONS
RED Ecology -
The landscape report submitted as part of the application demonstrated due regard to wildlife and the resultant suggestions for enhancement will undoubtedly increase the site's value for biodiversity and are therefore welcomed. However, the lighting proposals remain inappropriate for a number of reasons. The lighting period is continual (not timed as recommended) and therefore will impact on bat activity throughout the night when route use by the public is expected to be minimal. Whilst it is acknowledged that the ability of Pipistrelle Bats to feed is not compromised by the presence of street lighting (if proposed lighting is mercury lighting) it will result in reduced numbers of insects in adjacent habitats, negatively impacting food source. Tall lighting columns with this degree of lux throughout the night will restrict any future use of the site by most bat species that avoid lit areas. Although the available food sources may not be negatively affected by the presence of artificial lighting along the proposed route, bats are likely to be preyed upon in artificial light.  

No bat activity survey has been conduced between The Bridge Approach and Teynham Road because of access restrictions and therefore the potential of this section of the line to offer suitable foraging and commuting opportunities has yet to be assessed.  

Countryside Section, Arboriculture -
Much of the route of this proposed path has been colonised by trees and shrubs since it was abandoned as a railway line.  It is dominated by Hawthorn, with some Elm, Cherry Plum (or similar species of the Prunus family), Ash, Sycamore and Elder. The difficulties in providing an accurate assessment of this existing vegetation should not be underestimated. On a site of this nature, densely covered with trees and shrubs, it is not possible to survey accurately the position and condition of every tree, particularly small trees in dense groups. The survey has been checked at various places along the route and is considered to be sufficiently detailed and accurate to make an assessment of the impact of the proposal on trees.

It is not possible to identify in advance of the works every individual tree or shrub that may be affected and it would be unrealistic to expect this level of detail at this stage. The reality of implementation is such that some trees shown to be retained may have to be removed. Conversely, it may be possible to retain some trees shown to be removed. The detail of exactly which trees and shrubs will be affected, particularly within the groups of smaller trees and areas of shrubs and undergrowth, can only be determined on site once work has begun and initial clearance has taken place. However, the submitted Landscape Report and Tree Survey sets out the principle of aiming to retain as many of the existing trees in good condition as possible and the use of hand digging and tree protection measures to minimise the effects of construction on retained trees. The application proposes significant new planting of locally appropriate, and predominantly native, trees and shrubs. This planting would dramatically improve and widen the diversity of plant species and the value of the corridor as a wildlife habitat. The scheme also provides an opportunity and framework for the positive management of existing trees where retained.

On balance, it is considered that the proposed loss of some existing trees and overgrown vegetation is outweighed by the benefits of the planting of a wide range of new tree and plant species and the scheme is supported. If the application is to be granted, a condition is suggested requiring an Arboricultural Method Statement detailing tree protection measures.

EDF Energy -
No objection is raised to the proposal providing that its rights regarding access and maintenance to any cables within the area are maintained at all times. No additional comments have been received following reconsultation.

Network Rail -
No comments have been received.

Natural England -
It is advised that Natural England supports the recommendations of the Council's Ecologist.  

Kent Highway Services -
No objection is raised in principle to the proposal. There are a number of points which will need to be addressed by condition (details to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority) if the application is approved. These are details relating to: signage of the route at both the access points and along the route; design of the access points to the route; lighting along the route; surface finishes; and, surface water drainage.  

The Council's Transportation and Engineering Officer -
The proposed shared use walking and cycling path scheme is welcomed. It is identified in the Walking and Cycling Strategy (2003) and forms part of the Canterbury District Transport Action Plan (2004), approved by Canterbury City Council and Kent County Council. These strategies support the provision of walking and cycling facilities as healthy and sustainable alternatives to the car. The section of proposed route between The Sidings and Northwood Road provides a longer and more direct length of traffic-free route towards Whitstable seafront that runs broadly parallel to the disused railway line. The scheme will increase the network of traffic-free walking and cycling paths in Whitstable and will result in the extension of National Cycle Network Route 1. There are six schools (five primary schools and one secondary school) within approximately mile of the proposed route, all of which have School Travel Plans. The scheme will also improve access for mobility impaired people and links towards the station.

DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Sea Defences and Drainage -
The application states that surface water discharge will be dealt with by means of natural drainage. There is a ditch running at the rear of All Saints Close which has proved problematic in the past as it has tended to be neglected. It is requested that a condition be imposed upon any permission granted that this ditch and its means of discharge are thoroughly cleared as part of the scheme and that any other ditches or land drainage systems along the route are similarly restored to full working condition. Otherwise, no objection is raised to the proposal since all paving will be permeable and should have no significant effect on surface water run-off.  

DISCUSSION
Members will note that the Canterbury District Local Plan includes a designation which illustrates an extension of the cycle route from its existing termination at Ivy House Road to just south of The Sidings, exiting onto Station Road. There is therefore an established presumption in favour of the route within this adopted development plan. A further extension of the route through The Sidings and further north would make use of informal pathways, walkways and service roads behind properties fronting Station Road/Marine Terrace/Northwood Road. This additional section of cycle and pedestrian route follows a logical trail through an existing public highway and informal passageways leading to the seafront. I therefore conclude that the principle of a mixed pedestrian and cycle route would be acceptable. The proposal would fulfill an important part of the Council's Transport Strategy.

Notwithstanding the above, there are other material planning considerations that need to be taken into account. The proposed route south of The Sidings is covered by vegetation protected by a blanket TPO and conservation area designation. A protected existing open space designation is also in place to the south of The Sidings. It is therefore important to determine the impact of the proposed development upon this protected landscaped belt. Furthermore, this unmanaged vegetation has established itself over some time and has supported ecology, including species that are afforded protection under wildlife legislation. In creating the proposed route removal of some vegetation (and all vegetation around the bridge abutments) along with thinning along other sections of the proposed route is proposed.  The route is to be adopted by Kent Highway Services along with the vegetation either side of it. Given this is intended to be a mixed cycle and pedestrian pathway, lighting is proposed to prevent potential conflict between users of the route during hours of darkness. Amenity issues therefore also arise in respect of the privacy of local residents and light pollution.  

The application with the various supporting reports acknowledge there would be loss of vegetation throughout the construction period, however replacement tree and shrub planting with native species is proposed. This replacement planting aims to diversify and strengthen this green corridor with a wildflower meadow seeking to increase the habitat potential along the route. The Council's Arboricultural Officer notes the difficulties in surveying a landscaped belt of this nature and has concluded that this has been undertaken to as high a standard as possible, although notes that further survey and mitigation work will need to be undertaken if planning permission is granted.  

The proposal is viewed by many local residents as being destructive. However it would provide improved management, along with new planting along the route, to the overall benefit of this vegetated belt and its future. This would contribute positively to trees/landscaping given special protection by the TPO and the conservation area designation. There would be no reduction in open space thus no conflict with policies that seek to protect open space would arise.

The applicant has recognised within its Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment that there would be a degree of loss of privacy from the proposed route. The proposed landscaping measures which include new planting are aimed to keep the impact of this to a minimum. Cross-sectional drawings of the proposed route have been submitted illustrating (at intervals) the height of the path, the likely landscape buffer either side of the route (once established) and how this relates to neighbouring occupiers either side of the route. It is acknowledged that it is difficult to quantify fully the precise amount of tree and shrub removal at this stage. New planting is proposed where existing gaps in the vegetation have been identified and where thinning of the landscaping is proposed to take place. It is clearly recognised that there would be a period of time between the removal of landscaping and the new vegetation becoming established.  

The concerns raised by local residents in respect of the loss of privacy as views may be gained by users of the route into the private living areas of adjoining neighbouring properties are therefore understood. From the information submitted I have concluded that a reasonable level of landscaping could be put in place to ensure that potential harm created by overlooking would be minimal once the landscaping has matured. However, in the interim some form of screening along exposed sections of the route, especially near the proposed bridges, should be put in place to prevent views into adjoining properties. This can be controlled by condition.

It is noted that the planning permission pertaining to the erection of replacement bridges over Old Bridge Road, Teynham Road and the railway line has now lapsed. The principle of erecting new bridges across the existing abutments has been accepted.  Members may wish to note that there is a commitment to providing the bridges, albeit the design of the proposed bridges is likely to be different from that granted planning permission. A new application is expected in the near future.  

In terms of the impact upon ecology I am satisfied that the various reports have identified and addressed mitigation measures that could be put in place to prevent harm to wildlife. Notwithstanding this, the ecology survey undertaken in respect of bats indicates that bats make use of this existing wildlife corridor for feeding and transit. I am aware that a relatively short area around the bridges remains unsurveyed in respect of bats. I accept that whilst a full survey in respect of bat activity and roosts would be beneficial, no bat roosts have been found to be present along the remainder of the application route where vegetation exists and this suggests that bat roosts are unlikely to be found. Bats are nonetheless afforded protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. If any roosts are found during the construction of the route this legislation requires all operations to cease until further relevant survey work and mitigation measure are agreed. This can be made a condition of any planning permission.

In addition to the above, concern has been expressed that harm may occur to nesting birds. The Council's Ecologist has advised that a condition can be imposed upon any planning permission requiring operations to take place outside of the bird nesting season. If this is unavoidable, then a full bird nesting survey can be required to be carried out immediately prior to construction work commencing to identify if nesting birds are present at the site and to agree mitigation measures to prevent harm to nesting birds. This can also be controlled by means of a planning condition.

The proposal is supported by the Council's Conservation Officers though it is requested that the street lights are made as unobtrusive as possible. It is suggested that a lower version to the 5 metre columns proposed, possibly 3.5 metres high painted dark olive green, be used. Lighting has also been raised as an issue in respect of its potential impact upon bat activity. The proposed 5 metre lighting columns could result in light spillage outside the site and affect the amenities of neighbouring residents. A similar form of lighting illuminates the existing route south of Ivy House Road but here the neighbouring occupiers would be closer to the proposed route than at other parts of the existing route; also a significant part of the application route is elevated. It is understood that Kent Highway Services wish to ensure safe travel along the route, as the pathway is intended to be utilised by both cyclists and pedestrians and finally adopted by them. Also, some lighting columns may obstruct vehicle manoeuvring within the areas behind Clare Road and Tower Parade.   

At the time of writing no formal resolution to the above issues has been found, however the applicant has provided an 'in principle' agreement to reduce the height of the lighting columns to 4 metres (subject to Kent Highway Services adoption criteria) and re-site a number of columns to the rear of Northwood Road to avoid obstruction of vehicular movement. In addition, it has been suggested that the lights would only be illuminated from dusk until 8:00 pm in winter months. The form of illumination and shields on the lights to direct the light downward onto the route can be controlled by condition, preventing light spillage beyond the route itself. The Council's Ecologist has indicated support for this approach in respect of impact upon bat activity. In order to ensure such measures a condition can be imposed requiring a full lighting scheme to be submitted for Local Planning Authority approval.

In terms of other amenity considerations the proposed route is intended to be used by the public, thus some noise disturbance may result. The application area is presently open land and publicly accessible. The route would attract more public activity as a result of this proposal, but the potential noise or disturbance that may arise from the use is likely to be of a level that would not be harmful to neighbouring occupiers' amenities, especially as the land is publicly accessible presently. In respect of the proposed new link routes these have either been designed to merge into the landscaping which will assist acting as an acoustic buffer or would traverse existing open space.

Security has also been raised as a concern by local residents. There is no evidence to conclude that the creation of this public route would result in increased security issues, vandalism, fly-tipping, anti-social behaviour, given this land is currently publicly accessible. Rather, the increased use of the route is likely to improve general surveillance of the area, possible deterring the activities raised above. The application indicates an intention to remove the fly-tipping that has taken place at various locations along the present application site which will be of visual and overall amenity benefit. It is noted that the Police do not object to the proposal.

Some concern has been expressed about the time of year the ecological surveys have been conducted.  An ecological scoping survey, by its nature, can be conducted at any time of year as it is an assessment of a site's potential to contain protected species. It is thus not restricted to any particular time of year. The specific surveys are restricted to particular times of year, however having reviewed this in association with my colleagues in Ecology, the Bat and Reptile reports have been concluded to be undertaken at appropriate times.

Queries have been raised over the validity of the application. The application site area has been recalculated and found to be larger than that initially indicated on the planning application form. This has been corrected. In addition, a review of land ownerships within the application site area has been undertaken by the agent and two additional notices served (upon Network Rail and Southern Water). There has been no alteration to the original notices served on other landowners as this remains unchanged. The planning application form has been criticised by objectors as being filled in incorrectly or lacking information and a new application form requested to be filled in. It is recognised that this application was submitted prior to the introduction of the 1APP in April 2008 therefore the form is simpler. A review of the information has been undertaken and it is considered that the application form is not misleading and any matters that have been raised have been addressed and the application is thus valid.

The Local Planning Authority has also been criticised for not re-notifying residents of amended details that had been received in April 2008. However officers at that time did not consider the details submitted had addressed all issues raised in respect of the application and therefore further information was needed to be submitted by the applicant. Once this was received a wholesale new consultation was undertaken.

Suggestions have been put forward by a number of local residents relating to alternative courses the route could possibly take.  Some of these fall outside the application area as submitted on the plans and would require full re-consultation if the proposed route was amended. Notwithstanding this, I do not consider the route as proposed to be unacceptable for the reasons set out above and therefore do not consider it appropriate to enter into negotiations in respect of altering the alignment of the proposed route from that which is proposed.

Kent Highway Services have raised no objection to the proposal subject to safeguarding conditions relating to signage, design of access points, surfacing finishes and drainage. These are considered appropriate.

In terms of flood risk and drainage the Council's engineers consider the proposal to be acceptable subject to the clearing of a ditch adjacent All Saints Close.

In conclusion, there is clearly a significant amount of local interest in the proposal. The proposal would assist in bringing the Crab and Winkle route back to its historic alignment (or as close as possible) and in doing so would create a recreational facility within the District. There has been a long-term interest in having the route on the historic alignment of the railway and much support has been received be interested parties to the proposal. Indeed, the provision of the route is supported by Policy C3 of the Local Plan which states that "land will be safeguarded for the proposed pedestrian and cycle routes, as shown on the Proposals Map". 'Connectivity' aimed to encourage walking and cycling and reducing vehicle journeys has been encouraged for many years and is now promoted by bodies such as CABE (Commission for Architecture an the Built Environment). New routes and links aim to make it easier to commute between homes, jobs and amenities without using a car and it is recognised that this proposal would go some way to promoting this. There can be thus no doubt that this proposal would improve accessibility to the town centre. However, it is also recognised that the proposal has raised concerns of those living nearby. In light of the amount of public interest generated by the proposal it is my view that it would be beneficial for Members to visit the site to see at first hand the issues and concerns that have been raised by interested parties, many of whom reside adjacent the proposed route, prior to making a decision on this application. Officers would also welcome Members' guidance in respect of the lighting and bat issues and the extent of landscaping likely to be lost.

BACKGROUND PAPERS
1.   Application Ref: CA/07/01442/WHI
2.   Memorandum from RED - Countryside Section, dated 21.05.09
3.   Memorandum from RED - Landscape Section, dated 14.07.09
4.   Memorandum from Transportation & Engineering Officer, dated 03.07.09
5.   Memorandum from Sea Defence & Drainage, dated 26.05.09
6.   Previous planning application ref: CA/06/00538/WHI

 RECOMMENDATION :