More Developer Manoeuvres at STEPS Rehabilitation
​
​
Planning Application 23/03638/FUL
​
Sir / Madam
​
The Sheaf and Porter Rivers Trust (SPRT) is writing to submit a further objection/comment to the planning application for an extension at the STEPS Rehabilitation Centre on Troutbeck Road (reference 23/03638/FUL). We are sending it in this format as the Council website will not accept attachments .
​
Positive Developments:
​
We acknowledge the applicant's recent submission of an Ecology Survey plus a covering letter that includes a revised plan (Revision M) depicting the approved 3-meter riverside path.
​
Outstanding Concerns:
​
However, we have concerns regarding the applicant's continued use of the "without prejudice" designation of the plan in the accompanying letter. This suggests they haven't yet accepted the Planning Committee's decision from October 17th, 2024, regarding enforcing the approved path width.
Additionally, the plan shows no setting back of the proposed new extension as required by the Environment Agency and supported by ourselves, forcing an unnecessary sharp bend and ‘blind corner’ in the riverside trail.
​
The trail is further diverted by the retention of a low wall to the west of the currently unauthorised Garden Room, creating another ‘blind corner’.
​
Furthermore, the applicant's claim that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has mandated demolishing the garden room due to the "discharge of conditions" appears inaccurate. We are open to accepting the proposed layout, but STEPS's previous communication with the Planning Authority and with SPRT highlighted concerns about the potential structure required and consequent cost and tree removal issues to achieve it.
​
Ecology Report
​
The applicant cites the absence of records of any protected or significant species as noted in the ecologists report as indicating that the river bank here is of low importance, whereas it more probably reflects the lack of public accessibility to carry out surveys – one of the purposes of creating a riverside trail.
​
In addition the applicants agent dismisses the EA’s request for setbacks by conflating EA guidance on set-back for flood protection with that on creating/protecting a continuous river habitat corridor.
​
SPRT's Proposed Solution:
​
For the past two years, SPRT has consistently advocated for a simple compromise solution. This involves
​
a) removing the low wall and fence behind the Garden Room and
b) the setting back of the new extension with no loss of floorspace and perhaps one parking space.
A modest alteration to the Revision M alignment as sketched on the attached plan (see below) could then be achieved creating a smooth, consistent 3-meter path extension, aligning with the existing trail built by Adlington and eliminating blind corners and pinch points. This would also reduce the requirement for extended structures to support the trail with attendant cost.
​
Conditions for Approval
​
SPRT would be content with the application's approval, but only provided clear conditions are established:
​
-
Extension setback: The new extension should be set back by 4 meters, as requested by the Environment Agency and other objectors.
-
Garden room modification: The garden room should remain, but the obstructing low wall immediately to the west should be removed or moved.
-
Riverside path construction: The 3-meter riverside walk must be constructed as per Revision M, incorporating SPRT's suggested minor realignment, which we believe would be beneficial.
-
Path surface: The riverside walking/cycling path surface should be constructed using a sustainable sealed surface suitable for all types of bicycles and wheelchairs, including during wet weather conditions.
-
Completion and approval: Detailed plans for the riverside path must be finalized and approved by the Council and constructed at the same time as the proposed extension which should not be occupied until the trail is complete and available for use.
​
Conclusion
​
SPRT reiterates the availability of a straightforward compromise solution that aligns with the Planning Committee's recent decision on 13/02019/cond3 on 15th October 2024. We are encouraged by the applicant's apparent tentative adoption of this approach in their revised plan .
​
We agree with the applicant that this and related applications have taken far too long to resolve and urge the LPA to consider this application swiftly and implement the outlined conditions to ensure the project adheres to planning regulations and enhances public access to the riverside.
​
​
​