Agenda item

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding a City walkway alteration in relation to Dark House Walk.

Officers began by drawing Members’ attention to the fact that an amended resolution and an enlarged, colour version of the city walkway alteration plan at Appendix 2B had been tabled.

A Member questioned the effects of the proposed alteration which seemed to narrow the walkway in parts. He questioned why this was therefore recommended and highlighted that, at present, it was possible for the public to walk either side of the street furniture situated here whereas the alterations would mean that it was only possible to walk on one side.

Another Member stated that he felt that the riverside walkway was an important amenity and was therefore supportive of these proposals. Another Member stated that, whilst it was fair to say that the Riverside Walkway was currently under utilised, the completion of this had taken some 20 years to date.

A Member expressed concern that the walkway, which was public realm, would be taken away and allocated for private use under these proposals. She questioned how, with this being the case, consent had been granted without first consulting this Committee. Another Member stated that she also had some difficulty in understanding the recommendations and shared the same concerns around giving away an area of prime public realm to a private developer. She went on to question whether it was also intended to remove the benches from this area which had previously been a well used/busy space. Whilst she was happy to see further use of the walkway encouraged, she objected to this being given away. The Member went on to question whether the space was intended to house outside tables for the two storey restaurant and stated that, if so, the developer could apply for a table and chairs licence negating the need to give away this prime, public space. The Member concluded by stating that she would be happier with a compromise whereby space for the restaurant pavilion was allocated but not for the placement of external tables and chairs. She added that she felt that the report was lacking at this stage.

A Member sought clarification from Officers as to what exactly the Walkway was and whether it was necessarily City owned. Another Member stated that clarity was also needed in terms of what the Committee’s powers were in these circumstances.

Another Member questioned whether a quid pro quo approach might be taken with the developer whereby they were prepared to offer something in return for acquiring the City walkway space.

At this point, the Chairman sought approval from the Committee to continue the meeting beyond two hours from the appointed time for the start of the meeting, in accordance with Standing Order 40, and this was agreed.

Officers confirmed that public right of way must be maintained on City Walkways and that these could go through buildings although not above or below. Members were also informed that Officers were of the view that adequate walkway would be retained if the recommendations were to be agreed. Officers highlighted that the plan tabled showed that the alterations were proposed at the widest point of the walkway meaning that it would be possible to maintain the same width as elsewhere on the walkway plus scope for additional planters/seating. The developer would fund the installation of the proposed planters, the design of which was still to be agreed. Some additional sheltered spaces would also be created.

A Member stated that, whilst this may well be the case, dimensions were a key thing missing from the report/plans which could clearly depict that the remaining space for pedestrians in the area, even with the alterations, would still be superior to space to both the east and west of this area.

Officers went on to explain that the loss of City walkway had been explicit within the original planning application which had been publicly advertised as required. Officers had made a judgement under delegated powers that the application was acceptable and would result in improved facilities and landscaping and an enlivening of the walkway.

The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director clarified that the granting of the planning application and the rescinding of public highway were two quite separate processes.

Due to the number of outstanding questions and concerns raised in relation to the report, Members were of the view that the report should be deferred for consideration at a future meeting. The Chairman clarified that Members would like to see the grounds for the de-designation of City Walkway set out more clearly in a future report as well as further details of the proposal.

RESOLVED – That the item be deferred.