Minutes of the 127th meeting (127.14) of the BURLEY BRIDGE ASSOCIATION
held on Wednesday 19th September 2014 at 22 Hasley Road, Burley-in-Wharfedale.
127.1 – Present: David Asher, Donald Hill, Denis Read, Madeline Rylands, Keith Wadd,
Peter Young (Secretary).
127.2 – Apologies for absence: None.
David Asher acted as Chairman of the meeting.
127.3 – Minutes of the meeting September 16th (126.14), circulated: These were
approved as true record.
127.4 – Matters arising not covered elsewhere: 1. New edition of Burley handbook due
end of November. We have an advert in. 2. Finance: DR reported 2 payments via PayPal
totalling £52.53. Harrogate planners had charged us double for the Application costs and
cheque for £190 reimbursement received. DH: 4 new members joined plus donations = £37.
This fund stands at £955. 3. It was thought our minutes can resume being published on the
website, with a covering note re sensitivity of some matters and need to protect third parties.
ACTION SECRETARY
127.5 – Planning application and ahead: DA: Consultation period ended Nov 14. Planning
meetings likely in January 2015. Support and objections at 80% and 20%. Objections tend to
be carefully worded and specific. WRA, BP, J. Joyce and G. Turner sent objections. DA had
produced a Question and Answer document based on objections raised and
rebuttal/explanation from SJ. This can go on website. DA also reported email to Stephen
James copied to us from Martyn Burke, Senior Planner at Bradford.
This is reproduced here:
From: Martyn Burke martyn.burke@bradford.gov.uk Sent: 19 November To: Stephen James
Subject: Planning Application 14/03664/FUL : Proposed Footbridge in Burley-in-Wharfedale
Dear Stephen
I have now received the majority of consultations in respect of this planning application. You will be
aware that, as well as receiving a large number of representations supporting the bridge, a significant
number of objections have been received. This will mean that, whatever the Officer recommendation,
the application will need to be heard at the Keighley/Shipley Area Planning Panel.
The representations are broadly split between the supporters who wholeheartedly support the
concept of a bridge to replace the dangerous stepping stones and the objectors who are fearful of the
practical consequences of a bridge, particularly for local residents, landowners and others who enjoy
and use the river.
The Local Planning Authority has always supported the concept of a bridge. This has been
demonstrated by previous approvals for the bridge proposed across the weir. However, the bridge is
not a high priority in terms of other competing priorities for improvement of the District's Rights of Way
network and I need to make it very clear that this Authority has no funding to contribute to the bridge,
nor funds to pay for its subsequent upkeep. The Local Planning Authority also has to pay due regard
to the objections it has received.
To assist with preparation of the report to Panel, I would be grateful for your responses to a number of
questions regarding the practicalities of the bridge project.
1. TECHNICAL APPROVAL PROCESS I understand that you have made no approaches to either
Local Highway Authority regarding Technical Approval. This Council's Bridges Unit has serious
misgivings about the design which does not appear to follow guidance in the "Design Manual For
Roads and Bridges". If this Council's Bridges Unit was commissioning the bridge it would have a far
more robust design and a 120 year design life. There are doubts whether the bridge would receive
Technical Consent.
Given this, I wondered what is the point of submitting a planning application, valid for only 3 years, if
the bridge is unlikely to be built in this form due to Technical Consent requirements.
2. SPECIFICATIONS The ramp and deck appear to be only 1.1-1.2 metres wide which is not
enough for two people to pass. The span is also unusually long for this width. I wondered if you had
comments on this.
Page 1
Bradford's Street Design Guide suggests that steps should have a constant rise of 100-150mm, with a
maximum rise of 130mm. I wondered if you could confirm the step rise. The width of steps should be
a minimum of 280mm. If the above are not met, is there justification?
3. IMPACT ON THE BRIDLEWAY The legally recorded width of the bridleway on the
Bradford/Burley bank is 3.0 metres. Currently the measured width is 3.8 metres between the stone
walls. It is essential that use by horse riders is not impeded. Your drawings do not make it clear
whether inserting the ramp into this space would realistically leave the minimum width of 3.0 metres.
If part of one of the walls needs to be removed to leave 3.0 metres, the consent of 3rd parties may be
needed. Can you clarify that 3.0 metres can actually be achieved.
4. FLOOD RISK You will be aware that the Environment Agency will need to give its separate
consent to works in the river and it has signalled that some compensatory flood storage capacity will
need to be created. If this is on the Bradford side, the location of the compensatory storage works
needs to be shown.
Many objectors have questioned whether the bridge is robust enough to withstand damage when the
river rises, and some comments on this from the designer would be helpful.
5. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS You will be aware that several objections question how contractors
would get access to actually build the bridge. Some comments from the applicant on where
contractors cabins, equipment etc would be stored during construction (without obstructing the public
and private rights of way) and how much construction traffic local residents are likely to have to
endure for a project of this kind would be helpful.
6. FISH PASS You will have seen the EA suggestion of a fish pass. Also comments from the
Council's Ecology advisor that the submitted Ecological Surveys (2008) are out of date. Your
comments on these points would be appreciated.
7. ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR You will have seen numerous objections fearing that a bridge will
attract more people to the riverside and worsen existing problems of trespass, litter, and inconsiderate
parking on Leather Bank and elsewhere. I would appreciate your comments on how such problems
might be mitigated by the applicant.
FINALLY 8. MAINTENANCE This Council has no funds to maintain a bridge. There is no
information with the submission about maintenance. Questions I raised as long ago as 1998 about
maintenance have never been answered. The lack of any commitments to funding the maintenance
of the bridge raises serious issues about public safety and amenity. It is likely to be of keen interest to
members of Planning Panel. I must ask that this is addressed by the applicant.
Martyn Burke, Senior Planning Officer Tel: 01274 434605  Fax: 01274 722840 1
st
Floor, Jacobs Well, Bradford, BD1 5RW
Committee commented on the points raised. It was hoped an early consultation with Stephen
James could be made. David pointed out several points had not been raised which could have
caused other problems. Need to lobby the councillors involved in the planning meetings,
using the QandA document. Possibility of Crowdfunding to raise money discussed.
Committee impressed also with Dorian Speakman's recent letter. KW mentioned Thompson
Ecology report which RA had commissioned.
127.6 – Finance & Fund Raising: Already reported.
127.7 – Secretary's Report & Correspondence: Some items to cover: 1. Re “Greenholme
Mills site” idea from BPC meeting: Christopher Dawson was contacted and reply from his
land agent indicated his opposition to a bridge and path creation. Information passed to
Bradford, Harrogate and BPC. 2. Myles Broughton a wheelchair user had emailed to
complain at lack of facilities. 3. We could report back to large donors and email members
now consultation period over. Secretary to draft letter. 4. Wedding congratulations card
signed for SJ. 5. Jeremy Clarkson's Sun newspaper article not needed on website. 6. Ian
Malsbury's help particularly useful. To be asked to Christmas Lights event. 7. Otley Walking
Festival 2015, 27/6 – 5/7, PY may not be available. 8. RA arranging 'WalkLeeds' festival
31/5 – 7/6, for walks within Leeds boundary but we may arrange a half day walk. Guiseley
station start maybe, DR considering. 9. Website: Madeline and Jonny busy over consultation
period, thanks expressed. 10. Secretary had contacted all local papers, had seen some results.
JS-P Look North event generated interest. MR may post pics on website. 11. Secretary
Page 2
reported that he has been in office since 2005, AGM is six months away and possibly time
for a change.
ACTION SECRETARY
127.8 – Other Business: Christmas Lights, Saturday 29 Nov: arrangements discussed. Set up
from 1pm. Tombola for adult prizes, Straws for children' prizes, Bash the Rat for children
with sweets for prizes. Bottles, chocs, unwanted gifts etc to Donald as soon as possible in
week before.
ACTION ALL
127.9 – Date of Next Meeting: Thursday 18th December at 22 Hasley Road.
The committee meeting finished at 9.45pm and thanks were expressed to Madeline and Peter
Rylands for their hospitality.
Peter Young
20/11/14
Page 3