14 December 2018 · Committee
Sea Wall, Queens Promenade, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4nr
This application sought permission to construct a 507-metre reinforced concrete wall, 1.2 metres high, anchored to the existing sea wall along Douglas Promenade. The stated purpose was to reduce wave overtopping. The existing wall consists of concrete elements and metal railings that allow views through to the beach and sea. The Planning Committee refused the application on 14 December 2018, despite the case officer recommending approval. The committee found that the submission lacked the information needed to properly assess several key planning concerns. Specifically, the committee identified four areas of concern: the impact on the Conservation Area was not adequately assessed; no Environmental Impact Assessment had been provided; no formal Flood Risk Assessment had been submitted, including how water from coastal overtopping would return to the sea; and there was insufficient consideration of the loss of public sea views for people who cannot see over a solid wall.
The Planning Committee refused the application on 14 December 2018, overturning the officer's recommendation to approve. The committee found that the applicant had not provided enough information to assess the proposal's impact on the Conservation Area, had not submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment, had not provided a formal Flood Risk Assessment including how overtopping water would return to the sea, and had not adequately considered the loss of sea views for people unable to see over the raised wall.
Refusal Reasons
General Policy 2
development should respect the site and surroundings in terms of scale, form and design (b) and should not adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape (c) or public views of the sea (e)
General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption. 6.3 Development outside of areas zoned for development
Environment Policy 10 - Development and flood risk
where development is proposed on a site where there is a risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment must accompany the application
irements of the relevant gas supply agency. Flood Risk 63 There was widespread concern about the adequacy of drainage and the risk of flooding, particularly in parts of Braddan, Onchan and Laxey. Environment Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan indicates that where development is proposed on any site where there is a potential risk of flooding, the prospective developer will be required to submit a flood risk assessment, together with details of proposed mitigation measures. This approach is reinforced in Utilities Proposal 6 of the draft Area Plan, which (among other things) requires the incorporation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) into new developments, to attenuate the rate of surface water run-off. I consider these policies to be reasonable. Clearly, without adequate mitigation measures, new building should normally be resisted on land which is at serious risk of flooding, or where the proposed development would increase the flood risk elsewhere. 64 In my view, the format of Utilities Proposal 6 could be improved. First, as a Proposal of the Area Plan, I consider that it should be in a bold typeface, to differentiate it from the supporting text. (The same applies to a number of other policies e.g. Transport Policy 2, and Utilities Policies 2 and 5). Second, there appears to be an error of syntax at the start of the second sentence of Utilities Proposal 6, which should perhaps read 'Strategies to achieve this will include …'. Third, the third bullet point of this Proposal introduces SuDS. Subsequent bullet points describe features of SuDS, and are therefore subordinate to the third bullet point. For clarity, I consider that they should be indented. I recommend that the draft Area Plan be modified accordingly. Sewage Treatment 65 There was also some public concern about the adequacy of the sewerage system, both in terms of its capacity to accommodate the effluent from proposed residential development areas, and in terms of the current practice of discharging untreated sewage into the sea. Infrastructure Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan indicates that developments entailing the erection of multiple dwellings should take place only on sites that will ultimately be connected to the IRIS system, which takes sewage to a treatment works at Meary Veg. (IRIS is an acronym for Integration and Recycling of the Island's Sewage). However, as long ago as 2006/7, a review was undertaken to decide whether to continue with the IRIS strategy. This concluded that it would be beneficial to adopt a regional sewage treatment strategy (RSTS) for those settlements that were not already connected to the IRIS system, including Laxey, Baldrine and settlements in the Central Valley. To that extent, Infrastructure Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan is now out of date. 66 I understand that a planning application will soon be submitted for the development of a local sewage treatment facility for Laxey. Feasibility studies for the provision of a similar facility to serve Baldrine are ongoing. A replacement sewage works at Ballagarey, serving part of the Central Valley became operational in 2018. However, capacity limitations mean that planned development in Crosby is likely to have to rely on standalone sewage treatment for the time being, until the existing treatment works is replaced as anticipated in 2022. The Programme for Government (2016-2021) indicates an intention to complete the regional sewage treatment infrastructure within the lifetime of the present administration. 67 It seems to me that these considerations should be taken into account in the allocation and phasing of land for development. I will return to this matter when considering the draft Area Plan's proposals for housing. Electricity Renewable Energy 68 Peel Energy considered that the Area Plan should contain a detailed and specific chapter on renewable energy, providing measurable criteria against which applications for the development of renewable power generating facilities would be assessed. They cited the States of Jersey Island Plan 2011, which includes such material. And they pointed out that a Climate Change Emergency has recently been declared on the Isle of Man; that a Climate Change Bill is soon to be presented to Tynwald; and that there has been strong public support for the Government's Climate Change Mitigation Strategy. They argued that, in failing to provide detailed guidance on renewable power generation, the Area Plan was inconsistent with the Strategic Plan; and that since the Area Plan post-dated the Strategic Plan, its largely negative provisions would prevail. 69 Energy Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan applies to development proposals for renewable energy generated by wind, water, tidal or solar power. It indicates that any such proposals will be judged against that Plan's environmental objectives. Proposals for wind, water or tidal power would need to be supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment. The supporting text indicates that renewable energy schemes will be given similar scrutiny as is gi
Environment Policy 24
sets out the need for Environmental Impact Assessment
Environment Policy 24: Pollution-sensitive development will only be allowed to be located close to sources of pollution where appropriate measures can be taken to safeguard amenity. 7.20 Contaminated Land 7.20.1 Contaminated land on the Island is typically as a result of the legacy of past industrial and chemical land uses. Perhaps the most notable sites are land areas associated with former mining practices and it is not uncommon for such sites to be close to residential areas or watercourses which can be detrimentally affected by such contamination. Foxdale is a prime example of a former mining village, which largely specialised in lead mining during the 19 th Century under the control of the Isle of Man Mining Company, and physical evidence can still be found of important archaeological remains. A number of studies have revealed varying degrees of contamination across Higher Foxdale, much of which still requires reclamation from heavy metal contamination. It is recognised, however, that some of the former mining areas host a variety of rare plants which may have ecological value. (1) Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Procedures. Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (2000). 7.20.2 The practice of reclaiming contaminated land and bringing it back into beneficial use is supported, whether it be suitable in the end for open space or residential development or as deemed appropriate in the Area Plans. It is important that however former contaminated land is utilised, both health and property are safeguarded. Detailed surveys may be required to identify the extent of contamination and how contamination problems can be overcome. On sites where the Depar tment has no control, the developer will have responsibility to ensure that any development site is free of contamination which may constitute a hazard to occupiers or potential users of the development or land. Furthermore, precautions will be essential to ensure that contaminants cannot escape from the site which may cause airborne or waterborne pollution or pollution of nearby land.
