Dept Decision and Inspector's Report

The Town And Country Planning Act 1999

Date of Issue: 17th June 2014 Chief Secretary’s Office Government Offices Bucks Road Douglas

Mr W Greenhow ACMA Chief Secretary

Town And Country Planning Development

(Procedure Order) 2005

Planning Secretary Department of Infrastructure Planning and Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

In accordance with Article 10(2)(e) of the above Order, the person appointed by the Council of Ministers to consider this application has submitted his report.

In further accordance with Article 10(3)(a) a copy of the appointed person’s report is herewith enclosed.

On the 12th June 2014, and after consultation, the Council of Ministers accepted the recommendation contained within that report and the application was refused for the reasons specified below.

Applicant:	Sea Breezes Properties Ltd
Proposal:	Full approval for erection of extensions and conversion of existing educational establishment into a Marine Interpretation Centre including an associated retail unit and cafe, dive centre and offices for marine related business, Marine Biological Station Breakwater Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6JA

Reason(S) For Refusal:

1. With reference to the alterations and vertical extension proposed to the building at the eastern end of the site, the proposal would result in that building becoming overly dominant and intrusive in visual terms, to the detriment of the architectural and historical interest of the original Marine Biological Station building and also to the detriment of the general character and appearance of the existing group of buildings and of the area. It would thereby conflict with the intentions of parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and with the Development Brief for Site 22 in the Area Plan for the South.

2 The proposal makes inadequate provision for car parking within the defined application site, and as a consequence would be likely to result in additional on-street parking to the detriment of the safety of highway users and the free flow of traffic. It would thereby conflict with the intentions of Transport Policy 7 and parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

Report To The Council Of Ministers

Application By Sea Breezes Properties Ltd For Planning Approval For Erection Of Extensions And Conversion Of Educational Establishment Into A Marine Interpretation Centre Including An Associated Retail Unit And Café, Dive Centre And Offices For Marine Related Business At Marine Biological Station, Breakwater Road, Port Erin

Case Reference: DF13/0012 Planning Application: 13/00460/B

Introduction

1. The Department of Infrastructure has an interest in this site as owner, and so the application has been referred to the Council of Ministers for decision pursuant to Article 10 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005. I have been appointed to consider the scheme and make this report. I visited the site on 7 April 2014. My report gives descriptions of the site and the proposal and summaries of the applicant's planning/traffic statements, of a letter submitted with revised drawings, of a planning statement from the Department, of comments from the Highways Division and of consultation responses. It also gives my assessment, conclusions and recommendation.
2. The Council of Ministers recently granted approval in principle on this site for conversion into a Marine Interpretation Centre, including a retail unit, café, dive centre, offices for marine related businesses and a 20 bedroom hotel (PA13/00459/A). The Planning Officer involved has stressed that the 2 schemes are for different developments, and that the decision on one does not necessarily influence the other.

The Site And Surroundings And The Proposed Development

1. The site sits below cliffs at the western end of Breakwater Road which is an extension of Shore Road. It faces north across Port Erin Bay. Breakwater Road ends outside the site where it forms a loop around an open green area. The buildings on the site have a mix of 2 -storeys and 3 -storeys and are linked. They have pitched hipped roofs. The original "Herdman" building dates from 1892 and has been proposed for Registration. Other buildings date from 1932 (the laboratory) and 1980 (library, teaching laboratory and dive centre). The site was vacated by Liverpool University in 2006. There is an informal area of hard-standing to the west, but there is no dedicated parking area to serve the buildings.
2. The proposal is a detailed one. Three parts of the buildings at the rear would be demolished, including the lecture theatre, and replacement extensions would be built. The pitched roof of the 3 -storey building at the eastern end would be replaced by a new floor of accommodation with a flat roof. This building would be used as a diving unit with offices above. The other buildings would form a Marine Interpretation Centre. On the ground floor this would include touch tanks, a video/media exhibition, a shop, a café and toilets, with 1st floor facilities including a classroom, exhibition space, laboratories and a workshop. There would be 8 parking spaces to the east of the building and 44 spaces to the west of it.

Statements Submitted With The Application

The main points are:

1. The applicant was given preferred developer status in 2010, and was approached by the Manx Wildlife Trust which was seeking a location for a Marine Interpretation Centre. The Interpretation Centre would use the original building as the main entrance. Many of the original features of that building would be retained including the central lantern. Where possible windows in that building would be restored to earlier versions of the window types in consultation with the Conservation Officer. The lecture theatre

is in poor condition and would be removed. A large new area would be added at the rear to extend the interpretation area. There would be a shop and café, a classroom for visiting school parties and laboratories/space for visiting scientists. The Interpretation Centre would feature information, exhibits and displays on the marine environment and wildlife. It would cater for up to 120 people at a time. Arrivals would be spread in time and stays would be for about 4 hours. Opening hours would be midmorning to late afternoon/early evening. There would be sea water storage tanks at the rear. Pipework would be underground, and no equipment would be visible from the front or side of the building.

1. The 3 -storey building is to be retained as offices and a dive centre, with parking to the east. This part of the scheme has been revised due to a condition survey which revealed that the roof needs replacement and that water ingress must be addressed. This gave the opportunity to add a level of offices. The revised proposal seeks to allow the dive centre and offices to operate without mutual interference. The revisions include closing the vehicular underpass to create a reception for the offices. Alternative access to the dive centre would be formed to the rear and through new doors in the eastern elevation.
2. The elevational treatment seeks to create a building appropriate for the 21st century, for the maritime location and use and for the context adjacent to an older building of merit. The use of a verdigris metal roof and detailing, and a white painted 3rd floor balustrade, would give a nautical feel. The use of white painted render above the ground floor would have a strong Manx connection and would give the protection needed to the existing fabric. The contemporary treatment of the replacement windows would help create a style appropriate to this century, but would reflect the style of the windows in the buildings to the west. The retention/repointing of the brick buttresses would give a solid base to the lighter material above, and, with the retention of the existing window sizes and openings, this would maintain some reference to the existing building. The overall effect would be more modern, but would be appropriate as the existing building is not inspiring and the proposals would obviously set this building as being of a different time to the adjacent buildings in line with good Conservation practice. The overall height would be only 650 mm higher than the existing building. The apparent height would be minimised by the use of horizontal verdigris roof cladding over the balcony and around the building.
3. The proposal has been designed to accord with relevant policies, including the Area Plan for the South ("the Area Plan"). The proposal complies with the design brief in that Plan in the following ways:

• it is for marine based leisure and tourism purposes;
• it re-uses the existing buildings, including the original Marine Laboratory Building;
• it includes landscaping of the area around the buildings;
• the hotel (subject of a separate application) would balance out the front elevation, creating a more symmetrical arrangement with the original Marine Laboratory Building in a central position;
• all other additions to the building would be to the rear and only visible from the cliff-top footpath;
• access to that footpath would be maintained;
• there would be no impact on the ecology of Port Erin Bay, and public understanding of local habitats would be enhanced through the educational aspect of the Centre;
• a traffic assessment has been provided; the site can accommodate sufficient parking and meet necessary access requirements with the minor works included in the application.

1. The proposal accords with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan"):

• it is within the design brief in the Area Plan (part a of General Policy 2);
• it respects the existing building and its surroundings by re-using much of the fabric and enhancing the relationship with the cliff (part b);

• it complements the landscape and nearby townscape by putting a building that adds to the character of the area back into use (part c);
• it will have no adverse effects on the natural landscape, and it is not near a watercourse (part d);
• public views of the sea would be unaffected (part e);
• the proposal incorporates the existing topography and cliff face into the landscaping design by creating views out towards it (part f);
• it provides improved amenity for local events (part g);
• it improves access to parking and maintains existing pedestrian and vehicular access (part h);
• it maintains road safety and traffic flows locally (part i);
• it utilises existing services (part j);
• it does not prejudice development or use of adjoining land, which is not intensively used (part k);
• the site is above the floodplain and is not subject to erosion (part l);
• account is taken of public safety and the design is in line with relevant safety policy (part m);
• the proposal pays due regard to reducing energy consumption; it re-uses existing fabric, uses energy efficient lighting and improved insulation and uses sea water for cooling the tanks (part n).

1. The proposal accords with Environment Policy 43 of the Strategic Plan as it re-uses built fabric and aims to regenerate a run-down area. With reference to Environment Policies 32 and 33, the Herdman building has been proposed for Registration. Many of its original features would be retained. The following points are made with reference to Transport Policies 1-7 of the Strategic Plan:

• the site is 730 m - 10 minutes' walk - from the train station/bus depot via existing pavements; new paving would provide adequate on-site circulation and pedestrian access to the new entrances;
• the design would allow for bus turning should the bus network ever be extended to this site;
• cycle access would be as existing; provision for cyclists would be made by a cycle shelter on site;
• there would be an increase of about 117 return car/van journeys per day in traffic to Port Erin; the access is adequate for this, taking into account that Shore Road is a primary distributor;
• the proposal would avoid congestion at the traffic lights near the Bay View Hotel as visitors to the site would arrive through the day rather being concentrated at peak hours;
• fewer people would arrive at any one time than was the case with the previous use of the site;
• visits by school parties would be by coach, at times which would not conflict with the arrival/ departure times of office workers;
• based on the Strategic Plan's parking standards the proposal requires 103 parking spaces - 11 for the offices; 16 for the laboratories; 10 for the dive centre; 66 for the Interpretation Centre;
• the site and proposal meet criteria for sustainable accessibility by encouraging cycling and walking, and by keeping car parking provision to minimum standards;
• the proposal makes necessary provision for access by disabled people; it also makes necessary provision for collection and delivery movements.

Planning Statement \& Comments Of The Highways Division

The main points made in the Department of Infrastructure's planning statement are:

1. This is Site 22 in the Area Plan, and is identified as "Proposed Mixed Use". The Marine Biological Station is noted as being worthy of Registration. Explanatory paragraphs refer to the potential of the site for mixed use, primarily marine-based tourist/leisure uses. It is indicated that an element of residential use may also be considered favourably. Strategic Plan parking standards require 1 space per for assembly and leisure uses, 1 space per for offices and 1 space per for out of town office floor space. The development brief in the Area Plan includes provisions that:

• development should preferably make use of all existing buildings;
• development should include contiguous land vested in the Department of Infrastructure;

Case Ref. DF13/0012 Application No. 13/00460/B

• the design of new buildings and the treatment of spaces should reflect the conspicuous nature of the site, and the character and appearance of the emerging Conservation Area;
• the layout must make provision for access to the cliff-top footpath;
• development should be sensitive to the ecological importance of Port Erin Bay;
• any scheme must include a Traffic Assessment.

1. The critical issues are whether the proposals are visually acceptable, and whether there is sufficient car/coach parking provision such that inconvenience and danger would not be caused to other highway users. Reference needs to be made to the development brief. It is also relevant to consider the importance of the site in terms of the interest of the former Marine Biological Station and the building's prominence at the end of the promenade and harbour, and the potential benefit to the public of bringing the site and buildings back into use. If the application is to be approved, 3 conditions are suggested.

The main points made in the Highways Division's Comments are:

1. The Division has no objection in principle on highway safety grounds. There are aspects of the scheme that would benefit from additional details. The following further points are made:

• the Traffic Statement provides a reasonable assumption of likely traffic demand by mode;
• a traffic survey in June 2013 revealed daily flows eastbound of 339 vehicles and westbound of 340 vehicles with peak hour flows of 38 and 35 ;
• applying appropriate growth factors, traffic flows by 2024 would not be at a level which would result in highway safety or congestion issues;
• based on assumptions about the likely arrival times of traffic to the various uses proposed, levels of traffic would have a negligible impact on the safety, operation and capacity of the immediate highway infrastructure, including the traffic controlled section of Breakwater Road;
• the Division accepts the methods of calculating trip generation and distribution/assignment of traffic in the Traffic Statement; there would be a total of 97 return trips per day;
• there have been no personal injury accidents within 50 m of the access in the last 5 years;
• there is a 2 T weight limit by Traffic Regulation Order on Strand Road; as a result visitors arriving by bus or coach would have to disembark on Station Road and walk to the development;
• the submitted proposal does not include any cycle parking;
• there are no objections to the levels of parking proposed; it is estimated that 107 spaces are required, and only 52 off-road spaces are proposed, but there are about 46 kerbside spaces available on the Breakwater Road loop; although the Strategic Plan parking standards are not met, having regard to the estimate of 972 -way trips per day, and the fact that trips to the Interpretation Centre and the dive centre would be likely to be distributed throughout the day, the Division is satisfied that the combination of on-site and on-street parking would be adequate;
• the disabled parking space in the eastern car park should be relocated nearer to the building;
• details of the following matters have not been provided and should be required by condition: car park and footway surfaces; the entry ramp into the building; connections from the existing footways to the development, including the location of dropped crossings;
• notes are requested to be attached to any approval relating to Highways Act requirements.

Responses To Consultations

1. The Commissioners of Port Erin support the scheme, but have some concern about coach access due to the weight limit on Strand Road and the lack of detail about the location of coach parking. The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture notes that there is potential for works to occur where lizards have been recorded, and recommends a survey. The decision would not turn on this

matter, but working methods should seek to minimise the effects and prevent the loss of lizards. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority has no objection, subject to recommended conditions. Manx Electricity Authority indicates that discussion of the electricity supply will be necessary.

Inspector'S Assessment And Conclusions

1. There are 3 main issues: (i) the effect on the character and appearance of the existing buildings and of the area; (ii) whether the arrangements for car and coach parking would be satisfactory, having regard to the potential implications for highway safety and the free flow of traffic; and, (iii) taking account of the conclusions on the first 2 issues and all other relevant matters, whether the proposal would accord with the intentions for the site detailed in the Area Plan for the South.
2. There are material differences between the scheme for this site which has previously been approved in principle and the proposal subject of my report. The approved scheme included a hotel. Moreover, the proposal before me includes alterations and a vertical extension to the building at the eastern end of the site which were not included in the previous proposal. Matters of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale which were to be reserved in the approval in principle are to be considered as part of the current proposal. As a result of all these matters, the merits of the 2 schemes are not identical, and it does not follow from the previous approval that the application subject of this report must be approved.
3. The proposal provides for the retention and extension of the original Herdman building at the western end of the building group. Some of the extensions would be to the rear of that building, and would largely retain the hipped roof form. Although there would be a 2 -storey gabled element to the extensions, and some mono-pitched elements of roof over single storey parts of the extensions, all these features would be to the rear, close up to the cliff face. Consequently, and having regard to the fact that this rear part of the building already incorporates a 2 -storey gabled element and some single storey elements with flat and mono-pitched roofs, these rearward extensions would not be unduly prominent, and they would be broadly beneficial in terms of their design and visual impact. This conclusion is dependent on the use of appropriate walling and roofing materials. The information available in the application on that matter is unclear. Therefore, if approval is granted it would be necessary for a condition to be attached to require submission of further details of the roofing and walling materials.
4. The proposal also includes an extension of 2 -storey height to the rear of the 2 -storey part of the buildings which is attached to the Herdman Building on its eastern side. This extension would be flatroofed and would have a curving edge to its floor plan at the rear. Being behind the buildings and close to the cliff face, and being central to the overall span of the buildings, this extension although being plain and unexceptional in its elevational appearance, would not be prominent. Its visual impact would be limited, and would be broadly neutral, taking into account that in part it would replace the existing rearward projecting element of the lecture theatre which is a relatively unattractive structure.
5. In my assessment the most contentious parts of the proposal in visual terms are the alterations and extensions to the 3 -storey building at the eastern end of the group. This building is the first part of the complex seen on approaching the site. It is already visually prominent because it stands forward of the older buildings to the west and rises above them by one storey. It would become much more dominant if the proposal were to be implemented. Although the maximum height of the building would be increased by only about 650 mm , its overall mass and bulk would be more substantially increased, as the relatively recessive feature of the pitched hipped roof would be replaced by a complete additional floor with a flat roof. The resulting visual dominance would be added to by the intention to finish the elevations of the 1st and 2nd floors of the altered building with white painted render, including on both

the front elevation and east facing side elevation, and to employ a white painted balustrade around the balcony. The applicant has sought to justify the use of render of that colour as being a material commonly used on the Island, and to support the intention to add a flat-roofed extension of this design on the basis that it reflects marine/nautical themes. Whilst that approach may be appropriate in some contexts, it is my view that it pays insufficient regard to the form and appearance of the adjacent building of historic significance. Although it may be good Conservation practice to make this building obviously different from its historically interesting neighbour, in this case the alterations and creation of an extra floor would serve to dominate and detract from the building of interest, rather than to create something which would be subordinate and complementary in its visual effects.

1. For those reasons, I have concluded that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the existing buildings, and consequently also to the character and appearance of the area. This harm would be evident in views across the Bay, as well as from the near vicinity. The proposal conflicts in these terms with some of the intentions of Strategic Plan General Policy 2. In particular, it does not respect the site and surroundings, with particular reference to the scale, form and design of the alterations to the easternmost building, it would have harmful effects on the character of the surrounding landscape and townscape, and it would harm the character of the locality.
2. The Traffic Statement accepts that 103 parking spaces would be required, and the Highway Division puts the requirement higher at 107 spaces. The application is ambiguous as to how many spaces would be provided. The site plan shows 52 spaces within the red line boundary (Drawing No. 128/002). A drawing entitled "Hard Landscaping (Full Approval)" shows 114 parking spaces, plus an indication of the positions of 18 existing public parking spaces (Drawing No. P-105), but 46 of the spaces are labelled as "overflow parking (surface as existing)" and most, if not all, of the additional spaces over those shown on the site plan lie outside the application site boundary. If approval were to be given on the basis of the current drawings, it would not be possible to ensure the provision of sufficient parking to meet the acknowledged requirements. I have noted the Highway Division's view that the combination of on-site and on-street parking available would be adequate, but there is no basis in Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan, or in the related parking standards in its Appendix 7, to suggest that on-street spaces should be regarded as providing satisfactory parking provision for a major development of this kind. Furthermore, there is no substantial evidence to show what the actual availability of on-street parking would be, as there is no survey evidence regarding the extent to which the on-street parking spaces are used at present. Significantly, even if all 46 on-street parking spaces identified by the Highways Division were to be available, there would still be a shortfall relative to the 107 spaces which that Division has indicated would be required by the standards.
3. If it were to transpire that only 52 spaces were provided, it is in my view likely that excessive levels of on-street parking would occur, with consequent potential for significant harm to highway safety and the free flow of traffic. This problem may be capable of resolution by the submission of an amended application with an extended site area to encompass all the intended parking provision shown on Drawing No. P-105. That could not be secured by attaching conditions to an approval of the current application, as any condition requiring the provision of parking outside the defined application site would be unenforceable. I find the proposal as currently submitted to be in conflict with Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan, and with the parts of General Policy 2 which expect adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space, and seek to avoid unacceptable effects on road safety or local traffic flows. My other concern with respect to access/highway matters relates to how arrivals by coach would be handled. It has been revealed that coaches cannot travel to the site due to weight restrictions. Given that the applicant's case referred to the number of persons who would arrive by coach, and the fact that

Case Ref. DF13/0012 Application No. 13/00460/B Page 6

visits would include school parties, how coach visits would be accommodated is in my view a matter which should be resolved before this application is approved.

1. Moving to the third issue, the proposal does not include any residential use, but that use was a possibility rather than a requirement in the development brief in the Area Plan. Offices are not mentioned in that brief. However, as it is intended that the offices would be for marine-related businesses, and given that the use of the rest of the buildings would accord with the brief's reference to marine-based tourist/leisure purposes, I find that the proposed mix of uses is broadly in accordance with the development brief. The proposal would accord with the brief's preference that use should be made of all of the existing buildings. It would retain access to the cliff-top footpath. On the available evidence, the proposal would have no adverse implications for the ecological importance of the Bay. Although no entirely new buildings are proposed, based on my conclusion on the first issue the design of the alterations/extensions to the easternmost building cannot be regarded as meeting the paragraph of the brief which expects the design of buildings to reflect the conspicuous nature of the site as viewed from across the Bay.

1. I have taken account of all other matters raised, but I have found nothing of overriding significance. The determining considerations must be the harm I have found with respect to the main issues, and the consequent failure to fully comply with the requirements of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and with the development brief for Site 22 in the Area Plan.

1. Should the Council of Ministers disagree and decide to grant approval, the conditions recommended by the Department would be necessary and reasonable requirements. The list of approved drawings should include Drawing No. P-105. A soft landscaping condition was attached to the approval of PA13/00459/A. As no soft landscaping details have been provided with the current application, a similar condition would be needed. Conditions would also be needed to retain control of the external materials and to require submission of details of the matters identified by the Highway Division. I list the necessary conditions in an Appendix below.

RECOMMENDATION

1. I recommend that planning approval be refused for the following reasons:

1. With reference to the alterations and vertical extension proposed to the building at the eastern end of the site, the proposal would result in that building becoming overly dominant and intrusive in visual terms, to the detriment of the architectural and historical interest of the original Marine Biological Station building and also to the detriment of the general character and appearance of the existing group of buildings and of the area. It would thereby conflict with the intentions of parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and with the Development Brief for Site 22 in the Area Plan for the South.

1. The proposal makes inadequate provision for car parking within the defined application site, and as a consequence would be likely to result in additional on-street parking to the detriment of the safety of highway users and the free flow of traffic. It would thereby conflict with the intentions of Transport Policy 7 and parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector

Case Ref. DP13/0012 Application No. 13/00460/B Page 7

Appendix

Conditions recommended to be attached in the event of the application being approved.

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of 4 years from the date of this notice. (Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.)
2. The approval relates to the alterations and use of the buildings as shown on the following plans: Drawing Nos. S-01, S-02, S-03, S-04, S-05 and S-06 (all received on 15 April 2013), Drawing Nos. 128/001, 128/002, 128/003, 128/004, 128/005, 128/006 and 128/007 (all received on 17 February 2014), and Drawing No. P-105 (drawn on 17 June 2013 but not dated on receipt). (Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out as approved.)
3. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a survey to identify whether lizards are present on the site, and to ascertain whether any mitigating or protecting measures are required to provide for these species during construction works, must be undertaken and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The survey report must include appropriate mitigating and protecting measures if the results of the survey show these to be necessary, together with a programme for the implementation of these measures. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved measures and the approved programme. (Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species, including any statutorily protected species, which may exist on the site.)
4. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, full details and samples of the proposed external walling and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details and samples. (Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area).
5. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a soft landscaping scheme to include proposals for the introduction of shrubs and other vegetation to soften the impact of the proposed car parking areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme must incorporate species to tolerate the marine context of the site, and the scheme shall be implemented in accordance with a programme which shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. (Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting for the development.)
6. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, details of the following matters shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be completed in full accordance with the approved details:

a. the footway links to the existing footways outside the application site, including the location of dropped crossings; b. the surfacing of the car parking areas and footways; c. the entry/access ramp into the building. (Reason: In the interests of pedestrian safety.)

Notes:

1. The seeking of advice from the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture is recommended with respect to Condition 3.
2. Any highway works undertaken by the developer will be subject to the Highways Act 1986.
3. The Department of Transport will require the applicant to enter an agreement under Section 109a of the Highways Act (1986) with respect to any proposed works within the highway.