Loading document...
Application No.: 20/01320/B Applicant: Department Of Infrastructure Proposal: Resurfacing and alteration to both carriageway and footway and installation of a flood defence wall from Station Place to Peel Harbour Bridge Site Address: East Quay, Station Place, And Part Station Road Peel Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 09.12.2020 Site Visit: 09.12.2020 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 01.03.2021 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: to ensure that the finished walling is sympathetic to the Conservation Area in which it sits to comply with Environment Policies 35 and 36.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. This decision relates to the Flood and Wave Assessment, plans reference 01B, 02, 03B, 20B, 21A, LS-01, LS-02, LS-03, LS-04 ad LS-05 all received on 6th November, 2020.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawings 00, 01 B, 02 and 03 B all received on 6th November, 2020. _______________________________________________________________
Additional Persons
None _____________________________________________________________________________
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.1 The site is an area of Peel which includes part of Shore Road (the promenade), East Quay, Station Place and part of Mill Road. The area is currently made up of a mix of carriageway and footway widths and surfaces. Some having been "regenerated" and are finished in more modern paviours. - 1.2 The promenade has modern paviours, crossings with tactile paving, street markings on the seaward side. The western side is more mixed with generally a concrete pavement with spar kerbline, some tactile paving then at Spit/Weatherglass Corner there are larger more regular concrete paving stones and in front of the weatherglass a compass engraved into the concrete. - 1.3 As the corner is turned at this point the pavement starts varying in width and finish with concrete slabs, concrete with more decorative paving appearing around St. Peter's Lane. At East Quay past the House of Manannan there are varying sizes of concrete paving stones with a tarmac layby. - 1.4 At the time of the site visit (09.12.20) East Quay was being excavated for the laying of services, leaving a tarmac strip in the carriageway along the centre of the road. - 1.5 On the quay side there is generally a line of low mooring bars with mooring bollards in between which are mirrored on the other side of the harbour/marina/river. There are also bollards on part of the East Quay footpath on the landward side of the road. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the relaying of the footpath within the application area. The footway will be Rojo Moncoya red sandstone flamed finish with a granite kerb of a minimum width of 1.4m. Around Weatherglass Corner there will be half the width of the road finished in "half width 40mm plane and overlay. The whole of the carriageway will be re-finished in bitmac. - 2.2 The area in front of the Creek Inn will be re-paved to match the new finish on the footways. - 2.3 Along the front of the House of Mannanan there is to be a new flood defence wall which will be 900-1100m high and which will run from the junction with Station Place to the junction
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Peel Local Plan of 1989 as Mixed Use and also within the town's Conservation Area. - 3.2 As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
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:
3.3 In terms of flooding and coastal defence works:
3.4 There are a number of policies which are relevant to Conservation Areas: Strategic Policy 4 indicates proposals must protected or enhance Conservation Areas;
3.7 In relation to the information required:
Paragraph 7.11.1 (last bullet) indicates that all potential environmental effects of new coastal defence work must be taken into account;
Environment Policy 10 indicates that where development is proposed on a site where there is a risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment must accompany the application;
Environment Policy 24, together with appendix 5, sets out the need for Environmental Impact Assessment.
3.8 The Flood Risk Management Act 2013 (FRM Act) makes provisions about flood risk management and land drainage, and repealed and amended certain Acts concerning water and sewerage. Manx Utilities is the flood risk management authority for the Island, with strategic oversight of flooding matters. The FRM Act outlines the Manx Utilities' Flood Risk Management functions, including:
Prepare and publish Flood Risk Management (FRM) strategies and plans Carry out surveys to identify required FRM works Provide/maintain/improve/monitor FRM works Provide and operate flood warning systems Carry out research and provide FRM education and guidance Duty to consider protection, conservation and recreation.
3.9 Manx Utilities has permissive powers to maintain designated watercourses. The FRM Act also includes a consenting regime for works affecting flood risk and emergency powers, the Manx Utilities' powers (general and remedial). - 3.10 Mid-Term Report from the Council of Ministers on the Agenda for Change - Securing a Sustainable Future for our Island (2014) presents an overview of some of the main areas of achievement, priorities and challenges in achieving the goals set out in the Agenda for Change for the Council of Ministers and the Isle of Man, for the remainder of this Parliament and beyond. It is intended to be used for Tynwald's consideration to fuel robust discussion about the future of the Isle of Man and the new performance framework and the related objectives, outcomes and measurements. - 3.11 An indicator in achieving these objectives and outcomes is to 'reduce the number of areas identified as at risk from flooding'. Another indicator is to 'increase capital spent on flood 7 https://www.gov.im/media/1346292/securing-a-sustainable-future-for-our-island.pdf 2015s3607 - IoMG - National Strategy - Evidence Report 060616.docx 7 risk management'. By investing more in flood defences, a more resilient built and natural environment will be created. This indicator will be measured by the capital spent on flood risk management and defences.
3.12 Isle of Man Government Policy on Adapting to Climate Challenges - GD No: 2015/0023
(2015) This policy was developed in order to address the key challenge of responding to climate related challenges identified in the November 2014 mid-term report from the Council of Ministers on the Agenda for Change. This policy paper contains details of actions that can be taken by Government, business and the wider community to plan and where possible to protect homes, businesses and important infrastructure. It proposes the following policy: 'To reduce risks and maximise benefits, Government will both promote and undertake appropriate proactive adaptation to the current and projected climate'. The three issues deemed a priority for this policy include: awareness raising; public, animal and plant health; and storms and flooding. This policy encourages the Government to promote and support climate change resilience planning and consider potential climate change impacts when devising long-term plans and states that 'such plans will need to set out how we will adapt to our changing climate and incorporate recent work on sea defences, flood risk mapping and coastal erosion and involve engagement with stakeholders'.
3.13 There are a series of Technical Papers associated with the Isle of Man Climate Change Scoping Paper which establish level of measuring climate change in terms of sea level rises and annual warming rates. - 3.14 On the 20/07/16 GD No. 2016/0044 National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion was received and approved and the associated Evidence Report noted as an essential source of information and guidance in respect to ensuring the ongoing resilience of our communities and economy to weather and climate related damage. The Strategy states that Government's Strategy is to deliver the following objectives:
3.15 It states that Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for Coastal erosion, catchment & landscape management and DOI is responsible for Highway drainage and associated cross-drainage structures (e.g. bridges and culverts), Properties, Critical Infrastructure and associated drainage. - 3.16 It says the strategy will be delivered by a number of measures including developing an action plan for public consultation (the key actions being ongoing monitoring, community resilience and awareness-raising, further studies and investigations and potential schemes) and that a work group will be set up from various Government Departments and Manx Utilities to manage the development and implementation of the plan. - 3.17 The Evidence Report identified 24 locations as being at high risk now and in the future. All of these locations require further consideration and potential intervention to manage the evident risk. 13 of the 24 priority locations were identified as being priorities for intervention in the near future (within the next 10 years); Peel is one of these. Of the others in the list, Castletown has already been approved and implemented, Douglas Promenade now has planning approval (see below), Laxey was the subject of a planning application that was withdrawn before a decision was taken (18/01160/B) and it is understood that the DoI is preparing schemes for the other locations on the list. - 3.18 The National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion: Evidence Report Final Report of 06.06.2016 includes the following recommendations:
3.19 The Strategy identifies 4 areas of potential flood risk in Peel, the two highest rated risk areas sitting closest to the harbour and bay, particularly along the western section of Shore Road (promenade) and East Quay from Station Place around the House of Manannan and to the south of this. - 3.20 The Programme for Government for the current administration contains a Policy Statement that we will, "Continue to invest in sea defences and in reducing flooding and coastal erosion risks for those areas identified as high risk in our national strategy". These areas include the application site (see 4.3.2) - 3.21 Planning Policy Statement 1 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man (2001) sets out Policy CA/2 - Special Planning Considerations for Conservation Areas. It has a specific set of advice for transport and traffic management which generally aims for development to minimise the impact on any historic environment and a balance between preventing vehicles entering and parking an historic area with the need to ensure the area remains vibrant and used. Also the needs of users need to be balanced against the impact of using traditional materials such as cobbles, weathered beach stones which may not be conducive to cyclists or persons with disabilities who may use them. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 Planning approval was granted for the re-siting of railings to improve access to the slipway under 13/00006/B. The marina was approved under 07/00910/B and the foobridge approved under 01/02255/B. The House of Manannan was approved under 93/01626/B. - 4.2 Planning approval was granted on appeal for the erection of a flood defence wall along part of Douglas Promenade under 19/00755/B. The decision to approve the application was accompanied by a number of conditions as follows:
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, as the application makes reference to a potential future extension to the height of the wall by an additional 0.6 metres and this would require a separate application.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, as the application makes reference to a potential future extension to the length of the wall and this would require a separate application.
4.3 The inspector considering the appeal makes the following observations after concluding that the wall would preserve the character and appearance of the promenade:
"However, the development would provide substantial improvement to sea defence of significant benefit to the safe public use of the Promenade and horse tram service and thus to the local economy, also in support of the National Strategy to invest in sea defence as well as SpP6 of the IMSP to protect and enhance the strategic role of Douglas Harbour as a principal gateway."
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Peel Town Commissioners seek a deferral pending them obtaining the views of the local residents and ask that a determination is not taken until after 12th January, 2021. It should be noted that unlike the recent application for the resurfacing of Michael Street (20/00455/B) there are currently no representations from any local residents in this case. They add further comments on 04.02.21 stating that they agreed not to oppose the application but were concerned at the reduction in on street parking and asked about the possibility of extending the new layby facility along the frontage of the House of Manannan to provide additional parking including a layby along the harbour boat yard frontage. The applicant responds to this by stating in an e-mail of 22.02.21: "There is a nominal loss of parking in the scheme as a whole but is mitigated as much as possible by the addition of parking outside of the House of Mannanan. The Department has considered the extension of the parking on East Quay into the boat park area but does not consider that it is a practical solution at this time as it would greatly reduce boat storage provision. The Department would be willing to review this in future years but does not wish to amend the current application." Peel Commissioners responded to this on the same day, stating, "The Commissioners did not oppose the application with or without the additional parking. However, the comment from the Department does appear ambiguous. As it either can be done or it cannot without having a significant and adverse effect on boat storage now and in the future. It would be interesting to know the magnitude of the reduction in storage."
5.2 Highway Services do not oppose the application (04.12.20). - 5.3 Ecosystems Policy Office seek a deferral whilst they consider the application in more detail (17.11.20). They comment further on 21.12.20 to refer to black guillemots nesting in the drain holes of the marina wall on the east side where the flood wall is to be constructed. There has been no assessment of this impact however, they understand from the applicant that the work
is to take place from the top of the existing wall upwards and that the drain holes will not be affected. There is still the potential for the birds to be disturbed from or during breeding by the construction work and they ask for a condition to require that the work is undertaken outside of the black guillemot breeding season (1st April - 31st July). If this is not possible, a protection plan for the breeding black guillemot must be submitted to and approved by the Department prior to work commencing and the plan should be submitted well in advance of the works starting in order to provide alternative nesting sites if required. and a suitable Ecological Clerk of Works should be appointed. They also request a condition that prohibits the closing off of any of the breeding holes and if this is required then alternative nests should be provided.
6.1 It is firstly relevant to consider whether an EIA is required for the erection of the flood defence wall. This would be relevant, as it was in the case of the Douglas application, if the works were related to sea defences or coastal protection. In this case the flood risk comes from the river within the harbour and is not considered a sea defence. As such, an EIA is not considered necessary in this case.
6.2 The application falls into two parts: the paving and the flood defence wall. Re-paving - 6.3 The works will change the appearance of the area by the alterations to the width of some of the pavements, the introduction of the table tops and the change in materials. It is considered that all of this results in an enhancement to the character and appearance of the area as it will provide a consistent finish as well as better facilities and a safer environment for pedestrians of all types. Flood defence wall - 6.4 The introduction of a wall where there is none currently will have a visual impact, however, this is limited to a section of the harbour wall where there is currently railings of a similar height, unlike the main part which has no walling or railings. From the main part of the quay, the only elements which will be obscured from view by the new wall will be parked vehicles with the vast majority of the House of Manannan remaining visible. The finishing of the outward facing wall which will be seen by those on the east side of the harbour will help the new walling sit comfortably in its context and the finish on the inward face will enable that to blend in with the remainder of the walling on show. The new lighting will not be dissimilar to the existing which is of a modern appearance. Impact on parking - 6.5 The scheme will reduce the overall amount of parking on East Quay and will increase that alongside the House of Manannan. This reduction is the cost of the expansion and improvement of pedestrian facilities along East Quay allowing pedestrians to walk further and more safely from more remote spaces (such as along Shore Road, the Market Place or the House of Manannan). The Commissioners' concern about storage relates to boat park storage, an impact which could result from extending car parking alongside this facility, which is not proposed here so is not an issue for this application. The PPS makes it clear that a balance needs to be struck between preserving the existing and facilitating pedestrian and vehicle movement so that towns may continue to be well used and visited and it is considered that in this case, that balance has been successfully struck.
7.1 The works are considered to enhance the currently poor features within the highway and preserve those which contribute positively and whilst the new wall will introduce a new feature within the Conservation Area, its appearance and finishes are considered acceptable and its context is of parked vehicles, modern road paving which will not be affected by the proposal with the preservation of the buildings of merit as they currently appear.
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 15.03.2021
Signed : S CORLETT Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
