Planning Report on 03/1758

Planning Report on P.A. 03/1758: Isle of Man Water Authority. Creation of a new water treatment works and ancillary buildings, including access roads, parking and landscaping. Depot Site, Homefield Road, Douglas. ### Introduction 1. This report sets out the facts relating to the current planning application for a new water-treatment plant in Douglas, and to the planning history of the site, and makes recommendations for consideration by the Planning Committee when determining the application. ### The Site 2. The site comprises not only that which was the subject of the previous applications for a water-treatment plant, but also contiguous land to the south, which is part of the Special School site. This land has a short frontage to Greenfield Road. 3. On the northern part of the site is a covered reservoir. The remainder of the site (excepting the Special School land) was previously used by Government as a works depot. 4. These established uses are acknowledged by the land use zoning on the Douglas Local Plan. ### Written Representations 5. The gist of the written representations received by the Department is as follows:- (a) Highway Authority: The Department of Transport has recommended approval, subject to (i) the temporary access from Greenfield Road being in accordance with an amended plan (No. A/G 3314/X400P2); and (ii) conditions relating to restoration of the temporary access, keeping mud off the highway, and a method statement for construction (including haul routes). (b) Local Authority: No objection; adequate provision should be made for the storage and collection of commercial refuse. (c) Drainage Authority (Douglas Corporation as agents for the Department of Transport): Full details of surface and foul drainage required. (d) Manx National Heritage: conditions required in respect of the impact on potential archaeological deposits and on the wild life value of the trees. This refusal also related to essentially the same site as the current application. The reasons cited at Appeal were: 1. In visual terms, the proposed development represents a substantial over-development of the site, seriously harmful to the visual amenity of the area and the residential amenity of neighbouring residents. 2. Noise from the proposed development would, from time to time, be likely to be harmful to the residential amenity of neighbouring residents in First Avenue. A copy of the Inspector’s report is attached to this statement. ### The Development Now Proposed 7. The application proposes that there should be erected on the southern part of the site a water-treatment plant. The covered reservoir would remain. The Special School land would be used, during the period of construction only, to gain access from Greenfield Road and to accommodate builders’ offices and storage. There would be a footbridge, for this temporary period, linking the footpath from the College to the Special School site. 8. The treatment processes have been so arranged as to be accommodated in three buildings, between which are service roads:- #### (a) Administration Building This would accommodate not only administration but also sludge storage, sludge thickening, and a workshop area. The building would be 6.3m high to the eaves, and 8.35m (maximum) to the ridge. The walls would be of cream, “multi-rustic” brickwork and bamboo-coloured, panelled cladding. The roofs would be of standing-seam, metal sheeting coloured “merlin grey”. #### (b) Chemical Building This would be 4.45m high to the eaves, and 5.6m to the ridge. Cladding and roofing of the same materials as the “sludge building” above. #### (c) Filtration and Clarification Building This would be, generally, 4.45m high to the eaves, and 6.415m to the ridge. There would be a higher central element, 7m to the eaves and 8.85m to the ridge. The cladding and roofing would be as in (a) above. 9. These buildings are set away from the site boundaries as follows:- (a) Administration Building 20m (at closest) to west boundary (b) Chemical Building 21m (at closest) to east boundary (c) Filtration/Clarification Building 16m (at closest) to west boundary 10m to southern boundary 26m (at closest) to east boundary 10. The space between the buildings would be mostly hard-surfaced using bitumen macadam. 11. The space between the buildings and the boundary would (a) include an emergency vehicle access route finished in “geoblock grass reinforcement”; and (b) landscaping as follows:- (i) on the eastern boundary, a belt approximately 8m wide; there would be a 2m high mesh fence set approximately 10m away from the boundary; (ii) on the southern boundary, a belt approximately 2m wide including climbing plants against the fence; and (iii) on the western boundary, an ornamental hedgerow, approximately 2m wide, between the security fence and the public footpath. 12. There would be erected, for the duration of the construction period, noise attenuation barriers, 2.4m high, close to the eastern and western site boundaries. Site Selection 13. The reasons for refusal of the previous application (01/509) related specifically to visual amenity and to the impact of noise on residential amenity. The use of the site for the purpose of water treatment was not in itself a reason for refusal. 14. It therefore follows that, if the two reasons for refusal can be satisfactorily addressed, the proposed use of the site is acceptable. 15. Nevertheless, following the decision on P.A. 01/509, the Water Authority undertook an evaluation of eleven potential sites in the greater Douglas area. This evaluation concluded that the Homefield Road site is the “most appropriate location”. ### Conclusions 16. In his report on P.A. 01/509, the Appeal Inspector concluded that, inter alia: “...in land use planning terms a water treatment use on the site is acceptable.” [paragraph 58]. The Minister concurred with the Inspector’s conclusions. 17. In these circumstances, it is proper to examine not the principle of having a water treatment plant on this site, but the detail of what is now proposed, having particular regard to visual amenity and to the impact of noise on residential amenity. 18. The general approach of using three separate buildings, partially dug in to the ground has several beneficial visual effects:- (a) the buildings are of smaller apparent mass and scale; (b) the height to eaves and ridge is lower; and (c) the buildings will shield vehicle movements from view (from outside of the site). 19. It is pertinent to note the differences in height between the buildings now proposed and that previously refused:- (a) general eaves height for chemical building and filtration/clarification building - 4.45m; eaves height for main building previously - 8.625m (south-west corner) (b) general ridge height for chemical building - 5.6m general ridge height for filtration/chemical building - 6.415m ridge height for main building previously - 14.325m (c) the administration building is taller (6.3m to the eaves, 8.35m to the ridge), but is sited away from the housing (opposite the entrance to the site). 20. In terms of closeness to the boundary, the buildings now proposed are (a) a little closer to the eastern boundary than was the main building previously (but not as close as was the ancillary building); (b) approximately the same distance from the southern boundary; and (c) rather further from the western boundary. 21. The visual impact of the buildings has been reduced by (a) the use of mellow, neatly-panelled cladding; (b) the use of low-pitched, neutrally-coloured roof sheeting; and by (c) clean, well-ordered architecture with a minimum of external clutter. 22. The Preliminary Landscape Proposals indicate boundary planting which should succeed in softening the visual impact from outside of the site. In the event of an approval, a detailed scheme would usually be required by condition. 23. The second principal issue is noise. Attached to this report is a copy of a report from Karen Leslie. Karen has confirmed that she is satisfied that it would be reasonable and practical to achieve compliance with the limits recommended in paragraph 6.5 of the report. Karen is available to attend the Planning Committee meeting on the 5th of March. 24. Whilst visual impact and noise are the principal issues, other matters have been raised in the written representations from statutory bodies and local residents. I have drafted conditions which address some of these, and comment as follows on the others. 25. There is bound to arise noise, dust, and disturbance from construction activity. An Environmental Management Plan has been prepared and submitted as part of the application. This Plan establishes the safeguards and procedures which the contractor should follow to ensure that the construction works are carried out safely and without risk of pollution or undue disturbance to local residents or other relevant interests. Control over construction activity is exercised by the Department under the Public Health Act, but there are circumstances where consideration should be given to limiting the hours of construction activity by planning condition. 26. The temporary works include an access road to the site from Greenfield Road. Use of this road would reduce, but not eliminate traffic-disturbance to the housing in Homefield Close. Accordingly, it may be appropriate to attach a condition of the sort referred in para. 25 above. An amended plan has been received showing detail of the access on to Greenfield Road, and showing the temporary road moved away from the housing (9m from the boundary). There would, however, be mains and drains constructed between this boundary and the temporary road. 27. The site compound on the Special School land would be close (7m minimum) to the rear of 17-21 First Avenue. This would have a visual impact and may give rise to disturbance. However, it is difficult to identify a plausible alternative. The temporary noise attenuation barrier (2.4m high) would be extended around the compound. ### Recommendation 28. It is recommended that the application should be approved. The proposals represent a well-prepared and carefully-considered response to the previous decision on appeal. 29. Draft conditions are attached to this report. B.J. Sinden, Development Control Officer 25th February 2004