Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/00956/B Page 1 of 15
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/00956/B Applicant : Department Of Infrastructure Proposal : Construction of 507m long reinforced concrete wall 1.2m in height anchored to the existing sea wall to reduce wave overtopping Site Address : Sea Wall Harris Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man
Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Photo Taken : 03.12.2018 Site Visit : 03.12.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.11.2018 __
Conditions of Approval
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
C 2. No approval is hereby given for:
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
C 3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the provision of access to the Broadway slip by Emergency Services and the Douglas Borough Corporation through the provision of removable storm boards shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme which shall be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that emergency access to the beach is provided.
C 4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department which records the existing locations of the lifebelts and flagpoles and provides for the re-attachment of the lifebelts and flagpoles in
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/00956/B Page 2 of 15
the same locations (with the latter being on the top of the new wall). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details which shall be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that provision is made for the retention of the lifebelts and flagpoles.
C 5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department which show the artwork and railing design around the War Memorial. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details which shall be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that provision is made for suitable artwork and railings around the War Memorial.
C 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department which show the finish (including colour) of the wall. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details which shall be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the finish and colour is appropriate.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
o Manx Utilities; o Occupier of Compton Court - Flat, 4 Clarence Terrace, Central Promenade; and o Occupier of 1 Berry Woods Avenue, Douglas.
The above do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Operational Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE: o THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS OBJECTED BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL; o IT IS CONISDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL; AND o IT COULD BE CONSIDEED THAT THE PROPOSAL IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ALTHOUGH ONE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION).
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is a 507 metre stretch of existing sea wall along Douglas Promenade. The wall is currently made up of concrete elements and metal railings, which provide views through to the beach and sea.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application includes a Planning Statement of Case. This clarifies that it is proposed to construct a wall to protect against wave overtopping along a 507 metre section of Douglas
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/00956/B Page 3 of 15
Promenade, as part of a wider approach to protect Douglas. The wall is intended to offer localised protection to the horse tram operation in the area of the war memorial, which is set to become a tram turning area on the new promenade layout. The development which is the subject of this application is intended to be the first stage of further works (the application outlines areas elsewhere for works, although these do not form part of the application and so are not considered within this report).
2.2 The 1.2 metre high wall would be reinforced concrete tied into the top of the existing sea wall and will run between the end of the Sunken Gardens and the Empress Hotel. The design includes architectural details intended to soften its visual impact and the height is intended to allow people to see over the top and out to sea. Construction is anticipated to take 4 months with minimal disruption to the public.
2.3 The application notes that this is not the full height that would be required if climate change continues as expected, however the proposal has been designed so that a further 0.6 metres can be added in the future. It is also noted that it is anticipated that the wall will eventually be extended the full length of the promenade, but clarifies that this scheme is only for the wave overtopping for a limited section.
2.4 The application indicates that the finish on the walkway will not be taken up and any minor local damage will be repaired to the same existing finish. The existing railings between the war memorial and the walkway will remain in place. The exact artwork for the new railing design around the war memorial is still to be agreed, but the materials to be used will have a hard wearing finish that will be able to resist damage from a marine environment. Mounted figures of the soldiers on the concrete up stands could be formed from bronze and the railings be formed from twice hot dipped galvanised steel and painted with marine grade paint.
2.5 The Statement of Case makes reference to the 2014 Environmental Assessment (see 4.5) and indicates that this covered various aspects, including a heritage assessment (although as set out below the study does not actually include a full heritage assessment). The Statement of Case also makes reference to the Strategic Plan (2016), consultation with Planning Officers, the Douglas Local Plan (1998) and the Conservation Area (2002). It indicates that the appearance of the wall has been considered within this context.
2.6 The statement sets out that there are normally three options for defences in town/harbour (raised harbour walls, set back walls and tidal gates) and for open coast four options (Raised sea walls, set back walls, permeable revetments and beach recharge). It indicates that for this project the only viable option is considered to be raising the sea wall.
2.7 The statement concludes that the applicant has tried to balance a number of key factors - improving community protection and resilience, engineering practicalities an aesthetic impact. It indicates that the scheme is intended to blend with the surrounding environment.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The Douglas Local Plan (1998) is difficult to interpret in terms of the promenade. Within Map 1, it is zoned as open space. Within map 2 the walkway does not appear to be designated for a particular purpose (which is a smaller scale) however an Inspector consider a previous scheme has considered it to be open space and certainly it is used as such. The site is within a Conservation Area and an area identified as being at risk of flooding (2017 maps).
3.2 There are policies which emphasise the important of Douglas and the Promenade/Harbour: o Spatial Policy 6 indicates that the strategic role of Douglas harbour as a principal gateway will be protected and enhanced; and
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/00956/B Page 4 of 15
o Transport Policy 13 indicates that development in or around harbours should not comprise the recreational users or be detrimental to the character of harbours of historic interest.
3.3 In terms of flooding and coastal defence works: o Environment Policy 11 indicates that they will only be permitted where they do not increase or transfer the risk of flooding, prejudice the capacity of the coast to form a natural sea defence or increase the need for additional coast protection works except where necessary to protect existing investment or development; and o Environment Policy 12 indicates that new coastal defence works must not have an unacceptable impact on the character, appearance, ecology, archaeology or natural processes of the coastal environment.
3.4 There are a number of policies which are relevant to Conservation Areas: o Strategic Policy 4 indicates proposals must protected or enhance Conservation Areas; o Environment Policy 35 indicates that within Conservation Areas, the Department will only permit development that would preserve or enhance the character and ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development; and o Environment Policy 36 relates to development which is outside Conservation Areas but may impact on views in to and out of Conservation Areas.
3.5 General Policy 2 indicates 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).
3.6 Recreation Policy 2 seeks to prevent a net loss of open space.
3.7 In relation to the information required: o Paragraph 7.11.1 (last bullet) indicates that all potential environmental effects of new coastal defence work must be taken into account; o 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; o Environment Policy 24, together with appendix 5, sets out the need for Environmental Impact Assessment
3.8 The emerging Area Plan for the East has reached the draft plan consultation stage, and so is capable of being a material consideration, particularly in terms of broad direct of travel. This builds on the proposals contained within the Central Douglas Master Plan (itself capable of being a material consideration). Within the draft Area Plan, Douglas Promenade is zoned as Buildings or Land for Civic, Cultural or other use, within the Promenade Mixed Use Area 2. The policy for this states, "Proposals to enhance the public domain will be supported. Development which conflicts with these uses will generally not be supported".
3.9 The draft plan also states at 7.12.1,
"Planning approval has been granted under approval reference PA 18/00003/B for a comprehensive redevelopment scheme of the Douglas promenades. The scheme will include the re-construction and repositioning of the highways and footways on Loch and Harris Promenades, the replacement of the double-track horse tramway with single track in the area on the seaward side of the new highway alignment and the upgrading of drainage and statutory service infrastructure. This is supported by the Area Plan".
4.0 NATIONAL FLOOD STRATEGY 4.1 National Strategy (2016)
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/00956/B Page 5 of 15
4.1.1 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: o Raise community awareness to flood and coastal erosion risks and engage relevant stakeholders in effective and appropriate adaptation to these events and risks; o Manage and reduce the impacts of flooding and coastal erosion on communities, infrastructure and the environment; and o Prioritise investment to balance the urgency and impact of the risks identified.
4.1.2 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.
4.1.3 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.
4.1.4 The link included in the Tynwald Papers was www.gov.im/seadefences (this links to a web page containing the strategy as presented to Tynwald, the JBA Final Report and the Evidence Report).
See: http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/opqp/sittings/Tynwald%2020142016/2016-GD- 0044.pdf
4.2 Action Plan 4.2.1 It is understood that a formal action plan, informed by public consultation, has not been produced and published. However, a cross-Departmental officer working group has been formed which is chaired by the DOI Director of Highways and it is noted that the evidence base which underpinned the strategy laid before Tynwald includes potential priority areas (see below) and that an earlier study had been produced in 2014 setting out options for various works (see below)
4.2.2 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)
4.2.3 The Director confirmed in a phone-call on 27.11.18 that the working group has agreed that works to Douglas Promenade were regarded as more urgent and the options more restricted due to the impact of coastal overtopping on the operation of the horse tram (particularly given the ongoing scheme to move the tram line closer to the sea). In other sections of the prom other options (such as set back wall) may be feasible options to consider. Within the Capital Budget there is provision for a number of flood protection schemes for all the ports on the island, and this is part of that work. Castletown and Port St. Mary have been completed. Concurrent application has been submitted for Laxey and then schemes will be progressed for the other harbours. These have involved the submission of a business case which has been accepted.
4.3 Evidence Base (2016) 4.3.1 The work of the JBA team is contained in an Evidence Report. This Report was submitted in May 2016 and provides the core information for this Strategy.
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/00956/B Page 6 of 15
4.3.2 The document, "National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion: Evidence Report Final Report 06 June 2016 (produced by JBA Consulting) contains two tables which contain relevant information, as set out below. o Table 5-2: Summary Action Area Analysis ranks the action areas in terms of both current and future (2060s)risk. Area A3 (Douglas Bay) is ranked 2nd highest in both. o In relation to A3 the table states, "Douglas Bay is at risk of wave overtopping and still water level flood risk; it also has a history of tidal flooding. Many areas identified as being at risk of surface water flooding and the area is very sensitive to future climate change impacts" with a Recommendation, "Confirm the wave overtopping risk to properties and assets and identify if any specific areas need to be made aware of potential flood risk or provided with property level protection (e.g. flood doors, airbrick covers) to increase resilience to flooding. o Table 5-5: Indicative Study and Scheme Costs has a proposed study, "Confirm wave overtopping risk Potential survey to assess need for PLP" with a Proposed Scheme, "Douglas Loch - Queens Promenades - provisional pending further scheme development: years 6 - 20 (DoI)".
See: https://www.gov.im/media/1351875/national-strategy-evidence-report-060616.pdf
4.3.3 Appendix B to this document (Action Area and Outlier Analysis) contains maps of action areas. The application site is within Action Area A3 (Douglas Bay), the content in relation to this is set out below. o "Sources of Risk: Douglas Bay is at risk of wave overtopping and still water level flood risk. Defence elevations are low, but are fronted by a large sandy beach in places. Here, the wave overtopping occurs due to the run-up of broken waves exceeding the defence crest elevation, inundating the hinterland. Although not the focus, this Action Area includes combined sewer flood risk at Little Switzerland and Strathallan Road due to surface water connections and infiltration in the upper catchment. o Historic Risk: This area has a history of tidal flooding with flood events occurring eight times in the last hundred years giving a probability of flooding of between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 years. The Flooding and Wave Overtopping Study undertaken for DoI in 2014 identified that this area is at risk of wave overtopping during the 1 in 20-year event in present day conditions and 1 in 5-year event in 2115. o Environmental and heritage issues: The National Art Gallery is potentially at risk from surface water flooding. o Assessment of risk now: Although many properties are shown to be at risk, it is not known if these are accurate. Most are surface water flood risk possibly through tidal backing up. There are no properties shown to be at risk from still water tidal flooding; wave overtopping numbers are not known. The risk appears to be moderate so action is not required urgently. o Assessment of risk future: This area has been identified as very sensitive to increased flood damage as a result of increased flood extent and frequency due to climate change. In addition, Douglas has a large amount of new development proposed in the Strategic Plan. Any new development in this area needs to be carefully planned to ensure that flood risk is not increased. o Existing/pipeline schemes: Douglas Strathallan Promenade Scheme planned in the future by DoI (years 6 - 20). o Recommendations: Confirm the wave overtopping risk to properties and assets and identify if any specific areas need to be made aware of potential flood risk or provided with property level protection (e.g. flood doors, airbrick covers) to increase resilience to flooding"
See: https://www.gov.im/media/1351876/national-strategy-evidence-report-appendix-b- 060616.pdf
4.4 Scheme Options (2014)
==== PAGE 7 ====
18/00956/B Page 7 of 15
4.1 The Isle of Man Flooding and Wave Overtopping Study Concept Design Report December 2014 was produced by JBA on behalf of DOI. It does not, in itself, have political approval but sets out options what could be done and the pros and cons of each. Section 5.4 Douglas Area A states,
"In the south of Douglas Bay, defence elevations are low, but are fronted by a large sand beach in places. Here, the wave overtopping occurs due to the run-up of broken waves exceeding the defence crest elevation, inundating the hinterland. Douglas Area A is at risk of wave overtopping during the 1 in 20-year event in present day conditions and 1 in 5-year event in 2115. Coupled with this risk, Douglas A is also at risk of the 1 in 200-year event from still water levels alone, highlighting the need for a defence option that addresses both the wave overtopping and still water level components of flood risk. The following three options were considered appropriate for reducing the flood risk in Douglas Area A: Set back wall, Raised sea wall or Beach recharge". 5.4.2 of this report states, "The size of the wall would not significantly alter the landscape and may provide opportunities for the redevelopment of the promenade".
See: https://www.gov.im/media/1346698/2014s1358-design-report-rev-2-0_issued-15-01- 15.pdf
4.5 Environmental Scoping Study (2014) 4.5.1 The purpose of this is given at 1.1 as,
"The purpose of this environmental scoping study report is to identify potential significant environmental effects associated with conceptual coastal and harbour flood defence options for seven coastal sites on the Isle of Man". At 1.1.1 it states, "This commission does not include the preparation of any formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or carrying out any specialist environmental site surveys".
4.5.2 At 3.1.2 the report notes in relation to Douglas,
"The beach provides an important amenity resource for the local population. It is maintained by a series of wooden groynes positioned intermittently along the southern half of the beach and through active recharge through dumping of dredged sand. The beach is separated from the town by an existing concrete seawall topped with wrought iron railings, which transition to a 2014s1358 Appendix F - Environmental Review Rev 1.0 7 larger structure with concrete pillars at its northern end. Landward of the seawall is a large concrete promenade that is used by a large number of pedestrians, walkers and cyclists. In its central section, the promenade includes a grassed strip, with tree and vegetation planting, and a variety of public seating. The promenade is backed by a busy road and row of large Victorian era buildings used as shops, hotels, restaurants and offices. Prominent buildings on the seafront include the Gaiety Theatre, built in 1900 and the Jubilee clock, built in 1887 to commemorate Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee. The clock is at the foot of Victoria Street on Loch Promenade. Both buildings are noted for their historic importance and are Registered Buildings".
4.5.3 The study acknowledges the presence of Conservation Areas which are relevant to the schemes and highlights PPS1.
4.5.4 The Risk Assessment in relation to the Historic Environment in relation to a raised harbour all approach states,
"Many of the scheme areas are within close proximity to Registered Buildings and other sites of historic interest. Douglas, Laxey, Ramsey, Castletown and Peel each have Conservation Area designations that incorporate the wider harbour area. There is a risk that construction of the raised harbour walls could have a permanent adverse effect on the setting of such features and the historic character of the area. This risk could be mitigated through appropriate design of
==== PAGE 8 ====
18/00956/B Page 8 of 15
the raised harbour walls. Careful consideration of the scale and massing of the wall should be made to reduce its visual impact, whilst appropriate materials sympathetic to the local landscape character should be specified. In addition, construction of the raised walls has the potential to benefit the historic environment by reducing flood risk to historic features".
4.5.5 As part of the discussion section at 4.1.1 it states,
"The introduction of these new structures could affect the local landscape character and visual amenity in the harbour. They could also affect the setting of historic structures and adversely affect the quality of relevant Conservation Areas ... In relation to local landscape character and visual amenity, there is a risk that the raised harbour walls option could disrupt existing views across the harbour. This is a concern because most of the harbours do not currently have harbour walls extending above ground (or have very low walls) and so a substantial increase in wall height could be visually intrusive and could cause a degree of visual segregation between the land and seaward areas of the harbour" ... it is important that the height and massing of any new walls should be minimised and appropriate design standards applied, including the use of appropriate construction materials to ensure that the walls compliment the local landscape character".
4.5.6 It recommends at 5.1 that a Heritage Assessment be undertaken for all options. The current application is not accompanied by a heritage assessment and it is understood that one has not been carried out.
See: https://www.gov.im/media/1346660/2014s1358-appendix-f-environmental-review-rev- 10.pdf
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 18/00003/B at Douglas Promenade From Sea Terminal Loch Promenade And Harris Promenade Douglas for, "Re-construction and repositioning of highways and footways on Loch and Harris Promenades, including associated street furniture and the upgrading and refurbishment of all drainage and statutory service infrastructure. Works to include replacement of horse tramway double track with single track in a zone on the seaward side of the new highway alignment" was approved on 16.02.2018. As part of this The horse tram tracks would be repositioned and reduced in the main from two tracks to a single track from the centre of the carriageway, to run parallel with the seaward side of the highway and in parts along the sunken gardens.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 DOI Highways have indicates that they do not oppose the application because the proposed sea wall would be constructed on top of the existing sea wall and would not adversely impact on the use of the adjacent Promenade by pedestrians and cyclists. It should therefore not create any new highway issues (11.10.18).
5.2 The DEFA Registered Buildings Officer commented (30.11.18) and stated that,
"...it is disappointing that no assessment of the impact of the proposals upon the conservation area has been submitted with the application. The sea wall is very much part of the Promenades Conservation Area, the character of this is a concrete sea wall with concrete piers and sections of metal railings, which provide clear and open views of Douglas Bay and the sea. The proposals will alter this view by introducing solid walling along the proposed section. It is my view that this will have a negative impact upon the conservation area, this impact must then therefore be weighed against the benefits and justification of the requirements and need of the proposals".
5.3 The application was brought to the attention of Manx National Heritage on the 20.09.18 as one which they may wish to comment on (and noting the consultation period deadline). At
==== PAGE 9 ====
18/00956/B Page 9 of 15
the time of drafting (27.11.18) no response has been received and it is therefore assumed that they have no comments to make.
5.4 Manx Utilities 5.4.1 Manx Utilities have responded (16.10.18) and sought clarification as to what provision is made for water that over tops the wall - where is this going to drain to.
5.4.2 In response to this the applicant has indicated, "Water overtopping has been considered in the design from the very beginning. The original plans allowed for 100mm diameter drainage holes with one way flap valves fitted at the base of the wall at 12m c/c. After advice from our Highway colleagues this was increased to 150mm diameter holes at 6m c/c. These are shown on the construction details drawing number 106".
5.4.3 The above was forwarded to Manx Utilities on the 22.11.18 indicating, "I intend to take this to Planning Committee on the 10.12.18, and would therefore be grateful for your confirmation before this date as to whether or not this addresses your concerns. If I do not receive a response, I will assume that your objection stands". At the time of drafting (27.11.18) no response has been received.
5.5 Douglas Borough Council 5.5.1 Douglas Borough Council have responded (19.10.18) and raised concerns that: o they feel, "the design of the wall is not acceptable aesthetically" o The proposal to close off the Broadway slip would hamper access to the beach by emergency services, the Government and the Council; o No indication is given of the treatment of the Council's lifebelts and flagpoles. o The proposal does not comply with Strategic Plan policy 2(e) as there is no provision for children and wheelchair users to be able to see over the wall (e.g. by including a raised viewing area).
5.5.2 In response to this the applicant has provided the following: o "4. Visual impact and sea views - I am very surprised to hear that Douglas Borough Council feel that the wall is "not acceptable aesthetically". We met with Douglas Borough Council officers to discuss our original plans and they voiced their opposition to a plain concrete wall as they believed it would be rejected by the public. As a consequence of this meeting we then approached McGarrigle architects to undertake a new concept for the wall incorporating different shapes a change of colour and some artwork around the war memorial. We then had another meeting with Douglas Borough Council officers who were this time very complimentary towards the revised proposals and agreed that the design should be put forward for planning approval. We also met with Mr Hector Duff of the war memorials committee. He was delighted with our plans for the war memorial and also gave his approval of the design. o Children & wheelchair users - No provision has been made for wheelchair users or children to see over the wall as the wall only stretches over a small length of the promenade. The sea views are easily accessible either end of the proposed wall. o War memorial area - Maintenance of the war memorial and the low level railings around it are the responsibility of Douglas Borough Council. There are currently no plans to undertake changes to the memorial or the railings. o Glass partitions - There are no plans to incorporate glass partitions within the wall as it is only a relatively short length of wall with the sea clearly visible at each end. Also glass partitions would be prone to damage (scratching etc.) from debris thrown up by the sea and would soon become eyesores. o Broadway Slip - If the Broadway slipway is required as an access for emergency services then the design could be revised to include removable storm boards at this area. o Lifebelts and flagpoles - The existing lifebelts will be re attached to the wall in their same locations and similarly flagpole fixings can easily be fitted to the top of the wall as required".
==== PAGE 10 ====
18/00956/B Page 10 of 15
5.5.3 This was sent to Douglas Borough Council who further commented o "Further to your message below I can confirm that the objection raised by Douglas Borough Council still stands ... o In relation to item 4, (Visual impact and sea views) the DOI's comment that Douglas Borough Council agreed with the revised design of the wall is incorrect. It is correct that officers agreed that the amended treatment around the war memorial was much more sympathetic but that the relevant Council Committee would give a view on the rest of the wall, which they did. I've attached the email which was sent to the DOI which confirms the above. o Item 5 relates to the view of the sea by certain sections of the community. The Council's objection in this regard still stands. o Referring to item 8, the DOI's comment that "if the Broadway slipway is required as an access for emergency services then the design could be revised to include removable storm boards at this area" is welcomed, but would need to form part of the application in order to address the Council's objection on this point. o With reference to item 9 relating to the lifebelts and flagpoles, the DOI's confirmation that these will be relocated on the proposed wall is welcome and remove the Council's objection on this particular aspect of the application".
5.6 Comments have been received from the occupier of Compton Court - Flat, 4 Clarence Terrace, Central Promenade (12.11.18) indicating that they agree with the DBC objections and ask whether "the sea wall could incorporate reinforced glass (partitions or half wall) as used in many other coastal areas with the same issues ... to retain the visual charm of the Coast...". The response indicates they have no direct interest in the site.
5.7 Comments have been received from the occupier of 1 Berry Woods Avenue, Douglas indicated that they "love the car, thought and attention being given to the War Memorial Area, setting it aside from the rest of the wall and making it stand out" and has asked whether the existing surround of the memorial will be changed at the same time - railing replaced etc. as they think this would be "a fantastic opportunity to improve the area". The response indicates their relationship to the site is as, "Special Interest Group".
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Key Issues 6.1.1 It is considered that there are four main issues: o Whether sufficient information has been provided o The Impact on the Conservation Area o The Impact on the use of the Promenade o The Need for the works to respond to the risk of flooding
6.2 Whether sufficient information has been provided 6.2.1 In terms of the EIA, on balance it is not considered that one is required and the following points should be noted: o Strategic Plan Environment Policy 24 indicates that EIA will be required in certain cases. Paragraph 7.18.2 of the main text clarifies that in some cases EIA will be required in every case (Paragraph A.5.2 of Appendix 5 sets out the cases) and in other cases will be required depending on the nature of the proposal/area (thus paragraph A.5.2 of Appendix 5 is akin to "Schedule 1" development in the UK). o However, an important distinction between the Isle of Man and UK is that in the Isle of Man, the requirement for EIA comes from policy rather than legislation. A proposal which is listed under A.5.2 and does not have an EIA would not be in accordance with Strategic Plan Environment Policy 24. Therefore, in theory, a planning application could be submitted without an EIA for a type of development listed in A.5.2 and still be validated/processed. In such circumstances the Department would need to consider whether or not we were willing to determine the application on the basis of the information provided or whether we would need to serve a "21 day" letter on the applicant requiring an Environmental Statement and, if one is
==== PAGE 11 ====
18/00956/B Page 11 of 15
not received, treating the application as withdrawn (see 4(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) No 2 Order 2013). o Of course, in the event that we were willing to determine the application for a type of development listed in A.5.2 without an EIA we would need to consider whether the non- compliance with EP24 was sufficient to warrant a refusal. o An EIA should be informed by the UK regulations/guidance - Although the Strategic Plan sets out clear policies in relation to when EIA is required, it does not set out how EIA should be done. It states at A.5.1 that in due course a Planning Policy Statement will be produced but in the interim UK methodology will be used. The PPS has not yet been produced therefore any EIA would be informed by the relevant parts of the UK EIA Regulations (2017) and DCLG Guidance (last updated July 2017) - although Schedules 1 and 2 of the UK EIA regulations are not relevant as these aspects are covered locally - as set out above. o One of the cases listed in A.5.2 is "Coastal work to combat erosion and maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction of for example dykes, moles, jetties and other sea defence works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works". o It could be suggested that the proposal at hand is an, "other sea defence works" and so to comply with EP24 an EIA would be required. o However, given the nature of the proposal and notwithstanding any specific further information which may be requested (see below) it is not considered that an EIA is required to be able to determine the application, nor is it considered that the non-compliance with EP24 is, in this case is, in itself, sufficient grounds for refusal.
6.2.2 In terms of a flood risk assessment and compliance with EP10, this is very similar to the above. An FRA has not been included in the application and therefore it does not comply with EP10, however again - so long as any specific additional information requested is provided it is not considered that this is in itself grounds for refusal. It is noted that a response has been received from the applicant in response to the comments from Manx Utilities and, although their objection still stands as they have not withdrawn it, it is not considered that this is grounds for refusal.
6.3 The Impact on the Conservation Area 6.3.1 The comments from the Conservation Officer are noted. It is noted that there has been a lack of analysis of impact on Conservation Area. The applicant has indicated that historical photographs indicate that a wall was present in the past. However, there are currently open views out across the bay, and this proposal this will introduce a solid structure and therefore materially alter the character of the view. It is therefore concluded that the application will be harmful to the visual appearance of the Conservation Area (and of views into and out of it) and so not in accordance with the relevant policies or, in this regard, the direction of travel of the emerging Area Plan.
6.4 The Impact on the use of the Promenade 6.41 The proposal would not impact on the amount of area which is usable. It is considered that the concerns raised by Douglas Borough Council in relation to the slipway and lifebelts/flag poles could be addressed by condition. In these respects the proposal complies with the relevant policies and direction of travel of the Area Plan.
6.4.2 However, the proposal would impact on the ability of some of those people using the space to enjoy sea views and in this aspect is considered contrary to GP2(e) and weighs against the application.
6.5 The Need for the works to respond to the risk of flooding 6.5.1 Section 4 of this report sets out the policy and evidence base framework which supports the proposal. On this basis it is concluded that there is some level of need for, and political support for, the works being carried out. It is accepted that of the three technical options for works, increasing the height of the wall is the most practicable given the limited space created by the realignment of the horse-tram route (previously approved). In terms of whether the
==== PAGE 12 ====
18/00956/B Page 12 of 15
design is the best it could be whilst still delivering the functional results required, it is considered that some attempts have been made to reduce the utilitarian appearance of the wall (although without a specific heritage assessment it is difficult to conclude that no other detailed design was possible/more appropriate).
6.6 Other Matters 6.6.1 Given DEFA's role within the National Flood Strategy it could be argued that there is a conflict of interest with DEFA's role as planning authority. However, it is considered that there is no such conflict as the application is submitted by the DOI and does not involve land which is within the ownership of DEFA. In any case, the application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The application does not comply with all the of the Development Plan policies and is likely to have a negative visual impact on the Conservation Area. However, it is likely to deliver a benefit in terms of reducing flood risk, facilitating the use of the promenade and safeguarding the operation of the horse tram. Therefore, on balance the application is supported, subject to conditions.
7.2 It is noted that the application makes reference to the potential to extend the wall along the rest of the Promenade and also, at some point in the future to potentially increase the height by an additional 0.6 metres (1.8 in total). These elements do not form part of the current application and so are not assessed, however it should be noted that a proposal to erect a 1.8 metre tall along the length of the Promenade is unlikely to be acceptable. It is suggested that, if the application is approved, a condition is attached which reinforces the scope of the approval.
7.3 It is noted that the applicant in response to one of the concerns of Douglas Borough Council have indicated that the sea views are easily accessible either end of the proposed wall. This may be true for the current scheme, but the application also indicates there may be future schemes which extend the wall. Therefore it is important to note that the acceptability of this scheme without such provision does not mean that schemes to extend the wall would similarly be accepted.
7.4 The discounting of other options to defend against overtopping (including set back wall) have been discounted due to the operational requirements of the horse tram, which also gives an urgency to this scheme. The acceptability of this scheme does not mean that schemes to extend the wall would similarly be accepted without a more thorough assessment of the options, including more detailed assessment of heritage assets as is recommended in the 2014 study cited by the applicants.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
==== PAGE 13 ====
18/00956/B Page 13 of 15
o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : ...Refused... Committee Meeting Date:...10.12.2018
Signed :...S BUTLER... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
==== PAGE 14 ====
18/00956/B Page 14 of 15
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 10.12.2018
Application No. :
18/00956/B Applicant : Department Of Infrastructure Proposal : Construction of 507m long reinforced concrete wall 1.2m in height anchored to the existing sea wall to reduce wave overtopping Site Address : Sea Wall Harris Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man
Head of Development Management : Mr S Butler Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Case Officer updated the Planning Committee in relation to correspondence received after the agenda had been published from Douglas Borough Council (acknowledging the need for some form of defence) and from Manx Utilities (seeking more information about the drainage holes for overtopping waters). The recommendation was verbally updated to add a condition to address the point from Manx Utilities.
The Committee rejected the Case Officer's recommendation and voted to refuse the application. They considered that the proposal is unacceptable because there is a lack of information, justification and consideration of key issues, in particular:
Reason for Refusal
R 1. It is considered that the proposal is unacceptable because there is a lack of information, justification and consideration of key issues, in particular:
==== PAGE 15 ====
18/00956/B Page 15 of 15
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal