Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00635/B
Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00635/B Applicant : Department Of Infrastructure Proposal : Alterations and raising of harbour walls for flood prevention Site Address : Castletown Harbour Castletown Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 25.11.2016 Site Visit : 25.11.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE SCALE OF THE PROPOSAL AND REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
THE SITE 1.1 The site is an area around Castletown's harbour, reaching from Qualtrough's Yard in the north to the pedestrian bridge between the Glue Pot/Castle Arms public house and Bridge Cottage. The site encompasses the harbourside walling and edge along Victoria Road, Bridge Street and Back Hope Street and generally abuts public highway rather than private property, other than a section at the northern end of the site which runs alongside, and involves a small piece of the Qualtrough's Yard (timber and builders' yard). Part of the site also abuts the boat yard alongside.
1.2 Currently the harbourside is marked by a variety of features, mainly metal chains slung between metal posts.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application proposes to introduce solid edges to the harbour side to provide enhanced protection against flood water rising up above the level of the land alongside. In recent years flooding events have caused damage to a number of properties around the harbour. The walling has been designed to deal with a one in 200 year event up to 2115. A maximum wall height of 1.25m above ground level has been proposed to provide a balance between providing the optimal flood defence but at the same time, limiting the impact on visual change to the harbourside area and along Back Hope Street some of the additional height will be formed by railings. In some areas, the degree of flood protection has been limited due to these considerations but in all cases the walling has been designed such that it could physically be increased in the future if so desired.
2.2 Other options considered included a tidal flap within the river but this was discounted as it was considered it could result in fluvial flooding. The position of the wall was also discussed, considering the introduction of walling on the outer side of the highways alongside the harbour although this was considered more visually intrusive and could possibly interfere with use of the adjacent land for the passage of pedestrians and vehicles. Access to the water will be through the introduction of gated access ladders and new mooring rings.
2.3 The millrace running along the rear of the Hope Street properties will have a flap valve installed which may not in itself constitute development but as it is included in the scheme, it can and should be considered as development.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00635/B
Page 2 of 10
2.4 The walling to be introduced will generally be concrete on the inward facing part (other than the Victoria Road walling which will be stone faced on both sides) using a pre-formed finish ("Fernhill cladding") which can be formed in various colours, shapes and sizes of stone with different types of pointing.
2.5 The only walling higher than that referred to in 2.1 above is alongside the south eastern side of Qualtrough's Yard where the existing boundary will be replaced by a new wall between 1.7m to 2.4m high. This also results in the removal of the existing vegetation and trees and be replaced by new ones. The applicant has provided a tree survey to deal with the removal of trees and possible mitigation planting. The report describes the proposed development as sitting within an existing residential property bordered by agricultural land which is clearly not the case but goes on to accurately describe the cumulative impact of the trees and to identify 7 trees whose removal is justified on the grounds of their health and a further 3 Cat B and 16 Cat C trees will need to be removed to facilitate the development. It describes a number of trees which have had the level of soil around them raised through the creation of a bund and regardless of the proposed works, this situation is likely to result in the gradual die back and decline of the tree in subsequent years. Unfortunately the tree plan has been re-produced at A4 size which renders the annotation unreadable but the colouration of the drawing clearly shows that all of the trees from the Apostle's Bridge to opposite 7, Victoria Road to be removed and a further few to the north of this also removed but also a greater number to be retained.
2.6 The report recommends a mitigation planting plan of a band of common (black) alder and hawthorn to be established southwards from Alexandra Bridge for a distance of 90m in an area of open grass, situated 6m away from the proposed flood wall (on the Qualtrough's Yard side of the wall) at an optimum spacing of 13m with a secondary line of hawthorn between the alder line and the flood wall at 5m spacing. A further staggered screen of hawthorn is proposed for the narrow strip of land running adjacent to the Qualtrough's Yard building for 50m. The species have been selected for their fast growing nature, soil conditions, the fact that they will grow to a similar size and shape as the mature sycamores to be removed, the visual amenity level which will result, the native nature of them and their tolerance to a maritime environment.
2.7 The Manx Bat Group were commissioned to assess the impact from the removal of the trees on bat activity and habitat and they concluded that due to the time of year, they were unable to identify whether the area is used by bats but recommend that the existing sea buckthorn is retained until the new planting matures to provide some shelter for foraging bats (although it should be noted that sea buckthorn is a Section 14 species whose planting is unlawful under the Wildlife Act 1990). They also recommend the provision of one or two bat boxes within the scheme area (02.10.16).
2.8 Following concerns raised about the impact of introducing a non-return valve in the millrace alongside Back Hope Street in turning this presently saline environment to a non-saline one, further work has been undertaken and this discussed with Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture's Biodiversity Division. This is discussed later and an appropriately worded condition suggested.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies partly within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Harbour Area and also within an area not designated for any particular purpose. Some of the site lies within the town's Conservation Area - that alongside Victoria Road and Qualtrough's yard is without.
3.2 As such, the Strategic Plan contains provision for development in areas not designated for development including the following:
(g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00635/B
Page 3 of 10
3.2 The Plan also refers to harbours as follows:
Transport Policy 13: Development in or around harbours should neither compromise the ability of the harbour to accommodate other commercial or recreational users in a viable manner, nor be detrimental to the character of those harbours of historic interest.
Transport Policy 14: Any proposed schemes likely to impact upon the ecology and/or archaeology of a harbour or the nearby coastline should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.
3.3 The Strategic Plan provides guidance regarding flooding as follows:
7.12.2 The Isle of Man does not have a full survey identifying all areas which may be at risk from flooding. However, there are areas which are at potential risk from flooding and this includes areas which have flooded in the past. The Strategic Plan seeks to prevent the loss of natural flood plain and to guide development away from areas at risk of flooding. Where development is permitted for special or exceptional reasons, then appropriate flood protection and mitigation measures must be taken to safeguard life and property.
3.4 The plan provides little guidance on proposed flood mitigation measures and more about the need to prevent the increase in flooding.
3.5 The Area Plan makes a number of references to the harbour, including the identification of its "grey stone wall of the harbour, marking the entrance to Castletown, is a landmark within views westwards" (paragraph 3.4).
3.6 Finally, the Strategic Plan provides safeguards to wildlife and watercourses as follows:
Environment Policy 4 "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: a) species and habitats of international importance: i) protected species or international importance or their habitats; or ii) proposed or designated Ramsar or Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.
b) species and habitats or national importance: i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves , or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or iv) National Trust Land.
c) species and habitats or local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward".
Environment Policy 7: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which would not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00635/B
Page 4 of 10
a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality;
b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted;
c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and
d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species".
REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries make the following comments:
The proposed works are too close to the watercourse. Precautions will be needed to reduce the possibility of harmful materials entering the river and also to ensure that alterations to river banks or use of machinery within the river do not threaten populations. They indicate that they have no objection but request the application of the following condition:
Works are conducted according to a written method statement agreed in advance with DEFA.
Reason: to allow DEFA Fisheries to provide advice on a suitable approach to reduce the possibility of injury or disturbance (30.06.16).
4.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that there is no highway interest in the application (24.06.16).
4.3 Castletown Commissioners support the application (06.07.16).
4.4 The following parties register their support for the application, acknowledging flood damage which has occurred in the past and considering that any visual impacts from the proposal are outweighed by the benefits of flood protection and including comment that the walls need to be high enough to be effective:
3 Springfield Terrace, Hope Street (08.07.16) 16, Hope Street (06.07.16) 18, Hope Street (08.07.16) 20, Hope Street (07.07.16) 21, Hope Street (07.07.16) 22, Hope Street (07.07.16) 25, Hope Street (07.07.16)
4.5 The Isle of Man Harbour Users Association fully support the concept of flood protection but would like to see built into the plans, access for small craft and their mooring points adjacent to Victoria Road and Back Hope Street and also crane access for lifting vessels out of the water around the Umber Quay and Claddaghs boat park areas (07.07.16).
4.6 The owner of 4, The Promenade, Castletown supports the concept of flood protection but objects to the application on the basis that the lower path is to be removed on the basis of safety although this is an attractive area for people to walk and sit. If there is a risk to life then surely this can be addressed by a life ring and signage? He is concerned that the proposed walling on Bridge Street misses an opportunity to address the existing situation where the junction with Victoria Road is too wide and he proposes an alternative layout. Even if the scheme area does not extend to areas where there is a need for solutions, the proposed works should not prevent solutions from being implemented in the future, such as identifying safe routes to school to Victoria Road School. He
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00635/B
Page 5 of 10
considers it a pity that the existing stone faced gabions alongside the boatyard are to be replaced with sheet piling but if so, he considers that the opportunity should be taken to expand the boat park area and he queries the removal of crane operating areas at the boat park. Finally he asks whether both sides of Back Hope Street should be protected from flooding of the harbour and the mill race (30.06.16).
4.7 The applicant responds to this on 15.07.15, confirming that the existing lower footpath is considered a health and safety risk with the area filling with silt and debris and suggest that alternative access to amenity areas through the western bank is preferred. The applicant did consider an extension to the harbour wall in the Bridge Street area but this was rejected as the proposed scheme makes easier access and better functional use of the area and they wished to retain an open vista across the harbour. The existing gabion baskets are in poor condition and they consider that the proposed concrete walling will weather in time and become visually acceptable. They see no need nor have any budget for making the boat park larger at this time. The boat craning area is considered to be currently rarely used. In terms of access for disabled persons, there is currently none and as such the proposed scheme will not worsen this. If there is to be provision in the future, this is certainly something that the applicant will consider.
4.8 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer initially expressed concern at the lack of a bat survey and asked that one is provided. Whilst trees are to be removed, they are to be replaced so he considers the impact temporary. There is sea buckthorn which is an invasive species and care must be taken to prevent it being planted or allowed to spread. He expresses concern at the introduction of a non- return valve which will prevent sea water from entering the mill stream, changing its ecology and areas of salt marsh are relatively rare. There is particular concern at the potential loss of habitat for Allomlita pellucida which is a red data book species (rare and threatened). A survey for this in the mill stream is recommended which will provide information necessary for proper assessment of the application (15.07.16). This survey was undertaken.
4.9 He goes on, following the submission of information about the existing habitat:
"Following up on previous correspondence, please find below further comment on this development proposal, now that environmental information has been submitted (survey results spreadsheet for Allomelita pellucida, saltmarsh botanical survey report, bat roost assessment report). These reports have been sent directly to me but should also have been sent to you by now, for incorporation and consideration within the planning application.
The CMACS report found no Allomelita pellucida in the area of search. We therefore discount this red data species issue in regard to this development.
Regarding the saltmarsh, this is a rare and threatened habitat, therefore all areas are important. Whilst the area affected (loss of the Mill Stream saltmarsh) is small, isolated and not high in botanical diversity, it could qualify as a Wildlife site and we recommend its retention if it is possible to do so. If the valve gate is found to be a requirement (rather than a preferred option) then compensatory habitat creation should be considered as a replacement elsewhere in the harbour. The Wildlife Trust has suggested two options for habitat creation: replacement saltmarsh and provision of a reedbed. The latter has been suggested as a more likely option to be achieved within the current plans, as a new wildlife habitat, as compensatory saltmarsh might not be achievable. We do question whether saltmarsh can be successfully created above the Apostles Bridge in the present harbour situation. There is no saltmarsh there currently, due to the dredging, steep banks, shrub cover (which may be removed) and possibly the weir. A suitable intertidal saline environment would be necessary. It is not clear whether this is currently possible, though the shrubs can be removed and the banks sloped. The weir clearly holds back a body of freshwater during low tide and we do not know what the salinity is at different levels of the water and the tide but the weir may have created a less saline environment at some or all states of the tide. It would be useful to have clarity on whether the weir remains of benefit to Castletown and what its intended function is. If it were merely of historic benefit and no longer needed then its removal would recreate more
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00635/B
Page 6 of 10
natural estuarine environment, with opportunities for saltmarsh creation above the weir position (there is saltmarsh just below it), removing the dredging commitment, but requiring consideration of upstream effects on the erosion patterns via this lowering of the river bed. With regard to the flood alleviation scheme this may also provide greater instream capacity and therefore add towards flood alleviation within Castletown. We have raised this with the MUA, who don't know the justification for the origins of the weir but noted that sewers run under it, but below the river bed.
Saltmarsh also has the potential for some very specialised invertebrates, some of which are threatened, hence the previous recommendation for a saltmarsh invertebrate survey. This has not been followed up, but the Department has now reflected on the results of the brief botanical survey. The lack of botanical and habitat diversity both within the saltmarsh and around it is likely to severely restrict the potential for invertebrates of interest. Though such information would have added to the consideration of the value of the saltmarsh, we accept that the added delays and costs of such work may be considered unreasonable at this stage, taking account of the likelihood of finding special species within the reported habitat.
The MBG bat survey was late in the year and therefore only a daytime survey of the trees was undertaken. No evidence of roosting was found. There was no activity survey of the harbour, as expected, to assess the effect of losing a line of about 30 trees that shelters the water, providing foraging opportunities on flying insects that tend to be abundant in such situations, in the lea of the trees. However, it is noted that a replanting scheme of alder has been proposed. Assuming this area is used by foraging bats, i.e. accepting the worst case scenario based on available evidence, the loss and replanting of the trees might be expected to have an effect on available bat habitat of about 20 years, the greatest effect early on, in the first 10 years, tailing off in later years, whilst the replacement trees mature and thereby recreate sheltered wetland feeding opportunities and green canopy. Bat species known in the broader area are the common pipistrelle, brown long-eared bat, both common and widespread, Leislers bats, of international interest and smaller in number (as a larger bat) but still common and widespread on the IoM, and possibly Natterer's bat (frequent and widespread). Any of these species could potentially use these trees or the harbour adjacent. We would expect any activity to be pushed upstream or into the castle gardens or Lorne House, resulting in a slight restriction of available habitat in an area not noted for its abundance of trees.
Note, the Manx Bat Group report suggests the retention of sea buckthorn until the alders mature. Whilst this might indeed mitigate slightly for the loss of the trees initially, it might be more difficult to remove them later on and this may also affect the re-landscaping potential to produce other ecological benefits by the provision of a sloping bank (currently a shrubby ledge). An intertidal area is currently lacking here. The opportunity to remove a Wildlife Act Schedule 8 plant, at an appropriate point in such a project, should be planned in.
In conclusion, we are now confident that there is suitable information available on which to base a planning consideration, utilising assumptions of the use of the upper harbour by foraging bats to some degree (temporary effect) and noting that the plan requires the loss of about half of the Castletown Harbour saltmarsh. It is not clear whether compensatory habitat can be provided or whether the weir is of benefit or a problematic historic remainder, but the DoI may be in apposition to comment further" (24.10.16).
4.10 DEFA Forestry Division express concern at the loss of trees close to Alexandra Bridge and the long term future of new trees planted close to the new wall alongside Qualtrough's Yard (14.07.16). This has given rise to further discussions and the submission of a tree report.
4.11 The owner of Qualtrough's Timber Yard originally objected to the proposal (16/08/16) but, following discussions with the applicant and Manx Utilities rescinded his concerns and no longer objects to the proposal (22/09/16).
4.12 The owner of 19, Brewery Wharf queries whether the scheme includes the sealing of the existing harbour wall and fears that the scheme will address only a tidal surge and will not stop
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/00635/B
Page 7 of 10
flooding unless the porosity of the harbour wall is solved and all surface water drawings into the harbour are fitted with a non-return valve which are regularly serviced (15.08.16).
4.13 Other anonymous or non-addressed comments have been submitted to the Commissioners, including a query as to why only a 25 year flooding plan was not considered acceptable, why the flooding from the mill race has not been considered as this is where flooding occurs as well as through drains not the harbour, concerns that access should be available for disabled persons and one comment that the scheme looks as if it will help the flooding situation.
4.14 Manx Utilities originally sought further information to provide data on flood levels and the potential for fluvial flood risk upstream but following the provision of further information to them, they no longer express concern at the proposal (04.10.16).
PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Recent planning applications in the area include the installation of penstocks within the bridge (16/00401/B); construction of a boat park and car parking (96/01156/B) and erection of railings (00/01226/B) all approved.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposed works - notably the installation of the walling and railings and the removal of trees - would have any adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the area, paying particular attention to those parts of the site which are within the Conservation Area. Also it is important to determine whether the proposed works would have any adverse impact on vehicular movement within the area, any impact on flooding or on the living conditions of those living close by or any environmental impacts on the river or wildlife habitat. It is also important to consider whether the proposals will have any adverse impact on the legitimate operation of businesses close by, particularly Qualtrough's Timber Yard which is the business closest to the proposed works. If there are any adverse impacts resulting from the works, it is relevant to consider whether there are any benefits from the works, particularly in respect of flood mitigation, which would override these concerns, having regard to any alternative means of achieving the protection against flooding which is desired in this case.
Visual impact 6.2 The introduction of walling around the harbour will change the appearance of the area but not significantly or adversely, given the harbourside character and the incidence of walling around other harbours - Port Erin for example, although many harbours have very low features alongside the quay and no walling to speak of. It may be that in future years similar walling is required around other harbours to provide additional flood protection where there is a likelihood of flooding.
6.3 The removal of trees alongside Qualtrough's Yard is unfortunate but necessary to construct the required walling and the tree report comments that the health of the existing trees is already suffering due to the historic raising of the ground levels. This area is otherwise not of particular merit at the present time despite having potential to provide public amenity - an attractive riverside area to walk and sit, for example. The existing trees become more important approaching Alexandra Bridge. The applicant has had discussions with Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Officers from the Forestry and Wildlife Divisions and the possibility of retaining trees which are shown to be removed close to Alexandra Bridge was mentioned.
6.4 Clearly there is a balance to be struck between retaining trees of amenity and ecological value, which some of these are, whilst not compromising flood protection and if the area is to flood more frequently in the future, the future of these trees may be jeopardised by that. It is considered that the proposed mitigation planting along with the tree protection measures are an acceptable compromise which will enable the flood protection to go ahead whilst providing an acceptable replacement environment.
==== PAGE 8 ====
16/00635/B
Page 8 of 10
6.5 Whilst it is sensibly suggested that there may be other means of improving flood defence, such as sealing the harbour walls and installing non-return valves on the existing drains into the harbour area, these are not planning matters and are not included in the application and could be undertaken by the Department in any case. Even if they do not, it is not considered that the proposed works should be refused because they do not go far enough.
PARTY STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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, in this case Manx Utilities (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
The Fisheries and Wildlife Divisions are part of the same Department as are the planning authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status in this case.
In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
3 Springfield Terrace, Hope Street (08.07.16) 16, Hope Street (06.07.16) 18, Hope Street (08.07.16) 20, Hope Street (07.07.16) 21, Hope Street (07.07.16) 22, Hope Street (07.07.16) 25, Hope Street (07.07.16) 19, Brewery Wharf Qualtrough's Yard and the Isle of Man Harbour Users Association
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
4, The Promenade, Castletown which is not directly affected by the proposed works.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation
==== PAGE 9 ====
16/00635/B
Page 9 of 10
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.10.2016
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The protection measures and construction methods detailed in the Tree Survey and Report prepared by Manx Roots Tree Management Limited submitted in support of the application shall be adhered to in full, subject to the pre-arranged supervision detailed in section 11 and appendix 5, by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, or wilfully destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the completion date, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars or as may be permitted by prior approval in writing from the Department. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development subject to satisfactory written evidence of contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist.
Reason: to successfully preserve retained trees in the interests of the natural, visual and ecological amenities of the area.
C 2. 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 3. Prior to the commencement of any works associated with this development, the applicant must have approved by the Department a method statement which details the precautions to be put into place to reduce the possibility of harmful materials entering the river and also to ensure that alterations to river banks or use of machinery within the river do not threaten fish populations and the work must be undertaken in accordance with this statement.
Note: The applicant is recommended to liaise with DEFA Fisheries in the preparation of this statement.
Reason: To accord with the provisions of Environment Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan.
C 4. Prior to the installation of any non-return valve system in the mill stream, a mitigation scheme for this - either creating a new or enhanced saline habitat somewhere else in the area or a compensatory different habitat, must be submitted to and approved by the Department, including the timing and aftercare of such works and the works must be undertaken in accordance with these details.
Reason: To accord with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
C 5.
==== PAGE 10 ====
16/00635/B Page 10 of 10
Prior to the construction of any walling, a sample panel of the stonework and pointing to be used must be approved by the Department and the walling must be installed thereafter in accordance with that decision.
Reason: To ensure that all new walling is appropriate for its location, particularly within the Conservation Area.
C 6. The tree planting scheme detailed in the Tree Survey and Report prepared by Manx Roots Tree Management Limited submitted in support of the application shall be implemented in full, including the recommendations for post planting maintenance
Reason: To restore the natural, visual and ecological amenities of the area following the removal of 19 trees to facilitate the development.
N 1. The applicant is recommended to consider provision for access for small craft and their mooring points adjacent to Victoria Road and Back Hope Street and also crane access for lifting vessels out of the water around the Umber Quay and Claddaghs boat park areas as well as provision for disabled users of the harbour and something to improve what may be perceived as a bland concrete wall proposed in places around the harbour.
This decision relates to drawings IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-101A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-201A, IoM-JBA-C-H- DR-C-202A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-203A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-206A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C- 301B, IoM-JBA- C-H-DR-C-302A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-303A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-401A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-402A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-403A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-501A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-502A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C- 503A ,IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-504A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-601A IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-602A, IoM-JBA-C-H- DR-C-603A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-901A, IoM-JBA-C-H-DR-C-1001A all received on 1st June, 2016.
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 : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 31.10.2016
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
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal