Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00743/B Page 1 of 14
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 24/00743/B Applicant : Dept Of Infrastructure Proposal Construction of 500m length of reinforced concrete wall 1.2m high and anchored to the existing promenade sea wall for the purpose of reducing wave overtopping (part retrospective). Site Address Sea Wall Harris Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man
Case Officer :
Russell Williams Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 03.01.2025
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. No approval is hereby given for any works to extend the height of the wall to more than 1.2 metres above the height of the Promenade walkway.
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.
C 2. No approval is hereby given for any works outside the site boundary shown in red on the location plan (Drawing No 102 Rev B).
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.
C 3. The wall hereby approved shall include flap valves as set out in paragraph 5 of section 8 of the Environmental Statement (27 June 2024).
Reason: To ensure that the proposed mitigation in relation to overtopping is fully implemented.
C 4. Prior to the completion of the development hereby approved, the details of the fixings for flag poles and life belts as set out in paragraph 2 of section 9.3 of the Environmental Statement (27 June 2024) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, and the development shall be carried out and fully completed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for flag poles and life belts.
C 5. The wall hereby approved shall include viewing platforms as set out in paragraph 1 of section 9.3 of the Environmental Statement (27 June 2024).
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00743/B Page 2 of 14
Reason: To ensure that the proposed mitigation in relation to loss of sea views is implemented.
C 6. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, a scheme, including a timetable for implementation, for the mitigation and enhancement of biodiversity on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The mitigation and enhancement measures shall be based upon the mitigation measures set out in section 9.1 and Appendix E of the Environment Statement (received 27 June 2024) and updated to account for current ecological conditions on the site. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to enhance habitat on the site pursuant to Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed 1.2m wall will deliver substantial public benefits by reducing flood risk and, overtopping of existing sea defences such that damage to infrastructure will be substantially reduced and public safety and the use of open space along Douglas Promenade enhanced. The proposals will preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and will not adversely impact upon the setting of any identified Registered Building or public views of the sea to a significant degree. The benefits of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified harm and the proposals are therefore considered to comply with Strategic Policy 4, Spatial Policy 6, Environment Policies 12 and 35 and General Policy 2 (b) and (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following drawings and documents, date stamped received on 27 June 2024:
Dr No 102 Rev B Location Plan Dr No 105 Rev B Site Plan Dr No 106 Rev A Construction Detail Document Number: JR0009/HW3630/D1/001 - Environmental Statement Douglas Promenade Wave Overtopping Reduction Wall Planning Statement of Case __
Interested Person Status
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 4(2): Owner/Occupier 2 Knockaloe Beg Cottages, Knockaloe Beg Lane, Raggatt, Peel Owner/Occupier Glen View, South Cape, Laxey
as they 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 Policy __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT COULD BE CONSIDERED THAT IT IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE SITE
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00743/B Page 3 of 14
1.1 The application site extends along a length of approximately 500m of the existing sea wall along Douglas Promenade, within the Douglas Promenades CA. The existing sea wall is currently made up of concrete pillars supporting metal railings, which provide views through to the beach and the sea.
1.2 The application site runs along the eastern side of the Promenade, which is used as public open space comprising of walkways, horse tram way and parking along the highway. The Promenade is used by walkers, runners, cyclists and members of the public, including visitors. It offers a route for active movement as well as places for sitting.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application includes a Planning Statement of Case and an Environmental Impact Assessment. This clarifies that it is proposed to construct a wall to protect against wave overtopping along a 500 metre section of Douglas Promenade, as part of a wider approach to protect Douglas. The application is effectively a re-submission of lapsed planning permission 19/00755/B which was approved on appeal.
2.2 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.
2.3 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). 2.4 The wall would:
2.5 It is pertinent to note that the wall has been designed so that a further 0.6m height could be added in the future but this forms no part of the present proposal.
2.6 The proposed development has been the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), the findings of which are set out in the submitted Environmental Statement (ES).
2.7 The EIA describes the options considered and discounted against baseline conditions for flood defence in Douglas, with reference to the Isle of Man Flooding and Wave Overtopping Study - Concept Design Report - JBA Consulting December 2014 (2014 Report). For the section of Douglas Promenades concerned in the application, overtopping was predicted to occur in a 1 in 20 year storm event (5% probability of overtopping per year). This is forecast to increase to a 1 in 5 year frequency by the year 2115.
2.8 The ES explains the options considered and discounted by the report, including consideration of baseline conditions. The JBA report explains why options of complete sea wall design, permeable revetment, impermeable revetment and a break water have been discounted. This then identified four options: Do Nothing, Set back wall, Raised seawall and Beach recharge.
2.9 The do-nothing option is discounted noting the significant damage done during storm Emma in March 2018, which caused over £40,000.00 of damage along the Promenade. The setback and beach recharge were considered but the raised sea wall is considered to best fulfil
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00743/B Page 4 of 14
the requirements of the recommendations at an acceptable cost and without causing disruption to horse tram services along the realigned tracks.
2.10 Having regard to the current day situation, these findings and recommendations and the technical evidence supporting them remain essentially unchallenged in connection with this application and the need to provide enhanced protection along the Promenade remains relevant and necessary.
2.11 The EIA acknowledges that the proposed wall, at a height of 1.2m, does not reflect the full 1.8m high wall recommended in the 2014 Report should climate change continue to affect sea levels as expected.
2.12 To mitigate concerns about how water overtopping the wall will return back to sea, a series of flap valves has been incorporated within the base of the new wall. The valves are set out at 2m centres along the wall and are incorporated into a slot 400mm wide x 150mm high cast into the wall at promenade level, and these are shown on the application drawings.
2.13 The ES recognises that under normal storm conditions it is expected that the wall will proved substantially more protection from wave overtopping and thrown debris than is currently experienced and there will be little overtopping. However, water in a 1 in 200 year event is likely to exceed the capacity of the drainage (as is currently the case) and some short term localised flooding of the walkway is likely. Under these circumstances a storm management plan would be in pace and it close to the public (as is currently the case). The flood risk assessment also confirms that the sea wall will not increase or transfer the risk of flooding to other parts of Douglas Bay shoreline.
2.14 The design allows beach access at Broadway and includes provision for the lifebelts and flag poles.
2.15 The EIA process has considered the likely impact of development upon biodiversity, including the marine environment. The ES refers to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment noting that the views of the beach and Douglas Bay from the Promenade allowed by the current arrangement of pillars and railings are intermittent and that those walking on the Promenade with an eye-line over 1.35m are unlikely to suffer visual impact. It is acknowledged that those in wheelchairs and when sitting along the Promenade will have their views obscured by the proposed wall.
2.16 The ES includes and assessment of the likely impact of development upon heritage assets, including Douglas Promenades Conservation Area and the historic environment in general. It is noted that since the preparation of the ES and the previous planning approval for a sea wall, the Douglas Borough War Memorial has been registered (on 7th July 2021).
2.17 The ES concludes that the applicant has sought to balance a number of key considerations, including the need to improve community protection and resilience to flood risk, the practicalities of engineering a functional sea wall defence together with aesthetics. The ES considers that the development will blend into the surrounding environment in a successful way.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016)
3.1 With reference to development in Douglas, Spatial Policy 6 indicates the strategic role of Douglas Harbour as a principal gateway to be protected and enhanced. Transport Policy 3 provides that development should not compromise the ability of rail routes to accommodate recreational users.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00743/B Page 5 of 14
3.2 In terms of flooding and coastal defence works the following policies are pertinent: Environment Policy 10 - requires the submission of a flood risk report with applications for development on sites at risk of flooding. 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. Supporting paragraph 7.11.1 requires potential environmental effects of new coastal defence work to be taken into account and that such development does not increase or transfer the risk of flooding elsewhere; and 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.
3.3 There are a number of policies which are relevant to Conservation Areas: Strategic Policy 4 - indicates proposals must protected or enhance Conservation Areas; 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
3.4 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).
3.5 Recreation Policy 2 seeks to prevent a net loss of open space.
3.6 Environment Policy 24, together with appendix 5, sets out the need for Environmental Impact Assessment.
Area Plan for the East (2020)
3.7 The application site is located within the Settlement Boundary of Douglas, as identified on Proposals Map 4. The walkway is undesignated on Map 4 but in practice it is used as open space. The following policies are of material relevance to the application.
3.8 Urban Environment Proposal 3 states that "Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area."
3.9 Tourism Proposal 3 states, inter-alia, that the Promenade walkway will be retained principally for recreation and tourist purposes and open space.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Legislation
4.1 Section 143 of the Equality Act (2017) places a duty on public bodies to promote equality, eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.
4.2 Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "In considering (a) whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting, or (b) whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the relevant Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses".
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00743/B Page 6 of 14
4.3 Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act".
4.4 Given that the site is within a flood risk area, adjacent to a Registered Building and is within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area, the above requirements apply and appropriate consideration will be given in section 7.
Policy/Strategy/Guidance
National Strategy
4.5 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.
4.6 The Strategy sets objectives to raise community awareness and adaption to flood and coastal erosion risks, manage and reduce their impacts and prioritise investment to balance the urgency and impact of the risks involved. DOI responsibilities under the National Strategy include highway drainage, and critical infrastructure.
4.7 No Action Plan has been published setting out how the various infrastructure projects identified within the Strategy will be delivered. Until then, it is current Government policy to continue to invest in sea defences and in reducing flooding risk for areas at high risk. The appeal site is within an identified high risk area and the DOI has indicated that a cross- departmental officer working group has agreed that works to Douglas Promenade are regarded as more urgent, and options more restricted, due to the impact of coastal overtopping on the operation of the horse tram, especially with respect to its projected relocation closer to the sea.
4.8 The Action Area Analysis supporting the Strategy ranks Douglas Bay at second highest risk of wave overtopping and still water flooding, with a history of tidal flooding, and indicates a protection scheme between Loch and Queens Promenades with identified Action Area 3, which includes the appeal site.
4.9 The 2014 Flooding and Wave Overtopping Study Concept Design Report does not, in itself, have political approval but sets out scheme options for the Douglas Promenade as described above.
Planning Policy Statement
4.10 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.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 18/00956/B - the Construction of 507m long reinforced concrete wall 1.2m in height anchored to the existing sea wall to reduce wave overtopping at Sea Wall, Harris Promenade, Douglas - REFUSED for the following reason: It is considered that the proposal is unacceptable because there is a lack of information, justification and consideration of key issues, in particular:
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00743/B Page 7 of 14
5.2 19/00755/B - Construction of 500m long reinforced concrete wall 1.2m in height anchored to the existing sea wall to reduce wave overtopping at Sea Wall, Harris Promenade Douglas - REFUSED for the following reason:
The Planning Committee is not satisfied that the permanent and detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and on the public view of the sea (both contrary to Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement CA/2 and General Policy 2.e) are outweighed by the benefit of the proposed wall in relation to reducing the risk of flooding, noting that the level of protection which would be afforded by the wall is lower than that recommended in the applicant's technical report and that the risk relates to intermittent events at certain times of the year.
5.3 APPEAL: AP19/0057 Of refused application 19/00755/B - Appeal made by the Department of infrastructure against the refusal of a planning application for construction of a 507 metre length of reinforced concrete wall 1.2m high and anchored to the existing Douglas Promenade Sea Wall for the purpose of reducing wave overtopping. Appeal ALLOWED following Inspectors Report dated 27 April 2020
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 The following Statutory Consultees have been consulted and their responses can be summarised as follows:
Douglas City Council - No observations received.
DOI Highway Services - After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking. DEFA Fisheries - Comments and questions raised in respect of submitted information, answered within Section7 of this report. Comments are summarised in that "the fact that all works are to be undertaken from the promenade side, with no plant or materials on the beach, then DEFA is in principle content that a Condition of Approval attached to any future consent, and relating to an agreed methods statement, risk assessment and site management, prior to works commencing, and updates thereafter as appropriate, would be an acceptable approach."
DEFA Registered Buildings Officer - OBJECTION raised:
Setting of Douglas Borough War Memorial - RB 315
Currently the setting of the memorial consists of painted metal railings with intermediate stone piers. These existing railings provide expansive views of the beach, sea and the entire sweep of Douglas Bay. Unveiled by Lord Derby on 29th May 1924, the memorial is the focal point for Remembrance, Armistice and Armed Forces Day events in Douglas. These events, by their nature, involve many veterans and ex-servicemen/women. Many of these veterans have reduced mobility and use wheelchairs or other mobility assistance. In addition to this, these significant civic events also feature young people representing cadets, scouts, guides and local schools. Introducing a solid 1.2m high wall between the memorial and the sea will mean that those whose eye level is below 1.2m will no longer be able to view the beach or sea. As a result of the above, I would consider the introduction of a wall at this height to cause significant harm to the memorial's setting, and potentially to have a negative impact on the memorial's communal significance in the future.
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00743/B Page 8 of 14
Impact on the character of Douglas Promenades Conservation Area
The Douglas Promenades Conservation Area Character Appraisal, in the section titled 'Essential Character and Townscape', states that 'Douglas Promenades is one of the most distinguished and notable elements of townscape in the island and elegantly defines the margin where the town meets the sea.' This application focusses on the exact point where the town meets the sea - the sea wall itself. The existing arrangement of concrete piers and painted metal railings provides clear and open views of the sea, something that is a very prominent and significant element of the conservation area's character. As per the Department's view in respect of the previously submitted applications, I consider the removal of these clear and open views of the sea to be something that would cause harm to the character of the conservation area.
With the wall proposed to be 1.2m above the existing walkway level, children, those in wheelchairs and anyone sat on one of the many benches along the promenade would no longer be able to view the sea. Although two viewing areas have been proposed at locations where slipways provide access to the beach, in terms of the character of the conservation area and amenity value, I would judge that isolated viewpoints are entirely different to the existing arrangement. I consider that although the isolated viewpoints may provide a small level of mitigation against the harm, they do not remove the harm entirely.
Having regard to the above assessment, from a historic environment standpoint I object to these proposals given the potential harm to the setting of Douglas Borough War Memorial and the character of the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area.
6.2 2 representations have been received from members of the public objecting to the proposals and can be summarised as follows:
o Proposals are an eyesore and out of keeping with the stunning natural views of Douglas bay, not to mention what a terrible first impression it is to visitors arriving in the capital. o Concerns over damage to the prom. o this concrete sea wall is not the answer to coastal over topping/flood defence. It needs to be reconsidered. o The cost of this, believed to be £900,000 (which was circulating in the media) is abhorrent. We need a full transparent break down of materials, labour and consultancy costs, as this is ludicrous. o There is no corresponding Registered Building Application for the demolition works. o Appearance of the proposals are inappropriate in the Conservation Area. o If the reinforcement of the concrete is steel, then in the salt water environment the concrete will be very easily corroded. o Views of the beach along the promenade will be blocked, especially those in a wheelchair or pushchair or sitting. o The special features of a promenade with railings is that everyone may see the beach in totality. Proposals are contrary to Strategic Plan General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35. o The proposals are not justified in protecting the horse tramway as this does not operate in the winter, nor the summer months when the weather is poor. o The Previous Appeal Inspector did not visit the Promenade during the appeal and was not informed about the terminus of the horse tramway being at the Sea Terminal and not the War Memorial. o The costs of the development have not been updated. It is now estimated to be £900,000.00. o Given the adverse impact on amenity and the environment, the huge cost should be reassessed in terms of value for money. The horse tramway should be completed to the Sea Terminal and the project reassessed before this application is reconsidered or approved.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/00743/B Page 9 of 14
7.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application are:
Whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Douglas Promenades CA and Registers Buildings 2. Impact of proposals upon use of the Promenade by the public and horse tram 3. Views of the sea 4. Flood Risk
Impact upon Douglas Promenade CA and Registered Buildings
7.2 As noted throughout this report, the application site is located within the Douglas Promenade Conservation Area. Since the previous application was approved on Appeal, the only material change in circumstance regarding heritage is that Douglas Borough War Memorial has been added as a Registered Building.
7.3 Notwithstanding the War Memorial now being a Registered Building and therefore carrying a higher degree of protection, the setting of the War Memorial was discussed within the Officer Report and Planning Inspectors Appeal Decision to application 19/00755/B.
7.4 The length, design, means of construction and finished appearance of the wall currently under consideration is a match for that previously permitted. The findings of the Appeal Inspector are, therefore, a material consideration to this application.
7.5 The Douglas Promenades CA encompasses a wide range of historic features including a long sweep of frontage properties, incorporating Registered Buildings such as the Sefton Hotel and the Gaiety Theatre, the war Memorial and the Sunken Gardens, as well as the wide Promenade walkway itself with the adjacent horse tram service.
7.6 These features contribute to the long-established character and appearance of the CA, which strongly resonates a seaside resort within the immediate setting of Douglas Bay. As stated by the Departments Registered Building Officer, the views currently available from the Promenade out across the beach and bay, provided by the concrete piers and painted metal railings, also contribute positively to the setting of the CA and War Memorial.
7.7 Objection from the Registered Building Officer is noted and the objection relates primarily to the replacement of the piers and railings with a solid 1.2m high wall which will reduce the inter-visibility between the CA and bay. The wall would therefore restrict views from the CA, in particular for those in wheelchairs, pushchairs and younger children. Objection has also been received from two members of the public siting the impact upon the Conservation Area and views along the Promenade as reason to refuse the application.
7.8 The proposal will introduce a solid structure at the intersection between the Promenade and beach and in doing so will materially alter the character of the view currently afforded to users of the area. In order to mitigate the impact of this change, the height of the wall is restricted to 1.2m and 2 viewing platforms are located along the 500m length of the wall to benefit those unable to see above the wall.
7.9 As noted by the previous Inspector, "The loss of the open railings and their replacement with a 1.2m high solid barrier would make the visual relationship between the CA and the sea less direct and, to that extent, the development would have a degree of negative impact on the appearance and character of the CA." This comment remains true to this latest proposal. The wall will also reduce the visual relationship between the War Memorial and the sea.
7.10 Notwithstanding to loss of open views below a height of 1.2m, the vast majority of people using the Promenade would be able to see over the wall and out to sea, with children and wheelchair users being more reliant upon the two viewing platforms. Oblique and long
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/00743/B Page 10 of 14
distance views along Douglas Bay shore line would remain unaffected along the majority of the various Promenades.
7.11 Regarding the removal of the railings, it has been concluded previously that these are of no historic merit themselves, being concrete and metal with some areas being relatively new. There is no reason to now conclude differently and so their removal would not, therefore, result in the loss of important historic fabric within the Conservation Area.
7.12 The new wall that will replace the railings has been designed to incorporate decorative features and artwork, including around the War Memorial, which will enhance its visual appearance. Flagpoles and lifebelts will be reinstates and the overall visual impact of the wall within the Conservation Area and upon the setting of the Registered War Memorial is appropriately sensitive to the setting of the identified heritage assets.
7.13 Within the wider area of the Promenade Conservation Area, the proposed wall is sufficiently distant from Registered Buildings along the built frontage to the western side of the Promenade such that the setting of these heritage assets will be preserved.
7.14 Regarding benefits associated with the proposed wall to the Conservation Area, it is pertinent to highlight the fact that the wall is designed to reduce overtopping of the wall and flooding of the Promenade, as well as the dispersal of sand, gravel and the like along its length. Such will reduce closures to the Promenade, making it more accessible to the public and thus benefitting its use as open space. Such will preserve, if not enhance, the Promenade and its function.
7.15 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development will have a neutral impact upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and Registered Buildings, when regard is had to the loss of views to and from it. Such a conclusion has been found previously at Appeal and notwithstanding the War Memorial having become a Registered Building in the intervening period, the change in circumstance and associated impact is not considered to alter this conclusion.
7.16 The proposed wall and associated development will, therefore, comply with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 35 together with General Policy 2 (b) and (c) and Environment Policy 12. The proposals also comply with Landscape Proposal 6 of the APE in integrating visually into the Douglas Bay landscape.
Impact of proposals upon use of the Promenade by the public and horse tram
7.17 The proposed wall will run along the top of the raised promenade at its junction with the beach at Douglas Bay. It will effectively replace existing pillars and railings and will not encroach upon the promenade to any significant degree.
7.18 The wall will not reduce the amount of open space and the operation of the Horse Tram and access to the public along the promenade will be unaffected.
7.19 Having regard to public use along this stretch of the promenade, the proposal accords with the requirements of Transport Policy 3 and Recreation Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan together with Tourism Proposal 3 of the Area Plan for the East, which seeks ensure that the Promenade walkway is retained principally for recreation and tourist purposes and open space.
Views of the Sea
7.20 As discussed above, the proposed wall will reduce and obstruct direct views of the sea currently available below 1.2m along the promenade. This will mostly impact upon young children, wheelchair users and those sitting along the length of the wall.
==== PAGE 11 ====
24/00743/B Page 11 of 14
7.21 There is photographic evidence of a seal wall having been in situ along the promenades but this has since been replaced in the main with the concrete pillars and metal railings. Irrespective of the historic wall, the loss of these views will conflict with General Policy 2 (e) which only supports proposals that do not adversely affect public views of the sea.
7.22 The proposals include two viewing platforms along the 500m length of wall though these are not sufficient in themselves to compensate for the loss of views as described.
7.23 The proposed development therefore conflicts moderately with General Policy 2 (e) and such weighs against the proposals.
Flood Risk
7.24 The JBA Report 2014 sets out evidence of an increasing risk of flooding to Douglas Promenade as the result of more frequent and intense incidents of wave overtopping together with still water flooding, which will occur as the result of climate change.
7.25 The Environmental Statement includes a Flood Risk Assessment in order to comply with Environment Policy 10. The FRA confirms that Douglas Bay is at risk of wave overtopping and still water flooding. Indeed this has been seen to have occurred in recent years. Existing defence levels along this section of the bay are low and insufficient to prevent overtopping.
7.26 The FRA confirms that "This area of Douglas Bay 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, this area of Douglas Bay 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 the wave overtopping and still water level components of flood risk."
7.27 More up to date data on climate change indicates that the risk of flooding to Douglas Bay will be higher than these levels. Based on the submitted evidence and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is clear than enhanced sea defences at Douglas Bay are justified. All reasonable alternatives to the proposed 1.2m wall have been explored and rejected and a 1.2m high wall has been accepted in principle previously.
7.28 It has been accepted previously, and this remains the case today, that a 1.2m sea wall falls below the recommended height of 1.8m that would be required in order to provide safe public pedestrian access along the Promenade during a relatively severe storm. Notwithstanding, as noted by the previous Appeal Inspector, a wall 1.2m in height will "not meet the full, long-term recommendation of the 2014 Report, it is of the maximum height cited by the Douglas Foreshore and Town Act and, under normal storm conditions, it is evidently to be expected that the wall would provide substantially more protection from wave overtopping and thrown debris than is currently experienced and that there would be little overtopping along the" the length of the wall.
7.29 Although the proposed wall fall short of the optimal height of 1.8m, it is evident that at such a height the impact upon heritage assets would likely be unacceptable and it would also be in conflict with maximum height set out by the Douglas Foreshore and Town Act. At 1.2m the proposed wall will deliver increased public safety to public use of the open space and the horse tram and its design is future proofed to allow it to be raised in the future, should the need arise. The wall will also reduce the risk of damage to property and infrastructure, benefitting the local economy and making the area more attractive to visitors which will again increase public spend in the locality.
7.30 The proposed wall will conform with the National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion and will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. It is evident that the
==== PAGE 12 ====
24/00743/B Page 12 of 14
proposals will deliver clear public benefits from a reduced risk of flooding along the Promenade and such weighs in favour of the proposed development.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The proposed wall, measuring approximately 500m and at a height of 1.2m, will preserve the character and appearance of the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area and will not give rise to any significant adverse harm to the setting to the War Memorial, now a Registered Building. The proposals will comply with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 35 together with General Policy 2 (b) and (c)
8.2 The proposals will result in the obstruction of open views into and out of the Conservation Area across the beach and bay. This loss of public view would be contrary to General Policy 2 (e) though the level of harm is assessed as being relatively minor.
8.3 Regarding other material considerations, the proposed development will not impact upon residential amenity in the area, highway safety or ecology. A condition is recommended for an up-to-date ecology mitigation and enhancement plan whilst the impact of the development upon the Marine Nature Reserve is negligible, with all works being located outside of the beach and on the promenade, including construction compounds. As such no condition relating to construction and the environment is considered necessary and this was not imposed on the previous planning permission.
8.4 The benefits of the proposed wall to public safety, reduce risk of closure to the promenade and horse tram and associated benefits to the local economy are evident and weigh in favour of them proposed development.
8.5 There is a clear political desire to invest in sea defences on the Island and the proposals will comply with the associated National Strategy in this regard.
8.6 The benefits of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the minor harm identified within the report and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 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 o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.
==== PAGE 13 ====
24/00743/B Page 13 of 14
9.3 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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it 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:...13.01.2025
Signed :...R WILLIAMS... 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.
==== PAGE 14 ====
24/00743/B Page 14 of 14
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 13.01.2025
Application No. :
24/00743/B Applicant : Dept Of Infrastructure Proposal : Construction of 500m length of reinforced concrete wall 1.2m high and anchored to the existing promenade sea wall for the purpose of reducing wave overtopping (part retrospective). Site Address : Sea Wall Harris Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man
Planning Officer : Russell Williams Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 13 January 2025 and agreed with the recommendation to approve the application subject to the officer's amendment to Condition 3, to include the requirement to maintain the water return valves in perpetuity. The Chair advised the Planning Officer to amend the wording accordingly.
Amended Condition 3 shall read:
The wall hereby approved shall include flap valves as set out in paragraph 5 of section 8 of the Environmental Statement (27 June 2024) and the wall, valves and associated engineering elements shall be maintained in such a manner that the valves remain operational in perpetuity.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed mitigation in relation to overtopping is fully implemented.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal