Loading document...
| Application No.: | 13/91222/REM |
| Applicant: | Dandara Commercial Limited |
| Proposal: | Reserved Matters Application to replace existing industrial/commercial units with a new office building |
| Site Address: | Bridge Works Site South Quay Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5AJ |
| Case Officer: | Miss S E Corlett |
| Photo Taken: | |
| Site Visit: | 04.11.2013 |
| Expected Decision Level: | Officer Delegation PC |
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS
1.1 The site is a piece of land which has previously been the subject of an approval in principle - PA 11/00527/A which lies between the River Douglas and the A25 Castletown Road. The site is 75m long at its longest and 14m wide at its widest. The site has upon it currently the buildings associated with a former motor vehicle repair garage operation. The buildings are mostly single storey with a varied roof profile and a curved element which turns the corner from Castletown Road onto Douglas Bridge.
1.2 To the south of the site are residential properties in the form of Riverside Apartments, a building of four storeys of accommodation in a relatively new building with a vehicular entrance at the eastern side. Alongside this to the east is a paint showroom which is a large building which has a gable to the road with a ground floor window facing the road and set back to the west is a two storey flat roofed annex to the rear of the rear building line of Riverside Apartments. To the west of the paint showroom is a three level car park and to the east of this is a car tyre and exhaust workshop which has a dominant mansard roof and large vehicular openings facing Bridge Road and Douglas Bridge.
1.3 This site, together with the buildings on the southern side of the road form the entrance to the capital from the south, influenced also by the new Quay West apartments which are prominent on the northern side of the river, as one approaches Douglas Bridge.
2.1 Proposed are the details of the matters reserved from the approval in principle for development of the site for offices. The approval in principle related to the redevelopment of the site for offices and specifically did not seek any assessment of the details of the size or design of the building but simply sought approval for the proposed use of the site as offices in a redeveloped form from that of the existing buildings on the site. The conditions of that approval in principle were as follows:
Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, means of access, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.
The application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.
C 3. The development to which this permission relates shall begin within 4 years of the date of this permission or within two years of the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later.
C 4. This approval relates to the application site as defined by the red line on drawing no.APL/110 and APL/111 date stamped 13th April 2011. No consent is granted for the siting of the new office building or for any engineering works shown on these particular drawings.
C 5. The building shall only be used as offices (Class 4, Schedule 4 of the Town and Planning Country (Permitted Development) Order 2005).
C 6. The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with condition 2 above shall include
2.2 The application proposes a building which steps up in height from west to east from two storeys to five storeys at is highest, around 0.75 m from the highest point of the Quay West apartment building beyond to the north. Directly opposite Riverside Apartments the building will be up to 17 m in height at its apex, slightly taller than the apartments opposite and with around 14.5 m separating the two buildings across the public highway. 2.3 The building has a mixed profile and form not dissimilar to the approach taken with Quay West with visually distinct vertical sections within the building contributing to the impression of a terrace of individual buildings rather than a single building mass. 2.4 The building will have the vehicular and bicycle parking provision and access from Castletown Road. There are 13 car parking spaces and one suitable for disabled drivers and bicycle parking spaces, bin storage, two staircases and two lifts. Access and egress is via the same point at the western end of the building. 2.4 Pedestrian access is principally from the ground floor on the corner of Castletown Road and Douglas Bridge and another entrance off Castletown Road. A small area of planting is proposed in front of the building towards the corner of Castletown Road and Douglas Bridge. There is a pedestrian access to the western part of the building although this is a level lower than the other pedestrian entrances due to the natural fall of the site level. As laid out the building could be used as three separate units of accommodation. The development will provide a total of of nett office floor space (as stated in the Travel Plan, paragraph 3.1) which will result in a requirement for 44 car parking spaces. The application does not provide this but explains that the site is of such a shape that car parking is only possible in one aisle within the building, severely restricting the number of spaces which could be provided on site. The spaces which are provided will be allocated to key employees rather than a first come first served basis which will avoid people driving into the car park and having to manoeuvre back out again if all the spaces are occupied. Those without an allocated space will park in the central Douglas car parks including Shaw's Brown, Banks Circus and those on the Quayside and Bridge Road. It is not possible for overspill vehicles to park on the highway as parking is prohibited: the parking bay opposite the site is restricted to 90 mins Monday - Friday 0800-1800hrs.
2.5 The application also includes a flood risk assessment on the basis that the site lies within an area which is at risk of fluvial flooding (from the River Douglas and potential tidal influence from the sea) during a 1 in 100 event (allowing for climate change) and also as this was required as part of the approval in principle conditions. The assessment aims to determine whether the flood risk can be safely managed, whether the developed site will be safe for its users and to ensure that practical routes exist for safe access and egress should an extreme flood event occur. The assessment explains that even during an extreme event which would take the water level to 5.60 m Above Datum this results in an area of of the site flooded to a depth of up to 300 mm - mainly the southern part of the site with the flooding extending out into the road. If this were to be increased in extremity and combined with a coincidental tidal event, more of the site would flood with the proposed car park being under up to 800 mm of water. No flood risk would be to the office accommodation which is to be higher than the highest flood risk level. They do not consider that the development is at particular risk of pluvial flooding, groundwater flooding or flooding from sewers as such water would be naturally directed away to the west of the site. In order to minimise risk, the finished floor level of all office space will be at 7.72 AD well above the maximum water level during flooding: road levels in the vicinity are generally 6.8 AD . 2.6 The access to the car park is at a lower level (4.7AD) and as such is at greater risk of flooding and they advise that a system be in place to prevent vehicles from accessing or leaving during a foreseeable extreme tidal event. To assist with car park flooding they advise that an over ramp or barrier be installed which would rise during a flooding event in addition to the employment of waterproofing construction methods in the car park. 2.7 The development of the site is not considered by the assessment, to deprive the river flood plain of flood storage space during an event. Also, as the site is already developed, what is proposed will not increase the amount of run off from the site itself. A flood plan is recommended to be provided to users of the site to indicate means of safe access and egress during a flood. 2.8 The application in principle also asks for a method statement to prevent any run-off and sedimentation from entering the River Douglas. The applicant has provided a method statement for the demolition and construction works in respect of the adjacent watercourse and this explains that the existing roof coverings will be removed by hand (there is some asbestos on the site), roof rafters will be cut and removed with a mechanical grab, steel work will be cut into sections and removed by mobile crane with a mobile elevated platform working from within the site. 2.9 The masonry walls will be removed from the river, demolished by mechanical means and then those built up into the river will be reduced in height by hand. The existing stone river wall will be left in place. The ground floor concrete slab will be broken up by machine and carted away for recycling. During all this, a temporary sump and mechanical pump arrangement will be installed to intercept and prevent any water from entering the watercourse from the site and site water will be removed from the site by tanker as required. Debris will be removed from the site each day and the works and the site will be monitored to ensure that all procedures and safeguards are working adequately. Site visits by DEFA officers will be arranged for monitoring purposes. 2.10 Following the demolition of the existing buildings, a fully sheeted and sealed cantilevered protection fan is to be erected outside the river wall (suspended scaffold platform) and from inside the river wall continuous flight auger piles are to be installed working from the existing ground floor level along the southern boundary adjacent to the river. All the above procedures are as agreed with Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture prior to the submission of the application. 2.11 The applicant has also explained that the Green Travel Plan required by the approval in principle involves the provision of secure cycle parking on site (for 12 bicycles), the promotion of a car sharing scheme to be set up by the users of the building. The adoption and success of the travel plan will depend upon the attitudes and behaviour of those who will use the building and this cannot
be controlled by condition. It is relevant though that the site is within easy walking distance of several public transport routes and users of the building can conveniently and safely cycle to and from work. The application also indicates that lockers will be provided together with showers and the user of the building is encouraged to provide information on public transport routes, parking space cost and availability and cycle ways together with various different methods of acquiring this information (eg. smart phone apps). Users of the building could be encouraged to come to work by motorcycle, on foot, bicycle or car share. 2.12 It recommends that the success of a travel plan will involve monitoring and reviewing what is in place, the first survey being undertaken within 6 months of occupation of the building and annually thereafter. The objective of the travel plan is to effect a reduction in the dependence on private motor vehicles, particularly those involving single occupancy and to increase awareness of environmental implications of travel mode choice. 2.13 The design principles employed for this scheme include the incorporation of a feature element on the eastern corner designed to provide strong presence on the quayside along with pitched roof features to visually break up the long elevations to the river and to Castletown Road with clearly identifiable entrances. The access has been positioned to maximise separation from the roundabout and avoid conflict with the access to the apartments opposite. Key views to be respected include the long view to the site from the west, the outlook and views from the apartments to be respected and much more limited views from the south. The palette of materials in the area includes Manx stone, painted render, timber and zinc cladding, red brick and slate and with good examples of rendered walling emerging from softer Manx stonework (South Quay) as opposed to the Clinch's brick development which contrasts strikingly with the smaller stone buildings in front as viewed from the south.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998 as Light Industrial, specifically identified amongst an area of Predominantly Residential to the north (Quay West) and the south (Castletown Road, Leigh Terrace and South Quay industrial buildings). The proposed development is not consistent with either the existing land use designation or the predominant uses surrounding the site. However, approval has been granted in principle to the development of the site for offices (PA 11/00527/A). In addition, in terms of usage, it is likely that the periods of occupancy and demand for car parking spaces for the proposed offices is likely to be generally the opposite of those of the residential units nearby and as such may result in a more compatible relationship of uses. 3.2 The Strategic Plan sets out parking standards for most forms of development. In respect of offices the Plan states that one space should be provided for every 50 sq m nett space and that: "These standards may be relaxed where development: a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6). 3.3 The Strategic Plan also refers in several places to good design and creating a sense of place and optimising the use of under and unused land:
Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and reusing scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services".
Strategic Policy 3: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:
Strategic Policy 5: "New development including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases, the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."
Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
Environment Policy 43: "The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition."
3.4 The Strategic Plan also urges care to be taken in respect of development which is close to water courses:
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:
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."
3.5 Finally, the Strategic Plan makes provision for general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 where development:
b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them;
c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
j) can be provided with all necessary services;
13/91222/REM
k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." 3.6 Whilst the development is not in accordance with the land use designation on the local plan, these are general standards of development which it is considered should be applied to all developments.
4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of successful applications for redevelopment - PA 04/01417/A and 11/005551/A for apartments and PA 11/00527/A for the principle of office redevelopment. No applications for the reserved matters relating to the two approvals in principle for residential development were submitted for approval and these approvals have now expired.
5.1 The owner of 13, Riverside Apartments, Leigh Terrace objects to the application, on the basis of loss of view from their balcony and she finds the design of the building out of keeping with the area (07.011.13). She reiterates her objection following the circulation of information on light, adding that she feels that Douglas already has sufficient office space and considers the proposed building overbearing, compromising the privacy of the apartments opposite and feels that the provisions for access in and out of the proposed building is inadequate (26.08.15). 5.2 The owners of 11, Riverside Apartments object to the application as they considers the town over-provided for with good office accommodation and that the proposed building overpowers the surrounding area, particularly in respect of the good visibility which the current buildings on the site allow for the surrounding highway network. They consider that the development would overlook their apartment and would destroy their views. Finally they consider the visibility from the proposed access to be unsafe (13.11.13, 27.08.15, 27.08.15, 27.08.15 and 27.08.15). 5.3 The owner of flat 27c, Leigh Terrace objects to the lack of enough parking to accommodate all of the vehicles which will be generated by the proposed use, bearing in mind the very busy junction and the speed of traffic along Leigh Terrace. They do not believe that the measures contained in the application to reduce speed and control traffic will work and note that the traffic measurements taken do not take into account the additional traffic and higher speeds seen in TT and MGP periods (13.11.13). 5.4 The owner of 12, Riverside Apartments objects to the application on the basis of loss of view, the overshadowing and overbearing impact of the building on his property and considers that the building will obscure visibility for vehicles entering and passing the site. He does not object to the principle of the use of the site for offices but considers that the building should be considerably lower such that the outlook and views of those in the apartments opposite will not be so affected (07.11.13 and 26.08.15). 5.5 The representative of the Riverside Apartments objects to the application on the same grounds and with a letter identical to those above dated 26th and 27th August, 2015). 5.5 Douglas Borough Council indicate that they do not oppose the application (19.12.13). They provide further clarification of their position on 16th September, 2015 and 6th October, 2015, stating that they feel the development would be an improvement on the existing appearance of the site but note that whilst the scheme makes provision for cycle spaces they do not seem to include provision for showers, lockers or changing facilities and this could limit the amount by which the cycle spaces are used. They do not object to the application but recommend conditions which require that:
the entrance ramp or barrier to the vehicular access should be set above the predicted flood level of 5.6 m AD and include an additional 300 mm freeboard allowance giving protection to a level of 5.9 m AD the car park should incorporate waterproof construction with non-return valves fitted to drains a system be established for preventing cars from accessing the site during a forseeable extreme tidal flood event a flood plan should be provided advising the users of the site of the potential flood risk to the car park and the safe access and egress route to be used during a flood event suitable changing facilities, staff lockers and shower facilities be provided within easy access of the cycle parking in the car park and the Annual Travel Plan for the building be made publicly available for scrutiny through the Planning Division.
6.1 The application relates back to a valid approval in principle and as such the principle of the redevelopment of the site for office purposes is considered acceptable provided that the reserved matters satisfy the conditions of the approval and where such matters are not controlled by these conditions, the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan. As such the issues in this case are as follows:
6.2 The matter of the provision of adequate car parking is often an issue in the Douglas town centre area and it is the case that in some instances, such as the new offices on Circular Road (PA 14 / 01131 / B ) applicants have committed to provide the full amount of car parking required, despite also having various incentives for their staff to walk or cycle to work but there are also examples of development such as an extension to an office on Athol Street, where the full provision was not made but where this was found to be acceptable (at appeal) (PA 14/01099). It is the case that the policy allows for flexible application of the standards and the applicant has provided details of a travel plan and has made provision for the promotion of cycle and non-car based transport and at the time of writing, there is no objection from the highway authority (Department of Infrastructure Highways Division have not submitted any views to date). As the development is for offices, it is unlikely that those trying to find on street parking spaces in the vicinity will be clashing with residents trying to do the same as the hours of operation are likely to be daytime week days whereas most residents generally seek parking spaces at weekends, evenings and overnight. The condition required by Douglas Borough Council would enhance the likelihood of success of the green travel plan and should be incorporated in any approval notice.
6.3 Whilst this is largely a subjective view, it is relevant to consider whether there are visual connections between the proposed building and those alongside. In this respect it is also relevant that the surrounding area is very mixed architecturally and chronologically with no over-riding style or prevalence of material. By far the most dominant of the existing buildings is the Quay West apartment building and it therefore no surprise and not inappropriate that there have been some references to this in the design of the currently proposed building in terms of its broken form, stepped heights and vertical proportions. 6.4 It is also the case that the building is, with the exception of a pitch within the elevation, no higher than the Riverside Apartments opposite, which is the highest building on the southern side of the road and indeed in parts of the proposed building are significantly lower than this. As such, the design approach is considered to be acceptable and whilst the height is considerable, this is stepped up as one gets closer to the bridge and closer to the mass of Quay West. As such, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the streetscene.
6.5 No information has been received from the highway authority and there is no evidence to contradict the transport statement to suggest that the means of access are unacceptable or unsafe. As such this aspect of the development is considered to be acceptable.
6.6 The residents of the Riverside Apartments presently enjoy relatively unrestricted views towards the new Quay West Apartments and towards both the harbour and the river looking towards the Nunnery Estate. There is no right to a private view in planning terms and as such simply because this same view will not be available to these residents, this is not a valid reason for refusal. It would be a reason to refuse the application if the building were to block out natural light or obstruct the outlook from these properties to an unreasonable degree and the issue here is to what degree is this interruption considered unreasonable. 6.7 In the approval of the principle of the redevelopment, it must have been accepted that the replacement building would have been taller and larger than what currently exists on site. As designed, the building will step up and directly opposite the Riverside Apartments, the building is around the same height as the apartment building with a gable which takes the highest point up to 3.5 m taller. In order to avoid affecting natural light, using the 25 degree rule (ie taking an angle of 25 degrees from the average eye level within the apartments from someone looking out of the windows directly opposite the new building, the building will be unlikely to affect light to the top two floors of accommodation but may affect the lower two floors. In order to completely avoid an impact on light on all the floors the building at this point would need to be a storey lower than as shown. 6.8 In order to address this issue the applicant has provided information on existing and proposed levels of light considered to be available to those in the apartments opposite. These calculations are based upon a worst case scenario at ground floor level (the level to be greatest affected by the development) based upon an overcast sky in mid June. It is based upon suppositions that daylight is important in any building in order to reduce the need for and dependency on artificial lighting and is also very important for people's well being and health. There are a range of acceptable levels of daylight available to different rooms, and the applicant's conclusions are that with and without the proposed building, the light levels are in excess of these standards. As the apartments progress upwards the impact on light is less immediate. 6.9 On the basis of this information, whilst the building will affect light levels within the apartments opposite, it is not considered that this is to such an extent as to warrant refusal of the application on this basis. 6.10 Finally, the erection of a larger building opposite will affect the outlook from the apartments which at the present time is mostly very open although the apartments on the ground and to an extent the first floor floor have a rather unattractive and unmaintained building opposite as a direct view. The apartment building has been designed with angled bay windows which will allow views and aspect both directly opposite and up and down the river. This angled view will enable views from some of the windows to be not only directly across towards the new building but also in other directions which have buildings which are not so close. As such, it is not accepted that the proposed building will have such an impact on the outlook from the apartments opposite as to warrant refusal of the application. 6.11 The application is recommended for approval.
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, Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
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:
The owners of 11, 12 and 13, Riverside Apartments and the representative of the Riverside Apartments which are directly opposite the site.
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: the owner of flat 27c, Leigh Terrace, Castletown Road which is some distance (190m) from the application site.
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.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of 12.10.2015
Recommendation:
The deveopment hereby approved must be commenced within two years of the date of this notice as it becomes final.
Reason: in order to comply with the requirements of the approval in principle, PA 11/00527/A.
C 2. The development as construction must include the following provisions to mitigate impact of any flooding situation: the entrance ramp or barrier to the vehicular access should be set above the predicted flood level of 5.6 m AD and include an additional 300 mm freeboard allowance giving protection to a level of 5.9 m AD the car park should incorporate waterproof construction with non-return valves fitted to drains a system be established for preventing cars from accessing the site during a forseeable extreme tidal flood event a flood plan should be provided advising the users of the site of the potential flood risk to the car park and the safe access and egress route to be used during a flood event.
Reason: to make appropriate provision for flood impact mitigation.
The development must make provision for changing facilities, staff lockers and shower facilities to be provided within easy access of the cycle parking in the car park: no development may commence until such times as this has been approved by the Department by way of a floor plan or plans demonstrating how this provision will be made and the development must be undertaken in accordance with this plan or plans.
Reason: to promote the reliance on the private motor vehicle and as the proposal does not meet the full requirement for parking spaces in accordance with the Strategic Plan parking standards.
Prior to the occupation of the building, there must be a Travel Plan approved by the Department and which provides sufficient information and provision for the users of the building to be able to access the building conveniently other than by private motor car. This travel plan must be made readily available to all users of the building.
Reason: to accord with the parking requirements of the Strategic Plan.
This approval relates to drawings APL00B, APL01B, APL/102B, APL03B, APL04B, APL05B, APL06B, APL07B, the Transport Assessment, Design Statement, Flood Risk Assessment, Planning Statement, all received on 16th October, 2013 and the Travel Plan received on 12th March, 2015.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Director of Planning and Building Control/Head of Development Management/Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Signed : Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Signed : Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed : Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown