Loading document...
The application site is the located to the south of the public highway of South Quay between Swan House and No.25 South Quay. The site is currently used for the storage of empty gas tanks and cylinders and was previously the location of the Douglas area main LPG/air gas production plant, associated equipment and Town Gas Holder, the last remnant of which is the concrete base of the holder. The site covers some 8815 square metres in area. The main portion of the site is elevated, overlooking the inner harbour. The site is bounded to the south and south west by the faces of the
former quarry. The site includes one building which occupies a location on South Quay and is currently used as a store by Manx Gas.
The application seeks approval in principle for the redevelopment of the site for residential and retail/commercial purposes. The application forms indicate that the site could accommodate bed apartments, bed apartments, 52 car parking spaces for the residential scheme, 225 square metres of retail/commercial with 4 parking spaces.
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Strategic Policies 7 and 9, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 24 and 26, Business Policies 5 \& 10, Recreation Policy 3, Transport Policies 4 and 7 .
Strategic Policy 7 states that "Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses.
Strategic Policy 9 states that "All new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) and all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park location) must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into consideration Business Policies 7 and 8."
Environment Policy 24 states that "Pollution-sensitive development will only be allowed to be located close to sources of pollution where appropriate measures can be taken to safeguard amenity."
Environment Policy 26 states that "Development will not be permitted on or close to contaminated land unless it can be demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses."
Business Policy 5 states that "On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial or for storage and distribution; retailing will not be permitted except where either:
Business Policy 7 states that "New office space should be located within town and village centres on land which is zoned for the purpose on the appropriate area plan; exceptionally, permission may be given for new office space
Business Policy 10 states that "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5."
Recreation Policy 3 states that "Where appropriate new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or
more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standard specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."
Transport Policy 4 states that "The new and existing highways which serve any development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
Transport Policy 7 states that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
There have been no previous planning applications which are considered relevant to the assessment of this application.
Highways Division of the Department of Transport do not oppose the application. Douglas Corporation has raised an objection on the grounds that the proposed development is contrary to the land designation shown on the current Douglas Local Plan. Given the site's location, close to existing industrial developments, the Council believes that an approval would be premature ahead of either a review of the current local plan, or alternatively the preparation of a Development Brief for the site.
The Drainage Department of Douglas Corporation have commented about the drainage for the site. They have also commented that the proposed development is in a potential tidal flood zone. Therefore levels must be provided of the finished floor level, basement level and threshold levels accessing the car park. They also indicate that if the building is within the tidal flood zone a flood risk assessment may be required.
Standard comments have been received from the Manx Electricity Authority. A resident of Port Soderick has commented that the site is zoned for light industrial use so the proposal is not in accordance with the Douglas Local Plan 1998 or GP2 of the Strategic Plan. He has comment that GP 3 (c) may be relevant as it is suspected that the site is now redundant for its current use but as there is alleged to be a shortage of light industrial sites in the Douglas area perhaps it would not be appropriate for the use to be 'lost'. The proposal would also be contrary to BP5 if 'general' retailing was envisaged as part of the proposal. It is accepted though that the area would benefit from redevelopment but what type of development is acceptable is for the review of the area plan and not by speculative application.
The main considerations in assessing this application are 1) compatibility with the land use zoning, 2) land contamination, 3) whether the living conditions for the future occupants would be acceptable, 4) whether the development would have sufficient parking and 5) whether open space provision would be provided. The following paragraphs deal with these issues in the above order, followed by consideration of other matters of detail.
There are several issues to consider in determining whether to allow retailing/commercial and residential onto a site zoned for light industrial purposes.
In respect of the retailing use, the main policies to consider are Business Policies 5 and 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Business Policy 10 states that "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances in Business Policy 5."
The application site is not located within an established town or village centre and therefore the proposed use would be contrary to Business Policy 10 unless it meets one of the exceptions outlined in Business Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan. That policy states that "On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial or for storage and distribution; retailing will not be permitted except where either:
and, in respect of (a) or (b), where it can be demonstrated that the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of the appropriate town centre shopping area."
The application does not provide any detail of the type of items to be sold from the site. In the absence of any special justification for the proposed retail use it is considered that retailing on the site would be contrary to Business Policy 10 and Business Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Furthermore, insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the retail use would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of Douglas Town Centre.
In respect of the commercial use that is proposed for the ground floor on the South Quay frontage, the application does not specifically categorise what commercial uses are being proposed. The type of uses could be office, light industrial or storage and distribution uses.
Light industrial use would be compatible with the Douglas Local Plan 2007 and Business Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan; however, in respect of offices, Business Policy 7 requires new office space to be located on land which is zoned for the purpose in the appropriate area plan. The relevant area plan in this instance is the Douglas Local Plan 1998, which zones the site as light industrial. Offices would be more suited to a town centre or area zoned for office use and not within an area zoned for light industrial use.
In respect of the residential development, the development is not compatible with the area since the area is zoned for light industrial purposes within the Douglas Local Plan and abuts land which is also zoned for light industrial purposes. It is considered the principle of developing the site for residential use to be unacceptable in this locality.
Furthermore, it is important to consider Strategic Policy 7, which states that "Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses." The site has been previously developed as a gas works, however the site has not be developed for light industrial purposes in line with the zoning of the Douglas Local Plan. It is considered the site should be retained and protected for light industrial purposes until a full review of the land zoning takes place thorough the development plan process instead of a piecemeal re-zoning through a planning application.
The applicant's agents have submitted an outline remediation strategy for the site. The report identifies a wide variety of contaminants on the site. These are as follows: Elevated concentrations of cyanides; visual evidence of spent oxide; black viscous tar, elevated concentrations of phenols and benzene in the soils; elevated hydrocarbons and polyaromatic hydrocarbaons; creosote coloured staining; ground water contamination in excess of screening values were identified including copper cyanide, hydrocarbons, benzene, xylene natpthalene; leachable arsenic, copper, lead and cyanide. Ground Gas (methane and carbon dioxide) was also identified.
The report outlines general remediation recommendations, which are as follows:
1) Hardstanding and hard landscaping will be required across much of the site surface;
7 January 2009
2) Placement of a 200 mm gravel break layer overlain by a 400 mm layer of clean cover to comprise certified imported topsoil and subsoil will be required in areas of landscaping/exposed soil; 3) A vapour barrier and additional gas protection measures may be required in buildings; free phase liquids (e.g. tar) will require removal; 4) Contaminated soils will likely require excavation and/or treatment and disposal. The volume required for excavation will need to be determined through the production of a Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment to determine acceptable target concentrations to remain on site. The following will need to be considered for soils which fail the derived target concentration: Any existing drainage/preferential migration pathways should be removed. 5) Contaminated groundwater may require treatment although this will need to be determined through the production of a Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment to determine acceptable target concentrations to remain on site. 6) The completion of a long term groundwater monitoring programme may be required 7) An allowance should be made for upgraded water pipe material (protector-pipe or cast iron) to be used. All new services should be placed within dedicated service corridors and backfilled with clean arisings or clean imported materials.
The report states that a Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment is considered to be required to confirm the need for remediation and set remediation targets. The report also states that the Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment will require further site investigation works to be completed which should include:
The report indicated that once the completion of the Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment has been carried out a detailed remediation strategy will need to be prepared to identify volumes for treatment/disposal and other remediation requirements. It also states that "Following completion of the remediation works, a report detailing the works undertaken and how they have been validated will need to be prepared to confirm that the site is suitable for the proposed redevelopment use".
It is important to consider Environment Policy 26, which states that "Development will not be permitted on or close to contaminated land unless it can be demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses." The outline remediation strategy has identified hazardous substances in the ground and water. Further detailed works are required to ensure the site is safe for redevelopment purposes. It is considered the outline remediation strategy does not demonstrate that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses and therefore it would be premature to grant planning permission until a Detailed Quantitative Risk Assessment and full remediation details are prepared.
The indicative plans provide a layout for the proposed development. Although not an approved standard, the rule of thumb is to maintain a minimum of 20 m between the walls of properties. As indicated in the illustrative layout, blocks of apartments in the proposed development would be set between 15 m and 17.5 m away from each other. This relationship is unsatisfactory and would lead to future occupiers of the residential units overlooking each other, which would in turn result in a poorer residential environment for the future occupiers of development. Depending on the height of the proposed development, the separation distance between the blocks might have to be increased so as to prevent any overlooking from occurring.
As stated above, the development is not compatible with the area since the area is zoned for light industrial purposes within the Douglas Local Plan and abuts land which is also zoned for light industrial purposes. This proposal would result in the piecemeal development of the area and given the industrial/commercial nature of the surrounding uses would result in a poor outlook and general environment for future occupiers of the new apartments. The development of the site for residential use is considered to be unacceptable.
The outline remediation strategy has indicated the large scale removal of contaminated soils is not considered to be economic or sustainable and that in order to mitigate direct contact pathways it is proposed that hardstanding and hard landscaping would be required across much of the site surface. This is considered to be unacceptable for a residential environment and would result in the creation of poor living conditions for future occupiers of the residential units. Furthermore, it is not desirable on design grounds as it would be visually poor in appearance.
In respect of noise from the surrounding area, a noise impact assessment has been carried out to assess the Noise Exposure Category (NEC) of the site and consider what options are available to mitigate noise nuisance. The site is categorised as NEC B and NEC C for day time and night time respective. UK PPG24 specifies an NEC for the site as a whole. Therefore the site is categorised as NEC C due to the night time ambient noise level. This means that "planning permission should not normally be granted. Where it is considered that permission should be given, for example because there are no alternative quieter sites available, a condition should be imposed to ensure a commensurate level of protection against noise".
The report recognises that at this early stage of the development it is only been possible to provide an outline specification by considering typical room uses and layouts, as the external envelope construction (including roof element), room layouts and glazed surface area is not yet known. The report recommends what the external wall construction should be, the type of windows to be used and the type of ventilation to be provided within the development. However, it would be premature to conclude that mitigation measures would be effective until full details of the development are known.
The noise report also highlights that the garden and balcony area would meet the 55dB LAeq 16 hour standard prescribed by the World Health Organisation. For gardens at site boundaries, they estimate an external noise level of 50dB LAeq 16 hour with installation of a 2m high close boarded fence with no gaps and a minimum surface mass of 12 kg per square metre. For balconies they estimate an external noise level of 55dB LAeq 16 hour, providided that north facing balconies were 32 metres away from the road edge or balconies are situated facing south. This might not be possible as the buildings on the South Quay frontage is set on the back of the footway and it is likely that there would be balconies on the north facing elevation of this building so as to allow views over the inner harbour.
In conclusion, the proposal seeks approval in principle only, so few details of the scheme are known. It is not therefore possible to consider in any detail whether the development would provide satisfactory amenity standards. However, as the effect of the approval of this application would be to confirm the site's suitability in principle for the proposed end use, it is considered reasonable at this stage to expect the applicant to have demonstrated how the site could provide adequate standards of amenity for future occupiers. Based on the information supplied to date it is not considered that the applicant has met that expectation.
In respect of the car parking provision for the new apartments, Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." The proposed apartments have been assessed against a standard of 1 space for 1 bedroom apartments and 2 spaces for 2 or more bedroom apartments. On that basis, the proposed development is required to provide 76 spaces. The application indicates that only 52 spaces would be provided. However, the car parking standard for
7 January 2009
town centre and brownfield residential developments may be relaxed in accordance with paragraph A.7.1.
Paragraph A.7.1. states that "New-built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to:
The site is within walking distance of Douglas Town Centre and the bus stops on Lord Street. The need for car parking could be reduced in such circumstances. The Transport Assessment submitted with the application proposes that a Residential Travel Plan should be provided for the site. The main measure contained with the emerging Residential Travel Plan is the provision of residential travel packs. The main aim of the travel packs would be to raise the awareness of alternative modes of travel to the private car. The travel packs would also aim to highlight the social, economic and environmental consequences of increasing car use. The travel packs would be distributed to all new residents when they moved in. It is considered that the car parking requirement of 76 parking spaces could be relaxed in this instance due to the size of the dwellings and their close proximity to local services.
In respect of the retail/commercial uses, the car parking requirement for these uses should be based on the worst case scenario which is for out of town offices. The car parking standard is 1 space for 15 square metres. The application is proposing 225 square metres of floor space, which would equate to 15 spaces. The indicative plans only indicate 4 spaces to be provided. However, as above, the site is within walking distance of Douglas Town Centre and the bus stops on Lord Street and a green travel plan could be provided to promote alternative modes of transport. It is considered the car parking requirement could be relaxed in this instance.
Overall it is considered that an adequate level of parking could be provided for the scale and nature of development proposed.
Recreation Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 of the Plan"
In assessing the open space provision, the provision depends on the number of bedrooms within the dwelling. The overall open space requirement for this development is as follows:
12no. 1 bedroom dwellings of open space 32no. 2 bedroom dwellings of open space Total of open space required of open space The indicative plans do not show how the open space provision could be provided. It is considered reasonable to expect that the proposal demonstrate how the open space requirement could be met and there are real doubts, given the contamination issues, that a satisfactory solution could be arrived at. Accordingly it is recommended that the application be refused due to the failure to demonstrate adequate open space provision.
The notes suggested by consultees are not material planning considerations and for that reason are not attached to the report, as part of the recommendation.
It is recommended that the application be refused for the above reasons.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The comments from the Manx Electricity Authority are not a material consideration and should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Mr Jessopp of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick, given his distance from the application site is not granted Interested Party Status under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06.
In summary, it is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded interested party status:
Douglas Corporation Highways Division of the Department of Transport Accordingly the following parties are not afforded interested party status: Manx Electricity Authority Mr Jessopp of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 08.12.2008
R 1. The proposed development would be contrary to Strategic Policies 7 and 9, General Policy 2, Business Policies 5, 7 and 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that:
1) the site is not zoned for retail, offices or residential purposes; 2) insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the retail purposes would not adversely affect the vitality and viability of Douglas Town Centre, and 3) the redevelopment of the site would result in the loss of industrial land.
R 2.
The proposed redevelopment would be contrary to Environment Policy 26 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the outline remediation strategy does not demonstrate that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses.
The proposed redevelopment would be contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the outline remediation strategy proposes hardstanding and hard landscaping across much of the site surface, which would create a poor residential environment for future occupiers of the residential units and would result in a poor form of development to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.
The proposed redevelopment for residential purposes would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 24 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that it is impossible to conclude that the noise mitigation measures are acceptable for the development as no detailed layout plans or detailed mitigation proposals have been submitted for consideration.
The indicative layout would be contrary to Recreation Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development does not provide adequate open space provision within the proposed layout. In the absence of details showing how the required level of on-site open space could be provided, and bearing in mind the known ground contamination issues, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development could accommodate the required level of open space.
The proposed redevelopment would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the piecemeal development of the site and the industrial/commercial nature of the surrounding uses would result in a poor outlook and general environment for future occupiers of the new apartments.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005.
Decision Made : __________________________ Committee Meeting Date : __________________________ Signed : __________________________ Reporting Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown