Loading document...
DESIGN STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTINUATION OF A TEMPORARY CAR PARK AT 40 SUTH QUAY, DOUGLAS Introduction Planning permission for the site to be operated as a temporary car park has been in place since 2016 – PA 16/00371/B and PA 18/00350/B refer. In 2020 an application by the operator/tenant to continue that use was declined with the reasons for refusal citing numerous government policies and initiatives that preclude car park use on brown field sites in central Douglas as their continued use is hampering development of those sites. PA20/0129/C which was refused at Planning Committee level and Appeal refers. However, this is a site that has been prevented from being developed due to court action regarding a boundary wall. This is part of the special circumstance recognised by the Planning Committee when they approved the 2018 application, where their comments read as follows:
Planning Committee declined to accept the Officer recommendation and, noting a combination of factors, considered that there were special circumstances in this case which indicated that the Council of Ministers policy on temporary car parks should not be applied in this case. They voted to approve the application subject to 3 conditions. Its position close to the town centre means it is ideally placed to deliver parking where pressures due to parking constraints being applied elsewhere will soon become intense in the town centre as a whole.
In line with Government Policy, parking constraints are being applied in central Douglas as a whole which together with sites around the quay coming forward for development means similar parking pressures remain.
The ongoing boundary situation means it is still not possible for this site to be developed until such time the legal situation has been resolved. Its continued use as a car park is therefore being sought to serve an on-going need. History of the site
40 South Quay was the former office and warehouse premises of Clover Asphalt where in 2011 planning permission was granted for the demolition of the building and the erection of 33 apartments. PA 08/00221/B refers.
The design of the building evolved over a number of years in close consultation with the Planning Department.
We were asked by the then Head of Planning, Brian Sinden, to take account of the design of the Manx Petroleum’s site which was also being prepared for approval at that time. PA 07/02169/B approved on refers. On the 31st March 2015 the conditioned 4 year approval period was extended by a further 2 years PA 14/00615/B refer.
As can be seen from our site pan and elevation below, our proposed design paid cognisance of their proposals.
Having resolved the planning situation a demolition order that included remedial works to attached buildings on sites to the East and West was applied for and subsequently granted.
Unfortunately as soon as demolition commenced court action by the owners of the Manx Petroleum site to the East was instigated, and both parties had to give an undertaking to the court that no further demolition of the wall on the eastern boundary would take place until such time the eastern boundary dispute was resolved.
After many months of costly legal interaction it became apparent that the dispute would be difficult to resolve so the on-going building regs design work was suspended and the site closed.
Due to the pressures from Douglas Corporation, the site was tidied up as best it could and tenanted car parking proposals subsequently agreed.PA16/00371/B and PA 18/00350/B refer.
Whilst it was made clear in the tenant’s submission under PA 16/00371/B that it was the boundary situation that was preventing the site being developed that with other mitigating reasons helped lead to the Planning Committee’s decision to approve the site’s temporary use as a car park for a further two years, in the tenants appeal submission for PA 20/01129/C they simply said “the site owner has no intention of developing the site for its
intended use as a residential development within the next 2 years or at any time in the near future, therefore the continuation as of the site as a parking area would be a great way of making use of an empty space until plans are in place for any future development”
However this is not the case. The eastern boundary wall situation remains unresolved with court undertakings by both parties remaining in place. Development of this and indeed the Manx Petroleums site cannot possibly take place until such time the boundary wall situation is resolved.
The Clover site was owned by James Sharples and his wife Zoë Campbell and since the boundary dispute started James died suddenly and unexpectedly in 2018.
Zoë is now the sole owner of the site and would not now develop the site herself but would look for a company to work with or find a company to develop the site. Covid has obviously contributed to delays in moving things forward on this front.
Whilst the boundary dispute remains an ongoing problem, discussions are taking place to try to resolve it. Allowing the use of the land as a temporary car park would give Zoë some rental income to maintain the site in good order while plans, a developer and resolution of the boundary dispute are progressed. Proposal
Given the tightening up on car park use on brown field sites in central Douglas as a whole, and the imminent potential development of the Middlemarch site where significant numbers of cars will be displaced, the demand for parking in central Douglas for the short/medium term looks set to remain a problem until such time that alternative arrangements are in place that reduce the need for cars to be coming into the town centre.
Accordingly, some level of car parking needs to be retained in central Douglas for the foreseeable future and as previously determined by the Planning Committee this site is perfectly suited to doing just that.
Contrary to the conclusions of PA20/01129/C and in particular R1 that reads:
The proposed temporary use would reduce the likelihood of a prominent brownfield site being brought forward and this would be contrary to Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016), the policy on car parks as set out in "Reform of the Planning System - Programme for Government 2016 - 2021" and the recommendations of the Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites (2017-2018).
As previously explained, this is a site that has been hindered from development as a result of the boundary situation. The site's special circumstances were acknowledged by the Planning Committee in granting approval under PA 18/00350/B where R2 that reads the same was overturned.
The special circumstances remain in place and there are a number of sites coming forward particularly around the Quay where pressures on parking remain. Accordingly we believe R1 should again be waived.
We appreciate the reasons given for refusing its continued use as a car park are not confined to Government policies on temporary car parks and would offer the following comments in response.
R2 The proposed use is not in accordance with the land use zoning as set out in the Douglas Local Plan (1998)
The Appeal Inspector highlighted in his report the relevant policies including the fact that the area plan is now in place the relevant extracts of the Inspectors report reading as follows:
Page 4 of 6
The relevant extracts from the Area Plan read as follows: Mixed Use Area 7 – The Quayside The Quayside area has undergone regeneration on its northern side which has enhanced the area as a destination for people visiting restaurants and bars. On its southern side, industrial uses in older warehouse type buildings predominate. Redevelopment of the southern side to complement the quayside as a whole is to be encouraged. The Quays are also strategic freight corridors and maintaining access for commercial vehicles, including HGV’s, must be considered in any proposed development. Due to the former industrial uses of South Quay, significant site preparation including decontamination may be required. Development types within areas of mixed use generally comprise a variety of different but compatible uses. Appropriate new uses may include a mix of shops and some services (financial and professional), food and drink, office and light industry, research and development, tourist and residential uses, and other uses such as clinics or health centres, childcare or education, community facilities, and places of assembly and leisure. Uses which are not compatible with residential development will generally not be supported within the areas of mixed use.
Whilst we fully appreciate that car parking is not the best long term use of the site, as highlighted in our response to R1 we believe its use as a car park on a temporary basis remains relevant and indeed as other sites in the area progress to development stage could well be considered as meeting a short term need compatible with its current “mixed use” designation
R 3. The proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 36 and General Policy 2 as the proposal would detrimentally affect important views into and out of North Quay Conservation Area.
As can be seen from the adjacent photograph, views of the site from the conservation area are relatively distant and broken by boat masts. It is the north facing boundary fence with vegetated cliff face that is the primary view associated with this site.
Whilst living plants struggle to survive the harsh storms of winter, toning this boundary in with its green backdrop by painting the fence green will lessen the site’s impact on the street scene as demonstrated in the lower photograph.
Larger more robust planters to either side of the entrance that will better support more sturdy evergreen shrubs will also help soften its look.
Whilst the causes of parking pressures have changed, the “special circumstances” that prevailed at the time the Planning Committee approved its continued use as a car park in 2018 are still relevant. The sites’ position close to the town centre means it is still ideally placed to deliver parking where pressures due to parking constraints being applied elsewhere remain.
Rather than being detrimental, allowing the sites’ continued use as a temporary car park until such time that the boundary situation is resolved and development proposals can be progressed remain beneficial as it:
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown