2.1
Two identical
planning applications were submitted by the Harrison Trust in February 2005 each seeking consent for ‘ The demolition of buildings/structures
including part of seawall; outline for marine employment (class B1,B2 & B8),
residential development; retail, public house/restaurant, hotel, new quay wall,
raising of site levels, formation of
vehicular access and access road, cycle and pedestrian routes, a riverside
walkway, associated parking and landscaping’ (P/00199/05 & P/00200/05).
2.2
The
development for which consent is sought is described specifically for 6195 sq
metres of Marine Employment , 32180 sq metres Residential, 280 sq metres
Retail, 780 square metres Public House/Restaurant and 1530 sq metres Hotel.
These are all described as being maximums. They are also shown within
identified development blocks. The
attached plans illustrate the site boundary and layout of proposed blocks.
2.3
Following a period of some 16 weeks after submission, the
applicant sought an appeal for non-determination of one of the applications
(with the outstanding planning application remaining current and requiring
determination by the Council).
2.3 The programme for the public inquiry has
been set by the Planning Inspectorate and requires the submission of the Rule 6
Statement by 25th August.
The Planning Inspectorate are intending to hold the public inquiry within
20 weeks from 14 July 2005, the formal start date of the Appeal.
2.4 Since it is assumed, for the purposes of
the ‘non-determination appeal’, that planning permission has been refused, the
council needs to consider the merits of the appeal application. If it concludes that, had the application
still been before the Council, planning permission would have been refused, it
needs to identify what would have been the reasons for refusal. The reasons for refusal will form the basis
of the Council’s case as outlined in section 8 of the attached draft Rule 6
Statement. These issues reflect officer concerns regarding non-compliance of
the proposals with Regional planning Guidance, the UDP and the subsequently
agreed Planning Brief ‘Cowes Waterfront, A Vision for the Medina Valley’.
3. Strategic Context
3.1
The need to maintain and improve a diverse business economy is
dependant on the protection of key employment sites to accommodate future
investment on the Island. A choice of
sites should be available to meet the needs of future investors. Industrial water frontage sites have
traditionally played a vital role in the Island’s economy and key opportunities
need to be maintained in support of future marine based business development.
3.2
The appeal site is the Island’s most significant deep water
frontage employment opportunity. Most of the Island’s coast is constrained from
such development by the limited depth of navigable water and/or National and
International nature conservation designations. Residential development does
not require a waterfront location.
4. Consultation
4.1 Statutory and other consultees have been engaged
as part of the planning application determination process. To date, the
following responses have been received:
·
The Environment Agency objects to the proposals on the
grounds that residential development is proposed within a floodplain. The proposed housing in a coastal location
is also contrary to the Unitary Development Plan, PPG20 ‘Coastal Planning’, and
PPS1 ‘Creating Sustainable Communities’.
·
English Nature objects to the proposal on the grounds
that the site is suitable for marine industry and its loss to housing would
result in pressure for development of green-field sites along the designated
estuary.
·
Southern Water require a condition to be applied that
secures the diversion of a sewer prior to commence of development.
·
The Cowes Harbour Commission have expressed concern at
the potential loss of deep water frontage, and the low ratio of proposed marine
employment use to residential floorspace.
They have also highlighted their commitment to investing in marine
infrastructure.
·
Cowes Town Council consider that an insufficient area
is proposed for marine related industry.
·
The Isle of Wight Economic Partnership considered the
merits of the proposals at it meeting of 28 July. The outcomes of discussions will be reported to members at the
Development Control Sub-Committee.
4.2 Internal responses are as follows:
·
The Conservation and Design Team Leader is concerned
as to how proposals will reflect adjacent designs and uses, particularly the
listed buildings in Medina Road.
·
Environmental Health officers require a desk top
study, site investigation and any remediation works to be undertaken to address
contamination issues. They also require
conditions to control odour and noise.
·
The Planning Archaeologist requests that the applicant
undertakes a pre-determination archaeological evaluation to determine
significance and location of any archaeological remains.
·
The Council’s Highway Engineers have stated in the
event of planning permission being granted, they would require conditions to
secure details of road design, traffic calming, timing of occupation of
dwellings, sight lines, pedestrian/cyclist access, access for disabled people
and junction details.
4.3 A further 18 letters of representation
have been received 16 of which raise a number of points of objection as follows:
·
Proposed buildings are too large and do not relate to
adjoining properties;
·
Area needs employment not houses;
·
Hotel not needed;
·
Hotel building is two large;
·
Proposals will create traffic and parking problems;
·
Existing roads are unable to cope with increased
traffic generated;
·
Highway safety will be put at risk;
·
Site should be for public access to the waterfront and
marine industry;
·
Marine industries will be lost to Southampton and
Portsmouth;
·
Proposals are a wasted opportunity for an improved
public attraction.
4.4
7 letters (out of the 18 received) express support for
the retention of the hammerhead crane.
One respondent is seeking to set up a ‘Cowes Hammerhead Crane Trust’ to
preserve it as a working museum piece.
4.5
One letter of support has been received from a local
boat business which acknowledges the need to subsidise new marine based employment
uses with housing development. One
resident supports the proposals in general.
5. Financial/Budget Implications
5.1
There are no direct financial implications to the
Council as a consequence of the Development Control Committee considering the
authority’s Rule 6 Statement.
6. Policy Considerations
6.1 The redevelopment proposals, currently the subject of the appeal
inquiry, are contrary to the following Unitary Development Plan policies:
S5 The proposals on balance are not
considered to be for the overall benefit of the Island in that they will
sterilise an important identified employment site for economic regeneration.
S7 The site is not identified for residential
purposes in the UDP. Whilst part of the required growth is expected on
unidentified sites the Urban Capacity Study suggests that sufficient land is
expected to be brought forward without this site to meet the regions and plans
requirements.
G4 Provides general locational criteria for
development. There are concerns about the illustrated means of access to the
southern part of the site. The submitted proposals do not show that they will
not adversely affect a site or feature of archaeological interest
G6 Significant areas of the site are shown to
be at risk from tidal flooding where the principle of the policy is that
development should not be permitted. It is only in exceptional circumstances
where the Council grant any consent when consideration of precautions and
measures to minimise risk are taken into consideration. It is not considered
that there are exceptional circumstances which warrant the approval of
residential development on this site.
G10 The introduction of significant
residential development into an area of existing and proposed employment uses
is likely to introduce additional constraints on economic activities if they
are shown to be bad neighbours for the marine employment uses.
B2 The Council are concerned as to the impact
of the proposed development on the setting of listed buildings adjoining the
northern part of the site.
B9 The information accompanying the appeal
proposals indicate the high potential for the site to contain significant
archaeological remains. However it does not adequately address the
archaeological heritage nor has a field evaluation been undertaken of the site
to supply sufficient information to quantify or locate those remains and their
settings which is required prior to determining the application so an
appropriate mitigation strategy can be agreed.
E1
This policy is to promote
and encourage the development of new and existing employment uses. The appeal
proposals are contrary to this aspiration in that they remove from employment
use significant areas currently used for employment and identified for future
employment use.
E2 This policy sets the criteria for the
development of sites for a major employer.
The appeal proposals significantly reduce the area available for
employment use to a level which would prejudice the site fulfilling such a
role. As such, they would not meet the
needs of a major employer.
E3 The Thrust of this policy is for the
protection or enhancement of the employment use of existing or allocated
employment land. Applications for the change of use to those outside employment
will not be permitted. There are a number of listed exceptions to the policy
and all of these have to be part of a comprehensive proposal and an acceptable
mix of uses. The overall mix of uses is not considered acceptable in that the
primary employment use has been reduced to a subsidiary component. In respect
of the exceptions to the policy none of these are considered to apply to the
appeal site - a) the proposed housing use is not needed to fulfill the growth
figures for the Island under the UDP and there are other more suitable sites
for residential development. b) The proposals do not make provision for
alternative equivalent floorspace in the area. c) It is considered that the
loss of the site will prejudice the ability of the area to meet local
employment needs and d) the existing site is not considered unsuitable for
boatbuilding and marine related employment use.
E4 relates to mixed use development on land
allocated for employment development to cross subsidies the main use of the
site. Firstly the appeal site is not an allocated site in the UDP but is an
existing site. The documentation accompanying the application appears to try to
justify the proposals by addressing the provisos of the policy. The supporting text of the policy
specifically states that the policy should not be seen as a backdoor method of
achieving residential development on land which is needed for employment
purposes. The text also specifies that the allocated use shall remain the
primary purpose of the mixed use development.
E7
is a clear policy without
exceptions or caveats. Planning applications to develop existing
employment/industrial sites which have deep water frontages will only be
approved where this type of location is essential to the proposed marine
related employment site. Other than the
northernmost part of this site (JS White’s) the appeal site has access to deep
water and in the light of there being existing ship/boat building uses,
proposals clearly need to be considered within the context of this fundamental
policy of the Development Plan. The appeal proposals are contrary to this
policy.
TR4 The policy requires that adequate measures
have been taken to provide for Public Transport, bicycle and foot travel and a
statement of how the proposal has addressed the need to reduce travel to and
from the development by car.
TR7 There are outstanding matters of concern
relating to access to the site and the relationship with the existing road
network.
R1
& R2 The appeal site
does not fall within or include a defined town centre shopping area. There is
no evidence that the retail element of the proposed development will serve a
local need only, nor that it will protect, maintain or enhance the retail
function of the defined town centre.
R4 The retail proposals will result in the
loss of identified employment land contrary to policy R4a.
L10
The appeal proposals do
not make a contribution to the provision of open space in the area to the
national Playing Fields Association standards.
6.2 Current Regional Planning
Guidance for the South East, as outlined in RPG9, identifies the Isle of Wight
as a ‘Priority Area for Economic Regeneration’ (PAER). This requires the evaluation of commercial
sites with a view to possible improvement in order for them to meet business
needs. Full advantage of existing
opportunities and strengths of PAERs needs to be taken to enable economic
regeneration. The protection of deep
water frontage sites and other key employment opportunities complies with
current regional planning guidance strategy.
6.3 The emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for south east England,
‘The South East Plan’, has been through preliminary consultation. The Isle of
Wight is identified as a special policy area. The strategy for the Isle of
Wight is based on managed economic growth and regeneration to provide for the
Island’s particular characteristics and needs. Policy IW 1 Enabling Economic Regeneration
states:
‘To
help realise a step change in the Isle of Wight’s economic performance and to
actively support economic regeneration and renewal, an improved quality tourism
product and inward investment, national, regional and other relevant agencies
and authorities should give increased priority to investment decisions and
other direct support for the Island.
Key measures should include: ……..
i
The development of infrastructure and inward investment opportunities in the
Medina Valley’
6.4 This is reflective of the work already undertaken by the
partnership of the IW Council, Isle of Wight Economic Partnership and South
East England Development Agency in developing a Strategic Development Framework
for regeneration in the Medina Valley through ‘Project Cowes’. This in turn is
summarised in the Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Cowes Waterfront – A Vision
for the Medina Valley’ formally adopted by the IW Council.
6.5 This SPG defines a series of Zones within the Medina Valley to
reflect various roles that each area is expected to fulfill within the
regeneration strategy. In addition the SPG establishes a series of
criteria/questions against which to consider new proposed development.
7. Evaluation
7.1 The determining factors are the policy considerations of the
proposed development. The fundamental issue relates to the current and future
envisaged role of the site. The site lies within the Medina Valley and is
included in the area covered by Supplementary Planning Guidance (‘Cowes
Waterfront - A Vision for the Medina Valley’) that provides the framework for
regeneration in the wider area. This shows the site to fall within two distinct
zones:- the northernmost part, currently J S White’s, falls within Zone 1 for
town centres, leisure and events with suggestions for New Visitor attractions,
hotel/visitor centre, food and drink, marine support facilities and mixed
commercial/office/workshops. As such
some of the elements of the mixed use scheme could be accommodated in this
smaller part of the site in accordance with the SPG subject to compliance with
exceptions criteria in Policy E3 (Change of Use of Employment Land).
7.2 The majority of the site falls within Zone 2 for Marine
Industries detailed as Employment, Business and Manufacture support. The site
is historically boat and shipbuilding
yards and has some of the deepest waterfrontage on the Island. As such it
clearly has to be considered in the light of policy E7 (Deep Water Frontage).
The Principles of policy E7 is for the retention of such existing employment
land as a limited resource for specialist employment uses. This is identified
in the SPG for the area as a key part of the overall regeneration strategy for
the Medina Valley. The proposals are
contrary to policy E7 and undermine the adopted strategy for the regeneration
of the wider area. English Nature have expressed concern that the loss of this
site from employment will in future increase pressure for marine related
employment uses to be located on greenfield sites elsewhere in the estuary.
7.3 The proposals as submitted are accompanied by a significant
amount of information in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and
supporting information. As the application is for outline permission the
assessment is based on maximum development provision and there are many areas
of detail that are reserved for future consideration. As such the proposed
proportions of development were for determination at the outline stage and
represent a significant change in the planned role of the site, relegating the
marine employment element to a subsidiary role rather than the primary function
for the site.
7.4 In respect of the SPG guidance criteria, the submitted
proposal fails a number of these:- (ii) As the current or last use of the area
is employment/industrial use the site should continue in that use unless it is
genuinely not able to do so or there are better uses contributing to the aims
and proposals of the development framework. (v) The framework identifies sites
with access to deep water as a scarce resource especially where proposed
use/development need to have such access to them. Residential development does
not have such a need. (x) If the proposals include enabling development, as
maintained by the applicant, the question arises as to whether it is genuinely
needed to ensure the required facilities and what is the actual minimum
required. The enabling development should not prejudice what should be the
primary function of the site which the current proposals clearly do.
7.5 The proposals introduce a significant area for residential
development into an area of flood risk identified by the Environment Agency.
Whilst the application provides details of proposed mitigation to reduce the
risks from flooding, it has not been subject to any sequential test and the
Council do not consider there to be exceptional circumstances that would
warrant the introduction of residential development to this site.
7.6 There are shortfalls in the information required prior to
determining the application with respect to identifying the location, extent,
nature, date, importance and state of preservation of archaeological remains
before any mitigating proposals could be considered and conditioned as part of
any approval.
7.7
The proposed reasons for refusal are as follows:
i.
The proposals
are not for the overall benefit of the Island and constrain opportunities for
economic regeneration and as such are contrary to Strategic Policy S5 of the
Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
ii.
The proposals
represent an unacceptable loss of employment land and an opportunity for a
major employer to develop a site with deep water frontage, and as such are contrary
to policies E1 (Promotion of New Employment Uses), E2 (Major Employers), E3
(Change of Use of Employment Land), E4 (Employment Development and Mixed use),
E7 (Essential Deep Water Frontage), and R4 (Development of Unidentified Sites),
of the Isle of Wight Unitary
Development Plan.
iii.
The proposals
are contrary to the economic strategy and provisions of Supplementary Planning
Guidance for Cowes Waterfront (A Vision for the Medina Valley 2003).
iv.
The proposals
introduce residential development into a flood risk area without justifying
exceptional circumstances and are contrary to Policy G6 (Areas Liable to
Flooding) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
v.
The
application provides insufficient information on archaeological remains within
an acknowledged site with high potential contrary to Government Guidance
outlined in PPG16 (Archaeology and planning), and Policy B9 (Protection of
Archaeological Heritage) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
vi.
The retail
element of the proposals do not protect or enhance the retail function of Cowes
Town Centre and as such are contrary to policies R1 (Existing Town Centres) and
R2 (New retail development) of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
8. Options
8.1
The Council has to make a decision on the planning merits of
the appeal application and, if appropriate, offer a case based on a deemed
refusal against non-determination at the scheduled public inquiry. The reasons for the deemed refusal need to
be agreed for the inquiry.
8.2
If the Council considers that the appeal application is
acceptable as it stands, it could indicate its position at this stage and take
the matter forward in its consideration and determination of the second
application
8.3
In the light of no formal decision having been taken by
members in response to the proposals to date, it is the view of officers that
the case for the Isle of Wight Council should be based on the current policy
framework.
9. Evaluation/Risk
Management
9.1
The Decision of the Development Control Committee will
determine the case to be put forward by officers at the forthcoming public
inquiry. Should members, at a later
date, grant planning permission for the second application, this will need to
be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan. The Secretary of State has the powers to ‘call-in’
the planning application and request a public inquiry.
Recommendations
1.
That the Development Control Committee agree the putative reasons for
refusal (section 7 of this report) and the proposed case to be outlined in a
Rule 6 Statement for a public inquiry into the LPA’s failure to determine one
of two identical applications for the Souter’s, FBM and J S White’s sites at
Cowes; and
2. That members delegate to officers the task of producing
the final Rule 6 statement, including any minor changes considered
appropriate.
|
Background
Papers
·
Draft Rule 6
·
Submitted Planning Applications
·
Isle of Wight UDP
·
Regional Planning Guidance for the South East RPG9
·
Draft Regional Spatial Strategy ‘The South East Plan’
·
‘Cowes
Waterfront - A Vision for the Medina Valley’ – Supplementary Planning Guidance
Contact
Point: Phil Salmon ' 823565
|
Development
Team Manager
Phil
Salmon
|
