PAPER C

                                                                                                                                                      

Purpose : for Decision

                        REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE

 

Date :              30 JULY 2003

 

Title:                PROJECT COWES SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE.

                       

REPORT OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING POLICY

 

IMPLEMENTATION DATE : 11 August 2003

 

SUMMARY/PURPOSE

 

1.                  The Council’s Executive is being asked to agree that the Vision for the Medina Valley from section two and the questions from section seven of the Strategic Development Framework drawn up by Project Cowes be adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan 2001.

 

BACKGROUND

 

2.                  The formulation and adoption of Supplementary Planning Guidance is an executive function of the Council. The purpose of SPG is to add either detail or clarification to the policies and proposals of the Development Plan. In the case of this proposed SPG the provision of a broad framework for uses and regeneration within Cowes, East Cowes and the Medina Estuary including Newport Harbour. It includes guidance, in accordance with policies of the plan, on the use of sites not specifically allocated for development in the UDP which have become available since that plan was adopted.

 

3.                  The Strategic Development Framework divides the Medina Valley into five zones representing the proposed primary function of the areas and their contribution to the overall needs of the area. These zones relate to:

 

            Zone 1 Town centres, leisure and events and includes the ferry terminals as a gateway to the Island.

 

Zone 2 Marine Industries which are the support, repair and manufacturing backup for the yachting and boating events building on existing skills and using the best deep water frontage sites for uses which require that location.

 

Zone 3 The commercial shipping zone reflecting the role of PD Wharf and Kingston wharf for the bulk handling of goods and the consolidation of aggregate facilities. This area also includes the proposed additional marine related employment land allocated in the UDP at Kingston.

 

Zone 4 is an environmental priority area reflecting the International and European nature conservation designations in the Medina Estuary with the aim to protect these and seek enhancement of the features of interest. The existing uses at West Medina Mills Quay, SARO works and Island Harbour are recognised within this zone.

 

Zone 5 is the built area of Newport Harbour and reflects the earlier work and consultations on a brief for a range of uses for the harbours regeneration. The brief for Newport Harbour has already been agreed by the Executive as SPG subject to it not being contrary to Project Cowes. It is considered that the earlier brief in is accordance with the vision for zone 5.

 

4.                  This Strategic Development Framework if adopted as SPG will provide the basis for the future formulation of more detailed development or planning briefs for major sites and a context for the consideration of future applications for planning permission. The SPG sets out a number of questions which will allow development proposals to be judged in relation to the Strategic Development Framework.

 

5.                  The Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan was adopted by the Council in May 2001 following extensive public consultation and the findings of a Public Inquiry. Since that time a number of significant key sites have become vacant in Cowes both East and West of the harbour and with other potential sites offer the opportunity for regeneration and redevelopment.

 

6.                  The Council in partnership with the IW Economic Partnership and South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) employed consultants C B Hillier Parker and their team of additional specialist consultants in late 2002 to develop a framework for the regeneration and future development of Cowes, East Cowes and the Medina Valley.

 

7.                  The project included public consultation and consultation with key land owners and the responses analysed before producing the zoned approach of the draft development framework.

 

8.                  The recommended zones and land uses and activities distributed amongst them are at a general level to enable the broad principles to be established and as a basis for undertaking and co-ordinating more detailed work relating to individual sites

 

STRATEGIC CONTEXT

 

9.                  The Island’s Community Strategy has a Vision for  “A happy, prosperous and contented Island where each member of the community enjoys the highest quality of life and where we work together to ensure that the Island’s natural beauty and cultural heritage are passed undiminished to future generations.” The main themes of the Community Strategy reflected in the Strategic Development Framework Vision are:- Quality of Life and Sustainability; Supporting Jobs and the Local Economy; Developing Tourism; and Ensuring Quality in the Built Environment.

 

The Council’s Strategic Objectives as set out in the Corporate Plan 2002 - 2005 reflected in the Development Framework are:-

 

Improving the quality of life for all

Encouraging job creation and economic prosperity

Improving public transport

Protecting the Island’s physical environment

 

The Development Framework is considered to be in accordance with the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan (Adopted May 2001) and in particular with the following :-

 

Key Strategic Policies

 

S1 New Development Concentrated within Urban Areas

S2 Encourage Development on Previously Developed Land

S3 Large Scale Developments In or Adjacent to Main Towns

S4 Protect Countryside from Inappropriate Development

S10 Development to Conserve or Enhance Designated Areas

 

Key Topic Policies of the UDP

 

G1 Development within Development Envelopes

E1 Promote Suitably Located New Employment Uses

E3 Resist the Development of Allocated Employment Uses for Other Uses

E4 Mixed Use to Promote Employment Development

E7 Employment Sites With Deep Water Frontage

E9 Employment Development Anywhere Within Settlements

T1 Promotion of Tourism and the Extension of the Season

T2 Tourist Related Development

T3b Holiday Accommodation, Hotel, Serviced Accommodation or Self Catering Accommodation.

C7 River Corridors and Estuaries

C9 Sites of International Importance for Nature Conservation

C10 Sites of National Importance for Nature Conservation

TR10 Cross Solent Ferry Links

TR15 Bulk Freight Handling and Distribution Facilities

TR17a Public Rights of Way

M6 Aggregate Wharves

 

10.             The adoption of the Strategic Development Framework as Supplementary Planning Guidance will provide further certainty over the application of planning policy, promote the regeneration and reuse of land and investment in regeneration in the wider interest of Cowes, East Cowes, the Medina Valley and the Island.

 

CONSULTATION

 

11.             As well as consulting the main land owners and businesses in the area an initial public consultation exercise was undertaken in November 2002 with an exhibition and questionnaire. Full details of consultation, exhibitions and meetings with key stakeholders are set out in Appendix A, which has been sent to Members of the Executive under separate cover. A copy has also been placed in the member’s room.  Details of the second public consultation follow in this report. 

 

12.             Results from initial public consultation. Main points of support were :-

 

Strategic Themes:- Enabling economic growth, mix of uses on the waterfront and strengthening the town centres.

Creating a Sense of Place:- Water related industries; Yachting and the natural environment

Enabling Economic Growth:- Sailing Events; Tourism/Leisure; High-tech Industries

Strengthening the Town Centres:- Community Facilities; Visitor Attractions; Workspace for Artists; Hotel.

Creating High Quality Public Spaces and Buildings:- Public Access to waterfront; New town square for E Cowes, Heritage Trail; Regeneration of Newport Harbour; Hotel/Leisure building in E Cowes.

Fostering a Mix of Uses Along the Waterfront:- Public Access to Waterfront; Boat Related Activity; Visitor Attractions

Enhancing the Environment:- Enhance Existing Habitats; Enhance Public Access; Promote Understanding of Medina Estuary Environment.

 

13.             The above were used in drawing up the Strategic Development Framework. A series of meetings were held with the key stakeholders and community groups to introduce them to the draft strategic framework and a second series of exhibitions and leaflets disseminating the findings of the initial consultation and showing how these were reflected in the framework and a second questionnaire survey were undertaken during April and May 2003. The Public Consultation and Exhibition were advertised in the Isle of Wight County Press on 28th  March and 4th, 18th and 25th April and 23rd May 2003. Copies of the consultation material and questionnaire are set out in Appendix B and Appendix B1, which has been sent to Members of the Executive under separate cover. A copy has also been placed in the member’s room. 

 

14.             All the returned questionnaires and representations have been copied and circulated to members of the Executive. Copies are available for inspection in the members room, County Hall reception and at Seaclose Offices.

 

15.             The analysis of the results from the second survey are set out in Appendix C which has been sent to Members of the Executive under separate cover, and show that for each of the zones within the valley the majority of respondents supported the approach set out in the vision for the Medina Valley. The consultants who have undertaken the analysis conclude “All the questions covering the framework themes received an approval rate significantly in excess of 50% of respondents a clear mandate through the consultation process.”

 

16.             The consultants also looked in some detail at the responses relating to the questions and considered that the questions should not be modified. The most common additional question suggested relates to nature conservation issues and there is already a question covering these issues in the SPG.

 

17.             As well as the individual questions there was an opportunity for respondents to add comments in relation to each of the proposed zones and to the proposed questions for appraising development proposals. These are tabulated with the Council’s response in Appendix D, which has been sent to Members of the Executive under separate cover. Many of the issues raised relate to matters of detail which will need to be addressed as work progresses on drawing up briefs for individual sites.

 

18.             The detailed response from Ashwell Property Group on behalf of the Harrison Trust, reproduced in the background papers, contend that the Project Cowes work and the vision could not be adopted as SPG as they consider that the work is deficient in terms of Government guidance. Much of their representation relates to best practice guidance on providing development briefs on individual sites. These will be key considerations as the overall strategic development framework leads to individual site briefs. A response to many of the points raised is attached as Appendix E, which has been sent to Members of the Executive under separate cover.

 

19.             The Harrison Trust representations suggest that issues such as potentially contaminated land, geological conditions, flood risk and quay wall serviceability have not been addressed in the SDF. They also refer to the SDF identified need to understand the in-combination effect on the estuary of all the potential changes and impact of these on the  SAC and SPA European Sites and suggest that as this has not been undertaken that this and the other constraints mean that the viability assessment of the SDF and costs of overcoming these have not been undertaken. Again, they refer to the Good Practice Guidance for site specific appraisals to support their case. All the above issues will need to be addressed for each site where development proposals are brought forward in due time. The SDF report recognised the need to understand potential in combination impacts of development on the features of the European sites.

 

20.             Their representation promotes the latest Harrison Trust Proposals which is for a mixed use development with an “anticipated 50/50 split between employment (some of which is high profile marine employment) and residential.” They also refer to the consultation on proposals for the site which they have undertaken. They maintain that their proposals represent the operation of enabling development consistent with the UDP and a letter from the Council in 2001. They appear not to recognise the inclusion of the Northern part of their site within Zone 1 providing a mix of uses and the reference in the letter from the Council dated 23 October 2001 appended to their submission which is in the background papers, to the importance of ensuring that employment sites with deep water frontage are protected for uses which need access to deep water. This is consistent with the SDF which shows the majority of the site for specialist marine facilities, employment, business and manufacture support. Housing does not need to be located on a waterfront.

 

21.             Detailed representations were also received from PD Ports, Logistics and Shipping contesting the basis for including their site in Zone 3, Commercial Shipping, questioning whether an aggregates wharf is required at all, pointing to deficiencies in the Medina Wharf quay wall and promoting an alternative use and development for their site for “enabling and employment activities”. They are requesting reconsideration of the vision in respect of their site and suggesting further exploration of the commercial shipping and aggregates markets on the IOW. More detailed Council response is attached as Appendix F, which has been sent to Members of the Executive under separate cover.

 

22.             The Medina Wharf site is allocated in the UDP as a wharf for aggregates under policy M6 and for bulk freight handling and distribution facilities under policy TR 15 along with Kingston Wharf and Stag Lane Wharf. The SDF reflects this ongoing need other than for Stag Lane where employment use requiring waterfront access is suggested following the analysis by MDS Transmodal that there should be a consolidation of aggregates sites.

 

FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPLICATIONS

 

23.             Most of the funding for the consultancy work to date has been from SEEDA with key stakeholders also making financial contributions towards the Project Cowes partnership. There will be publication costs if the Framework is adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Council’s contribution to date has been through staff time.

 

24.             The adoption of SPG is still at the beginning of Project Cowes which is estimated will take between 7 and 10 years to implement. There will be additional work to undertake as proposals are worked up in detail and additional research undertaken but without specific Council budget provision identified to date.

 

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

 

25.             It is not considered that at present there are any issues arising under the   Race Relations (Amendment) Act. Consideration has also been given to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. At this stage of the process the officers concerned do not feel able to make any valuable contribution

 

26.             Consideration has been given to issues arising from the Human Rights Act 1998. The relevant rights are those under Article 8 ( right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol ( Right to Peaceful Enjoyment of Possessions) of the European Conventions on Human Rights.  The impacts that these proposals will have on owner/occupiers of both residential and business property in the area and other third parties including any developers who wish to carry out development in the area have been carefully considered.  The Harrison Trust indicate that the SDF and subsequent SPG will stop them from carrying out development in the manner that they wish.  The interference of their rights is unquantifiable but it is considered that the steps proposed by the Council are a reasonable interference with those rights which can be justified as proportionate to the legitimate aims of the council as specified in the following paragraph.

 

27.             The Council are therefore of the opinion that the recommendation as set out in the report is proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Council as set out in the Unitary Development Plan and is also in line with Planning Legislation and in the public Interest and will present a way forward to provide and improve residential, business and tourist facilities for both island and mainland interests.

 

28.             PPG 12 sets out that Supplementary Planning Guidance does not form part of the UDP but has to be consistent with it and  with national and regional planning guidance. It should be cross referenced to the policies or proposals of the plan which it supplements. (see Strategic Context above). It should be prepared in consultation with the general public, businesses and other interested parties. It should then be subject of a Council resolution to adopt it as Supplementary Guidance. A statement of the consultation the representations received and the Council’s response to those representations should be made available with the SPG. These form appendices to this report. It is considered that the steps carried out by the officers dealing with the matter has adhered to PPG12.

 

OPTIONS

 

29.             a) To adopt the Vision for the Medina Estuary Strategic Development Framework from the consultants report as Supplementary Planning Guidance,

 

b) To amend the Vision for the Strategic Development Framework before adopting it as Supplementary Planning Guidance,

 

            c) To not adopt the Strategic Development Framework as SPG.

 

30.             The option to adopt the vision as SPG either in its original form or with amendment arising from the consultation responses will provide the basis for proceeding to more detailed proposals and site briefs with the confidence that the broad vision has been agreed. It will also give the confidence to investors and potential developers and users of the area that there is an agreed vision and development framework for the area. If the SPG is not adopted it will reduce the confidence of potential investors and developers as to the direction of the regeneration sought for the area.

 

31.             The comments from the consultation in general are seeking the addition or consideration of matters which will be more appropriate at the more detailed stage of planning or development briefs rather than the strategic framework. The main suggestions for issues to be addressed by additional questions appear to be covered already or are of a general nature which are covered by the normal considerations when assessing planning proposals. It is therefore not considered appropriate to amend the Vision of the SDF before adoption as SPG but the issues raise should be carried forward into the next phase of working up planning briefs for the key sites.

 

EVALUATION/RISK MANAGEMENT

 

32.             It is always possible that all the elements of the vision may not be achieved due to difficulties at the more detailed level, land assembly problems, infrastructure provision or that the phasing of development may see delay in achieving some of the elements.  However the risk of not having an overall framework is that individual sites could be developed without reference to the overall needs of the area leading to lost opportunities to secure the longer term economic regeneration and prosperity for the Medina Valley.

 

33.             There is a risk that the objectors may wish to challenge the adoption of the SDF Vision as SPG as it is clearly contrary to their aspirations for a significant element of residential development on their site.

 

34.             Supplementary Planning Guidance should be kept under review and changing circumstances over time may suggest that SPG should be revised at some point in the future. The UDP as the Island’s development plan is also subject to monitoring and review and will have to be replaced by a Local Development Framework by 2006 under emerging legislation. This could then incorporate the proposed SPG as part of the LDF.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

35.             That the Project Cowes Vision for the Medina Valley Strategic Development Framework and related questions be adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.

 

 

BACKGROUND PAPERS

 

36.             Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan 2001.

 

37.             Project Cowes report by C B Hillier Parker  entitled Strategic Development Framework including a Vision for the Medina Valley. (www.projectcowes.com)

 

38.             Copies of representations from second Consultation (circulated to members of the Executive)

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

39.              Appendix A - Details of consultation undertaken on the Strategic Development Framework. Including meetings with IW Economic Partnership and IWC Planning Section.

 

40.             Appendix B - Copies of SPG Exhibition information and questionnaires

 

41.             Appendix C - Consultation Report and analysis of questionnaire responses

 

42.             Appendix D – Council’s Response to additional comments

 

43.             Appendix E – Response to submission by Harrison Trust

 

44.             Appendix F – Response to submission by PD Ports, Logistics and Shipping

 

 

Contact Point :           Dave Moore 823558  [email protected]

 

A ASHCROFT

Head of Planning Services

T BUTCHERS

Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Development, Environment and Planning Policy