Dismissed

Ok well we got the appeal decision and it has been dismissed. Below is all the relvant information as to why. It's been copied and paisted but should still make sense.


Well Done Everyone


Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 8-11 July 2008
Site visit made on 11 July 2008
by Jill C Kingaby BSc(Econ) MSc MRTPI
The Planning Inspectorate
4/11 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
􀀋 0117 372 6372
email:enquiries@pins.gsi.g
ov.uk
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government
Decision date:
14 August 2008
Appeal Ref: APP/P0810/A/07/2062603
Falmouth Wharf, North Parade, Falmouth TR11
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Fairhaven Shipping Limited against the decision of Carrick
District Council.
• The application Ref PA02/0733/07/M, dated 4 April 2007, was refused by notice dated 3
July 2007.
• The development proposed is demolition of existing buildings and replacement with
mixed use development incorporating 45 flats, 14 bed hotel and approximately 4,580
sqm of commercial floorspace including 17 B1 light industrial/workshop units, gallery
space and restaurant/café with ancillary infrastructure and associated landscape works.
Decision
1. I dismiss the appeal.
Main issue
2. There are two main issues in this appeal: the effect of the proposal on
sustaining and regenerating the local economy; and whether the proposal
would be acceptable given the site’s flood zone location, having regard for the
provisions of Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk
(PPS25) and the related Practice Guide.
Reasons
3. A unilateral undertaking pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990, as amended, was submitted on 16 July 2008 by the Appellants with a
Travel Plan document, and a “supplemental” unilateral undertaking was
submitted on 25 July 2008. These address a number of matters discussed at
the Inquiry. I have taken account of the documents in determining the appeal
and comment on them below.
Sustaining and regenerating the local economy
4. Policy 4 of the Cornwall Structure Plan (2004) concerns Maritime Resources. It
states that an integrated and co-ordinated approach to the coast will be taken
to support the economic importance and conservation value of the maritime
environment. The site is located within the built up area of Falmouth where
the policy requires development to help enhance the quality of the environment
and economic regeneration of coastal towns. Waterside sites should be
safeguarded for uses needing such locations giving priority to maritime
Appeal Decision APP/P0810/A/07/2062603
2
industries. Carrick District Local Plan adopted in 1998 addresses Waterside
Industrial Sites in section 8.10. Policy 8EE will not grant planning permission
for development which would result in the loss of existing waterside industrial
uses within identified areas. The appeal site, with deep water on its east and
north sides, is one such area.
5. The buildings on site provide some 4,580 sqm gross floorspace and
accommodate a range of commercial uses. Whilst a handful are maritime in
character (boat repairers; diving, salvaging and moorings’ maintenance
services; processors of shellfish; and oceanographic surveyors), there is a
diverse range of other businesses including recording studios, furniture makers,
upholsterers, antique restorers and artists which are not directly related to the
waterside.
6. The Appellants argued that there is little evidence of an unsatisfied demand for
maritime industrial uses in Falmouth. From a recent survey, only 6 such
businesses had an essential requirement for a new site with water access in all
Cornwall and The Isles of Scilly. My site visit confirmed that Falmouth Docks
occupies a very extensive area of land which could accommodate additional
waterside businesses. The South West of England Regional Development
Agency (SWRDA), however, wrote in support of the refusal of planning
permission for the appeal proposal, and referred to an identified demand for
marine sector uses in the Falmouth area that includes a marine school, marine
related business park, incubation centre, grow on space and space in relation
to Wavehub, in addition to and complementary to Falmouth Docks. It was
argued that the author of the letter had insufficient knowledge of the appeal
site or the proposal, but I have seen no firm evidence to lead me to dismiss
SWRDA’s view that priority should be given to the retention/redevelopment of
the site for marine sector employment development.
7. Paragraph 10.8.3 of the Local Plan indicates that the need to retain sites for
water-related industry (Policy 8EE) should be balanced against the demands of
other uses which may require such a location such as some tourism-related
activities. The supporting text to Policy 4 of the Structure Plan refers to the
leisure and tourism sectors and, where competition arises for the limited
resource of developed coastal sites, the policy favours economic activity that
‘requires’ direct access to the maritime environment. I have considered
whether the proposal with a hotel and visitor facilities needs a waterside
location. It is argued that it would provide a new, unique destination.
Although the plans show a hotel close to the water, and moorings for various
vessels, tourism and leisure facilities appear to have succeeded both on the
coast and inland in the wider locality. I have seen scant hard evidence that the
proposed development ‘requires’ this waterside location. In my view, the
potential for this site to serve waterside industrial uses would be lost if the
mixed use development was built, and this would be in conflict with Policy 8EE.
8. The Appellants drew my attention to Mylor Yacht Harbour where existing
occupiers were accommodated satisfactorily in the new development.
However, this could not be repeated at the appeal site as the proposal would
provide only an estimated 1,072 sqm floorspace in B1 units. Even though the
unilateral undertaking includes a “marine-related user restriction”, the proposal
would place business users alongside residents and hotel occupants. On my
site visit, I observed a number of activities and machines which generated
Appeal Decision APP/P0810/A/07/2062603
3
significant amounts of noise; the shellfish processors and salvage operators
reportedly work long hours of the day and night. In addition, their businesses
generate odours which some residents might find offensive. It seems unlikely
to me that all the existing users most closely linked with the waterside could be
accommodated satisfactorily or counted as B1 uses within the mix proposed.
9. The Local Plan is ten years old during which time the structure of the economy
has changed. During the last five years, the economy of Cornwall has seen the
decline of mining, fishing, agriculture and peak-season tourism and their
replacement with alternative industries and new quality, year-round tourism.
Much manufacturing industry has been transferred to Far Eastern or European
factories. In this context, the Regional Economic Strategy (2006), studies of
the local economy and emerging policy documents which post-date the Local
Plan and the Structure Plan are important material considerations in this appeal
(Docs 8 and 11).
10. The Regional Economic Strategy refers to tourism as maritime related and
having potential for growth and specialisation in Falmouth. Tourism, which
employs many more people than maritime industry in Cornwall, is a fast
growing sector which requires ongoing investment and reinvention to be
successful. Government policy in the Good Practice Guide on Planning for
Tourism recognises the industry’s importance to economic, social and
environmental wellbeing. Although recent ‘iconic’ developments in Cornwall
such as Tate St Ives and the Eden Project have proved very attractive and
have stimulated other regeneration, the current proposal cannot sensibly be
compared with these highly individualistic, large-scale projects and cannot be
expected to have such an impact.
11. Recent documents also indicate an aim to achieve a higher value added, more
knowledge based economy with employment for all. It seems to me that the
existing businesses at Falmouth Wharf are engaged in activities which serve
contemporary social needs and demands rather than in perpetuating oldfashioned,
declining industries. Current use of the site cannot be dismissed as
mainly storage, as my site visit confirmed. The site provides affordable space
for skilled people including graduates within small businesses. I accept the
argument advanced by interested parties that the site contains an active
entrepreneurial community which could not be achieved instantly and had to be
grown over time. The Community Strategy for Carrick supports developing art,
design and multi-media in Falmouth and Penryn, with which retention of many
of the existing uses would comply.
12. There is disagreement as to the numbers currently employed at the site, with
the Appellants estimating that there are 50 jobs and tenants claiming that
there are close to 100. I accept that the proposal could result in a net increase
in employment although this may not be as significant as the projected figure
of around 140 jobs; occupiers have not yet been identified so that there
remains some uncertainty. In any event, not all jobs in the intended hotel and
restaurant would be for skilled workers.
13. A shortage of quality modern premises and small, flexible workspaces is also
remarked on in the above-mentioned recent policy documents. I accept that
demolition of the buildings and replacement of the existing mix of business
uses with a hotel, restaurant/café, other leisure facilities and B1 units would
Appeal Decision APP/P0810/A/07/2062603
4
provide modern and high quality working premises. However, whilst the
existing buildings are old and deteriorating in condition, they clearly provide
useable and adaptable spaces for the existing tenants. As paragraph 8.8.2 of
the Local Plan points out, old warehouses, commercial premises and redundant
buildings can offer low cost rental accommodation to new small businesses. As
my site visit to the Docks confirmed, it is not unusual for successful commercial
users to operate from old buildings and visually unattractive sites.
14. Therefore I am unable to conclude that the proposal would necessarily deliver a
significant increase in skilled job opportunities and productivity as sought by
recent and emerging policy. Notwithstanding the small component of industrial
uses currently on site requiring a waterside location, I consider the proposal
would disturb an established business community without providing significant
economic and social gain. The letter from SWRDA and other recent economic
policy statements indicate that maritime industrial uses represent an evolving
and diversifying, rather than a disappearing sector. I conclude that loss of this
wharf site with deep water to the mix of uses hereby proposed would be
contrary to Policy 8EE of the Local Plan and more recent or emerging policy
that aims to sustain and regenerate the local economy.
Flood risk
15. The appeal site, which adjoins the Penryn River, is mostly located in flood zone
3a, High Probability. A small part on the south-west side may be in flood zone
3b, The Functional Floodplain (Table D1 of PPS25). A proposal for change of
use from a boat yard to residential development on a neighbouring site was
recently refused permission on appeal (APP/P0810/A/07/2049831), partly on
flood risk grounds. The Environment Agency, in June 2007, objected to the
current proposal partly because, in its view, the requirements of the PPS25
sequential test had not been met, there being other lower risk sites available
for the more vulnerable uses. Although a number of alternative sites in
Falmouth/Penryn were identified by the Council, the Appellants contended that
there were no sites which would be appropriate to their mixed use proposal.
16. Neither the Practice Guide nor PPS25 itself sets out specifically how the
sequential test should be applied to mixed used proposals. The Appellants
sought support for their position that the proposal must be considered as a
whole from the PPS25 Practice Guide, paragraph 4.26, which refers to the
“type and scale of proposed development”. However, this does not state that
“mixed use” is to be regarded as a “type” of development. The overall aim of
the sequential test is clearly expressed as to steer new development to areas
at the lowest probability of flooding ie. zone 1 (D1 & D5 of PPS25). Table D2 of
PPS25 states that buildings used for dwelling houses and hotels should be
classified as “more vulnerable”, and footnote 2) indicates that buildings that
combine a mixture of uses should be placed into the higher of the relevant
classes of flood risk sensitivity. The plans show that the three principal
buildings would contain some residential or hotel use so that all should be
treated as more vulnerable, in my view. Common sense suggests that the
inclusion of some less vulnerable or water-compatible uses would not reduce
the risks to residents and hotel guests from flooding.
17. The Appellants argued that, if disaggregation of mixed use schemes were
intended to be applied in the PPS25 context, this would have been covered in
Appeal Decision APP/P0810/A/07/2062603
5
Central Government documents. Comparisons were drawn with Planning Policy
Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (PPS6) which refers to disaggregation
when applying the sequential test for town centre uses. Having regard for the
references in paragraphs 2.45 and 3.15-3.18, it seems to me that PPS6 is
neither for nor against disaggregation in all cases. It seeks flexibility and
realism in looking at the scale and format of development, car parking
provision and the scope for disaggregation. It refers to collaborative and
innovative working in order to fit development on to more central sites.
18. The Appellants argued that the proposal as part of tourism activity in Falmouth
would have to be based by the water providing that experience for all users.
However, hotels, restaurants and leisure facilities flourish on inland as well as
waterside sites in Cornwall. It is uncertain whether residents on the site would
also occupy the B1 units and/or regularly dine in the restaurant. Prospective
residents may or may not pursue boating and water-related activities. It has
not been demonstrated that the uses on site would necessarily be closely
interconnected, and there is no evidence that a collaborative and flexible
approach has been taken by the Appellants over the scale and format of this
scheme. Therefore, comparison with the approach to sequential testing in
PPS6 does not provide justification for this scheme, in my view.
19. The Appellants argued that, if disaggregation of the proposal’s elements were
allowed, the purpose of PPS25, that flood risk should be balanced against the
sustainability credentials of the proposal, would be undermined. They
identified some 15 planning advantages for the scheme. My attention was
drawn to the Jubilee Wharf development in Penryn which also lies within flood
zone 3 but was permitted because it could trigger regeneration in the
Commercial Road area. I accept that the current proposal has planning
advantages and would address some of the priorities highlighted in the
Community Strategy for Carrick, notably making the waterfront more attractive
and accessible to pedestrians and developing greater use of water transport.
The intended buildings and spaces have been carefully designed with good
energy saving credentials and a commitment to use local, hard-wearing natural
materials, and the proposal is promoted by someone with a strong track record
in achieving successful major developments. However, as I have concluded
above, the contribution to economic sustainability and regeneration in this case
may not be very significant. It has not been adequately demonstrated, in my
opinion, that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the
community which would outweigh the flood risk. Nor am I satisfied from the
submitted evidence that a sequentially preferable site in Falmouth and Penryn
could not be found for the more vulnerable uses.
20. The exception test described in PPS25 provides a method of managing flood
risk whilst allowing necessary development to occur. The appeal site is
previously developed land. A statement of common ground on flood risk
mitigation was submitted on behalf of the Environment Agency and Appellants,
and supported by the unilateral undertaking which would provide safety and
reduce flood risk overall. However, I consider that the conditions for
undertaking the exception test, described in PPS25 paragraph 18 onwards do
not apply in this case. I conclude that the proposal would be unacceptable
given the site’s high probability of flooding, and would be contrary to Structure
Plan Policy 3 which expects development to avoid land at risk of flooding.
Appeal Decision APP/P0810/A/07/2062603
6
Other matters
21. The proposed development would generate a need for public open space,
particularly among people living on the site as well as for those working on and
visiting it. Private open space would be limited to balconies to the flats. Only a
small amount of on-site public open space provision is proposed, but the
“supplemental” unilateral undertaking would secure a contribution towards offsite
provision. Government Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3)
indicates that high quality new housing is achieved when, among other things,
developments provide or enable good access to community and green and
open amenity and recreational space, including play space. I consider that
access to off-site open space would be needed here, in order to meet that aim.
22. Although the Local Plan recorded a reasonable level of informal open space in
Falmouth in 1998, the Council reported a current shortfall in Falmouth for
formal open space with facilities for junior and youth playspace and outdoor
sport. This followed from a comprehensive audit and comparison with locally
derived standards. In accordance with PPG17, paragraph 33, I consider that
the Council is entitled to expect a financial contribution in order to address the
increase in local need for open space from the proposal. As Falmouth is so
built up, no new open spaces are planned by the Council. An off-site
contribution could however enhance the existing areas of public open space,
even though the nearest suitable area is just beyond the Council’s own draft
access/ distance standard. I consider that the submitted “supplemental”
undertaking would enable improvements reasonably related to the proposal
and would overcome the objection in the Council’s fifth reason for refusal.
23. The submitted unilateral undertaking would secure car parking spaces to serve
the development at Pontsharden Park and Float facility, a Travel Plan to
promote more sustainable travel, priority to marine-related users in the B1
units, flood management measures, and a contribution towards off-site
affordable housing. I accept that this undertaking would address the concerns
raised in the Council’s third and fourth reasons for refusal.
24. Local people raised a number of other concerns with the proposal, including
that the modern design of the buildings would be out of keeping with its
setting, that the intended green roofs might fail as they had not been entirely
successful elsewhere in Cornwall, and that the more intensive development of
the site could affect the privacy of neighbours. Doubts were aired as to
whether the transport proposals would alleviate the pressure on already scarce
on-street parking spaces along North Parade.
25. I have had regard for all the other matters raised, but in my opinion, none of
the positive ones can overcome the major difficulties related to impact on
sustaining and regenerating the local economy and flood risk which I have
identified. I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Jill Kingaby
INSPECTOR
Appeal Decision APP/P0810/A/07/2062603
7
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr S Head Of Counsel
He called:
Mr J Manser MACantab DipArch
RIBA FRSA
The Manser Practice, Bridge Studios, London W6
9DA
Mr G O F Oldrieve BSc MRICS Vickery Holman Ltd, Walsingham House,
Newham Quay, Truro TR1 2DP
Mr T Light King Harry Ferry Company Ltd, 2 Ferry Cottages,
Feock TR3 6QJ
Mr T Smit Eden Project, Cornwall
Mr A W Rogers AADip ACArch
DipTP MRTPI DipEnv&Dev
Andrew Rogers Planning, 24 Sandy Lane,
Richmond, Surrey TW10 7EL
Mr J Hadfield Site Manager of Falmouth Wharf , 36 Treverbyn
Road, Falmouth TR11 5BS
Cllr R J Bonney c/o 5 Conway Road, Falmouth TR11 4JZ
Mr R Barker BSc MTMI FIDM Services for Tourism Ltd, Cherry Garth, West
Hill, Ottery St Mary EX11 1TZ
Mr J A Clark BSc H2Ok Systems Ltd, Nanjerrick Court, Allet, Truro
TR4 9DJ
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Ms J Boyd Of Counsel
She called:
Mr M O’Brien BSc(Hons) MSc Open Space Manager, Carrick DC
Mr R Radcliffe BSc CPM MIED Economic Development Officer, Carrick DC
Mr J C Holman MRICS MRTPI
FAAV
Senior Planning Officer, Carrick DC
Mr D Groves BSc(Hons) CEng
CEnv MICE MIHT
Development Control Manager, Cornwall County
Council, Truro TR1 3EY
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mrs A Barton For management committee and residents,
2 Pontsharden Lodge, 16 North Parade, Falmouth
TR11 2TD
Mr R Burnie 5 Harbour Terrace, Falmouth TR11 2AN
Mr D C Rowe MD Seaside Services Ltd, Falmouth Wharves,
North Parade, Falmouth TR11 2TD
Mr J P Webster Webster Pools,1 Tregullow Road, Falmouth TR11
2JX
Mr C Gray Troubador Studios, Pearces Mill, Falmouth
Wharves TR11 2TD
Mr D Allen Pontsharden Boatyard, Falmouth Road, Penryn
TR10 8AB
Mr M Webster 1 Tregullow Road, Falmouth TR11 2JX
Ms K Stone Unit 7, Jubilee Wharf, Penryn TR10 8AE
Appeal Decision APP/P0810/A/07/2062603
8
DOCUMENTS
1 Letter of notification of the inquiry and list of persons notified
(and see No 13 below)
2 Draft unilateral undertaking (7 July 2008), draft Travel Plan and
Supplemental unilateral undertaking (7 July 2008)
3 Appellant’s opening submission
4 PPG17 Typology for green and civic spaces
5 Carrick’s open space standards – extract from consultation draft
6 Statement of common ground on flood risk mitigation
7 Minutes of Carrick Harbours Board meeting 19 June 2008
8 Bundle of extracts from studies & policy documents – Cornwall &
the Isles of Scilly Employment Space Strategic Assessment 2007;
Economic Forum Strategy and Action 2007-21; Community
Strategy Carrick 2005; Regional Economic Strategy 2006-15
9 Extract – Carrick District-wide Local Plan 1998 s8.7-11 & P 8EE
10 Extracts – PPS25 Practice Guide
11 Falmouth & Penryn Combined development framework - Terence
O’Rourke 2005
12 Extract (Page 37) - Cornwall & the Isles of Scilly Employment
Space Strategic Assessment 2007
13 Letters in response to letter of notification – 37 letters and a
petition
14 Cornwall & the Isles of Scilly Economic Forum – (a)minutes of
Sites & Premises Group meeting 20 06 2006; (b)Top Ten Priorities
15 Extract from Carrick District-wide Local Plan 1998 s8.1-8.3
16 Bundle from Mr Webster (Voices of War and Troubadour Studios)
17 Dracaena Avenue Improvement projects (from the Council)
18 Closing submissions from the Council
19 Statement of common ground
20 Appellant’s closing submission
21 Draft unilateral undertaking discussed at Inquiry
22 Unilateral undertaking dated 16 July, Travel Plan, Supplemental
unilateral undertaking dated 25 July 2008
PLANS
A Application plans- Nos 1026 001F; 002G; 003F; 008H; 009H;
1026 GA 010L; 011 J; 012H; 013H; 014J; 017A; 020J; 021K; 022K;
023G; 024J; 025G; 029C;
1026 030G; 031G; 032G;
1026 GA 033; 036A; 037A; 038A;
1026 040; 041A; 042A
B Other plans – 0528-01-01 Rev 3 Pile layout; SK061 Light industrial
unit façade options