Environment and Protective Services Committee: 21 April 2009
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENVIRONMENT AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE: 21 APRIL 2009 APPLICATION TO ERECT A TEN PIN BOWLING/LEISURE CENTRE AT MELBOST, STORNOWAY, ISLE OF LEWIS (REF NO 08/00504/FUL) Report by Director of Development PURPOSE OF REPORT Since representations have been made against the proposals, this matter should not be dealt with under delegated powers and is presented to the Comhairle for a decision. COMPETENCE 1.1 There are no legal, financial or other constraints to the recommendations being implemented. SUMMARY 2.1 This is an application by Mr Alan Farquharson, 22 New Street, Stornoway for the erection of a ten pin bowling/leisure centre on land adjacent to the roundabout on the Stornoway Airport to Melbost township road. Two letters of objection were received from local residents on the grounds that the development would result in a significant increase in traffic volume on the township road and that the site was not suitable for this type of development because of the potential risk to security at Stornoway Airport from late night users of the facilities. Concern has also been expressed that, as the premises will be licensed, additional traffic will be attracted to the area. 2.2 Further objections, raised by SEPA, related to the absence of a sustainable urban drainage system and the inadequacy of the flood risk assessment because the site lies within the coastal flood envelope and is therefore of high to medium risk of flooding. SEPA had initially recommended that a minimum level of flood protection of 3.6m AOD (local) with a 500mm freeboard should be adopted for this development. Freeboard is defined as the difference between the flood defence level and the design flood level. This view was challenged by the developer’s engineers who argued that the use of the site for leisure, the distance from the sea, the ease with which flood events could be predicted and the fact that the site had been occupied for over 60 years without incident warranted a less stringent flood defence. In response, SEPA has acknowledged that it is for local authorities to determine planning applications and provided a planning condition is placed on any grant of planning permission ensuring that finished floor levels are set no lower than the estimated 1 in 200 year flood level of 3.6 AOD (local), SEPA is willing to withdraw its objection. The applicant is willing to accept a condition required by SEPA relating to the provision of an acceptable sustainable urban drainage system and the proposal is in accordance with both the Western Isles Structure and Local Plan. No objection has been received from consultees on traffic or noise issues and, for these reasons, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions appended to this report. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 It is recommended that the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions shown in Appendix 1. Contact Officer Name Cathy Leary Telephone: 01851 709316 Email: [email protected] Appendix 1 Schedule of proposed conditions 2 Site plan and elevations Background None Papers: REPORT DETAILS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 4.1 This is an application for the erection of a large building measuring some 1184 square metres of leisure and retail space including a bowling alley and leisure centre. The site, which comprises 6637 square metres is located on ground to the north of the township road adjacent to the roundabout on the airport road. Access to the site is by an existing slip road on to the roundabout. The site, which was previously part of the military operations at Stornoway Airport is surrounded by tarmac surfaced roads and concrete surfaces and is located in a hollow below both the roundabout and the township road. The proposals include four car parking spaces for staff to the south of the site and provision for 50 spaces including disabled spaces to the west of the building. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Objections have been received from the following: • Margaret Lancaster, 8 Branahuie, Isle of Lewis; • Donald Martin, 9A Branahuie, Isle of Lewis. 5.2 The full terms of the objections can be read on the file at the Development Department. However, they can be summarised as follows: • Concerns about the location; • Excessive traffic; and • Licensed premises causing disturbance to residents. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION SEPA 6.1 ‘According to the topographical survey information and proposed site layout plan, the proposed bowling alley and the access route, with the exception of a very minor section at the north west corner of the building, will be located on land above a level of 3.6m AOD (local) i.e. outwith the functional coastal flood plain. SEPA can therefore remove its objection provided a planning condition is placed on any grant of permission ensuring that finished floor levels are set no lower than the estimated 1 in 200 year flood level of 3.6m AOD (local). With regards to freeboard, it is noted that no additional allowance over and above the estimated flood level will be incorporated in the design. Freeboard is often defined as the difference between the flood defence level and the design flood level. It can also, however, be the difference between the design flood level and the finished floor levels of any development. A minimum freeboard of 500mm to 600mm is generally recommended by SEPA. Freeboard is required to account for (a) the uncertainties involved in flood design and (b) physical imponderables such as post-construction settlement or wave action. CIRIA Report C624 also recommends a freeboard allowance of 600mm. It is also noted that no specific allowance has been made for the potential long term impacts of climate change such as sea level rise. Any allowance for climate change should be independent of the freeboard allowance. Although this is not specifically asked for in SPP7, paragraph 36 provides Local Authorities with scope for making such a climate change allowance if it can be justified. SEPA thus recognise that such advice is for Local Authorities to consider and determine. In the event that the Planning Authority proposes to grant planning permission contrary to the condition on flood risk requested in this response the application must be notified to the Scottish Ministers as per The Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 2007.’ SCOTTISH WATER 6.2 ‘No known constraint in respect of capacity at the works. Developer to contact Scottish Water Ops TL re pipe locations. The developer must ascertain the most appropriate method of connection (water and wastewater) and seek approval for proposals from Scottish Water and apply for appropriate connections prior to any work commencing on site.’ HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS AIRPORTS 6.3 ‘No objections.’ TECHNICAL SERVICES - ROADS 6.4 ‘The Comhairle's parking guidelines for office accommodation requires a minimum parking provision of 4 spaces per 100sq.m of gross floor area.’ This development of 1134sq.m requires a parking provision for 45 cars. In order to allow us to consider the application please submit a plan showing an adequate parking provision.’ DISABLED ACCESS 6.5 ‘A proportion of car parking spaces should be designed to be accessible to a person with mobility impairment, including a wheelchair user, and designated for use as such. There should be an accessible route to the principal entrance to a building, and to any other entrance that provides access. An accessible route should contain no barriers, such as kerbs, steps or similar obstructions that may restrict access.’ BUILDING STANDARDS 6.6 ‘A water supply for the Fire Service should be provided by the provision of a hydrant or other means.’ COMHAIRLE ARCHAEOLOGIST 6.7 ‘There are no known archaeological issues relating to it, and no need to recommend an Archaeological condition, as the area is already significantly reworked by the military occupation of the site.’ CONTAMINATED LAND 6.8 ‘Please attach the following conditions: CF33, RF33 CF34, RF34 CF35, RF35 CF36, RF36 Also, WRAS Guidance ‘The Selection of Materials for Water Supply Pipes to be laid in Contaminated Land’ (No 9-04-03) should be consulted and used.’ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 6.9 ‘No comments.’ VIEWS OF APPLICANT 7.1 Responses to Margaret Lancaster (dated 04/12/08) and Donald Martin (dated 03/12/08). 7.2 The Roads Department will, after their deliberations, determine the suitability of the roads for the traffic to and from this proposed development. My intention is to operate between the hours of 10am and 3pm (mainly for mothers and pre-school aged children) and from 6pm to 11.30pm (restricted to minimize any disturbance to local residents. 7.3 As the airport authorities have already indicated, they have no objection to this development although they did not comment on the proposed fencing and this matter is being dealt with by their estates department. The traffic issue raised has been addressed in the previous response. This is certainly not predominantly a drinking establishment; that is the function of the town centre bars. This development is to be an all age and family leisure facility. Licensed premises for this type of development would only represent about 17 percent of income. It is also worth noting that I have 2,500 people signed up amongst which are 15 youth clubs and P.H.A.B club who would not use the bar plus police department, ambulance staff, council staff and hospital staff, etc, which I regard as responsible sectors of the community. In order not to offend local religious tradition, I have no plans to operate on a Sunday as requested also by the airport authority. DECISIONS AFFECTING THE SITE 8.1 None. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 9.1 Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 says, “Where, in making any determination under the planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development plan, the determination shall be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” Attention is therefore drawn initially to any relevant policies or other elements of the Development Plan.