ST ANDREWS AND DOCKLAND

18/01058/FULL

Land Adjacent To Humber Estuary, Including St Andrews Quay, St Andrews Dock, William Wright Dock, Albert Dock, Island Wharf, Humber Dock Basin, Victoria Pier, Victoria Dock Village East And West And Lords Clough,

Hybrid Application (part outline, part full) for the construction of a Flood Defence scheme including associated structures, access, landscaping and construction works.

Helen Tattersdale

SUMMARY

- Construction of flood defence wall on Humber Frontage between St Andrew’s Quay and Victoria Dock Village.

- Objections and comments received.

- Recommended for conditional approval subject to affirmation by Secretary of State.

SITE

The site comprises primarily the Humber frontage extending from St Andrew’s Quay in the west to the eastern end of Victoria Dock Village. It comprises three distinct sections, starting in the west of the city, St Andrew’s Quay Retail Park and William Wright and Albert Docks, Humber Quays and Victoria Pier and, on the opposite side of the River Hull, the frontage of Victoria Dock Village extending from Camilla Close to Corinthian Way.

It also includes two ‘satellite’ sites at Lord’s Clough to the east of Queen Elizabeth Dock and provision for site compounds, the main compound being at 26 Lime Street which was established to serve the River Hull project. Satellite compounds will be established to serve each phase, at St Andrew’s Dock, Island Wharf, Humber Dock Basin, Victoria Pier, The Deep overflow car park and, a grassed amenity area at Victoria Dock Village East. The compounds are temporary.

PROPOSAL

Hybrid Application (part outline, part full) for the construction of a Flood Defence scheme including associated structures, access, landscaping and construction works.

The proposal comprises a full application for the flood defences in front of the western docks and St Andrews Quay Retail Park and in front of Victoria Dock village. The outline element, which includes details of layout, scale, appearance (indicative) and access covers the section between Island Wharf and Victoria Pier.

PLANNING HISTORY

None directly relevant

The proposal does have regard to accommodating the Trawlermen’s Memorial at St Andrew’s Quay Retail Park. REPRESENTATIONS Environment Agency No objection subject to the works being carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment. The proposal will provide a Standard of Protection of 0.5% against tidal flooding in the year 2040. The FRA considers the displacement of flood risk that may occur within the estuary as a result of the proposal. The results show some raising of flood levels in extreme events upstream and on the south bank for extreme events. Whilst this is undesirable it is small and within the tolerances of the model. Section 2.9 of the FRA indicates that flood risk to others will not be increased during the construction phases of the scheme.

Applicant should consider provision of a place of safety for the compound above 7.25m AOD

The Environmental Statement is comprehensive and it identifies all ecological/environmental risks and shows how they will be mitigated.

East Riding Of Yorkshire Council Consultation period expired, no comments received.

North East Waterways Consultation period expired, no comments received.

Marine Management Organisation Advise that a licence from the Marine Management Organisation will be required for works within the marine area. It is down to the applicant to take necessary steps to ascertain whether their works will fall below the Mean High Water Springs mark

Humber Local Nature Partnership Consults expired, no comments received

Urban Design Process – in May 2018 was talked through the draft proposals in detail by the design team and had the opportunity to raise any potential issues and concerns with the design. Have looked through the drawings submitted and by and large the plans and drawings submitted are consistent with the consensus reached during those discussions. This application has been supported by a strong Pre-App stage and this appears to have contributed in a thorough application. Supportive in principle from a design perspective.

Areas of special urban design interest:

Victoria Dock village promenade In several locations the application refers to design details where materials are to be confirmed at ‘detail design stage’. Recommend all materials and designs are submitted for approval prior to commencement of works. This includes brick cladding, glass panels, information boards, guard & handrails, tactile warning strips, seats, tree species and method of planting, and recessed and artistic panels. There is a plethora of information boards proposed some less than 30m apart – it will be important not to introduce clutter. All information boards need to be justified but wouldn’t be opposed to these being rationalised.

In several locations proposed trees are located adjacent to access ramps and given time these will overhang the ramps. It is advisable to specify species considering leaf drop as it will be sensible to avoid large quantities of leaves collecting on ramps – which in all likelihood will be wet surfaces a lot of the time.

The drawings don’t include detail where the alignment of the proposed defence wall appears to conflict with existing lighting columns. For example drawing IMNE000169-BMM-HUM-Z8- DR-L-0027 and 0028 there are two lighting columns tight to the existing boundary treatment of Axholme Court but drawings and legend don’t refer to lighting either existing or proposed.

Victoria Pier / Nelson Street’ – outline application The proposed defence will follow the alignment of the existing frontage from the Minerva Pier in the west, across the existing wooden pier to the eastern end of the existing public open space. The piling will cut through the wooden pier in the centre. Beyond the pier, at the eastern end of the frontage, the piling will turn and follow the alignment of the existing footbridge heading north east to connect to the existing flood defences. The flood defence wall will be clad (covered on the outside) with brickwork on the dry side.

Within the application it is stated that “in order to create an improved public open space at Victoria Pier, the space between the new piled wall and the existing will be filled in to create additional land. This area is part of the outline planning submission and as such, landscape proposals will be provided on submission of the reserved matters application (to satisfy planning requirements). Based on the outline design it is currently anticipated that there will be no tree loss at this Scheme section”.

To satisfy design and conservation a detailed design process is encouraged as the defence along this stretch runs through an important public space, Old Town conservation area and the setting of several listed buildings. Concur with the findings of Appendix G1 Townscape and Visual Amenity – Technical Information which identifies the area as being of High Townscape sensitivity and High Visual amenity sensitivity.

The defence here should be fully and appropriately integrated within the surrounding public spaces and should enhance the appearance, character and setting of the designated heritage assets. To this end have shared the document Nelson Street and Victoria Pier Urban Design and conservation guidance (January 2018) with the applicant. This document contains design principles/objectives and it is expected the reserved matters application would respond to this in detail. This includes the area of additional public realm to be created adjacent to Wykeland House at the mouth of the River Hull though the introduction of the new flood wall along the existing board walk and infilling the area between the footpath and the existing river bank.

It is noted that at Plimsoll Way (Victoria Dock) amphitheatre style steps are proposed to provide access to the existing timber decked area – this is an interesting and welcome precedent that may work very well as part of future detailed designs in the Victoria Pier / Nelson Street area – see Nelson Street and Victoria Pier Urban Design and conservation guidance (January 2018).

Comments revised to reflect revision at Victoria Pier and Victoria Dock –

These comments relate to a revision to the application whereby flood gates are now proposed in several locations as opposed to ramps.

In several locations in the proposed flood wall the application refers to recessed panels capable of taking insert panels displaying artistic works. The application states these are to be decided at detailed design stage.

It is recommended the proposed floodgates are also given further consideration with regard to their appearance and material and the policy requirement for the creation of inclusive public spaces which encourage community interaction through high quality public realm, and providing public art where appropriate. The provision of public art is appropriate in this instance. Any future design will need to take account of the appearance of the floodgates in both the open and closed positions.

It is recommended you consider an appropriate condition relating to Local Plan Policy 14 f.

Comments on the revision at Victoria Pier - with regard to the revised scheme addendum to the outline permission sought, it is proposed that the existing flood defence (brick wall) at Victoria Pier is increased temporarily with the addition of a 0.7 meter concrete coping structure atop the existing wall.

This extension will raise the height of the defence relative to ground levels in Nelson Street from approximately 1.1m to approximately 1.8m (approximately to the top of the existing metal railings) effectively increasing the visual barrier from a height below the majority of people’s eye level, to a height above the majority of people’s eye level. This will disrupt the visual relationship between land and water and deny the casual observer/pedestrian their vistas of the estuary and horizon – an important aspect of the character of the area, and daily life of the city. Nelson Street is an important civic space and its importance will grow as the Fruit Market continues to develop and draws more people to this part of the city expecting to enjoy that relationship with the water. This visual link plays an important part of the character, life and significance of the conservation area. Of particular importance are views South towards the estuary from the mouth of Queen Street across ths ‘Oss wash’ and the visual link between the former British Rail station and Victoria Pier.

No objection in principle to the flood defences being raised and understand their importance, but object to the negative impact this will have on the character and significance of the conservation area and believe there are ways to mitigate this harm through the design of the proposed defence. Strongly recommend the design of the heightened defence maintains the important visual connections described above. Recommend that significant areas of glazing are incorporated into the final design and this is agreed through an appropriate condition on materials and appearance, subject to approval by the LPA.

Environmental Protection No objection subject to conditions relating to construction methods, contaminated land and, certified soil imports (where necessary)

Marina Residents Association Consultation period expired, no comments received

STAND Support proposal, flood defence work is vital for the protection of a vulnerable area of river frontage, the economy of the city depends on prosperous businesses which must be given consideration. The prevention of flooding is of paramount importance.

Hull Civic Society Consultation period expired, no comments received

The Ramblers Association Support the flood defence programme, public rights of way are in proximity to the proposed project and will be affected either temporarily during construction or permanently, adequate and widespread advance publication of information concerning diversions or closures is paramount, Ramblers would wish to be consulted on applications for temporary or permanent path diversions.

Network Rail No observations to make

Yorkshire Water Services Ltd No objection subject to a condition requiring protection of all infrastructure associated with public sewerage located within the vicinity of the works.

Humber Archaeology Partnership No objection subject to condition requiring written scheme of investigation to be submitted.

Humber Local Enterprise Partnership Consultation period expired, no comments received.

Conservation Area Advisory Cttee (CAAC) Consultations period expired, no comments received

Natural England Agree with conclusion of the Appropriate Assessment submitted by the applicant which identifies direct loss of habitat at Victoria Pier and indirect loss of habitat through coastal squeeze. No objection to direct loss subject to condition securing appropriate habitat compensation, no objection to indirect habitat loss, no condition requested and refers to Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy and Outstrays to Skeffling Managed realignment site as provision of compensation for indirect loss. Suggests condition for construction stage.

Police Architectural Liaison Officer Consultation period expired, no comment received

Access Officer Very impressed with the work that has gone into the accessibility of these proposals and feel that these will meet the Environment Agency Equality Duties and very supportive of the proposed ramps, their designs and their locations. Would like to see information boards and fingerpost designs, lettering etc, giving information about distances between ramps etc to users. It may also help to know what destinations are at those ramps.

Where flood gates are installed threshold detail will be important.

Urban Forestry/Ecology Consultation period expired, no comments received

Flood Team No objection subject to conditions

Chief Port Health Inspector No comments to make on the proposal

Highways Development Control The works proposed are an essential part of the flood defence strategy for Hull.

The defence works will be constructed along the definitive public right of way between St Andrew’s Quay to the west along the northern riverbank edge towards Victoria Dock to the east.

The design of the flood defence ranges in terms of its height due to the localised topography; its alignment also varies depending on the structural integrity of the ground.

As a result, the flood defence line changes from one side of the public right of way to the other in several locations potentially restricting access, however there will be little or no access to the public footpaths when the flood threat is high.

An acceptable means of access to the footpaths must be protected for maintenance purposes on an annual basis and post flood; the flood defences must also be sympathetic to wheelchair users and the visually impaired when there is no threat of rising water. There are also aspirations for cycle access in the future particularly around Victoria Dock. These issues can be covered by relevant and necessary conditions.

The flood defence also creates issues in areas where natural light is reduced as a result of the height increase; these darker more secluded areas deter pedestrians from using the right of way from a security and anxiety point of view. Whilst there is no answer to the issue of height, it is recommended further consideration is given towards localised street lighting where personal security is impacted upon and the height of the surrounding structure is in excess of 1.5m above footpath level. This again can be covered by condition.

Therefore, subject to the following conditions the proposals are considered acceptable from a highways aspect.

Prior to development commencing, details of all necessary maintenance access points shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The maintenance access points shall be suitable for an appropriate vehicle to access key areas of the flood defence and also form part of any necessary footpath maintenance requirements. Reason: to ensure adequate access for maintenance vehicles and upkeep of the public right of way infrastructure and flood defence line.

Access for wheelchair users and / or the visually impaired shall remain throughout the life of the development unless otherwise advised by the Environment Agency. Reason: to ensure public right of way for all pedestrians.

Prior to development commencing, details of any street lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA in areas where the footpath is deemed to have permanent structures on both sides in excess of 1.5m in height above footpath level. The approved lighting scheme shall be constructed within 1 month of the development being completed. Reason: To maintain an element of security along areas of the footpath network where the flood defence height is in excess of 1.5m above footpath level.

Conservation In relation to the St Andrew’s Dock conservation area have no objections on conservation grounds. The conservation area centres around the old lock and Lord Line building. The latter (locally listed) is now one of only four buildings that survive within the conservation area, the others being the grade II listed Hydraulic Pump House & Tower, the unlisted Insurance Buildings and the unlisted Sea Fish Industry Authority building. The construction of new flood defence works are essential for the protection of the City. The majority of the proposed works through the conservation area and wider site comprise a temporary modular concrete block wall system. This is a sensible approach as realignment may be required in the future to accommodate redevelopment of the area. The proposed route of the defences is acceptable and provision has been made for equal access over the new wall to allow ingress and egress to and from the bullnose. The short section of permanent flood defence wall between the lock entrance and the Insurance Buildings follows the line of the existing modern flood defences, with the only real difference being one of height. Therefore, by virtue of their nature and route, the proposed flood defence works at St Andrew’s Dock will not adversely affect the character and appearance of the St Andrew’s Dock conservation area (currently a derelict industrial site) or the setting of a listed building.

RSPB Recognises the importance of the scheme, are keen to ensure that potential adverse impacts from the scheme on the estuary’s importance are fully addressed. Identifies predicted likely significant effects as direct and indirect loss of habitat. Also notes potential for disturbance to wildlife during period of construction.

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

Make the following comments – Holding Objection – the proposal states that mitigation for the loss of habitat will be by creation of a re-alignment scheme at Skeffling. This has not been secured. Furthermore, the Skeffling scheme lies some 20kms+ downstream from the Hull Frontage scheme and is unlikely to provide suitable useable features for individuals and populations of species within the locality of the loss Protected species surveys – the PEA (Preliminary Ecological Appraisal) was conducted in 2015, no updated surveys or assessment included within the PEA, due to the nature of the area surrounding the scheme which provides few opportunities for breeding and wintering birds it is appropriate for a further assessment area to be made based on previous surveys and desktop data. No clear assessment to justify downgrading of bat roost potential for adjacent buildings.

Joint Local Access Forum

Overall comment – JLAF supports the proposal in principle subject to the following comments. The proposed works will impact on the PRoW during the development phase, affecting walkers and cyclists, and it is essential that necessary diversions are clear and well-publicised on site and by other means.

Comments from individual members form the overall view with more detail expressed such as – scheme offers some improvements such as added seats and allowing cyclist to get their bikes up the steps over Albert Dock sheds more easily; PRoW will ultimately be submerged, not unhappy in the short term though, concern over vandalism to glass screens.

Trans Pennine Trail

The applicant states the proposal does not impact on the public right of way, this is incorrect, the proposal impacts on the Trans Pennine Trail (TPT). TPT supports this flood defence scheme. The proposal impacts by way of temporary closures/diversions during the period of construction, a programme of such closures/diversion should be submitted to the TPT office. A minimum width of 2.5m must be maintained.

Other representations

Objection from business located on docks and affected by proposal at Lord’s Clough, states that the proposal would result in the bulk handling storage facility flooding and damaging stockpiled material (primarily gypsum and coal) potentially taking it outside of specification. Also it creates potential for flooding of offices and workshops, rail loading pad and the site has electric motors and power lines which cannot be submerged. Proposal would have an adverse effect on business operating from this site. Suggest a bund should be constructed to the east of the terminal to protect the site.

ABP – discussions have been taking place with the applicant. ABP are currently working on an alternative proposal for submission to the applicant.

Letter from a landowner in the Old Town who is supportive of proposals but raises points about method of piling, future ownership and maintenance of the piles.

Seven letters have been received from residents of Victoria Village generally supporting the flood defences but raising concerns about the ramps and anti-social behaviour which may arise from the presence of the ramps, increased opportunity for overlooking of properties by users of the ramps, reduction in security of properties adjacent to the ramps.

Letter from agent on behalf of a land owner at St Andrew’s Dock, raising concerns regarding the alignment of the flood defence, and the temporary nature of the flood defence. Considers there is a conflict between the proposal and the land allocation in the Local Plan as land to the south of the defence would not be defended against flood. The land owner is in agreement with the principle of improving flood defences but the current proposals are not acceptable as they are likely to be prejudicial to the prospects for re-developing the area.

Comments from structures, safety and emergency planning, the attached drawing shows the proposed defence level to be raised to 6.4m AOD, but the area around the lock gates is only at 5.85m AOD and the lock gates at approx. 6.12m AOD. This would fill both Humber and Railway Docks leaving them very close to over topping. The result of this would be substantial damage to the vessels and the infrastructure in the marina. Has the option of increasing the height of the lock gates and the surrounding area been considered? Need some assurances from the EA as part of this planning application, that leaving the gates as they are will not put the Marina at risk of flooding.

APPLICANT’S CASE

The planning application is subject of an Environmental Statement and following a Scoping Report prepared by Hull City Council includes consideration of the following matters Arboriculture, Construction Strategy, Contaminated Land, Preliminary Ecologist Appraisal, Ecology and Biodiversity Technical Information Report, Historic Environment, Inter Tidal Survey, Noise and Vibration, Socio-economics, Water Framework Directive. A Non-technical summary provides an overview of the matters covered in detail in the reports. The application also includes a Planning Statement, a Flood Risk Assessment, an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regs and drawings showing the alignment and elevational details of the proposal along with cross sections and visualisations.

Environmental Statement

The Environmental Statement Non technical Summary provides the background to the scheme and an overview of the same. It goes on in section 3 to give a summary of environmental effects. These are summarised below:

Townscape and amenity:

The study area was sub-divided into six townscape character areas, St Andrew’s Quay Retail Park, St. Andrew’s Dock, William Wright and Albert Docks, Island Wharf, Humber Dock basin and Victoria Pier, Victoria Dock Village west and east; and Lord’s Clough.

It was recognised that construction activity will reduce tranquillity and amenity in the Island Wharf, Humber Dock Basin and Victoria Pier; and Victoria Dock Village areas. The removal of trees in these areas would also have a significant adverse effect in these areas.

Effects from similar activities in areas where the townscape character sensitivity and tranquillity is lower are not predicted to be significant. These areas are St Andrew’s Quay and Dock, William Wright and Albert Docks and Lord’s Clough.

Post construction, changes to the townscape character will occur as a result of new or raised defences, ramps and steps, new planting and street furniture. The effects are predicted to be significant in the Island Wharf, Humber Dock basin and Victoria Pier and, Victoria Dock Village areas but not significant in the remaining areas.

Visual Amenity

During the construction phase anybody living or working near to, or visiting areas near to the site, will be adversely affected.

Post construction the scheme will be seen in the context of existing defences and from the north views will be screened by intervening building and to some degree by vegetation. The increased height of the defences along the Trans-Pennine Trail will partially screen views of the Humber Estuary and some people at certain times are likely to be adversely affected. These would be users of the Trans – Pennine Trail and recreational establishments close to it and at Victoria Pier and Humber Dock Basin, residents of and visitors to Nelson Street, and some residents of Victoria Dock Village.

Historic Environment

This considers built heritage and archaeology. Parts of the proposal are within two conservation areas, the Old Town Conservation Area and St Andrew’s Dock Conservation Area. A scheduled monument is situated in Victoria Dock Village east and west. There are a number of Listed buildings within 250m of the boundary of the site.

There are no significant construction effects predicted and there are no significant operational effects predicted.

Socio- economics

The socio-economic assessment considered issues such as the population of Hull (employment) the economy (un-employment) and land use resources (residential property and businesses, public access, community resources).

It identified:

Temporary construction employment - not likely to be plentiful

Temporary increase in economic activity – neutral effect

Disruption to people and businesses – assessed as minor

Temporary land take by construction compounds – at worst moderate effect near to residential areas

Permanent land take of the defences – minor adverse effect

Disruption to Pubic Right of Way – minor adverse effect due to temporary closures

Disruption to residents and businesses on frontage – moderate effect but of a temporary nature

Properties enjoying a better standard of flood protection – major beneficial impact from permanent improved flood defences

Safeguarding jobs – major benefit due to protection of businesses from flood impacts

Traffic and transport

Assessed the impact of the construction phases, there wold be no operational traffic and transport issues due to the nature of the scheme, negligible impacts during construction phase.

Noise and vibration

No significant adverse effects predicted from noise and vibration except at Victoria Pier and Humber Dock Basin. (Note the revised scheme removes the build out into the estuary and comprises increasing the height of the existing flood defences – no likely significant effect from noise and vibration predicted)

Potentially significant adverse effects from construction works to residents of Victoria Dock Village, may last for more than ten days out of fifteen

Construction vibration will be mitigated through site specific measures in consultation with the planning authority.

Contaminated land

No operational issues due to nature of completed project. Limited risk during construction phase.

Construction

Temporary effects – main risk is presence of asbestos within underlying soil, mitigation will be implemented if necessary

Permanent effects – no change or slight increase, not likely to be significant due to embedded mitigation

Ecology and Biodiversity

During construction non-significant impacts are identified due to reduction of breeding bird habitat (loss of trees/grassland); piling noise/vibration affecting grey seal, harbour porpoise, river and sea lamprey; and loss of mudflat.

Note – considers loss of mudflat at Victoria Pier, the proposal has been revised to remove the build out into the estuary so no direct loss of mudflat will occur.

Habitat comprising trees, shrubs and grassed areas lost during construction will be replaced

Habitat loss as a result of coastal squeeze is considered in detail in the Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regs.

Flood Risk Assessment

The proposal would improve flood defences along the frontage.

Water Framework Directive

The assessment concludes that the scheme is unlikely to have a long term adverse impact on the waterbodies and will not cause deterioration in status or prevent the water bodies meeting their target status in the future.

Cumulative Effects

Temporary adverse effects that occur within the scheme have been identified in the construction phase but can be mitigated by management approaches.

There were no cumulative effects with other schemes (committed development in the city) due to the distance between committed scheme and this project.

Flood Risk Assessment

The Flood Risk Assessment describes the Scheme and considers the Scheme Objective, and sets out the Need for the Scheme. It includes a Sequential and Exception Test, entitled ‘Impact of Completed Development on Fluvial and Tidal Flood Risk’.

This shows some raising of flood levels in extreme events up stream and on the south bank.

Appropriate Assessment under Habitat Regs

The applicant has submitted an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regs. It identifies the European designations of the Humber Estuary and its qualifying features. The assessment concludes that it cannot be ascertained that the project would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the European site. Adverse effects on integrity of the site arise from direct and indirect loss of habitat.

Planning Statement

The Planning Statement comprises six sections; Introduction; Site Description; The Scheme; Planning Policy; Assessment and, Conclusion.

The conclusion states ‘The increased flood defence will provide increased protection to established businesses, residential properties and community resources, which will result in major significant economic and social benefits to the city. The development will also safeguard existing land allocations along the length of the scheme, allowing for continued expansion of these areas in the future.

The materials for the scheme have been carefully considered to be fit for purpose for the current and future need of the flood defence. They have been chosen to integrate into the existing surroundings and the existing flood defences and also afford the opportunity for further increases in defence levels at a later time.

Following completion of the scheme the Trans-Pennine trail will be improved through the enhancement and integration of existing public open spaces along the route. New access ramps and steps will be installed to allow all users to access the trail.

Environmental mitigation has been proposed to lessen the environmental impact locally, the scheme is predicted to cause some temporary significant impacts from noise and vibration to properties during the period of construction.

Overall it is considered that the proposed development will have no significant negative impacts to existing communities, tourism or the business of Hull during construction and operation as a result of the increased flood protection being brought forward.

It is considered the scheme constitutes sustainable development, as defined in paragraph 8 of the NPPF by achieving economic, social and environmental gains.

For the reasons set out in this statement and the supporting application, plans and documentation the Council is requested to grant planning permission for the proposed development.

PLANNING FRAMEWORK

Hull Local Plan 2016 to 2032

Policy 1 – Economic growth

Policy 2 – Employment allocations

Policy 3 – Housing requirements and site allocations

Policy 14 – Design

Policy 16 – Heritage Considerations

Policy 37 – Flood defences Policy 44 – Biodiversity and wildlife

Policy 45 - Trees

Other Material Considerations:-

National Planning Policy Framework

NPPF section:

5 – paragraph 59 Delivering a sufficient supply of housing

6 – paragraph 80 Building a strong competitive economy

7 – paragraph 85 Ensuring the vitality of town centres

8 – paragraph 91Promoting healthy and safe communities

11 – paragraph 117 making effective use of land

14 – paragraph 148 to 169 – meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change

15 – paragraph 170 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

16 – paragraph 184 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017

The Habitats Regulations require that, where a proposal is not directly connected with or necessary for site management or nature conservation, an assessment of the likely significant effects of the proposal (either alone or in combination with other schemes) is to be undertaken by the Competent Authority (in this case Hull City Council). Where it is found that the project is likely to have significant effects on a European site, the Competent Authority must undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications for that site in view of the site's nature conservation objectives.

If environmental harm cannot be avoided or mitigated and as a consequence it is concluded that the project will adversely affect the integrity of a European site, before permission can be granted it will have to be demonstrated that there are no alternative solutions and that Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) apply whereupon the Secretary of State will have to be notified. Further, if the proposal results in the loss of habitat, compensatory habitat must be secured before consent can be granted.

The Secretary of State has a period of 21 days to consider the project, during which the Competent Authority must not grant consent for the project. In such a situation, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that any necessary compensatory measures have been identified and can be taken in order to ensure that the coherence of the network of Natura 2000 sites is protected.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

Description and Background and Procedural Matters

The proposal is a hybrid application comprising a full application relating to the flood defences at Victoria Dock Village East and West and to the defences at St Andrew’s Quay, St Andrew’s Dock, William Wright Dock, Albert Dock and Lord’s Clough.

The outline application relates to the defences at Island Wharf, Humber Dock Basin, Minerva and Victoria Piers and Nelson Street. Matters to be considered as part of the outline application are layout, scale, and access. Appearance and landscaping are matters reserved for later consideration. As the outline application is partly within a conservation area indicative proposals with regard to the appearance have been submitted for some parts of the scheme. The scheme is due to be complete by the end of 2020.

The application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment. The applicant applied to the Local Planning Authority for a screening opinion in September 2016 which determined that the works were development under Schedule 2 and at that stage the impacts of the development were not clear and, as a precautionary approach, an EIA was required.

The applicant requested a Scoping Opinion with regard to the content of the Environmental Statement from the Local Planning Authority which was prepared on 1 st November 2017.

The application site is located on the north bank of the Humber Estuary which is a Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar site. The proposal was subject of an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations. The Appropriate Assessment concluded that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site.

Where a proposal has an adverse effect on the integrity of a site the Local Planning Authority if minded to approve, must derogate determination to the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government for him to affirm.

Parts of the proposed defences would be located within conservation areas, being St Andrew’s Dock Conservation Area and the Old Town Conservation Area, and would be close to some Listed buildings, most notably around the Victoria pier area. As such section 66 and 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 are relevant along with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which is relevant for all planning applications.

Principle

The proposal is for improved flood defences along the frontage with the Humber Estuary at St Andrew’s Quay Retail Park, St Andrew’s Dock, William Wright Dock, Albert Dock, Island Wharf, Humber Dock Basin, Victoria Pier, Victoria Dock and Lord’s Clough.

The improvements to the defences would be a mix of new defences set back from the existing defence line; increasing the height of existing defences in their current location; and earth works.

The new defences would be located at St Andrew’s Quay, St Andrew’s Dock and Victoria Dock village. Defences which would be increased in height would be at William Wright Dock, Albert Dock, Island Wharf, Humber Dock Basin, Victoria Pier/Nelson Street.

Earth works defences would be limited to sites at Lord’s Clough.

The objective of the Humber Hull Frontages Improvements Package is to improve the tidal flood defences along the frontage so that they provide a standard of protection (SoP) of 0.5% (1:200) against tidal flooding in the year 2040. Where feasible, the works also adopt a managed adaptive approach, which enables the scheme to be adapted and the defence to be increased over time to address future climate change needs, up to the year 2115.

Policy Considerations

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states ‘if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise’. Relevant policies in the Local Plan are listed above.

Allocated Sites

The proposal includes a temporary flood defence located on land allocated for employment. Policy 1 considers uses other than B uses on employment land.

Policy 1(1) states that a growing economy will be supported through the identification and maintenance of a wide portfolio of sites that can accommodate demand for class B uses. Part of the proposal comprises a temporary flood defence wall bisecting a site allocated for employment uses. The site is on the southern side of St Andrew’s Dock.

The proposed wall would not prevent the site from being developed. The proposed wall would be a temporary modular wall along the southern edge of the access road between Mr Chu’s and the lock. The proposed wall can relatively easily be removed and replaced with alternative flood defences designed to protect the site as developed.

The proposal would not result in the loss of employment land by preventing development

Policy 2 list allocated sites. In the supporting text it recognises that the former St Andrew’s Dock provides a long standing development opportunity, however it appreciates that highways capacity potentially limits access, suggesting the site will be delivered later in the plan period.

The proposed flood defences being temporary would allow the site to be brought forward in the future whilst in the short term providing the site and the wider area with an appropriate standard of protection which may contribute to accelerating redevelopment of the site.

The proposal does not conflict with Policy 1 or Policy 2 of the Local Plan

The Local Plan is required to identify a supply of housing land that is sufficient to meet the needs over the plan period. Policy 3 refers to housing allocations

Island Wharf is an allocated site with a potential to accommodate 200 dwellings. The proximity to a source of flooding would have to be addressed in any proposal for the site. The proposed flood defences would address this and afford a standard of protection to 2024.The flood defences effectively remove, or overcome, a potential obstacle to the development of this site. The proposal is not in conflict with policy 3 of the Local Plan.

The proposal will be considered in relation to other policies in the Local Plan below under heading reflecting the policy.

Design and Heritage (policy 14, 16 and 37)

This appraisal will consider the detailed design of each section of the defences the subject of the full application individually at this stage.

St Andrew’s Quay – west of Makro

A wall formed by steel piles is to be created perpendicular to the frontage to cut off the flow route over the vacant site to the west of Makro. The piles will extend approximately 2.0m above ground level and have a 2.4m high palisade fence to one side to afford security. The defence line would protect the established retail premises but not the area to the west of Makro which the Council during the preparation of the local Plan identified as greenspace.

Consideration

The design of the defence and the access arrangements for this section are considered to be acceptable.

SAQ - main frontage between Makro and Sailmakers PH

A new concrete tidal flood defence wall will be constructed at the back edge of the Trans- Pennine trail (TPT), set back approximately 2.6m from the top edge of the existing revetment. The existing railings on top of the revetment will be retained and the TPT will continue to run adjacent to the landward side of the railings on the wet, or river side of the defences.

The proposed tidal flood wall will have a defence level of 7.30m AOD and will include a wave return coping. The wall will be approximately 1.5m in height and the footpath along which the TPT runs has been designed with sufficient width to allow for a new wave return coping to be added in the future to provide flood defence to 2115.

A new reinforced wall is proposed to protect the external courtyard and rear of the Sailmakers Pub. The wall will be built to a defence level of 7.50m AOD to provide flood protection to 2115 levels. The wall will be around 2.1m in height on the courtyard side, 3m high on the TPT side due to the change in levels between courtyard and TPT footpath. The new wall will include a wave return coping as well as waterproofing and local strengthening of the existing building fabric.

Lost Trawlermen memorial

At this location the tidal flood defence will become incorporated into the site for the proposed permanent memorial gardens. The ground level will be raised and the flood defence wall will retain the ground to form the shape of a ship’s bow. Ramps and steps will be provided within the vicinity of the memorial to provide access to the TPT.

The Lost Trawlermen Memorial was granted planning permission in 2014. The proposed alignment has regard to that previous permission, however it has expired and will therefore be the subject of a separate planning application by the proposers of the memorial. Design

For the stretch along the frontage from Makro to the Sailmakers Public House the new tidal flood wall will be constructed from concrete, selected so that the new wall matches the material of the existing flood revetment. It is considered that this finish is appropriate in this location, given that it is a location characterised by hardstanding areas, infrastructure and light industrial/commercial finishes of the buildings of St Andrew’s Quay Retail Park.

At the Sailmakers Pub the wall will be constructed from concrete with brickwork facing and glazing panels. The new wall will include glazed panels to maintain existing views of the Humber Estuary. The scheme also includes in this section the provision of new seating recessed into the flood wall; siting of information boards and finger posts; the provision of artwork panels at key locations which will be incorporated into the flood wall; incorporation of the existing historic mooring posts (identified on the landscape plans as heritage assets) relocated from further along the frontage at St Andrew’s Quay to the west of the Lost Trawlermen Memorial; shrub planting and a total of 35 trees to be planted; and seeding of the concrete ‘honeycomb’ blocks revetment with marine grasses.

Access

Access to and from the TPT from the retail park and public house is essential. New ramps at a 1:20 gradient will be installed to provide access across the wall. Ramps will have landing platforms, tactile surfaces and lighting. In total, there will be seven access steps and ramps within the St Andrew’s Quay section.

Consideration

The TPT will be maintained with a width of not less than 2.5m and access point to it shall be ramped. Impacts on the TPT would be temporary and the TPT would be capable of functioning as it does now after the defences have been installed.

The proposed defences would be located on the grass strip between the access road and the TPT. The flood defence would be approximately 2.3m above the level of the access road. This will result in the loss of views of the estuary to users of the access road and the car park. Opportunities for public art to ‘break up’ the expanse of concrete should be created on both sides of the wall.

The design of the wall and the access arrangements for this section are considered to be acceptable.

Sailmakers PH to St Andrew’s Dock

A new concrete tidal flood defence wall will be constructed at the back edge of the Trans- Pennine trail (TPT), set back approximately 2.6m from the top edge of the existing revetment. The existing railings on top of the revetment will be retained and the TPT will continue to run adjacent to the landward side of the railings on the wet, or river side of the defences.

The proposed tidal flood wall will have a defence level of 7.30m AOD and will include a wave return coping. The wall will be approximately 1.5m in height and the footpath along which the TPT runs has been designed with sufficient width to allow for a new wave return coping to be added in the future to provide flood defence to 2115. Directly south of Mr Chu’s restaurant, a new concrete tidal flood defence will be constructed. In order to incorporate a new access ramp with a minimum width of 2m down to the lower TPT level, a short length of the existing defence wall and a corresponding length adjoining Mr Chu’s restaurant car park will need to be demolished to allow the re-alignment of the ramp.

At the lower TPT level, a new concrete wall will be constructed in front of the existing brickwork wall that supports the overhanging restaurant; the new wall will be approximately 0.6m higher than the existing, approximately 1.8m in total.

The new tidal flood walls will be set at a height of 6.8m AOD and will include a wave return coping that will provide tidal flood protection to 2040 levels. The coping will be designed to enable the wall to be raised in height to provide flood protection to 2115 levels.

To the east side of Mr Chu’s restaurant, adjacent to an electrical substation, the proposed concrete tidal flood defence wall will have a defence level of 6.8m AOD (approximately 1.8m high but with no wave-return coping required), which will provide flood protection to 2040 levels. A temporary modular concrete wall will also be constructed, roughly parallel to the Humber Estuary around a new memorial to trawlermen called ‘The Last Trip Garden’ which is proposed to be erected in the space between the permanent defence wall and the temporary modular wall. This created space for the memorial will be located on the dry side of the defence.

A temporary modular wall will be constructed of interlocking concrete blocks, from the south- east corner of Mr Chu’s restaurant site, around the new memorial space and will then follow the southern edge of the existing access road towards the lock. The wall will run along the road bridge over the lock then run parallel with the lock before joining the existing flood defence just before the ‘Insurance Buildings’.

The wall will have a defence level of 6.5m AOD, approximately 1.5m higher than the existing ground level to provide flood protection up to 2040 levels. It is anticipated that by 2040, the now derelict site will have been developed by others and as such the temporary block wall will have been removed and alternative flood defences constructed to the future level of protection.

Design

At the western end of St Andrew’s Dock, next to Mr Chu’s the wall will be approximately 1.9m high, an increase of approximately 1m from the existing wall height. It will be constructed from concrete and be installed with brickwork facing to match the existing walls. At the lower level of the TPT, to the west of Mr Chu’s restaurant, the wall will have brickwork facing to match the existing structure.

To the east side of Mr Chu’s restaurant, the wall will be constructed from concrete and clad in timber. The temporary modular wall around the Last Trip Memorial will consist of precast concrete blocks which interlock to form a gravity flood defence wall.

The landscaping proposals for this Scheme section are minimal and temporary and have been designed to allow flexibility as the site is likely to be redeveloped in the future and include new seating benches interspersed with timber planters; information boards and finger posts; at key locations there will be artwork panels incorporated into the flood wall and: existing heritage assets i.e. cobbles and mooring bollards, will be protected. Access

A new ramp at a 1:20 gradient will be installed to provide access across the wall to the TPT. The ramp will also have a landing platform, tactile surfaces and lighting incorporated into its design. In addition, a new set of steps will be constructed to enable future access to the lock gates. In total, following completion of the Scheme, there will be three access ramps within the St Andrew’s Dock section.

Consideration

The design of the wall and the access arrangements for this section are considered to be acceptable subject to the alignment of the flood wall between Mr Chu’s and the lock serving the former St Andrew’s Dock is temporary.

William Wright Dock

The proposals for this area comprise a concrete wave-return coping will installed on top of the existing flood defence wall. This will raise the defence level to 6.6m AOD, which will provide flood protection to 2040 levels. The flood wall will be between 1.8m and 1.9m in height, an increase of 0.6m on the existing wall.

Design

The proposed wave-return coping will be constructed from concrete, to integrate the new coping into the existing defence, and has been designed to enable the wall to be further raised in height in the future to provide flood protection to 2115 levels.

The landscaping proposals for this Scheme section are minimal due to the industrial nature of the area. The existing heritage assets, such as the mooring bollards, will be protected and potentially refurbished.

Access

The flood defence level and access along the TPT will be maintained by re-profiling the existing ramp on the TPT to match the new flood defence level where it transitions into the Albert Dock section. The ramp will have a 1:20 gradient and will have landing platforms, tactile surfaces and lighting incorporated into its design. In total, following completion of the Scheme, there will be one set of access steps and one ramp within the William Wright Dock section.

Consideration

The design of the wall and the access arrangements for this section are considered to be acceptable.

Albert Dock

On the most western part of this section, the proposal is to install a concrete wave return coping on top of the recently constructed tidal defence wall to increase the height from 6.3m to 7.0m AOD and provide flood protection to 2115 levels. This will be an extension of 0.7m to a total wall height of 2m.

At the eastern end of Albert Dock, south of the three warehouse buildings, a new flood defence wall will be constructed adjacent to the Humber Estuary side of the existing tidal flood defence. This will increase the height of the defence to 7.0m AOD and provide a wave return profile to give protection to 2115 flood levels. The increase in wall height from existing is approximately 0.3m.

A short section of external wall on the most eastern warehouse in this section will be used as a flood defence. Works will involve waterproofing and, potentially, some structural strengthening of the building.

At the ‘bullnose’ the existing defence will have a wave return coping installed to a level of 7.0m AOD. This will provide flood protection to 2115 levels. At the northern part of the ‘bullnose’, a ramp will be constructed to 6.6m AOD which will provide flood protection to 2040 levels.

Design

As per the works alongside William Wright Dock the new wave return coping will all be constructed from concrete. It has been designed in such a way to enable the wall to be integrated into the existing wall and be further raised in height in the future to provide flood protection levels.

It is proposed that security fencing on the proposed flood defence wall between the boundary of the Associated British Ports land and the ‘wet side’ of the TPT will be either palisade fencing or a rota-spike fencing.

As this is adjacent to the TPT any fencing should be coloured in the interests of amenity.

Access

The TPT will run on the ‘wet side’ of the recently constructed tidal defence wall. The existing steps that form part of the TPT and provide access to the aerial walkway above the warehouse roofs will be retained.

A new ramp at a 1:20 gradient will be constructed to provide access across the wall. The ramp will have landing platforms, tactile surfaces and lighting incorporated into its design. Two bicycle wheeling ramps will be installed on the two existing sets of steps that take the TPT over the warehouse roofs.

Consideration

The design of the wall and the access arrangements for this section are considered to be acceptable subject to the palisade fence being coloured.

Victoria Dock Village West

The tidal flood defence wall will be to a height of 6.4m AOD and will include a concrete wave return coping that will provide flood protection to 2040 levels. The wall will be approximately 1.3m in height when viewed from the Trans-Pennine Trail. The wall would be located on the north side of the promenade/TPT adjacent to the boundaries of residential properties.

Design

The defence wall will be constructed with a concrete core with brickwork cladding. The coping will be designed to enable the wall to be raised in height in the future to provide flood protection levels. At Victoria Dock Half-Tide Basin, glass panels will be incorporated into the flood defence walls where the alignment borders residential properties. The proposals for this Scheme section includes ramps at a 1:20 gradient to provide access across the wall. Ramps will have landing platforms, tactile surfaces and lighting; new seating benches, some of which are incorporated into the ramps, including amphitheatre style seating adjacent to the pond at Plimsoll Way; information boards and finger posts; at key locations there will be artwork panels incorporated into the flood wall; and shrub planting and 20 trees to be planted.

It is anticipated that 15 trees will be lost as a result of the works within this section.

Access

The proposed flood defence wall will be set back near the fence line of residential gardens on the landward side of the TPT, allowing the TPT to be retained on its current alignment.

The proposal has been revised to remove the steps and ramps which would have provided access over the flood defence wall. The proposal now comprises hinged flood gates which will be open for the majority of time to allow free and easy access to and from the TPT. Closing of the gates is the responsibility of Hull City Council when advised by the Environment Agency. This will be the subject of a condition requiring a management plan.

To the west of the Lock at the Humber Dock Basin, a flood gate will be installed which will remain open to avoid obstruction of a Public Right of Way. The gate would be closed if there is a forecasted flood event. The existing steps which lead to a raised area on the Lock gates will be retained as part of the proposals. The flood defence wall alignment to the eastern side of the existing Lock gates has been designed to tie in with an existing ramp to restrict the height, above ground level, of the new flood wall. A new ramp, beside the Lancelot Court buildings, would provide another connection point in terms of views and step-free access.

Consideration

The design of the wall and the access arrangements for this section are considered to be acceptable subject to a condition securing the management of the gates and the closing at times of risk of flood.

Victoria Dock Village East

The proposal includes the demolition of the existing tidal flood defence wall near the fence line of residential gardens. This would be replaced with a new tidal flood defence wall constructed to a height of 6.8m AOD, which will include a wave return coping and will provide flood protection to 2040 levels. The wall height will be between approximately 1.3m to 1.6m high.

Design

The new flood defences wall will be constructed in concrete with brickwork cladding. A concrete wave return will also be included on top of the new wall. This has been designed enable the wall to be further raised in height in the future to provide flood protection levels.

Given the proximity of the wall to some residential properties the wall adjacent to Lancelot Court and Crane Road will contain glass panel inserts where there are property windows that face on to the wall. At the far eastern end of the section a grassed earth embankment will be constructed and will form the flood defence.

The landscape proposals for this section include: ramps at a 1:20 gradient to provide access across the wall with landing platforms, tactile surfaces and lighting; new seating benches incorporated into the ramps; information boards and finger posts; at key locations there will be artwork panels incorporated into the flood wall; and shrub planting and 49 trees to be planted.

Access

The existing circular footpath feature at Half Tide Basin will be reconfigured to provide pedestrian access over the new flood wall. There will be gates at a number of locations to maintain existing access to the TPT from a number of residential roads that run perpendicular to the frontage. In total it is proposed that there will be six flood gates within the Victoria Dock Village West section.

Consideration

The design of the wall and the access arrangements for this section are considered to be acceptable subject to a condition securing the management of the gates and the closing at times of risk of flood. Objections have been received from residents of Victoria Dock Village mainly about the ramps in the original proposal. These comments will be addressed later in the report.

Revisions

The proposal has been revised since originally submitted, notably the ramps which were to provide access over the defence wall at various locations on Victoria Dock Village where they were adjacent to boundaries of residential properties have been deleted and replaced with flood gates. Ramps are retained at the Half Basin west of Lancelot Court and at Spinnaker Close.

These flood gates would normally be in the open position to allow pedestrian permeability between the promenade, being part of the TPT and the Victoria Dock Village. These pedestrian links exist already and are just being retained. No additional links are proposed and the scheme does not result in the loss of any links either. The flood gates will need to be closed manually at times of risk of flood. Currently Hull City Council close a number of flood gates when advised by the Environment Agency and are confident that they can accommodate the closure of these additional gates.

No details of the gates to be installed have been submitted, only details of typical, or generic, gates have been submitted. The area they are to be installed in is residential in character and careful consideration will be needed with regard to the appearance of the gates and the details of their installation. The gates present an opportunity for further public art to be introduced into the scheme. These matters can be the subject of a condition.

The proposed works at Lord’s Clough have been removed from this application. The applicant has carried out more detailed modelling and determined that there is no need for the works.

The outline application

The outline application includes three reserved matters to be considered at this stage: layout; scale, and access. Landscaping and appearance are matters reserved for late consideration. With regards to appearance the proposal includes indicative proposals.

Island Wharf

Adjacent to the Albert Dock lock gates on the north side of the lock, it is proposed to install a wave return coping on top of the existing 6m AOD tidal flood defence to increase the height to 7.0m AOD, providing flood protection to 2115 levels. This will increase the wall height by 1m to produce a 2m high wall.

The proposal also includes a wave return coping as replacement coping for the rest of the existing defences to increase the flood defence level to 6.6m AOD. This will increase the existing wall height by 0.6m and will provide flood protection to 2040 levels.

Design

The proposed wave return coping across the whole of this section will be constructed from concrete. The coping would enable the wall to be further raised in height in the future to provide improved flood protection levels.

Landscape and details of the finishes will be confirmed on submission of reserved matters applications.

Based on the outline design it is currently anticipated that there will be no tree loss at this Scheme section.

Access

The proposal would ensure access points to the estuary would be re-provided, but it does not include any additional access steps or ramps within this section.

Consideration

The design of the defences for this section is considered to be acceptable in principle.

Humber Dock Basin

The proposal includes, on the northern and eastern wall of the Humber Dock Basin, the installation on the existing brick tidal flood defence of a wave return coping to provide a defence level of 6.4 m AOD, that will provide flood protection to 2040 levels. The new wall will run north-west past Mariner View building and extend onto Minerva Pier. The wall height will increase from 1.1m to 1.6m high. A flood gate will be installed at Minerva Pier to enable access.

No works will be required on the western wall of Humber Dock Basin as the wall is high enough to provide the required standard of protection. This was part of the design of the now complete Island Wharf office development scheme.

Based on the outline design it is currently anticipated that there will be no tree loss at this section. Access

Exiting access points to the estuary will be re-provided. No additional access steps or ramps are proposed to be installed within this section.

Consideration

The design of the defences for this section is considered to be acceptable in principle.

Victoria Pier/Nelson Street

The proposal in this section has been revised since the original proposal was submitted. A temporary scheme is now proposed which avoids the build out into the estuary and the corresponding loss of habitat which would need to be compensated for.

The original proposal would have resulted in the loss of 0.2ha of intertidal habitat due to encroachment into the estuary.

The revised proposal comprises a pre-cast concrete coping stone to the top of the existing flood defence wall along the Victoria Pier frontage. The coping would increase the wall height by 700mm from 5.8mAOD to 6.5mAOD. This is a temporary solution as the sheet steel piles which form the existing wall at Victoria Pier have a residual life of less than five years. This revision remains part of the outline planning application, as such detailed landscaping proposals have not been prepared. They are a reserved matter.

Design

No detailed design has been provided as the proposal is part of the outline element of the application where appearance is a reserved matter. Indicative proposals for the previous scheme were submitted but are not relevant to the revised scheme.

Access

Existing access points will be maintained. No additional access points are proposed.

Consideration

This proposed coping would raise the height of the defence relative to ground levels in Nelson Street from approximately 1.1m to approximately 1.8m (approximately to the top of the existing metal railings) creating a visual barrier for the majority of people and disrupting the relationship between land and water, denying the casual observer/pedestrian vistas of the estuary and horizon. The proposal would make users of Nelson Street feel enclosed.

As the proposal is an outline proposal with appearance a reserved matter, there is scope for addressing this by requiring any reserved matters application for appearance to address the loss of views south by use of strategically placed glazed panels.

Compounds

The main construction compound is an established compound for the River Hull and Hull+ projects and is located at 26 Lime Street. The compound is situated in a mixed industrial area fronting onto the River Hull. This compound will generally operate Monday to Friday between the hours of 07.00 – 18.30 and would provide the main site offices, parking for all contractor vehicles and for the delivery of smaller materials.

Construction materials will be transported from the main construction compound via the public highway, only when materials are required. Construction staff will use mini-buses to travel from the main construction compound to the construction works to minimise the number of vehicles parked in the vicinity of the works.

Satellite Construction Compounds

Satellite construction compounds for the storage of materials and welfare facilities will need to be established within or near to each Scheme section. The compounds will be temporary.

All areas used as compounds will be reinstated upon completion of the scheme.

Compounds will be fenced to reduce problems associated with wind and to prevent unauthorised access and will be set out to ensure that vehicles are able to reverse safely into the area for unloading. Plant working within the compound will be kept to a minimum due to the small footprint.

In each location there will be a welfare unit which will have an integral silenced diesel generator.

There will be no fuels stored at the satellite construction compounds to minimise the risk of pollution events.

The most appropriate sites for the satellite construction compounds are St Andrews Quay and Dock north of St Andrew’s Dock, Island Wharf, west end of site, Humber Dock Basin, site of former Harbourmasters Tavern, Nelson Street, overflow car park serving The Deep, and an area of amenity grassland at Victoria Dock Village East.

Consideration

Subject to conditions relating to hours of use, activities permitted on the sites and restoration of the sites the proposed compounds are acceptable.

Conclusion

Each distinct section of the proposal is acceptable in principle in terms of design (policy 14) and where appropriate, heritage (policy 16).

Policy 14 states that development should demonstrate how its design supports the delivery of a high quality environment particularly with regard to the relationship between the development and the surrounding built form in terms of: character; use; layout and connectivity; setting and relationship to heritage assets; scale; detailing and materials. It should provide inclusive access and promote public safety.

The proposal meets these requirements of policy 14.

The proposal is located within a public space, adjacent to the TPT and public areas within the Old Town Conservation Area. Policy 14 encourages the creation of public spaces which encourage community interaction through inclusive design, high quality public realm, appropriate soft and hard landscaping, minimising the potential for anti-social behaviour, and providing public art.

The proposal is accessible to all and would contribute positively to a high quality public realm with appropriate landscaping. The revision in Victoria Dock Village, being the deletion of the ramps removes a potential focus for anti-social behaviour. The proposal includes provision of panels within the wall for public art. The provision of flood gates at Victoria Dock Village creates another opportunity for the inclusion of public art.

Subject to conditions relating to public art the proposal is not in conflict with policy 14 of the Local Plan

Policy 16 refers to Heritage Considerations. The proposal extends into two conservation areas, St Andrew’s Dock and the Old Town. The Council’s conservation officer advises that as the majority of the proposed works in the St Andrew’s Dock Conservation area comprise a temporary modular concrete block wall system and the materials proposed along with the alignment of the wall, the proposal will not adversely affect the character and appearance of the St Andrew’s Dock conservation area (currently a derelict industrial site) or the setting of a listed building.

The proposed works within the Old Town Conservation Area are the subject of the outline element of the application. The proposal is to follow the present alignment of the flood defences and increase the height of the defences by installation of a coping. Appearance is a reserved matter, however the principle is acceptable. The proposed works at Victoria Pier are temporary only. Subject to detailed design the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and is therefore not in conflict with policy 16 of the Local Plan.

Equalities

The Council has a duty to consider equality issues.

The proposed flood wall would be predominantly located on the north side of the TPT. At St Andrew’s Quay and St Andrew’s Dock this would effectively separate the retail park and memorial areas from the TPT. To address this ramps with gradients of not more than 1:20 are to be installed along this stretch at the following locations: opposite the B&Q car park; opposite The Pod; at the car park side of Sailmakers PH and to the east of Sailmakers PH; opposite Pizza hut on St Andrew’s Quay east, and at the lock to St Andrew’s Dock. In total six ramped access points over the wall will be provided. Signs advising the distance to the nearest ramped access will be provided on the TPT side of the defences. This can be secured by a condition. Subject to conditions the proposal is considered to comply with the requirements regarding equalities.

The revision to install flood gates at Victoria Dock Village in place of ramps is acceptable in terms of equalities subject to the gates opening having level thresholds. This can be secured by a condition.

Biodiversity/Appropriate Assessment

This application falls to be considered under The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations).The City Council’s Appropriate Assessment is in Appendix A to this report and includes an assessment of Alternative Solutions and Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest, along with proposals for compensatory habitat. The Appropriate Assessment is to be considered before determination of this application.

Policy 44 relates to biodiversity and wildlife and states that development which may affect an existing European or Ramsar site should demonstrate through a Habitats Regulations Assessment that the impact will be acceptable.

An appropriate assessment has been undertaken which concludes that the proposal will have result in adverse effect on the integrity (AEOI) of the European site as a result of indirect habitat loss arising from coastal squeeze which cannot be mitigated against.

As a result the application must be derogated to the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government who must secure any necessary compensatory measures to ensure the overall coherence of the site is protected. This only takes place if, having identified adverse effect on integrity (AEOI) the competent authority, Hull City Council, is of the view that the project should still be approved having considered alternative solutions and any imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI).

It has been established that there will be adverse effect on integrity. Consideration must be had to any alternative solutions to see if it is possible to achieve the same result without having an adverse effect on the integrity of the site. Any alternative solution would have to afford at least the same standard of protection without the loss of habitat or any other negative impact.

Alternative Solutions

The proposal is for improved flood defences, to provide a standard of protection of 1 in 200 in 2040, which would be located either on the line of the existing defences or in a location to the rear, or on the landside of those defences. The proposal forms part of a wider strategy for flood defences on the Humber Estuary which was subject of an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regs. That assessment concluded that the strategy does represent ‘adverse effect on the integrity of the Humber estuary. Strategic alternatives were considered at that stage which included the ‘do nothing’, the ‘do minimum/business as usual’ and ‘do something’ options. ‘Do nothing’ was discounted on social and economic grounds; the ‘do minimum/business as usual’ option was discounted on environmental, social and economic grounds. The ‘do something’ option comprises ‘holding the line, that is to say maintaining or improving existing defences where it is economically justified.

The proposal is to improve the existing defences along the Hull Humber frontage. It fits within the strategic approach for the estuary where alternative proposals have already been considered.

However, this scheme has to be assessed on its own. Alternative solutions to hard defences have been considered as part of the Environmental Statement. These include enhanced flood warning systems, withdrawn defences leaving significant areas of the city and its inhabitants and occupants at serious risk from flooding, and the individual flood proofing of all properties at risk. These have been discounted on the grounds of unacceptable residual risk and technical infeasibility in the context of the overall objectives of the project.

The potential introduction of a Humber Estuary Tidal Surge Barrier towards the mouth of the estuary would represent a substantial nationally significant infrastructure project, with extensive implications for navigation, geomorphology and estuary dynamics, and consequently effects on the Humber Estuary European Marine Site from an ecological perspective. This alternative is understood to exist in early concept form only, and would have significant technical and financial feasibility issues. For these reason the potential alternative has been discounted also.

Paragraph 13 of the final DEFRA guidance states ‘ Alternative solutions to flood defence works around a flood prone village may include less ecologically harmful ways to conduct the works, but would very probably not involve reducing the works to protect fewer homes, or relocating the population of the village’.

Having regard to the nature, scale, timing, duration and location of the project the subject of this application and its objectives, there are no realistic alternative options which are financially, legally and technically feasible which would provide a similar level of defence having less or zero impact on the integrity of the estuary.

Imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI)

Defra guidance on Article 6(4) states ‘public interest can occur at national, regional or local level; as can IROPI provided the other elements of the test are met’ It goes on to say ‘projects which enact or are consistent with national strategic plans or policies are more likely to show a high level of public interest. Plans which fall outside national strategic plans may also be able to show IROPI’

The city has the largest number of properties at risk from flooding outside London at approximately 140,000 and is susceptible to flooding from tidal, fluvial, and pluvial sources. The city has been impacted by three significant tidal events in the past 65 years, most notably in the December 2013 tidal surge when 115 businesses and 149 homes were flooded due to overtopping of the existing defences.

The city has a population of over 260,000 and serves as the primary sub-regional economic and service centre for East Yorkshire and the wider Humber region, as well as a key gateway to Europe for freight and passengers. It has an estimated GVA of £5.594 m, with 125,000 employee jobs within its boundary alone.

The Port of Hull is one of the UK’s leading and fastest growing foreign-trading ports, and also the only passenger ferry port on the Humber, and between on the east coast between Harwich and Newcastle, with daily sailings to Rotterdam and Zeebrugge. The city has seen over £3bn worth of private and public sector investment over the past four years, and accommodates significant manufacturing bases in hi-tech, high value sectors such as off shore wind power, pharmaceuticals, healthcare and related R&D, and a growing digital sector.

The city also serves as a cultural and leisure centre for the sub-region and beyond, with £63m investment in existing and new culture and leisure infrastructure alongside it existing historic heritage.

The A63 is part of the national Strategic Road Network and the E20 Trans-European Network Route, as well as serving as a key local route for the city and its hinterland. HM Planning Inspectorate is currently handling a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project application to improve the route through the city centre to the value of circa £400m.

The Hull Local Plan (2016-2032) allocates 175 ha for additional employment development, alongside allocations for 11,700 new dwellings, including 2,500 homes within the city centre. The proposals would deliver improved flood defences providing a standard of protection of 1 in 200 up to the year 2040 based on current estimates of rising sea level due to climate change. These works would reduce flood risk to almost 113,000 homes and businesses, including homes and businesses in the City, significantly reducing the risk of death and injury through breach and rapid onset flooding caused by overtopping alongside physical damage to homes and businesses, with resultant residential displacement , loss of assets, and disruption to business continuity. Substantial private sector investment experienced in recent years had been at risk following the flood event of 2013, and the retention of expansion of some key businesses within the city was dependent on the Environment Agency, Lead Local Flood Authority, and Local Enterprise Partnership’s proactive response to the incident and the need to mitigate the future risk of flooding.

The recognised imperative for the works needs to be weighed against the potential risk and degree of harm to the estuary habitat. The loss of habitat would not be immediate on the completion of the improved defences but gradual, over time as sea levels rise and it is considered that the degree of coastal squeeze attributable to the raising of 6.5 km of the city’s frontage defences is significantly overridden by the substantial public benefit to be derived from protection the social, economic, and physical capital of the city of Hull. This assessment is informed by an understanding of the impacts of coastal squeeze on intertidal habitat and how the distribution and continued function of that habitat is being proactively managed spatially and temporally through the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy.

Compensatory Measures

The Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy seeks to apply a consistent and integrated approach to flood risk management whilst ensuring that the Environment Agency maintain the Humber Estuary, as a European Site, in a favourable condition.

The strategy commits to the compensation of habitat lost indirectly through coastal squeeze at a ratio of 1:1. .The applicant has provided evidence that shows currently there is a credit in terms of the balance between habitat creation and habitat loss in the estuary. Furthermore, the report demonstrates that the Humber will remain in credit throughout the lifespan of Hull Humber Frontages project.

Continued positive balance across the estuary during the lifetime of the project is provided by the proposals for a managed realignment scheme at Skeffling, where 225ha of compensatory habitat are planned to be created.

Consequently the local planning authority, as competent authority, consider that suitable compensatory measures for predicted losses, have been identified and adequately secured through the Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy, and that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 would therefore be protected.

Securing the compensatory habitat.

The proposal, in its revised form, results in the indirect loss of habitat as a result of coastal squeeze. Coastal squeeze is the loss of intertidal habitats caused by rising sea levels along coastlines which are fixed by hard engineering structures. As sea levels rise the area exposed at low tide is gradually reduced. Where there are no hard engineering structures the high and low water marks naturally migrate inland. Where hard engineering structures are present this is not possible and would eventually result in a situation where low water marks and high water marks are at the same position on a horizontal axis but at different heights on the vertical axis. Where coastal squeeze affects a protected site, such as the Humber Estuary, habitat which is lost must be compensated for. This applies not only to the construction of new defences but also the upgrading of existing defences.

To determine the compensatory measures required it is necessary for the ‘appropriate assessment’ and ‘integrity test’ to define the harm to the site. Compensatory measures are measures which need to be added to a project, above and beyond the measures already built into the project, in order to ensure that the overall ecological coherence of the site is maintained.

Such measures must be secured before consent is given. That is to say the decision maker should be satisfied that all the necessary legal, technical, financial and monitoring arrangements are in place so that the measures can be provided and remain in place. Compensatory habitat must be agreed with the statutory nature conservation body, in this case Natural England.

The applicant suggests that as coastal squeeze takes place at various rates and over many years, a strategic approach is the most effective way of compensating for these losses. The Humber Flood Risk Management Strategy (HFRMS) provides a mechanism for compensating for the habitat lost through coastal squeeze across the whole estuary. The HFRMS covers a period of time extending from 2000 - 2056. The strategy acknowledges that, due to the scale and nature of managed realignment schemes and the uncertainty associated with coastal squeeze, compensation for habitat loss will sometimes be in deficit as well as credit during that period.

Currently the ‘National Review of Statutory Habitat Compensation Associated with Flood and Coastal Risk Management Activity’ January 2018 report states that the estuary as a whole is in credit in terms of habitat. The report looks at projected area of habitat loss within defined periods, reported habitat creation, resulting in a cumulative balance which could be positive or negative. For the period up to 2025 it is projected that there would be a loss of 254ha of saltmarsh or mudflat within the Humber Estuary. Compensatory habitat already created or already being created with a high degree of confidence extends to 272ha with another 314 ha being created with a medium degree of certainty. A total of 586ha of compensatory habitat will be created which results in a positive balance of 332ha in the period up to 2025. In the period up to 2050 there is estimated to be a loss of 159ha which would result in a positive balance at the end of that period of 173ha.

The proposed flood defences are designed to provide a standard of protection up to 2040. This date falls within the second time period (Epoch2 – c2050) where there would be a credit of habitat of 173ha. This positive balance is across the whole of the Humber Estuary.

The applicant states that due to the granularity of the data in the HFRMS it would be ineffective to specify the quantity of habitat indirectly lost as a result of this scheme. The scheme extends for approximately 6.5kms along the Humber frontage and is unlikely to result in the loss of 173ha of habitat. It can be stated with a degree of confidence that sufficient habitat has been created within the Estuary to compensate for the any loss which can realistically be attributed to this scheme.

Whilst there is confidence that compensatory habitat does exist it is a requirement under the Habitat and Species Regulations that a decision maker should be satisfied that all legal, technical financial and monitoring arrangements are in place also.

Habitat creation has occurred at Alkborough, Chowderness and Donna Nook.

Crime and Disorder

Designing out crime and designing in community safety should be central to the planning and delivery of new development. Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires all local authorities to exercise their functions with due regard to their likely effect on crime and disorder, and to do all they reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder.

Given the nature of the proposal as revised it is considered that there would not be, or likely to be, an increase in crime or disorder or the potential for such an increase. The proposal includes the construction of ramps close to residential properties at the half Tide Basin and Spinnaker Close on Victoria Dock Village. These ramps are sufficiently distant from residential properties to not adversely affect the amenity of occupiers of those properties by way of loss of privacy or reduced security.

In the original proposal other ramps were proposed, however they were removed from the scheme and replaced by manually operated flood gates.

The ramps may have been a focus for groups of youths to congregate and partake in skate boarding or parkour activities. The proposed ramps may also have compromised the security of adjoining residential properties and had an adverse effect on the privacy of the occupiers of those properties.

As a result of the revisions the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of crime and disorder.

Flood Risk

The application site falls into Flood Zones 3aii(medium1), 3aiii(medium 2) and 3aiv(high) as identified in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The proposal is classified as ‘Water- compatible development’ being ‘Flood Control Infrastructure’ which is appropriate in Flood zone 2 and flood zone 3.

The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer development to areas with the lowest possibility of flooding. The proposal is to raise the existing flood defences whose location cannot be changed.

The proposal passes the Sequential Test.

For the exception test to be passed it should be demonstrated that: a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

The environment Agency was consulted on the Flood Risk Assessment and advise in their response under the heading Displacement of Risk that ‘displacement of risk may occur in the estuary as a result of the proposal. The results show some raising of flood levels in extreme events upstream and on the south bank. Whilst this is undesirable it is small and within the tolerances of what the model can assess’. The proposal offers wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh marginal increase in flood risk to lightly populated areas. The flood risk is difficult to define but essentially comprises an increase in flood levels elsewhere in the estuary. It is difficult to quantify the raised flood levels but the modelling seems to show the raised levels upstream and most likely in areas not inhabited by people. Overall whilst there appears to be a risk of increased flooding elsewhere it is not definite and in any case the benefits of protecting a heavily populated urban area and the benefits associated with that outweigh the possible increase in flooding up stream or on the south bank in areas not inhabited.

Comments on Consultation Responses

MMO – Advise that a licence from the Marine Management Organisation will be required for works within the marine area, ie below the Mean High Water Springs mark.

Comment – the proposed works are not below the Mean High Water Spring mark

RSPB – Support the principle but state indirect loss of habitat must be addressed prior to the scheme being consented to ensure the integrity of the site is maintained. Note potential for disturbance to turnstone and redshank at William Wright and Albert Dock, but agree with timing of works to avoid overwintering period. Opportunities for ecological enhancement for Special Protection Area (SPA) birds should be considered, explored and implemented as part of the scheme

Comment – loss of habitat can be addressed, disturbance to birds can be mitigated by conditions on working times/periods, ecological enhancements can be the subject of a condition.

YWT – ‘mitigation’ for loss of habitat is not secured, smaller pockets of enhancement should be included in the scheme to create a net gain in biodiversity, downgrading of bat roost potential not justified.

Applicant’s response to downgrading of bat roost potential – survey carried out in July 2017, professional judgement was to downgrade to negligible, recognises the situation could change before works commence, will undertake another survey before works begin.

Comment – compensatory habitat has been secured and further habitat is in the ownership of the applicant with plans to create further habitat well advanced. Enhancement can be the subject of a condition, the requirement for updated bat survey can be subject of a condition.

Trans Pennine Trail – applicant states no impact on PRoW, this is incorrect, will impact on alignment.

Comment – any impact on PRoW would be temporary whilst works are underway, the proposal does not permanently impact on the PRoW. Signage advising of temporary diversions can be the subject of a condition.

Business located on the docks and ABP– objecting to works at Lord’s Clough

ABP – comments received, alternative proposals being considered

Comment – after further modelling it has been determined that the works at Lord’s Clough are not needed, proposal removed from the application. Land owner in Old Town – generally supportive, raises concerns relating to piling works close to buildings, future ownership and maintenance of defences.

Comment – proposal revised, no piling proposed at this location as part of the revised proposal.

Letter on behalf of a land owner at St Andrew’s Dock, raising concerns regarding the alignment of the flood defence, and the temporary nature of the flood defence. Considers conflict between the proposal and the land allocation in the Local Plan.

Applicant’s response - The block wall is the preferred option as it can be moved, or removed and reused elsewhere, at any time to facilitate development of the site. An alternative more ‘permanent’ defence would not be as flexible and could be in the ‘wrong’ place to integrate with future development. This could result in abortive costs. The alignment of the proposed defence has been selected as it is the shortest route with the lowest delivery risk in construction. Alignment adjacent to the existing flood defences would cost an additional £800,000 over the proposed scheme.

Comment – temporary wall does not prevent redevelopment of the site, no conflict with policy 1 or allocation in policy 2.

Letters from residents of Victoria Village - supporting the flood defences but raising concerns about the ramps and anti-social behaviour which may arise from the presence of the ramps, increased opportunity for overlooking of properties by users of the ramps, reduction in security of properties adjacent to the ramps.

Comment – proposal has been revised to remove the ramps except at Spinnaker Close and west of Lancelot Court and replaced by wall with flood gates. Ramps in these locations are far enough away from residential properties to not have an adverse effect on amenity.

Conclusion

The proposal would provide a standard of protection of 0.5% (1:200) against a flood event up to the year 2040 and are designed to be further improved to provide protection up to the year 2115. At some locations the proposal would obscure views of the estuary, most notably from St Andrew’s Quay car park and Nelson Street. The proposal at Nelson Street is only temporary as the life expectancy of the piles is only 5 years. Loss of views of the estuary is unfortunate but must be balanced against the benefits offered by the scheme, the protection of 113,000 premises plus the business and economic functions of the city. On balance in this respect the proposal is acceptable.

The proposed appearance of the defences is acceptable. The design creates opportunities for public art which is to be encouraged, particularly where there can be community involvement for example at Victoria Dock village. At Nelson Street the temporary defences should include strategically placed areas of glazing to afford glimpses of the estuary and reduce the sense of enclosure.

Issues and concerns raised by consultees have either been addressed through revisions or can be addressed by imposition of conditions.

Subject to conditions the proposal complies with relevant policies in the Local Plan and there are no material considerations to suggest determination other than in line with policy. The proposal would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Humber estuary due to indirect loss of habitat, however having considered alternatives to the scheme, the imperative reasons of overriding public interest, and having secured compensatory habitat it is considered that the scheme can go ahead. This needs to be affirmed by the Secretary of State.

DMPO Article 35 Statement

The local planning authority have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with the planning application in the following way(s):

Engaging in pre-application discussions with the applicants;

Discussing potential solutions with the applicants during the processing of the application;

Requested additional information from the developer in response to concerns with the proposal

Reviewed S106 requirements where appropriate

RECOMMENDATION

The application be derogated to the Secretary of State for the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government with a recommendation for affirmation and, subject to affirmation be approved subject to the following conditions: -

1) Det 1D (Development to accord with approved plans)

[insert approved plan numbers here]

2) Det 2B (Time limit – Full application)

3) DET3B (Time limit - outline applications) Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority within three years of the date of this permission and the development hereby permitted shall be begun within 2 years of the date of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, (to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

4) DET 4C (Reserved Matters) Before the development subject of the outline application element of this application begins approval of the reserved matters, i.e.

(c) appearance,

(e) landscaping,

shall be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be carried out as approved (in order that the Local Planning Authority may be satisfied as to the details of the development and to comply with policy 14 of the Local Plan).

5) DET5B – (Reserved matters – implementation)The development hereby permitted by the outline element of the application shall be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, (or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved).(to comply with the provisions of Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

6) Prior to commencement of installation of the flood defence wall details of all external materials and finishes to be used in the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out as approved. (to ensure the materials to be used are acceptable and are in the interests of visual amenity and comply with policy 14 of the Local Plan.)

7) Before commencement of works on the defences at St Andrew’s Quay details of a means of access to the TPT for maintenance will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The maintenance access shall thereafter be retained (to ensure suitable access is available to enable maintenance of the TPT to encourage pedestrian and cycle access and to comply with policies 25 and 26 of the Local Plan).

8) Prior to commencement of works in each section a scheme for planting trees on the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; the approved scheme shall include details of species, size at planting, numbers, and location of new planting; the scheme shall be carried out in the first planting season following commencement of the development unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority. (A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure adequate provision is made for the planting of trees in accordance with the duty imposed on local planning authorities under Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and to comply with policy 45 of the Local Plan.)

9) The works hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Construction Strategy (IMNE000169-BMM-HUM-ZZ-RP-EN-0037) submitted as part of the application. (in the interests of amenity and to comply with Local Plan policies 47 and 49.

10) CLC4C Submission Of Test Certificates For Imported Soil

11) ARCH 1C (Programme of Archaeological Works):

12) Prior to commencement of works in each section a scheme to provide public art in that section as part of the flood defences shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include an implementation schedule. Unless otherwise agreed the approved details shall be carried out in accordance with the schedule and thereafter retained. (in the interests of the amenity of the area and to comply with policy 14 of the Local Plan).

13) No development shall take place until details of the future maintenance; future management and ownership of the flood defences’ have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Those details shall include: a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the flood defences’ which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or third part management or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the flood defences’ throughout its lifetime. (in the interests of maintaining the flood defences and to comply with policy 37 of the Local Plan)

14) A written installation report and sign off of the flood defences’ by a qualified structural or civil engineer of the design team shall be submitted to the LPA along with as built construction drawing within three months of the completion of each section of the works (in the interests of ensuring the defences are fit for purpose and to comply with policy 37 of the Local Plan)

15) Before works commence on those sections where flood gates are to be installed, details of the design of the proposed flood gates and locking mechanism shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The gates shall be installed with a flush threshold to allow access for wheelchairs, pushchairs and mobility scooters (in the interests of accessibility and to comply with policy 14 and 37 of the Local Plan)

16) Before works commence an any section where flood gates are to be installed a management plan for the closing of the flood gates at times of risk of flooding shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (in the interest of ensuring proper management and operation of flood gates and to comply with policy 37 of the Local Plan)

17) The palisade fence to be installed alongside the TPT on or close to the boundary with Albert Dock shall prior to or within three months of installation be painted or otherwise coloured in a colour to have previously been agreed in writing with the LPA before installation commences. (in the interest of amenity of users of the TPT and to comply with policy 14 of the Local Plan)

18) Within six months of this application being determined a scheme for the provision of enhance facilities for breeding and overwintering birds shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within a timescale agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be retained (in the interests of improving facilities for wildlife and to comply with policy 44 of the Local plan)

19) No works shall be undertaken between 31 st October and 31 st March the following year at William Wright Dock and between 30 th November and 31 st March the following year at Albert Dock to avoid disturbance to birds during this sensitive period (in the interests of preventing harm to wildlife and to comply with policy 44 of the Local Plan)

20) Works within the vicinity of public sewerage infrastructure within the site shall not be undertaken unless they are in accordance with a methodology that has previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The methodology shall include measures to protect the public sewerage infrastructure during the construction period (in the interests of preventing pollution and to comply with policy 37, 38 and 41 of the Local Plan)

21) The proposed increase in height of the flood defence at Victoria Pier/Nelson Street shall include strategically located glazed section to afford views of the estuary. Glazing shall be provided in the wall to afford views of the estuary form the junction with Queen Street and from outside the former ticket office on Nelson Street (in the interests of amenity and preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area and to comply with policy 14 and 16 of the Local Plan) 22) The approval hereby granted for satellite compounds shall be valid until 31/12/2020 only or until completion of the flood defence works whichever occurs soonest and at the end of this period the use shall cease (in the interests of amenity and to prevent the establishment of permanent compounds to comply with policy 14 of the Local Plan).