Appeal Decision
Inquiry Held on 18, 19 and 20 July 2017
Site visit made on 21 July 2017
by L Gibbons BA Hons MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 21 August 2017

Appeal Ref: APP/P2114/W/16/3157690
Venture Quays/Trinity House Depot & Wharf/Red Funnel Marshalling
Yards located in the vicinity of Dover Road and, Castle Street, East Cowes
PO32 6RD





The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission and outline planning permission.
The appeal is made by Southampton IoW South of England Royal Mail Steam Packet Co.
against the decision of Isle of Wight Council.
The application Ref P/01065/15, dated 28 August 2015, was refused by notice dated
15 April 2016.
The development proposed is full planning permission for demolition of Red Funnel
Ferry terminal, industrial buildings, commercial buildings at Trinity House and properties
on Dover Road; closure of Dover Road, western end of Church Path (to the rear of
properties on Dover Road) and closure of public access to slipway adjacent to existing
ferry link span; proposed Red Funnel terminal building with associated marshalling
facilities with accesses off Castle Street; landscaping and fencing: Outline consent for
redevelopment of a mix of uses comprising of up to 100 dwellings, up to 1850m2 of
non-residential floorspace including retail, leisure and commercial premises (Use
Classes A1-A5, B1 and B2) and 60 bed hotel.

Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for full planning
permission for demolition of Red Funnel Ferry terminal, industrial buildings,
commercial buildings at Trinity House and properties on Dover Road; closure of
Dover Road, western end of Church Path (to the rear of properties on Dover
Road) and closure of public access to slipway adjacent to existing ferry link
span; proposed Red Funnel terminal building with associated marshalling
facilities with accesses off Castle Street; landscaping and fencing: Outline
consent for redevelopment of a mix of uses comprising of up to 100 dwellings,
up to 1850m2 of non-residential floorspace including retail, leisure and
commercial premises (Use Classes A1-A5, B1 and B2) and 60 bed hotel at
Venture Quays/Trinity House Depot & Wharf/Red Funnel Marshalling Yards
located in the vicinity of Dover Road and, Castle Street, East Cowes PO32 6RD
in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/01065/15 dated 28
August 2015, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule at the end of this
decision.
Procedural Matters
2. For the sake of clarity I have used the description as set out in the Statement
of Common Ground.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

3. The application includes outline planning permission for redevelopment of a mix
of uses with no matters to be determined at this stage. Access, layout,
appearance, scale and landscaping are reserved matters to be considered in
the future. Although the application plans show a masterplan for the outline
scheme the appellant has indicated that this is for illustrative purposes. I shall
determine the appeal on this basis.
4. The proposal is accompanied by a copy of a signed section 106 agreement
under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) dated 11
August 2017. This makes provision for affordable housing, highway works and
arrangements for the Dover Road public slipway, and contributions towards
mitigation for the effect of the development on the Solent Protection Area
(SPA), education, sustainable transport and flood mitigation. I return to this
matter below.
Background and Main Issue
5. Planning permission was granted in 2007 for what is known as the East Cowes
Masterplan. This provided for a smaller marshalling yard on the Venture Quays
site alongside dealing with some of the traffic problems within the East Cowes
area. In 2017 the Council resolved to grant partial planning permission subject
to a s106 agreement. Known as the ‘interim scheme’ this included the
demolition of Trinity Wharf buildings, and expanded marshalling facilities.
6. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the existing and future economy
and economic sustainability of the Isle of Wight with particular regard to
employment land, buildings and deep water access.
Reasons
7. There is consensus between the Council and the appellant that the current
ferry operations at East Cowes require improvement. A number of local
residents acknowledge that the present arrangements for the ferry terminal are
not ideal.
8. The existing layout of the marshalling yards results in problems not just for
ferry users but also local residents, users of the floating bridge and traffic
accessing the GKN site. Problems include queuing on Ferry Road and ferry
traffic crossing Castle Street which is a main route within the East Cowes Town
Centre. On my visit, I saw local traffic being delayed due to ferry traffic
crossing Castle Street, and by large vehicles manoeuvring across the highway
to access trailer storage. The optimum loading of ferries is difficult given the
current layout of the marshalling yards. Vehicles have to be held in Trinity
Yard as loading on both decks cannot be undertaken simultaneously. From the
information before me, customers arriving early are turned away. Problems
also result when traffic disembarks from the ferry. Vehicles leaving the ferry
often have to wait at the nearby roundabout, leading to delays in offloading
and subsequent loading delays.
9. Capacity issues of the terminal are referred to within the Isle of Wight Core
Strategy (CS) 2012 at Policy AAP1. This seeks to establish whether a plan led,
viable and deliverable solution can be identified to address the capacity issues
at East Cowes ferry terminal. Significant support for improvements in the
terminal and marshalling yard capacity are recognised in the Solent Strategic
Economic Plan 2014. The long term forecasts for the business indicate an

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

increase in the number of vehicles using the service subject to terminal
improvement. The number of days where there are delays in loading and
unloading the ferries, lack of efficient arrangement of vehicles on the ships,
and poorer levels of customer satisfaction are predicted if improvements are
not made. The Council queried whether there was evidence surrounding the
effect of the delays on the ferry operation. However, the appellant provided
qualitative and quantitative information relating to the number of days that
were affected by delays and subsequent impacts on operations. Without any
evidence to the contrary I am satisfied that customer satisfaction levels for the
ferry operations provide an adequate indication of the effect on customers and
potential repeat business.
10. Employment land and buildings. Policy SP3 of the CS sets out that economic
growth will be focused upon employment, retail and high quality tourism. The
aims of the Council in respect of the economy are further explained in
paragraph 5.71 of the CS. One of the CS objectives is to provide opportunities
to diversify and strengthen the local economy and increasing the range of
higher skilled jobs available locally. Paragraph 7.143 of the CS refers to
providing accommodation for a wide range of business uses and that this
contributes to sustaining the local economy. The CS also includes a jobs
target. The most recent Employment Land Study (ELS) 2015 commissioned by
the Council indicates that the number of jobs forecast is considerably lower
than the jobs target set out in the CS. The Council consider that the reduced
number of jobs would not necessarily alter the aims of the CS or subsequent
policy in terms of high skilled jobs and loss of employment land.
11. Policy SP3 also refers to the loss of large scale employment sites of one hectare
or above will be resisted, where they are important to sustaining the local
economy or where mixed use redevelopment will not maintain the scale of
employment opportunities on the site. Policy DM8 of the CS amongst other
things sets out criteria for marketing of sites in relation to Policy SP3.
12. It is agreed between the parties that in this case, the local economy is that of
the Isle of Wight. The parties also agree that the Venture Quays site is over
one hectare. The Council indicates that the loss of the Venture Quays buildings
in particular would be against Council’s aims and objectives including the CS.
The current use of Venture Quays is B2 (General Industry) and B8 (Storage
and Distribution). The text of Policy SP3 provides a distinction between
employment and retail and tourism uses. However, it does not provide any
further clarification about what constitutes employment sites.
13. Nevertheless, the Council considers the loss of employment sites in Policy SP3
is specifically directed to B-use classes. The Council also contends that the
ferry terminal is not an employment site for the purposes of Policy SP3. A
definition of ‘employment land’ as opposed to ‘employment’ or ‘employment
sites’ is provided in the glossary of the CS. I note that the definition does refer
to existing B class uses. However, the definition also refers separately
employment uses. Therefore, to my mind it is reasonable to include the ferry
service as such a use.
14. I acknowledge that manufacturing is an important part of the Island’s
economy, and that there is a long history of science and innovation associated
with local businesses. Notwithstanding, in terms of Venture Quays the ELS
recommends that the Council should consider the allocation of the site for

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

3

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

mixed use and acknowledges the delivery of a new ferry terminal is not only
key to unlocking sites in East Cowes but also improving connectivity to the
mainland. Venture Quays is not recommended for retention in its current form.
There is little indication within the study that Venture Quays as a B2/B8 use is
a key element in delivering the Council’s objectives in terms of high skilled
jobs, or that is vital to sustaining the local economy.
15. I accept that the jobs profile of the scheme may result in some variation in the
skill levels of potential employees. The Council suggests that the outline
scheme would not provide sufficient alternative B-use class employment. I
note that there would be a quantitative loss of floorspace as a result of the
scheme. Nevertheless, the outline scheme proposes an element of B1 and B2
uses. There was no evidence before me to confirm that this part of the scheme
would not come forward. In addition, the Council acknowledged at the Inquiry
that the scale of employment opportunities would be maintained through the
implementation of the scheme. Paragraph 5.69 of the CS explains that new
jobs would come forward in the form of B-use classes and other uses including
tourism and retail. The scheme would meet with this aim.
16. The ferry service makes a significant contribution to the tourism offer of the
Island although to some extent this is seasonal. A wide range of services and
facilities rely on tourism for income. In any event, the ferry service also
includes accommodating haulage industries, other businesses with connections
to the mainland, and also local residents in terms of commuter services and
access off the Island. The ferry operations result in the employment of around
450 full time equivalent staff with 30% of those living on the Isle of Wight.
Even with lower estimates of tourism spend and productivity as suggested by
the Council, the additional benefits provided to the Isle of Wight economy by
the scheme would still be significant. Critically the scheme would ensure that
Red Funnel operations are more effective and efficient. This would provide an
enhanced service for residents, businesses and visitors alike.
17. The Medina Valley Area Action Plan (MVAAP) was published for consultation in
2015. Due to the stage it has reached the weight to be given to it is limited.
Nevertheless, draft Policy MVEC1 of the MVAAP sets out the Council’s general
direction of travel for regeneration in the East Cowes area. Illustrative Figure
6.3 of the MVAAP indicates the potential for ferry operations and employment
on the land north of Dover Road. This would have necessitated the removal of
the Venture Quays buildings and that approach is reasonably consistent with
the intentions behind the 2007 Masterplan, and Policy AAP1 of the CS. The
scheme would also contribute towards regeneration of the area by providing a
mix of uses.
18. Deep Water Access. I accept that Venture Quays is identified as a site of prime
importance for marine and maritime activities in the Maritime Futures Report
as it displays characteristics including deep water access which would support
these uses. The Maritime Futures report raises issues about the retention of
these sites and potential loss to mixed use schemes. I note that deep water
access is a scarce resource. However, deep water access is not a specific
requirement of Policy SP3 of the CS.
19. The Council are concerned about the potential loss of deep water access which
some other types of marine and maritime industries also require. I note that
there has been an increase in demand for marine and maritime uses, and I

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

4

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

accept that the new engineering establishment at Whippingham Technology
Park also includes marine and maritime uses. I have had regard to the
concerns of companies such as Sustainable Marine Energy who were located at
Trinity Wharf and the uncertainty that the scheme has caused. However, in
this particular instance the operational aspects of that part of the business that
required deep water access had located to Scotland for other reasons. Other
companies located in the appeal site have also found other accommodation in
the immediate area.
20. Although previous plans have included potential for deep water access at the
appeal site via a hoist or land reclamation it is the case that Venture Quays
does not currently have direct deep water access. This is provided instead at
the front of the adjacent Columbine building. It is also the case that the access
to the deep water access in this location would not be entirely lost through the
scheme, with the potential for existing commercial arrangements to remain in
place. In addition, the Maritime Futures report includes ports within the
definition of these types of uses and I consider that the ferry operation itself is
also a maritime activity. In respect of emerging policies, the Marine
Management Organisation draft South Marine Plan was the subject of
consultation in November 2016. Draft policies support development of skills
and marine related employment. However, the employment uses proposed as
part of the application could potentially include marine related uses, and the
scheme would not be contrary to draft Policies S-EMP-1 or S-EMP-2. Moreover,
the aim of draft Policy S-PS-1seeks to support competitive and efficient port
and shipping operations, and the proposal would meet with this objective.
21. I note that alternatives for other marine and maritime uses including Kingston
Marine Park, Kingston Wharf and Medina Yard may not have the same
characteristics as Venture Quays or be available at the moment. Nevertheless,
there was no evidence to suggest that deep water access requirements for
other businesses could not be met elsewhere on the Island or in the longer
term at East Cowes and within the Medina Valley. Nor am I persuaded that the
loss of Venture Quays would lead to a decline in marine industries in general
across the Island or materially inhibit future prospects for younger people. In
any event, any loss of potential deep water access for other types of marine
and maritime industries is also balanced against the importance of the ferry
terminal to the Isle of Wight economy, its requirement for deep water access,
and the need to resolve capacity issues.
22. Alternatives. The Council argues that the interim scheme would bring about
similar benefits to the appeal scheme and would not result in the loss of
employment land and deep water access. However, from the information
provided by the appellant it seems to me that a number of issues would remain
unresolved. This includes a number of remaining town centre traffic issues
including disembarking arrangements, the inability to fully separate freight
from private vehicles, and it would not provide for a full two ships worth of
customers at any one time. The appellant raised concerns regarding with the
East Cowes Masterplan. I consider that the potential effect on safety, efficient
marshalling yard layout and capacity amongst others were reasonable
concerns.
23. I have considered the alternatives to the appeal scheme which have been
proposed by interested parties. Whilst there is potential land available for an
off-site marshalling yard, this would be an extremely inefficient way of
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

5

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

managing ferry traffic and would result in a long line of traffic coming into the
town. There is no indication how this would resolve local traffic problems.
Decking was also suggested as an alternative solution. However, this would
result in other traffic management problems and would potentially be an
intrusive feature in the street scene.
24. Reducing the size of vessels and increasing frequency would have an impact on
the fleet and would not be practical or beneficial for the. The measurements of
vehicles by the ferry service are reasonable and alternatives suggested do not
take into account the range of vehicles or spaces needed to accommodate
vehicles in the lanes. There are no reasonable options for relocating the ferry
terminal elsewhere. From the evidence before me, I am also satisfied that
these and other alternatives have been adequately considered by the appellant.
There is no policy requirement for direct replacement of land in certain types of
uses. Given the location of the proposed marshalling yard it would not be
possible to prevent the demolition of Venture Quays before other uses are in
place at Trinity Wharf. No evidence was presented to the Inquiry that would
suggest that the proposal would not accommodate the needs of the ferry
service in the future.
25. Conclusion. The planning history of the site, emerging policy and recent
evidence lead me to conclude that when considered on its own Venture Quays
does not play an important role in sustaining the Isle of Wight economy.
Through the grant of partial planning permission for the demolition of Trinity
Wharf buildings the principle of the loss of these is now well established.
Although Venture Quays and Trinity Wharf buildings would be lost as part of
the proposal, the effect on the economy of the Isle of Wight would not be
significant. Moreover, the ferry service is an employment use which I consider
would be covered by Policy SP3. Although the ferry service is not a B-use
class, it seems to me that the scheme would make a significant contribution to
sustaining the local economy.
26. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the scheme would not be
prejudicial to the Island’s existing and future economy and it would not have a
negative effect on economic sustainability of the Isle of Wight. It would not be
in conflict with Policy SP3 of the CS. Policy DM8 of the CS would therefore not
be applicable in this case.
Other matters
27. Residents occupying the Dover Road houses are very understandably
concerned about the potential loss of their home, and also whether a suitable
replacement property can be found. From the information before me residents
have been involved in meetings and correspondence which included the
discussion of purchase of the remaining properties.
28. The frontages of the Dover Road properties are currently affected by
disembarking traffic. In the appeal scheme disembarking traffic would not pass
the frontage and this would be of benefit to the occupiers. However, the
proposed marshalling yard would be closer to the rear of the Dover Road
properties should they be retained, and also Castle Street residences. Sources
of noise disturbance would include traffic lanes, drop off and storage areas. In
the absence of mitigation this would potentially affect residents particularly at
night time. From the noise assessment work undertaken by the appellant this
indicates a need for certain mitigation measures to be incorporated into the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

6

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

design of the scheme. In terms of noise and other disturbances such as
lighting, and subject to appropriate mitigation measures secured by means of
the Council’s suggested conditions including a Terminal Operation Plan, the
living conditions of occupiers would be acceptable.
29. Local residents raised a number of concerns about the consultation process I
have had regard to the fact that some of the local consultation events relating
to the regeneration of the area were organised by the Council rather than the
ferry service. I acknowledge that there is concern that issues raised by
residents have not been addressed by the scheme. Nevertheless, the ferry
service has been involved in a number of meetings and discussions, and I am
satisfied that local community engagement has been adequate.
30. In terms of the effect of the scheme on heritage, the Columbine building is not
listed although I note that this is being reconsidered. Although the use close to
the Columbine building would change this would not have a negative effect on
its setting or appearance. The scheme would remove the Venture Quays
building from the side of the Columbine building, opening up views of the north
elevation which would be of benefit. The Council do not raise any concerns in
relation to the listed Grid Iron building which is close to the Trinity Yard. Given
the building’s location in relation to the existing marshalling yards I consider
the scheme would not have a negative effect on the setting of the listed
building.
31. In terms of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the
area, the marshalling yard would be seen from the Medina and Solent.
However, this would be the case with the interim scheme and the 2007
masterplan. Improvements to the appearance of the area would be made with
the redevelopment of the ferry terminal. The wider character of the area is
mixed use and the scheme would be seen in this context. In terms of the
outline scheme it would be possible to sensitively design the buildings and this
would be dealt with through the reserved matters planning application process.
32. Concerns have been raised about the scheme turning its back on the town.
However, the redeveloped ferry terminal would have a significantly improved
layout which would be more user-friendly and allow much easier movement of
people to and from the town centre. It would not be an isolated development.
33. The scheme would result in the demolition of the public house and takeaway on
Dover Road. However, there is the potential for these uses to be provided
within the outline scheme and I consider the scheme would not have a negative
effect on the local retail sector.
34. At the Inquiry an interested party raised the possibility of not approving the
outline scheme as it stands. However, I must deal with the scheme as applied
for, and no alternative planning applications were before me.
Section 106 agreement
35. I have considered the s106 agreement in the light of the statutory tests
contained in Regulations 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy
Regulations (CIL) and the tests at paragraph 204 of the National Planning
Policy Framework. Policy DM22 of the CS seeks to ensure provision of high
quality infrastructure commensurate with the scale of the development and the
needs of different communities across the Island.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

7

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

36. The appeal site is located within 5.6km of the SPA. The contribution towards
mitigation of the effect of the development on the SPA would be in accordance
with the Council’s Solent Special Protection Areas Supplementary Planning
Document and Policies DM12, SP1 and SP5 of the CS. The contribution would
be towards wardens and managing recreational activities within the SPA.
37. The education contribution meets with the Council’s Children’s Service Facilities
Contributions Supplementary Planning Document. The sustainable transport
contribution would help to bring about the delivery of the East Cowes-Newport
cycle track and is in accordance with Policies DM2 and SP7 of the CS. The site
is within a flood risk area and there would be a contribution towards the
provision of local flood defence measures. This would be in accordance with
Policies DM14 and DM15 of the CS as well as the West Wight Coastal Flood and
Erosion Risk Management Strategy 2016.
38. A public slipway is located on Dover Road. The s106 agreement makes
provision for ensuring that appropriate arrangements are in place for the public
to have access to the water on this side of the river. This is needed in order to
meet the requirements of Policy DM7 of the CS.
39. Provision is also made for 35% on-site affordable housing. The proposed
tenure split is acceptable to the Council. The obligation would meet the
requirements of Policy DM4 of the CS which seeks the provision of 35%
affordable housing.
40. There are a number of highway improvements within the obligation. These
relate to capacity modelling and traffic flows and specifications of highway
works, and phasing in relation to revised marshalling arrangements. Changes
to Castle Street including remodelling of some existing junctions and the mini
roundabout, other associated works for footways, street lighting and drainage.
Other provisions including the stopping up of Dover Road and Church Path,
reviews of all Traffic Regulation and Parking Orders, parking bay alterations,
reconfiguration of the one way system into town relating to York Avenue and
Ferry Road, and other changes relating to Link Road and York Avenue. I
consider that all of the highway provisions are necessary to ensure that the
scheme benefits town centre and local traffic, and improves highway safety in
the local area.
41. The obligations are consistent with Policy DM22 of the CS. They are necessary
to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the
development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development. They meet the tests within CIL regulations 122 and 123 and
paragraph 204 of the Framework. I have taken them into account in coming to
my decision.
Conditions
42. I have considered the conditions in the light of the tests set out in paragraph
206 of the Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance and discussions at the
Inquiry. Where necessary, I have amended the suggested conditions in order
to comply with the tests. All the conditions for full and outline planning
permission are covered separately. A number of conditions are repeated,
where there are variations between full and outline planning permission I refer
to them below. A number of suggested conditions for both scheme contained
‘tailpiece’ conditions which would allow potential changes without involvement
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

8

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

from interested parties. These were discussed at Inquiry, and I have not
included a ‘tailpiece’ except in the case of piled foundations which I consider is
necessary in that instance.
43. I have imposed conditions specifying the relevant drawings as this provides
certainty. The Council’s suggested drawings conditions for the full and outline
schemes also included reference to being in accordance with the principles
established through a number of supporting documents. However, this lacks
precision as it is not clear what these principles are. In addition, a number of
the matters covered by the documents are either specified in conditions
including requiring further details. I have therefore not included this element.
44. Full scheme. In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the
area and also to protect the living conditions of nearby residents a condition is
needed in respect of boundary treatments. A condition is also needed in
respect of submission of details the materials to be used in the construction of
the terminal building and other structures. In the interests of highway safety
conditions are necessary in respect of site lines and the layout of the
marshalling yard to allow vehicles to move in and out of the yard in forward
gear. It is also necessary to impose a condition which requires a Terminal
Operation Plan to be submitted and implemented. This is essential for the
operation of the yards and in respect of nearby properties as it would include
measures for dealing with noise and disturbance from each potential source.
45. The appellant proposed conditions for the demolition of properties on Dover
Road, flood mitigation works and the marshalling yard layout. I agree that
these are necessary to ensure the appropriate implementation of strategic flood
defences and in the interests of the living conditions of residents.
46. Outline scheme. In order to account for the timing of the purchase of
properties on Dover Road the time limit for reserved matters is 3 years from
commencement. The approach for the implementation of the outline scheme
is set out as either in combination or as a phased development. A condition is
necessary in relation to the approval of reserved matters. A condition is also
attached which sets out the parameters for maximum dwellings, the amount of
non-residential floorspace and number of hotel bedrooms. In respect of the
living conditions of future occupiers conditions are needed in respect of flood
risk mitigation measures and resilience measures, and for mitigation of noise
impacts for the dwellings and the hotel.
47. Both schemes. A condition is needed in respect of heritage and a scheme of
archaeological investigation. In order to protect living conditions of nearby
occupiers and in the interests of highway safety a condition is needed for a
Construction Environmental Management Plan, for piled foundations and a
lighting strategy. In the interests of sustainability a conditions are needed in
respect of biodiversity mitigation and enhancement, potential contamination,
foul and surface water drainage. In the interest of the safety of existing and
future users a condition is needed in respect of Flood Warning and Evacuation
Plans. The schemes require the submission of details and implementation of a
Travel Plan in the interests of highway safety and sustainability.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

9

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

Conclusion and balance
48. The scheme has resulted in considerable uncertainty for the residents of Dover
Road properties particularly those that remain in private ownership and the
loss of existing homes weigh against the proposal. The scheme would open up
one side of the Columbine building resulting in the building and this may
increase the prospective for office use within that building. However, the use
of the space within the Columbine building is not part of the scheme, and I give
this limited weight as a potential benefit.
49. The provision of affordable housing within the scheme and also additional
market housing would be a considerable benefit. Other benefits would include
alternative job creation with an associated increase in related tourism jobs.
Subject to a section 106 agreement, the scheme would bring about significant
benefits for local and ferry traffic. The layout and size of the yard would
provide opportunities for segregating vehicles and more efficient loading of
vehicles. On site vehicle handling would be improved and traffic hold-ups and
inconvenience for other road users would be reduced considerably. Although it
is not intended to increase the numbers of ships or sailings, there would be
significant improvements to the service through speed of turnarounds and
subsequent improvements in punctuality. As the yard would be organised,
people could leave their vehicles and access town centre facilities which would
be very close by. Separating disembarking traffic from local traffic would also
be advantageous to the operation of the ferry service as well as other road
users.
50. I consider that the expanded and organised marshalling yard would be a
productive use of the land. The scheme would meet the predicted long-term
growth of ferry users past 2020 which would not be met by the interim
scheme. The benefits of the scheme in relation to the efficient and effective
operation of the ferry service would be significant to visitors, businesses and
residents.
51. The scheme would be consistent with the Council’s spatial strategy Policy SP1
and also Policy DM18 of the CS relating to Cross-Solent travel. I have also
found that there is also no conflict with Policy SP3 and subsequently DM8 of the
CS. The proposal would not be in conflict with the development plan as a
whole. Overall, I consider the scheme would provide sustainable pattern of
employment development and provide opportunities to diversify and
strengthen the local economy of the Isle of Wight through the regeneration of
the immediate area, and in resolving acknowledged traffic issues in East
Cowes.
52. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude
that subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule, the appeal
should be allowed.

L Gibbons
INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

10

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Jack Parker of Counsel instructed by Ben Gard, Isle of Wight Council
He called:
William Murphy BA (Hons),
MRTPI

Isle of Wight Council

The following person took part in the roundtable discussion on conditions and
planning obligations on behalf of the Council
Peter Hayward BEng (Hons),
CEng, MICE, MCHIT, DMS

Island Highway & Transport Consultants for
Isle of Wight Council

FOR THE APPELLANT:
Neil Cameron of Queens Counsel instructed by Duncan Tilney, Stephen Scown
LLP
He called:
Kevin George
Rory Brooke BSc, MSc, MRTPI
Valerie Ballorin MSc, MCHIT
Gavin Hall BSc (Hons), MSc,
MRTPI

Red Funnel
Savills
Transport Seeds
Savills

INTERESTED PERSONS:
D Burdett
P Ford
S Goodman
G Hepburn
R Hollis
J Humberstone
L Kemp
S Lake
C Love
W Pimlott
D Stoddard-Scott
D Thornton

Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
on behalf of East Cowes Town Council
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Local resident
Isle of Wight Council (East Cowes)
on behalf of Solent Protection Society
on behalf of Sustainable Marine Energy
Visit Isle of Wight

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY
1
2
3
4
5

Appearances on behalf of the Appellant
Appearances on behalf of the Council
Review of Appellant’s Transport Evidence by P Hayward
Drawing TS2002-HW-1001 General Arrangements Visibility Splays
Statement of Common Ground dated 14 July 2017

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

11

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Appellant’s response to Inspector’s specific questions dated 14 July
2017
Air Quality, Noise and Vibration Memo dated 14 July 2017
Opening submissions on behalf of the Appellant by Mr Cameron
Opening submissions of behalf of the Council by Mr Parker
Comments by D Burdett
Statement by L Kemp
Outline Planning Permission P/00027/06 (IW 2.1)
Letter from Red Funnel to Isle of Wight Council dated 24 January 2006
Solent Protection Society comments on appeal dated 19 June 2017
Solent Protection Society Mission
Statement of Compliance by the Council dated July 2017
Illustrative Masterplan MP001 Rev e
Bundle of documents Feb-Nov 2014 relating to consultation supplied
by D Burdett
South Marine Plan Draft for Consultation November 2016
Letter from Sustainable Marine Energy to the Planning Inspectorate
dated 17 July 2017
Environmental Screening Assessment Island Plan Core Strategy
November 2011
Draft Section 106 agreement
Appellant’s additional proposed conditions
Drawing FD007 Rev B Flood Defence Provision Safeguarded Land
Updated Statement of Compliance by the Council dated 20 July 2017
Proposed condition relating to lighting strategy
Proposed condition relating to reserved matters
Redesign of Red Funnel Marshelling Facilities May 2016
Closing Statement by Mr Parker on behalf of Isle of Wight Council
Closing Submissions by Mr Cameron on behalf of the Appellant

AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE INQUIRY
30
31

Site visit schedule map
Section 106 agreement dated 11 August 2017

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

12

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
FULL SCHEME
1)

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.

2)

The full elements of the development hereby permitted shall only be
carried out in complete accordance with the details shown on the
submitted plans: Location Plan SB002 rev e; Proposed Demolition U001;
Proposed Buildings Clearance Plan U002; Proposed Marshalling Yard and
General Arrangements Plan TS2002-GA-1007H; Proposed Landscape and
Boundary Treatments Plan F004 rev b; Proposed Terminal Floor Plans
50125-SK-008-P2; Proposed Terminal Elevations Plan 50125-SK-009P3; Proposed Sections Plan 50125-SK-010-P3; Proposed Terminal Views
Plan 50125-SK-011-P4; Proposed Covered Walkway Elevations Plan
50125-SK-012-P1; Existing and Proposed Drainage Plans 12001-C001 to
C005 rev D1; Existing and Proposed Site Level Plan 12001-C006 rev D1;
Indicative Access Sightlines Plan TS2002-HW-1001; Lighting Layout
RUK-1300-DR-CR-001 rev PD01 and Lighting Figures RUK-1300-DR-CR002 rev PD01.

3)

Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to commencement of any
above ground works, a detailed specification for the proposed boundary
of treatments for the marshalling yard (including gates, fencing, barriers
and walling) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The specification shall include details of, but not
limited to, the location, height, construction, material/colour finish of the
boundary treatment and flood resilience measures where appropriate.
The boundary treatments shall only be constructed in accordance with
the approved details, prior to the first use of the marshalling yard.

4)

Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to commencement of any
above ground works, a detailed specification for the materials and
finishes for the terminal building, covered terrace, covered walkway and
associated decking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The construction of the terminal building,
covered terrace, covered walkway and associated decking shall be in
accordance with the approved details.

5)

No development shall take place until a historic building record
(equivalent to level 1) and a programme of archaeological works in
accordance with a written scheme of investigation has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the
commencement of archaeological works, the Council’s Planning
Archaeologist shall be notified, and shall be afforded access to the site to
monitor the works. The development hereby permitted shall be
undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme of investigation,
and the results provided to the Local Planning Authority.

6)

No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall set out how all
demolition and construction activities, including mitigation and
enhancement measures, will avoid direct and indirect impact to

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

13

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

ecological habitats and the surrounding environment, the amenities of
the surrounding land uses, and how this plan will be operated and
managed during all stages of demolition and construction. Works
associated with the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved CEMP.
The CEMP shall include consideration of, but not limited to the following
issues:
i) Use of construction techniques, timings and methods to minimise
impact on the surrounding environment;
ii) Timing of works to minimise impact on species or supervision by a
suitably qualified ecologist e.g. with respect to nesting birds;
iii) Appointment of responsible personnel to carry out inspections, to
implement and manage the CEMP;
iv) The means of access for demolition and construction traffic and
measures to prevent debris entering the highway;
v) The loading and unloading of plant and materials;
vi) The storage of plant and materials used in constructing the
development;
vii) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition
and construction;
viii) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition
and construction works;
ix) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding;
x) Details of temporary construction lighting and use of best practices
to avoid impacts upon amenity;
xi) Proposed construction hours;
xii) Provision of a noise control plan and procedures for ensuring
compliance with statutory or other identified noise control limits;
xiii) The adoption and compliance with best practices and
recommendations as described in BS5228:2009 as defined in the
Control of Pollution Act 1974 and consideration of construction
techniques that minimise noise;
xiv) Procedures for general induction training for site operatives and
specific training for staff having responsibility for particular aspects
of controlling noise from the site;
xv) Measures for the protection and pollution prevention measures
relating to the adjacent designated site and procedures for general
induction training for site operatives/staff/visitors to ensure
awareness of these measures;
xvi) Details relating to site security, and contact details of relevant
persons in the event of an emergency or in respect of issues relating
to construction management;
xvii)Liaison with the Local Authority and the community.
7)

No development of the full elements hereby permitted shall commence
until a detailed scheme and timetable for biodiversity mitigation,
enhancement and interpretation measures to be incorporated into the
development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

14

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

Local Planning Authority. The works shall be undertaken in accordance
with the approved details and timetable.
8)

No development (other than demolition or removal of buildings) relating
to the full elements of the scheme hereby permitted shall commence
until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority:
i) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the
site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as
appropriate by the desk-top study in accordance with BS10175:
2011+A1:2013 – ‘Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites –
Code of Practice’;
ii) A remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an
implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation
verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include
a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of
decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee
the implementation of all remediation;
iii) The investigator shall provide a report, which shall include
confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out
fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include
results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling
and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required
remediation has been carried out.
The construction of buildings, including any associated groundwork, shall
not commence until such time as the remediation scheme has been
completed in accordance with the approved scheme and the verification
report has been approved by the Local Planning Authority.
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found
to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out
until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the Local
Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be
dealt with and obtain written approval from the Local Planning Authority.
The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

9)

The marshalling yard and terminal building shall be operated in
accordance with the Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan at all times.

10) In the event of the use of piled foundations, prior to the commencement
of any such foundation works a strategy for the proposed piling shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The strategy shall include an explanation of the methods of installation of
piles, an appropriate justification for the method proposed, a piling risk
assessment, a noise and vibration monitoring programme and details of
timing of the works. No piling works shall take place outside the period
October 31st and March 15th in any given year, unless the prior written
agreement of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained. Piling
works shall only be undertaken in accordance with the strategy unless
otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
11) Prior to the first use of the marshalling yard, a comprehensive Travel
Plan (based upon sustainable transport principles to encourage travel to
the site by sustainable transport methods), shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

15

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

shall include details of measures to enhance the use of public
transport/encourage travel to and from the site by sustainable methods
including provision of facilities such as bus-shelters, pick-up/drop-off
facilities and cycle storage locations for users of the terminal and staff,
along with ongoing mechanisms in relation to monitoring and review.
The marshalling yard and terminal building shall be operated in
accordance with the Travel Plan at all times.
12) Prior to the first use of the marshalling yard, a Terminal Operation Plan
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The Plan shall set out how the operation of the marshalling
yard and terminal building will be managed to avoid direct and indirect
impacts on the amenities of the surrounding land uses, and the highway
network, and how this Plan will be operated and reviewed thereafter.
The Plan shall include consideration of, but not limited to the following
issues:
i) Dropped trailers only being sited in the 29 bays shown on drawing
number TS2002-GA-1007 rev H;
ii) Measures to prevent, reduce or mitigate noise resulting from
refrigerated trailer units;
iii) Measures to prevent, reduce or mitigate noise resulting from
operational vehicles such as tractor units;
iv) Measures to prevent, reduce or mitigate noise resulting from
dropped trailer activities including restrictions on times for trailer
collections by hauliers;
v) Measures to prevent, reduce or mitigate noise resulting from
manoeuvring of HGVs and coaches ;
vi) Measures to prevent, reduce or mitigate noise resulting from
vehicles within the yard;
vii) Measures relating to the control of the gated egresses from the yard
(both for pedestrians and vehicles);
viii) Measures to prevent (as far as practicably possible) standing
vehicles within the highway resulting from check-in operations.
The marshalling yard and terminal building shall be operated in
accordance with the Terminal Operation Plan at all times.
13) Prior to the commencement of any groundworks associated with the full
elements of the development hereby permitted, details of the proposed
means of foul and surface water drainage based upon the sustainable
drainage principles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be installed during
the development of the site.
14) No construction of the marshalling yard hereby permitted shall
commence until details of the sight lines to be provided at the junction of
the proposed gated emergency and bus exit from the marshalling yard
and the highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. These shall include minimum splays of X=2.40
metres by Y=43.0 metres. The marshalling yard shall not be brought
into use until the approved splays have been provided, and those splays
shall be retained thereafter. No structures or vegetation greater than

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

16

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

1m that may cause an obstruction to visibility shall be permitted to
remain within the visibility splays.
15) The use of the marshalling yard hereby permitted shall not commence
until space has been laid out within the site based on the principles of
drawing number TS2002-GA-1007 rev H to allow
cars/bicycles/HGVs/buses and taxis to be parked and for vehicles to be
loaded/unloaded and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and
leave the site in forward gear. Sufficient space shall be retained
thereafter to allow all vehicles using the site to turn so that they may
enter and leave the site in a forward gear.
16) With the exception of demolition and subject to condition 18 no
development hereby approved shall be commenced until the properties
known as numbers one to six Dover Road and the White Hart Inn, Dover
Road have been demolished.
17) Subject to condition 18 no development shall be carried out on the flood
mitigation works area shaded orange on drawing FD007 rev B, save for
that approved under this planning permission.
18) Notwithstanding the details shown on the application drawings no
development hereby approved other than demolition shall be carried out
until the layout of the marshalling yard and flood mitigation works have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development thereafter shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved layout and flood mitigation works.
19) No works other than demolition shall take place until a detailed lighting
strategy for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The information shall set out the lighting
approach and shall include a layout plan with beam orientation and a
schedule of equipment in the design (luminaire type, mounting height,
aiming angles, luminaire profiles) and measures to prevent light pollution
along with hours of operation. The lighting shall be installed, maintained
and operated in accordance with the approved details.
OUTLINE SCHEME
20) Application for the approval of the reserved matters relating to the
outline element of the scheme (as identified on drawing SB002 rev e)
either in combination or as a phased approach, shall be made to the
Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the
commencement of the full element of the development hereby approved
and the development shall be begun before the expiration of 2 years
from the date of 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.
21) Before any works associated with the outline elements of the scheme (as
identified on drawing SB002 rev e) either in combination or as a phased
approach are commenced details relating to the layout, scale, and
appearance of the buildings; access; and landscaping of the development
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. These details shall comprise the ‘reserved matters’ and shall
be submitted within the time constraints referred to in Condition 20
above before any development is commenced.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

17

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

22) Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be made in
accordance with the in accordance with the details shown on the
submitted plans: Location Plan SB002 rev e; Proposed Demolition U001;
Proposed Buildings Clearance Plan U002; Existing and Proposed Drainage
Plans 12001-C001 to C005 rev D1 and Existing and Proposed Site Level
Plan 12001-C006 rev D1.
23) The development of the sites subject to the outline elements of the
scheme (as identified on drawing SB002 rev e) either in combination or
as a phased approach shall provide for a maximum of 100 dwellings,
1850m2 of non-residential floorspace including retail, leisure and
commercial premises (Use Classes A1-A5, B1 and B2) and 60 bed hotel.
24) No development of the sites subject to the outline elements of the
scheme (as identified on drawing SB002 rev e) either in combination or
as a phased approach shall take place until a programme of
archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of
investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Prior to the commencement of archaeological works,
the Council’s Planning Archaeologist shall be notified, and shall be
afforded access to the site to monitor the works. The development
hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
scheme of investigation, and the results provided to the Local Planning
Authority.
25) No development of the sites subject to the outline elements of the
scheme (as identified on drawing SB002 rev e) either in combination or
as a phased approach shall take place until a Construction Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall set out how all
demolition and construction activities, including mitigation and
enhancement measures, will avoid direct and indirect impact to
ecological habitats and the surrounding environment, the amenities of
the surrounding land uses, and how this plan will be operated and
managed during all stages of demolition and construction. Works
associated with the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved CEMP.
The CEMP shall include consideration of, but not limited to the following
issues:
i) Use of construction techniques, timings and methods to minimise
impact on the surrounding environment;
ii) Timing of works to minimise impact on species or supervision by a
suitably qualified ecologist e.g. with respect to nesting birds;
iii) Appointment of responsible personnel to carry out inspections, to
implement and manage the CEMP;
iv) The means of access for demolition and construction traffic and
measures to prevent debris entering the highway;
v) The loading and unloading of plant and materials;
vi) The storage of plant and materials used in constructing the
development;
vii) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition
and construction;

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

18

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

viii) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition
and construction works;
ix) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding;
x) Details of temporary construction lighting and use of best practices
to avoid impacts upon amenity;
xi) Proposed construction hours;
xii) Provision of a noise control plan and procedures for ensuring
compliance with statutory or other identified noise control limits;
xiii) The adoption and compliance with best practices and
recommendations as described in BS5228:2009 as defined in the
Control of Pollution Act 1974 and consideration of construction
techniques that minimise noise;
xiv) Procedures for general induction training for site operatives and
specific training for staff having responsibility for particular aspects
of controlling noise from the site;
xv) Measures for the protection and pollution prevention measures
relating to the adjacent designated site and procedures for general
induction training for site operatives/staff/visitors to ensure
awareness of these measures;
xvi) Details relating to site security, and contact details of relevant
persons in the event of an emergency or in respect of issues relating
to construction management;
xvii)Liaison with the Local Authority and the community.
26) No development of the sites subject to the outline elements of the
scheme (as identified on drawing SB002 rev e) either in combination or
as a phased approach shall take place until a detailed scheme and
timetable for biodiversity mitigation, enhancement and interpretation
measures to be incorporated into the development have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works
shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and
timetable.
27) No development of the sites subject to the outline elements of the
scheme (as identified on drawing SB002 rev e) either in combination or
as a phased approach shall take place until there has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
i) A site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the
site and incorporating chemical and gas analysis identified as
appropriate by the desk-top study in accordance with BS10175:
2011+A1:2013 – ‘Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites –
Code of Practice’;
ii) A remediation scheme to deal with any contaminant including an
implementation timetable, monitoring proposals and a remediation
verification methodology. The verification methodology shall include
a sampling and analysis programme to confirm the adequacy of
decontamination and an appropriately qualified person shall oversee
the implementation of all remediation;
iii) The investigator shall provide a report, which shall include
confirmation that all remediation measures have been carried out
fully in accordance with the scheme. The report shall also include
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

19

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

results of the verification programme of post-remediation sampling
and monitoring in order to demonstrate that the required
remediation has been carried out.
The construction of buildings, including any associated groundwork, shall
not commence until such time as the remediation scheme has been
completed in accordance with the approved scheme and the verification
report has been approved by the Local Planning Authority.
If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found
to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out
until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the Local
Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be
dealt with and obtain written approval from the Local Planning Authority.
The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
28) Prior to the construction of any buildings within the sites subject to the
outline elements of the scheme (as identified on drawing SB002 rev e)
either in combination or as a phased approach, a detailed lighting
strategy for the sites shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The information shall set out the lighting
approach and shall include a layout plan with beam orientation and a
schedule of equipment in the design (luminaire type, mounting height,
aiming angles, luminaire profiles) and measures to prevent light pollution
along with hours of operation. The lighting shall be installed, maintained
and operated in accordance with the approved details.
29) In the event of the use of piled foundations for the construction of
buildings within the outline elements of the scheme (as identified on
drawing SB002 rev e), prior to the commencement of any such
foundation works a strategy for the proposed piling shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy
shall include an explanation of the methods of installation of piles, an
appropriate justification for the method proposed, a piling risk
assessment, a noise and vibration monitoring programme and details of
timing of the works. No piling works shall take place outside the period
October 31st and March 15th in any given year, unless the prior written
agreement of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained. Piling
works shall only be undertaken in accordance with the strategy unless
otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
30) Prior to first use of any of the non-residential uses of the hotel to be
provided on the sites subject to the outline elements of the scheme (as
identified on drawing SB002 rev e), a comprehensive Travel Plan (based
upon sustainable transport principles to encourage travel to the site by
sustainable transport methods) for the uses, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan
shall include details of measures to reduce reliance on the private car for
access to the site including provision of facilities such as cycle storage
locations for users along with ongoing mechanisms in relation to
monitoring and review. The uses shall be operated in accordance with
the Travel Plan thereafter.
31) Prior to the commencement of any groundworks associated with any
buildings within the sites subject to the outline elements of the scheme
(as identified on drawing SB002 rev e) either in combination or as a

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

20

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

phased approach, details of the proposed means of foul and surface
water drainage based upon the sustainable drainage principles shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The approved details shall be installed during the development of the
sites.
32) Applications for the approval of reserved matters relating to the outline
elements of the scheme (as identified on drawing SB002 rev e) either in
combination or as a phased approach, shall be accompanied by a
detailed specification for flood risk mitigation and resilience measures.
The specification shall include as a minimum but not limited to:
i) All habitable dwelling space above 4.4m AOD;
ii) Details of building design below the tide level;
iii) Details of building design and construction to include flood resilient
measures to promote flood reparability and reinforced construction
to ensure structural stability;
iv) Details of the location of key services and infrastructure within the
buildings;
v) Details of the location of storage areas for siting of essential items
and continuity of essential services to enable safe refuge during
flood conditions;
vi) Details of the location, design and construction of flood walling in
suitable locations;
vii) Details of the location, design and construction of flood defences,
including walling and gates in suitable locations within the
development sites and the immediate locality to contribute towards
the provision of a strategic flood defence for East Cowes.
The above measures should be considered in the context of the
submitted Flood Risk Assessment and associated FRA Addendum
(January 2016).
Any measures as may be agreed through the approval of reserved
matters shall be implemented during the development of the sites in
accordance with the approved details.
33) Applications for the approval of reserved matters relating to the outline
elements of the scheme (as identified on drawing SB002 rev e) either in
combination or as a phased approach shall be accompanied by a Flood
Warning and Evacuation Plan for each individual use proposed. The
Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan shall be informed by the ‘Framework
Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan’ (dated February 2016). The uses
shall be operated in accordance with the agreed Flood Warning and
Evacuation Plan at all times.
34) Applications for the approval of reserved matters relating to the outline
elements of the scheme (as identified on drawing SB002 rev e) either in
combination or as a phased approach, shall be accompanied by a scheme
for sound insulation of the proposed dwellings and the hotel. The
scheme shall include measures to prevent, reduce or mitigate noise
impacts resulting from road traffic, marshalling and ferry noise, and
conflicts with other non-residential uses proposed through the
development. Any measures proposed as may be agreed through the

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

21

 Appeal Decision APP/P2114/W/16/3157690

approval of reserved matters shall be implemented during the
development of the sites in accordance with the agreed details.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

22