Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning...

Appendix 5

Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning Committee Report

COMMITTEE DATE: 11th April 2018

APPLICATION No: LA11/2017/0301/F

APPLICATION TYPE: Full Application

PROPOSAL: Refurbishment of existing Grade B Listed Former Railway Station to provide

accommodation for an Active Transport Hub for Translink including Passenger

Facilities, Café, Retail Space, Staff Facilities and Office Accommodation.

Redirection of train lines to suit 2no. new station platforms and 1no. siding.

Associated car parking, public realm and external landscaping.

LOCATION: Waterside Railway Station, Duke Street, Londonderry, BT47 6DH

APPLICANT: Translink (NI) Ltd, 3 Milewater Road, Belfast, BT3 9BG

AGENT: Greame Moore, 4 Cromac Quay, Belfast, BT7 2JD

ADVERTISEMENT: 12.04.2017

STATUTORY EXPIRY: 26.04.2017

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

REASON FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE: Major Development and more than 5 objections

All planning application forms, drawings, consultations, letters, representations etc. relating to this

planning application are available to view on www.planningni.gov.uk

1. Description of Proposed Development

The proposed development is for the refurbishment and re-use of the existing Grade B1 listed

former Waterside Railway Station as a train station with accommodation including an active travel

centre, passenger facilities, a café, retail space and staff facilities with office accommodation and

other let-able space on the first floor. Associated infrastructure works include the re-direction of

the train lines with new station platforms and canopies and a Park and Ride car park. The

development also includes a public realm scheme with landscaping and street furniture and a new

Greenway which will link into the riverside walk at Ebrington.

2. Pre-Determination Hearing

http://www.planningni.gov.uk/

Appendix 5

A site visit was arranged for Committee Members on 14th February 2018 and a Pre-Determination

Hearing took place on 28th February 2018 in the Guildhall, Derry. Subsequent to the Pre

Determination Hearing the Planning Department met with Translink and their agents and also met

separately with HED Historic Buildings on 13th March 2018 to further discuss matters raised at the

hearing. Further information was then received on 14th March 2018 which included further detail

of the platform canopies and contextual elevations which show the platforms, canopies, car park,

fencing etc. in context of the listed building as viewed from the River Foyle. HED Historic Buildings

have confirmed via email that these associated works are considered acceptable and satisfy the

policy requirements of PPS 6 and the SPPS.

3. EIA Determination

The proposed development is within the scope of Schedule 2 - 10(c) of the Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (NI) 2015 as the area of the development

exceeds 0.5 hectares. An EIA Determination Application LA11/2016/0828/DETEIA was submitted

to the Council on 30th September 2016, prior to submission of this planning application. The

Council carried out an environmental determination at that time and issued a letter on 26th

October 2016 to advise that a planning application for this development did not need to be

accompanied by an Environmental Statement. As the development has had a pre-application EIA

Determination and EIA screening has already been carried out under the 2015 EIA Regulations

under Part 4, 10 (1b), further screening on receipt to of the application was not required as the

application was received on 24th March 2017 prior to publication of the Planning 2017 EIA

Regulations in May 2017.

4. Pre Application Notification and Community Consultation

The proposal is categorised as major development as prescribed in the Planning (Development

Management) Regulations (NI) 2015. Section 27 of The Planning Act (NI) 2011 Act places a

statutory duty on applicants for major development proposals to notify the Council and consult

the community at least 12 weeks in advance of submitting an application. A Pre-Application

Discussion request LA11/2016/0772/PAD was submitted to the Council on 12th September 2016

and various pre-application discussion meetings were held with representatives of the Planning

Department, Translink, Mott MacDonald, Consarc Design, Hoy Dorman, Transport NI, Historic

Environment Division, Environmental Health, Shared Environmental Services, Rivers Agency,

Marine and Fisheries Division on 14th September 2016 and 7th December 2016. A Proposal of

Application Notice LA11/2016/0958/PAN was submitted to the Council on 27th October 2016

Appendix 5

which included details of their public consultation events and leaflets dropped within 400m of the

development. The Council were satisfied that sufficient information was provided with regards to

community consultation measures.

5. Site and Surrounding Area

The application site is an approx. 2.1 hectare site which runs along the east embankment of the

River Foyle between the riverside apartments at Dorman Court and the Mute Meadows art

installation at Ebrington. The site includes the current operational railway station, the listed

former railway station and a section of the treed embankment between the Waterside Link Road

and the existing railway lines adjacent to the River Foyle.

Figure 1: Site Location Plan

Figure 2: Overhead view of former railway station and existing operational station

Appendix 5

Figure 3: Photograph of Listed Former Waterside Railway Station

Figure 4: Photograph of current operational train station

6. Site Constraints

Grade B1 Listed Building (Building at Risk)

Archaeological Potential

Monument of local importance within Industrial Heritage Record

Adjacent to River Foyle Area of High Ecological Value

Hydrologically connected to River Foyle and Tributaries SAC/ASSI

Hydrologically connected to Lough Foyle ASSI/SPA/Ramsar

Air Quality Management Area

Appendix 5

7. Neighbour Notifications

Neighbour Address Date Neighbour Notified

10 Dorman Court, Duke Street, Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,

13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018

11 Dorman Court, Duke Street,

Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,

13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018


13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018



13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018


13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018



13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018


13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018



13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018


13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018



13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018


13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018



13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018


13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018



13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018


13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018



13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018


13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018



13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018


13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018

Browns Restaurant, 1 Bonds

Hill,Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6DW,

13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018

Flat 1,Bonds Hill House,27 Bonds Hill,Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6DW,

13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018

Flat 2,Bonds Hill House,27 Bonds

Hill,Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6DW,

13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018

Flat 3,Bonds Hill House,27 Bonds Hill,Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6DW,

13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018

Kingdom Hall Of Jehovah's Witnesses, Bonds Hill,

Londonderry, BT47 6DL

13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018

Appendix 5

8. Relevant Site History

LA11/2017/0298/LBC Associated Listed Building Consent (Pending)

Demolition of late 1980s middle insertion, and repair and refurbishment works to the west and

east original building and the station shed. New platform and canopy to side and north of

building. New modern entrance and new ground floor accommodation within shed. Works to

provide accommodation for an Active Transport Hub for Translink including passenger facilities,

café, retail space, staff facilities and office accommodation. Redirection of train lines to suit 2no.

new station platforms and 1no. siding. Associated car parking, public realm and external

landscaping.

LA11/2016/0958/PAN Pre Application Notification Acceptable 17.11.2016

Refurbishment of existing Grade B Listed former railway station to provide accommodation for

an Active Transport Hub for Translink including Passenger facilities, Café, Retail Space, Staff

Facilities and Office Accommodation. Redirection of train lines to suit 2no. new station Platforms

and 1no. siding. Associated car parking, public realm and external landscaping including signage.

LA11/2016/0828/DETEIA Environmental Statement not required 26.10.2016

Refurbishment of an existing building, re-alignment of existing railway track and construction of

new platforms, parking and hardstandings.

LA11/2016/0772/PAD Pre-Application Discussion Meetings Held 04.11.2016 and 07.12.2016

Refurbishment of existing Grade B listed former Railway Station to provide accommodation for an

active Transport Hub for Translink including passenger facilities, café, retail space, staff facilities

and office accommodation. Redirection of train lines to suit 2no. new platforms and 1no. siding.

Associated car parking, public realm and external landscaping including signage.

9. Policy Framework

Regional Development Strategy 2035 (RDS)

Derry Area Plan 2011 (DAP 2011) Policies BE 1, BE 2, BE 3, BE 7, BE 9, TR 1, ENV 6, ENV 7, ENV 8,

ENV 9, R 2 and the Riverside Strategy 15.20 - 15.25

Strategic Planning Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS)

Planning Policy Statement 2: Natural Heritage (PPS 2)

Planning Policy Statement 3: Access, Movement and Parking (PPS 3)

Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage (PPS 6)

Planning Policy Statement 13: Transportation and Land Use (PPS 13)

Appendix 5

Planning Policy Statement 15: Planning and Flood Risk (PPS 15)

Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Foyle Riverside Strategy’

10. Consultee Responses

HED Historic Buildings are content with the proposal

HED Historic Monuments are content with the proposal conditional on the agreement and

implementation of a developer funded programme of archaeological works.

NI Water have no objections to the proposal

Loughs Agency have no objection to the development

DAERA Marine and Fisheries Division are content with the proposal.

Rivers Agency has no reason to disagree with the conclusions of the submitted Flood Risk

Assessment (FRA) and cannot sustain a reason for objecting to the development from a drainage

or flood risk perspective.

DAERA Natural Environment Division (NED) are content the development is unlikely to have any

adverse impacts on the ornithological selection features of Lough Foyle SPA/Ramsar. NED have no

concerns with the Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and have no

objections to the development conditional on submission of a Final CEMP prior to works

commencing. NED are also content the bat survey report shows no bat roosts have been

discovered on site and the proposal is unlikely to significantly impact the local bat population.

Shared Environmental Services (SES) are content the proposal will not have an adverse effect on

the integrity of any European site conditional on submission of a Remediation Strategy and Final

CEMP prior to works commencing.

DAERA Land and Groundwater Team considered the potential for any contamination present at

the site to impact on groundwater and surface water and they have no objections to the

development conditional on the implementation and verification of an agreed detailed remedial

strategy and considerations for unforeseen contamination, piling and tank decommissioning.

Environmental Health have no objections to the development conditional on the implementation

and verification of an agreed detailed remedial strategy and considerations for unforeseen

contamination, piling and tank decommissioning. Environmental Health are content the proposal

Appendix 5

will not have a significant impact on air quality or the amenity of nearby residential properties

subject to conditions restricting noise levels from the development and production of a

Construction Management Plan to minimise disturbance during the construction phase and any

necessary night-time works.

DFI Roads have provided comments in relation to the cycle network, the Road Safety Audit,

technical approval for works to wall structures and construction of the greenway, and

construction licence agreements. They have provided conditions and informative in the event the

Council intends to approve the application.

11. Representations Consideration

The Council received 25 objections to the full planning application and 22 objections to the

associated listed building consent, some of which overlap. These objections are from Foyle Civic

Trust, Into the West, Historic Buildings Council, Ulster Architectural Heritage and other interested

parties. The issues raised in the objections can be summarised as follows:

Proposals ignore wishes expressed at Translink public consultation 2014 and December 2016

Scheme uses a standard Translink design and does not reflect importance of the site

Request a Design Review carried out by Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG)

Proposals not economically sustainable

Contrary to RDS, SPPS, PPS 3, PPS 6, PPS 13, PPS 16, Riverside Strategy, Living Places, Inclusive

Strategic Growth Plan, Network Rail Design Checklist, buildings listing

Environmental Impact Assessment required

Trains entering shed

Trains will not enter train shed as they have done historically

Only operational preferences of the applicant are preventing trains entering

Building can be extended to provide covered platform like St Pancras Station, London

Liverpool Station are creating two extra platforms within a heritage train shed

Moor Street Birmingham, Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Victoria, Connolly Dublin, Leeds,

Cork, Killarney, Tralee, Limerick etc. examples of stations with trains arriving into shed

Request details of regulations which restrict trains entering shed

Request details of research which ascertained risks to health from fumes

Flexibility in railway legislation where existing platforms are still in place

20m safety buffer does not apply as building is existing and not a new structure

Appendix 5

Buffer distance space could be mitigated i.e. Manchester Piccadilly, Lime Street Liverpool

Queries whether risk assessment was carried out to establish appropriate safety zone

Track curvature limitations do not apply to terminus stations given train approach speeds

Location of train exhaust outlets would allow doors on front car to open into station

Exhaust fumes issues could be overcome with wall openings, ventilated roof lanterns, turning

engines off in idle trains

Sustainable conservation of the Heritage Railway Architecture would be a tourism asset

Visitors will arrive and depart from building deprived of historical and architectural integrity

Inconsistent with Derry’s aspirations as signature tourism destination and EU Heritage City

Translink claim proposals will enable Belmond Heritage train to visit Derry is disingenuous

Listed Building

Only surviving historic NI railway terminus station with any realistic prospect of restoration

Proposals do not enhance heritage assets of site and render it liable to risk of de-listing

Proposals add to erosion of Industrial Heritage of site

Glazed frontage addition is inappropriate, unsympathetic, dominates historic sandstone

facade and should be re-instated solid masonry

1980’s block work infill walls should be removed to open up public access to facades

Staff facilities on western elevation should be moved to road side

Riverside elevation should have glazed extension for cafe/restaurant and access to riverside

Shed should be kept as historic space for trains free from internal divisions , cellular spaces

Interior insertions and partitions are unsympathetic and obliterate large open space and views

within historic train shed

New platforms, canopies and car park will obscure original polychrome brickwork facade

New platforms, canopies and car park have detrimental impact upon setting of listed station

Detailed drawings not provided to adequately demonstrate effect of proposals on

appearance, character and setting of listed building

Concerns with steel stanchions proposed to the listed retaining wall

Park & Ride / Bus Turning

Translink claim EU funding requires a car park is incorrect

No compelling need for excessive scale of the car park and bus parking area

Park and ride likely to increase congestion and damage local environmental quality

Suitably timetabled bus and train services, satellite park and ride, shuttle buses, flat rate fare

taxis and enhanced cycling and walking provision would to remove need for car parking

Appendix 5

Alternative locations suggested for a train halt and park and ride facility

Accommodate parking in under used car parks at Spencer Road, Duke Street and Ebrington

Explore use of dual carriageway and Duke Street roundabout to accommodate buses

Location of car park / bus turning and dominance hard surfacing is misuse of river frontage

Car park does not respect character and townscape of riverside site

Riverside Public Space

Proposals fail to provide safe and easy access to river or address its riverfront location

Proposals ignore Riverside Strategy

Dominance of parking, bus turning, road infrastructure left large portion riverside as tarmac

Disconnect between station building and river is missed opportunity to create valuable car

free public realm with access to river bank

Car park and platforms/canopies block inwards and outward views from and across river

impacting upon landscape and setting of river

Opportunity to overcome isolated location and make this a destination for waterside

Do not wish to see security fencing between relocated track, station and public spaces

Greenway

Greenway disconnected from River Foyle by railway line

Greenway path through woodland embankment could have environmental issue

Alternative Development Schemes

Various alternatives have been suggested by objectors for the overall redevelopment of the site.

Foyle Civic Trust (full details can be viewed in their submission received 15th May 2017)

Includes an extended bus lay by on King Street dual carriageway, a multi-level car park on the

site of the current operational station building, public open space between the train shed and

river linking to restaurants within the building, a ramped foot and cycle bridge to cross the

tracks meet the existing Greenway on King Street, and diverting rail tracks to use half of the

existing shed for trains and the other half for retail and restaurants.

Mary Kerrigan (full details can be viewed in her submission received on 20th October 2017)

Includes accommodating trains within the existing shed with an extended roof canopy and

platforms, a contemporary screen wall with contemporary arched openings in line with the

western facade to frame views of the city and provide passengers with shelter, a single storey

contemporary linear glass extension along the western facade to accommodate public

facilities i.e. cafe, restaurant, shop etc. providing a heated space and providing panoramic

Appendix 5

views, an external cafe terrace on the west side of the building, locating ancillary functions

within the existing building, and replacing the solid masonry infill walls on the east facade with

glazed screens to open up light and views.

On-line Petition

Committee members should also be aware of an on-line petition to the Planning Department of

Derry City and Strabane District Council with 2843 signatures (as of 28th March 2018) which calls

on the Council to reject Translinks proposals for the new rail station

https://www.change.org/p/reject-translink-s-plan-for-waterside-railway-station-plan-derry-

deserves-better The main issues raised in this petition are summarised as follows:

Trains will not be allowed to enter the station building (as they did for over 100 years)

Plans for interior of building are bland, mediocre and obscure remaining physical heritage

Plans will mean no restoration of the building facade (which was damaged by 1970s bombs)

Proposals to line the riverfront with a car park. Other locations on the site would be better

330 of the signatories have provided comments in relation to the petition. The planning issues

highlighted in these comments are broadly in keeping with those already raised by the objectors

to the planning application and listed building consent as detailed above.

12. Planning Assessment and Other Material Considerations

Section 6 (4) of The Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires the Council to make planning

decisions in accordance with the local development plan, unless material considerations indicate

otherwise. The site is located within the Commercial Core of the City as designated in Map 2 of

the Derry Area Plan 2011. It contains a Grade B1 Listed Building and a Monument of local

importance. The site is also adjacent to the River Foyle which is an Area of High Ecological Value

and it is hydrologically connected to the River Foyle and Tributaries SAC and ASSI and the Lough

Foyle ASSI, SPA and Ramsar site. The proposal has therefore been assessed against the policy

framework listed in paragraph 8 and all other material considerations including relevant planning

history, consultation responses and representations.

PROPOSED RAILWAY STATION USE

https://www.change.org/p/reject-translink-s-plan-for-waterside-railway-station-plan-derry-deserves-better

https://www.change.org/p/reject-translink-s-plan-for-waterside-railway-station-plan-derry-deserves-better

Appendix 5

The proposal involves the removal of the existing operational 1980’s station building and the re-

use of the listed former station building and shed as a train station with accommodation including

an active travel centre, passenger facilities and waiting area, a café, retail space and staff facilities

with office accommodation and other let-able space on the first floor. Translink advise that the

passenger waiting area is also intended as a flexible space which can be adapted to facilitate

community events. The Planning Department support the re-use and refurbishment of this

redundant listed building which is a building at risk, particularly given that the building will

facilitate railway services and associated facilities linked to the buildings former use as a railway

station.

Objectors have expressed concerns that these proposals are not economically sustainable,

specifically that the cafe fails to capitalise on its riverside location and there is no opportunity for

non-passenger related or out-of-hours trade. They also question the feasibility of a passenger

waiting area doubling as ‘community space’ in a working station and who the target tenants would

be for the office space. Translink advise that the café, retail and office spaces are located at the

front of the building so that they may be accessed by the public outside the normal opening hours

of the station. Whilst there will be no direct access from the cafe to the riverside, there is potential

for the cafe to use the outdoor public realm space proposed to the station forecourt which forms

the part of the route of the new greenway with potential for passing trade from members of the

public.

Objectors suggest the station could benefit from visitors to the Giant’s Causeway, which exceeded

one million last year, and from the 600,000 Wild Atlantic Way visitors who travelled into Donegal

in 2016. They feel that new station should therefore celebrate entrance and create a sense of

arrival but that with the current proposals, visitors will arrive and depart the city from a building

deprived of its historical and architectural integrity, inconsistent with Derry’s aspirations as a

signature tourism destination and European Heritage City destination. Objectors believe the

sustainable conservation of the stations Heritage Railway Architecture would be a tourism asset.

One of the key objections in this respect is that the scheme will not retain the original use of the

shed as a functioning terminal railway station and that trains will not be brought into the shed as

they had historically. They advise that it is the operational preferences of the applicant which are

preventing the trains being brought into the shed. Translink advise they did consider this but that

it was not a viable option for them due to technical constraints of the new railway infrastructure

(i.e. railway regulations regarding safety buffer and separation distances, track curvature and

Appendix 5

concerns regarding the build-up of exhaust fumes) and the restrictions these regulations would

have on the amount of space left available to facilitate services for customers.

Figure 5: Re-use of Railway Station with position of new track alignment and platforms

Translink advise that railway safety regulations dictate 25 metre buffer and separation distances

from the tracks and an 8 meter passenger circulation zone, which would take up the majority of

the shed meaning that only 24 percent of the shed could be retained as useable space, which

Translink advise is not a viable option for them for the provision of customer services or a good

design for a multi-modal transport project. The buffer, separation and circulation zones would

also mean that only one set of doors from the first carriage would open within the shed, and

passengers would have a much further walk along a longer platform to enter the station. Some

objectors suggest the train shed could be extended to provide a covered platform, like St Pancras

Station, London and Liverpool Station which is creating two extra platforms within their heritage

train shed.

Figure 6: Buffer distances (blue) and circulation distances (hatched blue) if trains were to enter shed and remaining useable space (pink)

Appendix 5

Figure 7: Option A shows only first carriage would open into the shed if trains were to enter; and Option B (current proposals) show carriages in closer proximity to station building

Objectors suggest that modern rules relating to safety buffer zones and the curvature of station

platforms do not apply to a historic building such as this one as it is not a new structure and that

track curvature limitations do not apply to terminus stations given the speed which trains

approach the station. Translink advise the existing station has not been used as a station since

the early 1980’s,the former tracks within the building no longer exist and the new platforms and

railway lines are therefore required to comply with modern standards as they are new. Objectors

suggest that safety buffer distances can be mitigated and reduced if a risk assessment is carried

out to establish an appropriate safety zones and query whether this has been carried out by

Translink. Translink advise that they have carried out risk assessments in relation to the proposals

for the new tracks outside of the building but that such an assessment has not been carried out

for the provision of lines within the shed, as this does not form part of their proposal. They also

advise that it is not the case that they cannot bring trains into the shed, rather that there are

substantial benefits for the project to station trains outside of the shed. Also, the scale of this

shed is not comparable to other sites and locations which the objectors have referred to which

are not as restricted and have more space to provide customer facilities.

Objectors also suggest issues with exhaust fumes could be overcome if the shed was opened with

ventilated roof lanterns or if idle trains turned their engines off and they also highlight that the

location of the train exhaust outlets on Translinks trains would allow the front carriage to open

into station with the exhaust remaining outside the shed. They highlight that trains enter enclosed

Appendix 5

sheds in Frome Station, Birmingham and Connolly Station, Dublin. Translink have responded that

a number of the enclosed stations referred to operate using electricity to minimise fumes,

whereas Translink trains are diesel, and that the scale of many of these stations are also

significantly larger meaning fumes do not create the same issue. They also advise that Frome

Station is not a terminal station and trains pass through the shed with limited waiting times

whereas the Waterside Station will be a terminal station with waiting trains. Translink have also

opted for an enclosed space to afford passengers a heated waiting area.

The most important consideration for the Planning Department under current policy is not

whether trains shall or shall not enter the shed but whether the development proposals retain the

essential character, architectural and historic interest of the listed building in accordance with

Policies BH 7 and BH 8 of PPS 6 and whether its original function as a train station is still

recognisable. Many refurbishment schemes for the re-use of listed buildings do not necessarily

retain the original use of the building when re-developed and there are excellent examples of this

throughout our City. Nor does policy dictate that this should be the case. The policy advises that

the re-use of a listed building will be permitted ‘where this secures its upkeep and survival and

the character and architectural or historic interest of the building would be preserved or

enhanced.’ From HED Historic Buildings perspective, the test is that the ‘essential character’ of

the building is retained and HED Historic Buildings are satisfied that a substantive and robust

justification has been provided as to why trains will not be brought into the building and they are

content that the building will effectively still be used as a train station. Likewise, the Department

are also content with the operational reasoning and rationale which has been provided by for not

opting to bring the trains into the shed. The Department support the re-use and refurbishment

of this vacant listed building which is an opportunity to bring a building identified on the Buildings

at Risk register back into life, particularly given that the building will facilitate railway services and

associated facilities linked to the buildings former use as a railway station. Giving consideration

to the matters raised above and acknowledging the development constraints of the site, both the

Planning Department and HED Historic Buildings are content the proposals will preserve the

character and historic interest of the listed building and secure its upkeep and survival in

accordance with Policies BH 7 of PPS 6, BE 2 and BE 3 of DAP 2011 and paragraph 6.13 of the SPPS.

Objectors believe the proposals are contrary to PPS 16. Whilst the development may have

associated tourism impacts, the proposal is for a railway station and transport infrastructure and

is not strictly a ‘tourism development’ therefore the policies of PPS 16 are not directly relevant.

REFURBISHMENT OF LISTED BUILDING

Appendix 5

The former Waterside Railway Station is a Grade B1 listed building of special architectural and

historic interest. Objectors have pointed out that it is the only surviving historic NI railway

terminus station with any realistic prospect of restoration. The original central section of the

building was destroyed by a bomb in 1975 and was re-instated with the current glazed link. The

proposals are to replace this link section with a new modern infill which will be of a contemporary

glazed design. Some objectors are of the opinion that the glazed central addition is inappropriate,

unsympathetic and dominates the historic sandstone facade and that this section should be re-

built in solid masonry to match the historic building. The new infill is intended to read as a new

intervention in the building to draw a distinction between the old and the new and to record the

historical interventions of the building, which HED Historic Buildings consider to be the best

approach in this particular case. It is sympathetic to the scale and proportions of the historic

building and the bronze coloured aluminium curtain wall finish will complement the original

stonework and retain the character of the building in accordance with Policies BH 8 of PPS 6, BE 3

of DAP 2011 and paragraph 6.13 of the SPPS.

Figure 8: New contemporary glazed infill proposed to front elevation

Appendix 5

Refurbishment works to the existing building include re-pointing stonework, re-roofing using

existing slates, new cast iron gutters and down pies, new fascia boards and soffits, new lead

flashings, up stands and skirts around the central roof light. The former arched openings along

the riverside will be re-opened to form new windows and doors and allow access out to the

platforms and open up views across the river to the city. New openings will also be formed in the

non-original gable wall of the shed with a large window opening to replicate the original opening

in the shed.

Objectors feel these proposals do not enhance the heritage assets of the site but that they add to

the erosion of its industrial heritage and render the building liable to risk of de-listing. They suggest

the 1980’s block infill walls should be removed entirely to open up public access to the facades

and the riverside elevation in particular should have a glazed cafe or restaurant area with access

to the riverside. The refurbishment works as currently proposed retain and preserve as much of

the historic fabric of the building as is considered practical and use sympathetic materials and

architectural details in keeping with those found on the historic building in accordance with Policy

BH 8 of PPS 6 and paragraph 6.13 of the SPPS. Refurbishment and structural support works are

also proposed to the listed wall on the northern side of the building. Objectors have concerns

with the use of steel stanchions on this wall, however HED Historic Buildings have not raised any

issues in this respect.

Figure 9: Alterations proposed to gable of train shed with platforms adjacent

Appendix 5

Figure 10: Proposals to re-open former arched openings along the riverside

As outlined above, objectors feel the station building and the train shed should kept as historic

space for trains, free from internal divisions and cellular spaces, and that the interior insertions

and partitions are unsympathetic and obliterate large open space and views within the historic

train shed. The contemporary interventions proposed to provide accommodation within the shed

will be in the form of free standing pods which are considered to have a low impact on the historic

fabric of the building as they are removable and therefore reversible. The pods will have a low

height to retain the openness and appreciation of space within the shed and this will be

particularly evident at the northern end of the shed which will have an open passenger waiting

area free from internal structures with the exception of a glazed partition which will provide access

to platforms. HED Historic Buildings acknowledge there is limited historic detail remaining

internally and have accepted the loss of an internal wall in the east section to provide the

proposed retail unit, due to restrictions of the existing layout. They have also accepted the loss of

a wall in the west wing to accommodate the proposed café on the basis that a memory of this wall

would be expressed with piers and down stands to highlight the historic plan form. The above

interventions and works are considered necessary to facilitate the practical functioning of the

building and to provide staff and passenger facilities.

Appendix 5

Figure 11: Passenger waiting area within shed and glazed partition access to platforms

Figure 12: Internal accommodation provided within free standing pods

SETTING OF LISTED BUILDING

Objectors are also concerned the location of the new platforms, canopies and car park to west of

the shed will create a disconnect between the station building and the river, will block inward and

outward views from the station building to the river and city side and that this will have an impact

upon the setting of the listed building. They highlight that detailed drawings have not been

provided to adequately demonstrate the effect of the above proposals on the appearance,

character and setting of the listed building. Details of the proposed platforms and canopies in the

context of the listed building were provided in Translinks original submission, however following

a meeting with the Planning Department subsequent to the Pre Determination Hearing, a more

Appendix 5

recent comparative contextual plan was also provided on 14th March 2018 to show the platforms,

canopies, car park, fencing etc. in context of the listed building as viewed from the riverside.

Figure 13: Details of the proposed platforms and canopies

Figure 14: Contextual plan showing existing view and comparative view of proposed platforms, canopies, car park, fencing etc. in context of the listed building as viewed from riverside

Figure 15: West Riverside Elevation

Appendix 5

HED Historic Buildings have considered the detail of the structures and spaces proposed beyond

the listed building and have not raised any issues with their provision or any resulting impact upon

the setting of the listed station building. They welcome the proposed landscaping works which

they consider to be betterment to the existing setting of the listed building. The Planning

Department share this view and add that the relocation of the rail track, opening up and enabling

public use of a formerly cut off piece of land along the riverside, and moving parking off the front

facade and riverside elevation of the listed shed would improve the current setting of the listed

building in accordance with Policies BH 11 of PPS 6, BE 3 of DAP 2011 and paragraph 6.13 of the

SPPS.

INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE

The Waterside Railway Station is recorded within the Industrial Heritage Record (IHR) and is

considered a monument of local importance. The application was accompanied by an

Archaeological Assessment and HED Historic Monuments acknowledged the findings within the

report which state that much of this site is located on reclaimed land and there is reduced

potential for archaeological remains, that pre-date the station, being uncovered during site work

as the majority of this was beneath the River Foyle until the mid-19th century. A more detailed

Industrial Heritage Impact Assessment was later submitted which included a full IHR survey of the

buildings and features to assess the impact of the development upon the industrial heritage of

the site. HED Historic Monuments agree with the findings, conclusions and recommendations of

the report and are content with the proposal conditional on the agreement and implementation

of a developer funded programme of archaeological works. It is considered that the proposal

complies with Policies BH 2, BH 3 and BH 4 of PPS 6, Policies BE 7 and BE 9 of DAP 2011and

paragraphs 6.9 - 6.11 of the SPPS.

PARK AND RIDE FACILITY / BUS CIRCULATION AREA / CAR TURNING AREA

The proposals include a new park and ride facility which will provide 100 parking spaces to the

west of the station between the platforms and the riverside. The station has an existing park and

ride car park with 55 spaces located directly adjacent to the west wall of the listed shed, between

the former station building and the current railway tracks. The purpose of the improved park and

ride facility is to increase availability of commuter parking to encourage the use of the rail network

and to make the services as flexible as possible for users. Translink advise a significant portion of

those who expressed views during the public consultation of the project were in favour of the

increased parking provision. They also advise that the existing park and ride facility tends to be

Appendix 5

fully occupied by early morning. Additional train services have recently been provided to this line

and it is anticipated that this will increase footfall through the station by around 50 percent with

an increased demand for parking and the need for additional park and ride provision.

The RDS, SPPS, PPS 13, Area Plan and Strategic Growth Plan all promote development in the North

West Region in terms of infrastructure. Strategic guidance within the RDS aims to deliver a

balanced approach to transport infrastructure through continued investment in public transport

and in infrastructure such as the development of quality multi-modal facilities and park and ride

sites to encourage motorists to take the bus or train for the main part of their journey and reduce

traffic volume on the network. Furthermore, the SPPS also supports the provision of improved

infrastructure for more sustainable transport modes to give people greater choices about how

they travel. This facility will serve commuters and encourage use of the railway services in

accordance with the above policy and guidance.

Figure 16: Existing Park and Ride facility

Figure 17: Proposed new park and ride car park (to north of station building)

Appendix 5

A bus lane is to be provided off the existing access road at the site of the currently operational

station building. This lane will be dedicated to buses only to facilitate drop off/pick up and easy

circulation without congestion with other traffic in accordance with Policy TR 2 of DAP 2011. A

turning area will also be provided at the entrance to the car park to enable customer drop off and

pick up, servicing and deliveries to the station and to prevent this type of traffic having to enter

and turn within the car park.

Figure 18: Proposed bus turning area (left) and car turning area (right)

Objectors state that Translinks claim that EU funding requires a car park is incorrect. They feel

that car parking is unnecessary and that suitably timetabled bus and train services, satellite park

and ride, shuttle buses, flat rate fare taxis and enhanced cycling and walking provision would to

remove need for car parking. They also suggest that parking could be utilised within the under

used car parks at Spencer Road, Duke Street and Ebrington. Translink advise these car parks are

not within their control and are unlikely to be used by customers given their distance from the

station and difficulties negotiating the underpass which is not disabled compliant and is often

closed due to flooding.

Objectors also suggest that Translink explore the use of the adjacent dual carriageway and Duke

Street roundabout to accommodate bus turning and pick up/drop off. In response to this

suggestion, DFI Roads advise that the provision of a bus lay-by on the dual carriageway, as

suggested by the objectors, would remove the width of foot/cycleway to the detriment of user

safety and the widening of the foot/cycleway to accommodate the layby would reduce the width

of the Waterside Link carriageway by potentially a full lane width, which would not be acceptable

Appendix 5

on this trunk road and key transport corridor. Checks would also be required to determine

whether a three bay lay-by can safely accommodate all timetabled services without tail backs onto

the Waterside Link road obstructing traffic. DFI Roads also advise that layout designed for the

proposed transport hub expands on the current railway station arrangements and would present

a safer option to bringing travellers into the hub site when compared to the objectors suggested

arrangements.

Objectors have also suggested the park and ride is not a sustainable location possible in the city

centre and have suggested alternative locations for a train halt and park and ride facility which

they feel would be more appropriate. Whilst these suggestions do not form part of the current

proposals and may require a wider strategic plan by Translink, they are not beyond the scope of

possibility for the future development of the rail services. If this becomes a feasible option for

Translink as a long term plan for commuting and train services in the future, the park and ride

facility as currently proposed has the potential to be redeveloped to extend the area of proposed

public realm or for other appropriate riverside uses.

Objectors feel the proposals ignore the Riverside Strategy which states that large areas of surface

level parking should be avoided; parking should be screened from view, and parking areas should

not be visible from the riverside as outlined in paragraphs 15.23 of DAP 2011. The Planning

Department would highlight there is an existing surface level car park at the site which is devoid

of vegetation or screening and is openly visible from the adjacent riverside and the Peace Bridge.

The proposals intend to re-locate the existing facility and whilst there will be an increase in its size

and official capacity, aesthetically the proposals will be an improvement on existing arrangements

as they will consolidate existing parking arrangements to one location with landscaping proposed

along the riverside boundary to help screen views from the adjacent riverside. The Planning

Department would highlight that the Riverside Strategy is not a policy document but is guidance

which contains a number of urban design principles. These design principles suggest that ‘large

areas of surface level parking should be avoided’; parking should be screened from view; ‘parking

areas should not be visible along the riverside’ however our emphasis is that these are guiding

principles and not policy requirements and should be weighted appropriately balanced alongside

other material considerations which include the existence of the current car park at its

consolidation for the betterment of the site; the proposal will facilitate the re-use and

refurbishment of a vacant listed building at risk; opening up of this section of the riverside; and

improved inward and outward views from the riverside. On balance, these considerations are

given determining weight.

Appendix 5

Figure 19: Views of existing car park from city riverside

Figure 20: Proposed view of car park from riverside

Figure 21: Landscaping proposals for new car park

Appendix 5

The majority of the objectors have expressed concerns with the location of the car park and

bus/car turning and drop off areas and the dominance of hard surfacing, which they feel is a

misuse of the river frontage and a missed opportunity to create a piece of car free public realm

with safe and easy access to the river. They feel the car park and new platforms and canopies to

west of the shed create disconnect between the station building and the river, that these will block

views from the station to the river and from the city riverside back towards the station. The

proposals involve the removal of the existing 1980’s station in the southern portion of the site and

re-location of the existing rail tracks which currently run along the riverside. Whilst this space will

be utilised to accommodate a bus circulation and turning area, the overall redevelopment scheme

will open up this section of the riverside for public use with a greenway provided along this section

of the river and an area of public realm to the front of the station building. The proposals for the

car turning area have been redesigned and reduced in size during the course of the application to

reduce the amount of road infrastructure at this part of the site. Whilst the new park and ride is a

larger facility and will be located directly along the riverside, the river’s edge at this location is

currently occupied by railway track and infrastructure and is neither accessible to the public nor

visible from the front of the listed railway station. The proposals will open up a public use to this

section of the riverside and will have an overall improved appearance in comparison to the existing

situation which is a car park set against the blank wall of the vacant train shed with tracks and

security fencing in between along the riverside and hoardings also obstructing views. With the

proposed scheme, the riverside boundary of the car park will be landscaped with shrub and tree

planting to assist in screening the parking area from the opposite side of the river and a new

natural slate wall and railing will also be provided on the outer boundary to tie in with that

proposed to the pedestrian area along the remainder of the riverside.

The re-location of the park and ride also allows the riverside gable of the listed shed to be opened

up and re-used. The former arched openings will be re-opened to provide detail on this elevation

and afford outward views from the station out over the river towards the city. Objectors have

concerns these outwards views will be obstructed by cars within the car park, however the station

building and platforms will sit at a higher level approx. 1.2 metres above the level of the car park

enabling views out over the car park.

Appendix 5

Figure 22: Platforms at higher level above car park enabling views out over the river

Taking all of the above into account, on balance, the Planning Department consider the

redevelopment proposals for the riverside to be an improvement on the current situation which

will open up approx. 250m of the riverside to public use in accordance with Policies ENV 9 and R2

of DAP 2011.

Figure 23: 250m section of the riverside currently inaccessible by the public (outlined in red) which

will be opened up with public access as a result of the development scheme

PUBLIC REALM

An area of public realm is to be provided to the front of the new railway station which will

incorporate and link in with the new section of greenway being provided along the riverside and

embankment to Ebrignton. This area also has potential for outdoor use by the café to encourage

further public use of the space. The public realm area will be paved in a high quality finish with

landscaping and street furniture including seating and planters to delineate the route of the

greenway. New hardcast bollards, bicycle stands and litter bins will also be provided. Similar

finishes and colour schemes will be used throughout the public areas to create a comprehensive

scheme which ties in with other public spaces throughout the city. The design and materials of

Appendix 5

the public realm proposals make a positive contribution to the townscape and character of the

surrounding area in accordance with Policy BE 1 of DAP 2011.

Figure 24: Public realm proposals with integrated greenway link

Figure 25: Area of public realm to be provided to station forecourt

A new wall will be provided along quay and car park, finished in Donegal slate cladding with

stainless steel railing on top. This will be 1.4 metres high to the public realm area and car park

and 1.1 meters high to the remainder of the quay. The boundary to front of the station forecourt

will retain the existing stone wall with new steel post and rail on top. A decorative security

boundary is also to be provided at the night gate to the side of the station. A section of the existing

Appendix 5

wall along the Waterside Link Road is to be demolished and replaced with a new retaining wall

and a small stretch of the listed wall adjacent to railway shed will be retained and strengthened

with additional structural support. Objectors do not wish to see security fencing to the station

building or public spaces. 1.8m high paladin fencing is proposed adjacent to the car park and

around the REB/PSP storage area. This is the type and height of fencing used in railway facilities

throughout the north and is required to prevent access to the railway lines, to secure signalling

equipment in REB building and compound, and to secure trains stationed overnight.

The submitted landscaping scheme indicates the retention of existing trees at the access to the

site with additional grass, hedge and tree planting at the bus circulation area. Tree and shrub

planting will also be provided in the public realm to the front of the station and at the turning area

at the entrance to the car park. A 1.2 metre high hedge will be provided at the entrance to the car

park to separate and soften its appearance from the adjacent public realm and shrub and tree

planting will also be provided at the riverside end of the parking bays within the car park to assist

in screening the parking area in views from the quay opposite.

Figure 26: Proposed Landscaping Scheme

The proposals for both the public realm and greenway are in line with key environment and

regeneration actions of the Inclusive Strategic Growth Plan to deliver high quality public realm

schemes in our urban centres.

GREENWAY

Appendix 5

The proposals include the provision of a shared cycle/pedestrian greenway through the

development which will link into the existing greenway at Ebrington. The route of the greenway

will extend along the riverside, through the public realm and grounds of the new station, will run

alongside the railway line at base of the embankment below the Waterside Link Road, and will

slope up through Mute Meadows to Ebrington. Sections of the greenway closest to Ebrington will

be formed by filling ground behind a 0.6 - 2.6 meter retaining wall rather than cutting into the

embankment and the track side boundary of the greenway will be enclosed by 2.4 meter high

paladin fence. This is the standard type of retaining wall and fencing used throughout the City’s

greenways. Objectors are concerned the path of the greenway through a wooded embankment

may have environmental issues, however Natural Environment Division have not raised any

concerns in this respect and it is considered the proposals accord with Policies ENV 6 and ENV 7

of DAP 2011. The standard of lighting to be used will coordinate with that used in other greenways

in the city which complies with the necessary standards acceptable for use in areas with potential

for bats.

Figure 27: Route of proposed greenway

Figure 28: Photograph of route of proposed greenway along embankment to Ebrington

Objectors also have issue with the greenway being disconnected from the river, however the

public realm and greenway proposals are a marked improvement to the public and amenity areas

Appendix 5

which are currently available to pedestrians at the site. Access to the riverside is currently

disconnected by the existing track alignment which cuts off a portion of vacant land with no

prospect of this being used under the current railway arrangements. The proposals allow this

portion of land to be opened up with physical access to the river’s edge. This along with the

proposed greenway gives greater access to the river and public amenity areas and also affords

greater public views across the river to the city in accordance with Policies R2 and ENV 9 of DAP

2011. The greenway link to Ebrington and pedestrian links to the city centre will also support

walking and cycling in accordance with PPS 13.

ACCESS, MOVEMENT AND PARKING

All traffic will access and exit off the Duke Street Roundabout and the existing bus access road to

the station will be closed off. Access arrangements within the site include a dedicated bus

circulation / drop off lane to the east of the main access and off the existing access road. All other

traffic i.e. cars, taxis, service and delivery vehicles, park and ride users etc. will use the

turning/drop off area to the east of the access at the entrance to the car park. Traffic using the

right turn lane into this turning area will have priority over busses to prevent traffic entering the

site from backing up onto the roundabout and dual carriageway.

DFI Roads have considered the overall scheme of development and have recommended

conditions are attached to the planning approval to facilitate the satisfactory development of the

site. These conditions require the submission, agreement and implementation of further detail

prior to commencement of development i.e. detailed design of the road layout, a detailed

programme of works, any traffic management proposals and a stage 3 and stage 4 safety audit.

Conditions shall also be attached requiring certain works to be carried out prior to operation of

the development i.e. hard surface areas constructed and marked out to provide parking, servicing

and circulation, the existing bus slip road from Duke Street to be permanently closed and

agreement of a service management plan. Compliance with these conditions will ensure that the

road works, servicing and traffic management provide a safe and convenient means of access to

the site and will ensure that adequate provision is made for parking, servicing and traffic

circulation within the site in the interests of road safety and the convenience of road users in

accordance with the requirements of PPS 3.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

Noise Assessment

Appendix 5

The nearest residential properties are located approx. 45 metres away at Bond’s Hill on the

opposite side of the Waterside Link Road dual carriageway. The application was accompanied by

a Noise Impact Assessment for the new terminus and park and ride facility. Based on the noise

assessment carried out including background noise levels, facility noise (including PA system),

vehicle noise at the proposed station, and the noise limit values suggested in the report,

Environmental Health have no objections subject to a condition restricting noise levels from the

development at the nearest residential property on Bonds Hill in order to protect the amenity of

nearby residents. In relation to the potential effects of vibration from trains on the amenity of

the closest dwellings on Bonds Hill, the assessment report states that vibration levels at these

receptors will be within acceptable limits with only a low possibility of adverse impact. Typical

construction noise from the development may be above current guidelines at the nearest

property on Bond’s Hill, on occasion, and night-time work to be carried out on the railway line is

likely to exceed night-time noise target levels. However, it is considered that any disruption

associated with these works will be short term during the construction phase and Environmental

Health have requested a condition is attached to any planning approval requiring a Construction

Management Plan (CMP) to be produced to minimise disturbance to local residents during the

construction phase and any necessary night-time works as described in the Noise Impact

Assessment.

Air Quality

Objectors are concerned that increased congestion associated with the new park and ride is likely

to damage local environmental quality. The application is accompanied by an Air Quality Impact

Assessment which assesses any increase in air quality pollutant concentrations as a result of the

development. The nearest sensitive receptors are considered to be the residents of dwellings

located closest to the road network surrounding the development at Bonds Hill, Simpsons Brae,

Dorman Court and Harpers Quay Apartments. The submitted assessment compares air quality

pollutant concentrations with and without the proposed development and predicts that annual

mean limit values will not be exceeded at these dwellings. The report concludes that these

residents will not experience a significant air quality impact and Environmental Health concur with

the findings of the report that there will not be a significant impact on air quality in the vicinity of

the development.

Giving consideration to the findings of the Noise Impact Assessment and Air Quality Impact

Assessment reports and the comments from Environmental Health who are the competent

authority in assessing such matters, the Planning Department are content the conditions

Appendix 5

suggested will endeavour to safeguard the amenity of surrounding residential properties in

accordance with paragraph 2.3 of the SPPS.

NATURAL HERITAGE

The application site is located adjacent to River Foyle which is an Area of High Ecological Value. It

is also hydrologically connected to the River Foyle and Tributaries SAC/ASSI and Lough Foyle

SPA/Ramsar/ASSI which are of international and national importance. DAERA Natural

Environment Division (NED) considered the proposal with regards to international and nationally

designated sites and other natural heritage considerations and are content it is unlikely to have

any adverse impacts on the ornithological selection features of Lough Foyle ASSI/SPA/Ramsar.

NED reviewed the Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and have no

concerns with regards to potential for contaminated run off during construction or operational

works. Shared Environmental Services (SES) are also content the proposal will not have an adverse

effect on the integrity of any European site. DAERA Water Management Unit (WMU) have

considered the impacts of the proposal on the surface water environment and are also content

with the proposal. NED, WMU and SES have no objections to the development conditional on

submission of a Remediation Strategy, Final CEMP and Method of Works Statement prior to works

commencing on site. DAERA Marine and Fisheries Division considered the impacts of the proposal

on marine mammals and are content with the proposal. The Loughs Agency are charged with the

conservation, protection and development of inland fisheries and also have no objections. NED

are content the evidence submitted in the bat survey report shows no bat roosts have been

discovered on site and the proposal is unlikely to significantly impact the local bat population. The

Planning Department are content the proposals are not likely to have a significant impact upon

any of the designated sites, protected habitats or species, or sites of nature conservation and

natural heritage interests in accordance with Policies NH 1 - NH 5 of PPS 2 and paragraphs 6.175 -

6.193 of the SPPS.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION

Both DAERA Land and Groundwater Team and Environmental Health have considered the

potential for any contamination at the site to impact on environmentally sensitive receptors. They

are in agreement with the findings of the Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment (GQRA) that

potential risks exist to construction and maintenance workers if remedial measures are not put in

place and they support the proposals for a remedial options appraisal to address the identified

risks. They have no objections to the development conditional on the implementation and

Appendix 5

verification of an agreed detailed remedial strategy and considerations for unforeseen

contamination, piling and tank decommissioning. The Planning Department are therefore content

that with the implementation of the above conditions, the development is unlikely to significantly

impact on environmentally sensitive receptors or present unacceptable risks to human health in

accordance with the requirements of the SPPS and Policy ENV 8 of DAP 2011..

FLOOD RISK

This application site is located adjacent to the River Foyle and the Strategic Flood Map (NI)

indicates that the site may be at risk from coastal, fluvial and pluvial flooding. Part of the site lies

on the periphery of the undefended 1 in 200 coastal flood plain which affects the riverside

boundary of the proposed car park. The Planning Department are content this part of the

development meets the exceptions test of FLD 1 as it is for transport infrastructure ancillary to

the new railway station. This also takes into consideration that the land was previously developed

and currently accommodates railway infrastructure and fuel and storage buildings which are to

be removed. This part of the site has no record of historical flooding according to the Strategic

Flood Map (NI) and any history of flooding has not been flagged up by Rivers Agency. The

submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) concludes that the development will remove 32m³ of the

flood storage area of the site, however loss of coastal flood storage area will have a negligible

effect on the extent of the coastal flood plain. The planning application was accompanied by a FRA

to assess any potential risks from coastal flooding from the River Foyle, fluvial flooding from a local

culverted watercourse and pluvial flooding from excessive surface water run-off. In terms of risk

from coastal flooding the FRA modelling based on the 2.82 flood level identified a volume

of32mpotential flooding limited to the edge of the site adjacent to the top of the existing sea wall.

Rivers Agency note from the FRA that the park and ride, bus drop-off, railway line and site access

are not achieving the recommended 600mm freeboard, however the site access is existing and

currently operational and the sections of the bus drop off area and railway line outside of the

freeboard are also currently operational as the existing station and railway tracks. The FRA

concludes that risk from coastal flooding could be mitigated against by raising the level of the car

park or installing warning systems for the parking, bus drop off area and railway line which will

not achieve the 600mm freeboard. Risk from fluvial flooding from overland flow from the

Woodburn Stream can be mitigated by providing lower footpaths to direct flow to the River Foyle

and pluvial flood risk is limited to small ponding areas which will be dealt with by the on-site

drainage system. Rivers Agency advise that while they are not responsible for the preparation of

the FRA report, they accepts its logic, have no reason to disagree with its conclusions and

Appendix 5

consequently cannot sustain a reason for objecting to the development from a drainage or flood

risk perspective. The Planning Department are therefore satisfied that the proposal complies with

Policies FLD 1, FLD 2 and FLD 3 of PPS 15 and paragraphs 6.107 - 6.11 of the SPPS. The

responsibility for the accuracy and acceptance of the Drainage Assessment and implementation

of the proposed flood risk measures rests with the developer and their professional advisors.

13. Conclusion and Recommendation

Whilst acknowledging the opportunities of the site and vision behind the alternative proposals

suggested by the objectors, the Planning Department also acknowledge that this particular site is

constrained and that this has shaped the rationale behind certain elements of the design

proposals. It is the responsibility of the Planning Department to assess the proposals presented

by the applicant and having considered these against the relevant planning policy context as set

out in paragraph 9 above, as well as other material considerations such as the constraints of the

site, the existing arrangements on the ground, relevant consultation responses and issues raised

in representations, the Department would afford determining weight to the opportunity which

the development scheme presents to bring a listed building which is at risk back into re-use as a

railway station whilst preserving its character, integrity and setting. The Planning Department, on

balance, also consider the redevelopment proposals for the wider site to be an improvement on

the current situation with the opening up of 250m of riverside to public use, the provision of an

area of public realm and approx. 0.65km stretch of greenway, consolidation of existing parking

arrangements and improved inward and outward views of this area from the riverside. As such,

approval is recommended subject to the conditions set out below. Members may wish to give

consideration to a temporary condition in relation to the provision of the park and ride car park

and also a condition requiring a parking management strategy for the proposed car park to restrict

its use to public transport users only (as detailed in Condition 5 below)

14. Conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the

date of this permission.

Reason: As required by Section 61 of the Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

2. The type of paving to be used in the public realm areas as indicated on the stamp approved

Drawing No’s. 08 Rev 3 and 40 Rev 2 date stamped 7 December 2017, shall be agreed in writing

with the Council prior to commencement of works on the public realm.

Appendix 5

Reason: To ensure a quality standard of finish to the public areas.

3. Prior to operation of the new railway station and car park, the hard and soft landscaping of

the site shall be carried out in accordance with the details indicated on the stamp approved

Drawing No’s. 08 Rev 3 and 40 Rev 2 date stamped 7 December 2017.

Reason: To ensure a quality standard of finish and landscaping to the public areas and to assist

in screening the car park.

4. The Type 1 Railing which is to be erected to the front of the station forecourt as indicated on

the stamp approved Drawing No. 08 Rev 3 date stamped 7 December 2017 and Drawing No.

47 date stamped 22 November 2017 shall be coloured to match that of the Type 2 Railing to

be erected along the riverside.

Reason: To ensure a comprehensive scheme of development.

5. Prior to the operation of development hereby approved, a Parking Management Strategy for

the park and ride shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Council.

Reason: In the interests of promoting the use of sustainable public transport.

6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the detailed design as

indicated on Drawings No’s. 41 Rev 2 bearing the date stamp 5th December 2017 shall be

submitted to and agreed in writing with the Council in consultation with DFI Roads.

Reason: To ensure the road works necessary to provide a proper, safe and convenient means

of access to the site are carried out at the appropriate time.

7. Upon completion of the works referred to in Condition 6, a Stage 3 and a Stage 4 Safety Audit

shall be undertaken and approved in writing with the Council in consultation with DFI Roads

and thereafter shall be implemented as agreed.

Reason: To provide an assurance that all safety requirements have been implemented.

8. Prior to the commencement of any road works on the adopted network including Duke Street,

Waterside Link and Railway Road, a detailed programme of works and any

required/associated traffic management proposals shall be submitted to and agreed in writing

by the Council in consultation with DFI Roads.

Appendix 5

Reason: To facilitate the convenient movement of all road users and the orderly progress of

work in the interests of road safety.

9. Operation of the development hereby approved shall not commence until the works referred

to in Condition 6 have been completed to the satisfaction of the Council and in accordance

with the approved design.

Reason: To ensure the road works necessary to provide a proper, safe and convenient means

of access to the site are carried out prior to the commencement of retailing and other

operations.

10. Operation of the development hereby approved shall not commence until the hard surfaced

areas have been constructed and generally marked out as indicated in Drawing No. 26 Rev 1

(or subsequently approved drawings) to provide car parking spaces, servicing and circulation

within the site. No part of these hard surfaced areas shall be used at any time for any purpose

other than the parking and movement of vehicles for the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for parking, servicing and traffic

circulation within the site.

11. The development hereby approved shall not become operational until a service management

plan has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Council in consultation with DFI

Road.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision has been made for servicing to the site that

minimises conflict with customer/visitor traffic from the network.

12. Prior to commencement of operation of the development hereby approved, the existing bus

slip road access from Duke Street as indicated on Drawing No 41 Rev 1 bearing the date stamp

10th November 2017 shall be permanently closed and the carriageway/footway reinstated to

the satisfaction of DFI Roads.

Reason: In order to minimize the number of access points on to the public road in the interests

of road safety and the convenience of road users.

13. At least 8 weeks prior to works commencing on site, a Remediation Strategy, a Final

Construction Environmental Management Plan and a Detailed Method of Works Statement

for in/near water works shall be submitted (by the appointed contractor)for agreement by

Appendix 5

Derry City and Strabane District Council in consultation with DAERA and Shared Environmental

Services. This shall reflect all the mitigation and avoidance measures to be employed as

outlined in the Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan dated June 2017.

Reason: To ensure effective avoidance and mitigation measures have been planned for the

protection of the adjacent aquatic environment and to ensure no adverse impacts on the site

selection features and conservation objectives of any European site.

14. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed Remediation Strategy

to address all unacceptable risks to environmental receptors identified in Mott Macdonald’s

Generic Quantitative Risk Assessment, Derry/Londonderry Active Transport Hub (Reference

Number C0513-MMD-00-XX-RP-GEO-001C0512-MMD-00-XX-RP-GEO-001) dated January

2017. This strategy shall be submitted in writing and agreed with the Council in consultation

with DAERA and Environmental Health and the strategy should identify all unacceptable risks

on the site, the remedial objectives/criteria and the measures which are proposed to mitigate

them (including maps/plans showing the remediation design, implementation plan detailing

timetable of works, remedial criteria, monitoring program etc.)

Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use.

15. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the remediation measures as

described in the Remediation Strategy, submitted under Condition 14, have been

implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority shall be

given 2 weeks written notification prior to the commencement of remediation work.


16. If during the development works, new contamination or risks are encountered which have not

previously been identified, works should cease and the Planning Authority shall be notified

immediately. This new contamination shall be fully investigated in accordance with the Model

Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR11). In the event of unacceptable

risks being identified, a remediation strategy shall be agreed with the Planning

Authority in writing, and subsequently implemented and verified to its satisfaction.


17. After completing the remediation works under Conditions 15 and 16, and prior to occupation

of the development, a Verification Report shall be submitted in writing and agreed with

Appendix 5

Planning Authority in consultation with DAERA. This report should be completed by

competent persons in accordance with the Model Procedures for the Management of Land

Contamination (CLR11). The verification report shall present all the remediation and

monitoring works undertaken and demonstrate the effectiveness of the works in managing

all the risks and achieving the remedial objectives.


18. Evidence must be presented in the Verification Report that all fuel storage tanks (and

associated infra-structure) have been fully decommissioned and removed in line with current

Pollution Prevention Guidance (PPG2, PPG27) and the quality of surrounding soils and

groundwater has been verified. Should contamination be identified during this process,

Condition 4 will apply.


19. No development or piling work should commence on this site until a Piling Risk Assessment

has been submitted in writing and agreed with the Planning Authority in consultation with

DAERA. Piling risk assessments should be undertaken in accordance with the methodology

contained within the Environment Agency document on “Piling and Penetrative Ground

Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution

Prevention” http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO0501BITT-E-E.pdf


20. Daytime (07.00 to 23.00) noise levels from activities at the proposed development shall not

exceed 57dB LAeq or 42dB LAeq at all other times at the façade of the most proximate

residential property on Bonds Hill.

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residents from noise.

21. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a Construction Management

Plan (CMP) is produced to minimise disturbance to local residents during the construction

phase of the proposed development and for any night-time works that are deemed necessary.

The CMP shall include general measures, screening, monitoring, off-time periods, responsible

person and night-time works as described in the FR Mark and Associates Noise Impact

Assessment dated February 2017.

Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby residents from noise.

http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO0501BITT-E-E.pdf

Appendix 5

22. No site works of any nature or development shall take place until a programme of

archaeological work has been implemented, in accordance with a written scheme and

programme prepared by a qualified archaeologist, submitted by the applicant and approved

by the Department. The programme should provide for the identification and evaluation of

archaeological remains within the site, for mitigation of the impacts of development, through

excavation recording or by preservation of remains, and for preparation of an archaeological

report.

Reason: To ensure that archaeological remains within the application site are properly

identified, and protected or appropriately recorded.

23. Access shall be afforded to the site at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by

the Department to observe the operations and to monitor the implementation of

archaeological requirements.

Reason: to monitor programmed works in order to ensure that identification, evaluation and

appropriate recording of any archaeological remains, or any other specific work required by

condition, or agreement is satisfactorily completed.

24. Subject to the above conditions, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the

stamped approved drawings.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development.

Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning...

Documents

Transcript of Derry City and Strabane District Council Planning...