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
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
12 Dorman Court, Duke Street, Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
13 Dorman Court, Duke Street,
Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
14 Dorman Court, Duke Street, Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
15 Dorman Court, Duke Street,
Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
16 Dorman Court, Duke Street, Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
17 Dorman Court, Duke Street,
Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
18 Dorman Court, Duke Street, Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
19 Dorman Court, Duke Street,
Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
1 Dorman Court, Duke Street, Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
2 Dorman Court, Duke Street,
Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
3 Dorman Court, Duke Street, Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
4 Dorman Court, Duke Street,
Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
5 Dorman Court, Duke Street, Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
6 Dorman Court, Duke Street,
Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
7 Dorman Court, Duke Street, Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
8 Dorman Court, Duke Street,
Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
13/04/2017, 18/09/2017, 09/11/2017, 15/03/2018
9 Dorman Court, Duke Street, Clooney,Londonderry,Londonderry,BT47 6AT,
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
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.
Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use.
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.
Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use.
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.
Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use.
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.
Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use.
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
Reason: Protection of environmental receptors to ensure the site is suitable for use.
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.
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.
Top Related