TQ9 Ltd, the owners of Baltic Wharf, in partnership with Acorn, are expected to submit a planning application in the first quarter of 2023. There has been a public consulation on the Baltic Wharf TQ9+Acorn Proposals open_in_new earlier in the year, and there have been pre-application discussions with SHDC.
The following goes through the many planning issues. There is a summary and then the issues are examined in more detail.
For the avoidance of doubt, there is no application before SHDC at the time of writing (Dec'22). The following is in anticipation of an application being made and is based on the intentions of TQ9 and Acorn as they are currently understood. It is written as if an application had been submitted... simply to avoid having to rewrite later !
There is no implied importance in the order of these issues.
Note: There is a lot of planning jargon in this summary. To keep this summary to a reasonable length, these are explained later in this document.
The site is not a brownfield site as claimed by the applicant and should not be considered in this context. It is an extant employment site which has been in continuous industrial use for well over 100 years.
Both the Joint Local Plan open_in_new (JLP) and the OLP is for a total of 190 dwellings, 95 have already been built along Baltic Way, leaving 95 more. The current proposals are for over 120 dwellings. This is not a small variation but an increase from 190 to 215 or a 13% increase. It must therefore be treated as a fresh application.
Both the JLP and the OLP require 80 assisted living units. It has been suggested that these are included as dwellings and so the total dwellings becomes 190+80=270, less the 95 already built, so a further 175 to be built. Assisted living units are general small one bedroom flats and are not equivalent in scale to the general term 'dwelling' for which planning permission is being sought. This would represent a 42% increase.
The JLP - Policy TTV21 open_in_new requires the retention of the boatyard and its facilities. Reducing it to one third its size and removing the undercover facilities that can accommodate vessels up to 6m in height (hull + superstructure) is not consistent with this requirement.
JLP - Policy DEV14 open_in_new along with the Supplementary Planning Document open_in_new (SPD) requires the preservation of quayside employment facilities. The importance of the site is detailed in this independent Marine Sector Economics link report. The SPD further requires that a market report is generated to justify any change of use. This has not been supplied.
JLP - Policy DEV14.3 does not allow development that will adversely affect an employment site, which 120+ dwellings would clearly do.
It has been suggested that the current boatyard is not viable but this is entirely because it is being run down to give credence to the application and to avoid the full weight of DEV 14.
The applicant gives no justification for the claim that the reduced boatyard could be viable. It is not the view of the current business tenants. A full economic analysis needs to be supplied to justify this claim.
The claim that TQ9 has consulted with its business tenants and that they support the application is wholly untrue and should be discounted, unless supporting evidence can be supplied.
The proposals do not provide a full assessment of the carbon cost of this development as required by Ref(JLP - Policy DEV 32).
The land is known to be contaminated. There needs to be a full investigation and mitigation plan (as required by JLP Policy TTV21.3).
Impact on local services, including primary healthcare facilities of 120+ new homes needs proper assessment which has not been provided.
Impact of proposed retail and hospitality units on existing nearby and town centre businesses has not been assessed ( as required by the National Planning Policy Framework ( NPPF open_in_new ) para 86 ).
Not withstanding the problems with the outline planning permission, any so called 'reserve matters' will be subject to the NPPF open_in_new, the Joint Local Plan open_in_new (JLP) and the Supplementary Planning Document open_in_new (SPD). Equally, as a fresh application, it will also need to conform to these policies.
Any one of these issues should be sufficient to disallow an application once submitted, but taken together they demonstrate a seriously flawed and misleading proposal which should not be allowed to proceed.
There are five main items:
The National Planning Policy Framework NPPF open_in_new provides the national guidance, along with a raft of supporting Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) papers.
The Joint Local Plan open_in_new (JLP) provides more detail and is specific to the area covered and needs to be inline with the NPPF and will have been signed off by the Secretary of State.
The key Joint Local Plan policies in this case are JLP - Policy DEV14 open_in_new and JLP - Policy TTV21 open_in_new ( see also Appendix B link ).
Dev14 is relevant as it articulates an important goal of the JLP. The site at Baltic Wharf satisfy both conditions i) and ii) of para 2.
Dev14 compliments and enhances TTV21. While TTV21 requires in para 2 “the Retention of boatyard and associated facilities”, it does not fully provide the protection of DEV14.
These two important policies need to be taken together.
The Supplementary Planning Document open_in_new provides extra guidance on the policies of the JLP. It does not add any extra policies but provides information on how a policy should be used when determining an application.
The SPD paras 5.9 – 5.13 reinforces the importance of DEV14. Baltic Wharf is an extant employment site and therefore enjoys the protection afforded all such sites. It is also an important quayside employment site.
The Climate Emergency Planning Statement open_in_new (CEPS) was adopted in Nov'22 and provides. CEPS para 2.3 describes its role as follows:
"This planning statement has the status of an interim policy statement and guidance and therefore must be taken into account when determining a planning application. This is a recognised approach, as set out in the 'National Planning Policy Guidance in relation to First Homes' , that enables us to put in place interim policy pending the next review of the JLP. As such, it is a new material consideration in the development management process."
All new development needs to demonstrate that all possible steps have been taken to reduce eCO2 emissions.
There exists outline planning permission (OLP) for the site granted on 29 Nov 2012 (10 years ago). There is (will be) a fresh application but the OLP may be appealed to, to support it. Because it is just an outline permission there are many matters yet to be permissioned, these are the so call 'reserve matters'.
There are many issues with this permission, which are discussed below. However, it is not possible to challenge these at this late stage, but this permission should not be relied upon to justify the granting of any permission to a fresh application.
As the owners of the land wish to make considerable changes to the original proposals that were granted outline planning permission, it is expected that a new full planning application will be submitted for the site in the first quarter of 2023. This will be judged against current policy frameworks and DEV14 and TTV21 will apply.
There are many issues with the current proposals as list in the Summary above.
The following relates directly to the Summary of Issues at the beginning of this page.
The site is not a brownfield site as claimed by the applicant. The site is not on the SHDC Brownfield Land Register open_in_new (part 1).
Further more, a brownfield site as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework NPPF open_in_new is:
“Previously developed land” that has the potential for being redeveloped. It is mostly (but not always) land that has been used for industrial and commercial purposes and is now derelict and possibly contaminated. However, a Local Planning Authority (LPA) is required to keep a Brownfield Land Register.
While the JLP – TTV21 para 5.105 refers to it as a “brownfield site”, this is clearly incorrect and should not be relied upon in any way.
Baltic Wharf is therefore not a brownfield site. It is in active and continuous use and has been for well over 130 years, and this should be the context in which planning policy must be applied.
Both the Joint Local Plan open_in_new (JLP) and the OLP is for a total of 190 dwellings, 95 have already been built along Baltic Way, leaving 95 more. The current proposals are for over 120 dwellings. This is not a small variation but an increase from 190 to 215 or a 13% increase. It must therefore be treated as a fresh application.
Both the JLP and the OLP require 80 assisted living units. It has been suggested that these are included as dwellings and so the total dwellings becomes 190+80=270, less the 95 already built, so a further 175 to be built. This would represent a 42% increase.
Assisted living units are general small one bedroom flats and are not equivalent in scale to the general term 'dwelling' for which planning permission is being sought. It would result in huge over-development and a housing density that is not in keeping with the JLP.
The Joint Local Plan open_in_new (JLP) Policy TTV21 requires the retention of the boatyard and its facilities. Reducing it to one third its size and removing the undercover facilities that can accommodate vessels up to 6m in height (hull + superstructure) is not consistent with this requirement.
The JLP Policy TTV21.2 states the requirement for the “Retention of boatyard and associated facilities.”
The ‘associated facilities’ referred to will necessarily include:
The following table shows the areas of the boat-yard, both current and proposed as measured using Google Earth Pro (accuracy generally accepted to be less than +/- 1%). The measurements are recorded in Appendix C as screenshots (see Refs column).
| Location / Use | Refs | Current (sq m) | Proposed (sq m) | Reduction (sq m) | Reduction % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Site boundary (red line) | B1 | 32,000 | 32,000 | 0 | 0 |
| Core boatyard (see also Totals row) | B2,B4 | 23,000 | 9,000 | 14,000 | 61 |
| Workshop space (high single-storey) | B6,B7 | 4,500 | 1,000 | 3,500 | 78 |
| Office space (two storey) | B6,B7 | 4,500 | 1,000 | 3,500 | 78 |
| Outside boat storage | 8,600 | 6,200 | 3,400 | 39 | |
| Lifting, travel-hoist avenue, access | B3 | 3,800 | 1,800 | 4,800 | 64 |
| Other areas (eg: self-storage) | 4,800 | 0 | 2,300 | 100 | |
| Totals | 23,000 | 9000 | 14,000 | 61 |
The public consultation material states:
“Total boatyard area of 10,000 sqm comprising of 9,250 sqm (GEA) boat storage area and 1,500sqm marine industries over two floors.”
The schematic site layout provided indicates an area less that 10,000 sq m. Even accepting this area it is a vast reduction in the size of the boatyard and its facilities, and it will render the yard unviable. It is not a reasonable proposal.
The proposal also results in a huge reduction in workshop space to the point where the yard will cease to be able service any vessels other those that are small and can be turned around very quickly. The likelihood is the yard would then close after a very few years.
The table shows that the sheds, that are a unique facility, will be reduced from the current area of 4,500 sq m to about 1000 sq m. A reduction of 78% . The current facilities can accommodate vessels with a LOA of 60m and a height (hull + superstructure) of 6m.
These figures are not reconcilable with the statement in the consultation brochure’s conclusions:
“We will be retaining the boatyard and providing be enhanced facilities for existing tenants and other marine industries”
JLP Policy DEV14 along with the Supplementary Planning Document open_in_new (SPD) requires the preservation of quayside employment facilities. The importance of the site is detailed in this independent Marine Sector Economics link report. The SPD further requires that a market report is generated to justify any change of use. This has not been supplied.
JLP Policy DEV14.3 does not allow development that will adversely affect an employment site.
The reduction of this important quayside marine employment site to 1/3rd its size with the remaining area to contain 120+ dwellings will adversely affect the site.
The removal of the large undercover facilities and the reduction of the boatyard to 1/3rd its size cannot be considered to be addressing "the the specific locational requirementsof the marine sector, as required by NPPF open_in_new para 83, which states:
"Planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors. This includes making provision for clusters or networks of knowledge and data-driven, creative or high technology industries; and for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations."
It has been suggested that the current boatyard is not viable but this is entirely because it is being run down to give credence to the application and to avoid the full weight of DEV 14.
The current yard is not performing well due to its poor management not because of any market or other issues.
A Google search for boatyards in the South West returns Baltic Wharf at number 80. There clearly have been no attempts to market its services in any meaningful way.
There has been a lack of investment in the facilities and equipment that has severely reduced the yard’s ability to prosper.
Several business tenants have alleged that they have not been able to take on large commissions because the yard owners have not granted permission for these jobs to proceed as it would interfere with the proposed development. One commission was allegedly worth £500,000.
The consultation with the business tenants has not yielded consensus or agreement, as has been claimed by Acorn. The tenants have been presented with a ‘take it or leave it’ proposal, and have been put in an impossible position. There exists a great deal of worry and concern.
On 1 Jun 2022 tenants received notification of the results of a ‘rent review’, carried out by the property consultants Vickery Holman. Tenants have been asked to pay increased rents ranging from +30% to +110% from next month. Given the many other input costs businesses are having to endure at the moment, this is a quite extraordinary and cynical move.
It is reasonable to assume that the above amounts to a deliberate policy to run-down the yard in order to support the claim that it is not viable and hence needs to be redeveloped. It is a misleading claim that should not be given any credence, especially for the purposes of judging a planning application and the unambiguous protections afforded the site by the JLP policies.
The applicant gives no justification for the claim that the reduced boatyard could be viable. It is not the view of the current business tenants. A full economic analysis needs to be supplied to justify this claim.
The proposed boatyard will not be viable. Any boatyard requires circulation space for it to be able to operate. By reducing the boatyard to a third of its current area it will mean it will only be able to realistically accommodate less than 100 small boats. It will become impossible to deal with larger vessels.
To compare with other yards we need some definitions:
Effective Storage Space (ESS) is the Storage Space derived from the total space available and using a Work to Storage Ratio. It is simple to show that:
ESS = Total/(1+WSR).
The current boatyard has a WSR of 0.44 . (SS=8,600 and WS=3,800). This is comparable to other boatyards.
| Address | WSR |
|---|---|
| Blackness Marine, TQ9 7HQ | 0.58 |
| Noss on Dart Marina (2007), TQ6 0EA | 0.47 |
| Davis’s Boat Yard, Poole, BH15 4EJ | 0.43 |
Anything less than 0.4 would be a serious erosion of the facilities and viability of the boat-yard. In the following we have allowed a conservative WSR of 0.42
| Outside (OS) | Effective (ESS) | Vessels in ESS | Capacity Reduction | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Boat Yard | 12,400 | 8,600 | 215 | 0% |
| Proposal 1 | 8,000 | 5,630 | 140 | 35% |
| Proposal 2 | 8,800 | 6,200 | 155 | 28% |
The public statement that:
“We will be retaining the boatyard and providing enhanced facilities for existing tenants and other marine industries”
is quite wrong and misleading.
The claim that TQ9 has consulted with its business tenants and that they support the application is wholly untrue and should be discounted, unless supporting evidence can be supplied. TQ9 Ltd would need to provide affidavits to support this claim.
As of Dec'23, there had been no meetings with the business tenants for 3 months.
The proposals do not provide an assessment of the carbon cost of this development or its long term sustainability as laid out in JLP policy DEV 32 along with SPD section 9.
There needs to be a Sustainability Statement separately, or within the Design and Access Statement (DAS) that details the approach to be taken to minimise the carbon cost of the building works, as required by DEV32.1
There needs to be a Resilience section in the DAS that details how the development will be resilient to climate change, as per DEV32.2
There needs to be a Solar Master Plan as required in DEV32.3 and a more general Energy Statement as required in DEV32.3 - DEV32.6
As there will be more than 100 homes, there needs to be a detailed technical feasibility of the development to deliver an on-site heat network (aka District Heating), or, where this is not possible, demonstrate that they are designed to connect to a future district energy network, as required by DEV32.6
The land is known to be contaminated. The site has been used for more than a century for various industrial processes and storage, including a tantalizing plant. There needs to be a full investigation and mitigation plan (as required by JLP Policy TTV21.3).
The proposal for 120+ new dwellings will put an extra burden on local GP Surgeries. This is not a material planning consideration but s106 monies need to be secured specifically to assist local primary healthcare.
The impact of the proposed retail and hospitality units on existing nearby and town centre businesses has not been assessed, as required by the NPPF open_in_new para 86 ). The proposals could damage the unique and vulnerable town centre of Totnes, through increased traffic due to proposed 330 cars on the site, and the proposed retail offering. There needs to be a survey of the businesses in the town.
There are many issues with the OLP ( 56/1939/10/O open_in_new ) as itemised below:
The outline planning permission (OLP) ( 56/1939/10/O open_in_new ) as it applies to the boatyard is questionable as the application is for an obvious change of use from commercial to residential. Outline planning permission cannot be granted where there is a change of use. Also, it is not a brownfield site. Normally, where there is a change of use-class, other than those allowed, outline planning permission cannot be granted. The permission granted predates the “permission in principal” provisions added to the Town and Country Planning Act in 2018.
The OLP gives explicit permissions but only by listing maximums for various aspects of the site, using the phrase “up to”. The detail of all these aspects are therefore Reserved Matters, which legislation requires needs to be applied for within 3 years (Town and Country Planning Act s92(2)(a) ) . While the legislation allows for a phased development to wit:
"Subject to the following provisions of this section, where outline planning permission is granted for development consisting in or including the carrying out of building or other operations, it shall be granted subject to conditions to the effect -
1) that, in the case of any reserved matter, application for approval must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of the grant of outline planning permission; and 2) that, in the case of outline planning permission for the development of land in England, the development to which the permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved;"
It is very unusual to allow this process to spread over 10 years.
“The existing structures give neither effective boatyard or employment accommodation and adaptation of the existing structures to provide a better pattern of use is not possible.”
This statement is not then justified and is wholly incorrect. The current structures are ideally suited to the repair and construction and storage of vessels and provide a unique facility that is not available elsewhere on the river Dart or much further afield. Furthermore, the structures are in relatively good condition and would take only modest investment to bring them up to modern standards.
It further states it will provide:
"New employment accommodation providing employment space for 350 jobs. This includes existing and additional marine employment, over 130 office jobs, work facilities for site residents, and also health care and retail employment."
" New and expanded marine workshops and facilities, new boatyard of equivalent size to the current capacity including slipway, wooden boat repair and undercover storage facilities and visitor/site pontoons.
The Outline Planning permission was granted and conditioned according to the DAS, which makes statements that bear little resemblance to the current proposals which drastically reduces the boatyard in size and would render it unviable (see below).
The following is an extract from the outline planning permission (bullets added for clarity).
all as set out in the submitted Development Framework Plan and Schedule as indicated on drawing no 1040.6.04.
Reason: To reflect the specific amounts of gross floor-space (measured internally and externally) for each of the approved uses as proposed in the application.
Note: So Total Gross Floor Area = 23,000 + 11,000 + 3,320 + 16,000 = 53,320 ( ie < 54,000 )
Use Classes:
These are defined here: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/9/change_of_use
They have changed, so these are the classes as permission above:
| A1 | Shops, retail warehouses, hairdressers, undertakers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, pet shops, sandwich bars, showrooms, domestic hire shops, dry cleaners, funeral directors and internet cafes |
|---|---|
| A2 | Financial services such as banks and building societies, professional services (other than health and medical services) and including estate and employment agencies. It does not include betting offices or pay day loan shops |
| A3 | For the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises - restaurants, snack bars and cafes |
| B1 | Uses which can be carried out in a residential area without detriment to its amenity. This class was formed of three parts: B1(a) Offices - Other than a use within Class A2 (see above) B1(b) Research and development of products or processes B1(c) Industrial processes |
| B2 | Use for industrial process other than one falling within class E(g) (previously class B1) (excluding incineration purposes, chemical treatment or landfill or hazardous waste) |
| C2 | Residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres |
| C3 | This class is formed of three parts: C3(a) covers use by a single person or a family (a couple whether married or not, a person related to one another with members of the family of one of the couple to be treated as members of the family of the other), an employer and certain domestic employees (such as an au pair, nanny, nurse, governess, servant, chauffeur, gardener, secretary and personal assistant), a carer and the person receiving the care and a foster parent and foster child C3(b) covers up to six people living together as a single household and receiving care e.g. supported housing schemes such as those for people with learning disabilities or mental health problems C3(c) allows for groups of people (up to six) living together as a single household. This allows for those groupings that do not fall within the C4 HMO definition, but which fell within the previous C3 use class, to be provided for i.e. a small religious community may fall into this section as could a homeowner who is living with a lodger |
JLP – Policy DEV14, Maintaining a flexible mix of employment sites
A flexible supply of employment land and premises will be maintained to support investment and expansion of existing businesses as well as for the inward investment of high-value businesses, particularly but not exclusively those involved in the marine sector, advanced manufacturing and knowledge based industries. The following provisions will apply:
JLP – Policy TTV21, Land at Baltic Wharf
Land at Baltic Wharf is allocated for a mixed-use redevelopment, including residential, marine / employment and commercial uses. Provision is made for in the order of 190 new homes and 3,300 sq.m. employment floorspace (Use Class B1 and B2). Development should provide for the following:
(5.105) Baltic Wharf is an important brownfield regeneration site in a prominent location alongside the River Dart. It was allocated for development in previous plans and has been granted consent for a mixed-use scheme which is now being implemented. Phase one of the housing is largely complete, with the other elements of the scheme, including employment provision and further housing, to be commenced. In addition to the benefits of redeveloping the site for Totnes and the local economy more widely, the appearance of the site and its visual impact on the River Dart can be greatly enhanced.
( Note: This is incorrect. It is not a brownfield site. )
(5.106) The potential flood risk on this site is significant along the eastern edge immediately adjacent to the river. Proposals should find solutions to mitigate against this flood risk.
(5.107) A site specific greater horseshoe bat mitigation plan must be submitted and approved before planning permission will be granted. The plan must demonstrate how the proposed development will retain continued ecological functionality for greater horseshoe bat use associated with the South Hams SAC, and that the development will not have an adverse effect on the SAC.
(5.108) Within the Totnes area, six further sites are identified as being suitable for development (four of which have planning permission) for a range of uses including
residential and employment. The development of these sites will support the vision
and objectives of the JLP and the spatial priorities for Totnes.
(5.109) The specific requirements identified are additional to the generic requirements of other policies. The allocations should, therefore, be read alongside and considered against the other policies in the JLP.
Click images to enlarge.
