Loading document...
MINERALS PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL
Prepared For: Department of Infrastructure
Signed................................................................................. Dalgleish Associates Ltd
Dalgleish Associates Ltd Mineral, Planning and Environmental Consultants Cathedral Square Dunblane FK15 0AH Tel: 01786 822339
CONTENTS DOCUMENT OVERVIEW 1
PS APPENDICES
Appendix 1 DRAFT Bird Hazard Management Plan
979 PS 2025 i Dalgleish Associates Ltd
This report is the Planning Statement accompanying the planning application by The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) for planning permission for engineering operations at Old Turkeyland, Ballasalla. This report presents a consideration of compliance with the planning framework.
An Environmental Statement (ES) is also submitted. The background to the proposal and a description of the proposed development are presented within Part I of the ES. The scope of the EIA and the assessment of environmental effects are presented within Part II of the ES.
Consideration of environmental effects which were scoped out of the EIA is presented within the separate Environmental Review, at the request of the Planning Authority.
This Planning Statement does not form part of the Environmental Statement but the ES should be reviewed in the context of the Planning Statement.
The planning framework for the proposal is set by the Island Development Plan. In relation to Old Turkeyland the relevant planning and waste framework comprises the following documents:
The proposal has been examined against the criteria set out in these documents and appropriate information has been supplied within the Environmental Statement and supporting documentation, to allow all issues to be assessed.
In addition, the policies and guidance relating to highways are considered, as presented in the Manual for Manx Roads, Section 2 refers.
The relevant constraints relating to proximity to Ronaldsway Airport are also considered. This has been subject of pre-application consultation with the Airport and while the potential for effects has been scoped out of any formal assessment it is worthwhile providing an explanation of the factors considered and the embedded mitigation which avoids any risk associated with bird-strike, lighting effects and physical effects of development in proximity to the airport, Section 3 refers.
It is considered that it is demonstrated that the proposal can be undertaken without any significant environmental effects and in compliance with the development framework.
The Strategic Plan sets out the general policies in respect of development and other land use in the Island. It brings together the general policies that had previously been included in the 1982 Plan, Planning Circulars and Local Plans. It was approved by Tynwald and came in to force in 2007. The 2016 update presents amendments which stem from the review undertaken in relation to housing policy only. This reflecting the latest census information of 2011.
Planning Policy Statements replace the role of Planning Circulars.
The stated Strategic Aim of the Plan (at Chapter 2) is:
To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community’s needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage.
Although the continued provision of landfill capacity is not specifically noted within the Strategic Objectives (Chapter 3 of the Strategic Plan), reference to several waste and sustainability objectives are noted and they are relevant to the proposal:
3.2 Resources
This objective being supported by optimising the potential use of indigenous resources to their maximum benefit, the hierarchy of resource use. This principle is however also applicable to suitable void space for landfill.
In designing the proposal energy consumption has been taken into account and a planning energy statement has been prepared to support a building warrant application for a new more efficient office & welfare facility, this incorporating a roof mounted solar array.
Applying the principle behind this policy to a waste context is also valid, i.e. promoting existing sites, optimising their use and where possible avoiding greenfield options.
As noted above, renewable energy generation to support the operation is incorporated into the design.
Sustainable waste management is considered in detail within the Waste Policy, particularly in relation to the Waste Infrastructure Hierarchy and Island Self-Sufficiency.
Equally applicable to the travel of waste, no importation of waste to the Island will be permitted and reducing any requirement for export is also important, again Island Self-Sufficiency refers. The objectives noted at ‘3.3 Environment’ are not directly supported by the proposal they are however considered in the assessment of the acceptability of the development. Of particular relevance is the objective “To minimize [sic] environmental pollution to air, water and land.”
Ensuring continuity of existing employment and the viability of existing business encourages continued investment.
The objectives noted at ‘3.5 Transport and Communications’ are not directly supported by the proposal they are however considered in the assessment of the acceptability of the development. Of particular relevance is the objective “To provide sufficient space for the efficient operation of Ronaldsway Airport and to safeguard the approach and departure routes and the Public Safety Zone, in accordance with International Operating Standards and without compromising environmental objectives. Such improvements are supported by the continuing availability of indigenous materials.” Consideration of bird strike at Appendix 1 - Bird Hazard Management Plan.
Strategic Policies considered in the preparation of the application are:
Strategic Policy 6 relates to major employment sites, although the accompanying text also relates to local employment within existing centres, referencing major employment areas and also land identified in Area Plans, this proposal is not a major employer, nevertheless the site is identified within the Area Plan (Area Plan for the South, Map 3 Proposals, refers). N.B. the reference to ‘Waste disposal processing sites’ is placed on the map at New Turkeyland however from the description and written statement it is clear that this relates to both former quarries at Turkeyland. The PA noted during preapplication consultation that this was a statement of fact and should not be taken as an allocation or stated policy. This is a moot point since it is an established site and the proposal is to continue that
use. The site is previously developed land currently in use for waste management, General Policy 3C applies, and is considered below.
Relevant aspects of Spatial Policy are covered in Strategic Objectives and General Policies, for completeness, note Spatial Policy 6: The strategic roles of Ronaldsway Airport and Douglas Harbour as principal gateways to the Island will be protected and enhanced. This is considered at Section 3 and PS Appendix 1 - Bird Hazard Management Plan.
General policies considered in the preparation of the application are:
Turkeyland Quarries (both New and Old) are identified within the Area Plan for the South as a strategic waste facility. The identification of an existing waste management facility is arguably not the same as being ‘zoned’ for waste management. It is however questionable whether a development relating to the continuation of operations at an established site requires to be zoned.
Nevertheless, the findings of this EIA may be applied in consideration of General Policies 2 and 3 (GP
There is no adverse effect on the surrounding landscape (GP2 (b), (c)), protected wildlife or important habitats (GP2 (d)), there is no effect on public views of the sea (GP2 (e)), character and amenity (GP2 (g), traffic flows (GP2 (i)), nor does it prejudice the use or development of adjoining land (GP2 (k)), it is not contaminated land (in the terms of Part 2A of the Environment Protection Act 1990, referenced
as recognised UK standard terminology and established good practice, i.e. there is no unacceptable risk associated with the proposed use of the land), nor will there be a risk of erosion or flooding (GP 2 (l). resulting from the siting of this development at a previously developed and currently operational waste facility. The remaining provisions of GP2 are not considered relevant to this application.
On the basis that the policy test of GP3 be considered instead, part (g) ‘national need’ comes into question. g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. There is an identified requirement throughout the Island’s Development Plan to continue to provide landfill capacity for those wastes which cannot be managed in any other way. It is clear, from the findings of the EIA, that this identified landfill requirement overrides the potential adverse effects which may result from the proposed development. The requirement for void capacity is urgent and there are currently no alternatives proposed.
Environment policies considered in the preparation of the application are:
Ultimately the development site will be subject to restoration, in compliance with the intentions of the original quarry planning permission.
Environment Policy 4 safeguards the species and habitats of importance and notes that these may include sites which are not designated.
Environment Policy 7 provides for the protection of watercourses and wetlands. A comprehensive Hydrogeological Risk Assessment will be required as part of the WDL application. The assessment of compliance with this policy is also presented within the ES.
Environment Policy 22 seeks to protect the environment and/or amenity of nearby properties in relation specifically to effects of pollution. A comprehensive report on Environmental Setting and Installation Design will be required as part of the WDL application. The ES and ER also present an assessment of compliance with this policy.
Environment Policy 24 requires EIA to be undertaken for certain proposals, particularly development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. An ES accompanies this application.
Environment Policy 27 seeks to enhance the natural environment with appropriate reclamation of sites such as former mineral workings. Ultimately this remains the objective for the site, its interim use, to fulfil a specific purpose for which there is an established strategic national need, is policy compliant.
Environment Policy 40 presumes against development which would damage, disturb or detract from an important archaeological site or its setting. This proposal relates to an established operational site and the effects on monuments and their setting will not alter.
Waste Policy 1 was considered in the preparation of the application.
Waste Policy 1: Waste management installations, including landfill sites, civic amenity sites and facilities for the bulking up, separation, recycling, or recovery or materials from waste will be permitted provided that:
Landfill will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is no alternative method for managing that waste. An application involving the installations or facilities referred to in this Policy will require the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment.
This is arguably the primary policy relevant to the consideration and determination of this application. The need for the proposal is indeed established through the Waste Policy (as required by WP1(a), this also accords with the final clause of WP1, the established market/requirement for a landfill to cater for stable non-reactive hazardous waste is the driver for this proposal. In the absence of an annual statement of need (as proposed in the Waste Strategy 2018), the evidence for need is based on the
strategy itself. The current need has been identified as detailed in the Waste Input Table (ES Appendix
The ES and ER seek to establish the potential effects on the environment including local residents to determine compliance with WP1(b), (c), (d). N.B. there is no Registered Building, Conservation Area, woodland or National Heritage Area within influencing distance of the proposed development.
Progressive restoration of the site is proposed in accordance with WP1(e). The mineral reserve at Old Turkeyland was worked out in the 1970s and there is no concern over sterilisation of minerals, WP1(f). WP1(g) is addressed at PS Appendix 1 - Bird Hazard Management Plan. The final clause of WP1 also requires applications to be accompanied by an EIA, the ES details this process and its findings.
The Area Plan for the South was the first of the modern suite of Area Plans to be adopted and it came into force in March 2013. The Area Plan sets out the spatial vision for the south and includes proposals (site specific as well as policy statements) as well as recommendations.
The spatial vision is stated as follows:
To provide for the needs of our communities such as to –
The ‘Natural Environment’ section of the Area Plan details the presence of Areas of Special Scientific Interest (including Santon Gorge and Port Soderick ASSI to the east of the site), Wildlife sites and Areas of Ecological Interest/Importance (AEI). Consideration of all designated sites in the area is included within the ES.
The ‘Cultural and Historic Environment’ section considers Ancient Monuments, Buildings and Structures of Cultural and Historic Interest and Sites of Archaeological Interest. There are a number of such sites in the environs of Turkeyland. No Likely Significant Effect was identified at Scoping and so the potential for effects on these sites is included in the ER (with reference to setting also in the Landscape and Visual Assessment section of the ES). No historic locations are within influencing distance of the proposed development in relation to direct impacts.
Industrial use is noted at Turkeyland quarries and detail provided within the Minerals and Waste Chapter, as follows, “The Southern area also includes a major facility at Turkeyland which incorporates: a landfill for the disposal of inert wastes, including the storage and/or disposal of processed incinerator bottom ash; a facility for the maturation and processing of incinerator bottom ash; areas for block making and the temporary storage of asbestos; and, the temporary operation of an asphalt plant.” The current use of the site no longer includes the maturation of IBA, the making of concrete blocks or production of asphalt but it remains an industrial site for waste management.
The Minerals section notes that the restoration of former mineral workings, which is both ‘environmentally acceptable’ and ‘sustainable’ is required. Further reference is made to the forthcoming Minerals PPS. Infill for a suitable after-use is noted as an option for restoration, agricultural land and nature conservation are both considered acceptable uses.
It is worth noting that while both Turkeyland quarries are clearly referenced in the written statement, the associated constraints and proposals maps place a pin denoting ‘waste disposal processing site’ at New Turkeyland, to the south of the shared access road, Old Turkeyland, to the north of the access road is nevertheless considered to be recognised as an established waste facility within the Area Plan, if not specifically ‘zoned’ for such development.
The 2018 Waste Strategy updated the Policy and Strategy document published in 2012 following a review undertaken in 2017. It is understood that the production of a new strategy is underway and that a consultation exercise was undertaken to inform this update. Until such time as a new strategy document is published the 2018 strategy remains the most up to date guide on Isle of Man waste management policy and strategy. Through pre-application consultation it is apparent that any new guidance on waste management will require sites to comply with international good practice, e.g. standards implemented in the UK. The public consultation supports this view with two-thirds of respondents indicating support for the development of suitably engineered landfill to accept problematic waste streams (Principles for the Waste Strategy, Consultation Feedback).
The 2018 strategy took into account critical updates including consideration of solid waste streams for inclusion which had previously been managed separately, and the Island context requiring a greater degree of self-sufficiency. Both of these factors affect the application of the waste hierarchy, in term influencing the requirement for an Island specific approach to a waste infrastructure hierarchy.
As noted at Section 2 - The 2012-2022 Waste Strategy identified that, “The need to secure strategic landfill void space for problematic and inert waste is currently identified as the priority work area for infrastructure development”. The 2018 revised Waste Strategy, Core Strategy document updates this position but notes the continuing urgency to manage the disposal of residual wastes from the Energy from Waste plant, “work is ongoing to identify a replacement problematic waste landfill space.” … “The need to secure strategic landfill void space for problematic and inert waste is currently identified as a priority work area for infrastructure development.”
The Infrastructure Hierarchy – Isle of Man Priority, in recognising the geographical and constitutional challenges, stresses the unusual requirement to prioritise waste disposal, or rather the provision of adequate capacity for disposal, i.e. the infrastructure for disposal rather that changing the waste hierarchy per se.
The Strategy needs therefore to undertake a pragmatic response to the waste hierarchy to:
ensure the provision of strategic disposal capacity for residual incinerables, non-incinerable inert and non-incinerable problematic wastes. The need to secure strategic landfill void space for problematic and inert waste is currently identified as the priority work area for infrastructure development
enable a relationship to be maintained with the UK and other jurisdictions that allows the export for disposal or recycling in the UK, from the Island, of hazardous wastes and targeted nonincinerable, hazardous or high embodied carbon materials;
All waste should be managed in accordance with relevant and valid standards to safeguard residents, visitors, flora and fauna, fresh water and marine habitats.
The Departments of Isle of Man Government will identify, monitor, and where necessary manage areas of historic waste disposal.
This is, of course, important in managing all development and central to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Where waste is exported for recycling, in keeping with the Isle of Man policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Island will aim to minimise the distance those materials are transported for primary reprocessing.
Being able to manage waste within the Isle of Man is a major driver for this proposal.
Incineration with energy recovery will remain the primary method for disposing of residual incinerable waste on Island beyond the current facility contract period of August 2029, subject to the facility meeting the required emission and operational standards
The Department will work to utilise the Energy from Waste Facility to dispose of waste which can technically and safely be managed via the incineration process.
The continuation of incineration will result in the continuation of bottom ash production from this process. The facility at Turkeyland will continue to manage this residual waste, with disposal within New Turkeyland.
Policies 4 to 8 are not directly relevant to this application.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan has regard for the need to ensure an appropriate use of resources and the principles of sustainable development.
The Area Plan for the South seeks to meet the needs of the area’s communities, while balancing this with care for the ‘South’, its landscape and environment. The existing facility at Turkeyland, specifically including the site at Old Turkeyland subject to this application, is included within the Area Plan’s proposals. Regardless of the status of the site with respect to land-use zones, the terms of the policy test at GP3(g) of the Strategic Plan are also met. It is considered that the current national need identified in the Waste Strategy, override any identified potential adverse effects, which are negligible; the proposal remains policy compliant.
The Waste Strategy prioritises the continuing provision of landfill capacity, in support of policies for self-sufficiency and in recognition of the waste streams which cannot be managed via reduce, reuse, recycle or indeed by incineration.
The proposal has been the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment as presented within the ES. The principle of the proposal is considered in accordance with the Strategic Plan and Local Plan in that it would:
Proper consideration of site working methods, assessment of environmental impact, consideration of environmental benefits, and suitable timescales demonstrate the acceptability of the proposal.
The purpose of the EIA, as presented within the ES, is to consider to what extent the proposal is likely to have any significant adverse environmental or socio-economic impacts, which in turn will inform the extent to which it accords with the Development Plan, and ultimately its acceptability in planning terms. This planning statement must be considered in conjunction with the ES, and ER, in order to fully consider the planning balance.
The manual’s content reflects current best practice, standards and guidance and is applicable to new residential, mixed-use developments, as well as commercial and employment-led developments.
It is based on the assumption that all new development requires some new highway infrastructure. In planning terms however a development may be new, in a situation such as this, without the site being new. At Old Turkeyland Quarry this application relates to a new development in a planning sense but within an established, developed site. There is no requirement for a new access to the site.
In particular, the DOI Highways consultation response requested that access and site layout plans identify access visibilities splays and access dimensions, and the internal layout showing parking for operational and staff vehicles. As no new access is proposed, this is not considered necessary. The Site Layout Plan (ES Figure 2) illustrates the new provision for six parking spaces, adequate for the 4 staff and low number of visitors to the site. Mobile plant has adequate parking on site and this is unchanged.
Highways also advised the Applicant to consult the Manual for Manx Roads to ascertain what level of detail and assessments are required on highways that needs to be submitted in a future planning application, more specifically guidance contained in Appendix F and G of the Manual.
not a new land use and there is considerable traffic associated with existing operations. In consideration of new traffic generation it is anticipated that the proposal will not meet the threshold for any of the development categories noted at Appendix G of the Manual.
The site is not likely to result in dirt and dust to be spread onto the adopted highway, and measures will remain in place to address this potential. This will be monitored as part of the operators daily checks, dust control is proposed and a road sweeper may be deployed as necessary.
An assessment of traffic movements is included within the non-EIA Environmental Review.
In scoping the EIA it was noted that no concerns relating to the airport have been raised by the relevant consultees and “given the information set out within the scoping report, it is agreed that this can be scoped out of the EIA. It would, nevertheless, be helpful to include some information within the planning statement to explain why the proposal is not considered to raise concerns in relation to birdstrike etc.”
The DRAFT Bird Strike Hazard Assessment is presented at PS Appendix 1.
Additional mitigation which has been embedded within the design for this proposal has been discussed and agreed with the airport.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown