Loading document...
Oik yn Ard-Scrudeyr
31 MAY 2013
DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Our Ref: DF12/0037 Planning Application Ref.No: 12/01671/B
THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT (PROCEDURE ORDER) 2005
Planning Secretary Department Of Infrastructure Planning and Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas
| Applicant: | Department Of Infrastructure | | --- | --- | | Proposal: | Extend the time for landfill operations for a further five years plus one year to enable the restoration scheme to be completed, importation of c.2500 tpa of mixed inert and C&D wastes over the five year period and development of an amended alternative restoration scheme to reflect the projected volume of imported materials, Wrights Pit North Landfill Cranstal Road Bride Isle Of Man |
In accordance with paragraph 10 of the above Order, the person appointed by the Council of Ministers to consider this application has submitted his report.
In accordance with paragraph 10.3(a) and (b), a copy of the appointed person's report is enclosed.
On the 23rd May 2013, and after consultation, the Council of Ministers accepted the recommendation contained within that report and the application was approved subject to the conditions specified below.
| Date of Issue: | 29th May 2013 | | --- | --- | | Chief Secretary's Office | | | Government Offices | Mr W Greenhow ACMA | | Bucks Road | Chief Secretary | | Douglas | |
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Planning Application and Environmental Statement (SLR Ref 419-00189-000088) date stamped 19 December 2012.
The development hereby permitted allows a further five years for the continuation of land filling operations until 31st December 2019 and a further one year to enable the restoration scheme to be completed by 31st December 2020. By that date, all equipment, plant buildings and fencing (subject to condition 7) shall be removed from the site and its locality, save for that required in connection with the on-going management of the approved scheme of restoration.
As the approved landfill progresses the site shall be capped with layers of selected sand and gravel, so as to provide a suitable substrate for the development of the proposed restoration scheme. Provision shall be made for the free drainage of rainfall and for the free emission of landfill gas.
Prior to any final restoration, measures to prevent the ingress of rabbits shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and those approved measures shall be implemented.
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority, the site shall be restored in accordance with the scheme and phasing details set out in Section 3 of the Planning Application and Environmental Statement (SLR Ref 419-00189-000088) date stamped 19 December 2012.
No water or other contaminants shall be permitted to flow or be transferred by vehicle wheels on to the highway at the access to Wrights Pit North.
Subject to the other conditions in this notice, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans WPN 1/1, WPN 2/1, WPN 2/2, WPN 2/3, WPN 3/1, WPN 3/2 and WPN 3/3 all bound into the Planning Application and Environmental Statement (SLR Ref 419-00189-000088) date stamped 19 December 2012.
The boundary fences around the site shall be retained and shall be removed only following the written agreement of the Planning Authority.
No water or mud shall be permitted to drain from the site on to the highway.
No deliveries shall be made to the site outside the times of Mondays to Fridays between 0930 hrs and 1530 hrs.
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority, the landform in each completed phase and surface restoration phase shall accord with the landform and contours shown in drawings WPN 3/1, WPN 3/2 and WPN 3/3.
No household waste or incinerator bottom ash shall be deposited on the site.
If at any time, frogs or lizards are found on the site, DAFF shall be notified and given time to advise.
Site visit: Monday 11 March 2013
PA 95/01573/B approved the extraction of sand and gravel and use as landfill site for controlled waste including new access road, security gates, weighbridge, office, toilets, fencing and litter netting and restoration of site.
PA 00/01759/B approved amendment to landfill profile, capping and completion date involving variation of conditions.
PA 02/01636/B approved amendments to extend planning permission for landfill operations.
PA 06/00562/B approved completion of landfill operations comprising amendment of the proposals approved under PA 02/01636/B and amendment of the time periods permitted for completing those proposals.
PA 09/02058/B issued on 24th March 2010 approved the extension of landfill operations for a further five years including the importation of c. 2,000 tpa of mixed inert and C&D [construction and demolition] wastes and development of an amended alternative restoration scheme to reflect the projected volume of imported materials. 3. Amongst other conditions, this extant approval requires operations to cease by 31^{\text {st }} December 2014 with restoration completed by 31^{\text {st }} December 2015. The current application seeks to roll those dates forward by five years with further development of the restoration scheme. As submitted it referred to c. 2,500 tpa of wastes but the site is licensed for up to 5,000 \mathrm{tpa} and it was evident that the operators envisaged accepting more than 2,500 \mathrm{tpa}, perhaps substantially more, contingent on the level of demand during the extended period. This could amount to a significant variation, not least as regards lorry movements, and it was evident to the Planning Officer and to me that the application required re-advertising in corrected form. 4. While purposefully avoiding commenting on the merits, the Planning Officer wrote to SLR Consulting Ltd (agents for the DoI) on 30^{\text {th }} January 2013 requesting a revised application and also prompting further technical information. SLR Ltd replied on 5^{\text {th }} March. I in turn wrote to SLR Ltd on 15^{\text {th }} March confirming the need to re-advertise and also seeking information; the firm replied on 28^{\text {th }} March. I have regard to these exchanges in this report. The proposals were re-advertised on 4^{\text {th }} April with a closing date for further comments of 3^{\text {rd }} May. In the event, none was received other than from the Planning Officer confirming that in substance his earlier submissions stood.
| Year | Waste Inputs Contracted Waste tonnes (cu metres) | Waste Inputs Proposed Annual tonnes (cu metres) | Proposed Contingency Waste Inputs tonnes (cu metres) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 2012 | 2,500(1,666) | | 6,000(4,000) Identified asbestos material managed | | 2013 | 2,500(1,666) | | 2,000(1,333) | | 2014 | 2,500(1,666) | | 2,000(1,333) | | 2015 | | 2,500(1,666) | 2,000(1,333) | | 2016 | | 2,500(1,666) | 2,000(1,333) | | 2017 | | 2,500(1,666) | 2,000(1,333) | | 2018 | | 2,500(1,666) | 2,000(1,333) | | 2019 | | 2,500(1,666) | 2,000(1,333) | | 2020 | | Restoration to Original Ground Level | |
asbestos, are unrecyclable and similarly some inert wastes, such as inert fines, also must be disposed to landfill. It is possible to recycle gypsum wastes but no facilities to do so exist on the Island and transport to the UK would be neither economic nor sustainable because of the limited volumes, distances and haulage difficulties. A trial has been undertaken to recycle from plasterboard but a high percentage was contaminated.
It is proposed that the hours of operation would remain as per the current permissions (Monday to Friday 9.30 am to 3.30 pm) and access would remain off the A16 some 2½ miles north of the village of Bride, where vehicles disperse on to the A10 or A17. Restoration will require soil sourced from the site and surroundings. A 4 m mound along the western boundary, created at the outset, is sufficient to restore the remaining areas of landfill. The existing 2 m security fence would be removed and replaced with a low level fence. The DoI is proposing trials of partially buried rabbit proof fence around trial plots on restored landfills at the Point of Ayre. Waste that might be accepted in an emergency or on a contingent basis is by definition unknown but would be within the scope prescribed by the site licence, which should not be duplicated under planning control. The planning conditions attached to PA 09/02058/B remain appropriate suitably updated.
The Planning Authority: The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 has 2 key relevant policies: General Policy 2 and Waste Policy 1. The site is not allocated for waste within the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 and it is therefore not in accordance with its land use zoning.
As submitted, the application lacks a site survey plan, cross sections and calculation of void space. This is the third extension of time for infilling and should be assessed against the overall duration. What provision is there to ensure completion within this further time while also making provision for ongoing disposal of problematic waste? The application does not directly identify intended operational hours or lorry routeing.
As the application acknowledges, it must demonstrate a need (Waste Policy 1) in accordance with what is now understood to be the DoI 2012-2022 Waste Policy and Strategy (WP&S). It is understood that the WP&S does not include details of existing or projected waste arisings. Wrights Pit North is not identified as the preferred option for problematic/hazardous wastes. Although the WP&S Policy 4 Infrastructure - Key Proposal 1 is to "Develop long-term landfill solution for specific wastes beyond the current lifespan of Wrights Pit North" and elsewhere the document identifies a need to "create a long-term disposal site for the Island's problematic wastes ..." no details are provided in either regard. Nor does the application identify what types of waste might require disposal under its contingency category.
On alternative means of disposal, the application does not explain why the site is needed if alternative technologies exist for managing the hazardous wastes. Also, off-island options should be assessed.
On restoration, the application refers to materials imported from neighbouring sites and to topsoil stripped from adjacent land, but with insufficient information for proper evaluation. SLR's reports for Ballacallow and Wrights Pit East recommended rabbit proof fencing but the current application does not take this forward.
The Highway Authority commenting on the application as initially submitted: traffic generated by this application is similar to previous applications and will not create an adverse traffic impact.
Mr W E Teare ACIB MHK, commenting on the application as initially submitted, writes with the agreement of the Bride Parish Commissioners on their behalf. He and they are disappointed, as this application flies in the face of numerous past assurances that tipping would have stopped years ago. A Department representative on 1st November 2012 assured the Commissioners that the
absolute maximum to be imported to Bride would be 1,500 tpa. However, the Commissioners recognise that activity has substantially reduced since the Community Civic Amenity Site was relocated to Balladoole and are prepared not to object subject to the following conditions being imposed.
The site is not allocated for landfill by the 1982 Development Plan but that Plan does indicate "Areas for Surface Mineral Working" "Gravel" in this general vicinity and Wrights Pit North has a lengthy history of approvals for extraction followed by infilling, including the extant PA 09/02058/B. I note and agree with the Planning Authority suggestion that it is Strategic Plan General Policy 2, along with Waste Policy 1, that is most relevant. General Policy 2 concerns proposals according with the land-use zoning and in all the circumstances here I consider that this is an appropriate approach. If I am wrong about that, then certainly the site history would in any event amount to an important material consideration to set against land use zoning considerations.
As at many landfill sites, there is a dilemma at the heart of this application. On the one hand, continued operations - not least lorry movements through the village of Bride, hamlet of Cranstal and further afield - are likely to be an understandable concern particularly as this is not the first application to prolong operations. Conversely, the unfilled void is a valuable public asset. Pressure on the operators to close by the end of 2014 would wipe out this value and also risk either unsatisfactory restoration below the intended final contours, or the importation of materials other than residual wastes that might otherwise have been put to use. A tonnage limit below that authorised by the site licence would similarly risk achieving fill below the intended final contours as well, of course, as the problem of how else to dispose of excess waste should it arise.
The site itself is remote, in a flat terrain, where aside from the boundary fence its visual impact is limited. No issues arise with regard to hydrogeology or ecology. I note the comments from Mr Teare on behalf of the Bride Commissioners regarding the substantial reduction overall in lorry movements compared with a few years ago, and I recall similar comments by local participants at the Bride Development Order inquiry I conducted in September 2011. Compared with many, this is not a large landfill site and the annual input equates to very few of lorry movements, at least on average, over the working day.
The DoI 2012-2022 Waste Policy and Strategy looks to the longer term and if, as it appears, there are difficulties in progressing new facilities, this hardly weighs against extending the life of Wrights Pit North, quite the reverse. Even with determined application of the Island waste hierarchy: reduction, re-use and recovery, recycling and energy recovery from incineration, there remain residual waste streams for which landfill is the only practicable option. Disposal off-island should be seen as an option of last resort: aside from the high cost of transport and UK landfill charges, off-island disposal of problematic wastes would also breach the proximity principle, as the safest and most sustainable option, for disposal to be as close as practicable to a waste source.
Section 3 of the Planning Application and Environmental Statement sets out the intended restoration scheme, which would see the land returned to its former finished level as heathland habitat. This seems to be a satisfactory basis on which to proceed, but there should be scope for the Planning Authority to consider revisions if, for example, the infilling outturn proves significantly different from that forecast. It would also be reasonable to require further consideration of rabbit proof fencing, at least during the early years, to enable the intended vegetation cover to establish.
Of the other matters suggested for the Bride Commissioners, the 1st, 3rd and 4th would be impracticable to enforce through planning control. On the 2nd I can find no reference to operating hours in the conditions attached to PA 09/02058/B. Bride School, on the access route, has I understand now closed, but even so it is reasonable to exclude lorry movements through the village at times when children and others are most likely to be on the move. I shall suggest a new condition in line with the times referred to by SLR Ltd. Finally, a limit of 1,500 tpa would largely negate the intentions of the application, although I can understand why this has been suggested if such an undertaking was given in the past.
Subject to the conditions below, which in the main update those attached to the extant approval, I consider that the ongoing filling and final restoration would meet the safeguarding criteria in Strategic Plan General Policy 2 and requirements of Waste Policy 1.
Recommendations
I recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.
This permission relates to the completion of land filling and restoration operations at Wrights Pit North as shown in the drawings and other information within the document Planning Application and Environmental Statement (SLR Ref 419-00189-000088) date stamped 19 December 2012.
The development hereby permitted allows a further five years for the continuation of land filling operations until 31st December 2019 and a further one year to enable the restoration scheme to be completed by 31st December 2020. By that date, all equipment, plant buildings and fencing (subject to condition 7) shall be removed from the site and its locality, save for that required in connection with the on-going management of the approved scheme of restoration.
As the approved landfill progresses the site shall be capped with layers of selected sand and gravel, so as to provide a suitable substrate for the development of the proposed restoration scheme. Provision shall be made for the free drainage of rainfall and for the free emission of landfill gas.
Prior to any final restoration, measures to prevent the ingress of rabbits shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and those approved measures shall be implemented.
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority, the site shall be restored in accordance with the scheme and phasing details set out in Section 3 of the Planning Application and Environmental Statement (SLR Ref 419-00189-000088) date stamped 19 December 2012.
No water or other contaminants shall be permitted to flow or be transferred by vehicle wheels on to the highway at the access to Wrights Pit North.
Subject to the other conditions in this notice, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans WPN 1/1, WPN 2/1, WPN 2/2 WPN 2/3, WPN 3/1, WPN 3/2 and WPN 3/3 all bound into the Planning Application and Environmental Statement (SLR Ref 419-00189-000088) date stamped 19 December 2012.
The boundary fences around the site shall be retained and shall be removed only following the written agreement of the Planning Authority.
No water or mud shall be permitted to drain from the site on to the highway.
No deliveries shall be made to the site outside the times of Mondays to Fridays between 0930 hrs and 1530 hrs.
Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Planning Authority, the landform in each completed phase and surface restoration phase shall accord with the landform and contours shown in drawings WPN 3/1, WPN 3/2 and WPN 3/3.
No household waste or incinerator bottom ash shall be deposited on the site.
If at any time, frogs or lizards are found on the site, DAFF shall be notified and given time to advise.
Alan Langton<br>DipTP CEng MRTPI MICE MCIHT<br>Inspector
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
