Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
Department of Environment Food and Agriculture, Planning & Building Control, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF. Email [email protected]. Tel 01624 685950
PLANNING STATEMENT
Statement on behalf of the Planning Authority relative to:
Extend the time for landfilling operations to continue until 31st December 2030, plus 1 year to enable the restoration scheme to be completed by 31st December 2031. An additional waste type is also requested for landfilling of non-hazardous dredged material arising from activities carried out under statutory provisions for ports and harbours and/or for flood risk management
Wrights Pit North Landfill Off Cranstal Road Bride Isle Of Man
PA Reference 22/00086/B
Prepared on behalf of the Planning Authority by Head of Development Management Mr S Butler
==== PAGE 2 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 2 of 16 1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is situated at the northern end of the Island at the Point of Ayre, accessed off the A16 to the south of the lighthouse. It is approximately 4km north of Bride, to the north of an active mineral site and to the east of a designated Area of Special Protection for Birds, managed as a nature reserve.
1.2 The site is approximately 4.15 hectares surrounded by a 2m high chain link fence (there is no other fixed site infrastructure). A mini digger is used on site to cover waste and prepare void. Vehicles access the site using the weighbridge facilities at Balladoole Civic Amenity Site and via the gated entrance. Deliveries are Monday to Friday 9:30 - 15:30.
1.3 It forms part of a complex of sites which have been used since 1991 for was disposal. The sites have been operated on the 'dilute and disperse' principle (meaning there is no engineering lining or cap). Landfill gas is diffused to the air and leachate migrates to the Sea.
1.4 Planning Approval to infill the WPN former sand pit was initially approved in 1996, with landfill undertaken in two cells. Subsequent applications have been submitted to take account of changing circumstances. Cell 1 (the eastern area) is no longer operational and the site has undergone restoration and aftercare, and Cell 2, the western area, remains operational. The use of the site for deposit of waste has been continuous since 2012, however at a lower rate than anticipated, and so significant void space remains.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks the following (same as 21/01000/B)Retrospective planning approval to extend the duration of landfilling operations at WPN from 1 January 2020 to present day. o Planning approval to extend the duration of landfilling operations at WPN from present day to 31 December 2030. o Planning approval to extend the time for completing the site restoration at WPN to 31 December 2031 o No proposed change to waste streams or final proposed contours previously approved under 12/01671/B) - these are set out at 2.3.13 of the EIA other than as set out below
2.2 In addition to the above, and differently to 21/01000/B the application seeks to include, "non-hazardous dredged material arising from Government activities carried out under statutory provisions for ports and harbours and/or for flood risk management is added to the permitted waste types" and notes, "the annual permitted tonnage of waste, restoration of the site, etc remain the same as present" (cover letter).
2.3 It is understood that if approved 22/00086/B could be implemented instead of 21/01000/B or if the proposal is acceptable in all regards other than the additional waste type, then 22/00086/B could be refused and 21/01000/B approved and implemented instead.
2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment Report (dated January 2022) explains the background to the proposed development: o WPN is a strategic waste disposal facility for landfill of up to 5,000 tonnes per annum (tpa) of inert and construction and demolition waste o It is a former quarry and the only remain landfill site within the complex o Planning Approval to landfill was given in 1996 with various amendments since, most recently in 2013 which extended life to 2019 and increased tpa to 5,000 (from 2,500) o To ensure the continued provision of a strategic waste disposal facility for the Island's existing C&D waste streams, the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) is proposing to extend landfilling operations at WPN (from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2030) and to extend the timing of the site restoration scheme (to be completed by 31 December 2031). The extension of landfilling operations at WPN is possible because the quantity of C&D waste disposed of there in recent years has been less than predicted such that void space remains available for landfilling.
==== PAGE 3 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 3 of 16 2.5 The EIA sets out two alternatives (2.5.1 - 2.5.14) do nothing and cease landfilling immediately and restore straight-away. The former is identified as having negative environmental impacts (and would also be unlawful given the existing planning breach), the restoration alternative would result in no strategic waste landfill site in the interim period until a new site can be established.
2.6 EIA Contents 2.6.1 An EIA has been produced that includes the information below. o Chapter 1 sets out background and approach, as set out above. It also sets out the need for the facility - as it provides for disposal of waste that cannot (either because of processing or legislative issues) be reused/recycled, incinerated or exported and an alternative site has not yet been developed and clarifies the consenting regime (planning approval and waste disposal license) and need for EIA. o Chapter 2 Project Description - this chapter provides the background to and a detailed description of the proposed development, and a consideration of the alternatives to the proposed development. o Chapter 3 Legislative and Planning Framework - this chapter identifies the principal laws and plans relevant to the proposed development. o Chapter 4 EIA Methodology - this chapter provides a description of the EIA process including screening, scoping (4.3.2) and impact assessment. The sets out the definitions of magnitude of impacts (4.6.2), sensitivity of receptors (4.6.3), value of receptors (4.6.4), likelihood of impact (4.6.5) and a resulting impact assessment matrix (table 4.1). o Chapters 5 Geology, Hydrogeology and Hydrology, 6 Transport and Highways, 7 Landscape and Visual Impact, 8 Ecology, and 9 Air Quality - these chapters provide the baseline conditions, impact assessments and mitigation measures associated with the proposed development. o Chapter 10 Findings and Conclusions - this chapter presents a tabulated summary of the EIA's results. o Chapter 11 References - this chapter includes a list of all cited references that are used to inform the EIA; such as guidance documents, research papers, etc.
2.6.2 Appendix A Drawings includes the following drawings. o Existing Ground Levels WPN 2/2 - shows the East part of the site which has already been restored (Cell 2) and the current active area (Cell 1). Plan is dated 16.12.20, based on data from survey May 2020. o Proposed Top of Waste Contours WPN 3/1 - site will have a flatter area to Northern half (to a similar level to the adjacent restored Cell), and then slope away to the South meaning that the overall site - cells 1 and 2 - will have a lower area in the South-Western quarter. o Proposed Restoration Contours WPN 3/2 shows the slope to the South-Western corner lessened over the main part of the site, but a steeper slope on the Western half of the Southern boundary. o The proposed cross sections WPN 3/3 illustrate the depth of filled and proposed use of minimum of 700mm of restoration materials on top of the waste
2.6.3 The following are also included: o Appendix B - Extract from previous approval (12/01671/B) in relation to development proposals and method for remediation and restoration o Appendix C - Site Survey (May and August 2021) o Appendix D - Ground Monitoring Report (2020) o Appendix E - Ecological and Management Isle of Man Review (2018) o Appendix F - Bird survey of Wrights Pits and Ballacallow Landfill Sites (2018) o Appendix G - Landfill Working Plan (2009) o Appendix H - Transport and Highways Data (January - February 2021)Appendix I - Hydrological Risk Assessment
2.7 Void Space
==== PAGE 4 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 4 of 16 2.7.1 The use of the site for deposit of waste has been continuous since 2012, however at a lower rate than anticipated, of approximately 1,267 tpa (EIA 2.3.14). At the time of the last planning approval (12/01671/B) there was approximately 17,300m3 of void space, equating to 26,000 tonnes of waste and an anticipated disposal of up to 5,000 tpa. Actual waste deposited has been 7,451 tonnes in total and so much void space remains (EIA 2.3.17).
2.7.2 The most recent site surveys (May 2020 and August 2021) indicated a remain in void space of 14,400m3 and 13,160m3 respectively. Meaning approximately capacity for 19,740 tonnes in August 2021 (EIA 2.3.20). Assuming a disposal rate of 1,267 this equates to over 15 years capacity.
2.8 Dredged Material 2.8.1 The EIA states,
"1.2.3 The disposal of dredged material at WPN is required to accommodate approximately 4,500 tonnes (approximately 3,000m3 ) of non-hazardous dredged material that is currently being stored at TOQ. Since 2014, the DOI has used TOQ to store dredged material arising from dredging of the Silverburn River upstream of Castletown Harbour (approximately 3,650 tonnes) and a number of other locations. The dredged material is classified as non-hazardous waste so it cannot be disposed of permanently at the adjacent Turkeylands New Quarry (TNQ) which is licensed to receive only inert waste; accordingly, it needs to be relocated and disposed of at a site licensed to receive non-hazardous waste. WPN is the only waste disposal facility on the Island with the potential to receive non-hazardous dredged material.
1.2.4 It is also possible that the DOI will use WPN to dispose of non-hazardous dredged material arising from Government activities carried out under statutory provisions for ports and harbours and/or for flood risk management. The use of WPN for this purpose will depend on the remaining void space at WPN, the quantities of dredged material arising from Government activities, and the classification of dredged material arising from Government activities as non-hazardous waste (i.e. WPN will not be used to dispose of dredged material classified as stable non-reactive hazardous waste; SNRHW)".
2.9 Site Restoration 2.9.1 The EIA states (2.4.6),
"Based on previous demand for waste deposition at WPN, the average demand scenario - including an allocation for the disposal of dredged material relocated from TOQ, but excluding an allocation for the disposal dredged material arising from Government activities carried out under statutory provisions for ports and harbours and/or for flood risk management - is believed to be most representative for the years up to 2030. Under the average demand scenario, there will be sufficient void space to accommodate waste deposition up to the end of 2030, and there will be a remaining void space of approximately 2,393m3 which will need to be filled using an imported fill material as part of the site's restoration (see below: 'Proposed Site Restoration')"
2.9.2 The EIA (2.4.8 - 2.4.11) goes on to set out the proposed final restoration/landform and acknowledges it is "very unlikely" the void space will be filled by 2030. It states,
"Accordingly, a fill material will be imported to WPN by road and then tipped and distributed over the waste up to the required level. The nature and source of the fill material is not known at the time of preparing this EIA Report (January 2022) (e.g. due to uncertainties relating to the construction industry, particularly given the potential influence that Covid 19 may have on the Island's economy), but it is expected that the DOI will investigate opportunities for undertaking recovery operations in order to partially or wholly convert waste(s) into fill material rather than the use of the Island's non-renewable resources (e.g. aggregates) as fill material. It is anticipated that the DOI will discuss options for the selection of the fill material(s) with DEFA approximately six months before the end of landfilling operations".
==== PAGE 5 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 5 of 16
2.10 Environmental Management and Monitoring 2.10.1 Section 2.3.23 - 2.3.33 sets out the environmental monitoring. o 2.3.24 sets out the site monitoring infrastructure currently in-situ for leachate monitoring, including 16 new boreholes drilled in 2018 (See planning history). The most recent annual report (2020) is included at Appendix D of the EIA. o 2.3.30 sets out the site monitoring infrastructure for the gas monitoring wells (boreholes) distributed around the overall complex o 2.3.31 - 2.3.33 sets out ecological monitoring (site surveys) noting monitoring not undertaken in 2020 due to Covid and so latest report is from 2018 included in Appendices E and F o 2.4.7 Sets out the current site working plan and that the operations will continue to work to in relation to Site Infrastructure, Environmental Control Measures and Monitoring and Site operations, including hours of operation.
2.10.2 In light of the findings of the EIA: o No additional mitigation is proposed in relation to Geology, Hydrogeology and Hydrology (5.3.19) o No additional mitigation is proposed in relation to Highways (6.3.25, 6.3.31,6.3.37 and 6.3.43) other than in relation to impact on the Local Highway Network associated with Dredging Works (6.3.49 - 6.3.61) and with Site Restoration Works (6.3.66 - 6.3.69) where mitigation is proposed (management and scheduling, to be set out in a Construction Traffic Management Plan. This assessment differs from 21/01000/B mainly because 21/01000/B sets out a contingency scenario o The site restoration scheme approved under PA12/01671/B will be undertaken at WPN (Appendix B) and so no further mitigation measures are required in relation to landscape (7.3.14). o The site restoration scheme approved under PA12/01671/B will be undertaken at WPN (Appendix B) and so no further mitigation measures are required in relation to ecology (8.3.9) o Mitigation measures in relation to dust are to be controlled by a Dust Management Plan, as set out at 9.3.13 - 9.3.18, which will include dust from haulage. o With the continued use of the previously approved approach to gas management, no further mitigation measures are required and there will remain a negligible residual impact on air quality (9.3.23).
2.10.3 Application 22/00086/B contains an additional Hydrological Risk Assessment (HRA). It states,
"5.3.14 A HRA was undertaken in 2018 to assess the potential risk to groundwater and surface water (including coastal water) associated with the deposit of new waste streams at WPN. The new waste streams considered under the HRA comprised dredged material from Peel Marina; which is the same source as the dredged material currently being stored at TOQ and proposed to be relocated to WPN
...
5.3.15 The HRA considered lead, PAHs and PCBs to be the principal contaminants of concern associated with the deposit of dredged material at WPN
...
5.3.17 The HRA findings are reported in Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for the Disposal of Dredged Sediment at Wrights Pit Landfill, Point of Ayre (Peter Brett Associates, 2018), which is included in this EIA Report at Appendix I, and are summarised as follows: o Lead in the dredged material was highly unlikely to pose a risk to groundwater quality and surface water receptors and, although there is a small possibility that a leachate plume with discernible concentrations of lead could develop in groundwater down the hydraulic gradient of
==== PAGE 6 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 6 of 16 the landfill after 750 years; however, given that groundwater quality is already impacted by the other landfills within the Point of Ayre Complex, it may be reasonable to conclude that this risk is acceptable. o PAHs in the dredged material were highly unlikely to pose a risk to groundwater quality and surface water receptors. o PCBs in the dredged material were highly unlikely to pose a risk to groundwater quality and surface water receptors.
5.3.18 On this basis, it is concluded that an extension of landfilling operations for new waste streams in the form of non-hazardous dredged material will pose no unacceptable risk and, therefore, a negligible impact on groundwater quality".
3.0 POLICY 3.1 The application site is within an area covered by the 1982 Development Plan. It is not zoned for development, within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and Nature Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation.
3.2 The Strategic Plan (2016) contains a number of relevant policies. In particular Waste Policy 1 states,
"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: (a) there is an acknowledged need for the proposal in accordance with the approved Waste Management Strategy; (b) there is no unacceptable adverse impact on local residents in terms of visual amenity, dust, noise, or vibration or as a result of the traffic generated thereby; (c) there would be no unacceptable adverse effect on: i. landscapes, geology/geomorphology and features of special interest or attraction; ii. Ancient Monuments or their settings; iii. Registered Buildings or their settings, or features of architectural importance; iv. the character and appearance of Conservation Areas; v. sites of archaeological interest; vi. sites containing species or habitats of international, national or local importance; vii. land drainage and water resources; viii. areas of woodland or the Island's timber resources; or ix. designated National Heritage Areas. (d) the proposal is acceptable in terms of access arrangements and highway safety; (e) in the case of landfill sites working shall be in accordance with a phased scheme of restoration and landscaping; (f) the proposal does not sterilize other significant mineral deposits; and that (g) the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on airport safety by, for example, increasing the risk of bird strike. 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".
3.3 It is considered that there are a number of wider policies that are relevant, as summarised below: o Strategic Policy 1 promotes reusing scare indigenous building materials; o Strategic Policy 4 - protection of the land quality and nature conservation, and no unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance; o Strategic Policy 10 - highway safety; o General Policy 2 - general 'Development Control' planning considerations, including local amenity; o General Policy 3 - restrictions on development in the countryside other than in certain circumstances, including, "development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative";
==== PAGE 7 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 7 of 16 o Environment Policy 1 - protection of countryside and ecology; o Environment Policy 2 - protection of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's); o Environment Policy 4 - protection of ecology (habitat and species); o Environment Policy 7 - protection of watercourses, wetlands, ponds and dubs; o Environment Policy 22 - prevention of pollution; o Environment Policy 23 - improvements to existing facilities must consider existing neighbours; o Environment Policy 24 - requirement for Environmental Impact Assessment (supported by detail in Appendix 5); o Environment Policy 40 - protection of archaeology; o Business Policy 1 - promotion of job creation; and o Transport Policy 8 - requirement for Transport Assessments for major developments.
3.4 The Strategic Plan states at paragraph 12.2.13 that, "Whilst the Energy from Waste Facility began operation in September 2004, there will continue to be a need for landfill sites: (a) for municipal solid wastes until the Energy from Waste Facility becomes operational; (b) for incinerator wastes thereafter; and (c) for inert and mixed wastes which cannot be recycled, re- used, or incinerated".
3.5 Paragraph 1.6.1 of the Strategic Plan states,
"The Island has a close relationship with the UK, within which there are land-use planning systems which have the same general purpose as, and much in common with our own system. We also have indirect links with the European Union. Accordingly, where unusual matters arise, or where there is no Manx guidance, it will often be appropriate and helpful to have regard to legal judgments or advice published in the UK or the EU".
3.6 Strategic Objection 3.3(a) states, "To support the precautionary principle, which assumes that activity might be damaging unless it can be proved otherwise in respect of development where significant environmental implications are involved".
Other Legislation and Policy 3.7 The EIA at section 3 identifies the Legislative and Planning Framework. It notes that: o "The provisions of the Public Health Act 1990 have not changed since PA12/01671/B. Accordingly, the DOI is still obligated under this Act to ensure the availability of strategic waste disposal facilities for the disposal and management of wastes in accordance with the principles of self-sufficiency and proximity" (3.2.1) o "The need to ensure sufficient waste disposal capacity is emphasised throughout the planning framework under the 2016 Strategic Plan and the 2018 Waste Strategy" (3.3.1)
3.8 The more recent Waste Strategy (2018) identifies a need to ensure on-going infrastructure and scheme to dispose of solid waste and that failure to so would severely damage the economy. It states (p9) that,
"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".
3.9 The Waste Strategy Core Policy 1 relates to managing and monitoring sites to ensure standards, Policy 2 relates to self-sufficiency.
==== PAGE 8 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 8 of 16 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There are a number of applications relating to the site. The most relevant is PA12/01671/B for, "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.5000 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". This was approved on 29.05.13, subject to conditions: o C1. Confirmation of documents to which the approval related; o C2. Time period of approval (for tipping and restoration); o C3. Capping Requirements; o C4. Rabbit proofing; o C5. Restoration Requirements; o C6. No water or contaminants on highway; o C7. Work must be in accordance with approved plans; o C8. Boundary fencing; o C9. No water or mud to drain onto highway; o C10. Working hours; o C11. Final landform; o C12. No household waste or incinerator bottom ash; and o C13. Notification if frogs or lizards found.
4.2 Planning was at the time part of DOI and therefore it was a Department application, to be considered by an inspector and determined by CoMIN. The inspector's report notes the history of the site, that there is an "Area for Surface Mineral Working" allocated in the vicinity of the site, the relevance of General Policy 2 Waste Policy 1, and that the site history is a material consideration that could be set against land use zoning restrictions.
4.3 The inspector notes the tension between continued lorry movements through Bride and that an unfilled landfill void is a public asset. The site is noted as being relatively remote with no issues raised in relation to hydrogeology or ecology. It is also noted as not being a large site with limited lorry movements per day on average. He notes the 2012-22 Waste Policy & Strategy, the apparent difficulty with progressing new sites or disposal off-island. The final profile was considered acceptable (subject to provision for revisions if necessary). Consideration is given to what issues should and should not be controlled by conditions.
4.4 Planning Application 19/01439/B for, "Variation of condition 2 of application 12/01671/B for the continued deposit of inert and mixed construction/demolition waste and associated site restoration, to extend the approval for a further 12 months" was submitted on 24.12.2019. Under the call-in process Council confirmed they wished to determine it, and accordingly it was publicised and referred to the Cabinet Office so that they might arrange a Public Inquiry. Before the inquiry took place, DOI determined that they wished to extend the life for longer and so the application was put on hold and then withdrawn on 04.10.21 (after the submission of the current application). This means that the landfill activities which have, and continue, to place from 01/01/20 onwards are unauthorised and as such the current application is in part retrospective.
4.5 22/00048/B was for, "Installation of 16 groundwater monitoring boreholes at Current And Former Landfill Site, Cranstal, Bride" - approved 28.03.2022 (1 condition - remediation when no longer required).
4.6 22/01000/B is for, "Extend the time for landfilling operations to continue until 31st December 2030, plus 1 year to enable the restoration scheme to be completed by 31st December 2031" (pending).
==== PAGE 9 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 9 of 16
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The following is a summary of the responses received to the application as formally advertised.
5.2 DOI (Highways) (11.04.22) provide a detailed assessment of traffic flows and conclude that they do not object subject to a condition requiring a traffic management plan s,
"Where the IEA's (Institute of Environmental Assessment) rules are exceeded for the adverse impact of lorry traffic, the Applicant suggests preparation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to manage transport activities. This would be a satisfactory approach given that activities would be of limited duration. Furthermore, the activity at the site and traffic routing is of long standing and the proposal would retain the speed reducing measures in Bride and the site's acceptable vehicle access. A CRMP would help to manage potential delays and the risk of vehicle related road traffic accidents along the A16 notably on the bends when there is a small chance that on-coming drivers of large vehicles could meet. This could be covered by an appropriately worded condition. On mitigation by a CTMP, the proposal raises no significant road safety or network functionality issues. This allows HDC not oppose this proposal subject to a condition being applied to seek further details for approval of a CTMP.".
5.3 Manx National Heritage (27.04.22) states,
"Whilst we do not support further land filling at the site, on environmental grounds, we accept that there is little alternative as yet on Island for hazardous waste, the type of which will be deposited in Wrights Pit North. For this reason we accept the outcome of this application. We would like to reiterate the comments of the DEFA Ecosystems Policy Team and recommend that section 4.5.4 of the Ecological and Management Review (2018) which states that "Once landfill activities end, a comprehensive review of the restoration and management requirements of WPN as a whole should be undertaken to ensure that a holistic solution is achieved. Such a review would need to learn from the past experience gained from how other phases were restored," should be made a condition of this application".
5.4 DEFA (Ecosystems Policy Team) (22.04.22) comments that: o They agree with the recommendation in section 4.5.4 of the Ecological and Management Review (2018) about reviewing the restoration and management activities o They recommend a condition for a review of the WPN restoration and management plan to be undertaken and implemented o They highlight recent survey information and recommend a condition for the protection of breeding birds, common frogs and viviparous lizards (update of 2012 condition) - "If at any
==== PAGE 10 ====
Recommend a condition that should the borehole monitoring data show evidence of high leachate contamination into the surrounding area, then the landfilling operation will need to be reviewed as additional environmental protection and remedial measures may be required (of particular concern is the potential impact of leachate contamination into the designated Ayres Gravel Pits Area of Special Protection for Birds which is located just to the west of Wrights Pit North, as well as West Coast Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) and Ramsey Bay MNR to the north and east).
5.5 DEFA (Environmental Protection Unit) (13.05.22) comment,
"Approval of this application will require application to vary WDL/05/2020/V3 to accept non- hazardous Dredging Spoil.
Tynwald's Our Island Plan has a target of: 'Updated Environmental Protection Policies by December 2022 and associated legislation re-drafted for debate by Jan 2023 to ensure decisions are made to provide a clean and safe environment.'
Consequently the EPU is working on policy and draft legislation to introduce UK environmental protection standards which would require compliance with associated parts of relevant EU Directives including the Landfill Directive. In accordance with Landfill Directive this would prohibit the deposit of non-hazardous waste into Wrights Pit North as this is a dilute and disperse landfill, appropriate engineered containment would be required. Subject to approval of such a strategy deposit of non-hazardous wastes including dredging spoil, asbestos, contaminated soil and gypsum would be prohibited.
Furthermore, in the event of enforcement of the DoI Waste Hierarchy this is likely to require some wastes including non-asbestos contaminated construction demolition waste and gypsum waste if suitable to be recycled.
An independent review of the proposal to deposit non-hazardous dredging spoil was carried at on behalf of the EPU by consultants Golder as attached which in summary advises the proposal does not represent an environmental hazard.
However, it identifies reasons why including no engineered containment that introduction of environmental protection standards for landfill consistent with the UK will prohibit such deposits. If approved by Tynwald there is likely to be a period of transition of approximately 4 years to enable development of landfill engineered to UK standards.
However, given the political desire for updated environmental protection standards, commitment to environmental protection standards through international treaties ratified to the Isle of Man through the UK and trade agreements, it is unlikely deposit of non-hazardous waste at Wrights Pit North will be permitted to continue to 2030. Any subsequent restrictions will be made through amended Waste Disposal Licence or Integrated Pollution Control Permit".
"...the risks posed by lead and PAHs are highly unlikely to pose a risk to surface water and whilst there is a small possibility of discernible impacts from lead in groundwater down gradient of the Site, the impacts are acceptable in the context the existing Site setting".
==== PAGE 11 ====
It highlights that there is provision within the standards for variations on islands (recognising constraints), but the proposal is unlikely to be within these. It suggests that the IOM Government, "may consider it desirable and practicable to develop a long term, sustainable solution at the same site, to afford an appropriate level of environmental protection, where there is a known legacy of landfilling and the potential receptors are largely understood. This may be deemed preferable to developing a new site that meets the LFD requirements, but may be located in a more sensitive environmental setting or geographical location".
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is considered that the main issues are: o Whether there is a continued need for the landfill and whether the change in waste types will undermine the efficient use of void space. o The environmental/amenity impacts of continuing operation and amendments to waste types. o The implications for final restoration
6.2 WHETHER THERE IS A CONTINUED NEED FOR THE LANDFILL 6.2.1 It is clear from the Waste Strategy (2018) that there is a need for a strategic landfill site, and that alternative provision has not yet been made to Wrights Pit North. The findings of the Inspector in relation to the previous application are noted.
6.2.2 The information provided indicates that even with the additional dredged material, there is sufficient void space for the proposed life of the site.
6.3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL/AMENITY IMPACTS OF CONTINUING OPERATION AND AMENDMENTS TO WASTE TYPES 6.3.1 The findings of the Inspector in relation to the previous application and the comments received in relation to this application are noted. There are no significant concerns which would justify insisting on closure of the site, especially given the findings in relation to the continued need for the site.
6.3.2 The additional potential impacts of the changes of waste types have been assessed and on the findings of the HRA (submitted by the applicant) no unacceptable impacts have been identified.
6.3.3 The advice from EPU is that within the current legislative framework the proposal is acceptable. However, legislative change is planned to better align with UK standards which, when implemented would have implications for the continued deposition of some types of waste at the site. It is also highlighted that stricter application of the waste hierarchy (as set out in the Waste Strategy) would require more recycling of materials currently being landfilled at the site. However, an independent review (Golder Report supplied by EPU as part of their comments) of the proposal has concluded that the proposal does not represent an environmental hazard (based on the deposition of 10,000 tonnes of dredged spoil). It also highlights that introduction of the above restrictions could be made through amendments to the Waste Disposal Licence (or equivalent).
==== PAGE 12 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 12 of 16 6.3.4 1.6.1 of the Strategic Plan indicates that guidance/legislation/case law from elsewhere will be used in the absence of local examples. Objection 3(a) highlights the precautionary principle. However, there are current landfills standards and the technical advice is that the proposal meets these. The Island Plan is capable of being a material consideration, and the intention to update environment legislation (to a level where the proposal would not comply) is noted, but at this early stage is afforded limited weight. It is also noted that the technical advice from EPU is that improvements in standards could potentially be implemented through variations to the WDL
6.4 THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FINAL RESTORATION 6.4.1 It appears likely that some form of alternative restoration scheme will be required, and the application provides an opportunity for a balanced and considered approach to achieving this. The proposal indicates it may be that this requires the importation of significant quantities of virgin aggregates, which would not be a sustainable use of scare resources and contrary to Strategic Policy 1. A condition could be attached clarifying the need to consider the final scheme prior to the cessation of tipping and prevent unnecessary use of virgin aggregates (also noting the points raised by MNH).
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 There is an accepted need for a strategic waste landfill site, as evidenced in the Waste Strategy (2018) and alternative provision to Wrights Pit North has not yet been made. No significant environmental, amenity or health concerns have been raised. The site is an existing and established site with existing void space, which is a public asset. It is therefore recommended for approval.
7.2 It is not considered that the additional waste type proposed would result in any additional/unacceptable impacts nor would, in itself, result in a shortfall of capacity. It is noted that there are aspirations to increase the legislation around environmental protection and that whilst the current proposal would not meet these, improvements could be implemented via the WDL. However, it should be noted that if there changes to the way in which the site is being operated (through the WDL) that result in material changes to the details set down in the planning application a revised planning application may be necessary to address them, for example new monitoring boreholes or potentially the engineering/re-engineering of the landfill.
7.3 The conditions attached to the previous approval have been included, updated as necessary (including, given legislative changes, conditions now must have reasons, and these have been added).
7.4 A condition is not recommended to require the development to be operated in accordance with the details set out at paragraph 2.4.7 of the Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by Anthony D Bates Partnership dated January 2022 (paragraph 2.4.7 sets out the current site working plan and that the operations will continue to work to in relation to Site Infrastructure, Environmental Control Measures and Monitoring and Site operations, including hours of operation) as these matters of detail would be more appropriate controlled by the site's waste management licence.
==== PAGE 13 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 13 of 16
Appendix A - Recommended Conditions and Reason for an Approval
Reason There is an accepted need for a strategic waste landfill site, as evidenced in the Waste Strategy (2018) and alternative provision to Wrights Pit North has not yet been made. No significant environmental, amenity or health concerns have been raised. The site is an existing and established site with existing void space, which is a public asset. It is not considered that the additional non-hazardous waste type proposed would result in any additional/unacceptable impacts nor would, in itself, result in a shortfall of capacity. It is noted that there are aspirations to increase the legislation around environmental protection and that whilst the current proposal would not meet these, improvements could be implemented via the WDL.
Conditions C 1. The total amount of waste tipped at the site from 01.01.20 to 31.12.30 shall be no more than 5,000 tonnes in each calendar year
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development takes place in accordance with the approved details.
C 2. Subject to the other conditions in this notice, no waste shall be deposited at the site other than those types as set out in paragraph 2.4.3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by Anthony D Bates Partnership dated January 2022, and no household waste or incinerator bottom ash shall be deposited on the site.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development takes place in accordance with the approved details. The introduction of new waste streams would necessitate a fresh planning consideration of the need for the site and the methods of working.
C 3. By the 31st December 2030 the importation of waste to the site shall cease and by 31st December 2031 the site shall be restored and all equipment, plant, buildings and fencing (subject to condition 12) 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.
Reason: To control the overall life of the landfill and to ensure that the site is restored in a timely manner.
C 4. Subject to the other conditions in this notice, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans WPN 1/1 (Site Location Plan), WPN 2/1 (Site Setting), WPN 2/2 (Existing Ground Levels), WPN 2/3 (Aerial Photograph) WPN 3/1 (Proposed Top of Waste Contours), WPN 3/2 (Proposed Restoration Contours) and WPN 3/3 (Cross Sections).
Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in accordance with the approved details.
C 5. No water, mud or contaminants shall be permitted to drain, flow or be transferred by vehicle wheels on to the highway, including at the access to Wrights Pit North.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 6.
==== PAGE 14 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 14 of 16 The boundary fences around the site shall be retained on site unless otherwise required by conditions 3 or 12 as set out in this notice.
Reason: In the interests of public safety to prevent access until the site is safely restored.
C 7. No deliveries shall be made to the site outside the times of Mondays to Fridays between 0930 hours and 1530 hours.
Reason: To prevent night time working and to prevent vehicle movements through residential areas on route to the landfill outside of acceptable working hours, in the interests of amenity and highway safety.
C 8. If at any time, frogs or lizards are found on the site, or breeding birds are found or suspected to be present on site, the Department shall be notified and work halted until advice has been provided.
Reason: In the interests of protecting ecology.
C 9. 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.
Reason: To ensure that the site is filled and capped in a manner that allows the restoration scheme to be successfully implemented and to prevent the build-up of leachate or landfill gas.
C 10. Unless required by other conditions attached to this notice, the site shall be restored in accordance with the scheme and phasing details set out in Appendix B of the Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by Anthony D Bates Partnership dated January 2022, including:
Reason: To ensure that the site is restored in accordance with the approved details.
C 11. Unless required by other conditions attached to this notice, 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.
Reason: To ensure that the development takes place in accordance with the approved details.
C 12. Prior to any final restoration, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Department which sets out the potential for rabbit ingress to negatively impact on the restoration of the site and includes measures to mitigate any negative impacts identified (which may include
==== PAGE 15 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 15 of 16 measures to prevent ingress). The restoration of the site shall include the implementation of any approved measures in relation to rabbits.
Reason: To ensure that the ingress of rabbits does not negatively impact on the restoration of the site.
C 13. Prior to the commencement of restoration activities, details of any materials to be imported to the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, and the restoration shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved information.
Reason: to ensure that any restoration materials imported onto the site are appropriate.
C 14. No later than the 31st December 2028 details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department of the contours of the site, rate of filling since 1st January 2020 and projected fill rate up to the 31st December 2030. In the event that the projected fill rate will not result in the approved contours being achieved, the details shall include a lower level restoration scheme or an alternative method for achieving the contours proposed, and the site shall be restored in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure that details of tipping rates are provided and in the event that an alternative restoration scheme is required, that details are provided in a timely manner to avoid either unnecessary delays to the restoration of the site or the unnecessary importation of virgin aggregates to the site.
C 15. No later than 31st December 2028 a comprehensive review of the restoration and management requirements of Wrights Pit North as a whole shall be undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The review shall set out any proposed amendments to the restoration scheme (or method of implementation of that scheme) to ensure that a holistic solution is achieved. Such a review shall include a summary of the experience gained from how other phases were restored. The restoration shall take place in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: to ensure that the application takes place in accordance with the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by Anthony D Bates Partnership dated January 2022 (Appendix E - Ecological Review 2019).
C 16. Prior to the commencement of restoration activities (no later than during 2031), the operator shall ensure that they have in place Management Plans for Traffic and Dust which comply with the details as set out in paragraphs 6.3.66 - 6.3.69 and 9.3.13 - 9.3.18 of the Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by Anthony D Bates Partnership dated January 2022.
Reason: to minimise the dust and traffic impact of the restoration works.
C 17. Unless otherwise required by other conditions set out in this notice, the site monitoring as set in paragraphs 2.3.23 - 2.3.33 of the Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by Anthony D Bates Partnership dated January 2022 shall be undertaken and the results provided to the Department. In the event that the borehole monitoring data shows evidence of high leachate contamination into the surrounding area, then the operator shall provide details of additional environmental protection and remedial measures, including in relation to the designated Ayres
==== PAGE 16 ====
16 May 2022 22/00086/B Page 16 of 16 Gravel Pits Area of Special Protection for Birds, the West Coast Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) and Ramsey Bay MNR to the north and east).
Reason: to ensure the proposed monitoring is undertaken, the results reported and any issues arising in relation to key sites addressed in the interests of the protection of biodiversity.
C 18. Prior to the deposition of any dredged material at the site, the operator shall ensure that they have in place Management Plans for Traffic which comply with the details as set out in paragraphs 6.3.49 - 6.3.61 of the Environmental Impact Assessment prepared by Anthony D Bates Partnership dated January 2022.
Reason: to minimise the traffic impact of the importation of dredged material.
Plans/Drawings/Information on which recommendations have been based and upon which any approval should rely.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
