Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/01364/B Page 1 of 23
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 23/01364/B Applicant : Dr John Taylor OBE Proposal Proposed erection of three pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers with associated equipment, containers and parking (part retrospective) Site Address Field 434112 Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man
Case Officer :
Hamish Laird Photo Taken :
28.02.2024 Site Visit :
28.02.2024 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 29.05.2024
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to the erection of the solar trackers details of the colour and finish of the stem and solar PV panels shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
C 3. The applicant shall notify DEFA Planning on writing of the date of the first export of electricity generated by the site. Operations for the export of electricity using the equipment installed on the site as hereby approved, shall be time limited for a period of 25 years, only.
Reason: To ensure that the installed equipment, which has a design life of 25 years, remains fit for purpose, and that any new equipment or time extension for the use of the facility for electricity generation is considered by DEFA Planning in the interests of technological change and visual amenity.
C 4. If the 3 No. solar trackers, data centre and WC, hereby approved, become redundant or are no longer in operational use, they must be removed from the site within three months of their last use.
Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the area.
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/01364/B Page 2 of 23
C 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no plant, equipment, structure, garage, car port, gate, fence, wall, or other means of enclosure, or hardstanding area shall be erected or installed within the curtilage of the application site hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 6. Prior to the commencement of any development on the site a Precautionary Working Method Statement for common lizards shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The development shall not be commenced until all the requirements of the approved Precautionary Working Method Statement have been implemented.
Reason: In order to protect the habitat of and minimise harm to any common lizards that may be found on the site.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the environmental benefits of the proposed scheme outweigh the limited identified harm to the countryside and as such the proposed three pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers with associated equipment, containers and parking would comply with the Energy Policy 4 and Environment Policy 2. In addition, it is considered that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable level of harm to the residential amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of the nearby dwelling at Arborfield. As such, it accords with the provisions of Policies ST1, ST2, ST3, ST4 c), ST5, SP5, GEN2, ENV1, ENV22, ENV23, T4, T7, and T10 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
The development should be carried out strictly in accordance with the following approved plans, documents and details:
Drawing No. 16 1206 PL2 - Rev. - A Plant Building Site Plan and Section - Received 22/3/24; Drawing No. 16 1206 RC 01 - Rev. A - Location Plan - Received 31/5/24; Drawing No. 16 1206 RC 03 - Rev. C - Proposed Site Layout Plan; Renewable Energy Centre Proposed Plans and Elevations - Received 29/5/24; Drawing No. 16 1206 RC 04 - Rev. A - Solar Tracker Elevations - Received 22/3/24; Infinite Energy Brochure by Kirchner Solar Group; Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report by Fromanteel Ltd dated March 2024 - Received 22/3/24; Glint Assessment by Wardell Armstrong dated October, 2023; Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Letter dated November, 2023; Partial Retrospective Planning Statement dated March, 2024 - Received 22/3/24;
all originally date stamped received on 14 December, 2023, unless otherwise indicated above.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 4.2:
Arborfield, Douglas Road, Ballasalla, Isle of Man, IM9 3AD
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/01364/B Page 3 of 23
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021), in that the property is sited within 20 metres of the site (access track); and, the occupants raise planning related points regarding these proposals. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
0.1 PREAMBLE
This application is being further considered by the Committee, after deferral from its sitting 10th June 2024 in order to conduct a site visit.
The site visit was carried out 27th June 2024.
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The site is part of a field which sits one field in from the south-west side of the A5 Castletown Road on its approach into Ballasalla, and to the south west of a lane which links the A5 with the steam railway line. The first part of this lane serves an existing residential property, Arborfield, which is not within the applicant's ownership, and sits on the corner of the lane and the A5 and is part of a public footpath: the southern spur off the lane is a private road which serves the former Ballawoods Gatehouse. The proposed development site extends to approximately 0.49 hectares and consists of grassland.
1.2 Ballawoods Gatehouse was approved for redevelopment in the form of a completely new house further into the field, together with the replication of the original gatehouse on the other side of the railway line (17/01076/B, 18/00197/B and 23/01498/B which is pending consideration). These works have not been completed and the new house is not yet occupied. The gatehouse which is a relatively small structure located opposite the site on the south-east side of the railway, is as existing.
1.3 A borehole has been installed some way up the field towards the A5 and pipework is has been laid in the field between it and the cottage.
1.4 The site of the works is screened from the main road by existing roadside hawthorn hedging and although there are gaps therein, the site of the proposed works has a backdrop of existing trees with more to be planted as part of the approvals for the new dwelling.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The full application is for the erection of three pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers with associated equipment, containers and parking, and is in respect of the containers and parking, retrospective. The scheme will be used to power the Gatekeepers Cottage and the rest of the site, in order to meet the Net Zero targets outlined in the Isle of Man Climate Change Action Plan. The development consists of 3no. photovoltaic trackers and associated infrastructure which includes a data centre (7.4 x 2.75m Container), W.C. (3.7 X 2.7m Container), access road for maintenance and car parking facilities.
2.2 The Planning Statement accompanying the application advises:
"3.4 The photovoltaic trackers are partial retrospective as the groundworks for the trackers have been installed. Each tracker is made up of 36 panels. The panels measure 1.82sqm each, in total each tracker has a total area of 65.52 sqm. The erection of the solar panels is required, this will take 7 days to complete. The trackers will produce 50,989 KW/Hrs per year.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/01364/B Page 4 of 23
3.5 The data centre will deliver information on the energy being produced by the solar trackers. The data centre will also enable the control of the trackers. Incidentally, this information will enable the site to be used for educational purposes.
3.6 The data centre and W.C are containers in vertically hung natural timber cladding and will weather naturally. Windows and doors are white UPVC double glazed units.
3.7 8 no. parking spaces are also provided for onsite using "Grasscrete" paving to allow grass to grow through the parking. The area is to be screened with native planting.
3.8 The development will ensure that the site is powered by 100% renewables, this will include the Plant building and data centre. This will also provide power to the nearby Gatekeepers Cottage."
2.3 In respect of de-commissioning, the Planning Statement advises:
"3.9 When the solar trackers come to the end of their operational life, estimated to be 30 years, the Development will require decommissioning. All solar PV array infrastructure would be removed from the site and recycled or disposed of in accordance with good practice and market conditions at that time.
3.10 Decommissioning would be expected to take approximately 3 months.
3.11 Notice will be given to the council in advance of commencement of the decommissioning works, with all necessary licenses or permits being acquired. The applicant will follow best practice when following through the decommissioning procedure."
2.4 The three pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers would be sited to the south of the car park, WC, and data centre, and would comprise flat solar PV panels measuring approx. 8.65m long x 5.5m wide, mounted on a stem which would have a 'hub' height of approx. 2.65m and would track the sun's movement where they would appear at varying heights of approx. 3.5m when laying in a flat, horizontal position; approx. 6.0m when tracking the sun at an angle of 40o; and approx. 6.6m when tracking the sun at an angle of 70o.
2.5 The flat-roofed Data Centre container would measure approx. 2.5m high x 2.85m wide x 7.5m long with a window in each end elevation, and access door in the centre of the SE facing elevation. The flat-roofed WC would measure 3.8m wide x 2.85m deep x 2.5m high, and would have access doors located in the SW and SE facing elevations. They would be sited close to the boundary hedge marking the NE site boundary.
2.6 The car parking area would provide spaces for 8 cars.
2.7 The application originally proposed the erection of a wind turbine located to the west pf the 3 No. solar trackers. It was to have had a single three-blade, rotor with a hub height of 12.0m and a maximum tip height of 15.0m (6.0m diameter rotor). This element of the proposals was withdrawn from the application on 22/3/24.
2.8 The application is supported by a full set of plans and drawings; a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report by Fromanteel Ltd dated March 2024; A Glint Assessment; Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Letter dated November, 2023; Planning Statement; Baseline Viewpoint Panorama and, Photomontage; Location Plan Viewpoint;
2.9 In terms of the potential for an Environmental impact assessment being required, an Environmental Impact Assessment Screening letter has been submitted by the applicant. The letter's summary advises as follows:
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/01364/B Page 5 of 23
"7.3 This screening assessment has considered the cumulative impact of whether the proposed development of 3 no. ground mounted photovoltaic trackers, wind turbine and associated infrastructure at Field No 434112, Malew, Isle of Man, IM9 3AD would result in likely significant effects on the environment.
7.4 The proposed development would not constitute an EIA development within Schedule 2 of the EIA regulations as the development is not large enough. The site does not include any ecological or landscape designations and is made up of agricultural land and is not considered a sensitive site. A screening letter has been produced in line with Energy Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. As set out above we do not consider the proposals would give rise to any significant environmental effects.
7.5 The proposed development would NOT constitute a schedule 2 development as defined by Regulation 2(1) (3)) as it is not on a site measuring more than 0.5 hectare, it does not have 2 or more turbines, and the wind turbine does not have a hub height of 15 or more metres.
7.6 The proposed development is therefore NOT considered to be formal EIA development as defined by the EIA regulations."
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as not designated for a particular purpose and with no specific constraints. The site lies within an area on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of high landscape value and scenic significance. The site is also part of a wider area of Incised Slopes where the following guidance is provided:
Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks (D14) The overall strategy is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its wooded valley bottoms, its strong geometric field pattern delineated by Manx hedges, its numerous traditional buildings and its network of small roads and lanes. The strategy should also include the restoration of landscapes disturbed by former mining activities.
Key Views Distant views prevented at times by dense woodland in river valleys and by the cumulative screening effect of hedgerow trees, which tend to create wooded horizons.
Open and panoramic views out to sea from the higher areas on the upper western parts of the area where there are few trees to interrupt views.
Objectives include:
i. To protect and enhance the identity of Ballasalla by conserving the rural character of the adjacent landscape. ii. In terms of Langness, to resist any development that would detract from the unspoilt character and appearance of the rugged coast or from the sense of openness in the area. iii. Protection of the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views. iv. Sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting. v. Avoidance of physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing.
3.2 The Strategic Plan presumes against development which would have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the countryside (Environment Policies 1 and 2) but supports development which would harness renewable energy and reduce environmental impact.
3.3 Transport Policies T4 and T7 relating to access to the site from the road network; and, on- site parking and turning provision, are of relevance. Transport Policy T10 relates to the location and nature of development in and around the Island's airports, airfields, and air traffic control
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/01364/B Page 6 of 23
sites will be controlled in a manner which ensures that the safe and efficient use of these facilities by aircraft is not compromised.
3.4 Energy Policy 4: "Development involving alternative sources of energy supply, including wind, water and tide power, and the use of solar panels, will be judged against the environmental objectives and policies set out in this Plan. Installations involving wind, water and tide power will require the submission of an EIA."
3.5 Environment Policy 24: "Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required:
i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and ii) ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases."
3.6 Appendix 5 sets out further information and lists developments which will automatically require an Environmental Impact Assessment, including: (c) Energy industry o Thermal power stations and other thermal installations o Surface storage of natural gas o Underground storage of combustible gases o Surface storage of fossil fuels o Industrial briquetting of coal and lignite o Installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production
3.7 The means of assessing the impacts (good and bad) of a proposed development on the environment, prepared by, or on behalf of, the developer/applicant. An EIA should aim to ensure that the planning decision is made in the knowledge of all the likely environmental effects of the development, and of the proposals for mitigating adverse effects and enhancing positive effects.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 In respect of the application site, PA 19/00450/B permitted on 29.05.2019 the "Creation of a borehole (retrospective) and erection of plant building associated with Gatekeeper Cottage, Ballawoods Halt, Ballasalla (PA 17/01076/B)".
4.2 As referenced above, PA's 17/01076/B and 18/00197/B relating to Ballawoods Gatehouse were approved for redevelopment in the form of a completely new house further into the field, together with the replication of the original gatehouse on the other side of the railway line.
4.3 PA 23/01498/B - Amendment to PA 18/00197/B - Erection of replacement dwelling and new access drive and associated landscaping incorporating part Field 434112 and associated works to existing access lane. Amendments to provide additional underground clock room area to lower ground floor - pending consideration.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners 10/1/24 have no objections to the proposal.
5.2 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer's originally comments received on (15/1/26) are as follows: "The Ecosystem Policy Team have read through Wardell Armstrong's Preliminary Ecological Appraisal report for Ballawoods dated October 2023 and though we do not object to the general principle of the use of the site for a wind turbine and PV trackers, we are a bit conflicted with the assessment, mitigation recommendations and site design. Bearing in mind that the Isle of Man does not currently have policy guidance on micro-turbines and wildlife, please can Wardell
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/01364/B Page 7 of 23
Armstrong be requested to provide details of the UK guidance that was followed to determine the level of assessment required.
Our concerns relate to the following: Wardell Armstrong have assessed the habitats within the red line boundary of the application and concluded in Table 3 that "There is negligible suitable habitat on site for bats. The distance of the site from a suitable bat feature (hedgerow, mature tree, building etc.) means that it is unlikely bats will be utilising the site for foraging or commuting." However, when assessing wildlife impacts with wind turbines it is important to take account of other commuting, foraging, nesting and roosting habitat outside of the red line boundary which are likely to bring bats and birds on to the site and therefore into conflict with turbines. In this case, the surrounding hedges/hedge banks and mixed plantation woodland, including hedges which are immediately adjacent to the red line boundary - a hedge bank approx. 30 m to the north of the turbine and adjacent to the site compound, a hedge bank approx. 40m to the west of the turbine and a mixed woodland hedge approx. 100m to the east of the turbine. We are currently not confident in the assessment because the site's surroundings have not been at all taken into account or characterised. It would also be useful if exact measurement could be provided to show the distance between the turbine and surrounding habitat features.
A precautionary approach is recommended for free standing micro-turbines and it is the Ecosystem Policy Teams recommendation that they should not be located within 30-50m of known bat flyways in order to reduce the collision risk to bats from the rotor blades. As stated above, the turbine is located 30m and 40m away from 2 different hedge banks and so bat activity effort is required in order to determine whether the surrounding hedges are used as bat flyways and therefore whether a lower 30m buffer between the turbine blades and hedge bank is appropriate.
Scottish Natural Heritage Micro renewables and the natural heritage: Revised guidance (Jan 2016) states - We recommend siting micro turbines at least 30m away from potentially suitable bat habitat, especially in landscapes with little suitable habitat. Give careful consideration to roof mounted and free standing turbines installed: o On buildings known, or suspected, to contain bat roosts o Within 30m of a known bat roost o On buildings where bats are frequently observed o On known bat flyways (commonly along watercourses, hedges, woodland edges)
Bearing the above in mind, it is concerning that Wardell Armstrong's recommendations include the incorporation of nest boxes (including house sparrow and swift) and bat boxes on site, which will actually encourage bats and birds into the area and therefore increase the risk of collisions and barotrauma (an even larger buffer distance is required between bat roosts and turbines). Furthermore, the mitigation for the visual impact includes tree planting in close proximity to the turbine which in time is likely to encourage further use of the site by bats and birds. These mitigation recommendations seem inappropriate. Again, measurement would be useful to determine the exact distance between turbine blades and proposed tree planting."
5.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer's further comments received on (18/1/24) are as follows: "Forward to the below, we now understand that in addition to the hedges adjacent to the 5.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer's comments received on (5/2/24): in the same field as the wind turbine is to be located. In the area approximated in red below. Meaning that even more habitat suitable for bats and birds, and which will bring them in close proximity to the turbine blades, is now present. More information about this tree planting should be provided prior to determination and the Ecosystem Policy Team re-consulted on the application, as this may make the location of the turbine unsuitable."
5.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer's comments received on (5/2/24):
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/01364/B Page 8 of 23
"Correspondence has now been received by the Planning Department which details that there is an active bat maternity roost in Arborfield, Douglas Road. This roost is unknown to the Ecosystem Policy Team and therefore we cannot confirm its presence - site visits and bat surveys would be required. However, the presence of an active maternity roost in Arborfield, which is located approx. 200m to the north east of the turbine site, emphasises the need for the applicants to obtain bat surveys prior to granting of Planning permission for a wind turbine in this location because bats, including young bats which are learning to fly and feed themselves at certain times of the year, will be present in the local area and using the fields around the wind turbine, particularly the woodland and hedge banks, for feeding and commuting. The Ecosystem Policy Team currently object to this application because of the lack of bat survey effort."
5.5 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer's comments received on (12/4/24): "The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that we have no objection to this application in regards to potential impacts on bats, now that the wind turbine has been removed. We can also confirm that we content with Wardell Armstrong's Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report dated March 2024.
Should this application be approved we request that a condition is secured for no works to commence unless a Precautionary Working Method Statement for common lizards has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing.
We note that the Agent's response to our previous comments states that bat surveys are to be undertaken prior to the submission of a separate application for a wind turbine, and we are content with the bat survey effort suggested for the habitat as it is currently. However, we don't yet see that our comments regarding recent tree planting within field 414112 have been taken into account. The newly planted trees won't at the moment be providing good habitat for bats. However, they will do in years to come when they are more grown and so increased bat activity in proximity to the wind turbine should be expected and considered in any future ecological assessment."
5.6 DoI Highways Services 22/12/23 advised: "o 23/01364/B - After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, due to it being an existing driveway, as the access is suitable for the proposals and the turbine is relatively small to be delivered."
5.7 DoI Highways Services 11/4/24 advised: "Highways HDC has reviewed the updated information for application 23/01364/B dated 22 Mar 2024 online and have no further comments to make."
5.8 Manx Utilities (MUA) requested an extension time in which to comment owing to the Christmas period. MUA subsequently advised (11/1/24): "From a gas infrastructure perspective, there is a gas pipeline in close proximity of the proposed development - in particular the loading on the proposed access route from the lane to the carpark during construction may compromise the gas transmission system. In order to ensure there is no impact on our infrastructure, a Quantitative Risk Assessment will need to be undertaken to consider loading on the pipeline both during and after construction, and to ensure sufficient mitigation is in place to protect the pipeline from activities at the site. From an electricity network perspective, Manx Utilities requests that the applicant clarifies whether it is their intention to run a totally separate system from the Manx Utilities' electricity supply, whether it is intended to run in parallel with the Manx Utilities' electricity supply or whether it is intended to run as a switched alternative to the Manx Utilities' electricity supply. This is not currently clear from the application. If it is one of the latter two items then the applicant will need to engage further with us as to how the proposed system will be connected and operate.
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/01364/B Page 9 of 23
Manx Utilities has no concerns about installations which are not connected to the network. There does not appear to be an application for a grid disconnection currently. Before planning permission is granted, we advise that this is submitted if the applicant intends to operate a fully off-grid energy system as appears to be the case from the planning application, before any new generation equipment is commissioned. If instead the intent is to retain the domestic supply to Gatekeeper's Cottage, Manx Utilities will still need to carry out a detailed network study to ensure that there is no risk that the generators could back-feed the network in the event of a fault at the property. This will be required even if the intent of the applicant is to use all electricity generated at the site itself.
Manx Utilities is also unable to commit to provide any back-up supply for this property given the proposed modifications without carrying out a detailed grid modelling study. Manx Utilities would like to draw the applicants' attention to the requirement to contact Manx Utilities in relation to operating private generation in parallel with the public electricity supply network and will also need to comply with Engineering Recommendations G99 and G100. Finally, Manx Utilities notes that drawing 3 of the planning application appears to include a building/object with reference "H2", but with no further details or reference to this within the wider application. We would like to request further details are provided on this building and its use given "H2" is the chemical formula for Hydrogen and its proximity to critical national infrastructure will need to be assessed should that be its intended use."
5.9 In an email received 28/5/24, MUA, in response to the applicants' letter of 20/3/24, MUA advises as follows:
"Thank you for forwarding your response onto us. I've included your direct response for the benefit of my colleagues, cc'd in:
From the applicant's letter of 20/3/24: "Our response: The intention of the site is to run as a switched alternative to the Manx Utilities' electricity supply. The applicant is happy to arrange a meeting to ensure the procedure for implementing a switched system is followed correctly and to ensure that all parties are satisfied with the works.
As mentioned in the response above, the solar tracker and wind turbine foundations are constructed. The Manx Utilities (MU) pipeline engineers visit on a regular basis to inspect the pipeline route and as far as the applicant is aware have viewed all works undertaken to date. At no point has the applicant been made aware of any issues, to their knowledge the MU engineers have been happy with works, it would be expected that if anything had been of concern it would have been brought to the applicant's attention. The foundations are approximately 30 meters from the pipeline.
The applicant would like to confirm that any reference to H2 on the drawing refers to a concrete base provision for the potential to store external H2 cylinders. Nevertheless, any future work relating to H2 will be submitted in a separate application. A section of the Plant building and Site showing the gas main near the plant room has been submitted alongside this letter to give further context.
The proposal is in accordance with the Isle of Man Development Plan, the applicant will ensure that Manx Utilities also have no objections to the proposal."
MUA continues its comments: Based on your updated information it is not currently possible for us to comment on whether or not the proposal is acceptable from a Utilities perspective as there is potential to impact our power system. In order for us to progress, could you please submit an Electrical Network
==== PAGE 10 ====
23/01364/B Page 10 of 23
Enquiry to our Design team - https://www.manxutilities.im/your-home/electricity/electricity- network-enquiry/
Once the form has been located by your electrical team supporting the proposal, it will help us understand your plans and it would be sensible to have a meeting. I will leave Jason's team to follow up with this aspect.
In addition, it may still be necessary to carry out a Risk Assessment for our gas pipework in the vicinity. The potential for hydrogen storage in the future (and its location) may need to be given some thought at this stage. I will leave Chris' team to follow up with this aspect."
5.10 In a further email received via the applicant from MUA's Design Services Manager, dated 28/5/24, MUA advises:
"Further to the comments from Lizzie (28/5/24), I don't think there is any need to submit an Electricity Network Enquiry form at this stage. You have made a clear statement that the intention is to run the site as a switched alternative to the electricity network which I think covers the situation. The form will be more relevant to submit when you get into the detailed electrical design and know the make / model / electrical design of the switching arrangement. Provided that the installation meets the requirements of the BS7671 wiring regulations then from a planning perspective I have no issues with the proposal."
5.11 The Airfield Operations Manager at Ronaldsway Airport was consulted on the application on 4/3/24. No comments had been received by the Report drafting Stage.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.12 One letter of representation has been received objecting to the proposals from the occupants of Arbourfield, Douglas Road, Ballasalla, which is the neighbouring property located to the north-west of the site and adjoins the access track leading to it from the A5 Douglas Road. Full details of the representation and all other application details are available to view on the Government's website. Concerns raised are:
"Background: We purchased Arborfield in 2013 as a property to be developed. It took us five years to find a bungalow on flat land that had space for adaptations to be made and land to provide accessible exercise space. We have made considerable adaptations to the property to make the property 'house for life'. Adapted kitchen, adapted bathrooms, hydro therapy pool, carers accommodation, ceilings strengthened to allow for hoists in her later life.
Due to our large investment in the property we are not able to 'move' out of the planning applicants proposed change of use from agricultural field to 'Energy Centre' - with it's associated noise, visual impact and traffic movements- the noise would continue twenty four hours every day, every year- indefinitely for Arborfield and our daughter if the application is allowed to go ahead.
History of the Applicants Planning. When the applicant filed for the Gatekeepers Cottage to be built in his planning application 18/00197/B in 2018 we made comment to the application, but after meeting with the applicant, he calmed our fears with it being his exciting Cottage venture for residential use. Meaning the traffic flow, noise and disruption past our property and down the country lane would be minimal when the building was complete. There was no mention of an 'Energy Centre'.
We then came to the Restaurant application for Ballawoods - recently withdrawn.
==== PAGE 11 ====
23/01364/B Page 11 of 23
Now we find an Energy Centre with sixteen-metre-high wind turbine with a five and a half metre wingspan running continuously. And three solar panels 6 metres by 8 metres viewable in the Manx countryside. What is to stop the Applicant increasing the amount of wind turbines and solar panels if planning grants permission for one (setting a precedent in Manx countryside)- is this why it is being called the 'Energy Centre'.
It does seem that the Application is not showing the full picture/plan and Manx Utilities fears about where the generated electricity is going and how is correct - is the 'Energy Plant' (with its own water well/pumping station) going to be used for something else.
No plans are properly showing that the site has a fresh water well and pumping station installed.
What plans does the applicant have for producing hydrogen at the site? Can planning ascertain what is to be proposed and how safe this would be - having seen that the applicant stated in the newspaper that he proposed to run the IOM steam railway trains on hydrogen.
If we Google Hydrogen Gas production we get:
How do you turn water into liquid hydrogen?
Luckily water (H2O) contains hydrogen and we can use water to produce hydrogen gas (H2). Splitting water molecules into oxygen gas and hydrogen gas using electricity is called "electrolysis". Through electrolysis, we convert electrical energy into a storable fuel namely hydrogen gas.
If this is the case this would then turn the change of use in the planning application into Industrial/Commercial - which is not what they have stated in this application.
Where would this fuel be stored?
Vans or lorries would have to collect the nitrogen - or tankers would be filled and the lane to the field is not large enough for this - as pointed out in our objection to the Restaurant application for Ballawoods.(23/01498/B)
This would then make a Highways Issue - and they have not objected to the proposal.
We will try and show planning how this Planning Proposal is not feasible, fair, safe or good for the Manx countryside, bats and wild birds.
How the applicants Proposal does not comply with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) and the Ballasalla 1982 Development Plan.
The Ballasalla 1982 Development Plan has Ballawoods situated in an area zoned to be 'Predominantly Agricultural/Residential' use.
The proposal for a change of use from agricultural field to industrial power plant use does not fit this zoning.
Environment: Policy 23 "When considering alterations and improvements to existing facilities the Department will require that consideration be given to potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours"
This Proposal will have a detrimental impact on our property and amenity due to the change of purpose from agricultural to industrial linked to the amount of noise and disruption caused by a
==== PAGE 12 ====
23/01364/B Page 12 of 23
sixteen metre high wind-turbine running continuously and the possibility of a hydrogen making plant.
Development within land-use zones.
General Policy 2 "Provided that the development" (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents (h) has appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on local highways The change of planning use from agricultural field to industrial venture would not fulfil these points noted from the Strategic Plan. The noise generated would adversely affect us at Arborfield. Proposed impact of 45 decibels continuously heard - to put this into perspective: Taken from DEFRA comment: 'Bearing in mind that the Isle of Man does not currently have policy guidance on micro-turbines placement' If you read UK guidance on the placement of micro turbines and their proximity to local residents - their placement has to take into account the recipient / benefactor of the energy/electricity being generated and how close it can be to other properties who will not benefit in any way from the proposed turbine placement.
If we consider the site plans and Viewpoint panorama D810 submitted we can see the the applicant has placed the turbine and solar panels as far away as possible from the Ballawoods dwelling - closer to other properties who do not benefit from the turbine.
Is the proposed 'Energy Centre' not just for Ballawood's - but an 'Energy Centre Commercial Venture' - not just linked to Ballawoods property.
Noise from the wind turbine will affect Arborfields but not Ballawoods which is the sole recipient of the generated power.
The proposals will affect the Manx Utilities High Pressure Gas pipeline which serves the whole of the Island and runs adjacent to the northern site boundary and down the lane serving the site and Arborfields.
DEFA Concerns for Bats and Birds. The submitted Wardell Armstrong Ecological (desk study) report is not factual or accurate as bats are in the area.
From Wardell Armstrong ecological report:
In conclusion, it is not considered that there are any significant potential ecological constraints to the proposed development. Not Correct
It is understood that the client has undertaken pre-application consultation with the IoM Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA). The response from the Ecosystem Policy Team highlighted several potentially sensitive ecological receptors both on-site, and within the wider landscape.
There are bats that use the hedges and we have a 'nursery' roosting bat colony in our manx stone gable-end wall and loft at Arborfield. This is used by the bats each spring/ summer to raise young.
The bats from this colony do fly around the surrounding hedges and we feel this would need an Environmental Impact Survey carried out. The siting of the turbine does not follow the UK Bat Conservation Trust guidelines. Concern over the (Part Retrospective) implications of the planning application.
==== PAGE 13 ====
23/01364/B Page 13 of 23
If we made the planning process aligned to the highway code -
Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre. It does seem that there has not been a look in the Mirror or a signal
The Energy Centre building is sited in the field, as is the toilet block. The foundations and bottom fixing poles have all been built and installed on site for both the solar panels and the wind turbine.
This is perhaps showing little regard for Manx Planning law.
Potential for noise Nuisance and Flicker 'Flicker can be a real nuisance and can affect people with epilepsy. It is caused by the blades passing in front of the sun and making the sunlight appear to flicker to anyone 'downstream' of it. To avoid it, the turbine needs to be positioned so that it is not directly between the sun's path and any neighbouring properties.' Quote from Homebuilders turbine siting guide.
This could be a problem for our property as the sun does track behind the siting of the wind turbine and our property.
UK Planning guidance on wind turbine siting Planning Practice Guidance: Noise (PPGN) In March 2014, the Government released the PPG on noise, revised July 2019. This document sets out a number of principles and reinforces the guidance set out in the NPPF and NPSE. Paragraph 001 of PPGN notes that: "Noise needs to be considered when new development may create additional noise and when new developments would be sensitive to the prevailing acoustic environment."
Noticeable and intrusive Noise can be heard and small changes in behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. turning up volume of televisions; speaking more loudly; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to close windows for some of the time because of the noise. Potential for some reported sleep disturbance. Affects the acoustic character of the areas such that there is a perceived change in the quality of life.
We are downwind from the development and siting of the wind turbine and the prevailing south westerly wind will increase the sound carry towards our property - we will be adversely affected by the wind turbine's siting position. The Britwind R9000 creates 88.8 decibels at source - we fear this will carry towards our property especially at night and will adversely affect our quality of life.
The report submitted to show sound Levels is under the instruction of the of the Applicant and there needs to be an independent background noise survey and then an independent noise modelling created.
The report submitted does not take into account prevailing wind directions and the affect this has on sound travel. We believe the proposed development will adversely affect the countryside, due to the height.
We believe that noise will be a prohibitive factor in the determination of this planning application.
'The proposed development as stated above will support the overriding national need '- This is not the case and is just for the applicant, yet he has placed the turbine furthest away from his own development when he is the sole recipient of the electricity.
==== PAGE 14 ====
23/01364/B Page 14 of 23
A lot of the Hedley Planning statement is speculative and personal views as to whether the proposal will or will not stand out in the countryside - it is 15/16metres high and we have no electricity pylons that high."
REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 5.11 In a letter dated 20 March, 2024, the PPLIOCNAT RESPONDED TO POIIUNTS AND CONCERNS RAISED FLOOWING ION FROM THE CONSULTATION PROCESS ADVISING AS FOLLOWS;
"Applicant's Response to Consultee Comments in Relation to 23/01364/B | Erection of three polemounted photovoltaic trackers with associated equipment, containers and parking (part retrospective) Summary To summarise, the applicant has reviewed all comments from the consultees and is willing to proactively engage further with officers to come to positive solutions. Both DEFA Biodiversity and the Ecosystem Policy officer have requested that bat surveys are undertaken prior to the determination of the application. With this in mind the applicant has made the decision to withdraw the wind turbine from the application and submit this at a later date when bat surveys have been completed. The description of development is: Proposed Erection of three pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers with associated equipment, containers and parking (part retrospective)
Introduction On 14 December 2023 the above application was submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration. Following formal consultation with the statutory consultees including those with Interested Person Status, several comments have been uploaded. This letter summarises the additional work that has and will be undertaken on behalf of the Applicant to address the consultee comments in relation to the above application. All plans and documents have been updated where necessary to reflect the proposed changes to the previously submitted scheme.
A list of the revised plans and documents and those which are superseded is provided.
Arborfield - Interested Person Status Residents from the Arborfield dwelling have objected to the application, their comment is summarised below: o Concerns regarding potential for H2 production on site. o Collection of Nitrogen via vans and lorries on an unsuitable road. o Proximity to gas pipe. o Impact on amenity due to noise and disruption. o Proximity of the wind turbine to Arborfield. o Wind turbine flicker. o Concerns regarding bats and birds. o Change in land use from agricultural field to industrial venture
Our response: The applicant would like to confirm that any reference to H2 on the drawing refers to a concrete base provision for the potential to store external H2 cylinders. Nevertheless, any future work relating to H2 will be submitted in a separate application. Therefore, the collection of Nitrogen also mentioned is not a consideration at this time.
We can confirm the solar tracker and wind turbine foundations are constructed. The Manx Utilities (MU) pipeline engineers have visited and continue to visit the site on a regular basis to inspect the pipeline route and, as far as the applicant is aware, have viewed all works undertaken to date. At no point has the applicant been made aware of any issues, to their knowledge the MU engineers have been happy with works, it would be expected that if anything had been of concern it would have been brought to the applicant's attention. The foundations are approximately 30 meters from the pipeline.
==== PAGE 15 ====
23/01364/B Page 15 of 23
This application has removed the proposed wind turbine. However, to address the comments received:
A Noise Assessment was submitted in support of the application. Prior to the completion of the assessment the methodology was agreed with the Department of Environmental, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) Isle of Man via email in July and August 2023. The methodology was agreed with DEA and the submitted report demonstrates that noise levels at Arborfield resulting from the now removed wind turbine would be 28 dBA which is considered to be very low.
Shadow flicker is the flickering effect caused when rotating wind turbine blades periodically cast shadows through constrained openings such as the windows of neighbouring properties. Within the UK and Isle of Man there has not been much guidance submitted on the matter. However, the Scottish Government has published guidance on measuring flicker when the matter should be considered. The Scottish Government states: In most cases however, where separation is provided between wind turbines and nearby dwellings (as a general rule, 10 rotor diameters), 'shadow flicker' should not be a problem.
The rotor diameter is 5.5m, therefore, properties within 55m may require a shadow flicker assessment. There are no properties within 55m of the wind turbine outside of the control of the applicant, Arborfield is approximately 200m from the site, thus demonstrating that shadow flicker will not impact on residential amenity and is therefore in keeping with Environment Policy 22 which restricts development which would be unacceptably harmful to the environment and/or amenity of nearby properties.
In line with the comments from DEFA biodiversity and the Ecosystem Policy Officer, the PEAR has been updated to reflect these comments and recommends:
that one bat activity survey visit is undertaken on site per season (Spring; April/May, Summer; June-August, Autumn; September/October), alongside the deployment of a static bat detector for 10 consecutive nights in accordance with current best practice guidelines.
Bat surveys are currently being scheduled in to be undertaken in line with best practice as recommended in the PEAR.
In line with Environment Policy 1 the land use itself will not change, the site is agricultural in nature and will continue to be once the site is completed, by allowing sheep to continue to graze. The installed groundworks for the trackers are minimal. Nevertheless, Strategic Policy 2 and General Policy 3 states that development outside of areas zoned for development will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances within the listed exceptions a-h. The proposal accords with paragraph g. as the proposed development will support the overriding national need to support renewable energy generation. The chosen location is near to the built form, whilst ensuring that no residential amenity is lost. The proposal will ensure the development is energy secure and will also provide valuable data for future proposals.
The proposal accords with Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 3, Energy Policy 4 and Environment Policy 22. The chosen location of the site is acceptable in terms of location and will not cause unacceptable harm to amenity to the surrounding area.
Manx Utilities MU have requested further information, their comment is summarised below:
The MU gas pipeline is in close proximity to the proposal.
==== PAGE 16 ====
23/01364/B Page 16 of 23
A Risk Assessment will need to be undertaken to consider loading on the pipeline both during and after construction, and to ensure sufficient mitigation is in place to protect the pipeline from activities at the site.
Manx Utilities requests that the applicant clarifies whether it is their intention to run a totally separate system from the Manx Utilities' electricity supply, whether it is intended to run in parallel with the Manx Utilities' electricity supply or whether it is intended to run as a switched alternative to the Manx Utilities' electricity supply. This is not currently clear from the application. If it is one of the latter two items then the applicant will need to engage further with us as to how the proposed system will be connected and operate.
Manx Utilities notes that drawing 3 of the planning application appears to include a building/object with reference "H2", but with no further details or reference to this within the wider application. We would like to request further details are provided on this building and its use given "H2" is the chemical formula for Hydrogen and its proximity to critical national infrastructure will need to be assessed should that be its intended use.
Our response: The intention of the site is to run as a switched alternative to the Manx Utilities' electricity supply. The applicant is happy to arrange a meeting to ensure the procedure for implementing a switched system is followed correctly and to ensure that all parties are satisfied with the works.
As mentioned in the response above, the solar tracker and wind turbine foundations are constructed. The Manx Utilities (MU) pipeline engineers visit on a regular basis to inspect the pipeline route and as far as the applicant is aware have viewed all works undertaken to date. At no point has the applicant been made aware of any issues, to their knowledge the MU engineers have been happy with works, it would be expected that if anything had been of concern it would have been brought to the applicant's attention. The foundations are approximately 30 meters from the pipeline.
The applicant would like to confirm that any reference to H2 on the drawing refers to a concrete base provision for the potential to store external H2 cylinders. Nevertheless, any future work relating to H2 will be submitted in a separate application. A section of the Plant building and Site showing the gas main near the plant room has been submitted alongside this letter to give further context.
The proposal is in accordance with the Isle of Man Development Plan, the applicant will ensure that Manx Utilities also have no objections to the proposal.
DEFA - Biodiversity and Ecosytem Policy Officer DEFA have requested further information, their comment is summarised below: A precautionary approach is recommended for free standing micro-turbines and it is the Ecosystem Policy Teams recommendation that they should not be located within 30-50m of known bat flyways in order to reduce the collision risk to bats from the rotor blades. As stated above, the turbine is located 30m and 40m away from 2 different hedge banks and so bat activity effort is required in order to determine whether the surrounding hedges are used as bat flyways and therefore whether a lower 30m buffer between the turbine blades and hedge bank is appropriate. More information about the tree planting south of the site should be provided prior to determination and the Ecosystem Policy Team re-consulted on the application, as this may make the location of the turbine unsuitable.
The Ecosystem Policy Officer currently objects to the application stating: Correspondence has now been received by the Planning Department which details that there is an active bat maternity roost in Arborfield, Douglas Road. This roost is unknown to the
==== PAGE 17 ====
23/01364/B Page 17 of 23
Ecosystem Policy Team and therefore we cannot confirm its presence - site visits and bat surveys would be required. The Ecosystem Policy Team currently object to this application because of the lack of bat survey effort.
Our response: The PEAR has been updated to reflect these comments and recommends: that one bat activity survey visit is undertaken on site per season (Spring; April/May, Summer; June/August, Autumn; September/October), alongside the deployment of a static bat detector for 10 consecutive nights in accordance with current best practice guidelines.
As mentioned above, bat surveys are currently being scheduled in to be undertaken in line with best practice as recommended in the PEAR. In light of this information, the applicant has removed the wind turbine element from the application. The applicant intends to resubmit an application for the wind turbine when the appropriate surveys have been completed in line with the PEAR. Nevertheless, the applicant is happy to discuss the scope of the surveys with DEFA Biodiversity and the Ecosystem Policy Officer to produce a scope of survey which is deemed acceptable to all parties prior to a future application. The proposal accords with Environment Policy 4 and Energy Policy 4 and will not have an adverse effect on the environment.
Summary To summarise, the applicant has reviewed all comments from the consultees and is willing to proactively engage further with officers where necessary to come to positive solutions. With this in mind the applicant wishes to with draw the wind turbine from the application, the description of development is:
Proposed Erection of three pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers with associated equipment, containers and parking (part retrospective)
The applicant is happy to discuss the scope of the assessment with DEFA Biodiversity and the Ecosystem Policy Officer prior to surveys being undertaken. Nevertheless, the PEAR has now been updated for the current scheme which has removed reference to the wind turbine.
As mentioned above the intention of the site is to run as a switched alternative to the Manx Utilities' electricity supply. The applicant is happy to arrange a meeting to ensure the procedure for implementing a switched system is followed correctly and to ensure that all parties are satisfied with the works.
The applicant also welcomes the comments from Highways and Malew Parish Commissioners who raised no objection to the application.
Conclusion In conclusion, Hedley Planning Services (The 'Agent') have submitted a partial retrospective planning application on behalf of Dr. John Taylor OBE (The 'Applicant') for the Erection of 3no. Pole Mounted Photovoltaic Trackers at Field No 434112 Ballasalla, Malew, Isle of Man, IM9 3AD.
Planning applications relating to solar and wind energy are judged against the environmental objectives and policies set out within the Strategic Plan (2016) in line with Energy Policy 4. This planning application robustly demonstrates that the development fully accords with the environmental objectives, policies and criteria set out within the Strategic Plan.
It has been demonstrated that the proposed development accords with both national and local planning policy, as well as other material considerations. The application should therefore be granted with planning permission."
==== PAGE 18 ====
23/01364/B Page 18 of 23
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues with the application are the visual impact upon the surrounding landscape; the impact on neighbour's residential amenities (occupants of Arborfield); the potential impact upon the bats and birds (protected species) in the area, noise, traffic generation and energy generation. Other issues that have been raised through representations including precedent, these along with the consideration of any requirement for an EIA, will be dealt with under other matters.
6.2 The proposal is for an energy generation scheme associated with the previously approved PA Ref: PA 19/00450/B permitted on 29.05.2019 for the "Creation of a borehole (retrospective) (on this site) and erection of plant building associated with Gatekeeper Cottage, Ballawoods Halt, Ballasalla (PA 17/01076/B - permitted the re-building of this property)" to power the applicant's domestic property. It is sited outside the residential curtilage of Ballawoods Gatehouse and is located approx. 300m to the south-west where it abuts the railway track. The proposed use of the site for energy generation purposes would be a 'sui generis' use, (a use on its own) and would not fall within any of the Use Classes as outlined in the Isle of Man Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019.
Visual Impact 6.3 The scheme originally included the siting of a wind turbine, however, this element of the proposals has been deleted, and the application now relates to the consideration of the visual impacts of the three pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers with associated equipment, containers housing the Data Centre and WC and parking area (part retrospective) will clearly contribute to energy generation and a reduction in CO2 emissions in line with Government Policies and aims. The main sources of visual effects would arise from the pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers and the containers housing the WC and Data Centre. Bearing in mind that the site is located in the open countryside, and the provisions of Policy ENV1 which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake, and the requirements of Policies GEN2 b) and c) which require new development to blend in with the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; and, not to adversely impact on the quality of the local townscape and/or landscape.
6.4 It is noted that the mound on the site is connected with the previously approved application for a Borehole and its visual impact on the character of the site and surroundings is limited by its position behind existing hedging which screens it from the highway both down the access lane leading to the site and alongside the A5. It is considered that this, with the backdrop of the existing trees will lead to there being a minimal adverse visual impact from the proposed works on the character of the suite and surroundings. In respect of the solar PV arrays, these would track the movement of the sun and their height would vary from a 'flat' array at approx. 3.5m high above ground level when laying in a flat, horizontal position; approx. 6.0m when tracking the sun at an angle of 40o; and approx. 6.6m when tracking the sun at an angle of 70o. As has been the case in other applications for wind turbines, which at small scale have a hub height of 9.0m and turbine blade tip height of approx. 11.5m high, it is unusual if such structures cannot be seen from anywhere. In this case, where no wind turbine is involved, the maximum height of the proposed development would be approx. 6.6m, which is significantly lower than the height of the above example of a working wind turbine.
6.5 An important consideration is how visible the solar tracker array's would be and particularly if they would represent new skyline development. In this case, the site is set back from the main A5 road, with 2 intervening hedges between it and the roadway which would restrict the views of the site across the intervening field between it and the A5. The maximum 6.6m height of the solar arrays, which in real time appear static, but which like a clock face, would vary during the day whilst tracking the suns path, is considered to be acceptable as the likely magnitude or level of change in the view is considered in relation to the sensitivity of the visual receptor to the porta cabin structures and solar arrays.
==== PAGE 19 ====
23/01364/B Page 19 of 23
6.6 The Strategic Plan makes it clear that renewable energy sources are to be encouraged but will be subject to the other controls and policies of the Plan. As such an assessment is required to assess whether the arrays and structures would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the countryside.
6.7 The magnitude of visual effects will vary according to a range of factors, including the proportion of the 3 No. solar arrays and 2 porta cabin structures that may be visible and their position in the view, the presence of other features in the view that draw the eye, and the extent to which views of the arrays and cabin structures from the viewpoint in question are obstructed or filtered by intervening landform or by landscape elements such as trees, woodlands, hedgerows or by built structures. In this case, the porta cabin structures and solar arrays would be visible but for the most part it is considered that they would be absorbed into the landscape, especially when viewed from the south as they would be read against the background of a wooded area to the north, and would in part be screened from the east and west by hedgerows. The other factor at play is distance decay whereby the visual impact of the structures in question decays the further the distance away from them from which they are observed. It is likely that they will be visible for a short section of the A5, and from close to the junction of the newly installed Ballsalla bypass, on the approach to the site in both directions and with the intervening mound associated with the previously approved borehole application, intervening buildings etc. However, the eye is more naturally drawn to the wider landscape which is extensive and panoramic, particularly the view from the south and to where the viewer would more naturally be looking.
6.8 In respect of highly sensitive receptors (i.e. residents) it is considered that, except at very close range, the small scale nature of the 3 No. solar arrays and the 2 No. porta cabin structures would not dominate views of the landscape and that limited but noticeable changes may occur in some existing views of high sensitivity visual receptors. The nearest residents at Arborfield are between 130m from the nearest porta cabin and 150m away from nearest solar array. The access track to the site passes by Arborfield, and the site entrance is some 65.0m from the dwelling. There would be an angled view of the site from the side/rear of their property of the solar arrays, although the existing mound would screen a large proportion of any such views. The 2 No. porta cabins would be visible from the neighbours property. The nearest residents elsewhere are those at Glashen Farm on the north-east side of the A5 approx. 180 m from the site; and, those on the northern edge of Ballsalla where the new bypass would screen some of the views of the site from the main Dandara development at Rearyt Mhie, with only limited views available at a distance of approx. 500m.
6.9 It is concluded that although some adverse effects on the landscape and on existing views will inevitably occur, that due to its scale, design and location it would not have a significant adverse impact to the detriment of the visual appearance of the surrounding countryside and would not harm the character and quality of the landscape to such a degree to warrant refusal and therefore accords with the provisions of Policies ST1, ST4 c), ST5, GEN 2 b) and c) and ENV1.
Noise and disturbance 6.10 This aspect of the proposals is covered by the provisions of Policies GEN2 g); ENV 21 and ENV22 iii). The comments received from the occupants of the nearby dwelling at Arborfield have been noted. These concerns with the Case Officer's responses as outlined below, relate to:
o Concerns regarding potential for H2 production on site. Hydrogen (H2) production does not form part of this application and permission for such a process has not been applied for. o Collection of Nitrogen via vans and lorries on an unsuitable road.
==== PAGE 20 ====
23/01364/B Page 20 of 23
Nitrogen (N) production does not form part of this application and permission for such a process has not been applied for. There would be no deliveries/collection of Nitrogen by vans and lorries from the site. o Proximity to gas pipe. Noted - MUA has raised no objections (see comments above) o Impact on amenity due to noise and disruption. Noted - there would be some additional vehicle movements arising from operations on the site. Noise generation from the operation of the Data Centre; WC, and, Solar arrays would be negligible. o Proximity of the wind turbine to Arborfield. Not an issue - the wind turbine has been deleted from the proposals. o Wind turbine flicker. Not an issue - the wind turbine has been deleted from the proposals. o Concerns regarding bats and birds. DEFA Biodiversity Team has raised no objections - see comments in section on Bats and Birds below. o Change in land use from agricultural field to industrial venture. Noted this has been covered elsewhere in this Report.
6.11 It is considered that in terms of the impacts of the proposals on the residential amenities of occupants of the adjoining dwelling at Arborfield, the proposed development would not give rise to any issues whereby a refusal of planning permission would be warranted. These above aspects of the proposals accord with the provisions of Policies GEN2 g); ENV 21 and ENV22 iii) in the Strategic Plan.
Birds and Bats 6.12 Regarding the impact upon the bats in the area, following comments from the Biodiversity Officer and the Ecosystems Policy Team, the proposed wind turbine was deleted from the application. The Ecosystem Policy Team subsequently confirmed that it had no objection to this application in regards to potential impacts on bats, now that the wind turbine has been removed. They also confirmed that they were content with Wardell Armstrong's Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report dated March 2024, which considered that the scale of the project was unlikely to produce a significant risk to populations but requested its repositioning. Therefore, it is considered that this has allayed their concerns.
Access and traffic generation 6.13 Highway Services HDC commented that it found that the proposals would have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, due to it being an existing driveway, as the access is suitable for the proposals and the turbine is relatively small to be delivered. The wind turbine was subsequently deleted from the proposals and when consulted, Highway Services advised that it had not further comments to make. It is considered that the proposed access onto the A5, use of the track, on-site parking provision; and on-site turning areas are acceptable and accord with the provisions of Policies T4 and T7 of the Strategic Plan.
Other Matters 6.14 With regards to precedent, each application is assessed on its own merits and may not necessarily result in further applications for similar developments being approved. The land take for the proposed use is less than 0.5 ha and is considered that this does not represent a large scale change of use of land away from agriculture.
6.15 The Airfield Operations Manager at Ronaldsway Airport, Isle of Man, was consulted on the application on 4/3/24. No comments had been received by the Report drafting Stage. Given the lack of any comments, it is considered that the installation will not adversely affect the operation of the Isle of Man Airport with a resultant potential significant harm to aircraft safety. The proposals therefore, accord with the provisions of Transport Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan.
==== PAGE 21 ====
23/01364/B Page 21 of 23
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 6.16 The question of whether a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required to inform the application is raised. In addition to their Planning Statement, an Environmental Impact Assessment Screening letter has been submitted by the applicant. Extracts from which are outlined in paragraph 2.9 of this report. As advised in the applicant's letter they considered that an EIA is not required for this proposal because the proposed development would not constitute an EIA development. The applicant considers that this is so because the proposals falls within Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations (2017), however, these EIA Regulations apply to the UK (England) only, and do not apply in the Isle of Man. The proposed single wind turbine has been deleted; and, the proposed development is on a site which does not measure more than 0.5 hectare. As such, the proposed development accords with the provisions of Environment Policy 24, Energy Policy 4 and the advice contained in Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted a considerable amount of information that would be required as part of any EIA in order to inform the application, and therefore, does not consider the proposals would give rise to any significant environmental effects.
6.17 Strategic Plan Environment Policy 24 indicates that EIA will be required in certain cases. Paragraph 7.18.2 of the main text of the SP clarifies that in some cases EIA will be required in every case (Paragraph A.5.2 of Appendix 5 sets out the cases) and in other cases will be required depending on the nature of the proposal/area (thus paragraph A.5.2 of Appendix 5 is akin to "Schedule 1" development in the UK).
6.18 However, an important distinction between the Isle of Man and UK is that in the Isle of Man, the requirement for EIA comes from policy rather than legislation. A proposal which is listed under A.5.2 and does not have an EIA would not be in accordance with Strategic Plan Environment Policy 24. Therefore, in theory, a planning application could be submitted without an EIA for a type of development listed in A.5.2 and still be validated/processed. A judgement on the validity of the application is, therefore, required.
6.19 In this case, if this were the UK, the proposed development would not constitute a schedule 2 development as defined by Regulation 2(1) (3)) as it is not on a site measuring more than 0.5 hectare, it does not have 2 or more turbines, and the wind turbine does not have a hub height of 15 or more metres. Given the deletion of the wind turbine, EIA is not required for the 3 No. Solar Trackers or for the Data Centre and WC porta cabins.
6.20 In making a judgement, which is allowable in the Manx Planning System and current legislation, the proposed development is not considered to be formal EIA development as solar is not included in the relevant appendix. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted a considerable amount of environmental information that would be required as part of any EIA in order to inform the application, and this is judged to be of an acceptable standard and in accordance with EP 24.
Conclusion 6.21 Planning Policies together with national energy policy provide a positive framework for encouraging renewable energy developments, where appropriate. It is considered that the proposal for the erection of three pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers with associated equipment, containers and parking (part retrospective) would occupy a small portion of an open landscape and views of the solar PV arrays, and built structures would be limited due to the topography in the area, the scale of development and existing vegetation.
6.22 It is considered that the environmental benefits of the proposed scheme outweigh the limited identified harm to the countryside and as such the proposed three pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers with associated equipment, containers and parking would comply with the Energy Policy 4 and Environment Policy 2. In addition, it is considered that the proposed
==== PAGE 22 ====
23/01364/B Page 22 of 23
development would not result in an unacceptable level of harm to the residential amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of the nearby dwelling at Arborfield.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 For these reasons set out above the proposal would be appropriate in this location and therefore the recommendation is for approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...08.07.2024
Signed :...H LAIRD... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
==== PAGE 23 ====
23/01364/B Page 23 of 23
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 08.07.2024
Application No 23/01364/B Applicant Dr John Taylor OBE Proposal Proposed erection of three pole-mounted photovoltaic trackers with associated equipment, containers and parking (part retrospective) Site Address Field 434112 Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man Planning Officer Hamish Laird Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report At the public sitting of the Committee the Officer revised his recommendation to include conditions prompted by the Members - specifically
Reason: To ensure that the development provide an acceptable external finish in the interests of visual amenity given the sites countryside location.
Reason: To define the purpose of the development given the sites countryside location in the interests of visual amenity.
Reason: To define the extent of the development given the sites countryside location in the interests of visual amenity.
Reason: To minimise the impact of the development on neighbours residential amenities and on Bats, Birds and any other Protected Species; and, to safeguard the rural character and amenities of the area including minimising the impact of the development on the rural night sky.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal