Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/00695/B Page 1 of 14
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/00695/B Applicant : Jacques Van Wyngaardt Proposal : Erection of bottling plant shed and water storage tanks Site Address : Site Near To Glen Callam House Dhoon Loop Road Dhoon Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1HP
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 09.02.2021 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The application site is designated under the IOM Development Plan Order 1982 as Woodland and High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and therefore not designated for development and therefore is contrary to General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. By virtue of its size, scale and location and without adequate justification the visual impact of the development is detrimental to the rural landscape of the countryside in which it sits contrary to both Environment Policy 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. Given the site is within an area of Nature Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation and is also directly adjacent to Dhoon Glen ASSI there is insufficient evidence provided to adequate demonstrate that the proposals would not have any adverse environmental impacts to these areas and therefore contrary to Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons 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 not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Thalloo-Ree, Dhoon Loop Road, Dhoon as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/00695/B Page 2 of 14
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Glebe Cottage, Maughold Thalloo Mitchell, Dhoon Loop Road, Dhoon Kerrowdhoon. Dhoon Loop Road, Dhoon Callan Farm, Dhoon Loop Road
Are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is adjacent to Glen Callam House, Dhoon Loop Road, Dhoon, Ramsey which form part of the applicant's overall larger holding at Kionehenin. The site is rectangular in shape and has a character of a woodland; albeit there are existing buildings (very poor state of repair) two domestic sized garages and the remains of a large greenhouse within the site.
1.2 Access to the site is via a long private road which runs from the Dhoon Loop Road to the site and continues beyond to the residential property Kionehenin.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of bottling plant shed and water storage tanks. The proposed shed would measure 25m in width and 11m in depth and have a ridge height of 9.4m. The building would have the appearance of an agricultural barn. The walls and roof will be fully insulated to ensure acceptable working conditions and minimise noise levels. The equipment will also be sound-proofed. A total of 9 trees would be removed.
2.2 The applicants advise that the water current runs through the applicants site and he wishes to utilise this natural flowing water source with a view to bottling it and redistributing it for sole consumption on the Island. The submission states that the facility will have two 10,000 litre holding tanks at the rear of the plant which can be submerged to sited at ground floor level. A bottling plant unit (estimate that 30,000 litres/day will be treated and bottled) would be installed within the building which will bottle the water. The bottles of water will then be stored at mezzanine level in the building and then distributed to potential outlets for sale. It is proposed to operate the plant 0800hrs until 1800hrs Monday to Friday. It is proposed at most 6 workers would work from the site.
2.3 The applicants indicate that the water is high in natural minerals, although it unfortunately does pick up small traces of contaminated in its journey down, although they indicated these can easily be removed to ensure the drinking water is safe for drinking and meets all current drinking water standards on the Island. The applicant considers they will fill the gap in the market for drinking water in commercial business and provide water when there is a disruption to the normal drinking water provision by Manx Utilities when previously imported bottled water has had to be used.
2.4 The distributed water will be loaded onto vans or mini vans and then if there eventually becomes a need to truck it will be no larger than an 8 tone one. Timing of loading will be
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/00695/B Page 3 of 14
carefully planned so distribution vehicles will not generally be on the public highways during the morning and evening when people are driving to work/school etc.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The wider site has been the subject of a number of planning applications, however, only the following is considered of material relevance to the determination of the current application:
3.2 Erection of an agricultural building for livestock, stabling and agricultural equipment - 19/01280/B - REFUSED on the following grounds: "R 1. The evidence provided fails to adequately demonstrate that a barn of this size and scale has essential agricultural need for the conduct of agriculture and therefore it is considered that the application is contrary to part (f) of General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. By virtue of its size, scale and location the visual impact of the development is detrimental to the rural landscape of the countryside in which it sits contrary to both Environment Policy 1 and 2 and Environment Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is designated under the IOM Development Plan Order 1982 as Woodland and High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance and therefore not designated for development. The site is within a Nature Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation and is also directly adjacent to Dhoon Glen ASSI.
4.2 The following policies are taken from the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and are relevant for consideration:
4.3 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
(a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."
4.4 Environment Policy 1 states:. "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative".
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/00695/B Page 4 of 14
4.5 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential."
4.6 Environment Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi- natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."
4.7 Environment Policy 4 states: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.
(b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land.
(c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."
4.8 Environment Policy 5 states: "In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to: (a) minimise disturbance; (b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and (c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated."
4.9 Environment Policy 6 states: "The Department will seek to identify and designate such 'National Heritage Areas' in collaboration with other Government Departments and appropriate agencies in order that buildings, archaeological sites and areas of special ecological, landscape and/or scientific value within them are recognised for their national importance, are a focus for environmental enhancement and are given additional protection from unwarranted development."
4.10 Environment Policy 7 states: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/00695/B Page 5 of 14
will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species."
4.11 Environment Policy 22 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."
4.12 Environment Policy 24 states: "Pollution-sensitive development will only be allowed to be located close to sources of pollution where appropriate measures can be taken to safeguard amenity."
4.13 Business Policy 1 states: "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan."
4.14 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS 5.1 Garff Commissioners have objected (23.07.2019) to the application:
"It is the view of the Commission that insufficient information has been submitted in relation to this application, particularly in regard to the quality of the water to be extracted and the Environmental Impacts of the proposals. In these circumstances, the Commission objects to this planning application."
5.1.1 Following additional information being provided by the applicants the Commissioners state (24.02.2020):
"The Commissioners considered and discussed the additional material in detail. The consensus being that the information, particularly from the Government Analyst, indicated that not there were still water quality and public health matters that needed to be resolved. Members also express was concern about the impact of the proposed industrial operation on the adjacent ASSI and the amenity of the Dhoon National Glen. The Commission resolved to reiterate their objections to this application."
5.2 Highway Services initially objected due to lack of information (02.09.2019). However following additional information Highway Services made the following comments (30.01.2020):
"A previous highway consultation response was provided on 25th July 2019 stating an objection due to lack of information in relation to car parking or commercial vehicle access arrangements. Further information has now been provided in relation to vehicle access and parking and the proposals are now acceptable.
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/00695/B Page 6 of 14
Recommendation: DNO"
5.3 Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) made the following comments (11.07.2019):
"I have no objection to the tree removal that is proposed as part of this development, as shown in drawing TR-3419. The majority of the trees to be removed are poor quality specimens with various defects or poor form and the visual impact of the proposed tree removal will not be significant.
The root protection areas (RPAs) shown on drawings TS-3419, TR-3419 and TP-3419 are only representations of the theoretical (circular) rooting area calculated using the guidance contained in paragraph 4.6.1 of BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - recommendations). The author has not accounted for existing features which may have restricted rooting and represented this with asymmetrical polygons of an equivalent area, as recommended by paragraph 4.6.2. The Tree Protection Plan (TP-3419) therefore appears to show a significant incursion in to the RPA of several retained trees. Having visited the site prior to the submission of this application, however, I can confirm that in reality these incursions are unlikely to be significant. Existing site features are likely to have restricted rooting in several areas and I believe the protection plan submitted is adequate in this instance.
If this application is approved I recommend that you consider applying the following conditions:
No tree shown as retained on the approved drawing TR-3419 shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.
Reason: To maintain the amenities of the area by i) minimising the level of tree canopy cover lost due to the development, and ii) maintaining existing vegetation which may screen the development from public viewpoints.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the protective measures detailed in the approved Tree Protection Plan (drawing TP-3419) and Arboricultural Method Statement, prepared by Manx Roots and submitted in support of the application, shall be fully installed and implemented, and retained for the duration of the construction process.
Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are adequately protected from construction activity which may have a detrimental impact on their health and longevity."
5.4 Ecosystems Policy Officer (DEFA) made the initial comments (13.02.2020):
"I have just been made aware of this planning application and therefore I apologise for the late submission.
Dhoon Glen Area of Special Scientific Interest The land where the bottling plant is proposed is directly adjacent to Dhoon Glen ASSI, which amongst many other reasons, was designated for its broadleaved woodland, rivers and streams with an excellent range of structural diversity, small patches of swamp communities and streamside woodland flora.
The designation citation states the following: "The site boundary was chosen to include the full range of the Glen from fast-flowing tributaries to the sea, where the fresh water meets the tide
==== PAGE 7 ====
19/00695/B Page 7 of 14
in a series of small, inter-tidal rockpools noted for their diversity and consequent educational value."
Within the ASSI, downstream from the area proposed for the bottling plant, is a plant called Hay-scented Buckler Fern, which is listed in Schedule 7 of the Wildlife Act 1990, and has a limited distribution across the Isle of Man, being limited to areas of damp, mossy woodland.
Attached to this email are the Dhoon Glen designation documents, which explain in more detail the description and reason for notification of this site and contain a map of the site boundary and a list of 'operations likely to damage the special interest of the site', which require ASSI consent from DEFA (Appendix II). Operations include: o The destruction, displacement, removal or cutting of any plant; o The introduction tree and/or woodland management; o Drainage; o The changing of water levels and water tables and water utilisation (including irrigation, storage and abstraction from existing water bodies and through boreholes; o The laying or maintenance of pipelines, above or belowground.
The supporting documents state that water for bottling 'will be sourced from the immediate area' but there is no information about exactly where this abstraction will take place. The stream located directly next to the site is within the ASSI, and therefore if abstraction is from this point, ASSI landowner consent will be required. I have concerns about the impact any extraction in the area will have on water levels within the ASSI and thus the potential negative impact on native woodland plant communities this may result in.
The Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment shows that at least 6 of the trees proposed for removal are within the ASSI and therefore consent will also be required for their removal.
If planning permission were to be approved, ASSI consent is not assumed, and the landowner will be required to submit notice to DEFA for the water abstraction (if within the ASSI) and tree removal and the Department must issue consent prior to works commencing.
In order to give ASSI consent, the Ecosystem Policy team would have to be satisfied that the extraction of water from within the ASSI would not have a detrimental impact on any of the features of interest. This assurance could only be determined through the provision of a more thorough assessment of intended water abstraction levels and potential impact on water levels, as well as details about any pipework required to take the water off the site.
Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan States the following; Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or Even if water abstraction is not intended within the ASSI, because abstraction from the immediate area is a material constraint to the viability of the construction of a water bottling plant, and because of the potential adverse impact this may have on the ASSI, I feel that I am justified in requesting a thorough abstraction assessment prior to determination of this application.
Additional Points
Dhoon Glen area is known to be a feeding and roosting area for bats and therefore as the application includes the removal of mature trees, I request that a bat suitability survey is undertaken on the site, by a licenced bat ecologist, to determine whether bats could be utilising any of the trees which are to be removed to facilitate the development. Though very
==== PAGE 8 ====
19/00695/B Page 8 of 14
little information has been provided it also looks like 2 buildings will need to be demolished in order to place the bottling plant and therefore the bat suitability survey should also determine whether roosting bats could be utilising these existing buildings. If found suitable then a bat roost survey should be undertaken by a licenced bat ecologist and a report detailing the findings should be submitted to the Planning Directorate for approval prior to determination of this application. If bats are found to be utilising the site then then a mitigation plan for their protection should also be submitted to the Planning Department for agreement prior to determination. The development should then be undertaken in accordance with the agreed mitigation plan.
Bats are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1990. It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take, or to damage or destroy, or obstruct access to, any structure or place bats use for shelter or protection, or to disturb bats while they occupy a structure or place which they use for that purpose.
Prior to determination of this application a low level lighting design plan, which directs light away from the ASSI and site boundary features, should be submitted to planning for written approval, in order to maintain the importance of the boundary features for foraging bats.
Should the application be approved, all vegetation and tree removal should be undertaken outside of the breeding bird season (March -August) and thorough checks for nests and eggs, even outside of the breeding bird season, should be undertaken prior to removal.
It is an offense under the Wildlife Act 1990 to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird, or destroy the active nest, eggs or chicks of any wild birds, in addition the hedges may be being used by nesting Schedule 1 birds which are specially protected and it is an offence to disturb them while they are nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or to disturb the dependent young of such a bird."
5.4.1 Following these comments these where put to the applicants (23.06.2020) for further comments/discuss with the Ecosystem Policy Officers concerns as they may be insurmountable, irrespective of gaining planning approval. The Department then contact Ecosystem Policy Officer in October and December last year to see if they had any further response form the applicants. They confirmed the following (); "Sorry for seemingly ignoring your previous email about this in October, I don't at all remember seeing it.
I spoke to the applicant early in the year, must have been around February, and we spoke about him getting a bat survey and clarified which trees he wanted to remove.
The way we left it was that he was going to provide updated information to planning but I don't believe you have had anything back in yet? "
5.5 Inland Fisheries (DEFA) made the following comments (08.01.2020): "Inland Fisheries are meeting the owner of the proposed water bottling plant, Mr Jacques Wyngaardt on site tomorrow. Currently there does not appear to be enough information in the planning application to make an informed decision regarding the feasibility of this application. It is noted that Manx Utilities, The Environmental Protection Unit (DEFA) and The Biodiversity (DEFA Ecosystems Team) have not commented on this application and may not be aware of it. The applicant or agent should be mindful that they need to contact these Departments as this planning application covers many aspects that fall within their individual remits.
Fisheries will send in comments following tomorrow's visit."
5.5.1 Following this email a further email confirmed (23.01.2020) that the proposal did not impact how the fish passage or disturbed the fish habitat. However, they did indicate that the
==== PAGE 9 ====
19/00695/B Page 9 of 14
water quality or environmental impacts is not something that Inland Fisheries are in a position to comment one.
5.6 The owners/occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Maughold (10.07.2019 & 17.02.2020); make the following summarised comments; the house was built without planning permission just after the war and was as sort of gate house on landing forming part of Kionehenin; It is still very much hidden in the Glen Kallan Valley and it is, I suppose from that stream that the water us suggests to be bottled; finding the drawings very difficult to digest and its effects on the countryside will be depended on its siting amongst the trees and its colour; it is of course introduction an industrial use into the countryside though a great big industry quarrying is, or was and could I assume be reopened quite nearby.
5.7 The owners/occupiers of Thalloo Mitchell, Dhoon Loop Road, Dhoon (17.08.2019); make the following summarised comments objecting to the proposal; site designated as High Landscape Value not zoned for development and contrary to General Policy 3; removal of a number of trees which is adjacent to a ASSI which has a water course running through it; therefore contrary to Environment Policy 1 & 2 as it would adversely impact the character and quality of the surrounding landscape; Contrary to Environment Policy 16 as the existing buildings are in a poor state and the proposal is erecting a new building; highway safety concerns on the Dhoon Loop Road and the Dhoon Quarry Road due to delivery wagons and heavy plant during construction; Concerned of noise pollution from the bottling plant as no details on the drawings are provided in terms of specifications of the bottling shed; hours of operation extend beyond the hours of an average working week; will the eater need to be pumped which will cause further noise pollution/vibration; how will the site be lit/security lighting; has the water been analysed by the appropriate Authority; site is close to redundant Dhoon Quarry which we are led to understand was at some point utilised for the disposal of asphalt; application is very vague on the potential sales plan for the water.
18.02.2020 5.7.1 Following additional information being provided by the applicants we still do not consider this addresses the requirements of General Policy 3; water would be taken from ASSI stream which abuts the application site; surely this will damage a Glen which is protected for its importance of flora and wildlife habitats; no information has been provided with regards to the physical impact that the extraction of 30,000 litres of water a day would have on the surrounding environment; we are not aware that there was such an over-riding national need for local bottled drinking water; water sample tests in August 2018 did not meet the required Regulations, the intention is the plant will be utilised to remove the bacteria and that the drinking water quality standards will be met, however the email form the Government Analyst suggests the undertaking of more detailed assessments and approaching the relevant Environment Health DEFA Department; still remains concerns of highway safety by additional traffic;
5.8 On behalf of the owners/occupiers of Callan Farm, Dhoon Loop Road, Kaz Ryzner Associates (13.08.2019); make the following summarised comments objecting to the proposal; there is insufficient information to properly assess and justify this proposed industrial development located in the Manx countryside; the application is not zoned for development and proposes a commercial bottling plant operation with associated plant shed and storage tanks on land located within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance; there are no details justifying the "industrial" proposals under General Policy 3; proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 1, 4 & 7 and there is insufficient detail to properly assess matters relating to access and parking.
13.02.2020 5.8.1 Apart from further details of the access and parking, no additional information has been provided to overcome previous objections/justification of the development; proposal still contrary to General Policy 3 and has failed to submit any information to address Environment
==== PAGE 10 ====
19/00695/B Page 10 of 14
Policy 4 and 7, but simply relies on meetings with Government Officers which, in closer examination, do not actually provide full support. The comments provided by the Inland Fisheries Manager confirm that; Comments from the Government Analyst raises questions regarding the lack or research on the assessment of the water source and the recommendation that a risk assessment be undertaken; our objections remain.
5.9 The owners/occupiers of Kerrowdhoon. Dhoon Loop Road, Dhoon (22.07.2019); make the following summarised comments objecting to the proposal; site is within an Area of High Landscape or Costal Value and Scenic Significance any development must comply with Environment Policy 2; site is also abuts to Dhoon Glen an ASSI; it is not clear if the extraction of water will damage the ASSI; proposed building of the size proposed would be an incongruous future in a sensitive rural wooded environment; no information is given on the insulation or cladding; no information is given about the structure of the 2 water storage tanks; very little information about the working of the facility; concerned about the level of noise that would be generated; no technical information has been provided about the machinery proposed to be installed; it does not state whether the bottles would be plastic or glass, more noise with glass; insufficient parking for six workers; highway safety concerns by additional traffic; the proposed industrial use would impact the clearly rural area of high natural beauty; adversely affect amenity of local residents and the character of the area; environmental impacts through pollution and noise and what safeguards are in place to protect possible contamination.
24.02.2020 5.9.1 Proposal still does not comply with General Policy 3; should be refused for the lack of compliance with environment policies; contrary to paragraph 3.3 of IOMSP; contrary to Environment Policy 4, 7, 22, 23 and 24; contrary to Business Policy 1 and 4; ASSI document indicates that operations likely to damage the special interest of such a site include "The Change of water levels and tables and water utilisation (including irrigation, storage and abstractions from existing water bodies and through boreholes"; it is inevitable that the proposed development will impact ASSI; proposal would extract 30,000 litres a day; proposal is to use plastic bottles which is contrary to what Tynwald in July 2018 approved for "Single Use Plastics Reduction Plan for IOM Government".
5.10 The owners/occupiers of Thalloo-Ree, Dhoon Loop Road, Dhoon (26.08.2019); make the following summarised comments objecting to the proposal; we agree with comments made by Thalloo Mitchell, Kerrowdhoon and Garaff Commissioners; our house is directly on the Dhoon Quarry Road adjacent to the proposed site and would be directly and adversely impacts by vehicles travelling to and from the site; there seems to be little consideration with regards to the suitability of the current roads and the adverse environmental impacts to the surrounding area; and given the proximity of the proposed site to our property we have concerns regarding associated noise and light pollution
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is General Policy 3. It is a fact the proposed development would not meet any of the listed criteria within General Policy 3. Therefore it is contrary to this policy. However, the list is not exhaustive and occasionally there are some developments which are allowed, even though they are not within the listed exceptions within GP3. However, for them to be accepted they need to accord with other polices within the IOMSP.
6.2 The site is within an area of "countryside" and within Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance the development needs to comply with EP1 & 2 which essentially required the development not to adversely affect the countryside and would not harm the character and quality of the landscape or if it does the location for the development is essential. Furthermore the site being within an area of Nature Conservation Zones, nature
==== PAGE 11 ====
19/00695/B Page 11 of 14
Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation and is also directly adjacent to Dhoon Glen ASSI; accordingly, Environment Policy 3, 4, 5 & 6 need consideration.
6.3 In relation to the above designations and the type of development proposed there was concern of the level of details which was initially submitted. In fact there was little to no detail which covered these topics. Due to this the Department sought additional information form the applicant (09.07.2019):
"From briefly looking over the application, I have concern in terms the principle of the works and the justification for the proposal. General discussions with your client a number of months ago (no detailed plans or information), I explained that the site being within the countryside not designated for development, any application would need to be fully explained and reason why this site was chosen and not for example on an industrial site which is designated for this type of development. We discussed possible reasons as being the water source is on this site; the quality of the water etc. etc. Since these initially discussions the application has been submitted without further advice taken.
This proposal; if approved, would be an exception to planning policy (IOMSP attached) and therefore you need to really explain why this site is chosen and evidence to support this. I also presume water tests has been undertake to demonstrate its quality and has any report into whether the removal of water would have any environmental impacts? Such reports should be included. As mention above you need to justify the proposal and why it has to be on this site. As it stands with the information before me I would consider the application contrary to StP2 EP1, EP2, GP3 of the IOMSP."
6.4 Further, it should be noted that during pre-application discussions with the applicants, the Department outlined that given the site's designation there was a presumption against development in the countryside including industrial type development. The applicant was advised for the Department to be able to support an application for water extraction and associated bottling plant, there would have to be good reasons given why such a development needed to be on the site; for example the if the water quality was of such high standard, it gave reason reasons why extraction had to be from this site and no other sites and provide evidence (i.e. water quality). Further, if it was demonstrated that there was a demand for Island made bottled water, rather than bottled water being imported to the Island, then again this could be an argument in favour. Again the initial application gave little to no reasoning address these points.
6.5 The applicants did provide additional details however, this did not overcome concerns. The Department emailed the applicant in June 2020 stating the following:
"I have had a read through the submission and I still have some concern of the principle/reasons why the plant needs to be where it is and why the process couldn't be untaken at an industrial site (please see my email attached point 2). It would be useful to have comments from you on this point. It may be for example you would need a building anyway for the water tanks etc. to collect the water and then you would need more vehicles going back and to an industrial site to treat the water which would increase traffic etc. Further, you can't get the water on an industrial site as you are getting it from a water source near to the site, which makes this different to other industrial process. This type of reasons would be helpful to highlight to demonstrate why the building and use has to be on this site and not on a normal industrial site.
I note when writing my report that we have received comments from Biodiversity Officer (please find attached) since the last information was advertised (unfortunately they were not aware of the application when it was initially submitted). They have raised significant issues which would need to be addressed, to the extent that even if we were to approval the planning
==== PAGE 12 ====
19/00695/B Page 12 of 14
application, they may not grant their own approval for the extraction of any water. This needs to be addressed both from a planning perspective, but equally for the entire proposal.
I note within the email submitted from Paul Lenartowicz, he mentioned that he should obtain a copy of the complete Statutory Document 405/09 to see if what you are proposing is possible. He also comments that you should undertake a detailed assessment of the source of the water. Has this been done? This may be important in relation to comments made by the Biodiversity Officer also.
At this point I believe you can make a case for why it needs to be on this site, and I am comfortable with the visual impact and impact on neighbours. However, the comments from the Biodiversity Officer are concerning and really do need to be addressed. I would perhaps recommend contacting Sophie Costain (DEFA) ([email protected]) to see what you can do and what information she needs to be able to overcome her concerns."
6.6 No additional comments have been sent in response to the Department's concerns. Accordingly, in terms of the principle of the development, the Department is not satisfied that sufficient justification has been provided to overcome established planning policy. Furthermore, there still appear to be questions regarding the water quality as outlined in concerns of the Government Analyst and that further test are required and liaison with other Government Departments, for example Environmental Health food team. The Government Analyst (full correspondence is with the supporting information online) states:
"...if I understand correctly you sampled the water form a surface watercourse. I suggest that an appropriate early step before committing to any plant would be a detailed assessment of the source (which might, for example be an entire river valley) and conduct a risk assessment looking at any potential causes of contamination of any sort, chemical as well as biological, now and that might arise in the future - which may be difficult unless you have full control over the source area."
6.7 No evidence has been provided which gives the Department comfort that the water is of a drinkable quality which would overcome established planning policy of allowing should development in the countryside.
6.8 In terms of the visual impact upon the countryside setting/landscape which as noted previously is within an area of High Landscape Value. It needs to be noted that all development in the countryside has a visual impact; however, the polices are in place to allow appropriate development in such areas (GP3 for example) when they are justified and this justification can sometimes overcome the potential visual impact of a development. 6.9 As a bottling plant is not specifically mentioned in the IOMSP (compared to an agricultural barn or stale building) in terms of design there is again no policy which considers this, unlike an agricultural barn where EP15 gives comments. However, the proposal would appear similar to an agricultural barn (appropriately worded conditions for dark green colour to roof and sides). The proposed building (if finished in a dark green colour) will not be significantly apparent from public views. The main vantage points are likely across the valley (Dhoon Glen), namely from the public vantage points from the A2 and Ballaragh Road both to the south of the site. The impact is reduced given the wooded area which would surround the site and the existing property Glen Callam House which is to the south of the site. The proposal will also not break the skyline. However, given the justification of a building measuring 25m x 11m with a height of 9.5m has not been adequately proven, it is considered adversely affect the countryside and adversely affect the character and the landscape in this location, which is one of the most scenic areas (especially form the public vantage points highlighted) of the IOM. It is key to ensure any development is warranted and does not impact the countryside/landscape in this area. Of course if the building was considered to be justified, then this may have overcome the visual impact of the development. However, for the
==== PAGE 13 ====
19/00695/B Page 13 of 14
reasons stated earlier in this report, they do not. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 and 2.
6.10 The proposal also raises a number of environment questions namely given the site's location immediately adjacent to an ASSI, potential extraction of water within an ASSI and the site being within Nature Conservation Zones, nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation. These concerns are raised by the Ecosystem Policy Officer. There have been no response to these concerns nor any information submitted to address them. Accordingly, it is not considered the application adequately demonstrates that the development, in terms of impacts upon the watercourse though water extraction, noise impacts created by the bottling plant equipment, and impacts upon bat/birds/wildlife would not result in an adverse impact. Accordingly, with the information available it is considered the proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 4.
6.11 Due to the size of the barn, the proposal will be noticeable from across the valley (Dhoon Glen), namely from the public vantage points from the A2 and Ballaragh Road both to the south of the site. The impact is reduced partially by essentially digging the building into the hillside which does reduce the potential impacts. The proposal for example will not break the skyline. The proposal is also immediately to the north of the existing dwelling and existing buildings within the site (albeit above them given the sloping nature of site on the hill side). Furthermore, there is mature tree planting within the site (fronting the proposed barn site). However, given the sheer size and scale of the barn, the proposal would adversely affect the countryside and adversely affect the character and the landscape in this location, which is one of the most scenic areas (especially form the public vantages points highlighted) of the IOM. It is key to ensure any development is warranted and does not impact the countryside/landscape in this area. Of course if the barn was considered to be of "essential" need, then this may have overcome the visual impact of the development. However, for the reasons stated earlier in this report, they do not. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 and 2.
6.12 Putting the size/scale and visual impact to one side, in terms of its design/finishes it is accepted that the building is of a relatively uninspiring design but, in the context of the countryside setting the building having an appearance of an agricultural barn, it is very much "of its type" and in keeping with the landscape. That the wall elevations being finished in a metal sheeting (condition it should be a dark green or olive colour) and the roof colour (conditioned) would be dark grey or dark green in colour and thus provide a level of camouflage within the wooded area. Accordingly, the proposal purely in terms of design/finish would be acceptable.
6.13 In terms of highway matters, Highway Services have considered the traffic generated by the development and no raised any objection. There is sufficient parking in the site (as well as along the private road/within the wider estate). While additional traffic would be generated by the development, it is not considered to be at a scale which would have a significant impact to warrant refusal.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The policies of the Strategic Plan are clear that development should not take place in the countryside unless there is a clear justification for that development. The proposed building for use as a bottling plant is not considered to be justified and do not outweigh the potential resulting environment impacts, and therefore a recommendation of refusal is made.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
==== PAGE 14 ====
19/00695/B Page 14 of 14
(b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
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 in Article 6(4) 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body 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 : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 01.03.2021
Signed : C BALMER 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal