Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00731/B Page 1 of 28
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 21/00731/B Applicant : Dandara Contracting Limited Proposal Creation of Civic Amenity Site Site Address Recycling And Storage Compound Richmond Hill Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 1JH
Case Officer :
Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
06.08.2021 Site Visit :
06.08.2021 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 21.01.2022
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. That the development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the particulars contained in the application, the plans and Environmental Impact Assessment accompanying (as amended) subject to conditions covering matters below.
Reason: For the avoidance doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details.
C 3. No processing, sorting or composting shall take place on the site. The deposition by the public of materials into separate containers are not precluded.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and the application has been assessed on basis of information a para 4.6.1 of the Environmental Statement dated June 2021.
C 4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including site clearance), a Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) which details how adverse impacts on the wildlife on site (particularly regarding hydrological links from direct and indirect pollutants such as concrete, fuels and lubricants) will be avoided and/or minimised to insignificant levels on the environment and surrounding area, during the construction and operational phases of the development, particularly from direct and indirect pollutants.
Reason: To avoid, minimise or mitigate effects on the environment and surrounding area during the construction project and once the amenity site is operational.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00731/B Page 2 of 28
C 5. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until details of a 'Construction Management Plan', which details the necessary mitigation measures to be taken during construction, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.
The CMP shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following. o Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. o Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements). o The location and timing of sensitive works on site. o Responsible persons and lines of communication. o Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. o Any necessary mitigation measures other than those listed above to be carried out during the construction. All works carried out during the construction period shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the approved CMP.
Reason: To ensure that there are no adverse impacts resulting from the construction works and to ensure the development accords with the provisions set out at 2.5.12 of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
C 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Lighting Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The lighting of the site will be designed utilising inward directed led lighting columns to provide required site illumination without creating undue light pollution. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site and ensure that the mitigation set out at 5.1 of the PEAR which accompanied the Environmental Impact Assessment is implemented.
C 7. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted mitigation scheme detailed in Section 5.1 of the Manx Wildlife Trust's PEAR dated March 2021 to provide appropriate mitigation for Common Lizards, Common Frogs, and birds within the site and immediate locality.
Reason: To safeguard a statutorily protected species.
C 8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of the proposed planting and landscaping shown on Drawing No. A_PL_001 Rev H dated stamped received 18 August 2021 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.
Details of the scheme shall include:
a) Existing landscape features and vegetation to be retained. b) Protection measures for any landscape features to be retained, if required. c) The location of new trees, shrubs, hedges, lawned areas and wildflower areas. d) A schedule of planting to comprise species, plant sizes and proposed numbers and density, where appropriate. e) A programme for the implementation, completion and subsequent management of the proposed landscaping, not including the wildflower planting which is covered by condition 7 in relation to (e).
All proposals shall be carried out in accordance with the approved planting scheme and any management programme.
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00731/B Page 3 of 28
Any planting which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, in the opinion of the Department is dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased, shall be replaced by plants of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.
Reason: To ensure the implementation and management of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping which will help to integrate the proposed development into the local landscape in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
C 9. Within three months to the use of the development hereby approved, the scheme to create the Wildflower meadow shown on Drawing No. A_PL_001 date stamped as having been received 18 August 2021 shall commence.
With regards to the wildflower planting, the scheme shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the measures detailed in section 5.2-5.6 of the PEAR which accompanied the Environmental Impact Assessment.
Reason: To ensure that a native and sustainable wildlife meadow area is created and maintained.
C 10. Prior to the commencement of the works hereby approved, details for the designated quarantine area for non-conforming waste on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the department. The quarantine area shall be provided in accordance with the approved details, and shall thereafter be retained as such.
Reason: To ensure that provision is made for the separation and removal of non-conforming wastes from the site.
C 11. No development in connection with the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use unless the proposed foul sewage and surface water drainage system[s] have been provided in accordance with the approved plans A_PL_005 Rev D dated 19.08.21. The foul and surface water drainage system[s] shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In order to ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided, and retained, in the interests of the amenity of the area and to ensure the development accords with the provisions set out at 4.3.1 - 4.3.3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
C 12. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a queue management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The strategy shall include details of both staff parking and any work vehicles. The strategy shall be implemented and thereafter retained.
Reason: To ensure that the development will not compromise the free flow of traffic or highway safety during the operational phase of the development.
C 13. The timing of works during the construction phase of the development shall only be as per paragraphs 4.7.1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment received on 24.06.2021.
Reason: In the interests of local amenity and to ensure that the stipulated timing of works in the Environmental Impact Assessment is implemented.
C 14. The development hereby approved shall not be in operation outside the following times: Summer Hours (commencing the first Saturday in April until the last Sunday of September): o Monday to Saturday 08:00 - 19:00 o Sundays and Bank Holidays 08:00 - 16:00
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00731/B Page 4 of 28
Winter Hours: o Daily 08:00 - 16:00 The Site will be closed on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day and Tynwald Day.
Reason: In order to maintain the amenities of the area.
C 15. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of the bird and bat boxes shown in Appendix 4 of the Request for a Scoping Opinion received 24 June 2021, has been submitted to the Department for approval. The details shall include a plan showing their location on site, and the buildings, structures or features they are to be attached to. The works to install the bird/bat boxes shall take place strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be completed before the first occupation of the development. The bird/bat boxes shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard a statutorily protected species.
C 16. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied / brought into use until the proposed energy strategy set out in the Energy Impact Assessment/Statement (Appendix 1) of the Planning Statement received 24 June 2021, and is installed and fully operational. These measures shall be retained in place and fully operational thereafter.
Reason: to ensure this development complies with the energy efficiency requirements of the Strategic Plan and to future proof the development.
C 17. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the access, pedestrian and vehicle layout have been provided to accord with the Revised Proposed Site Plan Drawing No: AL PL 001 Rev H date stamped and received 19 August 2021. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than pedestrian movements and the access, parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 18. Prior to the erection of the proposed gate cabin details of its design, location, colour, materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Once provided/constructed the cabin shall thereafter be retained as per the approved details.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the design is appropriate and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
C 19. The recycling store shown on Drawing No. A_PL_001 Rev H shall only be used for the purposes of drop of and pick up of items, no recycling shall take place.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.
C 20. No works in connection with the development hereby approved shall commence until details of the proposed retaining walls, including as a minimum height and materials as shown on Drawing No. A_PL_001 Rev have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.
The retaining walls shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and thereafter retained.
Reason: To ensure the implementation and management of a satisfactory scheme and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00731/B Page 5 of 28
C 21. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order no means of enclosure or fences, walls and gates, other than that shown on Drawing No. A_PL_001 Rev H and approved under condition 21 shall be erected on the site under the terms of Class 39 of Schedule 1 to that Order without an express grant of planning approval from the Department.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the development.
C 22. Notwithstanding the information shown on the approved drawings all fencing should be paladin fencing. The fence shall be dark green in colour.
To ensure the implementation and management of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping which will help to integrate the proposed development into the local landscape in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
C 23. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the final colour of the proposed building and skips to be agreed in writing by the Department. Once erected and/or installed the building and skips shall thereafter be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.
To ensure the implementation and management of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping which will help to integrate the proposed development into the local landscape in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.
C 24. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of Staff Cycle storage and changing facilities, and staff EV Charging points shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The Staff Cycle storage and changing facilities, and EV Charging points shall be provided strictly in accordance with the details, and thereafter retained as such.
Reason: to ensure this development complies with the energy efficiency requirements of the Strategic Plan and to future proof the development.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. On balance, and for the reasons set out in this report, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies as indicated within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and would align with the principles of the Isle of Man Waste Policy and Strategy and the Area Plan for the East, and is not considered to have so great an impact on the surrounding area and its residents to justify a refusal. The proposal is considered worthy of support and is recommended for approval subject to conditions which have been referred to in the report.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following plans and documents: o Cover Letter; o Request for a Scoping Opinion; o Scoping Opinion; o Correspondence with Department of Infrastructure (27 April 2021); o Statement of Expertise; o Rationale for Site Relocation; o Transport Assessment; o LVIA Methodology; o Visual Assessment; o BioDisc-Domestic Kingspan Klargester product brochure; o Environmental Statement; o Application Form;
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00731/B Page 6 of 28
o Klargester Oil Fuel Separators Brochure; o Non-Technical Summary; o Planning Statement; and o Drawing Nos. GM11371 Figure 7.1 Rev A, GM11371 Figure 7.2, GM11371 Figure 7.3, GM11371 Figure 7.4, GM11371 Figure 7.5, GM11371 Figure 7.6, GM11371 Figure 7.7, A_PL_000 rev A, A_PL_002 rev C, A_PL_003 rev B, A_PL_004 rev D, Received 24 June 2021,
o Covering Letter, o Revised Site Plan (Drw. No. A_PL_001 rev H); o Site Drainage and Traffic Plan (Drw. No. A_PL_005 rev D); o Revised Surface Water Calculations; o Swept Path Analysis and Manoeuvring Plan (Drw. No. A_PL_006), Received 20 August 2021.
__
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 not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Cronkbane House,Oak Hill, Port Soderick The Lodge, Oakhill, Port Soderick
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (2021).
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):
Langdale, Ellenbrook Avenue, Douglas, as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions, their comments do not relate to planning considerations:
DOI Waste Management __
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00731/B Page 7 of 28
THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 This application was considered by the committee on the 02.02.22 and deferred for a site visit.
0.2 At the 02.02.22 meeting, the Case Officer made the following amendments, which have now been reflected in this report.
0.3 During the site visit, the occupant of Cronkbane House asked that a condition be included to specify that the colour of the building be 'Olive Green' to minimize the visual impact of the building when viewed from their property. However, it is considered that given the grey colour of other buildings in the vicinity, this is not necessary. Request was also made by this objector that another condition be included to stipulate that the excavated material be used to create a bund along the entire southern boundary of the application site to further serve as a screen to the development. However, it is considered that the proposed landscaping condition (as amended) is sufficient, and it is noted that additional bunds in the area could have drainage implications for the adjoining sites.
0.4 The remainder of this report is unchanged. Any further representations received or any other information will be confirmed via verbal update to the committee.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the Recycling and Storage Compound, Richmond Hill situated adjacent to hazardous waste transfer facility and animal waste processing plant. The site is also situated about 80m southeast of the energy from waste facility in the Richmond Hill area of Braddan. Access to the application site is via the Kewaigue Road (A6).
1.2 The site which currently includes areas of grass and gravel, has wire fencing along its boundary with a metal gate providing access into the site. There are no trees on site to be impacted by the development. The site slopes steeply towards the south-west boundary, although the site access and frontage are at the level of the abutting highway. The site is around 1.4 hectares in area.
1.3 The nature of the topography of the immediate vicinity is such that there are no views towards the fields situated northeast given the raised nature of the lands northeast of the site which rises above 5m.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks planning approval for the creation of Civic Amenity Site for the collection, storage and transfer of domestic waste by the general public.
2.2 The proposed works on site would include:
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00731/B Page 8 of 28
2.2.1 Erection of large industrial building to serve as the recycling drop off and storage/equipment store/site office and welfare facility building. This building would be 47.6m long, 11m wide and 4.5m to the roof ridge (3.8m to the eaves). This portal frame building would have its external walls clad in dark grey powder-coated pressed metal cladding trims & flashings, while its roof would be finished in kingspan ks1000rw insulated roofing panels with 22 integral polycarbonate rooflights on its roof plane. Five roller shutter doors 5m x 3m, a pedestrian access door and window will be installed on the front elevation (north-east), a pedestrian door on the rear elevation (south-west), while a roller shutter door 2.4m x 3m and a pedestrian door would be installed on the north-west side elevation. No fenestrations would be created on the south-east side elevation.
2.2.2 Erection of a gantry that would be 54.5m long, 6m wide and set 2.1m below the level of the parking area, carriage way and drop off and storage building. This gantry would be a galvanized steel structure with mesh flooring & 1.1m high weldmesh fence on tubular galvanized steel balustrade. There would be a 2.4m high weldmesh fence on tubular, galvanized steel frame on the northeast elevation. 14 Bays would be created within the gantry.
2.3 Other works proposed would involve: i. Levelling of the site to create three levels: ii. Creating parking areas on the site that would provide for 14 parking spaces south of the main building, 13 parking spaces (with two disabled parking spaces) directly north of the building, and 9 parking spaces by the north boundary of the site, flanked by the fridge/tv area and recycling bins (36 total). iii. Creating a fridge/tv area 5.6m long, 3.3m wide, with wall 2m high closing up the sides and the rear which backs unto the new concrete retaining wall by the recycling area. iv. Installation of a weighing bridge on the southern end of the site. v. Creation of a new access on the southwest end of the site frontage. The site entrance would be 6.7m wide where it meets the highway and 4m wide on the boundary. The existing access would be closed up, although the outer sections would be retained. vi. 17 new trees are proposed to be planted within the site area. vii. Creating a green verge around the entire south boundary with the larger areas created on the north, east and southern sections.
2.4 Additional information provided on the application from states the following: i. It is estimated that approximately 8700m3 of subsoil will be removed from the site, which will used to fill ground depressions at Middle Farm (i.e. will not be transported on the public highway) and will form the subject of a separate planning application. It could also, if necessary, be taken to a commercial facility for disposal. ii. The surface water which drains from the site would be collected via a surface water system (with fuel/oil separators) on the site. Foul sewage will be disposed of to a bio-disc plant on site.
2.5 The applicant's supporting statement indicates that: i. It is intended that this facility would replace the Eastern Civic Amenity Site (ECAS) which currently operates within Douglas at the Middle River industrial estate. ii. The site is currently used for the recycling and storage of construction waste (such as stone, soil, demolition rubble). iii. The site will: o provide a public facility for the disposal of domestic waste; o provide a facility for residents to dispose of waste materials for recycling; o promote recycling and reuse of waste materials; and o reduce the amount of waste passing directly to the Energy from Waste Plant.
2.6 An Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out for the scheme and Environmental Statement has been provided. The EIA includes a Non-Technical Summary which indicates the following:
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00731/B Page 9 of 28
2.6.1 Scope of EIA: 2.6.1.1 The following topic areas have been considered within this EIA, and are included as technical chapters within this ES: o Transport; and o Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
2.6.1.2 The following topics were scoped out of the ES given the location of the site, the existing baseline conditions, and the site history: o Ecology; o Ground Conditions; o Air Quality; o Noise and Vibration; o Water Environment; and o Archaeology and Cultural Heritage.
2.6.1.3 The applicants sought advice from DOI Flood Risk Management to ascertain if a flood risk assessment would be required so that this element of the scheme would be adequately scoped within the EIA. In response to queries raised by the applicants, DOI Flood Risk Management advised that there were no real concerns of the proposed in relation to flood risk. The also stated that the site does not lie within a high flood risk zone, and that there were no record of the site having flooded previously (Correspondence dated 27 April 2021).
As there are no concerns for flooding at the site, a FRA is not deemed to be required and has been scoped out of the EIA. This approach has been agreed with Gemma Rodger of the Flood Management Division, Department of Infrastructure, in correspondence dated 27th April 2021, included within Appendix 2.4.
2.6.2 The proposed hours of the operation of the facility are as follows: Summer Hours (commencing the first Saturday in April until the last Sunday of September): o Monday to Saturday 08:00 - 19:00 o Sundays and Bank Holidays 08:00 - 16:00 Winter Hours: o Daily 08:00 - 16:00 The Site will be closed on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day and Tynwald Day.
2.6.3 Construction activities will take place between 07:00 - 18:00 Monday - Friday, and 07:30
2.6.4 Consideration of alternatives: Alternative site locations have been considered by the Joint Eastern Civic Amenity Site Committee, and an additional eight possible site locations were investigated. These were discounted in favour of the Site described within this proposal due to its position adjacent to the Energy from Waste Facility, and location within an area zoned for 'Industrial' waste purposes.
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/00731/B Page 10 of 28
2.6.5 Transport: 2.6.5.1 The proposed development is estimated to generate an additional 1,166 vehicle movements each day by 2031. During the weekday morning peak traffic period (between 08.00 and 09.00) when flows of traffic in the area are at their highest, the proposed development is forecast to generate an additional 84 vehicle movements of which four will be heavy goods vehicles (HGVs). During the weekday afternoon peak traffic period (between 16.00 and 17.00) the proposed development is forecast to generate an additional 46 vehicle movements, of which four will be HGVs.
2.6.5.2 It is estimated that the greatest increase in traffic flows will be the industrial access road to Middle Park and the Former A6, which will see an increase in traffic of 104% and 79% respectively. As both of these roads are considered to have a low sensitivity, the effect of this traffic increase is judged to be minor.
2.6.5.3 All other highway links investigated are predicted to result in traffic increases of less than 10%. As such, the effect of the proposed development on these links is negligible.
2.6.5.4 An analysis on the capacity of junctions with the additional traffic flows resulting from the proposed development were analysed. All junctions were found to be operating within their capacity, and as such the impacts of the proposed Civic Amenity Site are negligible.
2.6.5.5 The environmental impact of the proposed development upon the capacity, safety, and amenity of users of the highway network was therefore considered to be negligible at all links and junctions. No mitigation has been recommended.
2.6.5.6 The trips which they are likely to generate can be accommodated on the local highway network without detriment to the safety or convenience of its users.
2.6.6 Landscape and Visual Impact 2.6.6.1 The LVIA focusses on the area within a 2km radius of the location of the proposed development, with a particular focus on a 1km radius. This radius was chosen as the area with the potential to be impacted by the proposed Re-use building. Given the height of this building, it is considered unlikely that there would be any significant effects beyond this.
2.6.6.2 No valued areas or sensitive receptors such as statutory landscape designations are located within the 2km boundary of this study area.
2.6.6.3 The proposed development would not have a significant effect on the character of the landscape or surrounding features, due to the location of the proposal within the Industrial Park
2.6.6.4 The effects of the proposal would not extend far beyond the immediate setting of the site, effects would be confined to within 1km of the site as existing vegetation, the rolling landscape, and industrial surroundings screen the site from view. The effect on the landscape of the proposed development has therefore been considered not significant.
2.6.6.5 Overall, the proposed Civic Amenity Site would not result in any significant effects. Furthermore, any non-significant effects would reduce over time once the proposed additional vegetation is established to provide further screening.
2.6.7 Cumulative Effects:
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/00731/B Page 11 of 28
2.6.7.1 The EIA has not identified any development projects in proximity to the site requiring consideration within the study. As such, cumulative effects of the proposed development in combination with other nearby developments have not been assessed.
2.6.7.2 As neither the transport nor landscape assessments outlined above found there to be any significant effects, it is concluded that there are no cumulative effects arising from a combination of environmental impacts.
2.7 The EIA indicates that they have consulted with various bodies including DEFA, Department of Infrastructure, Braddan Parish Commissioner (via Joint ECAS Committee), Manx National Heritage and the Manx Wildlife Trust.
2.8 A document stating the Rationale for Site Relocation prepared by the Douglas Borough Council and provided by the applicant. This document concludes that the proposed Eastern Civic Amenity Site is designed to WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) specifications and designed to accommodate the ever growing population in the East of the Isle of Man, highlighted by the increase in areas zoned for housing in the Eastern Area Plan. The document states that the current Eastern Civic Amenity Site is currently operating at maximum capacity and in certain times in excess of its capacity. This has necessitated the relocation of the Eastern Civic Amenity Site to the proposed Middle Farm site.
2.9 An Energy Impact Assessment/Statement was provided as additional information in support of the development to comply with the requirements of Energy Policy 5. This provides details of the action that would be taken within the development to ensure energy conservation. The suggested actions include: i. Fabric of the building designed to reduce thermal bridging. ii. Use of Insulated Doors iii. Heating power limited to 25W/m2. iv. All burglar security lighting is Max. 150w & fitted with movement detecting & daylight shut-off devices. v. Use of Energy Efficient fixed fittings (A rated washing machines, and B rated washer driers and tumble driers). vi. Installation of 6/4 dual flush toilet. vii. Installation of Flow reducing / aerating taps throughout to reduce water consumption. viii. Building materials sourced locally where feasible. ix. Materials from recycled sources used for construction
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 The site is within an area zoned as Special Industry (Including EFW, AWPP & HWTF) on the Area Plan for the East Map 4 and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site does not lie within a high flood risk zone, there are no Registered trees on the site, and the site is also not within a Registered Tree Area.
3.2 The Character Appraisal within the Area Plan for the East states thus concerning the area: "Landscape Character Area: Douglas Head (D12)
3.2.1 Landscape Strategy Conserve and enhance: a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the area, with its open and panoramic views over large rectilinear fields; b) its steep winding small lanes enclosed by grassed Manx hedges; c) its scattered hill farms fringed by trees. 3.2.2 Key Views Open and expansive views from most of the area out to sea, along the coast, over Douglas Bay and inland over the incised inland plateau up to the northern Uplands.
==== PAGE 12 ====
21/00731/B Page 12 of 28
Telecommunications tower on hill top forms highly visible landmark in surrounding areas.
3.3.3 The following policy within the Area Plan is also considered relevant: 3.3.3.1 Employment Proposal 5: "Part of Site BE010g at Middle Farm, Braddan, measuring some 6.9ha, and lying immediately to the east of the existing waste management complex at Richmond Hill, is allocated for special industrial use, particularly the management processing, recycling and storage of waste".
3.3.3.2 Development Brief 1. "No planning approval will be granted for the development of any part of this site until a Masterplan for the whole of the 6.9ha site has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. The Masterplan must show all proposed spatial elements, including areas intended for buildings; open work areas; structural landscaping areas; and circulation and parking arrangements. The Masterplan must show how these elements will be phased. 2. There must be no net qualitative loss of biodiversity as a result of the development of this site, 3. An Environmental Impact Assessment will be needed for any development proposed on this site. 4. A Travel Plan must be submitted as part of any planning application which sets out a strategy for the delivery of sustainable transport objectives, and demonstrates how these are to be achieved and updated over time. 5. Consideration should be given to the provision of cycle parking and changing facilities as part of any development proposal.
3.3.3.3 Employment Proposal 6: "Within the Waste Infrastructure Consultation Zone at Richmond Hill, there will be a presumption against development for purposes in which vulnerable members of the public would be present, including housing, and educational and medical establishments".
3.4 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:
3.4.1 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption".
==== PAGE 13 ====
21/00731/B Page 13 of 28
3.4.2 Waste Policy 1: Waste management installations, including landfill sites, civic amenity sites and facilities for the bulking up, separation, recycling, or recovery or materials from waste will be permitted provided that: (a) there is an acknowledged need for the proposal in accordance with the approved Waste Management Strategy; (b) there is no unacceptable adverse impact on local residents in terms of visual amenity, dust, noise, or vibration or as a result of the traffic generated thereby; (c) there would be no unacceptable adverse effect on: i. landscapes, geology/geomorphology and features of special interest or attraction; ii. Ancient Monuments or their settings; iii. Registered Buildings or their settings, or features of architectural importance; iv. the character and appearance of Conservation Areas; v. sites of archaeological interest; vi. sites containing species or habitats of international, national or local importance; vii. land drainage and water resources; viii. areas of woodland or the Island's timber resources; or ix. designated National Heritage Areas. (d) the proposal is acceptable in terms of access arrangements and highway safety; (e) in the case of landfill sites working shall be in accordance with a phased scheme of restoration and landscaping; (f) the proposal does not sterilize other significant mineral deposits; and that (g) the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on airport safety by, for example, increasing the risk of bird strike.
Landfill will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is no alternative method for managing that waste. An application involving the installations or facilities referred to in this Policy
3.4.3 Strategic Policy 4: (b) - protects the nature conservation value of urban and rural areas (c) - indicates development must not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance
3.4.4 Environment Policy 4 protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites).
3.4.5 Environment Policy 22 deals with vibration, odour, noise and light pollution in relation to nearby properties.
3.4.6 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) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases.
3.4.7 Paragraph 7.18.2 "For some types of development, EIA's will be required in every case, whilst other development will only require an EIA if the particular project is judged likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. Where development does not fall within these categories, but still has a significant effect on the environment, the Department will require suitable supporting environmental information. The main criteria for judging significance are as follows:
i. major developments which are of more than local importance; ii. developments which are proposed in particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable locations; iii. developments with unusually complex and potentially hazardous environmental effects".
==== PAGE 14 ====
21/00731/B Page 14 of 28
3.4.8 Business Policy 1: The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan. 3.4.9 Strategic Policy 10 - new development should not adversely affect highway safety for all users and encourage pedestrian movement.
3.4.10 Transport Policy 1: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."
3.4.11 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7.
3.4.11.1 Appendix 7: It is essential therefore that any applications for industrial development can demonstrate that there is sufficient off street parking provided within the application. A general policy of one space per 50 square metres of nett will be required with additional space for manoeuvring where larger vehicles may be using the site, although an increased standard may be needed for uses which generate a high level of traffic, including light industrial and research and development businesses.
3.4.12 Transport Policy 8: "The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment."
3.5 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 11, Community Policy 7 and Community Policy 10.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Waste Policy and Strategy 2012 - 2022: 4.1.1 It was adopted in 2012 and is intended to be applicable until 2022. This refers to a general strategy where waste is ultimately reduced to zero through a series of reduction, reusing, recycling and ultimately disposal. The Vision towards zero waste will involve the provision of the necessary waste infrastructure, continuing to be guided by the appropriate principles, applying proportionate legislation and increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of our waste resources, taking into consideration the financial constraints facing the Island. This goes on to explain that the success and delivery of this approach will be measured by two high level performance targets - to recycle 70% of the Island's waste across sectors and secondly the commit to reduce waste to landfill to 5%. This is to be achieved by 2022 (page 4).
4.1.2 Policy 4 - Waste Infrastructure: It states that we will ensure that the Island has access to an adequate network of waste storage, processing, treatment and disposal facilities developed in accordance with the principles of self-sufficiency, proximity and cost, whilst complying with the appropriate legislation.
4.1.3 Strategy - Key Proposals: It seeks to "work with all partners to ensure resources deployed to street-based "waste" activities are optimised" and "work with Planning to provide clear standards to Local Authorities and developers relating to the size, space requirements and other constraints for waste and recycling containment and handling systems" (page 6).
4.14 The recycling targets stated are - household - 30%, construction and demolition - 90% and commercial and industrial - 50%. It also refers to increasing the rates of recycling of plastics, textiles and non-ferrous metals and identifying opportunities for the recycling of
==== PAGE 15 ====
21/00731/B Page 15 of 28
commercial waste including a commercial waste subsidy scheme which should be reviewed and maintained and the identification of new sites for "recycling on the go".
4.15 A key economical policy is to ensure that operational costs to Government are matched by income therefrom and that the cost of waste activities is neutral to Government, to promote greater regionalisation for household waste collection regimes to ensure resources are optimised, reducing the amount of refuse collection vehicle trips to the EFWP which are at less than 90% gross vehicle weight and increase where appropriate the level of waste treated on- Island to reduce waste costs to industry as well as identifying joint procurement opportunities for the Island's Civic Amenity Sites.
4.16 There is nothing within the Strategy which specifically identifies the need for new or increased recycling sites.
4.17 Appendix 1 (Waste Management 2010/11): The Strategy also identifies that 50% of the Island's waste is related to construction and demolition; 23% comes from household generated waste which is taken to recycling banks, kerbside recycling, street litter and 22% comes from the Island's commercial and industrial activities. The final stage in the management process is composting, recycling or landfill.
4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.2.1 "Species conservation To effectively conserve rare species requires evidence-based policies and measures, which in turn need data from studies undertaken on the Island or in comparable places. Conservation measures may include law enforcement or incentives to land managers for habitat management such as grazing or control of non-native species.
The Isle of Man Delivery Plan will identify species and habitats requiring action (Biodiversity Action Plans). Work on the plans and conserving some plants and animals has already begun. For example bee orchid, basking shark and red-billed chough are subject to dedicated programmes of research and conservation. Key species and priority habitats will be identified and plans drawn up".
4.3 Minerals Act 1986 4.3.1 Minerals act 1986 states in Part 2 - Miscellaneous; paragraph 29 states; "that over 200m2 of excavation requires a mineral license from the Department of Enterprise.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of a previous planning application for the relocation of existing stone recycling area and creation of industrial starter units under PA 10/00155/B. This was refused by the Planning Committee in July 2010, but approved at appeal. There is, however, currently no structure on site besides a shipping container used as an office and materials placed at various sections of the site.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have made the following comment regarding the application in a letter dated 25 August 2021:
o The turns are a little tight for larger vehicles on entry and exit requiring the full width of Middle Park and the access way, but this is typical for such uses and does not pose undue risk.
o After entry where the outer line is overhanging the green space, there should be a clearance margin without larger plantings.
==== PAGE 16 ====
21/00731/B Page 16 of 28
o Noise will emanate on operation. Hours of use by day of week may require control for amenity reasons.
o They raise no opposition subject to conditions to cover access, pedestrian and vehicle layout to accord with the Revised Proposed Site Plan Drawing No: AL PL 001 Rev H and any amenity issues be addressed by a restriction on operating hours.
6.2 DOI Waste Management have written in to retract their previous submission on the application and advise that they should be contacted if further information or clarification is sought (10 November 2021).
6.3 DOI Flood Risk Management have stated that they do not oppose the application (12 November 2021).
6.4 Braddan commissioner have stated that they have no objection to the application (23.7.21/14.09.21)
6.4 As the site is situated outwith the boundary of BE010g (which is allocated for special industrial use, particularly the management processing, recycling and storage of waste within the Area Plan for the East), and within the broader area of Special industrial use, advise was sought from Planning Policy to ascertain if the proposed Civic Amenity is a departure from the Plan.
6.4.1 The advice from the Head of Planning Policy in an email dated 1 December 2021 states thus: "It has been observed that PA 21/00731/B is not within the boundary of BE010g and so one could question the full relevance of Employment Proposal 5.
The site does fall within in a purple industrial area outlined by yellow - the yellow indicating 'special industry (including EFW, AWPP, HWTF)' - see Key on Map. Whilst there is no definition of special industry, it is my view that it could be interpreted as 'special industrial' as defined in the Use Classes Order 2019 which is identical to that of the Strategic Plan when it refers to 'special industrial building'.
What the key could (perhaps) have helpfully said is 'special industry and waste (including EFW...etc.)' but it did not. Could an argument be put forward that a waste use would be contrary to the land allocation? Perhaps; but it should be noted that CABO used the Inspector's terms/refs as set out in his Report, being satisfied that there was reasoned justification for doing so. When it comes to waste uses on the site, the following points are also relevant: o That the area specifically defines uses on the site as Energy from Waste facility, the Animal Waste Processing Plant and the Hazardous Waste Transfer Facility (all waste related); o The area falls within the Waste Infrastructure Consultation Zone (Emp. Prop 6); o Site BE010 refers to the management processing, recycling and storage of waste; o There are existing approvals on the site for recycling and storage of waste and commercial and domestic recyclables; and o The site of the application was site BE024 in the plan process which was mentioned in the Inspector's report ..."There is a dedicated waste site adjacent to the Energy from Waste facility (BE024), which is an existing site for a specialist use outside the existing settlement boundary." "In my view, there would be considerable advantage in concentrating waste management and other 'bad neighbour' uses adjacent to the existing complex around the EFW Plant."
It seems to me to possible to put a reasonable argument together to suggest this general area is recognised as a suitable location for additional facilities for the disposal of waste and facilities involving waste.
==== PAGE 17 ====
21/00731/B Page 17 of 28
In hindsight, I can see the potential difficulties of the reference to 'waste' in Employment Proposal 5 as being related to 'special industrial use' when they are in 2 separate use classes but the intention of the policy was clearly to define an area which recognised the existing uses including and alongside the EFW facility, and the potential for additional waste uses and other bad neighbour uses. The Inspector noted in his report at paragraph 129 that "In my view, there would be considerable advantage in concentrating waste management and other 'bad neighbour' uses adjacent to the existing complex around the EFW Plant."
Whether a Civic Amenity site would be appropriate in this area would from a planning policy perspective come down to the appropriateness of having members of the public regularly frequenting this area and any other material considerations DEFA considers relevant to the specific application".
6.5 Consultation from DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team (26 July 2021): o They confirm that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken and that they are satisfied with the findings of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR). o They request that request that all of the mitigation measures detailed in Section 5.1 of the Manx Wildlife Trust's PEAR dated March 2021, should be included as a condition of approval. o They request that the provision of a Site Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) be secured with a condition. o They request that plans showing the site lighting design, are provided to planning for written approval prior to the start of works. o They request that request that the measures detailed in section 5.2-5.6 of the PEAR are included as a condition, to ensure that a native and sustainable wildlife meadow area is created and maintained.
6.6 DEFA Environmental Protection Units Consultations: 6.6.1 Consultation received 13 October 2021: o They state that the Waste containment arrangements appear acceptable for current intended collections. o They request that a condition be added to ensure that a quarantine area is added to the site facilities. o They note that Additional bays for segregation are likely to be required. o They note that current operations have not demonstrated a need for covered skips. o They state that dust, odour and noise will be regulated within the Waste Disposal Licence, and the operator could be required to use the best available technology to eliminate issues if they arise. o They made comments relating to parking, queuing traffic, fire safety and emergency vehicles. However, these matters are the subject of highway consultations. o They made other comments related to waste disposal licence, discharge licence, and use of subsoil off-site. These are, however, the subject of other legislation.
6.6.1 Consultation received 25 January 2022: o The above planning application has been reviewed in terms of its operational requirements in order to fulfil the needs of a waste disposal licence. It is felt that a licence application should be considered in conjunction with the planning application. o The site will require a waste disposal licence from the Environmental Protection Unit, including a working plan for the site. o The site will need to demonstrate that it poses no environmental risk, prior to a licence being progressed. o Additionally, it is worth noting that a waste disposal licence cannot be given for operations or wastes that are not approved on the planning approval. At this stage without the working plan it is not possible to comment on whether the operations and waste management will be in line with the planning approval and appropriate for environmental protection.
==== PAGE 18 ====
21/00731/B Page 18 of 28
o A draft working plan and waste disposal licence application should be submitted as soon as possible in order to allow the full site waste requirements to be reviewed. o A previous issue regarding clarification on the sewage treatment plant has been adequately addressed.
They suggest that a condition stating that vehicles left on the site outside operational hours should be parked on the northern side of the buildings be imposed.
6.7.2 Langdale, Ellenbrook Avenue, Douglas (22.07.21): o They state the development would potentially reduce the value of their property.
6.7.3 The Lodge, Oakhill, Port Soderick (18.11.21): o Visual impacts (on outlook) - they request that consideration be given to vegetative screening of site. o Noise impact - They request that serious consideration is given to the operating hours of the site to avoid noise disturbance outside of working hours and over weekends.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 There are a number of issues which need to be considered with this proposal. It is considered that the main issues are: i. Principle of Development (StP1, SP4, GP3, EP1, TAPE); ii. Need for EIA (EP24 and Section 7.18); iii. Landscape/Visual Impact (GP2, EP2) and Trees (GP2, EP3); iv. Local Amenity (Noise, Smell, Light) (GP2, EP22); v. Highway Impact (GP2. TP 1, TP7 & TP 8); vi. Flood Risk (GP2, EP10 and 13); vii. Ecology (GP2 and EP4); and viii. Excavation on site (Minerals act 1986)
7.2 The issues which are controlled by the waste disposal licence and discharge licence are not matters for planning control as they are the subject of other regulatory controls. Therefore, these matters would be better addressed via the appropriate instruments and as such would not be assessed as part of this application.
7.3 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (STP1, GP2, WP1, POLICY 4 OF WASTE POLICY & STRATEGY 2012 - 2022, The Area Plan for the East) 7.3.1 The site is designated for development under Special Industrial use, and although the site is outwith the boundary of BE010g which refers to the management processing, recycling and storage of waste within the Area Plan, the site is currently has an extant approval (PA 10/00155/B) for use as site for recycling and storage of waste and commercial and domestic recyclables. More so, Planning Policy has provided advise which suggests this general area is recognised as a suitable location for additional facilities for the disposal of waste and facilities involving waste.
==== PAGE 19 ====
21/00731/B Page 19 of 28
7.3.2 It is also vital to note that the development of this site which was previously used for the storage of recyclable waste in a poorly arranged setup where waste was stored in the open and in shipping containers with a structured facility as replacement for the existing Eastern Civic Amenity Site (ECAS) at Middle River industrial estate, with improved operating capacity which is more effective will have a better net impact on this land which is surrounding by waste uses.
7.3.3 The applicants EIA includes Consideration of Alternatives in relation to the 'Do Nothing Scenario' (5.2), Alterative Site Locations (5.3) and alternative designs (5.4).
7.3.3.1 The applicant's project strategy states that the 'do nothing' option which is referred to as the 'business as usual' is discounted. While it is noted that this option would eliminate any potential adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development, with the current Civic Amenity site retained, the rationale for site relocation provided by Douglas Borough Council for the Joint Eastern Civic Amenity Site Committee), identifies the location and scale of the present Civic Amenity Site in Middle River industrial estate as inadequate. It also notes that the current Civic Amenity Site is accessed through Middle River industrial estate, which can be accessed from Douglas town centre and through a main traffic artery from the south of the Island; an area noted for frequent congestion with commuter traffic, further aggravated by Civic Amenity site traffic. Additionally, the current Civic Amenity site has been recognised as operating at maximum capacity, and at times in excess of its capacity. Given the associated traffic and "capacity constraints of the present site, it is considered that the need for a new Civic Amenity site has been demonstrated, and it is deemed that the 'do nothing' scenario can be discounted".
7.3.3.2 In terms of alternative site locations, the rationale for site relocation provided by Douglas Borough Council also provides justification for the selection of the site over eight alternative sites which was guided by the Joint Eastern Civic Amenity Site Committee's investigation of alternative sites and why the redevelopment of the site is the most appropriate solution, given its position adjacent to the Energy from Waste Plant and within an area zoned for 'Industrial' waste purposes, as identified within the Area Plan for the East (2020).
7.3.3.3 With regard to the consideration of alternative design, the ES notes that consideration was given to the nature of the site and the surrounding area during the design process (which limits the options for alternatives), and that the proposed development has been through an iterative design process to reduce the potential environmental effects to the lowest practical level; and enhance the potential benefits of the scheme. Consideration was given to ecology, flood risk and drainage requirements, and transport in the design of the scheme.
7.3.4 Given the above, it is considered that the proposal complies with Waste Policy 1(a), General Policy 2 (a), and Strategic Policy 1 (a & c) of the Strategic Plan, and the Area Plan for the East (TAPE).
7.4 NEED FOR EIA (EP24, SECTION 7.18 & APPENDIX 5) 7.4.1 In ascertaining the need for the EIA, it is noted that the proposed development falls under part (j) Other projects within the category of developments would require EIA in every case. The fact that the development also has the potential to have a significant effect on the environment, given the scope in relation to transport and the landscape character, also makes the requirement for the EIA appropriate.
7.4.2 Given the above, the applicant has provided an Environmental Impact Assessment following an initial Request for a Scoping Opinion which determined the scope of the accompanying Environmental Statement.
7.5 LANDSCAPE/VISUAL IMPACT (GP2, WP1) 7.5.1 Chapter 7 of the applicant's EIA considers Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.
==== PAGE 20 ====
21/00731/B Page 20 of 28
7.5.2 Paragraph 7.1.2 of the ES states that Chapter 7 "(and its associated figures and appendices) is not intended to be read as a standalone assessment and reference should be made to the front end of this Environmental Statement (ES) (Chapters 1 - 5), as well as the final chapter, 'Summary of Residual and Cumulative Effects' (Chapter 8).
7.5.3 In terms of the potential impacts upon the landscape character areas during construction, paragraph 7.5.3 states that: "The construction phase would result in some short term / temporary adverse effects for the duration of the works, which would be approximately 36 weeks. It is not anticipated that these effects would be significant due to the existing use of the site and its context within Middle Park Industrial Estate".
7.5.4 With regard to potential impacts upon the landscape character of the completed development, two issues are considered. These are; i. The potential impacts upon the character of the site; and ii. The Potential impacts upon the character of the setting (locality).
7.5.4.1 In relation to the impact on the character of the application site, paragraphs 7.5.4 - 7.5.5 states, "Following the criteria set out in Table 2 of Appendix 7.1, the site is considered to be of low value as it is in poor condition, with low importance, scenic quality and rarity and due to existing industrial related uses which would be suitable for "recovery" in the future. The susceptibility of the site to the proposed change is considered to be low as the development would introduce industrial buildings and ancillary structures, but in the context of the existing industrial activity at the site. The site is therefore considered to be of low sensitivity to the proposed development.
The magnitude of the impact on the site would be low due to the existing use and cluttered appearance of the site and the presence of the adjacent waste management facilities. The overall effect of the development upon the landscape character of the site would be slight adverse (not significant)".
7.5.4.2 In terms of the potential impacts upon the character of the setting (locality), paragraphs 7.5.6 - 7.5.8 states, " Though at odds with the pastureland within the study area, the proposed civic amenity site would be in keeping with the existing industrial land use within the site and the surrounding industrial estate. The buildings would be smaller than the existing adjacent buildings and situated within the context of the surrounding structures.
The surrounding area is considered to be of medium value as there is some scenic quality which is likely to be valued locally. The area is considered to be of medium to low susceptibility to the proposed change as the development would introduce industrial buildings in the context of the existing industrial activity at the site. Therefore, the sensitivity of the surrounding area to the proposed development is also medium.
The scale (footprint, massing, and height) of the proposed development would mean that the buildings have the potential to be seen predominantly in the immediate area and to some extent within 1km of the site, although these would be in the context of the existing buildings and industrial uses on site. The variation in ZTV (Zone of Theoretical Visibility) coverage and additional screening from overlying vegetation cover when allied to the existing industrial use of the site would mean that the magnitude of the impacts of the proposed development would be low. Overall effects would therefore be slight to moderate adverse (not significant) and would reduce with distance from the site".
7.5.5 In assessing the visual effects (impacts) the issues considered were (i) the potential visual impacts during construction, as well as (ii) the Potential visual Impacts during operation. Paragraph 7.6.1 states that the approach to assessing these impacts were based on the a desk- based study, a and a series of field investigations which verified the main settlements, communities, roads, railways, footpaths, and cycle routes (visual receptors) from which the site
==== PAGE 21 ====
21/00731/B Page 21 of 28
can be seen within the study area. It further states that the focuses on those within 1km of the site as it is considered that, due to distance and the intervening topography, development and vegetation, any views of the proposals from receptors beyond 1km would not be significant. The representative viewpoints are illustrated on the ZTV (Figure 7.1). Photographs were taken in April 2021 and are provided as Figures 7.2 to 7.7. The impacts detailed using the ZTV (Figure 7.1) and knowledge of the site.
7.5.6 In terms of the Potential visual effects during construction, paragraph 7.6.3 of the ES notes that Table 7.1 of the ES identifies possible construction impacts. It states that, "For the receptors that would experience visual effects during operation, all the impacts are assumed to be adverse during the construction phase, but the level of these adverse impacts would be reduced by the short duration of operations. A condition has therefore been attached to this to ensure that the construction work is carried out within the stipulated construction time in 4.7.1 of the ES to ensure that the observed impacts are not exacerbated during the course of the construction phase. As well, a condition requiring a 'Construction Management Plan', which details the necessary mitigation measures to be taken during construction, has also been imposed.
7.5.7 In terms of the potential visual during the operation of the facility, 7.6.4 states, "The ZTV (Figure 7.1) indicates that the site and its ancillary structures would in theory be visible from within much of the land within the 2km study area. However, the surrounding tree clumps, fragmented woodlands along field boundaries and other topographical undulations suggest there is limited visibility of the proposal within the ZTV. In addition, the current development (which consists of the Energy from Waste disposal facility and stack and other industrial units) would further obscure the site from view".
7.5.8 The visual impact during operation is further assessed on key receptors such as residential receptors, transport network, and recreational receptors and access links.
7.5.8.1 In relation to the visual impact on residential receptors, paragraph 7.6.5 states that none of the individual properties, communities and settlements, all of which are considered high sensitivity receptors have been assessed as having significant visual effects from the proposed development. Paragraph 7.6.6 further states, "...as it was not possible to enter the curtilage of private residential properties, the assessment erred on the side of caution and took a worst- case scenario from each property. The most noticeable effects would be experienced by the residents of the following properties: o Slight to moderate adverse (not significant) effects on the overall visual amenity of the unnamed property northwest of Cronkbane Farm, 540m to the south-west, where the proposed development would be intermittently visible in the context of the existing site and screening vegetation around the property, the view would be similar to Viewpoint 3. o Slight adverse (not significant) effects on the overall visual amenity of Cronkbane Farm, (similar to Viewpoint 3) 570m to the south-southwest, where there may be glimpses of the proposed development between intervening vegetation".
7.5.8.1 In relation to the visual impact on transport network, paragraph 7.6.7 states, "...Potential views vary greatly across the transport network and in typical would comprise either glimpsed, oblique views with some disruption from intervening tree cover or boundary features, or closer partial views of the development in the existing industrial context with existing roadside screen planting. Effects from the proposed development upon the visual amenity of transport links within the study area have been assessed as being not significant".
7.5.8.2 With regard to the visual impact on recreational receptors and access links, paragraph 7.6.8 states, "Of the recreational receptors identified within the study area and the ZTV, it has been assessed that, due in principle to the context of the proposed development within the site coupled with the intervening screening by vegetation and/or buildings, none would experience effects on visual amenity which would be significant. Of the 3 rights of way within the ZTV, only
==== PAGE 22 ====
21/00731/B Page 22 of 28
one offers any views that are not fully screened, footpath 226 from Richmond Hill to Oakhill (Viewpoints 3 and 6). Users at this path would experience middle distant views of the development within the context of the wider waste management facilities. Effects would not exceed slight to moderate adverse (not significant)".
7.5.9 Given the identified landscape and visual impacts, which are not considered to be significant (but adverse in some cases), the various mitigation set out in paragraphs 7.7.1 - 7.7.2 of the ES states, "Mitigation measures are required in order to avoid, reduce, remedy or compensate for any adverse effects of the development. The principle of mitigation commences with the design of the development and is an iterative process, in that measures are taken, wherever possible, to adjust the design to minimise adverse effects. This has already been undertaken by locating the proposed development within an area of existing industrial and waste management development.
Additional mitigation has been incorporated into the design of the development as shown on Drawing A_PL_001 Rev G (included in Appendix 4.1), the existing boundary vegetation would be retained and reinforced to provide some screening of the development". Conditions could be attached in relation to these, although some level of impact is unavoidable.
7.5.10 The occupants of Cronkbane House, Oak Hill, Port Soderick suggest that the colour of building be green to reduce visual impact. Paragraphs 7.4.21 states thus regarding colour of buildings, "The colours of the landscape in the vicinity of the proposed development site are dominated by the soft greens and browns of the farmland and the contrasting darker tree belts and plantations and lighter large scale industrial development". This is reinforced by paragraph 7.8.1 which states, "Because the mitigation for the potential landscape and visual effects of the development has been incorporated into the design of the development (including colour and finish of the proposed stack and buildings), the assessment of effects above has already presented the residual effects after mitigation and therefore there are no further effects to assess".
7.5.11 In response to the comments received, the applicants have provided a revised site plan with additional plantings integrated on site as part of the development to ameliorate the visual/landscape impacts of the scheme. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the visual and landscape impacts would be negligible. Conditions could be attached in relation to some of the mitigation identified, although some level of impact is unavoidable.
7.6 LOCAL AMENITY (NOISE, SMELL, LIGHT) (GP2, EP22) 7.6.1 These were excluded during the scoping phase of the EIA for the following reasons which were presented in the Request for Scoping Opinion (submitted as part of the application documents).
7.6.2 With regard to air quality, paragraph 4.9.7 of the Request for Scoping Opinion states, "The proposed development site does not fall within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) as air quality in the region currently satisfies defined air quality standards.
7.6.3 Mitigation is, however, considered for both the construction phase and operational phase. In terms of the mitigation during the construction phase, paragraph 4.8.11 of the Request for Scoping Opinion received 24 June 2021 states, "It is anticipated that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will be required prior to construction works commencing on site, providing details of any necessary mitigation measures". Conditions could be attached to ensure these measures are implemented.
7.6.4 In terms of impacts on air quality during the operational phase, paragraphs 4.9.11 - 4.9.14 of the Request for Scoping Opinion states the following: "Once the site is operational, potential odours from the site will be minimised by the regular emptying of skips and by good hygiene and cleaning controls. During dry weather, dust could
==== PAGE 23 ====
21/00731/B Page 23 of 28
become a problem on site during the operational phase, however all steps practicable will be taken to reduce the effect of dust. These measures may include:
o Regular sweeping of the roads and gantry areas. o Wetting down of the roads o Wetting down of the skips o Reduced compaction of the skipped material o Covering skips where possible to prevent wind borne dust o Excluding the public from downwind areas when moving or compacting skips. Given the location of the proposed development, its distance from sensitive receptors and the mitigation measures that will be implemented above, it is considered that there will be no significant effects on Air Quality as a result of the development proposals, and this topic will be scoped out of the ES". It is therefore considered that no specific planning conditions are required.
7.6.5 In terms of the noise impacts associated with the proposal, paragraph 4.10.5 provides the reasons for its exclusion from the ES. It states, "Given the location of the proposed development within an area already operating waste management facilities, the distance from sensitive receptors and the mitigation measures outlined above, it is considered that there will be no significant noise and vibration impacts as a result of the development proposals, and this topic will be scoped out of the ES.
7.6.6 In terms of appropriate mitigation for any noise impacts, paragraph 4.10.3 notes that the CEMP to be provided by the applicants would serve as the main mitigation tool during the construction phase. With regard to the operational phase, paragraph 4.10.4 of the Request for Scoping Opinion states, "During the operational phase, activities on site will be managed in such a way as to minimise the potential impact of noise and vibration from the site. Such measures may include the careful handling of skips to minimise impact noise, the considered use of the waste compactor, and the avoidance of shouting by site operatives etc. Conditions could be attached to ensure these measures are implemented.
7.6.7 The impacts on amenity related to light pollution was excluded from the proposed scheme as it was assessed as part of ecological impacts. This was excluded from the ES as a detailed PEAR which accompanied the Request for Scoping Opinion assessed the light impacts and provided the appropriate mitigation measures. Table 7.1 of the ES which summarises the potential effects of elements of the development deals with lighting and states, "Minimal lighting would be installed along the main areas of the site. The most noticeable lighting would be required during the darker operating hours in winter (summer operational hours would be 08:00-19:00 Monday to Saturday and 08:00-16:00 on Sundays and bank holidays, winter operational hours would be 08:00- 16:00 daily). All lighting would be designed to minimise light pollution and the site and surrounding industrial and waste management uses are currently lit; therefore, it is not anticipated that lighting would not result in additional significant effects". Conditions could be attached to ensure these measures are implemented.
7.6.8 It should, however, noted here that issues related to dust, odour and noise, that arise during the operational phase of the development would be will be regulated within the Waste Disposal Licence. It is, therefore, considered that no specific planning conditions are required to control these.
7.7 HIGHWAY IMPACT (GP2. TP 1, TP7 & TP 8) 7.7.1 Chapter 6 of the applicant's EIA considers Transport (which encompasses highway impacts).
7.7.2 This chapter considers the reports on the likely significant effects of the proposed development in terms of transport in the context of the site and surrounding area, with particular focus on the likely significant effects of development generated vehicular and non-
==== PAGE 24 ====
21/00731/B Page 24 of 28
vehicular movements. However, paragraph 6.1.2 of the EIA indicates that, "This Chapter (and its associated figures and appendices) is not intended to be read as a standalone assessment and reference should be made to the front end of this ES (Chapters 1 - 5), as well as the final chapter, 'Summary of Residual and Cumulative Effects' (Chapter 8)".
7.7.3 Within this EIA, consideration is given to the impact of the development on driver delay (in paragraph 6.5.10 and states, "The modelling shows there will be an increase in driver delay however these increases in delays and the receptors classification and identified magnitude of effects, the effect of driver delay to road users is considered to be a permanent negligible adverse effect".
7.7.4 In terms of impacts on severance and pedestrian delay, paragraph 6.5.11 concludes that, "Middle Park and Former A6 do not sever development and on the basis of the identified traffic changes and the IEA 'Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic' thresholds, the effect of the Proposed Scheme will be a permanent negligible adverse effect on pedestrian delay".
7.7.5 With regard to impacts on accidents and safety, paragraph 6.5.15 notes that, "Due to no underlying road safety concerns on the highways/at the junctions identified within the TA scope, it is considered that the additional development generated traffic can be safely and efficiently accommodated on the local and strategic highway network. It is considered therefore that there will be permanent negligible adverse effects to road safety and all of its users".
7.7.6 In terms of providing mitigation for any impacts upon the capacity, safety, and amenity of users of the highway networks linked to the development the EIA considers that the impacts are negligible at all junctions (Paragraph 6.6.1 of ES). It thus, concludes that, "No further mitigation is considered necessary". It is considered that appropriate conditions can be added to address issues related to driver delays in relation to the operations of the development.
7.7.8 In assessing the residual effect of the development on transport (Those effects of a development that cannot be mitigated following implementation of mitigation proposals), a summary of the assessment is provided in section 6.9 of the ES. It concludes at paragraphs 6.9.4 and 6.9.5 that, "The environmental effects of the vehicle movements likely to be generated during the construction and operational period will be negligible. The proposed mitigation measures within the site will result in a neutral environmental effect in terms of the effect of the transportation effects of the proposed development".
7.7.9 The Transport Assessment which accompanies the EIA an open which the highway assessment were based provides summary/conclusions within section 6.0. Paragraphs 6.8 and 6.9 makes the following conclusions regarding the proposed development: "6.8 It has been shown the application site is accessible to public transport facilities and routes and is accessible to a wide catchment area for travel by bicycle, that is proportionate to the nature of the proposed use that will predominantly be car borne trips delivering household waste. The application proposals therefore offer opportunities for employees/visitors to walk, cycle or use public transport in accordance with Transport Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan and the aims and objectives of the Active Travel Strategy and the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Action Plan.
6.9 It is therefore concluded that vehicular and non-vehicular access to the scheme accord with the policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2016 and guidance in Manual for Manx Roads. Hence the trips which they are likely to generate can be accommodated on the local highway network without detriment to the safety or convenience of its users".
7.7.10 DOI (Highways have made the following comments): o They note that the new site layout and provisions regarding access, parking, electric charging points, pedestrian movements, and manoeuvring for car and lorry are acceptable.
==== PAGE 25 ====
21/00731/B Page 25 of 28
o It should be noted that turns are a little tight for larger vehicles on entry and exit requiring the full width of Middle Park and the access way, but this is typical for such uses and does not pose undue risk. o Additionally, after entry where the outer line is overhanging the green space, there should be a clearance margin without larger plantings. o We consider still that most users will come from Douglas and Onchan and have a longer drive, but this has been accepted by the commissioning party. o Noted too is that noise will emanate on operation. Hours of use by day of week may require control for amenity reasons. o Accordingly, we raise no opposition subject to conditions to cover access, pedestrian and vehicle layout to accord with the Revised Proposed Site Plan Drawing No: AL PL 001 Rev H and any amenity issues be addressed by a restriction on operating hours.
7.7.11 It is noted that DOI Highways are relied upon and, on that basis, it is considered that there is no unacceptable impact. Conditions could be attached to ensure the recommended measures are implemented.
7.8 FLOODING (GP2, EP10 AND 13) 7.8.1 The assessment of flood impacts was excluded from the Environmental Impact Assessment. Following consultations with Planning via the Request for scoping opinion, attention was drawn to the possibility of flood impacts becoming a concern given that the site is in close proximity to a flood prone area (which slopes towards the site). Given the above, the applicants consulted DOI Flood Risk Management to determine if a Flood Risk Assessment would be required and if there were concerns in respect of flood risk (The correspondence dated 14 April 2021 is provided as a supporting information for the application).
7.8.2 In response to the request for guidance regarding FRA and inclusion of flood assessments in the EIA, DOI Flood Risk Management (Appendix 2 - Correspondence with Department of Infrastructure, 27.04.21) made the following comments in relation to flood risk, "We have reviewed and conclude that there are no real concerns of the proposed in relation to flood risk. Waste management facilities for hazardous waste can be classed as more vulnerable land uses in flood risk management. However, the site does not lie within a high flood risk zone. Nor do we have record of the site having flooded previously. The area to the north of the site you mention indicates where ponding of surface water might occur".
7.8.3 The reasoning behind the exclusion has been clearly articulated in paragraph 2.5.11 of the ES. The ES, however, noted that the works could result in an increased risk to flooding and as such Table 4.1 (within Paragraph 4.9.5 of the ES) states, "The reduction in permeable area as a result of the Proposed Development, however, could lead to an increased risk of flooding".
7.8.4 Within Table 4.1 (Paragraph 4.9.5) of the ES, mitigation for increased impact is provided and the ES states thus regarding mitigation: "A drainage strategy (including Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)) is incorporated within the proposed development to ensure flood risk within the Site or surrounding area is not increased. The mitigation has been designed to accommodate potential extreme flood events as a result of climate change". Conditions could be attached to ensure these measures are implemented.
7.9 ECOLOGY (GP2 & EP4) 7.9.1 Whilst Ecology was scoped out of the EIA, Section 4.8 of the EIA considers Ecology.
7.9.2 This section of the ES provides the basis for the exclusion of Ecology from the EIA and states the following regarding ecology (Paragraph 4.8.2, 4.8.3: "A desk study was used to identify ecological features within an appropriate radius of the site, and an extended Phase 1 habitat walkover survey was undertaken to categorise habitat features and assess habitat suitability for protected species".
==== PAGE 26 ====
21/00731/B Page 26 of 28
7.9.3 Further advise regarding the reason for exclusion from the ES during scoping in paragraph 4.8.3 states, "The present use of the site as a storage yard for recycling and building materials offers little suitable habitat for wildlife. The site is of low ecological value with extensive areas regularly devoid of vegetation leading to limited opportunities for the fauna that this can support. The site is set within the context of a heavily built up and fragmented environment where connectivity to other habitats of ecological value are heavily restricted".
7.9.4 It concludes at 4.8.6 that, "Based on the above, it is considered that no significant ecological impacts will result as a consequence of the proposed development and that Ecology can be scoped out of the ES".
7.9.5 The ES, however, provided details of mitigation that have been provided by the PEAR (The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal) which has been submitted as a standalone report together with the Planning Application.
7.9.6 Paragraph 4.8.3 provides details of the mitigation in relation to ecology and states, "The development proposals will seek to retain the existing vegetated embankment in the south-west of the site and will incorporate new native shrub planting and wildflower meadow, offering greater opportunity for biodiversity. The proposed lighting of the site will be designed utilising inward directed led lighting columns to provide required site illumination without creating undue light pollution".
7.9.7 Paragraphs 4.8.4 and 4.8.5 also references mitigation measures offered by the PEAR to avoid potential adverse impacts on ecology and states, "These include adopting a proportionate cautionary approach during development and implementing measures to avoid the potential for pollutants (e.g. fuels and lubricants) to enter the watercourse at the base of the western embankment. The proposed soft landscaping of grassland and native shrubs present an important opportunity to enhance the site for ecological benefit, whilst the built structures can provide artificial bat roost niches and nesting opportunities for birds". To the extent that the above points relate to the planning applications, it is considered that suitable conditions could be attached.
7.10 OTHER MATTERS 7.10.1 Excavation on site (Minerals act 1986) Within the application, there would be a degree of excavation shown on the sectional drawings and in the supporting information provided by the applicant. It is estimated that approximately 8700m3 of subsoil will be removed from the site. Given that the proposed volume of excavation would be over 200cu.m of material, the proposal would require a mineral license to enable the excavation. Dave Roberts to be consulted on mineral licence. It is, therefore, considered that no specific planning conditions are required.
7.10.2 No other concerns have been noted.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The principle of the development is welcomed, as it reuses an existing site and will increase the effectiveness of a vital element of infrastructure whilst also, once in operation, reduce the potential for wider environmental/amenity impacts. There are some areas where further detail is required and it is considered that these can be addressed by conditions.
8.2 On balance, it is considered that the application should be supported (subject to conditions), given that the identified impacts are acceptable, with the mitigation proposed within the scheme to deal with associated impacts considered to be appropriate.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
==== PAGE 27 ====
21/00731/B Page 27 of 28
(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.
9.2 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
9.3 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: 21.02.2022
Signed : P VISIGAH 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 28 ====
21/00731/B Page 28 of 28
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 21.02.2022
Application No. : 21/00731/B Applicant : Dandara Contracting Limited Proposal : Creation of Civic Amenity Site Site Address : Recycling And Storage Compound Richmond Hill Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 1JH
Planning Officer : Mr Paul Visigah
Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee considered the application and agreed with the recommendation to approve the application subject to an additional condition being attached:
C25: Colour of Building and bays
The cladding and roof finish of the building, and the gantries (including the galvanised steel frames and balustrades) must be coloured olive green or as otherwise approved by the Department and retained as such.
Reason: to minimise the visual impact of the development on the surrounding area.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal