Loading document...
Whilst basking sharks have been seen off this coast, they do not tend to inhabit shallower water and as such are unlikely to be affected by the proposed works. If a basking shark was sighted it is suggested that work could cease until it had moved on. Cetaceans generally respond negatively to high frequency noise which is unlikely to result from the proposed works, monitoring of cetacean movements may be necessary.
The main potential threat to marine life and ecology comes from contamination by the generation of suspended solids plumes and any discharges of fuels, mineral oils and chemicals associated with malpractice or accident. Information provided suggests that the likelihood of such contamination is slight, based upon previous experience. The use of marine-based material - sand and rock will assist the reduction in likelihood of contamination
The most significant impact on ecology from the proposed works is the loss of high diversity habitat through the extension of the promontory. The applicant suggests however that this loss will be compensated for by the creation of new habitat - around 20 - 30% of what will be lost. This will be a new type of habitat, thus adding to the range of habitat found in this general area. It is also suggested that from previous trials the re-colonisation of the rocks with the organisms which occupied the coast which will be lost, occurred very quickly and as such, it should not take long before the new rock armour is colonised.
The Environmental Statement confirms that there are species of plant and animal present within the site, which are protected under the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990. These include ringed plover, little egret, curlew, house sparrow, golden plover, chough, shelduck and lapwing, agrimony, sea aster, purple milk-vetch, grass-leaved orache, sea-purslane, saltmarsh flat-sedge, wood-small reed, prickly sedge, field mouse-ear, sea kale, common spotted and heath spotted orchid hybrid, common spotted orchid, heath spotted orchid, parsley water-dropwort and bee orchid. There may also be notable moth and butterfly species present on the site and possibly bats which use the coast for feeding and together with birds may nest in cracks in the stone wall which runs around the coastal footpath.
The loss of valuable habitat will be temporary or permanent depending upon its location within the site. The temporary loss of habitat through excavation and the establishment of plant and compounds will be monitored to reduce the amount lost at any one time and re-establishment as soon as possible. The introduction of more lighting at the seaward side of the site may disrupt established night feeding and roosting. Monitoring will be undertaken throughout the construction process by a specialist ornithologist with respect to the effect of the works on the local bird population although there is little said about what will be done if there appears to be an adverse impact on local bird activity and population. Works will be undertaken outside the bird breeding season where possible.
Excavated material will be stored for up to two days to allow animals to escape before final disposal and pre-construction surveys will be undertaken May - September to check for the presence of protected or notable species. Similarly, areas will be checked before stock-piling for protected plant species.
The permanent effect on agrimony and orchids will be mitigated by translocating the orchids to another suitable receptor site.
The mitigation proposed also includes adherence to accepted standards and practices in accordance with various pieces of legislation - the Land Drainage Act 1934, the Wildlife Act 1990 which make it unlawful to do some of the things which would result in an adverse impact - monitoring of the situation, checking sites before, during and after works. The loss of the rock foreshore will be mitigated against by the choice of marine rock and encouragement of re-colonisation after works are complete.
VISUAL IMPACT The airfield works are unlikely to have any significant visual impact as the environment in which the changes are proposed is very much an airfield, with concrete runways, lighting and areas of grass which will not change in any great respect even as viewed from the nearest residential properties those within Janet's Corner or King William's College. The Environmental Statement quite correctly describes the airport as having an "urbanising effect" on the surrounding landscape, exacerbated by the Ronaldsway and Balthane industrial estates and the settlements of Ballasalla and Castletown.
The creation of the promontory will affect the appearance of the coastline as viewed from the air and from the footpath running through the site and that which continues north around the coast to Port Solderick and Port Grenaugh, that which turns off towards Arragon Veg and Arragon Mooar and that which veers back towards Douglas Road (A5). The promontory will also be seen by those sailing past the site - fishermen and those in leisure craft. However, this view must be seen in the context of the backdrop of the airport and airfield and the coastline in the wider context including the built up frontage of Derbyhaven.
The applicant has attempted to reduce the visual impact of the promontory by choosing material which will, in time, blend in with the colour and texture of the natural carboniferous stone which make up the coast of each side although the natural undulations of the bays and natural promontories would not be re-created. The removal of such a long expanse of gantry will be an improvement.
The Environmental Statement suggests that the properties in Derbyhaven will be affected by the proposed promontory but what they will see after the works are complete is a man-made structure, replacing the gantry with another man-made structure - the rock armour and shorter gantry all of which is further out into the sea. Bearing in mind the distance between these properties and the structure, it is considered that this change in view is not sufficient or sufficiently adverse to warrant refusal of the application.
The Environmental Statement considers the views of those properties on the A5 Douglas Road but suggests that whilst aircraft movement and ground vehicle movements will be closer to them, they are presently affected by the airfield and the change is considered to be moderately adverse.
The views from the various footpaths will change although the footpath to the north is already frequented by heavy vehicles visiting the quarries and the context of this path is therefore compromised by this.
Whilst the setting of the footpath will change as a result of the promontory, the setting of the existing footpath has already been shaped by the proximity of the airfield and the activity associated therewith. The experience of walking around the airfield will change from an informal grassed track to a concrete pavement with barbed wired fencing on the airport side, going beneath the gantry as one does at present. The view of the promontory itself is described in the Environmental Statement (7.5.4.7) as "a large, visually intrusive man-made element, which would block some longer distance views along the coastline. This impact is described as major adverse and is probably the most significant visual impact of all.
There have been representations from a number of parties including those concerned with the environment, statutory authorities and also local residents.
Fire Prevention Officer recommends consultation with him regarding fire hydrants, water supplies and access for emergency vehicles. This may be addressed by way of a note.
Malew Parish Commissioners do not object to the application but express serious concerns about transport, noise and pollution and recommend that everything possible is done to mitigate and minimise these impacts.
The applicant has responded to this by way of letter dated 22nd November, 2006 confirming their commitment to continued liaison with the Commissioners throughout the project.
Manx Electricity Authority recommend that there are 11 kv cables in the area which will be the subject of drainage works and recommend that the applicant liaise with them to ensure correct working practices are employed. This is not a planning matter but one relating to working practices and as such a note rather than a condition is appropriate in this case. The applicant has confirmed that they will liaise with the Manx Electricity Authority regarding these services at the appropriate time.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) has now submitted views (23rd November, 2006) and confirms that it seeks to have confirmed measures to avoid, reduce and adequately mitigate and compensate for the damaging impact on the marine and terrestrial environment whilst at the same time recognising the important air safety and strategic reasons for the development. They express disappointment that the EIA was "not of the standard that DAFF had expected having been given assurance that the methodology would follow the guidelines produced by the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management". However they suggest that since the submission of the application they have made "significant progress" in agreeing how the shortcomings may be addressed.
DAFF sought and have had provided to them further information on the justification for this option rather than others, mapping information on the co-ordinates of the sea caves, botanical sampling sites and video footage, mitigation sites for the relocated orchids in the event that they cannot be protected in situ, a draft Environmental Management Plan, a response to their issues, details of the consultants who undertook the assessments. They understand that the applicant has agreed to undertake a scientific marine survey to provide more information. This further information has indicated that the sea caves are closer to the proposed development than were originally indicated.
DAFF express concern that the Environmental Management Plan which is referred to in the EIA and the application is a developing plan rather than something laid out and adopted as part of the application. They understand that the plan will be finalised when the contract is let for the construction phase but would have expected it as part of the application. They suggest that perhaps a better way forward would have been an application in principle. However I do not accept this as the level of detail required for any meaningful decision to be made would rely on the level of detail necessary in a full detailed application.
They also suggest that the institute of Ecology and Environmental Management Guidelines on Ecological Impact Assessment states that "A shopping list of 'proposed mitigation' at the end of an EcIA is of very little value as it requires the competent authority to enter into discussion with the proponent to agree what will be implemented. An EcIA is effectively meaningless if it provides an assessment of the significance of the residual impacts of a scheme based on the proposed mitigation measures being implemented even though these measures have not been agreed by the developer (section 5.2). The Planning Statement suggests that the Environmental Management Plan is to be developed and it is clearly not part of the application in any meaningful form. A condition requiring such a plan would be difficult to construct where this could ensure that adequate mitigation is either practicable or possible or that it is undertaken in a way which would satisfy those with concerns over the scheme. This is particularly important, say DAFF, in terms of monitoring - details of which are not given or indeed how concerns would be addressed if they do arise from the monitoring.
DAFF also express concerns about the possible temporary jetty which could cross the shallow sea, beach and an area of semi-improved grassland just north of the site: as no details have been given it has not been possible for DAFF to comment on this.
They suggest that they may have preferred the concrete slab option for the promontory (possibly greened) as this would have had a lesser footprint and thus less of an environmental impact. DAFF does accept however that there are other considerations, including visual impact and safety about which they have limited information.
DAFF contest some of the conclusions and qualitative judgements made in the EIA, particularly where the mitigation is minor or not proposed at all. They pick out as of particular concern the impact on water fowl feeding and roosting areas which are noted as of "high value". They also express concern at the impact on bats although they accept that an alternative roost site may be located towards Turkeyland and recommend care in the dismantling of the wall at the least damaging time of year (April/May). They suggest that they have spoken with the consultants who accept that this was an error and that the impact levels on the bats should have remained unchanged and thus affected the stated residual impact and its significance.
DAFF express concern at the loss of a significant area of one of the most diverse inter-tidal sites so far identified on the Island and a wider are may permanently be affected. They do not feel that this has been stated clearly enough and the level of detail in the marine section of the ES does not reflect the seriousness of this loss. They also suggest that some biological information about the species and habitats on the footprint is needed so that they may be able to identify clearly what will be lost and any appropriate mitigation or compensation which may be considered necessary.
DAFF does not accept that a new habitat created by rock armour will compensate for the loss of a limestone platform beach with the highest recorded inter-tidal biodiversity levels on the Island. They add that this section of coast has been recommended as part of a potential Ramsar Wetland of International Importance (Pienkowski 2005). This is not referred to in the application. DAFF Also refer to a section on marine feature evaluation which is referred to in the introduction but is not provided. DAFF Suggest that without additional information is will not be possible to determining whether detrimental changes are occurring during or after works or the significance of the level of impact.
DAFF express concern that the impact on the sea caves have not been addressed. These may be affected by spillages and leakages of silt and knowledge of the fauna is required to determine whether it may be at risk. Off-loading ships close to the caves leaves them susceptible to spillages.
DAFF have agreed the relocation of the secondary compound adjacent to the airport exit and the western apron, to avoid habitat of importance to orchids and of national importance. This would be relocated to another location which is already used as such, to the south west of the museum.
DAFF recommends that the soil along the coast be stripped prior to works commencing and re-used in a suitable site with agrimony present being dug up and kept in appropriate conditions and returned to the re-laid grassland.
They suggest that one year for post-development monitoring is inadequate and that the impact of the development should be monitored for three years.
DAFF conclude by suggesting that they are not in a position to recommend conditions but suggest that there ought to be a condition requiring a process for the dot and daff to come to an agreement on how avoidance, mitigation and compensation will be undertaken.
DAFF have had further discussion with the applicant and the Planning Office and have now suggested a series which could address some of their concerns. DAFF would however have preferred to have the information on marine habitat provided with the application and still remain concerned at the irreplaceable and inevitable loss of inter-tidal habitat.
Manx National Heritage raise some concerns regarding the loss of habitat (inter-tidal and sub-tidal), the possible impact on the Langness ASSI, the adequacy and range of the ecological survey. They do
however acknowledge the reason for some of the elements of the scheme and conclude by recommending a series of conditions should the application be permitted.
The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment outlines the benefits and drawbacks of the scheme but concludes that subject to suggestions about a more natural form of extension and careful provision for those using the footpath, raise no objection. The applicant responds to this in their letter of 22nd November, 2006 suggesting that the shape of the promontory is guided by the need to minimise wave damage, minimise the extent of footprint and minimise cost. The rock armour needs to knit together and be placed in layers in order for them to resist damage through wave action and as such the rocks cannot be more random. The applicant also wishes to provide pedestrians using the coastal footpath with more protection from the sea and will also provide access for emergency and maintenance vehicles.
Isle of Man Friends of the Earth object for the reason that the development will result in environmental damage to the marine life on the sea floor and its surrounding area. The applicant has responded by way of letter dated 22nd November, 2006 by emphasising that the need for the development is safety-led and that they have liaised with Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry throughout the formulation of the project. They accept that in the case of some aspects of the project the impacts cannot be avoided and the removal of the inter-tidal habitat is an example.
Manx Mariculture Limited are based at The hatchery at Derbyhaven and object to the application on the basis that the works will result in contamination of the sea which would prevent satisfactory survival of existing fish stocks or successful operation of the facility for up to 3 years. This is of particular concern bearing in mind changing wind patterns and the chance of tidal drifts affecting particulate seawater contamination. Whilst measures have been discussed to prevent such contamination - extension of the sea inlet pipe, construction of a seawater borehole or installation of a new advanced filtration system, the objector does not accept that the first would be effective, the second would not be able to ensure protection of the entire hatchery and suggest that the third is installed as an absolute necessity. If these two features are installed, at the cost of the applicant, the objector indicates that they would be prepared to withdraw their objection.
Derbyhaven Residents' Society suggest that if the application is permitted conditions are attached to ensure that a communication channel with the DRS is established to prevent or resolve operational difficulties which may be encountered during construction and that the water level in the Spinney does not fall below an agreed level.
The applicant is proposing in the Environmental Statement to operate an Environmental Management Plan which accompanies the Environmental Statement. This EMP will establish control measures for managing the environmental effects of construction and includes procedures to deal with complains and action taken. This would eventually form part of the contract documentation.
The occupants Balladoyle, Fort Island Road indicate their objection to the application on the basis that they believe that the extension of runway 03/21 would be preferable, less environmentally damaging, quicker and cheaper than the proposed scheme. They also express concern that the extended runway will attract larger and noisier aircraft and suggest that noise criteria should be established for aircraft landing and taking off at the airport.
The applicant suggests that this is not necessary as aircraft noise is already controlled by international legislation for noise standards which are drawn up by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the European Civil Aviation conference and where all new aircraft are required to adhere to stricter standards. They also add that it is difficult and expensive to install equipment which may monitor individual aircraft noise and in any case, such a system must be accompanied by a meaningful legal penalty system against specific aircraft operators. They also refer to military aircraft which are not designed to meet civil criteria.
They also suggest that operating hours should be imposed at the Airport for this reason although exceptions could be made for emergencies or "genuine flight delays". They suggest that "independent environmental groups" should approve the final details of the project before consent is granted and construction work which creates significant noise is limited to 0800 - 1800 Monday to Friday.
The applicant suggests that the opening hours are determined by the staff resources available and within these hours the airlines seek to make best use of their assets. However, there is no suggestion that hours of operation could not or will not be extended if staff resources are available.
They understand that "marine environmental groups" are "strongly opposed to the land reclamation aspect of the application" and do not believe that there is sufficient information in the application to justify permission being granted.
The occupants of Ronaldsburn object to the application on a similar basis to that of the occupants of Balladole above, in that they consider that the information provided is deficient in respect of the need for the extended runway as proposed, that the extension will result in bigger and noisier aircraft, that operating hours should be restricted and that the impact on ecology should be independently assessed.
DAFF, however, represents an independent assessor of planning applications and the Department responsible for the implementation of the Wildlife Act 1990. Further assessment of the impact of the development is not, in my view necessary.
A resident of Port Soderick who states that he lives under one of the flight paths to the airport, registers interest and suggests that he has not studied the submitted information to be able to come to any conclusion at this stage but will be submitting further views in due course. This letter was submitted on 12th October, 2006: the application was advertised on 21st September, 2006.
The continued operation of the airport within acceptable and safe working practices and regulations is clearly a matter of some national importance. Also, the expansion of the airport to accommodate growth is also something which should be accommodated and is provided for in the Department of Transport's own Business Plan and referred to in the draft Island Strategic Plan.
However, this must be measured against any detrimental impacts caused by the development which is required to fulfil these objectives. The development can be subdivided into two distinct parts - the runway and RESA extension on the western end alongside Douglas Road and the promontory proposed to accommodate the runway extension at the eastern end of the airfield. The re-surfacing and reconstruction works to the existing runways and the proposed drainage works constitute development which is permitted under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 and therefore does not require planning permission. There are distinct working practices associated with each part of the project and these will have their own impacts. The impacts of both the development itself and the undertaking of the development concern noise, traffic, ecology, archaeology, vibration, visual impact, drainage and air quality.
The works at the western end will have little visual impact compared with the existing situation. The extension of the runway will bring aircraft and aircraft noise closer to the residential properties at this end of the runway. However the increase in noise is not considered sufficiently significant to warrant refusal of the application and will be apparent at times of the day when the A5 is most heavily used where the noise of the traffic - existing and future levels - will mitigate any increase in noise levels from aircraft.
This work may have an impact on archaeology - many of the sites of interest have been affected by previous work at the airport and some have already been excavated and information gathered. The applicant proposes to work with Manx National Heritage and to undertake watching briefs and precautionary work to ensure that sites are avoided if possible and recorded if not. Traffic coming to work on this element of the project will be using the access past the aviation museum and coming from within the airport and will thus, if travelling from the north will not pass Brookfield Avenue or the Castletown residential properties.
The construction of the promontory will affect those who can see it from their residential property or place or work or leisure, from the coastal footpath from where the visual impact and change will be most apparent, those using Balthane Road (who are largely industrial traffic), the ecology of the area, the quality and character of the sea water (currents, water quality). The promontory will undoubtedly change the appearance of the coastline at this point and there will be some change in the behaviour of some animals as a result. Some habitat will be lost - some temporarily and some permanently, but the application attempts to minimise the impact of this be selecting materials which will, in time result in the re-colonisation of the area by the same and perhaps new species, thus enhancing the diversity of the area.
The change in appearance of the coastline is significant for those who will be able to see it, although these people are limited to those using the public footpath, those who live and work in and around Derbyhaven and from further away, from Fort Island and St. Michael's Isle. Whilst the change will be perceivable, it is not considered that this will be sufficiently negative or detrimental to warrant refusal. There are around the Island examples of where artificial promontories have been constructed to manage the sea or activities close to it: Douglas harbour saw the construction of a new pier with concrete stabits, Port Erin has an artificial breakwater and all of the harbours have artificial jetties and piers.
Whilst the coastline is presently natural at the end of runway 08/26, the context of the coastline is artificial in that it forms the end of a working runway with lights, a lighting gantry and the coming and going of aircraft. There are hangars, buildings and the hatchery further south on the coast and Turkeyland quarry to the north. The visual impact of the promontory and new gantry are not considered to be sufficiently detrimental to warrant refusal of the application.
The impact of the promontory on ecology is perhaps one of the most significant impacts to be considered. The applicant intends to monitor all wildlife activity and to have in place contingency plans - such as stopping work if seals, basking sharks, dolphins or choughs are seen in the vicinity of the working site. There are clearly deficiencies in some of the information which Manx National Heritage and DAFF would like to have seen included in the application. However DAFF have indicated that further studies which are required are unlikely to produce evidence of anything which will prevent the scheme from going ahead, only things which may affect the monitoring and mitigation which is proposed.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
Whilst Manx Electricity Authority and Fire Prevention Officer represents a statutory authority, the points raised in correspondence relate to working practices and Building Control matters and not planning and to elements of the scheme which do not require planning permission, and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Derbyhaven Residents' Association are a local neighbourhood group which would normally not be eligible for party status. However in this case, the group represents the people of Derbyhaven, all of whom are affected by what is a large scale project and as such I would recommend that the Society if afforded party status in this instance. It is also helpful in this case that the Society has responded
to the application as one voice, representing a sizable number of properties and reducing the need for a great amount of individual correspondence from these parties.
The occupants of Balladoyle, Fort Island Road and Ronaldsburn are residents of Derbyhaven and are close to the perimeter of the airfield and to the coast on the opposite side of the road from this property. Their proximity to the site justifies the awarding of party status to these objectors.
Manx Mariculture Limited operates from the Hatchery at Derbyhaven which will be directly affected by the proposal and as such should be afforded party status in this instance.
Isle of Man Friends of the Earth and the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment are not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Planning Committee approved the planning application at its meeting of 15th December, 2006 subject to a small number of revisions. In addition to the parties listed in the last few paragraphs, Manx National Heritage and DAFF should be afforded status as statutory authorities who have raised concerns which are material planning considerations. The resident of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the proposal and should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Committee also felt that the treatment of the footpath should be addressed as a condition not a note. As such, note 3 should be deleted and the remaining notes re-numbered and a new condition inserted as follows: "Prior to the commencement of works on the proposed promontory the applicant must have approved by the Planning Authority further plans which provide full details of the appearance, construction and design of the proposed new footpath" and the recommendation of note 3 added to the end.
The Committee also agreed to expand on the part of condition 4 to clarify that "representatives of local residents" includes Malew Parish Commissioners and any local residents to whom party status is afforded in respect of this application.
Finally, the Committee wishes for there to be an additional condition added to ensure that contractors' access to the site is in accordance with drawing reference 015.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 07.12.2006
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates, subject to the other conditions of this notice, to the extension of the airfield and runways and the undertaking of associated ancillary works all as shown in drawings reference 108744/001 - 015 all received on 12th September, 2006 together with the provisions of the Environmental Statement and Planning Statement received at the same time.
C 3. Prior to the commencement of any building or engineering operations on site, there must be undertaken by the applicant, in consultation with the Wildlife Conservation Division of Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Manx National Heritage further survey work as follows: a) during April/May, detailed survey of the sea bed within the footprint of the proposed promontory and within an area 200 m around that footprint in the inter-tidal and marine areas, b) identification of the location of the sea caves and survey thereof and c)wider survey of the marine biotopes between Santon Gorge and Derbyhaven Bay.
Copies of these surveys must be submitted to DAFF and to the Planning Authority and will: i) form the baseline for subsequent monitoring and ii) provide the rationale for identification of additional mitigation and compensation measures both in the Environmental Management Plan required by condition 4 below.
C 9. Prior to the commencement of works on the proposed promontory the applicant must have approved by the Planning Authority further plans which provide full details of the appearance, construction and design of the proposed new footpath.
Note: the applicant is recommended to consider ways in which the appearance of the fencing/boundary treatment of the re-routed public footpath may be softened: whilst the proposed fencing is functional, its appearance may not be sympathetic to its coastal location.
C 4. Prior to the commencement of any building or engineering operations, there must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which addresses: a) the establishment of a working party which includes representatives of local residents, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Manx National Heritage, the Planning Authority, The Hatchery and Department of Transport and which i) will be made aware of the progress, monitoring, discovery and any changes arising therefrom and which ii) will be able to advise the developer in relation to any of the matters included in the EMP; b) measures for mitigation of or compensation for any adverse impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment or in the survey work required by condition 3 above, c) method statements for putting into effect the measures referred to in b above, and in particular for translocated plants, dealing with coastal grassland and agrimony and dealing with inter-tidal ecological monitoring and d) a monitoring plan for the construction period and for three years thereafter.
C 5. Prior to the commencement of any work on the proposed promontory, there must be provided and fitted a filter to the sea water intake to The Hatchery so as to ensure that the quality of that water is in no respect worse than at present.
C 6.
No permission is hereby granted to the establishment of a builder's compound between the airport buildings and the aviation museum as this is an area known to support flora (orchids) which are protected under the Wildlife Act (1990).
C 7. If a jetty and/or conveyor is to be used, full details of this together with an assessment of the environmental impact thereof must be approved by the Planning Authority after consultation with DAFF and Manx National Heritage prior to any such use.
C 8. The Manx Museum and National Trust must be informed of the date when building work is to commence and be given access at all reasonable times, and reasonable opportunity to inspect the site, observe all excavations and investigate any archaeological features exposed.
C 9. Access by contractors' vehicles to the site must be in accordance with approved drawing reference 015 .
N 1. There are 11 kV cables in the area highlighted for drainage works. As such the applicant is recommended to consult the MEA regarding the proposed works and any diversion of the existing supply which may be required.
N 2. The applicant is advised to consult the Fire Prevention Officer in respect of the provision of fire hydrants, water supplies and access for fire appliances.
N 3. No permission is hereby granted to the Airport Masterplan other than those elements approved in this application.
Committee Meeting Date : 15th December 2006
| Application No: | U601572 | Page of | | --- | --- | --- | | Views Expressed - Name | | Invite | | APP | | ✓ | | DOTH | | ✓ | | Malew | | ✓ | | Fine | | ✓ | | SPMC+E | | ✓ | | MEN | | ✓ | | Mark Hariculture Ltd | | ✓ | | 104 Friends of the earth | | ✓ | | Aram | | ✓ | | A Jessopp | | ✓ | | Vermewian | | ✓ | | MK + MKS Donlan | | ✓ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
