Officer Report

Application No.: 16/00200/C Applicant: Lynwill Farms Ltd Proposal: Change of use of site for vehicle, equipment and material storage and waste transfer station for tipping road sweepings, trimmings, top soil and excavated materials, inert and organic vegetation Site Address: Ellerslie Depot Old Church Road Crosby Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 08.09.2017 Site Visit: 08.09.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.09.2017 _________________________________________________________________

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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Other than the use of the land hatched in black on Drawing 1020/PL01 Rev D (datestamped as having been received 22nd February 2016) as a Waste Transfer Station, no waste transfer, storage, treatment, recycling, composting or disposal operations shall take place on any part of the site edged in red on 1020/PL01 Rev D (date-stamped as having been received 22nd February 2016).

Reason: To ensure the Waste Transfer Station is kept within a defined area in order to protect the appearance of the site and general amenity, and to minimise the impact of airborne particulates and noise on the site and surrounding area.

• C 3. The use of the land hatched in black on plan 1020/PL01 Rev D (date-stamped as having been received 22nd February 2016) as a Waste Transfer Station shall exclude crushing and/or composting operations.

Reason: To minimise the impact of airborne particulates and noise on the site and surrounding area.

• C 4. No waste shall be brought onto the site edged in black on plan 1020/PL01 Rev D (datestamped as having been received 22nd February 2016) other than road sweepings, trimmings, top soil and excavated materials, inert and organic vegetation. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area.
• C 5. Not more than 1500 tonnes of waste shall be brought into the area hatched in black on plan 1020/PL01 Rev D (date-stamped as having been received 22nd February 2016) in any rolling 12 month period.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area, including the local highway network.

• C 6. The operator of the site shall keep a log of all materials brought to the Waste Transfer Station, such records to be kept for a minimum of two consecutive calendars years and made available to the Department for inspection at its request.

Reason: To provide safeguards with regard the monitoring of Condition 5, and to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area.

• C 7. No hazardous or contaminated material shall be brought onto the site hatched in black on plan 1020/PL01 Rev D (date-stamped as having been received 22nd February 2016).

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

Drawings 1020/PL01 Rev D (date-stamped as having been received 22nd February 2016), Drawing 1020/PL10 (date-stamped as having been received 29th August 2017), the Traffic Statement (date-stamped as having been received 6th July 2017) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (date-stamped as having been received 22nd February 2016).

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

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:

• o Manx National Heritage.

It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

• o The owner / occupier of Eyreton Cottages, Eyreton Road, Crosby, which is approximately 1000m northeast of the entrance to application site;
• o The owner / occupier of 6 Eyremont Terrace, Crosby, which is approximately 350m north of the entrance to application site;
• o The owner / occupier of 3 Richmond Terrace, Crosby, which is approximately 400m north of the entrance to application site, and

• o The owner / occupier of 5 Crosby Terrace, Crosby, which is approximately 375m north
• of the entrance to the application site. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE NATURE AND SCALE OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE FACT IT IS ON LAND NOT ZONED FOR DEVELOPMENT BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 Some members of the Planning Committee will recall that this application was due to be considered and determined at their previous meeting of 18th September 2017. The application was deferred owing to an additional plan being sent out to the interested parties, which accidentally carried a date for a response after the meeting of the Committee. The Commissioners identified this to officers, who recommended that the Planning Committee defer determination of the application until 2nd October 2017 to allow further comment. This recommendation was accepted. - 0.2 The Commissioners are the sole party to offer additional comment on the application following the circulation of this additional plan. - 0.3 It should be noted that the additional plan provided clarity on the specifics of the site, and did not change what was being proposed. - 0.4 Members are requested to note the Commissioners' additional comments are at paragraph 5.6.3 of this report, which is otherwise unchanged from the version presented to them on their previous agenda.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a long and thin parcel of land associated with the Ellerslie Depot, which is located to the west of Old Church Road just to the south of Crosby. Within the site are a number of buildings that have previously been used by the Department of Infrastructure as a depot and waste transfer station, but subsequently this use ceased and had ended at the time of the most recent site on 5th September. Outside the red line but within the blue line of the site are more such buildings along with some hardstanding as well as some associated landscaping. - 1.2 There is a Waste Disposal Licence for the site, which has conditions. It authorises / stipulates, in summary and inter alia:

• o The reception, storage and transfer of road sweepings collected by or on behalf of the licensee, and so it is not open to visiting members of the public;
• o No more than 600 cubic metres of waste should be stored on the site at any one time;
• o No more than 1500 tonnes of waste shall be accepted on the site per year;
• o No waste shall be stored in excess of 2 months;
• o A lockable fence shall be maintained to prevent unauthorised access;
• o The access road shall be maintained to prevent the deposit of mud or waste from the site onto the public highway;
• o There shall be no uncontrolled discharge of any sewage, trade effluent or contaminated site drainage to any watercourse;
• o No poisonous, noxious or polluting matter shall be allowed to enter any watercourse, surface water drain, soakaway or underground watercourse;
• o Measures should be taken to suppress: the emanation of noise; the containment of windblown litter; the infestation of vermin, birds and insects; the emission of dust, and; the

• release of odours, including the emptying and washing down of all waste bays every three months, of which records shall be maintained in the site diary;
• o The site diary shall include: details of construction and engineering works; plant breakdowns and maintenance; emergencies; incidents of non-conforming waste; inspections and remedial work; environmental problems and remedial work; pest / vermin incidents, and unusual incidents;
• o A record shall be kept of the waste received (origin; carrier; date; volume; waste category) and removed (carrier; date; volume; waste category; destination), with the record summarised and submitted to the Regulator monthly;
• o The site shall be manned by persons competent to ensure the Waste Disposal Licence conditions are met, including the inspection of all loads of waste;
• o The normal hours of operation as being between 8am to 5pm Mondays to Fridays, and 8am to 12midday on Saturdays.

2.0 THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE - 2.1 The site has a complicated and involved planning history, and a lengthy review of this is considered necessary before reflecting on the development now proposed.

• 2.2.1 Most recently, a Certificate of Lawful Use (ref. 13/01290/LAW) was granted for the following:

• 1. Vehicle, equipment and material storage; and
• 2. the use of the site in the area hatched in black on the plan dated 23 June 2014 for a waste transfer station for road sweepings, trimmings, top soil and excavated road and inert materials.

• 2.2.2 The red line on 13/01290/LAW is smaller than the current application site, and comprised roughly three quarters of the length of the land and also an extra parcel to the west; it excluded the land to the east where the buildings and highway access is.
• 2.2.3 The area for which the lawfulness regarding the second matter was established comprised roughly 400sqm. It forms a very small percentage of the land edged red on the current application site.
• 2.2.4 It is worth noting in detail the officer's report into that application:

• "3.1 The application has been amended to seek a lawful development certificate for the 'use of the site for vehicle, equipment and material storage and waste transfer station for tipping road sweepings, trimmings, top soil and excavated road materials, inert and organic vegetation.'

"The accompanying drawings have been amended to show the location where tipping occurs and the location vehicles and materials are stored.

• "3.2 The supporting statement asserts that:

"The site was given planning approval in 1993 for a tip/waste transfer station; vehicles have been stored on the site for a minimum of 10 years, the DOI has leased the land for 21 years. The Water Authority have used part of the site as a compound as have DLGE, annual auctions are conducted by Central Marts; the site has been continually used for access by William Christian including access through the deport throughout this time; other contractors have stored containers and equipment on the site throughout the past 10 years.

"Evidence Submitted

• "4.1 Lease between DHPP and Mr and Mrs Christian 3/12/1992 for 5 year rental periods commencing 1992 and ending 2017. Clause 3 of the lease states that 'The Department shall permit the demised premises to be used only as a Department Depot including the storage of plant and materials and for associated purposes relating to the department works operations and for no other purpose without the consent in writing of the Lessor first obtained…' "Letters received:
• "4.2 David North (former Minister of DHPP) of 18 Glen Vine, site has been used by DOI (DHPP) for storage and tipping. In 1991 a lease was agreed between DOI and signed by the Chief Executive and Minister for formalise the situation.
• "4.3 G A Halsall (former director of works of DHPP) Compound was in use in 1982 to park highway construction plant and equipment and to store and stockpile highway materials. The site was used to dispose of inert road materials but this practice ceased due to environmental concerns. A bund mound was placed along the compound to provide a visual barrier to screen the compound from land to the north. It remained an important facility up to my retirement in 2005 and to my knowledge still continues to be so.
• "4.4 Coolingel Farm. The site has always been in existence as a tip, storage area for plan, machinery and vehicles firstly by the highway board, then DHPP and now DOI.
• "4.5 G.A Walmsley (former engineering works manager of DHPP). I can confirm that the site has been continuously used as a tip/transfer site for plant/machinery and equipment since 1985 and perhaps for longer.
• "4.6 C.D. Groundworks have used site for tipping waste, e.g. soil, hardcore, excavation materials and surplus landscaping for more than 10 years and have also stored machinery on the site over this period with the permission of William Christian.
• "4.7 KG Services have used the site for the disposal of material, soil, hardcore etc for longer than 10 years.
• "4.8 Alan Dentith has used Ellerslie Depot for tipping and disposing of excavated material for over 10 years.
• "4.9 Phil Corkish has used the site over 10 years for tipping, disposing of excavation material, hard-core, garden materials, vegetation and soil and site clearance materials.
• "4.10 Rev Janice Ward. Confirms that the depositing of excavation material, soil, trees and roots have been taken from Marown Church, Marown Vicarage and Marown Church Hall over the past 10 years and deposited at Ellerslie Tip by the permission of Mr Christian.
• "4.11 Ballawilleykilley Farm has been using the tip and depot for over 10 years for tipping and disposing of excavation material, hard-core, garden material, vegetation and general soil and site clearance material along with general farm waste. "Photographs
• "4.12 Aerial photographs have been submitted from 1993 onwards. The relevant date is 2003 and the photograph from that date shows vehicles and perhaps machinery parked or stored along both sides of an access was. The area where the tip would be is not clear. The 2006 aerial photograph shows the same although it shows a slightly different land form where the tip would be. The 2012 plan shows cars/plant parked or stored along the site. The area of the tip has extended beyond that in previous applications into a new field.

"Representations

• "5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners: No objections to the application being approved. "The Planning Unit
• "6.1 On Friday October 10 2014 I visited Ellerslie Depot with a view to finding out the use of the buildings on the adjacent site and their relationship with the application site. The purpose of this was to establish the 'planning unit' as part of consideration of the application.

• "6.2 I met with Kevin Jones, an officer in the Operations Division of Fleet Management, who has worked at the site in excess of 20 years, and Gary Saunders, a Construction Manager of the Highways Division who has also worked from the site at Ellerslie for a period of 10 or so years. Mr Jones and Mr Saunders accompanied me on my site visit and responded to my questions regarding the purpose of and occupancy of each building.
• "6.3 There are 7 buildings on the site that I refer to. I shall describe them in order from the most easterly to the most westerly.

• o Building A: Portakabin style building. Used for storage of surveying, design and other equipment used in association with highways.
• o Building B: Staff accommodation dealing with timesheets, wages, purchasing, control room operators, radio communicators to the on-site vehicles; 24 hour weather responders; senior managers relating to Fleet Services, site worker managers, design and construction team.
• o Building C: Joiners shed for making and mending highways and footpath related timber products such as stiles.
• o Building D: Secure material storage, flammable and other hazardous material.
• o Building E: Portakabin style building. Reception area and admin relating to fleet and materials.
• o Building F: Salt barn
• o Building G: Stores (nuts, bolts, high viz jackets), vehicle repair garage, body shop and paintshop, tyre storage and tyre fitting. First floor manager's office and canteen.

• "6.4 The land surrounding the building was primarily a concrete apron, used for manoeuvring and car parking. There was also underground storage of diesel and gas for the vehicles stored in the application site.
• "6.5 In the application site was: some staff parking, Government vehicles (primarily DOI), metal fencing, cones, traffic lights and other material storage. I saw no vehicles or equipment that appeared to belong outside of Government.
• "6.6 I questioned Mr Jones and Mr Saunders on the operation of Ellerslie Depot, specifically whether the Government owned land where the buildings are, operates separately and discretely from the application site or whether the one is dependent on the other. They responded to say that the staff in the depot are in charge of the vehicles and equipment, the people driving the vehicles put in their wages slip to the office, fill up from the fuel storage, fill up from the salt barn, eat in the canteen and so on. If a vehicle is waiting to be serviced or waiting for a part, then the vehicle is parked in the application site and so on and so forth.

Both men stated that it would be difficult to operate if the functions in the two areas were physically in different locations on the island.

"Burdle & Another v Secretary of State

• "6.7 'In determining what was the appropriate planning unit, a useful working rule was to assume that it was the whole unit of occupation, unless and until some smaller unit could be recognised as the site of activities which amounted in substance to a separate use both physically and functionally.' "Tests:

"Firstly, whenever it is possible to recognise a single main purpose of the occupier's use of his land to which secondary activities are incidental or ancillary, the whole unit of occupation should be considered.

"Secondly, it may equally be apt to consider the entire unit of occupation even though the occupier carried on a variety of activities and it is not possible to say that one is incidental or ancillary to another. This is well settled in the case of a composite use where the component activities fluctuate in their intensity from time to time, but the different activities are not confined within separate and physically distinct areas of land.

"Thirdly, however, it may frequently occur that within a single unit of occupation two or more physically separate and distinct areas are occupied for substantially different and unrelated purposes, In such a case each area used for a different main purpose (together with its incidental and ancillary activities) ought to be considered as a separate planning unit.

"Assessment

• "7.1 The information received in terms of letters and aerial photographs indicate clearly that the site has been used for the storage of vehicles and highway works related machinery for a continuous period of 10 years or more. There are no planning approvals that relate to this use and thus it is concluded, that on the balance of probability, the use for the storage of vehicles and plant is lawful. The planning applications that relate to the site show the red-line including the buildings that lie to the south-east and this indicates that these all form one planning unit; that the uses are intertwined, the storage of vehicles and machinery is related to the use that occurs within the buildings.

• "7.2 From what I saw on site and from my questions of Mr Jones and Mr Saunders, I would conclude that the application site and the neighbouring depot function as a single planning unit taking into account the tests set out in the case of Burdle (given above). I believe that the activities carried out in the depot buildings are connected to the vehicle and equipment storage and that the vehicle and equipment storage is necessary for the functioning of the remainder of the depot.
• "7.3 The use of the land for tipping and waste was granted permission by the 1992 approval. The site for which tipping had been granted was greater than that which has been used, but there is no requirement that the whole site is used. However, the remainder of the area has been used for the parking of vehicles and machinery, not in accordance with that approval. Furthermore, the approval was subject to conditions that it be for DHPP only, that no approval is given for the tipping of farm waste and the site is fenced and gated so as to control unauthorised access. These conditions have not been complied with and given this information I consider that either this approval is no longer the one under which the site operates, or the conditions attached thereto have not been complied with for a period of 10 years.

• "7.4 I have borne in mind that Section 6(2)(b) sets out 'the deposit of refuse or waste materials on land involves a material change in its use, notwithstanding that the land is comprised in a site already used for that purpose, if (a) the superficial area of the deposit is extended, or (b) the height of the deposit is extended and exceeds the level of the land adjoining the site. However the site is a waste transfer station, and has been for over 10 years whereby material is tipped, but removed away again and therefore the land is not extended.
• "7.5 Letters have been submitted to indicate that green waste has also been deposited here, but it appears that much have this may have been in the area just outside of the application site, and I am not convinced that the site has been used for organic waste. "Recommendation

• "8.1 That the use of the site for vehicle, equipment and material storage; and the use of part of the site as a waste transfer station for road sweepings, trimmings, top soil and excavated road materials is lawful. It is concluded that the site forms part of a wider planning unit together with the neighbouring buildings known as Ellerslie Depot, however, the application is limited to the site in red and does not extend to the area where the buildings are which is in Government ownership. It is noted that this area is excluded because it is not in the ownership or interest of the applicant, and that permissions have been given for the buildings, consequently a Certificate of Lawfulness is not required for that area.

"8.2 That the continuation of the use of the site in the area hatched in black for a waste transfer station for inert materials is lawful."

• 2.2.5 There is no right of appeal with respect to such applications, and so the decision reached stands as no Petition of Doleance was lodged.
• 2.2.6 It is very important to note that the officer made no reference to the lawfulness of the buildings the subject of the application seeking a Certificate of Lawful Use. However, in view of the fact that physical structures only need be present for 4 years before they become lawful, and no new buildings have been erected since the Certificate of Lawful Use was issued, it seems that the buildings are themselves lawful.

2.3 In addition to the above, the following represents the complete planning history for the site, which is copied verbatim from the case officer's report into the application for the Certificate of Lawful Use:

• o 14877. Approval in principle for plant maintenance depot (1960). It is clear from application that this is for a building and that the site is already used in this way. The detailed application pursuant to this was 15746.
• o 85/01208. Reposition of Roller Shutter Door - Ellerslie Depot
• o 91/04181. Alterations and extension to administration block DHPP, Ellerslie Depot
• o 92/00667. The continuation of existing site to dispose of inert waste. Refused.
• o 92/01373. Controlled tipping of farm refuse and road sweepings. Granted subject to conditions that i) it may only be used for tipping road sweepings, trimmings, top soil, excavated road materials only; this permission may be exercised only by the Department of Highways Ports and Properties; no approval is hereby given or implied to the tipping of farm refuse' and ii) the site must be fenced and gated such as to prevent uncontrolled access and tipping.'
• o 97/00486. Extensions and alterations to transport and plant section. (of building). Approved. A condition of approval states that the building must be used only for the purposes stated in the application. (Red line covers the whole site)
• o 01/01483. Erection of salt barn. Approved
• o 03/00647. Erection of a temporary porta-cabin linked to the engineering office. Approved for 4 years.

• o 03/01728. Canteen Extension and alterations to administrative block, at Ellerslie Depot Stores, Garages and Offices. Approved. Not all of the red line is shown so the full extent of the application site is unclear, however it is implied that it covers the site as shown in the 97 application. The report only considered the extent of the building. The use of the site was described as administrative block, Ellerslie depot.

3.0 THE PROPOSAL - 3.1 Full planning approval is sought for "Change of use of site for vehicle, equipment and material storage and waste transfer station for tipping road sweepings, trimmings, top soil and excavated materials, inert and organic vegetation". As noted, the application site includes many of the buildings, associated hardstanding, parking and some scrubland and surrounding landscaping on the wider depot site. - 3.2 It should also be remembered that the area of land to which a Lawful Use was granted for vehicle, equipment and material storage related to the entirety of the site, though of course this site is different to the one now under the current application. The Lawful Use for a waste transfer station for road sweepings, trimmings, top soil and excavated road and inert materials was contained within a very much smaller area - this area, however, is contiguous with that shown on the current application although it is not immediately clear why this land should remain hatched.

• 3.3.1 The application has been submitted with an Environmental Impact Assessment forming part of a larger Planning Statement in accordance with the requirements of Environment Policy 24 and Waste Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. The EIA has been prepared by the applicant's agent.
• 3.3.2 Paragraph 2.9 of the EIA states: "The application seeks to continue the use as established in the lawful use approval. It is not intended to change anything on the site or its present use".
• 3.3.3 It then splits its assessment into several sections: landscape and visual impact; ecology and ground conditions; drainage and flood risk; noise, and traffic and transport, before summarising three issues: waste transfer station; affects [sic] on the environment, and storage of materials.
• 3.3.4 In essence, the EIA states that the proposal is acceptable in respect of each of the sections, noting inter alia that: the B35 highway is bounded by a stone wall that restricts views into the fields to some degree; the site cannot be seen from the valley to the north; there is an extensive drainage system in place as part of previously approved works; the hardstanding is partially tarmac and concrete and stone; the waste transfer facility is constructed with concrete blocks, and grease and oil traps are also as originally approved; the continued use will not affect the adjacent watercourse; the River Dhoo is several metres below the level of the site and so will not affect flooding; the site will (continue to) be open between 8am and 5:30pm Monday to Friday and the noise associated with it will be vehicle movements rather than excavations or mechanical issues, though the waste transfer station will require a JCB or similar on a daily basis; the existing access has sightlines that have been the same for the last ten years; vegetation will be accepted from the general public and contractors by appointment only and converted into agricultural fertiliser - the quantities are anticipated to be <4 loads per day comprising a maximum of 8 cubic metres per day; hardcore will be accepted from the general public and contractors by appointment only to the same volume as the vegetative waste, amounting to a maximum of 12.8 tonnes per day; the hardstanding is drained in accordance with PA 92/01373; materials to be stored include: agricultural supplies (the agent subsequently confirmed these to be "Fencing, drainage, pipes, timber, gates, machinery and general building materials for use on the farm"); ground work supplies such as pipes, manhole covers, concrete kerbs and blocks and "generally the same materials that have been stored on this site for the past 10 years or more"; materials are for storage and not retailing purposes; all materials will

• be non-hazardous and stored in designated hardstanding areas as at present, and no liquids will be stored on site.
• 3.3.5 What is outlined above is a summary of what is described in the application as an EIA but which in reality is more of a Planning Statement as it provides a commentary on the acceptability of what is proposed rather than a factual description. Moreover, its detail is really quite limited; the Island has no specific Regulations or expectations of what an EIA should include, but the Strategic Plan makes clear that in advance of a Planning Policy Statement being issued on the matter "the Department will adopt current practice from England and Wales" (Appendix 5, page 130). On this basis, it might have been reasonably expected for the EIA submitted with this application to reflect Schedule 4 of England's Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, which sets out "information for inclusion in environmental statements" - an 'environmental statement' being an alternative name for an EIA. (While a set of 2017 Regulations came into force, this occurred after the submission of the application the subject of this report.) This "information" is set out below:

- "PART 1

• "1. Description of the development, including in particular—

• "(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole development and the land-use requirements during the construction and operational phases;
• "(b) a description of the main characteristics of the production processes, for instance, nature and quantity of the materials used;
• "(c) an estimate, by type and quantity, of expected residues and emissions (water, air and soil pollution, noise, vibration, light, heat, radiation, etc) resulting from the operation of the proposed development.

• "2. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.
• "3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the development, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.
• "4. A description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment, which should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, permanent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the development, resulting from—

• "(a) the existence of the development;
• "(b) the use of natural resources;
• "(c) the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste,

"and the description by the applicant or appellant of the forecasting methods used to assess the effects on the environment.

• "5. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.
• "6. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 5 of this Part.

• "7. An indication of any difficulties (technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered by the applicant or appellant in compiling the required information.

- "PART 2

• "1. A description of the development comprising information on the site, design and size of the development.
• "2. A description of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy significant adverse effects.
• "3. The data required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is likely to have on the environment.
• "4. An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for the choice made, taking into account the environmental effects.
• "5. A non-technical summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Part."

• 3.3.6 The information specified in Part 2 must be included within an EIA, while any such information as might be reasonably sought as indicated in Part 1 would also be provided. It is usual for such reports to be prepared by consultants specialising in them.

• 3.3.7 The information provided with the current application does cover a number of these bases but in rather less specificity than might be expected. Value judgements are also attached to the descriptions of the likely impacts within the EIA, which is also unusual.
• 4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

4.1 As is often the case with the 1982 Development Plan, it is difficult to be absolutely certain about the zoning of the entirety of the site. The narrowest part, to the east where it joins the Old Church Road, would certainly appear to be within an area zoned as Existing Industrial Use - this area of zoning would appear to be deeper (north-south) than the application site, and to the south joins an area zoned as an Area for Surface Mineral Working (Stone). It is possible that the 'dog-leg' element of the Ellerslie depot itself falls within this latter zoning to some extent but certainly not to a significant degree - in any case, this is not within the application site. Consequently, some of the proposal might be said to fall within a zoning that would mean it would ordinarily be considered as acceptable in principle, while the remainder (and probably the slight majority) of the site falls within land not zoned for any particular purpose.

4.2 The entirety of the application site - including that within the area zoned as Existing Industrial Use - is also within an Area of High Landscape Value. - 4.3 Also of note is that the site lies within a much larger area zoned as 'Nature Conservation Zones, Nature Reserves & Sites of Ecological Importance for Conservation'. - 4.4 The final designation on the 1982 Development Plan is the Primary Overheard Extra High Tension Line that runs roughly northwest-southeast and across the easternmost part of the site. - 4.5 In view of the above, and reflecting on the nature of the proposal, a number of policies within the Strategic Plan apply. Those with which the Committee will be familiar are General Policies 2 and 3; Environment Policies 1, 2, 4 and 22, Business Policy 1, Transport Policy 7 - 4.6 The less commonly referred-to policies are set out in the following paragraphs.

4.7 Environment Policy 5 states in full:

"In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to:

• (a) minimise disturbance;
• (b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and
• (c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated."

4.8 The supporting text to Environment Policy 24 reads as follows:

• "7.18.1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development on the environment are fully understood and taken into account before the development is allowed to go ahead. It is a process by which information about the likely environmental effects of certain types of development is collected, assessed and taken into account by the developer (as part of project design) and by the planning authority (in determining the acceptability of the application). In cases where developments are likely to have significant environmental effects, whether public or private, by virtue of their nature, size or location, EIA's will be required and the general principles set out in Appendix 5 should be followed.
• "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.

• "7.18.3 A Planning Policy Statement will be issued specifying the manner in which the Department intends to deal with applications which should be subject to EIA. Pending the adoption of the proposed Planning Policy Statement the Department will adopt current practice on EIA's from England and Wales set out in the publication "Environmental Impact Assessment: A Guide to Procedures".

4.9 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."

4.10 Transport Policy 1 states in full:

"New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."

4.11 Transport Policy 3 states in full:

"New development on or around existing and former rail routes should not compromise their attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes, or cycle / leisure footpath routes."

4.12 Transport Policy 8 states in full:

"The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment."

4.13 Waste Policy 1 reads in full as follows:

"Waste management installations, including landfill sites, civic amenity sites and facilities for the bulking up, separation, recycling, or recovery or materials from waste will be permitted provided that:

• (a) there is an acknowledged need for the proposal in accordance with the approved Waste Management Strategy;
• (b) there is no unacceptable adverse impact on local residents in terms of visual amenity, dust, noise, or vibration or as a result of the traffic generated thereby;
• (c) there would be no unacceptable adverse effect on:

• i. landscapes, geology/geomorphology and features of special interest or attraction;
• ii. Ancient Monuments or their settings;
• iii. Registered Buildings or their settings, or features of architectural importance;
• iv. the character and appearance of Conservation Areas;
• v. sites of archaeological interest;
• vi. sites containing species or habitats of international, national or local importance;
• vii. land drainage and water resources;
• viii. areas of woodland or the Island's timber resources; or
• ix. designated National Heritage Areas.

• (d) the proposal is acceptable in terms of access arrangements and highway safety;
• (e) in the case of landfill sites working shall be in accordance with a phased scheme of restoration and landscaping;
• (f) the proposal does not sterilize other significant mineral deposits; and that
• (g) the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on airport safety by, for example, increasing the risk of bird strike.

"Landfill will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is no alternative method for managing that waste. An application involving the installations or facilities referred to in this Policy will require the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

• 5.1.1 Highway Services within the Department of Infrastructure initially offered no objection to the proposal in comments received 01.03.2016. While they now offer no objection to the application, it is considered appropriate to set out their comments throughout the process in full to understand the evolution of the information submitted with the application as well as Highway Services' views on it. This is because of the importance of highway safety to the development proposed.

• 5.1.2 Clarification was sought on how they reached this conclusion, and they commented as follows:

"I have reviewed the information and it looks like the application is actually for a new commercial venture rather than a continuation of the storage facility used by Ellerslie Depot as I first thought.

"This report will concentrate on the impact on the highway only rather than considering the impact on the operation of the depot and offices that the proposal will use for access; these matters will be considered by another officer from Highway Services.

"The proposal is for a waste storage and transfer station to be used by members of the public and contractors. The facility is accessed by travelling through an existing highways depot with associated offices, storage and parking.

"The facility will have 2 full time members of staff: other traffic will be generated from vegetation and hardcore drop off; other material / equipment / vehicle drop off and pick up; servicing; removal of waste from site for disposal or re-use. The only trip generation mentioned within the application is for vegetation and hardcore at 4 loads each per day equating to 16 vehicle trips; no trips have been assigned to the other uses listed. The trip generation for analysis within the Transport Assessment is stated as 4 vehicle trips per hour for an operating day of 8am till 5.30pm equating to 38 vehicle trips per day.

"It is possible that the applicant expects less vehicle trips than this in a day and has applied the 4 vehicle trips per hour as the maximum trips expected within any one hour i.e. some hours will have less trips and some hours will have no trips; however this has not been made clear and has led to confusion as to the actual expected traffic generation of the proposal. There is no justification for this trip generation and as such it is difficult to accept.

"The Transport Assessment is misleading and incomplete."

• 5.1.3 Subsequently, Highway Services commented on 22.08.2016 as follows:

"This site is obviously industrial with limited scope to accept travel to or from the site on foot due to the access being through an adjacent industrial facility under separate ownership; any reference to sustainability in terms of reducing vehicle movements is irrelevant and misleading

• as is the definition of 'walkable neighbourhood' and the use of Manual for Streets. The conclusion at paragraph 3.9 appears to refer to a completely different site; there is no railway line to the south of the site.

"Servicing arrangements in paragraph 4.2 are stated as unchanged; however the exiting arrangements are not specified and therefore cannot be included in the assessment.

"The traffic generation in paragraph 4.3 has no justification and is therefore unreliable.

• "Paragraph 4.2 mentions that the traffic flows from the proposed development at Ballaglonney farm has been taken into account, however there is no mention of the proposed development

at Close Jairg Beg accessing onto Old Church Road has not been included as would be expected.

• "Paragraph 4.3 states that modelling has been carried out based on the existing traffic movements and the existing plus the development, however no modelling data has been provided to allow verification of the accuracy of the modelling.

"The Transport Assessment appears to be a mixture of a previous TA for a different site and new information; there is no reference to the qualifications and competency of the person who

produced the document and carried out the modelling. The assessment is not accepted by Highway Services as acceptable.

"A decision should be deferred until an appropriate transport assessment has been provided."

• 5.1.4 In response to those concerns, the agent to the application provided a Transport Statement. On 8th August 2017, Highway Services commented as follows: "Following receipt of additional information date stamped 12/07/17.

"A transport statement has been provided that provides an estimate of traffic generation derived from first principles based on the available storage space.

"The number of trips expected from the proposal are at a level where they will not have a significant impact on the capacity of the surrounding road network; they will have a more significant impact on the access route through the DOI depot.

"Highway Services does not oppose this application."

5.2 The Senior Biodiversity Officer within DEFA was contacted for his views on the grounds that the application site falls within a wider Conservation Area. He commented as follows:

"The old zoning is very out of date, but the central valley wetlands remain very much of interest. I think that the area proposed is already damaged/used as a depot, so there's nothing really to comment on. If they were taking in new land, then I'd look closer, and other officers may wish to clarify that nothing toxic will be handled or at least that provisions are in place to ensure that it can't get into the river and affect the water quality."

These comments were received on 16th May 2016.

5.3 The Fisheries Directorate within DEFA was contacted for their views given concerns raised by local people in this respect. The Fisheries Development Manager commented as follows:

"This planning application did not raise significant concerns when considered by fisheries on its publication in February. This was because the development did not seem to impact on the river bed or banks (being 9m or greater from the watercourse) and also because the application stated that drainage systems were in place to ensure that run-off did not drain directly into the River Dhoo. It might perhaps be helpful to see plans of the drainage system so that this could be checked? The application also mentions build-up of land and use of concrete block walls to reduce run off to the river, again a more detailed plan of how this relates to tipping areas might be informative.

"The Environmental Protection Unit would be the most appropriate department to comment on the potential pollution implications of any effluent reaching the river."

These comments were received on 13th May 2016.

5.4 The Environmental Protection Officer within DEFA's EPU also responded on 13th May 2016:

"Just to confirm any discharge to a watercourse consisting of anything other than uncontaminated surface water will require a discharge licence.

"[The Fisheries Development Manager] mentions the use of concrete walls in the email below. The use of concrete near a riverbank must be carefully considered because of the high

alkalinity. Concrete run-off has already been responsible for a large fish kill on the island, several years ago."

5.5 Manx National Heritage raise concern with respect to the chronology of the environmental statement, which seems to be at odds with the aerial survey, and which they state calls into question the claim the site has been in the same continuous use for 10 years. These comments were received 18th March 2016.

• 5.6.1 Marown Commissioners objected to the application in comments received 18th March 2016: generation of additional lorry traffic is to be discouraged given the number of vehicles parked on Old Church Road, and there is a discrepancy in the documentation; access arrangements are not good with poor visibility for traffic coming down the hill on the exit is poor; the proposed use is likely to create a noise and smell nuisance; run-off might pollute the River Dhoo; the materials proposed for tipping here should be taken to the 'energy-from-waste' plant.

• 5.6.2 The Commissioners maintained their objection to the application in comments received 21st July 2017, their concerns being summarised below:

• o The Transport Statement is fatally flawed, with each table as being of tonnage and vehicle movements and it is impossible to judge the anticipated vehicle traffic;
• o As the TS does not properly define what each table represents, the Commissioners will continue to object on the bases of their letter of 17th March 2016, and
• o As a matter of principle the Commissioners would be disposed to object to any application that would result in additional vehicular traffic on Old Church Road, which is effectively a single-track road due to parked vehicles;
• o The Statement also suggests an additional anticipated average of 36 vehicular movements per day, equating to 4 per working day, and this is not acceptable.

• 5.6.3 The Commissioners maintained their objection in comments received 22nd September 2017, their additional concerns summarised below:

• "the Commissioners wish to pint [sic] out that the tip area of the site is growing rather close to the River Dhoo with consequent risks of river pollution", and o There is serious concern that the application was due to be considered by the Planning Committee on 18th September 2017 when the period for additional comments were still open, meaning that the planning officer had completed the report prior to the close of comments, lowering the Commissioners' confidence that proper consideration is being given to the application.

• 5.7.1 Letters of objection have been received from residents of the following addressed in Crosby:

• o Eyreton Cottages, Eyreton Road (approximately 1000m northeast of the entrance to application site; comments received 17th March 2016);
• o 6 Eyremont Terrace (approximately 350m north of the entrance to application site; comments received 17th March 2016);
• o 3 Richmond Terrace (approximately 400m north of the entrance to application site; comments received 17th March 2016);
• o 5 Crosby Terrace (approximately 375m north of the entrance to the application site; comments received 23rd March 2016);

• 5.7.2 The comments made can be summarised as follows - these are set out in no particular order:

• o There is a contradiction on the application form with respect to the answers given to Questions 3b, 9a, 9b and 11;
• o The application states lawful use has been established and no change of use is intended but outlines significant changes in staffing levels, the installation of a gate and extensive
• opening hours;
• o No reference has been made to Old School Hill, which is the closest road to the site, and the length of operation and opening hours proposed are significant given the rural location and quality of the nearby highway;
• o The transport statement has no professional or expert accreditation and therefore has limited credibility, and nor does it give a qualitative assessment of the highways nearby or their ability to accommodate additional traffic;
• o Rainwater runoff is stated as being disposed of via the existing river but the application form states the site is far enough away to not result in flood risk - these comments are not compatible and further drainage work needs to be carried out;
• o No pre-application advice has been sought;
• o Insufficient reference has been made to the Ballaglonney development ['Approval in principle for the construction of 28 dwellings and provision of retail space addressing siting and means of access' - PA 15/00775/A] and the impact of both these proposals on the adjoining highways and the amenity of Crosby itself;
• o Insufficient information has been given in respect of the disposal of waste and its detail (content, weight, height, toxicity, volume, appearance, smell or other characteristics);
• o No information has been provided as to the environmental impact of the proposed development;
• o The statement that the Old Church and Eyreton Roads and their junction "do not carry significant volumes of traffic" is disputed, as is the view that they are suitable for the kinds of vehicle for the type of vehicle that will visit the site;
• o There is no reference to enclosures or other structures to reduce aerial dissipation of stored materials or waste;
• o Will there really be no new services for lights, telephone cables or water pipes?
• o There is a clear risk of contamination to the River Dhoo;
• o New development is unlikely to be connected to the existing local authority sewer, which is already operating above capacity;
• o Has a tree or root survey been undertaken?
• o The applicant is required to advise whether or not pre-application advice has been sought;
• o It is not clear if the planning notices have been displayed for the requisite 21 days;
• o There has been no consultation with Crosby residents;
• o Parents of children who use the playground and playgroup will have an opinion and the increase in road use;
• o The environmental impact assessment is meaningless;
• o No assessment has been done on the existing grease and oil traps;
• o No flood risk, topological, geological or soil surveys have been done;
• o How will the limits of wagonloads be enforced?
• o No assessment has been done on the drainage services to be used that were built in the early 1990s;
• o The reference to the site being a walkable distance to a range of services and facilities is meaningless and has perhaps been copies from a previous planning application?
• o How does the four 7.5-tonne wagons per hour reference tally with the proposed limit of

• 8 loads per day?

• o The site would open from 8am - what assessment has been done on the regular transit
• of wagons on the playground and nursery?
• o The playgroup / nursery operates daily while there are also a bowling club and the regular hiring of the Methodist Chapel's hall for other uses;
• o The already busy "footfall" and vehicular traffic does not bode well from a safety point
• of view;

• o Please consider the huge environmental impact on our beautiful countryside and the
• obvious safety concerns before approving the application;
• o There is no risk impact assessment within the application;
• o There is no detail on the exact nature or extent of the inert and organic matters to be disposed of / treated at the site now and in the future;
• o The site is to the south of the village and prevailing winds are predominantly south / southwesterly and if odour control is not properly considered this would impact on residents' quality of life;
• o Any extension to 'Infrastructure' facilities in a green field location must detract from the beauty of the area.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The proposal reflects the same use as that for which a Certificate of Lawful Use was issued in December 2014. One very key point is that the lawfulness of the use relates to its continuation and, should the use cease even for a change of operators, then the Certificate of Lawful Use issued to the site could no longer be relied upon and any such use could no longer be lawfully undertaken. It is perhaps for this reason that the application has been submitted. - 6.2 It must be very strongly borne in mind that just because a use has been deemed 'lawful' this does not make it acceptable. A lawful use as established via the issuance of a Certificate of Lawfulness is one regarding which no planning approval has been issued but no enforcement action can be taken owing to the time elapsed since the use began. - 6.3 In assessing an application for Lawful Use, there is no regard had to the Planning merits of the proposal. The assessment made is purely with respect to factual evidence in respect of the uninterrupted length of which a use has been continuing. - 6.4 On this basis, it is clear that the proposal represents a difficult balance to be struck. The buildings on the site are lawful, and have planning approval. The uses being undertaken were lawful at the time the application seeking a Certificate of Lawfulness was submitted. The use of some of the site for industrial purposes remains acceptable by virtue of the zoning of the land there. The issuance of a Certificate of Lawful Use must be a material consideration as is the fact that the use that is now being applied for continued for a period of in excess of ten years (and more than likely 20 years) before an enforcement case was opened with apparently little if any complaint. On the face of it, this suggests that the impacts arising from that use are not hugely noticeable. Against that, of course, it cannot be forgotten that the Development Plan is clear that land not zoned for development - such as this site - should be protected for its own sake. - 6.5 The application site lies within land zoned for industrial use and also on 'white land', meaning it is not zoned for any particular purpose. However, even the industrial use zoning does not directly relate to the use proposed: "vehicle, equipment and material storage and waste transfer station for tipping road sweepings, trimmings, top soil and excavated materials, inert and organic vegetation". This is not to say the use and the industrial zoning are directly incompatible, but the fact remains that there is land specifically zoned for the surface disposal of waste on the 1982 Development Plan. It is also absolutely the case that the use proposed for the land not zoned for any particular purpose is not in accordance with the 1982 Development Plan. In coming to any such view, a consideration of the detail of the proposal is therefore required. - 6.6 The issues at hand are as follows: (1) the principle of the development proposed, following on from which are: (2) visual impact; (3) contamination from the site; (4) highway safety; (5) biodiversity; (6) flooding, and (7) the effect on local living conditions. In coming to a decision, regard will be had to the fact that the proposed use has been taking place on the site for some years to date.

6.7 On the Isle of Man, the requirement to produce an EIA relating to planning applications is a matter of policy rather than legislation. However, the relevant Strategic Plan policy in relation to EIA indicates that UK best practice should be followed. The EIA submitted with this PA clearly does not do this, in particular it does not set out a transparent risk assessment, mitigation or residual risk, and has been prepared with limited expert input. Given the scale of the proposal, however, and the lack of objections from statutory consultees, it is not felt that this in itself is a substantive reason for refusal. The principle - 6.8 All of the land is zoned as being of High Landscape Value or Scenic Significance, while roughly (and perhaps slightly more than) half is not zoned for any particular purpose. The remainder is zoned as Existing Industrial Use, and it is considered that the proposal would comply with that latter zoning. It is, however, clearly contrary to the remaining zoning of 'white land'. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the zoning of the Development Plan, and this could form a substantive reason to refuse the application. - 6.9 However, it should be considered as to whether or not there are material reasons as to why such a conclusion should not be reached in this case. Visual impact - 6.10 Other than its highway entrance, which is eminently visible from the Old Church Road, the site cannot be seen from public positions. As such, it would be difficult to argue that the proposal has an unacceptable visual impact. While it remains the case that the countryside should be protected for its own sake, EP1 and EP2 also set out that where the impact thereon is limited to a degree sufficient to ensure it has no adverse impact on its character and appearance then development may not be judged unacceptable as long as it also complies with the other policies of the Strategic Plan. A positive judgement in respect of the visual impact does not set aside the general principles protecting the countryside for its own sake. Contamination - 6.11 This is an issue raised by several correspondents and also addressed by the Environmental Protection Unit, with the latter noting previous issues with the site but not raising an objection to the current proposal. The fact remains that there is separate legislation to address issues of contamination and although the concerns raised are understood, the professional advice received to date indicates that a fundamental objection on this point would be difficult to sustain at appeal. Highway safety - 6.12 Highway Services' views are relied upon. The fact the site has been used for the purposes for which approval is now sought for some time and with low numbers of recorded incidents along with acceptable visibility is noted. - 6.13 There does not seem to be any reason to object to the application on the basis of highway safety. Biodiversity - 6.14 The comments of the Senior Biodiversity Officer are noted. There does not seem to be any reason as to why the application should be refused on grounds of impact on local biodiversity. Flooding

6.15 There does not seem to be a reason to object to the scheme on flooding grounds. The MUA have issued no formal comment on the proposal but in view of the fact that the existing hardstanding and structures are not proposed to alter under the proposal - and it is to be remembered that the hardstanding and structures benefit from planning approval - and so the new use (which, again, has been going on for over a decade) could not be reasonably concluded to alter from this situation. Effect on local living conditions - 6.16 Again, there does not seem to be a reason to object to the proposal on this ground. There are some dwellings along the eastern side of Upper Church Road but the nearest is over 100m away, and no objection has been received from them in respect of the application. The site under consideration for residential development to the north - the Ballaglonney development referred to by one of the objectors - would bring a number of dwellings closer to the site (roughly 200m at the nearest). While these are large distances, concerns with respect to aerosolised particulates are understandable as these can clearly travel such large distances. - 6.17 Again, though, it is noted that the site had been operating for in excess of a decade before concerns were raised so it must be concluded that the impact from this particular issue is insufficient on which to base a refusal. Moreover, and similarly with respect to contamination, it is to be remembered that separate legislation covers odour control - and the team that administers that control has issued no concern with respect to the proposal. Summary - 6.18 Where development is proposed on land not zoned for the development proposed, it is customary for the applicant to outline the objective need for the development, so as a balance can be struck between this and the provisions of the Development Plan. It is also customary for applicants to outline what other sites they have considered for the proposal. In this circumstance, though, it would seem unreasonable to request an explanation as to where else the applicant had looked to operate the business from as the use had been operating on the site for many years. Moreover, it had been operating unlawfully for at least ten and possibly 20 years without complaint to the Planning Enforcement team. - 6.19 However, to turn the question around, it might reasonably be asked where such a use would ideally be located. As a general principle a site that was located away from residential development, with a safe highway access, and had limited (or no) adverse effect in visual, biodiversity or flooding terms would be preferable. A site on an industrial estate might also ordinarily be considered a good location, but in some ways a completely isolated site where any environmental or highway safety impacts from the use of the site would be sequestered from as many people as possible - both local residents but also employees and customers of businesses on industrial estates - might be better. - 6.20 It is perhaps wrong to be too hypothetical about where an ideal location would be, but the issues raised by this proposal have been outlined above and although the concerns raised by local people and the Commissioners are noted, there does not seem to be sufficient reason to object to the proposals on the concerns made. Though the concerns are completely understandable, in view of the level of harm that would seem likely arise, and in view of the positions of the professionals in both Highway Services and the Environmental Protection Unit, it is likely to be difficult to sustain an objection on the grounds of the detail of the proposal. - 6.21 Of greater relevance, then, is the principle of such a use. The applicant has not explained why such a use would be necessary to establish on the site: as stated, the existing use is evidentially needed and is lawful. Should the current operator pull out of the site, the very specific nature of the use would appear to be such that it might be difficult to find a new operator who wanted to make use of the site for those specific purposes and nothing else.

• There must therefore be some concern about the future use of the site if, exceptionally, planning approval is granted.
• 6.22 Appropriate management of land is the purpose of the planning system. It is not always the case that there is an acceptable use for land and, while it would be wrong to dismiss a future, alternative use of the site as a concern, to give too much weight to this where there is no immediate prospect of a different use coming forward would be inappropriate. It could be difficult to make an argument for a very different kind of use on the land, for example, by referring to part (c) of General Policy 3 given that the site is largely out of public view. The fact that the site might be considered acceptable for the particular use proposed by no means indicates it is acceptable for any other purpose, and any approval issued to this application would not be such as to mean that any alternative use would also be acceptable.
• 6.23 It should also be remembered that the proposal appears to be speculative.
• 6.24 Given that the waste element of the proposal is covered by a Waste Disposal Licence, this element is therefore covered by separate controls beyond the remit of planning. The duplication of this level of control via planning conditions is therefore unnecessary.

- 7.0 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 A fundamental basis of the planning system is the question of 'harm'. The assessment of 'harm' can be set out in a number of different ways, but in the case of this scheme the main issues relate to the environmental effects such a proposal may have. The main concerns in this respect are those of protected species, watercourses, highway safety and visual impact. Each matter (with the exception of the last one) has been consulted on with the relevant experts and the application has demonstrated its likely limited impact or, and perhaps more importantly, that there are other controls that exist within primary legislation that can address any concern that arises. With respect to the visual impact, the site is extremely well-hidden from public positions.

7.2 A certain lack of harm can also be deduced from the length of time the proposed use was operating without apparent complaint. - 7.3 Given the above, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

- 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material;
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure, and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The decision-maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material, and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 02.10.2017

Signed : S BUTLER 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.