Officer Report

Application No.: 15/01068/B Applicant: Manx Utilities Proposal: Installation of two bulk storage fuel tanks to replace existing Site Address: Peel Power Station Mill Road Peel Isle of Man IM5 1TE Case Officer : Miss Melissa McKnight Photo Taken: 06.10.2015 Site Visit: 06.10.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an area of land to the west of Peel Power Station. The land is within the ownership of Manx Utilities who also own and operate the nearby power station with which this application is associated. - 1.2 The application sits to the east of Mill Road and to the north of Manx Utilities cooling ponds and store. To the east of the site is the oil terminal and to the north east of the site is the main power station. - 1.3 Currently on site are two bulk oil tanks and bund that are visible in their entirety from the public highway.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the replacement of the two existing 4,500 tonne bulk storage fuel tanks with two new 1,500 tonne tanks. Manx Utilities need to hold 3000 tonnes of gasoil liquid fuel at Peel Power Station as part of the infrastructure necessary to give the Isle of Man security of electrical supply in the event of failure of the interconnecting cable to the UK. The existing tanks are due major refurbishment and are now excessively large for the capacity required. The cost of refurbishment versus the cost of building two new smaller tanks has been reviewed and it was concluded that it would be more cost effective to replace the existing tanks. - 2.2 The new tanks will be constructed from new materials and to standard BS EN 14015. The tanks are contained within a bund that is designed to hold more than 110% of the capacity of a tank. During construction, the tanks would appear red for a period of time as it is necessary to use a red primer coat. The final finish of the tanks will be grey, as is the case with the existing. - 2.3 The new tanks would be constructed within the footprint of the existing tanks. The tanks would be almost 4 metres lower in height and would have a diameter of approximately 12.2 metres, almost 6.5 metres less than the existing. The dimensions shown on the drawings are indicative as a detailed design is yet to be completed. - 2.4 The tanks would be built on a bitumen sand base incorporating an oil proof membrane and a leak detection system.

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Planning approval was granted in 1995 under PA 95/01037/B for the alterations and extensions to existing fuel tank bund.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Industrial under the Peel Local Plan 1989. - 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains five policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

Environment Policy 7 states: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which would not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:

• a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality;
• b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted;
• c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and
• d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species".

Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and

details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4."

Environment Policy 22 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:

• i) Pollution of sea, surface or groundwater;
• ii) Emissions of airborne pollutants; and
• iii) Vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

Energy Policy 1 states: "Proposals for the provision of energy supply facilities or development arising as incidental to such facilities will be expected to comply with all other policies of this Plan to ensure that any effect on the environment is minimised whilst ensuring that the community's needs for energy are satisfied."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Peel Town Commissioners do not object to the current planning application (01/10/2015). - 5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services have indicated that the planning application has no highway implications (01/10/2015). - 5.3 A representation has been received from the owner and/or occupier of No. 18 Stanley Road in a letter dated 12th October regarding the strategic decision to reduce the size of the tanks and there no longer being a government requirement to carry a strategic reserve. It is felt that the additional tank space/diesel could be sold on to external parties.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS - 6.1 As the application site lies within the Neb Flood Zone, it was felt necessary to contact Manx Utilities regarding the impact of the development upon the flood zone. Manx Utilities have stated in an email dated 18th November 2015, as the development is within a boundary which is not being changed the flood risk remains the same. - 6.2 The Environmental Appraisal submitted with the planning application states that there is a risk of pollution to the River Neb and as such it was felt appropriate to consult Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture: Fisheries for their comments. DEFA: Fisheries confirmed in an email dated 6th October 2015 that the control measures listed cover the areas of concern. DEFA: Fisheries further state that they would request that the method statement is checked and agreed by inland fisheries before any works commence and the pollution incident response plan should include the contact details of DEFA: Inland fisheries and Environmental Protection in the case of a pollution incident.

7.0 ASSESSMENT - 7.1 It is considered that there are four fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application which are set out below:

1) The visual impact of the proposed tanks;

• 3) The impact upon the surrounding area and nearby neighbouring residents;
• 4) The impact upon the nearby watercourse; and

4) The impact upon the flood zone.

- 7.2 VISUAL IMPACT

• 7.2.1 As already mentioned, the existing tanks are wholly visible within the street scene given their size and position. The proposed storage fuel tanks would still be wholly visible from a number of public thoroughfares but would be considerably smaller than the existing
• 7.2.2 The proposed fuel tanks would without doubt have a lesser visual impact than the existing. It is understood from the supporting statement submitted with the planning application that the existing fuel tanks were erected during the 1950's and along with the power station, have been established in this area for a long period of time. For that reason, the proposed tanks would not appear incongruous within this location and would be a significant improvement over the existing.
• 7.3 IMPACT UPON SURROUNDING AREA AND NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

• 7.3.1 The applicant has put together a document outlining the environmental considerations of the proposal that includes noise, air quality and odour.
• 7.3.2 Regarding noise, the applicant has stated that once operational, the new oil storage tanks are not expected to add to the overall noise levels in the area. The applicant has included projected noise of construction in which has been identified as not exceeding 75db(A) which is equivalent to a vacuum cleaner at 3 metres. The applicant has also provided information regarding construction times which are envisaged to be 08.00 - 18.00 Monday to Friday, 08.00 - 14.00 Saturday with no work taking place on Sundays or public holidays.
• 7.3.3 Whilst noise generated from construction is not a material planning consideration, it is considered that the overall construction of the tanks would not be of a level to cause a nuisance to nearby neighbouring residential units. Furthermore, the fact that the new oil storage tanks are not expected to add to the overall noise levels in the area is considered acceptable in preserving nearby residential amenity and other users of the locality.
• 7.3.4 Turning to air quality, the applicant has explained that the replacement oil storage tanks are not expected to place an additional load on the local air quality. The tanks will contain gasoil which is a high density fuel and less volatile than other fuels. The replacement tanks would be vented, as the existing tanks are, however they will contain less fuel and have a reduced surface area, reducing potential for the release of volatile gases. The refilling of the tanks will be infrequent, every

3 to 6 months, and will be in small quantities to minimise release to atmosphere. The applicant has also explained that dust construction control measures will be implemented to reduce the amount of dust arising and limit its effects upon the surrounding area. On this basis, it is considered that the air quality of the area would not be harmed as a result of the proposal.

• 7.3.5 With regards to odour, this is difficult to measure unless the tanks are in full operation. If it is necessary to establish whether an odour is a statutory nuisance the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture would be contacted for their own assessment.
• 7.3.6 The applicant has stated any odour should be less than the current tanks as the air space in the tank will be smaller and that there will be very little odour from the tank, as gas oil has low volatility. However when the tank is being filled, vapour will be expelled from the vent. This vapour is not considered hazardous or flammable and will vent from the top of the tank.
• 7.3.7 The applicant has further stated that during construction, the impact of any odour will be minimised by ensuring that oil storage facilities are sealed and not exposed to the atmosphere and spillages would be avoided where possible and cleaned up immediately.

- 7.4 WATERCOURSE AND FLOOD ZONE

• 7.4.1 To the west of the application site is the River Neb. The applicant has mentioned that during the construction there is a risk of pollution to the River Neb from spills and leaks from plant and

• equipment and decommissioning of oil storage tanks if not properly controlled. The applicant has also listed a number of measures that would be implemented to control this risk.
• 7.4.2 At the closest point, the site is 13 metres from the watercourse and as such no Development within 9 metres of a watercourse form has been completed. As outlined under paragraph 6 of this report, DEFA: Fisheries have no objections in relation to the proposed works from a fisheries perspective.

- 7.5 FLOOD ZONE

• 7.5.1 As previously mentioned the site lies within the Neb flood zone that has a return period of 200 years. The applicant has identified that the site sits within an area at risk of tidal flooding. The applicant further states that the flood maps do not take into account flood defences and/or the effect any such defences may have on averting the risk of flooding. The bulk storage oil tanks sit upon a raised area and are contained within a 2 metres bund which effectively acts as a floodwall and the applicant believes that this is unlikely to be breached in the event of a flood.
• 7.5.2 As previously mentioned, Manx Utilities have stated, as the development is within a boundary which is not being changed then the flood risk remains the same.

- 7.6 OTHER MATTERS

• 7.6.1 The matters within the representation made from No. 18 Stanley Road, whilst considered, do not relate to any material planning consideration and therefore hold no weight in the assessment of this current planning application.
• 7.6.2 Manx Utilities have put forward their rationale for the proposal and the changes in running regime at Peel Power Station.

- 7.6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

• 7.6.1 The applicant has adequately shown through their Environmental Appraisal Report and project rationale that the development and construction process has been thoroughly thought out with appropriate mitigation and measures put into place for appropriate matters.
• 7.6.2 On assessment, it is concluded that the planning application is deemed acceptable and as such is recommended for approval.

- 8.0 PARTY STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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 considered material; (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:

The owner and/or occupier of 18 Stanley Road Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.11.2015 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. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Department. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the demolition and construction period. The method statement must include the following:

• i) An adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause a long term deterioration in water quality; and
• ii) Details of pollution prevention and any alleviation measures.

Reason: To safeguard the River Neb from pollution and to prevent adverse impacts upon the nearby watercourse.

N 1. It is advised that the contractor produces a pollution incident plan in the case of a pollution incident.

This approval relates to Location Plan and Location Aerial Images, DWG No.01, 02, 03 and 04 and Project Rationale and Environmental Appraisal Report all date stamped 22nd September 2015.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 20.11.2015 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

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.