Loading document...
Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PN Direct Line (01624) 685280 Fax Number (01624) 685710 Email [email protected] CHIEF SECRETARY Will Greenhow ACMA 9th August 2018
Our Reference : DF18/0003
Dear Sir/Madam,
Ref: Applicant: Colas (IOM) Ltd Proposal: Extension to existing quarry Address: Field 432440 And Part Field 432475, Adjacent Billown Quarry Foxdale Road BallasallaIsle Of Man
I refer to the abovementioned application, and in accordance with the obligations set down in statute, I herewith give notice of the decision as follows.
Approved subject to the conditions specified below.
1.The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. 2.The development must be undertaken in accordance with the Written Statement of Investigation submitted as part of the application; and, in addition, Manx National Heritage must be informed 14 days before the commencement of operations and given access at all times, and reasonable opportunity to inspect the site, observe all excavations, and investigate any archaeological features exposed.
Reason: To ensure the archaeology of the area is properly managed in accordance with Minerals Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
Reason: To accord with the proposed method of working, and consistent with the previous conditions of approval for the previous extension of the quarry (03/01981/B).
Prior to the commencement of Phase 3, a planning application for the full restoration of the enlarged quarry, to a condition suitable for the resumption of agricultural use, must be submitted to, and approved by, the Department. This application must include:
It must also take account of the need to preserve access to potential future supplies of hard rock. The full restoration work, as approved, shall begin after the completion of Phase 3 of the development hereby permitted, and shall be completed in accordance with the approved programme.
Reason: To ensure the proper remediation of the site.
Reason: To ensure the control of dust emissions, in order to protect the environment and the amenities of those living in the vicinity of the site.
Reason: To control the operation of blasting in the interests of the amenity of those living in the vicinity of the site.
Reason: To protect the living conditions of those in dwellings in the vicinity of the site.
Reason: To clarify how the impact of blast vibration should be monitored.
Reason: To control the environmental impact of blasting on the surrounding area.
standard of design set out in the manufacturer's specification, and shall be maintained in accordance with that specification at all times throughout the development.
Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the operation of machinery.
Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the operation of machinery.
Reason: To control the noise experienced by those living in residential property near the site.
Reason: To mitigate the visual impact of the development.
Reason: To restrict the operations to those proposed in the application.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.
Please be advised that the decision of the Council of Ministers is binding and final.
All parties should note that there is no prescribed right of appeal relevant to the Council's decision herein and accordingly the only right of challenge is by a petition of doleance brought to the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man. Such doleance proceedings required to be issued promptly and in any event within 3 months.
The Planning Inspector's report, upon which the decision was determined, may be viewed by visiting https://www.gov.im/planningapplication/services/planning/search.iom, Government's Online services, or by contacting the Cabinet Office for a hardcopy (Tel 685204).
Yours faithfully,
A Johnstone
A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator On behalf of the Chief Secretary
Crown Division
Government Offices
Douglas
Isle of Man
18 July 2018
To the Council of Ministers Case Reference: DF18/0003 Planning Application: 18/00181/B
Application by Colas (IOM) Ltd for planning approval for the extension of the existing quarry into Field No 432440 and part of Field No 432475, adjacent to Billown Quarry, Foxdale Road, Ballasalla, Isle of Man.
I have the honour to report that on 25 June 2018, I carried out a site visit in connection with the above planning application for mineral extraction, which is being dealt with by written representations. The Minerals Act 1986 vests the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) with an interest in the mineral proposed for extraction. Accordingly, Article 10(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order provides that the application must be referred to, and determined by, the Council of Ministers.
The planning application was submitted with the report of the applicants' Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). I have also received a statement from the Planning Authority, giving advice relating to the proposed development, and including a report prepared by their environmental consultants, Wardell Armstrong LLP. I have taken account of these documents in preparing this report.
The application site and its surroundings
The location of the application site is shown in Figure 1 of the EIA Report. It has an area of about 2.35ha and is currently in agricultural use. It consists of grass fields separated and bounded by hedges. It is within an area of versatile farmland, classified as falling within Classes 1 and 2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map. The land rises gently from southwest to north-east across the application site. The site lies a little to the west of the A3 (Foxdale Road), and a little to the north of the A7 (Douglas Road). It is approximately 1.2km to the west of Ballasalla; and approximately 2km north of Castletown.
On its southern side, the application site is bounded by a farm field, which contains a standing stone (the Booilevane Stone) a prominent landmark of archaeological significance. Farmland also encloses the application site on its western and northern sides. To the east, the site abuts
Billown Quarry, which is currently being worked for limestone by the applicants. Within the existing quarry area, there is plant for crushing stone; and plant for coating the crushed product with bitumen, to make asphalt. There are also site offices. The existing quarry has an excavated area of about 5.8ha, and an overall area of about 10ha. The quarry floor is at approximately 1m above ordnance datum; and about 37m below ground level at the closest part of the application site. Rock extraction is proceeding in a generally westerly direction, towards the application site. Access to the existing quarry is from the A3, 150m to the north of its junction with the A7 at Cross Four Ways. An appeal against approval being granted for the existing quarry was dismissed in 2005 (see Appendix 2 to the Planning Authority's evidence).
To the south of the existing quarry there is an area of former mineral workings, which contains areas of water. Part of that land has been designated as an Area of Special Scientific Interest. A public right of way runs from north to south along the western edge of the existing quarry, separating it from the application site. It is proposed that this should be diverted to make way for the proposed development. However, the route of the proposed diversion has not yet been decided. It does not form part of the present planning application, and the diversion would require an Order to be made under section 33 of the Highways Act 1989.
The closest residential property to the application site is 'Skibrick', which is on the north side of the A7, about 130m away from the application site boundary. There are some dwellings around Cross Four Ways; and 'Maggie's Cottage' is on the south side of the A7, a little to the west of Cross Four Ways.
The proposed development
The EIA Report explains that the proposed development would be an extension to the existing quarry. Prior to the extraction of limestone, the extension site would be enclosed on three sides by fences and bunds. These would be retained for the duration of operations on the site. Topsoil would be stripped and stored for use in the final restoration of the site. Overburden would be removed and used in the restoration of the existing quarry. The peripheral bunds and soil mounds would be seeded, to ensure that they were covered with vegetation at the earliest opportunity, thereby securing maximum stability.
The extraction of limestone would proceed in three phases. In the first phase, an access ramp would be cut into the extension site from the rockhead bench in the existing quarry. Overburden would be removed over a third of the extension area, and the rockhead would be progressively excavated in a south-westerly direction to create a new rockhead bench. Subsequently, lower benches would be progressively worked. Each bench would be at least 8m wide, to ensure geotechnical stability and provide for safe access. The same process would be repeated in the subsequent phases, with overburden being removed from one third of the extension site in each phase (EIA Figures 3.1 to 3.3). The excavated area would terminate at a distance of at least 10m from the boundary fence, leaving sufficient space for inspection, and for maintenance of the peripheral bunds. The excavated area of the quarry extension would be about 1.6ha.
Excavation would entail the use of drilling and blasting techniques, as are currently used in Billown Quarry, where blasting occurs about seven times each year. Blasting would take place only between 10.00 hours and 18.00 hours on Monday to Friday. Each blast would yield between 6,000 and 9,000 tonnes of rock. The proposed production level would be a maximum of 70,000 tonnes a year.
Access to the extended quarry would be from the A3 via the existing site entrance, where there are security gates. The proposed production level would be less than that previously permitted, and there would be no increase in the amount of traffic generated. An existing 200m long surfaced haul road would carry traffic from the extended quarry to the site entrance. The EIA Report asserts that this would ensure that dirt and mud would not be brought onto the highway. Surfaced haul roads within the quarry would continue to be swept by a mechanical sweeper.
The excavated rock would be crushed and screened on site, to produce aggregate of various sizes. At present, crushing takes place in a processing area, to the east of the existing quarry void. However, the plant used in this process is mobile; and, as the development progresses into the proposed extension, crushing would take place on the quarry floor. Stockpiles of crushed rock would be stored in the existing processing area, where a range of asphalt products would continue to be produced, using the existing coating plant. No coating is proposed to take place in the quarry extension. There would be no changes to the existing site offices, canteen or weighbridge facilities, which are within the existing quarry.
Watercourses in the vicinity of the application site would not be affected in any way by the proposed development, as they would be well outside the boundary of the extended quarry. Water collected in the extended quarry void would drain to an existing sump at the base of the quarry, where it would be treated to remove suspended solids. Existing measures to ensure that fuels or chemicals from plant do not pollute this water would continue to apply. Any oils, fuels, lubricants or other potential liquid pollutants kept on the site are stored in suitable tanks, which are either double skinned, or are housed within a suitable bund or enclosure of sufficient size to provide containment for 110% of the tank's storage capacity.
The existing planning approval for Billown Quarry restricts the hours of operation for various activities. Crushing and processing of rock is confined to the period between 07.00 hours and 18.00 hours on Monday to Friday, and the period between 07.00 and 13.00 hours on Saturdays. The despatch of products from the quarry is confined to the period between 07:00 and 18.00 hours on Monday to Friday, and 07.00 and 16.30 hours on Saturdays. Outside these hours, operations would be confined to the maintenance and testing of plant, pumping, and any other necessary work to deal with emergencies.
The proposed quarry extension would be expected yield a total of 600,000 tonnes of rock. At the annual rate of production envisaged, it would have a predicted life of about 8.5 years. Following excavation, much of the quarry void, including the area of the proposed extension, would be restored as a water body. This would be consistent with the interim restoration arrangements proposed in the 2003 planning approval for Billown Quarry. Ultimately, it is
intended that the whole of the quarry void, including the proposed extension, would be filled with inert material. The overburden and topsoil would be replaced, and the site would be returned to agricultural use. The landscape would revert to its condition prior to excavation. The original ground contours and soil quality would be re-established.
15 The EIA Report indicates that Billown Quarry yields a high quality aggregate with bitumen affinity, suitable for asphalt production. During 2017, it produced about 45,000 tonnes of aggregate, and 12,000 tonnes of coated stone (asphalt). It is the largest private, hard rock quarry in the Isle of Man; and operates the Island's only private sector asphalt plant, providing a back-up to the DOI's plant at Poortown Quarry. Poortown is the Island's only other consented source of rock suitable for asphalt production. In addition to asphalt, Billtown produces a full range of aggregates for roadstone; and chippings for the local manufacture of concrete and concrete blocks. It is also the Island's sole provider of agricultural limestone; and produces such materials as armour stone, gabion stone, crusher run and track ballast.
16 In January 2018, Billown Quarry had remaining consented reserves of only around 30,000 tonnes, sufficient for about 6 months supply of hard rock at current market levels. Once this reserve has been exhausted, the Island's only remaining source of stone with a bitumen affinity would be the Poortown Quarry, which, according to the EIA Report, produces about 80,000 tonnes of a year, and (in 2016) had a published reserve of about 692,000 tonnes. A proportion of this is likely to fall below the quality required for asphalt production. At best, the remaining landbank would be scarcely sufficient for 10 years of asphalt production. A 10 year landbank is generally accepted as the minimum provision for any market area.
17 However, the report submitted by Wardell Armstrong LLP suggests that the EIA's figure for the supply of hard rock from the Poortown Quarry should be treated with caution, for a number of reasons. First, the Department of Infrastructure (DoI), which owns Poortown Quarry, considers the 2016 published reserve to have been an underestimate. A more realistic figure would be in the order of 1,000,000 tonnes.
18 Second, the Poortown Quarry mines gabbro, an igneous rock from which a high quality output of polished stone value (psv) grade is produced. It is the only quarry on the Isle of Man which extracts stone with the requisite mechanical properties for use in the surface wearing and base course layers of road construction. For this reason, it has been recognised, by the Council of Ministers, as providing the national strategic supply of psv grade material. In 2011, the Minerals and Secondary Aggregates Technical Group (MSATG) was set up by the DoI, to advise on minerals planning policy. In its 2012 report, the MSATG recommended that the mineral reserves at Poortown should be conserved for the highest grade end-use, and should not be included in the calculation of the national landbank for hard rock.
19 If the proposed extension to Billtown Quarry is not approved, the Island's supply of aggregate with bitumen affinity would have to be sourced from elsewhere. To supply this material from
Poortown would require reconsideration of the conservation of that quarry's resource as a national strategic asset. Furthermore, to make up for the supply from Billown Quarry, the output from Poortown Quarry would have to increase to about 112,000 tonnes per annum. This would increase the rate at which the consented reserve there would be depleted, resulting in its exhaustion within about 9 years.
MNKOI 0000714660
a) there must be no unacceptable adverse effect on local residents in terms of visual amenity, dust, noise or vibration; b) there must be no unacceptable adverse effect on landscapes; on sites of archaeological or ecological importance; or on land drainage and water resources; c) the proposal must be acceptable in terms of highway safety and access arrangements; and d) there must be a phased scheme of site restoration.
Exceptionally, national need for a particular mineral may warrant setting aside one or more of these constraints.
The Area Plan for the South shows the location of Billown Quarry, and notes that it is used for the extraction of limestone, which is used by the construction industry and the
agricultural sector. It also notes that extraction will be likely to cease here within a few years. The Area Plan requires the restoration of former mineral workings. Agriculture and nature conservation are each specified as being acceptable uses for restored land. The proposed quarry extension site falls within an area that is not designated for any particular purpose in the Area Plan.
The Area Plan indicates that the application site falls within the Ballamodha, Earystane and St Marks Landscape Character Area, which is characterised by incised inland slopes. The strategy for this area is to conserve and enhance its character, quality and distinctiveness. Particular reference is made to the area's wooded valley bottoms; and its geometric fields, delineated by Manx hedges. The strategy also seeks the restoration of land disturbed by mining activities.
The Natural Environment Section of the Area Plan refers to Areas of Special Scientific Interest, including Rosehill Quarry (to the south of Billown Quarry); and Wildlife Sites, including Billown Wood (to the north of Billown Quarry). The Area Plan notes that some of the most highly graded agricultural land on the Island is in the south, around Billown Farm.
The EIA Report considers the environmental impact of the proposed development in landscape and visual terms; and in terms of its effect on hydrology and hydrogeology; ecology; emissions of dust, noise and vibration; and cultural heritage. Its conclusions are as follows.
There has been quarrying in this area for about 400 years. A number of previous excavations are contiguous with the existing quarry. Some of these have been filled and restored through natural regeneration. The existing quarry is a steep sided void, some 30m deep, in a gently sloping setting with undulating landforms. It has a moderate effect on this predominantly agricultural landscape. The site of the existing quarry was previously in agricultural use.
The proposed development would not alter the character of the landscape other than by extending the existing quarry. A bund between the existing quarry and the application site would be removed, and new bunds, between 1.5 and 2m in height would be formed around the proposed extension.
The visual impact of the proposed development has been assessed from four representative viewpoints, as shown on Figure 1 of the EIA Report. From Viewpoint 1, at 'Skibrick' on the A7, the existing quarry is entirely screened. The proposed excavation of the quarry extension would also be screened from this viewpoint, although the peripheral bund would be visible. This bund would be vegetated, and would not be dissimilar to the existing
hedgerow that can be seen across the field from 'Skibrick'. On restoration of the site, the bund would be removed, so the visual effect would be entirely reversible. (See EIA Report, Figure 6.1).
Viewpoint 2 is on the A7 further to the east, and about 170m south of the application site boundary. Once again, the existing quarry excavation is not visible in this view, although the asphalt plant tower can be seen projecting above the woodland cover. The proposed extension to the quarry would be hidden from this viewpoint by the fold of the land. (See EIA Report, Figure 6.2).
Viewpoint 3 is on the Rushen Abbey footpath, approximately 935m east of the application site. From here, some of the industrial structures associated with Billown Quarry are visible, the asphalt plant being the most noticeable element. Some stockpiles and earthworks can also be seen, although partially obscured by trees. However, the existing excavations are not visible. The proposed quarry extension would be screened from this viewpoint by the topography and land cover. (See EIA Report, Figure 6.2).
Viewpoint 4 is from the higher land at Ballavarkish, about 1,600m north-west of the application site. Billown Quarry is not highly noticeable from this location, due to the effect of distance and the shallow angle of the view. The existing quarry void is effectively screened. The proposed extension to the excavation would be partially screened from this viewpoint, and most of the void would be below the apparent ground level and would not be visible. The full extent of the peripheral bund would be visible, although not particularly noticeable once vegetated. The visual effect would be slight. (See EIA Report, Figure 2).
Any adverse landscape or visual effects would be mitigated by the design of the proposed development, and particularly by the vegetated bund that would screen the excavated area from external view. In the light of this analysis, the development now proposed would have, at worst, a slight adverse effect on the character of the landscape, and a slight adverse visual impact. On restoration, these outcomes would be wholly reversible.
Billown Quarry and its proposed extension area fall within two sub-catchments that are separated by a natural watershed. (See EIA Report, Figure 7.1). Sub-catchment A, within which the proposed quarry extension would be located, rises on higher ground to the north of Billown Quarry. Water from open field drains and ditches joins a watercourse, flowing in a southerly direction, which passes beneath the A7 and into a waterbody at Billown Mansion. There is no evidence of flooding in Sub-catchment A.
The existing quarry has been excavated into Sub-catchment B, which rises to the north east. The predominant watercourse in this area drains in a generally south-westerly direction, passing beneath the A7 in culvert before joining the main watercourse at the outflow point from the waterbody at Billown Mansion. From here, the combined flows form a larger watercourse, which travels southwards through Sub-catchment C, to reach the sea at
Pooilvaish. There is evidence of regular flooding in Sub-catchment B, around the point where the watercourse flows beneath the A7.
39 There would be minor alterations to surface water movements as a result of the proposed development. Surface water from the application site, which currently flows within Subcatchment A toward Billown Mansion, would be diverted by the proposed bund, to flow into the existing quarry void and Sub-catchment B. However, the impact of this change would be negligible.
40 Surface water collecting within the extended quarry after heavy and prolonged rainfall would be managed within the quarry, and discharged to the watercourse in Sub-catchment B at a controlled rate, helping to mitigate the flood risk downstream. The existing quarry void has the capacity to contain run-off from a 1 in 100 year storm of any duration. The impact of the proposed development on flood risk would be negligible.
41 The collection sump at the base of the quarry void would act as a water treatment pond to remove particulate material and suspended solids. This would ensure that the permitted discharge from the quarry would remain of a high quality.
42 All vehicle re-fuelling and maintenance would take place in the existing quarry, and no fuels would be stored within the proposed extension area. Procedures are in place to deal with spillages and emergencies, though to date there has been no recorded incident of this sort within Billown Quarry. The risk of contamination of groundwater or surface water is assessed as negligible.
43 There are no identified aquifers, wells or groundwater extraction points within or near to the application site. The impacts of the proposed development on the groundwater regime, and on the supply of water to vulnerable receptors, are assessed as negligible.
44 The EIA Report concludes that the proposed development would not have any significant impact on surface water or groundwater.
45 The application site is part of an area used for intensive arable agriculture or improved grassland. It is subject to regular disturbance as a result of farming activity. Consequently, it has limited nature conservation interest. It includes about 320 m of hedgerows, and these are its only feature of particular ecological interest. The creation of the vegetated bund would go some way toward mitigating the loss of the existing hedgerows.
46 The use of this land as a hard rock quarry would have a permanent impact upon its ecology. There would be some loss of habitat, of a widespread type that supports common species. However, there is abundant similar habitat nearby. Eventually, interim restoration may provide some ecological benefit, as a greater diversity of habitat would be likely, including open water, exposed rock and scree. Final restoration would return the application site to
an agricultural use. The effect of the proposed development on ecological interest would be slight.
Dust
47 A dust management strategy has been developed to minimise nuisance caused by the operation of the quarry. This includes the following controls:
48 Assessments of dust emissions will be made by supervisory staff, with a frequency determined by prevailing conditions. The results will be logged and remedial action will be taken as necessary. In the event of a complaint about dust emissions, the site manager will immediately investigate the matter and initiate any necessary remedial action.
Noise
49 Existing daytime noise levels have been measured at four monitoring points, representative of noise sensitive properties near the application site (EIA Report, Figure 9.1). The expected 'worst case' noise level predicted from the proposed development at various locations has been calculated, having regard to the sound power levels of the plant to be used on site; the periods of operation of that plant; the distance between the noise source and the receptor; the presence of screening effects due to barriers or ground absorption; and any reflection effects due, for example, to building facades. The results are shown in Table 9.3 of the EIA Report.
50 The 'worst case' predicted noise levels would arise when soil stripping and overburden handling took place in combination with routine quarrying operations. However, at none of the four monitoring points would this exceed , the maximum recommended for surface mineral sites in the UK Government's National Planning Policy Framework. At worst, the predicted noise level would exceed the existing noise level at two of the monitoring points by 2 or 3 dB . This would be only just perceptible to the human ear. These worst case noise levels might be reached for only a few weeks during the working life of the proposed development. Generally noise levels would be significantly lower.
51 Particular activities which could cause high levels of noise, such as the drilling of blast holes and the crushing of rock, will take place within the quarry void, and much of the sound would
be absorbed by the rock faces. The peripheral bund around the quarry would provide further attenuation, thereby mitigating the noise impact.
An independent study of the environmental impact of blasting at the proposed quarry extension, commissioned by the applicants, was undertaken by Vibrock Ltd. This is reproduced as Appendix 2 to the EIA Report. The British Standards Institute's 'Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings' (BS6472-2:2008) concludes that the maximum satisfactory magnitude of blasting vibration at a residential property is a peak particle velocity (ppv) of 6-10mms⁻¹. The predicted vibration due to blasting at the closest residential properties to the proposed excavation is shown in Table 9.5 of the EIA Report. Nowhere would this exceed a ppv of 6mms⁻¹. The worst predicted case would be at 'Skibrick' during Phase 3 of the proposed excavation, when the maximum predicted ppv would be 5.8mms⁻¹.
The Billown Area is rich in archaeological remains, especially from the Neolithic period and the Bronze Age. Earlier phases of quarry development have been subject to requirements for archaeological investigation, and this has produced evidence of human activity in this area over several thousand years. Research within the existing quarry site has demonstrated that features of archaeological interest continue beneath the proposed extension site. This has been confirmed by a geophysical survey of the application site.
A Written Scheme of Investigation has been prepared by the applicants' consultants Rathmell Archaeological Ltd, and this is reproduced in Appendix 3 to the EIA Report. This would ensure that proper account would be taken of the site's cultural heritage during the proposed development. It would provide for archaeological investigation, excavation and recording, in accordance with a brief prepared by Manx National Heritage (MNH).
MNH were consulted prior to the submission of the planning application. This discussion covered the need to secure a consented reserve of hard rock; the archaeological potential of the application site; and the availability of alternative sources of mineral provision. The consensus view was that the proposal to extend Billown Quarry was the preferred option, with appropriate archaeological investigation and recording as necessary.
It is not possible to quantify the archaeological resource of the application site prior to excavation. Plainly, excavation would result in the loss of significant archaeological potential. However, with suitable investigation, excavation and recording of artefacts, the development would be acceptable, and compliant with Manx archaeological policy.
57 The Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection to the proposed development.
58 The Highway Services Division notes that there would be no change to the existing access arrangements from Foxdale Road, and that no increase in the rate of traffic generation would be likely to result from the proposed development.
59 The Dol Waste Management Unit acknowledges the need for void space for the disposal of inert waste which cannot be incinerated. The long-term disposal of such waste in the void formed by the proposed quarry extension would contribute to meeting this need.
60 Manx National Heritage (MNH) are aware of the requirement for a supply of limestone. Of the potential sites for future quarrying, the application site was considered to have the least likely impact on archaeological resources. Extensive archaeological research has already been carried out on this area. MNH have prepared a brief for the proposed development, which must be followed in order to qualify for a licence for archaeological excavation and fieldwork, as required under the Manx Museum and National Trust Act. They ask that this be reflected in a planning condition.
61 As regards ecology, MNH comment that the proposed vegetated peripheral bund would offer a significant opportunity for habitat replacement, to offset the loss of hedgerows during the course of the proposed development. They consider that the proposed operations would be scarcely visible from the main road. They support the long-term restoration of the site to agricultural use, replicating the existing landform, and restoring the setting of the Booilevane Stone.
62 DEFA's senior Biodiversity Officer comments that the soil on the application site is of high value, and that there would be an opportunity to reinstate the propose quarry extension as an area of limestone grassland, which could provide a habitat for rare species.
63 Mr and Mrs P Whitehouse have lived at 2 The Cottages, Four Cross Ways, Ballasalla, for 30 years. During the past 10 years there have been noticeable environmental changes as a result of the operation of Billown Quarry, which are now affecting their health. Their main objection is the amount of dust in the air when stone is being crushed. This settles on their cars (they submit photographic evidence) and garden, and gets into their house. It damages paintwork on doors and windows, and makes it difficult to breathe. They also note that during periods of heavy rain, water pours out of the quarry entrance, and flows down the A3, to cause significant flooding to the road and the surrounding area.
64 Mr P Dawson lives at 'Skibrick', Douglas Road, Billown. He considers that the proposed development would spoil a very pleasant rural landscape, characterised by glacial drumlins
topped by standing stones. It would cause large amounts of dust and noise pollution, with the possibility of structural damage to neighbouring dwellings, and reduce property prices. Residents have put up with the effects of quarrying here for many years, and had expected that this would stop when the existing quarry reached the end of its useful life. Alternative sources of hard rock are available at Turkeylands and at Balladoole; or the existing Billown Quarry could be extended in a northerly (rather than a westerly) direction, away from the residential properties in Douglas Road. The Minerals and Secondary Aggregates Technical Group (MSATG) Report 2012 recommended that there should a Buffer Zone of 200m between hard rock quarries and residential properties. The Planning authority has indicated that the boundary of the application site would be only 127m from 'Skibrick'.
65 The proposed development would affect highly graded agricultural land, contrary to Environment Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. There is no over-riding national need for this, as alternative sites are available, and aggregates could be imported (as they are in Jersey). Similarly, as there is no over-riding national need for this development, its adverse effect on the countryside would be contrary to Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
66 The proposed quarry extension would have an expected life of about 8 years. After that, it is unlikely that the massive void created by the existing quarry and its extension would be filled and restored to agricultural use. More probably, there would be pressure for the further extension of this quarry into high grade farmland in this attractive rural area, to provide a further landbank. The present application should be refused.
Suggested conditions
67 The Planning Authority has made no recommendation on the present application. However, the Planning Officer suggests that the following conditions might be imposed, if planning approval is to be granted:
Reason: To comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: To ensure the archaeology of the area is properly managed in accordance with Minerals Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
3 Working of the quarry, including the provision of machinery by staff, shall be carried out only between 0700 and 1800 hrs on Mondays to Fridays and 0700 to 1300 hrs on Saturdays. Maintenance of plant may be carried out within these hours and between 0700 and 1630 hrs on a Saturday and between 0800 and 1630 hrs on a Sunday. There shall be no working outside these hours, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department.
Reason: To accord with the proposed method of working, and consistent with the previous conditions of approval for the previous extension of the quarry (03 / 01981 / 8).
4 Initial restoration shall be to the profile shown in Figure 3.4 of the EIA Report received on 14 February 2018. Prior to the commencement of Phase 3 of the development as shown in Figure 3.3 of that document, a planning application for the full restoration of the site must be submitted to the Department, including details of the materials to be deposited, a programme of the works, the profile to be achieved at each stage, the means of controlling the development on the environment and residential amenity, and the final form of the landscaping. The scheme must take into account the need to preserve access to future supplies of rock and in regard to this the applicant should consult the Department's Minerals Section.
Reason: To ensure the proper remediation of the site.
5 The development shall not take place other than in accordance with the Dust Management Plan set out at Section 9.3 of the EIA Report received on 14 February 2018.
Reason: To ensure the control of dust emissions, in order to protect the environment and the amenities of those living in the vicinity of the site.
6 No blasting shall be carried out on the site except between 1000 and 1600 hrs on Mondays to Fridays. There shall be no blasting on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays. This condition shall not apply in cases where the safety of personnel on the site, or the public in the locality, would be put at risk by prohibition of blasting operations. The Department must be notified of the nature and circumstances of any such event.
Reason: To control the operation of blasting in the interests of the amenity of those living in the vicinity of the site.
7 Ground vibration as a result of blasting operations shall not exceed a peak particle velocity (ppv) of in of all blasts measured over a 12 month period, and no individual blast shall exceed a ppv of , as measured at vibration sensitive buildings. The measurement shall be taken at three mutually perpendicular directions at the ground surface of any vibration sensitive building.
Reason: To protect the living conditions of those in dwellings in the vicinity of the site.
8 Monitoring of ground vibration shall be undertaken at 'Skibrick' and 'Maggie's Cottage'; and, in addition, in the event of complaint, the next reading must be undertaken at the complainant's property.
Reason: To clarify how the impact of blast vibration should be monitored.
9 No development may commence until a scheme for the control of air overpressure has been submitted to and approved by the Department, and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details.
Reason: To control the environmental impact of blasting on the surrounding area.
10 All machinery used in connection with the operations hereby approved, and in any maintenance of the site, shall be equipped with effective silencing equipment or solid sound proofing, to the standard of design set out in the manufacturer's specification, and shall be maintained in accordance with that specification at all times throughout the development.
Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the operation of machinery.
11 No audible reversing alarms shall be employed on any vehicle on the site, except directional broadband multi frequency alarms, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department.
Reason: To minimise the environmental impact of the operation of machinery.
12 Noise emitted from the site shall not exceed when measured 1 m from the façade of any noise sensitive property, except for the removal of soil, and the construction and removal of landscape or baffle mounds, at which time noise from these activities will not exceed when measured 1 m from the facade of any noise sensitive property.
Reason: To control the noise experienced by those living in residential property near the site.
14 No excavation may take place until such time as the bund shown in Figures 3.1, 3.2 3.3 and 3.5 has been introduced. This must be topsoiled, and seeded or turfed, in the first seeding season following its introduction.
Reason: To mitigate the visual impact of the development.
15 Other than in accordance with an approved restoration scheme, no topsoil may be removed from, nor waste material deposited within, the site.
Reason: To restrict the operations to those proposed in the application.
68 The proposed development would have only a limited impact on public views from the A7. The proposed excavations would be entirely hidden in this view. Although the proposed peripheral bund would be visible, I consider that it would have only a marginal effect on the landscape. This would be temporary, as the bund would be removed when the quarry extension reached the end of its working life, possibly in less than a decade. The proposed development would scarcely be visible from any other public viewpoint, except the diverted footpath (the existing footpath would have to have been diverted before the proposed development could proceed). From the diverted footpath, the excavated area would be screened by the vegetated peripheral bund. I do not consider the effect would be sufficient to justify the refusal of planning approval.
69 Concern has been expressed about the proposed footpath diversion. However, it seems to me that this should be considered when (and if) a Diversion Order is made, under highways legislation. The footpath diversion is not proposed in the present planning application, and would not be authorised by a planning approval.
70 Noise from the quarry operations could be limited to an acceptable degree by planning conditions regulating the hours of working, and limiting the noise level as measured outside the nearest residential properties. Similar, vibration from occasional blasting could be controlled by a condition limiting peak particle velocity. The conditions suggested by the Planning Authority reflect generally accepted standards, and seem to me to be acceptable. They appear to replicate conditions imposed in the 2005 appeal decision confirming approval for the existing quarry. However, it seems to me the quarry operator should be required to give the Department notice of routine blasting operations, so that the effect can be monitored as necessary, in accordance with suggested Condition 8.
71 The evidence is that there would probably be no increase in the amount of traffic generated by the proposed development, as compared with that generated by the existing quarry. No change is proposed in the vehicular access arrangements.
72 The proposed development would have little effect on wildlife, save for the loss of about 320 m of existing hedgerow. This would be mitigated, to some extent, by the creation of the new vegetated bund. I do not consider it to be a matter of such weight as to warrant rejection of the proposed scheme.
73 I attach weight to the fact that Manx National Heritage has not objected to the proposed development. Although the application site is of archaeological interest, a condition could secure arrangements for the appropriate inspection, excavation and recording of any important features.
74 I see no problem with the proposed arrangements for managing the site's hydrology. Water from the excavated area would drain to a sump on the quarry floor, where suspended solids would settle out. The discharge of water from the site would be controlled. There is no
technical evidence to suggest that it would add to the localised flooding problem around Four Cross Ways.
75 Having regard to the relevant planning policies, I consider the main issues in this case to be first, the extent to which there is a need for the mineral to be excavated; second, the effect of the proposed development on high quality agricultural land; third, the effect of dust from the proposed development on people living near the application site; and fourth, the adequacy of the proposed arrangements for the restoration of the application site, after its mineral reserve has been exhausted.
76 Minerals Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that development involving the winning and working of minerals will be permitted only where it is demonstrated that there is a need which cannot be met through the provision of secondary aggregates. The Wardell Armstrong report states that 'the demand for the type of mineral products produced by Billown cannot be met through the provision of secondary aggregates'. I have seen no evidence which contradicts that assessment.
77 If the Poortown Quarry is excluded from the calculation, the Isle of Man's consented reserve of hard rock with bitumen affinity, suitable for the production of asphalt, is likely to be exhausted within a few months. If Poortown Quarry is included within that calculation, the evidence suggests that there may not be a sufficient landbank to last for more than about ten years; and any notion of conserving the resource at Poortown for only the highest grade enduse would have to be abandoned.
78 I consider that there has been a reasonably thorough examination of potential alternative resources on the Isle of Man, which could compensate for the closure of Billown Quarry. I am satisfied that, at present, there are none. It would, of course, be possible to import the requisite supplies of hard rock, but that would be an expensive solution in both financial and environmental terms. Plainly, it would be in the Isle of Man's national interest to source its own supply for this essential construction material. I note that Billown Quarry is also the sole source of limestone for agricultural use on the Isle of Man. I consider that these factors must tell strongly in favour of the extension of that quarry, as its existing consented reserve of limestone for excavation nears exhaustion.
79 Environment Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan provides that the development of important and versatile agricultural land, in Classes 1 and 2, will not be permitted, unless there is an over-riding need for the development. The application site consists of agricultural land in Classes 1 and 2. The proposed development would entail the loss of 2.35 ha of this resource. Although it is intended that that land would eventually be reinstated and restored to agricultural use, it is not at all clear when this would take place. The reduction in the supply of good quality farmland would be indefinite. Furthermore, I do not know whether the
restored land would exhibit the same agricultural potential and versatility as the application site does now.
80 It is also a matter of concern that the proposed quarry extension could be worked out within 8 years or so, after which there may well be pressure for further limestone extraction from adjoining land, to meet a continuing need for this material. That could result in the limited supply of high grade farmland being further diminished. However, since the need for the proposed limestone extraction has been established, I do not consider that the proposed development would be contrary to Environment Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan.
Dust
81 Planning approval 03/1981 authorises the extraction of limestone from the existing Billown Quarry. Condition 6 of that decision requires that this mineral extraction should be in accordance with a scheme for the management of dust. The applicants intend that the quarry extension now proposed should be subject to a similar scheme.
82 However, there is evidence from people living nearby (including photographic evidence) that the dust from the existing operation already seriously detracts from their living conditions. I do not know the frequency with which this problem occurs. The dust management regime provides that, in the event of a complaint, the site manager will instigate any necessary remedial action, including temporary cessation of the activities that are giving rise to concern. However, that would entail a reaction to a problem that is already detracting from residential amenity. The exposure of residents to dust from quarrying operations must be both unpleasant and inconvenient. Although I have seen no medical evidence, I do not imagine that it can be conducive to good respiratory health.
83 It is perhaps inevitable that the excavation and crushing of rock will generate an amount of dust; and that, on occasions, this will become entrained in the wind, and deposited off-site. Whether this affects residential amenity will depend, in part, upon the distance between the working area and the nearest dwellings. The MSATG Report of 2012 recommended that there should be a Buffer Zone of at least 200m around hard rock quarries, to protect the amenity of neighbouring residents. That seems to me to be sensible. Minerals Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan makes it clear that development should not have an adverse effect on local residents in terms of dust.
84 The nearest dwelling (Skibrick) is significantly less than 200m from the application site. (As measured on the 1:10,000 Site Location Plan (EIA Report, Figure 1) it appears to be about 130m away). The proposed development would therefore fail to provide a Buffer Zone, as recommended by the MSATG. I do not consider that it has been demonstrated that dust from the quarry extension would not have an unacceptable effect on residential amenity. To mitigate this problem, I consider that a planning condition could be imposed precluding the excavation, working or storage of mineral products within 200m of any dwelling, in line with the MSATG's recommendation.
85 Condition 5 of planning approval 03/1981 required that, within six months of that approval being taken up, a planning application for a scheme of restoration of the quarry should be submitted to the Planning Authority. The Planning Authority's evidence is that no such application has yet been submitted.
86 However, the requirement to submit a planning application for a scheme of restoration would not, in itself, place any obligation on the prospective developer to complete the programme of works described in that application (as approved) by any specified date. Accordingly, it seems to me that the enforceability of Condition 5 of the previous planning approval is questionable. A similar consideration would seem to apply to Condition 4 suggested by the Planning Authority in connection with the present application.
87 In 2014, the Department of Infrastructure issued a document entitled 'Model Planning Conditions'. That document emphasises that planning conditions should be both enforceable and precise. The paragraph dealing with the precision of conditions reads as follows:
The framing of conditions requires care, not least to ensure that a condition is enforceable. A condition, for example, requiring only that 'a landscape scheme shall be submitted for the approval of the Department' is incomplete, since if the applicant were to submit the scheme, even if it is approved, the Department is unlikely to be able to require the scheme to be implemented. In such a case the requirement that needs to be imposed is that landscape work shall be carried out in accordance with a scheme to be approved in writing by the Department; and the wording of the condition must clearly require this. A condition of this kind also sets no requirement as to the timing or the stage of development by which the landscape work must be done, which can similarly lead to enforcement difficulties. Conditions which require works to be carried out should state clearly when this must be done.
88 This is sound advice, to which I attach considerable weight. It would apply to a condition requiring the restoration of a quarry, just as it would to a condition concerning the landscaping of a development site.
89 In the present case, the applicant has provided no information about the timescale over which restoration of the enlarged quarry will take place. Section 5.5 of the EIA Report indicates that:
Following completion of extraction operations, preliminary restoration shall be undertaken to the preliminary land form as described above (Figure 3.4 refers). Ultimately, and only with the appropriate agreements in place, restoration shall continue with infill of the remaining void with inert waste material to a level 1 m below original ground level. Reinstatement shall be completed with infill and overburden to original ground level with 0.8 m overburden and 0.2 m topsoil.
No indication is given of when this ultimate stage of restoration is to begin, or of when it would be completed. I consider the environmental information to be inadequate in this respect.
The prospective developer should know how big the proposed void would be; and should be able to give a reasonable estimate of how long it would take to complete the restoration, by filling the remaining void with inert waste material and overburden; replacing the topsoil; and restoring the site to a condition suitable for agricultural use. It would therefore be reasonable to impose planning conditions along the following lines:
The development hereby permitted shall proceed in three phases as shown in Figures 3.1-3.3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report received on 14th February 2018. Initial restoration of the enlarged quarry shall be to the profile shown in Figure 3.4 of the EIA Report. Work on this stage of the restoration shall proceed during Phase 1 of the development hereby permitted.
Prior to the commencement of Phase 3, a planning application for the full restoration of the enlarged quarry, to a condition suitable for the resumption of agricultural use, must be submitted to, and approved by, the Department. This application must include:
It must also take account of the need to preserve access to potential future supplies of hard rock. The full restoration work, as approved, shall begin after the completion of Phase 3 of the development hereby permitted, and shall be completed in accordance with the approved programme.
It is, of course, possible that restoration might be delayed, for instance by problems with regard to the supply of inert material to be deposited in the void, or as a result of consideration being given to the further extension of the quarry onto adjacent land. However, Section 10(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 makes provision for an application to be made for the variation or discharge of a condition, and the imposition of new conditions consequent upon such a variation or discharge. This would provide a degree of flexibility sufficient to deal with unforeseen contingencies that might arise before the restoration is complete.
I consider that the condition outlined above would provide the Planning Authority with the requisite degree of control over the restoration of the site.
93 There is a limited consented reserve of hard rock with bitumen affinity, suitable for asphalt production, and of limestone suitable for agricultural use, on the Isle of Man. The proposed development would extend this reserve, thereby meeting a national need. I am aware of no preferable alternative means of meeting this objective. Accordingly, I consider that approval should be granted for the proposed development.
94 I consider that conditions should be imposed along the lines suggested by the Planning Officer as set out in paragraph 67 above. However, I consider that Condition 4 should be amended as set out in paragraph 90 above; that Condition 8 should make provision for the quarry operator to give the Department notice of routine (non-emergency) blasting operations; and that an additional condition should prohibit the extraction, working or storage of mineral products within 200 m of any dwelling.
95 I recommend that planning approval be granted for the extension of the existing quarry into Fields Nos 432440 and 432475, adjacent to Billown Quarry, Foxdale Road, Ballasalla, as shown on Figures 1.v1, 2.1.v1, 3.1.v1, 3.2.v1, 3.3.v1 and 3.4.v1 (all date stamped as having been received by DEFA on 21 March 2018) subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 67 above, with the following qualifications:
16 Within the quarry extension hereby permitted, no excavation, working or storage of any mineral shall take place within 200 m of any dwelling.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
Michael Hurley BA DipTP Independent Inspector 18 July 2018
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown