Port Ellen Maltings - Malt Silo Planning Application

Argyll and Bute Council
Development Services

Delegated or Committee Planning Application Report and Report of handling as required
by Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)
(Scotland) Regulations 2008 relative to applications for Planning Permission or Planning
Permission in Principle
____________________________________________________________________________

Reference No: 09/00627/DET

Planning Hierarchy: Local Development

Applicant: Diageo

Proposal: Erection of two replacement malt/barley silos

Site Address: Port Ellen Maltings, Port Ellen, Isle of Islay
____________________________________________________________________________

DECISION ROUTE

(i) Local Government Scotland Act 1973

____________________________________________________________________________

(A) THE APPLICATION

(i) Development Requiring Express Planning Permission

• Erection of two replacement malt/barley silos

____________________________________________________________________________

(B) RECOMMENDATION:

Recommend that Planning Permission be approved subject to the conditions and
reasons attached.

____________________________________________________________________________

(C) CONSULTATIONS:

Area Roads Manager (15.05.09) – No objection

Area Environmental Health Manager (11.05.09) – No objection

Highlands & Islands Airports Ltd. (15.05.09) – No objection

Health & Safety Executive (09.07.09) – No comment as this is not a notifiable site

____________________________________________________________________________

(D) SITE HISTORY:

Agenda Item 7
Page 99
01/89/01232 – Erection of two barley/malt silos – Approved 21st February 1990

____________________________________________________________________________

(E) PUBLICITY:

None required

____________________________________________________________________________

(F) REPRESENTATIONS:

Objection:

ACHA (Argyll Community Housing Association), Dalriada House, Lochnell Street,
Lochgilphead (14.05.09)

G Hamiltion, 3 Bayview, Port Ellen (11.05.09)
E Hamilton, 3 Bayview, Port Ellen (11.05.09)

Lachie & Margaret MacDonald, 6 Antrim View, Port Ellen (07.05.09)

R Baker, 12 Antrim View, Port Ellen (07.05.09)

Alison & Nigel MacTaggart, 28 Antrim View, Port Ellen (11.05.09)

Niall Colthart, 9 Bayview, Port Ellen (24.06.09)

98 signature petition submitted by G McKay of 1 Bayview, Port Ellen

Support:

John Grant, 88 Lennox Street, Port Ellen (28.05.09)

(i) Summary of issues raised

Letters of Objection:

• That, in view of the collapse of a previous silo, the proposal gives rise to an
unacceptable health and safety risk to the occupants of adjoining residential
property.

Comments: Planning decisions should always be made on planning grounds and
in the public interest. The planning system should not be used to secure
objectives that are more properly achieved under other legislation. The grant of
planning permission does not remove the need to seek other statutory consents
nor does it imply that these consents will be forthcoming. In this particular
instance the safety concerns raised are considered to be planning matters in so
much as they relate to a reasonable concern over to the proposed use of the site.
In considering what weight to give to this issue it is necessary to be aware that
the provisions of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations
1999 place an obligation upon the site operator to provide arrangements which
ensure the safety of employees and others affected by the operation of the site.
The applicant has provided supporting information which indicates that an
appropriate risk assessment of the proposal has been undertaken and, in seeking
to replace the silos, they have sought to identify and put in place adequate
Page 100
measures to mitigate for the shortcomings in the previous development which
resulted in their structural failure. In summary, the management of risk and
enforcement of site safety is subject to specific statutory regulation which is
separate from the planning system, I am satisfied that due consideration has
been given to the Health & Safety issues raised by objectors and given the
factors covered by other legislation together with the risk assessment carried out
by the applicant, I do not consider that these concerns raised by objectors, whilst
legitimate, should prevent the granting of Planning Permission.

• That, in view of the collapse of a previous silo and the safety issues raised
about the redevelopment of this site, that the replacement silos would be
better located at an alternative site within the malting complex.

Comments: An application for planning permission requires to be determined on
its own merits having regard to material planning considerations as they relate to
the site applied for. As advised above, I do not consider that there would be a
justification to refuse Planning Permission for the proposed site. In this respect
the issue of an alternative location is not a significant factor in the assessment of
the application.

• That the proposed silos are identical to the previous silo which collapsed with
the exception of an additional layer of powder coating – confirmation is
sought from Building Standards that this method will provide the necessary
structural integrity.

Comments: The proposed silos do not require to be the subject of a Building
Warrant application to the Council – the structures being exempt from control
under the Buildings (Scotland) Regulations. The applicant has however submitted
a design certificate issued by the silo manufacturer certifying the structural
stability of the vessels.

Letters of Support:

• That when the previous silo collapsed it was almost full yet the debris was
contained within 25 feet of the silo.

• That refusal of the proposal could have an adverse impact upon both the
local economy in respect of job losses in the event of the malting being
closed.

• That refusal of the proposal could have an adverse impact upon the transport
infrastructure of the island as a result of additional HGV movements required
to make up the shortfall in production from the malting restricting ferry space
for other traffic.
____________________________________________________________________________

(G) SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Has the application been the subject of:

(i) Environmental Statement: No

(ii) An appropriate assessment under the Conservation (Natural Habitats)
Regulations 1994: No

Page 101
(iii) A design or design/access statement: No

(iv) A report on the impact of the proposed development eg. Retail impact, transport
impact, noise impact, flood risk, drainage impact etc: No

(v) Support Statement:

The applicant has submitted a statement in support of the proposal which is
summarised as follows:
• That the previous silos were installed in 1991. They were of a standard grain
silo design as many similar vessels in use around the world; Diageo has
similar structures on other sites that have been installed without incident for
circa 35 years.
• One 950tonne capacity silo collapsed on 14th November 2008 whist
containing 810tonne of malt barley. No adverse weather conditions are
attributed to the collapse. The collapse involved a vertical tear in the sheeting
which propagated the entire height of the silo causing significant spillage of
malt barley into the adjacent area. No personnel, residents of adjacent
property or members of the general public were injured in the incident;
although 6 neighbouring houses were evacuated for 2½ days as a
precautionary measure whilst structural engineers and a demolition crew
undertook works on site.
• Subsequently, following investigation, the structural failure of the silo has
been attributed to significant corrosion on the corrugated sheets behind the
vertical steel stiffeners. A similar, previously undetected corrosion pattern
was also evident in the second silo which was demolished as a precautionary
measure following inspection. No clear initiating event has been established
for the collapse although it is thought possible that cooler temperatures
caused sufficient contraction in the corrugated sheeting which was enough to
cause the sheet material to fail along a corroded line. The silos were exposed
over their 17 year lifespan to both the marine/coastal environment and the
output from peat kilns which are drawn into this part of the site in particular
weather conditions. Investigation has shown that the corrosion was worst on
areas of the silo which were most sheltered from the wind and sun; areas
which are likely to take longer to dry out thus potentially accelerating
corrosive effects.
• In response to the structural failure of the silo Diageo have implemented an
enhanced inspection/maintenance regime with existing silos to be inspected
for similar corrosion (i.e. behind the vertical stiffeners). Silos located in a
Page 102
marine/coastal environment or which are subject to peated kiln exhaust
products are inspected first. A regular inspection regime is to be implemented
thereafter.
• Future installations in marine/coastal locations will receive enhanced
corrosion protection in the form of a high grade of galvanising followed by a
powder coating/epoxy based paint system to ensure a longer operating life.
• That three alternative solutions to the replacement of the silos in their original
location have been investigated, namely:
(i) Do Nothing: This option would prove extremely difficult to operate as the
timing of production commencement and product rest periods would become
finely balanced in respect of the storage capacity at the site. Not only would
the permanent loss of the two silos result in a loss of flexibility to store
surplus product during distillery shut down periods or to maintain production
where bad weather delays barley deliveries; during periods of maintenance
at the site it would also be necessary to ship in any shortfall of product from
the mainland. It would also require 5 of the 6 distilleries served by the site to
coincide their shut down period whereas at present this holiday/maintenance
period is spread across four months.
(ii) Rebuild Silos in Alternative Location: This option would entail the erection
of silos in locations where they would be visually prominent and impact upon
the setting of adjacent listed buildings. New conveyors to both fill and empty
the silos would need to connect to the current grain handling equipment and
would extend over a significant distance. The longer conveyor lengths would
increase the future operational and maintenance costs of the site. The risk
assessment for employee’s and site visitors remains the same as the
proposed replacement of the silos in their original location.
(iii) Build a Flat Barley Store and Smaller Malt Silos: This option would
require the erection of a flat barley store in the region of 42m x 30m x 11.5m,
probably on the site of the peat shed which would require to be rebuilt on the
village side of the site. A shed of this size would again be visually prominent
and impact upon the setting of adjacent listed buildings. Filling and emptying
the store would require conveying systems over a significant distance with
frequent vehicle movements around the site to support a 24/7 operation.
Again this would have an operational and maintenance impact for the future.
In addition some smaller (200tonne) malt storage would be required on the
site of the existing silo foundations.
• Diageo has been working with the Council’s Environmental Health team to
monitor emissions from the kilning process. Whilst it has been found that
Page 103
emissions are within the requirements of the National Air Quality Standards
the low stack design allows for plume grounding in certain weather
conditions. This has led to complaints from a number of neighbours in
addition to subjecting the silos to additional moisture levels. It is proposed to
seek planning permission in the near future for the erection of a higher, 37m
stack at a cost in excess of £1million during the annual site shut down to
resolve this problem.
• That in considering options to re-establish barley and malt storage that can
sustain production levels over the long term, the obligations under Health &
Safety legislation to both the company’s employees and neighbours has been
a primary consideration. The selected option to rebuild the silos upon the
existing foundations and reconnect them to the adjacent silo block and grain
handling conveyors is the best operational fit with other site equipment. The
proposed silos take account of the recommendations from the incident
investigation by having enhanced corrosion protection through the use of
powder coating. Powder coating will provide an additional protective layer
preventing chlorides from the coastal air attacking the galvanised finish on
the metal (effectively adding a second layer of protection). A revised
inspection and maintenance regime will be implemented; the inspections will
include a method of examining the interface between the vertical stiffener and
silo side sheeting. The current proposal address the requirement to improve
corrosion protection to prevent premature failure of the silos. Combined with
the inspection and maintenance programme it is believed that this reduces
the likelihood and therefore the residual risk of premature failure to a level
that is as low as practicable.
____________________________________________________________________________

(H) PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

(i) Is a Section 75 agreement required: No

____________________________________________________________________________

(I) Has a Direction been issued by Scottish Ministers in terms of Regulation 30, 31 or
32: No

(J) Section 25 of the Act; Development Plan and any other material considerations
over and above those listed above which have been taken into account in the
assessment of the application

(i) List of all Development Plan Policy considerations taken into account in
assessment of the application.

Page 104
‘Argyll and Bute Structure Plan’ 2002

STRAT DC 1 – Development within the Settlements

‘Argyll and Bute Local Plan’ 2009

LP ENV 1 – Development Impact on the General Environment
LP ENV 19 – Development Setting, Layout and Design
LP BUS 1 – Business and Industry Proposals in Existing Settlements
LP BAD 1 – Bad Neighbour Development

(ii) List of all other material planning considerations taken into account in the
assessment of the application, having due regard to Annex A of Circular
4/2009.

• Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (As amended);
• The design of the proposed development and its relationship to its
surroundings;
• View of consultees;
• The previous presence of identical development on the site for a significant
period of time;
• Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;
• Eight letters of representation and a ninety-eight signature petition.



(K) Is the proposal a Schedule 2 Development not requiring an Environmental Impact
Assessment: No


(L) Has the application been the subject of statutory pre-application consultation
(PAC): No

(M) Has a sustainability check list been submitted: No

(N) Does the Council have an interest in the site: No

(O) Requirement for a hearing (PAN41 or other): No

The Planning Department has received seven letters and a ninety-eight signature
petition raising objection to the proposal and, one letter in support of the proposal –
Members are therefore advised that it is necessary to give consideration to holding a
discretionary hearing in advance of determining the application.

In this particular instance all bar one of the representations relate solely to perceived
health and safety risks associated with the proposed development. The management of
risk in respect of site health and safety is the subject of specific legislation it is the
responsibility of the site owners and operators. In such circumstances and taking into
account the comments on the representations and the assessment, it is not considered
necessary to convene a discretionary hearing prior to the determination if this
application.
Page 105


(P) Assessment and summary of determining issues and material considerations

• The proposal seeks to erect two malt/barley silos of identical siting, design and
appearance to two structures demolished in November 2008. The proposal is
considered to be consistent with the provisions of policies STRAT DC 1, LP ENV 1,
LP ENV 19, LP BUS 1 and LP BAD 1 of the Development Plan.

• Seven letters and a ninety-eight signature petition raising objection to the proposal
on the grounds of a perceived risk to health and safety.

• One letter in support of the proposal has been received.


(Q) Is the proposal consistent with the Development Plan: Yes


(R) Reasons why Planning Permission should be granted
The proposal relates to the replacement of a storage facility within an existing industrial
site. The proposed replacement silos are identical in siting, scale, design, finishes and
nature of use to those which previously stood in this location. The proposal involves the
redevelopment of brownfield land and is considered unlikely to give rise to adverse
impacts upon the amenity of adjacent residential property or upon the surrounding
landscape/townscape setting, nor does it give rise to additional demands in respect of
access or servicing. Consequently, the proposal is considered to be of a form, location
and scale which is consistent with the provisions of policies STRAT DC 1, LP ENV 1, LP
ENV 19, LP BUS 1 and LP BAD 1.


(S) Reasoned justification for a departure to the provisions of the Development Plan

Not applicable


(T) Need for notification to Scottish Ministers or Historic Scotland: No



Author of Report: Peter Bain Date: 4th August 2009

Reviewing Officer: Neil McKay Date: 5th August 2009



Angus Gilmour
Head of Planning
Page 106




Page 107
CONDITIONS AND REASONS RELATIVE TO APPLICATION REF. NO. 09/00627/DET

1. That the development to which this permission relates must be begun within three years
from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.


2. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details specified on the
application form dated 30th April 2009 and the approved drawing reference numbers
AZ70402:28:010, AZ70402:28:011 and, AZ70402:28:012 unless the prior written approval of
the planning authority is obtained for other materials/finishes/for an amendment to the
approved details under Section 64 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

Reason: For the purpose of clarity, to ensure that the development is implemented in
accordance with the approved details.








NOTE TO APPLICANT

• In order to comply with Section 27A(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act
1997, prior to works commencing on site it is the responsibility of the developer to complete
and submit the attached ‘Notice of Initiation of Development’ to the Planning Authority
specifying the date on which the development will start.

• In order to comply with Section 27B(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act
1997 it is the responsibility of the developer to submit the attached ‘Notice of Completion’ to
the Planning Authority specifying the date upon which the development was completed.
Page 108

APPENDIX A – RELATIVE TO APPLICATION NUMBER: 09/00627/DET


PLANNING LAND USE AND POLICY ASSESSMENT


A. Settlement Strategy

The application site lies within the ‘settlement area’ for Port Ellen where in the provisions
of policies STRAT DC 1 and LP BUS 1 would support the principle of up to and including
‘medium’ scale business and industry development.

The proposal is ‘small’ scale in nature and is considered to be consistent with the
relevant provisions of policies STRAT DC 1 and LP BUS 1.


B. Location, Nature and Design of Proposed Development

The proposal relates to a 500sqm site located within the Port Ellen Maltings complex;
specifically the proposal seeks Planning Permission for the erection of two malt/barley
silos to replace two identical silos removed in November 2008 following the structural
failure of one silo.

The proposed silos are cylindrical structures which will be 17.2m (13.2m to eaves) in
height from an existing concrete base and 12.5m in diameter constructed for the purpose
of storing barley/malt barley in connection with the malting process undertaken onsite.
The proposed silos will be constructed in corrugated galvanised steel sheeting spanning
horizontally between vertical steel stiffeners; all sheeting and stiffeners shall be powder
coated, coloured goosewing grey (BS 00A05) to provide additional corrosion protection.

The proposal is identical in siting, design and appearance to that of the silos which
previously stood in this location. The Area Environmental Health Manager has not raised
objection to the proposal and in this respect confirms that the operation of the proposed
development will not give rise to a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of
existing adjacent residential property in respect of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke,
ash, dust or grit. Similarly, given the previous presence of identical silos at this location,
the Planning Department does not view the proposal to give rise to concern in respect of
standards of privacy or daylight afforded to adjacent property. The Health and Safety
Executive have declined to comment on the proposed development as the proposal
does not lie with the safeguarding area for a notifiable hazardous installation. The
proposal is considered to be consistent with the requirements of policies LP BUS 1 and
LP BAD 1.


C. Built Environment

The proposed silos are identical in location and appearance to the silos demolished in
November 2008. The silos will sit adjacent to a significantly taller building of industrial
appearance and will be viewed in the context of the existing industrial use of the site.

In view of the above, the proposal will not, by virtue of its design, scale or siting, have an
adverse impact upon the surrounding landscape/townscape character and as such is
considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of policies LP ENV 19 and LP
BUS 1.

Page 109
IIt is noted that, in view of safety concerns expressed by the residents of property
adjoining the site, the applicant has investigated two alternative sites for the silos. Both
these sites have been ruled out as impractical in respect of their integration with the site
process as complex conveyor systems or substantial HGV movements would be
required to integrate these into the existing onsite process setup. It had also been noted
that the alternative sites were likely to raise concerns respectively in respect of impact
upon visual impact, residential amenity and the setting of listed buildings.


I. Road Network, Parking and Associated Transport Matters.

The proposal relates to the replacement of silos which previously existed on site as
recently as November 2008; access to the site will be as per existing arrangements; the
nature of the proposed development will not give rise to additional vehicle movements
on/off the site.

The Area Roads Manager has not raised any objections to the proposal; the proposal is
considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of policy LP BUS 1.


J. Infrastructure

The proposal relates to the replacement of silos on an existing serviced site; the nature
of the proposed development will not give rise to additional infrastructure requirements.
Consequently, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of
LP BUS 1.


Page 110