251349

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  1  of  32

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. 23/01407/B Applicant : Manx Utilities Authority Proposal The construction of a new Sewage Treatment Works and creation of new vehicular access Site Address Land West Of Glenfaba Road Fields 311835, 311836 And 311785 Glenfaba Road Peel Isle Of Man

Case Officer :

Russell Williams Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 02.07.2024

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. No development shall be commenced until soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such a scheme shall include details of new trees and hedgerow and shall include a landscaping plan, planting specification and a programme of implementation.

The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out during the first available planting season following the commencement of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Department.

Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure appropriate mitigation for the loss of trees is secured, in the interest of landscape character and biodiversity.

C 3. Prior to the commencement of any works details of the protection measures during construction for the following features on site shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Department. o Trees along the southern edge of the site

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  2  of  32

o Trees in area of the pipe to the west of the site o Retained sod banks to the east and west of the site; and o Field 311816 (outside of the road area). The agreed protection measures shall be in place for the duration of construction works.

Reason: To provide protection of retained features

C 4. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date on which the development first comes into operation, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

C 5. Prior to the commencement of the installation of any process related equipment which has a risk of creating odours, a scheme for the undertaking of measures to reduce odour emissions must be submitted to and approved by the Department in writing and the development undertaken in accordance with these details. These measures should include the provision of tank covers, bottom filling the tanks, avoidance of build up of sludge, a programme for maintaining all equipment and detailing of how staff will ensure hatches and covers are properly closed and how spillages will be avoided and dealt with.

Reason: to reduce the potential for odour nuisance from the proposed development

C 6. No development shall take place above ground until a scheme for the enhancement of biodiversity on the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The scheme shall include details of the proposed management of the grassland area and a bat and bird box plan and shall include a timetable for implementation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: These details are required to enhance habitat on the site in the future and to ensure that the development accords with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

C 7. Prior to the commencement of any development a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Directorate.

The Biodiversity Mitigation Plan will include details of the Precautionary Working Method Statements for breeding birds and common lizards and a materials management plan, relevant for the specific works proposed. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: These details are required prior to commencement to protect and enhance existing species and habitat on the site in the future and to ensure that the development accords with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

C 8. A fungi survey of field 311836, which will include a grassland fungi management regime, shall be carried out between 1 September 2024 and 30 November 2024, by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy. Thereafter the associated fungi survey report shall be submitted to the Department and approved in writing. The field must then be managed in line with the recommended management regime for a minimum 5 year maintenance period following the commencement of the development.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  3  of  32

Reason: In the interests of maintaining ecological value and protection of fungi within the site.

C 9. No external lighting shall be installed except in accordance with a detailed external low level lighting scheme which complies with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (2023), which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. The approved scheme shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the development accords with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

C 10 Prior to the commencement of the development the access changes and visibility splays across the site frontage shall be provided in accordance with the layout in approved drawing no. 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0614 Rev P2.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate access during the construction of the development and in the interests of highway safety.

C 11 Prior to the use of the development first commencing, the access and visibility splays across the site frontage shall be finished in accordance with approved drawing no. 10057112- ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0614 Rev P2 and thereafter shall be permanently maintained as such.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

C 12 Prior to the commencement of the development details of surface water drainage works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The information submitted shall be in accordance with the principles set out in the approved drainage strategy. The submitted details shall: i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii. include a timetable for implementation; and iii. provide a surface water management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution for the lifetime of the development.

C 13. If the sewage treatment works, or any element thereof become redundant for its original purpose, or the works or any part thereof cease to be operational, all of the relevant infrastructure must be removed from site and the site restored to its former condition. A scheme for how this will be undertaken including timings, must be approved by the Department within six months of the facility or any part thereof becoming redundant and the restoration works undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: The development is considered acceptable on the basis of the identified need and environmental benefit but if the facility is no longer required or operational, the development should be removed from site, reinstating the original environmental condition of the site

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed development will give rise to a low level of harm and policy conflict over land use, however, the proposed development will deliver an infrastructure and sewerage project to serve one of the main towns on the Island, where raw sewage is currently pumped untreated into the ocean. The provision of a sewage treatment works will be instrumental in meeting a significant number of environmental objectives, in particular RSTS2, UNESCO Biosphere Status,

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  4  of  32

and future environmental objectives detailed within 'Our Island Plan'. The delivery of modern sewage treatment facilities for one of the largest towns on the Island and the associated water quality improvements carries significant weight, particularly given the nationally identified need to deliver these facilities. The benefits of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified harm and it is therefore recommended that planning permission be approved.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the following drawings and statements, date stamped received on 30 November 2023:

SITE LOCATION PLAN AND PLANNING BOUNDARY 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0600 P3 EXISTING SECTIONS SHEET 1 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0602 P2 EXISTING SECTIONS SHEET 2 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0603 P2 EXISTING SECTIONS SHEET 3 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0604 P2 EXISTING SECTIONS SHEET 4 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0605 P2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0606 P2 PROPOSED SECTIONS SHEET 1 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0607 P3 PROPOSED SECTIONS SHEET 2 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0608 P3 PROPOSED SECTIONS SHEET 3 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0609 P2 PROPOSED SECTIONS SHEET 4 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0610 P2 PROPOSED SECTIONS SHEET 5 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0611 P3 PROPOSED SECTIONS SHEET 6 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0612 P2 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0613 P1 PROPOSED VEHICULAR ACCESS PLAN 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0614 P2 PROPOSED DIVERSION OF PUBLIC FOOTPATH PLAN 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0615 P2 PROPOSED IRBC ELEVATIONS 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0616 P2 PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION CHAMBER KIOSKS AND UV KIOSK ELEVATIONS 10057112-ARC-XX- XX-DR-T-0617 P2 PROPOSED MOTOR CONTROLS CENTRE BUILDING POTABLE WATER AND TRANSFORMER KIOSKS ELEVATIONS 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0618 P2 PROPOSED JUNCTION WITH GLENFABA ROAD VISIBILITY SPLAY 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-H- 065 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY SHEET 1 OF 2 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0003 P3 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY SHEET 2 OF 2 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0004 P3

Planning Application Supporting Statement Environmental Statement Glenfaba Arboricultural Constraints Report Statement of Community Involvement Energy Statement Accessibility Audit Checklists Road Safety Audit Report

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations: Fire Safety Officer, Isle of Man Fire and Rescue

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  5  of  32

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do not relate to planning considerations: Design Out Crime Officer, Isle of Man Constabulary

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Mouette, Peel, as owners of adjoining field number 311788 as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2): Dandara Homes Ltd

as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy Ballagawne Farm, Baldrine Kerrowdhoon, Dhoon Ramsey 21 Castle Street, Peel Sea Peep, Poortown 4 Raad Roagan, Peel 6 Oak Road, Peel Rose Dene, St Johns

as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO PLANNING AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

THE SITE & CONTEXT

1.1 The application site is located to the southwest periphery of Peel catchment. The site comprises of various parcels of agricultural land which have a total site area of approximately 5.16ha.

1.2 To the east of the site is the local A27 Glenfaba Road, while the most southerly field lies adjacent to a registered tree area, RA0531. The western part of the site is bounded by Footpath 362, "St Johns to Peel Railway Line" the 'Heritage Trail'), the Mill Leat and the River Neb. The northern extent of the site is bounded by industrial and agricultural land. The Castle View Nursing Home is situated to the northeast of the site on the A27 and a farmstead is located opposite the site entrance.

1.3 The application site where the sewage treatment works will be located is relatively level land laid to grass. The eastern side of the application site has a steep topography to it, rising sharply towards Glenfaba Road.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  6  of  32

1.4 At present, the town of Peel is generally served by a combined or partially combined foul sewer system, which drains by gravity to Peel Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) where it is pumped to sea outfall. The SPS is located off the promenade at Shore Road; it pumps untreated and unscreened effluent to an outfall and discharge point in Peel Bay, east of the breakwater.

1.5 The application site has recently been identified within the draft Area Plan for the North and West as site PE003 (Part B), which has a draft allocation for Civic, Cultural or Other Use. More specifically, Criteria 1 of the draft Development Brief Points states that the allocation "allows for the buildings and other works associated with a new regional sewage/wastewater treatment works."

THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of a new Sewage Treatment Works (STW), including the construction of a new site access road, landscaping and ancillary infrastructure and works on land off an existing field entrance on Glenfaba Road (A27). The application does not include works associated with the laying of new pipework infrastructure outside the application site, as these works can be completed by the Statutory Undertaker utilising Schedule 1 Class 4 Permitted Development Rights

2.2 The application comprises the following documents and plans: Planning Application Supporting Statement Environmental Statement/EIA Glenfaba Arboricultural Constraints Report Statement of Community Involvement Energy Statement Accessibility Audit Checklists Road Safety Audit Report

Planning Drawings - 20 no. including: Location Plan Existing site sections Proposed site sections Proposed Site Plan Proposed Landscape Plan Proposed Vehicular Access Plan Proposed PROW Diversion Plan Proposed Elevations Proposed Distribution Chamber and UV Kiosk Elevations Proposed Motor Control Building, Portable Water and Transformer Kiosk Elevations Existing Topographical Survey

2.3 The proposed development will treat local sewage and help improve bathing water quality in Peel bay. The treated effluent will achieve compliance with the European Union (EU) 1976 Bathing Water Directive (BWD) and the revised 2006 BWD as required by the Isle of Man Government.

2.4 The proposals will result in sewage being pumped from the existing Peel Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) on Peel promenade to the proposed STW. The treated effluent will then flow by gravity return and connect into existing infrastructure and discharge through the existing sea outfall at the promenade.

2.5 The extent of proposed works comprise the following elements: Upgrade the existing field entrance off the A27 and construction of a new site access road;

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  7  of  32

Provide inlet screening of influent water; Erect 1 No. single storey Motor Control Centre (MCC) building with office and store room; Construct 7 No. Integral Rotating Biological Contactors (IRBCs) with provision for future 8th and 9th units; Construct 3 No. flow distribution chambers; Provision of UV treatment facilities; Construct 3 No. odour control units; Provision of ancillary infrastructure including a works return pumping station, potable water booster unit, electricity substation and hardstanding for generators; Completion of landscaping and planting and erection of boundary fence and access gate.

2.6 Surface water site drainage which will discharge to the River Neb. Contaminated site drainage which will return to the head of the works process to be treated.

2.7 In regard to proposed buildings, the following are included within the proposed development:

The "MCC" (motor control centre) building which has a footprint of 15m by 8.5m, finished in dark green metal profile sheeting to the walls and roof. This will be situated at the eastern side of the site and will accommodate a welfare room and general storage space.

Seven IRBC (Integral Rotating Biological Contactors) structures are proposed which are the facilities which treat the sewage where effluent is discharged to a watercourse and settled solids are drawn off at regular maintenance intervals. These structures are have a curved profile and finished in dark green coloured sheeting. These structures are to be arranged in an N-S alignment and are centrally grouped within the site. These form the main part of the built development on the site. A portable water booster kiosk which measures 2.9m x 4.0m with a height of 2.8m. The unit contains a pumped water tank and is finished externally in dark green GRP walls.

A transformer kiosk which measures 3.49m x 4.165m with a height of 2.8m. The unit contains an electricity transformer and is finished externally in dark green GRP walls.

An odour control unit, which is a vented building, will be located to the eastern side of the site, adjacent to the inlet flow chamber and screen.

Four compressor kiosks will be located at the end of each pair of IRBC structures.

Three flow distribution chamber kiosks, one measuring 3.6m x 5.15m and two 3.45m x3.65m; their heights range from between 3.9m and 3.3m (approx.). The units are all finished in dark green GRP walls and flat roofs.

A UV control kiosk is proposed. It comprises a dark green GRP building measuring 6.65m x 2.9m with a flat roof height of 3.15m. Equipment for treating the waste water will be enclosed within the unit.

2.8 Regarding boundary treatments, the operational STW site will be enclosed by 2.0m paladin fencing coloured green and a 9m wide, 2m high green gate will be erected at the entrance off the access drive. A limited amount of planting, in the form of 75m long Manx hedge is proposed to the western edge of the site.

2.9 With regard to landscape planting, the application is supported by a Landscaping Plan. The proposals include 35m of Manx hedgerow removal at the new access, with a total of 115m of Manx hedgerow constructed at the access and along the upper section of the proposed access and driveway. Compensatory grassland enhancement measures are proposed on field

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  8  of  32

no. 311875, which is to the northern side of the STW area. New tree planting is proposed together with the reinforcement of existing mixed scrub copse.

2.10 The proposals involve the formation of a new access to the site. This will be located in the approximate position of an existing field access gate. A traditional bell-mouth access is proposed, perpendicular to Glenfaba Road. The new access track then heads south, following the natural contour of the land before completing a U-turn at the southern end of the site and heading north, along the western boundary. The new track enters the STW site to its southwest corner; within the STW site access around the various buildings is provided over the concrete surfacing. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m are proposed in both directions across the site frontage.

2.11 The construction phase of the development is expected to last 2 years. The majority of construction will occur in normal construction working hours defined in Isle of Man Government guidance (i.e., Monday to Friday 08:00-18:00 and Saturday 08:00-14:00). Evening and night working may be required for construction of the turning point off the A27 to prevent this road needing to be closed during the day.

PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The following planning history is considered pertinent to this application;

20/00344/A - Approval in principle for the erection of a sewage treatment plant by Patrick Commissioners - Fields 311785, 311787 & 311835 Between Glenfaba Road and Former Douglas to Peel Railway Line Peel Isle of Man. This application was DEEMED WITHDRAWN before determining.

To the north of the site in the adjacent field:

18/01293/B - Construction, operation and decommissioning of a temporary lagoon facility for dewatering and storing sediment dredged from Peel Marina and installation, operation and removal of temporary pipelines along and alongside the River Neb between Ballaterson Farm and Peel Marina. Field 315179 Ballaterson Farm Glenfaba Road Peel Isle Of Man. Approved.

To the east of the site:

07/01465/B - Residential development of 21 dwellings with associated parking. Field 311788 Adjacent To Brickworks Entrance Glenfaba Road Peel Isle of Man. Approved.

To the south of the site:

19/00462/B - Construction of a Sewage Treatment Works (STW) by Manx Utilities with associated pipelines and site works. Glenfaba House, Glenfaba Road, Raggatt, Peel. Application withdrawn prior to the Council of Ministers' consideration of the Inspector's report which recommended refusal.

PLANNING POLICY

Adopted Local Plan

4.1 The application site (fields 311836,311835 and 311785) is identified on the Peel Local Plan 1989 as Predominately Industrial. The site is just outside of the defined main settlement boundary of Peel. This site is marked with the Notation No.7 with reference to the written statement paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8 (outlined below). o 6.7 notes; "The land which has been zoned for Industrial Use is considered sufficient and no further allocation is envisaged".

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  9  of  32

o 6.8 notes; "Residential Development in the vicinity will be discouraged".

4.2 The site is not within the identified Conservation Area of Peel on Map 3 1990.

4.3 The site is identified with localised areas of Surface Water Flooding on the DoI Flood Risk Map (likely low spots on the ground)

4.4 There is registered trees or registered tree groups being identified as RA0531 adjacent to the south side of field 311836.

4.5 There is a Public Right of Way to the west of the site ref; 362 (St. Johns to Peel former Railway line)

Emerging Area Plan for the North and West

4.6 This plan is set to supersede the Peel Local Plan but until this plan is formally adopted through Tynwald it carries limited to no material weight in any assessment of an application but acts as a general guidance as to the direction planning policy is heading for the area.

4.7 In terms of the emerging plan it is helpful to note this site is identified on the draft proposals Map 6 as being within the existing settlement boundary and further defined as; "Civic, Cultural or other use" with the description code of; "PE003 (Part B)" The adjoining land or field to the north is zoned as industrial. "Note: Buildings or Land for Civic, Cultural or Other Use may include cemeteries, faith, education, community health, other social infrastructure and sports centres".

4.8 Turning to the specific site of the proposals, within the written statement accompanying the plans, the site is specifically referred to at para 10.8.5 and the following paragraphs where it notes the need for improving of the sewerage system and refers to the application site. This site is also accompanied with a suggested development brief which notes on page 86/87.

Determining Planning Policies

In terms of any application, the most weight could been given to the Strategic Plan 2016 and the Peel Local Plan 1989 as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald. From the IoM Strategic Plan, some of the more pertinent policies that could be considered in the assessment of this application are:

Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 4a Protection of heritage assets 4b Protection of the landscape and biodiversity 4c No environmental pollution 5 Design and visual impact 7 Protection of industrial land 10 Sustainable transport

Spatial Policy 2 Identified Service Centres for development 5 New development to defined settlements

General Policy 2 General Development Considerations

Environment Policy

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  10  of  32

1 Protection of the countryside and its Ecology 3 Protection of Trees and woodland 4 Wildlife and Nature Conservation 7 Protection of existing watercourses 10 Potential risk of flooding 24 Requirement for an EIA 22 Environmental Harm, pollution of water, emissions, statutory nuisances 26 Development near contaminated land 36 Preservation of views for development adjacent to Conservation Areas 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality

Business Policy 5 Industrial land uses only storage and distribution, limitations on retail

Transport Policy 4 Highway Safety 7 Parking Provisions

Energy Policy 5 Need for an Energy Impact Assessment (over 100m of other development)

Infrastructure Policy 5 Water conservation and management

Community Policy 10 Proper access for firefighting appliances 11 Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire

Waste Policy 1 Waste management installations

Appendix 5 and paragraphs 7.18 (the accompanying text to EP 24)

Strategic level considerations; The following may assist in providing further information / evidence regarding Government's agreed strategic direction.

o Our Island Plan (2022) Essentially sets out the broad direction and overall ambition and vision for the Island from 2021

• 2026 with core strategic objectives to offer a 'secure', 'vibrant' and 'sustainable' Island. It includes a specific reference to the delivery of sustainable sewage treatment across the Island.

o Employment Land Review (2013) and revised in 2017 This is an evidence base to inform land use plans and individual planning applications, and to support activity to stimulate economic growth.

o Isle of Man Economic Strategy (2022) This highlights the economic strategy for taking the IoM forward through headwinds to 2032 and notes where greater investments are being made into the economic future.

o Climate change action plan (2022-2027) This commits the Island to making significant changes to become more sustainable and less dependent on fossil fuels to become carbon neutral. This will impact upon the buildings, transport and business and how we use energy moving forward.

o Built Environment Reform Programme (2022)

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  11  of  32

BERP is a two year programme of work set out to develop commitments in the Island Plan to build great communities. The document also promotes brown field sites for regeneration and ways to stimulate development in the widest terms. (Strategic Objective 4)

REPRESENTATIONS (this report only contain summaries - full reps can be read online)

5.1 Peel Town Commissioners - SUPPORT the application and comment as follows:

The Commissioners believe the planning application meets all the policies and requirements of both the Peel Local Plan 1989 and the Strategic Plan 2016. The Commissioners hope planning consent can be granted as soon as possible to stop the discharge of raw sewage into Peel bay.

5.2 Patrick Commissioners - SUPPORT the application and comment as follows:

The Commissioners are concerned about traffic serving the works both during construction and in operation. Traffic should not use Glenfaba Road towards and through Patrick Village for reasons of road safety: Glenfaba Bridge in particular is not suitable for any volume of heavy traffic, and neither is Patrick Corner. In short, there is a case for an environmental weight limit in the road to protect the bridge. In the event that this route is chosen, the Commissioners believe that consideration should be given to the imposition of speed limits on Glenfaba Road and that it is essential that a footpath be constructed on the stretches of the roadway where none exists presently.

5.3 German Commissioners - No comments received.

5.4 DoI - Highways Services - No objection raised and comment as follows:

Four issues were raised by the audit, two required action to ensure visibility splays were kept clear, one concerned an opposing field access that has been stated to be abandoned and hedgerow replanted. The other issue related to passing vehicle speeds and a change of speed limit location. Through discussions with the designers, Highways accepted that the visibility provided was sufficient for the passing vehicle speeds based on local traffic counters rather than the posted speed limit that the auditors would have used. Highways consider all issue raised by the audit to have been appropriately actioned. The unobstructed visibility of 2.4m x 120m is acceptable for this access and the recorded passing speeds. The access has been designed to accommodate the largest vehicle type to use the site, displayed through vehicle tracking provided. Tracking has shown that two-way vehicle movement can be supported at the access which will minimise disruption along the highway and prevent the need for large vehicles to wait on the road. Vehicles on exit in a southbound direction will have to momentarily run in the opposing lane of Glenfaba Road which may cause an oncoming vehicle to stop in the road. Highways consider that this occurrence will be infrequent based on the predicted use of the site and would not case significant disruption to the network or its users. Access gates have been stated to be placed a sufficient distance from the access in order to allow vehicles to pull in off the highway. Surface water drainage has been considered in the design with a number of gullies provided to intercept. Highway Drainage Team should review the proposal in order to confirm the acceptance of this proposal. The access road is a min. 7.3m for its entirety which is more than sufficient for two-way passing vehicles. Localised widening has been provided along the bends in order to maintain passing when long wheel based vehicles need to manoeuvre through them. pedestrian access in unlikely to be required to the site with all expected trips to occur via personal or works vehicles. Despite this, the design has been future proofed in the event there is any further development, change of use, or additional access requirement further to this specific proposal.

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  12  of  32

A 2m verge has been maintained throughout the length of the access road that could be later converted to a footway meeting current standards. The 2m verge is not impacted by the vehicle tracking provided. Tracking has shown there is adequate room internally to allow vehicles to operate and turn in order to exit in a forward gear. There is no specific parking standard for a sewage treatment works under the Strategic Plan. The proposal has provided two parking spaces for operatives outside of the internal operating road areas. Based on the applicant's operation plan, staff parking is sufficient. However, Highways consider that there is adequate room within the site to support further informal parking and not negatively impact upon other vehicle operations or the highway. The proposal would result in temporary closures of the PROW Heritage Trail. At the point effected, the Heritage Trail breaks into two routes, allowing continued pedestrian use of the trail whilst works are carried out. Closures of the sections of the trail will require separate permissions and should be carried out one at a time in order to maintain public use. The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal.

5.5 DEFA - Eco Systems Policy - No objection raised and comment as follows:

Confirm that all reports are in order. The only potential feature of interest for which the impacts have not been fully quantified and therefore mitigated for, is the potential fungi interest in field 311836. The applicants Ecological Consultant's, Ecology Vannin, recommend in their PEAR that an assessment for fungi be undertaken in field 311836 and this is reiterated in the Biodiversity Chapter of the Environmental Statement (Chapter 4) which says that a grassland fungi assessment is to be commissioned in the autumn, when the fungi fruiting bodies will be showing. Part of this field is to be permanently lost so that the STW access track can be created. The Ecosystem Policy Team accept this loss on the basis that the rest of the field will be retained, protected from construction activities and then managed sensitively and management will be determined once the survey is complete. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and an autumn fungi survey will both need to be secured via condition. Additional mitigation measures are proposed as follows: Provision of a CEMP which protects the habitats and species on and offsite from damaging construction impacts; The replacement of grassland following construction; The replacement of hedges following construction, the bolstering of retained hedges, and the creation of new hedges to compensate for hedges that are to be permanently removed; Tree planting; The creation of new mixed scrub areas; The provision of a low level lighting plan; Ongoing positive hedge and grassland management regimes; Artificial bird nest and bat roost provision Conditions have been recommended to secure this mitigation. The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that we are mostly content with the details in the Proposed Landscaping Plan (Drg. No. 10057112-ARC-XX-XX-DR-T-0613), and this includes the scrub planting, Manx hedge creation and grassland retention in field 311836; hedge creation, tree planting and hedge bolstering in field 311835; the hedge bolstering and grassland enhancement in field 311785, and the tree and hedge planting species contained in the Planting Schedule. Not content with some parts of landscaping proposals (so condition required to address further submission of details)

5.6 DEFA - Environmental Protection - Support the proposals and comment as follows:

Water Pollution Act 1993 Section 5

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  13  of  32

With regard to PA 23/01407/B the Environmental Protection Unit supports the application as it will cease the discharge of raw sewage into Peel Bay. The sewage treatment works has been designed by Manx Utilities in accordance with the EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive although not a legal requirement in the Isle of Man it is used as best practice. The bathing water quality will improve and allow Peel and Fenella beach to be considered for designation as a bathing water under the Water Pollution (Bathing Water Standards and Objectives) Scheme 2021. The sewage treatment works has been designed to ensure the minimum standard of Good bathing water status as detailed in the scheme above. Manx Utilities will sample the discharging effluent with the results reported to DEFA; the data will be assessed against the conditions detailed in the discharge license. The Environmental Protection Unit will be responsible for issuing the discharge license under the Water Pollution Act 1993. The discharge of treated sewage effluent will need to meet the standards outlined in the Water Pollution (Standards and Objectives) Scheme 2020 and any other conditions deemed appropriate to protect the environment.

Public Health Act 1990 Part IV

There are no waste concerns with the proposal.

5.7 Isle of Man Constabulary - No comment to make.

5.8 Isle of Man Fire & Rescue - No objection and comment as follows:

Request that prior to the commencement of development, the applicant consult with the Fire Service in order to discuss and agree the provision of fire hydrants and access thereto.

5.9 DEFA - Forestry - No objection and comment as follows:

Based on the information provided, the Agriculture and Lands Directorate would have no objection to this proposal and will not be seeking any further information.

THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS (this report only contain summaries - full reps can be read online)

5.21 There are a number of comments that have been received from residents and/or business owners of properties who OBJECT to the proposals. The objections have been summarised by property, as follows:

Mouette, Peel

The resident confirms their ownership of adjoining land, field number 311788, which they claim has an extant planning permission for the development of 21 dwellings. The state that the Site Location Plan is drawn incorrectly along the northern boundary. They do not consider the application to assess the cumulative impact of the proposals upon their land, local residents and businesses and conflicts with General Policy 2 (g) and (k). They consider there to be an absence of information on the control of pollution in Peel Bay. They question whether the applicant will submit technical information on the quality of treated effluent to be discharged and how it complies with standards. They also ask for information on how the IRBCs can treat PCB to comply with standards. They consider there to be other alternative sites available that can discharge into non-bathing areas. They also raise concern over the treatment of airbourne pathogens and the stability of the embankment on the site. The resident does not consider the implemented planning permission for 21 dwellings on their land to have been fully considered by the submitted documents and that the application does not confirm with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22, in regard to the impact upon the adjoining residential development. They also state in correspondence that the proposals fail to comply with a number of Strategic

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  14  of  32

Plan policies. The resident raises concerns over the screening size and use of UV irradiation treatment of the sewage and inability of the IRBCs to treat PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls contamination) from the Raggatt leachate. They consider it likely that sewage will not be treated to suitable standards and that alternative sites are available and more suitable. They also believe that Peel should be linked to Union Mills in order to prevent discharge into Peel Bay. This option is, they say, will cost much less than the proposed STW based upon the cost of other pipelines on the Island. The resident raises concerns over the impact of above ground STW infrastructure upon the landscape and scenic beauty. The development will also pollute the environment from type particles, oil and other chemicals. The objector draws attention to the draft Area Plan for the North and West and states that the assessment of site PE002 is flawed. Attention is drawn to comments by Patrick Commissioners made in relation to the Glaenfaba House report, whereby they note an adverse impact upon nearby houses; the objector feels the same should apply here.

Ballagawne Farm, Baldrine

The resident states that the STW should be located as far as possible from the general population on a site large enough to cover the odour cloud and discharge point away from swimming areas. The works completed at Castletown, Port St Mary and Port Erin STW are noted as an example of how swimming area shave been cleared of raw sewage. They state that the discharge point should be located well away from Peel Harbour. Concerns are raised about an odour cloud being created by the proposal and impact upon the area. The resident draws attention to recent applications for STWs where an EIA was cited as being required and states that the same should apply in this instance. The resident considers an EIA report to be required but absent and states that this is the result of evasive behaviour by the applicant/agent. An EIA is requested so that the application can explain to the public how raw sewage would be treated and the quality of the effluent confirmed as it is being discharged into Peel Beach Bay, which is important to show conformity to Isle of Man Water Pollution Act 1993 and the Water Pollution (Standards and Objectives) Scheme 2020. The resident states that the submitted Environmental Assessment makes no mention of how the IRBCs clean the raw sewage and turn it into legally compliant effluent to protect the sea environment. They also state there to be no information on how PCBs are dealt with or how sewage sludge is disposed of.

Kerrowdhoon, Ramsey

The resident raises concern over the absence of an EIA. That odour will contaminate the local environment and draws attention to the impact upon nearby property given the proximity of Castle Nursing Home and the adjoining field that has residential development commenced on it. The resident claims that the treated effluent will not reach the same standards as the facility at Meary Veg.

5.22 There are a number of comments that have been received from residents and or business owners of properties who SUPPORT to the proposals. Their comments have been summarised by property, as follows:

4 Raad Roagan, Peel

The supporter notes that the works must go ahead and that it is unacceptable for raw sewage to be released close to a bathing beach. The ecological implications of releasing raw sewage are also noted.

6 Oak Road, Peel

The resident notes the importance of the facility following recent spills. It is suggested that the facility treat the Raggett leachate and future access to the industrial estate would be beneficial.

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  15  of  32

Dandara Homes Limited

The developer advises of their interest in a nearby development site and supports the proposals, noting its location as being appropriate and required to meet the long term needs of Peel and the West.

5.23 There are a number of comments that have been received from residents and or business owners of properties who neither support or object to the proposals, but offer neutral comments as follows:

21 Castle Street, Peel The residents questions whether a Geophysical Survey should be submitted as locals believe this to be a possible site of a Viking fleet. The resident states that a historic path crosses the site and that there is a well on the site also.

Sea Peep, Peel

The resident notes that an ownership certificate has not been submitted and also references the general layout of the proposed STW.

Rose Dene, St Johns

The resident notes the dire need for the treatment facility and that it is unacceptable to be pumping raw sewage into the sea. The resident raises concerns over the transport impact upon Patrick Road and the need for highway improvements (including pavements) and speed limits along Glenfaba Road and Patrick Road. They note that the road is dark and dangerous for cyclists and walkers. The development, along with planned housing, will increase traffic and people using Patrick Road. The traffic survey is noted but concern is raised that the wider transport route was not included. Consideration of transport impact upon old properties and bridges should be had.

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows: o Principle of Development o Material Considerations o Environmental Impact

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

6.2 General principle of development

Planning Policy

6.2.1 The application seeks planning permission for the construction of a new sewage treatment works to serve the town of Peel and its surrounding catchment. As discussed within the report, Peel does not currently benefit from a functioning sewage treatment works, with unscreened sewage instead being drained via gravity to Peel Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) where it is pumped to sea outfall. The SPS is located off the promenade at Shore Road; it pumps untreated and unscreened effluent to an outfall and discharge point in Peel Bay, east of the breakwater. Peel is not isolated in this regard and the Government have therefore adopted the Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy Phase 1 which generally provided for the need to progress the construction and commissioning of new and replacement sewage treatment plants. The Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy Phase 2 (RSTS2) covers Baldrine, Laxey and Peel. The applicant is seeking permission to provide the first sewage treatment infrastructure to

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  16  of  32

serve Peel and its catchment area; this will include treatment of leachate from the now disused Raggatt landfill site. The proposals would, when completed, result in a significant improvement to the treatment of sewage for the area and in turn provide significant enhancement to water quality in Peel Bay.

6.2.2 Waste Policy 1 states that "Waste management installations, including landfill sites, civic amenity sites and facilities for the bulking up, separation, recycling, or recovery or materials from waste will be permitted" subject to a number of criteria being met. This policy also sets out in the last sentence that applications involving the installations of facilities referred to this policy will require the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment. These criteria are assessed throughout the report and an assessment of the material impacts of the development considered as a whole.

6.2.3 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as "Areas of Predominantly Industrial Use (proposed)". This matter is supplemented by the Peel Local Plan (1989) which continues to identify the land as being identified as "Predominantly Industrial". Paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8 of the Peel Local Plan 1989 confirms that the area is zoned for industrial use to meet the identified need (6.7) and that residential development in the vicinity of this area will be discouraged (6.8).

6.2.4 General Policy 2 of the IMSP 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 criteria (a) - (n) of the policy are complied with.

6.2.5 Regarding GP2, the proposed STW development is an infrastructure project and not specifically industrial, though a degree of similarity can be drawn between the two. That said, the proposed STW development does give rise to conflict with the historical identification of the site as being for "Predominantly Industrial" use. GP3 does not fall to be considered as this relates to land "outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan", and the land subject of the application is of course zoned for industrial use. The impact of the proposed development, in regard to the criteria laid out under GP2 are considered later in this report.

6.2.6 Since its zoning in 1989, the application site has remained undeveloped, and so Strategic Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IMSP) is relevant. Strategic Policy 7 states that the zoning shall be "retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses." Supporting text within paragraph 4.4.3 states that "in the preparation of an Area Plan the Department will consider the appropriateness of the continuation of any industrial, office or retail zoning on undeveloped land and whether other uses may be more appropriate."

6.2.7 Having regard to the statement at 4.4.3, it is pertinent to give consideration to the Draft Area Plan for the North and West. This plan is set to supersede the Peel Local Plan 1989 but until the plan is formally adopted through Tynwald, it carries limited to no material weight in any assessment of an application. It can, however, be used as a general guide as to the direction in which planning policy is heading for the area.

6.2.8 The Draft Plan sets out a number of strategic objectives. Plan Outcome 7a states that for utility provision, an objective and outcome for the plan is the "Identification of a preferred site for a Regional Sewage Treatment Facility to serve Peel and the West with significant new development held back until the issue is resolved."

6.2.9 For guidance, it is pertinent to note that within the emerging Plan, this application site is identified on draft proposals Map 6 as being within the existing settlement boundary and further defined as; "Civic, Cultural or other use" with the description code of; "PE003 (Part B)". The

==== PAGE 17 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  17  of  32

adjoining land or field to the north is zoned as industrial. Draft Transport and Utilities Proposal 5 states:

"Sewage and wastewater treatment in Peel and the leachate from the Raggatt shall be dealt with by a new Regional Sewage Treatment Works (RSTW). The preferred site for a Sewage Treatment Works is PE003 (Part B) identified on Map 6."

6.2.10 Draft Transport and Utilities Proposal 5 goes on to set out what criteria must be met in order for a new STW to be supported on the application site, including access off Glenfaba Road, and full and proper assessment of the development impacts upon the environment.

6.2.11 The proposed development would essentially give rise to a loss of land zoned for future industrial development. It will, therefore, cause the loss of future employment use and this must be weighed against the principle of development and the proposals as a whole. However, it is also reasonable to consider the fact that since the adoption of the Peel Local Plan in 1989, some 35 years ago, the land has not been brought forward for industrial use and it might therefore be reasonable to give the potential loss of employment land and conflict with the Local Plan and General Policy 2 less weight, particularly if the remainder of General Policy 2 can be complied with.

Alternative Sites

6.2.12 In order to balance the benefits of securing a development that will deliver an overriding national need against the loss of employment/industrial land, it is appropriate to consider whether there are any other reasonably available and more suitable sites that could otherwise deliver the proposed development.

6.2.13 The review of future sites for a Peel STW began prior to 2008 and initially culminated in the Dalrymple Report (2008). This assessment considered 23 sites, though the majority were rejected on the basis of a wide range of selection criteria. The subsequent Hyder Report of 2014 reviewed the site selection process and determined that 2 sites, south of Peel Power Station and at Glenfaba Road were viable options. It was subsequently determined that the Power Station site was not an option due to the need for compulsory purchase, which Tynwald regards to be the last resort where alternative sites are available.

6.2.14 The application documentation provides an up-to-date review of potentially viable and suitable sites. The options appraisal was carried out by Arcadis in June 22 and considered those previously identified sites and new sites. The 5 highest scoring sites have subsequently been assessed against a set criteria:

Land use zoning (weighting 10%) Future growth capacity (weighting 5%) Proximity of residential areas (weighting 20%) Environmental impact (weighting 30%) Carbon (weighting 15%) Operational vehicle access (weighting 5%) Complexity and Deliverability (weighting 10%) Community Opportunity & Benefit (weighting 5%)

6.2.15 The application site, field no, 311835 scored the highest through the fine screening assessment. Thereafter, cost assessments were completed and a qualitative cost analysis completed. Following this process it was determined that the preferred option of the applicant was to develop the new STW for Peel at field 311835, which is the proposed application site here.

==== PAGE 18 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  18  of  32

6.2.16 Of the 5 sites considered, both Glenfaba House (Option 4) and Knockaloe Farm (Option 5) have both previously been dismissed, with the former having had an application withdrawn following a an Appeal Inspectors recommendation of refusal. Options 2 and 3 are agricultural land not zoned for any particular purpose and therefore carry a general presumption against development; Option 2 is also located within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, which as a designation was part of the reason for the 2019 Glenfaba House application failing. Option 2 would also require a new access off Glenfaba Road through the site at Glenfaba House, which could reasonably require the removal of mature woodland and have effects of biodiversity. Option 3 is located on higher, open land on an exposed field and is immediately adjacent to land zoned for Predominantly Residential use, on which there is a current planning application being considered. Its landscape impact would be far greater and visible within the wider landscape to Option 1 and potential impacts upon future housing and residential amenity, potentially greater than a development of land at Option 1. 6.2.17 Having regard to the available options, it is considered that the proposed site represents the most suitable option available for the delivery of a new STW for Peel.

Environmental Impact

6.2.18 Waste Policy 1 advises that waste management installations will require the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment and Environment Policy 24 advises that "Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required: i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases."

Further in paragraphs 7.18.1 - 7.18.3 it is acknowledged that EIA is a process by which information about the likely environmental effects of certain types of development is collected, assess and taken into account by the development (as part of the project design) and by the planning authority (in determining the acceptability of the application).

6.2.19 The applicant states that "the new sewage treatment works has been subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) as required by the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. This initial document has not been submitted but instead, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Assessment Statement (ES), which, as described in the Non-Technical Summary document, outlines the findings of the topic-based environmental impact assessments completed to understand how the sewage treatment works will impact local people and the environment. The ES is the actual report document that is produced when an EIA is needed and has been carried out.

6.2.20 Objectors have raised issue with the absence of a document described as an Environmental Impact Assessment, however, the applicant has confirmed that the Environmental Statement is the document produced following the carrying out of the EIA process and the Authority have accepted this position, having had regard to the content and analysis set out within the ES.

6.2.21 The ES provides an appropriate level of detail in assessing the significance of potential environmental effects of the proposed development. The ES assesses the effects on a scale and discusses throughout the document whether there will be slight, moderate, large or very large impacts arising from the proposed development. This report similarly considers the likely significance of the proposed development upon the environment.

Conclusion

6.2.18 The application seeks permission for the construction of a new sewage treatment works for Peel and its surrounding catchment on land zoned as Predominantly Industrial use. Given that the site would remove all of the land from such use, conflict with the zoning, Peel Local Plan, General Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 7. Notwithstanding, policy support for the proposals

==== PAGE 19 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  19  of  32

is given by Waste Policy 1 and the need for the STW is well established. There is no land designated for the delivery of a new STW for Peel and its catchment and there must therefore be an acceptance that the infrastructure project will need to be delivered on land designated for either an alternative purpose or land designated for no particular purpose within the countryside.

6.2.19 Although policy conflict has been identified, the land here has been identified for industrial use since 1989 and no other use has come forward in the past 35 years. Whilst the need to ensure sufficient land is allocated for industrial, business and employment use, there is an overriding need at the national level to deliver a modern STW for Peel, in order to meet nationally and internationally prescribed water quality targets.

6.2.20 In this instance, it is considered that the principle of developing the site offers the most viable and deliverable option available to the applicant and that given the level of national need to deliver improvements to sewage treatment, as required by RSTS2, the national need is to be regarded as overriding land use zoning in this instance. Subject to an assessment of material considerations, therefore, the principle of development may be supported.

6.3 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Design and landscape impact

6.3.1 The application site is not located within any designated or sensitive landscape setting; it comprises a group of 3 agricultural fields that project south away from the established industrial site which includes Peel Power Station and large industrial buildings and yard areas. There is also industrial uses to the west of the site and a parcel of land previously granted planning permission for the construction of 21 dwellings to the northeast.

6.3.2 A key consideration of the proposed development is the impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape. In this regard, Strategic Policy 4 (b) states that development must "protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations. Strategic Policy 5 states "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island."

6.3.3 General Policy 2 states that it (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; and (f) it incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;

6.3.4 Environment Policy 1 states that "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

6.3.5 The main area of the development will be located within the central field, which is set on land much lower than Glenfaba Road to the east and is at the bottom of a steep escarpment. The land is primarily laid to grass with unkempt hedgerow planting and areas of gorse.

==== PAGE 20 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  20  of  32

6.3.6 The land on which the infrastructure of the STW will be located is low lying and relatively inconspicuous within the landscape from the north, south and east. The surrounding landform creates a valley along which the River Neb and Steam Heritage Trail PROW run through the valley bottom. The steeply rising land to the east and west assist in creating a secluded setting within which built-form is well established.

6.3.7 From the west the land can be seen from raised ground along Peel Hill/Corrins Hill. From the raised ground the site will be viewed in conjunction with the large scale industrial use to the north and industrial/residential use to the west, with the care home and agricultural use to the east sitting on higher ground forming a diffused backdrop.

6.3.8 The application design approach comprises a utilitarian style sewage treatment works, with built form largely contained within prefabricated buildings and structures and a significant amount of infrastructure contained below the finished ground level. New areas of hardstanding within the STW site will be laid to allow access for service vehicles to move in a circulatory fashion. The design is led largely by the needs of the infrastructure, though attempts to minimise the impact through the use and colour of materials, limited height of buildings and enclosures and siting of the development on the lowest part of the land will assist in minimising the visual impact locally.

6.3.9 It is accepted that the development will be visible within the immediate setting, including from the footpath along the Heritage Trail. At present views from the footpath are limited by boundary planting though the raising of the ground levels as proposed will increase the visibility of the plant and infrastructure from the footpath.

6.3.10 In order to minimise the visual impact from the adjacent public footpath, a short section of Manx hedgerow is proposed, together with a degree of tree planting. It is considered that the level of planting is not sufficient to suitably mitigate the visual impact of the development. Greater levels of hedgerow and tree planting along the western part of the development site are required and whilst this is not shown on the proposed plans, there is sufficient space within the site to accommodate further soft landscape planting. It is therefore considered appropriate that should permission be forthcoming, a more detailed and extensive planting scheme be agreed by condition.

6.3.11 The design has considered the need for fire safety and the provision of access for fire appliances and supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes. Community Policy 10 advises that "Proposals for the layout and development of land will be permitted only where there is provided proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes."

6.3.12 The IoM Senior Fire Safety Officer has not objected to the proposals and the agent has confirmed that the provision of fire hydrants within the site will be provided in line with Section 16 of the Building Regulations 2010, Approved Document B. The provision of hydrants no more than 90m from a building has been incorporated within the design, which is considered to be acceptable.

6.3.13 Overall the design of the proposed development has made the best use of the land available and undertaken design solutions that will minimise the impact of the development upon the area

6.3.14 The development is not considered to give rise to a significant adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape and will comply with the general thrust of Strategic Policies 4 and 5, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 1 and Community Policy 10.

Visual impact of access

==== PAGE 21 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  21  of  32

6.3.15 The vehicular access will be formed off Glenfaba Road, with a section of bank removed in order to create a traditional junction parallel to the highway. The internal access road will follow the contours of the land in order to minimise the amount of excavation and levelling required.

6.3.16 The new access off Glenfaba Road will cause visual harm to the rural character of the lane through the removal of hedgerow and laying of the bell mouth entrance. To mitigate the removal of the hedgerow, new Manx Hedgerow will be created around the access and a short section of the service road; the length of new hedgerow will exceed that to be removed.

6.3.17 The visual impact upon the area arising from the formation of the access will be limited to those views along a short section of the Road and so the level of harm is considered to be low and the mitigation for hedgerow removal is suitable. The proposals do not, therefore, conflict with the aims of General Policy 2 or Environment Policy 1.

Impact upon the neighbouring residential properties - odour and noise

6.3.18 The operation of a STW has the potential to give rise to an adverse impact upon residential amenity as a result of nuisance generated through noise, vibration, vehicle movements and odour. The construction phase will also impact upon the local area, although these will be short term. Operational noise is key as noise associated with the construction phase will also generate a temporary impact only, while the operational phase will last a minimum of 25 years and be a constant source of noise due to the treatment processing plant working 24 hours a day.

6.3.19 Objection has been received from individuals raising concern over the impact of the STW upon the amenity of local residents. This includes the owner of an adjoining site which has planning permission for the construction of 21 dwellings, though said dwellinghouse have not been constructed beyond basic implementation of the 2007 permission.

6.3.20 General Policy 2 states that development will normally be permitted where is (g) "does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents" and (k) "does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;" Environment Policy 22 states that "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 water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

6.3.21 In order to assess the impact of nuisances to nearby dwellings from odour and noise, the application includes within the Environmental Assessment (EIA) calculations and modelling of anticipated impacts upon a number of identified receptor points within the area. The odour assessment identified the nearest (worst case) sensitive receptors within a 1km grid square around the new sewage treatment works and dispersion modelling was undertaken, taking account of site parameters including building dimensions and yearly meteorological data from 2017 to 2021. Receptor points included the nearby Castle View Care Home, the proximity of which is comparable to the application site as the site for 21 dwellings, as so comparable conclusions over the impact can be made for the adjoining residential planning permission.

6.3.22 Predicted odour concentrations were modelled as being below the benchmark levels at all modelled locations for all assessment years.

6.3.23 Odour effects upon nearby receptors were modelled as being negligible at most receptors and slight at receptors R1, R2 and R5. This represents a level of odour that is unlikely to be noticeable at the receptor points and as indicated by the applicant, negligible and slight

==== PAGE 22 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  22  of  32

effects are not material decision-making factors and no further mitigation or monitoring is required.

6.3.24 Regarding noise impacts, in accordance with the methodology in BS 4142, the operational noise assessment considers the closest identified noise-sensitive receptors to the proposed development. The key receptor points were assessed as being: Castle View Care Home, on the east side of the A27 accessed from Ballatessan Meadow. The twelve residential properties on Close Chiarn, to the northwest. The cluster of residential properties off the A27 near Glenfaba Bridge, to the south.

6.3.25 It is noted that the location of the 21 dwelling residential development was not assessed as a receptor point, but it is considered that the work done in relation to Castle View Care Home, which is next to this development, provides appropriate scrutiny over noise impacts.

6.3.26 The survey established baseline noise at 3 receptor points over a 3 day period with baseline noise being higher at receptor point 1 and points 2 and 3; this is attributed to the proximity of point 1 to the River Neb and the constant source of noise generated by the watercourse.

6.3.27 Noise modelling has been undertaken and assesses operational plant noise and service vehicle noise when operational. The Noise Assessment follows BS4142 guidelines. The submitted evidence assess three scenarios and concludes that : The operational phase BS4142 assessment (comparative assessment with background levels) found, for each of the operational scenarios considered, for both the daytime and night time periods, that there will be no significant effects relating to noise at any of the representative sensitive receptors. The operational phase BS8233 assessment (assessment based on absolute noise levels), which considered internal noise levels at representative sensitive receptors, determined that internal noise levels would, with one exception, be well within the limits recommended by BS8233 and the WHO Community Guidelines. The exception was at NML01 (Glenfaba Mill), where, due to the high baseline ambient noise level, BS8233 limits and WHO Community Guidelines are already not being met. As such, no significant effects are created by the new sewage treatment works. No further mitigation or monitoring is required.

6.3.28 Whilst the concern of objectors are noted, the submitted Nosie Assessment is thorough and follows the required guidance, assessing the impact of the operational impacts upon sensitive local receptor points. There has been no objection raised by the Statutory Consultee from Environmental Protection and when regard is had to the nature of the development, low noise generation of plant, distance to and change in topography between receptor points, the impact upon amenity in the area from noise is assessed as being negligible and not so harmful as to warrant refusal.

6.3.29 Having regard to the above, a likely significant effect upon nearby residential and sensitive receptor points can be ruled out and the impact of the development upon residential amenity from odour and noise will be acceptable, such that General Policy 2 (g) and (k) will be complied with.

Transport & Construction Impacts 6.3.30 The proposed development will be served by an upgraded access off Glenfaba Road, in the approximate location of an existing field access that is formed by a metal gateway between Manx hedgerows, set at degrees to the highway.

6.3.31 Objections have been received as to the impact of the development upon highway safety, the capacity of the highway network and suitability of routes to and from the site. These have been summarised earlier within the report.

==== PAGE 23 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  23  of  32

6.3.32 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that development will be permitted where it (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; and (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;"

6.3.33 The proposed access will form a traditional bell mouth at the junction with Glanfaba Road. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m in both directions are provided, which are based upon observed vehicle speeds along the highway rather than the unrestricted speed limit. This approach has been accepted by Highways Development Control.

6.3.34 The applicant has stated that the largest type of vehicle expected to use the access on a regular basis is a 4000-gallon tanker with a steering rear axle to service the weekday sludge removal activity for the site to Meary Veg treatment works. It would visit the site Monday to Friday, up to three times with vehicle trips spread out throughout a typical day using the A27 access route.

6.3.35 Swept Path Analysis has been undertaken and plans submitted, demonstrating that the highway layout within the site and the new access supports the manoeuvring of all vehicles that will be accessing the site post-completion.

6.3.36 Internally the access road will remain private, it will be 7.3m in width with a 2m footway and vehicle tracking indicates that the footway would not be impacted by vehicle movements, including around the southern turn in the road alignment.

6.3.37 The application is supported by a Road Safety Audit, which assesses the safety of the new access has been assessed by Highways who accept that the 4 issues raised by the audit have been satisfactorily addressed.

6.3.38 Parking provision within the site is limited to 2 no. spaces for the operators of the site. There is no specific guidance relating to parking provision for a STW but having regard to the operational needs and lack of a permanent presence of workers on the site daily, 2 spaces is considered to be a suitable provision. If additional space is required then this is available within the STW site.

Overall, the proposed development will give rise to very few vehicle movements on a day to day basis when operational. During construction, DOI Highways can control mud on roads; and hours of operation can be controlled through environmental protection legislation.

6.3.39 Whilst the concerns of the public are recognised, it is considered that the proposed development will be served by a safe vehicular access and once constructed, will generate a very low level of vehicle movements on a day to day basis. Construction always results in some level of disturbance but such disturbance is short lived. Thereafter, the impact upon highway safety is assessed as being acceptable, as highlighted by the Highways Development Control advice. The development is considered to be safe in highway terms and therefore complies with General Policy 2 (h) and (i).

Heritage

6.3.40 The application site is not located within the immediate setting of any Registered Buildings, though such heritage assets are present within the wider area of the application site. There are no Ancient Monuments recorded within the site or 250m study area.

6.3.41 There are also a number of undesignated heritage assets of cultural importance within the setting of the site, including Coopers Mill Leat, the former Douglas to Peel railway line and Manx Sod hedgerows.

==== PAGE 24 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  24  of  32

6.3.42 The supporting Environmental Assessment, Section 3, assesses the impact of the development upon cultural heritage and archaeology.

6.3.43 Strategic Policy 4 identifies that developments must (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;

6.3.44 Environment Policy 36 goes on to state that "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area."

6.3.45 Peel Conservation Area extends in a southerly direction is at its closest point is approximately 130m northeast of the application site. There are glimpsed views of the site from the Conservation Area, though it is read as part of the adjacent industrial setting. Views from the ridge of Peel Hill also encompass the application site and Conservation Area.

6.3.46 During the construction phase there will be a change in the setting of Peel Conservation Area as a result of noise from operating machinery and the associated visual impacts. Manx sod hedges would also be removed. The impact upon the Conservation Area will be temporary and have only a slight adverse impact while the hedgerow removal will be permanent and slight, with mitigation proposed.

6.3.47 During the operational phase, the development will lead to permanent, low level harm to the setting of the Conservation Area due to a change in the appearance of the site and its visual relationship with the heritage asset; the same can be said for the setting of Cooper Mill Leat, where the visual setting will change as a result of the permanent infrastructure.

6.3.48 With regard to archaeology, the site contains two non-designated heritage assets, being a pre-historic findspot of a Neolithic flint and the Manx sod hedgerow.

6.3.49 The proposals are to reinstate the Manx hedgerow one the ground levelling and fill have been completed.

6.3.50 The proposed development has the potential to impact upon unrecorded below-ground archaeological remains within the site and given the previous findspot of a Neolithic flint it is considered that further archaeological mitigation will be required. A two-stage scheme of archaeological investigations is recommended by the applicant and considered appropriate. The mitigation would comprise firstly of an archaeological evaluation of the site (geophysical survey and/or trial trenching); and, secondly, a suitable programme of archaeological mitigation (if required and informed by the results of the archaeological evaluation). Both elements would need to be agreed with Manx National Heritage.

6.3.51 The impact of the construction and operational phases of the development will both adversely impact upon non-designated archaeological features within the site, though the level of harm is assessed as being low.

6.3.52 Having regard to the above matters, it is considered that the proposed development will give rise to permanent adverse impacts upon the setting of designated and non-designated heritage assets within the area and the site itself. The level of harm is assessed as being low and with suitable additional survey work and mitigation, the impacts can be appropriately controlled. Notwithstanding, there will be a low degree of conflict with Strategic Policy 4, though compliance with Environment Policy 36 can be achieved, subject to mitigation. The level of harm is not considered to be so significant in this instance as to warrant a reason for refusal.

6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

==== PAGE 25 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  25  of  32

Ecology and Biodiversity net gain

6.4.1 The key policy tests for assessing the impact of development upon biodiversity are General Policy 2 (d) which states that development will be permitted where it "does not adversely affect wildlife or locally important habitat on the site or adjacent land, including watercourses".

6.4.2 Environment Policy 1 confirms that "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake." Whilst Environment Policy 4 sets out a number of circumstances where development will not be permitted, and includes adverse impacts upon habitats and species of internal and national importance, as well as wildlife sites, local nature reserves and the like.

6.4.3 The Environmental Statement supporting the application contains a detailed assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed development upon biodiversity within the site and its immediate setting and considers the likely effects during the construction phase and thereafter.

6.4.5 The application includes Ecology Vannin's Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR) dated April 2023, including their Breeding Bird Survey and Bat Activity Survey. The surveys identified the presence of bats foraging across the site, nesting birds and the Common Liazrd were recorded during site surveys. Other habitat features included neutral grassland and the potential for fungi in field 311836. The survey and report have identified a range of impacts arising from the development, which can be summarised as follows: Loss of neutral and modified grassland; Loss of Manx hedge banks; Potential degradation of the River Neb and downstream West Coast MNR from direct and in- direct runoff during and post-construction, and pipeline installation. Degradation of dense scrub habitat; Loss and degradation of nesting, foraging and sheltering habitat for birds; Degradation and disturbance of foraging and commuting routes for bats; Loss and degradation of common lizard breeding, feeding and hibernating habitat.

6.4.6 As set out within the supporting Environmental Statement and Ecology Vannin's PEAR, much of the development impacts can be mitigated through the provision of replacement planting, hedgerow and suitable features for species and their habitats. The range of impacts and proposed mitigation measures are summarised within Table 4-9 of the Environmental Statement and comprise a significant degree of replacement habitat planting, hedgebank replacement, tree protection, soil re-use and new planting. It is recognised that bats are present within the site and in order to ensure a favourable conservation status is maintained, replacement planting of suitable foraging habitat is proposed and no permanent sources of lighting will be used on site. Instead low level lighting using PIRs will be required and a condition requiring the submission of a lighting plan is recommended.

6.4.7 The submitted information sets out the parameters for ensuring the impact of the development will be managed and biodiversity protected and habitat loss mitigated. The mitigation measures are designed at neutralising any adverse impacts and, in some cases, produce beneficial outcomes. The proposals include significant planting, landscaping and habitat creation, which will result in an overall Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) of 5.21%.

6.4.8 A fungi survey will also be required and it is reasonable to secure this by condition for future assessment and approval.

6.4.9 In summary, it is recognised that the proposed development will impact upon biodiversity within the site during construction and operation. It is noted that the Ecosystem Policy Team are content with the submission and do not object, subject to conditions. It is not however proposed that a construction environmental management plan can be conditioned in

==== PAGE 26 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  26  of  32

its entirety, but aspects of such mitigation can be. The impacts of the development are not considered to give rise to permanent unacceptable adverse impacts upon habitats and species of internal and national importance and that suitable mitigation can be secured that will ensure compliance with General Policy 2(d) and Environment Policies 1 and 4.

Arboricultural Impacts

6.4.10 The application site is largely open field and overgrown areas of scrub and bracken and it is largely void of trees and hedgerows, though these are present to the periphery of the fields. To the southern end of the site is Registered Tree Area RA0531.

6.4.11 Environment Policy 3 seeks to prevent the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value.

6.4.12 The application proposes to construct an outflow from the site through the western side of the RTA to provide an outfall into the River Neb.

6.4.13 The application is supported by an Arboricultural Assessment which indicates that the route of the pipe through the RTA will avoid any Registered Trees and their associated Root Protection Areas.

6.4.14 Construction of the access road through field 311836 has been designed to be clear of the tree canopy but there is a low likelihood that it may still impact trees within the Registered Tree Area adjacent to the south through disturbance or damage to root zones. 6.4.15 DEFA Forestry Officers have assessed the submitted information and have advised Officers that they do not object to the proposals on grounds that the development will not impact upon protected trees. Notwithstanding, Tree Protection measures will be required as part of the CEMP, to be conditioned, which will ensure that trees and hedges are protected during construction and thereafter. Subject to this matter it is considered that the development will not give rise to an adverse impact upon protected trees and the development complies with Environment Policy 3.

Flood Risk and Drainage

6.4.16 The application site is located within an area identified as being in Flood Zone 1 and at a low risk of flooding (1 in 100yr), in regard to flooding from rivers and the sea. It is not at risk of flooding from fluvial or tidal sources.

6.4.17 In relation to surface water flooding, mapping indicates that there are two small areas in the northern half of the site which have a medium to high risk of flooding from this source. The source of this is unidentified and the applicant has suggested that "these isolated areas of surface water flood risk are not indicative of wider surface water issues and overall, the site is considered to be at low risk of surface water flooding under present day conditions."

6.4.18 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 13 states "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." An infiltration trench is proposed to the eastern edge of the operational site in order to intercept surface water flows off the steep embankment.

6.4.19 The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment which assess the sites topography, drainage geology and hydrogeology, together with potential sources of flooding,

==== PAGE 27 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  27  of  32

the impact of the development and how flood risk and drainage can be addressed in order to comply with Policies EP10 and EP13.

6.4.20 Percolation testing of the site has been completed and indicates that soakaways will not be suitable due to a lack of permeability in the soil and geology.

6.4.21 The proposed drainage strategy, contained within he FRA, proposes to separate surface water from the access road and operational site in order to avoid contamination. Surface water runoff from the access road will be collected by a number of road gullies and conveyed by a below ground network of pipes and inspection chambers to a below ground attenuation pipe located at the lowest part of the road.

6.4.22 Within the sewage treatment works site, surface water runoff will be split into conventional surface water and that which could be contaminated from potential spillage when transferring sludge between the sewage treatment plant and tanker. Conventional surface water runoff from building roofs and certain areas of roadway within the site will be collected by a number of linear channel drains and gullies and conveyed by a network of pipes and inspection chambers to the below ground attenuation pipe located at the lowest part of the site access road. Attenuated water will then be discharged into the River Neb via an oil separator at a discharge rate of 23.1l/s, utilising a flow control devise (hydrobrake). 6.4.23 The below ground attenuation pipe is sized to accommodate surface water runoff volumes at a 1 in 100 year runoff rate +40% to account for climate change.

6.4.24 Potentially contaminated surface water runoff from certain areas of roadway within the site will be collected by a number of linear channel drains and gullies and conveyed by a network of pipes and inspection chambers to an attenuation pipe located beneath the roadway within the site. This attenuation pipe will discharge to the works return pumping station which will return flow at a rate of approximately 6 l/s into the sewage treatment process, thereby removing potential sources of contamination. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment and associated Drainage Strategy satisfactorily demonstrates that the flood risk and drainage implications of the proposed STW can be appropriate managed such that there will be no adverse impact upon flood risk offsite that would be so harmful as to warrant refusal. The proposals therefore comply with Policies EP10 and EP13, subject to conditions.

Water Quality

6.4.25 The proposed development gives rise to two considerations in regard to water quality impacts of the development. Firstly, is the impact of the development upon water quality of the River Neb, and secondly, is the impact upon water quality of Peel Bay. It is acknowledged that members of the public have raised objection to the proposals, believing the processing of sewage and leachate will not achieve necessary water quality standards. Environment Policy 7 states that "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted." It continues to state that where development does affect a watercourse various criteria must be satisfied to ensure that water quality and the watercourse in general are not adversely effected.

6.4.26The River Neb is located within the western region of the Isle of Man and flows along the western edge of Peel. In 2022 the chemical quality monitoring results for the River Neb achieve an "Excellent" (Grade A) Chemical Classification. The River Neb also has Grade A/B classification for phosphates and nitrate contamination

6.4.27 It will be a requirement of the applicant to adhere to the Water Pollution Act both during construction and operational phases of the development.

6.4.28 As noted above, the application proposes to capture, treat and discharge surface water from the site into the River Neb. Surface water runoff will be discharged via an oil interceptor to

==== PAGE 28 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  28  of  32

remove contaminants and potentially contaminated water will be run back through the STW in order to meet appropriate water quality standards. The proposals will prevent detrimental impacts to the water body as a result of urban contaminants and it is considered that the water quality of the River Neb can be suitably maintained and protected through the final detailed design of the surface water drainage system.

6.4.29 Regarding the impact of the proposals upon the water quality of Peel Bay, the starting point is to acknowledge that the current means of disposing raw sewage from the Peel catchment area is to pump it directly into the sea beyond the sea wall in Peel Bay. It is a well- accepted principle that this existing scenario is not acceptable, is having significant adverse impacts upon the quality of water in Peel Bay and needs addressing.

6.4.30 Despite being a popular beach, Peel Bay is not considered a bathing beach by DEFA and failed to meet the 2006 EU U Bathing Water Directive (BWD) "good" water quality standard every year between 2015 and 2020, except for 2016.

6.4.31 The introduction of first-time sewage treatment to the Peel catchment aims to improve water quality, such that Peel Bay achieves a "good" water quality standard for bathing water under the Water Pollution (Bathing Water Standards and Objectives) Scheme 2021.

6.4.32 The primary aim of the proposed development is to introduce a first time treatment facility of sewage for Peel in order to improve the quality of the marine water environment within and around Peel Bay. As such, MUA have designed a STW that is based upon EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive which although not a legal requirement in the Isle of Man, is used as best practice.

6.4.33 The STW will operate by screening raw waste and treating it through a range of processes to remove contaminants, including seven covered Integrated Rotating Biological Contactors (IRBCs) and UV screening units. In addition to sewage, the STW will be used to treat leachate from the Raggatt.

6.4.34 The Environmental Protect Unit support the application and have advised that the proposed STW will improve bathing water quality. Importantly, the EPU will be responsible to issuing the required license for discharging treated effluent into Peel Bay and said effluent will need to meet the standards set out in the Water Pollution (Standards and Objectives) Scheme 2020. MUA will be responsible for monitoring and testing effluent being discharged and the license will only be issued if standards are met. The Environmental Protection Unit will be responsible for issuing the discharge license under the Water Pollution Act 1993.This separate licensing process provides appropriate protection for the environment and will ensure that the discharge of effluent into Peel Bay meets the required standards at the point of commissioning and throughout its operational lifespan.

6.4.35 The proposals address matters relating protecting water quality within the River Neb and associated water courses through the use of various surface water interceptors and treatment methods that will remove potential contaminant from water before it is discharged from the site.

6.4.36 Regarding water quality at Peel Bay, the proposals will deliver tangible improvements over and above the existing scenario and will support a transition a transition towards achieving achieve the 2006 EU Bathing Water Directive (BWD) "good" water quality standards for bathing water as well as the objectives detailed within the RSTS 2.

6.4.37 The proposals therefore demonstrate conformity with Strategic Plan Policies GP2, EN10 and EN13 and that subject to the submission of further detailed engineering design for the surface water drainage system, the proposals are acceptable.

==== PAGE 29 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  29  of  32

Sustainability & Waste

6.4.38 Energy Policy 5 requires proposals of 100 square metres of other development to be supported by an Energy Impact Assessment. Additionally, The Isle of Man has released its Energy Strategy 2023, where it was stated that the aim is to align with the aims of the UK Government in becoming net-zero by 2050. The application therefore considers it necessary to adhere to the design requirements set in mainland UK.

6.4.39 The application submission contains an Energy Statement. This Energy report focuses on the STW and reviews the potential options that could be taken forward to reduce and minimize the operational energy and carbon footprint of the site during operation.

6.4.40 Within the site, the MCC block and kiosk, are likely required to adhere to the requirements presented in Part L of the Building Regulations (2021), as all new and existing stand-alone buildings with a total useful floor area of more than 50m2 are required to adhere to this, along with a few exemptions.

6.4.41 The report sets out the aspiration to ensure that the STW is not powered by fossil fuelled heat sources and that energy efficiency saving measures are contained within all aspects of the design process, reducing energy consumption and maximising the use of renewables. To achieve this, the following efficiency hierarchy will be employed: Be Lean - use less energy. Be Clean - efficient energy supply. Be Green - maximise renewable energy.

6.4.52 While the Energy Statement only seeks to provide high level guidance for the future operation of the STW, the aspirations are supported and will, if implemented by MUA, ensure that an energy efficient, low carbon STW is delivered for Peel.

6.4.53 Regarding waste, the application submission confirms that as little waste will be generated during the construction phase as possible.

6.4.54 The primary source of waste will be the use of excavated material from the development site, whereby soil stripped during works will be recycles in the raising of land levels within the STW area. The soil has been assessed as being suitable for raising of the ground and would not lead to any future issued with ground stability. Such will significantly reduce vehicle movements for soil stripping and the need to dispose of soil via landfill.

6.4.55 The application states that surplus construction materials brought to site will be reused, recycled or recovered at rate of at least 90%, which is in line with the Isle of Man Department of Infrastructure Waste Policy and Strategy.

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposed development would deliver a modern Sewage Treatment Works to serve the immediate identified national need for improved sewage treatment for Peel in line with RSTS2.

7.2 In addition to RSTS2 and the Development Plan Policies, the Overarching Principles of the National Infrastructure Strategy 2017 (NIS) seek a forward-looking approach between infrastructure providers and Government departments considering future social and economic needs and emerging trends and technologies, with infrastructure designed to ensure international and national obligations are met and that value for money is ensured over the design life of a strategic asset.

==== PAGE 30 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  30  of  32

7.3 The application has demonstrated that the proposed site is the most suitable and viable option available, having assessed a range of alternative sites, a process of which has been revisited on a number of occasions since 2008.

7.4 The proposed development has been assessed as not giving rise to any demonstrably significant adverse impacts upon the surrounding environment, when regard is had to both the construction and operational phases of the development.

7.5 The submitted Environment Assessment, which comprises the applicants EIA, assesses the environmental impacts of the development proposals having regard to a range of receptors within the impact area. The proposed development is assessed by Officers as not giving rise to any significant adverse impact upon visual amenity or landscape quality, residential amenity or highway safety in the area, with the level of harm being low, or slight.

7.6 The development will give rise to slight impacts upon trees, hedgerows and biodiversity, although an overall BNG gain of 5.1% will be achieved. The development proposes a satisfactory surface water drainage strategy which will ensure that flood risk offsite is not exacerbated and the water quality associated with the River Neb will be suitably protected.

7.7 The above factors do give rise to a low level of harm, however, the proposed development will deliver an infrastructure and sewerage project to serve one of the main towns on the Island, where sewage is currently pumped untreated as raw sewage into the ocean. The provision of a sewage treatment works will be instrumental in meeting a significant number of environmental objectives, in particular RSTS2, UNESCO Biosphere Status, and future environmental objectives detailed within 'Our Island Plan'. The delivery of modern sewage treatment facilities for one of the largest towns on the Island and the associated water quality improvements carries significant weight, particularly given the nationally identified need to deliver these facilities.

7.8 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the benefits associated with the proposed development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the identified policy conflict and the low level of material harm that would arise from the construction and operation of the STW. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be granted. __

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : ...Pending Decision... Committee Meeting Date:...08.07.2024

Signed :...R MARSHALL... Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

==== PAGE 31 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  31  of  32

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.

==== PAGE 32 ====

                                      23/01407/B                                     Page  32  of  32

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 08.07.2024

Application No 23/01407/B Applicant Manx Utilities Authority Proposal The construction of a new Sewage Treatment Works and creation of new vehicular access Site Address Land West Of Glenfaba Road Fields 311835, 311836 And 311785 Glenfaba Road Peel Isle Of Man

Planning Officer Russell Williams Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report

The Case Officer revised the conditions supporting their recommendation at the public sitting, specifically conditions: 2 3 5 6 - now comprising conditions 6a and 6b 9 11

The Committee determined the application on the conditions as recommended.