DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/00082/B Applicant: Manx Utilities Authority Proposal: Erection of replacement sewage treatment works with associated landscaping and bridge for vehicle access Site Address: Sewage Works Breeze Hill Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7DL Photo Taken: 07.07.2020 Site Visit: 07.07.2020 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.07.2020

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. The mitigation works defined in the Invasive Plant Eradication Technical Note dated April, 2020 and Common Lizard Mitigation Strategy dated May 2020 must be implemented in full. Reason: to ensure compliance with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
• C 3. Prior to the commencement of any work on the construction of the proposed bridge, the applicant must have approved by the Department a scheme for the prevention of increased flood risk to the south side of the bridge (boat park) and Riversend and Croit-e-Vey and the development must be undertaken in full accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: to ensure that no properties experience increased risk of flooding from the proposed works.
• C 4. The hours of construction for the proposed facility hereby approved shall be no earlier than 0730hrs in any day and no later than 1800hrs in any day and where ground pile drilling for civil engineering purposes is to be undertaken, this may not be earlier than 0900hrs or later than 1700hrs. Reason: to protect the living conditions of those close to the site.
• C 5. Prior to the commencement of any building work on site or in connection with the proposed bridge, the applicant will conduct full building condition surveys on adjacent properties along the

length of Minorca Hill, Tent Road and Old Laxey Hill where the property owners provide the necessary access, during the construction phase of the project, before and after the project to address any issues which may arise with the surveys copied free of charge to any residents to request them.

Reason: to mitigate any impact of structural damage from the implementation of the proposed development.

• C 6. Prior to the operation of the facility as proposed, a planting schedule for all of the areas of proposed landscaping, include species and size of plants together with a maintenance schedule for the subsequent five years, must be approved by the Department and the development undertaken in full compliance with these details.

Reason: to ensure that the development has a satisfactory visual and environmental impact on the area.

• C 7. The development hereby approved shall only be lit in emergencies or during maintenance works other than the low level lighting posts as shown in the application. Reason: To avoid light pollution
• C 8. No temporary bridge may be constructed until such times as the details including the materials, appearance, position and timing of its introduction and removal - thereof have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details. Reason: no details of the temporary bridge have been provided within the application. _______________________________________________________________

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:

Manx Utilities Director of Public Health

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 6(4):

Riversend Chalet Laxey Laundry, Glen Road Old Ballachrink Farm, Breeze Hill

• 1, Victoria Terrace, Glen Road Burnside, Minorca Hill Cranford, Breeze Hill Spring Villa, Glen Road Harbourside Cottages, Tent Road Sandhurst Cottage, Minorca Hill Harbour House, Tent Road La Mona Lisa Restaurant, Glen Road The Old Bakery, Tent Road
• 2, Rosedene Cottages, Glen Road Cumbrae, Ramsey Road

• Ballaclague House, Baldrine - owners of Woodside, Breeze Hill The Granary, Ramsey Road Ard Finwork, Ramsey Road Baytrees, Lower Cronk Orry Langley House, Ramsey Road Stanleyville, Minorca Hill
• 3, Chapel Terrace Corley Rock, South Cape Shore Hotel Brew Pub Ballannette, Baldrine - responsible for the St. Nicholas Chapel and Burial Ground Nyn Ayrn, Old Laxey Hill Bwaane Beg, Quarry Road Gull Cottage, Minorca Hill Cooryn Varrey, Pinfold Hill Glen Cairn, Tent Road St. Jude's Lodge, Old Laxey Hill Bridge Cottage, Minorca Hill The Rowans, Minorca Hill Cushag, Shore Road Grenaby, Fairy Cottage Beach Cottage, Back Shore Road Harbour View, Back Shore Road St. Nicholas House, Breeze Hill Sycamore Cottage, Glen Road Ballacollister Grange Thie ny Dreeym, Ballacollister Road 44, Ard Reayrt Strooanville House, Fairy Cottage Lewin's Cottage and The Shed

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

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):

Ballacallum, Ballaragh Road Clarum, Ballaragh Garden House, Clay Head Road, Lonan South Grawe Farm

• 8, Parsonage Road, Ramsey 2, The Wharfside, Peel Kerrowdhoon, Maughold Green Oak, Clay Head Road Baldrine Manor, Baldrine The Mount, South Cape Thie my Chree, Old Laxey Hill Ballacoan, Glen Roy Westdene, Croit-e-Quill Road Mouette, Clay Head Road The Spinney, Baldrine
• 9, Victoria Park, Douglas Moose Lodge, Clay Head Road, Baldrine Ellan Vannin, Baldrine Grawe, Laxey

• 1, Hillary Close, Onchan The Wonder House, Maughold 5, Croit-e-Quill Close 2160 NE 53rd Street, USA 128 New Cross Road, London 67, Kingstone Avenue, West Sussex Thie ny Mara, Glen Road
• 2, Glen View Sea Peep and Glebe Cottage, Maughold the Laxey rate payer who did not provide an address

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

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN ADDITION TO THE SCALE OF REPRESENTATIONS OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL INCLUDING THOSE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

THE SITE

1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies on the northern side of Laxey Harbour and incorporating a section of space above the river linking the site with the southern side of the harbour - Tent Road. The main part of the site abuts Breeze Hill on its western boundary but also running alongside a number of residential curtilages, those of Thie yn Droghad, Riversend Chalet and Croit e Vey between the site and the harbour; Cranford and Ballachrink Cottage to the north and the access on the southern side of the river/harbour sits alongside Old Harbour House. - 1.2 The site currently accommodates three holiday chalets and a larger timber unit. There is also a sewage holding tank located underground at the south eastern corner of the site. - 1.3 The site is relatively flat closest to the harbour before rising sharply at the north and eastern sides in the form of treed and vegetated brooghs. - 1.4 A public footpath runs through the site PROW 359 and the Raad ny Foillan long distance footpath runs up Breeze Hill, past the site. PROW 359 runs from the Raad ny Foillan, east across the site, up steps and then branches into two directions, one back to the Raad ny Foillan just above Old Ballachrink Farm and the other path leading east across the headland. THE PROPOSAL

• 2.1Current disposal

• 2.1.1 Proposed is the development of the site to provide a sewage treatment facility which will serve Laxey and the surrounding area which sits uphill from the village. The current situation regarding sewage treatment is that there is an outfall tidal sewage treatment holding tank built in 1912 on the application site which collects raw sewage and discharges the same to sea via an 18 inch cast iron outfall 120m to the east side of and beyond the harbour breakwater. The existing system is combined or partially combined surface and foul water from the catchment area.
• 2.1.2 Currently, during storm events a significant amount of surface water is included in the foul flows to the holding tank. The flow quantity is roughly equal from north and south of the river. Much of the system is fed by gravity although there is a small private pumping station on the

southern side of the catchment and a publicly maintained one on the northern extent of the network.

2.2 The proposed development

• 2.2.1 In order to meet the European Bathing Water Quality Directive 2006, a full treatment process is required which will achieve discharge consent parameters of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) of 40mg/l and Suspended Solids (SS) of 60mg/l. Storm flows will be attenuated for a minimum of 1 in 30 year storm events and will be screened to 6mm and treated with ultraviolet radiation (UV) before being discharged via the existing outfall.
• 2.2.2 The facility will incorporate two Integrated Rotating Biological Contractor Units (IRBCs) to treat the sewage, an underground pumping station with storage tank for storm storage and to lift flows to the new IRBCs, an inlet works and control building for screening and distribution of flows and housing an odour control plant, a UV treatment building to treat storm flows along with new roads within the site, drainage, kiosks, landscaping and a new bridge over the Laxey River across the harbour to provide site access, the existing access onto Breeze Hill being retained but not used for access to the new stw.
• 2.2.3 The existing chalet building on the site will remain. The applicant has not yet decided for what purpose this will be used and would welcome suggestions from the public on what this could be used for.
• 2.2.4 The site will involve engineering to create a larger flat area, excavating part of the lower slopes of the northern part of the site and removing five trees, one where the proposed IRBCs are to be located and the others further towards the entrance to the harbour to facilitate the provision of the UV building.
• 2.2.5 The structures on the site will include two IRBCs which are each 4.2m wide and 27m long and which sit 3.15m above ground level, the lower 1.3m being surrounded by exposed aggregate walling and the upper part having guard railings around the angled dome shaped roof which is finished in green sheeting. The IRBCs will be screened by a 3.6m high stone wall which wraps around the southern side of the southern IRBC.
• 2.2.6 The inlet screen building will sit to the west of the IRBCs. This building is L shaped with the longest length being just over 18m and the longest width being 8.8m. The building 3.8m to the eaves and 5.35m to the ridge. The roof will be finished in slate and the walls in traditional hand built stonework. This will be visible from the other side of the harbour.
• 2.2.7 The UV building is a hipped roofed building whose finish materials are not specified on the

• plans but is inferred that they will be slate and stone. The internal floor area is raised above ground level by 0.85m and the overall eaves height above ground is 4.2m and the ridge level 6.2m above ground level. A small chimney sits on the northern pitch. The northern and eastern elevations have no windows or doors and the southern elevation has two large doors within it. A low stone wall will be built in front of the building which will not screen it and the majority of the southern elevation will be visible from the other side of the harbour.

• 2.2.8 The bridge will rise to a surface level which is 0.75m higher than the level of the boatyard and dropping down to 0.4 lower to the level of the site. The sides of the bridge are simple stone walls up to 2.5m above the level of the bottom of the bridge. A temporary bridge is shown on the Proposed Overall Site Layout drawings (C0506 P5) although no specific details are provided of this other than it being described as a "Mitchell" bridge or similar which is a simple metal route used for temporary acess (one was used in Peel whilst the Mill Road bridge was reconstructed).

2.3 Alternative sites

• 2.3.1 A number of other sites were considered in 2008 before the application site was selected as the most appropriate. The initial 40 were reduced to 35 then 23 having regard to available space,

• accessibility, infrastructure, zoning, ecological and conservation constraints and landscape designations. The Dalrymple further review of this concluded that four areas remained, comprising ten individual sites. These areas were South Laxey Promenade, Central Laxey Promenade, Old Glen Mill and behind the Shore Hotel. The follow on review of the Dalrymple report undertaken by Manx Utilities concluded that the clusters at the Old Mill and behind the Shore Hotel were not viable due to developments in the intervening years and also due to the footprint required for an IRBC works. The Laxey Promenade were then discounted due to consequential interference with the car parking facilities and more recent redevelopment of the café and it was considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on the use of these areas, removing tourist facilities here and this area would involve substantial pipe-laying from the existing sewer network on the northern side of the harbour and Minorca Hill under the river and across the promenade to link into the proposed works. They considered that a similarly expensive pipe-laying exercise would be needed to pass the treated effluent back under the river and into the existing outfall which was a lesser cost option than installing a completely new one. This process thus concluded that the cluster which included the old café at the southern end of the promenade and adjacent land, the current sewage storage tank area and the land adjacent to the holiday chalets, as the preferred option. Subsequent to this, this end of the promenade has become very popular due to the opening of the new café here and also the old café site has experienced significant land slides and for these reasons this area was removed from the list of viable sites. Of the remaining sites in Cluster A, the original storage tank option was not large enough to accommodate anything other than the most basic and crude form of treatment facility which would not have satisfied the water bathing directive and this then required more land alongside and the combination of the chalet site and the former storage tank site was considered to be the best option.
• 2.3.2 The final reviewed facility options looked at five options: the application site, a site at Everlasting Bends (to the north of the application site, alongside the A2), the basketball court site on Glen Road, the alternative of pumping sewage to Onchan or to the Baldrine STW.
• 2.3.3 The Everlasting Bends site was dismissed as it would necessitate an additional intermediate pumping station compared with the application site, and a substantially larger pumping facility at the application site. Two new junctions and access roads would be needed to serve the facility and operational costs would also be higher due to the additional pumping station, power demand and further location of the outfall compared with the application site.
• 2.3.4 The basketball court site on Glen Road would still involve screening and storm storage, storm flow UV treatment and odour control plant at the application site along with a greater pumping distance and therefore higher operational costs. This would also necessitate the closure of Glen Road for 2-3 months whilst the pipes were laid and shorter closures of Breeze Hill, the bridge and the bottom of Minorca Hill: due to the size of the pipes, a full road closure would be needed and power would need to be brought from the other end of Glen Road with additional interruption of traffic flow over the road to be excavated.
• 2.3.5 The option of pumping to Onchan would involve using the application site for storage, UV treatment of storm flows and a pumping station together with three additional pumping stations en route to Onchan and a pumping main with distances of 100m vertically and 8.5km horizontally. There is a risk of septicity in the flow due to summer flows being relatively low and as such chemical dosing will be required. Road closures will be required to lay the pipework as at least some of the route will be in the highway.
• 2.3.6 Pumping to Baldrine too involves screening, storm storage and UV treatment at the application site but the cost of pipework would be approximately half of that to pump to Onchan but would involve some of the same road closures (Old Laxey Hill and the A2) but as well with closures along Clay Head Road. Both options for pumping to other settlements involve higher operational costs compared with the application site.

• 2.3.7 They consider that the local environmental, health and safety impacts of all five options are similar but in terms of a total lifetime cost and qualitative assessment perspective, the application site is the preferred site and options which require pumping involve far higher operational costs over the life of the project due to the substantially increased power requirements. The applicant believes that the application site option can be satisfactorily screened and "will have minimal impact on the day to day life of Laxey residents". Visual screening of the Everlasting bends site would be less successful due to the exposed hillside location. Whilst the basketball court site on Glen Road could be screened more successfully, it would involve the removal of a recreation facility with little hope of finding an alternative of equal or better quality (Recreation Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan). They anticipate this option meeting with "significant opposition" from members of the public as the area has been developed for primarily recreational purposes. They conclude that the option with the least impacts to local residents and the environment is that relating to the application site. Further studies
• 2.3.8 Separate to the 2008 study, Manx Utilities commissioned an independent review of the Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy for the Laxey area and recommended that it was their preference to construct a sewage treatment works and discharge to a new or extended and refurbished sea outfall (subject to further investigation and design). The requirement for this independent review was a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in their report on 'The Renewal of the Island's infrastructure for the Collection and Treatment of Sewage (IRIS) 1991 to 2007'. It is also a requirement of the 'Procedure Notes for the Management of Construction Projects' which form a part of the Government procedures set out in the document 'Isle of Man Government Financial Regulations'. 1.2 This report provides an Independent Review of the strategy adopted by Manx Utilities for delivery of Phase 2 of their capital programme to provide sewage collection and treatment for the Island's sewage effluent. This capital programme is known as the Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy (RSTS) Phase 2.
• 2.3.9 The purpose of this report was not to assess the various sites for their suitability to accommodate a new stw but to review the more general approach of regional or central treatment. The report refers to the application site as follows:

"6.13 It was reported to the IPT meeting of the 9 November 2016 that Laxey Commissioners were made aware that the existing chalet site at the harbour (known locally as 'The Cairns') was being offered for sale. Since this is the location of the existing marine discharge point (and collection point for the Laxey sewerage network), Manx Utilities began the process of purchasing the site for their potential future use. 6.14 I understand purchase of the site was completed on or around the 2 October 2017. 6.15 There has not been any further cost comparison exercises undertaken since the submission of the Business Case report in 2009. With the purchase of The Cairns last October, there has been a presumption that development of a sewage treatment works at this location will be the most economically viable option for sewage treatment of the Laxey catchment."

"10.49 The recent acquisition of the additional land at 'The Cairns' in Laxey harbour has provided a genuine and realistic option for the provision of a local sewage treatment works in Laxey. The location, from a drainage perspective, is perfectly optimised being at the terminus of the existing Laxey sewerage network and upstream of the existing storage tank (to be replaced) and the existing outfall (to be inspected and assessed).

10.50 Operational vehicles already attend this location and, aside from potential short-term issues associated with construction traffic (which might be capable of mitigation by the use of sea transport) will not have a deleterious impact on the harbour operation. - 10.51 In order to secure a planning consent for the proposed treatment works site it is possible that elements of the process may need to be accommodated within an aesthetically designed building sympathetic to the surrounding harbour, although conversely the building may be capable of making a design statement which would be a welcome addition to the waterfront at Laxey.

10.52 There is of course always the risk that planning consent is not secured for the construction of a treatment works site at The Cairns. If this was the case and given the work on investigating other potential sites within Laxey which has previously been undertaken by Dalrymple's and others, it seems unlikely that planning consent would be any easier to obtain elsewhere within Laxey. - 10.53 Consequently under such a circumstance it has to be assumed that the fall-back situation is likely to be the transfer of flows to the Queens Promenade Pumping Station in Douglas and onward transmission to Meary Veg STW."

• "10.56 Within the context of a financial consideration (only), my recommendation for Laxey is:

• Recommendation R3(a) If planning consent is secured for The Cairns the preferred solution is to construct the sewage treatment works here and discharge to a new (or extended and refurbished) sea outfall (subject to further investigation and design development).
• Recommendation R3(b) If planning consent is not secured for The Cairns the solution to transfer flows to Meary Veg STW remains available. However in view of the significant CAPEX and OPEX costs associated with this option, coupled by the deleterious effect on the downstream hydraulic capacity in the Douglas catchment (or the prospect of even higher CAPEX and OPEX costs to address these issues), it is recommended that other potential treatments sites closer to Laxey are investigated."

2.4 Access

• 2.4.1 A trial was undertaken to see how tankers would cope with the existing access from Breeze Hill. Even using the smallest tanker, this risked damaging residential property opposite and there was difficulty with the pinch point on Breeze Hill. As such, a new bridge is proposed over the Laxey River landing on the southern side of the harbour. This will also allow access to the northern bank of the river where compensatory boat spaces could be provided to make up for those lost where the bridge joins the harbour. They advise that the public were consulted on the design and appearance of the bridge and what was preferred was as is proposed in the application.
• 2.4.2 They clarify that the vehicles to use the site will be a 3,000 gallon tanker with steering rear axle to service the weekday sludge removal. This is 1.5m shorter than the single deck bus which uses Minorca Hill and would follow that route. Potential closures of Minorca Hill or a small number of days' inclement weather could be accommodated at the site with a catch up operated in the subsequent days when the tanker can access the site. Once weekly visits by a smaller vehicle will occur for the removal of screenings. Two or three times a year a larger, 8 wheel Vactor vehicle will need to visit the site to remove debris build up in the storm tank. This also has a steering rear axle and is 0.43m longer than the bus but has been successfully used at more restrictive sites than the application site. They note the existing traffic calming measures already on Minorca Hill and that the construction workers would come to the site between 0730 - 080-0hrs and leave between 16001800hrs and construction traffic would avoid peak periods and school collection and drop off points. Within the site there would be a single direction route.
• 2.4.3 Part of the proposal involves the permanent diversion of the existing footpath which crosses the site, moving it to the southern boundary of the site, skirting around the proposed buildings and returning up to meet the existing route to the east of Croit-e-Vey and running to the north of this, Riversend Chalet and Thie ny Droghad to meet Breeze Hill.

2.5 Marine Water Quality

• 2.5.1 The sewage from the Laxey catchment area is currently discharged untreated to the coast: during wet weather storm conditions sewage is also discharged directly to the Laxey River from a combined storm overflow located near Laxey Bridge. The applicant has undertaken a detailed coastal dispersion modelling assessment to assess the potential impact of the proposed scheme on the bathing water quality at Laxey and Garwick beaches: it is expected that an improvement in coastal water quality will result.

2.6 Noise and Vibration - 2.6.1 S noise and vibration assessment was undertaken that determined that due to the relatively low noise climate of the area allowable construction noise limits calculated using the ABC method defined in BS5228 would indicate an onset of a potentially significant daytime effect at 65dBA for construction works which will be addressed in the Construction Environmental Management Plan. A detailed BS4142 assessment identified no potential adverse noise impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors as a result of the operation of the proposed plant and equipment. The EIA advises that noise and vibration would be considered during the detailed design and construction of the development to ensure they are suitably controlled.

2.7 Odour

• 2.7.1 The application explains that the facility will include odour control units to ensure minimal odour is generated from the site. A detailed model has been used which revealed that the operation will affect the nearest receptor sites slightly or negligibly in terms of changes of odour and the odour effects are therefore considered to be not significant in accordance with the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM 2018) guidance. Continual monitoring will be undertaken throughout the life of the facility. Any odour releases during maintenance such as tank desludging where enclosures would need to be opened for the health and safety of operators and maintenance staff would be short term and temporary. The design basis of the odour control has taken into account abnormal conditions beyond what can reasonably be anticipated which may disrupt the biological treatment processes, however, it is expected that such event and any resulting odour, would be only occasional and short-term in duration.

2.8 Ecology

• 2.8.1 The application states that desktop and field surveys have been undertaken to assess the potential impacts on ecology and nature conservation including consultation and data assessed from Manx Birdlife, the Manx Government, Manx Wildlife Trust, the marine officer in DEFA and Manx Biological Recording Partnership.

• 2.8.2 They report that the woodlands to the north of the site are of regional value due to their rarity on the Island and the proposed development will have some impact on them due to direct loss of buffer vegetation and increased exposure of trees to the marine environment. They report that the Laxey River is of county level importance and must be protected from indirect pollution impacts from construction and operational impacts through the design of the scheme. They consider that there will be no significant impacts predicted regarding protected species due to the footprint of the scheme which retains the habitat of primary importance for reptiles and birds - ie in the adjacent woodland and the careful timing of the site clearance works. They advise that actions from the ecological enhancement and management plan for this retained habitat would be key in ensuring that the sewage treatment works has an overall positive ecological impact.

2.9 Landscape

• 2.9.1 The application acknowledges that the site lies within a Conservation Area which is of high national landscape value and the proposed development would have some landscape and visual impact on the site due to its prominence and location within the local harbour setting. They consider that due to its high sensitivity there would be some significant impacts, particularly during construction however, it is not considered that there would be any detrimental loss of existing features within the site as the existing buildings are not considered to be sympathetic to the local Conservation Area and the new development would provide an opportunity for constructing buildings and walls that are in character with the local area.

• 2.9.2 They consider that the woodlands to the north of the site fall within the Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and the proposed development would have some impacts on that with the loss of some vegetation however, the majority of this woodland will be retained and protected during construction and it is not considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on the adjacent landscape character of the Area of High Landscape Value and

Scenic Significance nor the coastal area due to the position and use of materials in the proposed new structures.

• 2.9.3 They advise that the existing public right of way will remain in situ with the same connectivity to the village. They suggest that by year 15 following the establishment of the planting the majority of significant visual impacts identified mainly in relation to receptors close to the site and with direct views into the site would be reduced.

2.10 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

• 2.10.1 They advise that no heritage asset was found within the site boundaries but note that the site lies within the Conservation Area of the village and the Laxey Pipe Factory would be affected as there are views of the site from these assets and the site forms part of their settings. Mitigation would be incorporated into the design of the site to include some screening and the new bridge would be designed to be sympathetic with the other assets either too far away or screened from view by landform, buildings or existing vegetation.

• 2.10.2 They suggest that the site could have been one which was a focus for human activity due to its position and that archaeological remains may exist on the site. Consultation with Manx National Heritage has confirmed that a watching brief at a minimum should be undertaken including any work done to any major sewage pipe tranches in accordance with the requirements of the Strategic Plan.

2.11 Community

• 2.11.1 Manx Utilities will liaise with the local community to reduce the impact of the construction phase and during this there will be short term impacts to the harbour and boat parking in terms of loss of boat park spaces and changes to the amenity of the area. There may be periods of closure of the footpath as it crosses the site during construction. They suggest that the character of the area through which the footpath runs will change however, they consider that with the proposed reinstatement and repair of the path at the eastern end the development will offer positive benefits. The provision of the bridge will provide positive amenity benefits to the area and a new service boat parking area will also be provided at the north west of the new bridge. There will be a marginal increase in the traffic using Minorca Hill and Old Laxey Hill to access the site but in their view road congestion and loss of amenity due to HGVs will have negligible impacts and no significant impacts on the local labour market or economy are anticipated.

2.12 Marine Water Quality and Ecology

• 2.12.1 The applicant considers that the proposal would bring about a betterment to the existing conditions for the proposed Marine Nature Reserve and for both Laxey and Garwick bathing waters.

2.13 Ground Conditions and Hydrology

• 2.13.1 The applicant explains that they have obtained background information to determine the history of the site, former and current land uses, geological and hydrological setting and environmental sensitivity. They undertook an intrusive ground investigation and a conceptual model was developed of the potential contaminant linkages. Due to shallow ground water dewatering may be required and care needs to be taken to remove any asbestos in the roofing of the chalets to be demolished.

2.14 Traffic Assessment

• 2.14.1 The assessment concluded that the development will generate no significant residual transport related impacts on the local highway network and surrounding area for both operational and construction activities, supported by the implementation of integral mitigation to facilitate all additional transport related movements.

2.15 Lighting

2.15.1 The applicant confirms that there will be no permanent high level street lighting during thehours of darkness anywhere on the site and the bridge will not be illuminated to facilitate fishmigration: access on the bridge will usually be restricted to daylight hours.

• 2.15.2 Low level lighting posts have been included around the IRBCs to assist in safe access in the event of an emergency. These are positioned below the level of the site walls so will not be visible except to someone standing by the entrance gate and will not normally be illuminated. If necessary, portable lights could also be used in an emergency event. Lighting diagrams are provided.

2.16 Flood Risk

• 2.16.1 An initial high level Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out which indicates that the south east corner of the existing site is susceptible to fluvial and tidal flooding on extreme 1 in 200 year tidal events and to a lesser extent, fluvial flooding for 1 in 100 year events. To counter this, the finished ground level of the site will be 5.2m AD02 - 200mm above the maximum predicted fluvial level plus 30% for climate change. The IRBC floor level, the Inlet Works Building and the UV Building thresholds are all above the level reached during extreme tidal events water levels.

• 2.16.2 The raising of the ground levels by approximately 1m in the se corner of the site may result in slight displacement of some flood plain area, however the impact of this is considered to be negligible.

• 2.16.3 The FRA identified a potential surface water flow path down Breeze Hill and through the western side of the site before discharging into the river. The proposal incorporates a new surface water sewer to pick up these flows and will discharge them downstream of the existing weir structure at the end of the river. This will reduce flood risk for Breeze Hill and the site.
• 2.16.4 The proposed bridge will result in increased predicted flooding within the boat yard and in the area of Riversend and Croit e Vey chalets for more extreme fluvial and tidal events. The increase in water level is anticipated to be dealt with as part of the Laxey Flood Alleviation Scheme that is currently underway and if this scheme has not progressed prior to the start of the construction of the application development then stand alone flood protection of any impacted properties will be undertaken before the proposed bridge construction commences.
• 2.16.5 The bridge has been designed to ensure access and gradients to the existing boat park are maintained to the satisfaction of the Harbour Master. In the rare event that water levels in extreme tidal events exceed the soffit level of the new bridge, the bridge will be closed and all access to the site will be via Breeze Hill.

2.17 Waste 2.17.1 A site waste management plan will be formulated for the demolition of the chalets and the construction of the facility with the majority of the soil and concrete waste to be removed can be recycled on site. Appropriate surveys for asbestos in the existing buildings, will be carried out and in all respects the contractor will adhere to the Waste Strategy 2018 and Waste Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.

• 2.17.2 Operational waste from the screening process will be combined into the Meary Veg recycling process from where it will go to the Energy From Waste Plant. Sludge collections will be incorporated into the Meary Veg operation where it is dried, pelletised and then burned at the EfWP.

2.18 Consultation

• 2.18.1 A series of meeting were held with the local authority, the public, the Planning Directorate, the Harbour Master and Fisheries Directorate of DEFA.

2.19 Further submissions

• 2.19.1 Further information was received on 21.05.20 and 01.06.20 to address issues which have been raised. This information takes the form of:

• Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services Report on Invasive Plant Eradication Technical Note Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services Report on Common Lizard Mitigation Strategy Manx Utilities Reply to technical queries raised at a Garff Commissioner Public Meeting held 3rd March, 2020 concerning the proposed Laxey Sewage Treatment Works - Planning Application 20/00082/B and Manx Utilities Assessment of comments made by respondents to Planning Application 20/00082/B the proposed Laxey Sewage Treatment Works
• 2.20.1 Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services Report on Invasive Plant Eradication Technical Note

• 2.20.2 This considers the Three Cornered Leek, Hybrid Bluebell, Himalayan Balsam, Alexanders, Montbretia and Hottentot Fig all of which are Schedule 8 species and their location on the site have been identified. The report identifies methods of eradication - largely digging out to an appropriate distance and incineration or deep burial, being left to wilt and die on site with monitoring for 1-3 years afterward to ensure no re-establishment.

2.21 Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services Report on Common Lizard Mitigation Strategy

• 2.21.1 This acknowledges the existence of a breeding population of lizard on the site and note that whilst the proposed gabion baskets would offer effective habitat, this is prone to flooding and poorly connected to the higher value habitat on the embankment. They consider the population on the site to be relatively small due to the limited available habitat about the base of the embankment. The risk to lizard habitat is the encroachment of the works and construction activity into the base of the embankment and increase shade post-development.

• 2.21.2 They have identified a receptor site in the existing south facing embankment along the northern third of the site as the most appropriate and this is shown in the original proposed site plan 10019771-ARC-XX-XX-DR-C-0506 P5 and this area must be enhanced prior to the translocation of any animals, the enhancement being the reduction of shade casting trees by 25% by removing, coppicing and crown reduction of existing trees and this will consider any DEFA licensing and legal constraints in terms of protected fauna (bats, birds and lizards). Also this enhancement will include the creation of a woodland ride (a cleared pathway) in the south east corner of the woodland through to optimal lizard habitat to the north east of the site and the creation of a single artificial hibernaculum with accompanying larger stones or logs for basking sites in proximity to be located on the woodland edge of the embankment and an example of how this could be formed is provided in the document. They suggest that existing site materials (cobbles, boulders and rubble) could potentially be recycled to form part of the structure. In terms of the removal of further trees, the applicant has confirmed by e-mail dated 15.06.20 that they have no intention of removing any further trees beyond those which are shown on the plans. In addition, they suggest that it may be possible to retain some of the trees adjacent to the footpath up the side of the embankment although this cannot be definitively established until it is reviewed on site in conjunction with DEFA and the applicant's arborist when the project civil engineer contractor is appointed. They include with the e-mail an update from the Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy which confirms that the reduction in canopy recommended in their report could be achieved through crown reduction and coppicing, not tree removal. They also clarify that the "woodland ride" is proposed to create habitat connectivity to the extensive lizard habitat to the east and this may have impacts on slope stability and would need to consider the existing ecological value of the trees involved and again would be achieved through crown thinning and coppicing and not tree removal. This is not an immediate requirement for enhancement but should be considered as part of the longer term management of the area.

• 2.21.3 The report advises that in order to maintain favourable conditions for common lizard, post development site vegetation management for the receptor site needs to be built into the on-going site management plans, existing grassland should be cut in the non-active season (November to January) on a three year rotation (one third cut each year) and the areas around the hibernaculum maintaining an element of cover for Spring emergence. The current extent of bramble scrub should be retained for sheltering habitat but the cutting regime should be used to control any further

• encroachment into the more open habitat: all on-going site management must be detailed in a Site Environmental Management Plan and at least 5 years of post-development monitoring of the receptor site agreed to establish the success of the translocation and inform any changes in management required involving a walked transect and daytime observation including a seasonal spread of spring emergence, breeding and late season migration toward hibernacula.
• 2.21.4 Once the receptor site is ready site clearance must be undertaken to render the site as clear of risk to lizards as is reasonably practical and site clearance should be undertaken as follows:

On warm, sunny days (ambient 10 degrees or higher) a destructive search of all suitable refuges including the gabion baskets, should be undertaken to allow any sheltering lizards to disperse into neighbouring cover. Dismantles refuges should be removed from site or in suitable receptacle in accordance with RAMS and upon completion of the above vegetation clearance can commence, undertaken in a south to north direction starting at the river edge to encourage animals out of the impact zone into the receptor site. After 48 hours of good weather which will allow animals to relocate into the receptor site, a reptile proof barrier should be erected along the entire southern boundary of the receptor site, shown in the document, to prevent lizards returning to the operational footprint of the development. The existing hard standing will prevent the site being fully fenced to exclude lizards but their re-entry along the river or from the entrance is unlikely once vegetation has been suitable cleared and site operations commence. Then, using artificial refugia (0.5 sq m of corrugated bituminous material) a trapping programme must be undertaken to relocate any animals remaining in the site interior to the receptor site and this must be undertaken in accordance with best practice and they refer to two UK documents.

• 2.21.5 An ecological clerk of works must be appointed to oversee site operations and ensure necessary compliance and implementation of the mitigation strategy.
• 2.21.6 Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) for Common Lizard are identified in Appendix IV of the report.

2.22 Manx Utilities Reply to technical queries raised at a Garff Commissioners Public Meeting held 3rd March, 2020 concerning the proposed Laxey Sewage Treatment Works - Planning Application 20/00082/B

• 2.22.1 They identify a series of questions which were raised at a public meeting as follows:

There needs to be an assessment of the effect on properties on Minorca Hill and Tent/Shore Road of vehicle movements including the weight and size of the vehicles. Whether pathogens were released into the atmosphere by RIBCs or any other ancillary equipment after research had been seen that this would be the case and the effects on this need to be assessment on public health in the facility. A member of Tynwald asked that Manx Utilities report on situations in the UK where the geographical/topographical situation was similar to Laxey and how sewerage was dealt with there the consultant from JBA stated that he would provide examples from Cornwall and the Severn Valley.

• 2.22.2 The presentation given to residents in 2018 and information provided within the application confirm the operating situation explained above in 2.15 and DoI have advised that they do not consider the potential damage likely to be caused to the road surface by the proposed vehicles to be any worse than that caused by a bus.
• 2.22.3 The applicant will conduct full building condition surveys on adjacent properties along the length of Minorca Hill, Tent Road and Old Laxey Hill during the construction phase of the project, before and after the project to address any issues which may arise with the surveys copied free of charge to any residents to request them.

• 2.22.4 In respect of the query about atmospheric odour pathogen release by the IRBCs, the applicant advises that where odours are released from IRBC sewage treatment works, they are mostly composed of hydrogen sulphide (bad eggs smell), Armines and Mercaptans (like a cabbage smell) which are given off by bacteria involved in the sewage process. The odour does not contain any pathogens or bacteria. The odour control units contain a blend of different activated carbon medias which are designed to remove the odorous compounds by way of chemisorption (a chemical reaction which binds the odorous compound to the media).They refer to studies which have found a link between close proximity of a sewage treatment works and increased levels of gastroenteritis as a result of the exposed open-tank treatment processes employed by the works assessed in the studies. The process here is fully covered and does not produce any aerosol due to the slow moving nature of the treatment process. Manx Utilities have 18 stws on the Island and 70 pumping stations, 24 of which have odour control equipment: there have been no known health issues related to any of these facilities.
• 2.22.5 They provide IRBC locations in the UK where the situation is similar to Laxey: these are Slatpon stw in Devon, St. Just in Cornwall, Croyde in Cornwall, Lynmouth in Devon, Edale in Derbyshire, Booilushag in the Isle of Man, Langar cum Barnstone in Nottingham, Upper Sapey Worcester, Port Lewaigue in the Isle of Man, Kirk Michael in the Isle of Man, Keisale cum Carlton in Suffolk, Trewern in Welshpool with photographs and basic information for each and other sites in the Isle of Man - Patrick, Glen Mona, Glen Maye, Dalby. And

2.26 Manx Utilities Assessment of comments made by respondents to Planning Application 20/00082/B - the proposed Laxey Sewage Treatment Works

• 2.26.1 They confirm that the proposal will replace the existing storage tank on the site and is thus a replacement facility.
• 2.26.2 In respect of disruption to property access via the boat park, the applicant confirms that full liaison and coordination with local residents will take place before work is commenced in order to minimise inconvenience and disruption to adjacent residents: work in the boat park for the bridge approach slopes and abutments will be preceded by any necessary work required to improve the flood defences at the periphery of the area that may be required to allow the work on the bridge to commence.
• 2.26.3 In respect of children's safety in the boat park during the construction phases, the applicant advises that the appointed Civil Engineer contractor will ensure that the site perimeter and working areas are secured at all times and the contractor and Manx Utilities will be working with local schools to brief staff and pupils on the dangers of construction sites.
• 2.26.4 The applicant advises that they will work with local businesses, residents and Commissioners to keep them informed on planned activities and working areas and any major traffic movements during construction in order to minimise any disruption to their activities.
• 2.26.5 In terms of access difficulties on Tent Road, the applicant advises that where practicable

plant and material may be arranged via landing craft, barges or other marine equipment that may be available or procured for these purposes by the contractor. Other larger articulated vehicles will be escorted to the site at times designed to minimise any impact on local traffic. Operational tanker movements will be set to run outside school opening, closing and lunch times where possible.

• 2.26.6 Where it has been suggested that the works will not enhance the sensitive Conservation Area, the applicant advises that the scheme has been designed to match other former commercial natural stone buildings on the opposite side of the river and will disguise the function of the facility so that to the casual observer it will appear to be a group of simple, traditionally styled buildings linked by a boundary wall and faced with plenty of trees and shrubs. They suggest that the proposed bridge will have natural stone facings and has been designed following local resident

• feedback to have a recognisable resemblance to an old traditional stone bridge of the type traditionally associated with Laxey. They add that the bridge will provide a short cut for pedestrians to the Cairn footpath which will cut down time taken to cross from one side of the harbour to the far side lighthouse by around ten minutes.
• 2.26.7 Whilst there have been concerns expressed about privacy, the applicant notes that the site will not normally be manned and even during major maintenance operations which may happen every 5-10 years, operating staff will not be any higher than a commercial vehicle cab. They advise that vehicles transiting Minorca Hill are no higher than a single decker bus so similarly will not create any problems with privacy not already addressed by the proximity to public highways. Week day tanker movements will involve operators at ground or cab level and should not result in any issues of overlooking or loss of privacy.
• 2.26.8 In respect of concerns about flooding, the applicant advises that the flood mitigation and prevention measures for the boat park and the Cairn site will be constructed prior to the construction of the site and access bridge. A new surface water culvert will be provided from Breeze Hill into the river to reduce flood risk to properties on the Cairn and Breeze Hill which currently occurs whether or not the proposed development is implemented. Flood mitigation measures will also be created along the boat park boundary to similarly reduce the risk of flooding in these areas and to fully offset any minor local flow diversion effects created by the bridge approach slopes and the slope of the boat park down to the river wall edge upstream of the existing slipway may also be enhanced. These details will form part of the flood defence project for the area which is currently underway.
• 2.26.9 In terms of perceived risk of flooding from the proposed bridge the applicant confirms that it has been designed following extensive analysis by one of the UK's foremost flood risk consultancies who have undertaken critical analysis of many locations throughout the UK and further afield. Based upon this work the width and elevation of the bridge has been set to take full account of 100 year plus 30% plus global warming effects of fluvial flow. Tidal effects on a 200 year likelihood return indicate that the approaches to the bridge will be partly submerged but this is not considered problematic as the site does not require permanent access and the inner harbour would be closed during such incidents. The bridge height has been set following detailed assessment of extreme fluvial events.
• 2.26.10 In terms of the risk of pollution from the site flooding, the applicant advises that the IRBCs are above affected level and the facility will continue to operate even if the area surrounding the site were under water. The new storm tank will present a lower risk of local storm spillage than the existing due to its larger capacity and the provision of new pumps will enable it to be emptied more quickly.
• 2.26.11 The applicant acknowledges that the site is shown on flood maps as being susceptible to flooding - surface water and fluvial flooding but as stated above, the structures have been designed, positioned and levels set so as to be able to operate even if the area surrounding the site were submerged. The Independent Laxey Flooding Report will be published and any works proposed in that to the boat park will be incorporated into the development. They explain that the wall proposed on the development is not intended to resist flooding but is to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed structures
• 2.26.12 In terms of damage to Minorca Hill and adjacent properties, the applicant advises that they have consulted DoI about potential damage and they recommend that the use of vehicles with road friendly pneumatic suspensions present no additional risk to that of buses using the same route. AS noted previously, surveys will be undertaken post and pre construction.
• 2.26.13 In terms of noise, operational vehicles are not noisy and comply with all IOM commercial vehicle silencing requirements. Sludge suction activities on the site would not normally exceed 65Dba at the site boundary during normal working hours and any operational maintenance which

• may result in operational noise will not be undertaken without prior notice to adjacent residents. The applicant accepts that during the construction there is likely to be increased noise on the site but this will be controlled to occur within normal site working hours - 0730 - 1800 Monday to Friday and 0730 - 1300 on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or outside these hours unless the work is connected with activities where they can only be undertaken under certain tidal conditions and in these conditions, residents will generally be informed by the contractor at least 24 hours in advance. Any noise from piling will be reduced through the use of the type of drill which rotates to cut rather than hammering which results in a more constant type and actions will be taken on the site to further mitigate this by immersive suppression or local sound absorption features built around the drill head or at the site boundary.
• 2.26.14 Dirt and dust will be suppressed using normal water sprays and where there is a risk of vehicles dropping mud on the road, vehicle wash down stations will be provided on the site exits to ensure that this is minimised. Where necessary road sweepers will be employed during the day.
• 2.26.15 They advise that all vehicle movements will comply with local licensing, weight and operational restrictions and will be timed to be outside school opening, closing and lunchtimes.
• 2.26.16 The impact of construction vehicles will be mitigated by, where possible, the utilisation of seaborne transportation of larger items of plant or construction materials.
• 2.26.17 In terms of the impact on the footpath the applicant accepts that the footpath will be formally changed and signed, the surface improved. The location of the buildings has been chosen to be limited to the easternmost part of the site as far from Breeze Hill as possible and as stated previously, they consider that the design and landscaping will result in something that looks to the casual observer as a series of stone walls and slate roofed buildings as the only discernible things.
• 2.26.18 They consider that careful specification and operation of the site and odour control facilities should mean that the site is not noticed by the public and will not affect the pubs and restaurants and cafes along Glen Road, Tent Road and the Promenade and there will be a shorted, improved pedestrian route to the headland overlooking the harbour and the site will be shielded by considerate and extensive planting which will mature on the site over time behind the works.
• 2.26.19 They consider that the provision of an environmentally considerate and effective sewage treatment system integrated into the existing infrastructure ensures that the disruption to Laxey residents is minimised and the odour control measures should mean that the site is not noticed by the public. Whilst they cannot guarantee that no smell will ever be detectable the works will include an odour control facility which means that effectively no smell will emanate from the site under normal conditions. The odour control system is based upon a negative air pressure system which extracts the air from the facility and passes it through an odour control package - typically a large activated carbon media vessel. The air is then released from a chimney stack from the plant, the discharge ducts to this will be equipped with sensors for hydrogen sulphide and will alert the operator and control staff to the degradation of the filter media which may require replacement. Normally through the maintenance regime at the facility will mean that the media will have been replaced before the reduction of the efficacy of the media is apparent. Whilst reference has been made to the Balladoole site which experiences issues of odour, the applicant advises that that site has no odour control facility as this was not considered necessary at the time of the development of that site.
• 2.26.20 The UV treatment allows the facility to fully meet the 2006 EU Water Bathing Directive and it is not required to be operated outside the bathing season. The IRBC treatment is effective and allows the effluent to meet the discharge licence granted by DEFA. UV is a tertiary process to remove any remaining bacteria from storm effluent during the bathing season. The UV system is sufficiently powerful to be able to treat storm flows - this technology is in use elsewhere and has been demonstrated to be effective in storm conditions. The operating conditions and required effluent quality is independently set by environmental considerations that are detailed in the

• Discharge Licence issued by DEFA and the site will be operated to meet those requirements. They consider that the effluent discharged from IRBCs is as clean as from the Meary Veg treatment works and in some cases is a higher standard.
• 2.26.21 The railway has been suggested as the most appropriate means for the laying of pipes but is not considered appropriate by the applicant and the pump away option is not the selected one for reasons set out in the Supplementary Information document.
• 2.26.22 It has been suggested that a document - "Impact on the Quality of Life When Living Close to a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant" - confirms that pathogens will be released from the plant has been considered by the applicant and they advise that the site which was the subject of that study was 50 times the size of what is proposed in Laxey and utilised a different system which used uncovered tanks aerating the sewage for treatment and the conclusions of that report are therefore not applicable to the present proposal. A second paper, "Impact of a Sewage Treatment Plant on the Health of Local Residents" presented an analysis of residents in the vicinity of a mechanical-biological plant featuring an activated sludge treatment process with a mechanical section of the plant which lacked clarifiers and bioreactors which is also incomparable with what is proposed at Laxey.
• 2.26.23 They confirm that the proposed process will not emit odourless carcinogens and the process is not anaerobic so will not release hydrogen sulphide.
• 2.26.24 They consider the application will enhance the Biosphere and the Harbour ecosystem by removing the presence of raw sewage from the discharge pipe. They advise that there is no known risk to public health from the closed IRBC process and no part of the plant will be to the detriment of public health. There will be no contamination effects on the land as a result of the proposal and all sewage stored on the site will be in sealed concrete tanks and pipelines are similarly sealed. No materials from the process are allowed to contact the surrounding ground area. Screenings are removed in movable bulk containers and sludge is held within the IRBC units until removed by tanker.
• 2.26.25 The applicant confirms that they have undertaken a risk analysis of the project but that it is not included in the application. Whilst the proposal will not address the issues at Garwick, this is considered to be a separate issue and not necessary to be dealt with in this application.
• 2.26.26 They confirm that the site of the treatment works is the same size as that discussed at the public meeting although the area for the bridge is now included.
• 2.26.27 Whilst there are concerns that a second bridge will not look right so close to the existing one, the applicant suggests that there are frequent examples in locations such as Scotland and the Lake District of road bridges close together.
• 2.26.28 Whilst there is a suggestion that Laxey has been treated inequitably compared with other parts of the Island, the applicant states that Laxey has been afforded a full, fair, reasonable and impartial assessment in direct comparison with Ramsey, Peel, Port St, Mary, Port Erin, Castletown and Douglas. They also suggest that this comment fails to understand the unique position of Laxey as being the only town in the Island built along a very steeply sided valley where the entire sewerage infrastructure has been constructed since the late 1890s within that valley. They consider that with these constraints the proposed works provide a practical, economically viable and sustainable solution for the future without burdening future generations with significant operating costs.
• 2.26.29 They explain that all operational costs have been based upon the direct generational cost of

• 6p per kWh which is substantially in favour of the pump-away option: if the full retail price per kWh were applied (17p) this would almost triple the operating cost for the pump-away system. They have discounted the land purchase costs in all of the site considerations, if they had been included

they would have considerably added to the pump away option. Manx Utilities advise that they are obliged to present what is believes is the most economical, sustainable and deliverable solution rather than just the cheapest solution.

• 2.26.30 They confirm that the site will not be used for the storage of any other items amongst other reasons, as it is not large enough to accommodate this and the access and manoeuvring space required for the tanker.
• 2.26.31 In respect of other types of solution in other places, the applicant suggests that the IRBC solution is recommended for this location and the proposed location is the existing confluence of the entire main piped sewage system for the Laxey valley. They suggest that to locate the facility elsewhere will still require a storm storage tank, screens, UV facility, storm outfall and larger pumping station to be located at the Cairn. This would still require sludge removal and screening service vehicles and will be the equivalent construction for the current proposal less the IRBCs but with a large pumping station in addition.
• 2.26.32 They do not consider that the works will adversely affect any third party's ability to insure their assets and they consider that the location and operation of the facility should not prejudice the enjoyment and use of adjacent lands. They are not in a position to discuss any alteration in property values as a result of the proposal
• 2.26.33 They consider the increase in CO2 emissions from the single daily tanker movements to be insignificant and in the future electric vehicles will become the norm.
• 2.26.34 Extending the sea outfall to further disperse raw sewage would be technically feasible but a very costly operation which would potentially contravene the EU's Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and not be in line with the provision of secondary sewage treatment processes (planned) for the other Isle of Man catchments and would also adversely affect the Biosphere status as it does not remove untreated sewage but simply disperses it.

PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Laxey and Lonan Area Plan

• 3.1.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan as Tourism and Leisure and on the draft Area Plan for the East as Tourism. The site is also within the Laxey Conservation Area. The site lies within a risk zone for both tidal and flooding on maps published by Manx Utilities and detailed flood risk investigations reveal that the site is at risk of fluvial, surface and groundwater flooding. The accompanying Written Statement for the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan identifies the site as one for potential tourism development, suggesting that the site would benefit from a landscaping scheme and some further thought in terms of new or re-development. It then states that this site will only be considered suitable for bona fide tourist use and not one which is or could be used for other purposes. It states that the site is very prominent and important in the context of the harbour. It also notes that the site may be susceptible to flooding and that it may have interest for nature conservation but that development will involve the laying of a new foul sewer direct from the site to the holding tank at the head of the outfall sewer with separate surface water sewers.
• 3.1.2 The Plan also recommends (paragraph 3.4) that positive consideration is given to the redevelopment of the Lower Cairn site for tourist purposes and the control of harbour-related operations such that these do not compromise the amenities of tourists whilst bearing in mind that the harbour is a working harbour for fishing and pleasure craft.
• 3.1.3 Paragraph 3.10 states, "The chalets in the village are situation on the other side of the harbour in an area which is generally seen as part of the brooghs or rough lower reaches of the headland. Development here would not generally be permitted as this contributes greatly in its natural form to the amenities of the harbour which is a popular place for locals and tourists to visit. As such, whilst the Department may be prepared to accept development which would support the

• tourist industry in this part of the village and where this re-introduces public access to the site, it would not accept that this is a site where permanent residential accommodation or other non-tourist use or development could be undertaken."
• 3.1.4 The local plan contains a number of policies which could be considered relevant to the current application:

L/TRT/PR/2 SITES IDENTIFIED FOR TOURISM "…On this basis, the land which has as part of this area been designated for purposes of tourism has been properly considered as being appropriate only for these purposes and as such should be retained for purposes associated with tourism and not released for other uses".

L/TRT/PR/1 - LAXEY HARBOUR "Encouragement will be given to proposals for the enhancement of Laxey Harbour such that this is more attractive to visiting vessels and tourist-related activities: this should not however be at the expense of resident and local boat-related activity."

L/TRT/PR/8 - LOWER CAIRN SITE "3.24 THIS SITE IS CONSIDERED SUITABLE ONLY FOR PURPOSES RELATED TO TOURISM AND WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS CONFINED TO THE WESTERN PART OF THE SITE WITH THE REMAINDER APPROPRIATELY LANDSCAPED AND WITH PUBLIC ACCESS THERETO. NEW BUILT STRUCTURES MUST BE DESIGNED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE PROMINENT AND NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE SITE. PERMANENT ACCOMMODATION WILL OT BE APPROVED ON THIS SITE IN ANY FORM."

L/HR/P2/3 "8.7 NO DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROVED WHERE THIS WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE APPEARANCE OR QUALITY OF THE RIVERS WITHIN THE AREA OR THE WILDLIFE WHICH THE RIVERS SUPPORT. CLOSE CONSULTATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO PROTECT THE INTERITY AND QUALITY OF THE WATER AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AS THE AUTHORITY FOR THE ISLAND'S RIVERS. ATTENTION SHOULD ALSO BE PAID TO THE MEANS OF DISAPOSAL OF SURFACE WATER SUCH THAT OVERLOADING OF SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AREAS DOES NOT OCCUR AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE AREA'S WATER COURSES."

L/OSNC/PR/6 - LOSS OF TREES "11.21 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FELLING OF TREES PLANTED FOR COMMERICAL PURPOSES, THERE WILL BE A GENERAL PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE REMOVAL OF TREES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA INCLUDING INSTANCES WHERE THIS IS PROPOSED IN ORDER TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT."

"12.1 Laxey currently suffers from an aged and substandard sewerage infrastructure which experiences infiltration by surface water (which reduces overall capacity) and which is not presently, in the case of the Glen Road sewer, capable of accepting any more effluent."

"12.4 There has been concern expressed regarding the condition of Laxey beach and pollution thereof. This may be due to a number of factors including windblown litter, flotsam and jetsam from commercial shipping and pleasure craft, litter from activities on the beach, possible pollution of rivers and watercourses from farming and commercial/industrial activity as well as pollution from sewage discharges via the sea outfall. The resolution of the problem of pollution of the beach and the bay therefore falls with various sources including the implementation of the IRIS scheme enforcement of DAFF, DTI, local authority and DLGE legislation".

• 3.1.5 The draft Area Plan for the East makes no site specific comments on the application site.

3.2 Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016

• 3.2.1 The Strategic Plan has a number of policies which are relevant to this application:

Strategic Aim: To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage.

• Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so

• as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.

• Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph

• 6.3.

• Strategic Policy 3: Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.
• Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2) , buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) 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; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
• Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.

Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.

Whilst the site is not designated for the proposed use, it is relevant to consider the provisions of General Policy 2 which should be applied to all development, regardless of its location in respect of land use zoning:

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

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;

• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.

• General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.

• Environment Policy 3: Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value.
• Environment Policy 4: Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

• (a) species and habitats of international importance:

• (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

• (b) species and habitats of national importance:

• (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (1) Wildlife Sites are defined in Appendix 1 41
• (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or
• (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or
• (iv) National Trust Land.

• (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.

Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward.

Environment Policy 7: 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. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:

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

• Environment Policy 10: 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 11: Coastal development will only be permitted where it would not:

• i) increase or transfer the risk of flooding or coastal erosion through its impact on natural coastal processes;
• ii) prejudice the capacity of the coast to form a natural sea defence; and
• iii) increase the need for additional coast protection works except where necessary to protect existing investment or development.

Environment Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.

• Environment Policy 22: 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.

• Environment Policy 23: When considering alterations and improvements to existing facilities the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours.
• Environment Policy 24: Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required:

• i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and
• ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases.

Environment Policy 24: Pollution-sensitive development will only be allowed to be located close to sources of pollution where appropriate measures can be taken to safeguard amenity.

Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

Transport Policy 4: The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.

Transport Policy 6: In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users.

Transport Policy 8: The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment.

Transport Policy 13: Development in or around harbours should neither compromise the ability of the harbour to accommodate other commercial or recreational users in a viable manner, nor be detrimental to the character of those harbours of historic interest. Transport Policy 14: Any proposed schemes likely to impact upon the ecology and/or archaeology of a harbour or the nearby coastline should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Waste Policy 1: Waste management installations, including landfill sites, civic amenity sites and facilities for the bulking up, separation, recycling, or recovery or materials from waste will be permitted provided that:

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

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

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

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

• 3.2.2 The Strategic Plan also contains Appendices on Floor Risk Assessments and Environmental Impact Assessments both of which conclude that the application should be accompanied by a FRA and an EIA.
• 3.3 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man requires that development proposals within a Conservation Area are determined whilst having regard to the special characteristics of the Area.
• 3.4 A significant flooding event occurred in Laxey in October, 2019 although the application site was not flooded as a result of the issues further upstream. As a result an independent review (the Arup Report the Cabinet Office report for which is undated) was established which has reached the following conclusions:

• RECOMMENDATION 1 We recommend greater priority is given to preparing to deal with flood risks and flood resilience The Isle of Man Government should ensure that greater attention is given to the preparing for and dealing with flood risk than has occurred previously. Potential floods impact directly on over 10% of the Island's population, 4000 properties and a have a forecast of £900m potential flood damages over the present century. The cumulative flood impacts will also change as the effects of climate change are realised and because of increases in population and economic development.
• RECOMMENDATION 2 We recommend that the governance of flood risk management across the Island should be reviewed. This should include:

• appropriate exercise of supervisory duties under the Flood Risk Management Act 2013;

• o the Duties and responsibilities for flood risk across MUA, DoI and DEFA;
• o the consideration of a Committee/Board to help establish and monitor the effectiveness of flood risk management plans and practices whose members are recruited to reflect different interests and the aspiration of the population.

• RECOMMENDATION 3 We recommend that the current provision of resourcing for flood risk management is reviewed. This would best be undertaken in parallel with any governance changes (in Recommendation 2 above):

• o It should include the adequacy of budgetary provision to meet the duties of the Flood Risk Management Act 2013 and other guidance notes and to promote good flood risk management practices.
• o It should also look at staff resourcing arrangements in terms of fragmentation across departments and the balance of knowledge and understanding which is currently held within commercial
• organisations. o It should consider greater clarity of responsibility to all on how the provisions of the Flood Risk Management Act 2013 should be discharged.

• RECOMMENDATION 4 We recommend greater urgency in delivering the National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion 2016.

• o We recommend that more senior and high-level scrutiny is assigned to oversee delivery of the Strategy. Perhaps with the Flood and Coastal Action Group (FCAG) being the officer working group seeking consent for its progress and plans from the Committee/Board suggested in Recommendation 2.
• o We recommend that the national strategy should be renewed and refreshed for appropriateness

• at timely intervals. At a frequency of no more than every 10 years would be wise for a substantial update, and perhaps with a lighter review once every 5 years. For example, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) is regularly publishing new guidance with the next Assessment Report due in 2022 and similarly the strategy needs to consider changes in climate impacts and accord with the social and economic needs of the Island.

• RECOMMENDATION 7 We recommend that closer attention is given to addressing the risks of potential debris blockage to vulnerable zones across the Isle of Man. The Environment Agency

Blockage Management Guide, published in November 2019, describes what we consider to be good flood risk management practice. In summary we recommend:

• o Identifying all the glens and river valleys where there is a potential for debris blockages to trigger significant flood impacts.
• o Identify and resolve specific features of the watercourse system in these zones to reduce the risks
• of snagging and catching significant volumes of woody debris.
• o Establishing a regular routine of inspecting and dealing with potential causes of flood blockage.
• o That a sense of balance and proportionality in approach is achieved which minimises the risk of future flooding but also does not destroy the natural beauty and ecology of the glens.

• RECOMMENDATION 8 We recommend closer attention is given to instances of surface water flooding on people and property, and that the MUA should exercise their supervisory duties under the FRM Act in 2013 this respect. MUA should encourage DoI and other organisations and landowners to take actions which the authority deems reasonable and proportionate.

Other recommendations were made in respect of flood insurance, communication and responsibility for enforcement.

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The site has been the subject of applications for alterations and extensions of the chalets there and 10/01463/B proposed fencing alongside the footpath and was permitted.

REPRESENTATIONS Local authority

• 5.1.1 Garff Commissioners ask for a further period of time to consider the application on 19.02.20 and 24.02.20. On 26.03.20 they indicate that they have requested further information from the applicant regarding an assessment of the properties on Minorca Hill and Tent and Shore Roads of the vehicle movements, further information on other, similar facilities in the UK and further comment on the release of pathogens into the atmosphere. They feel unable to comment on the application until this information has been provided. They also express concern over the inability for there to be gatherings of people to attend the Commissioners' meetings to hear this matter to be discussed, due to CV19.

• 5.1.2 Garff Commissioners submit further comments having had the opportunity to meet and discuss the application, on 16.07.20. They recommend that the application is refused as they consider the size, scope, layout and density of the development would be overbearing and visually intrusive on the harbour area and beyond, that there is no guarantee that there will not be an odour nuisance, that there are traffic issues and loss of amenity for local residents and the proposed bridge could represent a flood hazard with the site itself prone to flooding which in turn could result in highly noxious substances being released into the sea/harbour - all considering that the site is within the Conservation Area and of the highest value in terms of tourist/visitor/residential amenity and that the CA status of the site reflects the unique nature of the surrounding landscaping, riverscape and harbourscape. Members felt that the development would have a generally detrimental impact on the unique nature of the area and would be at odds with the backdrop of the headland and heritage aspects of the built environmental dating back centuries when Laxey had importance for industry and mining. Whilst noting that the impact could be mitigated by the stone walls and planting as viewed from Tent Road, the impact from the headland above which could not be mitigated. They are of the view that no development should be be permitted here and that the proposals were "contrary to key aspects of policy in such documents as the Strategic Plan etc". Whilst they agree that there is a need to cease the emission of untreated sewage into the sea but the argument of over-riding national need can only be accepted if all other options have been appropriately and effectively considered. They are of the view that other options should be considered and that this site should only be considered as a last resort.

5.2 Highway Services have not commented at the time of writing.

5.3 DEFA Environment Directorate confirm that they have already been in discussion with the applicant regarding the discharge licence application and note that the works have been designed to achieve "excellent" bathing water status under the effluent standards which will be implemented for the 2021 bathing water season as agreed by Tynwald in 2019. This application is therefore an improvement on the current situation where raw sewage is discharged into the marine environment which increases bacteria loading and may cause bathing water failures during the monitored season.

They confirm that Inland Fisheries have engaged in discussions with the applicant regarding the mitigation of any effect on fish populations and providing that lighting of the bridge and banksides avoids light spill onto the river no permanent, detrimental impact on fish populations is envisaged. Whilst there is potential for the construction phase of the bridge to impact on fish migration and habitat, the applicant has provided assurances that contractors' method statements would be agreed with Fisheries prior to the commencement of works. Inland Fisheries require that the approval of method statements including timing, be made a condition of planning approval should it be granted.

Ecosystems Policy Office require a number of mitigation plans in respect of protected species and Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMS), information on the eradication of Schedule 8 species and the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works for the duration of the pre-construction and construction phases. Finally, they wish to advise the applicant of the provisions of the Wildlife Act in respect of the protection of breeding and nesting birds (20.03.20).

5.4 Manx Utilities were specifically approached to comment on the flood risk implications of the proposal. They advised on 06.04.20 that they have no comment however the Flood Risk Team have been working closely with the project team for the sewerage treatment works in Laxey. We have reviewed all flood risk assessments, modelling analysis around the proposed new bridge and proposed mitigation strategies. - 5.5 DEFA Assistant Arboricultural Officer confirms that the one willow, three sycamores and one birch show poor form for their species and there is no objection to this. They note that the remaining trees are situated on a steep bank to the north and no activity is proposed in this area and to see that no unforeseen root or tree damage happens, he would recommend that a tree protection plan that shows a definitive Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) (14.02.20). - 5.6 Manx National Heritage were contacted for their comments on 26.03.20 but no comments have been received. - 5.7 The Director of Public Health was contacted for her views which were as follows:

"As Director of Public Health I would not expect to be a consultee on planning applications for sewage/waste water treatment plants since these are required to operate within a legal and regulatory framework to ensure that they do not pose a threat to public health. From the information submitted, I cannot identify any factors that would create a particular concern in respect of this application. I have however copied in Ian Mansell to cover the Environmental Health aspects.

The particular query about enteric pathogens and aerosol generation has been appropriately covered in the MUA response document" (29.06.20).

5.8 Local residents

• 5.8.1 A significant number of residents who live in Laxey and Lonan and some further afield, have commented on the application and these contributors and their representations are summarised below. Where there are multiple comments from the same address on the same date, the date has not been repeated but the comments included in the summary:

• 5.8.2 Comments received from occupants of property within Laxey who have indicated how they would be affected by the proposal:

Riversend Chalet (07.02.20) Laxey Laundry, Glen Road (18.02.20) Old Ballachrink Farm, Breeze Hill (25.02.20, 26.02.20, 16.03.20, 12.07.20)

• 1, Victoria Terrace, Glen Road (25.02.20) Burnside, Minorca Hill (25.02.20, 26.02.20) Cranford, Breeze Hill (25.02.20) Spring Villa, Glen Road (25.02.20) Harbourside Cottages, Tent Road (25.02.20, 26,02.20) Sandhurst Cottage, Minorca Hill (26.02.20) Harbour House, Tent Road (26.02.20, 27.02.20) La Mona Lisa Restaurant, Glen Road (25.02.20) The Old Bakery, Tent Road (28.02.20)
• 2, Rosedene Cottages, Glen Road (01.03.20) Cumbrae, Ramsey Road (01.03.20) Ballaclague House, Baldrine - owners of Woodside, Breeze Hill (02.03.20) The Granary, Ramsey Road (04.03.20) Ard Finwork, Ramsey Road (04.03.20) Baytrees, Lower Cronk Orry (07.03.20) Langley House, Ramsey Road (10.03.20) Stanleyville, Minorca Hill (10.03.20)
• 3, Chapel Terrace (12.03.20) Corley Rock, South Cape (13.03.20) Shore Hotel Brew Pub (15.03.20) Ballannette, Baldrine - responsible for the St. Nicholas Chapel and Burial Ground (15.03.20) Nyn Ayrn, Old Laxey Hill (15.03.20, 16.03.20) Bwaane Beg, Quarry Road (16.03.20) Gull Cottage, Minorca Hill (17.03.20) Cooryn Varrey, Pinfold Hill (17.03.20) Glen Cairn, Tent Road (17.03.20, 20.03.20) St. Jude's Lodge, Old Laxey Hill (18.03.20) Bridge Cottage, Minorca Hill (18.03.30, 15.05.20) The Rowans, Minorca Hill (18.03.20) Cushag, Shore Road (18.03.20, 19.03.20) Grenaby, Fairy Cottage (19.03.20) Beach Cottage, Back Shore Road (19.03.20) Harbour View, Back Shore Road (19.03.20) St. Nicholas House, Breeze Hill (19.03.20) Sycamore Cottage, Glen Road (20.03.20) Ballacollister Grange (20.03.20) Thie ny Dreeym, Ballacollister Road (20.03.20) 44, Ard Reayrt (20.03.20) Strooanville House, Fairy Cottage (08.06.20) Lewin's Cottage and The Shed (13.07.20)

• 5.8.3 Comments from residents outside Laxey or where there has been no indication of how they would be affected: Ballacallum, Ballaragh Road (18.02.20) Clarum, Ballaragh (23.02.20) Garden House, Clay Head Road, Lonan (26.02.20, 28.02.20) South Grawe Farm (25.02.20)

• 8, Parsonage Road, Ramsey (25.02.20) 2, The Wharfside, Peel (28.02.20) Kerrowdhoon, Maughold (28.02.20, 09.03.20)

• Green Oak, Clay Head Road (07.03.20) Baldrine Manor, Baldrine (07.03.20) The Mount, South Cape (09.03.20) Thie my Chree, Old Laxey Hill (09.03.20) Ballacoan, Glen Roy (10.03.20) Westdene, Croit-e-Quill Road (10.03.20) Mouette, Clay Head Road (15.03.20) The Spinney, Baldrine (18.03.20)
• 9, Victoria Park, Douglas (18.03.20, 15.06.20) Moose Lodge, Clay Head Road, Baldrine (19.03.20) Ellan Vannin, Baldrine (18.03.20) Grawe, Laxey (19.03.20) 1, Hillary Close, Onchan (20.03.20) The Wonder House, Maughold (20.03.20)

• 5, Croit-e-Quill Close (30.05.20) A Laxey rate payer who did not provide an address (18.07.20)

• 5.8.4 Comments from residents who do not live on Island: 2160 NE 53rd Street, USA (20.02.20, 25.02.20) 128 New Cross Road, London (26.02.20) 67, Kingstone Avenue, West Sussex (26.03.20, 30.03.20) Summary of points raised

• 5.8.4 There is an acknowledgement that there is a need for the existing situation of discharging raw sewage into the sea to be changed, however the proposed scheme would give rise to the following issues:

• i. Increased flood risk to the area and in particular, local properties which have never flooded and many residents wonder whether Government will be prepared to fund the costs of any damage caused. It is also noted that the site itself floods and no decision should be taken until the results of the Arup Independent Flood Review Report is published. It is suggested that as flood measures are being taken on the site, the capacity of the site to accommodate flood water and this will be diverted elsewhere.
• ii. The development will result in an adverse visual impact in an area frequented by tourists potentially reducing the viability of the village's shops, cafes and services and particularly from above where the proposed landscaping will not screen the buildings
• iii. The development will not be appropriate in a Conservation Area
• iv. The development will result in an adverse impact through smell on the surrounding area including local residences, particularly noting that the closest part of the development to Old Ballachrink Farm is the odour control unit
• v. The proposed development will result in an adverse impact through noise on the surrounding area including local residents
• vi. The health of local residents will be affected and the Director of Public Health should be consulted prior to a decision being taken
• vii. The development will adversely affect the enjoyment of the footpaths in the area
• viii. The facility will be adversely affected by tides and the river
• ix. The development will result in disruption to the car parking facilities in the area and local people will have to walk further from their parked vehicles to the properties

• x. The facilities may be affected by discharges from upstream businesses (detergents, for example)
• xi. It should be confirmed that the development will not adversely affect the old site of the St. Nicholas Chapel and Burial Grounds
• xii. The vehicular traffic associated with servicing the development will adversely affect highway safety which is of particular concern as the route passes the access to a primary school.
• xiii. The vehicular traffic associated with the operation of the facility will result in an increase in emissions due in part to the steepness of Minorca Hill and which is contrary to the Climate Change strategy and will add to the degradation of the roads
• xiv. A more remote site would be more appropriate and comparison has been made with the MU's solution for sewage treatment in Peel which involves a site outwith the town as well as other parts of the Island which are served by works remote from the nearest main settlement
• xv. The development will not improve the situation at Garwick which links with Laxey Bay
• xvi. Extending the system to pump the sewage to Onchan and link into the IRIS system would be more appropriate even if more expensive and could accommodate Garwick and could utilise routes already in Government ownership (railway line for example)
• xvii. Concern is also expressed that the description of the works is misleading as there is no sewage treatment works on the site so what is proposed cannot be a replacement
• xviii. Comments are also made regarding Interested Person Status which they assume will be limited to two adjacent residences implying that the decision to award IPD has already been made (this decision happens only when the application is determined but in any case the Department's Operational Policy states that where an EIA is required the 20m distance for assessing IPS is not relevant.
• xix. Comment is also made that the application should be considered by the Planning Committee not the Council of Ministers and it is to be determined by the Planning Committee.
• xx. Comments are made that the development will devalue properties in the area: this is not a material planning consideration.

• 5.8.5 Submissions in support of the application

• i. The owner of 2, Glen View, Laxey writes in support of the application, noting that Laxey and Lonan were never proposed to be part of the IRIS scheme and the cost and disruption of laying pipework to connect the area to the rest of the system would have more of an impact on businesses than would the current scheme. She considers that visually the site has always been an eyesore where traditionally buildings have always been stone or render finish and she considers that the scheme has been well designed to fit into the landscape. Her only concern is the nature of some of the landscaping which appears to be fast growing evergreen species in places and she considers that these are out of keeping and may also suffer from the exposed coastal location. Species such as hebe may be better. Whilst she notes that there can never be any guarantee that there will be no smell, no-one expressing objection seems particularly concerned at the current situation where raw sewage is going into the sea and that there could be a risk of odour from that, although she has never personally experienced it. She believes that all necessary steps are being taken to ensure that no odour arises from the proposed facility. The existing tank is situated within the flood risk area and does not appear to have caused any problems and she advises that she has not seen the site flood in the 30 years she has lived in the area. If it had, one wonders why the chalets were sited there. She is of the view that the existing bridge presents more risk of causing a flood as this is lower than the adjacent banks on the south side. If water levels reach the top of the bridge deck

• water could get around the bridge and spread out in the same way it currently does in the boat park. She considers the additional traffic associated with the operation of the facility to be negligible and the timing of such movements could be controlled by condition and the former weight limit on Old Laxey Hill should be reinstated to prevent heavy vehicles using this route. In her view, noise levels carry upwards and will be more apparent at South Cape than adjacent to the site in Glen Road and around the shore. She recommends a condition which prevents noisy operations such as drilling and piling before 0800hrs rather than 0700hrs as suggested (28.02.20)
• ii. The owner of Thie ny Mara, Glen Road, Glen Road offers his support for the application, considering that the alternatives are poor and involving massive amounts of energy, vibrations and will increase smells in the area and notes that the current tanks create odour with onshore winds. He considers the traffic generated will be less hazardous than those carrying gas supplies. He considers that the proposed landscaping will reduce the impact on the environment in a positive way for the village (09.03.20).
• iii. The residents of Glebe Cottage, Maughold comment that recent improvements to the systems serving Port Mooar and Port Lewaigue where the, albeit underground facilities are quite hard to find and smell. They consider that this is the obvious location for Laxey and the South of Lonan as other opportunities will require a lot of pumping and cost. They hope that the modern treatment plus a reasonable long undersea outfall will work clear of public discern (18.02.20).
• iv. The owner of Sea Peep, Peel, supports the application, objecting as a rate payer to the expense of pumping the sewage uphill and considering that there has always been odours associated with the existing holding tank. He also makes comments on Interested Person Status and the ability of public speaking at any Planning Committee meeting (18.03.20).

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principle of development

• 6.1.1 The site is designated for development but not the type of development which is proposed in the application. What is proposed is therefore contrary to the Laxey and Lonan Local Plan and the draft Area Plan for the East which state that this site should be used and developed for tourism.

• 6.1.2 General Policy 3 applies literally to development on land which is not designated for development which is not applicable here. However, it is relevant that this includes provision for development "recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative".
• 6.1.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 sets out what the decision maker shall have regard to in the determination of planning applications and this includes:

• (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
• (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
• (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
• (d) all other material considerations.

• 6.1.4 As such, Manx Utilities' Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy and in particular Phase 2 which was adopted by Tynwald along with an approval for funding to complete this Strategy (March,

2019) is a material consideration here. This Strategy approves the provision of independent STWs for Peel, Laxey and Baldrine to "stop raw sewage being pumped into the Irish Sea". Whilst clearly not the only means of draining Laxey of its sewage, it is the means approved by Tynwald both in terms of procedure and cost.

• 6.1.5 Notwithstanding the assessment of the actual impact of the proposed works, it is considered that, having regard to the RSTS, the principle of the development of a STW here is acceptable,

• given the importance of having a fit for purpose sewage treatment system and the need to accord with the European Water Quality Directive 2006, which is also a material consideration. It is also considered that a STW for Laxey is of overriding national need, considering that Tynwald was required to approved the Strategy which sets out how sewerage will be provided for this part of the Island, along with others.
• 6.1.6 In terms of alternative sites, the applicant has identified a number of these and reasons why they were discounted. There is no evidence that any one of the sites would have less of an environmental impact and indeed the majority of correspondence that discounts the present scheme suggests that piping the sewage south is the preferred option, fully accepting that this is a more costly option. The applicant is clear that to locate the facility elsewhere will still require a storm storage tank, screens, UV facility, storm outfall and larger pumping station to be located at the Cairn. This would still require sludge removal and screening service vehicles and will be the equivalent construction for the current proposal less the IRBCs but with a large pumping station in addition The Regional Sewerage Treatment Strategy is clear that for Laxey, Baldrine and Peel these settlements will have systems introduced where the sewage is treated locally and that it is not transferred somewhere else to be incorporated into the IRIS system. Furthermore, pumping the sewage will incur energy costs which would be contrary to the Climate Change Strategy which has to be weighed against the costs or harm of the current proposal.

6.2 Impacts of the development:

• i. impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area (EP35 and PPS 1/01 GA/2)
• ii. visual impact on the character and appearance of the area (GP 2b, c, e and g)
• iii. flood risk (Eps 10 and 13 and GP2l)
• iv. highway safety (GP2 h and i)
• v. impact on tourism (Laxey and Lonan Local Plan and draft Area Plan for the East)
• vi. impact on ecology (Eps 4 and 7 and GP2d)
• vii. impact on trees (EP3 and GP2f)
• viii. impact on the living conditions of those in residential property in the area in terms of:

• a) odour
• b) traffic
• c) noise
• d) visual impact
• e) flooding (GP2g, h, i, EP10, 13, 22 and 23).

6.3 Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation area (EP35, PPS1/01)

• 6.3.1 Both of these policies require that development in a Conservation Area preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the area. The current character of the area is that the site is open, generally green and undeveloped. Whilst the existing buildings on the site are not traditional and could be considered to be out of keeping with the otherwise traditional character of the surrounding area, they are modest and take up a small proportion of the site. What is proposed will change the appearance and character of the site to one dominated by buildings and structures which cannot reasonably be considered a preservation or enhancement. The proposal therefore fails to comply with EP35 and PPS/1/01.
• 6.3.2 However, the proposal will result in an environmental enhancement in terms of bathing water quality which is a legal requirement and which itself, will enhance the quality of the area. If it is accepted that the development will not result in an adverse impact in terms of odour and noise (see later) and whilst this cannot be considered to address the requirements of EP35 and PPS 1/01 as this relates to the character or appearance of the area which implies a visual impact rather than environmental, but it nevertheless does not prevent the environmental enhancement from being a material consideration.

• 6.3.3 It is also relevant that a number of the alternative regional sites considered also lie within the Conservation Area and those that don't lie in open countryside in which cases the development would conflict with the same or different policies of the Strategic Plan.
• 6.3.4 It is considered that the character of the Conservation Area in relation to the application site is currently compromised by the existing buildings on the site and that if it is accepted that the principle of the development is acceptable having regard to the points raised above, and that there are no other more acceptable alternatives, the proposed development with the use of stone and traditional forms is considered acceptable given the environmental gain to be provided.

6.4 Visual impact on the character and appearance of the area (GP 2b, c, e and g)

6.4.1 As above it is considered that if the principle is accepted along with the environmental gain from the improvement of the bathing water standard, then the introduction of stone faced walls and structures will not have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the area, replacing structures which are not in themselves traditional or particularly in keeping with the area, whether this be viewed from the highway, the harbour or the footpath.

• 6.4.2 The view down into the site from up above the site, from the footpath will be partially screened by the existing vegetation and whilst some views of the new structures could be gained the main view and vista from highway up is across the bay rather than down into the application site. The view of the site and the development from the Raad ny Foillan as it rises up Breeze Hill, is limited to one gap just above the largest chalet although a clear view is available across the bridge. Other views are limited by the existing tree cover on both sides of the path. There are relatively clear views of the site and of the proposed development from PROW 359 both from the eastern section and coming down the steps towards the site as well as glimpses of the site from the part between the fork in the path at Breeze Hill. However, whilst the site and the development are/will be visible from here, the more significant vista from the higher view points is across the bay rather than down and back towards the application site. From this higher vantage point it will indeed be possible to see down into the site where the IRBCs will be visible, as shown in Viewpoints 2 of 3. However, it is considered that this view is not so adverse nor so significant, given the overall length of the PROW and the environmental benefit of the treatment works so warrant refusal.
• 6.4.3 It is considered that the visual impact of the proposed bridge is acceptable given the materials and form to be used. Whilst this would be a new, second bridge close to the existing, there is no evidence that this would be objectionable in appearance or indeed in principle.

6.5 Flood risk (Eps 10 and 13 and GP2l)

• 6.5.1 The risk of flooding is very real, particularly given the flooding events which have happened in the village over the past few years. It is essential that there is no increased risk of flooding either of the site itself or of surrounding land, from the development. The application includes a Flood Risk Assessment which concludes that this will not be the case and Manx Utilities Flood Team have not indicated that this would be the case. Whilst there is an on-going exercise to identify mitigation of future flood risk and that it has been identified that the proposed bridge could give rise to increased flood risk on land to the south (the boat yard) and in the area of Riversend and Croit-e-Vey, the applicant has made it clear that any recommendations emerging from that exercise will be incorporated into the scheme if they are known before the development is implemented, and if not, they will undertake whatever standalone protection of the impacted properties is necessary to ensure that the scheme does not result in an increased flood risk. They are clear that there will be no increased run off from the development as a result of the utilisation of grass reinforced surfaces and management of the run off from the hardstanding areas.
• 6.6. Highway safety (GP2 h and i)

• 6.6.1 There is no response from Highway Services. However, the application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment that concludes that the proposed development would generate no significant residual transport related impacts on the local highway network and surrounding area both during construction and during the operation of the facility if the proposed mitigation is incorporated by

way of the imposition of construction timing so that peak hours and school drop off and collection times are avoided.

6.7 Impact on tourism (Laxey and Lonan Local Plan and draft Area Plan for the East)

• 6.7.1 The development could have an effect on tourism in three ways: firstly the visual impact of the development could have a negative impact on the area and deter visitors from coming to or spending prolonged periods in this area with a resulting detrimental impact on the businesses who rely upon tourist footfall for their viability. Secondly the development will remove the opportunity for further tourist development to be carried out here and will result in the removal of a number of existing chalets. Finally, the potential for smell or noise could deter visitors from coming to or spending prolonged time here. Noise and smell nuisance are dealt with later in the report.

6.7.2 Considering the conclusions reached in respect of the impact on the Conservation Area and the appearance and character of the area, it is not considered that the development would have a negative impact on the area such as to deter visitors from coming to the area or staying for prolonged periods here. The beneficial impact of meeting Bathing Water Standards will enhance the attraction of the beach for visitors and this is considered to outweigh any negative impact on tourism in this part of the village.

6.8 Impact on ecology (Eps 4 and 7 and GP2d)

6.8.1 The applicant has provided the surveys and information required by DEFA's Ecosystems Policy Office and this demonstrates that any adverse impact on ecology can be mitigated. The recommended measures included in the Invasive Species and Protected Species reports should be required by condition.

6.9 Impact on trees (EP3 and GP2f)

6.9.1 There is no indication from the professional officers of the Department that the proposed tree felling is unacceptable. It has been raised by one of the correspondents that the landscaping scheme includes evergreen species as well as native species and that this may not be suitable. It is therefore recommended that a detailed planting scheme be approved prior to its introduction, incorporating native species and the size of trees and plants to be introduced to achieve maximum immediate effect. The applicant has indicated that this is acceptable.

6.10 Impact on the living conditions of those in residential property in the area in terms of: - 6.11 Odour

• 6.11.1 There is a very real concern that sewage treatment facilities can result in adverse impacts through odour emissions, some concerns based upon fear and others on experience of other facilities where odour has been a noticeable effect. This is a concern not only for local residents but also for others coming to spend time near the harbour and promenade - areas frequented by tourists and locals alike and with a number of commercial operations which benefit from this custom. Reference is made to the facility to the north of Ramsey and the applicant has explained that that facility does not have odour control facilities as these were not considered necessary at the time of the development of that site.
• 6.11.2 The Environmental Appraisal Report includes an assessment of odour impact using accepted methods of measuring this type of impact and has concluded that there will not be an adverse impact in this respect with details of continuing odour control being provided by the applicant.
• 6.11.3 Given this information and assessment, it is difficult to conclude that there will be any adverse impact from odour emissions such as to justify the application being refused.

6.12 Traffic

• 6.12.1 This has already been assessed in the preceding paragraphs. However in respect of the concerns regarding the condition of adjacent dwellings, the applicant has indicated that they will conduct full building condition surveys on adjacent properties along the length of Minorca Hill, Tent

Road and Old Laxey Hill during the construction phase of the project, before and after the project to address any issues which may arise with the surveys copied free of charge to any residents to request them.

6.13 Noise

• 6.13.1 The applicant has provided an assessment of likely noise levels from the operation of the facility in the Environmental Appraisal Report and it concludes that no potential adverse noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive receptors as a result of the operation of the proposed plant and equipment. Whilst the construction of the facility will result in higher levels of noise nuisance, the applicant has indicated the hours of operation and the utilisation of less noisy methods of drilling with appropriate measures taken to suppress noise levels if required. As suggested by one correspondent, it would be appropriate to control these hours by condition and also to require drilling activities to be undertaken later in the morning and earlier in the evenings.

6.14 Visual impact

• 6.14.1 The visual impact of the development has generally been addressed in preceding paragraphs. However, the impact from individual dwellings, particularly those adjacent on the Cairn site, and across the harbour will be more permanent than the impact on those passing through the area.

• 6.14.2 It is considered that the development has been designed to be not unattractive to see and the incorporation of landscaping will further mitigate the impact on the nearest neighbours whose permanent outlook includes a view of this site and the proposed development. The impact of the development will have an effect on the current view over and towards open space. However, it should be remembered that the site is capable of accommodating further built development which is related to tourism in both the Laxey and Lonan and the draft Area Plan for the East and thus the site may not have remained completely green and open if such development were proposed.

6.15 Flooding (GP2g, h, i, EP10, 13, 22 and 23).

• 6.15.1 This has been dealt within the preceding paragraphs but it deserves repeating that the increase in flood risk in the village is a very real concern for local residents, given the events of the last few years and it is imperative that proper regard is given to this aspect of the proposal, as it is considered has been done. The flood mitigation measures which will be needed to protect the south side of the harbour and Riversend and Croit-e-Vey are required regardless of the proposed development and the applicant is preparing a scheme for flood mitigation measures for the whole village which will include measures for these three areas. If this overall strategy is not in place before works are due to commence, the applicant has indicated that they will design and undertake the measures for these three areas in advance of the rest of the village scheme. It is important to note that these measures will be required regardless of the proposed development.

6.16 Health (EP22)

• 6.16.1 Environment Policy 22 deals with, amongst other elements, airborne pollution and it has been suggested by a number of correspondents that the development could give rise to this. The applicants has provided evidence and the views of the Director of Public Health that the development will not result in the emission of harmful material.

6.17 Prematurity

• 6.17.1 It is suggested that the application should not be considered until the studies into the recent flooding in the village have been concluded. This has now been concluded and the salient recommendations are noted above. The recommendations are not site specific in respect of the application site and its environs so as to influence the design of the current application and it is not considered that there is anything in the report which would suggest that this development, or indeed any other development within the catchment, should not be approved if it is appropriately designed. The views of the Director of Public Health have been obtained. The development is therefore not premature.

CONCLUSION

7.1 It is concluded that the development will have an impact on the area, that it will neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and that there will be concerns that the development will have an adverse impact on the area through noise and odour. However, given the information provided by the applicant in respect of noise and odour it is not considered that these impacts are sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. The development will prevent any future development of the site for tourism but given the designation of the site for this purpose in 1982 with such limited tourism-related development since then, it would not appear that there is or has been a significant demand for tourism-related development here.

7.2 The development will also have a significant beneficial impact on the quality of bathing water in a village whose tourist offer includes a popular beach which has been well used by locals and visitors alike. - 7.3 On balance, the proposal, which accords with the Tynwald approved Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy and which will enable the bay to accord with European legislation, and which is not considered to have so great an impact on the surrounding area and its residents to justify a refusal, is considered worthy of support and is recommended for approval subject to conditions which have been referred to in the report.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.

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

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

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 27.07.2020

Signed : S CORLETT Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

Planning Committee Decision 27.07.2020

Application No. : 20/00082/B Applicant : Manx Utilities Authority Proposal : Erection of replacement sewage treatment works with associated landscaping and bridge for vehicle access Site Address : Sewage Works Breeze Hill Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7DL Principal Planner Miss S E Corlett Reporting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report The Planning Committee refused the application at its meeting of 27th July, 2020 for the following reasons:

• 1. The proposed development would be contrary to the designation of the site as Tourism and Leisure/Tourism on the Laxey Local Plan/draft Area Plan for the East and the development would furthermore remove the opportunity for further tourism-related development on this site which could support the economy of Laxey and the surrounding area, contrary to the local and draft Area Plan and Transport Policy 13.
• 2. The Committee is not satisfied that the impact of the additional traffic and in particular the nature of vehicles which would use Minorca Hill would be acceptable given the narrow and winding nature of this highway and the proximity of properties to it. The development would therefore be contrary to General Policy 2g and 2i of the Strategic Plan.
• 3. The Committee is not satisfied that there would not be an unacceptable impact through odour nuisance on those living and visiting the surrounding area, contrary to Environment Policy 22 and General Policy 2g of the Strategic Plan.
• 4. The proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area contrary to Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 CA/02: rather, it would have an adverse impact through the appearance of the proposed building and potential smell nuisance to the area.
• 5. The Committee remains concerned that the site is vulnerable to flooding and that the development would thus be contrary to Environment Policies 10 and 13 and General Policy 2l of the Strategic Plan.
• 6. The development would have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment of the footpath due the visual impact of the development and particularly this impact when viewed from the footpath above, on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 CA/02.

• 7. The Committee is not satisfied that all of the possible alternatives have been fully explored and that there is not a potential way of treating Laxey's sewage in a manner which would not result in the same level of harm as does the current application.

They also amended the recommended interested person status awards, removing IPS from the following parties: Cumbrae, Ramsey Road The Granary, Ballaragh Road Ballacollister Grange, Ballacollister Road Thie ny Dreeym, Ballacolllister Road 44, Ard Reayrt, Ramsey Road and Strooanville House, Fairy Cottage

as they had not demonstrated how they were affected by the proposal.