DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 18/01293/B Applicant: Department Of Infrastructure Proposal: Construction, operation and decommissioning of a temporary lagoon facility for dewatering and storing sediment dredged from Peel Marina and installation, operation and removal of temporary pipelines along and alongside the River Neb between Ballaterson Farm and Peel Marina Site Address: Field 315179 Ballaterson Farm Glenfaba Road Peel Isle of Man Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.02.2019 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. This approval only relates to the construction, use and decommissioning of the contractors area, lagoon and pipelines (transport and dewatering). No approval is given for any dredging works within Peel Marina as part of this application. No approval is given for any works outside the redline boundaries shown on drawing number 535/002/1 (date stamped as having been received 07.02.19) and drawing number 535/002/2 (date stamped as having been received 11.12.18).

Reason: The Environmental Impact Assessment has been produced to support a number of applications required to implement phase 1A however this approval only relates to certain works as set out on the planning application form.

C 3. Within 5 years of the date of this approval becoming final, the lagoon and pipework shall be decommissioned and the site restored in accordance with the details set out in paragraphs

2.6.16 - 2.6.22, 2.7.8 and 2.8.4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19.

Reason: To ensure that the site is restored within this time period and to prevent any long term loss of land, as the application has been submitted and assessed on the basis of it being a temporary use for up to 5 years.

C 4. Within 5 years of the date of this approval becoming final, the use of the contractors area as outlined in red on drawing number 535/002/2 (date stamped as having been received 11.12.18) shall cease, including the removal of all material and fencing.

Reason: To ensure that the temporary contractors area is removed when the project is complete.

C 5. The timing of works shall only be as per paragraphs 2.10.1 - 2.10.2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity and to ensure that the mitigation measure relating to timing of works is implemented.

C 6. The lagoon shall be constructed in accordance with the details set out in 2.6.1 - 2.6.15 of the of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on
07.02.19 unless otherwise required by conditions set out in this notice.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Lighting Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, which includes, but is not limited to, measures to protect the river from light spill. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation set out at 2.9.1 - 2.9.3 of the Environmental Impact Assessment is implemented and because the river corridor has been identified as an important feeding area for bats and a dark corridor should be maintained along the river. Bats are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1990 and are protected from being intentionally or recklessly killed, injured or removed from the wild; in addition they are protected from disturbance and it is an offence to damage or destroy their place of shelter.

C 8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the following information shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the development shall not take place unless in accordance with the approved details:

o calculations proving the structural integrity of the construction of the lagoons;
o construction drawings showing how the bund would be constructed;
o inspection regime for the lagoons in particular embankment checks;
o explanation of how consideration has been given to overflow of the lagoons if heavy rainfall occurred would they over top if so will there be a spillway and where would it discharge to;
o breach analysis if the lagoon embankment were to breach what would be consequence; and
o Emergency procedures should breach analysis highlight risk.

Reasons: To ensure that the potential flood risk (including residual risk) caused by the development is understood and: avoided; minimised; and/or mitigated.

C 9. Any dewatering shall use the methods set out in paragraphs 2.5.1 - 2.5.16 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
C 10. Any discharge shall take place as set out in paragraphs per 2.5.17 - 2.5.19 of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

C 11. Prior to the treatment of any dewatered sediment, as set out in paragraphs 2.5.15 -

2.5.16 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19, a method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. No treatment may take place other than in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: The treatment set out in paragraphs 2.5.15 - 2.5.16 Treatment is a fall-back position in the event that the preferred disposal option is not available, consequently limited detail is included within the Environmental Impact Assessment.

C 12. If a transport pipeline is used to transport dredged material into the lagoons, it shall be installed, used and decommissioned in accordance with 2.7.1 - 2.7.8 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19, unless otherwise required by the conditions set out on this notice.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

C 13. The discharge pipeline shall be installed, used and decommissioned in accordance with

2.8.1 - 2.8.4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19. unless otherwise required by the conditions set out on this notice.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

C 14. No transport or discharge pipeline shall:

o be installed which is placed on, or attached to, the river bed; or
o be installed which is more than 500mm wide.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and to ensure that there is no impact on the river bed.

C 15. No pipeline shall cross a footpath unless it is covered by a ramp which is in accordance with figure 2-10 and paragraph 11.3.17 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19 or other details which have first been approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation as set out in 2.7.7 and paragraph 11.3.17 of the Environmental Impact Assessment is implemented in a way that does not unacceptably impact on users of the footpath (including, but not limited to, visual amenity).

C 16. In the event that a raised walkway is required to retain the footpath at a width as required by the condition below, details of this, including any timings for installation and end date for removal, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the walkway shall be installed and removed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation as set out in 2.7.6 and 11.3.17 of the Environmental Impact Assessment is implemented in a way that does not unacceptably impact on users of the footpath (including, but not limited to, visual amenity).
C 17. The width of the Heritage Trail footpath shall not be reduced to below 1.5 metres or its current width, whichever is less.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation as set out in 2.7.6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment is implemented in a way that does not unacceptably impact on users of the footpath (including, but not limited to, visual amenity).

C 18. No vegetation clearance (including tree cutting or felling) shall be undertaken unless in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation as set out in 2.7.6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment is implemented.

C 19. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a suitably qualified ecologist shall undertake a site walkover survey of the pipeline route corridor to identify any routing opportunities and/or constraints relating to common lizard habitat, and prepare a species mitigation plan.

The plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the commencement of any works to install a pipeline, and the development shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved plan. The plan shall include the following information:

o The preferred pipeline route between the riverbank and the dewatering lagoon.
o The preferred locations for pipeline anchors and public / vehicular access ramps
o across the pipeline route.
o A precautionary method of working detailing a methodology for vegetation
o Clearance and dismantling of refugia during pipeline installation and removal
o works;
o Measures to protect areas of suitable adjacent common lizard habitat (e.g. fencing
o to protect important refugia); and
o A translocation protocol to be followed if reptiles are found on site, including the
o location of a suitable receptor area.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation measures set out at 9.3.27 of the Environmental Impact Assessment are implemented.

C 20. Prior to commencement of any works or development a detailed Mitigation Strategy and Management Plan for protection of nesting birds both during construction and decommissioning of the development, carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

Any site clearance cannot be undertaken prior to the condition being discharged and the development shall not be commenced prior to the written approval of the scheme by the Department. The developer shall thereafter secure and implement such measures in accordance with the requirements of the approved scheme.

Reason: Birds, their nests, eggs and dependant young are legally protected under the Wildlife Act 1990. In addition, species listed on Schedule 1 of the Act are protected from disturbance. The applicant should be aware that there may be birds' nests on the route proposed for the transport pipes from the Heritage Trail to the temporary lagoon system. If reasonable avoidance measures are not undertaken there is potential that a nest, eggs or chicks could be destroyed.

C 21. During the pipeline installation and removal works, a suitably qualified ecologist shall be present as an Ecological Clerk of Works to ensure that the works will be undertaken in accordance with the species mitigation plan (as required by condition 19).

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation measure set out at 9.3.28 of the Environmental Impact Assessment and the conditions attached to this notice are implemented.

C 22. Prior to and during the construction of the lagoon the Archaeological Disturbance mitigation measures as set out 12.3.12 - 12.3.13 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19, shall be fully implemented.

Reason: To ensure that the archaeological mitigation measures (chance find procedure and toolbox talks) set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment are implemented and protect any possible archaeological material.

C 23. Prior to the completion of the lagoon details of the proposed seed mix to be applied to the external sides and crest of the bunds, timescales for seeding, any ongoing maintenance and re-seeding if any part fails shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Unless stipulated and agreed otherwise, within one month of the details being approved the external sides and crest of the bunds shall be seeded in accordance with details and thereafter maintained for the period of the project.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation measure set out at 10.3.22 of the Environmental Impact Assessment and reduce the visual impact of the lagoon in the wider landscape.

C 24. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department which set out the vehicles to be used to access the site (including during its construction) and, in the event that any of these are more than 10 metres in length, the details shall include updated swept path analysis which demonstrates that the vehicles can access the site safely.

Reason: To ensure that information is provided to demonstrate that the site can be safely accessed.

C 25. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, which set out how the vehicles to be used to access the site will safely pass pedestrians using the Public Right of Way which runs along the Southern boundary of the lagoon site and joins Mill Road and how any mitigation measures identified will be implemented.

Reason: To ensure that information is provided to demonstrate that the site can be safely accessed.

Plans/Drawings/Information: This approval relates to the following plans/drawings/information:

1. Project Strategy - Dredging, Storage and Disposal of contaminated Material, Peel Marina date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
2. Peel Marina Maintenance Dredging 2019-21 Phase 1A Planning Application Cover Document: Brief Project Description, Site Photographs, Planning Application Attachment Summary (date stamped as having been received 11.12.18)
3. Peel Marina Maintenance Dredging 2019-21 Design and Access Statement (date stamped as having been received 11.12.18) including the drawings included as appendix A, other than those highlighted as being superseded:

o Drawing No. 535/001/1 entitled 'Site Location Plan - Lagoon'
o Drawing No. 535/001/2 entitled 'Site Location Plan - Contractors Area'

o Drawing No. 535/002/1 entitled 'Site Plan - Lagoon A1' (superseded)
o Drawing No. 535/002/2 entitled 'Site Plan - Contractors Area'
o Drawing No. 535/003 entitled 'Topographic Survey - Ballaterson Farm'
o Drawing No. 535/004/1 entitled 'Pipeline Route' (superseded)
o Drawing No. 535/005/1 entitled 'General Layout - Marina/Dredging' (superseded)
o Drawing No. 535/006/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Plan)'
o Drawing No. 535/008/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Traffic/Entry Layout)'
o Drawing No. 535/009/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Lagoon Fencing)'
o Drawing No. 535/010/1 entitled 'Pipe Ramp - (Vehicle / Pedestrian) - Outline Plan'
o Drawing No. 535/011/1 entitled 'Trucking Route Accommodation Works'
o 2 x Untitled Plans Showing Swept Path Analysis

4. Peel Marina - Maintenance Dredging Environmental Impact Assessment - Non-Technical Summary (Revised) date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
5. Peel Marina - Maintenance Dredging Environmental Impact Assessment (Revised) date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
6. E-mail from Jeremy Reece dated 06.02.19 (11:57)
7. Table entitled "Response to Planning Consultation" and date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
8. Sample Analysis - Peel Harbour (report from Socotec) date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
9. Outline Treatment Methodology: Peel Marina, Isle of Man - Dredging, Treatment and Disposal of Problematic Waste date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
10. Amended Plans date stamped as having been received 07.02.19 - No. 535/002/1 entitled, 'Site Plan - Lagoon A1', No. 535/004/1 entitled, 'Pipeline Route' and No. 535/005/1 entitled, 'General Layout - Marina/Dredging'
11. Plans as set out below:

o Drawing No. 535/001/1 entitled 'Site Location Plan - Lagoon'
o Drawing No. 535/001/2 entitled 'Site Location Plan - Contractors Area'
o Drawing No. 535/002/2 entitled 'Site Plan - Contractors Area'
o Drawing No. 535/003 entitled 'Topographic Survey - Ballaterson Farm'
o Drawing No. 535/006/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Plan)'
o Drawing No. 535/007/1-1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Elevation) - KEY
o Drawing No. 535/007/1-2 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Elevation) - 1/3 1:50
o Drawing No. 535/007/1-3 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Elevation) - 2/3 1:50
o Drawing No. 535/007/1-4 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Elevation) - 3/3 1:50
o Drawing No. 535/008/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Traffic/Entry Layout)'
o Drawing No. 535/009/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Lagoon Fencing)'
o Drawing No. 535/010/1 entitled 'Pipe Ramp - (Vehicle / Pedestrian) - Outline Plan'
o Drawing No. 535/011/1 entitled 'Trucking Route Accommodation Works'
o Drawing No. 535/012/1-1 entitled 'East and South Lagoon Elevations'
o Drawing No. 535/012/1-2 entitled 'East and South Lagoon Elevations'
o Drawing No. 535/007/1-(2,3,4) entitled, 'Concept Lagoon (Elevation) - A1 1:100

12. Supporting Information as set out below

o Untitled Plan showing rights of way in blue and brown, date stamped as having been received 30.11.18
o Two Plans showing Registered Trees, both date stamped as having been received

11.12.18

o Two drawings entitled, 'Multibeam Bathymetric Survey, Peel Harbour Marina both date stamped as having been received 11.12.18
o Six Manx Utilities Asset Maps (drainage, water and electricity) all date stamped as having been received 11.12.18
o Six Maps from Vodafone all date stamped as having been received 11.12.18.

_______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the Manx Wildlife Trust and the owner/occupier of White Strand, Lhergydhoo, Peel 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 6(4): as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy.

It is recommended that the occupier of West Marine House, Mill Road 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 6(4): as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and 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 BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE: THE APPLICATION COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL; AND THE APPLICATION IS ACCOMPANIED BY A FORMAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT.

0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 Department of Infrastructure is proposing to undertake a number of actions to maintain the water depths at Peel Marina. There are three proposed phases to this work:

o Phase 1A - Construction of a temporary dewatering lagoon, installing transport and effluent pipelines, dredging of sediment from Peel Marina, transporting the sediment to the dewatering lagoon, dewatering the sediment at the dewatering lagoon, removing pipelines, decommissioning the dewatering lagoon and reinstating the land affected by the dewatering lagoon.
o Phase 1B - Transporting the dewatered sediment to Cross Vein Mine and storing it and using it for remediating the contaminated land affected by the former mine works or, in the absence of this option, further investigation of the option to treat and stabilise the contaminated elements in order to render the material as a lower category of waste, possibly allowing the material to be re-used.
o Phase 2 - Long term solution for managing sediments and contaminants in the River Neb catchment.

0.2 For phase 1A a number of consents from DEFA are required, including planning approval for the construction of the lagoons, pipework and the contractors compound (the subject of this report). An existing planning approval exists which allows for the dredging itself. The DOI have prepared a single Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which covers all of the phase 1A activities and to support the various applications, it therefore has a wider scope than the planning application. - 0.3 Separate approvals (including planning) are likely to be required for elements of Phase 1B and, depending on the details, may be required for elements of Phase 2 (no applications have been submitted). - 0.4 The DOI wish to carry out dredging in spring 2019 however there are limitation as to when this will be acceptable to DEFA Fisheries and so the applicant has a small window to carry out the works. If the works are approved by the Planning Committee on the 04.03.19 and the decision notice issued the next day, there is then a 21 day period to allow for 3rd party

appeals. If no appeal is received the decision then becomes final - potentially by 26.03.19, which (if the decision was an approval) would allow the timescale to be met.
0.5 The application was originally submitted on 11.12.19 however a number of concerns were raised and in response to this the applicant submitted revised and additional information on the 06.02.19, which appeared on the weekly list on 08.02.19 for a further 21 days publicity (closing on the 01.03.19). The 06.02.19 was the latest that the applicant could provide amended/additional information and still allow a 21 day publicity prior to consideration on the

04.03.19 (and this on the basis that any representations received are reported verbally, as reports/agendas are produced some time in advance of the meeting).

0.6 The contracting process is ongoing and will be completed prior to this report being considered by Planning Committee (4th March) but was not completed prior to the 06.02.19. Therefore the application contains some elements which could be carried out in a number of different ways (and approval is sought on that basis) as the final option to be used will depend on the contractor who is appointed.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The applicant's EIA states at 2.2.1, "The proposed project's activities will take place at three main areas at and around Peel as follows:

o Dredging at Peel Marina that will include dredging activities within the marina and from the West Quay, and a contractor's area within the car park at the northern end of the West Quay.
o Pipeline route for transporting dredged sediment and returning dewatered effluent between Peel Marina and Ballaterson Farm that will extend along the River Neb and alongside the River Neb and across the Heritage Trail.
o Dewatering at Ballaterson Farm that will include the construction, operation and decommissioning of the dewatering lagoon and sediment dewatering and storage activities".

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Phase 1A Overall

2.1.1 The applicants EIA states at 1.2.1 that, "The proposed project will include the following activities:

o Constructing a temporary dewatering lagoon in a field at Ballaterson Farm on the
outskirts of Peel by excavating, mounding and compacting soil to create earth-bank bunds to form a lagoon, lining the internal area of the lagoon with a plastic geotextile material, and inserting a weir structure at the downstream point of the lagoon.
o Installing a transport pipeline for dredged sediment and a discharge pipeline for dewatering effluent alongside the River Neb between Peel Marina and the lagoon at Ballaterson Farm.
o Initially dredging the sediment from Peel Marina (channel area) using a mechanical dredger (backhoe), transporting the sediment to the lagoon at Ballaterson Farm by trucks, dewatering the sediment by letting the water drain out of it, and discharging the dewatering effluent along the discharge pipeline and into Peel Marina.
o Subsequently dredging the sediment from Peel Marina (pontoon and basin areas) either by using a mechanical dredger (backhoe) or a hydraulic dredger (cutter suction dredger), transporting the sediment to the lagoon at Ballaterson Farm either by trucks or by pumping it through the transport pipeline, dewatering the sediment either by letting the water drain out of it or by pumping the sediment into geotextile containers and letting the water drain out of it and through the containers, and discharging the dewatering effluent along the discharge pipeline and into Peel Marina.
o Decommissioning (removing) the transport pipeline after dredging of the sediment has been completed.

o Storing the sediment within the lagoon for up to five years during which time the sediment will continue to dry through drainage and evaporation, and discharging the dewatering effluent along the discharge pipeline and into Peel Marina.
o Emptying the sediment from the lagoon by loading it onto trucks for use in land remediation at Cross Vein Mine under the DOI's Phase 1B project or, in the absence of this
option, further investigation of the option of treating the sediment by stabilisation (chemical immobilisation) within the lagoon by mixing the sediment with binders and/or reagents to reduce the leachability and bioavailability of contaminants, in order to render the material as a lower category of waste, possibly allowing the material to be re-used.
o Decommissioning (removing) the effluent pipeline.
o Decommissioning the lagoon by reversing its construction process.
o Reinstating the field at Ballaterson Farm to return it to its original condition."

2.1.2 The method of transportation of dredged material from the marina to the lagoon will depend on the final selected dredging method, and will involve: Transportation by truck following backhoe dredging; transportation by pipeline following backhoe dredging; and/or Transportation by pipeline following cutter suction dredging (see 2.4.3 - 2.4.5 of applicant's EIA).
2.1.3 The applicant has indicated at 2.10.1 and 2.10.2 of the EIA that, "2.10.1 The following timings of activities are proposed for construction and decommissioning works:

o Lagoon construction and pipeline installation - 10 hours per day, 6 days per week Monday to Saturday from 08:00 to 18:00.
o Lagoon decommissioning and pipeline removal - Up to 10 hours per day, 6 days per week Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00 and Saturday 08:00 to 14:00.
o Dredging and lagoon filling - 12 hours per day, 7 days per week Monday to Sunday 07:00 to 19:00 (or equivalent).

2.10.2 The following timings of activities are proposed for dewatering works:

o Lagoon dewatering - 24 hours per day, 7 days per week".

2.1.4 The applicant has indicated a proposed programme of works, but to be subject to review throughout the life of the project. This is to enable dredging to be staged such that some takes place in 2019 and the rest takes place in 2020 so that dredging does not have to overlap with fish migration for spawning between late May and December, and to ensure that there is sufficient time available to impound and sufficiently clarify the dewatering effluent before it is discharged from the lagoon and back into the marina). It is noted that the main concern is in relation to timing of dredging (which is outside the remit of this application) (See

2.10.4 - 2.10.7 of applicant's EIA).

2.1.5 The applicant has confirmed that various environmental protection measures have been included within the tender documents issued to the potential contractors and, therefore, have been embedded into the scope of works that will be undertaken by the appointed contractor (see 2.11.1 - 2.11.8 of the applicant's EIA)
2.1.6 The applicant has provided a cover report (project description, site photographs and attachment summary). The photographs within this are particularly helpful in terms of context. The applicant has provided a project strategy which explains the various options and why the proposal has been selected. The applicant has provided a Design and Access Statement which includes, amongst other things, information relation to highways and parking.

2.2 Lagoon

2.2.1 The lagoon will have a footprint of up to 8,900 square metres. The perimeter bunds will be up to 4 metres in height and 3 metres wide. It will be lined with an impermeable barrier material such as a plastic geotextile or clay to prevent percolation of salts and contaminants into the underlying soil. Internal bunds and adjustable weirs may be constructed

within the lagoon. The lagoon's sump area will be the deepest area within the lagoon and the collection point for the dewatering effluent before discharge. A pipe will be built into the external bund wall to allow the dewatering effluent in the sump area to flow through the bund wall to a pump situated on the outside of the bund wall and to the discharge pipeline to the marina. The perimeter fence is likely to take the form of a steel mesh fence that will be approximately 2.4 metre high and will incorporate site access points (e.g. gates). Lighting will be installed. The lagoon will be in place for up to 5 years (until the material is dewatered and can be moved to another location (see 2.6.1 - 2.6.8 of the applicant's EIA).
2.2.2 The applicant has set out how the lagoon will be constructed, including storage of top soil outside the lagoon's footprint to aid restoration of the site (see 2.6.9 - 2.6.15 of the applicant's EIA) and how the area will be restored (lagoon and fencing removed, soil replaced and area reseeded) (see 2.6.16 - 2.6.22 of the applicant's EIA).
2.2.3 The method of dewatering will depend on the final selected dredging method, and will involve: Dewatering in the open following backhoe dredging; Dewatering in the open following cutter suction dredging; Dewatering using geotextile containers following backhoe dredging; and/or Dewatering using geotextile containers following cutter suction dredging (see 2.5.1 -

2.5.13 of applicant's EIA).

2.2.4 The applicant's preferred method for final disposal would be use on the former Cross Vein Mine (not part of this application). In the event that this is not approved the material may need to be treated on site, involving moving material around the site and mixing the material with chemical treatment agents (see 2.5.14 - 2.5.16 of applicant's EIA).
2.2.5 The dewatering effluent will pass over a weir into a sump area outside of the lagoon and then into a pipeline which will discharge to the southern end of the marina (see 2.5.17 -

2.5.19 of the applicant's EIA).

2.3 Pipelines

2.3.1 If cutter suction dredging is used, then a transportation pipeline will be required (See

2.7.1 - 2.7.8 of the applicant's EIA). However, a discharge pipeline will be required irrespective of the dredging method (see 2.8 - 2.8.4 of the applicant's EIA).

2.3.2 The pipeline will be attached to the marina wall under the new highway bridge (currently under construction), cross the dock on some form of support structure (scaffolding) and will then follow the edge of the dock and then be routed on the river bank and then along the side of the foot path up to where it crosses over the footpath. It will not be attached to the river bed or in the water.
2.3.3 The pipe is likely to be 300mm in diameter in 6 or 12 metre sections secured with concrete weights known as saddles or cradles. The pipeline will be covered by a ramp where it crosses the footpath. The minimum width of footpath will be 1.5 metres (unless otherwise agreed with highway as in some places it is not 1.5 metres wide at the moment). Vegetation clearance along the riverbank - notably tree felling and cutting - will not be undertaken to create the minimum width unless prior clearance is sought and achieved in writing. If necessary a raised walkway (including handrails of at least 1.1 metres) will be constructed above the pipeline for the section(s) along the footpath where the minimum footpath width cannot be achieved. Any 'new' features (i.e. ramps or crossing points) will be lit for health and safety reasons, but the overall amount of lighting is to be minimised and so any currently unlit areas which will remain unchanged will also remain unlit (see 2.7.1 - 2.8.4 of the applicant's EIA).
2.4 Lighting

2.4.1 There are various activities associated with the proposed project which may require different levels of lighting at different times of the day and night depending on the time of year

and available period of workable daylight. A Lighting Plan will be prepared and implemented for the proposed project and will take into account the following lighting matters:

o The lighting levels will provide a suitable safe working environment and to protect the site personnel and passing members of the public at all times and will comply with relevant health, safety and security guidance (e.g. workplace exposure limits; HSE, 2018).
o The lighting infrastructure (masts, luminaires, etc) will be positioned and screened (e.g. shields around the luminaires) to avoid significant effects on surrounding commercial and residential properties (e.g. glare and light spill).
o The permanent lighting systems (e.g. during lagoon filling and dewatering) will be switched off when they are not required for health, safety and security reasons.
o The temporary lighting systems (e.g. where the pipelines cross the footpaths) will be switched on when they are required for health, safety and security reasons, based on the use
of passive infrared (PIR) lighting and/or motion sensing lighting.
o The lighting will be powered in such a way to minimise noise emissions by using, where practicable, alternative power sources such as battery lighting using solar panels for recharging
or, where batteries are not practicable, generators with an appropriate degree of noise suppression. (See 2.9.1 - 2.9.3 of applicant's EIA).

2.5 Contractor's Area

2.5.1 The contractor's area is to be used, "It is envisaged that the space would be available to the Contractor for as long as they require it. i.e. From contract award/mobilisation, until reinstatement of the Ballaterson Farm site, as required. Perimeter boundary fencing shall be installed around the Contractor's area on the North West side of the marina. 2m high Heras mesh type fence panels have been considered, and posts would be supported by ballast weights such as suitable rubber fence feet. Any excavations will be made good at soon as the Contractors area is vacated. The site is anticipated to be used for general dredging part storage and miscellaneous storage, as well as, parking and office space if required" (Applicant's document, "Response to Planning Consultation"). This requires planning approval as the Permitted Development under the 2015 Temporary Use or Development Order excludes compounds which relate to the operation of waste management or waste disposal facilities.

2.6 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) The applicant has provided an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The methodology of this is set out in chapter 3 of the EIA. This includes clarification of which issues have been scoped in (and where they are addressed) and those that are scoped out (and why). 3.2.4 states, "The proposed project's potentially significant adverse and beneficial environmental impacts include:

o Adverse impact on water quality due to contaminant releases during dewatering.
o Adverse impact on water quality due to sediment and contaminant releases during dredging.
o Adverse impact on water quality in case of oil spills from dredging plant and equipment
or leaks from transport and discharge pipelines.
o Adverse impact on soil quality if contaminants leak from the dewatering lagoon.
o Adverse impact on road traffic due to truck movements on local roads during dredging and transport of sediment to the dewatering lagoon.
o Adverse impact on noise due to truck movements on local roads during dredging and transport of sediment to the dewatering lagoon.
o Adverse impact on air quality due to truck movements on local roads during dredging and dewatering.
o Adverse impact on air quality due to odours caused by releases of hydrogen sulphide during dredging and dewatering.
o Adverse impact on air quality due to fugitive dust emissions during dredging and dewatering.

o Adverse impact on biodiversity and nature conservation due to water quality affecting river species and marine species.
o Adverse impact on biodiversity and nature conservation due to pipelines affecting habitats.
o Adverse impact on biodiversity and nature conservation due to protected species (common lizard) disturbance during pipeline installation and removal.
o Adverse impact on biodiversity and nature conservation due to sensitive species(black guillemot) disturbance during dredging.
o Adverse impact on biodiversity and nature conservation due to sediment releases affecting migratory fish.
o Adverse impact on landscape character and views due to the physical presence of the lagoon.
o Adverse impact on recreation and amenity due to the physical presence of the pipelines along and across public rights of way.
o Adverse impact on cultural heritage due to disturbance to the context, setting and views from the Peel Conservation Area and Peel Castle.
o Adverse impact on archaeology if lagoon construction works disturb and/or damage unknown remains.
o Beneficial impact on sediment quality due to sediment (and contaminants) removal by dredging.
o Beneficial impact on recreation and amenity due to sediment removal by dredging".

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Land Use Zonings

3.1.1 The Peel Local Plan (1989) shows the Harbour is shown on the Local Plan as Harbour, the River itself is shown as "River". The land to the West of the river/harbour is Public Open Space. The existing industrial area and land to the South of this is shown as Predominantly Industrial (with a small area of existing residential within it)

3.1.2 The lagoon itself is within the Predominantly Industrial desgination. The route of the pipeline is a mixture of Predominantly Industrial and River. The compound is within land shown as Public Open space (although the POS designation includes various areas used for parking/storage - including the area to be used for the compound). See: https://www.gov.im/localplans

3.1.3 All of the proposed works are outside the Peel Conservation Area.

3.1.4 In looking at the on the Manx Utilities 2017 flood maps it is noted that the lagoon is outside the identified flood risk areas, however the river and harbour are identified as High Flood Risk - River and Tidal. The edge of the contractors area is shown as High Flood Risk Tidal.

3.1.5 In relation to terrestrial sites, there are no ASSI, Bird Sanctuaries, SPA or Ramsar Sites within or near to the site. No non-statutory sites have been identified that might be impacted on. There are no registered trees that might be impacted on (although trees are registered based on a consideration of value and threat, so the absence of registration does not necessarily mean the absence of value).

3.2 Strategic Plan

3.2.1 In light of the above, the following Strategic Plan policies are identified as being relevant:

o Strategic Policy 4(b) - protects the nature conservation value of urban and rural areas
o Strategic Policy 4(c) - indicates development must not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance

o Strategic Policy 7 - undeveloped land zoned for industrial will be retailed and protected for such uses except where they are inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses
o Strategic Policy 10 - new development should not adversley affect highway safety for all users and encourage pedestrian movement
o The key elements of the Island Spatial Strategy for the West include exploiting the potential of the quayside and harbour for further housing and leisure opportunities (5.12)
o General Policy 2 indicates that development will only be supported if it does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape and townscape (c), adversely affect wildlife or important habitats on the site and adjacent land, including water courses (d), does not affect the amenity of local residents or character of the locality (g), does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety (i), does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate area plan (k), takes account of community and personal safety (m).
o Environment Policy 1 protects the countryside and its ecology
o Environment Policy 3 protects woodland areas specially those which have public amenity or conservation value.
o Environment Policy 4 protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites)
o Environment Policy 7 protects watercourses.
o Environment Policies 10 and 13 seek to prevent development which would result in an unacceptable flood risk either on or off site, and require flood risk assessments.
o Environment Policy 14 protects agricultural land.
o Environment Policy 22 indicates development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment or amenity of nearby properties in terms of pollution of the air or water environment, or vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.
o Environment Policy 24 (section 7.18) and appendix 5 set out when an Environmental Impact Assessment may be required (this is reinforced by Transport Policy 14 in relation to harbours/coastline).
o Environment Policy 26 indicates development will only be permitted on or close to contaminated land where it can be demonstrated there will be no risk to health, property or water courses.
o Environment Policy 27 supports works to enhance the natural environment and deal with historic contamination.
o Environment Policies 40 and 41 relate to archaeology.
o Recreation Policy 2 seeks to protect open space and recreation facilities.
o Recreation Policy 5 seeks to protect existing public rights of way.
o Transport Policy 13 indicates development in and around harbours should not compromise the ability of the harbour to function or be detrimental to any historic interest.
o Waste Policy 1 indicates that treatment facilities will be supported subject to a number
of caveats which relate to their being a need for the proposal and no unacceptable environmental impacts (the latter to some extent duplication the 'generic' environmental protection provided by the policies set out above). See: https://www.gov.im/strategicplanning

3.3 Employment Land Review

3.3.1 An Employment Land Review was carried out in 2013 and a supplement published in 2017. This concludes, 'The majority of demand for employment floorspace continues to focus on locations in the East' and 'Existing allocations remain sufficient to meet future demand in the South, West and North'.

See: https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/enterprise/employment-landreview/

3.4 National Infrastructure Strategy

3.4.1 The National Infrastructure Strategy was received and approved by Tynwald in July

As part of the Strategy, the Department of Infrastructure has committed to undertaking a regular cycle of review of the National Infrastructure Strategy and will produce a monitoring report thereafter.

3.4.2 The 2018 audit states, "In terms of the current situation, the infrastructure provision at the Island's harbours and airport meet the current social and economic needs of the Island. There is the ability at both of these to accommodate additional capacity should passenger numbers or freight volumes rise in the future. In terms of service provision, the above reflects the current situation and no change to NIS 2017 text. The following text has not been included within the NIS 2017 however, it reflects the Department's position in relation to Peel: The ongoing operation of Peel Marina is seen to be of strategic importance to the Island as a whole, and particularly, to Peel and the surrounding areas. The proposed dredging of the marina will ensure it continues to operate as a location for both local and visitor boats to moor in, and will have knock on effects for the local economies of Peel and the surrounding areas". See: https://www.gov.im/media/1363133/nis_2018-audit-final.pdf

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 It is considered that the dredging operations constitute development and that approval for this was given as part of planning application 01/02255/B for "creation of footbridge and water retention scheme, including electrical substation".

4.2 The definition of development includes engineering operations in, on, over or under land. The Act states that land includes that which is covered by water. There is no existing Permitted Development Order that would allow for this development.

4.3 However, Planning Approval 01/02255/B for, "creation of footbridge and water retention scheme, including electrical substation" included a number of supporting documents.

o The Statement of Case (by M. Brew) states at 5.3, "Concerns have been raised that the impounding scheme will result in an increase in siltation levels … However, it is anticipated that siltation should not be significant as the suspended solid levels of the River Neb as it enters the Inner Harbour are stated to be low. Bathymetry monitoring would highlight significant sedimentation which would subsequently be dredged in a regular maintenance programme".
o The Environmental Report (Posford Duvivier Environment) states in 3.3.5 on page 22, "Siltation is likely to be an unavoidable consequence of this scheme. Regular monitoring of the bathymetry of the Inner Harbour would highlight significant sedimentation and indicate the need for dredging. Alternatively a regular maintenance programme should be put in place". In

4.2 (Recommendations) on page 49 they state, "As outlined in earlier sections of the report, one of the key issues related to this scheme is the potential for siltation to occur due to the reduced energy environment of the impounded water. If this occurs, the profile of the harbour bed will change and water depth will effectively be reduced. This may prevent the impounding scheme from functioning as designed. Therefore, it is recommended that surveys of the harbour bed are carried out every few months to monitor this area for siltation…".

o The consultation response from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (dated 05.03.02) asking, "…if dredging might be required for the management and operation
of the inner harbour, a plan be produced to prevent such works spreading polluted silt to other areas marine or terrestrial…". o The decision notice (which was issued by the Department of Local Government and the Environment) attaches a number of conditions, one of which (Condition 5) is, "Where dredging is proposed, a plan is prepared and discussed with the Committee after consultation with DAFF to prevent polluted silt spreading to other areas, marine or terrestrial".

4.4 Therefore the application included the potential use of dredging within the inner harbour as part of an ongoing maintenance programme. DOI have consulted DEFA Planning &

Building Control on the dredging works (letter received 06.02.19) and a response will be provided separately.
4.5 There is a later planning approval (07/00910/B) for, "Inner Harbour Marina development comprising reclamation of land at the Southern end of the harbour to provide a boat park and car parking, installation of fully serviced floating pontoons, erection of a toilet/shower block with offices above, highway amendments and construction of a concrete maintenance platform". This later approval was implemented in conjunction with the earlier approval, and so does not replace the earlier approval.
4.6 Planning Application 15/00447/B for "Construction of a facility for the temporary (maximum 5 years) storage of dredgings from Peel Marina" at Fields 314574 & 314514 Poortown Road was approved on the 26.08.15 subject to a number of conditions, one of which being that it shall only be for 5 years (i.e. up to 26.08.20) and also that prior to the facility ceasing to operate a detailed remediation scheme will be submitted.
4.7 The applicant has been asked to confirm what plans (including timescales) DOI has in place to ensure compliance with the conditions attached to Planning Application 15/00447/B and commented (in their "Response to Planning Consultation" table).

"The Department intends to remove the material stored under the conditional approval 15/00447/B prior to the expiry of the temporary planning approval:- Material that has dewatered in the facility will be transported directly to Cross Vein Mine, as part of Phase 1B of the Peel Marina maintenance dredging project. The Department will also investigate the potential to use the dewatered material as part of the remediation of Wrights Pit North. Material that has not been sufficiently dewatered will be transported to the Peel lagoon for further dewatering, prior to onward transport to Cross Vein Mine. The Department has already commenced some of the surveys required to submit a Planning Application for Cross Vein Mine (Phase 1B) in Autumn / Winter 2019, following completion of the 12 month programme of environmental surveys. In the event that Planning Approval is granted at Cross Vein Mine but environmental restrictions on working at Cross Vein Mine (provisionally only permitted November - February) prevent the material being transported there before the expiry of the 5 years, the Department will consult with the Planning Directorate and German Commissioners regarding the option for a short term extension (up to Spring 2021) to this approval".

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Note: The following comments have been made in response to the application as originally submitted. As part of the amended information the applicant provided a table of comments received at that point and how they had been addressed in the amended information. Some of the detailed comments, e.g. from DEFA (EPU) had not been formally received at that point, although there had been informal discussions (and these are recorded in the table). The 21 days publicity period for the amended information expires on 01.03.19 and any additional/revised comments will be reported to the Planning Committee as part of a verbal update.

5.1 Local Authority

5.1.1 No comments have been received from Peel Town Commissioners (who also own part of the application site).

5.2 Government Departments

5.2.1 Initial comments were received from the DEFA Environmental Protection Unit (Consultation 1 - 21.12.19) asking questions about: the sustainability and final disposal/land remediation solutions; the potential to use geotubes; and issues around a potential discharge license.

5.2.2 Further comments were provided by the DEFA Environmental Protection Unit, incorporating comments from Fisheries and Ecology (Consultation 9 - 11.02.19). The response provides the following summary. The detailed points raised within the response are reflected within the Assessment Section (6.0). "The Environmental Directorate of the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA) has been and continues to work with the DoI through the Peel Marina Dredging Project Board to develop a sustainable solution to enable safe navigation and mooring, and to maintain the flow of the River Neb through Peel Marina. The Department's interests are primarily to protect human health, biodiversity and the environment.

Consequently the Environment Directorate is supporting the proposed dredging project through all its phases 1A, 1B and 2. If the 45,000 tonnes of contaminated dredging spoil can be removed from Peel Marina and contamination can be mitigated at source, such that it no longer poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, this would enable future disposal of harbour sediment either to sea or for use in construction. This would represent both financial and environmental benefits for the Island.

A key issue in the success of this project is that the dredged sediment is able to be utilized in the rehabilitation and vegetation of heavily contaminated land at the former Cross Vein Mine. This is part of Phase 2 of the Peel Marina Dredging Project Board project to find a sustainable solution by engineering measures to reduce contamination from Cross Vein Mine entering the streams leading to the River Neb catchment. Currently a 12 month EIA is being undertaken to support the planning application for this phase of the project".

5.2.3 The DEFA Arboricultural Officer has provided comments (Consultation 3 - 08.01.19 and originally stated Consultation 7 - 07.01.19) indicating minimal impact on trees (comments reflected in detail in the assessment section).

5.2.4 The Department of Infrastructure are the applicants however, in accordance with DEFA's usual process for considering applications, they are also consultees. It is for DOI to manage any potential conflicts that arise. Confirmation has been received that Ports & Harbours support the application (Consultation 6 - 15.01.19). DOI Highways have been consulted (and asked to consider public rights of way interests in their response). They responded on 14.02.19 and indicated that they do not oppose subject to the following conditions (full details of their comments are included in the assessment section): "o Prior to the use of any vehicle longer than 10m, full details must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. Reason: to ensure the required vehicular manoeuvring could be undertaken safely.

o Prior to the commencement of the development, details of ramps on the footpath no steeper than 1:12 must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department, and introduced prior to the works. Reason: to facilitate suitable vehicle, disabled and pedestrian access.
o Prior to the commencement of the development, details of temporary passing places to be created at regular intervals along the PROW must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department, and introduced prior to the works. Reason: to ensure that there would be adequate room for PROW users to pass HGVs in the interest of highway safety".

5.3 Other Organisations

5.3.1 Manx Utilities asked for a deferral (Consultation 4 - 08.01.19) and subsequently commented (Consultation 8 - 29.01.19) that further information/amendments would be helpful (see assessment).
5.3.2 Manx National Heritage have provided comments in relation to ecology and archaeology (Consultation 7 - 29.01.19) and these are reflected in the assessment section. Their response also indicates that MNH are likely to provide further comment with regards to the impacts of

the proposals on water quality and the marine environment upon review of forthcoming information (no further comments have been received at the time of drafting - 13.02.19).
5.3.3 The Manx Wildlife Trust (Consultation 5 - 11.01.19) raises broad concerns and give the following summary (the detail of their comments is reflected in the assessment), "Manx Wildlife Trust would like to raise their concerns and current objection to the planning application as it currently stands. This is based on several important technical and best practice points that compromise the proposal or do not provide enough detail. We would also like to point out that without further published detail on the wider catchment scheme (including Phase

1B) and understanding how this Phase 1A supports a viable solution to the silt problem in Peel Marina it is difficult to really understand the proposals relevancy and efficacy.

We have objections to three specific areas of the proposal. Firstly, the EIA and specifically what should be Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) in Chapter 9. Secondly, the linked nature of Phase 1A and Phase 1B, the latter of which currently has many limitations and a lack of clarity. Thirdly, broader questions are raised about effectiveness of the proposal to prevent "contamination" due to the lack of clear detail on the methods efficacy.

Environmental Policy 4 within the IoM Strategic Plan is only partly met due to the flawed EIA, and therefore it is difficult to ascertain as to whether the proposal as it currently stands meets the aims of the Strategic Plan set out in section 3.3 for the environment. In particular (a): "To support the precautionary principle, which assumes that activity might be damaging unless it can be proved otherwise in respect of development where significant environmental implications are involved."

Section 3.3. of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that one of its aims is to protect, maintain and enhance the environment, something which is little served within the application which could clearly have some further benefits through development of further ecological features in and around the lagoon".

5.4 Members of the Public

5.4.1 The occupier of West Marine House, Mill Road (Comment 1 - 07.01.19) made the following comments. o "Page 56 of the Environmental Impact Assessment paragraph 5.3.32. The consultants have referred to the bridge to the Old Shipyard as a footbridge, this is a vehicular access bridge to the site, as well as access to our home. The bridge is also used by the tenants of the

13 commercial/garage units. Some of the tenants are in and out of their units several times a day, and with shift patterns my Partner and I can be in and out 24 hours a day.

o Reading the documents I think they are proposing to run the 2 pipes under our access bridge and not across the entrance (which would block access). Page 23 of the Environmental Impact Assessment paragraph 2.7.4. deals with the restraining of the pipes. When we get heavy rains the river rages past us with a lot of force. Personally as a pipe line welder/steel fabricator, I would be surprised if non anchored, spaced, concrete blocks will be sufficient on their own in these river conditions. A 6M length of pipe breaking loose could cause considerable damage to our bridge. I have video footage of these flows, including the night 3
out of the 4 trash screen sections at the start of the river footpath, bolted down, were ripped up., The next morning when the levels had subsided, 1 section was beside our bridge, the other 2 had been swept under the bridge, 1 was halfway to the road bridge to West Quay, the other was somewhere in the Marina
o Page 78 of the Environmental Impact Assessment paragraph 7.3.23. The consultants have stated that there are no residential properties alongside the roads, and that the nearest properties are the Commissioners properties at Close Chiarn. We live on the western Mill Road before the Commissioners houses, and although the lorries will be travelling along the eastern Mill Road we live as close to the proposed traffic movements as these residents.
o Although not part of my knowledge base, I would be interested to know why the pipelines are going all the way up the river, past Stuart Blackley's Yard, across to the old

railway line and then back to the proposed dewatering lagoon, a considerable amount of pipe would be required for this option. If the suction pipe exited the river by the start of Close Chairn/the river footpath, across the road, run south alongside part of the Government tank bund wall, turn into the Manx Utilities Peel A stores site, across and alongside the redundant cooling water ponds, and then across the old railway line into the dewatering site. The water return could be fed into the redundant cooling water ponds which drain into the river already, this could also possibly be used as a secondary filtration. Although there would be a large saving in pipe, labour and pumping requirements, it would require the 2 steel pipe bridges to be uprated, capable of taking the weight of the Dustcart and some other HGV's, not that difficult to build, especially if the roads could be partially excavated, less height = smaller bridges, I know there are a lot of buried services but don't know how deep they are below the surface. My proposal shown in green on my attachment 01.
o Although this scheme deals with removing the currant silt accumulations what happens when it fills up again 10 years from now? Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it's obvious that the original design was flawed. If a retaining wall was built either alongside the common pontoon, or with the pontoons feeding off it, from the end of the new boat park, north to level with the Peveril public house, silt would not be settling in the Marina, see my attachment 02. Also if the flap gate had then gone across to the East Quay silt could not 'fall back', but flow
out to sea in small concentrations, 24 hours a day as it has for years, although I do accept that the flap gate built where it is has helped to calm tidal surges up the river, which has been advantageous to the flood risk at the Old Shipyard".

5.4.2 The owner/occupier of White Strand, Lhergydhoo, Peel (Comment 2 - 09.01.19) stated that the area is said to be the final resting place of the Viking fleet on the Island. They request an archaeology survey be carried out on field 315179 before the chance is lost forever.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Main Issues

6.1.1 In light of the above it is considered that the following are the main issues for consideration:

o Is there a need for the facilities? (ISS, EP27, TP13, WP1)
o Credibility of Proposals
o Loss of Agricultural Land (EP14) and Loss of Employment Land (SP7, GP2.k)
o Need for EIA (EP24 and TP 14)
o Human Health (GP2.m and EP26) and Potential for disturbance/impact on amenity (SP4.c and GP2.g) - including light pollution, odour and noise (EP22) and pollution (SP4.c)
o Highways Impact (SP10, GP2.i)
o Flood Risk (EP10, EP13)
o Impact on open space/recreation facilities (RP2, RP55 and SP10)
o Impact on townscape/landscape (GP2.c)
o Nature Conservation (SP4.b, SP2.d, EP1, EP4)
o Impact on woodland (EP1, EP3)
o Impact on Water Course - including pollution (and pollution (SP4.c, GP2.d, EP22, EP26, EP7)
o Archaeology (EP40 and 41)

6.2 Is there a need for the facilities? (ISS, EP27, TP13, WP1)

6.2.1 Within the context of the ISS and NIP there is clear policy support for ensuring that Peel Marina continues to function.

6.2.2 The applicants EIA states, "1.3.1 The DOI has responsibility for managing the Isle of Man's ports, harbours and marinas, including maintaining the published water depths under the provisions of the Harbours Act

For this reason, the DOI periodically undertakes dredging to remove the sediment that has accumulated on the bed in order to maintain safe navigation and mooring of vessels at these locations and to maintain the flow of river water through these locations.

1.3.2 The DOI needs to remove approximately 28,000m3 (approximately 45,000 tonnes) of sediment that has been transported down the River Neb, and deposited within Peel Marina, in order to restore the marina's published water depth of 2.5m below the impounded water level. Sediment has been historically deposited in the marina even before a flap gate was installed in 2006 to impound water and provide the published water depth on all states of the tide. The flap gate impedes the flow of the river water and the suspended sediment, thereby promoting deposition of the sediment within the marina. The sediment deposited within the marina contains elevated concentrations of contaminants, notably metals and hydrocarbons. These elevated concentrations are sufficiently high to prohibit the sediment's disposal at sea under the provisions of the Oslo and Paris Commission's Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention).
1.3.3 The DOI proposes to use the dredged sediment as a soil-like construction material as part of its works to rehabilitate and re-vegetate land at the former Cross Vein Mine. Although the dredged sediment will contain contaminants at elevated concentrations that prohibit its disposal at sea, it contains metals at significantly lower concentrations than those recorded in the land at Cross Vein Mine and for that reason the DOI believe it is suitable for the proposed re-use. The DOI believes that this approach is consistent with DEFA's waste management strategy since it uses the sediment.
1.3.4 The dredged sediment will have a sufficiently high water content for there to be a need for a mechanism for removing the water from the dredged sediment prior to the sediment's use at Cross Vein Mine. Accordingly, the DOI needs a temporary dewatering lagoon to dry and consolidate the dredged sediment prior to transporting and using the sediment at Cross Vein Mine."

6.2.3 The applicants EIA includes consideration of Alternatives in relation to dredging (4.1), alternative lagoon sites (4.2) and alternative designs (4.3).

6.2.4 The applicant's project strategy states that the 'do nothing' option is rejected, "It is anticipated that without dredging works being undertaken in Spring 2019, parts of the marina will cease to be operational, with a corresponding loss of income, the multi-million pound investment will in effect be abandoned and the investment made therefore rendered futile, together with a much larger reputational damage to both the city of Peel and the Department. Within a further 1-2 years, it is anticipated that the marina will cease to be useable by any leisure craft and will significantly affect the fishing fleet using the port. The marina will become a very visible and prominent eyesore in the heart of Peel".

6.2.5 The applicant's project strategy states that the 'Remove the Marina Flap Gate' option is rejected, "Removing the flap gate would remove the benefits of the marina, with most of the leisure craft vacating Peel. The loss of the leisure amenity would be detrimental to Peel. Furthermore, the potential deposition of the contaminated silt in the outer harbour would require careful assessment as the same restrictions on disposing of the contaminated silt would apply if it were found in the outer harbour and any failure to dredge this area would affect its fitness for accepting liquid fuel cargos, which is of strategic importance to the island".

6.2.6 Various options for disposal of the material have been considered and rejected placement of material for coastline protection, immobilising silt materials within concrete blocks, transporting material to Wrights Pit North, Chemical Extraction/Treatment. The Remediation of Cross Vein Mine Workings is the preferred option but will require planning approval. Work on an outline design is to commence March 2019 with placement to take place November 2020 - February 2022 (subject to approvals).

6.2.7 Longer term options to reduce the volume/contamination levels of silt are being explored - silt traps, disposal through energy from waste plant, removal/collection of contamination at source, canalisation of Peel Marina, installation of cut-off wall on river bank. A feasibility study is planned in April 2019 - January 2020.

6.3 Credibility of Proposals - 6.3.1 A key concern is that, although the proposal is for the lagoon to be in place for no more than 5 years, the preferred final disposal option (used to remediate Cross Vein Mine Workings) does not have planning approval and is likely to be a unusual and complex application. It is noted that the Manx Wildlife Trust made the following comments in relation to the original EIA states (Consultation 5 - 11.01.19), any further or amended comments received from the MWT in response to the updated EIA will be reported to the Planning Committee as part of a verbal update. "Phase 1B has very little detail but a significant place in the logic of the whole scheme as a solution. This Phase 1B also highlighted a number of concerns for MWT which will need to be tackled or detailed:

o It seems unlikely and doubtful that restoration to relevant upland conditions will be possible and therefore it is advised that more appropriate terms such as habitat creation and land forming.
o The silt itself is not a suitable soil forming material without considerable processing. The soil conditions that this material will support are not relevant or appropriate to upland habitats.
o Run off contamination from upland site will require in situ treatment.
o Considerable value of old mine workings in their own right
o What assessment of their historic, cultural and landscape significance has there been?
o As potential Calamarian Grassland, it is likely the habitat on site would represent a priority habitat for nature conservation.
o There is likely to be considerable specific ecological interest on site. Species include moonwort, adders tongue and possible lower plant interest.
o Wider recreational off roading control could create a significant area for invertebrates and ground nesting bird habitat".

6.3.2 The current application cannot be granted on the basis that a subsequent application will definitely be approved, and it is therefore necessary to understand the fall-back positions in the event that planning approval is not obtained for the preferred disposal option (noting the unresolved issues with the temporary storage facility at Poortown Road - see planning history).
6.3.3 Some of the rejected options could be reconsidered such as disposal to Wrights Pit North (although this would require planning approval and an amended Waste Management license) or Chemical Extraction/Treatment. The EIA states at 4.1.7 that, "Whilst this option is technically feasible, it was not the preferred option on grounds of cost". The applicant has also provided details of a treatment technology offered by Dunton Environmental.
6.4 Loss of Agricultural Land (EP14) and Loss of Employment Land (SP7, GP2.k)

6.4.1 The loss of the existing agricultural land due to the development should be temporary (as the proposal is temporary) and conditions can be attached to ensure it is restored. In the longer term it may be that the site is developed in accordance with its land-use zoning in the Local Plan, however this should not be seen as a reason not to ensure the site is properly restored.

6.4.2 Chapter 6 of the applicant's EIA considers Soil Quality and the Risk of Contaminant Leaks to Soil during Dewatering, and mitigation through use of the liner. As the lagoon will require a Waste Management licence it is not considered further conditions are required in relation to this.
6.4.3 Although the development would make the development of this site (and potentially adjacent land) difficult during the short-term, it is a temporary proposal with restoration measures and so should not result in a permanent loss of potential employment land. The results of the Employment Land Review are noted and, on balance, it is not considered that this short term loss is a reason for refusal.

6.5 Need for EIA (EP24 and TP 14)

6.5.1 The Manx Wildlife Trust made the following comments in relation to the original EIA states (Consultation 5 - 11.01.19), any further or amended comments received from the MWT in response to the updated EIA will be reported to the Planning Committee as part of a verbal update. "The EIA does not follow best practice for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA), and Chapter 9 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation is deeply flawed. o There is no current baseline information, including no understanding of local biological records or habitat mapping. This is particularly important for the pipeline operations.

o There is no statement for who undertook the ecological assessment, and what their experience and competencies are in this regard. As we understand it this may be usual practice for wider EIAs but it is not best practice for EcIA.
o Section 9.1.2 (page 86) references a direct area of influence. This is far from CIEEM EcIA best practice, where the "zone of influence" should be determined.
o The assessment should confirm clearly that there are no trees that will be impacted through the pipeline construction and decommissioning. The EIA assessment is clearly flawed within the Biodiversity and Nature Conservation chapter.
o Table 3-2 states that Biodiversity and Nature Conservation has a low potential for significant impacts during construction/decommissioning which is not demonstrated within the EIA - in fact the missing information would point towards moderate to major impacts within their assessment methodology.
o There is mention of Protected Species, but no assessment of whether they will be impacted.
o There is a local population of Common Lizard (Vivipera zootica) that will be directly impacted during construction and decommissioning.
o It is likely that black guillemots (Cepphus grylle) will be directly impacted by construction or
operations (e.g. wave action).
o There is no mention of local wildlife sites system, and they mention our nature reserves as if they are Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) in section 9.2.2. As far as MWT is aware there is no system for LNRs within the Isle of Man (this is a UK designation currently), and our nature reserves can also be ASSI. The usual definitions used in the ecological sector are statutory and non-statutory sites.
o As well as statutory or non-statutory sites, the assessment should indicate whether ANY ecological features are present on site and whether they will be impacted".

As the scheme currently detailed within planning documentation stands, it is not clear exactly what will take place, when and why.

o Metals are considered as potential contaminants, but there is no mention of PAHs. Does data show how effective the methods are at removing either sources or pathways for relevant substances?
o It seems that material will be transported not piped in the first year, and that the sediment geotextile bags will only be used from a specific time
o The potential re-suspension of contaminants during the process should mean that dredging takes place with marina flap gate up to stop sediments migrating towards the marine environment, and a silt curtain should be used (mentioned but not as targeted) at other times if work is required with the flap down. Timing is also relevant to sediments moving upstream and therefore dredging should not happen on a flooding tide.
o Many issues may be discounted from the EIA, but it is not clear as to why they are not considered. It should be clear what is scoped out and why. For example, is there a potential link to marine fisheries? It may be simple to discount, but it is important to include.
o Will the effluent from the lagoon be tested before it enters the River Neb/Marina again? What is the mitigation should levels not be suitable?
o Clearer summary tables for impacts features would be welcome, as it is very difficult to follow the text and understand mitigation proposals, potential impacts, residual impacts and exactly what is or is not considered in the assessment.

o There is a risk of oil spills from machinery usage, which is not mentioned. Licence conditions should be used for such activities and circumstances to manage the risk adequately".

6.5.2 The applicant has provided an Environmental Impact Assessment. In response to comments received a table has been provided responding to each, and an updated Environmental Impact Assessment produced.

6.6 Human Health (GP2.m and EP26) and Potential for disturbance/impact on amenity (SP4.c and GP2.g) - including light pollution, odour and noise (EP22) and pollution (SP4.c)

6.6.1 Chapter 8 of the applicant's EIA (as updated) considers air quality.

6.6.2 The response from the DEFA EPU made the following comments in relation to the original EIA states (Consultation 9 - 21.12.19), any further or amended comments received from DEFA EPU in response to the updated EIA will be reported to the Planning Committee as part of a verbal update. "In accordance with the Public Health Act 1990 subject to whether the operator of the dewatering lagoon is the DoI or the contractor, respectively a Direction or Waste Disposal Licence will be required to deposit and process the dredging spoil. This will be authorised and regulated by the Environment Directorate of the DEFA. This is because the dredging spoil is considered 'controlled waste'. An application has not yet been submitted which will require statutory and public consultation for up to 21 days.

Any Direction or WDL can only be authorised further to planning permission being granted and will impose conditions to proactively prevent pollution of water or danger to public health. This will include the steps to be taken to prevent or minimise any health hazard or environmental hazard.

WDL environmental control measures and monitoring may include:

o Fires
o Dust
o Mud
o Leaks and Spillages
o Odours
o Litter
o Vermin and Pest
o Noise
o Contaminated water
o Landfill gas control and monitoring
o Leachate collection, extraction and monitoring
o Groundwater monitoring
o Surface water monitoring

However, the WDL cannot control any environmental related issues outside of the licensed lagoon area such as transport".

6.6.3 The impact of vehicle movements on air quality during dredging and dewatering is considered, with mitigation measures outlined at 8.3.8 - 8.3.10. At 8.3.11 it concludes, "With the application of mitigation measures there will be a negligible impact on air quality". As the mitigation measures involve the types of vehicles to be used and how they are driven they cannot be conditioned.
6.6.4 The risk of hydrogen sulphide odours during dredging and dewatering is considered and mitigation outlined at 8.3.16 - 8.3.17. 8.3.18 concludes, "With the application of mitigation measures there will be a residual negligible to minor adverse impact on air quality". The dredging is outside the scope of this application. The lagoon will require a Waste Management licence. It is therefore considered that no specific planning conditions are required.

6.6.5 The of risk of fugitive dust emissions on air quality during dredging and dewatering is considered and mitigation outlined at 8.3.24 - 8.3.25. It concludes at 8.3.26 that. "With the application of mitigation measures there will be a residual negligible to minor adverse impact on air quality". The lagoon will require a Waste Management licence and the dredging operations are outside the scope of the current application. It is therefore considered that no specific planning conditions are required.

6.7 Highways Impact (SP10, GP2.i)

6.7.1 Chapter 7 of the applicant's EIA considers Transport and Noise and Water Quality.

6.7.2 Consideration is given to Impact of vehicle movements on road traffic during dredging and dewatering and mitigation measures are set out at 7.3.13 - 7.3.17. It concludes at 7.3.18 that, "With the application of mitigation measures there will be a negligible impact on road traffic movements". As the mitigation measures involve works/routing outside the red-line boundary for the planning application and so cannot be conditioned.

6.7.3 Consideration is given to Impact of Vehicle Movements on Noise during Dredging and Dewatering and mitigation measures are set out at 7.3.25 - 7.3.27. It concludes at 7.3.28 that, "With the application of mitigation measures there will be a negligible impact on noise". As the mitigation measures involve the types of vehicles to be used and how they are driven they cannot be conditioned.

6.7.4 The applicant's, 'Response to Planning Consultation document states, "Long or heavy vehicles will operate between the lagoon and the quay along the route shown in Figure 7-2 of EIA. Long or heavy vehicles entering or leaving Peel will operate along the Designated Routes under the 2015 Order between Mill Road and A1. All vehicles to be used will comply with the Long or Heavy Vehicles (Designated Roads) Order 2015. The type of vehicle to be used will be a rigid 8 wheel vehicle (10m long and less than 32,520 kg) In the event that any larger vehicles or different type of vehicle is to be used (e.g. tractor and trailer), DOI Highway Services will be consulted".

6.7.5 It is important that conditions do not replicate controls which are available through other legislation. The Highways Act 1986 (as amended) includes the following provisions: "40: Offences relating to highways: if any person without lawful authority

a) scrapes any highway
b)deposits anything on a highway so as to damage it or endanger any user of it …

Removal of obstacles: 1) if any person without lawful authority...d) deposits or suffers to be deposited in a highway any materials or rubbish or anything causing or likely to cause an obstruction or nuisance or an injury, danger or interruption to any person using the highway shall be guilty of any offence.

2) If it appears to the Department that an offence has been committed under subsection (1) the Department a) may, by notice to the person responsible require the thing in question to be removed within such time, being not less than 3 days from the date of service of the notice as may be specified in the notice, or b) if it appears to the Department that the thing constitutes a danger to persons using the highway or if the person responsible cannot be found or fails to comply with a notice under paragraph (a) may itself remove the thing. …

Prevention of soil etc being washed into highway The Department may, by notice to the owner of occupier of any land, require him, within 14 days from the date of service of the notice, to execute such works as will prevent soil or refuse from that land from falling, or being washed or carried on to a highway or into any drain, sewer or gully in it in such quantities as to obstruct the highway or choke the drain, sewer or gully. …

48A Mud on roads

(1) This section applies where vehicles are driven from any land onto a highway and deposit mud on the highway or any other highway in the vicinity so as to cause danger or inconvenience to vehicular traffic.
(2) The person responsible shall-

(a) place at each end of any length of a highway affected a traffic sign giving adequate warning to traffic that there is or is likely to be mud on the highway, and maintain it there until paragraph (b) has been complied with; and
(b) within a reasonable time after any mud has been deposited on the highway, take such steps as are reasonably practicable to remove the mud.

(3) If the responsible person fails to comply with subsection 2(a) or (b) he shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) Without prejudice to subsection (3), where it appears to the Department that subsection

(2)(b) has not been complied with, the Department may(a) take such steps as are necessary to remove any mud on the highway and (b) recover from the responsible person the expenses reasonably incurred by it in so doing".

6.7.6 DOI (Highways have made the following comments): "This application relates to Phase 1A of the scheme. The site itself (Ballaterson Farm) can only be accessed via access roads and Public Right of Ways (PROWs) rather than main roads. However, main routes could be used for the remainder of construction vehicle journeys. The site would be accessed via the existing PROW which connects into Mill Road to the North. The application refers to the Long or Heavy Vehicles (Designated Roads) Order 2015 which specifies the HGV routing through Peel. The applicant has confirmed that the road network stated in this Order would be used by all HGVs between the site and the A1 Douglas Road, and that the HGV route would be signed as appropriate. There would be a primary site entry point to the North West corner of the site via the PROW, with a secondary contingency exit only point further to the South. There would be a one-way arrangement within the site which should prevent any conflicts between vehicles. The site entrance gates would open into the site so would not obstruct the adjacent PROW.

As part of the application, the applicant would undertake minor works to temporarily remove wooden posts adjacent to the PROW near the Mill Road junction to facilitate the turning movements of HGVs. Swept path plots have been provided to show that a 10m length construction vehicle could undertake the required vehicular manoeuvring. The applicant has confirmed that if any longer vehicles than this would be used then it would be discussed and agreed with Highway Services prior to their use. This needs to be secured via a planning condition with Highway Services consulted on any proposals submitted to Planning as part of this condition. The application states that traffic signals or a banksmen with stop/go boards would be used. This would allow one-way HGV movements only across the road bridge at West Quay. It would also ensure a safe working zone is maintained adjacent to construction vehicles when loading to permit single file traffic only. The applicant states that when the proposed pipeline is installed, a banksman, signage and protective barriers would be used to prevent disturbance to the PROW. A banksman would also supervise any turning/reversing movements to be undertaken by HGVs. The ramps that may be needed to allow vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists to cross any areas where the proposed pipeline runs across the footpath must be no steeper than 1:12 to facilitate suitable vehicle, disabled and pedestrian access. This can be secured via a planning condition. A planning condition is also required for temporary passing places to be created at regular intervals along the PROW to ensure that there would be adequate room for PROW users to pass HGVs to avoid potential conflicts. This has been discussed and agreed with Highway Services PROW officer. The proposed traffic management and working arrangements should therefore not create any highway safety issues. There would be 4 parking spaces available on the site. The existing public car park at the northern end of West Quay, to the North West of Peel Marina, would be used by the contractors for site offices and associated facilities. As there is alternative public parking

available in Peel town centre, it is not anticipated that the works would create any parking problems in the area. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has assessed the traffic movements that would be generated by the dredging activities which represents the highest traffic impact from the works. The applicant estimates that the dredging would result in around 35 to 50 two-way HGV movements per day, depending on whether the works would be done within a 10 or 12 hour working day. There would be additional traffic from construction personnel which would be cars or light goods vehicles (LGVs), mainly at the start and end of the working day. 12 two-way car/LGV movements per day are estimated. The development should therefore generate a total of up to 62 two-way vehicle movements per day. A traffic count undertaken by the DoI on Mill Road in May 2014 identified 2,042 twoway vehicles per day. The proposals therefore represent a small traffic increase which should not create a significant impact on the highway network. There are some places along the PROW which should be wide enough to allow 2 HGVs to pass each other, although this is unlikely to occur very often due to the low number of vehicle movements proposed".

6.7.7 It is considered that appropriate conditions can be added to address some points not covered under other legislation and also to request further information/clarification.

6.8 Flood Risk (EP10, EP13)

6.8.1 The Manx Utilities response (Consultation 8 - 29.01.19) made the following comments in relation to biodiversity in response to the original EIA (any further or amended comments received from Manx Utilities in response to the updated EIA will be reported to the Planning Committee as part of a verbal update). "Manx Utilities have been in discussions with the applicant and Manx Utilities would be satisfied with the pipeline route if it was re-routed out of the river channel or it was more securely anchored so the risk of it being damaged in flood conditions is reduced. Manx Utilities with regard to the lagoons would recommend that the following be provided:-

1. Calculations proving the structural integrity of the construction of the lagoons.
2. Construction drawings showing how the bund would be constructed.
3. Inspection regime for the lagoons in particular embankment checks There must also be consideration given to:

1. Overflow of the lagoons if heavy rainfall occurred would they over top if so will there be a spillway and where would it discharge to.
2. Breach analysis if the lagoon embankment were to breach what would be consequence.
3. Emergency procedures should breach analysis highlights risk".

6.8.2 This information has not been provided in the updated documents, however in the applicant's "response to Planning Consultation" document they indicate it can be provided prior to construction activities. It would therefore need to be conditioned (in the event that it was considered acceptable to determine the application without this information).

6.9 Impact on open space/recreation facilities (RP2, RP55 and SP10)

6.9.2 The two defined PROWs in the proposed project's area of influence are the Heritage Trail from Peel to Douglas and the footpath along the right-hand bank of the lowermost reach of the River Neb

6.9.1 Chapter 11 of the applicant's EIA considers recreation and amenity.

6.9.3 In relation to Impact on PROWs along the pipeline route, mitigation is set out at 11.3.14 - 11.3.17. 11.3.18 states, "With these mitigation measures in place there will remain a negligible (riverbank footpath) to minor adverse (Heritage Trail) impact on the use of the PROWs for recreation and amenity". Conditions could be attached to ensure these measures are implemented.

6.9.4 Although the contractor's pipeline will be on land zoned as open space, it is not currently used as such. A condition could be attached to ensure it is removed when no longer required.
6.9.5 No concerns have been raised by Peel Town Commissioners. The DOI's comments in relation to highways also include PROW and raise no objection subject to conditions.

6.10 Impact on townscape/landscape (GP2.c)

6.10.1 Chapter 10 of the applicant's EIA considers Landscape.

6.10.2 In relation to Impact on Landscape Character during dewatering, 10.3.14 states, "No mitigation measures are required, but as part of the specification the contractor will be required to apply an appropriate seed mix (to be agreed with the DOI) to the external sides and crest of the bunds to soften the lagoon's appearance after construction. In addition, as part of the specification the contractor will be required to use fencing (rather than boarding) around the lagoon site's perimeter to avoid a solid boundary. There will remain a minor adverse impact on the landscape area until the lagoon is decommissioned and the field is reinstated".
6.10.3 In relation to impact on views during dewatering, various mitigation is set out at

10.3.22 - 10.3.23. 10.3.24 states, "With these mitigation measures in place, there will remain a minor adverse impact on views, particularly views from the Heritage Trail, until the lagoon is decommissioned and the field is reinstated". Conditions could be attached in relation to these, although some level of impact is unavoidable.

6.12 Nature Conservation (SP4.b, SP2.d, EP1, EP4)

6.12.1 Chapter 9 of the applicant's EIA considers biodiversity and nature conservation.
6.12.2 In relation to the impact of water quality impacts on river and marine species during dredging and dewatering, 9.3.7 states, "Given the mitigation measures and monitoring regime proposed to protect water quality during dredging and dewatering, no mitigation measures are required and there will remain a negligible to minor residual impact on river species".
6.12.3 In relation to the impact of water quality impacts on marine species during dredging and dewatering, 9.3.13 states, "Given the mitigation measures and monitoring regime proposed to protect water quality during dredging and dewatering, no mitigation measures are required and there will remain a negligible to minor residual impact on marine species".
6.12.4 In relation to the impact of habitat disturbance during pipeline installation and removal, 9.3.20 states "Given the routing of the pipelines along man-made / affected sections of the riverbank, no mitigation measures are required and there will remain a negligible residual impact on the affected habitat".
6.12.5 In relation to impact of Protected Species (Common Lizard) disturbance during pipeline installation and removal, mitigation measures are outlined at 9.3.26 - 9.3.29. Conditions are suggested in the event the application is approved to ensure these measures are implemented.
6.12.6 The DEFA EPU response (Consultation 9 - 21.12.19) made the following comments in relation to biodiversity in response to the original EIA (any further or amended comments received from DEFA EPU in response to the updated EIA will be reported to the Planning Committee as part of a verbal update). "4.1 Common Lizards Vivipera zootica Common lizards are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1990 and are protected from being intentionally or recklessly killed, injured or removed from the wild; in addition they are protected from disturbance and it is an offence to damage or destroy their place of shelter. A population of common lizard occurs on the route proposed for the transport pipes from the

Heritage Trail to the temporary lagoon system. There has been no assessment of this protected species within the EIA. If reasonable avoidance measures are not undertaken there is potential for lizards to be killed during the temporary siting of the pipes, concrete weights and ramp; vehicle movements also have the potential to kill lizards if off the track. The applicant is recommended liaise with Bob Stimpson, Project Engineer, Manx Utilities and the Manx Wildlife Trust with regard to the protection of common lizards. A Method Statement for the protection of common lizards should be submitted for written approval by the Planning Directorate prior to any works, including enabling works, taking place.

4.2 Breeding birds Birds, their nests, eggs and dependant young are legally protected under the Wildlife Act 1990. In addition, species listed on Schedule 1 of the Act are protected from disturbance. The applicant should be aware that there may be birds' nests on the route proposed for the transport pipes from the Heritage Trail to the temporary lagoon system. If reasonable avoidance measures are not undertaken there is potential that a nest, eggs or chicks could be destroyed. We therefore recommend should the application be granted permission a condition is attached for the applicant to submit a Method Statement for the protection of nesting birds for written approval by the Planning Directorate prior to any works, including enabling works, taking place.

4.3 Bats Bats are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1990 and are protected from being intentionally or recklessly killed, injured or removed from the wild; in addition they are protected from disturbance and it is an offence to damage or destroy their place of shelter.

The river corridor has been identified as important feeding area for bats and a dark corridor should be maintained along the river.

Any lighting should be directed away from the river using directional shades protecting the river from light spill. These requirements should be included within the lighting plan".

6.12.7 Manx National Heritage (Consultation 7 - 29.01.19) made the following comments in relation to biodiversity in response to the original EIA (any further or amended comments received from MNH in response to the updated EIA will be reported to the Planning Committee as part of a verbal update). "MNH notes that the proposed route of the transport and effluent pipelines will run through habitat where viviparous lizard (Zootoca vivipara) are known to be present, specifically, along the footpath, Heritage Trail and associated field boundaries. Given the similar habitats present on the Southern and Western boundaries of Field 315179, as well as the habitat along the Eastern section of the field, it is presumed to be highly likely that this species is also present in these areas.

Viviparous lizards are a Schedule 5 species, protected under the Wildlife Act (1990). As such, they are legally protected from intentional or reckless killing, injury or taking. It is also an offense for any person to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place which this species uses for shelter or protection. Additionally, this species also protected from disturbance whilst it uses a structure or place for shelter or protection. Consequently, unmitigated, the proposed pipeline is likely to result in an offence under the Wildlife Act, via disturbance and damage to this habitat.

We would recommend that a suitable strategy be developed in order to minimize the impact upon this species and associated habitat/resting places, potentially including, but not limited to, pre-commencement checks, vegetation manipulation and timings of vegetation clearance. This should be agreed with DEFA's Wildlife division, as responsibility for the protection of listed species lies with the department.

Additionally, MNH is aware of nesting bird interest within Peel Marina, specifically black guillemot (Cepphus grylle) nesting in the marina walls. As the proposed dredging works are due to take place within the nesting bird season, consideration should be given to the potential disturbance of nesting birds and potential loss of nest sites, which this species use habitually.

Although numerous datasets were consulted in the process of the EIA, no biological records search was undertaken. This perhaps would have highlighted the presence of these potential constraints at an earlier stage".

6.12.8 To the extent that the above points relate to the planning applications, it is considered that suitable conditions could be attached.

6.13 Impact on woodland (EP1, EP3)

6.13.1 The DEFA Arboricultural Officer (Consultation 3 - 08.01.19) originally stated, "There are no trees in field 315179 where the silt excavated from the marina is to be stored. The main risk to trees will come from the installation of a temporary pipe to pump salt water back to the marina. There appears to be little detail about how the outfall pipe will be secured in position within the river. The impact to trees on the riverbank will be dependent on the way this is done.

Fortunately, the majority of trees along this stretch of the river are small, low value trees. Even if there were to be some detrimental impact to the health of trees in here I do not think the impact to the amenities of the area would be significant.

The installation of a second 'transport pipeline' is mentioned as an option in the second year. Can this second pipeline be excluded from this permission until the impact of the outfall pipeline is better understood? The suitability/impact of a second pipeline may be better understood once the first pipeline has been installed and is in use. If required a separate application could be submitted for this aspect".

6.13.2 The DEFA Arboricultural Officer (Consultation 7 - 07.01.19) subsequently stated, "Following the submission of my comments on this application last week … I have had a useful conversation with the project manager, Jeremy Reece, this afternoon. Jeremy has pointed me to relevant information in the EIA about how the pipe will be secured, which I had initially missed - see attached. The installation of these pre-cast concrete weights will require minimal excavation so the impact on any nearby trees should be minimal. Jeremy has informed by that they are planning to install both pipes simultaneously and immediately adjacent to each other. If this is the case the installation of the second 'transport pipeline' should have minimal additional impact on the trees".
6.13.3 A condition could be attached in relation to vegetation clearance (also required to address biodiversity concerns).

6.14 Impact on Water Course - including pollution (GP2.d, SP4.c, EP22, EP26, EP7)

6.14.1 Chapter 5 of the applicant's EIA considers sediment and water quality.
6.14.2 In relation to the impact of contaminant discharges to water during dewatering, mitigation measures are outlined at 5.3.22 - 5.3.29 and it concludes at 5.3.30 that, "The successful application of mitigation measures should reduce metal releases during dewatering such that the proposed project with comply with the provisional ELVs and there will be a minor adverse residual impact on water quality". It is considered that these mitigation measures are sufficiently controlled by the need to obtain a separate discharge licence and so no specific planning conditions would be required.
6.14.3 In relation to the Risk of pipeline leaks to water during dredging and dewatering, mitigation measures are outlined at 5.3.84 - 5.3.86 and it concludes at 5.3.87 that, "The

successful application of the leak prevention and response measures should reduce leaks during dredging such that there will be a negligible residual impact on water quality". It is not considered that, beyond those relating to the nature of the pipeline and how it is installed, further specific planning conditions would be required.
6.14.4 The DEFA EPU response (Consultation 9 - 21.12.19) makes the following comments in relation to water quality in response to the original EIA, "The primary concern of the Department in respect of water quality is that there is no unacceptable suspension and release to sea of contaminated sediment. There is likely to be a greater risk during dredging than from de-watering lagoon discharge.

The main impacts of release of suspended contaminated sediment to sea would be in relation to the following:

1. Dissolved Nutrients and eutrophication effects, including stimulating algal blooms in the nearshore areas. Algal blooms can be detrimental to water quality, marine life and commercial fisheries.
2. Metals and other contaminants on suspended particles and their potential effects on their levels in commercial shellfish and other marine species, the potential role of metals in stimulating toxin production in marine phytoplankton (especially copper, see abstract provided).
3. Sediment in general and its potential to smother marine species and habitats, eg. the blue mussel bed under the castle (OSPAR listed habitat)
4. High levels of sediment suspended in the water column may create potential obstruction or impediment to migratory fish entering or leaving the river system.

In accordance with the Water Pollution Act (WPA) 1993, regulated by the Environment Directorate of the DEFA, it is an offence to pollute any relevant watercourse or coastal waters. In this respect the Environmental Protection Unit (EPU) is planning to monitor compliance with Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) as referenced in Table 5-6 and 5-7 of the EIA. Monitoring is planned to be carried out upstream of the dredging near the Old Shipyard Footbridge and downstream in the outer harbour off the end of the concrete Groyne protecting the public sewer discharge to Peel Bay.

The EQS for the dredging and de-watering lagoon discharge to Peel Marina are to be monitored by the EPU at monitoring points near the Old Shipyard Footbridge and in the outer harbour off the end of the concrete Groyne protecting the public sewer discharge to Peel Bay. Also periodic monitoring will be required of the water in the lagoon by the operator before discharge to ensure it is safe to do so. Clarification will also be sought on water pollution mitigation measures as proposed by the contractor when appointed.

Various depths of silt are required to be removed to satisfy the required 2.5m water depth below the top of the impoundment. Analysis of leached parameters from surface samples of dredging spoil taken in December 2018 indicate low levels of pollution including heavy metals. However, the metals concentration of the surface samples were significantly below previous samples. Consequently higher levels of leachate pollution should be anticipated and mitigated against.

In respect of the discharge from the lagoon this is considered trade effluent and as such a discharge licence is required in accordance with s.5 of the WPA 1993. The EPU considers that the discharge may have an appreciable effect on the watercourse discharged into and therefore the application for a discharge licence will be subject to public consultation in addition to the statutory consultation for not less than 6 weeks.

Clarification will also be sought on water pollution mitigation measures as proposed by the contractor when appointed in respect of both dredging and de-watering lagoon discharge, as the EIA states:

5.3.69 Measures to rectify compliance will not be prescribed to the contractor. Additional mitigation measures may include restrictions of the timing of dredging and are described above (see Impact of Sediment Releases to Water during Dredging).

The EIA identifies potentially high risk to water quality due to predicted releases of lead and zinc (and potentially other metals) (5.3.19); and suspended solids (5.3.39) in excess of the EQS's; consequently pollution mitigation measures are likely to be required. Such measures could include:

o Restricting / stopping dredging or dewatering during the upper hours of flood or ebb tides if necessary to prevent respectively upstream or downstream dispersion of effluent
outside of the marina, as described in EIA 5.3.29 and 5.3.53.
o Use of silt curtains, to provide an uncontaminated pathway for fish to travel through the Marina.
o Reduced pumping from lagoon to maximise dilution.

Fortunately the initial mechanical dredge of 6,000 tonnes in 2019 will enable assessment of leachate and effectiveness of the lagoon in minimising suspended solids returned to the marina. This will more accurately inform if further mitigation or treatment is required to enable safe discharge of the proposed 17,000 tonnes in 2020 and 23,000 tonnes in 2021.

The use of chemicals as flocculants is detailed in 2.5.13 of the EIA, the EPU will need to agree the specific chemicals proposed to avoid impact on the environment.

In the EIA 5.2.28 there are inaccuracies in the water quality sampling locations in the River Neb and the Mill Race. Three times a year DEFA monitors the water quality at three sites within the Neb catchment with only one site between Glenfaba Mills and the marina. The Mill Race has been monitored as part of background sampling for the purpose of this project. As part of background monitoring, monthly water samples are being collected from the Neb Catchment at seven locations. These water samples will assist with determining the effectiveness of any projects undertaken at Cross Vein Mines and to establish the heavy metal contamination throughout the catchment.

Suspension of sediment during the dredging within the harbour is accepted as unavoidable provided all reasonable and practicable steps are taken in the circumstances for minimising the extent of the discharge and its polluting effects".

6.14.5 The DEFA EP response (Consultation 9 - 21.12.19) makes the following comments in relation to fisheries, In accordance with the Fisheries Act 2012 s.18 Removal of material from river-bed, the persons responsible will require approval for the dredging of Peel Marina from the Fisheries Directorate. The Fisheries Directorate has advised that this will be approved subject to conditions in line with previously agreed guidance on harbour dredging as exhibited in Appendix 1.

At a meeting on 21/01/19 the Department was advised by the DoI Project Manager that rerouting of the pipelines is being considered to prevent any requirement to install them in the River Neb. Fisheries recommend that it is preferable for the pipework not to be located in the River Neb to minimise disturbance to migratory fish, and reduce risk of pollution of the river via damage to pipeline.

The pipeline route as proposed in the planning application where in the River Neb is within tidal zone so there is no concern re damaging spawning grounds. However, any installation/removal works will be restricted to the same window as that allowed for the dredging to minimise disturbance to salmon/sea trout returning from sea.

Additional planning controls to mitigate sediment and water quality control are not likely to be required.

6.14.6 Any further or amended comments received from DEFA EPU in response to the updated EIA will be reported to the Planning Committee as part of a verbal update.

6.16 Archaeology (EP40 and 41)

6.16.1 Chapter 12 of the applicant's EIA considers Cultural Heritage and Archaeology.
6.16.2 In relation to impact on unknown archaeology during lagoon construction, some mitigation measures are set out at 12.3.11 - 12.3.14. 12.3.15 states, "With a chance find procedure in place as a back-up measure in case potential archaeological material is discovered, there will be a negligible residual impact".
6.16.3 Manx National Heritage (Consultation 7 - 29.01.19) made the following comments in relation to archaeology in response to the original EIA (any further or amended comments received from MNH in response to the updated EIA will be reported to the Planning Committee

as part of a verbal update). "We are not aware of any archaeological finds associated with the specific site - but the rich history of Peel and the fact that this site has not been built on in recorded history should alert us to the possibility. It would be good practice for a Desk-based assessment of the site to be undertaken in advance of development - which may lead to some form of survey. The nature of the site excavations to be undertaken to provide a lagoon imply quite heavy machinery. In this context the suggestion of a system of stopping work and reporting finds is unlikely to work. It would be better to remove the risk in advance if possible".

6.16.4 E-mail from MNH to applicant (01.02.19) they state, "Thanks very much for sending through the trial pit notes and borehole logs for the lagoon site

at Ballaterson Farm. You are absolutely correct that trial pitting is a valuable tool. We were not aware that this had taken place when we submitted our comments.

6.16.5 It is considered that a suitable condition could be attached.

Whilst not an expert in the soil conditions locally it seems probable to me that if there was any significant archaeological evidence for previous human activity in the field some trace would have shown up at the interface between the plough soil and the natural sand. All your pits show a clear transition from plough soil to natural sands and gravels which is what we would expect from riverine deposition over time.

As you agree there is still the possibility that there may be less significant archaeological material of some kind which the trail pitting missed. In the circumstances I would now be content with the Chance Finds Procedure which the EIA previously recommended.

As to the folklore that this is where a Viking fleet was situated - you can safely discard this for planning purposes. But the strategic position of Peel for several hundred years during the Viking period is undisputed. As the Vikings often used (and re-used) timber for buildings and set up temporary camps for trading - many of the remains they left behind are either insubstantial or leave no over-ground trace today. I would imagine you are most unlikely to find a Viking fleet (and almost all that would be left would be the nails that held the boats together) but if you did it would be of international importance!".

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The following points are highlighted.

o It is considered that there is an established need to dredge Peel harbour, and so to have some method of disposing of the dredged material.

o There maybe merit in the use of the material to remediate the Cross Vein Mine workings, however this would require a separate planning application and the result of this cannot be prejudged.
o A temporary facility would allow dredging to take place and the material to be stored (and dewatered) pending the identification/approval of the final method of disposal.
o The impact of the temporary facility (for 5 years) will be minimal and can be controlled through a combination of planning conditions and complimentary regimes.
o It is noted that the contaminated material is already present in the environment and the proposal would relocate this to a controlled storage facility.
o However, a similar temporary facility has been used by the applicant at Poortown Road and a permanent solution for removing/disposing of that material has not been identified/approved.
o The overall key issue is therefore considered to be the credibility that the material will be able to be removed within the proposed timescale (5 years), the risk that it will not and how this might be balanced against the risks posed by not proceeding with the dredging.

7.2 On balance it is considered that the application should be supported (subject to conditions) but this is a finely balanced decision and not without risk. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
(b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
(c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
(d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
(e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

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 6(4) 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.

8.4 It is also noted that DOI Harbours have commented but are also the applicant and so automatically have Interested Person Status. Part of the application site is owned by Manx Utilities, Manx National Heritage, the owner of Ballaterson Farm and Peel Town Commissioners. These parties therefore all automatically have Interested Person Status (and the Commissioners also have it as the relevant Local Authority).

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 : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 04.03.2019 Signed : S Butler Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report & conditions were required YES/NO See below PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 04.03.2019 Application No. : 18/01293/B Applicant : Department of Infrastructure Proposal : Construction, operation and decommissioning of a temporary

lagoon facility for dewatering and storing sediment dredged from Peel Marina and installation, operation and removal of temporary pipelines along and alongside the River Neb between Ballaterson Farm and Peel Marina

Site Address : Field 315179 Ballaterson Farm Glenfaba Road Peel Isle of Man

Head of Development Management :

Mr S Butler

Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

At the Planning Meeting held on the 4th March 2019, the Case Officer amended his recommendation to add three new conditions (with renumbering of others as required)

C7. NEW CONDITION (to be added before existing C7 as per agenda) Prior to the use of the contractors area as outlined in red on drawing number 535/002/2 details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department setting out:

o how the area is to be used;
o any temporary structures/buildings to be installed; and
o any fencing to be installed.

Reason: To ensure that any impact, including visual, of the use of the area as a contractors' area is minimised.

C9. NEW CONDITION (to be added before existing C8 as per agenda) No pumps shall be used as part of the development hereby permitted unless the details of the pump to be used (including hours of use) have been approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: To avoid any unacceptable noise impact from pumps. C27. NEW CONDITION (to be added before existing C25 as per agenda)

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a parking strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The strategy shall include details of both staff parking and any work vehicles.

Reason: To ensure adequate consideration is given to parking issues by the operator. The Case Officer amended his recommendation to amend the wording of conditions 7, 10, 18, 19, 23 and 24 (numbering as per agenda). The Committee approved the amended recommendation. The Case Officer noted an additional representation from the owner/occupier of West Marine House, and that this did not alter his recommendation in relation to IPS status.

Conditions of Approval

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. This approval only relates to the construction, use and decommissioning of the contractors' area, lagoon and pipelines (transport and dewatering). No approval is given for any dredging works within Peel Marina as part of this application. No approval is given for any works outside the redline boundaries shown on drawing number 535/002/1 (date stamped as having been received 07.02.19) and drawing number 535/002/2 (date stamped as having been received 11.12.18).

C 3. Within 5 years of the date of this approval becoming final, the lagoon and pipework shall be decommissioned and the site restored in accordance with the details set out in paragraphs 2.6.16 - 2.6.22, 2.7.8 and 2.8.4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19.

C 4. Within 5 years of the date of this approval becoming final, the use of the contractors area

as outlined in red on drawing number 535/002/2 (date stamped as having been received

11.12.18) shall cease, including the removal of all material and fencing. Reason: To ensure that the temporary contractors area is removed when the project is complete.

C 5. The timing of works shall only be as per paragraphs 2.10.1 - 2.10.2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity and to ensure that the mitigation measure relating to timing of works is implemented.
C 6. The lagoon shall be constructed in accordance with the details set out in 2.6.1 - 2.6.15 of the of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on
07.02.19 unless otherwise required by conditions set out in this notice.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

C 7. Prior to the use of the contractors' area as outlined in red on drawing number 535/002/2 details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department setting out: o how the area is to be used; o any temporary structures/buildings to be installed; and o any fencing to be installed.

Reason: To ensure that any impact, including visual, of the use of the area as a contractors' area is minimised.

C 8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Lighting Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, which includes, but is not limited to, measures to protect the river from light spill. The plan shall clarify for each element of lighting

at what stage it shall be removed. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan.

C 9. No pumps shall be used as part of the development hereby permitted unless the details of the pump to be used (including hours of use) have been approved in writing by the Department. Reason: To avoid any unacceptable noise impact from pumps.
C 10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the following information shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the development shall not take place unless in accordance with the approved details:

o calculations proving the structural integrity of the construction of the lagoons;
o construction drawings showing how the bund would be constructed;
o inspection regime for the lagoons in particular embankment checks;
o explanation of how consideration has been given to overflow of the lagoons if heavy rainfall occurred would they over top if so will there be a spillway and where would it discharge to;
o breach analysis if the lagoon embankment were to breach what would be consequence; and
o Emergency procedures should breach analysis highlight risk.

Reasons: To ensure that the potential flood risk (including residual risk) caused by the development is understood and: avoided; minimised; and/or mitigated.

C 11. Any dewatering shall use the methods set out in paragraphs 2.5.1 - 2.5.16 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
C 12. There shall be no discharge of dewatering effluent other than as set out in paragraphs per 2.5.17 - 2.5.19 of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

C 13. Prior to the treatment of any dewatered sediment, as set out in paragraphs 2.5.15 2.5.16 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on

07.02.19, a method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. No treatment may take place other than in accordance with the approved details.

C 14. If a transport pipeline is used to transport dredged material into the lagoons, it shall be installed, used and decommissioned in accordance with 2.7.1 - 2.7.8 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19, unless otherwise required by the conditions set out on this notice.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

C 15. The discharge pipeline shall be installed, used and decommissioned in accordance with

2.8.1 - 2.8.4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19. unless otherwise required by the conditions set out on this notice.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.

C 16. No transport or discharge pipeline shall: o be installed which is placed on, or attached to, the river bed; or o be installed which is more than 500mm wide.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt, to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and to ensure that there is no impact on the river bed.

C 17. No pipeline shall cross a footpath unless it is covered by a ramp which is in accordance with figure 2-10 and paragraph 11.3.17 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19 or other details which have first been approved in writing by the Department.

C 18. In the event that a raised walkway is required to retain the footpath at a width as required by the condition below, details of this, including any timings for installation and end date for removal, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the walkway shall be installed and removed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation as set out in 2.7.6 and 11.3.17 of the Environmental Impact Assessment is implemented in a way that does not unacceptably impact on users of the footpath (including, but not limited to, visual amenity).
C 19. The width of the Heritage Trail footpath shall not be reduced to below 1.5 metres or its current width, whichever is less.

C 20. No vegetation clearance (including tree cutting or felling) shall be undertaken unless in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department, and such details shall include details of any replacement planting that is proposed.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation as set out in 2.7.6 of the Environmental Impact Assessment is implemented.

C 21. Prior to the commencement of any works to install any pipeline hereby approved, a suitably qualified ecologist shall undertake a site walkover survey of the pipeline route corridor to identify any routing opportunities and/or constraints relating to common lizard habitat, and prepare a species mitigation plan.

o The preferred pipeline route between the riverbank and the dewatering lagoon.
o The preferred locations for pipeline anchors and public / vehicular access ramps
o across the pipeline route.
o A precautionary method of working detailing a methodology for vegetation
o Clearance and dismantling of refugia during pipeline installation and removal
o works;
o Measures to protect areas of suitable adjacent common lizard habitat (e.g. fencing
o to protect important refugia); and
o A translocation protocol to be followed if reptiles are found on site, including the
o location of a suitable receptor area.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation measures set out at 9.3.27 of the Environmental Impact Assessment are implemented.

C 22. Prior to commencement of any works or development a detailed Mitigation Strategy and Management Plan for protection of nesting birds both during construction and decommissioning of the development, carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

C 23. During the pipeline installation and removal works, a suitably qualified ecologist shall be present as an Ecological Clerk of Works to ensure that the works will be undertaken in accordance with the species mitigation plan (as required by condition 19).

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation measure set out at 9.3.28 of the Environmental Impact Assessment and the conditions attached to this notice are implemented.

C 24. Prior to and during the construction of the lagoon the Archaeological Disturbance mitigation measures as set out 12.3.12 - 12.3.13 of the Environmental Impact Assessment date stamped as having been received on 07.02.19, shall be fully implemented.

C 25. Prior to the completion of the lagoon details of the proposed treatment to be applied to the external sides and crest of the bunds shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Unless stipulated and agreed otherwise, within one month of the details being approved the external sides and crest of the bunds shall be treated in accordance with details and thereafter maintained for the period of the project until decommissioning. The details shall provide for seeding at least the sides up to a height of at least 300 mm below the top, together with measures for maintenance and re-seeding if any part fails.

Reason: To ensure that the mitigation measure set out at 10.3.22 of the Environmental Impact Assessment to reduce the visual impact of the lagoon in the wider landscape are implemented as far as practicable, whilst also ensuring that there is an appropriate surface for staff and plant to use, and to minimise any dust emissions.

C 26. Prior to the commencement of the construction of the lagoon hereby approved, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department which set out the vehicles to be used to access the site (including during its construction) and, in the event that any of these are more than 10 metres in length, the details shall include updated swept path analysis which demonstrates that the vehicles can access the site safely.

Reason: To ensure that information is provided to demonstrate that the site can be safely accessed.

C 27. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a parking strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The strategy shall include details of both staff parking and any work vehicles. Reason: To ensure adequate consideration is given to parking issues by the operator.
C 28. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, which set out how the vehicles to be used to access the site will safely pass pedestrians using the Public Right of Way which runs along the Southern boundary of the lagoon site and joins Mill Road and how any mitigation measures identified will be implemented.

Reason: To ensure that information is provided to demonstrate that the site can be safely accessed.

Plans/Drawings/Information

This approval relates to the following plans/drawings/information:

1. Project Strategy - Dredging, Storage and Disposal of contaminated Material, Peel Marina date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
2. Peel Marina Maintenance Dredging 2019-21 Phase 1A Planning Application Cover Document: Brief Project Description, Site Photographs, Planning Application Attachment Summary (date stamped as having been received 11.12.18)
3. Peel Marina Maintenance Dredging 2019-21 Design and Access Statement (date stamped as having been received 11.12.18) including the drawings included as appendix A, other than those highlighted as being superseded:

o Drawing No. 535/001/1 entitled 'Site Location Plan - Lagoon'
o Drawing No. 535/001/2 entitled 'Site Location Plan - Contractors Area'
o Drawing No. 535/002/1 entitled 'Site Plan - Lagoon A1' (superseded)
o Drawing No. 535/002/2 entitled 'Site Plan - Contractors Area'
o Drawing No. 535/003 entitled 'Topographic Survey - Ballaterson Farm'
o Drawing No. 535/004/1 entitled 'Pipeline Route' (superseded)
o Drawing No. 535/005/1 entitled 'General Layout - Marina/Dredging' (superseded)
o Drawing No. 535/006/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Plan)'
o Drawing No. 535/008/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Traffic/Entry Layout)'
o Drawing No. 535/009/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Lagoon Fencing)'
o Drawing No. 535/010/1 entitled 'Pipe Ramp - (Vehicle / Pedestrian) - Outline Plan'
o Drawing No. 535/011/1 entitled 'Trucking Route Accommodation Works'
o 2 x Untitled Plans Showing Swept Path Analysis

4. Peel Marina - Maintenance Dredging Environmental Impact Assessment - Non-Technical Summary (Revised) date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
5. Peel Marina - Maintenance Dredging Environmental Impact Assessment (Revised) date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
6. E-mail from Jeremy Reece dated 06.02.19 (11:57)
7. Table entitled "Response to Planning Consultation" and date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
8. Sample Analysis - Peel Harbour (report from Socotec) date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
9. Outline Treatment Methodology: Peel Marina, Isle of Man - Dredging, Treatment and Disposal of Problematic Waste date stamped as having been received 07.02.19
10. Amended Plans date stamped as having been received 07.02.19 - No. 535/002/1 entitled, 'Site Plan - Lagoon A1', No. 535/004/1 entitled, 'Pipeline Route' and No. 535/005/1 entitled, 'General Layout - Marina/Dredging'
11. Plans as set out below:

o Drawing No. 535/001/1 entitled 'Site Location Plan - Lagoon'
o Drawing No. 535/001/2 entitled 'Site Location Plan - Contractors Area'
o Drawing No. 535/002/2 entitled 'Site Plan - Contractors Area'
o Drawing No. 535/003 entitled 'Topographic Survey - Ballaterson Farm'
o Drawing No. 535/006/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Plan)'
o Drawing No. 535/007/1-1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Elevation) - KEY
o Drawing No. 535/007/1-2 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Elevation) - 1/3 1:50
o Drawing No. 535/007/1-3 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Elevation) - 2/3 1:50
o Drawing No. 535/007/1-4 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Elevation) - 3/3 1:50
o Drawing No. 535/008/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Traffic/Entry Layout)'
o Drawing No. 535/009/1 entitled 'Concept Lagoon (Lagoon Fencing)'
o Drawing No. 535/010/1 entitled 'Pipe Ramp - (Vehicle / Pedestrian) - Outline Plan'
o Drawing No. 535/011/1 entitled 'Trucking Route Accommodation Works'
o Drawing No. 535/012/1-1 entitled 'East and South Lagoon Elevations'
o Drawing No. 535/012/1-2 entitled 'East and South Lagoon Elevations'
o Drawing No. 535/007/1-(2,3,4) entitled, 'Concept Lagoon (Elevation) - A1 1:100

12. Supporting Information as set out below

o Untitled Plan showing rights of way in blue and brown, date stamped as having been received 30.11.18

o Two Plans showing Registered Trees, both date stamped as having been received

11.12.18

o Two drawings entitled, 'Multibeam Bathymetric Survey, Peel Harbour Marina both date stamped as having been received 11.12.18
o Six Manx Utilities Asset Maps (drainage, water and electricity) all date stamped as having been received 11.12.18
o Six Maps from Vodafone all date stamped as having been received 11.12.18. 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.

DEC Officer Report

Source & Provenance