Officer Memo on Condition 13

8ppt"ci'l< Three. DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AND THE ENVIRONMENT MEMORANDUM Secretary to the Planning Committee Miss Sarah Corlett, Planning Officer PA 04/2083 - Knock Rushen residential development 16'" September, 2008 TO: From: Subject: Date: SATISFACTION OF CONDmON 13 - PROVISION OF A SURFACEWATER OUTFALL The above application was approved on appeal subject to a condition which required the following: "Prior to the commencement of works on site, details of the new outfall pipe must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Committee. This outfall pipe must be provided in accordance with the approved details before the first occupation of any of the dwelling on the site". Details of this were provided to the Planning Committee for their approval and were considered at the last Planning Committee meeting on 4th september, 2008. The Planning Committee did not accept these details on the basis that the appearance of the grill and chamber on the beach would be unacceptable. Suggestions were made that the chamber could be completely buried and/or re-Iocated under the road and only the pipe be installed underneath the beach material. Subsequent to the rejection of the previous scheme, confirmation has been received from the Department of Transport Drainage Division that "If the Committee are still adamant in purely having the outlet of a pipe directly the beach without any anchoring the Division may not adopt this due to future maintenance problems." The further information describes the site (also shown in the photographs from Department of Transport Drainage Division) and confirms that the chamber and structures will not be visible from the road. They also confirm that additional planting will be introduced to help screen the chamber and new structures from view from the beach. They also offer to introduce stone walling around the structure, similar to an existing one already on the beach. An alternative to this would be a simple metal rail fixed to the top of the concrete wall and the planting would eventually grow up and around the guard and railing. Photomontages of both of these are provided along with other outfall installations along the beach. The option which involves building up around the chamber in stone will have the least impact and other than when standing right in front of the structure, the chamber is unlikely to be seen other than as a small area of stone walling. It is likely that the hebe around the site will eventually grow up to and over the walling, thus concealing it more. I would suggest that the schemewhich shows the stone walling, drawing SWB1,SWB2and CDD21 C2, is acceptable and that this satisfies condition 13 of the approval granted on appeal.