Report on the business case report in association with the location reports

Location reports The reports were broken down into 4 tasks, split into two volumes of 2, each reducing the amount of options (originally 23) until there were two options advised, namely Peel Power Station and Farmland Glenfaba Road, Peel Knockaloe. It Is worthy of note that there was not a full feasibility report carried out on both these sites even though this was advised by the Government advisors. The second option was also discounted by Dalrimples but put back in by the DOT, even though it was discounted due to being either side of a main road. It is further worthy of note that the site reports brief shows asks for a different size (area of 12,1 00m2) for the plant which excluded certain options due to lack of space, It required the 3 fields out of the 4 we have been looking at behind the power station. Whereas they are now looking at one field or acre! This means that sites that were discounted are potentially feasible! The site report task 3 + 4 also states on page 12 of 33 under odour, The perception of odour nuisance from sewage treatment plants is greater than actual. There would always be, however, some odour carried from the facility on the breeze. Whilst the wind rose (appendix E) indicates the wind regime at Ronaldsway, the effect of Corrin hill and Peel hill is thought to align the wind either up or down the valley (North or South) Visual Intrusion is also mentioned on the same page It would be difficult to completely screen the plant given the sites elevation relative to nearby properties. Careful design and layout could however minimise that visual intrusion. The southern-most field, furthest from the power station, is, however, almost completely shielded from view and may be the optimum position on this site. Under the heading of neighbours the Peel area plan was mentioned, Mention has already been made of the ex MEA now Peel Commissioners, dwellings. Another consideration is that the northern end of the site is generally overlooked from the residential areas to the east of Patrick Street and Glenfaba road. Presumably this was considered during the preparation of the local plan when the area north of the Glenfaba road was designated as predominantly residential and to the south along the riverside as predominantly industrial. It further mentions that if the appeal for housing for the 21 properties goes through that it would have an adverse impact on the proposed industrial use of the site designated as Site 2. It is worth noting here that the Peel area plan was agreed well before IRIS was first though up and a light industrial park compared to a sewage treatment works should have had conditions put onto what could be put within the town boundary. In conclusion, the Dairimple report has looked comprehensively at various sites, unfortunately the brief and subsequent instruction has limited the effectiveness of the report. The reasoning for the site behind the power station seems to be a preferred option by the DOT and they have made the report fit in with what they are looking for. This fits in with page 73 of the full business case, where AECOM state having previously recognised the need to provide a sewage treatment works in or near to Peel, the department of transportation drainage division has commissioned a study in which it concluded that a green field site to the south of the peel power station

provides the optimum location to treat the sewage arising from the peel catchment. Therefore, the provision of a new works at this site will be taken forward for consideration. Questions I/ Catastrophic failure scenario, backup? Protection for the river Neb NB. Dairimple document initial brief is for 5 acres of land and then after report 2 it was amended to 3 acres as per letter from Mark Bale, Area manager DOT Drainage division. Dated 12th May 2008, report was completed May 08?! 2/ If the current space required is one acre shouldnt other sites be revisited? 3/ Mark Bale excluded sites (9, 12, 13 and 16) that were designated as very suitable, why? Ballahara sandpit (site 12) and in between ballahara sandpit and the river Neb (site 13), would have been perfect! 4/ Mark Bale also requested inclusion of 2 that had been discounted (7 and 11) why? One of these options was put forward against the land behind the power station. The email states that they are close to the power station option which seems to indicate that this is their preferred option 5/ Various sites were discounted due to adverse impact on visual splay from Corrin hill etc this has been ignored for Peel power station Why? P8 of 33, the heritage trail is also mentioned and ignored for this site. 6/ Peel power station report advised that Close Chairn should not be residential otherwise it would need to be considered in the more detailed study. The full business case report in regard to Peel and the West, looks to bring forward the Departments strategy of area treatment works at the most cost effective manner, but keeping to the European directive on discharge into an aquatic environment. The email from Peter Winstanley stating all options would be reviewed seems to be incorrect as the location had already been agreed. The most cost effective treatment works has been highlighted as a smaller version of Meary Veg, this provides the required treatment of sewage to an appropriate level for marine discharge. P2 - 1.2.2 3/ completion of the IRIS Master Plan utilising a cost effective regional strategy for the remaining elements Short listing has taken this into account under project objectives. Under 2.14 Future considerations number 5 requires an Odour management plan If there is no smell as indicated by Peter Winstanley, why is this needed? We need to make certain that we are involved in this part, section 16 refers further. Under 3.5 Environmental Context, PI I, it is likely that each EIA Report will include the following assessments: *Landscape and Visual *Noise *Air Quality (including dust and Odour) Under 3.7.3 last 2 paragraphs state There is potential that effluent disinfection will be required for those marine discharges which are near to a bathing beach. Often an effluent dispersion model is used to determine tidal flow patterns, dilution rates etc.

However in the absence of this information it has been agreed that two treatment process options which provide disinfection, MBR and AS with UV will be investigated. Disinfection may not be required in some or all cases as the locations of the existing outfalls may be such that the bathing beach is not adversely affected. If proven that effluent which has not been disinfected does have an adverse effect on the bathing beach, an additional option, rather than disinfect, would be to lengthen the sea outfall (the distance from the low water tide line is usually determined through modelling). I would suggest that we make them aware that the effluent is discharged on a float switch and not at any specific tide time. Effluent discharge consents, 6.4 shows the current situation at 5560 PE, which has been determined by looking at existing properties and adding any that are in the pipeline with planning permission. There has been no modelling to see if this is a level that can be accommodated without causing problems to a marine discharge off a bathing beach. This would need to be carried out as part of the review of the existing outfall, to assess the current and future needs, especially if they look to extend the outfall. St Johns treatment works is in good condition and under 7.5.6 is shows that there is additional space available to upgrade. P73 9,2.4 replacement on existing site - RBC to be considered at St Johns, Peel to be put into previously agreed site as determined by the DOT 9.2.5. Rationalisation - P74 - Option to forward from Peel to St Johns, therefore there is no issue with using other sites within the radius. P115 - option 3 awarded additional marks for client acceptability. St Johns lost points due to political and public perception?! P129 overview - Primary objectives of the overall ranking has not altered therefore Peel is the preferred option. Option 2 at St Johns is better and an alternative site such as Ballahara sandpit would have hit a much higher assessment. For information the DoTs proposed solution for the Laxey catchment area is enclosed within a building at the end of Laxey Promenade where the smells are controlled via a negative pressure filtration system. While this is the DoTs preferred option, a discussion has yet to be made on the finial solution and location for Laxey.