Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No.: 25/91158/B Applicant: Mr Richard Collister Proposal: Erection of mobile classroom to southeast boundary of Horticulture Compound Site Address: Horticulture Department University College Isle Of Man Homefield Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6RB Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.02.2026 Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The mobile classroom hereby approved shall be removed from the site on or before five years from the date of this decision, and the land shall be restored to its former condition, including re grading and re seeding of any disturbed ground.

Reason: The permission is granted exceptionally on the basis of a time limited, functional need directly linked to the educational use of the site, and the Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and documents submitted.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The development is acceptable in land-use terms and, by virtue of its scale, siting and design, would not result in any material harm to the visual or residential amenity. The proposal supports the delivery of educational activity within an established horticultural setting and is therefore consistent with General Policy 2, Community Policies 5 and7, and Strategic Policies 4 and 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the documents and plans received 9 December 2025. Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:

• DOI Highways - No objection
• Douglas City Council - No objection

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE

1.1 The application site is the curtilage of the Horticulture Department, University College Isle Of Man, Homefield Road, Douglas. The application site (edged in red) is a small part of the overall University College site which is significant in size and also encompasses a significant detached building which accommodates the University College, a number of car parks and areas of green space, namely to the northern most corner of the site and western part of the site.

1.2 The application site accommodates a poly tunnel, sheds, green house, potting sheds and a welfare cabin and a number of platers/growing areas.

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.1 Planning approval is sought for Erection of mobile classroom to southeast boundary of Horticulture Compound. The classroom will be approximately 7.1m x 2.7m and be 2.57m tall but elevated by about 150mm above the ground level. The classroom will be situated in the southeast section of the site, and just southwest of the plotting shed. The external finish will be in a tone of grey.

2.2 No trees and mature plantings would be removed from site to facilitate the development. There would be no change to site levels or need to change existing drainage and foul water systems for the area, as there is no need for foul water discharge to support the development and rainwater would drain onto the ground.

3.0 PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within an area of "Building for Civic, Cultural & Other Special Use under the Area Plan for the East. The site is not within a Conservation Area, and the site is largely not prone to flood risks, with the area proposed for the development judged to have low likelihood of surface water flood risk.

3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016)

• 3.2.1 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application:

• 1. General Policy 2 - Development Criteria, ensuring developments are appropriate for

their location, support sustainable economic and social outcomes, and do not harm the character of the area.

• 2. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages.
• 3. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature

conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas.

• 4. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact.
• 5. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated

sites).

• 6. Transport Policy 4 - Highway capacity and safety considerations.
• 7. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development.
• 8. Community Policy 5 - Permission will generally be given for proposals to improve or

extend existing schools and institutions of higher education and to build new schools, subject to their being sited and designed in accordance with the other policies of this plan, having particular regard to the potential for community use of the buildings and the associated Open Space.

• 9. Community Policy 7 - provides guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and

antisocial behaviour.

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025)

• 4.1.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications; however, only the following are considered relevant to the determination of this proposal:

• 1. PA 25/90741/B for Replacement of existing welfare unit with new welfare unit -

APPROVED.

• 2. PA 18/00416/B for Erection of a metal garden shed for use of the Horticultural students

- APPROVED.

• 3. Planning approval was granted for Creation of a horticultural / agricultural project area

including the erection of fencing, changing rooms, tool store and polytunnel under PA 13/91206/B on 31 January 2014.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 Douglas City Council have no objection (20 January 2026).

6.2 DOI Highways have stated that they find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the applicant states there will be no increase in pupils or staff at the site (16 January 2026).

6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.

7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are:

• 1. The principle of the proposed development (GP2 and CP5);
• 2. The Visual Impacts of the Proposal (GP2, STP 4 and 5); and
• 3. Impacts on Neighbours (GP2 and CP7)

7.2 The Principle

• 7.2.1 The application site forms part of the established Horticulture Department Campus and accommodates a range of functional structures associated with horticulture teaching and training. The introduction of a small educational unit within this context would, in broad landuse terms, remain consistent with the existing function of the wider estate. The proposal does not introduce a new or unrelated use, nor does it alter the established pattern of activity on the site.
• 7.2.2 The applicant has provided a Cover Letter that outlies the operational context for the proposal. This confirms that horticulture and related land-based courses currently rely on classrooms located on the opposite side of the campus, requiring students to walk across the site for theory-based lessons. This highlights the operational constraints currently experienced but the horticulture team, evident in the separation between practical and classroom activities, despite the need for a secure enclosure that already serves equipment storage, maintenance and higher-risk land-based training. These factors demonstrate that the existing arrangement is functional but not optimal, and that a classroom within the enclosure would offer practical and pedagogical benefits.
• 7.2.3 While the above narrative identifies day-to-day constraints, it does not amount to a structured needs assessment. No evidence is provided regarding capacity limitations, timetabling pressures, or the inability of existing accommodation to meet curriculum requirements. The justification therefore carries moderate weight: it establishes operational inconvenience and functional logic but does not demonstrate an essential or unavoidable need.
• 7.2.4 As the proposal is for a prefabricated mobile classroom, a form of development typically accepted only where it addresses a short-term accommodation pressure or transitional operational requirement, the ten-year retention period (based on long-term aspirations to consolidate the Horticulture department within the enclosure) is not justified. In the absence of a defined long-term accommodation strategy, a ten-year period would exceed what can reasonably be considered temporary. A shorter, time-limited approval would therefore ensure

• that the unit remains genuinely interim and that the applicant revisits permanent solutions should the need persist.
• 7.2.5 On balance, the principle of the development is acceptable, subject to a condition limiting the permission to five years, ensuring proportionality, safeguarding the temporary nature of the structure, and allowing the applicant to revisit longer term accommodation planning in due course.

7.3 Potential Visual Impact Upon the Site and Street Scene

• 7.3.1 The proposed mobile classrooms are modest in scale and height and would be positioned within the interior of the horticulture enclosure, which is well screened from the surrounding area. Moreover, the enclosure already accommodates a range of functional structures associated with land-based teaching, and the proposed unit would be read within this established context rather than as an isolated or visually intrusive feature.

• 7.3.2 Existing boundary fencing, vegetation and trees provide a good degree of containment, limiting wider public views of the site. Besides, any visibility from external vantage points would be restricted to occasional glimpses through boundary gaps, and in those instances the structure would be perceived as part of the wider educational estate. The subdued utilitarian design of the unit is consistent with the operational character of the enclosure and would not detract from the visual amenities of the surrounding area.

• 7.3.3 On this basis, the proposal is considered acceptable in design and visual impact terms and compliant with General Policy 2 (b) and (c),and Strategic Policies 4 and 5 of the Strategic Plan.

7.4 Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities

• 7.4.1 In assessing impacts on neighbours, it is noted that the nearest residential properties site to the south, with their rear gardens backing onto the horticulture enclosure. The proposed unit would sit within the enclosure, well removed from these properties, and would not alter the existing pattern of separation or introduce any new overlooking or loss of privacy dues to singe storey format, the existing boundary treatment which comprises fences, trees and mature plantings.
• 7.4.2 The use of the structure remains educational and mirrors the established character of activity already associated with the horticulture area. No increase in student or staff numbers is proposed, and no change in the intensity or timing of activity has been indicated. Given the distance, the intervening land uses and the contained nature of the proposal, no material noise, disturbance or amenity impacts are expected for the neighbouring occupiers. The development is therefore considered acceptable in respect of neighbouring amenity and compliant with General policy 2 and Community Policy 7.

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Overall, the proposal represents a modest, temporary classroom within an established horticulture enclosure. Its scale, siting and design ensure no material harm to visual or residential amenity, and the use remains consistent with the educational function of the wider campus. While justification provided is narrative rather than evidential, it demonstrates a functional benefit to consolidating teaching activity within the enclosure. Subject to a timelimited approval reflecting the temporary nature of the structure, the development accords with Genera Policy 2, Community Policies 5 and 7, and Strategic Policies 4 and 5.

9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).

9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• applicant (in all cases);
• a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage

that submit a relevant objection; and

• any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.

9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and in the case of a petition, a single representative.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 25.02.2026 Determining Officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.