Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90568/B Applicant: Mr Stuart Nelson Proposal: Partial demolition of a building, erection of a single storey building extension, alterations to fenestration and render to remaining building including the provision of new drop-off layby with associated pavement and drainage works and use of the site for Class 4.3 (in association with 25/00567/CON) Site Address: Removal House 39 Finch Road Douglas IM1 2PT Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.07.2025
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: a) to the avoidance of doubt and b) the assessment of the application is for an assembly for religious worship, which has the most impact within the use class so all other uses within the class is also considered acceptable.
Reason: to safeguard the safety and accessibility for all users of the highway from the reasonable impact of the application.
Reason: ensure the building is accessible to all users, promoting inclusivity and compliance with the Equality Act 2017.
Reason: to reduce car trip generated, promote sustainable travel method and safeguard traffic efficiency from refuse collection process.
This approval relates to the documents, cover letter, planning statement, hard landscape details, fountain record, and drawing no. EX-01 Rev B, EX-02, EX-03, EX-04, Rev D, EX-05; P-101, P-102, P-103, P-104, P-105, P-106; and P-03 Rev A, P-04 Rev A, P-06 Rev A ,which have all been received on 9th June 2025.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Douglas City Council - No objection DoI Highway Services - No objection DoI Highway Drainage - Objection does not relate to material planning considerations
THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMEND FOR AN APPROVAL
1.0 THE SITE The Site and Its Existing Building - 1.1 The application site is part of a land envelope created by Finch Road, Christian Road, Kingswood Grove, and St Barnabas Hill. This land envelope is divided into two distinct sections: a
1.4 The multi-gable block has a white sheeting roof and shopfront window on the east and south elevations. The two-story flat-roof block has uPVC windows with glazing bars (30/70 split), a double timber door on the ground floor, and a double door on the first floor (access from Christian Road). The single-storey flat-roof block has a shopfront window on the east elevation and protrudes beyond the frontage of the other two blocks. - 1.5 The office block is in use, and the other parts of the building are vacant. There is approx. 170 square metres of office space and 650 square metres of retail space. Surroundings and the Wider Area - 1.6 A modern multi-storey car park stretching north-south is east of the site, just across Finch Road. A three-storey red-brick office building is north of the site. Surrounding the site are Victorianstyle houses. The ones to the site's north, east, and southeast are primarily residential terraces (mostly dwellinghouses but also some flats), and the ones to the south are semi-detached and terraced offices (many are registered buildings). - 1.7 Widening the scope, the site is on the transition slope from the flat, low-level coast plain to higher-level inland areas. The site is around several areas with different characters:
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The proposal is the erection of a church (use class 4.3). The proposal involves converting the existing office block (Use Class 2.1) to part of the new church. - 2.2 This application is also seeking retrospective approval for the demolition of the existing shop (use class 1.1). Demolition - 2.3 The majority of the existing buildings have been demolished, besides the two-storey flat-roof office block. Part of the northern boundary wall has also been demolished. Erection of a Church - 2.4 The mass of the new church is about the same as that of the existing shop and offices. The church consists of four blocks:
2.5 The front elevation of the church has smooth render and vertical timber cladding, 50/50 split slim windows and glass double-door entrances. - 2.6 The two-storey flat-roof block finishes in coloured render on its east, south and north elevations, with a section of vertical timber cladding around its glass double door on the east elevation. The cladding extends beyond the height of the existing roof to form a higher parapet than the existing ones on the roof. - 2.7 The timber cladding divides the east elevation of the two-storey block into the south section and the north section. On the north section, three vertical 50/50 windows are on both the ground and first floors. On the south section, above the entrance door, are two windows identical to those on the north section. The double door on the first floor is replaced with a glass double door (still accessed from Christian Road). - 2.8 The single-storey flat-roof main block is finished in vertical timber cladding. It has two vertical glazed panels to the south of the entrance door. They have the same height as the entrance doors. - 2.9 The single-storey pitched-roof block is finished in render. It also features two vertical windows on the east elevation, with vertical timber cladding between them, and a new door on the north elevation. - 2.10 South elevations of extensions are finished in render. North elevations of extensions are finished in composite cladding. Their colours are white or different shades of grey. - 2.11 The main entrance is at the side of the single-storey pitched-roof block. The main entrance consists of four glass double doors. One pair is located in the middle of the east elevation of the single-storey flat-roof block, featuring glass panels on top. The other pair is on the south elevation of the single-storey pitched-roof block. - 2.12 There are staircases at the west elevation leading to the existing access at the northwest corner of the site. Internal Layout - 2.13 The church has an assembly hall, multifunction rooms, offices, and meeting rooms. There are also various service areas, including lobbies, toilets, kitchenettes, and storage areas. - 2.14 The assembly hall is approx. 300 square meters. The assembly hall proposed to have assembly areas of approx. 123 square meters, which is the area of the hall without the stage and passages. Other function rooms are approx. 225 square meters. - 2.15 In theory (building regulation and assuming no fixed seating), the assembly hall can be occupied by approx. 246 people (0.5 square meters per person), and the other function rooms can be occupied by approx. 225 people at the same time (1 square meter per person). - 2.16 In extreme capacity, the entire assembly hall can be occupied by approx. 600 people (0.5 square meters per person). - 2.17 Based on 2.14-2.16, the maximum number of users of the whole building is approx. 470-600 people, although both numbers are unlikely to be reached for a typical church operation.
2.15 No strict opening hours are proposed, meaning the site can open 24/7, including weekends and public holidays, although this is unlikely given the typical operation of a church.
2.16 The church is for Living Hope, a local Christian church with around 250 regular attendees. According to the planning statement, the main service takes place on Sunday around noon (usually 10:00-13:00). Youth meetings on weekdays typically conclude at 20:00. The building is also used during Christian holidays, which often coincide with Bank Holidays. The statement expects a maximum of around 300 attendees at any given event. Access Improvement - 2.17 The proposal includes alterations to boundary walls and the existing setback area from Finch Road to improve access. - 2.18 The gap between the two pillars on Finch Road is widened to help create a pick-up/drop-off area. A new opening on the north boundary wall provides access to the new door on the north elevation of the new single-storey flat-roof building. An elevated terrace with staircases replaces the existing off-road parking spaces. New ramps are created next to the southeast boundary to provide disability access to the elevated terrace as well as the assembly hall. - 2.19 The proposal also includes the installation of a bike storage facility at the site's northwest corner. There is also a bin storage space next to the north elevation entrance. - 2.20 The proposal also includes off-site highway work, including the creation of new tactile drop curbs and altering the pavement to create a pick-up/drop-off parking space. Boundary Restoration - 2.21 The proposal includes rebuilding the existing dysfunctional foundation in the new boundary wall. Advertisement - 2.22 The proposal includes the installation of signage for the church, which is subject to an advertisement consent and is not assessed as part of this application.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Demolition of all existing buildings and boundary walls and construction of an office building with basement parking was APPROVED under PA 14/00799/B. It is a five-storey, modern office building that resembles the office located north of the site, with approximately 2,000 square metres of office space. - 3.2 Conversion of building from retail (class 1.1) to a community facility (class 4.3) was
3.3 Minor Changes to 23/01200/B including changes to the roof and external walls, omission of proposed gate opening through boundary wall onto St Barnabas Hill, and redesign of rear external area received SPLIT Decision under PA 24/91222/MCH. The approved elements included blocking off a proposed opening on the north boundary wall. - 3.4 Alterations and extensions to roof, installation of cladding panels to the north elevation; rendering to south elevation and new external staircase on the rear elevation; relocation of cycle storage (in association with 24/01285/CON) was APPROVED under PA 24/91281/B. - 3.5 Registered Building Consent for demolition aspects to PA 24/91281/B was APPROVED under PA 24/01285/CON. - 3.6 Information in relation to condition 6 of PA 23/01200/B detailing the existing fountain was
3.7 Information in relation to condition 7 of 23/01200/B providing full details of the hard landscaping works at Removal House was APPROVED under PA 25/10010/AIR. It relates to the hard landscaping plan.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific - 4.1 The site is within an area designated as Mixed Use (St George's) in the Area Plan for the East. The written statement of the Area Plan states: "Within the area, but outside of Athol Street, offices, financial and professional services, food and drink and some residential uses will also be acceptable. Uses which conflict with these will generally not be supported." - 4.2 The site is within the Windsor Road Conservation Area (WRCA), which means there is a legal test for the proposal's impact on conservation areas (CA) (details in 5.1 and 7.1). WRCA also has a character appraisal (details in 4.16). Strategic Policy - 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IOMSP) holds the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
4.4 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan has no assumption in favour of new development. In decisionmaking, this means that where a planning application conflicts with the Plan, approval should usually not be granted. The following is a summary of the policies listed in Section 4.3. IOMSP - Community Facility - 4.5 Paragraph 10.5.2 states: "It is not for the Strategic Plan to address or determine the needs for community facilities, but to address the land use issues arising from such proposals … Proposals for such uses will therefore be assessed against general criteria-based policies."
In decision-making, Paragraph 10.5.2 means that an application for a community facility does not require justification for its location choice based on need, as the application itself serves as evidence of a need for new community facilities.
IOMSP - Urban Regeneration
4.6 Strategic Policy 1(a) and Environment Policy 43 consider optimising redundant and underused buildings as "making the best use of resources". - 4.7 Community Policy 2 encourages new community facilities to reuse vacant or underused buildings "where possible". IOMSP - Design and Conservation - 4.8 Strategic Policy 3(b), 4 (a), 5 and Subsections (b), (c), (g) of General Policy 2, as well as Environment Policy 42, set out design requirements for development to respect the character of the site itself and its immediate and broader surroundings.
4.9 Strategic Policy 4(a) and Environment Policy 35 state that design for development in a Conservation Area must either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area. EP35 emphasises this by stating that the positive features of such areas must be protected against inappropriate development.
In decision-making, EP35 means that developments should be refused when they do not preserve or enhance the area's character or harm its character.
IOMSP - Transport and Parking
4.10 Strategic Policy 10, Subsections (h), (i) of General Policy 2 set out that proposals should satisfy the safety, efficiency, and accessibility requirements (including parking provision) of all highway users (particularly pedestrians) wherever possible. - 4.11 Community Policy 2 states that new community facilities should "be accessible to non-car users". - 4.12 Transport Policy 7 sets out parking standards for development, details of which are in Appendix 7.6. It requires:
4.13 Appendix 7.6 also sets out situations where parking standards can be relaxed. These include: "(c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area. (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality." IOMSP - Amenities - 4.14 Subsections (g) and (h) of General Policy 2 set out that amenities enjoyed by the site and the site around it should be protected or preserved. Planning Policy Statement and National Policy Directive - 4.15 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man is the only adopted PPS. It provides supplementary policy on developments within any conservation area. - 4.16 Policy CA/2 states: "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application." - 4.17 Windsor Road Conservation Area Character Appraisal justifies the conservation designation of the area, highlights quality designs and notes detractive features within the Area. The Appraisal summarises the general character of the area as follows: "Offers a comprehensive collection of town houses from the early Victorian period, giving good quality examples of the development of architectural and approaches to planning and layout. Many buildings still retain a high level of original features which are fortunately in many cases being conserved and enhanced." - 4.18 Planning Circular 1/98 - The Alteration and Replacement of Windows Set highlights the importance of window design on the character of an area and sets specific requirements for changes to windows in the Conservation Area.
4.19 Section 6 of PC 1/98 states that windows readily visible from a public thoroughfare "must have the same" method of opening, pattern and section of glazing bars and frame section as the original windows regardless of its material.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Legislation - 5.1 Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act".
Section 18(4) of the TCPA sets out the approach in determining planning applications, which includes giving great weight to the asset's conservation when considering the impact of a proposed development on the asset.
The above requirements apply to this application because the site is within a Conservation Area. Section 7 of this report will give it appropriate consideration.
5.2 Section 143 of the Equality Act 2017 places a duty on public bodies to promote equality, eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations.
The above requirements apply to this application because the existing building has limited disability access. Section 7 of this report will give it appropriate consideration.
5.3 Schedule 1 Part 1 Article 9 Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 2001 states: "Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.". - 5.4 Schedule 1 Part 1 Article 14 of the Human Rights Act 2001 states: "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
Because public comments on previous applications have raised concerns about the proposal's lack of inclusivity, and given that the proposal involves a place of worship, Section 7 of this report will briefly examine the proposal in relation to Articles 7 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 2001.
Strategy and Guidance
5.5 Manual for Manx Roads provides best practices and technical details for ensuring highways are accessible, safe, inclusive, and serviceable. These details include minimum spatial requirements for manoeuvring and parking, as well as bicycle parking standards. - 5.6 Active Travel Strategy 2018-2021 states that an action plan will be set out to encourage people to choose walking and cycling to make their everyday journeys. This strategy was in response to the Programme of the Government, a document that sets out the operating principles of the government, as agreed upon by Tynwald.
Appeal Decision These appeal decisions are from the UK. These selections are not precedents within the Isle of Man planning system. However, they offer additional guidance when assessing applications because there are close similarities between the Island's and the UK's planning systems.
5.7 Greenwich 20/9/2012 - In upholding an enforcement notice requiring an industrial building to stop being used as a place of worship, the Inspector states that the freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a qualified right rather than an absolute right in the European Convention
The Inspector states that such a proposal would set an undesirable precedent. With the increasing number of similar proposals, there is a potential to create a declamatory and proselytising environment in the vicinity of mosques to the exclusion and discomfort of those who might wish to follow a different religion or pursue a non-religious way of life. Such a situation would serve to erode the fundamental freedoms of others.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS This section is a summary. The original texts of the consultations and comments received are available on the Planning Application Search on the government website. - 6.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to this application. (24.06.2025). - 6.2 DoI Highway Services does not oppose this application (18.06.2025). The comment states that there is no significant negative impact on highway safety, network functionality, and/or parking, as this application is similar in highway terms to the previous approved application on the site. The comment also recommends that the off-site highway works shown on the approved plans should be conditioned to be implemented before first occupation of the proposals, as well as cycle parking provision and bin stores. An S109 highway agreement will be required for the proposed offsite highway works. - 6.3 DoI Highway Drainage writes in (23.07.2025) to inform the applicant that no surface water should be discharged onto a public highway. - 6.4 DEFA Forestry wrote in objection to this application (16.06.2025). The comment states that there are trees on site, but they are not shown in the application. The comment also highlights the lack of new greenery. The comment proposes a green roof as an alternative if no other provision is available.
7.0 ASSESSMENT Conservation Areas Statutory Test - 7.1 Before assessing elements of the proposal, as it is within a Conservation Area, a test should be applied to this proposal, as mentioned in 5.1, to determine whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area. Failing the test would significantly weigh against the proposal unless there is an overwhelming public interest. - 7.2 The character of an area or a site can be broken down into four parts: urban form, routes and space type, building type and details and materials of the buildings. In this test, "area" refers to the Windsor Road Conservation Area (WRCA). Character Analysis of the Windsor Road Conservation Area - 7.3 As mentioned in paragraphs 1.5 and 4.16, the general character of WRCA can be summarised as follows: Area Character - Urban Form
7.4 Several buildings within the area do not conform to these typical characters in 7.2. These buildings were constructed much later than the terraces and serve different purposes than dwellinghouses or offices, such as residential homes and museums. The application site has one of these buildings. Character Analysis of the Application Site and the Existing Building - 7.5 Looking at the building on the application site, its characters are: Site Character - Urban Form
Comparing Existing Characters
7.6 Comparing 7.3 and 7.5, along with observations from site visits, the current building is unique in WRCA. Due to its modern form, finishes, and land use compared to the terraces within the CA, the current building is not considered one of the positive features of the CA. The existing building neither complements the main positive features of the CA nor stands out as a positive
feature of the CA in its own right. Therefore, the existing building is arguably out of place within the conservation area.
Demolition
7.7 Given 7.6, demolition of the existing building would be considered to preserve the character of the CA. However, a post-demolition vacant site has a greater potential to harm the character of the CA. Character Analysis of the Application Site after the Proposed Building - 7.8 Looking at changing the use of the building as well as physical alteration, its characters are: Proposed Character - Urban Form
Appearance of the Conservation Area
7.9 Comparing the proposed (paragraph 7.8) to the existing building design (paragraph 7.5), the mass and form of the building do not change, but the material, detailing, and landscape are changed. The age of the building shifts from post-war to more contemporary. - 7.10 Comparing the proposed building design (paragraph 7.8) to the existing character of the CA (paragraph 7.2), it is still unique within the CA. On the one hand, the proposed building introduces timber cladding, a new material and texture in the CA that contrasts with the area's traditional smooth renders. On the other hand, there is an attempt to assimilate the character of the CA, especially in terms of the scale and proportion of the front elevation. The proposal would also bring more use into the site, which would help maintain the area's appearance, as it is currently under maintained. - 7.11 Therefore, the newness, combined with a more terraced appearance, is considered to enhance the appearance of the Windsor Road Conservation Area. Land Use Character Analysis - 7.12 The Windsor Road Conservation area currently has mostly dwellinghouses and offices. These two uses share many characters:
7.13 The existing use of the application site includes a shop. Its land use characters are:
7.14 The proposed church has the following land use characters:
7.15 Comparing 7.14 to 7.12 and 7.13, dwellinghouses, offices, and churches all have a low tolerance to nuisance, especially noise. In the meantime, the proposed church use differs from residential and office use in terms of the frequency and volume of visitors, as well as their stay time. - 7.16 Given that residential use is a crucial part of the area's character, which has been mentioned in the Character Appraisal of the CA, the question is, would the introduction of a church, given the difference mentioned in 7.15, detract from the peaceful residential character of the area? - 7.17 Reviewing the character analysis in 7.2-7.11, it is essential to note that the site is isolated in the CA regarding its location, appearance, and land use, and only occupies a tiny area within the CA. Located at the edge of the CA, the traffic generated by the church mostly travels along the edge of the CA rather than through it. Therefore, it is considered that the newly introduced assembly use would not harm the residential and office land use character of the Windsor Road Conservation Area. Demolition Revisit - 7.18 Given 7.9, 7.10 and 7.17, it is considered that the demolition, because of the proposed replacement building, would preserve the character of the area. Conclusion to the Statutory Test - 7.19 In conclusion, the proposed church enhances the Conservation Area's appearance and preserves the primary residential land use characters of the WRCA. Therefore, the proposal is considered to pass the principal test. Elements of Assessment - 7.20 The main elements in this assessment are:
Land Use Principle
7.21 The site is within an area designated for Mixed Use within the Area Plan. Still, the Written Statement of the Area Plan does not specify whether a community facility is of acceptable use within the area. In the meantime, there were comments questioning the church's location choice. Therefore, a brief inspection of the acceptability of a new church within the area is required here.
7.28 The proposed design renovates the site, replaces the paving with stone-paved decking, and restores the fountain located on the front boundary wall. In the meantime, the proposal reuses part of the building and maintains a similar mass and size to that of the existing structure, as well as the good features mentioned in Section 7.22. The new front elevation replaces the existing protruding plastic flat roof with parapets, thereby improving the consistency of the front elevation. - 7.29 In summary, the proposal goes beyond the design requirement for reusing a building and improves the design of the building. Character and Streetscene of the Area - 7.30 As mentioned in the principal test, the proposal is considered to enhance, or at least preserve, the character of the Conservation Area, which covers the north, west and southwest of the site. The design also does not harm the character of the southwest of the site, given that it contains many registered buildings that share a similar character with the Conservation Area. - 7.31 The building's proportion is still modern compared to its Victorian terrace surroundings. However, the new front elevation breaks up the long front elevation into shorter vertical sections,
7.35 Given that the site has no off-road parking provision, there is an increase in demand for 3155 off-road parking spaces within the immediate area. However, given that the assessment in 7.32 meets the requirement in 4.13, the parking standards can be relaxed. - 7.36 Douglas city centre has a significant parking demand. The comments had also suggested there is a parking shortage within the area. In the meantime, the site is across the road from one of the city's largest car parks. Based on the parking survey provided by the applicant, there is a minimum provision of approximately 300 spaces during a regular week (excluding bank holidays), which is significantly more than the required 59 spaces. Although there is a parking charge, the church usually holds its services at a time when the parking charge is minimal or free (typically at night or on Sundays). Therefore, the impact on the nearby parking provision is considered minor. Cycling Provision and Condition - 7.37 The proposal includes a cycle storage facility to promote cycling. It is considered necessary to condition the installation of the cycle storage before use to minimise potential car usage and parking demand. Neighbouring Amenities - 7.38 There is no change to the mass of the building, so there is no additional overbearing or overshadowing impact. - 7.39 There is a new door on the north boundary. It faces a road and the front gardens of Mona Terrace. Therefore, there is no additional overlooking impact. - 7.40 As discussed in 7.12-7.15, the main noise impact of the proposal is from the traffic it generates. Since Finch Road is a local road, the arrival and departure of approximately 55 cars before and after services, to and from the Chester Road Car Park, is not considered to create significantly more noise than that caused by exiting traffic. Therefore, the proposal will unlikely negatively impact the surrounding area's amenities. Tree and Landscape - 7.41 Forestry has objected due to on-site trees and the lack of greenery provision. The trees are located next to the site but are not under the applicant's ownership, so they are not part of the application. Their removal is subject to a tree license.
7.42 The lack of additional greenery is less desirable. However, this is no worse than the existing building, so this reason alone is not considered sufficient to recommend refusal of the application. - 7.43 A green roof would be a great addition to the proposal. That being said, reusing an existing underutilised site already brings sufficient public benefit. There is a lack of justification for requesting additional improvements beyond those already proposed. Equality and Inclusivity - 7.44 The proposal improves disability access to the site and the building, which is considered to improve equality of access to community facilities. - 7.45 Some comments argue that churches exclude people outside their congregations from using their buildings, reducing equality and inclusivity within the community. This argument is wrong. Most community facilities aim to help people with specific characters (such as a shared belief in a religion), interests, or needs (such as prayer). Just because a building may not meet the needs of every resident within a community does not mean it excludes or discriminates against people who are not interested in or do not need its services. - 7.46 Continuing with 4.5, it is up to the community to propose facilities appropriate to their needs. In this application, even though the church serves only one group within the community, it still reflects a need within the community. The provision of such a service improves inclusivity, rather than decreasing it. - 7.47 There were also comments arguing that the presence of a new church would infringe on the beliefs of others because there are community members who disagree with certain beliefs within Christianity. - 7.48 Firstly, belief and how people act on their beliefs (religious or otherwise) is beyond a proposal's land use and design impact and is usually not a material planning consideration. - 7.49 Secondly, a religious building alone only represents the fact that people practice such a religion within an area. Although certain religious practices can be considered a development, they would be subject to planning regulations, including their impact on the equality and inclusivity of the community, as seen in the UK planning appeal case in 5.9. However, in this application, no element within the development (including design) would raise such a concern. - 7.50 Next, establishing places of worship is essential to religious freedom. Even though the need for such places is not part of religious freedom (such as the UK planning appeal case in 5.8), the UK planning appeal in 5.7 has pointed out that the reason for refusing such an application would need to be based on strong material considerations, or the decision could still risk violating freedom of religion. As 7.1-7.43 has discussed in this assessment, there is no material reason to recommend such a refusal, so the application should be recommended for approval. - 7.51 Lastly, inclusivity is a material consideration, the same as the duty to protect freedom of religion and prevent discrimination, as protected by the Human Rights Act. Given that both qualified rights and absolute rights exist, a balance must be struck between them based on the broader public interest. This proposal demonstrates the presence of religion and, by itself, does not impose its ideology on other people or create a sense of a "declamatory and proselytising environment in the vicinity to the exclusion and discomfort of those who might wish to follow a different religion or to pursue a non-religious way of life." Therefore, the proposal expresses freedom of religion and does not promote discrimination by the building itself.
8.0 CONCLUSION - 8.1 The proposal is considered to:
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:
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):
9.5 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 the Right to Appeal.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 11.08.2025
Signed : Mr Pieran Shen Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Application No. : 25/90568/B Applicant : Mr Stuart Nelson Proposal : Partial demolition of a building, erection of a single storey building
extension, alterations to fenestration and render to remaining building including the provision of new drop-off layby with associated pavement and drainage works and use of the site for Class 4.3 (in association with 25/00567/CON)
Site Address : Removal House 39 Finch Road Douglas IM1 2PT Planning Officer Peiran Shen Reporting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee, in the meeting on 11th August 2025, overturned the Case Officer's recommendation for approval on the basis that: "The proposal is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site given the size, scale, design of the proposal and the resulting lack of landscaping/greenspace and ecology/biodiversity benefits all being provided within the site contrary to Strategic Policy 1 (b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
R 1. The proposal is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site given the size, scale, design of the proposal and the resulting lack of landscaping/greenspace and ecology/biodiversity benefits all being provided within the site contrary to Strategic Policy 1 (b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
