Officer Report

Application No.: 24/91051/B Applicant: JM Project Management Ltd Proposal: Construction of Co-op food retail store, six tourist apartments over at first floor level and associated car parking, service yard and associated bin storage Site Address: The Flower Pot And Funeral Directors Station Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6AB Photo Taken: 25.10.2024 Site Visit: 25.10.2024 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 18.08.2025 Reasons for Refusal: - R 1. The proposed development fails to meet the strategic objective of prioritizing town centre investment as required by Strategic Policy 9, Business Policies 9 and 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, and the Area Plan for the South 2013. The retail unit's location outside the designated retail/mixed-use area does not satisfy the "town centre/retail area/mixed-use area first" test. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence of an exhaustive search for in-centre alternatives, and the Retail Impact Assessment lacks critical data, undermining confidence in the proposal's economic justification. This out-of-centre development risks diverting footfall and trade from Port Erin's existing retail core, threatening its long-term vitality and sustainability. By failing to align with policy requirements, the proposal jeopardizes the town centre's function and undermines the established retail hierarchy. - R 2. The proposed development fails to respect the distinctive design characteristics and historical significance of the site itself, contrary to Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2(b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Its starkly modern architectural style, rigid form, and lack of contextually appropriate detailing disregard the established architectural features and spatial relationships that define the site. The proposal overlooks the unique historical and structural integrity of the existing buildings, resulting in a design that fails to honour the site's character. This insensitivity undermines the principles of site-responsive and heritage-aware design required by these policies. - R 3. The proposed development, situated on Station Road, Port Erin, fails to harmonize with the established architectural character and rhythm of its immediate surroundings. Its starkly modern design, combined with disproportionate scale and massing, disrupts the sense of place at this significant gateway to the town. The continuous, unbroken roofline and absence of height variation or façade articulation starkly contrast with the nuanced and cohesive architectural language of neighbouring buildings. This visual discord compromises the identity of the locality, conflicting with Strategic Policy 3(b), Environment Policy 42, and General Policy 2(b, c, and g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 4. The proposed retail component conflicts with Strategic Policy 9 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Section 6.14.1 of the Area Plan for the South. By situating a substantial retail unit approximately 76 metres outside the designated mixed-use area/retail area, the development risks diverting footfall and trade away from the established retail core. This would undermine the vitality and viability of Port Erin's town centre and contradict the strategic objective of strengthening existing retail hubs, which are essential for maintaining a vibrant and sustainable town centre. Additionally, the Retail Impact Assessment fails to provide robust, quantified data on critical aspects such as trade diversion, the impact on vacancy rates, and the local supply chain. These omissions prevent an accurate understanding of the economic consequences of the retail unit, contrary to the requirements of Business Policy 9 and 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Without this data, it is impossible to fully assess the potential negative impacts on existing businesses and the overall economic sustainability of the proposed development. - R 5. The proposed building's first-floor hallway window on the south elevation would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking into the north-facing windows and private rear garden of No. 1 Droghadfayle Road. With a separation distance of less than 10 metres, it fails to meet the privacy standards outlined in the Residential Design Guide (RDG). This significant shortfall creates a perception of being overlooked, adversely affecting the residential amenity of the neighbouring property. The cumulative impact of reduced privacy and diminished enjoyment of private spaces directly conflicts with General Policy 2(g), which requires developments to protect the living conditions of adjacent properties. - R 6. The proposed development fails to provide sufficient parking for retail users, resulting in significant concerns about its capacity to accommodate demand. Based on out-of-town retail parking standards, the retail component requires 32 spaces; however, the scheme provides only 29, with 6 exclusively allocated for tourist apartments. This creates a shortfall of 9 spaces for retail customers and staff. Retail developments outside designated cores typically generate high cardependent visits, and the TRICS data projects 618 two-way trips to the site daily. Such intensity of use, particularly during peak periods, risks overwhelming the limited parking capacity. Consequently, overspill onto surrounding roads, including Station Road, is likely, leading to increased congestion, disrupted traffic flow, and reduced accessibility for residents and visitors. These shortcomings render the proposal non-compliant with General Policy 2(h) and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. - R 7. The proposal raises significant highway safety concerns due to unresolved visibility issues at the site access. TRICS data projects 618 two-way visits to the site's car park each weekday, illustrating the intensity of use and highlighting the importance of safe and efficient access. However, the bus stop west of the entrance obstructs sightlines for vehicles exiting the site, with stationary buses increasing the risk of collisions and compromising driver safety. Additionally, inaccuracies in the vehicle tracking diagrams exacerbate operational concerns, as poor layouts could result in unsafe manoeuvres and blockages within the site. These deficiencies collectively conflict with Transport Policy 4 and fail to meet the safety requirements of General Policy 2(h). - R 8. The proposed development fails to adequately address pedestrian safety within the site. The absence of defined pedestrian crossing facilities to the Co-op store compromises safe movement for vulnerable users, including children, wheelchair users, and individuals with pushchairs. Furthermore, the positioning of short-stay cycle parking risks obstructing pedestrian pathways, creating additional hazards for foot traffic. These shortcomings directly conflict with Transport Policy 6, which prioritizes pedestrian accessibility and safety, and General Policy 2(h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. - R 9. The proposed development, with a total floor area of approximately 1004 square meters, has not submitted an Energy Impact Assessment (EIA) as required by Energy Policy 5 and Paragraph 12.2.11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Energy Policy 5 mandates that all non-residential developments exceeding 100 square meters must demonstrate specific measures to reduce energy consumption and enhance energy efficiency. Paragraph 12.2.10 sets the 100-square-meter threshold for commercial developments, requiring them to adopt a comprehensive energy strategy. An EIA is critical for assessing and mitigating the environmental impacts associated with developments of this scale, which inherently have larger energy footprints. The absence of this assessment undermines the policy's overarching objectives to promote sustainable development and energy conservation practices, particularly in large-scale projects.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted a relevant objection:

o DOI - Objection
o Port Erin Commissioners - No objection subject to resolution of highway matters which have not been addressed. It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o Manx national Heritage - No Objection

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria:

o Fairhaven 45 Station Road Port Erin
o Thie Ellan, 47 Station Road
o 49 Station Road Port Erin

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because:

o 13 Edremony, Port Erin - Objection identifies land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b))
o Muirfield, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick, Port Erin - Objection does not identify land that is
owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on (A10(2)(a))
o 11 South Barrule Avenue, Ballakilley, Port Erin - Objection does not identify land that is
owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on (A10(2)(a))
o Gravis Planning on behalf of Mannin Retail (Spar retail outlet and petrol filling station on Station Road) - Objection identifies land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b))
o Roe Green, 16 Droghadfayle Road, Port Erin - No Objection

Officer’s Report

2ND ADDENDUM (22.09.25)

A1.0 UPDATE FROM PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 15TH SEPTEMBER 2025
A1.1 At its meeting on 15th September 2025, the Planning Committee indicated an intention to overturn the officer's recommendation. However, a final decision was deferred to allow draft planning conditions to be brought before the Committee for consideration at the next meeting. It is noted that the committee will need to agree a reason for their decision. Furthermore, consideration of who should have the Right to Appeal will be required and in that regard the recommendation is

amended insofar as DOI Highways withdrew their objection subject to conditions and so, if those conditions are attached then they should NOT be afforded the Right to Appeal.

A2.0 REVISED REPORT (UPDATED 22nd SEPTEMBER 2025)
A2.1 Proposed Planning Conditions (Without Prejudice): The following draft conditions are proposed without prejudice, to assist the Committee in its further consideration of the application. These conditions are intended to address key planning matters and would be subject to review and amendment by the Committee at its next meeting.

C1: Commencement of Development The development hereby approved shall commence within four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Development Procedure Order 2019 and prevent the accumulation of unimplemented permissions.

C2: Retail Floor Space Restriction The gross internal floor area of the retail unit hereby approved shall not exceed 476 sqm, excluding ancillary areas. No mezzanine floors shall be installed.

Reason: To manage the scale of retail provision and ensure compliance with Business Policies 9 and

C3: Use Class Restriction (Retail) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019, the retail unit hereby approved shall only be used for Class 1.1 convenience retail purposes and not for any other use within that class or any other class].

Reason: To ensure the use remains consistent with the approved planning assessment and to prevent adverse impacts from alternative uses.

C4: Use Class Restriction (Tourist Units) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019 (as amended), the accommodation hereby approved shall only be used as a self-contained self-catering tourist unit within Class 3.6, and for no other purpose (including any other purpose within Class 3.6 or any other class of the Order).

Reason: To ensure the use of the accommodation remains consistent with the approved planning assessment, and to prevent adverse impacts arising from alternative or permanent residential uses.

C5: Operational Hours The retail unit hereby approved shall operate only between 0800 and 2200 Monday to Saturday, and 0800 to 2200 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

All car parking spaces, including those for disabled users and electric vehicle charging, shall be provided prior to first use of the development and retained as such thereafter. These spaces shall be used strictly for the parking of vehicles and for no other purpose, including storage, display, or commercial activity.

Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision, safeguard highway safety, and support sustainable transport objectives.

C8: Bus Stop Relocation (Grampian Condition) The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the adjacent bus stop on Station Road has been relocated eastward, in accordance with the principles and indicative location set out in the ADL Response to the DOI Highways Consultation dated April 2025. The bus stop shall thereafter be retained in the approved position.

Reason: To ensure safe access and visibility for vehicles exiting the site, in accordance with the submitted ADL Transport Response.

C9: Cycle Parking Prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, details of short-stay and longstay cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The facilities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To promote sustainable travel and ensure secure and accessible cycle storage.

C10: Delivery and Servicing Management Prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The plan shall include delivery hours, vehicle types, and noise mitigation measures. The development shall operate in accordance with the approved plan thereafter. Reason: To safeguard residential amenity and ensure efficient servicing arrangements.
C11: Historic Building Recording Development shall not commence until a programme of historic building recording of the existing buildings on the site has been undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The programme must be undertaken in accordance with Level Two as set out in Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice.

Reason: To safeguard the recording and inspection of matters of historical importance that will be lost in the course of works.

C12: Privacy Screening Prior to occupation of the tourist apartments hereby approved, details of privacy screening for the first-floor balcony on the southern elevation which shall have a minimum height of 1.8m shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The screening shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with the Residential Design Guide and General Policy 2.

C13: Energy Impact Assessment Prior to commencement of development, an Energy Impact Assessment (EIA) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The EIA shall demonstrate the measures incorporated into the design, construction, and operation of the development to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency. These measures shall include, but not be limited to:

i. Passive solar design and estate layout;

ii. Enhanced insulation standards for walls, roofs, windows, and floors;
iii. Integration of renewable energy technologies such as solar panels, photovoltaic cells, or heat pumps;
iv. Energy-efficient lighting, heating, and ventilation systems; The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved assessment and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure compliance with Energy Policy 5 and Strategic Plan Paragraphs 12.2.9-12.2.11, promoting sustainable development through energy conservation, resource efficiency, and environmental responsibility.

C14: Biodiversity Mitigation Prior to commencement of development, a Biodiversity Mitigation Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall include details of bat and bird boxes, tree planting, and demolition timing to avoid nesting seasons. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full and retrained as such thereafter. Reason: To mitigate biodiversity loss and ensure compliance with Environment Policies 4 and 5.
C15: External Lighting Prior to the installation of any external lighting, a detailed lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall demonstrate compliance with the recommendations of the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8 (Bats and Artificial Lighting). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme, and no external lighting shall be installed other than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To avoid adverse impacts on bats and other nocturnal wildlife (EP4, EP5).
C16: Landscaping Notwithstanding any details already submitted, no development above slab level shall take place until a detailed hard and soft landscaping scheme, including planting plans, species, and boundary treatments, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of any unit, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure a high standard of landscaping and visual amenity, to mitigate the visual impact of the development, and to enhance biodiversity in accordance with General Policy 2(f), Environment Policies 4 and 5, and the Isle of Man Residential Design Guide.

A3.0 The remainder of this report is unchanged. Any further representations received, or any other information will be confirmed via verbal update to the committee.

1ST ADDENDUM (08.09.25)

00 UPDATE FROM PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 14TH APRIL 2025
01 REVISED REPORT (UPDATED 8th SEPTEMBER, 2025)

01.1 OFFICER SUMMARY ON CHANGES TO SCHEME SINCE INITIALLY PRESENTED ON 14TH APRIL 2025. - 01.2 THE PROPOSAL (CHANGES)

01.2.1 The applicants have provided a Retail Assessment Note Prepared by Stantec UK Limited and dated 30 June 2025, which states the following:

1. Introduction (Paragraphs 1-2) The note supports planning application 24/91051/B for a Co-op foodstore and six tourist apartments. It draws on the Isle of Man Census 2021 and Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2018/19 to assess retail capacity and impact.
2. Background Context (Paragraphs 3-4) The site lies just outside the designated town centre but is described as well-connected and contiguous with it, forming part of a wider civic and cultural cluster. The Southern Area Plan designates the site for civic and cultural uses, and while it sits outside the mapped mixed-use area, its proximity and pedestrian accessibility to the retail core suggest functional integration. The Strategic Plan identifies Port Erin as a Service Centre and a priority location for convenience retail growth, particularly in the southern and western parts of the island where demand is highest. This strategic designation underpins the applicant's rationale for locating a new convenience store in this area.
3. Floorspace Thresholds (Paragraph 5) The proposed store has a gross area of 464.5 sqm, which falls just below the 500 sqm threshold set by Business Policy 9 of the Strategic Plan for requiring a Retail Impact Assessment. Although not formally required, the applicant has submitted a proportionate, high-level assessment to support the proposal and demonstrate consideration of potential retail impacts.
4. Proposed Store Turnover (Paragraph 7) The Retail Assessment Note states that, based on Global Data benchmarks, the proposed store is expected to generate a turnover of approximately £3.33 million (at 2022 prices), with £2.83 million (85%) attributed to the local catchment and the remaining 15% derived from tourist expenditure.
5. Retail Capacity - Convenience Goods (Paragraphs 8-11) The catchment includes Port Erin, Port St Mary, Arbory, and Rushen, with a combined population of 9,279 (2021), projected to grow to 9,532 by 2036. Per capita convenience expenditure is estimated at £2,453 in 2026, resulting in total available expenditure of approximately £23 million.
6. Existing Retail Turnover (Paragraphs 12-14) Existing convenience stores in the catchment (Tesco, Co-op, Spar, and others) generate a combined turnover of £15.53 million. This leaves a surplus of approximately £7.44 million in 2026, which the applicant argues is sufficient to support the new store.
7. Trade Draw and Impacts (Paragraphs 15-18) The proposed store is expected to draw 55% of its turnover from Tesco, 25% from the existing Coop, and smaller proportions from Spar and other stores. All existing stores are projected to remain above benchmark turnover levels post-development.
8. Assessment of Effects on Adjacent Retail Areas (Paragraphs 19-25) The note concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect the vitality or viability of Port Erin town centre. It argues that the store will complement existing services, support linked trips, and retain more expenditure locally.
9. Vacancy and Investment Context (Paragraphs 26-27) While acknowledging some vacant units (e.g., the former Little Shoprite), the note asserts they are unsuitable for the proposed store. It references recent investments such as the Falcon's Nest Hotel refurbishment and Tesco's occupation of Shoprite as indicators of a healthy retail environment.
10. Conclusion (Paragraphs 28-29) The note concludes that the proposed Co-op store is proportionate to local demand, supported by expenditure capacity, and unlikely to harm existing retail centres. It argues that the development aligns with Strategic Policy 9 and supports the vitality of Port Erin's retail offer.

01.2.2 Other Changes include:

1. Revision to site layout to respond to parking and highway concerns, including relocation of bus shelter by site entrance.
2. Provision of Street Elevations as required by the Planning Committee on 14 April to show relationship with neighbouring properties and character of street scene.
3. The entrance to the Co op has been amended following our discussions and is now located onto Station Road and the apartment access is located off Droghadfayle Road. The pavement has also been widened at the access to the store.
4. The elevation to Droghadfayle Road has been amended with the access tower and additional embellishment to the elevation generally.
5. There have been discussions between DOI Highways and the applicants Transport Consultant ADL (ADL Traffic and Highways Engineering Ltd, a UK-based transport planning and highway consultancy) and the various comments and agreements are provided. These include:

a. Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) - Double Yellow Lines DOI noted that no plan had been submitted for TROs on Station Road, which are needed to maintain traffic flow and assist turning movements. ADL confirmed the applicant is agreeable to contributing to TROs or accepting a condition requiring their implementation. While acknowledged, TROs are a matter for highway regulation and enforcement and are not material to the planning assessment.
b. Delivery Vehicle Tracking DOI stated that previous tracking iterations showed unacceptable manoeuvres (e.g. reversing onto highway or overrunning kerbs). ADL provided tracking for a 13.5m articulated vehicle, showing forward exit but cab overhangs footway during reverse entry. New Data: Revised tracking for a 10.35m (18T) rigid vehicle avoids overrun and is proposed as the maximum vehicle size. Attachment

2 includes updated tracking diagrams.

c. Highway Infrastructure Improvements DOI requested an updated site plan showing proposed highway changes. ADL outlined proposed off-site improvements. The proposed off-site highway improvements include the creation of a new 7.0m wide site access with a 6.0m kerb radius, the installation of dropped kerbs to serve parking and delivery areas, the widening of the footway along Droghadfayle Road to 2.0m, and the resurfacing of footways around the site perimeter. The introduction of double yellow lines to connect with existing restrictions is also proposed, though this element is acknowledged as not material to the planning assessment.
d. Short-Stay Cycle Parking DOI raised concerns about obstruction to pedestrian movement. ADL proposed relocating cycle parking to avoid overhang, potentially by removing one car parking space. Final details to be secured via condition.
e. Long-Stay Cycle Parking DOI noted lack of secure, covered provision and risk of theft due to public exposure. ADL proposed relocating long-stay cycle parking and providing a lockable cycle store with sliding gate access. Final design to be secured via condition.
f. Bus Stop Visibility DOI expressed concern that stationary buses at the adjacent stop could obstruct visibility for vehicles exiting the site. ADL responded that in-lane bus stops are common and reduce dwell times. Acknowledged up to 4 buses per hour may stop. Offered to relocate the bus stop slightly east to improve visibility.

- 01.3 ADDITIONAL THIRD-PARTY COMMENTS

01.3.1 Since the meeting of the Planning Committee on 14 April 2025, the following private representations have been received from members of the public.

01.3.1.1 Owners/occupiers of 49 Station Road, Port Erin (30 July 2025):

1. The objector expresses frustration over the extended timeline and lack of clarity in the planning process, noting that amendments have continued even after the application was presented to the Planning Committee.
2. Concern is raised about the relocation of the Co-op's main entrance to the north elevation, which would open directly onto Station Road, posing safety risks for shoppers, especially those with trolleys and children, due to the proximity to the road and lack of barriers.
3. The relocation of the tourist accommodation entrance to the west elevation introduces a substantial stairwell structure, which is said to compromise sight-lines for vehicles accessing both the tourist parking and delivery service areas.
4. The stairwell structure is considered to exacerbate previously raised concerns about visibility and vehicle safety, which remain unresolved.
5. The objector questions the fate of the existing bus stop on Station Road, noting that its current location affects sight-lines and that relocating it could reduce public parking for the Edremony estate.
6. The objector challenges the proposer's authority to relocate a public bus stop for private benefit.
7. Concern is raised about the future of the existing Co-op store in the village centre, referencing the Retail Assessment Note which suggests the new store may trade below average due to the presence of the existing store.
8. The objector questions whether the existing Co-op store will remain open or close, noting that this has not been addressed in the application documentation.
9. Skepticism is expressed about the proposer's offer to assist with parking restrictions on Station Road, questioning what guarantees exist that such assistance would be provided if approval is granted.

01.3.1.2 Owners/occupiers of Thie Ellan, 47 Station Road, Port Erin (8 July 2025):

1. The objector expresses frustration over the prolonged and iterative nature of the planning process, stating that repeated amendments have made the current proposal unrecognisable from the original and that this disadvantages residents compared to the developer's resources.
2. Concern is raised about the fairness of the applicant offering to cover Department of Infrastructure costs for traffic orders and bus stop relocation, suggesting this introduces inequality into the process and undermines public confidence.
3. The revised building design is said to compromise residential privacy, with the new shop entrance, apartment windows, and balconies facing directly into the objector's living room.
4. Safety concerns are raised about the shop entrance being relocated to the north elevation, which opens directly onto a narrow pavement along a busy road.
5. The relocation of the bus stop is criticised for potentially increasing congestion and removing valuable resident parking spaces, especially given existing parking restrictions in the Edremony estate.
6. Doubts are expressed about the effectiveness of switching to a rigid delivery vehicle, as it would still require crossing traffic lanes to reverse into the delivery bay, similar to an articulated lorry.
7. The objector questions how the use of a rigid lorry would be enforced and whether the Planning Committee has any powers to ensure such operational promises are upheld long-term.
8. The objector reiterates all previous objections submitted during earlier stages of the application, stating they remain relevant and that the proposal was fundamentally flawed from the outset.

- 01.4 ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION COMMENTS

01.4.1 The following consultee comment(s) was received since the last planning Committee consideration of the application:

01.4.1.1 DOI Highways (30 July 2025):

1. Previous Opposition Withdrawn

Initial concerns have been addressed in the revised submission and designer's response. The department now does not oppose, subject to conditions.
2. Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) Indicative layout for TRO parking restrictions adjacent to the site has been provided to improve access and junction movements. Final details to be agreed post-consent.
3. Delivery Vehicle Tracking

a. Concerns about 13.5m articulated vehicles overrunning footpaths have been resolved by switching to 10.35m rigid vehicles, which can manoeuvre without reversing onto the highway.
b. While this vehicle type cannot be conditioned, it is expected operationally.

4. Cycle Parking - Short Stay

a. Design is suboptimal but acceptable. It supports sustainable travel and does not pose safety concerns.
b. Re-design could reduce car parking, but a dedicated pedestrian route has been included.

5. Cycle Parking - Long Stay

a. Still non-compliant with Manual for Manx Roads.
b. An example of compliant storage has been provided; a condition is recommended to ensure proper implementation without encroaching on the highway.

6. Bus Stop Relocation

a. Applicant agrees to move the bus stop further east to reduce visibility issues and collision risk.
b. This will be formalised in a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement post-consent.

7. Access Arrangements All access and visibility splays must be provided as per the specified drawing (No. 0726/03 Rev. J).
8. Conditions Required for Approval. Approval is subject to:

a. Long stay cycle storage details.
b. Implementation of TROs and highway alterations.
c. Completion of bus stop relocation.
d. Provision of access arrangements as per drawings.

9. Final Recommendation: DNOC - Do Not Oppose, subject to conditions.

- 01.5 UPDATE ON THE ISSUES SINCE 14TH APRIL 2025 (REVISED ASSESSMENTS)

01.5.1 Principle of Proposed Retail (STP 9, GP 2, BP 1, 9 & 10 of the Strategic Plan 2016; Mixed Use Proposal 1 & 3, Paragraphs
6.14.1, 6.17.1, 6.22.3, 6.23.1, 6.24.1 of the Area Plan for the South; Supplementary Guidance on Economic Issues - December 2022; IOM Town Audits - January 2024; Retail Sector Strategy Evidence Base - June 2013)

01.5.1.1 The proposed development includes a convenience retail store of 495.7 sqm, located approximately 70-76 metres outside the designated Mixed-Use boundary of Port Erin. The site lies within the established town core and has a history of commercial use, which weighs in favour of the proposal. The applicant submitted a Retail Assessment Note (June 2025) to supplement the original Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) dated 31 December 2024. While no revised RIA was provided, the Department accepted that a proportionate, high-level assessment was appropriate given the scale (less than 500sqm) and expected turnover of the unit.

01.5.1.2 The site's proximity to the Mixed-Use boundary is acknowledged, and its position within the town core is noted. However, the Area Plan for the South applies a spatially defined zoning framework, and the site is designated for Predominantly Residential Use. Paragraph 6.23.1 of the Area Plan establishes a presumption against new retail development outside Mixed-Use areas, with limited exceptions for neighbourhood shops under 100 sqm. The proposed store exceeds this threshold and does not qualify under Business Policy 10. Accordingly, the proposal remains contrary to the spatial strategy set out in Strategic Policy 9 and Business Policies 9 and 10.
01.5.1.3 The Retail Assessment Note provides trade draw modelling, estimating that the proposed store would derive 55% of its turnover from Tesco, 25% from the existing Co-op, and smaller proportions from Spar and other outlets. While this offers insight into quantitative impact,

the assessment does not address qualitative effects on town centre vitality, vacancy risk, or supply chain disruption. The potential impact on the nearby petrol filling station (PFS), Port Erin's only integrated fuel and convenience outlet, is not considered. It is possible that increased footfall associated with the new store could generate incidental benefit for the PFS by attracting more customers to the area, but this remains speculative and is not supported by data within the submission. Assertions regarding enhanced consumer choice and retained local spending are similarly unquantified and unsupported by economic modelling or mitigation strategies.
01.5.1.4 The applicant has not submitted a sequential site assessment or demonstrated efforts to explore in-centre alternatives as required by Business Policies 9 and 10 of the Strategic Plan and

Paragraph 6.22.3 of the Area Plan for the South, both of which emphasise the need to prioritise retail development within designated centres. This requirement is further reinforced by the Isle of Man Retail Sector Strategy Evidence Base (June 2013) and the Isle of Man Government Town Audit (January 2024), which highlight the importance of sustaining town centre vitality and addressing vacancy and underutilisation within existing retail circuits. No audit of vacant premises, assessment of the existing Co-op's expansion potential, or evaluation of alternative sites within the Mixed-Use area has been provided. This omission limits the ability to assess whether the proposed location is the most appropriate in planning terms and undermines compliance with the "town centre first" approach.

01.5.1.5 The site's proximity to public transport infrastructure, including the rail station and bus routes, contributes positively to its accessibility and supports the potential for sustainable travel patterns. It is also worth noting that the site is only about 40m away from the public car park situated west of the British Legion Hall. These locational attributes are relevant to Strategic Policy 1 and General Policy 2, which promote development that is well-integrated, accessible, and capable of supporting modal shift. The inclusion of EV charging points and pedestrian permeability improvements within the revised layout further align with these objectives. However, while these features weigh modestly in favour of the proposal, they do not override the spatial policy requirement to direct new retail development to designated centres. Accessibility alone cannot justify an out-of-centre location in the absence of a sequential site assessment and robust policy compliance.
01.5.1.6 While the Department accepted the submission of a proportionate Retail Assessment Note in lieu of a full Retail Impact Assessment (RIA), given that the unit's floor area falls just below the 500sqm threshold, the supporting material does not fully address the planning concerns relevant to the principle of development. The assessment provides limited insight into trade draw and expenditure capacity, and whilst it is acknowledged, within the planning context, that the site lies approximately 76 metres from the designated centre, has a commercial history, and benefits from a degree of accessibility, these factors weigh only modestly in favour of the proposal. However, they do not, in themselves, overcome the policy requirement for a sequential site assessment or the need for robust economic justification. The absence of a sequential site assessment, lack of quantified economic benefits (such as job creation or supply chain effects), and failure to consider mitigation for potential trade displacement, particularly in relation to the nearby petrol filling station, limit the evidential weight of the submission. While a full RIA is not technically required, the information provided does not sufficiently address the concerns raised during consultation or demonstrate that the proposal would not undermine the vitality of the designated retail core. As such, the proposal does not meet the evidential threshold required to justify retail development outside a designated centre, as set out in Business Policies 9 and 10.
01.5.1.7 In conclusion, the proposal presents a finely balanced planning judgement. The site's proximity to the designated centre, its established commercial use, and its accessibility, including nearby public parking and transport links, weigh in favour of the principle of development. The proposal could facilitate the relocation of the existing Co-op to a more modern and accessible premises, potentially improving the local retail offer. However, these benefits must be weighed against the absence of a sequential site assessment, the limited and unquantified economic evidence, and the unresolved policy conflicts. While the site lies only marginally outside the

designated area, the policy framework requires a clear justification for out-of-centre retail development, which has not been demonstrated in this case. The Department has previously supported proposals that depart from policy where the harm is demonstrably limited and outweighed by public benefit. However, in this instance, the potential harm to the town centre's vitality and the lack of robust mitigation or justification mean the principle of retail development cannot be supported.

01.5.2 ECONOMICAL BENEFITS (Supplementary Guidance on Economic Issues - December 2022 and IOM Strategic Plan - Strategic Policy 6, Business Policy 1, 9 & 10)

01.5.2.1 The applicant's Retail Assessment Note (June 2025), submitted in lieu of a full Retail Impact Assessment, asserts that the proposed Co-op store would deliver economic benefits through job creation, enhanced consumer choice, and retention of local expenditure. However, these claims are not substantiated by quantified projections, comparative data, or detailed analysis. The absence of specific job creation figures, trade diversion modelling, and economic leakage estimates limits the ability to assess the proposal's net economic contribution. As such, the submission does not meet the evidential threshold required to justify retail development outside a designated centre.
01.5.2.2 Strategic Policy 6 and Business Policy 1 emphasise the need for development to support sustainable economic growth and safeguard existing businesses. The reactivation of a longvacant commercial unit could contribute positively to the local economy, particularly through job creation and increased activity on a currently underutilised site. These benefits weigh modestly in favour of the proposal. However, the application does not quantify these benefits or demonstrate how they would be delivered in practice. Crucially, it lacks mitigation strategies for potential displacement of established retailers. The risk to Mannin Retail's Spar store and its integrated petrol filling station, Port Erin's only PFS, remains, with potential knock-on effects for local suppliers such as Davisons, Okells, and Fynoderee. These impacts are not addressed in the applicant's submissions and raise concerns about the proposal's compatibility with the strategic aim of supporting the local economy.
01.5.2.3 While the Retail Assessment Note introduces limited trade draw modelling, it fails to address the original submission's deficiencies. It does not evaluate vacancy risk or the cumulative impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. The site's location outside the designated Mixed-Use area remains inconsistent with Business Policies 9 and 10, which direct retail development to established centres as part of a strategic approach to town centre consolidation. In this context, the proposal does not demonstrate alignment with the spatial objectives of the development plan.
01.5.2.4 Claims of community benefit are noted but remain anecdotal and unsupported by empirical evidence. The Isle of Man Town Audits (2024) emphasise the strategic importance of consolidating retail activity within town centres to address seasonality, reduce vacancy rates, and reinforce the established retail circuit. The proposal risks decentralising retail activity and weakening the commercial core, contrary to the strategic direction set out in the IOM Strategic Plan and Business Policies 9 and 10.
01.5.2.5 In conclusion, while the proposed Co-op store may offer some economic benefits, these remain insufficiently evidenced. The application does not satisfy the policy requirements for economic justification under Strategic Policy 6 and Business Policies 1, 9, and 10. In the absence of robust data, sequential site analysis, and mitigation strategies for displacement, the economic case does not support the principle of retail development in this location.

01.5.3 PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPACTS (General Policy 2(h) & (i), Transport Policies 1,
4, 6, & 7 of the Strategic Plan 2016; Manual for Manx Roads)

01.5.3.1 This revised assessment considers updated information submitted by the applicant in response to previous highway objections, including the ADL Transport Statement (28 April 2025)

and the Department of Infrastructure's final consultation response (30 July 2025). The assessment evaluates whether the new material satisfactorily addresses concerns relating to parking provision, delivery logistics, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure, and highway safety.
01.5.3.2 The proposal provides 29 parking spaces, with 6 allocated to the tourist apartments and 23 available for retail use. Based on out-of-centre retail parking standards (1 space per 15 sqm), the retail component requires 32 spaces, resulting in a shortfall of 9 spaces. The applicant has not revised the parking layout to address this deficit. However, the site benefits from proximity to public transport infrastructure, including a bus stop adjacent to the site and Port Erin railway station and Bus station within walking distance. There is also restricted parking along the main highway, which may limit overspill but also constrains informal parking options. While proximity to public transport and active travel infrastructure offers partial mitigation, the TRICS data projects 618 twoway vehicle movements per weekday, indicating a high level of car dependency. The shortfall remains material and unresolved, with potential for overspill onto Station Road and associated impacts on traffic flow and residential amenity. This continues to conflict with General Policy 2(h) and Transport Policy 7.
01.5.3.3 Initial concerns regarding delivery vehicle tracking have been addressed. The applicant now proposes servicing via a 10.35m rigid vehicle, which can enter and exit the site without overrunning footpaths or reversing onto the highway. This operational commitment is reflected in updated tracking diagrams (Attachment 2, ADL Response) and has been accepted by DOI Highways. While the use of smaller vehicles cannot be conditioned, the Department considers the revised arrangement acceptable. This resolves previous concerns under Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2(i).
01.5.3.4 The proposed access includes a 7.0m wide entrance with 6.0m kerb radii and visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m, as shown in Drawing No. 0726/03 Rev. J. The applicant has agreed to relocate the adjacent bus stop eastward to improve sightlines and reduce conflict between stationary buses and emerging vehicles. This amendment addresses the visibility constraints previously identified. The matter is considered resolved, subject to implementation.
01.5.3.5 The revised layout includes a dedicated pedestrian route from the car park to the store entrance, which is not impeded by cycle parking. Short-stay cycle parking has been repositioned to avoid obstruction, and long-stay provision is now proposed as a secure, lockable store with sliding gate access. These revisions align with Transport Policies 6 and 7 and General Policy 2(h), provided final details are secured via condition. However, the absence of formal pedestrian crossing facilities remains a deficiency, particularly given the anticipated footfall and proximity to a busy junction. This aspect is partially addressed but not fully resolved.
01.5.3.6 The applicant has indicated a willingness to support a range of off-site highway improvements, including the introduction of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs), resurfacing of footways, widening of pedestrian paths, and installation of dropped kerbs. These works are detailed in Attachment 1 of the ADL Response (28 April 2025) and are supported in principle by DOI Highways. However, these measures fall outside the red line boundary of the application and are governed by separate highway legislation. As such, they cannot be secured through planning conditions and must be delivered via a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement post-consent. While these improvements may enhance the surrounding network, they are not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and should not be relied upon to mitigate on-site deficiencies.
01.5.3.7 By contrast, the relocation of the adjacent bus stop is directly linked to the safe operation of the proposed site access and was identified in the original assessment as a material highway safety concern. Its repositioning is essential to reduce conflict between stationary buses and vehicles exiting the site. Given its functional relationship to the development and its role in mitigating a specific planning harm, this measure can be secured via a Grampian-style condition requiring its completion prior to occupation. This ensures that the development cannot be brought

into use until the necessary off-site mitigation is in place, thereby addressing the original concern within the scope of the planning decision.
01.5.3.8 In conclusion, the revised submission satisfactorily addresses the majority of previously identified highway concerns. Delivery logistics, access arrangements, and cycle infrastructure have been resolved and are considered acceptable, subject to conditions. The applicant's commitment to off-site improvements, including bus stop relocation and TROs, is noted and supported in principle, though only the bus stop relocation can be secured through planning. However, the parking shortfall and lack of formal pedestrian crossing facilities remain unresolved and continue to conflict with General Policy 2(h) and Transport Policies 6 and 7. These deficiencies represent material shortcomings in the scheme's design and layout and should be recognised as adverse impacts that weigh against the proposal in the overall planning judgement.

01.5.4 DESIGN AND IMPACT ON CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF SITE AND AREA (GP2, SP3, SP5, EP42; Paragraphs 4.3.8-4.3.11 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016)

01.5.4.1 This revised assessment considers the updated architectural drawings, street elevations, and site layout submitted by the applicant following the Planning Committee meeting on 14 April 2025. The revisions aim to address concerns previously raised regarding massing, articulation, contextual integration, and the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
01.5.4.2 The inclusion of street elevations for Station Road and Droghadfayle Road has significantly improved the ability to assess the proposal's contextual fit. These drawings demonstrate a more considered relationship with adjacent buildings, particularly the nearby church, and help mitigate earlier concerns about visual dominance and architectural incongruity. The revised elevations show improved alignment with the existing streetscape and provide a clearer narrative of how the development responds to its setting.
01.5.4.3 The Droghadfayle Road elevation has been amended to include an access tower and additional embellishments, introducing vertical emphasis and breaking up the previously rigid façade. These changes contribute positively to the building's articulation and help address the lack of segmentation noted in the original assessment. The use of traditional materials, such as stone and slate, alongside contemporary glazing, reflects a more balanced approach to integrating modern and local design elements, in line with the principles outlined in Paragraphs 4.3.8 and 4.3.9 of the Strategic Plan.
01.5.4.4 The relocation of the Co-op entrance to Station Road and the apartment access to Droghadfayle Road, along with the widening of the pavement, improves pedestrian experience and street-level engagement. These changes enhance the scheme's permeability and contribute to a more active frontage, supporting the objectives of General Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 5.
01.5.4.5 Despite these improvements, concerns remain regarding the overall scale and massing of the development. The building continues to exceed the height and bulk of surrounding structures, particularly in comparison to the adjacent church, which remains a benchmark for contextual integration. The west elevation, while softened, still lacks sufficient variation in height and depth to fully harmonise with the finer grain of the surrounding built form.
01.5.4.6 The site layout has been revised to improve pedestrian permeability and reposition the bus shelter, which enhances access and reduces conflict at the entrance. However, the dominance of surface parking across the western portion of the site persists, limiting opportunities for landscaping and disrupting the visual rhythm of the area. This continues to detract from the site's integration with its surroundings, as highlighted in GP2 and EP42.
01.5.4.7 In summary, the revised design demonstrates a clear effort to respond to earlier concerns, particularly through improved articulation, contextual elevation drawings, and material

enhancements. While the proposal still presents challenges in terms of scale and transitional design, the improvements are sufficient to warrant a more balanced assessment. The development now shows partial compliance with Strategic Policy 5 and the supporting design principles of the Strategic Plan, though further refinement could strengthen its alignment with the immediate townscape and Island's wider architectural and landscape character.

01.5.5 DEMOLITION AND URBAN REGENERATION (EP 43 & Paragraph 7.35.1)

01.5.5.1 Despite the revised design and layout improvements, the proposal continues to conflict with the principles of sustainable regeneration outlined in Environment Policy 43 and

Paragraph 7.35.1 of the Strategic Plan. No structural evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the existing buildings are unsuitable for reuse or adaptation. Furthermore, the buildings proposed for demolition retain confirmed historical and architectural significance, contributing meaningfully to Port Erin's character and identity. As such, the original concerns regarding unjustified demolition and loss of heritage assets remain unresolved, and the assessment under Section 7.4 stands unchanged.

01.5.6 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY (GP2 & EP 22, & RDG 2021)

01.5.6.1 The revised design includes obscure glazing to the first-floor hallway window on the south elevation, which is a welcomed change that reduces the potential for direct overlooking into No. 1 Droghadfayle Road. This measure addresses one of the key privacy concerns previously identified. Additionally, while not shown on the submitted plans, discussions with the applicant have indicated that screening could be installed on the southern portion of the first-floor balcony to further mitigate overlooking into the neighbouring garden. This could be secured through the imposition of a planning condition. However, the proximity of the development and the reduced separation distances remain below the thresholds set out in the Residential Design Guide (2021). While obscure glazing reduces direct visibility and screening could further mitigate overlooking, the proximity of the development and reduced separation distances remain below the thresholds set out in the Residential Design Guide (2021). As such, the proposal continues to present a degree of noncompliance with RDG standards and would result in residual impacts on neighbouring amenity.

01.5.7 COMPLIANCE WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY PRINCIPLES (Energy Policy 5; Strategic Plan Paragraphs 12.2.9, 12.2.10, & 12.2.11)

01.5.7.1 Energy Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan requires that all non-residential developments exceeding 100 square metres be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment (EIA). Paragraph 12.2.11 reinforces this requirement, stating that commercial proposals must demonstrate measures to reduce energy consumption and improve efficiency. The proposed development, with a total floor area of approximately 1004 square metres, significantly exceeds the policy threshold. No EIA has been submitted, representing a clear procedural shortfall and a missed opportunity to demonstrate alignment with the Strategic Plan's sustainability objectives.

01.5.7.2 The inclusion of 14 solar panels on the western roof plane is a positive feature, indicating some consideration of renewable energy integration. The extensive glazing on the east elevation may also contribute to passive lighting benefits. However, Paragraph 12.2.10 emphasises that energy efficiency must be achieved through a comprehensive strategy, including passive solar design, insulation standards, and advanced energy-saving technologies. While the inclusion of solar panels and passive lighting features suggests some consideration of energy efficiency, in the absence of an EIA, there is no evidence that a comprehensive strategy, encompassing passive solar design, insulation standards, and advanced energy-saving technologies, has been considered or incorporated into the scheme.
01.5.7.3 While the scale of the development heightens the relevance of energy performance, Energy Policy 5 is procedural in nature and lacks enforceable benchmarks. Although it requires submission of an EIA, it does not establish measurable criteria against which energy performance can be assessed or evaluated.

01.5.7.4 Accordingly, while the omission of an EIA constitutes a policy failing and should be acknowledged, it cannot reasonably form a determinative basis for refusal. The absence of defined performance standards and enforcement mechanisms limits the weight that can be attributed to this conflict. Should the application be approved, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring submission of an EIA prior to commencement. This would ensure that energy efficiency measures are properly considered and integrated into the final design. Such an approach would enable alignment with the Strategic Plan's sustainability objectives without relying on a weak policy basis for refusal.

- 01.6 INTERESTED PARTY STATUS

01.6.1 There is no change to the IPS recommendations detailed in the Officer Report which was presented to the Planning Committee on 14 April 2025.

- 01.7 CONCLUSION

01.7.1 The application has undergone a comprehensive assessment, including consideration of revised plans, updated technical submissions, and consultee responses. Several earlier concerns, particularly those relating to access, infrastructure, and energy strategy, have been addressed or mitigated through revisions and can be resolved through appropriate conditions.
01.7.2 The planning judgment recognises that the scheme has evolved positively in some respects. However, the proposal continues to present substantive policy tensions, particularly in relation to the principle of retail development outside the designated town centre, the adequacy of supporting retail evidence, and the impact on the site's historical character. These issues remain unresolved and carry sufficient weight to justify refusal.
01.7.3 Accordingly, while some previously identified reasons for refusal are no longer considered determinative, the remaining concerns are significant and enduring. These include the lack of a sequential site assessment to justify out-of-centre retail development, insufficient retail impact evidence to address consultation concerns, and the loss of heritage assets without structural justification or meaningful integration of existing built fabric. These unresolved matters continue to conflict with the Strategic Plan's objectives for sustainable development, town centre protection, and heritage-sensitive regeneration. On balance, the development cannot be supported in planning terms.
01.7.4 Therefore, the recommendation is for refusal on the following basis: Reasons for Refusal

R 1: Town Centre Policy Alignment The proposed development is located approximately 76 metres outside the designated retail/mixeduse area defined in the Area Plan for the South 2013. While this distance is modest and the site currently accommodates commercial and retail uses, the proposal nonetheless falls outside the sequentially preferred location hierarchy set out in Strategic Policy 9 and Business Policies 9 and 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The applicant has not submitted a sequential site assessment or provided robust evidence of an exhaustive search for in-centre alternatives. In the absence of such justification, there remains a risk that the development could incrementally divert footfall and trade from Port Erin's retail core. This raises concerns about long-term town centre vitality and alignment with the Strategic Plan's spatial investment objectives.
R 2: Heritage and Contextual Sensitivity The proposed development does not adequately respond to the historical significance and contextual identity of the site, contrary to Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2(b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The scheme involves the demolition of buildings with confirmed architectural and community value, including the former Flower Pot and Telephone Exchange, which contribute to Port Erin's local character. Although revised drawings and supporting information have been submitted, they do not fully address consultee concerns or provide a structural justification for demolition. Nor does the scheme explore alternatives such as refurbishment or integration of existing built fabric. This lack of a heritage-sensitive approach undermines the principles of

sustainable regeneration and site-responsive design and would result in the loss of locally distinctive built fabric and erosion of the area's historical continuity.
R 3: Retail Impact and Evidence Gaps The proposed retail unit falls only very slightly below the threshold requiring a formal Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) and one has not been provided. The applicant has submitted a Retail Assessment Note (Stantec, June 2025). However, the note does not address key issues raised, including cumulative impact, vacancy risk, or mitigation strategies for trade displacement. It also omits analysis of comparison goods, economic benefits, and employment generation. The limited scope of the submitted information does not provide sufficient insight into the proposal's potential impact on existing businesses or the town centre's sustainability. In the absence of more robust evidence, there is insufficient information to properly understand and assess the proposal in regard to these issues..

01.8 The remainder of this report is unchanged. Any further representations received, or any other information will be confirmed via verbal update to the committee. ORIGINAL REPORT (APRIL 2025)

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of The Flower Pot And Funeral Directors building at Station Road, Port Erin, which sits directly adjacent the Port Erin Methodist Church, Station Road and is situated within the Port Erin Village upon a corner plot where Station Road meets Droghadfayle Road. - 1.2 The overall site in which the buildings sits is situated upon a quarter circle which includes the Port Erin Methodist Church to the West of the site, the Royal Legion (British Legion) Hall on Droghadfayle Road to the Southwest of the site, the local authority houses and Scout & Guide Headquarters on Droghadfayle Lane to the south, and the Telephone Exchange Building to the east. A bus shelter sits directly east of the access to the eastern building within the site and northeast of the site boundary. - 1.3 The site which houses The Flower Pot, dwelling Noville, and the former Telephone Exchange Station, sits outside the retail area of Port Erin. The site also sits outside the town's mixed-use area, being situated in an area zoned for predominantly residential use. There is no defined town centre boundary within the Area Plan maps.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Construction of Co-op food retail store, six tourist apartments over at first floor level and associated car parking, service yard and associated bin storage. - 2.2 The proposal seeks to demolish the existing buildings on site and erect a new two storey building that would provide a large retail area on the ground floor and six tourist apartments on the first floor. - 2.3 The proposed scheme would include the following:

1. A floor area measuring 475.7sqm on the ground floor, excluding the stairways which measure 17.1sqm (on the front), and 9.4sqm (on the side), such that the total floor area on the ground floor would be 502.2sqm, which would pass for a retail development requiring a Retail Impact Assessment in line with Business Policy 10 and paragraph 9.4.4. of the Strategic Plan.
2. The ground floor area for the Cop would provide for a retail area of about 397sqm, with the remaining area (78.7sqm) providing a storage area, Managers Office, Staff Room, and WC's.

3. 6 tourist apartments on the first floor comprising 4 two-bedroom apartments, and 2 onebedroom apartments.
4. The two-bedroom apartments would have layout providing for two bedrooms, one with ensuite, a bathroom, and an open plan kitchen and living room.
5. The one-bedroom apartments would have layout providing for an open plan kitchen and living room, and a bedroom with ensuite.
6. Ther would be provision on site for a bin storage area.
7. The scheme also seeks to install a Bank Terminal ATM on the east elevation.
8. Min 12 No. Solar panels are to be installed on the western roof plane.
9. The buildings total floor area measures about 1004sqm.

2.4 The external elevations of the building will feature natural slate roof tile finish, stainless steel glass balustrades, rooflights (details not provided), white render finish mixed with Pooil Vaaish Stone with Blue Brick plinth, Anthracite Grey UPVC Freech doors with Juliet Balconies, and Anthracite Grey Aluminium Glazing - 2.5 The site would have a total parking space provision of 29 spaces, 6 spaces for the tourist apartments, 2 EV parking spaces, and 3 disabled parking spaces, with the remaining 18 parking spaces serving visitors to the site. - 2.6 The applicants have provided a Cover Letter(s) which details the following:

1. Design: The building is modelled on the Crosby Co-op store, featuring natural slate roofing, slate paving, local Pooilvaaish stone, white rendered walls, and a glass facade for the retail store. The entrance to the apartments also has a Pooilvaaish stone facade.
2. Parking: There is a shortfall of 2 car parking spaces based on the Co-op sales area of 375 sq meters. Despite good access links to local car parking facilities, the undersupply of parking spaces is acknowledged.
3. Retail Impact Assessment: The area of the store is under the requirement to provide a retail impact assessment, which is not deemed necessary due to its location within the Town Centre. However, a Retail Impact Assessment was prepared as specifically requested, even though the store's area of 500sqm is under the threshold limit requiring one. The assessment references the IOM Retail Sector Evidence Base and Isle of Man Town Audits February 2024.
4. Landscaping: Trees and low-level shrubs are incorporated at the car park entrance. Silver Birch trees contrast with the black Pooilvaaish stone and grey-black color scheme.
5. Consultation and Support: Pre-consultation with Highways determined servicing and car parking provision. The need for a larger store is supported by Port Erin Commissioners.
6. Previous Use: The site was previously used as a Funeral Directors, a Florist, and a Joinery Workshop with a single house off Draghadfayle Road.
7. Environmental Considerations: Bird and Bat Boxes will be incorporated into the gables of the building and trees.
8. Cover Letter Dates:

o February 26, 2025: Correspondence regarding ecological information and missing necessary information for the application.
o February 27, 2025: Cover letter, report, and drawings addressing comments and including the Highways response.
o December 31, 2024: Retail Impact Assessment and additional information submitted to address concerns raised by neighbours.

2.7 The flowing documents have been provided with the application:

1. Retail Impact Assessment - 31 Jan 2024
2. Bird and Bat Survey - 26 Feb 2025
3. Transport Assessment - 17 Jan 2025

4. Road Safety Audit - 17 Jan 2025
5. Transport Statement Dated - 05 Mar 2025
6. Retail Impact Assessment - 31 Dec 2024
7. Bird and Bat Survey - 26 Feb 2025
8. IOM Town Audits Dated Jan 24 - 31 Dec 2024
9. IOM Retail Sector Strategy Evidence Base Dated Jun 2013 - 31 Dec 2024

2.8 The proposed retail floor area within the new development is less than 500sqm, which is below the threshold stipulated within Business Policy 9 of the Strategic Plan for a Retail Impact Assessment to be submitted. However, the scheme is to include a retail development of 495.7sqm which is only 4.3sqm less of the 500sqm threshold, and the site is also not in the towns Mixed Use area or retail area, but a Predominantly Residential Area (which is not zoned for such development), and the retail area will not pass for a neighbourhood shop which is recommended for such locations as it exceeds the neighbourhood shop floor area threshold set at 100sqm (Business Policy 10). Hence, it is important that a retail impact assessment is carried out to ascertain potential impacts on the town's retail area/mixed use area.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 Site Specific:

3.1.1 The application site is zoned as 'Predominantly Residential Use' on the Area Plan for the South, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is also not within the Port Erin retail area (given it sits outside the mixed-use area), and the site is not prone to flood risk zone.

3.2 Area: Area Plan for the South

3.2.1 The following parts of the Area Plan for the South are relevant for consideration:

1. Paragraph 6.6.2: "Development within an area of Mixed Use (as designated on the Proposals Map/Inset Maps) or those sites proposed for Mixed Use (identified on the Maps as 'Proposed Mixed 76 Use') will comprise a mix of some or all of the following uses33: residential; shops; financial and professional services; food and drink; research and development, light industry; hotels and hostels; hospitals, nursing homes and residential institutions; community uses; leisure; tourism and open space. For applications relating to sites proposed for Mixed Use, the mix, and types of uses on the site will be determined on their merits in accordance with the Proposals in the Area Plan and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Policies."
2. Paragraph 6.6.3 "The identified Mixed-Use areas contain a variety of uses including residential, industrial, retail and office use. Within Port Erin it is judged that that there is merit in extending the Mixed-Use area of the Village to the Lower Promenade to try and encourage a diversity of uses and add to the vitality and viability of the Village centre. The Plan therefore changes the previous designation of the Lower Promenade from 'Tourism and Recreational' to 'Mixed Use'."
3. Section 6.14.1 of the Area Plan for the South:

o Island Spatial Strategy (Isle of Man Strategic Plan) classifies Port Erin as a Service Centre, meaning it is expected to provide a mix of retail, employment, and services for the surrounding area.
o These centres are expected to provide a range of employment opportunities and serve as the main focus for retailing within the South.
o Retail development should be concentrated in town centres, ensuring the viability and vitality
of existing retail hubs.

4. Section 6.23: Retail Development outside Existing Centres "6.23.1 All of the centres within the South provide an important service to local residents and their on-going vitality and viability needs to be ensured. To this end there will be a presumption against new retail development outside the designated 'Mixed Use' areas other than the provision of neighbourhood shops such as those at Ballabeg, Colby and Clagh Vane."
5. Paragraph 6.17.1: "The retail area within Port Erin Village stretches from the supermarket on Bay View Road and the parade of shops on Orchard Walk, across Church Road and Station Road,

and down Strand Road to the Lower Promenade. Whilst there are often vacant units, and a number of seasonal shops, the range of services is varied and the overall character lively."
6. Mixed Use Proposal 3: It is proposed that the Mixed-Use area in Port Erin is extended to cover the Lower Promenade to encourage a diversity of uses which would add to the overall vitality and viability of the Village (see Map 7).
7. Paragraph 6.22.3 "There is more potential within Port Erin to accommodate further convenience shopping. There are places within the Mixed-Use area which are under-used but have real potential. Opportunities exist to enhance the built environment and comparison-shopping facilities, and the Department will support proposals which will achieve these goals. The Development Brief for Site 21 (Land Opposite the Cherry Orchard Hotel) highlights the importance of making the best use of sites in the MixedUse area."
8. Section 6.2: Introduction and Policy Context "6.27.1 The South of the Island is home to a number of key tourist attractions which are both important in attracting local visitors and those from further afield. The role of tourism is important to the South and to the settlements therein. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan recognises that it is not the aim of the Area Plans to provide a strategy for tourism but rather to facilitate possible development by way of appropriate proposals and guidance."
9. Section 6.28 - Tourist Attractions in the South

o Identifies key tourism destinations such as Castletown, Port Erin, and Port St Mary.
o Supports the role of heritage sites, including Castle Rushen and the Nautical Museum, in attracting visitors.
o Encourages infrastructure improvements for transport links, including the Steam Railway

3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN

3.3.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this 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 1 - Sustainable Development and efficient use of land and resources, promoting well-located, accessible development that contributes positively to economic growth without undermining sustainability objectives.
3. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focused in existing towns and villages to preserve their character and avoid coalescence.
4. Strategic Policy 3 - Safeguarding the character of existing towns and villages while avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements.
5. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact, ensuring developments respect the local identity and distinctiveness.
6. Strategic Policy 10 - Promoting integrated journeys, minimizing car use, and facilitating alternative modes of transport.
7. Environment Policy 4 - Protection of species and habitats.
8. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against habitat damage or loss.
9. Environment Policy 42 - Adherence to local character and distinctiveness.
10. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to public transport.
11. Transport Policy 2 - Development layouts linked to existing systems.
12. Transport Policy 4 - Ensuring highway safety.
13. Transport Policy 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians.
14. Transport Policy 7 - Parking provisions, including Appendix A.7.6 standards.
15. Business Policy 1 - Supporting economic growth through business developments that benefit local employment and sustainability.
16. Business Policy 9 - Directing retail developments to town centres and mixed-use areas.
17. Business Policy 10 - Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5.

18. Business Policy 13 - Permitting use of private properties as tourist accommodations, provided it doesn't compromise neighbouring residents' amenities.
19. Strategic Policy 8 - Supporting tourist developments that utilize quality-built fabric without adversely affecting environmental, agricultural, or highway interests.
20. Strategic Policy 9 - Retail and office developments (excepting specific exemptions) must be within town and village centres as designated in Area Plans.
21. Infrastructure Policy 5 - Promoting water conservation and management.
22. Energy Policy 2 - Development guidance for land near high-tension power cables.
23. Energy Policy 5 -requires that schemes of this scale demonstrate the measures that have been taken in the design to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency.
24. Community Policy 7 - Designing to prevent criminal and anti-social behaviour.
25. Community Policy 10 - Ensuring proper access for firefighting appliances.
26. Community Policy 11 - Prevention of fire outbreaks and spread.

4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS - 4.1 Residential Design Guidance 2021 4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. Section 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, Section 5 on Architectural Details, and 7.0 on Impact on Neighbouring Properties, are considered relevant to the current application. - 4.2 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net

loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for.

4.3 Isle of Man Retail Sector Strategy Evidence Base (June 2013)

4.3.1 This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the retail sector in the Isle of Man, covering socio-economic trends, shopping patterns, town centre health checks, and future retail needs. The key direction focuses on sustaining town centre vitality, ensuring appropriate retail provision, and managing out-of-town retail development.
4.3.2 Relevant sections

4.3.2.1 Port Erin "2.64 In 2011, Port Erin's population was 3,531, a slight reduction (1%) since 2006.

2.65 Port Erin is a traditional seaside resort which is known for its pleasant beach and coastal walks. It is popular for those with an interest in the outdoors, marine environment, and wildlife. Boat trips to the Calf of Man depart from Port Erin harbour. Convenience Retailing - 2.66 Port Erin is the main convenience retail centre in the south. Station Road, Church Road, Orchard Road, and Bridson Street are its main shopping streets. There are 10 convenience retail units in Port Erin. The main stores include the recently renovated (2011) Shoprite on Bridson Street and a smaller Co-op store on Station Road. There is also an Iceland store on Church Road. Other local convenience stores are mainly concentrated on Station Road and Church Road. A petrol station with a small Spar is situated on Station Road.

2.69 In October 2012, 3 vacant retail units (1045 sq ft) were recorded in Port Erin, 1 of which was formerly MEA Retail on Station Road.

4.3.2.2 Floorspace Table 2-5: Retail floorspace - Port Erin (sq. ft net) 2013 In 2013, the total retail floorspace in Port Erin amounted to 43,867 square feet. Of this, 20,839 square feet (48%) was dedicated to convenience retail, with 15,210 square feet (80%) occupied by multiples (large chain stores). Comparison retail took up 12,368 square feet (28%), including mainstream stores with 2,060 square feet (17%) held by multiples. Additionally, 10,060 square feet (24%) was allocated to bulky goods retail, with 8,673 square feet (94%) occupied by multiples.

4.3.2.3 "Positive Aspects of the Town Centre

3.29 Convenience for people's place of residence is particularly high in Port Erin. Most of the remaining aspects noted were minor, save for comments relating to the range and nature of comparison-shopping facilities." - 4.3.2.4 "Potential Town Centre Improvements

3.30 While some 37% of respondents thought no particular improvements were needed, others thought improvements were needed in the following areas:

o Variety and quality in its retail offer
o Its limited number of clothing units and
o car parking provision and facilities."

4.3.2.2 Projected Requirements "Floorspace Efficiency

4.10 Retailers continually seek to improve the way goods are sold in order to increase turnover. Improvements in the efficiency of existing floorspace allow it to absorb higher levels of expenditure. Improvements in floorspace efficiency therefore need to be taken into account when forecasting future requirements.

4.4 Isle of Man Government Town Audit (January 2024)

4.4.1 In November 2022, the Isle of Man Government launched their 'Our Island, Our Future' 1015-year economic plan. It included aims to grow the population to 100,000 by 2037 and create

5,000 new employment opportunities. Since its launch, there has been a general trend of population growth, 1,500 new jobs created, and income tax receipts estimated at £40m ahead of what was budgeted. This plan is set to be supported by a Local Economic Strategy that will focus on the hospitality, retail and leisure offer to help make the Isle of Man a more competitive, vibrant, and sustainable place to live and work. The 'Town Audits' report delivered by Didobi, based on work carried out in early 2024, will help support the evidence base to drive this strategy and define the future ambitions of local towns. Each town has unique compositions, challenges, and opportunities for future growth.

4.4.2 Port Erin: Population: 3,730

1. Existing Offer and Amenities:

o Convenience Shopping: Shoprite supermarket (soon to become Tesco) and Co-Op convenience store on Station Road.
o Retail Circuit: The main retail circuit is between Station Road, Church Road, and Bridson Street. Bridson Street links this circuit with the large Shoprite store and the shopping parade that includes the village library. The hardware store on Bridson Street provides a retail link between the high street circuit and the Shoprite store.
o Key Attractions: Sandy beach and bay framed by two headlands, giving the village its identity and sense of place. The village is also the western terminus of the Isle of Man Steam Railway with a railway museum.

2. Challenges:

o Seasonality: As a seaside village, seasonality forms a barrier to investment.
o Retail Area: Church Road needs improvement due to its drab appearance and empty shops. The largest unit has been empty for 7-8 years, with the landlord asking for £60,000 rent a year.

3. Recommendations:

o Visitor Economy Strategy: Develop a clear medium to long-term development strategy in line with the Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032.
o Retail Improvement: Consider alternative uses for Church Street to address its dilapidated nature, with a focus on retail on Station Road and Bridson Street.

4. Engagement Activities:

o Local Authority Efforts: The Council has significantly increased its commercial portfolio over the last 10 years, including repurposing an old depot into a microbrewery and tap bar, and turning a beach-side cottage into a bar.
o Business Sentiment: Business sentiment is positive, with traders reporting good business and loyal customers.

5. Conclusion: Despite some issues raised by the Commissioners, business sentiment is positive. The current investment in the refurbishment of the Falcon's Nest Hotel indicates a clear degree of business confidence and recognition of the opportunity to provide improved accommodation. The village has the attributes to become a key visitor destination provided that a clear medium to long-term development strategy is developed in line with the Visitor Economy Strategy 2022-2032.

- 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The site has been the subject of the following applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application:

1. PA 85/00524/A for Approval in principle to convert premises to showroom/store/canteen and 2 first floor flats, Old Telephone Exchange, Station Road, Port Erin. This was approved by the Planning Committee on 14.06.1985.
2. PA 85/00876/B for Alterations to convert premises into showroom/store/canteen and first floor flat, Old Telephone Exchange, Station Road, Port Erin. This was approved by the Planning Committee on 13.09.1985.
3. PA 86/00300/D for Erection of two illuminated wall signs, Old Telephone Exchange, Station Road, Port Erin - Withdrawn.

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

6.1 DOI Highways Comments (18 March 2025):

1. Previous concerns raised by Highways DC that have not been sufficiently addressed include:

o Inclusion of Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) parking restrictions along Station Road.
o Alterations to vehicle tracking for delivery access.
o An updated site plan showing proposed highway changes.
o Revisions to cycle parking.
o Consideration of the bus stop location and its potential impact on access/egress.

2. Specifically, regarding the TRO parking restrictions, Highways DC reiterates that these are required to maintain traffic flow on Station Road.
3. The applicant has not submitted a suitable vehicle tracking or access arrangement for deliveries.
4. Highways DC has requested an updated site plan showing the highway infrastructure changes to be provided as part of the development. The plan is not necessarily required in order to obtain a recommendation for do no oppose, however, having the highway improvements within approved plans maintains a commitment by the developer.
5. Short Stay Bicycle Parking:

o The location of the short stay customer bicycle parking along the path to the store still has potential to be obstructive to movement and inconvenient for users. If occupied, it may be difficult for pedestrians to walk past a perpendicular parked bicycle.
o Cyclists may find it difficult to manoeuvre their bicycles between the loops (at the short stay bicycle parking) when vehicle parking spaces are occupied. However, the 2m wide path should still allow for mobility, and the newly provided 2m pedestrian access offers an alternative route for pedestrians, including those with wheelchairs, pushchairs, and trolleys.
o Despite these challenges, the location of the short stay parking is accepted.

6. Long stay Bicycle Parking:

o Further details on the long stay parking requested have not been provided.
o Provision for long stay parking for residents/tourists is in the form of Sheffield stands in the north-western corner of the site.
o The transport assessment states that the spaces will be secure and covered, but this is not reflected in the plans.
o The location and type of spaces mean stored bicycles are easily viewed from the footway and roadside and are likely to be secured only by bicycle lock, making them susceptible to theft.
o The open location of the spaces and proximity to the store invite public use, potentially resulting in the spaces not being retained for residents/tourists.
o The long stay spaces should be located in a more secure area or provided with additional security and/or screening.

7. The impact of the adjacent bus stop on access/egress has not been thoroughly considered, particularly concerning stationary buses and visibility. While this is an existing arrangement, the change of use and layout of the site will significantly increase use of this access and therefore increase the conflict times of exiting vehicles and stationary buses.
8. Conclusion:

o The application has not sufficiently addressed the concerns raised by Highways DC.
o Some issues have been raised multiple times and remain unresolved or unexplained within statements.

9. Highways DC opposes the application due to the plans being contrary to General Policy 2 (h) and (i).

6.2 Consultation from Manx National Heritage (6 February 2025): They state the following about the proposal:

1. Historical and Architectural Interest: The 'Flower Pot' building, originally constructed in 1898 as an infants' school for the parish of Rushen, holds significant historical and architectural value. Its design provided modern education facilities and was strategically located to be accessible to the main population centres of the time.
2. Photographic Documentation: Historical photographs, such as those taken by James Valentine & Co., provide valuable visual documentation of the building's original form and its context within the landscape. These images are crucial for understanding the building's historical and architectural evolution.
3. Architectural Guide Recognition: Both the school and the former telephone exchange are featured in the recently published Pevsner Architectural Guide, indicating their recognized architectural and historical significance.
4. Unique Architectural Examples: The former telephone exchange, built in 1938, is the only example of its kind on the Island, featuring a standard HM Office of Works Neo-Georgian design. Its unique architectural style adds to the diversity and richness of the local built environment.
5. Community Functions: The buildings have served various community functions over the years, from education to telecommunications, reflecting their adaptability and ongoing relevance to the community.
6. Architectural Integrity: Despite modifications, both the school and the telephone exchange retain key architectural features, such as the hipped roof and raised parapets of the telephone exchange, and the core form of the school building. These elements contribute to the buildings' architectural integrity and historical authenticity.
7. Amenity Value: The buildings contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place in Port Erin. Their preservation would enhance the town's character and provide a tangible link to its historical and architectural heritage.
8. Documentation and Preservation: Given their historical, evidential, amenity, and community interest, it is essential to document these buildings thoroughly. At the very least, a detailed record should be made if development is approved, ensuring that their historical significance is preserved for future generations.
9. Historical Context of the School's Closure: The specific reasons for the school's closure in 1927, such as rationalizing education provision and falling numbers, highlight the building's historical narrative and its role in the community's educational history.

10. Architectural Detailing and Materials: The original L-shaped design of the school, with its distinctive features such as shallow bay windows and segregated entrances, reflects the architectural style of the late 19th century. The choice of materials and architectural detailing should respect this historical context. MNH strongly recommends that these historical and architectural considerations be taken into account in the planning and development process to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the site's cultural heritage.

6.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments on the application.

6.3.1 Comments made 28 October 2024:

1. They state that more information is required before the application can be considered.
2. They object to the consideration of the application at this stage due to the lack of an assessment of potential bat and bird issues.
3. They state that they will review their position once an assessment has been made, and a statement provided to Planning.
4. They state the application involves the removal of old buildings and trees from the site, which is only 100m from Athol Park (woodland and water), and note that this proximity triggers the need for an assessment of bat and bird issues.
5. They state that they have not seen evidence of any survey assessment of the site for such issues.
6. They note the plans for tree planting and welcome the provision of bat and bird gable boxes in the design.
7. They request an initial bat and bird assessment for evidence of use and risks.
8. They state that follow-up surveys might be necessary in an appropriate season if significant risks are found.
9. They advise that ensuring risks to bats and birds are taken into account is necessary, especially if a protected bat roost is found, whilst noting that it is unclear whether such issues have been assessed and what would be done to comply with the Wildlife Act 1990.

6.3.2 Comments made 20 December 2024:

1. Conduct an initial survey to determine the presence and risks to bats and birds.
2. Follow-up surveys may be needed if significant risks are found.
3. Mitigation Measures:

a. Provide bat and bird gable boxes.
b. Plant trees to compensate for habitat loss.
c. Ensure demolition does not harm nesting birds, with potential restrictions on timing.

4. Planning Considerations:

a. Early assessment to avoid delays in development.
b. Compliance with Wildlife Act 1990 if protected species are found.

5. Recommendations: Conduct surveys at the earliest opportunity and incorporate results into planning decisions to manage risks effectively.
6.3.3 Since the requested Bird and Bat survey was submitted by the applicant and processed for publication on 26 February 2025, no further comments have been received from the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team.

6.4 The DEFA Registered Building Officer has made the following comments on the application (26 February 2025):

1. Following receipt of comments from Manx National Heritage (MNH) in respect of the historic buildings on the site, the case officer has asked for my comments regarding the proposed scheme.
2. The site does not include any registered buildings and is not within the boundary of the Proposed Port Erin Conservation Area that appeared on Map 7 in the Area Plan for the South. That being said, I am in full agreement with the comment from MNH that the existing buildings have historic interest. In the event that the application is recommended for approval, I would request

that a condition be included requiring a photographic record survey be undertaken prior to any commencement of works. Proposed condition wording: "Development shall not commence until a programme of historic building recording of the existing buildings on the site has been undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The programme of building recording must be undertaken in accordance with Level Two as set out in Understanding Historic Buildings: A guide to good recording practice.

Reason: To ensure and safeguard the recording and inspection of matters of historical importance that will be lost in the course of works."

3. Although the policies in respect of registered buildings and conservation areas do not apply in this instance, environment policy 42 requires 'new development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality'. Any proposals on this site will need to comply with this policy, as well as those within the general policies that require development to respect the site and surroundings in terms of siting, layout, scale, form, design, and landscaping.

6.5 Port Erin Commissioners have made the following comments on the application:

6.5.1 Comments made 19 November 2024:

o The Board of Port Erin Commissioners considered the above application at its meeting held
on Tuesday 12th November 2024. o They resolved to support the application in principle providing the issues raised by Highways are addressed satisfactorily. o The Board would also like the applicant to liaise with the residents of Station Road who have submitted Representations.

6.5.2 Comments made 19 February 2025: o The Board of Port Erin Commissioners considered the additional information provided relating to the above application and has resolved to continue its support the application provided the issues raised by DOI Highways are addressed satisfactorily.

6.6 Representation has been received from the owners/occupiers of the following properties:

6.6.1 49 Station Road, Port Erin (29.10.24/3.02.25/10.02.25): Impacts on Their Amenity:

1. Loss of Outlook: The proposed development will dominate their view, being approximately 20 meters away, resulting in an unacceptable loss of outlook and an oppressive living environment.
2. Overlooking and Loss of Privacy: The development will overlook their home, causing a significant loss of privacy due to the elevated balcony and entrances/exits facing their property.
3. Light Pollution:

o Overspill of light pollution from the store, car park, and tourist accommodation.
o Store front lighting will dominate the view from their home.
o Car park lighting will shine into their kitchen, living room, and bedrooms.
o Headlights from vehicles exiting the car park will illuminate their home.
o Light from the tourist accommodation's full-height glass windows and balcony will spill over their home.
o Intolerable light pollution during dark mornings and evenings, exacerbated by the store's long operating hours.

4. Noise: Noise from vehicles using the car park, especially when revving engines. General background noise from a busy retail unit. Policy Conflicts:

1. The area is zoned for "Predominantly Residential," and as such they object to setting a precedent for allowing retail units in this zone.
2. Concerns about future developments in residential areas if this precedent is set. Highway Issues:

1. Impact on traffic on Station Road, with additional concerns from the applicant's information.

2. The TRICS data suggests 618 two-way visits to the car park each weekday, leading to significant traffic.
3. The vehicle tracking diagram provided by the applicant is inaccurate, causing potential blockages.
4. The bus stop location poses sight line obstructions, whether left in situ or moved.
5. Concerns about vehicles stopping on Station Road itself, causing dangerous situations.
6. Lack of adequate pedestrian crossing facilities to the proposed Co-op store.
7. Contrast with the improved pedestrian-friendly town centre of Port Erin. Other Concerns: The application conflicts with the Isle of Man Government's Local Economy Strategy and the Town and Village Regeneration Scheme, which aims to rejuvenate town centres.

6.6.2 13 Edremony, Port Erin (9 October 2024):

o They believe the planning application should not be approved due to the already problematic traffic on the road, which would be worsened by additional wagons at the junction.
o Additionally, they disagree with the need for more apartments as there are already sufficient places to stay in Port Erin. Instead, they emphasize the need for facilities and activities for children.

6.6.3 Muirfield, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick, Port Erin (14 October 2024): o They believe the vehicle tracking shows delivery vehicles entering forwards and reversing out onto the highway, which is unsafe. They argue that vehicles must be required to reverse onto the site and exit forwards to ensure safety.
6.6.4 11 South Barrule Avenue, Ballakilley, Port Erin (14 October 2024): o They object to the tourist flats, emphasizing the need for more affordable housing for residents rather than additional rentals for visitors.
6.6.5 45 Station Road, Port Erin (14 October 2024):

1. Privacy Concerns: The two-story structure, particularly with the inclusion of balconies, would directly overlook their garden and the living areas of their property. This is a significant invasion of privacy that would be exacerbated by the increased height of the proposed building, which is taller than the existing structure in place.
2. Impact on Natural Light: Their property and garden are south-facing, and the construction of a taller building so close would inevitably lead to a reduction in natural light, affecting not only their enjoyment of the outdoor space but also the overall ambiance of their home. The shadowing effect of the proposed development would alter the character of their property in a manner that is both undesirable and unfair.
3. Safety and Traffic Concerns: The proposal to develop a large Co-op shop on the ground floor raises additional concerns regarding traffic and road safety. The junction where this development is proposed is already busy and challenging, and the presence of delivery trucks stopping for the shop would only worsen the situation.

6.6.6 Thie Ellan, 47 Station Road, Port Erin (21 October 2024): Impacts on Private Amenity:

1. Privacy: The two-story structure, particularly with the inclusion of balconies, would directly overlook their garden and the living areas of their property, significantly invading their privacy.
2. Impact on Natural Light: The construction of a taller building so close would reduce natural light, affecting their enjoyment of the outdoor space and the overall ambiance of their home.
3. Noise: Increased traffic noise and public use of the area, along with the retail unit's long operating hours, will disrupt the residential area.
4. Light Pollution: Concerns over the amount of light from the building, car parking areas, and illuminated signage affecting their property and the surrounding residential area.
5. Antisocial Behaviour: The sale of alcohol until 10pm could lead to crime and antisocial behaviour in the predominantly residential area. Other Impacts:

1. Economic Impact on the Village: The extension of the retail centre into a predominantly residential area will negatively affect the local economy by diverting foot traffic away from the existing retail area, potentially making other businesses unviable.
2. Needs of Village Residents and Manx People: Port Erin already has sufficient supermarkets and tourist accommodations. What is needed is more affordable housing for residents.
3. Traffic, Highway Safety, Air Pollution, and Active Travel: The development will worsen traffic conditions, increase the likelihood of accidents, and pose challenges for large delivery vehicles. It also lacks adequate pedestrian crossings and encourages car use, contrary to the government's aim to promote active travel.
4. Visual Impact: The massing of the building and use of stone cladding will be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
5. Summary Impacts: The development will significantly impact their living conditions, including being overlooked, harder access to their cul de sac, threats to the economic viability of the village, and disruptions from noise, light pollution, air pollution, and late-night use.
6.6.7 Roe Green, 16 Droghadfayle Road, Port Erin (15 November 2024):

1. They state that they use Droghadfayle Road daily to access Station Road.
2. They state that they do not directly object to the planning application.
3. They express concerns about parking on Station Road.
4. They indicate that these concerns arise when the allocated parking spaces are occupied.

6.6.8 Gravis Planning on behalf of Mannin Retail who own and operate the nearby Spar retail outlet and petrol filling station located on Station Road have made the following comments (7 January 2025):

1. Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) Deficiencies:

o The applicant's RIA does not comply with Business Policy 9 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
o It lacks analysis of the vitality and viability of shopping centres within the area.
o Key data, such as trade diversion, turnover impacts, and the effect on existing retail space, is absent.
o Relies solely on population growth to justify additional retail space, which is insufficient.

2. Failure to Apply the Sequential Test:

o No evidence of consideration for alternative town centre locations was provided.
o The Isle of Man Area Plan for the South discourages retail development outside mixed-use areas, making this approach irrelevant.
o Arguments about the inadequacy of the current Co-op store's size do not justify an out-oftown development.

3. Non-Compliance with Policies:

o The proposed development is in a "predominantly residential" area, not the designated "Mixed Use" town centre zone, violating paragraph 6.23.1 of Area Plan.
o It directly conflicts with Strategic Policy 9 and other provisions of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan that prioritize town-centre retail developments.

4. Threat to Local Businesses and the Economy:

o Trade diversion caused by the Co-op store would harm local businesses like Spar and Tesco, which are vital to Port Erin's retail ecosystem.
o Spar sources extensively from local Isle of Man producers; any impact on Spar could harm these suppliers and wholesalers.
o Closure of the Spar store and its integrated petrol filling station (PFS)—the only PFS in Port Erin—would create economic and service access challenges.

5. Community Impact:

o Closure of the only petrol filling station in Port Erin would severely affect residents' accessibility to fuel services.
o This closure directly results from the financial strain the Co-op would place on the Spar business.

6. Transport and Traffic Concerns:

o The development's intensification of use at the site could lead to increased traffic congestion along Station Road, especially during peak hours.

o A proper transport assessment has not yet been completed, and safety concerns remain unaddressed.

7. Limited Support for Local Producers: o The Co-op's reliance on a narrower range of locally produced goods compared to Spar could diminish demand for Isle of Man producers, negatively impacting the local economy.
8. Request for Interested Persons Status: o Mannin Retail seeks recognition as an "interested person" in this case, given their proximity to the proposed development and potential direct impact on their operations.
9. Gravis Planning concludes that the proposed Co-op development would undermine the vitality of Port Erin town centre, harm local businesses and producers, and conflict with key planning policies. A thorough reassessment of retail impact and alternative locations is requested before any decision is made.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

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

1. The Principle;
2. Design, Character and Appearance;
3. Demolition And Urban Regeneration;
4. impact on neighing amenity;
5. Impacts on Parking and highway safety;
6. Biodiversity Impacts;
7. Economic Benefits; and
8. Energy Impact

- 7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

7.2.1 Principle of Proposed Retail (STP 9, GP 2, BP 9 & 10 of the Strategic Plan 2016; Mixed Use Proposal 1 & 3, Paragraphs 6.14.1,6.17.1, 6.22.3, 6.23.1, 6.24.1 of the Area Plan for the South)

7.2.1.1 The proposed development seeks to introduce a 500 sqm Co-op store with six tourist apartments at first-floor level on Station Road, Port Erin, on the site of the former flower shop and funeral directors. While the application holds the potential to generate economic benefits, including job creation, increased consumer choice, and modern retail infrastructure, and may create modest gains through tourist accommodation, these benefits must be assessed against planning policy compliance, long-term town centre viability, and economic sustainability.

7.2.1.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the South 2013 prioritize town centre investment and discourage out-of-centre retail development unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated. Though the site is about 76 metres from the retail area boundary, planning policy evaluates more than proximity; it considers whether the proposal strengthens or weakens the existing retail core. The site's separation from the active commercial frontage reduces connectivity and visibility, risking trade diversion from the main retail and mixed-use area rather than supporting its function. A thorough policy assessment is therefore required to determine the proposal's alignment with the Town Centre/retail area/mixed use area First Approach and broader sustainability objectives.

7.2.1.3 The applicant justifies the development on three grounds: Port Erin's growing population, the insufficiency of the existing Spar store, and the proximity of the site to the town centre. While these factors highlight demand for expanded retail provision, they do not justify an out-of-centre location. Strategic Policy 9 and Section 6.14.1 of the Area Plan for the South emphasize directing new retail development to designated town centres or existing retail areas to strengthen existing hubs. Section 6.24 of the Area Plan further supports improving town centre retailing quality over facilitating peripheral developments. By positioning a large-format retail unit outside the designated core, the proposal risks creating an alternative retail destination that competes with the town centre/retail area, undermining policy objectives.

7.2.1.4 The application does not satisfy the "town centre/retail area/mixed use area first" test as required under Business Policies 9 and 10. Developers must demonstrate that all suitable in-centre locations have been fully explored before considering out-of-centre alternatives. The applicant has not provided robust site assessments or evidence of efforts to:

1. Redevelop or repurpose vacant units in the town centre.
2. Expand or refurbish the existing town centre stores.
3. Utilize available space in the designated Mixed-Use area. Section 6.23 of the Area Plan establishes a presumption against new large-scale retail development outside Mixed-Use areas. Without a rigorous site search or exceptional justification, the proposal does not meet the policy threshold for out-of-centre approval.

7.2.1.5 The Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) is insufficient under Business Policy 9, which requires evaluation of economic consequences on existing retail centres. Key deficiencies include:

a. No quantified trade diversion data to assess the impact on town centre retailers.
b. No analysis of vacancy risk, making the potential for store closures unclear.
c. No assessment of local supply chain impacts, despite the role of town centre retailers in supporting local producers. These omissions weaken the RIA's reliability and fail to justify an out-of-centre store.

7.2.1.6 Sustainability is a major concern. Strategic Policy 1 and General Policy 2 promote sustainable transport, reduced car dependency, and walkability. While the site includes EV charging points, cycle facilities, and public transport access, out-of-centre retail locations are more likely to encourage standalone car trips than multi-purpose visits. Approving this development risks promoting retail decentralization, gradually undermining the town centre's role as Port Erin's primary retail hub.
7.2.1.7 Although the proposal offers advantages like job creation and increased consumer choice, these must be weighed against the risks to established town centre businesses. Business Policy 10 states that out-of-centre developments should proceed only if they clearly avoid jeopardizing the vitality of the town centre. In this case, the lack of a comprehensive RIA and location test raises significant concerns about the potential for trade diversion, reduced footfall, and increased vacancies which are a key concern for the Port Erin retail area (which is also referenced in the IOM Town Audits - January 2024).
7.2.1.8 Given that the proposal fails to meet the "town centre/retail area/mixed use area first" test, lacks a thorough RIA, and threatens town centre viability, it is inconsistent with the Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the South 2013. As such, the principle of the proposed retail element cannot be supported.

7.2.2 Principle of the Proposed Tourist Use - Six First-Floor Apartments (BP 1, 11, 13; STP 8, GP 2, & Section 9.5; Area Plan for the South Sections 6.6.1, 6.6.2, 6.28.2, 6.28.4)

7.2.2.1 The site is located within a predominantly residential area, opposite a designated civic and worship site and near a mixed-use area. The proposal for six new-build tourist apartments raises considerations about land-use compatibility and alignment with policy objectives. Strategic Policy 8 supports tourism within settlements, favouring conversions of existing structures but not explicitly prohibiting new builds. While this proposal does not involve repurposing, its location within an established settlement supports broader urban sustainability goals. Additionally, Business Policy 1 encourages employment growth, and this development may generate roles in property management and hospitality. Although the new-build nature diverges from policy preferences under Strategic Policy 8, it aligns with Business Policy 1's emphasis on economic growth and job creation.
7.2.2.2 Tourist accommodation in a residential area must align with planning policies and integrate harmoniously with the community. The Area Plan for the South stresses the importance of avoiding conflicts with established neighbourhoods. While the site lies outside designated mixed-use zones, its proximity to amenities like retail, dining, and transport reduces the risk of overburdening residential infrastructure. However, visitor activity, servicing demands, and noise impacts require robust operational measures, such as noise mitigation and visitor management, to safeguard

residential amenity. Community Policy 7 emphasizes the need for compatibility with residential settings, and with appropriate measures, the site's proximity to mixed-use services enhances its potential for integration.
7.2.2.3 Tourism is identified as a key economic sector under Paragraph 9.5.2 of the Strategic Plan, particularly as the island targets high-value, lower-volume visitor markets. This proposal supports that strategy by promoting short-term stays and addressing the identified shortage of high-quality visitor accommodation, as highlighted in Paragraph 9.5.4. Port Erin's designation as a priority area for tourism expansion (Area Plan, Paragraph 6.28.4) further reinforces the proposal's alignment with policy objectives. Although Strategic Policy 8 favours conversions, with Business Policy 15 favouring re-use, there is a general support for sustainably located tourism developments. This proposal's urban setting aligns with economic and tourism growth objectives, even if it departs from the policy preference for adaptive reuse.
7.2.2.4 The site's urban location promotes sustainable visitor mobility, reducing reliance on private vehicles. Paragraph 6.28.2 of the Area Plan identifies Port Erin as a well-connected settlement with access to the Steam Railway and public bus network. Situated 150 meters from transport hubs and close to shops, dining, and leisure attractions, the site supports walkable tourism. These attributes minimize traffic pressures and bolster sustainability credentials.
7.2.2.5 Unlike adaptive reuse projects, this proposal relies on new-build construction, making its acceptability dependent on integration with the surrounding built environment. Key factors include:

a. Urban Design Compatibility: Ensuring the apartments respect the scale and form of neighbouring properties.
b. Residential Amenity: Managing noise, servicing logistics, and visitor behaviour to minimize disruptions to residents.
c. Operational Management: Implementing regulations for visitor conduct, waste disposal, and check-in processes to prevent conflicts with local residents. Given the above, new developments would be acceptable provided they do not harm local character or amenity. Sensitivity to the surrounding residential setting will therefore be essential for successful integration.

7.2.2.6 Although the proposal diverges from the policy preference for reusing existing structures (STP 8 & BP 15), it aligns with broader tourism, economic, and sustainability goals. Increasing visitor accommodation capacity in a designated growth area, supporting local employment, and leveraging its accessible urban location all offer substantial benefits. Thorough management is necessary to address potential impacts on residents, but on balance, the tourism component is acceptable in principle, provided design, visitor management strategies, and amenity safeguards are compatible with the site and its residential context.

7.2.3 The proposed development presents significant policy conflicts, particularly with the retail element, which fails to comply with the Town Centre/retail area/mixed use area first approach and Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) requirements outlined in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the South 2013. Additionally, the proposed retail use conflicts with mixed-use zoning restrictions for such development. The lack of evidence demonstrating that all in-centre alternatives have been fully explored, along with the risk of trade diversion from the designated retail core, undermines the viability of retail development at this location and renders it inconsistent with planning policies. In contrast, the tourist accommodation component aligns with strategic economic and tourism growth objectives. Its proximity to transport links, retail, and leisure facilities enhances its sustainability credentials, and, with effective visitor management and mitigation measures, it could be acceptable in principle. However, it does not align with the policy preference for reusing existing built fabric. On balance, the retail element's substantial policy conflicts and associated economic risks, which contradict the area's overall planning strategy, outweigh the benefits of the tourism accommodation. Therefore, the overall development is deemed unacceptable in principle.

7.3 DESIGN AND IMPACT ON CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF SITE AND AREA (GP2, SP3, SP5, and EP42)

7.3.1 This section evaluates the proposed development's design, character, and appearance against the Isle of Man Strategic Plan policies, specifically General Policy 2 (GP2), Strategic Policy 3 (SP3), Strategic Policy 5 (SP5), and Environment Policy 42 (EP42). These policies collectively emphasize the importance of achieving site-sensitive and high-quality design to preserve the Island's unique character. The analysis considers the development's visual impacts on the site and the surrounding area, particularly given its prominent position within Port Erin.
7.3.2 The proposed development introduces a modern architectural style with long glazed balconies and expansive glazed areas on the north and east elevations, which contribute transparency, articulation, and dynamism to the design. While these features soften the building's overall massing and add visual interest to the streetscape, they are limited in their ability to achieve comprehensive façade segmentation across all elevations. The north elevation, which faces the main road, incorporates narrower proportions relative to the west and east elevations, achieving some segmentation through its design. However, the west and east elevations, highly visible from the adjoining roads, lack sufficient stepped elements, vertical or horizontal breaks, variations in height, and changes in materials that could reinforce façade articulation and achieve a cohesive relationship with the site's surroundings. While the inclusion of large traditional stone elements and slate roof finish attempts to reflect local design characteristics, these efforts are undermined by the rigidity of the west and south elevations, which remain overly dominant and miss opportunities to bridge the disparity between traditional and modern architectural styles. This absence of dynamic treatment fails to address the criticism of "anywhere architecture" highlighted in Paragraph 4.3.8 of the Strategic Plan. A more thorough integration of transitional design elements would better align the proposal with the architectural quality principles outlined in Paragraph 4.3.9.
7.3.3 Building on these observations, the proposal also falls short in responding fully to its broader contextual environment. The development's scale and massing are significantly larger than the existing buildings slated for demolition, which adhere to a smaller and more cohesive pattern of development. Furthermore, the building's placement predominantly along the western boundary leaves much of the remaining site covered in parking, with minimal landscaping integrated into the design. This unbalanced and poorly distributed layout disrupts the visual rhythm of the site, contrasting sharply with the balanced positioning of existing buildings. By prioritizing vehicle parking over cohesive site design, the proposal exacerbates the rigidity of the west and south elevations, visually dominates the site, and undermines its integration with the surrounding streetscape. These shortcomings detract from the harmonious relationship between the built environment and the local context, as emphasized in General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
7.3.4 The issue above is further highlighted by the nearby church, which provides a vital contrast and a benchmark for cohesive integration within its setting. The church achieves harmonious design through its slender proportions, vertical emphasis, and traditional materials, creating a balanced and contextual presence as a landmark structure. In stark contrast, the proposed development fails to emulate these qualities, with its rigid form, lack of stepped elements, and absence of meaningful façade articulation resulting in a dominant and incongruous appearance. Strategic Policy 5 (SP5) requires that proposals respect their specific context through thorough analysis, which appears to be insufficiently demonstrated in this case. Moreover, the applicant's comparison to the Crosby Coop overlooks the distinct contextual differences between the two sites. While Crosby provided a blank canvas for flexibility in design, the Port Erin site is situated within a streetscape rich in architectural, social, and historical significance. As emphasized in Paragraph 4.3.8, the Strategic Plan calls for designs to bridge traditional and modern styles effectively, which the proposal fails to achieve.
7.3.5 Building on the concerns outlined above, Environment Policy 42 and Paragraph 4.3.8 emphasize the necessity of preserving and enhancing the character of the locality while respecting the architectural heritage and landscape context. The failure of the proposed development to reflect

these principles is exacerbated by the loss of existing structures, such as the funeral director's building and the former telephone exchange. These buildings hold historical and community significance, contributing to the area's visual amenity and sense of place. Their removal undermines the Strategic Plan's emphasis in Paragraph 4.3.9 on raising architectural quality through contextsensitive design. The absence of such consideration in the proposal limits its ability to contribute positively to Port Erin's identity.
7.3.6 Expanding on Paragraph 4.3.9, Paragraph 4.3.11 stresses the importance of promoting sustainability and energy efficiency in new developments while ensuring they integrate sensitively with their context. While the proposal incorporates contemporary elements that could potentially enhance energy efficiency, it does not adequately address the need for contextual integration or reflect the balance between modernity and sensitivity to the locality. As noted in SP5, new developments should make a positive contribution to the built environment. However, the lack of contextual responsiveness and proper transitional design detracts from the quality of the scheme and its alignment with SP5's objectives.
7.3.7 In summary, while the proposed development introduces modern design features, such as glazed balconies and articulated elements on the north and east elevations, which could enhance visual interest, its excessive scale, lack of transitional elements, and insufficient contextual analysis present significant challenges. Strategic Policy 5 (SP5) and the supporting texts from Paragraphs

4.3.8 to 4.3.11 emphasize the importance of achieving site-sensitive and high-quality design. The church, as an adjacent structure, highlights the importance of cohesive and harmonious integration, which the proposal fails to emulate. Given these shortcomings, the development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, and this weighs against the proposal.

7.4 DEMOLITION AND URBAN REGENERATION (EP 43 & Paragraph 7.35.1)

7.4.1 Urban regeneration addresses economic, environmental, and social challenges in areas facing decline. Paragraph 7.35.1 and Environment Policy 43 emphasize sustainable practices, focusing on reusing sound-built fabric, preserving local character, and minimizing environmental waste. These principles aim to balance modernization with heritage conservation, fostering regeneration that benefits both the environment and the community.
7.4.2 Environment Policy 43 prioritizes the reuse of existing structures wherever possible, stating demolition should only occur when buildings are proven unsuitable for reuse or adaptation. In this proposal, no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the site's buildings, including the 'Flower Pot' funeral director's building, the former telephone exchange, and 'Norville,' are structurally unsound or incapable of adaptation. While the site is privately owned and not located within a conservation area or registered, these factors do not exempt the proposal from the policy's principles. Demolition disregards the opportunity for environmentally responsible regeneration, forfeiting the chance to conserve resources and reduce waste.
7.4.3 The buildings slated for demolition contribute significantly to Port Erin's historical evolution and unique character. Removing them risks erasing vital elements of the locality's heritage, undermining the intent of Paragraph 7.35.1 and Environment Policy 43. Adaptive reuse would better respect these principles, enriching the area while preserving its connection to the community's identity. Even without formal conservation status, these structures embody the local character and history, deserving thoughtful consideration in redevelopment plans.
7.4.4 Modernization, while beneficial for economic and functional purposes, must be balanced with sustainability and preservation. Environment Policy 43 highlights the importance of exploring alternatives such as adaptive reuse before resorting to demolition. The current proposal does not adequately justify why demolition is the only viable option, nor does it explore refurbishment as a possibility. By prioritizing demolition, the proposal risks diminishing Port Erin's character and heritage, instead of fostering regeneration that integrates modernity with conservation.

7.4.5 The proposed scheme demonstrates a commitment to revitalizing the site, aiming to modernize and enhance its functionality. Such efforts could contribute to economic growth and provide opportunities for renewal in a way that benefits the immediate area. However, while these intentions are commendable, the proposal fails to align with the principles outlined in Paragraph

7.35.1 and Environment Policy 43. Private ownership and the lack of conservation or heritage designations, while notable, do not justify the absence of sustainable practices. By overlooking alternatives such as refurbishment or adaptive reuse, the scheme undermines the environmental, social, and cultural dimensions of regeneration. A more balanced approach, blending modernization with heritage preservation, would ensure redevelopment supports sustainability and enriches Port Erin's character and identity.

- 7.5 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY (GP2 & EP 22, & RDG 2021)

7.5.1 Overshadowing and Loss of Light

7.5.1.1 The proposed development introduces a two-storey structure with a height of 10.7m and eaves at 6.3m, in close proximity to existing residential properties, notably No. 1 Droghadfayle Road to the south and Nos. 45, 47, and 49 Station Road to the north. While intensification of development is encouraged in appropriate locations, proposals must ensure that residential amenity is preserved. A primary concern in this case is the potential for overshadowing and loss of daylight to adjacent properties.
7.5.1.2 The proposed development has been evaluated using the 25-degree rule, as outlined in section 7.3 of the Residential Design Guide, which primarily serves to assess potential loss of daylight or overshadowing to neighbouring properties. This approach involves projecting a 25degree line from a point 2 metres above ground level at the nearest relevant window of the adjacent property to determine whether the proposed building obstructs daylight access to primary habitable rooms or private gardens.
7.5.1.3 No. 1 Droghadfayle Road to the south is located 9.3 metres from the proposed development, which has an overall height of 10.7 metres and eaves at 6.3 metres. Using the 25-degree rule outlined in the Residential Design Guide, it is calculated that the maximum allowable height for compliance is 6.34 metres. While the proposal exceeds this threshold by 4.36 metres, the impact on daylight access is minimal, as the affected window does not serve a primary habitable room, and the severity of overshadowing is mitigated by the use of these spaces.
7.5.1.4 The above means that the potential for reduction in natural daylight levels exists. However, the positioning of No. 1 Droghadfayle Road relative to the proposed development minimizes the severity of the impact, as the property sits south of the new building and benefits from the sun's east-to-west orientation. This reduces the likelihood of overshadowing during peak daylight hours.
7.5.1.5 With regard to the potential impacts on Nos. 45, 47, and 49 Station Road, it is considered that the separating distance between these properties and the proposed development, which is over 25 metres to the existing windows, would diminish any concern for loss of light even though the development sits south of these properties.

7.5.2 Overbearing Impact and Loss of Outlook

7.5.2.1 The proposed development introduces a visually prominent structure, standing at 10.7 metres in height with an eaves height of 6.3 metres, which contrasts with the existing single-storey building to the north of the site. The RDG 2021, in paragraph 7.4.1, highlights that developments should ensure that existing residents can enjoy appropriate levels of comfort and enjoyment of their properties without their outlooks being compromised by overbearing structures. While the separation distance of approximately 25 metres and the presence of a public highway mitigates the immediacy of overbearing effects for Nos. 45, 47, and 49 Station Road, the proposed development still introduces a new dominant built form into the streetscape. However, the buffer created by the highway significantly reduce the potential for loss of outlook.

7.5.2.2 By contrast, the impact on No. 1 Droghadfayle Road, located to the south and just 9.3 metres away, is more pronounced. The RDG 2021 emphasizes the importance of maintaining proportionate relationships and preventing undue enclosure by ensuring developments respect existing spatial arrangements and outlooks (paragraph 7.3.4). The proposal's height and proximity introduce a sense of enclosure for the north facing windows and private garden space for this neighbour. However, this impact is mitigated by several factors: the affected windows are nonprimary windows to habitable rooms, and the orientation of the sun minimizes overshadowing effects during daylight hours. In addition, the boundary treatment would provide partial screening, further reducing the visual intrusion.
7.5.2.3 In summary, the proposed development's height, massing, and proximity introduce some overbearing effects; however, these impacts are mitigated by several factors and as such cannot be considered significant. For No. 45, 47, and 49 Station Road, the separation distance of approximately 25 metres, combined with the presence of a public highway, reduces the immediacy of any overbearing impact, even as the new building contrasts with the existing single-storey structure. For No. 1 Droghadfayle Road to the south, while the proximity of 9.3 metres and the height of 10.7 metres create some visual prominence, the affected windows are not primary windows to habitable rooms, which lessens the severity of the impact on residential amenity. Together, these mitigating factors indicate that the overall impact on neighbouring properties is not significant and does not warrant refusal on the grounds of overbearing effects.

7.5.3 Overlooking and Loss of Privacy

7.5.3.1 Privacy is a fundamental consideration in assessing the impact of new developments on neighbouring properties. The inclusion of upper-floor windows and balconies in the proposed development has raised concerns about direct and oblique overlooking into adjacent residential properties, potentially compromising privacy.
7.5.3.2 The RDG 2021 recommends a minimum separation distance of 20 metres between directly facing habitable room windows or private gardens to ensure adequate privacy (Section 7.5). In the case of Nos. 45-49 Station Road to the north, the proposed development exceeds this threshold, with a separation distance of approximately 25 metres. Furthermore, the public highway between the site and these properties provides an additional buffer, limiting potential privacy impacts. Consequently, any overlooking from the proposed upper-level windows or balconies is considered negligible and compliant with the privacy standards outlined in the RDG.
7.5.3.3 With regard to No. 1 Droghadfayle Road to the south, which is directly adjacent to the site, the proposed upper-floor hallway window is positioned less than 10 metres from the first-floor window of this neighbouring property, allowing direct views to be achieved. This close proximity also affects the privacy of the rear garden, which is located less than 10 metres from the same window. The RDG 2021 suggests that a separation distance of at least 20 metres is generally required to protect the privacy of habitable spaces and private amenity areas (Section 7.5). In addition, the proposed first-floor balcony on the east elevation is positioned approximately 17 metres from the private rear garden of this property, which falls below the recommended threshold. Although the south elevation of the proposed development would partially obscure views into the garden from the balcony, the reduced separation distance raises concerns about potential overlooking and diminished privacy.
7.5.3.4 Overall, the boundary treatments, such as walls or fences, may provide partial privacy screening at ground level, but they do not mitigate privacy concerns at upper levels. The RDG 2021 emphasizes the importance of addressing upper-level privacy impacts through appropriate design and separation distances (Section 7.5). While the boundary wall screens views at lower levels, the proximity of the hallway window, less than 10 metres from neighbouring property windows and rear garden, exposes these spaces to direct and sustained overlooking. The separation distance falls below the thresholds outlined in the RDG, resulting in a significant and unacceptable level of privacy intrusion. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be non-compliant with the

standards set out in the RDG and would have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of No. 1 Droghadfayle Road.

7.5.4 Potential Noise Concerns

7.5.4.1 Regarding noise issues or other matters related to increased occupancy over the existing situation as a premises without any living accommodation, it would be important to note that while there are no specific guidelines for assessing noise impacts for developments not requiring an EIA in the Isle of Man, the proposed tourist use of the first-floor apartments is considered proportionate to the predominantly residential nature of the area. The area is primarily characterized by residential properties, which suggests that noise levels associated with typical residential and tourist activities are unlikely to significantly exceed the established baseline. The scale of the development, limited to a small number of units, does not indicate a substantial increase in noise levels beyond what is typical for residential use. Furthermore, the separation distance between the proposed apartments and adjacent properties mitigates the potential for noise disturbances, particularly given the absence of activities inherently associated with elevated noise levels. Consequently, based on these considerations, the proposal is unlikely to cause significant adverse noise impacts on neighbouring properties.

7.5 PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY (General Policy 2 (h) & (i), Transport Policies 1, 4, 6, & 7)

7.5.1 In assessing the potential impacts on parking, the provision for the proposed development has been evaluated using out-of-town retail parking standards due to the site's location outside the established retail core, and as there are no specific standards for in-town retail developments. According to these standards, the retail component requires 32 spaces based on its net floor area of 475.7sqm (1 space per 15sqm). The proposal provides a total of 29 spaces; however, 6 spaces are reserved exclusively for tourist apartments, leaving 23 spaces available for retail visitors and staff. This results in a shortfall of 9 spaces against the required standard for the retail component. While the proximity of the site to the rail station, bus station, and main bus route into town offers some mitigation by providing alternatives to private vehicle use, these options are unlikely to fully offset the parking demand for retail customers, particularly those carrying goods. Retail developments outside established cores often rely heavily on private vehicle access, and the TRICS data projects 618 two-way visits to the site's car park each weekday. This level of anticipated demand intensifies the pressure on parking capacity and raises concerns about overspill parking onto surrounding roads such as Station Road. Such overspill could disrupt traffic flow and compromise highway safety, further underscoring the insufficiency of parking provision.
7.5.2 Highway safety concerns are further compounded by unresolved issues raised by Highways DC. The location of the bus stop west of the site access poses significant visibility constraints, which have not been addressed by the applicant. Stationary buses obstruct sightlines for vehicles exiting the site, increasing the risk of collisions, and compromising access safety. Given that the sightline issues still persist, it is not considered that the scheme aligns with Transport Policy 4. Additionally, inaccuracies in the vehicle tracking diagram provided by the applicant raise operational concerns. Poor tracking layouts could lead to vehicle blockages within the site, further aggravating traffic flow and highway safety issues.
7.5.3 Pedestrian safety remains a critical failing of the proposal. The lack of defined pedestrian crossing facilities to the Co-op store compromises safe movement across the site and fails to address the needs of vulnerable users, including children, wheelchair users, and those with pushchairs. This deficiency conflicts directly with Transport Policy 6, which prioritizes pedestrian accessibility and safety in development design.
7.5.4 Likewise, failures in the cycle parking provision further undermine the development's compliance with planning policies. Short-stay bicycle parking is positioned in a manner that risks obstructing pedestrian movement, while long-stay parking lacks adequate security and is poorly sited, leaving bicycles vulnerable to theft and misuse. These shortcomings which have been highlighted in DOI Highway comments conflict with Paragraph 11.5.3 and General Policy 2 (h),

which promote sustainable transport options and require developments to provide functional and safe facilities.
7.5.5 In conclusion, while the proximity to public transport infrastructure offers some benefits, these are insufficient to overcome the significant shortfalls in parking provision for retail users. The development fails to adequately address key highway safety concerns, including sightline obstructions caused by the bus stop, vehicle tracking inaccuracies, and unsafe pedestrian facilities. Additionally, deficiencies in cycle parking provision conflict with policy objectives promoting sustainable transport. Collectively, these issues render the proposed development non-compliant with General Policy 2 (h) and (i), Transport Policy 4, Transport Policy 6, and Transport Policy 7.
7.6 IMPACTS ON TREES/BIODIVERSITY (GP2, EP4 & EP5)

7.6.1 Impact on Biodiversity

7.6.1.1 The site, in its current state, particularly Norville House, which has its fenestrations boarded up, and the existing trees, is considered to have potential to support biodiversity. The proposed scheme involves the removal of this building, alongside other unoccupied structures and all on-site features that may serve as habitats for biodiversity.
7.6.1.2 The ecological significance of the site is further underscored by its proximity to Athol Park (a woodland area) located approximately 100 meters away. This proximity necessitates an assessment for bats and birds. The applicants have submitted a bat and bird survey, which identifies several potential roost features (PRFs) for bats and potential nesting sites for birds. While no direct evidence of bats or nesting birds was detected, the identification of PRFs and nesting sites highlights the need for further surveys and the implementation of mitigation measures if the scheme is approved. Moreover, the scheme includes details of measures that would be integrated to further enhance biodiversity at the site.
7.6.1.3 Consequently, it is essential to impose conditions that mitigate the potential loss of habitat and ensure compliance with relevant planning policies. Based on the above considerations, the proposed scheme is not deemed to conflict with the principles set out in Environment Policies 4 and

5, as well as General Policy 2(d) of the Strategic Plan.

7.6.3 Impact on Trees

7.6.3.1 With regard to potential tree impacts, it is noted that the concerns relate to the need to remove the trees on site to facilitate the development. The scheme proposes mitigation tree planting that seeks to almost double the existing number of trees to be removed. This approach is considered acceptable as it aligns with the provisions of General Policy 2 (f) and contributes to biodiversity net gain. The new trees will be native species, such as silver birch trees which will also enhance the site's ecological value and provide habitat for birds and bats.

7.6.4 Overall, it is adjudged that the proposed development includes comprehensive measures to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for birds and bats, including installation of artificial nesting and roosting structures, and planting of native trees. These measures ensure that the scheme aligns with relevant environmental policies and promotes biodiversity conservation. Additionally, the proposed tree planting will not only replace but also enhance the existing tree cover, contributing to the overall ecological value of the site and supporting biodiversity. Conditions would, however, be imposed to ensure that recommended conditions are integral to the development of the site should approval be granted.
7.7 ECONOMICAL BENEFITS (Supplementary Guidance on Economic Issues - December 2022 and IOM Strategic Plan - Strategic Policy 6, Business Policy 1, 9 & 10)

7.7.1 This assessment evaluates the economic benefits of the proposed Co-op food retail store in Port Erin alongside the proposed tourist units. It considers aspects such as job creation, local spending retention, community benefits, and the impact on local businesses. These considerations

are evaluated in line with the Supplementary Guidance on Economic Issues (December 2022) as well as Strategic Policy 6 and Business Policy 1, 9, and 10 of the Strategic Plan.

7.7.2 The Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) suggests that the proposed Co-op store will create jobs for local residents in various roles. However, it lacks specific details about the number or types of positions to be created. The absence of such projections, supported by data from similar developments or industry standards, makes it challenging to fully evaluate the economic benefits. While job creation is a positive outcome, the lack of detailed information limits the ability to accurately assess this benefit.

7.7.3 Building on job creation, the RIA suggests that the proposed new store aims to stabilize pricing, expand consumer choice, and retain local spending. However, these assertions are not validated with quantified projections or supporting data. For instance, the anticipated boost to local spending and reduction in economic leakage remain unspecified. Furthermore, although the potential competitive impact on existing retailers is acknowledged, it has not been comprehensively analysed. Quantified projections and detailed analysis are essential to substantiate these claims and determine the broader economic implications of the proposal. Without such data, it is difficult to thoroughly evaluate the economic benefits.
7.7.4 The Isle of Man Retail Sector Strategy Evidence Base (June 2013) offers context for assessing impacts of new retail development on the local economy by highlighting the rising vacancy rates across town centres, including Port Erin. This demonstrates the urgent need to enhance consumer choice and retain local spending to address these challenges. It also emphasizes the importance of improving floorspace efficiency, which allows retailers to increase turnover and accommodate higher expenditure levels within existing spaces. However, the current scheme risks diverting business away from struggling retail areas. Importantly, no supporting data is provided to confirm that the scheme would not result in a loss of business for existing units. Consequently, these uncertainties cast doubt on the scheme's true economic benefits and restrict the ability to evaluate its overall effectiveness.
7.7.5 The applicants argue that the proposed store will enhance shopping convenience, particularly for older residents and those with limited mobility. They highlight features such as its accessible location, ease of pedestrian and driver access, adequate parking, and proximity to public transport links. While these benefits align with Strategic Policy 10, which seeks to ensure that new developments are planned and designed in a way that fosters a more integrated and sustainable transport network, the RIA does not provide detailed evidence to demonstrate how these features will tangibly improve accessibility or foster its role as a social hub. The IOM Town Audits (January

2024) identify challenges such as the seasonality of local retail activity, which the proposed Co-op store could potentially address by offering a consistent year-round retail option and drawing more foot traffic to the town (given its proposed floor area). However, the scheme's potential drawbacks, particularly its impacts on existing businesses, have not been thoroughly assessed. Without detailed analysis, it remains unclear to what extent the store might displace or negatively affect current retailers. This oversight limits the ability to accurately determine the net economic and social benefits of the proposal.

7.7.6 Further building on concerns highlighted in sections 7.7.3 and 7.7.5 regarding competition and economic impacts, the introduction of the Co-op store is anticipated to have mixed effects on local businesses. While the RIA mentions increased competition and potential opportunities for collaboration with local suppliers, it lacks a detailed analysis of these dynamics. The potential negative impacts on small businesses, such as displacement or market share loss, remain unexplored. Additionally, the claim of partnerships with local suppliers is not substantiated with specific examples or data, reflecting a broader pattern of insufficient use of quantified evidence. To address these gaps, a thorough analysis of potential impacts on existing retailers and mitigation strategies is critical. Without this, it is difficult to determine whether the scheme will align with Strategic Policy 6 and Business Policies 1, 9, and 10, which emphasize sustainable economic growth and support for local businesses.

7.7.7 Drawing on the analysis in sections 7.7.1 to 7.7.6, the proposed Co-op store is expected to contribute to Port Erin's economy through job creation, local spending retention, and improved community amenities. These benefits align with the objectives of the IOM Strategic Plan, the Supplementary Guidance on Economic Issues (December 2022), the IOM Retail Sector Strategy Evidence Base (June 2013), and the IOM Town Audits (January 2024). However, as highlighted throughout this assessment, the RIA fails to provide the necessary quantified evidence, such as detailed job creation projections or specific examples of community impact. Furthermore, unresolved concerns about the displacement of existing businesses, noted in sections 7.7.3, 7.7.5, and 7.7.6, obscure the scheme's net economic benefits. As it stands, the application does not sufficiently address these shortfalls, limiting its compliance with Strategic Policy 6 and related Business Policies. Comprehensive data and detailed analysis are essential to determine whether the proposed development can deliver its claimed economic and community advantages.
7.8 COMPLIANCE WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY PRINCIPLES (Energy Policy 5; Strategic Plan Paragraphs 12.2.9, 12.2.10, & 12.2.11)

7.8.1 Energy Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan mandates that all non-residential developments exceeding 100 square meters submit an Energy Impact Assessment (EIA). Furthermore, Paragraph 12.2.11 reinforces this obligation, requiring commercial projects to demonstrate measures to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency. The proposed development, with a total floor area of approximately 1004 square meters—significantly surpassing the policy's threshold—has not submitted an EIA. This omission is a clear deviation from policy requirements and undermines the Strategic Plan's objectives to promote sustainable development practices.

7.8.2 The inclusion of 14 solar panels on the western roof plane represents a step towards integrating renewable energy technologies. Additionally, the proposed development features extensive areas of glazing on the east elevation, which may provide an opportunity to maximize natural light and reduce reliance on artificial lighting. However, Paragraph 12.2.10 emphasizes that energy efficiency must be achieved through a comprehensive strategy encompassing additional design features, such as Passive Solar Estate Layouts, improved insulation, and advanced energysaving technologies. Without an EIA, there is no evidence that the glazing has been paired with necessary measures to minimize heat loss or prevent overheating, which are crucial considerations for achieving energy efficiency.

7.8.3 At nearly 1004 square meters, the development's scale significantly amplifies the importance of compliance. Larger projects inherently have a more substantial energy footprint, necessitating a thorough assessment and robust mitigation plan. The absence of an EIA for a project of this size raises significant concerns about its alignment with Energy Policy 5 and the Strategic Plan's sustainability objectives. This omission undermines the intent of ensuring developments demonstrate their commitment to reducing energy consumption and enhancing efficiency.

7.8.4 While the integration of 14 solar panels and the extensive glazing on the east elevation are positive elements of the proposal, these measures alone are insufficient to demonstrate compliance with Energy Policy 5. To meet the overarching sustainability goals of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, it is essential that the proposed development submits an Energy Impact Assessment. This assessment would provide a detailed evaluation of energy conservation measures integrated into its design, construction, and operation. Without this document and broader evidence of energyefficient initiatives, the scheme cannot be considered compliant with the policy, or its broader energy conservation and environmental responsibility aims.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Overall, the proposed development presents a mixed-use scheme featuring a 500 sqm retail unit and six tourist apartments. While the proposal offers certain benefits, including job creation, improved consumer choice, and expanded tourism capacity, these positive elements are undermined

by significant policy conflicts and adverse impacts. The retail element fails to comply with the Town Centre/Retail Area/Mixed-Use Area First Approach, as outlined in Strategic Policy 9 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Section 6.14.1 of the Area Plan for the South. The absence of robust site assessments, inadequate Retail Impact Assessment (RIA), and risks to the town centre's viability make the retail component unacceptable in principle. Furthermore, while the tourist use aligns broadly with Strategic Policy 8 and Business Policies 1 and 11, concerns around integration, residential amenity, and sustainability diminish its overall acceptability. The design, scale, and massing of the development also clash with General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 3 and 5, and Environment Policy 42, compromising the character and appearance of the locality.

8.2 The proposed demolition and regeneration aspect contradicts Environment Policy 43, as it overlooks sustainable principles and disregards the reuse of existing assets. Additionally, the scheme fails to address critical issues in parking provision, highway safety, and pedestrian accessibility, falling short of General Policy 2(h) and Transport Policies 4, 6, and 7. Moreover, the cumulative economic benefits asserted by the applicant remain speculative and insufficiently evidenced. The lack of quantified projections and thorough analysis further obscures the proposal's alignment with Strategic Policy 6 and Business Policies 9 and 10.

8.3 Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the application be refused. 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:

o applicant (in all cases).
o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
o 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):

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

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 : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 29.09.2025 Signed : Mr Paul Visigah 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.

Planning Committee Decision 15.09.2025

Application No. : 24/91051/B Applicant : JM Project Management Ltd Proposal : Construction of Co-op food retail store, six tourist apartments over

at first floor level and associated car parking, service yard and associated bin storage Site Address : The Flower Pot And Funeral Directors Station Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6AB Planning Officer Paul Visigah Reporting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report

Meeting held on 29th September 2025: The Committee at its meeting held on 29th September 2025, overturned the recommendation of the case officer to refuse the application and recommended approval, subject to the inclusion of 18 conditions.

Reason for approval:

Whilst the site is located marginally outside the designated mixed-use and retail area of Port Erin, it is situated within the established settlement and in close proximity to other retail uses of Port Erin, thereby supporting the objectives of Business Policies 9 and 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The site has a longstanding history of commercial and retail use, and its redevelopment would bring a brownfield site, vacant for over a decade, back into active use. The scheme is expected to deliver economic benefits and has received formal support from the local authority. The final design is considered acceptable.. Taken together, these factors justify the proposal and support its contribution to town centre vitality, sustainable economic growth, and high-quality urban regeneration.

Conditions on Approval:

C1: Commencement of Development The development hereby approved shall commence within four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Development Procedure Order 2019 and prevent the accumulation of unimplemented permissions.

C2: Retail Floor Space Restriction The gross internal floor area of the retail unit hereby approved shall not exceed 476 sqm, excluding ancillary areas. No mezzanine floors shall be installed.

Reason: To manage the scale of retail provision and ensure compliance with Business Policies 9 and

Reason: To ensure the use remains consistent with the approved planning assessment and to prevent adverse impacts from alternative uses.

Reason: To ensure the use of the accommodation remains consistent with the approved planning assessment, and to prevent adverse impacts arising from alternative or permanent residential uses.

C5: Operational Hours The retail unit hereby approved shall operate only between 0800 and 2200 Monday to Sundays, and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To protect residential amenity and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. C6: Access and Visibility Prior to first use of the development, the access arrangements including visibility splays, pedestrian routes, and vehicular entry/exit points shall be implemented in accordance with Drawing No. 0726/03 Rev. J and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure safe and efficient access to and from the site. C7: Parking Provision All car parking spaces, including those for disabled users and electric vehicle charging, shall be provided prior to first use of the development and retained as such thereafter. These spaces shall be used strictly for the parking of vehicles and for no other purpose, including storage, display, or commercial activity. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision, safeguard highway safety, and support sustainable transport objectives. C8: Bus Stop Relocation (Grampian Condition) The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the adjacent bus stop on Station Road has been relocated eastward, in accordance with the principles and indicative location set out in the ADL Response to the DOI Highways Consultation dated April 2025. Reason: To ensure safe access and visibility for vehicles exiting the site, in accordance with the submitted ADL Transport Response. C9: Cycle Parking

Prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, details of short-stay and longstay cycle parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The facilities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To promote sustainable travel and ensure secure and accessible cycle storage.

C10: Delivery and Servicing Management Prior to the development hereby approved being brought into use, a Delivery and Servicing Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The plan shall include delivery hours, vehicle types, and noise mitigation measures. The development shall operate in accordance with the approved plan thereafter. Reason: To safeguard residential amenity and ensure efficient servicing arrangements.
C11: Historic Building Recording Development shall not commence until a programme of historic building recording of the existing buildings on the site has been undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The programme must be undertaken in accordance with Level Two as set out in Understanding Historic Buildings: A Guide to Good Recording Practice.

Reason: To safeguard the recording and inspection of matters of historical importance that will be lost in the course of works.

C12: Privacy Screening Prior to occupation of the tourist apartments hereby approved, details of privacy screening for the first-floor balcony on the southern elevation which shall have a minimum height of 1.8m shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The screening shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with the Residential Design Guide and General Policy 2.

C13: Energy Impact Assessment Prior to commencement of development, an Energy Impact Assessment (EIA) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The EIA shall demonstrate the measures incorporated into the design, construction, and operation of the development to reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency. These measures shall include, but not be limited to:

i. Passive solar design and estate layout;
ii. Enhanced insulation standards for walls, roofs, windows, and floors;
iii. Integration of renewable energy technologies such as solar panels, photovoltaic cells, or heat pumps;
iv. Energy-efficient lighting, heating, and ventilation systems; The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved assessment and retained as such thereafter.

C14: Biodiversity Mitigation Prior to commencement of development, a Biodiversity Mitigation Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall include details of bat and bird boxes, tree planting, and demolition timing to avoid nesting seasons. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full and retrained as such thereafter. Reason: To mitigate biodiversity loss and ensure compliance with Environment Policies 4 and 5.

C15: External Lighting Prior to the installation of any external lighting, a detailed lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall demonstrate compliance with the recommendations of the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 8 (Bats and Artificial Lighting). The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme, and no external lighting shall be installed other than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To avoid adverse impacts on bats and other nocturnal wildlife (EP4, EP5).
C16: Landscaping Notwithstanding any details already submitted, no development above slab level shall take place until a detailed hard and soft landscaping scheme, including planting plans, species, and boundary treatments, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

C17: Off-site works - Dropped Kerbs (Grampian Condition) The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless off-site highway works including dropped kerbs at the adjacent junction and parking restriction measures on surrounding roads have been implemented in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure safe and efficient access for all highway users.

C18: Occupancy Restriction-Tourist Units No guest or customer of the tourist units shall occupy any part of the accommodation for a period exceeding 28 consecutive days in any three-month period. Prior to the first use of the tourist units, a management plan detailing the booking system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The plan shall include:

a. The maximum permitted stay in each unit;
b. A system for maintaining a register of customer bookings; and
c. A mechanism by which the Department may inspect the register to verify compliance.

The register shall be retained for a minimum of two years from the date of the last entry and shall be made available for inspection by the Department upon reasonable request. The tourist units shall be operated strictly in accordance with the approved management plan.

Meeting held on 15th September 2025: At its meeting held on 15th September 2025, the Planning Committee considered a revised report provided as an addendum to the original report, reflecting the further information and amendments submitted by the applicant. The Committee indicated an intention to overturn the officer's recommendation to refuse the application. However, a final decision was deferred to allow draft planning conditions to be brought before the Committee for consideration at the next meeting scheduled for 29 September 2025.

Meeting held on 14th April 2025: At its meeting held on 14th April 2025, the Planning Committee deferred determination of the application to allow the applicant to provide additional and/or amended information to address the recommended reasons for refusal set out in the officer's report.

Officer Report

Source & Provenance