SOC DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement

Please reply to the signatory

Our Ref:

Mr. A. Johnstone Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN

Dear Mr Johnstone,

Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: [email protected]

Lucy Kinrade Planning Officer Date: 10th June 2024 PA No: 24/00287/C Proposal: Change of use from a veterinary practice to offices Address: Ballastrang, Castletown Road, Ballaglonney, Santon, Isle Of Man, IM4 1EU Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which is online and forms part of the planning file. The application was determined by delegated powers and a decision issued on 22nd April 2024.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

1. Statement of Case

In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved a reason for approval shall be given along with consideration to those potential conditions listed at 5.0 of the enclosed Statement of Case.

Yours sincerely,

Lucy Kinrade Planning Officer

STATEMENT OF THE

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

Change of use from a veterinary practice to offices Ballastrang, Castletown Road, Ballaglonney, Santon, Isle Of Man, IM4 1EU PA Reference: 24/00287/C Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Lucy Kinrade – Planning Officer

• 1.0 Appeal against approval of PA 23/00784/B
• 1.1 Reasons for refusal:

“R1. The proposal would be at odds with those policies that specifically seek to direct office development to existing centres and would result in a piecemeal of smaller office use within the countryside that deteriorates the town and village vitality and viability contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 9, General Policy 3 (c) and (g), Environment Policies 1 and 2, Environment Policy 16 (a) and (e), Paragraph 9.3.3, Business Policy 7(b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• R2. Planning history provides evidence of other non-office uses being accepted at this site and which would help to maintain the future use and upkeep of the building without harm to town or village centres. The veterinary use has not be demonstrated as being redundant nor that there arent other more reasonable and appropriate uses for this building in this countryside before an office use comes forward and this is at odds with Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 5, Strategic Policy 9, General Policy 3 (c) and (g), Environment Policies 1 and 2, Environment Policy 16 (a) and (e), Paragraph 9.3.3, Business Policy 7(b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R3. The unsustainable location of the site will increase demand for private car use and it is not been made clear whether sufficient parking is truly available for the office use without compromise to neighbouring properties or without adversely impacting the shared access lane or highway safety and is considered to fail Strategic Policy 1(c), Strategic Policy 10, Environment Policy 16 (d), Paragraph 9.3.3, Business Policy 8, and Transport Policies 1, 4, and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.”

• 2.0 Legal and Policy Position
• 2.1 In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered;

S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to —

• (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
• (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
• (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and

(d) all other material considerations.

There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and it is recognised that the weight which it is to be given is a matter for the decision maker.

• 2.2 It shall be noted that the Isle of Man Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement.
• 2.3 In this application, the most weight has been given to the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the relevant 1982 Plan and Area Plan for the South 2013 as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.

• 3.0 Reasons for Appeal and Officer’s Responses
• 3.1 The appeal request form sets out the reasons for appeal and this can be viewed online in full and have been copied below for ease of review with the officer’s response provided directly below:

• 1.1. The planning officer has misinterpreted Environment Policy 16 insofar as this requires demonstration that the building is no longer required for itsoriginal not itscurrentpurpose.

• Response 1: It is felt that this has been considered and suitably covered in those paragraphs under sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the main officer’s report (para’s 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.3.3) and therefore no further response or comments to be made at this stage.

1. The planning officer has misunderstood or not familiarised themselves with the site in respect of the amount of car parking that is available which is sufficient for the proposed office use and has not had any regard to the previously approved uses and the level of parking required or generated by them, intheir dismissal of the application for this reason.

• Response 2: It is considered that this has already been covered in those paragraphs under section 6.5 of the main officer’s report (para’s 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and 6.5.3) and therefore no further response or comments to be made at this stage.

3. The planning officer has not taken into account in applying the policies which direct developmentto existing settlements, that Environment Policy 16 allows for the creation of offices withinundesignated areas if the development complies with the requirements of that policy.

• Response 3: It is felt that this has been considered and suitably covered in those paragraphs under sections 6.2 and 6.3 in the main officer’s report (para’s 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.3.3) and therefore no further response or comments to be made at this stage.

1. The planning officer has not taken into account in applying the policies which direct development to existing settlements, that any use, other than agriculture or equestrian will generally be directed to existing settlements or land designated for that purpose and there is no evidence in the report to explain why office use on this site is any more unacceptable than the other uses to which the building could be put in accordance with Environment Policy 16.

• Response 4: It is considered that these matters have been covered in those paragraphs under sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the main officer’s report (para’s 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.3.1, 6.3.2 and 6.3.3).

1. The planning officer has not taken into account in their report the fact that the earlier application for changeof use of the building from agricultural was for a learning centre which has similar characteristics to the proposed office use and similarly the veterinary practice which we would suggest would generate as much if not more traffic and customers than the proposed office use.

• Response 5: There is suggestion of office traffic being no different to previous uses but there is no evidence provided in the application to back this up. The officer report indicates that there is some level of parking provided but that the submission lacks a proper car parking plan to ensure these spaces are available for the office particularly minded that offices are to be directed to more sustainable locations. As this site is not considered within a sustainable office location there is greater need to demonstrate parking provision and so a proper assessment could have been made and this is explained in paragraphs under section 6.5 of the officer’s report (para’s 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and 6.5.3). Without a proper plan and details it cannot be fully considered, it might be that there is in fact an over provision, but if there is an under provision this would weight against the proposal.

6. The planning officer has not explained how the development would be contrary to EnvironmentPolicy 1 which protects the countryside for its own sake, given that the building and site are not

publicly visible, there are no proposed changes to the building and the use has similar characteristics to both previously permitted uses.

• Response 6: Paragraph 6.3.2 of the officer report recognises there will be no physical changes and so no adverse visual impact, but it is by reason of the piecemeal spread of office development into the countryside that results in adverse impact to rural character and for which there have been no overriding national need demonstrated nor any reasonable and acceptable alternative demonstrated.

• 7. The planning officer does not explain how the development is contrary to General Policy 3 in that sub paragraph b refers as an exception to the conversion of redundant rural building which are of architectural, historic or social value and this building must have been considered as such when it was originally permitted for conversion to tourist and learning centre uses. Regardless of this, we would submit that it is of such interest and whilst GP2b only refers to Housing Policy 11, the preceding text does not specify solely conversion of such buildings to housing.

Response 7: Paragraph 6.2.2 of the officer report accepts that there is some level of interest in having the buildings fabric retained. The application has not been refused against GP3(b).

• 8. The planning officer has not clarified which are the “other more reasonable and appropriate uses for this building in the countryside” given the characteristics ofthe previously approved uses, the fact that no changes are proposed to the building and the level of car parking requirement would be similar if not less than the previouslyapproved uses, nor why these unspecified uses are more reasonable and/or appropriate.”

• Response 8: This is covered within paragraph 7.1 of the main officer’s report. There are a considerable number of policies specifically relating to new office development including the need to those offices in sustainable locations unless suitably demonstrated otherwise (BP7b). The whole thrust of the Strategic Plan and the overarching Strategic Aim is to work towards creating a sustainable Island. Those policies relating to office development seek to have such within existing centres and settlements making best use of existing infrastructure, being within suitable walking distances to reduce private car demand and located as to encourage the use of other local shops and services all helping towards contributing to the vitality and viability of those areas as well as towards a more sustainable Island. This application has not been submitted with any evidence to demonstrate that office use is the last on only way of securing the future use of this building.

• 5.0 Potential Conditions
• 5.1 These conditions are provided without prejudice:

• C1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
• C2. The use hereby approved is only for Class 2.1 Office as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019. Reason: the application has been assessed on this basis as requested in the application content.
• C3. Prior to the development hereby approved coming into use, a full car parking plan showing turning areas and parking spaces for sole use by the office shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be occupied or operated until the turning areas and parking spaces have been provided in full accordance with the approved plans and thereafter shall not be used for any purpose other than for the turning and parking of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.