97738

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  1  of  15

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. 23/01021/B Applicant : Pets At Home Limited Proposal Installation of a mezzanine floor to be used as a veterinary practice, pet care, treatment, and grooming facility; installation of nine external air- conditioning units, a gas bottle storage unit, fire exit door with external staircase, and amendments to existing roller shutter door Site Address Unit 2 Spring Valley Industrial Estate Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2QR

Case Officer :

Mr Hamish Laird Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 09.11.2023

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. 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.

C 2. The pet care / veterinary surgery / treatment and grooming facilities hereby approved shall only be used and operated in connection with the main retail use of the unit and shall not at any time be operated as an independent business.

Reason: The uses hereby approved relate to the main and existing use, and have been found acceptable because they are ancillary to that use. Any sub-division of the unit would be contrary to adopted planning policies and also to previously determined planning applications of this site, and any changes to this would need to be assessed through the submission of a fresh planning application.

C 3. Any retailing undertaken from the mezzanine floor space hereby approved shall be ancillary to that of the main unit.

Reason: The uses hereby approved relate to the main and existing use, and have been found acceptable because they are ancillary to that use. Any sub-division of the unit would be contrary to adopted planning policies and also to previously determined planning applications of this site, and any changes to this would need to be assessed through the submission of a fresh planning application.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  2  of  15

C 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 6 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, or any other order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications, the goods to be sold within the unit hereby approved shall not include food, pet food, pet supplies and pets.

Reason: In the interest of placing appropriate controls with respect to the use of the site.

C 5. The mezzanine floor hereby approved shall be laid out in full accordance with the drawing no. 6834/14, date-stamped as having been received 6th September 2023.

Reason: In the interest of placing appropriate controls with respect to the use of the site.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the proposal complies with General Policy 2; Environment Policies 1, 2, and 21; Business Policy 1; and, Transport Policies TP4 and TP7, of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and is acceptable as it would not result in any adverse environmental impact and there is considered to be sufficient justification for it.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 6th September 2023:

Drawing No. 6834/13 Rev. A - Proposed Elevations; Drawing No. 6834/14 - Proposed Ground & Mezzanine Floor Plan and Areas - Planning Layout; Drawing No. 6834/15 - Proposed Site Layout Plan; Drawing No. 6834/16 Rev. A - Site Location Plan; Parking Capacity Review: Pets at Home, Douglas, IOM - Dated 27th July, 2023;

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

26 Ballachrink Drive, Onchan, Isle of Man Flat 6, 3 Windsor Terrace, Douglas, Isle of Man 38 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas, Isle of Man

As they raise a number of issues, some of which are material planning considerations, but their material interest in the proposal is such that they could not be said to be significantly affected by the proposal. __

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Unit 2, Spring Valley Trading Estate, Cooil Road, Braddan, which is a retail unit currently operated by Pets at Home.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  3  of  15

2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the 'Installation of a mezzanine floor to be used as a veterinary practice, pet care, treatment, and grooming facility; installation of nine external air- conditioning units, a gas bottle storage unit, fire exit door with external staircase, and amendments to existing roller shutter door'. This follows on from a previous Committee refusal of PA 15/01063/B for various external alterations (the installation of: eight air conditioning units, a gas bottle storage unit, a fire door and external staircase, along with amendments to the existing roller shutter door) along with the installation of a mezzanine floor within the unit for use in connection with veterinary services and animal grooming. This application was refused on 17 February, 2016.

2.2 The proposed development also includes the installation of nine no. external air conditioning units, a gas bottle storage unit, a fire exit door, external staircase and amendments to the roller shutter door. The introduction or additional cooling provision and gas storage is primarily associated with the proposed pet care and treatment facility. The mezzanine floor would measure roughly 304sqm net, and the proposed floorspace is intended to be used as a 'pet care, treatment and grooming facility'. It would be physically and functionally linked to the existing floorspace at the site which is occupied by Pets at Home for the sale of pets and pet related products and services. The proposed floorspace at mezzanine level would be accessible via a staircase and lift, and would accommodate consulting rooms where general pet care advice is given, animals receive basic preventative medicine and treatments (such as worming or flea treatments), and small scale procedures such as spaying and X-raying. Grooming and other 'day to day' care and treatment will also be provided.

2.3 In respect of this part of the proposal, it is relevant that, under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, the creation of a mezzanine floor within an existing building that is entirely internal to that building and does not involve any external alterations does not constitute 'development', and therefore consequently does not require planning approval. However, in this instance, the planning application is required due to the mezzanine floor resulting a greater level of retail floorspace than was allowed by a condition attached to a previous planning application on this site, PA08/02135/A, which granted Approval in Principle for an overall retail floorspace of 1,672sqm on the application site.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site and wider environment has and have been the subject of a number of previous applications, five of which in this case are considered to be relevant to the current proposal.

3.2 Planning application 08/02135/A sought Approval in Principle to demolish the existing unit and erect retail units with ancillary car parking and servicing. The planning application was refused though a subsequent appeal against that refusal was upheld by the Minister, in accordance with the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector, with the result that the application was approved on 23rd February 2010. Nine conditions were attached to this planning approval, of which the following three are worth noting:

Condition 6 stated: "This permission shall provide for a maximum retail floorspace of 1672m2."

Condition 7 stated: "The permission shall provide for a maximum of 2 units and there shall be no further sub-division."

Condition 9 stated: "Notwithstanding the provisions of article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005, or any other order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications, the goods to be sold within the units hereby approved shall not include food and shall consist primarily of building, decorating and home-improvement materials and equipment, furniture and floor coverings, garden goods and equipment, car parts, spares, maintenance goods and equipment, camping equipment, boats, quad bikes, bicycles, electrical goods and equipment, light fittings, pet food, pet supplies and pets."

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  4  of  15

There was no condition specifying opening hours for the approved units.

It is worth noting that the application was originally refused by the Planning Committee for the following reason:

"The proposed development is contrary to the aims of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 to direct all new retail development to existing shopping centres. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development would not detract from the vitality and viability of existing centres, nor has it been adequately demonstrated that the proposed goods could not reasonably be sold from an existing centre because of their size or nature. For these reasons the proposal is contrary to Business Policy 5 and Business Policy 10."

3.3 Following this, PA 10/01384/REM sought and gained Reserved Matters planning approval for the demolition of existing unit and erection of two retail units with ancillary car parking and servicing. Seven conditions were imposed on this planning approval, but the only two of which are relevant to the assessment of the current application were copies of conditions 7 and 9 as outlined above. Again, there was no condition specifying opening hours for the approved units.

3.4 Subsequently, PA 11/01726/B was submitted seeking approval for the installation of a mezzanine floor for retail purposes within Unit 1, which was and is operated by Dixons Retail plc and is the sister Unit to that which is the subject of the current proposal. The case officer's assessment ran in part as follows:

"It is also relevant to note that both Unit 1 and Unit 2 could be legitimately occupied and used by any retailer without any further planning approval provided they accord with the provisions of condition no. 9 of previous planning application 08/02135/A and condition no. 7 of previous planning application 10/01384/B accordingly. Both of these conditions, which are identical, set out the range of goods that can be legitimately sold from the application site. This condition was originally imposed by the then Minister when he accepted the recommendation to allow the appeal against the refusal of previous planning application 08/02135/A. Whilst planning conditions can control what is sold from a site the planning system cannot control who sells those items. It should also be noted that should they decide to go ahead without the mezzanine floor the current applicant (Dixons Retail Plc) could legitimately occupy and trade from Unit 1 without needing any further planning approval.

"As stated earlier, previous planning application 08/02135/A was approved subject to a condition stating that the permission shall provide for a maximum retail floorspace of 1672 square metres. Based on the existing retail floorspace within Unit 2 (Pets at Home) and the proposed retail floorspace within Unit 1 with the mezzanine floor the overall retail floorspace within the application site would be 1709 square metres. This equates to an additional 37 square metres of, or a 2.2% increase in, retail floorspace above the previously approved 1672 square metres of retail floorspace.

"Taking account of the planning application submissions and the representations it is considered that whilst the various concerns expressed are readily understood the principle of retailing from the application site has been established by the approval of previous planning application 08/02135/A. Whilst it is accepted that overall retailing from the application site will have an effect on existing retailers elsewhere it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reasonably refuse the current planning application on the basis of an additional 37 square metres of retail floorspace above the already established 1672 square metres of retail floorspace. The impact of the 37 square metres of retail floorspace is negligible in comparison to the already approved 1672 square metres of retail floorspace. It is also considered that the increased level of retail floorspace would be unlikely to materially increase the trip generation and parking requirement to any noticeable extent."

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  5  of  15

There were a number of objections received to the proposal, including one from the Minister who had accepted the Inspector's recommendation to uphold the appeal in respect of the original AiP on this site, who was concerned that the additional floorspace pushed the boundaries of what was an already finely balanced situation.

The Planning Committee refused the application for the following two reasons:

"The increase in floorspace greater than that conditioned in application 08/02135/A, would further undermine the aims of Strategic Policy 9 and Business Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 which seeks to direct all new retail to town and village centres in order to protect the vitality and viability of those centres."

"The proposal would result in an increased demand for parking on a site where the existing levels of parking provision are demonstrably inadequate, and which would therefore result in overspill to surrounding roads causing inconvenience to users of the highway."

No appeal was lodged.

3.5 Of less immediate relevance, but nevertheless worth noting, is the application (PA 11/01594/LAW) submitted seeking a Certificate of Lawful Use for the use of Unit 1 (which it is to be remembered is not the unit the subject of the current application) for retail sale by Next Plc for the sale of furniture, household goods and decorating items plus childrenswear. The application was seeking to establish whether the sale of those goods would comply with Condition 7 attached to 10/01384/REM and Condition 9 attached to 08/02135/A (both of which were the same and the wording of which has been outlined in this report at paragraph 3.2, above).

3.6 The application was refused on the 1st December 2012 for the following reason:

"The proposed use is not lawful and a Certificate of lawful use is declined as; The sale of goods from the site, as itemised in the application, would not be compliant with condition 9 of Planning Permission 08/ 02135/A or condition 7 of 10/01384/REM and would amount to the building not being used primarily for the sale of building, decorating and home-improvement materials and equipment, furniture and floor coverings, garden goods and equipment, car parts, spares, maintenance goods and equipment, camping equipment, boats, quad bikes, bicycles, electrical goods and equipment, light fittings, pet food, pet supplies and pets. Therefore Planning Permission would be required."

Again, no appeal was lodged.

3.7 From the applicants current submission, they advise: "On 17th February 2016, an application was refused for 'Alterations, creation of a mezzanine floor to provide a veterinary surgery, pet grooming and related facilities, installation of eight air conditioning units, gas bottle storage unit, fire door, external staircase and amendments to existing roller shutter door' at Pets At Home Unit 2 Spring Valley Industrial Estate Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2QR (App Ref: 15/01063/B) (the '2016 Application').

The Decision Notice for the 2016 Application detailed two reasons for refusal. These reasons are set out below:

1. The application has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in demonstrable harm in respect of the local highway network in respect of displaced parking and also the amount of parking that is available on the site at present. The proposal is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  6  of  15

2. The application has failed to demonstrate that there would be no harm arising from the proposed use and floorspace relative to existing retail / community centres. The site is zoned for industrial use, and the application has failed to demonstrate why the proposed use and floorspace could not be located in a town centre location. As such, the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 and Business Policies 5, 9 and 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

The Applicant has provided additional evidence as part of this 23/01021/B resubmission to address the previous reasons for refusal."

4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as predominantly industrial under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Braddan Parish District Local Plan) Order 1991. Planning Circular 6/91, the written statement that accompanies the local plan, contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

4.2 Policy 2.4 states: "In accordance with the adopted policy of Tynwald no retail developments will be permitted in the Parish District of Braddan with the exception of retail provision designed to serve the local neighbourhood requirements of existing and future communities."

4.3 Policy 2.5 states: "No development of retail use, nor conversion of existing buildings to retail use, will be permitted in existing or future industrial areas."

4.4 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan contains six policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application.

4.5 General Policy 2 states, in part: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways."

4.6 Strategic Policy 9 states: "All new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) and all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park location) must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into consideration Business Policies 7 and 8."

4.7 Business Policy 1 states: "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan."

4.8 Business Policy 5 states: "On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution; retailing will not be permitted except where either:

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  7  of  15

(a) the items to be sold could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature; or (b) the items to be sold are produced on the site and their sale could not reasonably be severed from the overall business;

and, in respect of (a) or (b), where it can be demonstrated that the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of the appropriate town centre shopping area."

4.9 Business Policy 9 states: "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment."

4.10 Business Policy 10 states: "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."

4.11 From the previous Officers Report to the planning Committee in respect of PA 15/01063/B, the following comments (in italics) remain relevant to the current application. These are: Reference has been made in representations to the Employment Land Review of June 2015 (amended January 2017). This reflects primarily on the availability of land for office or industrial purposes, and not for retail specifically. In acknowledging that what is proposed does not readily fall within definitions of either 'retail' or 'employment land', it is perhaps worth noting the following relevant extract:

"With limited demand, some of the areas Isle of Man Employment Land Review Final Report June 2015 allocated for industrial use have witnessed pressure from retail, retail services, showroom, community services and other uses. As these values generally command higher rents than industrial and storage uses, where such development has taken place, it has tended to influence value expectations and generate continued pressure for uses not covered by the original allocation. In some cases, different customer access, loading, delivery and parking requirements have created use conflicts and created capacity issues at some road junctions.

"While acknowledging that allocations should contain some flexibility to reflect the size of the economy and the changing nature of sector demand, care also needs to be taken to ensure land and premises are available to encourage the maintenance and expansion of particular employment uses in environments suited to their operation."

4.12 Similarly, reference has been made to the Retail Sector Strategy of 2013. Again, in view of the fact that the proposal does not readily fall within the definition of 'retail', the applicability of the Strategy to the proposal is somewhat limited although there are a few extracts that might be worth reflecting upon:

"3.10 Retailing is a dynamic sector. Whether through new formats and channels, product development, marketing or training, innovation in existing and new businesses should be promoted. Working with key retailers, the Chamber of Commerce and others, Government will encourage awareness of emerging trends and opportunities."

"3.25 While out of centre units may help to keep consumer spending here which would otherwise go elsewhere, they do little to support town centres. In town centres: costs (redevelopment, rents and occupation) tend to be high; ownership of potential premises is complex; the age and layout of retail premises may not be flexible; and parking , which often attracts a charge, serve the centre as a whole rather than individual stores. Other non-retail uses also compete for a limited supply of suitable and available sites."

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  8  of  15

It is clear from its overriding aim, though, that key to the Strategy is its focus on ensuring high quality town centres as opposed to out-of-town offer:

"To promote competitive and accessible retail and leisure environments in our town centres, which offer choice and convenience for consumers, improve the economy and enhance residents' quality of life."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure (10/10/23) comments: "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking due to the off-street parking available within the site and TRO parking restrictions on the public highway in the vicinity of the proposals."

5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners (18/9/23) offered no objection to the proposal.

5.3 DEFA Chief Veterinary Officer Animal Health, Regulation Directorate (17/10/23) comments: Please would you kindly add the below email trail to the PA Ref: 23/01021/B file as a consultee comment from the Animal Health Team. (16/10/23) "I have discussed with the other government vet and we don't have any comments."

5.5 Third party representations - Three representations have been received - all raise objection to the proposals as outlined below:

26 Ballachrink Drive, Onchan, Isle of Man

Before accepting this application I would like the committee to understand the affect that this application will have on other local businesses. Pets at home were previously declined planning for a dog groomers and vets due to the affect it would have on similar local businesses.

Since pets at home have opened over 10 local pet shops have had to close their doors. The Isle of Man states freedom to flourish but this only seems to be for UK companies that want the monopoly on the Isle of Man.

Accepting this planning application would put local dog groomers and vet practices at risk of closure due to their ability to offer cheap prices because they have so many other income streams to depend on.

Local companies put all of their proceeds back into the economy on the Isle of Man. By accepting this application and possibly forcing the closure of local businesses you are losing money from local tax payers.

Please support local businesses at this hard time and refuse this planning application.

Flat 6, 3 Windsor Terrace, Douglas, Isle of Man

I hereby express my passionate objection to this current planning application. This proposal, if approved, threatens to undermine the already fragile ecosystem of local sole proprietor groomers and pet care providers, which forms the essence of our community.

At a time when our Peel commissioner, Hazel Hannan is ardently advocating for bolstering local commerce owing to a spate of business closures, it's disheartening to witness attempts to further entrench large-scale corporate interests on the Isle of Man. The previous application was rightly declined to shield similar local businesses from undue competition. However, after

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  9  of  15

the establishment of Pets at Home, a disconcerting trend has emerged with all other local pet shops having shut their doors.

The unique skill, creativity, and craftsmanship honed by our local groomers will end up on the verge of extinction if this application is passed. The livelihoods that depend on these small-scale operations stand at a perilous juncture. The corporate encroachment envisaged by this application will exacerbate this dire situation, gradually annexing the grooming market, and systematically building out a chain that stifles local entrepreneurship through a race to the bottom on prices, devaluing our skill set.

The grave reality is that as they expand, the fabric of our community contracts, culminating in a loss of personalized service, and erosion of local economic circulation while destroying relationships within the community. I request the planning committee to consider the long-term repercussions this application could have on our local business and on future local businesses. Upholding the ethos of community and local enterprise is crucial for the sustained economic and social vitality of the Isle of Man.

I am hopeful that the committee will act judiciously in reviewing this application, prioritising the interests of the local community and economy.

38 Ballakermeen Drive, Douglas, Isle of Man

I would like to express my objection to this proposed planning application. When Pets at Home first opened, various small local pet shops were heavily affected by this and were forced to close their shops due to not being able to compete with a corporate business. These local companies lost their source of income because a UK corporate store was allowed to move over here.

As a local dog groomer, I think it's appalling that we are potentially going through all this again with Pets at Home applying to expand into dog grooming. They originally applied to have a dog grooming salon on their first application, along with a veterinary practice which was rightfully declined to protect local businesses.

I have personally spent a lot of time and effort to build up my local business and find it extremely worrying that a corporate business may be allowed to set up here and therefore take away business from not only myself as a local dog groomer, but other dog groomers based all over the island.

My business is located in the Eden Park Industrial Estate which is in close proximity to the proposed application site and this will without a doubt affect my business even more than other dog groomers based on the island. The Isle of Man Government through the Department of Enterprise itself provides a scheme encouraging local businesses to start up and grow yet by approving this application, the exact opposite will happen.

We have recently seen an increase of other local businesses having to close down across various sectors due to not being able to compete with other corporate businesses that are across the island.

I implore you to take my points made into consideration and object to this planning application."

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key points as set out in the case officer's report in respect of the proposed mezzanine floor at Unit 1 remain matters of importance for this assessment. That being said, it is not ignored that the Planning Committee disagreed with the officer's recommendation. It is perhaps worth noting these reasons again which were:

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  10  of  15

1. "The increase in floorspace greater than that conditioned in application 08/02135/A, would further undermine the aims of Strategic Policy 9 and Business Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 which seeks to direct all new retail to town and village centres in order to protect the vitality and viability of those centres."

"The proposal would result in an increased demand for parking on a site where the existing levels of parking provision are demonstrably inadequate, and which would therefore result in overspill to surrounding roads causing inconvenience to users of the highway."

6.2 However, this application is different to that refused in 2016. Firstly, the space proposed would provide for veterinary and related uses, and any retailing undertaken would be (or could be controlled to be) ancillary to the approved and existing use of the unit on the lower level, which is intended to be retained. While the previous concerns raised by the objectors in respect of the impact the new mezzanine would have on Douglas town centre is readily understood, it must be remembered that what is here proposed does not readily fall within the definition of 'retail'. In any case, as they rightly point out, the additional floorspace proposed is well below the threshold required for a formal Retail Impact Assessment.

6.3 That being said, the concerns in respect of what is considered to be an intensification of retail use in an area not zoned for it, and which was approved on balance and also contrary to the land use zoning, is not unfounded. Even if it is accepted that the proposal does not relate to retail space at all, the history on the site in terms of the original approval and also refused 2011 and 2016 applications is such that the concern should not be dismissed, and this in many ways goes to the heart of the acceptability of what is now being proposed. There are clearly competing arguments and both have a certain logic.

6.4 On the one hand, the proposed use would normally be expected to be found in town centres. The Business Policies of the Strategic Plan, along with the 2013 Retail Sector Strategy and 2015 Employment Land Review, supports this conclusion. The Strategic Plan generally presumes that retail, or retail-related, uses should be found within town centres in order to protect the vitality and viability of those centres. The Island's Development Plan has consistently presumed against such uses being found outside of town centres as a general rule, and this is perhaps one reason why there are very few large-scale retail units outside of existing centres, and also is perhaps why the definition between settlements and the countryside remains so distinct on the Island.

6.5 On the other hand, veterinary surgeries are often not found within town centres as nearby parking, which is often crucial for users of the service, is not always possible. Veterinary surgeries can be noisy and encourage vehicular movements at all times of the day and night (even if what is proposed would not be used during evenings). As such, they often do not sit well in residential environments. Moreover, the importance of providing clear and easy vehicular access to users of the service - which is often, for the users and their animal(s), perceived as an emergency - is clearly going to be of benefit.

6.6 Going on from this, another of the reasons why there is a general presumption to retain retail uses within defined areas relates to ease of access for all the associated uses. Firstly, users - whether in an emergency or not - will not generally be going to a veterinary surgery as well as making a trip to go shopping: they will be making a unique use to a veterinary surgery. Secondly, trips to the veterinary surgery generally rely on private car (or taxi) rather than other, more sustainable forms of transport. The fact that the site is neither nearby other town centre users nor benefits from good public transport connections is therefore not, in this instance, considered to be reason enough to object to the proposal. Indeed, the easy access that the site and the availability of car parking on site could well be seen as beneficial.

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  11  of  15

6.7 It is perhaps worth asking the question of what location would be more appropriate. Generally, town centres would be strongly preferred for retail uses and for other, non-retail but clearly complementary uses such as that proposed, but the reasons why this would not necessarily always be ideal have been outlined above. Similarly, residential areas are, again, not ideal even though it is noted that some surgeries do exist in such areas. Providing the floorspace as additional to an existing, complementary use might well be the next best location as a general principle. A new unit outside of a town centre would raise a number of concerns, both in terms of principle and detail. It is not easy to come to a definitive conclusion but clearly there are some notable benefits to this location. Unlike the previously refused application, no concerns have been raised about the quality of the care that would be provided.

6.8 As indicated, the concerns of the objectors in respect of the location and the impact the proposal could have on existing dog grooming businesses are understood. The fact that the unit is already existing, however, and in view of the benefits that could result from the proposal balanced against the dis-benefits and also the adopted Business Policies, is such as to mean that the principle of the proposal is acceptable. As in the case of the 2016 application, this is a very finely balanced conclusion. As such, the second reason for refusal issued in respect of the 2016 application is not considered to apply in this case.

6.9 Turning to the first reason for refusal of the 2016 application, which was on highway grounds, DoI Highways Services has raised no objection to the proposals. The applicants have provided a parking survey with Island Highway & Transport Consultants having been commissioned to undertake a parking survey to establish the level of parking capacity during peak hours.

6.10 The applicants advise that the report "identifies that the Site shares its parking facilities with an adjacent unit which comprises: 76 customer parking spaces and 10 segregated spaces for staff within a controlled service area at Spring Valley Industrial Estate.

Island Highway & Transport Consultants consulted the Engagement Manager for Highway Services at the Isle of Man Government prior to the application being submitted. Both parties agreed that the applicant would undertake a 24 hour automatic classified count of vehicles entering / leaving the site for a nine day period to include two weekends supported with a simple manual count of available parking spaces at the beginning, middle and end of each working day.

The report found that the peak weekday, customer parking accumulation was observed to be 28 vehicles on Thursday 20th July with the peak weekend accumulation being 41 vehicles observed on Saturday 22nd July. This means that the Site has a minimum reserve capacity of 48 spaces on weekdays and 35 spaces at weekends. Therefore, the report concludes that the existing parking capacity serving the Site is sufficient to accommodate the additional parking demand generated by the proposed development. It follows that the proposal would not raise any risk of 'displaced parking' and accords with Policy 7 of the IOMSP."

6.11 Officers consider that given the above the application is acceptable on highway safety grounds and sufficient parking spaces would be provided to serve the proposed use. This accords with the provisions of Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan."

6.12 In view of the above it is considered that the refusal reasons issued to the 2016 application do not apply with respect to this application, which is different in two crucial ways as discussed. It has been concluded that the site offers a not unacceptable location for the service proposed, and would not result in demonstrable harm to highway safety or parking provision. The proposal does not propose retail as it might normally be defined, but the Business Policies referred to remain the most appropriate against which to assess the proposal. In this regard, while the proposal might not meet all the tests, it is not concluded to be so harmful or to present such a clear precedent for other uses elsewhere as to warrant a refusal to

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  12  of  15

the current application. Irrespective of this, the conclusions outlined above have been reached having had regard to the particular circumstances of the site and what is proposed for it, and the likely level of harm that the grant of planning approval would have. Conditions relating to the specific nature of the proposal and the issues it raises would not be inappropriate.

6.13 It remains to be considered whether or not there are any other issues raised by the current proposal.

6.14 In this respect, it is not considered that the proposal raises any specific concerns from a Planning point of view that warrant an objection to the proposal. The previous concerns raised by other services on the Island, and the users of those services, with regards the level and quality of care and economic competition are understood but, equally, are not material planning considerations.

6.15 That being said, it remains appropriate to consider whether or not the issue of 24/7 care represents a significant issue in terms of the operation of the uses proposed. There exists no condition relating to time limits and so, were there a compelling legal or ethical reason that the veterinary surgery proposed within the mezzanine floor must be open for 24 hours in a day, there is no Planning reason why this could not occur.

6.16 Concerns with regards the level of care and quality of experience that the proposal would result are understood to a point, but it must be concluded that the quality of animal care sought by people must remain the responsibility of those people rather than the Planning System. It is noted that DEFA's Chief Veterinary Officer for Animal Health has raised no concerns.

6.17 The physical changes proposed are fairly small scale and are of a type of construction, and in locations, that are such as to be fairly unobtrusive and, moreover, of the kind of alteration that might normally be expected to be found in out of town retailing and industrial areas. Indeed, most of these proposed changes are in any case located in the service yard and behind the wall separating that yard from the car park and would scarcely be seen in any case.

6.18 The previous objection from the MUA in respect of the proposed location of the air conditioning units was not fully understood since, as noted, they offered no objection to the proposal to construct the buildings in the first place. However, this did not seem to be reason enough to object to the proposal especially since in the same objection letter the MUA also advise that it sought to open a dialogue with the applicant to ensure those works were undertaken appropriately.

Other Matters 6.19 The comments received in the form of third party representations relating to the impact that the proposed development may have on their existing Dog Grooming businesses and closures of pet shops, are noted. In such instances the planning system examines applications for land use, and does not necessarily examine issues where competing land uses/operations may arise.

6.20 A Google search of Isle of Man Dog Grooming Businesses indicates that there are 25 such businesses located across the Island, although these are predominantly in the Douglas/Onchan area, with some located in close proximity to each other. DEFA Planning is presently considering a separate application for a dog grooming parlour in Christian Road, Douglas - PA 23/01023/C - which is recommended for approval. In all other respects, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable, and any issues relating to the potential for commercial competition are a matter for the market to decide as such concerns lie outside the control of the planning system.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  13  of  15

7.1 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would not be so harmful to the vitality of character of local town and village centres, and nor would the impact on parking provision be sufficiently significant, as to warrant this application's refusal. The physical changes proposed are appropriately limited in scale and hidden from view. The information accompanying the application is considered to have overcome the previous reasons for refusal in respect of the impacts on the local highway network, on-site parking provision and displaced parking. There has been no comment received from MUA who had previously raised unspecified concerns relating to nearby underground 11kv cables regarding the siting of the air conditioning units as a result of which the applicants held discussions with MUA to resolve any issues. The proposal would not result in any undue adverse impacts on to existing retail and uses and community centres. DEFA's Chief Veterinary Officer for Animal Health has raised no concerns. Having considered all the other issues raised by this proposal, the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.

7.2 A Condition limiting the use of the mezzanine floor as being ancillary to the retail space below, and also requiring that the new floorspace is not sub-divided from the same existing retail space, is recommended to be attached to any approval notice that may be forthcoming.

7.3 Other conditions restricting the use of the site and also requiring the mezzanine floor to be laid out exactly as shown on the submitted drawing are also appropriate to attach.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, which in this case includes the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. __

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : ...Pending Decision... Committee Meeting Date:...20.11.2023

Signed :...H LAIRD... 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/NO See below

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  14  of  15

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.

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      23/01021/B                                     Page  15  of  15

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 20.11.2023

PA No 23/01021/B Applicant Pets At Home Limited Proposal Installation of a mezzanine floor to be used as a veterinary practice, pet care, treatment, and grooming facility; installation of nine external air- conditioning units, a gas bottle storage unit, fire exit door with external staircase, and amendments to existing roller shutter door Site Address Unit 2 Spring Valley Industrial Estate Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2QR Planning Officer Mr Hamish Laird Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report

At the 20th November, 2023, Planning Committee Meeting, Members discussed the application making the following points:

o It was confirmed that the application site was out of town, was located within a predominantly industrial estate, and that a similar application had been refused under PA 15/01063/B in 2016.

o Members acknowledged that the proposed additional uses for the mezzanine floor as a veterinary practice, pet care, treatment, and grooming facility; would provide diversification and additional services.

o In response to a question from the Chair, one of the objectors to the proposal confirmed that existing dog grooming businesses had expressed grave concern regarding the viability of their businesses should this application be approved.

o The Members expressed that the application was finely balanced and while the proposed location offered benefits, they also had sympathy with the objectors. Underpinning Members discussions it was noted that on page 11, under the heading 'Economy' para 3.4 (d) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, states: 'To maintain and enhance the viability and vitality of town centres by controlling the location and nature of new retail and commercial development.'

o The Members discussed reasons for refusal, agreeing that two such reasons be proposed on the grounds of additional retail and insufficient information contained within the application under consideration to overturn previous application. The Members voted 5 to one to accept such reasons for refusal.

The application was refused for the reasons outlined.