142661

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 15/01063/B
                                 Page  1  of  12

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 15/01063/B Applicant : Companion Care (Services) Limited Proposal : 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 Site Address : Pets At Home Unit 2 Spring Valley Industrial Estate Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2QR

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 07.10.2015 Site Visit : 07.10.2015 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.

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

2.1 Full planning approval is sought 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.

2.2 The mezzanine floor would measure roughly 250sqm net, and comprise a number of different rooms to include waiting areas, consulting areas, an operating theatre, washing areas, dog and cat wards and a preparation and lab area. The floor would be accessible via a staircase and lift, and the small operating theatre would provide for small procedures such as spaying and x-raying.

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, which granted Approval in Principle for an overall retail floorspace of 1,672sqm on the application site. The very fact that the application has been submitted means the statement of the agents to the application that the mezzanine floor "can only be described as de minimis" is somewhat confusing.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 15/01063/B
                                 Page  2  of  12

2.4 The application was re-advertised with an amended and clearer description in respect of the proposal and also with a traffic / parking survey that was sought by Highway Services following the application's submission.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The site and wider environment has and have been the subject of a number of previous applications, four 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."

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

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 15/01063/B
                                 Page  3  of  12

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."

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:

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 15/01063/B
                                 Page  4  of  12

"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.

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 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 5 ====

                                                 15/01063/B
                                 Page  5  of  12

(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 Reference has been made in representations to the Employment Land Review. 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."

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:

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 15/01063/B
                                 Page  6  of  12

"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 initially commented on the proposal on 1st October 2015 as follows: "Defer - With the increase in floor space and use of said space, applicant should be providing 3 spaces per consulting room plus staff parking in accordance with the IOM Strategic Plan. This would equate to approximately 12 spaces depending on the numbers of staff.

"The current car park which serves both Pets At Home and PC World/Currys at peak times is in high demand.

"Applicant needs to carry out a parking survey during store opening hours, including weekends."

The survey was provided to Highway Services prior to the application being formally re-advertised and so their comments were provided earlier than would otherwise be expected, on 1st October 2015:

"Agent has carried out a two week parking survey of the site. From the survey it is evident that parking spaces are available to accommodate the increase floor space. Highway officer undertook site assessment and noted free parking at all times, including peak weekend hours."

They therefore offered no objection to the proposal.

5.2 Braddan Parish Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal on 19th October 2015 and 28th January 2016.

5.3 Comments from the Manx Utilities Authority were received on 15th October 2015: "There are 11kV underground cables, in the area of this planning application. We object to the proposed position of the air conditioning units which will be over these cables." They then require the applicant to contact their Network operations team to discuss working practices around cables before works can be carried out on site.

The MUA did not object to the application seeking the erection of the units in the first place. They were asked for further comment on this prior to the Committee meeting and if a response is received a verbal update will be provided to the Committee.

5.4 The Douglas Development Partnership commented on 21st October 2015 as follows:

"The Partnership is concerned that the introduction of a mezzanine floor into this property increases the retail floor area substantially. Although the Partnership does not object to the use proposed, should the tenant change, the mezzanine area would be available for retail use without further consent. No retail impact assessment has been carried out but we believe that increase out of town retail space could be detrimental to Douglas town centre."

5.5 Comments were received from the Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce on 27th October 2015. They have long-standing objections to the extension and creep of retail uses on land zoned for industrial use, with clear guidance for this concern outlined in the Strategic Plan and the Employment Land Review 2015. They consider that the application should be refused on the basis that pet stores and veterinary practices already operate successfully from existing town centres of the Island, and as such the proposal is contrary to Business Policies 5 and 10, stating that they have a long-standing request of the Committee to provide a PPS in respect of interpreting BP5. They note that the 2015 Strategic Land Review raises the shortage of employment land in the Eastern

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 15/01063/B
                                 Page  7  of  12

Sector as holding back economic growth, specifically highlighting the creep of retail and other uses onto industrial land. They accept the mezzanine floor is small in relative terms but is significant in the context of existing veterinary practices and also the possible setting of precedence. They conclude by stating that the proposal is contrary to Business Policy 9 in that the very nature of the Island is that it is "made up of many small businesses providing services locally", and this proposal would have a significant impact on the existing network of providers.

5.6 Comments from the owner / occupier of 31 Copse Hill, Douglas were received on 5th October 2015. While they offered no objection to the building works, they are strongly of the opinion that the business will be very detrimental to the interests of the Isle of Man even though they are conscious that this may not represent a material planning consideration. Also attached to their comments is a letter that they sent to the local newspaper, objecting on three specific grounds: (1) the access to the proposed mezzanine level will require each poor animal to be dragged through a busy superstore and as 99.9% of animals view a visit to the vet with the same enthusiasm as we humans view a visit to the dentist this will not be a good start; (2) this is busy and noisy superstore - what action will be taken to limit the intrusion of noise into the vet surgery? Ill animals need a quiet and peaceful environment, and (3) the size of the venture and operating theatre is insufficient to be able to support the kind of complicated medical procedures that will be needed. They raise concern that the proposal would or could result in putting out of business other, similar operators on the Island forcing people to make trips with the UK for the facilities there. They also raise other concern regarding the level / quality of care and also the time during which it could be offered.

5.7 Identical comments from the principal of the Milan Veterinary Practice, Somerset Road, Douglas were received on both 15th and 16th October 2015. They identify their 28 years of experience on the Island caring form both domestic pets and farm animals; they express concern that no 24-hour care will be provided, which is required by decree of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and that the nature of businesses such as this is that they provide care for domestic animals mainly and will attract custom away from smaller practices. They raise a number of concerns about the level and quality of care that will be provided under the proposal relative to the long-standing, smaller practices that have evolved through investing in services and veterinary surgeons; they state that undercutting on the routine services does little to advance the state of veterinary care on the Island. Every one of his staff earns more that £14,500pa and from next year the IOM Treasury has stated that workers earning less than this will not pay tax, while new jobs at Pets at Home will be above this threshold - swapping established IOM jobs for lower-paid, non-tax generating ones is contradictory to DED's economic plan and not what the Chief Minister has stated he is looking for. They therefore conclude that the application should be refused on these grounds, concluding that central government must take steps to not let market forces rule all.

5.8 Comments from a representative of the Arg Beiyn Veterinary Practice, Unit 9, Onchan Precinct were received on 16th October 2015. They object on seven separate grounds: (1) a previous application for the installation of a mezzanine floor in the unit adjacent has been refused and to allow the current proposal would undermine Strategic Policy 9 and Business Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan and would also result in increased demand for parking where existing levels are demonstrably inadequate. They also anticipate that Currys / PC World would lodge an appeal against the refusal of this previous application should this one be approved; (2) the use proposed does not fall within the definition of 'retail' and therefore it would have been prudent for a change of use application to be submitted first; (3) they note that an application for a Change of Lawful Use was declined nearby; (4) The proposal is contrary to Conditions 6 and 7 of PA 09/02135/A [it is assumed that this reference number should be 08/02135/A] in that it would result in more than the maximum approved floorspace and would also result in a subdivision of a unit; (5) the provision of a corporate service such a proposed would inevitably cause the need to cut costs in the five independent surgeries and this will force the loss of jobs, inability to pay expenses. They also note that they have invested significant sums of money in their own business on equipment, surgeries and staff, loans for which are still being serviced; (6) care for domestic animals subsidises care for farm animals and if we are forced to cut back on unprofitable services the Island's agricultural

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 15/01063/B
                                 Page  8  of  12

industry will suffer as a consequence, and (7) the proposed opening hours, which would not be 24- hours per day, do not reflect the legal and ethical duty placed on veterinary surgeons and there leads the correspondence to question what changes will have to be made in future and what this may mean for the 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 now:

"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 2011. 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 concern 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'. The agents argue that the majority of trips in respect of the veterinary surgery will be "linked", although it is not immediately clear what they consider those trips to be linked to - presumably the associated and existing retail use. 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 concern raised 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 application 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.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 15/01063/B
                                 Page  9  of  12

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 has could well be seen as something of a benefit.

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, even if there are a number of concerns that 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 of the proposal are readily 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 disbenefits and also the adopted Business Policies, is such as to mean that the principle of the proposal is acceptable. This is a very finely balanced conclusion. As such, the first reason for refusal issued in respect of the 2011 application is not considered to apply in this case.

6.9 Turning to the second reason for refusal of the 2011 application, which did not make reference to any planning policies, the use of the word 'demonstrable' is noteworthy. No parking survey was submitted in respect of that application; one has, however, been submitted on this occasion. This demonstrates that, while there is parking pressure at the site, it is not so significant as to be likely to result in adverse impacts on the parking in the area and the lack of objection from Highway Services is duly noted. There is, in short, no demonstrable harm that would arise from the proposal in respect of parking availability. It is therefore considered that the circumstances on this occasion are such that an objection on the grounds previously raised could not be sustained.

6.10 In view of the above it is considered that the refusal reasons issued to the 2011 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 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.

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

6.12 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 concerns raised by other

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                                 15/01063/B                                      Page  10  of  12

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.

6.13 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.

6.14 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.

6.15 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.

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

7.0 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS

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 application raises different considerations to that which was ultimately refused at the adjacent Unit 1 and, in this, and having considered 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.

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                                 15/01063/B                                      Page  11  of  12

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.

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:

o The Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce; o The Douglas Development Partnership; o The Manx Utilities Authority; o The owner / occupier of 31 Copse Hill, Douglas; o The Milan Veterinary Practice, Somerset Road, Douglas, and o The Arg Beiyn Veterinary Practice, Onchan.

While the former two organisations represent interests that the application does raises issues with respect to, the scale and nature of the proposal is considered such as to conclude that their interest is no sufficient to warrant their being granted Interested Person Status.

Similarly, the Manx Utilities Authority does not raise an issue of such material significance as to warrant their being granted Interested Person Status.

The final three correspondents 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.

9.0 POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE

9.1 The application seeking approval for a retail building in this location was originally refused by the Planning Committee and the current proposal to some degree reflects why concern was originally raised. The site remains zoned for Industrial use and the proposed use might also more appropriately be located in existing town centres. The Business Policies outlined in the Officer Report, which remain the most appropriate to assess the proposal against in lieu of any specific policies relating to veterinary surgeries, are helpful in this regard. On these bases, the Committee considered the proposal as contrary to Business Policies 5, 9 and 10, and also to General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.

9.2 The Committee also raised concern with respect to the highway information provided and believed it insufficient to demonstrate that there would be no demonstrable harm to the local highway network resulting from the proposal, in conflict with Transport Policy 7.

9.3 On both these points, the Committee resolved that the application was unacceptable and it was refused as a result.

9.4 The Committee also determined to give Interested Person Status to the Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce and the Douglas Development Partnership, but determined that the late representation received from Village Walk Ltd. did not amount to sufficient reason to grant that organisation such Status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.02.2016

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                                 15/01063/B                                      Page  12  of  12

R 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.

R 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.

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 : ...REF... Committee Meeting Date:...15.02.2016

Signed :...E RILEY... 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

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.