Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90361/B
Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90361/B Applicant : Kirindolam 2 Ltd Proposal : Conversion of existing former nursing home to six townhouses Site Address : Former Saddle Mews Nursing Home Saddle Mews Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 1HY
Senior Planning Officer: Mrs Louise Phillips Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.07.2025 __
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. All external facing and roofing materials to be used on the development hereby approved shall be as specified on Drawing Number 24 - 113 - 03 A unless details are otherwise submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 3. No development shall commence until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall include details of any walls, fences, trees and other planting to be retained; details of all new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; the location of grassed areas; details of the hard surface treatment of the open parts of the site; and a programme of implementation.
All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing by the Department. Any trees or
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90361/B
Page 2 of 11
plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting for the development and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.
C 4. Any boundary wall fronting the highway shall be no more than 1m in height throughout its length.
Reason: To ensure adequate visibility in the interests of highway safety.
C 5. No works or site clearance shall commence until details of the means of protecting the existing trees outside the site but adjacent to its eastern boundary during the works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The approved means of protection shall remain in place until the development has been completed.
Reason: To safeguard the existing trees adjacent to the site.
C 6. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the vehicular access, parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than for access and the parking and turning of vehicles and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for vehicular access, off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
C 7. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the cycle and bin storage areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The bin storage areas shall be retained for that purpose at all times thereafter.
Reason: To promote sustainable travel and to protect residential amenity in the locality.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Notwithstanding the regrettable loss of the nursing home, the site is suitably located for residential development and general housing is needed across the island. The proposed development would make use of a vacant, substantial building and bringing it back into use and making positive external alterations would improve the character and appearance of the area considerably. This significant benefit would not be outweighed by the potential need to prune, or even to lose, one tree outside the site given the extensive tree cover in the vicinty.
The new housing would not be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, it would not increase existing flood risk in the area and it would be provided with sufficient off- road parking. Subject to conditions, it would cause no other harm in respect of highway safety. For all these reasons, it would comply with the Development Plan and relevant legislation.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following drawings:
o 24 - 113 - 05 A, Location Plan o 24 - 113 - 04 A, Proposed Site Plan o 24 - 113 - 03 A, Proposed Plans and Elevations o 24 - 113 - 07 A, Cycle Store
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90361/B
Page 3 of 11
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
o Douglas City Council - No objection. o Highway Services, DOI - No objection subject to conditions which have been applied.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria:
o Nos 89; 90; 105; and 106 Saddle Mews, Douglas.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because their objections identify land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b)):
o Nos 1 - 7 - 9; 10 - 12; 12A; 14 - 16; 18 - 20; 22 - 24; 27 - 29; 30 - 32; 35; 35A; 36; 38
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR OBJECTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC WHICH RAISE MATERIAL PLANNING ISSUES.
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The site is on the north side of Groves Road Douglas. It is occupied by the former Saddle Mews Nursing Home, a three storey, red brick building with a mansard roof. The building is vacant and there is metal fencing all around it, making it look unsightly.
1.2 The site is bordered to the east by the National Sports Centre (NSC) and to the west and north (rear) by the Saddle Mews Retirement Village. There is a large open green space opposite the site (sports pitches), which itself is surrounded by residential development.
1.3 There is an existing vehicular access to the front of the building at the eastern side of the site and, while it is outside the ownership of the applicant, there is a right of way over the driveway to the Retirement Village to access the west side and rear of the building.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposed development is to convert the existing building into six, four-bedroom town houses, each with a front and rear garden, the latter to include cycle and bin storage and an air source heat pump.
2.2 Each house would have two parking spaces. The two for the easternmost unit would be reached from the entrance adjacent to the boundary with the NSC, while the others would be accessed from the Retirement Village driveway. The two for the westernmost unit would be
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90361/B
Page 4 of 11
provided at the side of the building and the others for the middle units would be behind the gardens at the rear.
2.3 A number of external alterations are proposed. The flat roofed "annexes" to each side of the building would be reduced from three to two storeys in height, and the depth of the west side annex would be slightly increased. Both would provide a small roof terrace for the end units.
2.4 New windows would be installed and the overall number reduced so that those on the front and rear elevations would form six vertically aligned bays. The bay windows would be finished with light grey cladding and the walls of the building would be stone clad at ground floor level and rendered above. The existing rooflights would be removed and solar panels added to the front roofslope.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
Site Specific 3.1 The site is not within a designated Conservation Area. There is a Registered Tree (RT0052) and a Registered Tree Area (RA0704) to the west of the site on the other side of the main access but these would not be affected by the proposed development. There are a number of other large trees within the footpath alongside the eastern boundary of the site, some of which could be affected by the proposal. The site is outside but adjacent to an area at high risk of fluvial flooding.
Area Plan for the East 2020 3.2 The site is in a "Predominantly Residential Area".
3.3 Paragraph 12.12.2 notes the need for adequate accommodation for older people, including in specialist facilities like nursing homes.
Strategic Plan 2016 Strategic Policy 1 - "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services". Strategic Policy 2 - "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages..."
Strategic Policy 5 - "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island..."
Strategic Policy 10 - "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement".
Strategic Policy 11 & Housing Policy 1 - "The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026".
Spatial Policy 1 - "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90361/B
Page 5 of 11
services centre for the Island". Spatial Policy 5 - "New development will be located within the defined settlements..."
General Policy 2 - "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; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (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; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption".
Environment Policy 13 - "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted".
Environment Policy 43 - "The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition".
Housing Policy 4 - "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and Villages..."
Transport Policy 4 - "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan".
Transport Policy 7 - "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards".
Community Policy 11 - "The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire".
3.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Legislation 4.1 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.
Guidance 4.2 Manual for Manx Roads and Active Travel Strategy.
4.3 Residential Design Guide.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90361/B
Page 6 of 11
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 16/00946/B for the "conversion and erection of extension to former nursing home to provide thirty four residential apartments" was approved on 15 May 2017, subject to conditions. It is stated that the conservatory has been removed and that drainage has been installed to facilitate the new development.
5.2 The earlier planning history associated with this specific site relates to its former use as a nursing home for which planning permission was granted in 1987. The surrounding Saddle Mews development was granted permission at around the same time, between 1986 and 1988.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
Organisations 6.1 Highways Services (25/04/25): "No significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking providing the residents can use the Saddle Mews Court access road to parking spaces 3-10 (access road currently not in the red-line boundary) - this should be confirmed by the Applicant. Conditions to attach to permission - boundary wall fronting the highway shall be no more than 1m in height throughout its length (for highway safety purposes) and vehicular access, parking, turning of vehicles, cycle parking and bin storage shown on the approved plans implemented before first occupation of the development and retained thereafter".
6.2 Forestry, Amenity and Lands (DEFA) (13/05/25): "The proposed development clearly impacts the trees on the adjacent land and they do pose a constraint, and shading will be an issue for residential properties. We would ask for an AIS (including a constraints plan) to BS5837 standard to be supplied before this application is determined so as the full implications can be considered".
6.3 Douglas Corporation (13/05/25): "Council's Environmental Services Committee to consider the application on 19 May and comments will be provided thereafter". At the time of drafting this report, no further comments have been received.
6.4 The following organisations were consulted on 25 April 2025 but, at the time of drafting this report, no comments had been received.
o Manx Utilities, Electricity o Manx Utilities, Drainage o Flood Management Division
Members of the Public 6.5 14 neighbour consultation letters were issued which have resulted in 93 identical letters of objection from residents of the following addresses at Saddle Mews Village adjacent to the west:
o Nos 1 - 5; 7 - 9; 11 - 12; 15 - 16; 18 - 20; 24; 27 - 29; 31; 35; 35A; 36; 39; 41; 44 - 50; 52 - 53; 55 - 58; 60 - 61; 64; 66 - 69; 71 - 73; 79; 83; 86 - 87; 89; 91 - 92; 95; 97; 99; 101; 105 - 106; 108 - 109; 111; 115; 117 (received 21 May 2025) o Nos 93; 110; 118; (received 22 May 2025) o Nos 6; 10; 14; 22; 38; 42; 51; 54; 59; 63; 65; 80; 82; 84; 85; 119 (received 23 May 2025) o Nos 12A; 30; 98 (received 28 May 2025) o Nos 23; 40; 107; 112; 114; 116 (received 30 May 2025) o No 32 (received 10 June 2025)
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90361/B
Page 7 of 11
6.6 The main points raised are as follows:
o Children and trespass/short-cutting: The properties could accommodate families with children. There is no provision for children's outdoor amenity space. If permission is granted measures need to be taken to ensure that children do not trespass on the land owned by Saddle Mews Village, which includes ponds. This is a quiet, private area with no through traffic and no other interference by the public or third parties. Residents request reinforcement of the site boundary of the new development with a one metre high wall with openings for vehicle parking access, wheelie bins, fire exits etc. Hedging should be planted behind this wall. Conditions should be added to this effect. o Extra landscaping: The site has been abandoned for over 12 years and has become an eyesore. High hedging should therefore be planted behind the new boundary wall with extra shrubs and trees to screen the building. A condition should be added to require plants which die to be replaced in the next planting season. o Noise nuisance: The previously approved application 16/010946/B (34 apartments) had more limitations including the provision of a warden for oversight and security. The 123 apartment owners at Saddle Mews Village are over 50 years of age and currently enjoy a quiet area. They object to the generation of high noise/sound levels and conditions should be added to protect this environment e.g. no motorbikes. o Parking: High probability of the occupants having more than one car. There is no visitor parking provision. They would object to any of the Saddle Mews Village visitor spaces being used by visitors to the development site. Conditions should be added to limit the number of cars owned by residents and each unit should be allocated one space with one being left for visitor parking.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The main issues to be considered in determining this planning application are:
o The principle of the proposed development, particularly in respect of the loss of the nursing home and the provision of general housing; o The effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area; o Its effect upon adjacent trees; o Its effect upon the living conditions of residents in Saddle Mews Retirement Village, particularly in relation to noise and privacy; o Its effect upon flood risk; and o Its effect upon parking and road safety.
Principle of the Proposed Development 7.2 The Officer's Report associated with the earlier proposal for residential apartments (16/00946/B referenced above) explains that the nursing home closed in 2010 due to changes in the rules for occupation which rendered it not viable. Until the 2016 application, there had been very limited interest in redeveloping the site for any use. The report concluded that while the loss of the nursing home was regrettable, it was a privately run enterprise which was no longer fit for purpose. Taking account of all relevant factors, planning permission was granted and, consequently, the loss of the nursing home has been accepted. While the need to provide specialist accommodation for older people is recognised in the Development Plan, the loss of existing provision is not strictly prohibited.
7.3 Furthermore, there is a need for general housing across the Island (Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 11) and the site is in a "predominantly residential area" of Douglas, where development for housing is generally supported (Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policies 1 & 5). It is close to services, facilities and transport links; and the houses would be provided in a substantial existing building which has now been vacant for 15 years (Strategic Policy 1 and Environment Policy 43).
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90361/B
Page 8 of 11
7.4 Therefore, while the loss of the nursing home remains regrettable, the proposed development is acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with other relevant policies.
Character and Appearance 7.5 As explained above, the existing building on the site is vacant, fenced and starting to look run down. Essentially, however, it looks solidly built and, with its distinctive mansard roof, has a generally agreeable appearance. Whilst quite large, the building fits well with the scale of the adjacent NSC and, being set well away from them and at a lower level, it does not dominate the neighbouring Retirement Village. Overall, it is a building worth preserving in accordance with Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan.
7.6 Simply bringing the building back into use and securing proper maintenance would tidy the site up but, in addition, some of the exterior alterations proposed would improve its appearance. The rationalisation of the windows and the reduction in height of the flat roofed annexes would be particularly positive, and the use of the latter as roof terraces would be in keeping with the first floor balconies present on some of the properties in the Retirement Village. The proposed use of render would also reflect the finish of the neighbouring buildings.
7.7 Limited information on proposed landscaping and boundary treatments has been submitted with the application, but more detail could be sought by condition. The inclusion of a front and rear garden with each unit would likely soften the appearance of the site and, with the exception of the existing access to the east, all hardstanding for parking would be away from the road, to the side and rear of the building. Whilst objectors have suggested that high hedging is needed to screen the site, this is in view of it currently being abandoned and an "eyesore". Once lived in and maintained, this problem should resolve and so it should not be necessary to hide the building.
7.8 Overall, by bringing an existing building back into use and incorporating some new design features, the proposed development would improve the appearance of the site considerably and so it would accord with Strategic Policy 5 and General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the Strategic Plan. This would be a significant benefit of the scheme.
Trees 7.9 The individually Registered Tree and Registered Tree Area to the west of the site would not be affected by the proposed development. However, there are some trees (possibly three) outside the site but adjacent to the eastern boundary which have been identified by the Tree Officer as posing a constraint. These are behind the rear elevation of the building in the footpath adjacent to the NSC, and they are all large enough for consent to be required for removal. The Tree Officer had requested the submission of an Arboricultural Impact Statement (AIS) but, while the applicant was made aware if this, it is not considered necessary for the following reasons.
7.10 The trees are all adjacent to the proposed garden of the easternmost unit where grass rather than hardstanding or buildings is shown to be provided. The tree at the very back of the site would be adjacent to a parking space but, while resurfacing might be necessary, some hardstanding is already present. Therefore, the trees are unlikely to be disturbed in any significant way during development, particularly as the proposal involves the conversion of an existing building rather than demolition and rebuilding. On this basis, it would seem sufficient to attach a condition requiring details of tree protection during the works.
7.11 Having spoken with the Tree Officer, another concern is that there might be pressure from future occupiers of the development to prune the trees within the footpath. Whilst an AIS would provide more detail, the likely effect of the trees upon future living conditions are largely evident from a site visit. The tree closest to the building is quite small and would not affect the outlook from any windows or overhang the garden of the adjacent property. While larger, the
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90361/B
Page 9 of 11
tree at the end of the garden is sufficiently distant from the building that it would not affect living conditions inside the house. It would overshadow only the very end of the garden. Consequently, these trees are unlikely to come under undue pressure.
7.12 The tree in the middle of the boundary is large and mature and, while it would not be particularly close to any windows, it would significantly overhang the garden and overshadow much of it at times. This could certainly lead to pressure for pruning. However, the tree cannot be seen from the road and, in the context of the extensive tree cover along the footpath and the boundary of the NSC, pruning here would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Even if the tree were to be lost, notwithstanding that this would be regrettable, it would cause no significant wider harm.
7.13 For these reasons, the potential threat to adjacent trees would be relatively small and not sufficient to conflict with General Policy 2(f) of the Strategic Plan. If the threat were to prove greater than expected, this would not outweigh the benefit of the development to the character and appearance of the area by bringing the building back into use.
Living Conditions of Neighbouring Occupiers 7.14 The objections raised by residents of the adjacent Saddle Mews Retirement Village are set out in Section 6 above. Those related to landscaping have been addressed under "Character and Appearance" above and those about parking will be considered below. The remaining concerns relate to the nature of the proposed development as family housing; and to the potential for noise nuisance.
7.15 Starting with family housing, the four-bedroom units are likely to accommodate children. The proposal does not include communal outdoor space for children, but such provision is not required for a development of six units. Moreover, each unit would have a private rear garden in which children could play; and the houses would be opposite sports pitches and adjacent to the indoor and outdoor facilities at the NSC. It is more likely that children who are old enough to be out alone would use these areas rather than "trespass" on the land owned by Saddle Mews Village. Consequently, it would seem unnecessary to surround the development with a one-metre high wall and hedging as requested by the objectors.
7.16 In respect of noise, while the previously approved scheme of apartments might have included a Warden to provide oversight and security, the comings and goings to 34 units would likely generate considerably more noise and disturbance than to the six houses now proposed. Indeed, while objectors have requested a condition prohibiting motorbikes on the site should the current proposal be approved, the previous list of conditions specifically required motorcycling bays to be provided. More generally, while the Retirement Village undoubtedly provides a pleasant and relatively quiet environment, it is located in a busy residential area of Douglas near to a range of large services and facilities used by the public. The noise generated by six additional houses would not be significant.
7.17 No concerns have been raised about loss of privacy through overlooking and this could only be possible from the roof terrace of the westernmost unit. However, this would be some distance away from the facing windows of the nearest neighbour (more than the 20m recommended by the Residential Design Guide), across an access and footway already used by visitors to the Retirement Village. Therefore, the proposed development would not result in harmful additional overlooking of existing properties.
7.18 Overall, the proposed development for six private houses should be compatible with the neighbouring use at Saddle Mews Retirement Village. It would not cause undue detriment to the living conditions of its residents and consequently, it would comply with General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan.
Flood Risk
==== PAGE 10 ====
25/90361/B Page 10 of 11
7.19 The site itself is not in an area shown to be at risk of flooding and because the proposal principally involves the conversion of an existing building rather than new development, it would not increase the risk outside the site. The proposed use for general housing would also be less vulnerable to flood risk than was the previous nursing home use.
7.20 Therefore, the proposed development would not affect flood risk in the area and there would be no conflict with Environment Policy 13 of the Strategic Plan.
Parking and Road Safety 7.21 The proposed houses would each be provided with two off-road parking spaces. This meets the current standards for residential development set out Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan; and the applicant has confirmed that there is a right of way over the Retirement Village access drive to reach the spaces at the rear of the building.
7.22 Thus Highways Services has raised no concerns about the impact of the development upon parking, highway safety or network functionality provided that conditions to ensure sufficient visibility and provision for vehicles, cycles and refuse is made and retained. Such conditions are recommended above.
7.23 Residents of Saddle Mews Retirement Village are concerned that visitors to the new houses could use visitor spaces belonging to them. Whilst this is of course possible, given that the parking requirements of the Development Plan would be satisfied, it would not be reasonable to seek to restrict car ownership at the site in order to keep one allocated space for each unit perpetually available for visitors. In time, hopefully visitors will come to use the on- street parking available in Groves Road. As the front doors would face onto this road, such spaces would not be inconvenient.
7.24 Therefore, the proposed development would have adequate parking space and would not be otherwise detrimental to road safety. Thus it would comply with Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 Notwithstanding the regrettable loss of the nursing home, the site is suitably located for residential development and general housing is needed across the island. The proposed development would make use of a vacant, substantial building and bringing it back into use and making positive external alterations would improve the character and appearance of the area considerably. This significant benefit would not be outweighed by the potential need to prune, or even to lose, one tree given the extensive tree cover in the vicinity.
8.2 The new housing would not be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, it would not increase existing flood risk in the area and it would be provided with sufficient off-road parking. Subject to conditions, it would cause no other harm in respect of highway safety. For all these reasons, it would comply with the Development Plan and relevant legislation, and so is recommended for approval.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases);
==== PAGE 11 ====
25/90361/B Page 11 of 11
o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
__
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body 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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 28.07.2025
Signed : Presenting Officer - Mrs Louise Phillips
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal