12 May 2010 · Planning Committee
23, Bay View Road, Port St. Mary, Isle Of Man, IM9 5aq
The proposal sought to convert the vacant ground floor shop of a three-and-a-half storey terraced building into additional living space for the residential accommodation above, replacing the existing shop front with three UPVC sliding sash windows.
Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.
See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.
The Planning Committee refused the application despite the officer's recommendation for approval, citing failure to meet Community Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan, which permits loss of local shops onl…
Community Policy 4 of Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007
Requires demonstration that loss of local shops is commercially unviable or cannot be made viable. Officer accepted evidence of long vacancy and no commercial interest but Committee disagreed, finding evidence insufficient and loss harmful to retail character and village centre vitality.
Retail Policy 2, draft Southern Area Plan
Permits alternative uses in Port St Mary Mixed Use Area if adding to vitality without unreasonable disturbance and protecting street frontage. Officer found proposal acceptable at edge of area with visual improvements; Committee prioritised retail retention over this flexibility.
Do not oppose
The original application to convert a vacant ground floor shop into living accommodation with replacement windows was recommended for approval by the planning officer but refused by the Planning Committee on 29 April 2010. The refusal cited Community Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan, arguing the loss of the shop unit would undermine the retail character and vitality of Bay View Road without sufficient evidence of commercial non-viability. The appellant, Mr William Bregazzi via agent Samson Designs, lodged appeal AP10/0070 under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, which was accepted by the Minister and referred to an independent inspector. The Department submitted the officer's report recommending permission, and parties were invited to make representations with potential for oral hearings. Before any hearing occurred, the agent's request on or before 18 June 2010 led to the appeal's withdrawal.
Precedent Value
This withdrawn appeal highlights that Committees may prioritise protection of retail character over officer assessments of viability in village centres, even with strong marketing evidence. Future applicants should bolster viability claims with independent market assessments and engage early with local concerns.
