Loading document...
Application No.: 25/90888/B Applicant: Castletown Commissioners Proposal: Replacement of existing garages with works depot and parking for Castletown Commissioners Site Address: Existing Garages Land Off Westhill Avenue Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1LX Senior Planning Officer: Jason Singleton Photo Taken: 05.11.2025 Site Visit: 05.11.2025 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.01.2026 Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed installation would comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings and supporting information received on 19th December 2025, referenced;
Right to Appeal
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: Chairman The Scout Association Chairman Of Trustees Of The Castletown Scout And Guide Headquarters
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Highways Services - No objection MUA Water - No Objection
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSALS ARE CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.1 The application site is the curtilage identified in red as that of the existing garages off Westhill Avenue, Castletown. The site is located to the south east corner of the redevelopment of School hill / Westhill Estate and sits next to the northern boundary of the former Buchan School, and to the west of the Scout Hall. To the South is a workshop building and 10m to the east is Archway Cottage.
1.2 Access to this site is from the Junction of the A5 and Malew Street, through the (partially developed) residential estate and west through to the site. The wider site is currently being re-developed with replacement dwellings and many of the older properties are now empty awaiting demolition and redevelopment in associated with their valid planning approvals. (see planning history).
1.3 At the time of the site visit the site was fenced off with Harras Fencing, there was no buildings or structurers on site with the ground mainly a hard standing surface. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is erection of a detached building measuring a footprint area of 21.8m long x 12.4m wide and a ridge height of 6.2m which is internally sub-divided to provide a main depot area for vehicles with separate rooms for; workshop, store, W/c and shower facilities, canteen and entrance vestibule. Above part of the floor area is a mezzanine level with storage, a storeroom and office area.
2.2 Outside of the building is proposed 10 parking spaces to the east, to the rear of the building a poly tunnel, plant and bin store and landscaped area to the north with planting.
2.3 The building would be finished with the following materials;
accents
2.4 The agent notes in support of the application; "The Castletown Commissioners previously owned a depot located off Alexandra Road in Castletown, Isle of Man. It consisted of storage, plant growing (including a polytunnel), vehicle parking, and workshops and has recently been disposed of as it was a significant maintenance liability. The works depot is currently temporarily housed in the former Castletown fire station. The Commissioners wish to keep this works maintenance depot within the town boundary as this is their constituency…the local authority is tasked with providing a range of services to the town, including roads and street lighting, public housing provision and maintenance, accounts and rates. refuse collection and library and community services." PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 23/00823/B - Erection of 133 dwellings with associated drainage and access (Amendments to 19/00961/B). Approved. PLANNING POLICY
4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Residential on the Area Plan for the South Map 5Castletown. There is nothing within the written statement accompanying the plan that is considered pertinent in this case.
4.2 The site is neither within a conservation area nor within an identified flood risk area. There are registered trees on the boundary, but these are unaffected by the proposals.
4.3 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application: Strategic Policy
5 Design and visual impact Spatial Policy 2 Castletown is defined as a Service Centre 5 Development within defined settlements General Policy 2 General Development Considerations
4.4 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Castletown Parish Commissioners (The applicants) had not commented at the time of writing.
5.2 DoI Highways Services; (29/10/2025) initially commented expressing concerns with access, pedestrian links, operational vehicles on site and vehicle movements. On additional information; " (18/12/25) The information and plans from the below email (18 December 2025 09:31) addresses HDC comments and therefore HDC now do not oppose the application due to the following: 1) parking provision is acceptable for the predicted site operation, 2) the layout would not significantly detriment adjacent premises access as the hardstanding layout and positioning is similar to when the garages were on the site, and 3) future pedestrian link to the former Buchan School site will be protected.
5.3 DEFA, Forestry; (4/11/2025) commented initially seeking additional information, (22/12/25) further information submitted commented; "Thanks for the additional information. I agree the historical stone wall is likely to provide some level of root deflection, so I feel an arb monitoring schedule is not required. In regard to the shading, the polytunnel is unlikely going to serve its purpose due to the shading the trees will cased on it during the summer months. In order to protect the tree due to the potential added pressure if this application is approved, we intend to register the trees under the Tree Preservation Act 1993. This will
5.4 MUA Water; initially commented on (31/10/2025) raising concerns with the proposed silt traps location, washdown water management, drainage, impermeable surface areas, and the potential need for oil/petrol interceptors' installation. On amended plans and additional information commented (19/12/25) confirming their acceptance of those amendments on the plans and to the operational activity.
5.5 Castletown Scout and Guide Headquarters, Chairman of the Trustees commented (24/11/25) to object; "The land on which the Scout/Guide hall stands was gifted by the Commissioners in 1983 and reasonable access has been available for the past 42 years. Under this scheme the access would be drastically restricted. Two disabled parking spaces are situated outside the Fire Exit and stores access to the lower craft room and store rom level potentially restricting safe access and egress from the building together with the halls users risking being fined whilst loading and unloading items use for activities".
5.6 Chairman The Scout Association IOM commented (17/12/25) to object to the plans; "Our concerns centre on 2 key areas because of the proximity of the proposed depot boundary wall : access to that side of the building and the loss of it as an exit point in the case of a fire:" Concerns focus regarding the ability for disabled or less mobile persons accessing the building via rear door adjacent to the site or those steps, lack of a ramp access to assist, this door is also a fire exit. They believe the proposals would be, "unacceptable because it potentially restricts safe access and exit to and from this community facility for both adults and children alike".
5.7 In response to the above objections from the owners and operators of the Scout Building, the applicants (Castletown Commissioners) have responded by email dated (27/12/25); providing additional context to the management of the building and previous conversation between the Trustees of the building, the management committee and the Commissioners (applicants) and further narrative on the conversation and meeting between parties. They also confirm there will be no impact on the current access or egress from the building by the proposed building, adequate areas has been allowed should a ramp be required to be installed, Whilst further narrative is provided on issues raised, they are not considered to be pertinent or a material consideration to this application as they are concerning land ownership and management rights.
5.8 The applicant's agent, wrote (05/01/2026) to conclude on the above comments and clarify and mis-understanding of the plans to confirm as part of these proposals; "Access to the southwestern elevation of the lower-level extension to the Scout Hall currently includes a pair of double doors. These doors currently provide stepped access (and escape) to the building directly from the application site. Our application red line does indeed run along the abovementioned elevation, but does not represent any physical wall or fence, which would impede access"…. "It seems there have been various discussions regarding provision of a ramped access to the Scout Hall's lower entrance (to which we have only been partially privy). Any such provision would be at the discretion of our client as the current access not level. Concern has been raised that the current plan does not show a formal ramped access. The current site plan clearly indicates "Existing Ground Level Access to Scout Hall Improved". It is perhaps less clear, but indicated nonetheless, that we would propose to increase the ground levels, along the elevation in question, to 9.07m, thus providing level access into the Scout Hall
263) becoming an informal 1:50 ramp".
"Furthermore, we have increased the separation between the two disabled parking bays, to provide improved disabled or loading access/egress to the Scout Hall. Lighting - Our drawings clearly indicate low level lighting to be installed…Disabled Parking Our drawing shows car parking spaces with designated spaces for disabled parking adjacent to the building… Designated Scout Hall parking - This is not formally specified as part of our application, as the proposed development does not remove any existing parking designated for the use of the Scout Hall. Statements have been made indicating that the usage of the two facilities (Scout Hall & Depot) will be such that the Scout Hall will greatly benefit from the proposed parking,
outside the hours that the depot is in normal operation… Our client has suggested that an agreement could be entered into to formally provide some designated parking to the Scout Hall, but the terms of any private agreement would be beyond the scope of this application".
6.0 The key considerations in the determination of the application are:
6.1 The site falls within the existing settlement boundary of Castletown and an area zoned for residential development, as such this would follow STP2, SP2, and SP5. However, the proposals are for a commercial / industrial use in conjunction with the functions of the local authority to upkeep and support the town infrastructure and housing stock as noted in para 2.4.
6.2 The existing character of the area was previously (prior to demolition) two blocks of 20 garages with flat roofs and a two-story workshop, therefore material weight is given to Strategic Policy 1(a) for optimising previously development land. There are also further garages to the south of the site that is under separate ownership.
6.3 The proposals here would technically be contrary to the residential land use designation. However, noting the application has been submitted on behalf of the Local Authority (Castletown) and the residential estate is being re-developed on behalf of Castletown Commissioners to provide commissioners housing, the proposals could be seen to support the wider land use here and to the benefit of the town. It is further noted this would be the sole works depot for the Commissioners as the former premises found on Alexandra Road has been sold off. At present the works depot is temporarily housed in the former fire station in Castletown.
6.4 The earlier permission (23/00823/B) that wraps around this site and that was included in the red line assessment showed this application area having two blocks of single-story buildings as a terrace of single car width garages to provide 12 garages for some of the new dwellings. These were the only blocks of garages as part of that proposal, also there was not any conditions attached to the approval seeking their retention (garages) for those 133 dwellings nor was this part of the site subject to any S.13 legal agreement in relation to the garages.
6.5 Under planning that approval (23/00823), the approved plans indicate residents vehicle parking is mainly off the highway and serves each property. Also of note is within the Design and Access statement para 2.4, gives confirmation on the use of the garages and parking to confirm the proposals provide; "266 off road car parking spaces have been created and 12 garages/ workshops for private rental by estate residents. Parking is designed to provide level access to each dwelling". This ensures the garages as part of the 23/00823 scheme were always intended to be retained in ownership by the CTC and not linked to any dwelling. The parking on site for this (23/00823) approval has been provided on a basis of two parking spaces to one dwelling house and all those being off-road/ highway.
6.6 The previous use as garages and the recent approval for garages here and adjacent garages helps ensure that there is no loss of any residential land to this part of the site despite the site designation being residential. Equally it could be argued that residential development to this corner of the site could be non-compatible with the surrounds uses of the character here (Scouts hall, through road to adjacent garages and rear access to those dwelling houses) and could be seen to create adverse living conditions for those occupants given the immediate character of the area and those extant uses. As such an argument to support the principle use of this part of the site by the commissioners for a "depot and workshop" could be favourable in lieu of the, as approved garages.
6.7 With regard to the operational activity and use of the building, the agent has confirmed the following;
generally work off site most of the day.
6.8 Given the above juxtaposition between the land use (residential), the justification and the proposed building (commercial works / vehicle depot), the applicants (Castletown Commissioner) and its use (Commissioners Depot), the adjacent land ownership (Castletown Commissioners) (the existing character of the immediate area (Scout Hall, workshop and garages), an exception to the land use designation could be justified in this instance.
6.9 As such the principle of development would in theory be contrary to the land use designation but the proposals could be found to comply with Stp1a, Stp2 and Sp2 SP5 subject to further analysis below for any conflicts of policy narrative and through any visual impact or adverse impact upon the neighbouring amenity and highway safety. DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT
6.10 Give the principle of a 'non-residential' building here and its use by the commissioners could be an acceptable addition to the site, the building would essentially be tucked away in a corner adjacent to the last dwelling on the site, and would not be readily visible from outside of the 'Westhill development' given its siting.
6.11 The size of the proposed building would have a higher ridge than the adjacent (proposed) bungalows but broadly aligned with the height of the ridge to the scouts building and the workshop building to the south. The overall massing would be larger than either of those buildings but given its siting and the overall size of the site, it would be acceptable without being considered over-development and retains access to the existing workshop and garages to the south.
6.12 The proposed design is relatively simple form and would be reflective of an industrial building in terms of its height and scale. The incorporation of stone cladding to part of the lower proportions (front and corners) would help soften the overall utilitarian appearance of the building, and would break up the infill areas between the four garage doors adding a degree of interest. The use of darker palette to this buildings level of finishes and fenestration details, especially in dark grey help to ensure the visual amenity is consistent and would be read differently to the abundance of white upvc on the residential dwellings where this contrast is welcomed and could sit comfortably with the existing surrounding buildings. This design approach would result in improvements to this part of this site and would be seen to align with STP5 for is design and visual impact upon the wider area.
6.13 The remaining facades would be finished with brickwork to the lower proportions and "Kingspan" profile sheet cladding to the upper proportions and roof which would have a more industrial appearance and in keeping with its proposed use. As such the proposed buildings and the listed schedule of material finishes would be acceptable in this instance which offers a higher standard of finish and can be conditioned as such.
6.14 Any views of the proposals from the surrounding residential properties, would be read within the design context of the property and its curtilage which would not appear out of character in this corner of the wider site.
6.15 Considering the visual impact of the proposals noted above, the level and scale of development proposed within this planning application are acceptable to suit that specific purpose for housing of machinery, vehicles and workshop for the commissioners. As such this aspect of the proposal is deemed acceptable in accordance with GP2b&c. NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES
6.16 When considering whether there would be any adverse impact upon the those neighbouring properties who boarder the site; The Scout Hall to the east (14m), the proposed bungalow to the north (7.5m), Archway house to the south (9.5m) and the workshop and
6.17 The nearest residential dwelling house is to the west of the site on the newly built residential estate (not yet built), whose side elevations would be facing the site and would be approx. 7.5m away between both side elevation. This elevation of the bungalow would be a gable end with no windows and internally be configured to provide bedrooms. Also, the intervening space is proposed to be landscaped with "soft landscaping" or grassed, which would prevent any access, parking or storage closer to the dwellinghouse. This arrangement helps in that the use of the building during the day (9am-5pm) would not conflict with the use of the dwelling during normal working times.
6.18 As there are no windows to either properties side / gable elevations and the orientation of the bungalow ensures there will be no overlooking, or loss of light that could lead to an overbearing impact upon and/or overlooking. Furthermore, the installation of the windows to the first floor aspect of the proposals are focused to the rear that would overlook the fields of the Buchan School and the room here would be office and a store and the window in the side gable elevation facing east serves a stairwell and would not offer any overlooking to the rear or sides.
6.19 Taking into consideration the use of the scout hall, it is not considered there to be any level of congestion for vehicle users but in any case this would not be a daily occurrence and only in isolated instances. The wider comments from the Scout Hall representatives are further assessed separately below as part of their concerns are focused on the parking, access and emergency egress from the double doors to their buildings elevation facing the site.
6.20 In terms of use of the units and any statutory nuisances that may arise affecting the residential amenity of those properties opposite it is important to consider the use by the commissioners. As previously noted above, the proposed use and internal layout is not generally known for being noisy and disruptive uses of buildings that could cause a statutory nuisance which would then be considered to have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenity opposite. In any case conditions can be applied to ensure the use, hours of operation are appropriately managed in this instance. Also, a further condition can be included to limit any external storage that could be seen to impede access or parking on site.
6.21 On balance, given the intermediate distances, the same level of assessment for any detrimental impact could be said for the users of the Scout Hall, adjacent workshop and Archway Cottage. The proposed design, scale and massing of the buildings, are not considered to harm the enjoyment of the neighbouring dwelling houses or adjacent business users or considered to harm the neighbouring amenity through any overlooking, leading to a loss of privacy or loss of light through the building having an overbearing impact or any considered to harm the residential amenity through the buildings general appearance. This aspect would be considered compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g) and Environmental Policy 22. HIGHWAY SAFETY
6.22 Access to the proposed building will be from the internal estate road and in terms of access, parking for users of the site and the daily vehicle traffic anticipated, it is considered this would be of a small scale, naturally limited by the proposed use and those using the premises. The proposed dedicated parking spaces 10 in total including two dedicated disabled spaces would be available after hours for the users of the Scout Hall and formalises this area that would also be managed by the commissioners which would be seen to improve the current situation for public facilities.
6.23 The comments from the users and representatives of the Scout Building are noted above, and their pertinent comments that relate to planning that can be classed as a material consideration focus on the double doors (fire exit) to the rear of the property and availability to have un restricted access to these doors / room for loading and unloading. Its is noted on the plans the distance between the fire doors and the extent of the parking are such the these would not block the fire doors. However, a physical bollard or barrier type structure or alike would also prevent the public parking larger vehicles (noting they are disabled spaces) in these bays that could then block the outward opening double doors. Such "bollard or barrier" could be removable should access for loading and unloading be needed by the users of the Scout
6.24 The comments from Highway Services are noted and as the transport professionals, they have considered the merits of the proposals, access to and from the site from the highway, as well as parking and manoeuvrability within the site. As such they don't object and consider the proposals would have no adverse impact upon highway safety for users of the site.
6.25 From a planning perspective and having considered the highways safety aspect and the use of the proposed accesses in a safe and appropriate manner, it would not be considered to have any adverse impact on the wider existing highway or upon those users entering, parking and exiting the site. As such the proposal would be considered to align with the principles of Gp2 h&I and the relevant design guides (MfMR) and best practice guidance. TREES
6.26 The comments from DEFA Forestry clarify whether there would be any adverse impact upon the surrounding mature trees on the boundary. It is noted they don't object to the proposals but seek to register the trees to prevent any damage and places the onus on the owners of the trees should they require to prune or work on the trees. As such, given these trees sit outside of the application site and not within the applicants' control, this aspect of the proposals are in accordance with Gp2d. DRAINAGE
6.27 The concerns raised from the MUA (drainage) prompted a revised drainage plan as noted on plan ref; 10-02A, now shows a bunded, silt trap that connects to the foul sewer drainage network and an 'aco drain' channel to the front elevation of the building that connects to the surface water drainage. As such, the MUA's agreement with the proposed plan and additional commentary provided by email dated 19th December ensures compliance with the relevant drainage legislation.
7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application would be an acceptable form of development that has been designed to reflect their proposed use and would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties which would then comply with aforementioned planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and is recommended for approval. RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
8.1 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).
8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
8.3 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.
8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
8.5 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.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 16.02.2026 Signed : Jason Singleton Presenting Officer
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.
25/90888/B Page 10 of 10
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown