CON Statement of Case - DEFA Planning and Building Control

Please reply to the signatory

Our Ref:

Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN

Dear Sir/Madam,

Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: [email protected]

Lucy Kinrade Senior Planning Officer Date 02/02/2026 PA No: 23/00924/B Proposal: Demolition of existing building and the erection of 10 new industrial

units for use as either Use Class 2.2 (Light Industry and Research/Development) and/or 2.4 (Storage and Distribution) and including widening of existing access, creation of parking and hardstanding with associated drainage and landscaping

Address: Former Crosby Wholesalers, Main Road, Crosby, IM4 4BN

Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The application was determined by the Planning Committee on 15th December 2025. This statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which is online and forms part of the planning file and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting which are provided at the end of this statement.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

• 1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case
• 2. Appendix 2 – Copy of Planning Committee Minutes

In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached along with consideration to any potential conditions included at 4.0 of the Statement of Case.

Yours sincerely,

Lucy Kinrade

Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

STATEMENT OF THE Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

Demolition of existing building and the erection of 10 new industrial units for use as either Use Class 2.2 (Light Industry and Research/Development) and/or 2.4 (Storage and Distribution) and including widening of existing access, creation of parking and hardstanding with associated drainage and landscaping

Former Crosby Wholesalers Main Road Crosby IM4 4BN PA Reference: 23/00924/B / Appeal Reference: AP25/0048 Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Lucy Kinrade, Senior Planning Officer

• 1.0 Appeal against refusal of PA 23/00924/B

The three reasons for refusal:

• R1. The increased number of units from four to 10 is considered an inappropriate intensification of this central Crosby site and one which would result in unacceptable and adverse impacts on local character, scale and neighbouring amenity contrary to Spatial Policy 4, Strategic Policy 3, General Policy 2, and Environment Policies 2, 23 and 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
• R2. Although the scheme is provided with the correct numerical parking space requirements based on the proposed uses (light industrial, research and development, and storage and distribution) due to the sites increased unit numbers, the constrained site layout, the nature of the proposed uses, nature of unit operations and with sole reliance on domestic sized parking bays only, that there are concerns regarding the sites safe operation for all users and without conflict on the main public highway, contrary to Transport Policies 4 and 7, Strategic Policy 10(c) and paragraph 9.2.7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R3. The positioning of some of the proposed units significantly closer to the main road than the existing buildings will increase visibility and prominence of the units and overall site, eroding the settlement's semi-rural character which would result in unacceptable and adverse impacts on local character, scale and neighbouring amenity contrary to Spatial Policy 4, Strategic Policy 3, General Policy 2, and Environment Policies 2, 23 and 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 2.0 Legal and Policy Position The application has been considered in accordance with S10 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999;

S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection

(3), the Department shall have regard to —

• (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
• (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
• (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
• (d) all other material considerations.

There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.

In this application, the most weight has been given to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the Area Plan for the East 2020 as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.

Other material considerations are referred to in the original officer report at section 5.2 and includes guidance such as Manual for Manx Roads 2021 which followed consultation and adoption by the Department of Infrastructure Minister, and two Landscape Character Appraisals dated 2008 and 2025.

• 3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal This report addresses those issues directly, for a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Case Officer’s Report which would have been supplied with the initial documentation, and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting. There are seven issues raised by the appellants;

• 1. The site is allocated for industrial use within the Area Plan for the East 2020, and the proposed use is acceptable in principle under the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The refusal does not therefore relate to the acceptability of the use of the land.
• 2. The proposal results in a reduction in overall gross floorspace compared to the existing lawful development. An increase in the number of units alone does not demonstrate inappropriate intensification or overdevelopment.
• 3. The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services raised no objection and confirmed that access, parking provision and internal circulation are acceptable subject to conditions. Refusal on highway safety grounds is not supported by technical evidence.
• 4. The scheme complies with adopted parking standards. Concerns regarding site operation and vehicle movements are speculative and not substantiated.
• 5. The site has an established industrial character. Matters relating to siting, prominence and appearance are capable of being addressed by condition and do not justify refusal in principle.
• 6. The proposed uses fall within use classes defined as capable of operating without detriment to residential amenity. No evidence has been presented to demonstrate unacceptable amenity harm.
• 7. Finally, we believe that insufficient weight has been afforded to the economic benefits of the proposal and the identified demand for small industrial units, which is supported by the Department for Enterprise.

The following section addresses those issues directly.

• 3.1 “The site is allocated for industrial use within the Area Plan for the East 2020, and the proposed use is acceptable in principle under the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. The refusal does not therefore relate to the acceptability of the use of the land.”

3.1.1 Correct, the refusal does not relate to use of the land. Principle of having light industrial, research and development, and storage/distribution uses is accepted, and this is addressed in full within paragraph 7.2.1 of the original case officer’s report.

3.2 “The proposal results in a reduction in overall gross floorspace compared to theexisting lawful development. An increase in the number of units alone does not demonstrateinappropriate intensification or overdevelopment.”

• 3.2.1 This matter is addressed in full within the original officer’s report at paragraph 7.2.3 and 7.2.4. While numerically the floor space was not so far removed, the extant approved use of the existing units with a low intensity operation was a considerable factor in the assessment. The scale and nature of the proposed units and the increase to 10 units resulting an unacceptable intensification of scale and activity at the site which weighed against the proposal.

The Planning Committee also raised concern that the scale and density of 10 units was excessive and inappropriate for the village location and represented overdevelopment (see Planning Committee Minutes Appendix 1)

3.3 “The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services raised no objection and confirmed that access, parking provision and internal circulation are acceptable subject to conditions. Refusal on highway safety grounds is not supported by technical evidence.”

• 3.3.1 DOI Highway Services are a formal consultee, and it is accepted that their views on the proposal are to support subject to conditions. However, the case officer shall assess the application based on the submission and with regard to responses received. However, on review of the application, the case officer expressed doubt in the access, parking and manoeuvring space provided and it being inadequate to serve the practical day-to-day operation of the site in a safe and efficient manner for all users and without creating impact on the function and traffic flows of the main road. Highway matters are addressed in full under section 7.5 of the original case officers report.

The Planning Committee also expressed concern with the parking, access and manoeuvring arrangements (see Appendix 1).

3.4 “The scheme complies with adopted parking standards. Concerns regarding siteoperation and vehicle movements are speculative and not substantiated.”

Its not quite clear what the agent means by ‘adopted parking standards’. It is assumed that this is the Parking Standards as referred to Appendix 7 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the number of parking spaces required for certain types of development. Paragraph 7.5.1 of the case officer’s report states “The proposal provides 31 parking spaces, meeting the numerical requirements of Appendix 7 being one space per 30 sq m.”

In terms of site operation and vehicle movements, the views are substantiated through a combination of information provided and submitted by the applicant, highway guidance contained within the Manual for Manx Roads and policies and paragraphs contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. It is recognised that the applicants submitted Transport Statement addresses traffic generation, entrances and parking (pages 9-11). Calculations are indicated to be based on floor areas only and not on the proposed uses. The Traffic Statement recognises the site is ‘compact’ and acknowledges that larger vehicles require crossing the centre line of the main road to access the site, and some larger vehicles having limited

manoeuvring within the site. Submitted swept path analysis also supports this and indicates that movement through the site relies on optimal conditions. Risk for conflict increases as a result of the compact site, and with up to 10 independent units operating simultaneously. This is covered in full within section 7.5 of the case officer’s report.

3.5 “The site has an established industrial character. Matters relating to siting, prominenceand appearance are capable of being addressed by condition and do not justify refusal inprinciple.”

Site description is contained at 1.0 of the original officer’s report. It recognises the existing warehouse style buildings on the site and their set back and set down position from the main road and with a large area of off-road parking and turning space in front and with a sloping grassed area nearest the roadside boundary. Visual and character impact are addressed in full at 7.3 of the original officer’s report. Siting and prominence of the units being taller and closer to the road was considered to harm and erode character of the area. While conditions could be considered for external finishes as proposed, conditions to address siting, height and prominence issues could not. The level of change required f the application to overcome these issues would go beyond the condition tests and would need to form part of a new separate application and published to allow consultees and the public suitable opportunity to comment.

Planning Committee also had concern for the visibility and prominence of the units and creating and unnecessarily industrial appearance without sufficient justification (see appendix 1).

3.6 “The proposed uses fall within use classes defined as capable of operating withoutdetriment to residential amenity. No evidence has been presented to demonstrateunacceptable amenity harm.”

Paragraph 9.2.4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 also indicates that site location might dictate nature and level of use for certain purposes and without excessive impact on neighbours as per Environment Policy 23. Neighbouring amenity impact has been specifically addressed in full at paragraph 7.4.1 of the original officer’s report.

3.7 “Finally, we believe that insufficient weight has been afforded to the economic benefitsof the proposal and the identified demand for small industrial units, which is supported by theDepartment for Enterprise.”

Paragraph 7.2.2 of the original officer’s report covers need and indicates this to be of neutral weight rather than a positive weight. Section 5.0 of the officer report refers to Supplementary Guidance on Economic Issues (Dec 2022) and refer to the Employment Land Review (updated 20251). The previous 2017 report2 indicated “Demand expressed to agents is generally for smaller units, while inquiries to DED have generally been for larger premises.”. The later 2025 update indicates demand for larger industrial units. Nevertheless, the applicant has not

• 1 https://pabc.gov.im/planning-policy/planning-policy/evidence-base/

• 2 https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/departments/enterprise/employment-land-review/

provided a viability report to support their case, and as part of any planning assessment economic benefit still needs to be weighed against other factors such as character and appearance, highway safety and neighbouring amenity impact, all of which in this case were considered factors weighing against the proposal resulting in its refusal.

4.0 Potential Conditions

In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is requested that consideration be given to the conditions set out below.

C1. 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.

C2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the units hereby approved shall only be used for Storage or Distribution (Class 2.4) and/or Light Industrial (Class 2.2) and for no other use class or purpose at any time.

Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use as requested within the application in the interest of highway safety and neighbouring amenity, and any alternative uses within the same Use Class will require further consideration as part of a separate application.

C3. There shall be no mezzanines installed within any unit on the site at any time.

Reason: The application has been considered on the basis of the submitted details only for ground floor space only in the interest of parking provision and highway safety.

C4. Prior to the first occupation of any unit hereby approved, the means of vehicular access from the main road must be constructed in full accordance with the approved plans and shall thereafter be retained free and unobstructed for access purposes only.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

C5. Prior to the first occupation of any unit hereby approved, the parking and turning areas (including covered bicycle store and motorcycling parking bays) must be provided in full accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety ensuring provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles.

C6. External elevations of the buildings hereby approved shall be finished in full accordance with the approved plans and retained as such thereafter. Reason: The application has been considered and assessed on the basis of these external finishes.

• C7. The internal finished floor levels of each unit must be provided in full accordance with the approved plans (Levels Strategy DR-02 Rev B) and retained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interest of flood mitigation.
• C8. Prior to the undertaking of any of the works hereby approved at the site, including any clearance works, the tree protection measures as outlined in Manx Roots drawing OTP021122revA (including protective fencing, Construction Exclusions Zones (CEZ) and permanent ground protection) shall be fully installed and those fencing and CEZ shall be retained at the site for the full duration of the construction works, and the permanent ground protection retained in perpetuity. There shall be no access to any areas forming part of the CEZ with exception to those works approved by C9.

Reason: in the interest of suitably protecting those trees to be retained in the interest of visual amenity and ensuring tree protection permanent solutions are installed and retained to ensure tree longevity.

C9. Prior to the undertaking of any drainage works shown on drawing number DR-01 Rev B which take place within the Construction Exclusion Zones (CEZ) identified in C8, full details of how that drainage will be installed must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Those drainage works within any CEZ much then be carried out in full accordance with the details approved.

Reason: In the interest of ensuring best protection of those trees to be retained in the interest of visual amenity.

• C10. There shall be no external illumination at the site. This includes no lighting fixed to any external elevations and no freestanding lighting columns or free-standing illumination.

Reason: The application has not included any detail for illumination, and such would need to be carefully considered as part of its own application in the interest of character and appearance of the site, amenity of the surrounding environment and neighbouring amenity impact.

In addition, the Inspector may also consider whether any conditions are necessary to address matters around the second access route linking with Old Church Road. The original case officer addressed a number of issues in their report at paragraphs 7.5.5 and 7.5.6, and at 7.9.1 confirming there was no reliance as part of the assessment for the second access connecting to Old Church Road, therefore if it was not achievable or resolved between external parties it was a concern. The inspector may want to consider adding suitably worded conditions for the following:

• C11. Prior to any works being undertaken at the site including any clearance works, details of a permanent bollard to be installed along the route connecting with Old Church Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The bollard must be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the construction of any unit on the site and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: to prevent vehicular access in the interest of highway safety as such vehicular access for up to 10 units has not been fully addressed as part of the submission.

Appendix 2 – Planning Committee Minutes 15th December 2025

https://pabc.gov.im/planning/planning-committee/agendas-and-minutes/