Statement of Case on Behalf of Appellant

Statement Of Case

Appeal Ref: AP25/0048 Planning Application Ref: 23/00924/B 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

This Statement of Case has been prepared by Ste Stanley, Chartered Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute

Appeal Against Refusal of Planning Application Ref: 23/00924/B 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

1. Executive Summary

Executive Summary

• 1.1 This Statement of Case is submitted in support of an appeal against the refusal of planning approval for the redevelopment of the Former Crosby Wholesalers site, Main Road, Crosby. The appeal site is allocated in its entirety as Industrial land under the Area Plan for the East. That allocation establishes a clear and unequivocal expectation within the Development Plan that the site should be used efficiently for industrial and employment-generating purposes.
• 1.2 The proposal seeks to demolish an existing, dilapidated industrial building and replace it with 10 modern industrial units for Use Class 2.2 (Light Industry and Research and Development) and/or Use Class 2.4 (Storage and Distribution), together with access improvements, parking, servicing, drainage and landscaping. The development would significantly improve the appearance, functionality and economic performance of the site.
• 1.3 The Planning Authority refused the application on grounds relating to alleged overdevelopment, highway and pedestrian safety, and visual impact. When assessed properly against the Development Plan, the Officer Report and the advice of statutory consultees, none of these reasons are substantiated.
• 1.4 The proposal represents an efficient and appropriate use of allocated industrial land. It delivers modern employment accommodation in a location expressly identified for such use, thereby reducing pressure to accommodate industrial development on non-designated land, including countryside locations.
• 1.5 Any residual matters identified by the Planning Authority are capable of being addressed through proportionate planning conditions. We submit that refusal was therefore not a justified or proportionate response and that the appeal should be allowed.

2. Introduction And Purpose Of This Statement

• 2.1 This Statement of Case is submitted on behalf of the Appellant in support of an appeal against the Planning Authority’s decision to refuse planning permission.

2.2 The Statement:

• (a) summarises the appeal proposal and the site context;
• (b) sets out the relevant Development Plan policy framework (Strategic Plan and Area Plan for the East);
• (c) addresses the representations made during the application process, distinguishing material planning considerations from private or civil matters;
• (d) responds to each reason for refusal in turn, quoting each reason verbatim as set out in the Decision Notice;
• (e) demonstrates detailed compliance with each relevant policy, including short direct quotations from the Strategic Plan policies; and
• (f) provides a Policy Compliance Matrix at Appendix 1.

3. The Site And Its Planning Context

• 3.1 The appeal site comprises the former Crosby Wholesalers premises, including existing built structures and hardstanding, with access from Main Road, Crosby.

• 3.2 The existing buildings are lawful industrial buildings. They are currently in a dilapidated and visually poor condition and this forms the baseline against which this proposal must be assessed. The appeal proposal replaces the existing tired and inefficient industrial built form with a coherent, well-ordered and modern set of units, together with drainage, access improvements, parking, servicing and landscaping.
• 3.3 The entire site is zoned “Industrial” by the Area Plan for the East. This is a primary consideration, as it reflects the Cabinet Office’s land-use strategy for employment uses in this location.
• 3.4 In principle, therefore, the Development Plan anticipates that this site will deliver industrial development. The planning question is not whether industrial development is acceptable on this land, but whether the detailed design and technical arrangements are acceptable in planning terms and capable of being managed through appropriate and proportionate conditions.

• 4. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

4.1 The proposal is for demolition of the existing building and erection of 10 new industrial units foruse as either Use Class 2.2 (Light Industry and Research/Development) and/or Use Class 2.4(Storage and Distribution).

• 4.2 The scheme includes:

• (a) widening of the existing vehicular access;
• (b) provision of internal circulation space and parking;

• (c) hardstanding and servicing areas;
• (d) surface water drainage strategy and associated works; and
• (e) landscaping to soften and integrate the development.

• 4.3 The submitted drawing set, levels strategy, swept path plans and pedestrian links note demonstrate a deliverable scheme with safe and functional access arrangements for a realistic range of vehicles, including servicing vehicles appropriate to Use Class 2.4.
• 4.4 The submitted CGI and mock-up submission provides clear corroborative evidence that:

• (a) the overall appearance is materially improved compared with the existing run-down buildings;
• (b) the form, materials and detailing create a modern and coherent employment development; and
• (c) the site is rationalised and tidied, with organised movement and dedicated service areas.

• 5. DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Statutory planning framework

• 5.1.1 The Development Plan comprises the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) and the Area Plan for the East.

• 5.1.2 General Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan requires that development control decisions “shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations”.
• 5.1.3 The appeal proposal falls squarely within land zoned for industrial use and General Policy 2 is therefore central. It confirms that development “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 listed criteria are satisfied.

5.2 Strategic Plan policies supporting the appeal

• 5.2.1 Strategic Policy 1 is directly relevant. It requires development to make the best use of resources by, among other things, “ensuring efficient use of sites” and “optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings”.
• 5.2.2 Strategic Policy 6 provides that major employment-generating development should be located on land “zoned for such purposes and identified as such in existing Local or new Area Plans”.
• 5.2.3 Strategic Policy 7 is also important. It states that “Undeveloped land which is zoned in Area Plans for industrial, office, or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses.”

• 5.2.4 Business Policy 1 is supportive in principle, confirming that “The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan.”
• 5.2.5 Strategic Policy 10 sets a clear transport aim including that new development should “not affect unacceptably highway safety for all users” and should “encourage pedestrian movement”.
• 5.2.6 Environment Policy 42 requires that new development in existing settlements “must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality”. It also states that “Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted.”

5.3 Area Plan for the East - plan objectives and efficient use of land

• 5.3.1 The Area Plan for the East contains explicit objectives and desired outcomes relevant to this appeal. It seeks to allocate land “to ensure sufficient development opportunities … to support a diverse and growing economy”.
• 5.3.2 Critically, the Plan’s desired outcomes include that “New development will be of a scale and density which makes efficient use of the land available.”
• 5.3.3 The Plan also includes a dedicated discussion on “Ensuring the efficient use of land and buildings” and the optimisation of sites and underused land.
• 5.3.4 In an Island context, efficient use of designated land is a key part of avoiding undue pressure to expand into undesignated land, including countryside or sensitive locations not allocated for development. The Development Plan strategy is to direct development towards preferred locations and away from unsuitable or undesirable locations.

5.4 Economic Strategy 2022-2032

• 5.4.1 The Isle of Man Economic Strategy 2022-2032 is a material consideration which supports the delivery of modern business premises and employment opportunity.
• 5.4.2 The Strategy identifies “Infrastructure investment and regeneration: reform planning policy legislation” as part of the suite of initiatives that support “Prosperity for business” and a “Resilient and sustainable economy”.
• 5.4.3 It notes that the Island is “lagging behind in its regeneration and investment in business premises” and supports reviewing and developing planning policy to better support place-based regeneration and align with economic objectives, including simplifying the planning process for the construction or modification of premises to support growth.

• 5.4.4 The appeal scheme directly aligns with these objectives by providing improved, flexible employment accommodation on land allocated for industrial use, replacing obsolete buildings with modern premises.

6. Key Material Considerations And Representations

• 6.1 The Planning Authority received consultation responses and third-party representations during the application process.

• 6.2 This section summarises the key points raised, then explains why, in our view, they do not justify refusal when assessed against the Development Plan and the technical evidence.

6.3 Statutory and technical consultees

• 6.3.1 Department for Enterprise (Business Agency) - The response is supportive in principle in terms of business and employment delivery. This aligns with the Development Plan’s economic objectives and Business Policy 1.
• 6.3.2 DEFA Biodiversity - The biodiversity response is noted. The scheme is within an industrial zoning, and the proposed landscaping and drainage approach provides a controlled framework. Where ecological controls are required, they can be secured by condition in the normal way, consistent with General Policy 2 (criterion d) relating to habitats and watercourses.
• 6.3.3 DOI Flood Risk Management - The flood risk consultation responses are noted. The scheme includes drainage works and is capable of being regulated by condition. Flood risk is an assessment matter under General Policy 2 (criterion l).
• 6.3.4 MUA Drainage - The drainage consultation responses are noted. The proposal includes associated drainage works, and final technical detail can be addressed through condition or separate technical approvals.
• 6.3.5 DOI Highways Division - The statutory consultee with professional responsibility for highways safety did not object to the scheme. We assert that this provides strong evidence that the access and layout are acceptable in highways terms, subject to appropriate conditions, and it directly undermines the refusal narrative suggesting a fundamental highways or pedestrian issue.

6.4 Third party and local authority representations: summary and response

• 6.4.1 Crosby Methodist Church / Methodist Chapel - The church representation is noted. Where concerns relate to ownership or control of land, private access rights, or alleged civil disputes, these are not material planning considerations unless they undermine deliverability. The Appellant has lawful control or rights required to implement the development.

• 6.4.2 Rosebank - The neighbouring representation is noted, including concerns on traffic, layout and amenity. These matters are addressed through the policy assessment below, the highways evidence and the design response.
• 6.4.3 31 First Avenue - The representation is noted. Relevant planning matters are addressed through the General Policy 2 assessment and the refusal rebuttals.
• 6.4.4 Marown Commissioners - The Commissioners’ representations are specifically addressed below, as they raise a number of points.
• 6.5 Marown Commissioners

• 6.5.1 The Commissioners raised, in summary, concerns around:

• (a) traffic and congestion on Main Road;
• (b) the adequacy of pedestrian provision and whether a footway extension is required;
• (c) alleged inaccuracies or assumptions within the pedestrian links note;
• (d) whether access arrangements rely upon land not in the control of the Appellant, including reference to Old Church Road;
• (e) perceived overdevelopment and out-of-keeping design; and
• (f) a range of points which, on analysis, relate to civil matters of land ownership or rights.

• 6.5.2 Traffic and congestion - The correct test is whether the development has an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows, applying General Policy 2 (criteria h and i). The professional statutory consultee on these matters (DOI Highways) did not object which in our view weighs heavily in favour of the proposal. In addition, the site is zoned for industrial use, meaning that traffic associated with industrial activity is anticipated in principle. The scheme provides well organised parking and servicing which improves site operation and reduces the likelihood of conflict between users.
• 6.5.3 Pedestrian provision and the public footway - The Commissioners’ concerns are acknowledged. However, the appeal proposal includes a widened access and the technical note on pedestrian links, together with a road safety audit and designer’s response, which collectively demonstrate a considered approach. Where any element of off-site works is required, it can be secured through condition or through agreement with the Highway Authority, and it does not justify refusal of an otherwise plan-compliant development.
• 6.5.4 Alleged reliance on land not controlled by the Appellant - The Appellant confirms lawful control and deliverability. In any event, private landownership disputes are not a reason to refuse planning permission where the development is capable of being implemented.

• 6.5.5 Design and overdevelopment -This point is addressed in detail under the General Policy 2 assessment and in response to the refusal reasons. The site is designated for industrial use. The proposal is a coherent modern industrial scheme which is materially better than the existing dilapidated buildings. The CGIs provide direct evidence of this improvement.
• 6.5.6 Summary in response to Commissioners’ points - The Commissioners’ concerns do not identify a policy conflict that justifies refusal. The key technical matters (highway safety, access and servicing) have been assessed by the statutory consultee, with no objection. Matters of pedestrian detail can be managed through proportionate controls.
• 7. OFFICER REPORT

• 7.1 The Officer Report contains findings and professional judgements which support significant elements of the Appellant’s case. Where the refusal reasons or conclusions point to a different outcome, we conclude that inconsistency should be noted.
• 7.2 In particular:

• (a) the Officer Report identifies the relevant Strategic Plan policies including Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 7 and General Policy 2, confirming the plan-led framework applicable to industrial zoning land;
• (b) the Officer Report records DOI Highways’ position and the absence of highways objection;
• (c) the Officer Report identifies that the principle of employment use is supported by the land-use zoning;
• (d) the Officer Report acknowledges that many technical concerns are capable of being controlled by condition.

• 7.3 The Inspector is respectfully invited to give appropriate weight to the above matters, as in our view, they demonstrate that the refusal is not a proportionate response to the Development Plan position and the statutory consultation responses.

• 8. DETAILED POLICY COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT

• 8.1 This section provides an assessment against the most relevant Strategic Plan and Area Plan considerations, using the policy tests and criteria that the Planning Authority itself identifies as being central.
• 8.2 Strategic Policy 1 - efficient use of resources and sites

• 8.2.1 Strategic Policy 1 requires development to make the best use of resources, including “optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings” and “ensuring efficient use of sites”.

• 8.2.2 The appeal proposal directly meets this policy. It redevelops an existing industrial site with obsolete and visually poor buildings and replaces them with a modern, functional industrial layout that uses the site efficiently.
• 8.2.3 The proposal also makes efficient use of existing infrastructure. The site is already established for employment use, and the proposal rationalises access and servicing rather than creating a new industrial provision on undesignated land.
• 8.2.4 The Inspector is invited to note the wider strategic implication. Refusing plan-compliant redevelopment of allocated employment land risks shifting employment pressure towards nondesignated locations, including countryside sites not intended for industrial development. The Strategic Plan and Area Plan approach is to avoid that outcome. The site is previously developed, within a recognised settlement boundary and served by the strategic highway network and public transport routes.

8.3 Strategic Policy 6 and 7 - employment development on zoned land

• 8.3.1 Strategic Policy 6 states that major employment-generating development should be located on land “zoned for such purposes” in Area Plans. The appeal scheme does precisely that.
• 8.3.2 Strategic Policy 7 provides that “Undeveloped land which is zoned in Area Plans for industrial … purposes will be retained and protected for such uses” save for incompatibility. There is no policy basis to conclude that industrial use is inappropriate or incompatible on an industrially zoned site.
• 8.3.3 The refusal reasons therefore run counter to the core Development Plan strategy unless the Planning Authority can demonstrate specific, evidenced harm which cannot be resolved through design or appropriate conditions. That threshold is not met.
• 8.4 Business Policy 1 - employment growth

• 8.4.1 Business Policy 1 supports the encouragement of employment opportunities which accord with the Plan. This scheme supports local business growth by providing modern and flexible units for light industrial, R&D and storage uses.
• 8.4.2 The Island’s economic direction places weight on modern business premises and enabling conditions for enterprise. This appeal scheme is a practical example of that agenda being delivered through the planning system.

• 8.5 General Policy 2 - development within land-use zones

• 8.5.1 General Policy 2 is the primary development management policy. It sets the presumption in favour of development that accords with land-use zoning, subject to meeting the criteria (a) to (n).

• 8.5.2 Criterion (a): design brief. Where a design brief exists in the Area Plan, the proposal accords. The scheme is a coherent industrial redevelopment consistent with the Plan’s objectives for modern, higher quality development.
• 8.5.3 Criterion (b): siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping. The layout is functional and well considered, with clear movement routes, serviced units, parking, and landscaping. The CGIs demonstrate the quality of form and appearance, and the proposal is clearly an improvement over the existing buildings.
• 8.5.4 Criterion (c): character of surrounding landscape or townscape. The site is within an industrial zoning. The design is appropriate for an industrial site, and the scheme replaces a dilapidated complex of industrial buildings with modern industrial units.
• 8.5.5 Criterion (d): protected wildlife and habitats. Consultation responses are noted and the proposal includes landscaping and drainage infrastructure. Where necessary and appropriate, conditions can be applied to secure ecological protection and timing of works.
• 8.5.6 Criterion (f): existing topography and landscape features. The levels strategy and landscaping proposals demonstrate a considered and appropriate response to the site characteristics. The proposal is not an insensitive engineering solution but rather a planned redevelopment that sits comfortably within its site and wider surroundings. The layout and disposition of the proposed units has been explicitly driven by arboricultural and landscape constraints on the site. The existing mature tree belts to the eastern and southern boundaries, together with their root protection areas, have been treated as primary design parameters as opposed to constraints. The proposed buildings are arranged in clusters to avoid incursion into root protection areas, with lighter-touch uses such as parking, circulation and storage located where limited encroachment is unavoidable. This designled approach has been developed through iterative engagement between the architect, arboricultural advisor and client and results in the retention of the vast majority of existing trees, with only one individual tree proposed for removal in order to achieve safe and functional access. This represents a sensitive and proportionate response to the site’s physical characteristics and accords with General Policy 2 criteria (b) and (f).
• 8.5.7 Criterion (g): amenity of local residents and character of locality. The proposal is an employment use on land allocated for that purpose. The scheme is designed to avoid undue disturbance, with dedicated service areas and internal management. Any operational controls (hours of working, delivery management) can be secured by appropriate condition if required.
• 8.5.8 Criterion (h): safe access, parking, servicing and manoeuvring. This is supported by the swept path drawings for relevant vehicles and by DOI Highways’ no objection position. The scheme provides functional parking, turning, manoeuvring and servicing arrangements that would support safe operation of the proposed development for all users.

• 8.5.9 Criterion (i): effect on road safety and traffic flows. Again, DOI Highways is the primary expert consultee. No objection was raised and where any further detailing is considered necessary, this can be controlled via condition.
• 8.5.10 Criterion (j): services. The MUA consultation is noted and we assert that acceptable drainage and services are capable of being delivered as part of the scheme.
• 8.5.11 Criterion (l): flooding. Flood Risk Management consultation is noted and the proposal includes drainage works and can be controlled by condition.
• 8.5.12 Criterion (n): energy consumption. The modern design provides a basis for considerably improved efficiency compared with the existing building complex.
• 8.5.13 In summary, the proposal complies with each aspect of General Policy 2. Any residual matters are capable of being addressed through appropriate planning conditions.

8.6 Strategic Policy 10 - transport integration and pedestrian movement

• 8.6.1 Strategic Policy 10 requires development to “not affect unacceptably highway safety for all users” and to “encourage pedestrian movement”.
• 8.6.2 The appeal scheme improves the site access geometry and internal layout. The pedestrian links technical note, road safety audit and designer’s response demonstrate that pedestrian matters have been actively considered. In addition, the Inspector is asked to give significant weight to the Highways Division’s position.
• 8.6.3 Importantly, the Planning Authority’s concerns on pedestrian use of the footway do not identify an insurmountable defect. They are matters capable of proportionate control, including by condition requiring the implementation of identified pedestrian measures prior to first occupation.

8.7 Environment Policy 42 - character and identity of the locality

• 8.7.1 It is noted that the Area Plan for the East does not provide a specific Development Brief for this site and as such, design considerations are to be assessed having regard to the policies set out within the Strategic Plan. Environment Policy 42 requires development in existing settlements to take account of local character and identity.
• 8.7.2 The locality here includes the established industrial zoning and the existing industrial complex. Neither the site nor the wider area are within a Conservation Area nor are there any Registered Buildings within the vicinity. The appeal proposal is not an incongruous use or form of development, rather it is an appropriate redevelopment.

• 8.7.3 The design approach is modern and coherent. The submitted CGIs show a clear improvement over the existing built form which is run-down and unattractive. The proposed buildings are of a scale and form that is typical for small industrial units, and they are arranged to provide a clean frontage and functional servicing.
• 8.7.4 The proposal avoids the perpetuation of dereliction and poor-quality built form which is a clear planning benefit to the surrounding locality.

9. Efficient Use Of Land And Plan Strategy

• 9.1 The Planning Authority’s decision should be viewed against the Development Plan strategy to optimise development within allocated land. The Area Plan for the East explicitly seeks efficient use of land and notes that new development “will be of a scale and density which makes efficient use of the land available.”

• 9.2 Strategic Policy 1 similarly requires “ensuring efficient use of sites” and optimising the reuse of underused land and buildings.

• 9.3 This appeal scheme demonstrates that approach:

• (a) it intensifies and modernises an industrial zoning site, rather than pushing growth outward;
• (b) it replaces inefficient and unattractive structures with a better planned layout;
• (c) it delivers employment floorspace in an accessible location served by existing infrastructure; and
• (d) it reduces pressure to find alternative industrial sites in more sensitive or undesignated locations.

• 9.4 In a small Island with finite land supply, a fundamental role of the planning system is to make the Development Plan strategy work. That includes enabling redevelopment and intensification where land is expressly allocated for employment uses, subject to appropriate safeguards.

• 9.5 It is our view that the refusal reasons do not properly engage with this plan strategy. They treat redevelopment of an industrial allocation as if it were speculative development in an undesignated location. We submit that this is the wrong starting point and would if followed through would frustrate the strategic objectives of the development plan from being achieved.
• 10. RESPONSE TO REASONS FOR REFUSAL

• 10.1 Reason for refusal 1 - scale, massing, density and impact on character and amenity

• 10.1.1 The Decision Notice states:

“The proposal by reason of the scale, massing and density of development, would constitute an overdevelopment of the site which would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality and the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, contrary to Strategic Policies 1 and 3, and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the East.”

• 10.1.3 Strategic Policy 1 specifically supports efficient use of sites and reuse of underused land and redundant buildings. The Planning Authority’s allegation of “overdevelopment” is inconsistent with the plan strategy for efficient use of allocated land, particularly where the proposal includes structured layout, circulation, servicing and landscaping which have been assessed as being acceptable by the technical consultees on these matters.

• 10.1.4 Strategic Policy 3 is concerned with protecting or enhancing the individual character of towns and villages, including by having regard to local materials and character. In this case, the relevant character is of an industrial zoned site on a main road with established employment uses. The proposal responds to that character with a coherent, well-designed, modern industrial form at a scale appropriate to the site and wider locality.

• 10.1.5 The submitted CGIs and mock-ups show a significant improvement over the existing dilapidated buildings, replacing visual clutter and poor-quality built form with a much smarter, unified appearance.

• 10.1.6 It is also material that the appeal proposal results in a net reduction in built floorspace when compared with the existing lawful industrial buildings on the site. The proposed development provides a total gross internal floorspace of approximately 945 sqm, representing a reduction of approximately 13.8% when compared with the existing floorspace of approximately 1,096 sqm. This reduction has been deliberately achieved through breaking up the existing linear industrial form into smaller, well-spaced clusters. Far from constituting overdevelopment, the proposal therefore represents a less intensive form of development in floorspace terms, with reduced massing, improved spacing between buildings and increased opportunity for landscaping and circulation. This directly contradicts the Planning Authority’s assertion that the proposal constitutes overdevelopment of the site.
• 10.1.7 The scheme is designed to operate as small scale industrial units appropriate to Use Class 2.2. and 2.4. It provides dedicated servicing and internal management of movement. If the Inspector considers that additional amenity safeguards would be proportionate (such as delivery hours, external lighting controls or acoustic measures), these can be secured by condition. We submit that this reinforces that refusal is not necessary.
• 10.1.8 The Area Plan’s desired outcomes include improved design quality and efficient land use. The proposal achieves both by upgrading an underused employment site.

• 10.1.9 Taken together, we submit that the reduced floorspace, dispersed massing and tree-led layout demonstrate a responsive form of redevelopment, as opposed to overdevelopment. We conclude that on this basis, reason for refusal 1 is not substantiated.

10.2 Reason for refusal 2 - pedestrian access, footway use and highway safety

• 10.2.1 The Decision Notice states:

“The proposal by reason of the pedestrian access arrangements and the requirement for pedestrians to utilise the public footway, would be detrimental to highway safety contrary to Strategic Policy 10 and General Policy 2 (h) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.”

• 10.2.2 It is our view that this reason for refusal is not substantiated, for the following reasons.
• 10.2.3 DOI Highways Division is the statutory consultee for highways safety. It did not object. We submit that substantial weight ought to be attached to that professional position.
• 10.2.4 General Policy 2 requires safe and convenient access and adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring. The submitted swept path drawings and access layout demonstrate that vehicles can enter, manoeuvre and exit safely.
• 10.2.5 Strategic Policy 10 requires development to “not affect unacceptably highway safety for all users” and to “encourage pedestrian movement”. The appeal scheme includes a pedestrian links technical note and a road safety audit and response, which demonstrate that pedestrian matters have been considered and can be managed in an acceptable way.
• 10.2.6 During Committee consideration, reference was made to whether specific parking provision should have been made for HGVs or larger industrial vehicles. It is important to place that suggestion in its proper context. The proposal comprises small-scale light industrial units, each with a floorspace of approximately 89 sqm to 95 sqm, and is not designed to serve heavy or high-intensity logistics operations. The submitted vehicle tracking drawings demonstrate that the site is capable of safely accommodating the largest realistically anticipated vehicles, including refuse collection vehicles and an 8 metre long 7.5 tonne box van, which represent an appropriate upper limit for the scale and nature of development proposed.
• 10.2.7 Where a specific occupier were to require occasional access by a larger vehicle, there is sufficient flexibility within the site layout and individual units for such vehicles to be accommodated internally, should this be operationally necessary. This reinforces that the scheme is not constrained in practical terms, but has been designed proportionately to reflect the intended scale of use rather than hypothetical worst-case scenarios.

• 10.2.8 In addition, the parking and operational arrangements across the site would be fully controllable through lease conditions and managed by a single landlord or management company. This provides a clear and effective mechanism to regulate how parking, servicing and loading areas are used, ensuring that vehicle movements remain appropriate to the nature of the businesses occupying the units.
• 10.2.9 If the Inspector considers that a particular pedestrian improvement or management measure should be secured prior to first occupation, this can be conditioned or for agreement with DOI. It is not in our opinion a reason to refuse the scheme outright.

10.3 Reason for Refusal 3 – Visual Impact and Relationship with the Road

• 10.3.1 The Decision Notice states:

‘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.’

• 10.3.2 This reason for refusal appears to relate to the siting of buildings closer to the road frontage and the alleged impact on character and appearance.
• 10.3.3 The starting point must again be the Industrial zoning of the site. The Development Plan does not seek to preserve a low-intensity or semi-rural character on land expressly allocated for industrial development.
• 10.3.4 Visibility from the public highway is not, of itself, planning harm. On industrial land, a visible and legible frontage is often an appropriate and desirable characteristic. It supports legibility and signals the types of businesses that prospective customers might expect to be in operation within the site.
• 10.3.5 The submitted CGIs and mock-ups demonstrate that:

the proposed buildings are of a much greater quality and more coherent design than the existing structures;

the visual relationship with Main Road is acceptable and would accord with existing scale, form and character; and

the development presents a coherent, modern employment frontage rather than the dilapidated, poor quality appearance of the existing complex.

• 10.3.6 The detailed design and materials strategy further reinforces the appropriateness of the proposal’s visual relationship with Main Road. The buildings are single-storey and utilise a restrained palette of muted green tones and neutral roofing materials specifically selected to integrate with the surrounding mature tree cover and soften views from the public highway. The colour strategy is intended to reduce visual contrast, allowing the built form to recede within its landscaped context rather than appear visually intrusive. We submit that this approach represents a marked improvement over the existing industrial buildings, which are visually discordant, poorly maintained and prominent within the street scene. In our view, the proposal therefore enhances, rather than detracts from, the character of the locality when assessed against the existing situation.
• 10.3.7 Environment Policy 42 requires development to take account of local character. In this case, the relevant character is that of an industrial land allocation on a main road, not an undeveloped or semi-rural landscape.
• 10.3.8 We submit that the proposal therefore responds appropriately to its context and represents a clear visual improvement over the existing situation.
• 10.3.9 Any matters of detailing, boundary treatment or landscaping are capable of being addressed by condition.
• 10.3.10 For these reasons, we submit that Reason for Refusal 3 is not substantiated.
• 11. PLANNING BALANCE

• 11.1 The Development Plan is clear - industrially zoned land should deliver industrial development where the proposal meets the applicable development management criteria.

• 11.2 This proposal:

• (a) delivers modern employment units on land zoned Industrial;
• (b) improves a dilapidated site and uplifts the visual quality of the locality;
• (c) provides structured access, parking, servicing and drainage;
• (d) is supported by the statutory highways consultee; and
• (e) aligns with the Island’s economic direction to improve business premises and enable enterprise.

• 11.3 The appeal proposal accords with the Development Plan when read as a whole. It delivers industrial development on land allocated for that purpose, makes efficient use of a previously developed site, improves the visual quality of the area, and supports economic objectives identified in the Isle of Man Economic Strategy.

• 11.4 The proposal is supported by statutory consultees, including DOI Highways, and any remaining matters raised by the Planning Authority are capable of being addressed through proportionate planning conditions.

• 11.5 When weighed in the planning balance, it is our assertion that the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the unsubstantiated concerns relied upon in the refusal decision. Accordingly, we submit that there is no sound planning reason to withhold permission.
• 12. CONCLUSION

• 12.1 For the reasons set out above, we conclude that none of the reasons for refusal, whether considered individually or cumulatively, are substantiated. The proposal represents a policycompliant, sustainable and efficient redevelopment of allocated industrial land. The appeal should therefore be allowed and planning approval granted, subject to appropriate conditions.

Ste Stanley RTPI Uplift Planning Limited

APPENDIX 1 - Policy Compliance Matrix

Policy	Key requirement	Compliance response (summary)
Strategic Policy 1 (Strategic Plan 2016)	“optimising the use of previously developed land… unused and underused land and buildings” and “ensuring efficient use of sites”	Redevelops an existing industrial site with obsolete/dilapidated buildings; provides efficient, serviced layout; avoids displacement to undesignated land; optimises existing infrastructure.
Strategic Policy 3 (Strategic Plan 2016)	Protect/enhance settlement character; design to have regard to local materials/character	Industrial zoning context; modern industrial design appropriate; coherent form and materials; visual improvement evidenced through CGIs.
Strategic Policy 6 (Strategic Plan 2016)	Employment development should be on land “zoned for such purposes”	Site is zoned for Industrial use; proposal is employmentgenerating and aligned with land allocation.

Continued overleaf

APPENDIX 1 -Policy Compliance Matrix (Continued)

Policy	Key requirement	Compliance response (summary)
Strategic Policy 7 (Strategic Plan 2016)	Industrial-zoned land “retained and protected for such uses”	Supports retention and delivery of industrial use on allocated land; no incompatibility demonstrated.
Strategic Policy 10 (Strategic Plan 2016)	“not affect unacceptably highway safety” and “encourage pedestrian movement”	DOI Highways raises no objection; access widened; swept paths confirm acceptable manoeuvring; pedestrian links note and RSA demonstrate mitigation; any residual matters can be conditioned.
General Policy 2 (Strategic Plan 2016)	Development in accordance with zoning “will normally be permitted” subject to criteria (a)-(n)	Proposal meets criteria on layout, design, character (noting existing industrial baseline), amenity, highways safety, servicing, drainage. Adequate controls available via conditions.

Continued overleaf

APPENDIX 1 - Policy Compliance Matrix (Continued)

Policy	Key requirement	Compliance response (summary)
Business Policy 1 (Strategic Plan 2016)	“growth of employment opportunities … will be encouraged” subject to Plan policies	Provides modern units supporting local business growth; aligns with policy framework; located on allocated employment land.
Environment Policy 42 (Strategic Plan 2016)	Design to take account of local character/identity; avoid inappropriate backland development	Industrial context; proposal is not backland residential development; design and landscaping respond appropriately; significant visual improvement over current condition.
Area Plan for the East objectives and desired outcomes	Efficient use of land; uplift design quality; support diverse and growing economy	The scheme makes efficient use of industrial zoning; provides design uplift; delivers employment floorspace on allocated land.
Economic Strategy 2022-2032	Improve business premises; support productivity; enabling planning framework	Appeal scheme delivers modern business premises and supports enterprise and productivity outcomes.

APPENDIX 2 - Computer Generated Images of Proposed Development

APPENDIX 2 - Computer Generated Images of Proposed Development (Continued)