Incredibly the Minister criticized Mr Ward for taking a “forensic approach to the wording of the policies” and for losing sight of their purpose. It seems to the Manx Herald the Inspector was applying the Strategic Plan policies as written and for some reason the Minister has decided to adopt a more lax approach to the policies in the plan. This is particularly baffling when his Department has just successfully defended a legal challenge to the plan and its policies.

Minister for the Dept. of Local Government & the Environment, John Shimmin MHK, told Tynwald, in March this year, on only a few occasions - 9 since his appointment in December 2006 - did he disagree with the recommendation of the independent planning inspector and make a different decision.

However, the Minister appears to have got a serious head of steam up in the last month and has exercised his discretion five times during the latter part of May; and for what could only be described as subjective reasons.

On the 19^th May he decided the removal of render of a property in Hope Street, Castletown was acceptable, even though the inspector thought approval could undermine one of the reasons why the area, in which the property is located, was awarded Conservation Area Designation (p.a. 08/2075/B).

On the same day he determined two co-joined retrospective applications, for the change of use of an animal shelter and the creation of a ménage at Ballamoar, should be allowed; despite Independent Inspector, David Ward’s careful consideration of the evidence and Strategic Plan policies. Incredibly the Minister criticized Mr Ward for taking a “forensic approach to the wording of the policies” and for losing sight of their purpose.

The Minister, contrary to the Inspector, decided it hadn’t been demonstrated that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the landscape (08/547R & 548/R).

It seems to the Manx Herald the Inspector was applying the Strategic Plan policies as written and for some reason the Minister has decided to adopt a more lax approach to the policies in the plan. This is particularly baffling when his Department has just successfully defended a legal challenge to the plan and its policies.

The following day he decided an extension to the Groudle Glen café/terminus, at the northern end of the railway, could go ahead even if the proposal didn’t meet with the planning authority’s aspirations for good design or the Inspector’s recommendation their aspirations should be supported (p.a. 08/2075/B).

The Minister then had a rest for a few days before disagreeing on the 28^th May with another recommendation made by David Ward.

This related to a retrospective approval of a roof deck area in Richmond Grove, Douglas, where the Inspector thought the proposal had unacceptable consequences for the amenity of the neighbouring residents (even if the existing residents didn’t object) and on the character and appearance of a conservation area.

The Minister decided the applicant could have his permission if he replaced the 1.5m fence with one 2.0m high and paint it a light colour, thus mitigating any loss of privacy or overbearing effect of the structure; and that the character and appearance of the conservation area would be preserved as, although visible, it was at the rear of the property (p.a. 08/1366).

None of the above decisions appear to involve an error in law, or the omission of material considerations, by the Independent Inspector and purely revolve around either subjective judgments or interpretation of policies: i.e. matters of opinion rather than matters of fact.

On the basis of the judgment by His Honour Deemster Kerruish in re: Manx National Heritage (MNH), it appears the Minister is willing take the risk, albeit perhaps a small one in these particular instances, of having his decisions subjected to Doleance proceedings by a disgruntled party.

However, one of the problems of the current planning system is one of the disgruntled parties could be the planning committee; but can anyone imagine the planning committee launching a legal challenge against the Minister of the Department to whom they are answerable?

Furthermore, thinking again about the MNH case, one of the issues argued was if the Minister is going to make decisions based on his own opinions then we may as well dispense with Independent Inspectors. It was also pointed out the Inspector is a planning professional, whereas the Minister is a politician, and is appointed because he is a Member of Tynwald, not because he may have any expertise in planning.

Taking an overview of these, and many other controversial decisions, such as the Poachers Pocket approvals, would it not be preferable for the planning committee to be totally independent of the DLGE; and for clearer guidance to be issued in respect of the circumstances in which the Minister may exercise his discretion - when he disagrees with an Independent Inspector’s recommendation?

In addition to these matters, a number of other recent appeal reports have produced some interesting issues for the Minister to consider. Some are issues which have been around for some time - but no real action taken to address them - and others more novel.

The perennial issue of the poor quality of some submitted applications – i.e. the accuracy and clarity of information or the lack of it - was brought to the Minister’s attention by two Inspectors and he has asked the Director of Planning & Building Control to ensure sub-standard applications are no longer accepted.

Another recurring issue that has been brought to the Minister’s attention is the non-appearance of participants at the appeal. In this most recent case the applicants did not appear as they had not received notification of the hearing from their agent. The Inspector, Graham Self, said this was not a unique occurrence and said he would make suggestions, outside of his report, to the Minister for possible ways of resolving the issue.

The Minister confirmed he would welcome the suggestions and consider them as part of the current (seemingly endless) review of the planning process.

Finally, Mr Self also raised issues of a legal nature in an appeal he considered for a change of use for 5 holiday apartments to permanent residential use.

He wondered if the proposal actually involved ‘development’ within the meaning of the 1999 planning act; and therefore required permission.

He raised the intriguing possibility that if permission was required for long-lets in tourist accommodation, perhaps short-lets for short-stay residential may be ‘materially’ different to permanent residential use.

He suggested if the latter doesn’t require permission, or isn't enforced, it would be inconsistent to insist on applications for the former.

However, he did acknowledge this may be affected by what the original conditions of approval were for the building.

He also noted nobody, at the appeal, produced any legal judgments to help guide him; not that it was thought any exist.

The Minister has directed these matters should be considered by the Director of Planning & Building Control; and, if necessary, with their legal advisors.