Despite warnings that it would bring the planning system to a standstill, Tynwald members have rejected moves to allow changes to inquiry procedures.

The rejected motion, the first that Tynwald has voted down since the Emergency Powers Act was enacted, was to make changes to the Emergency Powers Act town and country planning regulations to allow only written submissions to planning inquiries.

A planning inspector would also have been granted additional powers to allow an appointed person to make a site visit on his or her behalf or use digital technology.

Minister for Environment Food and Agriculture Geoffrey Boot said the changes were needed as face-to-face inquiries were ’not possible under the current Covid-19 restrictions, partially due to socially distancing requirements, but also because they are usually chaired by UK-based planning inspectors’.

He added that the planning inspectors used by the island had been advised not to travel, even though they could be granted permission to come to the island for work reasons.

’We are therefore faced with a choice of either not resolving these applications and appeals for the foreseeable future or with processing them through written representation alone’, Mr Boot said.

The changes, he said, would prevent applications being left in limbo until restrictions are lifted and rejecting them could badly hit island’s construction sector.

However, several members of Tynwald criticised this approach and asked why DEFA hadn’t found a way to hold remote meetings similar to the way the courts and indeed Tynwald are currently operating.

Daphne Caine (Garff) said: ’If the department has been unable to find technological solutions to facilitate public engagement in the planning process both at meetings and at appeals then I would respectfully suggest they engage with the digital sector on our island.

’The solution is out there. It just needs a willing department to enable a better solution to be found, to enable public engagement in planning matters. These regulations are definitely not good enough.’

Jane Poole-Wilson MLC told Tynwald that the regulations caused her ’significant disquiet’ and criticised the used of the Emergency Powers Act to make changes to planning regulations.

She added: ’Written representations, no matter how full and well prepared, are no match for the ability to make oral representations and to call and examine witnesses. In other words, to have a full and fair hearing of the matter.’

Lawrie Hooper (Lib Vannin, Ramsey) asked why there was no provision in the legislation to allow planning inspectors to make a decision on whether they could hold an inquiry virtually.

The former chairman of the planning committee, Tim Baker (Ayre and Michael), supported the motion and gave the example of the application for a sewage treatment site in Peel which would be delayed if members didn’t back the motion. Mr Baker has recently been appointed as chairman of Manx Utilities.

’The appeal process is locked. It is stuck and that is not a good place for the island to be. It is bad for the economy because development potential is not moving.

’It is bad for individuals, because most applications that are in the appeal process are simple domestic applications around home extensions and building a garage or change of use.

’And it’s bad for our construction sector. We are coming out of an emergency and we know that the economic damage is going to be significant.’

The new chairman of the committee, Martyn Perkins (Garff), said that the audio issues in Tynwald demonstrated the issues that can be caused by poor connections and people ’dropping out’ while they or others are talking.

Mr Perkins added: ’I particularly believe that the written application from both sides is particularly good, because it focuses people, it takes the emotion out of the subject and it actually means they can put their case very well.

’As I understand it, all the written documentation is made fully available on the website and if they wish to rebut the other side, they can actually do so and do that through the officers who actually present the case to the appeal.’

Ultimately, the motion was defeated with every member of the Legislative Council voting against it.

A slender majority of MHKs (12-11) voted for the motion. However, Policy and Reform Minister Chris Thomas sided with the backbenchers and voted against the rest of the Council of Ministers. With the branches in dispute, the motion failed.

Mr Thomas was subsequently sacked from the Council of Ministers for breaking collective responsibility.