An ’action plan’ for consultation on proposed changes to the planning system will be published as soon as it is ready, says Policy and Reform Minister Chris Thomas.

According to the Programme for Government, the action plan was due to be published in June. Daphne Caine (Garff), last week tabled a written Tynwald question for Chris Thomas, asking where it was.

Mr Thomas says: ’This is an ambitious and complex project and it is the view of Council (of Ministers) that achieving the right balance in any changes to the existing planning system warrants thorough and careful consideration. However, as soon as the action plan is finalised it will be published.’

He adds: ’The island’s planning system affects all residents and visitors and shapes how our Island changes and responds physically to society’s needs.

’The work to review the planning system will set out where it is considered that improvement can and should be made to help us realise a shared vision - we want a more proactive planning system that is able to create better places where people want to live and work and businesses want to invest.

’At the same time, we want to ensure that we protect and cherish the assets that make our island special whilst supporting appropriate, sustainable development.’

He says a number of ’key stages’ of the project have been completed, including research to ’inform the production of a series of draft recommendations’. Those recommendations have been passed to the Environment and Infrastructure Committee for consideration.

The next step, he adds, will be the draft action plan for consultation.

Meanwhile, Environment Minister Geoffrey Boot has been called on to explain why, where retrospective planning approval was not granted to developments that went ahead without permission, no further action was taken in nine instances.

In a written answer to questions from Julie Edge (LibVab, Onchan), Mr Boot says two cases were now outside the four-year time span for action to be taken, others had been resolved and in some instances the breach was deemed to be of ’minimal harm’. He rejects a request to say who the applicants were, saying the department ’does not consider it appropriate’.

He says the applicant may not even be aware that enforcement action was considered and also so as ’not to discourage people coming from coming forward with such reports of breach of planning controls (usually about their neighbours), the department does not wish to disclose specific details of the cases as to do so may prejudice future enforcement’.