125810

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      20/00958/B                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 20/00958/B Applicant : St Johns Steel Services Proposal : Erection of a detached building to provide staff facilities Site Address : St Johns Steel Services Mines Road Foxdale Isle Of Man IM4 3EX

Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 24.09.2020 Site Visit : 24.09.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.09.2020 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. Insofar as the plans are understood (that the proposed container is to replace the existing shed which is on the site but not shown in the plans), the addition of a metal container at the front of the site alongside a main public highway, where it would be visible from behind the existing stone boundary wall which is not a consistent height and in poor repair, would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of this site, whose poor appearance is noted in the Local Plan and where a higher quality of built structure is warranted. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

None __

Officer’s Report

THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing metal fabrication operation situated in the heart of Foxdale village. The site has as its boundary with the A24 main public highway, a stone wall which is at various heights and which has been broken through to create the current access. This has no formal entrance with grass and broken walling at one side. There is a small monopitch roofed structure which sits behind the wall and which is visible from the highway from the north of the site and also alongside the building where the top of the stone wall has

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      20/00958/B                                     Page  2  of  4

lower as the top stones have been removed or have fallen away. This building is not shown on the submitted plans.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the installation of a metal clad container building with dimensions of 7.5m by 4m to accommodate an office and a canteen area for workers on the site. The roof of the building is to be Goosewing Grey and the sides Olive Green. The height to the eaves is to be 2.7m and just over 3m to the apex.

2.2 It is not clear from the drawings whether this is as well as or instead of the current structure but as this is not shown, it is assumed that this is to replace this unit.

PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Foxdale Local Plan as Industrial/Retail and the Written Statement contains the following guidance:

4.6 The former brickworks site on the corner of the A24 opposite the school and Marguerite Place is being used for industrial purposes. This is a prime site in the heart of the village and presently much of the site does little to contribute to the appearance or life of the village.

3.2 Its poor appearance is also mentioned in paragraph 5.3iii.

3.3 It then goes on to recommend flexibility in the use of buildings on this site to encourage improvement of its appearance. Comments are also made about the site potentially being heavily contaminated.

3.4 The feature of archaeological interest shown on the plan relates to a feature in the building to the rear, not within the application site.

3.5 As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:

General Policy 2: "Development which is 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 development:

(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways".

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval has been granted most recently on this site to alterations to the buildings on the site - 17/00580/B. This proposed a new workshop with yard beside, alongside the existing workshop and with new storage facilities on the other side of the building.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have no highway interest in the application (09.09.20).

5.2 Patrick Parish Commissioners consider that the proposed structure does nothing to enhance the village centre although they recognise the purpose for the building but cannot support the application as submitted suggesting that additional screening may address their concerns, for example with a raised wall level (16.09.20).

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      20/00958/B                                     Page  3  of  4

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposal will result in an unacceptable loss of parking in association with the site and also whether the proposed structure would have an unacceptable impact on the character or appearance of the area.

6.2 The Local Plan comments on the poor appearance of the site and the addition of a metal container at the front of the site, only partly screened by the existing roadside wall, which has fallen down in places, will do nothing to enhance this, as noted by the Commissioners. There is no proposal to increase the height of the wall and the applicant would need to be careful to ensure that any additional stonework matched the existing. Fencing or different materials to provide this screening would not help the appearance of the site which is in the centre of the village where a higher quality of development is merited.

CONCLUSION 7.1 Insofar as the plans are understood (that the proposed container is to replace the existing shed which is on the site but not shown in the plans), the addition of a metal container at the front of the site alongside a main public highway would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of this site, whose poor appearance is noted in the Local Plan and where a higher quality of built structure is warranted. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status. __

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 01.10.2020

Determining officer Signed : S BUTLER

Stephen Butler

Head of Development Management

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      20/00958/B                                     Page  4  of  4

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.