Response to Planning Review Objections

1.0 Introduction

1.01 The first planning application for this site was submitted on 21 June 2004. The proposal was for a single block of sixteen flats. It was not well-received by the planning authority. Following discussions with the Planning Officer the application was withdrawn on 29 September 2004.

1.02 An alternative design was produced of two four-storey blocks, each containing eight flats. The modelling of the blocks and their architectural expression of steep gabled roofs was sympathetic to St Olaves House. On 4 November 2004, following further discussions with the Planning Officer an application for approval to this revised scheme was made.

Planning approval was granted on 14 March 2005.

1.03 Three requests for a review of the decision have been made. Two by residents in Belmont Terrace, Mr John Brimble and Mr and Mrs Fayle; one by Mr Dave Murray who lives on the opposite side of Jurby Road to the site.

The written submissions by Mr Brimble and Mr Murray are in exactly the same words and format. A single response will be made to these two submissions.

1.04 No other objections have been raised to the development.

1.05 The Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objections to the proposal.

1.06 The Department of Transport is re-assured by Condition 3 to the Planning Consent that appropriate sight lines will be constructed between the site entrance and the Jurby Road junction.

2.00 Response to Objectors’ Submissions.

2.01 Mr Brimble and Mr Murray – 30 March 2005.

a. Concerns

There is no difference in the distance of Block B from the boundary on either of the two drawings. In giving approval the Planning Committee clearly saw no problem with the relationship between the proposed blocks and the boundary. The comment reflects a misreading of drawing 15. The boundary wall is not parallel to Block B and simply appears closer to Block B on the cut through the site along which the elevation is viewed.

1

b Ramsey Local Plan (Planning Circular 2/99)

Section 3.14: Infill/Backland Sites

The site is the unused Kitchen Garden of St Olaves house. To the east is St Olaves House and St Olaves Cottages, to the west a site having Approval in Principle for residential development, beyond that Belmont Terrace and to the north the housing on the opposite side of Jurby Road. It is entirely appropriate that this site should also be developed for residential use. There are no trees or landscaped areas on the site but there will be when the development is completed. And there is the land area falling down to Sulby Bottoms which belongs to the developer and forming a perpetual natural landscape.

Section 6.16 Policy R/T/P6 All Areas of New Residential Development

Considerably more than 25% of the site area is open space, consisting not only of car parking and areas to be landscaped but also the extensive natural landscape already referred to.

Section 7.4

This has been dealt with above. There are no trees on the site.

Section 7.8 Nature Conservation

There are no significant flora and fauna on the site area. The natural landscape to the South will be protected in consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Section 7.10 A. Species Protection

There is no evidence that the development will affect any of the species listed. None of the agencies concerned with these matters have raised the issue.

Section 7.12 B. Site Protection

The Sulby River saltmarsh is not affected by the development.

Section 14

The Sulby River brooghs woodland is not affected by this development.

Section 7.20 Policy R/E/P3 Backland Development. The site is the disused Kitchen Garden of St Olaves House. There are no trees and it is not landscaped. Section 7.26 Policy R/E/P8 Wildlife Sites

Neither the Sulby River Brooghs nor the Sulby River brooghs woodland will be affected by the development. The natural landscape leading down to the Sulby River on the south of the site will be protected by Mr Drummond as it remains in his ownership and does not form part of the site of the development. Its cultural and landscape value is of personal importance.

c On-site parking Visitor and delivery parking is included within the parking allowance. d Increase in vehicle movements

The site entrance is designed in accordance with Department of Transport standards. The developer is committed to improving the Jurby Road/Bowring Road junction and to provide sightlines to satisfy the requirements of the Department of Transport. If the existing stone boundary wall has to be taken down to do so it will be re-built in the same material to the same height.

e Density and mass of the development

There have been no changes of use or extensions to the St Olave Cottages or to any of the other buildings around St Olaves House. The cottages have been re-furbished and repaired. The Barn is simply being converted to a single dwelling. No additional access points to the Jurby Road are created

It is not accepted that the development will have ‘an over-bearing and damaging impact’. The two blocks are set well back from Jurby Road and will have landscaped open space around them.

The height of the blocks in relation to St Olaves House is given on the drawings.

2.02 Mr and Mrs C A Fayle – 31 March 2005

a The developer will improve the Jurby Road/Bowring Road junction and create sightlines between the junction and the site entrance to the satisfaction of the Department of Transport.

The Department of Transport have not objected to the development on traffic grounds, only expressed their interest in the junction improvement and appropriate sightlines to which the developer is committed.

Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objection to the scheme on traffic or any other grounds.

b. The plans clearly represent the development. Had they not done so the Planning Officer would not have accepted them and the Planning Committee would have been unable to make a judgment on the proposals.

The design is traditional, its steep gabled roofs being sympathetic to the eclectic style of St Olaves House. As referred to earlier, the first application was not well-received and the approved scheme was developed after consultations with the Planning Officer to ensure that the scale and style of the development would be acceptable.

c. There are no trees on the site. No report has been prepared by the architect nor has comment been made by the Forestry Board or any other environmental agency in regard to tree planting or landscaping on the development site. Trees will be planted and the site landscaped, as indicated on the plans. Condition 4 to the approval commits the developer to producing an agreed planting scheme before work commences on site.

d. The car parking provision is clearly shown on the plans, the number of spaces identified. The St Olave Cottages remain as they have been for many years and the existing Barn will form only a single dwelling with its own on-site parking spaces, as provided for in the approval. The existing access from Jurby Road to the Barn area will remain without amendment.

Illumination for the parking areas and for the pathways to the flats will be essential for health and safety reasons. It is difficult to see how the relatively low intensity lighting involved will create ‘light pollution’.

e. The idea that the two blocks of flats will totally destroy the wildlife and flora in the area cannot be right. Wildlife will be encouraged by the completed landscaping to populate the area.

The development, with its traditional appearance, will enhance the area. Reference is made to Belmont Terrace. The faces it presents to Jurby Road and to the St Olaves Kitchen Garden site are, to say the least, dull and nondescript.

3.00 Conclusion

In the applicant's view there is no substance in the objections. The points raised all relate to matters considered during the design of the proposals and discussed with the Planning Officer and Department of Transport. The Planning Committee, in giving approval, must have been satisfied that parking, landscaping and aesthetics had been properly dealt with. It is hoped that the Committee, on review, will confirm their original decision.