Loading document...
The application site comprises of a parcel of land, which is located on the junction of Claughbane Drive and Fairway Drive in Ramsey.
The proposed development comprises of a revised layout for the existing compound area and site staff parking area within the curtilage of the application site.
The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications that I consider to be relevant to the assessment of this current planning application.
Planning application 99/393/A sought approval in principle for the erection of two apartment blocks to replace the two dwellings on the application site. This application was refused initially, at review and at appeal. This planning application primarily relates to the apartment development element of the application site.
Planning application 00/826/C sought approval for the change of use of an area of open space within the application to a garden. This application was initially considered and approved on the 13th October 2000, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 25th October 2000. A copy of the initial approval decision notice and the location plan from the planning application file are attached to this report.
Planning application 00/827/B sought approval for the erection of two apartment blocks housing 15 apartments on the application site. This application was initially considered and refused on the 13th October 2000, with the initial refusal decision notice issued on the 26th October 2000. The refusal was confirmed at review on the 21st December 2000, with the review refusal decision notice issued on the 18th January 2001. A subsequent appeal was withdrawn by the applicant prior to being heard, which meant that the review refusal decision became final. This planning application primarily relates to the apartment development element of the application site.
Planning application 01/884/B sought approval for the erection of two apartment blocks housing 15 apartments on the application site. This application was initially considered and approved on the 14th September 2001, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 21st September 2001. The approval was confirmed at review on the 19th July 2002, with the review approval decision notice issued on the 24th July 2002. At appeal the Minister accepted the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector and confirmed the approval on the 3rd December 2002. This planning application primarily relates to the apartment development element of the application site.
Planning application 03/1745/B sought approval for the elevational amendments to the two apartment blocks housing fifteen apartments previously approved through PA 01/884/B. This application was initially considered and approved on the 9th January 2004, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 14th January 2004. This planning application primarily relates to the apartment development element of the application site.
Planning application 05/1803 sought approval for revisions to existing car parking layout together with erection of fencing along the eastern boundary. This application was initially considered and approved on the 28th October 2005, with the initial approval decision notice issued on the 10th November 2005. This planning application primarily relates to the apartment development element of the application site.
Application 05/92339/D sought approval for the erection of signage on the application site. This was granted consent on 11th April 2006
Planning Application 05/92238 sought approval for the creation of a temporary area and site staff parking area. This application was approved on the 21st March 2006.
Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objection to the proposal. However the following observations have been made:
The Department of Transport Highways Division do not oppose the application subject to the imposition of the following conditions "The central aisle in the visitors parking area is widened to 6 metres."
Greenside Apartment Ltd has made comments on the application relating to the previous planning permission and request that the total matter should be returned to the Planning Inspector. The comments relate to positioning, trees, privacy and the stream/culvert.
The application site is within the area covered by the Ramsey Local Plan. Under this plan the application is within an area recognised as being in predominantly residential use, there are site specific designations.
Although I would accept that it is more related to residential development I would suggest that Policy R/R/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan does have some relevance to terms of the assessment of this current planning application. The policy states that "Within areas zoned for predominantly residential use there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping, or simply green space. Any possible development of such sites should form the subject of consultation with the Office of Planning prior to the submission of any application."
The previous planning application was made as a result of enforcement action and was made retrospectively as the land was already being used as a compound and site staff parking area. That planning application essentially sought to regularise the situation and give the developer planning approval in order to carry on using the site. Part of the application site is currently the site of construction work for the erection of two apartment blocks.
When the previous application was considered, there were two potentially conflicting issues that need to be balanced against each other.
On one hand, in terms of planning history it was apparent that the creation of a compound area and the site staff parking area were at odds with the conditions attached to previously approved planning application 00/826/C. Those conditions were imposed for good reason, to safeguard and protect this green space. The use, even on a temporary basis, would be contrary to these aims. It was considered that the applicant must have been aware of this previous decision and the implications of the conditions. It would have been quite reasonable to have expected them to have made adequate provisions to manage the construction of the apartment development in an appropriate manner and is was would have been sufficient grounds for refusal.
However, on the other hand, it was clear that the use was already in operation and that the damage had already been done. The construction of the apartment development is likely to last another two years. Construction of the development would be clearly be difficult without a site compound area and site staff parking in the surrounding area is likely to cause difficulties for local residents. Approval would allow control over the period of use of the site and the implementation of a landscaping scheme as part of the reinstatement of the site. It was considered the area should remain primarily open but could benefit from some tree planting on the northern half of the land.
It was considered that a time limited approval with landscaping condition was the appropriate conclusion.
This current application is to revise the layout of the existing compound area and to provide sales parking and a sales suite to the east of the site.
The applicant has prematurely constructed the sales parking area which further encroaches into the green space. Again, the assessment has to come down what impact the proposed parking area will have on the locality. The proposal erodes the openness of the green space by allowing vehicle to be parked in a relatively open area.
However, the compound has already been granted planning permission with conditions to provide compensatory measures and the reinstatement of the land. The same conditions can equally be applied in this case. I therefore feel it would be unreasonable to withhold planning permission in this case. I therefore recommend the planning application be granted planning permission subject to conditions
I consider that the following should be granted party status due to them being Statutory Consultees:
Since the majority of the comments made by Greenside Apartments Ltd do not rise any material considerations in relation to the compound. Such comments would normally preclude them from being granted interested party status.
However, Greenside Apartments Ltd are representing persons owning or residing in land or buildings which physically adjoin the site and in accordance with Government Circular 1/06 I therefore recommend that interested party status be granted to Greenside Apartments Ltd.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 07.08.2006
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. This permission relates to continued use of the compound area in a revised layout as shown in drawing numbers 502 Rev B and 600 date stamped 17th May 2006.
C 2. Within three months of the completion of the construction of the associated apartment blocks the development and the use permitted by this approved planning application must, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, cease and be removed in its entirety from the application site.
C 3.
Within three months of this decision becoming final a detailed landscaping scheme must be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority. Such scheme, relating to the area covered by the site compound and car parking, should detail the reinstatement of the area as green space and include tree planting in the northern part of the area.
C 4.
All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the detailed landscaping scheme, agreed in accordance with the requirements of the condition no. 3 of this approval, must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the cessation of use and removal of the development that as is required by condition no. 1 of this approval. Any trees or plants that within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, become seriously damaged or become diseased must be replace in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
SP 0033 overhead cables
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 3/11/06
Signed: D. Hudson in the absence of the Director M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
