Permission for 6 new homes in Manston has been refused

Permission to build homes on the site has been refused

Permission to build six 2-bed homes  off Manston Road  has been denied.

The application, for Premier Construction based in Ramsgate, asked for outline permission for the homes on land off Mannock Drive.

The land is alongside a former RAF housing site, presently being redeveloped with new detached houses. To the north east are buildings in the ownership of the Ministry Of Defence, which were part of the Manston airport site.

Objections were lodged highlighting the previous commitment by the same developer for the site to provide visitor parking for the 34 home Manston Park Living development.

One objection states: “The land that the proposal is outlined for development was actively sold and marketed as the additional visitor parking for the Manston Park Living development and this proposal goes completed against that plan.

“The development also would provide a large level of risk to the main access road for all car users as the proposal driveways exit directly onto the main access road directly onto the main Manston Road, which has a high road usage. The impacts would be increased with the additional pressure on visitor parking which will mean an increase on parking on pathways etc leading to potential risk to pedestrians.

“A combination of existing 34 houses vehicles plus the additional 22 house being built under the additional development, all with a minimum of two car per household, will mean a massive increase in use of the access road which has direct access to the new 6 houses.

“Also the development has no safe manner to pedestrians movements to gain access to the bus routes or exit from the estate.”

No objection was raised by Minster Parish Council.

Thanet council refused permission on Friday (August 2). It is not yet known whether an appeal will be lodged by the applicant.

4 Comments

  1. Still interested to know who will be putting in addition doctors, schools, road networks. Developers should fund these from their vast profits.

  2. Developers build houses. Houses produce revenue in the form of Council tax. Councils should be using this money to create the appropriate infrastructure. The government should also contribute because,they get collect stamp duty and increased tax revenues from the expanding population. However, if you end up spending all of that money on benefits, those who fund the system get nothing.

    • I was with you when you spoke about the need to spend the extra revenue from new Council Tax payers on the necessary infrastructure. But then you seemed to think that extra money would be spent on Benefits. Social ecuroty Benefits account for only a tiny amount of tax spent. Pensions are a huge part of our tax spend. So is Health. Military armaments to defend our shores , assuming they are in the Indian Ocean of China Sea, which, when I last pooked at a map, they aren’t, cost a huge amount. So does paying private companies to run (badly) all our public services like railways and gas and water and security at Army bases etc etc . Benefits are a tiny proportion of all the taxes spent and , even then, most of it is used to subsidise the wealthy. When a landlord increases the rent on a house where the tenant is on Benefits the LANDLORD gets paid extra by the taxpayer, NOT the tenant. When an employer fails to pay the worker a decent wage, the taxpayer pays the extra Benefit to keep the worker above poverty levels. So the employer gets to have cheap labour, at the taxpayers expense.

Comments are closed.