An application to demolish a commercial building in Ramsgate and replace it with terraced houses has been sent back to the drawing board by Thanet councillors on the planning committee.
A bid for planning permission to knock down an offices/laundry site in Addington Place and build five 3 bed and one 4 bed terraced dwellings was discussed by the committee last night (May 19).
The application proposes the demolition of the L shaped building adjacent to Hertford Place.
The scheme has been amended from three storey properties to two storeys to the eaves with the second floor of accommodation provided in the roof having a central dormer window and rooflight.
But concerns were raised about over-development and a lack of parking with just two spaces for the entire development.
Resident Mr Scott told the meeting: “This is over-development of the area. It does not work for the community.” He said he and approximately 20 other residents were concerned about lack of parking, the demolition of a flint wall and the use of aliminum windows in a conservation area.
Ward councillor Raushan Ara spoke to say the project was over-development with inadequate parking and would be ‘over-crowding.’
She added: “Reduce the housing by one and use that (area) for parking and open space.”
Her view was backed by fellow Ramsgate councillor Becky Wing who said the project was a “considerable increase on what’s there.”
She highlighted the conservation area and said of the parking: “Two parking spaces for six dwellings is simply not enough.”
Further issues around the lack of pathway, already narrow roads coping with traffic, issues with waste trucks entering the site and the demolition of the flint wall were also voiced.
Cllr Wing added: “The development represents a massive negative impact on an area currently undergoing rejuvenation. A great deal more could and should have been done with this site.”
The committee were in agreement about the over-development and lack of parking problems and voted against the application.
An amended vote, which was agreed, requires the developer to remove one house and create additional parking spaces.
The application will go back before councillors when amendments are made or, if it is not amended, it will be brought back and rejected outright.
Strange the committee agreed with the no parking issue as they ignored that with the Duke Street, Margate development of a block of 5 flats when giving consent even though 80 objections were received from residents.
What was the difference? narrow road, no, no parking, no, height of development, no, over crowding, no, conservation area, no, Councillors objecting, yes, a mature protected tree being felled, yes. We now see where the council priorities lie !
Could part of the answer be that this area now has two Green councillors plus the redoubtable Cllr Ara to fight for the residents interests?
Ramsgate resident of Addington Place is a hypocrite
Planning permission given to build 3 flats on the corner of Addington Place and Addington Street. Flint wall demolished in Addington Place with the insignia of a regiment that took part in wars, this wall was from the eighteen hundreds.
Addington Place Nelson Cottage installed UPVC windows and no footpath.
More flint work in the drawings allowed in Planning Application than has been noted.
Under town scheme no parking is required.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at, “Kent Resident”. Councils sometimes give permission for developments with no parking spaces and sometimes they don’t. Where does a tree come into it?
Marva, Kent Resident is using the development in Margate old town that has been given the go ahead, where a tree is being removed to make way for a block of apartments as a comparison to the above application for planning.
I don’t think you can compare these two very different sites.
I find it odd that a Green councillor is worrying about car parking spaces.
Don’t people matter more?
Well Kent Resident managed too 🤷🏼♂️
It’s funny the big developments just sail straight through. The smaller developers have to jump through hoops and nitpicking. A developer I know gave canterbury council £68000.for infrastructure fees for 6 bungalows in Greenhill. Homes =easy money
Really need the council planning professionals to actually assist in changing brown sites into residential.
The many trade dead & buried high streets in ramsgate will need a better approach from tdc, hey you have been allocated £M’s so be more constructive at the beginning of the planning process. Not allowing the developer to wait a couple of months for a No decision.
Parking (Cars) is only necessary if the future residents are unable to use the local existing public transport.
The new flats will be leasehold any parking space attracts an additional premium & quarterly service charge, which has to be taken into account when getting a mortgage.
Often the extra charges push the property out of the affordable bracket.
Over development must be avoided, so many parts of thanet are overdeveloped with bedsits, hmo’s, flats and its like a ghettoised slum in places.
Others will disagree
Check this one out
https://planning.thanet.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QRGHRDQEGVC00 this one out
When the Green Party are more interested in parking than re using a brown fill site for housing that’s when you know they are acting to look after votes not the environment.When the Labour Party are happy to pass building on farm land but not use brown fill sites you know it’s about votes not the green belt .
Several brownfield sites in Ramsgate are currently being built on and I don’t suppose this will be an exception.
‘aluminium’ rather than ‘aliminum’ surely…..
A sensible decision at last on a planning application that was clearly only for the benefit of the developer rather than the new and existing residents in the vicinity. The planning officers got this one wrong. Addington Place is a very narrow road and the only turning place is on the forecourt of the motor repair businesses near the end of the road or the entrance to the lock up garages. This is not just a car parking issue (but providing none will not stop people with cars moving here and then parking in the already crowded adjacent streets) but also one of access for TDC waste/recycling collections, delivery vehicles and emergency services. Redevelop the site by all means but do so in a more sensitive way to the surroundings and allowing some outside space rather than just focusing on cramming as many properties as possible into this small site.