L/TH/10/738 - Demolishing Part Of The Slipway And Building

[tenax]

An application for the demolishing part of the slipway and building. This development of a modern building two story to include restaurants and bars. and accommodation.

Where you consulted ?

We would like your comments please.

[SIXTYisFIFTY]

As long as it pleases the surrounding area,i feel we need to move on some time, and not live in the past,..Has the building, (not sure which one we looking at mind) and slipway redundant now, as last time i looked the slipway im thinking of is very much still in use

[tenax]

Sorry the application no is L/TH/10/736 not UTH/10/758 full details on ukplanning website or TDC

[tenax]

This was discussed at the Ramsgate Town Council meeting last night (8th September). Most of the planning councillors seemed to agree with the development. Many concillors declared a conflict of interest. It is noted that the Ramsgate Town Council is a tenant of the developers. Points were raised re. the lease which turned out to be for 10-12 years only, with the anticipation of an extension for a longer lease from TDC. My information is that any long term lease has to go through the process of asset disposal. I therefore ask is this a 'done deal'. In my opinion the design of the building is overpowering, considering its location between two listed buildings, the Royal Pavilion and the Maritime Museum, and the Obelisk.This will overshadow both of these grade II listed buildings and become a focal point of the harbour. It would be much more acceptable if the building was in keeping with our two listed heritage buildings. However, do we need more buildings, more bars, more restaurants? The Pavilion would be the ideal place for this sort of development - why don't they buy that? And what about the Masterplan for the harbour and port, which TDC is in the process of preparing. Is this private development included in the Masterplan??? I note that English Heritage say 'I question whether the architectural approach currently proposed would make a positive contribution to local distinctiveness because its forms and materials are so unfamiliar to this area,' In their letter English Heritage don't mention slipway number 3 which is used by a major developer in the port - the Wind Farm. If they only have only one slipway and more boats are being serviced where will they go? I think TDC should have a public consulation on the Masteplan for the harbour and the port to include this development. Your thoughts would be welcome.

[smeaton]

Some members of the committee were consulted on the preliminary plans and requested by TDC to respect the confidentiality of the scheme until a planning application was in the public domain. This application is now public information and comments about the scheme are appropriate. The scheme is a trade off of future regeneration for the port set against the loss of a historic slipway as a port facility and the impact of such development on the existing adjacent listed buildings. There is also a question of whether further restaurant premises are needed in that area and whether they could be better provided within the Royal Victoria Pavilion. This is an important milestone for the Ramsgate Waterfront and requires more input than just a committee consideration.

WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR VIEWS ON THIS MATTER WHICH CAN BE FREELY EXPESSED ON THIS FORUM.

We cannot promise that TDC will listen to any representations made by the Society as their interest in the project is considerable and previous representations on other matters have fallen on deaf ears.

[Gmac]

The UK’s only Royal Harbour and thus the redevelopment site lie within the Ramsgate Conservation Area, which I believe the Council (as Local Planning Authority) has a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its special character or appearance[*HE4].

Whilst not against redevelopment of this ‘run-down’ area and the incorporation of modern designs per se, by virtue of (in my opinion) the garish and showy design; scale; proportions and proximity to iconic & historic listed buildings and the Royal Harbour itself, would appear conflicting and a discordant feature that disrupts the balance and symmetry of the area, resulting in the loss of openness in the related spaces and therefore detracting from and harming the special character of the UK’s only Royal Harbour within the Conservation Area.

Contrary to Thanet Local Plan Policy HE4 ?


POLICY HE4 – PLANNING CONTROLS IN CONSERVATION AREAS
http://www.planet-thanet.fsnet.co.uk/lo ... plan_7.htm

"IN CONSERVATION AREAS, THE PRIMARY PLANNING POLICY WILL BE THE PRESERVATION OR ENHANCEMENT OF THEIR SPECIAL CHARACTER (INCLUDING BUILDINGS, RELATED SPACES, TOPOGRAPHY AND VEGETATION) OR APPEARANCE. DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OR ADJOINING A CONSERVATION AREA WHICH WOULD HARM THAT SPECIAL CHARACTER OR APPEARANCE WILL NOT NORMALLY BE PERMITTED"

[smeaton]

The application number for the full planning application for the new building on the site is

F/TH/10/0737 closing date for response is 14 October 2010

The listed building application number for slipway demolition is

L/TH/10/0736 closing date for responses is 1 October 2010

[fanoframsgate]

I'm not sure of the relevance of this, but as part of the transitional arrangements from the old Local Plan to a new Local Development Framework (LDF), the Local Plan expired on 17th June 2009 and only those policies that have been saved by the Secretary of State's direction will continue to be part of TDC’s Development Plan.

The policies relating to Heritage that HAVE NOT BEEN SAVED include the following:

HE1 - LISTED BUILDINGS OF SPECIAL ARCHITECTURAL OR HISTORIC INTEREST
HE2 - CHANGE OF USE OF LISTED BUILDINGS
HE4 - PLANNING CONTROLS IN CONSERVATION AREAS
HE5 - CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT
HE6 - DEMOLITION IN CONSERVATION AREAS
HE7 - NON-LISTED BUILDINGS IN CONSERVATION AREAS

The Local Plan (as amended) can be read here: http://thanet.devplan.org.uk/

It appears the ability of the Council to consider this application from a Heritage point of view has become extremely limited as a result of deleting these policies. Following a call to the council it appears that until anything more specific is written into the new Local Development Framework, protection for heritage sites comes from the Communities and Local Government section of central government, and in particular Planning Policy Statement 5: "Planning for the Historic Environment" which can be found here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps5. Having had a quick look at this it appears far less specific in its policies and doesn't appear to offer anywhere near as much protection as the now expired Local Plan did.

[smeaton]

Fanoframsgate,you quite rightly state that the heritage sections of the Local Plan have not been "saved". It was central government directive that legisiation should not be duplicated in the new Local Development Framework.

However as with most things done by government they only tell you what they want you to know and the heritage protection has undoubtedly been diluted. In addition, the TDC core strategy document is "on ice" until after local government elections, so we have to remain very vigilent.

[Effingham Street]

I really do have mixed views on this project. I like the idea of it, but can't se why these facilities aren't incorporated into the once beautiful pavilion.

As it is set to be built in the heart of the Royal Harbour, an area full of Georgian to Edwardian architecture; why does it have a strange cruse-liner silhouette? (an odd silhouette also adopted by the ice-cream stands and mythical Royal Sands Development)

I do enjoy modern architecture, and it can be successfully worked into historical landscapes, but I think that a large, rounded, multi-coloured building would not work here. We initially moved to Ramsgate because of the historical landscape.