Loading document...
| Application No.: | 14/01081/B |
| Applicant: | Department Of Health |
| Proposal: | Erection of flat roof canopy and glazed screen enclosure to main entrance, canopies and ramps to ambulance access areas, single storey extension to extend mortuary facility and creation of additional parking area |
| Site Address: | Ramsey & District Cottage Hospital Cumberland Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3RH |
1.1 The application site is the Ramsey & District Cottage Hospital located on the northern side of Cumberland Road in Ramsey. The hospital is set within a predominantly residential area to the east of Bowring Road.
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for four specific pieces of development.
2.2 Firstly, 18 new parking spaces, which would be edged with kerb stones, are proposed to be created as an extension to the large, existing car park accessed off Grove Mount South. This would result in the moving of two streetlamps and the loss of the hedging plants that currently form the boundary between the car park and the open space beyond to the north. The agent has confirmed that no changes in levels are proposed.
2.3 Secondly, approval is sought for the erection of an extension to the main building, which would provide a mortuary. This would be flat-roofed with balcony railings surrounding, which would also be accessible from the floor above. The new mortuary is proposed to replace the existing bike rack, which, following concern raised by the case officer in respect of its loss, is now proposed to be sited within the front car park accessed off Cumberland Road. This information was shown on an amended plan submitted and circulated to the interested parties; the consultation was still underway when the amended plan was submitted, such that the consultation period was extended by one week for comment.
2.4 Thirdly, a new ambulance loading station is proposed to the side of the main reception that overlooks the small parking area referred to in paragraph 2.2 above. The ambulance station would be flat-roofed but angled down from the existing building's flat roof. One tree would have to be removed to enable access to the new hardstanding area, while the centenary statue is proposed to be relocated from its existing position (within the area where the proposed ambulance station would be) to the other side of the existing reception access.
| Case Officer: | Mr Edmond Riley |
| Photo Taken: | 16.10.2014 |
| Site Visit: | 16.10.2014 |
| Expected Decision Level: | Officer Delegation |
2.5 Fourthly, the erection of a new flat-roofed canopy in front of the existing reception area is also proposed. This would be rectangular in plan form and sit on a curved expanse of glazing and stainless steel and mild steel supporting posts.
3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, none of which are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this planning application given the nature and level of development proposed. However, it remains worth noting that significant developmental works have been sought and approved on this site; those of relevance to the current application are set out below:
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is in an area designated as Cottage Hospital under the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998 Map No. 1 (North). Although the Local Plan has no policies of direct relevance, it is worth noting the text of paragraph 5.15, which is a 'recommendation', and states: "An overall plan for the whole area [Ramsey Cottage Hospital] encompassing the hospital, surgeries (doctors' and dentists' practices), Dalmeny and the open space areas in between should be formulated by the DHSS. No further incursion into the remaining area of open space for car parking or related uses shall be permitted prior to agreement between DLGE and DHSS of the overall plan. In addition, a traffic management plan shall be established for the whole area."
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. General Policy 2 states (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
4.3 Community Policy 6 states: "New health care facilities and extensions to existing facilities will be permitted provided that they:
a) would not result in an overconcentration of such uses in a particular area; b) would not have an unacceptable effect on the residential or prevailing character or amenity of the area; c) would be easily accessible; and d) would not have an unacceptable impact on the local highway network".
5.1 The Forestry Officer within the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture was contacted for his view on the proposed loss of the tree. He stated in an email dated 3rd October 2014: "The tree in question is a mature cherry of approximately 15ft/5m in height. It is one of several cherries that line the boundary hedge. There is some basal decay which originates due to historically poor (but probably necessary branch pruning). Removing for the purpose as outlined in the planning application will have little or no significant or detrimental impact. Therefore, I have no strong argument in retaining the tree".
5.2 Ramsey Town Commissioners, in a letter date-stamped as having been received 23rd October 2014, offered no objection to the proposal. They did, however, comment as follows: "Whilst there is no objection to the proposals as shown, there is little information as to how the proposals link in with the existing internal layout. It is felt the proposed works should provide a logical flow within the workplace without compromising the separation between patients and the public. Members also expressed concern that the short footpath between the Hospital and the Group Practice Centre would be lost which would be to the detriment of patients and staff."
These comments were passed to the applicants' agent, who conducted a meeting with the Commissioners and subsequently commented as follows in an email dated 11th November 2014: "Our client confirms that the relocation of the Ambulance Bay and new internal layout arrangements, now facilitate improved patient privacy and dignity with direct access to the Patient treatment area. In response to both letters, the access path route is still provided." The Commissioners, in a letter date-stamped as having been received 20th November 2014, advised that they "have no objection to the amended plans".
5.3 The owner / occupier of St Olaves Rectory, St Olaves Close, Ramsey, who also identifies himself as a partner at the Ramsey Group Practice, objects to the application on grounds that it will leave only a 1 metre gap between the side of the proposed ambulance bay and the adjacent building boundary, and these plans would therefore "destroy an important and regularly used right of way". They are concerned that this could result in delays and affect patient care but also require people with prams or in wheelchairs to walk around the site. They request that a well-lit and straight path at least 1.5m wide should be provided.
Again, these comments were passed to the applicants' agent, who in an email dated 11th November 2014, advised that "our Client has satisfactorily addressed the issues raised with Dr Allinson, with no further changes to the Plan as submitted". No further comment was received from Dr Allinson.
6.1 Four distinct pieces of development are proposed. Each is considered in turn.
6.2 The proposed parking spaces are perhaps the most controversial element of the proposal, given the 'recommendation' of the Ramsey Local Plan. Although it is not a policy, it still carries material weight and the proposed loss of the open space for parking purposes would be contrary to the principle outlined in that recommendation. The loss of the open space would impact on public amenity, but the works proposed are not of a significant scale relative to either the car park or the open space and could not be considered unduly harmful from this point of view. It was also observed on the site visit, undertaken during a weekday afternoon, that the existing car park was more or less at capacity. Therefore, while it is unfortunate that this element of the proposal has not been underpinned by a wider strategy for the redevelopment of the hospital as a whole, it is equally considered that (a) what is proposed would not be prejudicial to the preparation of any such strategy, and (b) there is an apparent need for a small extension of parking provision, and, consequently, no objection is raised to this element of the proposal.
6.3 The proposed mortuary is fairly unobjectionable. While it is a little utilitarian in terms of its scale, design and finishing, it would sit comfortably with the main building and would provide an important hospital facility, the principle of which Community Policy 6 is supportive. The loss of the existing bicycle rack was queried in terms of its existing level of use; the agent advised that: "The Hospital advise us that the bike rack is only used at present by one or possibly two staff members on occasion". They also advised that the rack would be relocated towards the front of the hospital and nearby the main reception parking. The retention of the bicycle rack is welcomed, and no objection is raised to this element of the proposal.
6.4 Thirdly, the provision of a new ambulance station is welcome - again in terms of Community Policy 6 - and its design is also unobjectionable. Any serious concerns about the impact it would have on the streetscene as a whole - and these are fairly limited given its scale and complementary finishings - are reduced further by its being set back behind the frontage and well-hidden by existing car parking and trees. It cannot be ignored that one tree would need to be removed to make way for these works but, given the views of the Forestry Officer, it is not considered that an objection to its loss could be sustained.
6.5 The footpath that would remain to the side of the ambulance station is narrower than would normally be desirable, but a 1 metre width is not entirely inadequate and is certainly preferable to none whatsoever. Routes through the hospital would remain and there are other routes around the site in any case. No objection is therefore raised on this point, especially when the concern is balanced against the positive aspects that would result from the proposed ambulance station.
6.6 The final element of the proposal, which would be readily visible from the public realm, is also the most successful in design terms. The contemporary use of stainless steel and glazing would provide a cleanness to the frontage of a building that is currently lacking in this and also looking a little tired. It is therefore considered that the proposed new frontage would provide a welcome uplift to this part of the building.
7.1 It is recommended that the application be approved.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.10.2014
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 11th September 2014 and 10th October 2014: SC1348/P/10-01, SC1348/P/10-02 Rev A, SC1349/P/10-00, SC1349/P/10-01, SC1349/P/10-02, and SC1352/P/10-01.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 26/11/14
Signed: _________________________ Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer Signed: _________________________ Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control Signed: _________________________ Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management Signed: _________________________
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown