Condition 3 Compliance Memorandum

Department Of Infrastructure ### Memorandum To: Jennifer Chance, Development Control Manager From: Ed Riley, Assistant Planning Officer Subject: Compliance of condition 3 to PA 12/01209 (Creation of outside seating area) and condition 3 to PA 12/01210 (Installation of demarcation barriers with signage), Artisan, 28 Victoria Street, Douglas Date: 21/05/2013 --- #### Purpose This Memorandum considers the submission of details in accordance with condition 3 of planning permission 12/01209/C and condition 3 of Planning Permission 12/01210/D, both of which were granted on 24th December 2012. Condition 3 to 12/01209 reads in full: > “Prior to any works commencing a drawing to the scale of 1:20 indicating the precise dimensions of the outside seating area and advertisement stands and banners shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The outdoor seating area, advertisement signs and banners shall be retained within the space and to the dimensions shown on the approved drawing.” Condition 3 to 12/01210 reads in full: > “Prior to the advertisement barriers being installed a drawing to the scale of 1:20 indicating the precise dimensions and positioning of the barrier advertisement stands and banners shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The advertisement stands, signs and banners shall thereafter not be positioned any closer to the highway than the dimensions shown on the approved drawing.” The purpose of this Memorandum, therefore, is to consider the appropriateness of the plan submitted in respect of the conditions above and to provide a conclusion as to whether or not these should be approved and the conditions discharged. --- #### Assessment The Highways Division objected to the original applications on the basis that the seating area could not be accommodated on the footpath without reducing the width to below 2 metres, the minimum such width considered acceptable for a footpath. As the Inspector noted in his report, however, the plans submitted by the applicants clearly show an unobstructed footpath in excess of 2 metres wide (the plans approved in the planning applications show a width of 2.4m). The plan now submitted for approval (ART-MO1) in respect of both applications’ condition 3 is at 1:20 scale and is similar to those approved in the two planning permissions. The sole difference is that the unobstructed footpath width would be reduced to 2.3m, despite the plan’s annotation that the width is 2.4m. This discrepancy is not considered significant as, in either case, the width would be in excess of the 2m required by the Highways Division. ## Conclusion It is recommended that the plan submitted in line with condition 3 of planning application 12/01209/C and condition 3 of 12/01210/D be approved. Signed. ___________________________ Signed. ___________________________ Date. ___________________________ Date. 21/5/13 Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager