Loading document...
Application No.: 09/01533/B Applicant: Mr David Maddrell Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling and creation of a vehicular access Site Address: Plot Adjacent To Maughold Lodge Claughbane Walk Ramsey Isle Of Man ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 27/10/09 Site Visit: 27/10/09 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consulttee: Clerk To The Commissioners Notes: object Consulttee: Manx Electricity Authority Notes: see note 1 and 2. Consulttee: Mr P S Harrison Notes: comments received. {{table:486820}}
The application is before the Planning Committee as the Local Authority has objected to the application, contrary to the recommendation of the Planning Officer.
The application site forms the curtilage of a parcel of undeveloped land, located to the north of Maughold Lodge and Claughbane Walk and east of The Crescent. To the east of the application site are the properties of 29,30 and 31 Queens Valley. To the north and west of the site is a vacant plot of land.
The dwelling has been zoned under the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998 as being within an area of predominately residential; the site is not within Ramsey Conservation Area.
Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
Policy 2: 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:
The following planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:
Erection of a dwelling and creation of a vehicular access - 08/00693/B - REFUSED at APPEAL on the following grounds:-
The Minister did state that this decision is without prejudice to a further application which:-
Approval in principle for the erection of a single dwelling - 06/02255/A - APPROVED at APPEAL. 06/00314/A - Approval in principle for the erection of two detached dwellings and associated parking - Refused on the following grounds:-
The proposal, by reason of its siting and design: 1 (a) would result in the introduction of unsympathetic and incongruous features within the locality when view from Claughbane Walk in that would be out of keeping with the general established character of the area contrary to Policy R/R/P3 of Planning Circular 2/99;
The application seeks approval for the erection of a dwelling and creation of a vehicular access. The dwelling would have a width of 21.5 metres, a total depth of 12.8 metres and a height to ridge level of 9 metres. The dwelling would be two storeys with accommodation within the roof space, and would also have a single storey wing (dormer within roof space) on southern side of the two storey aspect of the dwelling.
Ramsey Commissioners have objected to the application on the following ground:- "It is considered that a three storey dwelling would be un-neighbourly due to its overlooking aspect and in an elevated position and due to its scale and massing would result in insufficient private amenity space. It is also considered that this proposal is not sympathetic in terms of neighbouring properties."
Department of Transport Highways Division have no objection to the application:- "Has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications." The Manx Electricity Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Department of Transport Drainage Division makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The owners/occupiers of 31 Queens Valley, Ramsey, have objected to the planning application, which can be summarised as; over development of the site, third storey windows would lead to a loss of privacy; along the existing eastern boundary of the site is a wide variety of flora and hedgerows we would ask a condition being attached to ensure the retention; driveway would seem to steep to access safely; and the proposal surface water is not suitable due to the underlying soil in the area and the proposal would increase standing water within our garden, we would ask permeability testing is undertaken by the applicant.
The owner/occupier of Ardwhallin House, West Baldwin, Braddan (Owns the 2.5 acre site to the north of the application site), has objected to the planning application, which can be summarised as; visibility splays are contrary to Manx Roads 1, loss of privacy over Queens Valley; driveway is extremely steep and will dominate the view from Queens Valley; storm water will dramatically increase flooding over my land which is proposed residential development; the proposed foul drain (crosses our land) no permission has been given to discharge into this; The 3 storey dwelling is over intensive; and the previous reasons for refusal still stand.
The owners/occupiers of 28 Queens Valley, Ramsey, have commented to the planning application, which can be summarised as; previous concerns of the visual impact of earthworks required to raise the access road and such effects upon the drainage affecting the garden appear to be considered and addressed.
The owners/occupiers of 29 Queens Valley, Ramsey, have objected to the planning application, which can be summarised as; loss of privacy due to siting, height of proposal and ground level differences between the two sites; and due to slope of driveway concerns of surface runoff entering their garden.
The owners/occupiers of 30 Queens Valley, Ramsey, have objected to the planning application, which can be summarised as; overdevelopment of site; considerable earthworks would be required to accommodate the dwelling; embankment for driveway would still be too close to the properties of Queens Valley; poor access form site; and little external amenity space.
Material Planning matters which need to be considered regarding this application include:-
Principle of Development
Due to the previous approved application, the principle for a single residential dwelling on the site has been established. However, the application is not a Reserved Matters Application and therefore the principle of development requires to be considered again.
As indicated, application 06/02255/A received approval at appeal for the erection of a single dwelling on the site. The conclusion of the Inspectors report stated:-
"The Ramsey Local Plan does not contain a presumption against all backland development in the grounds of large houses but "a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural breathing spaces between established buildings". I am not satisfied that the appeal site performs this role. In my view it does not have a particularly important townscape function."
The Inspector goes on to state:-
"There would be a gap of at least 10m between Maughold Lodge and the proposed access drive serving the new house. In the circumstances, I do not consider that is often associated with "tandem" development. The existing and proposed dwellings would each occupy a reasonably
generous plot. They would be separated from one another by the sharp change in ground level and by the provision of a new belt of landscaping. I do not accept that the layout of the development would be so poor as to justify the refusal of planning approval. Given the distance between the proposed house and other dwellings, I do not consider that the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on residential amenity."
Overall due to the previous approval and given the site is within an area as being in an area of predominately residential use under the Ramsey Local Plan it is considered the site is acceptable for residential development.
Impact upon residential amenity Maughold Lodge is the closest to the proposed development, which is located to the south of the proposed dwelling, the closest single storey aspect being 15 metres away and the two storey aspect being 21 metres away. The ground levels of Maughold Lodge are approximately 106.50 and the proposed dwelling would have a ground level of 98.50 , a difference being 8 metres. The proposed dwelling's orientation results in the southern gable end elevation faces towards Maughold Lodge. However, there are no proposed gable end windows within this elevation therefore no overlooking would occur. It is therefore considered due to the design, orientation and the differences in the ground level changes in this location, the proposed dwelling would not result in any significant adverse impacts to the detriments of residential amenities either through overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy, loss of light and/or having an overbearing impact.
The properties within Queens Valley, particularly 28, 29, 30 \& 31 would be located to the east of the proposed dwelling, the closest of these dwellings would be 30 Queens Valley which is sited approximately 32 metres from the closest part of the proposed dwelling. The Authority's guideline for dwellings directly facing each other is that a gap of 20 metres should be retained. In this case due to the orientation between the proposed dwelling and the properties within Queens Valley no windows would directly look towards the neighbouring properties, but there would be more angled views. Added to this, the distance between the properties is well above the guidelines as indicated above.
Along the entire eastern boundary of the site there is existing landscaping which comprises of various heights of deciduous trees and various heights of bushes/hedging. Also a stone wall/earth embankment runs along the eastern boundary. Together, this forms a substantial natural barrier between the proposed dwelling and the dwellings along Queens Valley.
It is important to note that the previous refused scheme which was larger and closer to the properties within Queens Valley, was not refused on the grounds of overlooking, loss of light or having an overbearing impact or having any adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.
The previous Appeals Inspector stated:- "The concern of objectors about the visual and amenity impact of the development is understandable. Some angled views over parts of adjacent gardens might be possible from windows in the proposed dwelling, but allowing for the distances involved and the presence of intervening vegetation, the extent of any actual overlooking of neighbouring properties would not be such as to justify refusal."
For the above reasons, the orientation, design, boundary treatment and the distance between the proposal and the neighbouring dwellings, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any significant adverse impacts to the detriment of residential amenities (overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy, loss of light and/or having an overbearing impact) of the neighbouring properties 28, 29, 30 \& 31 Queens Valley.
Concern has been raised regarding the creation of the driveway and the resulting impact that would have upon the outlook from the neighbouring properties with Queens Valley. This was an issue in
the last planning application and resulted in one of the reasons for refusal given the insufficient detail of how such driveway would be constructed.
The submitted drawing 0713A/08 shows in detail how the driveway would be created and indicates cross sections, which show the height of the retaining walls along the eastern side of the driveway. The proposed retaining wall will be finished with a stone face, this will certain help reduce the appearance and therefore impact compared to a render finish.
The initial part of the new driveway provides the highest aspect of the retaining wall which would be 1.5 metres in height. This height gradually decreases to 1 metre in height. In response to the previous refusal, the applicant has also moved the driveway away from the eastern boundary of the site. The closest part of the new driveway would now be 6 metres from the boundary, but this part of the retaining wall is at its lowest of 1 metre reducing to zero. The highest part of the retaining wall (1.5m) is 8 metres away from the boundary. This is compared to the previous scheme which had the highest aspect of the retaining wall being 3 metres away from the boundary.
To create the main vehicular entrance, driveway and to overcome visibility issues, some imported fill is required. Isle of Man Groundmodels Limited have calculated that approximately 150m³ of imported fill will be required. The applicants consider that this would be acceptable as provision has already been made within the design of the driveway and retaining walls to minimise the visual affect of the earthworks on neighbouring properties.
Overall, it is considered given the distance from the boundary, the relatively low height of the retaining wall which gradually decreases, the existing boundary treatment, further proposed landscaping (medium height tree & shrubs) and the finish of the retaining wall, it is considered the proposal would not result in an adverse overbearing impact upon the outlook of the neighbouring properties within Queens Valley and therefore overcomes the previous reason for refusal.
Parking provision and access arrangements
In response to one of the refusal reasons that the proposed access arrangements could cause roadsafety hazards, the new proposal has taken a completely new approach to achieve the required visibility.
In agreement with the neighbouring owners of Maughold, the new vehicular entrance onto Claughbane Walk is proposed to be a combined entrance, providing improved visibility for the owners of Maughold Lodge but also providing the required 2m x 18m visibility splayed as required by the Highway Division. Additionally, the new entrance can be used as a passing place which will further improve highway safety for this part of Claughbane Walk.
The Highway Division have considered the scheme and have no objection to the proposal.
Amenities for the future occupants of the proposed dwelling
From studying the plans it is considered the internal living accommodation within the proposed dwelling would more than adequate and therefore acceptable. Again, the external amenity space is considerate acceptable due to the front, side and rear gardens which are fairly large for a dwelling located in a town location. The previous Inspector did indicate that previously the front garden would be overlooked by the occupant of Maughold Lodge, however did not consider this a sufficient reason to refusal the scheme.
Appearance upon the street scene
From the Claughbane Walk and Crescent East it is considered the proposal would not be particularly apparent, given the boundary treatment along Claughbane Walk and Crescent East, and given the ground level differences between road level and the ground level of the proposed dwelling. Additionally, the design and finish of the dwelling would be appropriate in this location.
RECOMMENDATION
30 April 2010
09/01533/B
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown