Officer Planning Report June 12

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:285263}} ### Considerations {{table:285257}} ### Written Representations {{table:285258}} {{table:285259}} {{table:285260}} ### Consultations {{table:285261}} {{table:285262}}

Officer's Report

Description Of Application Site

• The application site is garden land for a two storey dwellinghouse located to the north of Claughbane Walk.
• The application site is within a predominantly residential area.
• To the east of the application site is the properties of plots 29, 30 and 31 Queens Valley
• To the north and west of the site is a vacant plot of land.

PROPOSAL

• The application is seeking an approval in principle for the erection of two dwellinghouses to the rear of Maughold Lodge.
• The dwellings would be two storey three bedroom properties.
• The indicative plans show a footprint of 88 sq m for each property.
• The plans show the existing access to remain unaltered.

Relevant Planning History

• 02/00543/B – Erection of conservatory to rear elevation- granted 2nd August 2002
• 01/2011/B – Alterations and extension to dwelling and erection of garden shed – granted 12/2/02
• 98/02145/C – Change of use of room at dwelling to Chiropody surgery – granted 13/5/99
• 92/00551/B – Erection of dwelling with integral garage – approved at appeal
• 91/04050/B – Formation of vehicular access and resiting of MEA sub-station
• 90/4192/B – Extension to create garage and conservatory – approved at appeal.

Development Plan Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) Order 1998

Statutory Consultation Responses

• Highways Division of DoT – object to the application and have made the following comment
• The visibility splay of the 2m by 23 metres are required to serve the needs of this development. The applicant has not show how this can be achieved.
• Claughbane Walk is narrow and does not have passing places at regular intervals
• This development will generate between 12 and 16 trips per day and this additional traffic will result increased congestion and nuisance.
• Ramsey Town Commissioners – No objection to the application but have made the following observation:
• The proposal indicates that 3 car parking spaces are to be shared between the two proposed dwellings and these spaces will occupy most of the amenity space to the rear of the proposed dwellings. Whilst the three spaces will achieve 1.5 spaces per unit, it is considered that conflict may exist in respect of the use of these shared spaces. It is considered that two spaces per unit may be achieved by an amended car parking layout.
• There is concern in respect of the provision of private amenity space both as a result of the provision of car parking and as a result of the separation of front garden which will result in minimal private amenity area to the property on the west side of the proposal.

Public Responses

• Press notices were posted on 2.03.06
• Representations have been received from a resident of Port Soderick and a landowner of some land to the north and west of the application site, occupier of Glen Hazel on the Crescent Road.
• The landowner to the north and west of the application site has made the following comments:
• These properties are substantially higher than the area immediately north of their boundary and will overlook us taking away our privacy.
• The northern house is too close to our boundary, it is within 7 metres
• There are no storm drains for these houses to drain to. There will be substantial amounts of water running off the road, drive, roofs and hard arrears, far too much for soakaways to cope with especially as we already have an area just to the north of the boundary which pools up to a foot deep

in water. If they drain it into a soakaways gravity will mean we end up with even more pooling water when the water drains through our lower ground.

• There is no public foul sewer for these proposed plots to drain into. At the moment Maughold Lodge itself drains through our land in a private old pipe. There is a public foul sewer to the north of our land in Bog lane that when we put forward our proposals we would suggest connecting a new system into that to serve our land.
• We object to septic tanks or bio digesters being used as there is no facility for disposing of storm water and tail drains will have no watercourse to drain to causing our lower lying land even more problems
• The existing entrance to Maughold Lodge is on a very narrow land and has very poor visibility on the west side and an extra two dwellings producing more than likely four more vehicles at least will be very risky.

• The occupier of Glen Hazel have made the following comments:
• Whilst my property is not directly affected by the location of the Maughold Lodge my primary concern is the volume of traffic already on the surrounding roads without generating more.
• Over the years the traffic along Crescent Road, Claughbane Walk and associated areas has increased and recently concerns have been raised by my neighbour with the Dept of Transport and Ramsey MHK Anne Craine.

• The resident of Port Soderick has made the following comments
• The proposal appears to not conform with the Policies in of the Ramsey Local Plan and therefore there is a material planning reason for the application to be refused.

Issues

• Policy Statutory Document 578/98, the Ramsey Local Plan, defines the application site as being within an area of predominantly residential use.
• Policy R/R/P2 states that These areas, which are identified by letter and title on the Local Plan Map, should be developed in accordance with the following briefs:-

F. Ballure

Most of this area is either developed, partly developed or has the benefit of planning permission. It is important that the completion of these developments or any proposals for further development should be such as to safeguard the settings of the Manx Electric Railway and St Mary's Church and should have regard to the amenity value of the existing trees and gardens.

• Policy R/R/P3 of Planning Circular 2/99 states that "within areas zoned for predominantly residential Use there will be a presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive, natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping or simply green space."
• Neither the Ramsey Local Plan nor the accompanying written statement has any defined car parking provision standards.
• In respect of the proposed layout, the proposed dwellings are slightly staggered and have a separation distance of approximately 10m between the rear elevation of one dwelling to the front elevation of the other dwelling. Generally, a separation gap of 20m is required between properties. This layout would result in overlooking and loss of privacy for the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling. I therefore consider the proposed layout would not provide a satisfactory residential amenity for the future occupiers of these dwellings.
• In terms of the impact on Maughhold Lodge, the proposed development is set to the north of Maughold Lodge. There is a significant level change from the Maughold Lodge to the development site. The nearest dwelling would be set approximately 14m away. Maughold Lodge would be set

above the proposed development. I do not consider the proposed development would adversely affect the residential amenity of Maughold from overlooking and loss of privacy due to the significant level change between the two sites.

• As stated above the separation gap between Maughold Lodge and the nearest dwelling is 14m way and that Maughold Lodge is at a higher level above the proposed dwelling. For this reason, the occupiers of Maughold Lodge would overlook the new dwelling and thus provide an inadequate residential environment. Furthermore, the nearest part of Maughold lodge to the proposed boundary of the new dwelling is two storey in aspect. I consider Maughold Lodge would overshadow the new property and have an overbearing impact which will further reduce the residential amenity for future occupiers of the dwelling to an unacceptable level.

• In respect of the impact on plots 31, the application site is south west of the neighbouring property. Both property are set at an angle to each other and do not overlook each other property. Furthermore, there is approximately 29m separation gap between plot 31 and the nearest dwelling to the boundary of the plot 31. Due to the orientation of the dwellings I do not consider the proposal will cause any significant impact in terms of overlooking and overshadowing.

• In respect of the impact on plot 30, the application site is set to the west of the neighbouring property, the proposed dwellings are set at 90° angle to the boundary of the plot 30. The proposed dwellings will not overlook the neighbouring property. The nearest dwelling to plot 30 is set approximately 30m away in a North West direction. I therefore consider the proposed development will not cause any significant harm to the occupiers of plot 30 from overlooking or overshadowing.

• In respect of the vacant land to the north of the site, an application was submitted back in 1999 for approval in principle for the erection of dwellings on 2.5 acres of land east of the Crescent Road. This application was refused. There have been no further applications submitted for the redevelopment of the site since the refusal. The landowners are concerned that these properties are substantially higher than the area immediately north of the boundary and will overlook the site which will take away their privacy. The land is a vacant piece of land which used to be a chicken farm. It is my understanding that the proposed dwellings would be built at the same levels as the residential development to the east and the same ground level as the land to the north. No details have been submitted to confirm this would be the case. There are a number of trees running along the northern boundary of the site which will help to prevent any overlooking if a residential development were proposed. I therefore do not consider this proposal will cause any overlooking since there are no firm redevelopment proposals for the site to the north of the application site.

• In relation to the drainage concerns from the landowner to the north of the application, any detailed planning application and/or building regulations application would deal with these concerns.

• In relation to the highway issues, the highways division of the Department of Transport have objected to the application in that the visibility splay of the 2m by 23 metres would be required to serve the needs of this development. The applicant has not shown how this can be achieved. The indicative plans are proposing to use the existing entrance without any medications. The use of the existing access would be unacceptable for the proposed intensification of development on this site. I therefore consider the proposed development would be prejudicial to highways.

• Furthermore, Claughbane Walk is narrow and does not have passing places at regular intervals. This development will generate between 12 and 16 trips per day and this additional traffic will result in increased congestion and nuisance within the locality.

CONCLUSION I therefore recommend that permission be refused for the above reasons

Party Status

I consider that the following should be granted party status due to them being statutory consultees:

• Ramsey Town Commissioners
• Highways Division of the Department of Transport
• The owner of land to the north of the application site.
• The occupiers of Glen Hazel, Crescent Road

I consider that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:

• The resident of Port Soderick;

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 12.06.2006

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The proposal would by reason of its siting and design:

• (a) would result in the introduction of an unsympathetic and incongruous feature within the street scene 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;

• (b) would result in the creation of a poor relationship between the proposed dwellings which will result in overlooking and overshadowing and thereby result in the creation of a poor residential environment for the future occupiers of the dwellings to the detriment of their living conditions; and

• (c) being in close proximity to Maughold Lodge to the new dwelling would result in demonstrable harm to the amenities of the future occupiers of that dwelling from increased visual intrusion by being overbearing, overshadowing and overlooking.

R 2.

The proposed development would generate more traffic compared to a single dwellinghouse and would intensify the use of the existing access onto the public highway. The visibility from the proposed access driveway onto the public highway is inadequate to serve the increased traffic movements from the site and therefore would be prejudicial to highway safety.

Furthermore, the width of the Claughbane Walk would not permit safe access/egress by vehicles and are inadequate to serve the needs of this development resulting in increased congestion and nuisance to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and road safety.

12 June 2006 06/00314/A Page 6 of 6