**Document:** Design Statement for Mr D Maddrell
**Application:** 10/01832/B — Erection of a dwelling and creation of new vehicular access
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2011-03-15
**Parish:** Lezayre
**Document Type:** report / planning_statement
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/275-lezayre-maughold-lodge-dwelling-vehicular-access/documents/1573438

---

# Design Statement for Mr D Maddrell

## Design statement on behalf of Mr. D. Maddrell

Proposal: Erection of a two storey dwelling and creation of a new vehicular access on a vacant building plot The Site: Plot of land adjacent to Maughold Lodge, Claughbane Walk, Ramsey IM8 2JP Applicant: Mr. D. Maddrell

This statement provides additional information relevant to the above application. This is in response to issues raised by the Appeal Inspector's report relating to the previous planning application (PA: 09/1533/B)

### Contents

1. History
2. Design considerations
3. Proposed vehicular access
4. Proposed dwelling
5. Landscaping
6. Changes to previous applications
7. Summary - New application

Appendix I - Letter of support
Appendix II - Correspondence with Highways Department
Appendix III - Photographs
Appendix IV - Aerial photograph of the site
Appendix V - Drawings highlighting the changes

## 1. History

The applicant, Mr. Maddrell, bought the plot with 'Approval in Principle' (Ref:06/002255) for a single dwelling with vehicular access. The approval was obtained by the owners of Maughold Lodge, and the site then sold as a vacant building plot.

Mr. Maddrell commissioned detailed designs for the proposed dwelling and submitted planning application Ref:08/00693 and later an amended application Ref:09/1533, both of which were approved by the Planning Committee but refused at Appeal. Following the first appeal there were several changes made in response to the Appeal Inspector's comments; principally to the proposed vehicular access and also to reduce the size of the property.

At the appeal for the resubmitted scheme the following were given as the reasons to overturn the Planning Committee's approval yet again:-

1. Because of its siting, the proposed driveway would dominate the outlook from adjoining dwellings, and there would be perceived overlooking of these dwellings from the drive. The effect of the access on the local amenity of adjacent dwellings would thus be unacceptable.
2. The mass of the proposed 3-storey dwelling, and its siting on an artificially created platform, would have an adverse visual impact on the residents of neighbouring dwellings

### 2. Design Considerations

The following design considerations outline further changes that have been incorporated in the current application to respond to the concerns of the last Appeal Inspector (PA 09/1533/B). In his assessment he states the main planning issues as being:-

1. The effect of the access on the local amenity
2. The effect of the proposed dwelling in the context of its site and its surroundings.

The application has now been amended to respond to these concerns, details of which are listed below. Mr. Maddrell has also discussed the changes with Ramsey Town Commissioners, and as many neighbours as possible. He has also obtained a letter of support from Mrs. Mary Kerruish of Maughold Lodge. In general the discussions were positive and Mr. Maddrell explained the steps being taken to protect the neighbours privacy.

Attached are reduced copies of the previous planning application (Ref: 09/1533) with the major changes overlaid in red

## 3. Proposed Vehicular access

The main points of concerns raised by the Inspector were:-

- The proposed access ramp, stone faced walls and earth banking would be a dominant feature for the adjoining residents.
- The proposed driveway would be too close to the dwellings in Queens Valley
- The proposed landscaping, intended to reduce the impact of the driveway, would take many years to reach maturity.
- The siting of the drive would provide a perceived overlooking of the dwellings in Queens Valley.

The Inspector also noted that in the original 'Approval in Principle' for a dwelling on the site (Ref:06/002255) the scheme proposed the sharing of the existing vehicular access between Maughold Lodge and the new dwelling. It is unclear whether he believed that this is still an option or if the currently proposed separate access is a fundamental change to the original approval.
To clarify the matter, the original 'Approval in Principle' was obtained by the owners of Maughold Lodge. When they came to sell the land as a vacant building plot, the existing access and any right of way across their land was not included in the sale. In purchasing the site, Mr. Maddrell, bought a plot that he believed had planning approval for a dwelling and an access off Claughbane Road. Having examined the information provided to Mr. Maddrell when he purchased the land, it was not unreasonable for him to believe he was buying a site where vehicular access was not an issue.

Modification to the current scheme include:-

- The proposed driveway has been amended to take it is closer to the boundary with Maughold Lodge.
- A lay-by is provided at the top of the driveway for vehicles to pass, and this allows the width of the rest of the driveway to be reduced slightly.
- The lay-by also breaks up the line of the retaining wall and its visual massing.
- Moving the driveway further away from the boundary with Queens Valley allows for a more gentle natural landscaped embankment
- The height of the plinth wall has been slightly reduced and the incline of the landscaping changed to reduce the amount of stonework visible along the upper length.
- In the Inspector's report there was reference to a gradient of 1:5 for the driveway. This is incorrect and the design of the driveway has been undertaken with a structural engineer with a designed gradient of 1:7, which is deemed to be acceptable.
- It is proposed to plant 5 ft / 6 ft Griselina hedging along the head of the driveway to provide suitable mature screening. The applicant has contacted a local nursery who can supply such hedging.
- Additional trees have been planting along a section of the boundary with Queens Valley to supplement the existing trees and minimise any perception of being overlooked from the driveway. See the 'Landscaping' section for more details.

## 4. Proposed Dwelling

The main points of concerns raised by the Inspector were:-

- Potential additional vehicles and noise from traffic movements associated with a 6 bedroom dwelling.
- Steepness and length of the driveway would generate adverse noise.
- Raised position of the dwelling would impact on proposed development of land owned by Mr. Morris to the north of the site.
- Although there is no direct overlooking, the proposed dwelling would be to some degree overbearing due to its height, siting and mass.

Modification to the scheme include:-

- The second floor accommodation and dormers etc. have been omitted to reduce the number of bedrooms from 6 to 4 . This therefore reduces the potential vehicles using the site and the associated noise.
- The pitch of the roof has been altered from $35^{\circ}$ to $30^{\circ}$ to reduce the ridge height by 450 mm .
- The datum for the ground floor level has been reduced by 500 mm from 98.50 to the 98.00 contour line. Combined with the modification to the roof pitch, this gives an overall reduction of the ridge height of 950 mm
- The building has been orientated slightly differently on the site to provide more amenity space to the rear of the property (See Landscaping section). This also further reduces the possibility of direct overlooking of properties in Queens Valley.

It should be noted that due to the sloped topography of the area, there is an acceptance that some properties will be at a higher level than others e.g. Maughold Lodge is higher than the application site, and is itself overlooked by properties across Claughbane Walk. The datum for the proposed dwelling is along a contour line that sits comfortably with the adjacent sites to the east and west of the application. Due to the fall of the land, the site will always be above that of Mr. Morris's land to the north, however the reduction of the ridge height and building datum, together with omitting the second floor accommodation and dormers etc; minimises potential overbearing on neighbouring properties.

## 5. Landscaping

The main points of concerns raised by the Inspector were:-

- The raised 'platform' around the dwelling resulted in a lack of amenity space due to steep slopes
- Vegetation around the site would suffer during the construction period and open up the site.
- Landscaping would take many years to mature

Modification to the scheme include:-

- The hard landscaping to the car parking area has been reduced to minimise surface water run off and allow for additional landscaping. Surface water from hard landscaping and the driveway is to be collected by a rainwater harvesting system as per the original scheme and, as previously proposed, a gulley along the access with Claughbane Walk will prevent water from the lane entering the site.
- The Inspector referred to the area immediately around the dwelling as a raised 'platform'. Although we disagree with this description, a further modification has been undertaken to reduce this perceived effect by reducing the building datum by 500 mm as previously discussed. This will result in more excavated material than originally proposed. This surplus will be used in forming the driveway and therefore reduce the amount of imported material required by approximately $50 \mathrm{~m}^{3}$, equivalent to 6 lorry loads. Total of imported material now calculated for the driveway is $100 \mathrm{~m}^{3}$
- Additional amenity space has been provided to the rear of the repositioned dwelling, and due to the reduced datum, the lawned areas follow the natural gentle contours around the dwelling. This provides useable amenity land suitable for the size of the property and far more than exists for many of the properties in Queens Valley. An aerial photograph is attached to show the relative size of gardens for similar sized properties in the area.
- The existing trees and vegetation around the site are to be protected by a temporary fence during the construction period to keep contractor vehicles etc away from the boundary planting. As stated before, the applicant wishes to retain privacy between the new dwelling and existing properties, and to this effect professional advice will be sought for the management of the boundary trees and planting to ensure continued healthy development and screening.
- The applicant has also planted a selection of sizeable cherry, whitebeam and holly trees along the section of boundary overlooking Queens Valley. This supplements the existing trees and will ensure that the properties have continued privacy from the upper part of the proposed driveway. Planting at this stage ensures that the trees have sufficient time to become established while the planning and building processes are on going.
- The applicant is also prepared to erect timber fencing along the boundary line if neighbours still feel that the landscaping is insufficient. He proposes to wait until the building work is completed before consulting the neighbours further to gauge their opinion.

The main objector to the previous applications has been Mr. Morris who owns the adjacent land to the north and east. His land directly to the north of the application site has planning approval for 7 new dwellings. Mr. Morris's objections previously have been concerned with the new single dwelling being dominant over his building plots. The changes to the scheme, as described previously, respond to his concerns and reduce the potential to overlook his site. It should be noted that along the northern boundary there currently exists an established screen of mature trees of approximately 15 metres high. These trees currently provide a very effect screen between the two sites and their height means that they would conceal the proposed dwellings from each other. As they are within Mr. Morris's boundary and are fully under his control and management, the trees will not be affected by the proposed construction of Mr. Maddrell's dwelling.

## 6. Changes to previous applications

The above sections relate to changes made between the previous application and this new submission. However there have been many changes already made between the two previous applications in response to neighbours concerns and comments. In brief, modifications previously made to the scheme include:-

1. The size of the building was reduced by 8 metres in length by omitting a garden room and changes to the internal layout.
2. The building was repositioned to provide additional amenity space to the rear garden.
3. Vehicular access off Claughbane Walk was revised to provide a combined 'pull in' space with Maughold Lodge and the required 18 metre visibility splays. Changes were discussed and approved by the Department of Transport and a copy of the relevant email attached.
4. Repositioning of the access driveway provided an increased landscaped buffer zone between Queens Valley.
5. Design details were provided of the access driveway showing the stone faced retaining wall designed to be part of the landscaping scheme to minimise visual impact.
6. Clarification was provided regarding provision for the collection of rainwater by a proprietary system, and the prevention of additional surface water entering the site from Claughbane Walk. This was in response to the neighbours reporting the poor condition of land drainage in the area.

## 7. Summary - New application

There have been several comments raised by neighbours that Mr. Maddrell is a 'Developer'. The feeling is that because of this he has little respect for neighbouring properties as his intention would be to sell his own property when it is completed. We wish to stress that Mr. Maddrell is a commercial pilot and in this case is acting as a private individual and, although hoping that this project will be a good investment, it is not his normal business and he does not see himself as a 'Developer'. The concerns of neighbours regarding privacy etc; are shared by Mr. Maddrell who also wishes to protect his own privacy from properties in Queens Valley and surrounding land owned by Mr. Morris.

As stated previously Mr. Maddrell bought the site with the belief that it had approval for a dwelling with a vehicular access off Claughbane Road. There are no other access points to the site and Mr. Maddrell does not have any right of way across land belonging to Maughold Lodge. As demonstrated in this report, Mr. Maddrell has endeavoured, where possible, to respond to concerns over the driveway and reduce its visual impact on neighbouring properties.

Mr. Maddrell has acted in the interest of others to make modifications to the proposed dwelling. The reduction in the number of bedrooms and massing of the building, together with new tree planting and the proposed management of existing trees will reduce the visual dominance of the development. This will ensure that the dwelling will be in keeping with existing properties in this location.

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/275-lezayre-maughold-lodge-dwelling-vehicular-access/documents/1573438*