Loading document...
The application site is the land to the rear of Maughold Lodge, Claughbane Walk, Ramsey. Maughold Lodge is a two storey detached dwelling located to the north of 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.
The application is seeking an approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling house to the rear of Maughold Lodge. The dwelling would be a two storey four bedroom property, which would be in keeping with the adjacent new dwellings on the site and blend in with the predominant theme and style of surrounding residential properties in the area.
The submission also proposes to alter the existing access by moving the existing boundary walls away from the road to provide 2m x 23 metres visibility splays.
Between Maughold Lodge and the proposed dwelling and along the boundaries of adjacent neighbouring properties the indicative plans indicate planting of trees to provide screening
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:
Furthermore, the width of Claughbane Walk would not permit safe access/egress by vehicles, and is 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.
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 re-siting of MEA sub-station – granted 10/04/92 90/4192/B – Extension to create garage and conservatory – approved at appeal.
Ramsey Town Commissioners have objected to the application:-
This proposal would result in having vehicular access which would divide the existing private amenity space to Maughold Lodge and therefore create an unacceptable situation. In addition, the previous concerns in respect of the width of Claughbane Walk have not been adequately addressed in terms of safe access and egress by vehicles as part of this application.
The current Ramsey Local Plan states that there shall be a general presumption against back-land development and development with the grounds of large houses on those sites which are well landscaped within ample tree coverage.
Highway Division:- Do not oppose
The Manx Electricity Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The Isle of Man Water Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but request that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The owner and/or occupant of Ardwhallin House, West Baldwin, Braddan, who own the land to the north and west of the application site, object to the planning application. Their objection can be summarised as loss of privacy, no storm drains for the house to drain to and no public foul sewer for these proposed plots. Further, they object to septic tanks or bio digesters being used as there is no facility for disposing of storm water. Tail drains will have no watercourse to drain into causing more problems to lower lying land. The reasons for refusing 06/00314/A have not altered, the proposal would not permit safe access/egress by vehicles, Claughbane Walk is narrow and does not have passing places at regular intervals.
The owner and/or occupant of Glen Hazel, Crescent Road, Ramsey objects to the planning application, which can be summarised as, the volume of traffic already on Claughbane Walk, Crescent Road and the surrounding roads is unacceptable and any additional property will naturally incur more. The reasons for refusal of 06/00314/A still appertain to this application as no matter how many buildings are erected on this site it/they will always be overlooked and overshadowed creating an impersonal living environment.
The following policies are relevant when considering this application.
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."
The key issues are as follows:
The Department of Transport objected to the previous application as the proposal did not include any alterations to the existing entrance and therefore did not provide the adequate 2m x 23m visibility splays. The Department also objected that as Claughbane Walk is narrow and does not have regular intervals the development would generate between 12 and 16 trips per day which would result in increased congestion and nuisance.
With regard to this application the proposal includes alteration to the existing entrance to provide the 2m x 23m visibility which would provide safe access onto the highway. With regard to the issue of additional traffic being generated onto Claughbane Walk causing congestion, I am of the opinion that as this submission only proposes one dwelling, the traffic generated would not increase traffic significantly so as to warrant a refusal on these grounds. I therefore consider with regard to highway matters that the application would be acceptable, a view which is also shared by The Department of Transport who have not objected to the application.
Presently the application site is not highly visible from Claughbane Walk which is due to the boundary treatment along the southern boundary of Maughold Lodge and due to the significant difference in ground level. Again from The Crescent which runs west of the site, the application site is well screened due to a number of hedgerows and mature trees.
The application site which is currently the rear garden of Maughold Lodge comprises mainly of grassed area and a few small bushes. No mature trees or established vegetation would be lost due to the development.
As stated above, the application site is not substantially visible from either The Crescent or Claughbane Walk. Although this application is an Approval in Principle the applicant has stated within their indicative plans that they propose the dwelling to be of a similar style and appearance to the new dwellings adjacent site (Queens Valley), which would in my opinion be acceptable and in keeping with the immediate area.
Policy R/R/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan states that within areas zoned for predominantly residential use there will be a general presumption against the development of sites that provide attractive, natural breathing spaces between established residential buildings. Whilst it could be argued that this policy should be applied to the application site, I have concluded that the application site is not significantly attractive, the proposal is for a single dwelling which retains a fairly sizeable curtilage and Maughold Lodge would retain a generous curtilage. Additionally, I consider that given that this application proposes the use of an urban sites rather than a greenfield sites renders this policy somewhat inappropriate. Therefore I consider that the principle of residential development for a single dwelling on this site is acceptable.
In terms of the impact on Maughold Lodge, the proposed development is set some 17m to the north of Maughold Lodge. There is a significant level change from the Maughold Lodge to the development site and therefore Maughold Lodge would be set above the proposed development. I do not therefore consider that the proposed development would adversely affect the residential amenity of Maughold Lodge in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy due to the significant level change and the orientation and siting between the two sites.
I must also consider what impact Maughold Lodge would have upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of the proposed dwelling in terms of loss of privacy, overbearing impact and loss of light. This was a reason for refusal in the last application as it was considered the relationship between Maughold Lodge and one of the proposed dwellings was unacceptable and would not provide an acceptable level of amenity. This application proposes to overcome this issue with the planting of new trees/landscaping between the two properties to provide screening. In addition, the indicative plans orientate the proposed dwelling so that no windows within the rear elevation of Maughold Lodge have a direct view into windows of the proposed dwelling. I therefore consider the landscaping, the ground level difference, the orientation of the proposed dwelling and the distance between the two properties would not create adverse impacts to the detriment of residential amenity for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling and therefore on balance, from this aspect the proposal is considered to be acceptable.
In respect of the impact on 31 Queens Valley, the application site is south west of the neighbouring property. Both properties are set at an angle to each other with no overlooking. Furthermore, there is approximately 38m separation between Number 31 and the proposed dwelling. Due to the orientation of the dwellings I do not consider the proposal will cause any significant impact in terms of overlooking and overshadowing.
With regard to the impact on 30 Queens Valley the application site is set to the west of the neighbouring property and the proposed dwelling would not directly look in the direction of Number 30. In addition, the dwelling to Number 30 is set approximately 34m away. I therefore consider the proposed development will not cause any significant harm to the occupiers of Number 30 from overlooking or overshadowing.
In respect of the impact on 29 Queens Valley the application site is set to the north west of the neighbouring property. Whilst the proposed dwelling does face towards Number 29, the dwelling would be set approximately 42 metres away from the neighbouring dwelling. I therefore consider the proposed development will not cause any significant harm to the occupiers of Number 29 from overlooking or overshadowing.
With regard to the vacant land to the north of the site, an application was submitted 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 and there have been no further applications submitted for the redevelopment of the site since that 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, however, 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 adverse impact 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.
The introduction of a dwelling of the size and position as indicated by the submitted indicative plans I consider, would not result in adverse impact on the residential amenity of any of the neighbouring properties sufficient to warrant a refusal of the application.
For these reasons I consider the proposal to be appropriate in this location and therefore my recommendation is that the application be approved.
I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
I consider that the following parties that made representations to the planning application do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 03.04.2007
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
C 1. This approval is in principle only and will remain valid for a period of two years within which time no development may take place until such time as details of the reserved matters (siting, design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access, landscaping) have been approved by the Planning Authority. Such reserved matters should form the subject of a single application.
C 2. This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing 01 all received on 28th December 2006.
C 3. The curtilage of the dwelling must include facility to allow a vehicle to turn within the site so as to enter and exit in a forward gear.
C 4. In the interests of road safety, two off street parking spaces must be provided to serve the needs of the development.
N 1. The applicant is advised to contact the Manx Electricity Authority Planning Department (Tel. 687781), to discuss the electricity supply for this application.
For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact Isle of Man Water Authority Customer Services, telephone 695949.
Decision Made: Approve Committee Meeting Date: 12/04/07
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown