03102002 Delegated.pdf - East Hampshire District Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. (UNQ1) Further residential development in this location will add to surface water drainage problems in the area contrary to Policy GS5 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: First Review. 6. (R2R) No provision has been made for public open space within the proposal contrary to Policy RT3 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: First Review. ________________________________________________________________________ Item No. 002 PROPOSAL: SINGLE STOREY ANNEXE AND SINGLE STOREY LOUNGE EXTENSION LOCATION: 1 Lyne Place, Waterlooville, Hampshire, PO8 9TP REFERENCE NO. F.29069/001/FUL/PB PARISH: Horndean APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Meredith CASE OFFICER: Paul Bowman DATE REGISTERED: 03/07/2002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REFUSED for the following reason: 1. (R4O) In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of this rear garden site where the form and mass of development is tantamount to a new dwelling creating an unacceptable loss of amenity space and cramped form of development in this location to the detriment of the character and appearance of the streetscene, contrary to General Strategy Policy GS5 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: First Review and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance contained within the Planning Authority's Design Guide for Residential Extensions. ________________________________________________________________________ Item No. 003 PROPOSAL: REMOVAL OF CONDITION NO. 2 OF F.28417/008 (AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY) LOCATION: Moss Cottage, Hill House Hill, Liphook, Hampshire, GU307PX REFERENCE NO. F.28417/018/FUL/JM PARISH: Bramshott/Liphook APPLICANT: Gates Nursery CASE OFFICER: Julia Mansi DATE REGISTERED: 02/07/2002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REFUSED for the following reasons: 2
1. (R1L) The dwelling on this site was only permitted, against the normal policies of restraint which cover the countryside, as an agricultural exception. Without such justification the dwelling would not have been permitted, therefore the current proposal would result in an undesirable intensification of the existing scattered or loose knit form of development in this rural area to the detriment of the locality contrary to the Countryside Policies of the Hampshire County Structure Plan (particularly Policies C1 & C2) and the General Strategy, Environment and Housing Policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: First Review (particularly PoliciesGS2, GS5 & H12) 2. (R2F) The dwelling on this site was only permitted, against the normal policies of restraint which cover the countryside, as an agricultural exception. Without such justification the dwelling would not have been permitted, therefore the current constitutes an unacceptable intrusion of development into the countryside to the detriment of the character of this Area of Special Landscape Quality contrary to Policies C1 & C2 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996- 2011 (Review) (particularly Policies E6) and the General Strategy and Environment Policies of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: First Review (particularly Policies GS5 & ENV2). 3. (UNQ1) The dwelling on this site was only permitted, against the normal policies of restraint which cover the countryside, as an agricultural exception. From the information submitted, insufficient justification has been made for the lifting of the agricultural occupancy condition and allowing a dwelling in the countryside contrary the Policies set out above. ________________________________________________________________________ Item No. 004 PROPOSAL: TWO STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING FOUR ONE BEDROOM FLATS AT FIRST FLOOR AND CAR PARKING AT GROUND FLOOR LOCATION: Harris Court, Station Road, Liphook, Hampshire, GU307XX REFERENCE NO. F.28827/003/FUL/JM PARISH: Bramshott/Liphook APPLICANT: Zand Co Ltd CASE OFFICER: Julia Mansi DATE REGISTERED: 01/07/2002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REFUSED for the following reason: 1. (R4S) In the opinion of the Planning Authority the proposal constitutes an unacceptable form of development involving an excessive number of flats for this site such that the resultant development would not be compatible with that adjoining and be out of character with this residential location. The proposal would have a materially adverse affect on the amenity of existing properties and on-site parking provision. The proposal would be contrary to Policies UB3 and H5 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan and General Strategy Policy GS5 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: First Review. ________________________________________________________________________ 3
Page 1: SECTION IV Item No. 001 EAST HAMPSH
Page 5 and 6: Item No. 006 PROPOSAL: SINGLE STORE
Page 7 and 8: Item No. 009 PROPOSAL: LOFT CONVERS
Page 9 and 10: 2. (E3) The external facing brick t
Page 11 and 12: Item No. 017 PROPOSAL: RETENTION OF
Page 13 and 14: Item No. 020 PROPOSAL: CERTIFICATE
Page 15 and 16: Item No. 023 PROPOSAL: CONSERVATORY
Page 17 and 18: 1. (R5I) The proposed rear extensio
Page 19 and 20: 1. (UNQ1) This application is Permi
Page 21 and 22: Item No. 033 PROPOSAL: DETACHED DWE
Page 23 and 24: 3. (D22) The existing detached gara
Page 25 and 26: 1. (ST5) The development hereby per
Page 27 and 28: Item No. 042 PROPOSAL: FIRST FLOOR
Page 29 and 30: Item No. 045 PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS
Page 31 and 32: 2. (E3) The external materials to b
Page 33 and 34: 1. The applicant is advised that th
Page 35 and 36: 2. (R14C) In the opinion of the Pla
Page 37 and 38: Item No. 058 PROPOSAL: OUTLINE - DE
Page 39 and 40: Item No. 061 PROPOSAL: EXTENSION AN
Page 41 and 42: 2. Please note that there is a Sect
Page 43 and 44: 1. Please note that there is a Sect
Page 45: 1. (ST5) The development hereby per
Page 54 and 55:
1. (W1) All works shall be carried
Page 56 and 57:
3) F.36102/001/FUL - Demolition of
Page 58 and 59:
The Inspector noted the difference
Page 60 and 61:
North Car parking & access: The rev
Page 62 and 63:
4) F.23469/007 - Appeal against the
show all

03102002 Delegated.pdf - East Hampshire District Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?