| Details of Planning Application -
21149/007 |
|
Application registered
|
Consultation period
|
Awaiting decision
|
Decided
|
Appeal
|
Appeal decided
|
|
|---|
| Application Type: | Outline Planning Permission |
|---|
| Date Valid: | 10/07/2007 |
|---|
| Consultation Expiry: | 13/08/2007 |
|---|
| Expiry Date: | 04/09/2007 |
|---|
| Location: | The Limes, Stoney Lane, Medstead, Alton, GU34 5EN |
|---|
| Ward Name: | Four Marks and Medstead |
|---|
| Parish Name: | Medstead |
|---|
| Conservation Area: | |
|---|
| Listed Building Grade: | |
|---|
| Environmental Assessment: | EIA not required |
|---|
| Expected Decision Level: | Delegated - North Area |
|---|
| Easting/Northing: | 466898.3191465
/
135399.555 |
|---|
| Proposal: | OUTLINE - THREE DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS AND PARKING |
|---|
| Case Officer: | Keith Oliver |
|---|
| Case Officer Tel: | 01730 234226 |
|---|
| Status: | Appeal Decided |
|---|
| Agent: | Mr M Gordon Arch-tech Ltd Unit 15 Finns Business Park Mill lane Crondall GU10 5HP Mr B Shallish Bullworthy Shallish LLP Castle House Park Road Banstead Surrey SM7 3BT |
|---|
| Applicant: | Mr I Closier The Limes Stoney Lane Medstead Alton GU34 5EN |
|---|
Neighbours
and Representatives: | Responses Received: 4 |
|---|
| Officer's Site Visit Date: | |
|---|
| Committee Site Visit Date: | |
|---|
| Committee Meeting Date: | |
|---|
| Decision Level: | Delegated - North Area |
|---|
| Decision Issued: | 04/09/2007 |
|---|
| Decision: | REFUSAL |
|---|
| Conditions or Reasons: | | 1
)The application contains insufficient information to adequately assess the residential amenity implications of the proposal in terms of the proximity of the proposed residential properties to the adjacent industrial uses and the railway line. As such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy P3 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review. |
| 2
)The application contains insufficient information to adequately assess the surface water and foul water drainage implications of the proposal. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy C8 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review. |
| 3
)The proposal does not include energy efficient measures pursuant to Policy E1 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review. |
| 4
)The means of access is inadequate to serve this development and cannot be improved within the land owned or controlled by the applicant with the result that the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy T9 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review. |
| 5
)The proposal would result in the provision of an over-length cul-de-sac where inadequate facilities for the passage of emergency vehicles would result to the detriment of highway and public safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy T9 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review. |
| 6
)The roads leading to and from the site are of inadequate capacity/width/alignment to accommodate safely the additional traffic which the proposed development would generate. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy T9 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review. |
| 7
)No provision has been made for public open space within the proposal contrary to Policy R3 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review. |
| 8
)No provision has been made towards integrated transportation measures with the proposal, contrary to Policy GS4 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review and the Council's 'Guide to Developers' Contributions and Other Planning Requirements'. |
|
|---|
| Informative Notes: | There are no informative notes |
|---|
| Appeal Received Date: | 17/12/2007 |
|---|
| Appeal Decision: | Dismiss |
|---|
| Appeal Decision Date: | 12/08/2008 |
|---|
