Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Grounds for Refusal of Planning Permission III
Having regard to the number of residential units proposed, the resultant volume of traffic generated by the scheme as a whole and the shortfall in car parking associated with the proposed development which would result in ad hoc car parking on the main circulation roads, it is considered that the proposed large scale development would represent overdevelopment of the site which would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and would provide for a poor quality residential environment which would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Again, from Nikki, some explanation:
Number 3
In their detailed plans, they provided for one car parking space per house and per apartment, and they threw a few extra in where they could fit them. National Development Guidelines state that there should be at least 1.5 parking spaces per house/residential unit. As an example of the inadequacy, ‘Apartment Block 6’, the largest one adjacent to Balreask Manor and Canterbrook, with 30x2 Bed Apartments, they provided 22 Car Parking spaces. Clearly they were not in compliance with this regulation.
Post a Comment