 |
The
Lymington Society
|
 |
||||
Weekly Planning Search - Feb 24th 2010
95040 - 14 MAY AVENUE
registration
date: 11/02/2010
Location: SD house in long narrow
plot on S side of road abutting No 16 (see below)
Proposal: Single-storey
rear extension
Statutory Class: Householder developments
Consulted: neighbours 6, others
4
History: 2 similar applications
from other addresses in the road have been granted in recent years ( 1 conservatory,
one side extension)
Comment: These two neighbours have put in similar applications
for the two halves of their semi-detached building.
Recommendation: No action
95041 - 16 MAY AVENUE
registration
date: 11/02/2010
Location: SD house in long narrow
plot on S side of road abutting No 14 (see above)
Proposal: Single-storey
rear extension
Statutory Class: Householder developments
Consulted: As above
History: As above
Comment: None
Recommendation: No action
95235 - SEISDON, SWAY ROAD
registration
date: 12/02/2010
Location: Near Passford Road junction,
on S side of water tower on corner
Proposal: Removal of Condition
2 of Planning Permission 58232 to allow roof area to be incorporated into
dwelling house as habitable accommodation
Statutory Class: Householder developments
Consulted: neighbours 1, others
4
History: A previous extension (58232)
was authorised in 1996 with a condition as stated in the proposal. The condition
was put there to satisfy the then extant Permitted Development rules, as explained
in the accompanying Planning Statement.
Comment: The rules have apparently since been changed.
This is essentially a technical matter which NFDC must decide on its
technical merits.
Recommendation: No action
95152 - 113 HIGH STREET
registration
date: 11/02/2010
Location: Caffe Uno
Proposal: 2 sign written
canopies (Application for Listed Building Consent),
Statutory Class: Listed Building consents (alter/extend)
Consulted: neighbours 11, others
11
History: 93397, December 2008 -
Display 2 illuminated fascia signs; 1 illuminated projecting sign - granted
with conditions
95051,
December 2009 - ruled invalid
Comment: This is presumably the
replacement for 95051. It seeks to
install bright folding-arm "Victorian" awnings which pull out over
the pavement in front of the shop (with signage, it is implied, although the
drawings show broad coloured stripes).
Recommendation: Hmmm!
No frothing at the mouth responses from neighbours yet - anyone got
any ideas?
95189 - 8 PARK AVENUE
registration
date: 11/02/2010
Location: SD house off Kings Road,
backing on to gardens of Southampton Road houses
Proposal: Rear conservatory
Statutory Class: Householder developments
Consulted: neighbours 8, others
4
History: none
Comment: A standard conservatory. The Case Officer doesn't see a problem
Recommendation: No action
95239 - 1 SOUTHBOURNE ROAD, PENNINGTON
registration
date: 12/02/2010
Location: Off Highfield Road
Proposal: Two-storey side
& rear extension (Extension to time limit of Planning Permission 07/89514)
Statutory Class: Householder developments
Consulted: neighbours 11, others
4
History: 85098 - Two storey side extension - Granted subject to conditions - 29/07/2005
89514
- as above - granted 27/3/3007 with conditions (including 3-year time limit)
Comment: The applicant seems reluctant to jump!
Recommendation: No action
95252
- HOWARDS MEAD, PENNINGTON
registration date: 22/02/2010
Location: Area of existing flats and houses
Proposal: 3 terraces of 3 houses; new parking layout; landscaping & environmental
improvements
Statutory Class: Minor Dwellings
Consulted: neighbours 131, others 8
History: None
Comment: Half the Design and Access statement has been
scanned back-to-front and so is readable only with a mirror. The plan seems to be to build three new terraces
of affordable houses on the site of the existing garages of the Howards Mead
estate, which are said to be under-used. It is difficult to comment without knowing
a good deal more. In view of this
area's reputation, does it make sense to add more and denser low-cost houses? What does it do to the National Park behind
the trees on the west side? Is the
proposed design (I would describe it as "East Berlin Lite") of an
appropriately imaginative standard,
consistent with the new orthodoxy of Local Distinctiveness? My own view is that the concentration of subsidised
housing in this one neighbourhood is bad in principle and ugly in practice.
Others may differ. We need more views, especially from the PRA.
Recommendation: Discuss at next
meeting.