| Details of Planning Application -
CB/10/02538/FULL |
| Application registered | Consultation period | Awaiting decision | Decided | Appeal | Appeal decided |
|
|---|
| Application Type: | Full Application |
|---|
| Date Received: | 08
/
07
/
2010 |
|---|
| Registration (Validation) Date: | 08
/
07
/
2010 |
|---|
| Consultation Start Date: | 08
/
07
/
2010 |
|---|
| Earliest Decision Date (Consultation Period Expires): | 12
/
08
/
2010 |
|---|
| Target Date for Decision: | 02
/
09
/
2010 |
|---|
| Location: | 3 Elms Close, Ampthill, Bedford, MK45 2TY |
|---|
| Parish Name: | Ampthill |
|---|
| Conservation Area: | Not available |
|---|
| Listed Building Grade: | Not available |
|---|
| Environmental Assessment: | Not available |
|---|
| Expected Decision Level: | Not available |
|---|
| Description: | Full: Single storey front extension. Erection of new brick/fence panel boundary wall to replace existing. |
|---|
| Case Officer: | Mary Collins |
|---|
| Case Officer Tel: | 0300 300 4448 |
|---|
| Case Officer Email: | planning@centralbedfordshire.gov.uk |
|---|
| Status: | Decided |
|---|
| Agent: | Mr S Everitt |
|---|
| 88 Holland Road |
|---|
| Ampthill |
|---|
| Bedford |
|---|
| MK45 2RS |
|---|
| Press Date: | No date |
|---|
| Site Notice Date: | 22
/
07
/
2010 |
|---|
| Neighbours | Responses Received:
2 |
|---|
| and Representatives: | In Favour:
0 |
|---|
| Representation Details | Against:
0 |
|---|
| Comments:
0 |
|---|
| Petitions Against:
0 |
|---|
| Petitions For:
0 |
|---|
| Officer Site Visit Date: | 21/07/2010 |
|---|
| Committee Site Visit Date: | No date |
|---|
| Committee Meeting Date: | No date |
|---|
| Decision Level: | Officer Delegated |
|---|
| Date Decision Made: | 02
/
09
/
2010 |
|---|
| Date Decision Despatched: | 02
/
09
/
2010 |
|---|
| Decision: | Full Application - Granted |
|---|
| Conditions or Reasons: | View Conditions or Reasons |
|---|
| Informative Notes: | | 1
)Planning permission is not required for the creation of the new vehicular access. However permission will be required from our Highways Section for the construction of the access. You are advised that permission will not be forthcoming for an access in the location shown on drawing number SE2614/1 as:
Crossovers from the radii of a bend are not acceptable as this causes confusion to other users of the highway regarding where a vehicle is turning, with most drivers thinking the vehicle indicating will be turning at the junction and when it turns prior to this the following driver makes adjustments too late and there is vehicular conflict.
The parking area provided alongside the proposed extension is not large enough for a vehicle to park clear of the highway and will lead to the vehicle overhanging into the footpath (vehicle parking measurements should be a minimum of 2.4m wide and 4.8m long, 5.0m if abutting a wall as a vehicle will not pull right up against a structure). A vehicle entering the site will not be able to manoeuvre into the parking area due to the tight angles and the proposed extension, without using the footpath to do so which is not acceptable.Planning permission is not required for the creation of the new vehicular access. However permission will be required from our Highways Section for the construction of the access. You are advised that permission will not be forthcoming for an access in the location shown on drawing number SE2614/1 as:
Crossovers from the radii of a bend are not acceptable as this causes confusion to other users of the highway regarding where a vehicle is turning, with most drivers thinking the vehicle indicating will be turning at the junction and when it turns prior to this the following driver makes adjustments too late and there is vehicular conflict.
The parking area provided alongside the proposed extension is not large enough for a vehicle to park clear of the highway and will lead to the vehicle overhanging into the footpath (vehicle parking measurements should be a minimum of 2.4m wide and 4.8m long, 5.0m if abutting a wall as a vehicle will not pull right up against a structure). A vehicle entering the site will not be able to manoeuvre into the parking area due to the tight angles and the proposed extension, without using the footpath to do so which is not acceptable. |
|
|---|
| Appeal Received Date: | This case has no appeals against it |
|---|
| Planning Obligation Status: | Not available |
|---|