|
Planning Applications https://pa2.north-herts.gov.uk/online-applications |
|
Response
required by 23rd April 2021 (KPC by 29th April) Address:
The White Horse Public House, 22 - 24 High Street, Kimpton Planning
Reference: 21/01018/FP Full
Planning Permission : Change
of Use and conversion of former White Horse PH
to a mixed use comprising a single residential dwelling (Use Class C3),
offices and
associated lobby (Use Class E, formerly B1(a)), and micropub (Sui Generis, formerly
Use Class A4). External annexe for garage and studio use
ancillary to the main
dwelling. Demolition of the existing rear shed, lean-to
and rear portions of the property.
Structural works, replacement floors walls, subdivision
and replacement of
the main roof and existing windows, internal alterations, servicing
and rear extensions
to facilitate these changes. Plans
and associated documents can be seen on https://pa2.north-herts.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QQRQ6QLKKUK00 General Comments: 1.
We
welcome applications that offer a high quality of design, affordability, meet
government national space standards, proven defined sustainable delivery,
address community defined requirements and add value to the parish. 2.
The
applicant purchased the building in 2017 with the intent of operating a pub/
restaurant. 3.
The
applicant refers to pre-application 18/02728/PRE which we understand was to
convert the building into a 200-person wedding and conference centre focussed
upon a client base from outside of the community. The owner has been viewed
as having a rather unusual approach in entertaining such a consideration and
it is not with surprise that we learn that NHDC were un-supportive of such
changes. 4.
The
applicant also refers to pre-application 19/01206/PRE which we understand
relates closely to the current planning application. On 1st of April 202, KPC
requested copies from NHDC of their full response to both pre-applications as
they are referred to extensively within this application. We are currently awaiting
NHDC issue of such information and NHDC has agreed that it will accept
comment from KPC arising from the issue of this information. 5.
The
re-opening of The White Horse has been a much-awaited event by the community.
The current owner has been in possession of the building for approximately 4
years during which time the building has been allowed to visibly deteriorate
and we are pleased to see the first concrete progress by the submission of a
planning application. 6.
The
site is a Grade II Listed Building, lies within Kimpton conservation area and
currently has ACV status until 2025. 7.
The
main areas that the KPC wish to more fully understand
are: a.
How
is the proposal of benefit to the community? b.
How
soon will the essential repairs stated in the application be carried out and
what measures will be put in place to prevent further deterioration? c.
In view of the extensive works proposed and the apparent
need for party wall agreements with neighbours, what length of time, from the
initial planning approval to a meaningful start of the works, is likely to
occur? These points are discussed in planning
terms within the following pages and we would
welcome NHDC addressing these matters. 8.
The
proposed scheme increases the overall area to approximately 400m2 and
comprises: a.
56m2
Pub (14%), b.
282m2
Residential (70%) c.
62m2
Office (16%). This is a significant reduction in
area of Pub space from 344m2 when it was last operating in 2015. 9.
Plans
- Existing and proposed floor plans. (Drawings 039 041. 042, 043, and
summary) The
applicant’s submission states that the proposed area GIFA will be increased
from 260.4m2 to 400.2m2. An increase of 139.8m2 (54%) above the original. This
is a significant increase for a site within a conservation area. 10. The application proposes the
demolition of over 25% of the existing listed buildings. 11. Underpinning. Drawing 039 032 Rev – This
drawing indicates underpinning beneath the existing boundary wall and
underneath the neighbour’s wall. The applicant will be required to obtain
agreement with neighbours and we would enquire as to
whether these agreements have been reached in principle. If not, how likely
is the project to be realised? 12. Public Notice. As of the 11 April 2021 no public
notices have been displayed. 13.
The
building is currently unoccupied except for the seasonal occupation of the
office space when the owner is in the country. Material Planning Considerations: 14. NHDC
Emerging Local Plan 2011-31 ETC7
states: “Scattered local shops and services in
towns and villages Planning permission for small-scale proposals providing
new shops and services will be granted within existing settlements to serve
the local community as an exception to the sequential approach set out in
Policy ETC3(a). Planning permission for the loss or change of use of any
shops, services or facilities outside the defined retail hierarchy will be
granted where: a. There is another shop, service or facility of a similar use available for
customers within a convenient walking distance; and b. The proposed replacement use would
complement the function and character of the area.” The applicants Planning Statement
Clause 3.5 states that there is a “similar facility within 800m”. This would
only be the case if the applicant chose to offer similar amenities to those
already available at this other facility, namely The Boot. The applicant has
not provided a business case for his proposal but from our understanding
based upon verbal discussion, he is not intending to offer a similar service
provision, nor would it be a likely sustainable solution to do so. The Kimpton Parish Council letter of
December 2015 to NHDC in the ACV review of 2015 makes the argument that the
two establishments offered very different services to different demographic
customer bases. “The
statement on page 7 and 8 of the “review document” attempts to make a case
that all Pubs are equal. This is clearly incorrect. The Boot PH offers a
different service to that which was offered by The White Horse PH. This is
demonstrated by the results of the village questionnaire. One pub in a
village will not cover the full demographic spread of a village.” ETC7
does not therefore currently serve as a justification for cause of change of
use. 15. NHDC
Emerging Local Plan 2011-31 ETC7 clause
5.35 and 5.36 states: “5.35 However, given the high value of
residential land in the rural area, there is often pressure from landowners
to change the use of, or redevelop, existing facilities for residential
purposes. This may be the case even where the business is thriving,
if the return on an existing use is less than can be gained from
residential development. 5.36 These facilities should be
protected wherever possible and the policy seeks to
prevent their loss. However, where it can be shown such facilities are no
longer needed and not viable, then permission may be granted for a change of
use.” This clearly states the opposite of
the argument made by the applicant within their
Planning Statement clauses 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 which therefore questions
their argument made under ETC7. The applicant must therefore demonstrate that
the facilities are no longer needed or viable. This has not been
demonstrated. 16. NHDC
Emerging Local Plan 2011-31 ETC7 The
applicant’s Planning Statement Clause 3.16 states that the case of The White Horse,
Kimpton has many similarities with The Maidens Head, Whitwell, and therefore
a change of use should be granted; however, they are not similar cases in key
areas. The
previous owner of The White Horse, having successfully appealed the planning
refusal in 2018 for The Maidens Head, chose not to appeal the planning
refusal for The White Horse. There
was clearly reason for such a decision. The
planning application for The Maidens Head referred to in the appeal is Ref
17/00442/1, dated 21 February 2017. By this date the
Kimpton community group had already made 2 formal offers to the previous
owner, Haut Ltd., to purchase The White Horse pub. At
the beginning of February 2017, at the instruction of Haut Ltd. formal
invitation to purchase the pub were requested by his agents, Connells. Three
formal offers to purchase and operate the building as a pub were made,
including one from the current owner. At
the time of the appeal for The Maidens Head, the Kimpton community group had
produced and published a business case for the intended operation of The
White Horse facility. 17. NHDC
Emerging Local Plan 2011-31 ETC7 Planning Statement Clause 3.16 The
applicant within their planning Statement clause 3.14 states: - “The
Maidens Head refusal was ultimately allowed at appeal (Appeal ref.
APP/X1925/W/17/3188915, decision attached as Appendix 3) with the Inspector considering
that the proposal was compliant with Emerging Policy ETC7, and that, in his
opinion, the public house was unlikely to be viable owing to a number of
reasons such as “changing consumer behaviour and spending patterns, up-front
refurbishment costs, available and potential floorspace, car parking
provision, and competition from existing public houses in the area.”” In
the case of The White Horse, NHDC have already given
consideration to this matter: -
in the information provided at the original planning application for change
of use in 2015 -
the application for ACV made by Kimpton Parish council in 2015 and 2020 -
and the information provided by Kimpton Parish Council to them at the review
of the 2015 ACV, undertaken at the request of Haut Ltd. Should
the application be refused permission there is less merit in the applicant’s
argument for appeal as they described above. 18. NPPF
Feb 2019 Clause 198. States: “Local planning authorities should not
permit the loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all
reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss
has occurred.” “In summary, a holistic and conservation-led
package of remedial work should be prepared as a matter of urgency to avoid
the loss of historic fabric and reduction in significance of the heritage asset” And “Hazardous joists spanning at ground floor
level above the basement also require urgent attention.” We
would again request NHDC to put in place immediately a listed building
repairs notice and place the building upon the risk list as they have
previously stated that they would do. 19. NHDC
Emerging Local Plan 2011-31 Policy SP9:
Design and Sustainability states: “The Council considers good design
to be a key aspect of sustainable development. We will: a.
Support new development where it
is well designed and located and responds positively to its local context:” 20. NHDC
Emerging Local Plan 2011-31 Policy SP10:
Healthy communities states: “We will provide and maintain
healthy, inclusive communities for our residents. We will: b.
Support the retention of existing
community, cultural, leisure or recreation facilities;” We do not see how the applicant’s
proposal retains the original extent of community facility and we believe the
size of the element offered as pub use needs to be increased above the
currently proposed 14% of the total. 21. NHDC
Emerging Local Plan 2011-31 Clause 4.162 states: “Historic England maintains a
national register of Heritage at risk for sites that are most at risk of
being lost as a result of neglect, decay or
inappropriate development. The Council will also explore, with parish
councils and designated neighbourhood planning groups, the possibility of
developing a list of locally designated heritage assets at risk. If
implemented, we would work with Historic England, owners
and occupiers to find new, appropriate uses and solutions to secure the
future of heritage assets.” In
view of the statement made by the applicant within the Conditional Report
October 2020 1.0 Executive Summary states: “In summary, a holistic and
conservation-led package of remedial work should be prepared as a matter of
urgency to avoid the loss of historic fabric and reduction in significance of
the heritage asset.” And “Hazardous
joists spanning at ground floor level above the basement also require urgent
attention,” We
would again request NHDC to put in place immediately a listed building
repairs notice and place the building upon the building at risk list as they
have previously stated that they would do. 22. Building repairs. No significant
maintenance has taken place to the building within the last 6 years. NHDC
have previously stated that they would issue a repair notice and place the
building upon an at-risk list. NHDC have stated that they will not take action during planning application. We request that
whatever the outcome NHDC issue a repair notice and place the building upon
an at-risk list after/as part of planning decision. 23. NHDC
Emerging Local Plan 2011-31 Policy D1: Sustainable design states: “Planning permission will be
granted where development proposals: a.
Respond positively to the site’s
local context;” At the north and west boundary of
the site the proposed new construction has a height of approximately 7.5m to
the top of the structure from ground level near to the boundary with
residential property. The manner of this extension is also out of context
with surrounding properties and of a vernacular not seen elsewhere in the
village. The height of this structure should be reduced. 24. NHDC
Emerging Local Plan 2011-31Policy D2: House
extensions, replacement dwellings and outbuildings states: “Planning
permission for house extensions will be granted where: a.
The extension is sympathetic to the existing house in height, form,
proportions, window details and materials; b.
Pitched roofs are used where appropriate, particularly if the extension is
more than the height of a single storey; c.
Rear extensions do not dominate adjoining properties and are well related to
the levels of adjoining properties, the direction the house faces and the
distance between the extension and the windows in the next-door properties;
and d.
Side extensions, at first floor level or above, adjoining a residential plot
to the side are at least 1 metre from the boundary to ensure there is no
adverse impact on the character of the street scene..
Planning permission for replacement dwellings and outbuildings will be
granted where: e.
The proposal enhances the character and setting of the site; and f.
The location of the proposal does not have an adverse impact on the character
of the street scene or area.” The
proposed extension on the western boundary is of 2 stories and is within 1
metre of the boundary. The proposal fails to meet the requirements of Policy
D2. a, b, c, d, e, and f. 25. NHDC Emerging
Local Plan 2011-31 Policy D3: Protecting
living conditions states: “Planning permission will be granted
for development proposals which do not cause unacceptable harm to living
conditions. Where the living conditions of proposed developments would be
affected by an existing use or the living conditions of an existing
development would be affected by a proposed use, the Council will consider
whether there are mitigation measures that can be taken to mitigate the harm
to an acceptable level. If the Council is not satisfied that mitigation proposals
would address the identified harm, development proposals will not be
permitted.” In regard to
this requirement, we refer to the proposed Kitchen Discharge. Drawing 039 031
Rev C. This drawing indicates a commercial
kitchen discharge within 2m of the site’s western boundary with a residential
property. A planning noise level should be agreed with the environmental
health department for day and night time and set as
a planning condition. We have not seen a noise level survey within the
application but would expect this condition to be set at 3dB below existing. 26. NHDC Emerging
Local Plan 2011-31 Policy D4: Air quality Planning permission will be granted
where development proposals states: “a. Give consideration to the
potential or actual impact on local air quality, both during the demolition/
construction phase and as a result of its final occupation and use; b. Propose appropriate levels of
mitigation to minimise emissions to the atmosphere and their potential
effects upon health and the local environment; and c. Carry out air pollution impact
assessments, where required, to determine the impact on local air quality of
the development, otherwise the development may be refused. Where air
pollution impact assessments are not required there will still be a
requirement on developers to provide appropriate levels of mitigation to
address emissions of pollutants to the atmosphere.” The application proposes to place
a commercial kitchen discharge 2 meters from the boundary with a residential
property. The applicant should confirm proposed means of ensuring the above
policy is complied with. 27. NPPF
Feb 2019 Clause 148 states: “The planning system should
support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking
full account of flood risk and coastal change. It should help to: shape places in ways that contribute to radical
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and improve
resilience; encourage the reuse of existing resources, including the
conversion of existing buildings; and support renewable and low carbon energy
and associated infrastructure.” KPC
and NHDC have adopted a ‘climate emergency’ policy. Please confirm what the
climate impact of the development is and what avoidance of external energy
and water usage has been incorporated within the application. There is
currently no quantifiable statement within the application. No
commitment is made to the providing of electric car charging points to either
residents or visitors. No
mention is made of the energy source for the property. No
clear statement is made to the overall thermal performance of the building. The
applicant has not demonstrated how the proposal supports this requirement.
These issues should be addressed by the applicant. 28. NPPF Feb
2019 Clause 151
states: “To
help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy and heat,
plans should: a)
provide a positive strategy for energy from these sources, that maximises the
potential for suitable development, while ensuring that adverse impacts are
addressed satisfactorily (including cumulative landscape and visual
impacts);” The
applicant has not quantifiably demonstrated how the proposal supports this
requirement. These issues should be addressed by
the applicant. 29. NHDC Local Development
Framework. Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document November 2006
2.7.3 Policy 2 – Design and Provision of Development. This requires developers to provide or
finance the cost of provision that is fairly and reasonably related in scale
and kind to the proposed development. It goes on to state that: “Planning obligations will be sought
prior to the issue of planning permission. Provisions will cover those
necessary to serve the development, to mitigate its impact or to offset the
loss of or impact on an existing resource, or otherwise necessary in the
interests of comprehensive planning and sustainable development.” We ask that the appropriate
contributions required by this document are made as part of any planning
permission and obtained prior to any consent. 30. NPPF
Feb 2019 Clause 194 states: “Any harm to, or loss of, the
significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or
destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear
and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of: a)
grade
II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;” 31. NPPF
Feb 2019 Clause 195
states: “Where a proposed development will
lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated
heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it
can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to
achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all
of the following apply: a) the nature of the heritage asset
prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and b) no viable use of the heritage asset
itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that
will enable its conservation; and c) conservation by grant-funding or some
form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not
possible; and d) the harm or loss is outweighed by
the benefit of bringing the site back into use.” Insufficient evidence has been
provided by the applicant that alternative uses for the site have been
exhausted. We understand that the applicant has received at least two offers
to purchase the site for community use without need to demolish 25% of the
existing Listed Building. One of these offers was received from a community group.
We therefore conclude that the requirements of Clause 195 a) or, b), or c) have failed to be met. 32. NPPF
Feb 2019 Clause 196 states: “Where a development proposal will
lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated
heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of
the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.” We have not seen clear evidence of how
the public benefits outweigh the harm caused to the heritage asset. 33. Plans - Extract and Waste
Plans. The applicant proposes to construct a
bin area on the front elevation of the Grade II Listed Building for Pub use.
However, the residential bin store is indicated adjacent to a doorway from
the pub kitchen at the rear of the property. Why is the entire bin store not shown
in this location at the rear of the building thus avoiding the intrusion onto
the front elevation? 34. NHDC
Emerging Local Plan 2011-31
Policy SP13: Historic environment states: “The
Council will balance the need for growth with the proper protection and
enhancement of the historic environment. We will pursue a positive strategy
for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment through: a.
Maintaining a strong presumption in favour of the retention, preservation and
enhancement of heritage assets and their setting; b.
Identifying sites on the national register of Heritage at Risk or the local
risk register; c.
Periodic reviews of Conservation Areas and other locally designated assets;
and d.
Publication of detailed guidance.” Exceptional justification to demolish
25% of the existing Grade II Listed Building has not been made. |
|
Response
required by 23rd April 2021 (KPC by 29th April) Address:
The White Horse Public House, 22 - 24 High Street, Kimpton Planning
Reference: 21/01019/LBC Listed
Building Consent : Change
of Use and conversion of former White Horse PH
to a mixed use comprising a single residential dwelling (Use Class C3),
offices and
associated lobby (Use Class E, formerly B1(a)), and micropub (Sui Generis, formerly
Use Class A4). External annexe for garage and studio use
ancillary to the main
dwelling. Demolition of the existing rear shed, lean-to
and rear portions of the property.
Structural works, replacement floors walls, subdivision
and replacement of
the main roof and existing windows, internal alterations, servicing
and rear extensions
to facilitate these changes. Plans
and associated documents can be seen on https://pa2.north-herts.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=QQRQ6TLKKUL00 Please see above comments for 21/01018/FP |
|
Response
required by 24th April 2021 (KPC by 29th April) Address:
Half Moon Lodge, Lawrence End Road, Peters Green Planning
Reference: 21/01001/FPH Full
Permission Householder : Erection
of detached double garage and utility room building
following demolition of existing detached garage Plans
and associated documents can be seen on https://pa2.north-herts.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage General
Comments: 1. We welcome
applications that offer a high quality of design, affordability, meet
government national space standards, proven defined sustainable delivery,
address community defined requirements and add value to the parish. 2. The site has
existing permission for the conversation of the existing double garage to the
east of the property into a separate residential dwelling, and
also permission to construct a single garage to the west of the
property. 3. This
application is for the construction of a double garage in place of the as yet unbuilt permission for a single garage. 4. The site is
within the designated Green Belt in both the current NHDC Local Plan 1996 and
the Emerging Local Plan 2011-31 Material Planning Considerations: 5. NPPF Section 145 states: “A
local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as
inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: c)
the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in
disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; “ The
applicant’s design and access statement section 7.2 rely upon the above
clause as the grounds for the granting of planning consent. We
are of the view that the applicant’s evaluation is incorrect since it compares
the size of increase between the approved, but unbuilt, permission of 18/1842/FPH.and the current application When
comparing the increase in volume the original existing construction should be
used for this purpose and therefore the increase is significant. On
this basis the application does not meet the requirements of section 145. Should
it be a requirement of the owner to have a double garage we note that they
are liberty to retain the existing double garage to provide such amenity. 6.
Applicants
Design and access Statement 7.4 Scale The
proposal is significantly higher, at 5.5 metres, than the existing
outbuilding and significantly higher than that which last obtaining planning
permission under 18/1842/FPH 7. Applicants Design and access Statement
7.5 Appearance The
proposal when taken in conjunction with the granted permission 19/2541/FPH
would provide a near continuous length of construction from one end of the
site to the other, a distance of close to 30m. Such
construction would be out of keeping for an area within the Green Belt. |
|
Response
required by 2nd May 2021. Address:
14 Probyn Close, Kimpton Planning
Reference: 21/01079/FPH Full
Permission Householder: Single storey rear extension following
removal of rear
decking Plans
and associated documents can be seen on https://pa2.north-herts.gov.uk/online-applications/simpleSearchResults.do?action=firstPage General
Comments: 1. We welcome
applications that offer a high quality of design, affordability, meet
government national space standards, proven defined sustainable delivery,
address community defined requirements and add value to the parish. 2. The application
is for a single storey extension of approximately 9m2. 3. The extension
height at the boundary is less than 3 metres. |
Planning Decisions by NHDC
|
Application: 21/00464/PNM Proposal: Conversion
of ground floor (A2) office to residential (C3) to provide additional living accommodation to
existing dwelling. Location: Wells
House, 51 High Street, Kimpton, Hitchin, Hertfordshire, SG4 8PU Plan Nos: Location
plan, Existing floor plan, Proposed floor plan Decision: Grant permission with conditions |
|
Application: 21/00126/FPH Proposal: Part
two storey and part single storey front, side and rear extensions and the widening
of the existing dropped kerb (as amended by plans received on 05/03/21). Location: 2 Dacre
Crescent, Kimpton, Hitchin, Hertfordshire, SG4 8QJ Plan Nos: 943-01B
943 01 Decision: Grant permission with
conditions |
|
Application: 21/00398/FPH Proposal: Single
storey front extension, re-clad front and rear
elevations and conversion of garage into part habitable
accommodation and part front Store following demolition of
existing rear conservatory Location: 8
Blackmore Way, Blackmore End, St Albans, Hertfordshire, AL4 8LJ Plan Nos: 5467-200
5467-01A Decision: Grant
permission with conditions |
|
Application: 20/00642/FP Proposal: Change
of use of Barn and East & West Stables to ancillary residential accommodation and change of use of land
from agricultural to residential. Single storey link
extension between Farmhouse and East Stables and between East
Stables and Barn and single storey extension to front (east
side) of West Stables. Location: Rye End
Farm, Green Lane, Codicote, Hitchin, Hertfordshire, SG4 8SU Plan Nos: REF/DRKDRS/1
Rev A REF/DRKDRS/2 Rev A REF/DRKDRS/3 Rev A REF/DRKDRS/4 Rev A REF/DRKDRS/5 Rev A REF/DRKDRS/6 Rev A REF/DRKDRS/7 Rev A REF/DRKDRS/8 REF/DRKDRS/9 REF/DRKDRS/10 REF/DRKDRS/11 Rev F REF/DRKDRS/12 Rev F REF/DRKDRS/13 Rev E REF/DRKDRS/14 Rev F REF/DRKDRS/15 Rev D REF/DRKDRS/16 Rev D REF/DRKDRS/17 Rev B REF/DRKDRS/18 Rev G REF/DRKDRS/19 Rev E REF/DRKDRS/20 Rev D REF/DRKDRS/22 Decision: Grant
permission with conditions |
|
Application: 20/00643/LBC Proposal: Internal
and external alterations to Barn, East Stables and West Stables. Single storey link extension
between Farmhouse and East Stables and between East
Stables and Barn (as amended by drawing nos. REF/DRKDRS/11
Rev F; - 12F; -13E; -14F; -15D; -16D; -17B; -18G; -19E;
-20D and -22B received on 16/12/2020 and as amplified by
drawing nos. nos. REF-MNP-WSC-SK-S-4011 Rev P1 and MBS-280 East Stables and MBS-280 West Stables received on
21/01/2021). Location: Rye End
Farm, Green Lane, Codicote, Hitchin, Hertfordshire, SG4 8SU Approved Plan Nos: REF/DRKDRS/21,
REF/DRKDRS/22, REF/DRKDRS/1 Rev A REF/DRKDRS/2 Rev A, REF/DRKDRS/3 Rev A REF/DRKDRS/4 Rev A, REF/DRKDRS/5 REF/DRKDRS/6 Rev A, REF/DRKDRS/7 Rev A REF/DRKDRS/8, REF/DRKDRS/9 REF/DRKDRS/10, REF-MNP-WSC-SK-S-4011 Rev P1 MBS-280 East Stables Internal Elevations MBS-280 West Stables Internal Elevations REF/DRKDRS/14 Rev F, REF/DRKDRS/11 Rev F REF/DRKDRS/12 Rev F, REF/DRKDRS/13 Rev E REF/DRKDRS/15 Rev D, REF/DRKDRS/16 Rev D REF/DRKDRS/17 Rev B, REF/DRKDRS/18 Rev G REF/DRKDRS/19 Rev E, REF/DRKDRS/20 Rev D Decision: Grant
permission with conditions |
|
Application: 21/00601/FPH Proposal: Erection
of detached garage/home office, installation of pool and erection of pool equipment shed Location: Little Plummers, Plummers Lane, Peters
Green, Luton, Hertfordshire, LU2 9PP Plan Nos: JY05TGC2020-01
rev 1 JY07TGC2020-02 T.457.A Location Plan Decision: Grant
permission with conditions |