Draft Officer Notes

Planning Report and Recommendations #### General Report - The site is zoned as white land not zoned for Rev Under TOM (struck through) Rev Order (struck through) - The site is also zoned as being as High land E of Coastal Value = Scen.C significance - Due to the type of Rev = zoning (spots) EVP 1, 2 = HP14 are considered relevant to Cons. (struck through) - HP14 is perhaps the most relevant in terms of replacement buildings. - This policy states that the new build should generally be sited on the footprint of the existing should have a floor area of not more than 50' e generally designed in accordance with PC (Traditional Main Design). - The proposal in terms of its size increase or the existing e the design in terms of compliance with JGI would seem acceptable. - What causes concern is the building being located on a 1/2" (struck through) new footprint in a isolated, prominent position within the field, approx ### Recommendations ### Approve/Refuse ### Approved by ### Signature ### Date - whilst these policies do not apply to this application it is important to note the general view of the Strategic Plan that all types of dev should not be in isolated position away from exist dev. - It is consider the proposal fail this policy {{table:3076}} {{table:3077}} Planning Report and Recommendations General Report Site Visited YES/NO - a Further cancer relates to the required amount of boundary (and which would need to be removed) to provide the required visibility spays of 2.4m x 36m. - ~~This cancer was highlighted along with~~ ~~the site that~~ - it is considered a number of headwaters trees & alteration to the grass banks which in large parts are all integrally attached with each other would need to be altered or removed which would have a detrimental impact upon the visual appearance & charter of the Summary of objections/views ~~street~~ area, which is zoned as Highlandside Value & scant significance - This removal will also increase the visual appearance of the proposed something, frisening & garden grass which in time will attract all the normal artefacts of day to day living again harmful to the visual amenities of the country's. Recommendations Special Date Overall for these reasons ~~it is recommended to app be removed~~ ## Planning Report and Recommendations ### General Report Site Visited YES/NO - In terms of the applicants statement firstly regarding the proposal, e.g. efficiently the Dept supports such a deal. However, this support does not overright the planning policies previous indicated. - In terms of the examples of other deal in the area the majority share approved prior to the Fourth Strategic Plan which was adopted in 2007. - The Dept does occasionally accept a new replacement dwelling having or a different footprint. However, this is generally too reduced to usual. ### Summary of objections/views Appearance of built deal in the County of an overall GAV improvement. However, in my experience (who deals with a large amount of replacement dwellings) none have been stated on for review as this proposal. (119ms). - Each application is carefully considered on a site by site basis against the relevant pp, e what may be acceptable for one site may be be acceptable for another. Signed Date