|
|
| Line 68: |
Line 68: |
| [[File:Ruxley cr.jpg]] | | [[File:Ruxley cr.jpg]] |
|
| |
|
| === Nyumbani === | | == Further Information == |
| *{{CPC-planning|2020/3575|Nyumbani, Ruxley Crescent KT10 0TZ|Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission 2019/1258 (two detached houses) for the addition of side and rear dormer windows, side roof lights and alterations to fenestration and finish.|No objection, no comment}} {{CPC-mtg-ref|PARISH COUNCIL planning meeting 25-FEB-21}} | | * [[Ruxley Crescent in previous years]] |
| | |
| === Upper Court ===
| |
| {{plan-app|<!-- 1. APPLICATION NUMBER -->2024/0854|<!-- 2. ADDRESS -->Upper Court, [[Ruxley Crescent]]|<!-- 3. PROPOSAL --> 2 detached two-storey houses with basements and rear balconies; one with integral garage and one with attached garage, associated hard and soft landscaping, new access and entrance gates and piers, following demolition of the existing house.}}
| |
| | |
| === Westmoreland ===
| |
| *{{CPC-planning|2020/3509|Westmoreland, Ruxley Crescent, KT10 0TX|First-floor side extension.|No objection, no comment}} {{CPC-mtg-ref|PARISH COUNCIL planning meeting 28-JAN-21}}
| |
| | |
| === White Ridge ===
| |
| *{{CPC-planning|2020/1563|White Ridge, Ruxley Crescent KT10 0TX|Front and rear dormer windows and side roof light.|No Comment}}
| |
| | |
| === Ying Garden Ruxley Garden ===
| |
| *{{CPC-planning|2020/0958|Ying Garden Ruxley Garden, Ruxley Crescent, KT10 0TZ|Boundary treatment comprising of walls, entrance gates and piers to a maximum height of 2.3m following demolition of the existing boundary wall.|Conditions imposed}}
| |
| :CPC noted discrepancies in submitted plans and requested for drop kerb access to be considered to maintain pavement condition. Subsequent to CPC’s submission amended plans were submitted to more accurately reflect boundaries and a new entrance plan. Also, additional supporting documents were supplied relating to the arboricultural impact on a nearby tree.
| |
| :EBC stated:
| |
| :* “The proposed works to the wall would reduce the visibility when exiting the adjacent access road, however the wall remains set back from the road by approximately 2.5m Page 4 of 5 and this is considered to provide sufficient visibility for drivers and pedestrians”
| |
| :* “A correct ownership certificate is a mandatory requirement of a planning application. The Applicant has signed Certificate A of application form. The planning authority is not an investigator of title and an incorrect ownership certificate is not considered to invalidate an application or its decision given that RHRA have been informed of the application and have been invited to make representations and are not prejudiced by this.”
| |
| :* Conditions are imposed regarding “Tree Protection Measures”, “Tree Retention” and a “Landscaping”
| |
| :* “In regards to services and utilities, this is not a material planning consideration and is a matter for the applicant and developer to comply with Health and Safety Executive requirements and to address these matters with the relevant utility companies outside of the planning regime” {{CPC-mtg-ref|PARISH COUNCIL planning meeting 5-JAN-21}}
| |
