The latest Planning refusals, approvals and appeals.n Lot A - vacant Lot North of 66 Sound View Road, Sandys. 1. ROBINSON, Mr. Glenn E.Proposed Apartment House Development - New 8 Condominiums (6-3 Bedrooms and2-2 Bedroom Units).P0080/12 Type: Final Decision: RefusePlanner: Victoria CaroloDiscussion: The technical officer presented the application details to the Board with a recommendation of refusal. The Board had a query regarding whether the proposal wasclassified as “discretionary” or “not permitted”, given the front page of the Board report listed the “Class” as “discretionary”. The technical officer confirmed that the proposal was “not permitted” in accordance with the Bermuda Plan 2008 Planning Statement and acknowledged that the error on the Board report would be corrected.A member queried if Conservation Areas such as Agricultural Reserve and Woodland Reserve can be claimed as open space by a landowner.The technical officer confirmed that areas of a site that may be zoned with Conservation Areas are not prohibited from use per se given that these areas have amenity value as indicated within the Planning Statement.Notwithstanding this, for proposals that involve specifically using Agricultural Reserve as a communal open space for a residential development may be supported if circumstances warrant it. These circumstances can vary and largely depend on support provided by consultees and whether the proposal involves additional planning gains.The Board queried whether permitting 3 storey development was typicaloutside of the City of Hamilton. The technical officer confirmed there are policies within the Bermuda Plan 2008 Planning Statement that permit the Board to use their discretion to approve residential developments of up to 5 storeys, but these policies require certain criteria to first be satisfied.The Board RESOLVED:To refuse the application, as received 7 March, 2012 with additional information received 9 July 2012 for the following reason(s):1. The proposed development fails to conform to the provisions of the Development and Planning (Application Procedure) Rules, 1997, in that insufficient informationhas been submitted to enable a proper assessment of the proposal to be undertaken contrary to Policy APC.3 of the Bermuda Plan 2008 Planning Statement. Specifically, an accurate site plan detailing all necessary information in a legible manner has not been submitted.2. Adequate space for turnaround for 9 cars cannot be provided on the site to the detriment of highway safety.The proposed development would therefore contrary to Policy TPT.17, Chapter 11 of the Bermuda Plan 2008 Planning Statement.3. The proposal would not conserve the agricultural land in order to support agricultural, farming and horticultural uses nor would it conserve the agricultural land for its natural and aesthetic value. The proposal would be contrary to Objectives AGR.1 and 2, Chapter 20 of the Bermuda Plan 2008 Planning Statement4. The site enjoys a relatively large development area that can support the proposal in a manner which would be fully compliant with relevant policies regarding setbacks.The proposal would not therefore meet the criteria necessary for use of the Board’s discretion to reduce setbacks contrary to Policy APC.12, Chapter 5 of the Bermuda Plan 2008 Planning Statement5. The development as proposed would cause measurable damage to Agricultural Land which is a forbidden act under Head of Protection B: Arable Land Protection as set out in the Fourth Schedule of Section 28 of the Development and Planning Act 1974.6. The development as proposed would cause measurable damage to Woodland which is a forbidden act under Head of Protection A: Woodlands Protection as set out in the Fourth Schedule of Section 28 of the Development and Planning Act 1974.7. The proposal does not comply with Policies DSN.16, 17, 18 and 20, Chapter 8 of the Bermuda Plan 2008 Planning Statement in that the private outdoor spaces and communal open space is inadequate with respect to quality and size.8. The proposal does not comply with Policy UTL.8, Chapter 12 of the Bermuda Plan 2008 Planning Statement in that the sewage system proposed for the development involving a single cesspit is not appropriate for the site given its potential to be detrimental to the underlying fresh water lens.9. The proposal, by reason of the proposed building height of 3 storeys is not sensitive to and compatible with the existing development patterns in the surrounding area and is therefore contrary to Policy DSN.9, Chapter 8 of the Bermuda Plan 2008 Planning Statement.n 2. BAYSIDE TRUST,24 Valley Lane, SandysProposed Sea Wall (max. height 5 feet with Erosion Mitigation Scheme using ½ to 2 tonboulders).- Listed Building Site.P0027/12 Type: Final Decision: ApprovePlanner: Tamsyn DoranDiscussion: The technical officer presented the application details to the Board with a recommendation of approval.The Board asked if a barrier was proposed along the top of the cliff.The technical officer confirmed that a hedge was approved under the previous approval (currently under construction), and that the Building Control Section would require the installation of temporary fencing until the hedge has grown.This fencing would need to be installed prior to theCertificate of Completion and Occupancy being issued.The Board sought clarification as to the extent to which the “Queen’s bottom” would be used which was confirmed by the technical officer.The Board requested clarification on the dock to the north.The technical officer confirmed it was on the neighbouring property and could be accessed due to the gently sloping topography of the site.The Board RESOLVED:To approve the application, as received 20 January, 2012 and revised 25 February 2013, 11 September 2012, 21 December 2012 with additional information received 11 September 2012 subject to condition(s):1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 2 (two) years from the date of this permission.2. For the avoidance of doubt the consent hereby granted is for planning permission only. Prior to the commencement of building operations a separate application for a building permit must be made and approved.A total of 4 longtail nests shall be installed on the site as shown on the hereby approved plans prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy Permit. The exact location and methods of installation shall be determined on site with the Conservation Officer from the Department of Conservation Services.n 3. KILARNEY TRUST C/O M/M C TOOGOOD,24 Happy Talk Lane, PagetProposed Foreshore Protection Scheme to Include Construction of Bermuda Stone Boulders and Reinforced Concrete Revetment, also Retroactive Approval for RetainingWall to Pool Area with Protection Barrier (7ft Max Height).P0410/12 Type: Final Decision: ApprovePlanner: George ShakirDiscussion: The technical officer presented the application details to the Board with a recommendation of approval. The Board were informed of the retroactive nature of theretaining wall and that retroactive fees had been paid and works had ceased. Further, the previous revetment scheme that was approved included details which underestimated the depth required to be excavated to reach solid bedrock which is required to sink footings.During the course of works the Building Inspectors for Department of Planning determined that works had exceeded the scope of approval in that the excavation completed was significantly more than the approval granted and further, that machine access had caused major damage to the Coastal Reserve Conservation Area.The current application proposes a new foreshore revetment scheme which takes into consideration the level of solid rock as it exists which has been prepared by a registered engineer and is in accordance with the Smith Warner report.The Board requested that the advice note relating to blatant disregard for the planning process be added to the decision.The Board queried if the 3 foot high security barrier, noted in the board report, should actually be 3 foot 6 inches as required by the Building Code. The technical officer confirmed that the plans detailed a 3 foot 6 inch barrier and that the report would be revised accordingly.The Board RESOLVED:To approve the application, as received 12 December, 2012 and revised 24 January 2013 with additional information received 1 February 2013 subject to condition(s):Advice Note:1. The Board wishes to express concern that the applicant has shown blatant disregard for the planning process in that development has commenced prior to planning approval.2. The Board wishes to advise that further to Condition no. 2, in amending building permit B0186/08, a revised permit application form must be filed outlining the full scope of works approved to date for the site and supported by all relevant building permit plans.The payment of additional fees shall be required including an amendment fee as well as fees for any new works and floor space approved beyond that of the original permit application, as well as retroactive fees.44A South Road, Pagetn 4. THEISEN, Mr. DerekProposed In Principle Application to Construct New Two Dwelling Units.P0318/12 Type: In Principle Decision: RefusePlanner: George ShakirDiscussion: The technical officer presented the application details to the Board with a recommendation of refusal.The technical officer informed the Board of zoning changes from the review of the 1992 Bermuda Plan, and a zoning objection which was submitted to the 2008 Bermuda Plan by thelandowners who were unsuccessful with their request to rezone the lot entirely Residential 1.The Board sought clarification relating to the Open Space Reserve provisions which was provided by the technical officer.The Board RESOLVED:To refuse the in principle application, as received 17 September, 2012 for the following reason(s):1. Residential development according to Chapter 17 OSR.5 and OSR.6 is limited to additions to the existing dwelling or conversions and/or demolition of existing buildings.As such the In Principle proposal to construct two new dwelling units is non-compliant and cannot be supported.