首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Planning & Environment Law >Persimmon Homes (Lancashire) Ltd v South Ribble BC
【24h】

Persimmon Homes (Lancashire) Ltd v South Ribble BC

机译:柿子园(兰开夏郡)有限公司v南里布尔

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

44. I have found that the appeal proposal would accord with the Development Plan considered as a whole. There are few adverse effects. The proposal would clearly result in the loss of open land. I have taken this into account in concluding that, overall, the proposed development would not detract from the character and appearance of the area, and the loss of the fields which comprise the appeal site merits little weight. In addition, the traffic generated by the development would cause the practical capacities of three junctions to be exceeded at peak times, although the residual impacts on the local highway network would not be severe. These limited harms do not warrant a decision being taken other than in accordance with the Development Plan. In any event, the contribution of the proposal to augmenting the Borough's housing land supply is an important benefit which itself outweighs the limited harms I have identified. 45. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
机译:44.我发现,该上诉提案将符合整个审议的发展计划。几乎没有不良影响。该提议显然将导致失去土地。我考虑到了这一点,得出的结论是,总体而言,拟议的开发不会损害该地区的特征和外观,而构成上诉地点的田地的损失也没有多大的意义。此外,尽管对当地公路网的残余影响不会很严重,但开发项目产生的交通将导致在高峰时段超过三个路口的实际通行能力。这些有限的伤害除根据《发展计划》外,不保证做出任何决定。无论如何,该提案对扩大自治市住房土地供应的贡献是一项重要利益,其本身超过了我已经确定的有限的危害。 45.基于上述原因,并考虑到所有提出的事项,我得出结论,应允许上诉。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号