Plans for a proposed orphanage in Warwick have been refused by the Planning Board due to insufficient information being submitted.The proposal for the three-story building was also criticised for being too large for a development in a rural site, doubling the maximum square footage allowed.According to the plans, first submitted last year, the 20-bedroom facility on Spice Hill Road, would provide low-cost housing for senior citizens and an orphanage.Architect Geoff Parker said at the time that the idea was still in the early stages, describing the application as a “test balloon” to determine if the Planning Department had any objections.The location for the intended project was zoned rural, with large areas of agricultural and woodland reserve property, but the planning board found that the project doubled the 10,000 sq ft maximum for structures and other hard surfacing in rural zones.Planning officers also expressed concern about a number of missing details about the plan.A section of the Board’s December 14 meeting read: “Insufficient information has been submitted to enable a proper assessment of the proposal to be undertaken for compliance with the Bermuda Plan 2008.“Specifically, sufficient information has not been made available to determine traffic impacts, parking requirements, adequacy of outdoor amenity area and secured play space provided for day care students and/or orphanage or children’s home residents, or adequacy of water or sewage provision.”It refused the project planning permission, citing the size and lack of details about the proposed development.The Board also noted that the plan proposed placing a driveway over an existing dirt path, which was illegally cut through woodland reserve property, and that large storage sheds had been erected on the land without planning or building permit approvals.Later in the minutes, the Board expressed very serious concern over the increasing frequency of application seeking approval for retroactive work, suggesting that fees should be increased “considerably”.“The Assistant Director advised the Board that fee increases were currently under consideration and he would pass on the Board’s concern in that respect,” read a section of the minutes.“The Board also questioned why such works were not picked up earlier in the Building Control inspection process and that there seemed to be a failing in the procedure in this respect.“The Assistant Director advised that this matter was being actively discussed within the Department with a view to internal procedures being clearly laid down to address this issue.”