Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 - Stroud District Council
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 - Stroud District Council Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 - Stroud District Council
Stroud District Council SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS 10/08/2004 The Sites Inspection Panel met on the 20 th July and was attended by Councillors: G Littleton; M Williams; Mrs S Fellows; N Cooper; D Andrewartha; C Burling and Ms S Lunnon The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 17 th August when members due to attend are: G Littleton; Mrs S Fellows; T Frankau; J Jones; Ms L Durrans; B Marsh and Mrs J Wood.
- Page 2 and 3: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 4 and 5: Rodborough Parish Council Rodboroug
- Page 6 and 7: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 8 and 9: Letter of objection Planning Schedu
- Page 10 and 11: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 12 and 13: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 14 and 15: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 16 and 17: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 18 and 19: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 20 and 21: ITEM No: 04 Application Site Addres
- Page 22 and 23: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 24 and 25: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 26 and 27: Neighbour Contributions Letters of
- Page 28 and 29: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 30 and 31: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 32 and 33: ITEM No: 07 Application Site Addres
- Page 34 and 35: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 36 and 37: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 38 and 39: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 40 and 41: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 42 and 43: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 44 and 45: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 46 and 47: Development: Applicant Details: Age
- Page 48 and 49: Site Location: Site Report: Introdu
- Page 50 and 51: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong><br />
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS<br />
<strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The Sites Inspection Panel met on the 20 th July and was attended by <strong>Council</strong>lors:<br />
G Littleton; M Williams; Mrs S Fellows; N Cooper; D Andrewartha; C Burling and Ms S Lunnon<br />
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 17 th August when members due to attend are:<br />
G Littleton; Mrs S Fellows; T Frankau; J Jones; Ms L Durrans; B Marsh and Mrs J Wood.
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Parish Application Item Pg No<br />
Berkeley Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Canon Park Recreation Facility, Canon Park, Berkeley.<br />
S.04/1421/FUL - Extension to existing community facility to provide dedicated<br />
Youth Room, Community Games/Social Room and new toilets.<br />
19 134<br />
Bisley With Lypiatt Parish Land At, Windyridge, Bisley. <strong>08</strong> 35<br />
<strong>Council</strong> S.04/0775/REM - Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 26 dwellings<br />
with associated parking and access.<br />
Cainscross Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Cainscross Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Land Adjacent, Etheldene Road, Cashes Green.<br />
S.04/1143/FUL - Erection of a bungalow.<br />
14 1<strong>10</strong><br />
Land Off, Frome Gardens Adjoining <strong>Stroud</strong>water Canal, Cainscross.<br />
S.04/1255/FUL - Erection of 13 dwellings.<br />
12 99<br />
Cainscross Parish <strong>Council</strong> Land at The Retreat Westward Road <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
S.03/1451 - Regrading of garden land. (Revised Plans received 12/9/03)<br />
Cam Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Cam Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Coaley Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Cranham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Dursley Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Dursley Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
02 13<br />
Church Farm, Hopton Road, Cam.<br />
S.04/0657/LBC - Retrospective application for the retention of reconstructed<br />
slates to roof and stained timber windows (natural). Various internal works.<br />
Revised plans received 26 May <strong>2004</strong>.<br />
04 20<br />
Church Farm, Hopton Road, Cam.<br />
S.04/0659/FUL - Variation of condition 3 of permission S.98/1338 to allow for<br />
the retention of reconstructed slates to roof and stained timber windows<br />
(natural).<br />
03 16<br />
Fox House, The Street, Coaley.<br />
S.04/1370/FUL - Construction of new access including conversion of dining<br />
room to garage. (Resubmission following refusal S.03/C0304/FUL)<br />
28 167<br />
Land At, Cranham Lodge, Sanatorium Road.<br />
S.04/0797/COU - Conversion of redundant building to residential dwelling with<br />
parking to the rear.<br />
16 120<br />
6 Woodland Avenue, Dursley, Gloucestershire.<br />
S.04/<strong>10</strong>72/FUL - Two storey extension.<br />
30 174<br />
4 Windsor Road, Dursley, Gloucestershire.<br />
S.04/1<strong>10</strong>6/FUL - Erection of a garage and single storey extension.<br />
05 24<br />
Frampton On Severn Parish Land At, Whitminster Lane, Frampton On Severn. 20 137<br />
<strong>Council</strong> S.04/1251/FUL - Application for the re-siting of the changing facility building<br />
(following approved application S.04/0578/COU).<br />
Ham And Stone Parish Court Moat, Stone, Berkeley. 38 202<br />
<strong>Council</strong> S.04/1294/LBC - Retrospective application for erection of conservatory and<br />
alteration to fireplace.<br />
Haresfield Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Haresfield Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Haresfield C Of E Primary School, Haresfield Lane, Haresfield.<br />
S.04/0228/FUL - Erection of extensions and alterations to replace temporary<br />
accommodation.<br />
36 191<br />
Haresfield C Of E Primary School, Haresfield Lane, Haresfield.<br />
S.04/0229/LBC - Erection of extensions and alterations to replace temporary<br />
accommodation.<br />
37 194<br />
Hillesley And Tresham Woodmans Farm, Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley. 21 138<br />
Parish <strong>Council</strong> S.04/1220/COU - Change of use from agricultural building to stables and loose<br />
boxes. (Resubmission following refusal S.03/<strong>10</strong>42).<br />
2
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Hillesley And Tresham Woodmans Farm, Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley. 22 142<br />
Parish <strong>Council</strong> S.04/1222/VAR - Removal of condition 2 of permission S.00/1712 to allow for<br />
trade and business to be operated from site. Alterations to access and<br />
improvements to service roadway. (Previously known as The Mears,<br />
Hawkesbury Road).<br />
Hillesley And Tresham Stable Building, Furlong Lane, Tresham. 23 146<br />
Parish <strong>Council</strong> S.04/1286/COU - Conversion of redundant stable building to mixed use<br />
residential/business use.<br />
Kings Stanley Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Kingswood Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
76 Coldwell Lane, Middleyard, Kings Stanley.<br />
S.04/1197/FUL - Retrospective application for erection of a conservatory.<br />
27 160<br />
Land Adjoining, Charfield Road, Kingswood.<br />
S.04/1221/VAR - Removal of condition 7 of application S.03/C0296/FUL (for the<br />
erection of three industrial units) relating to the provision and construction by the<br />
developer of a footpath along Charfield Road frontage.<br />
25 153<br />
Leonard Stanley Parish Land At Brookside, Seven Waters, Bath Road. 17 119<br />
<strong>Council</strong> S.04/<strong>10</strong>23/OUT - Outline application for 2 dwellings with new access.<br />
Minchinhampton Parish Seynckley, Culver Hill, Amberley. 40 206<br />
<strong>Council</strong> S.04/0404/LBC - Extension to studio cottage in grounds of Seynckley House to<br />
create ancillary accommodation for applicant's parents.<br />
Revised drawings rec'd.13/5/04 and 3/6/04.<br />
Minchinhampton Parish Waldeck, Chapel Lane, Minchinhampton. 09 41<br />
<strong>Council</strong> S.04/0722/VAR - Removal of Condition 6 attached to permission ref.S.02/826<br />
for erection of dwelling (Requiring improvements to visibility at the junction of<br />
Chapel Lane and Tetbury Street)<br />
Minchinhampton Parish Minchinhampton Architectural Salvage Co, Cirencester Road, Minchinhampton. 24 150<br />
<strong>Council</strong> S.04/0929/FUL - Erection of an extension to existing single storey lean-to<br />
storage building.<br />
Minchinhampton Parish Seynckley, Culver Hill, Amberley. 39 202<br />
<strong>Council</strong> S.04/<strong>10</strong>30/LBC - Internal alterations. (Resubmission following withdrawn<br />
application S.04/0320/LBC).<br />
Minchinhampton Parish 21 Barcelona Drive, Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire. 26 161<br />
<strong>Council</strong> S.04/<strong>10</strong>84/VAR - Variation of condition 17 of permission S.02/6<strong>10</strong> to allow the<br />
relocation of car parking space from back garden to drive.<br />
Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Painswick Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
The Lawn, Nympsfield Road, Nailsworth.<br />
S.04/0<strong>08</strong>2/OUT - Outline application for residential development of former<br />
Forest Green Rovers Football Stadium. (Proposed number of dwellings up to 66<br />
units).<br />
11 84<br />
Land At Nympsfield Road And Land Adjacent To King George V Playing Field,<br />
Wood Lane, Nailsworth, Gloucestershire.<br />
S.04/0096/FUL - Construction of new football stadium and associated facilities<br />
with new access onto Nympsfield Road. Also construction of new playing field<br />
on land adjacent to existing King George V Playing Field, Wood Lane,<br />
Nailsworth.<br />
<strong>10</strong> 50<br />
Former Hazlewood Factory, Newmarket Road, Nailsworth.<br />
S.04/1240/REM - Approval of reserved matters application S.01/624 granted on<br />
appeal for the erection of 5 houses and 28 apartments. (Addtional Plans<br />
received 25th June <strong>2004</strong>). (Revised Plans received 9th July <strong>2004</strong>)<br />
13 <strong>10</strong>3<br />
Whispering Trees, Lower Washwell Lane, Painswick.<br />
S.04/0970/FUL - Erection of extensions.<br />
29 170<br />
Painswick Parish <strong>Council</strong> Castle Lodge, Cheltenham Road, Painswick. 31 177<br />
3
Rodborough Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Rodborough Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Slimbridge Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Stinchcombe Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Stonehouse Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Stonehouse Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/1384/FUL - Erection of a single storey greenhouse/store. (Existing<br />
outbuilding to be demolished).<br />
Land Adjacent Hawkswood, Frome Hall Lane, <strong>Stroud</strong>.<br />
S.04/0936/FUL - Retrospective application for use of building as auxiliary<br />
accommodation to hawkeswood (resubmission following refusal S.03/479/FUL).<br />
07 32<br />
Land Adjacent Hawkswood, Frome Hall Lane, <strong>Stroud</strong>.<br />
S.04/0952/FUL - Erection of dwelling to provide ancillary accommodation to<br />
Hawkeswood.<br />
06 28<br />
Robina, Churchend, Slimbridge.<br />
S.04/1362/FUL - Enlarge rear dormer windows.<br />
35 191<br />
Land At, Stinchcombe Manor, Clingre Lane.<br />
S.04/<strong>10</strong>67/FUL - Erection of a dwelling.<br />
15 115<br />
Oxford Swindon And Gloucester Co Op , 26 High Street, Stonehouse.<br />
S.04/1111/ADV - Erection of new signage. (Resubmission following refusal<br />
S.03/C0184/ADV).<br />
34 189<br />
33 Upper Queens Road, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire.<br />
S.04/1244/FUL - Erection of extensions.<br />
33 184<br />
21 - 23 Russell Street, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Gloucestershire.<br />
S.04/<strong>08</strong>90/COU - Change of use of offices to restaurant and take-away<br />
(resubmission following refusal S.03/1849).<br />
18 130<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> Town <strong>Council</strong> Former Builders Yard Churchfield Road <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
S.01/436 - Erection of four 2-bedroom appartments. (Revised Plans received<br />
01 05<br />
Wotton Under Edge Town Greenhay Farm, Coombe , Wotton-Under-Edge. 32 174<br />
<strong>Council</strong> S.04/1180/FUL - Proposed alterations and additions to existing farmhouse and<br />
refurbishment of existing outbuildings including swimming pool, gymnasium and<br />
stabling of livestock. (Re-submission following refusal S.03/1781).<br />
4
ITEM No: 01<br />
Application: S.01/436<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Site Address: Former Builders Yard Churchfield Road <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
Site Number: 6359<br />
Parish: <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
Grid Reference: SO 85950 04790<br />
Application Type: Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Development: Erection of four 2-bedroom apartments. (Revised Plans received<br />
22nd July <strong>2004</strong>)<br />
Applicant Details: D J Melsome Ltd<br />
Holbrook Bisley <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
Agent Details: Mr D Scott<br />
Dudbridge House Selsley Hill <strong>Stroud</strong> GL5 5JS<br />
Case Officer: Darryl J.Rogers<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received: 20/03/2001<br />
Recommendation: Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1) <strong>10</strong>1 Standard - <strong>Planning</strong> Permission.<br />
2) 202 Materials to be agreed<br />
3) 301 Landscaping scheme to be submitted<br />
4) 302 Landscaping to be implemented<br />
5) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until full details of<br />
all boundary walls and fences have been submitted to and approved in writing<br />
by the Head of Development Services. The approved scheme shall then be<br />
implemented in full prior to the first occupation of any residential unit.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.<br />
6) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the car parking<br />
provision has been provided in accordance with the approved plan<br />
S03/569/001D received on the 22nd July <strong>2004</strong> and maintained available for<br />
parking thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that sufficient parking spaces are made available.<br />
7) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, the access<br />
driveways shall be surfaced in bituminous macadam or other approved material<br />
5
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
for at least the first 5.0m from the carriageway edge and maintained as such<br />
thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
To prevent loose material being carried onto the highway in the interests of<br />
highway safety.<br />
8) Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, a scheme of surface<br />
water disposal from the driveways shall be submitted to and approved in writing<br />
by the Head of Development Services. The approved scheme shall then be<br />
implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that surface water does not discharge onto the highway in the<br />
interests of highway safety.<br />
9) Notwithstanding the submitted plans, the development hereby permitted shall<br />
not be commenced until details of a 1.5m wide footway along the site frontage<br />
parallel to the dwellings, which is suitable for adoption as a public highway<br />
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Development<br />
Services. The approved scheme shall then be implemented in full prior to the<br />
first occupation of any residential unit and maintained as such thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety.<br />
<strong>10</strong>) Notwithstanding the submitted drawing, the development hereby permitted<br />
shall not be commenced until details of a scheme to reduce the boundary<br />
walling / fencing to a height no greater than 1.0m above the adjacent<br />
carriageway level within the control of the applicant adjacent to Churchfield<br />
Road, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services. The approved scheme shall then be implemented in full<br />
prior to the first occupation of the development and maintained as such<br />
thereafter.<br />
Informatives:<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety.<br />
1) For the purposes of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong> (General Development<br />
Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003, the following reasons for the<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below together with a summary of the<br />
Policies and Proposals contained within the Development Plan which are<br />
relevant to this decision: The proposal represents an acceptable form of infill<br />
residential development located within the defined settlement boundary. The<br />
design and scale of the proposed units are in keeping with the character and<br />
appearance of the surrounding built form with the units having suitable levels of<br />
amenity space. In light of the authorised use of the site as a builders yard, the<br />
overall impact on highway safety and the surrounding road network is<br />
acceptable with conditions imposed regarding further highway improvements.<br />
In this manner the scheme accords with Policies H14 and G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
2) 1 Vehicular crossing over highway land<br />
6
Materials:<br />
Roof Conc int tiles<br />
Walls Brick<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Constraints: Environment Agency consulted<br />
Severn Trent Water consulted<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish Response:<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> Town <strong>Council</strong> objects to the application.<br />
Highway - They are very concerned at Highway implications for 4 new houses on what is an unmade<br />
road, very narrow onto another very narrow road (Spider Lane). Concerns therefore on pedestrian<br />
safety, visibility for vehicles, lack of parking and turning space. Also loss of garage/parking space for<br />
existing premises. Where will these existing cars be parked in the future?<br />
Design - Very poor, cheap design. Totally out of keeping with surrounding area, Horns Road,<br />
Churchfield Road, Lower Churchfield Road and adjoining Hope Cottages. Although they are small<br />
buildings, they are well designed using traditional features and materials. If SDC officers are<br />
recommending consent, <strong>Stroud</strong> Town <strong>Council</strong> will call for a sites panel.<br />
Amenity Space - Proposal will remove all of rear garden for Rockfield and 3 buildings off Churchfield<br />
Road have minuscule gardens. Probably do not meet SDC garden space criteria.<br />
Revised plans do not alter situation Town <strong>Council</strong> reiterate previous objections.<br />
Revised Consultation:<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> Town <strong>Council</strong> still object for the above reasons and also state:<br />
Blocking off vehicular access from Bowbridge Lane will cause unacceptable congestion, hardship and<br />
danger. The flow of traffic will be completely aggravated by these proposals. Access on the approach<br />
from Bowbridge Lane must be retained for safety reasons i.e. emergency services. Question legality of<br />
this application, are there any civil law problems e.g. right of way for pedestrians and vehicles.<br />
Further revisions - reiterate previous objections.<br />
09.06.04 - <strong>Stroud</strong> Town <strong>Council</strong> object see above reasons.<br />
Highways Authority:<br />
Raise no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions regarding the provision of a<br />
turning area, pedestrian service strip and car parking.<br />
Other Consultations:<br />
Seven Trent Water Authority:<br />
Raise no objection to the proposal.<br />
7
Letter of objection<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
P & D Davis. 2 Rockfield Cottages, Lower Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>. GL5 1EW<br />
C Mills. 70, Horns Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos. GL5 1EG<br />
Mr & Mrs R Fluck. 66 Horns Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos. GL5 1EG<br />
Mr O Cottle & S.Brooks. Marsh Villa, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos. GL5 1EQ<br />
S.& R.Kempner. 68, Horns Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos. GL5 1EG<br />
D.R.King. Hazeldene, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos. GL5 1EQ<br />
D.& P.Stevens. Fort View, 31, Bowbridge Lane, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos. GL5 2JP<br />
S.Allan. Gordan Villa, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos. GL5 1EQ<br />
S. Brooks, 2 Hope Cottages, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos<br />
Jill Walker, 3 Churchfield Cottages, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL5 1EL.<br />
Marta Cock, 8 Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, GL5 1EQ.<br />
Mr & Mrs Hill, Minona, 7 Churchfield Road, Bowbridge, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos.<br />
S Cottle, 4 Rosebank Villas, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, GL5 1EH<br />
J & M Norman, 1 Rockfield Cottages, Lower Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, GL5 1EW<br />
S Milner, Applewood, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL5 1EQ.<br />
Mr & Mrs Jones, 1 Churchfield Cottages, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos.<br />
Mr & Mrs Habgood, Rosebank, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL5 1EQ.<br />
Mr & Mrs Gleed, 56 Horns Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL5 1ED.<br />
F Christie, 1 Hope Cottages, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos.<br />
M Panayotti, 2 Hope Cottages, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>.<br />
A Sparks, 4 Hope Cottages, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, GL5 1EJ<br />
E & K Holbrow, Milford House, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL5 1EQ.<br />
M Moore, 1 Rosebank Villa, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, GL5 1EH<br />
D Boulton, Milford House, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos.<br />
C Baglin, 72 Horns Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, GL5 1EG.<br />
P Screen, 74 Horns Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL5 1EG.<br />
R Giles & M Webb, 4 Churchfield Cottages, Churchfield Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos.<br />
Lisa Lewis, 23 Bowbridge Lane, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL5 2JP.<br />
Residents of Churchfield Road and Horns Road.<br />
Mr & Mrs Redstone. 66 Horns Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos<br />
Reasons<br />
• Garages currently exists on this site, replacement with new dwellings will result in a reduction of<br />
privacy and security to adjoining properties.<br />
• No site notice has ever been posted.<br />
• The loss of the garages which currently house six cars plus forecourt parking will inevitably lead to<br />
on-street parking increasing risks to children and inconvenience to highway users.<br />
• There are six windows which will overlook properties in Horns Road.<br />
• The houses will be built on land higher than No.2 and there will be no intervening screen to block the<br />
view.<br />
• The development will add to the density of what is already a crowded space.<br />
• This has further implications for the infrastructure of roads and essential services.<br />
• Churchfield Road is narrow, extra traffic will lead to congestion.<br />
• Severe doubts as to whether emergency services would be able to gain access to this area if<br />
required.<br />
• Construction traffic would obstruct access, cause nuisance and be a hazard to young children living<br />
in the immediate area.<br />
• The erection of four houses built in modern materials to a modern design is completely<br />
unsympathetic with the immediate surroundings.<br />
• The block of three dwellings are to butt up against a red brick terrace while other properties are<br />
constructed in Cotswold stone, the development would be an eyesore.<br />
8
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• The address of the site is misleading as the land concerned originally belonged to properties in<br />
Horns Road.<br />
• <strong>Planning</strong> permission has been previously refused due to access onto a narrow lane in an already<br />
over developed area. Nothing has changed.<br />
• Residents require details as to what boundary walls and fences will be built.<br />
• Overload existing inadequate sewerage and water pipes.<br />
• If the proposals are accepted access to the garage at No.31 Bowbridge Lane would be denied due<br />
to changes in the line of the fence, current access is barely adequate.<br />
• The road surface is already deteriorating, the condition will only worsen.<br />
• Clarification as to who is responsible for any repairs is requested.<br />
• One writer considers Plots 1,2 & 3 acceptable, however Plot 4 is totally unacceptable situated<br />
immediately in front of existing houses and not even within the boundaries of the builders yard.<br />
• Alterations of design to Plots 1-3 will make the houses taller with more windows overlooking,<br />
causing loss of view.<br />
• Even if the developer takes down the fence to allow emergency vehicles through, where will the<br />
neighbouring people, who will lose their garages, park.<br />
• The water supply or drains for Churchfield Road aren’t big enough to accommodate more houses.<br />
• The closure of part of Churchfield Road would make this a cul-de-sac. This is already a single width<br />
road and to force traffic into using this would: cause a great increase in activity, force all traffic to exit<br />
the Spider Lane end of Churchfield, which is already dangerous.<br />
• The increased activity would cause additional noise and fumes. Particularly impacting on the 4<br />
houses opposite the proposed turning area.<br />
• Churchfield road is already highly populated and the already narrow access would be increased<br />
further by additional houses.<br />
• Building these houses will do away with existing parking spaces, forcing people to park further away<br />
and on yellow lines.<br />
• Closing the road would double the amount of traffic along Churchfield Road, exacerbating traffic<br />
problems at the junction of Churchfield Road and Spider Lane.<br />
• It is on everyone’s deeds as a road and therefore the road should not be closed.<br />
• Three extra houses congest an already congested road further.<br />
• Site plan incorrect.<br />
• Loss of amenities. Nearby houses will be overlooked and privacy in gardens lost.<br />
• The houses that are to be erected are completely out of character to the area which is primarily<br />
made up of Victorian Houses, Cottages or Post War Constructions. The houses to be erected are<br />
very modern and will look completely out of character within the area.<br />
• The area is already densely populated with housing and building three more houses on such a small<br />
site is not going to alleviate this problem.<br />
• Loss of thoroughfare- it is totally unacceptable that the residents should have to suffer a loss of<br />
access and added inconvenience.<br />
• Overdevelopment- the increase of houses will worsen traffic problems.<br />
• The proposed turning circle will only be used as a parking bay therefore leaving no room to turn<br />
around.<br />
• The access for neighbouring properties will be adversely affected.<br />
• Access for delivery vans will be restricted.<br />
• Building on the site will cause the loss of a valuable facility- the garages. In a place where parking is<br />
already an issue, the increase in cars and the reduction of parking facilities will only serve to<br />
increase this problem.<br />
• On the land registry it states clearly that all rights of way will be available at all times.<br />
• The proposed turning area will cause an unacceptable level of noise and flashing headlights, which<br />
will shine into the rooms of the numbers 1-3 Churchfield Road.<br />
• Ice and snow in winter can make Spider Lane impassable and adverse camber makes vehicles slide<br />
into the wall.<br />
• Nothing has changed regarding the access since June 1989 when planning was refused.<br />
• The blocking off of the corner cannot be allowed and would be against the law of the land.<br />
9
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• Would be extremely inconvenient to current residents if they had to take their vehicles round to<br />
Spider Lane to access their garages.<br />
• If the owners of the cottages are no longer able to park in Churchfield Road they will use Bowbridge<br />
Lane which is already congested with parked cars in the evenings and weekends.<br />
• Access to the garages is already severely restricted due to the narrow width of Churchfield Road.<br />
With the front garden boundaries for the new houses, concerns that if they reach to the edge of the<br />
road turning a vehicle may prove to be difficult.<br />
• People may park in the turning bay and effectively block people from getting into their garages.<br />
• The legal documents provided to people when they bought their houses states that they have the<br />
right to pass over the land currently being planned as the parking area for one of the houses. This<br />
area therefore should not be fenced off and must still be able to be used as a right of way when is<br />
necessary.<br />
• A deeded right of way exists from a cottage in Lower Churchfield Road up and into Churchfield road<br />
via a gated stepped exit.<br />
• Demolition of existing garages and loss of parking would need eight vehicles needing new parking.<br />
• Road width is shown incorrectly near Marsh Villas to be 4metres when it is 3metres.<br />
• Site plans show gardens where kitchen utility areas are on the five houses opposite site.<br />
• Light detriment.<br />
• Adopted for Highways as a through road.<br />
• Gardens will be lower than the adjoining properties light and view from the kitchen will not be<br />
satisfactory. Poor access onto Spider Lane<br />
• Set a precedent<br />
• Revised plans are no better previous points remain valid.<br />
• Suggests:<br />
− 2 houses only with garages and hard standing.<br />
− Widen the road from Bowbridge Land to the corner of Churchfield Road to allow easy access.<br />
− A car parking area behind the existing wooden fence for residents whose garages and spaces<br />
would be lost.<br />
Site Report:<br />
Application Background<br />
This is a long standing application submitted in 2001. Unfortunately during the consideration of the<br />
proposal the original agent passed away resulting in an unusual delay in its determination.<br />
The Site and the Proposal<br />
This is an application for the erection of four, two bedroom apartments on land off Churchfield Road in<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong>. The former builders yard is situated within a large group of Victorian dwellings with garages to<br />
either side and the local road to the front. The garages are currently used by the surrounding property<br />
but are controlled by the applicant. The application site also includes a section of garden on the opposite<br />
side of Churchfield Road but within the applicant’s control. As is typical of the area the surrounding road<br />
network is somewhat cramped with restricted access onto both Spider Lane and Lower Churchfield<br />
Road.<br />
The proposal seeks the erection of a terrace of four, two bed apartments arranged in a two up two down<br />
approach. The buildings would replace the builders yard and three of the existing garages and would<br />
also involve the provision of a turning head on the land opposite the site. The building itself would be of<br />
brick and tile construction with the exact materials being the subject of future discussions.<br />
The plans have been the subject of significant revision since their original submission and did originally<br />
include the closure of a section of Churchfield Road. This element has now been deleted from the<br />
scheme.<br />
<strong>10</strong>
Relevant <strong>Planning</strong> History<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.ED/5574/F Building materials store & Permission 13/9/78<br />
access alterations<br />
S.6359/A Erection of four flats & one bungalow Permission 9/12/80<br />
This proposal was for the erection of four flats on the builders yard site with a bungalow on land<br />
opposite.<br />
S.6359/B Erection of five houses Refusal <strong>10</strong>/3/87<br />
This proposal was for the erection of three houses on the builders yard with two further dwellings on the<br />
land opposite. The application was refused due to the design of the proposed units together with<br />
insufficient amenity space provision and the exacerbation of the existing car parking and access<br />
situation.<br />
S.6359/C Erection of two houses and a bungalow Refusal <strong>10</strong>/<strong>10</strong>/89<br />
This proposal was for the erection of two dwellings on the builders yard and one bungalow on the<br />
opposite side. The application was refused due to the fact that the erection of a dwelling on land<br />
opposite the site would exacerbate the existing parking and access situation.<br />
S.6359/D Erection of a pair of semi-detached houses. Permission <strong>10</strong>/4/90<br />
This proposal was for the erection of two dwellings on the builders yard.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
The relevant policy advice for applications of this type is contained within Policies H14 and G5 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) which seek to permit<br />
residential development within settlement boundaries provided that schemes are of a suitable layout,<br />
form and design and do not give rise to adverse highway safety implications.<br />
It is immediately apparent in considering this application that two of the key issues relate to the principle<br />
of residential development and its resultant built form together with the impact of any scheme on<br />
highway safety.<br />
With regard to the design and appearance of the development, the character and form of the apartment<br />
building is in keeping with the surrounding Victorian buildings and will not unduly detract from the area.<br />
The proposals include a suitable level of amenity provision for apartment accommodation and will not<br />
cause the loss of any important open space. Whilst concerns have been raised over the number of units<br />
proposed, the scheme does not constitute over-development of the site and reflects the form and level of<br />
development previously permitted on the site. Neither does the scheme cause unacceptable levels of<br />
overlooking or loss of privacy given its separation from the adjacent properties. Conditions are however<br />
suggested regarding the proposed materials and boundary treatments.<br />
In terms of the highway implications arising from the site it is important to note that the site has an extant<br />
planning approval for unrestricted use as a builders yard. Although the site has not been in active use for<br />
a number of years and has been used for informal parking by local residents, the site could, in planning<br />
terms, be used as a working yard without the need for any formal approvals. This would give rise to a<br />
number of outcomes not least of which is the loss of the informal parking areas and the potential for<br />
large scale vehicle movements involving all manner of vehicles. Given this authorised background, it is<br />
considered that the current proposal would enable an element of planning gain not only in highway terms<br />
but also regard to local amenity via the removal of a bad neighbour use.<br />
11
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The nature and number of vehicle movements associated with four apartments is less than associated<br />
with a working yard, with the type of vehicles being far more appropriate for a residential area than a<br />
number of commercial vehicles. The reduction is vehicle numbers and size would also have less impact<br />
on the surrounding road network. In acknowledgement of the sub-standard nature of the surrounding<br />
roads, the scheme includes the provision of a turning area which, subject to suitable parking controls,<br />
would provide a distinct benefit to all of the local residents. The provision of such a facility would not<br />
prejudice the ability of emergency vehicles to access the site.<br />
Whilst the scheme would result in the loss of parking for the existing residents, this parking is of an<br />
informal nature only and is not protected. Again this loss would occur if the authorised use of the yard<br />
recommenced.<br />
Recommendation<br />
The scheme represents an acceptable form of residential development which in light of the authorised<br />
use of the site will not give rise to adverse concerns of highway safety. The proposal therefore accords<br />
with Policies H14 and G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001) and conditional permission is recommended.<br />
Sites Inspection Panel<br />
The Panel walked along Churchfield Road noting the grain of the street, as well as the vernacular style.<br />
The current dilapidated condition of the application site was also evident and the position of the adjacent<br />
dwellings. The siting of the new dwellings and the proposed parking/turning areas were indicated.<br />
The Ward Member, Cllr. Majoram highlighted the character of the existing streetscene and the existing<br />
houses, and felt that the scheme was poorly designed and overdevelopment. He also suggested that<br />
there are current problems of parking and narrow access roads, and disputed the use as a builders yard.<br />
The Town council was not represented .<br />
The Panel generally supported the principle of the scheme, but felt that the design was too bland and<br />
failed to respond adequately to the context. Furthermore, there seemed to be scope to increase car<br />
parking by the turning head.<br />
Application Update<br />
Following the Sites Inspection Panel revised plans have been submitted indicating a revised design for<br />
the four apartments which better reflects the local vernacular. In addition the proposed turning head has<br />
been deleted and replaced with additional parking spaces and increased carriageway width. In this<br />
manner an element of replacement parking is proposed to off-set the informal areas lost due to the<br />
development together with an enhancement of the existing road network. These amendments would<br />
result in an acceptable form of development which accords not only with the aforementioned policies but<br />
also with the comments of the Sites Inspection Panel.<br />
Condtional permission is recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human Rights<br />
Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected properties. In<br />
particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for private and family life) and<br />
the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this Article is both permissible and<br />
proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no particular matters, other than those<br />
referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that recommended.<br />
12
ITEM No: 02<br />
Application: S.03/1451<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Site Address: Land at The Retreat Westward Road <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
Site Number: 22330<br />
Parish: Cainscross<br />
Grid Reference: SO 83370 04830<br />
Application Type: Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Development: Regrading of garden land. (Revised Plans received 12/9/03)<br />
Applicant Details: Chelbury Homes Ltd<br />
Chelbury Vaults 32 Queens Road Cheltenham GL50 2LT<br />
Agent Details: Mr P. H. Tufnell<br />
Tufnell Town + Country <strong>Planning</strong>, Waverley Studio Gloucester Road Hartpury<br />
GL19 3BG<br />
Case Officer: Darryl J.Rogers<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received: 28/07/2003<br />
Recommendation: Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1) <strong>10</strong>1 Standard - <strong>Planning</strong> Permission.<br />
2) A strip of land 8m wide adjacent to the top of the northern bank along the line of<br />
the restored <strong>Stroud</strong>water Canal shall be kept clear of all new buildings and<br />
structures (including gates, walls and fences) unless otherwise agreed in<br />
writing by the Head of Development Services. Ground levels must not be raised<br />
within this area.<br />
Informatives:<br />
Reason:<br />
In order to ensure adequate access is provided to the watercourse for the<br />
purposes of maintenance.<br />
1) For the purposes of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong> (General Development<br />
Procedure) (England) (Amendent) Order 2003, the following reasons for the<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below together with a summary of the<br />
Policies and Proposals contained within the Development Plan which are<br />
relevant to this decision: The proposal will not have a detrimental impact on<br />
either the residential amenity of the area or the character and appearance of<br />
the designated <strong>Stroud</strong> Industrial Heritage Conservation Area. The raised<br />
ground levels will not harm the overall visual amenity of the area and suitable<br />
conditions are imposed to safeguard maintenance of the adjacent watercourse.<br />
13
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The proposal therefore accords with Policies H23 and B4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Constraints: Conservation Area Cainscross<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish Response:<br />
Cainscross Parish <strong>Council</strong> object to the application. It is unclear what reason for the re-grading of this<br />
land is, it currently forms gardens of four cottages at The Retreat which lead down to the canal.<br />
Presumably the land is either to build new houses or provide access to adjoining land further along<br />
canal.<br />
Once again the applicant is proposing to extend this unsightly development along the canal in piecemeal<br />
fashion without disclosing the full extent of his intentions.<br />
A Section <strong>10</strong>6 agreement was negotiated on the basis of the original approval, which has now extended<br />
in a series of separate applications, thereby avoiding any further community benefits.<br />
This site was not allocated as a development site in Local Plan and currently standing at 35, will end up<br />
at 50 if extended to Bridgeside.<br />
Not content with utilising all open space in the parish, developers are now resorting to buying up existing<br />
back gardens.<br />
High density multi storey housing will detract from the appearance of the canal and diminish tourist<br />
attraction.<br />
Do not support this or any other applications on this site until developer reveals his long term intentions.<br />
Revised plans - has reduced the amount of land in question but the principle remains the same, previous<br />
objections are reiterated with possible exception of Section <strong>10</strong>6 comment relating to S.02/961 which has<br />
been adjusted .<br />
Unclear as to exactly what permissions have been issued so far in relation to building that has already<br />
taken place.<br />
Set a dangerous precedent for other canal side sites.<br />
Existing gardens should not be considered as brown field sites.<br />
Object to creeping nature of this development.<br />
Letter of comment<br />
F.C.Tillett. Retreat Lodge, Westward Road, Cainscross, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos.<br />
Reasons<br />
• This proposal causes considerable concerns over the applicants future intentions to either run an<br />
access across the gardens to access a further plot of land for addition housing development or for<br />
development of even more inappropriate housing crammed in adjacent to the canal.<br />
• There has already been a considerable increase in traffic from the new housing off Frome Gardens<br />
causing obstruction to main road.<br />
Site Report:<br />
The Site and the Proposal<br />
This is an application for the regrading of garden land to the rear of The Retreat off Westward Road,<br />
Ebley.<br />
14
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The application site consists of an area of shared garden land located to the rear of Numbers 85, 87 and<br />
89 immediately adjacent to the Frome Gardens development. The site is currently used for garden land<br />
in connection with the three residential properties and due to the local land levels is set at a lower level<br />
than the rear of the main dwellings. The site borders the <strong>Stroud</strong>water Canal to the south with the new<br />
residential development to the west and additional garden land to the east. The land forms part of the<br />
designated <strong>Stroud</strong> Industrial Heritage Conservation Area.<br />
The proposal seeks the regrading of land to the rear of the properties to create a level area of garden<br />
land approximately <strong>10</strong>m wide to the immediate rear of the properties with a graded slope to meet the<br />
existing land levels to the south and east. The scheme would involve the raising of land levels 1.5m at<br />
the highest point and would reflect land levels on the adjacent development site.<br />
The application has been amended since its original submission and no longer includes any garden land<br />
relating to numbers 81 or 83.<br />
Relevant <strong>Planning</strong> History<br />
No previous applications have been submitted in respect of this parcel of land however the site is closely<br />
related to the Frome Gardens development site. The land does however form part of the proposed<br />
access for current application S.04/1255/FUL for the erection of 13 dwellings on land to the east of this<br />
site.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations and Recommendation.<br />
Given the location and form of this development two of the key considerations relate to the impact of the<br />
proposal on the residential amenity of the surrounding properties together with its impact on the<br />
character and appearance of the designated conservation area. As such the relevant policy advice is<br />
contained with Policies H23 and B4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
With regard to the impact of the scheme on the residential amenity of the area, it is not considered that<br />
the proposal will cause a significant change in the current situation. The use of the land for amenity<br />
purposes is well established and the increased height of the proposal will not give rise to any adverse<br />
overlooking or loss of privacy. In addition the works will not prejudice the use of any of the surrounding<br />
gardens with the proposal relating well to the adjacent development site. Conditions are however<br />
proposed controlling the level of regrading and its proximity to the canal. Representations received<br />
regarding the current site appearance relate to the temporary storage of soil in connection with the<br />
adjacent development rather than the finished profile of this application.<br />
Although the comments of the Parish <strong>Council</strong> are noted with regard to the piecemeal development of this<br />
area, each application should be considered on its own individual merits. The proposal relates solely to<br />
the regrading of a section of garden land and should be considered as such. Any subsequent proposals<br />
or developments would be the subject of future applications and it is at that stage that issues such as the<br />
impact of additional houses on the conservation area, are most appropriately considered. This is the<br />
situation with regard to current application S.04/1255/FUL referred to above.<br />
In terms of the affect of the development on the character and appearance of the conservation area, it is<br />
again considered that the proposal will preserve the general open nature of this part of The Retreat. The<br />
land will be graded to match the existing contours to the south and east of the site and will not therefore<br />
cause harm to the area.<br />
The proposal accords with Policies B4 and H23 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001), in so far as they relate to this application and conditional permission is<br />
recommended.<br />
15
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human Rights<br />
Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected properties. In<br />
particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for private and family life) and<br />
the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this Article is both permissible and<br />
proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no particular matters, other than those<br />
referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 03<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/0659/FUL<br />
Church Farm, Hopton Road, Cam, Dursley<br />
21594<br />
Cam Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 375627,199579<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Variation of condition 3 of permission S.98/1338 to allow for the<br />
retention of reconstructed slates to roof and stained timber windows<br />
(natural).<br />
Professor & Mrs Harris<br />
Church Farm, Hopton Road, Cam, Dursley, Gloucestershire, GL11 5PB<br />
None<br />
Mark Newcombe<br />
30.03.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
Support:<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. The use of reconstituted roofing slates and stained windows, has<br />
introduced modern materials and an appearance of the converted<br />
building unsympathetic to the buildings historic construction thus harming<br />
the character and appearance of the listed building contrary to Policy B9<br />
of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
June 2001).<br />
16
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Applicant believed that he was following the conditions of the previous application - SDC<br />
guidlelines unclear. Materials used are in keeping with original building and greatly improve the<br />
appearance of the development.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Support<br />
D & M Ford, 16A Hopton Road, Cam<br />
G H Beetham, 22 Hopton Road, Cam, Dursley<br />
Mr & Mrs Smith, 30 Hopton Road, Cam Dursley<br />
Mr & Mrs Harris, The Haven, 20 Hopton Road<br />
R J Littleford, 18A Hopton Road, Cam Dursley<br />
Mr & Mrs Priddle, 26 Beyon Drive, Cam<br />
Ms J Newton, 2 The Nook, Cam Green<br />
Mr & Mrs Smart, 4 Holywell Road, Cam<br />
P Ford, 29 Nasse Court, Cam<br />
• Potential hazard to the workers re-slating.<br />
• Improvement.<br />
• Reconstructed slates pleasant to the eye.<br />
• Should have specified materials at the start of construction.<br />
Letters of Comment<br />
D & M Story, 24 Hopton Road, Cam Dursley<br />
R H Price, Worsley, 16B Hopton Road<br />
• Delighted with the transformation.<br />
• Will mean more scaffolding etc.<br />
17
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is brought to Committee at the request of Cllr. Mrs. Clifton, a Ward <strong>Council</strong>lor.<br />
The proposal is a retrospective application to retain reconstructed slates and stained timber<br />
windows contrary to a condition attached to the original permission for the buildings conversion<br />
requiring that any replacement materials matched the existing. The original permission was for<br />
the conversion of these farm buildings into two dwellings and was granted permission in June<br />
1999 under reference 98/1338.<br />
This is a group of former farm buildings at Church Farm Hopton Road Cam. The building is within<br />
the curtilage of Church Farm which is a Grade II Listed Building. A separate Listed Building<br />
application has been made which will deal with the Listed Building issues in more detail.<br />
The main issue with this application is whether the condition on the original permission is<br />
justified.<br />
The application is considered under Policy B9 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001), which states:<br />
18
POLICY B9<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Development involving proposals to extend or alter a Listed Building, or any feature of special<br />
architectural or historic interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing, will not be permitted<br />
unless it would preserve the building, its setting, and any features of special architectural or<br />
historic interest the building possesses.<br />
It is considered that the works carried out are contrary to Policy B9 as the use of reconstituted<br />
roofing slates and stained windows, has introduced modern materials and an appearance of the<br />
converted building unsympathetic to the buildings historic construction thus harming the<br />
character and appearance of the listed building. Members will see other issues raised in the<br />
Listed Building application. These matters do not require planning permission.<br />
It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.<br />
In the event that this recommendation is accepted authority is sought for enforcement action to<br />
be taken.<br />
SITES INSPECTION PANEL<br />
The Panel inspected the site both externally and internally and noted the alterations that had<br />
taken place. The Heritage Architect explained the main differences between the approved<br />
scheme and the works now being sought permission in retrospect. This included alterations to<br />
the internal arrangements, the fenestration, the type of lintels used, the steel flue and the use of<br />
reconstructed slate on the roof.<br />
The Parish <strong>Council</strong> representative confirmed the Parish <strong>Council</strong> were in favour of the proposed<br />
changes and that the applicant was not aware that the changes required permission. The<br />
Parish's concerns relate to the external effect of the building and how the community perceived<br />
the building, rather than the internal effect. They would have preferred the original welsh slate on<br />
the building but their understanding was modern slate, an example of which is being used to the<br />
extension to the Weavers House in Dursley could also be used. The Parish <strong>Council</strong> does not<br />
object to the roof as it stands.<br />
The Ward <strong>Council</strong>lor, <strong>Council</strong>lor Hudson, confirmed he was only made aware of the application at<br />
a late stage but had the following views. He agreed with the Parish <strong>Council</strong>'s comments as the<br />
man in the street is more concerned with the outside view of property. The development is a big<br />
improvement on what there was originally. The original permission was not very clear about the<br />
type of materials to be used. He supported the application.<br />
After discussion the Panel were of the opinion the proposals were not acceptable and adversely<br />
affected the character of the buildings. However, the majority of Members were of the view the<br />
roof was acceptable but the other alterations detracted too much from the approved scheme.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
19
ITEM No: 04<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/0657/LBC<br />
Church Farm, Hopton Road, Cam, Dursley<br />
21594<br />
Cam Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 375627,199579<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Listed Building Consent<br />
Retrospective application for the retention of reconstructed slates to<br />
roof and stained timber windows (natural). Various internal works.<br />
Revised plans received 26 May <strong>2004</strong>.<br />
Professor & Mrs Harris<br />
Church Farm, Hopton Road, Cam, Dursley, Gloucestershire, GL11 5PB<br />
None<br />
Della Gould<br />
30.03.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. The re-roofing in reconstituted slates has introduced a modern material<br />
which has a manufactured mechanical appearance failing to exhibit the<br />
subtle irregularities in shape, colour, texture and thickness of the original<br />
natural slate. The reconstructed slates are therefore unsympathetic to<br />
the historic construction thus harming the character and appearance of<br />
the Listed Building.<br />
2. The relocation of the staircase and the subdivision of the front of the barn<br />
has unacceptably divided the single volume of the barn thereby causing<br />
harm to the character of the Listed Building.<br />
3. The external joinery items by virtue of their finish in a modern stain cause<br />
harm to the character of the Listed Building.<br />
4. The stainless steel flue installed on the barn roof has introduced a feature<br />
alien to the agricultural nature of the building to the detriment of its<br />
character.<br />
20
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Support:<br />
Applicant believed he was following the conditions of the previous application - SDC guidelines<br />
unclear. Materials used are in keeping with original buildings and greatly improve the<br />
appearance of the development.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
This application has been brought to the committee at the request of <strong>Council</strong>lor Miranda Clifton, a<br />
Ward <strong>Council</strong>lor.<br />
THE BUILDING<br />
21
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This is a good contemporary group of farm buildings dated 1865, possibly a small Model Farm<br />
group. The buildings consist of a former barn with attached cattle byres and stores/dairy units.<br />
They are constructed mainly of red brick with some elevations in local marlstone. The buildings<br />
have recently been converted into two residential units. The group are contained within the<br />
curtilage of Church Farmhouse, Listed Grade II.<br />
THE APPLICATION<br />
This is a retrospective application for the retention of reconstructed slates to the roofs, stained<br />
timber windows and doors and various internal alterations.<br />
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS<br />
These are taken from PPG 15 "<strong>Planning</strong> and the Historic Environment."<br />
Paragraph 3.3 says that 'There should be a general presumption in favour of the preservation of<br />
Listed Buildings'.<br />
Paragraph 3.3 of PPG 15 requires that local planning authorities should "...have special regard to<br />
the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or<br />
historic interest which it possesses."<br />
Paragraph 3.4 of PPG 15 says that "Applicants for Listed Building consent must be able to justify<br />
their proposals. They will need to show why works which would affect the character of a Listed<br />
Building are desirable or necessary."<br />
Paragraph C.27 says "The roof is nearly always the dominant feature of a building, and the<br />
retention of its original structure, shape, pitch, cladding and ornament is important."<br />
Paragraph C.47 says "Paint is usually the correct finish for timber windows; staining is not a<br />
traditional finish and should not normally be used."<br />
Paragraph C.58 says; "the plan of a building is one of its most important characteristics. Interior<br />
plans and individual features of interest should be respected and left unaltered as far as possible.<br />
Internal spaces, staircases, panelling, window shutters, doors and doorcases, mouldings,<br />
decorated ceilings, stucco-work, and wall decorations are part of the special interest of a building<br />
and may be its most valuable feature."<br />
Paragraph C.68 says " There are some standard external features that require Listed Building<br />
consent when they affect the character of a Listed Building. These include satellite dishes, meter<br />
boxes, burglar alarms, security and other floodlighting, video cameras, and central heating and<br />
other flues, both standard and balanced. Only undamaging and visually unobtrusive positions for<br />
such fixtures should be agreed.<br />
History<br />
Listed Building Consent (S.98/1351) and <strong>Planning</strong> Permission (S.98.1338) for the conversion of<br />
these buildings were granted in 1999. Both of these consents were subject to a number of<br />
conditions which have not been discharged.<br />
CONCLUSIONS<br />
The Consents given in 1999 for the conversion of these buildings included a condition that the<br />
roofing materials were to match those used in the existing building. In February <strong>2004</strong> it was<br />
brought to the attention of the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> that the new roofing materials did not match and<br />
22
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
that no agreement had been sought for this change. The works therefore constituted<br />
unauthorised alterations.<br />
When the matter was investigated further it became apparent that there had also been extensive<br />
and unauthorised alterations to the windows and doors and that they had been finished in a<br />
modern stain, likewise unauthorised. The owner of the buildings was invited to make<br />
retrospective applications for these works.<br />
Upon receipt of the applications a further site visit was carried out and it was discovered that a<br />
number of other works, also unauthorised had been carried out. These works include the<br />
repositioning of a staircase, the insertion of a floor at first floor level, the insertion of two<br />
additional rooflights, the relocation of a window, the removal of several dove holes and the<br />
addition of a stainless steel flue terminal. Revised plans have been received which show all of<br />
the unauthorised works which have now been considered against the original consents.<br />
At the time when the Listed Building Consent and <strong>Planning</strong> Permission were granted the<br />
buildings were predominantly roofed in natural Welsh slate with two of the inner courtyard<br />
elevations being clad in a modern asbestos slate. Some of these roofs were in a reasonable state<br />
of repair. The buildings have now all been re-roofed in modern reconstituted slates.<br />
PPG 15, paragraph C.27 above, is very clear in its guidance about alterations to roofs. While<br />
there is no concern about the replacement of the asbestos slates, the loss of the natural slates is<br />
considered to be very harmful to the character of the Listed Building. The natural Welsh slates<br />
were characterised by the subtle differences in colour, shape, texture and thickness which,<br />
together with their weathering properties, gave rise to an interesting and attractive appearance to<br />
the roofs. The roofs of these buildings are a very significant and dominant feature and as such it<br />
is essential to their character that the interest in the roof is retained.<br />
The new, reconstituted roofs, are a stark contrast to the Welsh slate. The new slates are of a<br />
uniform shape, size, thickness and texture and as a result the roof appears flat, uniform and very<br />
dull. This dramatic change in character has severely harmed the character of the Listed<br />
Buildings.<br />
With respect to the windows and doors, the unauthorised alterations are considered, as a whole,<br />
to be less of a concern. The original openings in the Listed Buildings have generally been<br />
respected, the unauthorised works largely being contained within the infilled cattle byres. While<br />
they have been finished in a modern stain, this could easily be overcome by the application of a<br />
paint finish. However, there is an original opening over the rear barn doors that has been moved.<br />
No justification has been given for this alteration and it has resulted in an unbalanced<br />
appearance to the elevation to the detriment of the building. This elevation has also been subject<br />
to the insertion of two unauthorised rooflights, again, no satisfactory justification has been given<br />
for these works. The additional rooflights inappropriately exacerbate the domestic character that<br />
this barn now subject to. They are therefore considered inappropriate.<br />
The other unauthorised works to the buildings all relate specifically to the barn itself and include<br />
the relocation of the staircase, the insertion of a floor, the insertion of a stainless steel flue, the<br />
removal of a row of dove holes and the alteration of the plinth on the front elevation. All of these<br />
works are considered to be inappropriate and cumulatively harm the character of the building.<br />
The relocation of the staircase is of particular concern. It was originally to be located in the front,<br />
former cart opening, allowing this area to remain open plan from the floor to the roof. This would<br />
have allowed the original open volume of the building to be appreciated. The new staircase is<br />
now boxed in against one of the walls and a first floor has been added in the cartway, thus totally<br />
denying the building any areas of open space and volume. This essential character of the<br />
building has therefore been destroyed.<br />
23
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The other works, i.e. the flue, the plinth and the dove holes all affect the external appearance of<br />
the barn. The flue is a wholly alien feature in such a building and is therefore inappropriate. The<br />
impact of the other alterations are more minor, however each originally added an element of<br />
character to this building that has now been denied.<br />
All of the unauthorised works have cumulatively caused considerable harm to the character and<br />
special interest of the buildings and for the above reasons this application is recommended for<br />
refusal.<br />
If this application is refused in accordance with this recommendation, then authority is sought to<br />
take enforcement action to secure the reversal of the works.<br />
SITES INSPECTION PANEL<br />
Please refer to report on application S.04/0659/ful for details.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular, regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 05<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1<strong>10</strong>6/FUL<br />
4 Windsor Road, Dursley, Gloucestershire, GL11 4BU<br />
21916<br />
Dursley Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 375625,198406<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Erection of a garage and single storey extension.<br />
Mr & Mrs Hearn<br />
4 Windsor Road, Dursley, Gloucestershire, GL11 4BU<br />
Mr David Barnes<br />
Wistaria House, May Lane, Dursley, Glos, GL11 4JH<br />
Will Bridges<br />
26.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
24
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. No window or door openings (other than those shown on the approved<br />
plans) shall be formed in the eastern elevation of the extension hereby<br />
permitted.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential<br />
property in accordance with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Informatives:<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1 and H23 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001) which seek to ensure proposals do not adversely affect the<br />
amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by<br />
reason of overbearing effect or loss of light. The design, scale, and size<br />
of the development is in keeping with the existing property and its wider<br />
setting. The plot size is sufficient to accommodate the proposals without<br />
it being cramped or overdeveloped. Sufficient space remains available<br />
for the parking of vehicles in accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s adopted<br />
Vehicle Parking Standards and sufficient amenity space will remain for<br />
private use of the occupiers of the enlarged property, in accordance with<br />
the <strong>Council</strong>'s adopted standards as outlined in its Residential Design<br />
Guide.<br />
Object - reasons as on previous application - loss of privacy and design.<br />
Revised Plans. Still object as before.<br />
25
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
D J Bull, 3 Windsor Road, Dursley<br />
Mr P Evans, 5 Windsor Road, Dursley<br />
• Loss of view.<br />
• Loss of light.<br />
• Previous refusal on site.<br />
• Detrimental to objector's property.<br />
• Seen revised plans - objections still stand.<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The application site is located towards the eastern edge of the town of Dursley, and just south of<br />
Rednock Secondary School. The site consists of a two storey semi detached property, finished in<br />
white rough render. Directly to the east and west of the site are the neighbouring and adjoining<br />
properties respectively, with Windsor Road to the south and the rear garden that falls away from<br />
the house, to the north.<br />
26
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The application is made for the erection of a single garage to the side of the property and a single<br />
storey extension and conservatory to the rear elevation.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> History<br />
S.03/274 Erection of a two storey extension, conservatory and garage. - Withdrawn<br />
S.03/1855 Erection of attached garage and single storey extension. - Refused 21/01/<strong>2004</strong><br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
The relevant policy advice for this application is contained within Policies H23 and G1 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). These policies<br />
seek to allow extensions to residential properties subject to a number of criteria. These aim to<br />
retain the character of the dwelling to be extended, the amenity of the site and that of<br />
neighbouring properties.<br />
As can been seen from the planning history there have been previous applications over the last<br />
18 months for similar schemes with the initial application for a two storey extension being<br />
withdrawn and the subsequent revised application being refused due to the proposal leading to<br />
an unacceptable loss of privacy to a neighbouring property and the design being out of keeping<br />
with the host property.<br />
The rear extension shown within this application has been significantly reduced both in height<br />
and depth with the effect on the adjoining property now being minimal. The orientation has been<br />
changed from initially extending in a north to south manner to this application concentrating the<br />
built form mainly in an east to west style. The rear extension has also benefited from a revision in<br />
that a proposed window to the eastern elevation has been removed to prevent any potential<br />
increase in the level of privacy observed by the neighbouring property. This element of the<br />
proposal is now in accordance with both Policy G1 and H23 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The garage element has not changed from the previous application as it had an acceptable<br />
height, size and design initially with no issues or loss of privacy. With regard to the comments<br />
received from the neighbouring property regarding the potential loss of light to the said property,<br />
while the proposal will have an effect on that property the level of loss of light would not be<br />
considered to be significantly detrimental.<br />
Therefore this application is in accordance with all of the above mentioned policies and the<br />
application is duly recommended for conditional permission.<br />
SITES INSPECTION PANEL<br />
The panel inspected the site and noted the relationship between the existing dwelling and the<br />
neighbouring properties. The position of the windows of the adjacent dwelling was noted<br />
together with other features such as the size of the garden, the hedge and fence lines and the<br />
respective levels of the site in relation to its surroundings.<br />
The Parish <strong>Council</strong> representative reiterated the objections to the development as it would be<br />
overwhelming from the point of view of the existing development and the adjoining houses.<br />
The Ward <strong>Council</strong>lor, Mrs Fowles, supported the views of the Town <strong>Council</strong> and the proposal will<br />
adversely affect the neighbouring properties. There would be a loss of privacy if not a loss of<br />
light. The design is not sympathetic to the character of the house.<br />
After discussion, the Panel were of the view the proposals were acceptable but Officers were<br />
also of the opinion further improvements could be made to the scheme and would negotiate<br />
further with the applicants agent.<br />
27
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1988 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 06<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/0952/FUL<br />
Land Adjacent Hawkswood, Frome Hall Lane, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Gloucestershire<br />
18053<br />
Rodborough Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 384248,204852<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Erection of dwelling to provide ancillary accommodation to Hawkswood.<br />
Mr & Mrs Woolls<br />
Hawkeswood, Frome Hall Lane, Rodborough, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
Mr Philip Hodges<br />
Tetbury Upton, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, GL8 8LP<br />
Andrew Case<br />
06.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. The proposal is tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling and the<br />
road serving the site is substandard and unsuitable to cater for the<br />
increase in traffic which would result from the proposed development<br />
by reason of its restricted width, poor alignment, lack of footways, lack<br />
of passing bays and substandard junctions with Fromehall Lane and<br />
Bath Road, all to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to Policy<br />
G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
28
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
Object:<br />
Development not appropriate to the site.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application was referred to committee by <strong>Council</strong>lor Blackshaw, the then Ward <strong>Council</strong>lor. It<br />
is a duplicate of S.04/0936<br />
Site and Proposal<br />
The site is located towards the end of Fromehall Lane, within the designated Conservation Area.<br />
The main house is a bungalow with dormer windows in the roof and finished in reconstituted<br />
stone. Approximately 30 metres to the east of the site a new building has been constructed,<br />
29
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
similar in scale and appearance to the main dwelling. There are a couple of small outbuildings to<br />
the south of the main house. The property sits on a flat area with the land to the south rising<br />
rapidly and falling to the north. The site is accessed via a very narrow, poorly surfaced road with<br />
a steep access and poor visibility onto the main road.<br />
The proposal is for the erection of "auxiliary accommodation", in accordance with the plans<br />
previously approved applications S.98/286 & S.99/822 which have now lapsed.<br />
Relevant History<br />
Application S.97/267 for "Outline application for the erection of one dwelling" was refused on<br />
16/4/97 and subsequently dismissed at appeal on 3/2/1998 on highway reasons. The inspector<br />
commented at this time that no objection was raised to ancillary accommodation.<br />
Application S.98/286 for "Outline application for the erection of ancillary accommodation to<br />
Hawkswood" was approved on 7/4/1999 with both conditions and a Section <strong>10</strong>6 legal agreement<br />
restricting the use to ancillary to the main dwelling.<br />
Application 99/822 for "Erection of ancillary accommodation to Hawkswood" was substantially<br />
reduced in scale prior to the application being approved on 28/07/1999. This was subsequently<br />
detached from the main property by minor amendment. This application was not implemented<br />
and lapsed on 7/4/<strong>2004</strong> (as agreed in the agents letter received by fax on 8/6/<strong>2004</strong>.)<br />
Application S.99/1882 for "Removal of Condition (4) of Permission S.98/286- Outline application<br />
for the erection of ancillary accommodation to Hawkswood. (Condition (4) states "The ancillary<br />
accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than as an extension<br />
to, and in connection with the residential use of the dwelling known as Hawkswood".)" was<br />
refused on 2/2/2000.<br />
Application S.02/1791 for "Application to remove Condition 4 of Permission S.98/286 (Ancillary<br />
accommodation to Hawkswood) to permit the ancillary house to be occupied as a separate<br />
dwelling" was withdrawn prior to decision. The agent was informed that the building which has<br />
been constructed on site is not in accordance with any approved development.<br />
Application S.02/2188 for "Retrospective application for the erection of ancillary accommodation<br />
to Hawkswood" was refused on 22/01/2003 and subsequently dismissed on appeal on 7/<strong>10</strong>/2003.<br />
Application S.03/C0479/FUL for "Retrospective application for use of building as auxiliary<br />
accommodation to Hawkswood" was refused.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
The previous application has lapsed and this is therefore not a renewal of a previous permission,<br />
and has to be considered afresh against those policies and factors that are relevant at this point<br />
in time. Since the previous approval there have been a number of significant occurrences:<br />
Policy H24 was introduced to the Local Plan in November 1999, requiring annexes for a<br />
dependent relative to be linked by internal door or doors to the main dwelling and that the<br />
accommodation is readily convertible for use as an extension to the main dwelling;<br />
The applicant has made two separate planning applications to remove the condition requiring<br />
ancillary occupation (showing little intention to use the building for ancillary purposes);<br />
and a new independent dwelling has been constructed but permission has retrospectively been<br />
refused at appeal.<br />
The significant distance of the proposed building from the original dwelling means it cannot be<br />
considered as an annexe to the main property under Policy H24 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan,<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) as it is not linked by internal door or doors to<br />
the main house.<br />
30
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Further, the application fee submitted is £220, the fee for a new dwelling, when the correct fee for<br />
an ancillary extension to an existing residence would be £1<strong>10</strong>. As such this application has to be<br />
considered against Policies H14, B4 and G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001). These seek to ensure that new housing development is of a<br />
scale, layout and design compatible with the surrounding settlement, would not harm the<br />
character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and would not have a detrimental effect on<br />
highway safety.<br />
While there is no objection to location of the proposal on Conservation Area grounds, the only<br />
access to the site is along a very poor quality road. Two appeal inspectors have upheld refusals<br />
on highway grounds, and the situation on the surrounding road network has not changed since<br />
this time. While the agent may cite that ancillary accommodation would have a lower associated<br />
level of vehicular movements than the level associated with an ordinary dwelling, the most recent<br />
appeal inspector stated at paragraph 9 "Whilst of itself this (level of vehicular movements) is quite<br />
modest, the shortcomings of the junction are so serious that I am satisfied that any increase in<br />
the traffic using it should be resisted". As a result in any form the proposal would result in an<br />
increased level of vehicular movements and is contrary to Policy G5 in that it would result in the<br />
intensification of use of the access roads/junction leading to the property to the detriment of<br />
highway safety.<br />
Refusal is recommended.<br />
SITES INSPECTION PANEL<br />
The Panel inspected the site and considered the details of both this application and application<br />
S.04/0936/FUL for the retention of the building already constructed. The Panel were informed of<br />
the planning history of the site and the respective positions of the accommodation proposed,<br />
granted consent in the past and the building already constructed without planning permission.<br />
They were informed of previous appeal decisions for the site and that there are outstanding<br />
appeals to be heard in August. The Panel noted the position of the access to the site, its<br />
alignment and the visibility afforded when leaving the site.<br />
The Parish <strong>Council</strong> representative stated the Parish were not in favour of the proposals due to<br />
the access and once built it would be a saleable property and occupiers would be in a position to<br />
use the access. The house itself doesn't cause concern as it does not interfere with anyone<br />
else's amenity.<br />
The Ward <strong>Council</strong>lor, <strong>Council</strong>lor Sinfield, sent his apologises and was not able to attend.<br />
After discussion the Panel were of the opinion the access serving the site was not suitable to<br />
cater for the proposals and were not in favour of either of the developments.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
31
ITEM No: 07<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/0936/FUL<br />
Land Adjacent Hawkswood, Frome Hall Lane, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Gloucestershire<br />
18053<br />
Rodborough Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 384248,204852<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Retrospective application for use of building as auxiliary<br />
accommodation to Hawkswood (resubmission following refusal<br />
S.03/479/FUL).<br />
Mrs Woolls-Kreamer<br />
C/o P Hodges, Tetbury Upton, Tetbury, Glos, GL8 8LP<br />
Mr Philip Hodges<br />
Tetbury Upton, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, GL8 8LP<br />
Andrew Case<br />
05.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. The proposal is tantamount to the creation of a new dwellling and the<br />
road serving the site is substandard and unsuitable to cater for the<br />
increase in traffic which would result from the proposed development by<br />
reason of its restricted width, poor alignment, lack of footways, lack of<br />
passing bays and substandard junctions with Fromehall Lane and Bath<br />
Road, all to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to Policy G5 of<br />
the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
June 2001).<br />
Object: Development is not appropriate to the area.<br />
32
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application was referred to committee by <strong>Council</strong>lor Blackshaw, the then Ward <strong>Council</strong>lor. It<br />
is a duplicate of application S.04/0952<br />
Site and Proposal<br />
The site is located towards the end of Fromehall Lane, within the designated Conservation Area.<br />
The main house is a bungalow with dormer windows in the roof and finished in reconstituted<br />
stone. Approximately 30 metres to the east of the site a new building has been constructed,<br />
similar in scale and appearance to the main dwelling. There are a couple of small outbuildings to<br />
the south of the main house. The property sits on a flat area with the land to the south rising<br />
rapidly and falling to the north. The site is accessed via a very narrow, poorly surfaced road with<br />
a steep access and poor visibility onto the main road.<br />
33
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This is resubmission of a retrospective for the retention of "auxillary accommodation", following<br />
the previous refusal by this <strong>Council</strong> under ref. S.03/C0479/FUL and a previous appeal refusal for<br />
very similar development on the site (ref S.02/2188).<br />
Relevant History<br />
Application S.97/267 for "Outline application for the erection of one dwelling" was refused on<br />
16/4/97 and subsequently dismissed at appeal on 3/2/1998 on highway reasons. The inspector<br />
commented at this time that no objection was raised to ancillary accommodation.<br />
Application S.98/286 for "Outline application for the erection of ancillary accommodation to<br />
Hawkswood" was approved on 7/4/1999 with both conditions and a Section <strong>10</strong>6 legal agreement<br />
restricting the use to ancillary to the main dwelling.<br />
Application 99/822 for "Erection of ancillary accommodation to Hawkswood" was substantially<br />
reduced in scale prior to the application being approved on 28/07/1999. This was subsequently<br />
detached from the main property by minor amendment.<br />
Application S.99/1882 for "Removal of Condition (4) of Permission S.98/286- Outline application<br />
for the erection of ancillary accommodation to Hawkswood. (Condition (4) states "The ancillary<br />
accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than as an extension<br />
to, and in connection with the residential use of the dwelling known as Hawkswood".)" was<br />
refused on 2/2/2000.<br />
Application S.02/1791 for "Application to remove Condition 4 of Permission S.98/286 (Ancillary<br />
accommodation to Hawkswood) to permit the ancillary house to be occupied as a separate<br />
dwelling" was withdrawn prior to decision. The agent was informed that the building which has<br />
been constructed on site is not in accordance with any approved development.<br />
Application S.02/2188 for "Retrospective application for the erection of ancillary accommodation<br />
to Hawkswood" was refused on 22/01/2003 and subsequently dismissed on appeal on 7/<strong>10</strong>/2003.<br />
Application S.03/C0479/FUL for "Retrospective application for use of building as auxiliary<br />
accommodation to Hawkswood" was refused.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
While the application is for "auxillary" accommodation, externally it is the same external size as<br />
that previously dismissed at appeal. The scale of the building is not reduced and the very high<br />
eaves level that facilitates the large amount of first floor accommodation is retained. The internal<br />
works proposed would not constitute development and could not therefore be controlled by the<br />
planning system. Further given the applicants two previous applications to remove occupancy<br />
conditions, there appears to be little intention to use the building for ancillary purposes. The<br />
significant distance of the proposed building from the original dwelling means it cannot be<br />
considered as an annexe to the main property under Policy H24 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan,<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) as it is not linked by internal door or doors to<br />
the main house.<br />
As such this application has to be re-considered against Policies H14, B4 and G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). These seek to ensure<br />
that new housing development is of a scale, layout and design compatible with the surrounding<br />
settlement, would not harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and would<br />
not have a detrimental effect on highway safety.<br />
While there is no objection to location of the proposal on Conservation Area grounds, the only<br />
access to the site is along a very poor quality road. Two appeal inspectors have upheld refusals<br />
on highway grounds, and the situation on the surrounding road network has not changed since<br />
this time.<br />
34
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The proposal is a token effort to reduce the scale of the proposal, but would not reduce the<br />
useable scale of the building in a way that could satisfactorily be controlled. As such it would<br />
result in increased vehicular movements in line with the construction of a new dwellinghouse. As<br />
a result the application is contrary to Policy G5 in that it would result in the intensification of use<br />
of the access roads/junction leading to the property to the detriment of highway safety.<br />
Refusal is recommended.<br />
SITES INSPECTION PANEL<br />
Please refer to report on application S.04/0952/FUL for details.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: <strong>08</strong><br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/0775/REM<br />
Grid Reference: 390237,206250<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Land At, Windyridge, Bisley, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
632<br />
Bisley With Lypiatt Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Approval of Reserved Matters<br />
Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 26 dwellings with<br />
associated parking and access.<br />
Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd<br />
Central Region, Central House, Sabre Close, Quedgeley, GL2 4NZ<br />
None<br />
Andrew Case<br />
13.04.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Resolve Not to Refuse<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
35
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details<br />
of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping for the site have been<br />
submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Development<br />
Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area to accord with Policy<br />
H14 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001 including Housing Amendments September 2003).<br />
2. The hard landscaping as approved should be implemented in full prior<br />
completion of the development. All planting, seeding or turfing<br />
comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in<br />
the first complete planting and seeding seasons following the occupation<br />
of the buildings, or the completion of the development to which it relates,<br />
whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five<br />
years from the completion of the development, die, are removed, or<br />
become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next<br />
planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Head<br />
of Development Services gives written consent to any variation.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to accord with Policy<br />
H14 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001 including Housing Amendments September 2003).<br />
3. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be<br />
used in the construction of the walling surfaces of the building works<br />
hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the<br />
Head of Development Services. Development shall then only be carried<br />
out in accordance with the approved details.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to accord with Policy<br />
H14 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001 including Housing Amendments September 2003).<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
This application is considered against Policies H14, H8, H9, T1, G1, G2,<br />
G5 & R5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001 including Housing amendments September 2003).<br />
The relevant sections of Policy H14 permits development that: is of a<br />
scale, layout and design compatible with that part of the settlement in<br />
which it would be located, and would not cause harm to the character<br />
and appearance of that part of the settlement; is proposed at as high a<br />
density as is acceptable in townscape and amenity terms; includes<br />
dwellings of various sizes, both in respect of physical size and type;<br />
would not cause the loss of, or damage to, any open space which is<br />
important to the character of the settlement; retains any natural or built<br />
36
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
features worthy of retention; and provides an appropriate area of private<br />
amenity space for the occupiers of each dwelling-house. Regarding<br />
provision of affordable housing Policies H8 and H9 require 30%<br />
affordable housing provision on this development, provided in a mix that<br />
reflects local housing need and is maintained in the longer term. The<br />
relevant section of Policy T1 seeks to provide appropriate levels of<br />
parking in accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s Parking Standards. Policy R5<br />
requires the provision of appropriate outdoor play space or where this is<br />
unrealistic a financial contribution in lieu of on site provision. The<br />
remaining Policies seek to ensure that no detrimental effects occur on:<br />
the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties; highway<br />
safety; or, by means of pollution, on the environment. Further to this the<br />
roofscape of the proposed development will be visible from the edge of<br />
the Bisley Conservation Area and important views need to be protected,<br />
under Policy B4.<br />
The proposal would not result in any increased highway dangers, in<br />
accordance with Policy G5. The proposal would not have a detrimental<br />
effect on the environment in accordance with Policy G2. The proposed<br />
area of Public Open Space along with an existing equipped play area on<br />
site (that was provided on the previous development of ten properties)<br />
ensures that there is adequate provision to serve local residents in<br />
accordance with Policy R5. The proposal meets the requirements of the<br />
Residential Design Guide and will not significantly harm the amenities of<br />
the occupiers of neighbouring properties, such as would warrant refusal,<br />
in accordance with Policy G1.<br />
The form, layout and density of the proposal is compatible with the<br />
surrounding area and would not harm the character and appearance. A<br />
range and mix of house types all with an appropriate area of private<br />
amenity space and car parking are provided. The appropriate number of<br />
units of affordable housing are provided. All in accordance with Policies<br />
H14, H9, H8 and T1.<br />
Object - See officer’s report for detailed Parish <strong>Council</strong> objections.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
Mr & Mrs Martin, 8 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr R Hurdle & Ms L Martin, 32 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr I McGill, 33 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr T Barnfield, 35 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
G M Cox, 37 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Ms B McAteer, 38 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr & Mrs Sargent, 1 Windyridge, <strong>Stroud</strong> Road<br />
Mr & Mrs Stevens, 2 Windyridge, <strong>Stroud</strong> Road<br />
37
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Mr & Mrs Stevens, 4 Windyridge, <strong>Stroud</strong> Road<br />
Mr S Trinder, 11 Bearsfield, Bisley<br />
Ms E Polkinghorne & L Nash, 7 Bearsfield, Bisley<br />
Mr & Mrs Stewart, 34 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr & Mrs Mayo, 36 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
J & P Underwood, 5 Bearsfield, Bisley<br />
Mr & Mrs L Hawke, 9 Bearsfield, Bisley<br />
K Williams & M Jones, 7 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Ms M Gegg, 20 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
H E Ruther, 22 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
R & D Wiltshire, 39 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Ms C Mackie, 41 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr & Mrs Millen, 49 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
D & R Berkeley, 15 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
N J Chapman, 16 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr & Mrs Banyard, 17 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Ms N Kearney, 44 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr D Bashford, Eskdale, Van Der Breen Street<br />
Ms M Garrow, 45 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr & Mrs Chappell<br />
Mr & Mrs Klien, New House, Cheltenham Road<br />
Mr B Wheatley, 14 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr & Mrs Lewis, Stonemead, Van Der Breen Street<br />
Occupier, 25 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Dr P Pearson, Rectory Barn, Holloway Road<br />
Mr T Grieve, The Coign, Hayhedge Lane<br />
M, H & B Hammond, Nation House, George Street<br />
Mr P Stone, Grove Cottage, Back Lane<br />
Mr & Mrs Perry, Ballagh, Cheltenham Road<br />
Mr & Mrs Constant, 30 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Mr & Mrs E Walker, Penworth, George Street<br />
Mrs M P Locke, Cadogan Grange, Calfway Farm<br />
B E Evans, Humbledory, 30A Windyridge<br />
Ms R Wade, Bisley Farm, Cheltenham Road<br />
Mr D Smith & Ms L King, 46 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
P & A Dickens, <strong>10</strong> The Row, Mount Pleasant<br />
Mr & Mrs Neighbour, 2 Stratford Cottages, Van Der Breen Street<br />
Mr & Mrs Barlow-Kay, Shaever House, Back Lane<br />
G Selway, 29 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
L G Banyard, Holloway House, Holloway Road<br />
Mr N Warner, 1 South View, Van Der Breen Street<br />
Miss E C Keen, 2 The Row, Mount Pleasant<br />
Mr & Mrs Roberts, 1 The Old Workshop, Hayhedge Lane<br />
Mr & Mrs Hunt, Middle Tythe, Hayhedge Lane<br />
Mr & Mrs Campbell, 1 Fir Tree Cottages, Cheltenham Road<br />
Mr & Mrs Weaving, The Reddings, Van Der Breen Street<br />
Ms K Ford & Mr C Ashmead, Station House, Cheltenham Road<br />
M & C Mackin, 2 Bearsfield, Bisley<br />
C & D Taper, Upper Barn Farmhouse, Vanderbreen Street<br />
L Caine & M Cawoll, Rectory Farm Cottage, Holloway Road<br />
J & P Bentley, The Old Post Office, High Street<br />
Mr P Blake, 2 Holloway House, Bisley<br />
Mrs O Burkitt, Hartwell Cottage, Wells Road<br />
P Shankar, Church House, Bisley<br />
M & D Richards, 3 Hampstead Buildings, Bisley<br />
L Tyrell, The Malt House, Bisley<br />
38
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S & R Hale, Tythe Barn, Hayhedge Lane<br />
Mr & Mrs D Hunt, Rowan House, Back Lane<br />
G Moseling, The Rockery, Van Der Breen Street<br />
Ms Z Massie, Little Orchard, <strong>Stroud</strong> Road<br />
P Hobbs & P & K Langdon, Westholme, Back Lane<br />
A & M Smith, Bear House, Bisley<br />
Dr A McDowell, Bear View, Back Lane<br />
S Barnyard, The Barn, Holloway Road<br />
V Drinkwater, 7 Mount Pleasant, Bisley<br />
J & J Cobbe, Myra House, Bisley<br />
D & S Hemming, 1 Seymour Cottage, Van Der Breen Street<br />
Mr R Morfee, Paulmead Barn, Wells Lane<br />
Jilly Cooper, The Chantry, Bisley<br />
Mrs S Barron, Glade View, Camp<br />
W McCenze, Bracebridge House, Calfway Lane<br />
K Finch, 2 The Cottages, <strong>Stroud</strong> Road<br />
Mrs E A Brown, The Breezes, Bisley<br />
N & S Hardy, 9 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
Lord Reading, Jaynes Court, Bisley<br />
G & B Rowsell, The Old Market House, 1 George Street<br />
G & A Parkinson, Priest House, Calfway Lane<br />
Mr H Berkeley, 23 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
E Veale, Pinfold, Vanderbreen Street<br />
P & G Cooke, Little Gables, The Camp<br />
M & L Grimwood, Calfway House, The Camp<br />
D & S Vesey, Kuleana, Wells Lane<br />
A Reed Henderson, Reeds Cottage, Holloway Road<br />
Dr & Mrs M J Savidge, Campion House, The Camp<br />
N K Banyard, 8 The Row, Mount Pleasant<br />
T Lloyd, 38 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
M & J Batten, Traders, Vanderbreen Street<br />
C Spurgeon & S Prowse, Evimiz, Cheltenham Road<br />
C A Wright, 1 Stratford Cottage, Vanderbreen Street<br />
A Makin, Highlands, Back Lane<br />
M E Dickenson, Ladymead, Stancombe<br />
S & M Edwards, The Old Vicarage, Bisley<br />
Mrs A Gardner, Bidmead, Cheltenham Road<br />
Richard & Sally Jackson, The Old Police House, Cheltenham Road<br />
Mr & Mrs Gegg, 24 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
S Dickinson, Ladymead, Stancombe<br />
R & M Freemantle, High Meadow, Back Lane<br />
R & V Clouston, Lion House, Holloway Road<br />
J & R Land, Jos, Vanderbreen Street<br />
A Dewan, Hay Hedge, Wells Lane<br />
C & C Mobbs, Kirklands, Calfway Lane<br />
N R Hale, 48 Windyridge, Bisley<br />
E M Kearney, Kilminsters, High Street<br />
Mr & Mrs Wright, Old Bell Cottage, Church Hill<br />
Mr S Rowsell, 3 The Row, Mount Pleasant<br />
Mrs E Brown, Breezes, <strong>Stroud</strong> Road<br />
A Ruther, Hawthorns, <strong>Stroud</strong> Road<br />
Mr & Mrs Mackin, 2 Bearsfield, Bisley<br />
• Loss of access.<br />
• Revised car parking density has been increased and will increase the level of noise and<br />
activity all hours of the day and night, the car park will be screened off from the main body of<br />
39
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
the estate and will inevitably lead to a ghetto environment with associated levels in dirt and<br />
unsociable activities.<br />
• Density of houses.<br />
• Sewerage and drainage not suitable.<br />
• Too many houses.<br />
• Loss of light.<br />
• Loss of privacy.<br />
• Not in character with the area.<br />
• Existing roads will not cope with the increase in traffic.<br />
• No provision for youngsters to play with the loss of this 'field'.<br />
• Electricity supply - Aquila 'H' post on writers land which is the main feed to Windyridge,<br />
supply route is in poor condition.<br />
• Cannot be Approval of Reserved Matters as the criteria has been exhausted.<br />
• Urbanised estate in a scenic Cotswold village.<br />
• Parking congestion.<br />
• Air pollution.<br />
• Noise pollution.<br />
• Pressure on services - flooding could occur.<br />
• Lack of facilities - especially for young people.<br />
• Design lacks originality.<br />
• Lack of space within the houses.<br />
• Out of keeping with surrounding houses.<br />
• Lack of landscaping, very small gardens.<br />
• Unattractive parking lot.<br />
• Intended tree planting will present a loss of light.<br />
• Revised plans: Numbers still too high. Scale is inappropriate in the village. No more than 12<br />
houses should be permitted.<br />
• No information on the houses that are going to be housing association.<br />
• Contrary to the principles laid out in the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan.<br />
• Revised plans: transport problems with additional dwellings and detrimental to character of<br />
village.<br />
• Deeply opposed to 'Leicester' design, height will cause loss of light and privacy<br />
• Revised plans: Village will lose its unique identity.<br />
• Given reasons for rejecting a recent environmentally friendly small business less than a mile<br />
away it would be hypocritical to approve this in its current form<br />
• Access onto Cheltenham Road is totally unsuitable. Should consider 2 cul-de-sacs off<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> Road.<br />
• Too many houses are proposed for the site<br />
• Three storey houses are inappropriate.<br />
• POS/ Play is not large enough<br />
• Lack of access to public footpath which leads via Bearsfield to the village amenities.<br />
• Possible to remove some of these objections via deletion of plots 22, 23 & 24.<br />
• Loss of children’s play area.<br />
40
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Site and Proposal<br />
The site is located within the village of Bisley, approximately <strong>10</strong>0 metres to the north west of the<br />
designated Conservation Area and in the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is split<br />
into two different areas the larger being currently a flat field that is used informally for recreational<br />
purposes and is surrounded on all sides by the rear gardens of two storey residential properties.<br />
On the north western boundary of the site is a 1.8 metre high close boarded fence. There are<br />
various hedges and fences on the other boundaries, varying in height depending on residents<br />
choice. There is a public footpath running across the eastern corner of the site and another in<br />
from the <strong>Stroud</strong> Road to the south west. The smaller area has low bungalows to the south, two<br />
storey dwellings to the north east and allotments to the north west. There is a band of low<br />
shrubby vegetation along the north west boundary and 1 metre chain link fencing to the south<br />
east.<br />
The proposal is for the approval of reserved matters, following outline approval S.01/355, for 26<br />
dwellings of which 8 are affordable units.<br />
Relevant History<br />
Application S.01/355 for "Renewal of outline permission S.98/176 for residential development"<br />
was approved on 18/4/2001.<br />
41
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Application S.01/872 for "Erection of ten dwellings with access road, parking and associated<br />
landscaping" was approved on a part of the previously approved site on <strong>10</strong>/7/2001.<br />
Application S.04/0070/OUT for "Outline application for residential development" was approved on<br />
18/2/<strong>2004</strong>.<br />
Parish <strong>Council</strong> Report<br />
1. SUSTAINABILITY<br />
1.1. GENERAL: Westbury Housing must be obliged to remedy the damage that will be caused to<br />
the local and wider environment through construction, building and long term living of 26 new<br />
dwellings. In an area with poor public transport and no local jobs, amenities and facilities, efforts<br />
must be made to counteract the environmental impact within the framework of sustainability. The<br />
larger context of global warming and climate change created by poor construction, transport and<br />
energy efficiency standards must be addressed.<br />
1.2. TRANSPORT: 26 dwellings in Bisley will create at least 50 new car journeys per day in<br />
respect of residents reaching the workplace, major shopping, leisure facilities etc. <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong> espouses sustainability in the Local Plan; this development contravenes this unless steps<br />
are taken to ensure that unnecessary car journeys will NOT be made and more local jobs, retail,<br />
amenities are encouraged and created.<br />
1.3. ENERGY EFFICIENCY: Westbury Homes must be obliged to ensure the highest standards<br />
of energy efficiency in their new buildings on Windyridge. <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> calls for<br />
standard standards - we request the highest possible standards which can easily be achieved at<br />
little additional cost through increased insulation, solar panels for water heating, maximising solar<br />
gain through careful alignment of glazing.<br />
1.4. WATER ISSUES: Flooding and drains are a real problem in Bisley already. Storm drainage<br />
should be dealt with on site, permeable surfaces in the car park areas and car parks could have<br />
soakaways under them so not dumping or adding to this local problem elsewhere. The<br />
affordable housing could have a joint rainwater harvesting system without huge cost implications.<br />
2. DESIGN AND LANDSCAPE<br />
1.1. OVERALL QUALITY: The overall design reflects neither the traditional village patterns or<br />
details, nor the local Windyridge simplicity of form and design.<br />
1.2. DENSITY: The site is too cramped. Major problem with number of houses and proximity to<br />
existing dwellings, especially for example those backing onto Bearsfield, the two backing onto<br />
existing Windyridge sheltered homes etc.<br />
1.3. PATTERNS: The layout is an urban form that does not enhance the site and its impact.<br />
There is too little green space, adding to its dreariness, and gardens are too tiny.<br />
1.4. SOME DETAILS: No Georgian porches please, no white plastic windows please, address<br />
apparent confusion in variations of angles of roof slopes, tiles should be plain concrete granular<br />
finish which weathers sympathetically. Keep it simple.<br />
1.5. RECREATION: The design is so dense it does not allow for any recreation space, especially<br />
for older children.<br />
1.6. TRAFFIC: Traffic volume through Bisley very high. The density of the design brings more<br />
cars to Bisley and hence more dangers to pedestrians and cyclists and other drivers on already<br />
dangerous roads. Locals walk to the shop/PO - using the Cheltenham Road - that is already<br />
dangerous. No pavements. Mares Lane is very dangerous because of "Bathurst House" wall<br />
42
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
and more cars will create more potential for accidents. Traffic reduction is an issue because<br />
there is currently no viable bus alternative.<br />
1.7. ACCESS: The design is so dense it does not allow for footpath access from Windryridge<br />
residents who, for safety reasons, should be allowed to use traditional footpath routes from the<br />
site into the village to access services. In particular, dwellings on the <strong>Stroud</strong> Road should be<br />
allowed footpath access and the east end of the new application should be unblocked to allow<br />
footpath access onto the existing right of way between Windyridge and Bearsfield.<br />
3. RECREATION AND AMENITY: Critical lack for children between 8-15 because of safety<br />
issues and major dangers crossing Cheltenham Road to access existing playing fields which are<br />
not overlooked. No covered facilities in Bisley. Most teenagers live on Windyridge already.<br />
4. SPECIFIC RESIDENTS CONCERN IN ADDITIONAL TO ABOVE:<br />
4.1. 3 storey dwellings.<br />
4.2. Back access from Windyridge gardens to footpath.<br />
4.3. Sewerage: already have problems of seeping into people's gardens – what will be done<br />
to address this?<br />
4.4. Power: Lots of power cuts on Windyridge - will additional power be installed to cope with<br />
dwellings?<br />
4.5. No. 49 still would like to walk alongside home so need a kerb to prevent cars<br />
encroaching against their proposed new wall.<br />
4.6. Bungalows at back of 19-22 Windyridge.<br />
4.7. Who owns the allotment hedge, will it be maintained properly and how can we ensure it<br />
is not cut down?<br />
4.8. Pavements needed, especially on Cheltenham Road - very dangerous.<br />
4.9. Where will these people work? - there is no local work.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
This application is considered against Policies H14, H8, H9, T1, G1, G2, G5 & R5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001 including Housing<br />
amendments September 2003). The relevant sections of Policy H14 permits development that: is<br />
of a scale, layout and design compatible with that part of the settlement in which it would be<br />
located, and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of that part of the<br />
settlement; is proposed at as high a density as is acceptable in townscape and amenity terms;<br />
includes dwellings of various sizes, both in respect of physical size and type; would not cause the<br />
loss of, or damage to, any open space which is important to the character of the settlement;<br />
retains any natural or built features worthy of retention; and provides an appropriate area of<br />
private amenity space for the occupiers of each dwelling-house. Regarding provision of<br />
affordable housing Policies H8 and H9 require 30% affordable housing provision on this<br />
development, provided in a mix that reflects local housing need and is maintained in the longer<br />
term. The relevant section of Policy T1 seeks to provide appropriate levels of parking in<br />
accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s Parking Standards. Policy R5 requires the provision of appropriate<br />
outdoor play space or where this is unrealistic a financial contribution in lieu of on site provision.<br />
The remaining Policies seek to ensure that no detrimental effects occur on: the amenities of the<br />
occupiers of neighbouring properties; highway safety; or, by means of pollution, on the<br />
environment. Further to this the roofscape of the proposed development will be visible from the<br />
edge of the Bisley Conservation Area and important views need to be protected, under Policy B4.<br />
Following extensive consultation with officers the layout and design of the scheme has been<br />
considerably revised. This is an application for the approval of reserved matters and so the<br />
principle of residential development has been agreed and only the specific details are under<br />
consideration. County Highways have no objection to the layout of the development purely<br />
requiring further information on the specific constructional details, this is covered by a condition<br />
on the outline consent which requires discharging. The proposal would not result in any<br />
43
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
increased highway dangers, in accordance with Policy G5. Condition 9 on the Outline<br />
permission requires submission of details of drainage, these have not yet been submitted and<br />
there is no obvious reason why the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the environment,<br />
and it is an issue for the developer to agree with Statutory undertakers to ensure that the<br />
development has adequate sewage facilities, all in accordance with Policy G2<br />
While at present there is sufficient play space provision in the local area to serve the population,<br />
it is relatively remote from the site and accessed by crossing the busy Cheltenham Road. As a<br />
result an area of Public Open Space (POS) has been provided near the entrance to the proposed<br />
site, to serve as a Local Area of Play (LAP). This along with an existing equipped play area<br />
(LEAP), that was provided on the previous development of ten properties, ensures that there is<br />
adequate provision to serve local residents in accordance with Policy R5. It would be<br />
unreasonable to require a larger area to be provided or additional contributions, however the<br />
applicant has advised that should Committee prefer to accept a commuted sum in lieu of the<br />
POS that they are happy to provide this.<br />
The footprint and height of the two bungalows proposed at the northern end of the site have been<br />
reduced, and the roof has been hipped. While the proposal will affect the outlook of the<br />
occupiers of 19 to 21 Windyridge, given that a two metre high fenceline can be erected under<br />
permitted development the height, massing and proximity of these dwellings would not have such<br />
a detrimental dominating effect as to warrant refusal. Further it will not affect privacy or result in<br />
a loss of light. There is a public footpath leading to the allotments that passes along the western<br />
side of this part of the site and the character and appearance from this elevation has a broken<br />
appearance that is compatible with the surrounding area. The access to these units is partly over<br />
the existing parking area serving the neighbouring bungalow and the scheme involves two<br />
tandem parking spaces to serve each of the existing and proposed bungalows. This is in<br />
accordance with Policies H14, T1 and G1<br />
The main development:<br />
Policy H14 requires as high a density as possible to be provided, subject to townscape and<br />
amenity. While the overall density is higher than the surrounding estate and with some<br />
properties fronting directly onto the road from the main public thoroughfares the varying and<br />
broken building frontages is compatible with and will not cause harm to the character and<br />
appearance of the area. Concern was specifically raised by objectors to the "Leicester" type<br />
properties. The long vista down the development is now finished by standard two storey<br />
properties and in the revised positions they will be viewed at closer range and in conjunction with<br />
other buildings such that they will not be overly obtrusive. The proposal contains a good range<br />
and mix of house types and an appropriate area of private amenity space is provided to serve<br />
each dwelling. Again the application is for the approval of reserved matters and the loss of the<br />
openness of the area has already been agreed at the Outline stage. There are no natural or built<br />
features worthy of retention. The proposal is in accordance with Policy H14. The roof line when<br />
viewed up from the Conservation Area has been revised, removing the two and a half storey<br />
elements and it will now be viewed as varying two storey properties and will preserve views out of<br />
the Conservation Area in accordance with Policy B4.<br />
The scheme has been revised to ensure the 25 metre back-to-back separation distances<br />
required in the <strong>Council</strong>'s Residential Design Guide have been met. In some places this has<br />
resulted in the properties being pushed nearer to the estate road but on balance ensuring privacy<br />
was more important than a large defensible space in front of the property. Also the dormer<br />
windows on the rear elevation of the "Leicester" properties have been replaced with roof lights,<br />
which should serve to reduce further any perceived overlooking. The proposal would not have a<br />
detrimental effect on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with<br />
Policy G1.<br />
44
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
On the issue of affordable housing: 26 units in total are proposed, 30% of which is 7.8 units. The<br />
development includes 8 affordable units of various sizes and designs, a legal agreement will be<br />
required to ensure that this provision is retained in the longer term. The proposal is in<br />
accordance with Policies H8 and H9.<br />
It is recommended to Resolve not to Refuse the application subject to a legal agreement to retain<br />
the affordable housing and provide a maintenance contribution for the public open space.<br />
Sites Inspection Panel<br />
The Panel walked along the existing housing frontages noting their design, aspect and siting. The<br />
existing equipped play area close to the application site was evident. The public footpath running<br />
south west from the application site was also highlighted. The Panel proceeded by walking onto<br />
both elements of the application site.<br />
The Parish <strong>Council</strong> representative reiterated their objection. The scheme was felt to be too<br />
dense, and 22 houses would be more appropriate for this context. It was suggested that a<br />
through footpath should be created to avoid a cul-de-sac giving better community cohesion and<br />
security. Concern was also expressed about the likely volume of traffic. The ward Member, Cllr.<br />
Le Fleming sympathised with the Parish <strong>Council</strong> comments on density especially in relation to<br />
plots 9-15, which appear to have been squashed in. He was also concerned about the recreation<br />
space, and felt that there should be better provision for youth recreation in accordance with policy<br />
R5. The Parish <strong>Council</strong>lor confirmed that the village playing field is 400-500 yards away. The<br />
County Highways Officer could not attend, but is not objecting to the application.<br />
One Member of the Panel questioned whether the design was highway led and the resulting<br />
implications for pedestrians as well as the streetscene. Another Member felt that the number of<br />
houses could lead to excessive traffic and questioned the play facilities. The majority of the Panel<br />
were generally favourable towards the scheme.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 09<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/0722/VAR<br />
Grid Reference: 387272,200546<br />
Application Type:<br />
Waldeck, Chapel Lane, Minchinhampton, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
2<strong>10</strong>45<br />
Minchinhampton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Variation of Condition<br />
45
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Removal of Condition 6 attached to permission ref.S.02/826 for<br />
erection of dwelling (Requiring improvements to visibility at the junction<br />
of Chapel Lane and Tetbury Street)<br />
Mr. & Mrs.N.Gooch<br />
Waldeck, Chapel Lane, Minchinhampton, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL6 9DL<br />
Mr Philip Hodges<br />
Tetbury Upton, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, GL8 8LP<br />
Eleanor Jackson<br />
06.04.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. Condition 6 of planning permission S.02/826 requires improvements to<br />
be made to the sub-standard junction of Chapel Lane and Tetbury Street.<br />
The applicant has not submitted sufficient information to prove that these<br />
junction improvements are not necessary and therefore, the removal of<br />
Condition 6 would be detrimental to highway safety and contrary to Policy<br />
G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
Support:<br />
The proposals arose from a <strong>Planning</strong> Inspector's decision, and councillors commented that there<br />
was no need to realign the pavement, already wide at this point, or introduce measures that<br />
would require signage and lighting. There was a proposal already to introduce parking on the<br />
south side of the street that would have a calming effect. The <strong>Council</strong> suggest that the junction<br />
be left as it is, and that the Inspector has imposed an unnecessary condition upon the appellants.<br />
County Surveyor (Initial)<br />
Recommend refusal on grounds that removal of condition would result in development that would<br />
increase use of sub-standard junction which, in the absence of satisfactory improvement, would<br />
be likely to increase dangers and hazards to other road users.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
Occupiers, Bubblewell Cottage, Chapel Lane<br />
Mr & Mrs Wilkins, Chapel Farm, Chapel Lane<br />
C Norris, Field House, Chapel Lane<br />
46
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• Condition should not be removed.<br />
• Junction of Chapel Lane and Tetbury Street is dangerous, any measure to improve visibility for<br />
vehicles is welcomed.<br />
• Condition 6 should not be removed.<br />
Letters of Support<br />
Mrs V Boyce, The Old Barn, Chapel Lane<br />
Peter Farley, The Old Chapel, Chapel Lane<br />
M Hart (Eggleton), Dove Barn, Chapel Lane<br />
Dr R W Lamb, Chapel Lane Cottage, Chapel Lane<br />
Mr & Mrs Palmer, Inglestone, Chapel Lane<br />
Mrs A Weller, 16 Tetbury Street, Minchinhampton<br />
• Support; any change in present is unnecessary.<br />
• Volume of traffic from Chapel Lane has always been low. Junction of Chapel Lane and Tetbury<br />
Street should be left as it is.<br />
• One new dwelling will not affect / increase the existing safety risks.<br />
• Will not help the situation.<br />
• No history of accidents in that area.<br />
• Traffic in Chapel Lane is not unduly heavy and exit to Tetbury Street not particularly hazardous<br />
although probably does not conform to current standards.<br />
• The site is considered ideal for this purpose<br />
• This condition is considered nonsense when this area is riddled with quirky hazards that are well<br />
known and regarded.<br />
47
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
Introduction and Site<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
An outline application for the erection of one dwelling on a paddock fronting Chapel Lane was<br />
refused by Committee on 13th August 2002. The reason for refusal was as follows: -<br />
The proposed development would be likely to result in an intensification in vehicular use of the<br />
sub-standard site access together with the sub-standard road serving the site which is unsuitable<br />
to cater for the proposed development by reason of its restricted width/poor alignment/ lack of<br />
footways/lack of passing bays and sub-standard junction with Tetbury Street to the detriment of<br />
highway safety and contrary to Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
An appeal was lodged against this refusal and allowed on <strong>10</strong>th September 2003. In granting<br />
permission, the Inspector imposed a number of conditions, one of which states:-<br />
Development shall not begin until details of improvements to visibility at the junction of Chapel<br />
Lane and Tetbury Street have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local <strong>Planning</strong><br />
Authority. The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the scheme has been<br />
implemented in accordance with the approved details.<br />
48
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The current application seeks the removal of this condition from the outline planning permission.<br />
Chapel Lane is a single track road with passing places and is a no through road which terminates<br />
in an access into Gatcombe Park.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> History<br />
Outline permission ref. S.02/<strong>08</strong>26 for the erection of one dwelling granted on appeal <strong>10</strong>/09/2003.<br />
All matters are reserved for future consideration.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
The principle of a dwelling on the paddock to the front of Waldeck House has already been<br />
established by the outline permission. The issue for consideration here is whether the dwelling<br />
should be built without the improvements required by the Appeal Inspector being carried out at<br />
the junction of Chapel Lane and Tetbury Street. Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) relating to highway safety is therefore<br />
relevant.<br />
In support of their case, the applicants state that this is the last development plot in Chapel Lane<br />
and therefore no further dwellings will use the junction; an increase in traffic using the junction<br />
does not materially increase the risk of conflict; there is no record of any traffic accident at this<br />
junction; recorded traffic speeds on both these roads is very low (24mph); newly published advice<br />
from ODPM states that sub-standard junctions result in increased safety as people take greater<br />
care; this ODPM advise is a material consideration to <strong>Planning</strong> Inspectors and GCC are<br />
proposing alterations to parking restrictions in Tetbury Street which will have the effect of calming<br />
traffic and improving visibility from Chapel Lane.<br />
The Highway Authority maintain that the appeal Inspector imposed Condition 6 for good reasons<br />
based on information submitted to the Appeal Hearing and the development would result in<br />
additional traffic movements on the existing sub-standard junction, contrary to Policy G5. The<br />
removal of the condition would be likely to increase dangers and hazards for other road users.<br />
Objections to the removal of the condition have been received from three neighbours who feel<br />
that this is a dangerous junction and any improvement would be welcomed. Letters supporting its<br />
removal have been received from six neighbours.<br />
Minchinhampton Parish <strong>Council</strong> supports the application. Their full comments are set out at the<br />
start of this report.<br />
In summary, the Appeal Inspector concluded, based on information submitted at a hearing, that<br />
the development was acceptable subject to the applicant carrying out improvements to a substandard<br />
junction. If that work is not carried out the application remains contrary to Policy G5 of<br />
the Local Plan. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.<br />
Sites Inspection Panel<br />
The Panel walked along Tetbury Street and Chapel Lane noting the visibility at the junction and<br />
the road widths. They then went on to inspect the actual development site. Officers explained that<br />
the condition was imposed by the <strong>Planning</strong> Inspector allowing an appeal for a new house in<br />
Chapel Lane, and was intended to improve visibility.<br />
The Ward Member, Cllr. Mrs Bird, felt that the condition was unnecessary as the roads were<br />
typical of the town which results in slow, careful driving. Moreover, visibility improvements could<br />
look unsightly, impacting on the Conservation Area. The Parish <strong>Council</strong> were not represented but<br />
support the application. The County Highways Officer stated that the visibility was substandard<br />
and the junction should be redesigned.<br />
49
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
With one exception, the Panel questioned the appropriateness of the condition and would be in<br />
favour of permitting the application.<br />
Human Rights<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: <strong>10</strong><br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/0096/FUL<br />
Land At Nympsfield Road & Land Adjacent To King George V Playing<br />
Field, Wood Lane, Nailsworth, Gloucestershire<br />
25065<br />
Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 383693,200058<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Construction of new football stadium and associated facilities with new<br />
access onto Nympsfield Road. Also construction of new playing field<br />
on land adjacent to existing King George V Playing Field, Wood Lane,<br />
Nailsworth.<br />
Forest Green Rovers Football Club<br />
The Lawn, Nympsfield Road, Nailsworth, Glos. GL6 0ET<br />
J Mason Associates<br />
4 Phoenix House, Hyssop Close, Cannock, Staffs, WS11 2F<br />
John Balfe<br />
19.01.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Resolve Not to Refuse<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
50
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be<br />
used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building works<br />
hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the<br />
Head of Development Services. Development shall then only be carried<br />
out in accordance with the approved details.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.<br />
3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details<br />
of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping for the site have been<br />
submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Development<br />
Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.<br />
4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of<br />
landscaping shall be carried out in the first complete planting and seeding<br />
seasons following the occupation of the buildings, or the completion of<br />
the development to which it relates, whichever is the sooner. Any trees<br />
or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the<br />
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or<br />
diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of<br />
similar size and species, unless the Head of Development Services gives<br />
written consent to any variation.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.<br />
5. All existing trees shall be retained unless shown on the approved<br />
drawings as being removed. Prior to any equipment, machinery,<br />
materials or vehicles being brought onto the site for the purposes of<br />
commencing development, and until all such equipment, machinery,<br />
vehicles and surplus materials have been removed from the site after<br />
completion of development, all trees on, and immediately adjoining the<br />
site, must be securely protected to the satisfaction of the Head of<br />
Development Services. Each of the trees retained must be fenced to<br />
protect the area within the crown spread, or at a radius equal to half the<br />
height of the tree, whichever is greater.<br />
a) The protective fencing must be sited in accordance with the approved<br />
tree and landscape survey, and it must not be removed at any time<br />
during development without the written consent of the Head of<br />
Development Services.<br />
b) Within the protected area ground levels must remain as existing and<br />
no excavations must take place.<br />
c) No vehicles, materials, spoil, equipment, containers or chemicals must<br />
be placed or stored within the protected area.<br />
d) No fires must be lit within 25 metres of the canopy edge of any trees.<br />
e) Before any work commences on the site, details of all proposed<br />
arboriculture works to existing trees on or adjoining the site shall be<br />
submitted to and be approved in writing by the Head of Development<br />
Services. No works to existing trees on or adjoining the site shall be<br />
51
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
carried out without the prior written consent of the Head of Development<br />
Services.<br />
f) Any existing trees not shown as being removed on the approved<br />
drawings which die, are removed or become so damaged or diseased<br />
within a period of 5 years from the completion of development that they<br />
have to be removed, must be replaced as soon as reasonably<br />
practicable. In practice, this will be during the next available planting<br />
season. The size, species and location of the replacement tree(s) must<br />
be agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the health and safety of the trees on the site and to ensure<br />
continuity of the visual amenity that they provide.<br />
6. No development shall take place on the land adjacent to the King George<br />
V playing field until details for the protection and long term retention of<br />
the tree situated on the boundary and located between levels 87.12 and<br />
87.72 have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services. Such details shall include measures so that the<br />
root system is not disturbed. The development shall then be carried out<br />
in accordance with the details so agreed.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the tree concerned is not damaged and is retained for the long<br />
term. In the interests of amenity.<br />
7. The development hereby authorised must not be commenced until details<br />
regarding the location and practicalities of temporary parking, temporary<br />
entrances, temporary accommodation and delivery/materials storage<br />
areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the trees and other natural features of the site which are<br />
shown as retained are not damaged, destroyed or otherwise<br />
compromised by the need to ensure implementation of the above to<br />
secure the approved development.<br />
8. No siteworks shall commence until such time as a temporary car parking<br />
area for site operatives and construction traffic has been laid out and<br />
constructed within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to<br />
and agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services and that area<br />
shall be retained available for that purpose for the duration of building<br />
operations.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the access roads in the vicinity of the site are kept free from<br />
construction traffic, in the interests of highway safety.<br />
9. Surface water drainage shall be discharged via soakaways so long as it<br />
is clean and any other surface water shall be disposed of via discharge to<br />
a deep trap interceptor gully prior to discharge to any soakaway. The car<br />
parking bays at the Stadium part of the site shall be finished in gravel to<br />
allow direct drainage to the subsoil.<br />
Reason:<br />
52
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
To comply with Policy G2 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised<br />
Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). To prevent pollution of the<br />
water environment. To provide a drainage system in accordance with<br />
SUD's principles.<br />
<strong>10</strong>. Prior to the commencement of building operations details shall be<br />
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services<br />
which demonstrate surface water run-off is not exceeded beyond current<br />
site conditions. The development shall then be carried out in accordance<br />
with the details so agreed.<br />
Reason:<br />
To prevent adverse surface water run-off conditions, to comply with<br />
Policy G2 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
11. Prior to the commencement of any development, a scheme for the<br />
provision and implementation of surface water limitation shall be<br />
submitted to and agreed in writing with the Head of Development<br />
Services. The works/scheme shall be constructed and completed in<br />
accordance with the plans and timetable approved by the Head of<br />
Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To prevent the increased risk of flooding in accordance with <strong>Planning</strong><br />
Policy Guidance Note 25 Development & Flood Risk (PPG25) and Policy<br />
G4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
12. Before the stadium part of the development is brought into use provision<br />
shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water from the<br />
stadium site/access roads in accordance with details to be submitted to<br />
and agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services and the<br />
works as approved shall thereafter be similarly maintained.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that surface water does not discharge onto the highway, in the<br />
interests of highway safety.<br />
13. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until<br />
works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on site to serve the<br />
development, in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in<br />
writing by the Head of Development Services, prior to the<br />
commencement of development.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure adequate provision is made for the disposal of sewage.<br />
14. The Development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the<br />
new access leading from the Stadium to Nympsfield Road has been<br />
completed to at least base course level.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety and to ensure a suitable access is<br />
constructed to the site for its construction. To comply with Policy G5 of<br />
the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
53
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
June 2001).<br />
15. No other works shall commence on the stadium development hereby<br />
approved until the first 30.0 m. of the construction access road from the<br />
proposed Nortonwood roundabout on the existing county highway has<br />
been laid out in accordance with the submitted plans and prior to the<br />
occupation of the new stadium constructed to at least base course level.<br />
Suitable measures shall be taken to prevent loose materials travelling<br />
from the site onto the highway.<br />
Reason<br />
In the interests of highway safety.<br />
16. Before the development hereby authorised is brought into use the car<br />
parking and manoeuvring facilities shall be completed in all respects in<br />
accordance with the submitted details and shall be similarly maintained<br />
thereafter for that purpose.<br />
Reason:<br />
To enable vehicles to enter and leave the highway in forward gear in the<br />
interests of highway safety.<br />
17. Prior to the commencement of any site construction works vehicle wheel<br />
cleaning facilities and details of road cleaning arrangements shall be<br />
provided in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by<br />
the Head of Development Services, and thereafter be maintained for the<br />
duration of the siteworks.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that mud and earth deposits are not brought onto the public<br />
highway in the interests of highway safety.<br />
18. No development on the stadium shall commence until such time as a<br />
phasing programme for highway works has been submitted to and<br />
approved by the Head of Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure adequate access is provided in the interests of highway safety.<br />
19. Prior to the bringing into use of the stadium and ancillary facilities hereby<br />
authorised, all highway works, including pedestrian routes and traffic<br />
calming measures, shall be completed. Such works shall be maintained<br />
as such thereafter, unless agreed in writing to the contrary by the Head of<br />
Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with the provisions of<br />
Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
20. No part of the stadium development shall be brought into use until space<br />
has been laid out within the site in accordance with details to be<br />
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services<br />
for the secure parking of bicycles.<br />
Reason:<br />
54
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
In the interests of sustainable aims of central and Local Government<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Policies and to comply with Policy T1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
21. No beneficial use of the stadium hereby authorised shall commence until<br />
provision has been made within the site for parking, turning and loading<br />
and unloading of coaches /goods vehicles in accordance with the<br />
submitted details and thereafter maintained for the duration of the use.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety.<br />
22. No works shall commence on the stadium site until details of a Travel<br />
Plan have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services in consultation with the Highway Authority. The<br />
travel plan details so approved shall be implemented in full prior to<br />
beneficial use of the development hereby authorised commencing.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that the development is served by an adequate travel plan in<br />
line with the sustainable aims of central and local Government.<br />
23. No works shall commence on the stadium site until such time a Traffic<br />
Calming scheme for Nympsfield Road generally in accordance with the<br />
submitted drawings has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the<br />
Head of Development Services, in consultation with the Highway<br />
Authority and the scheme so approved implemented in full prior to<br />
beneficial use of the development hereby authorised commencing.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of Highway safety.<br />
24. No works shall commence on site until either (a) full engineering details<br />
for the roundabout located at the junction between Nympsfield Road and<br />
the upper Nortonwood Road, have been submitted to and agreed in<br />
writing by the Head of Development Services, in consultation with the<br />
Highway Authority or, (b) a construction traffic management plan,<br />
including temporary construction access proposals has been submitted to<br />
and agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services. The<br />
scheme (a) so approved shall be implemented in full prior to the bringing<br />
into use of the Stadium in full in accordance with the agreed details to be<br />
submitted under (a) above.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of Highway Safety.<br />
25. No site development shall commence on the stadium until details of a<br />
pedestrian link has been provided between the site and the existing<br />
footway to the south of Nympsfield Road (school side, and within the<br />
capabilities of the applicant to provide) with full details submitted to and<br />
approved by the Head of Development Services following consultation<br />
with the Local Highway Authority and no beneficial use of the<br />
development hereby authorised shall commence until the scheme as<br />
approved is fully operational.<br />
Reason:<br />
55
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
To ensure that adequate pedestrian facilities are provided in line with the<br />
Governments declared aims towards sustainable development and<br />
highway safety.<br />
26. No development shall commence on the stadium until details for the new<br />
bus shelter and Flag Pole Stop at the proposed dropping point within the<br />
site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services and no part of the development shall be brought<br />
into use until the bus stop improvements have been provided in<br />
accordance with the approved plans.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety.<br />
27. The stadium shall not be brought into use until any loudspeaker or tannoy<br />
system has been installed to the satisfaction of the Head of Development<br />
Services. If within 12 months of the date of its commissioning the system<br />
is deemed to be too loud it shall be adjusted to a lower dBA again to the<br />
satisfaction of the Head of Development Services and maintained at such<br />
an agreed level thereafter, unless directed to the contrary by the Head of<br />
Development Services. The details shall include reference to the playing<br />
of music or announcements before, during and at the end of the use of<br />
the stadium for matches.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the provisions of Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local<br />
Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) and reduce the<br />
incidence of noise emanating from the site to an operational minimum.<br />
28. The lighting hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until it has<br />
been directed and hooded to confine lighting to the immediate ground<br />
area, to the satisfaction of the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority. The lighting shall<br />
then only be used if it continues to be so directed and hooded.<br />
Reason:<br />
To prevent light pollution.<br />
29. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted, details of<br />
containers for the deposit of litter on the frontage of the premises shall be<br />
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services,<br />
and those agreed containers provided. Those containers shall then be<br />
retained thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the amenities of the area.<br />
30. Prior to any beneficial use of the new King George V playing field<br />
extension, the bollards shown on the applicant's submitted plan, located<br />
at the end of the parking area, shall be erected and maintained for the<br />
duration of the use, unless agreed to the contrary in writing by the Head<br />
of Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To prevent vehicles not associated with the maintenance of the site from<br />
driving across the existing playing field. In the interests of safety to the<br />
users of the field.<br />
56
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
31. Prior to the bringing into use of the development hereby permitted all<br />
fencing shown on the applicants submitted plans shall be erected and<br />
maintained as such thereafter, unless alternative arrangements are<br />
agreed to the contrary in writing by the Head of Development Services.<br />
Reason<br />
In the interests of providing adequate security and safety measures for<br />
the site and surrounding land uses.<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1,G2, G4, G5,<br />
B1,12, B13, B14, N2, N3, N4, N6, N7, N8, N9, N12, T1, R1, and R3 of<br />
the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
June 2001) and Policies S.RE1 and S.5 of the Structure Plan.<br />
Policy G1 seeks to ensure proposals do not adversely affect the<br />
amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by<br />
reason of overbearing effect, noise, smell, fumes, loss of privacy,<br />
general disturbance or loss of light (both daylight and sunlight). The<br />
development will not create smell or fumes when completed. It has been<br />
demonstrated the development will not result in the loss of light and that<br />
noise and general disturbance will be limited and within levels which are<br />
considered to be acceptable by the <strong>Council</strong>. Due to the distance<br />
between the stadium and residential properties, suitable screening<br />
measures and landscaping proposals it will not result in a loss of privacy<br />
or overbearing effect. It is accepted that there will be some noise and<br />
disturbance during construction but this will be limited in terms of hours<br />
of operation.<br />
The development provides a means of access to the site which is safe to<br />
both highway users and pedestrians. This would therefore ensure the<br />
development is in compliance with Policies G5 and T1 of the Local Plan<br />
which relates to highway safety matters and sustainability of<br />
development proposals. The scheme provides a means of access which<br />
complies with adopted standards and traffic calming will be introduced<br />
together with a request to reduce the speed limit to 20 m.p.h.<br />
The development will comply with the provisions of Policy G2 in that it<br />
uses sustainable drainage techniques and measures will be put in place<br />
to prevent pollution. The development by using these techniques also<br />
complies with the requirement to prevent flooding via surface water runoff.<br />
The applicant has undertaken an archaeological survey of the site both<br />
as a desk top assessment and field evaluation. This has demonstrated<br />
the development will not have any adverse impacts on archaeological<br />
matters of significance. As such the development complies with the<br />
terms of Policies B12 and B13 of the Local Plan.<br />
Due to the topography and distance between the site and the near by<br />
Woodchester Park, a designated historic park, the impact of the scheme<br />
is minimal and will not adversely affect its setting. A point confirmed by<br />
the Garden History Society. Policy B14 relates to the protection of such<br />
important areas.<br />
57
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Policy N2 relates to the protection of special areas for conservation,<br />
including key wildlife sites, and which the site bounds. The measures for<br />
mitigation which form part of the Section <strong>10</strong>6 Agreement will result in<br />
non significant effects on this area of designation. Species will be<br />
relocated prior to construction and specialist advice confirms such<br />
mitigation measures are acceptable. The scheme therefore complies<br />
with the Policy. The same is said of Policy N3 which seeks to protect<br />
species that are protected.<br />
Policy N4 relates to the protection of features such as trees, hedgerows<br />
and vegetation which helps to conserve and enhance bio diversity. The<br />
proposals include the provision of new landscaping proposals and the<br />
retention of trees and hedgerows. A condition is also imposed regarding<br />
finite landscaping details which will enhance bio diversity. The<br />
development is in compliance with this policy.<br />
Regard has been had to the impact the proposals will have on the<br />
Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and which the stadium site<br />
abuts and which the new playing field is within. Policies N6, N7 and N8<br />
relate to the landscape and the effect any development will have upon<br />
such. Natural features will be conserved where possible and it has not<br />
been possible to find an alternative location within the district to provide<br />
the proposed facilities. The sites are on the edge of the urban boundary<br />
or within it and a proven need has been established. Whilst the scale of<br />
the stadium is large the landscape form and pattern of development has<br />
been examined and not considered to be unacceptable.<br />
Policy N9 restricts development in high quality landscape designations<br />
unless the benefits of the scheme outweigh the importance of the<br />
designation. The scheme is viewed as one which has a large community<br />
benefit and will provide facilities for a wide number of persons in the<br />
community. The public benefit of the proposal outweighs the importance<br />
of the landscape designation of which the site only partially lies within.<br />
Policy N12 relates to the provision of high quality landscaping. The<br />
development plans have provided a structural landscaping scheme and<br />
a condition is imposed regarding detailed landscaping for the site which<br />
will further enhance the quality of the development.<br />
Policies R1 and R3 relate to developments which would result in the loss<br />
of play space in public or private ownership. The Policy seeks to restrict<br />
the loss of outdoor play space unless the equivalent amount of land of<br />
similar quality, quantity and accessibility is provided elsewhere. The<br />
scheme provides for this and is therefore considered to comply with the<br />
requirements of these policies.<br />
2. In reaching the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision it has taken into account the<br />
information supplied in the applicant's Environmental Statement, Further<br />
Information and representations made about the Environmental<br />
Statement by the Public and Consultees.<br />
3. The Local Highway Authority will require the developer to enter into a<br />
legally binding agreement to secure the proper implementation of the<br />
proposed highway works including an appropriate bond.<br />
58
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Please refer to main body of report for the Town <strong>Council</strong>'s comments on this application.<br />
English Sports <strong>Council</strong> SW<br />
Sport England agree with the proposals so long as:<br />
1.Prior to the completion of the new football stadium a new high quality playing pitch is<br />
constructed with drainage systems, levelled and seeded at the adjacent school site. Sport<br />
England recommends that this work be carried out in accordance our 'Natural Turf for Sport'<br />
document. In addition, the new playing pitch should be enclosed.<br />
2. Prior to the completion of the new football stadium a formal Community Use agreement shall<br />
be submitted and approved in writing by the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority for the use of the new<br />
school playing pitch and ancillary changing facilities. The plan shall include details of pricing<br />
policy, hours of use, management and maintenance. The plan shall then be implemented upon<br />
commencement of use of the facility to the satisfaction of those involved including <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>, Gloucestershire County <strong>Council</strong> and Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
3. Prior to the commencement of residential development at The Lawn (existing Forest Green<br />
Rovers Stadium) a new high quality playing pitch is constructed with drainage systems, levelled<br />
and seeded on land adjacent to King George V Playing Field. Sport England recommends that<br />
this work be carried out in accordance our 'Natural Turf for Sport' documents. Adequate changing<br />
facilities should be made available to serve these playing pitches.<br />
4. A commitment is made to make the proposed sports facilities on the adjacent King George V<br />
Playing Field available for use by the wider community on an agreed basis. This should be<br />
achieved through the completion of a formal 'Community Use Agreement' to the satisfaction of<br />
those involved including <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, Gloucestershire County <strong>Council</strong> and Nailsworth<br />
Town <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
5. A financial commitment is made by the applicants (Forest Green Rovers) to establish and<br />
maintain the new playing pitch at King George V Playing Field to the satisfaction of the Local<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Authority.<br />
Environment Agency<br />
The Environment Agency do not object to the development but have raised a number of issues<br />
and require conditions to be imposed regarding drainage and contaminated land matters. They<br />
suggest SUD's techniques be used for the car parking areas. Ecological mitigation methods as<br />
suggested in the applicant's report are enforced and conditioned as part of any permission.<br />
Fire Services HQ<br />
The Fire Authority has no observations to make.<br />
Mr Charles Parry<br />
The County Archaeologist requested a field eveluation take place following the submission of the<br />
Desk Top Assessment. The result of the work was negative in that no significant archaeological<br />
deposits were found. As a result it is recommended that no further archaeological investigation or<br />
recording should be required in connection with the scheme.<br />
PC Pickersgill<br />
59
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The Police Authority have been consulted and they are concerned regarding the size of the<br />
roundabout proposed at the entrance to the stadium but defer matters relating to highway safety<br />
to the Highway Authority.<br />
They wish to see the development accord with the principles of 'secured by design' and have<br />
some concern regarding the location of parking spaces 97 - 1<strong>10</strong> as they will not be open to<br />
natural surveillance. Any landscaping proposals may reduce the amount of natural surveillance<br />
available to the site.<br />
They wish to see the area with lighting and would wish to comment further on the accessing<br />
arrangements for persons entering and leaving the stadium. They have been in consultation with<br />
the club. Fencing is indicated on the boundaries and this will prevent indiscriminate parking.<br />
They query areas where arrested people on match days can be detained and query the final<br />
specification for alarms on the building and the nature of any bars, gym and offices.<br />
In respect of the proposal to extend the ground at King George V site it is recommended some<br />
traffic calming be introduced to the roads serving the site.<br />
Severn Trent<br />
Severn Trent Water raises no objections subject to conditions relating to drainage works being<br />
undertaken to reduce the risk of flooding.<br />
Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust<br />
The Trust is in receipt of both the original application and the subsequent additional information.<br />
They confirm that a sufficient ecological assessment has been carried out for the site and that the<br />
relevant areas of concern have been identified. They are also of the view that the proposed<br />
mitigation measures for wildlife are appropriate and will ensure that the proposed development<br />
does not result in any significant adverse effects on species.<br />
Garden History Society<br />
The Garden History Society which comments on proposals which may affect a registered Park or<br />
Garden (Woodchester Park in this instance) has no comments to make.<br />
English Nature<br />
English Nature confirm the site is within 0.5km of Woodchester Park SSSI which is important for<br />
its populations of Bats. The Environmental Statement recognises this importance and has<br />
suggested valid mitigation measures to ensure the foraging routes of the Bats are not<br />
significantly affected in the wider area around Woodchester Park.<br />
English Heritage<br />
English Heritage considers this to be a case which can be determined by the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> in<br />
accordance with Government Guidance, Development Plan policies and Conservation advice<br />
locally. They do not wish to make any representations.<br />
Countryside Agency<br />
The Countryside Agency has decided not to make any formal representations on this application.<br />
County Surveyor (Rich Gray)<br />
60
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The Highway Authority raise no objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of conditions<br />
relating to highway improvements and safety measures which are attached to the<br />
recommendation.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
Mr, Mrs & A Elliott, 1 The Green, Nympsfield Road<br />
P Hayward, Bramble Cottage, Nympsfield Road<br />
Mr G Gosbell, The Old Nick, Park Road<br />
J B & L M Williams, Cartref, Nympsfield Road<br />
I Wallace, Clemlia, Nympsfield Road<br />
Patrick J Mulligan, North Farm, Nympsfield Road<br />
M J Harvey, The Longhouse, Southfields<br />
Miss Sharland & Mr Novoth, 6 Carters Way, Nailsworth<br />
Mr & Mrs Stockwell, 27 Carters Way, Nailsworth<br />
Mrs V Heaven, The Cottage, Nympsfield Road<br />
Mr N Porter, 25 Bunting Way, Nailsworth<br />
M Karlsen, The Wedge, Market Street<br />
Mr & Mrs Green, 1 Walkley Wood Cottages, Walkley Wood<br />
Mr & Mrs Lannon, 46 Carters Way, Nailsworth<br />
Mrs M Daley, 13 Benton Court, Nympsfield<br />
S Gaulding, 18 Bunting Way, Nailsworth<br />
Mr P Villars, GMA <strong>Planning</strong>, Queens House<br />
• Loss of view<br />
• Access would be through a residential area with limited parking.<br />
• Is limited/no parking for the existing football pitch so additional pitch would make the existing<br />
problem worse.<br />
• Relocation from Forest Green would be a step backwards as there are least good access<br />
facilities for traffic to the existing pitch.<br />
• Additional traffic could prove hazardous to children.<br />
• Noise and air pollution.<br />
• A footpath opened at the far side of the ground to serve the Barnfield area would help<br />
spread the volume of people leaving.<br />
• Concern over the lighting in the car park 7 days a week.<br />
• Concern over the use of the car park for a park and ride scheme.<br />
• Loss of jobs<br />
• Highways - Wood Lane is single track, additional movement or parking would cause chaos<br />
for residents.<br />
• Loss of valuable facility - unfair to remove facility from outside their door to more than a mile<br />
away.<br />
• Design/scale of the proposed stadium.<br />
• Detrimental to the character of the area.<br />
• Replacement playing field on the other side on the A46 is illogical.<br />
• Implications for emergency services.<br />
• Light pollution.<br />
• Opening hours - 7am to midnight<br />
• Anti social behaviour.<br />
• House prices devalued.<br />
61
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• In the emerging Local Plan the site is labelled as 'protected playspace', as such it states that<br />
these areas should be safeguarded from development as they make an important<br />
contribution to the quality of local environments.<br />
• Contravenes PPG1 and PPG12.<br />
• AONB.<br />
• Does not provide a reasonable alternative for replacement playspace.<br />
• Key Wildlife Site.<br />
• Acoustic report does not take into account the construction noise and the baseline<br />
measurements are incomplete.<br />
• Report provides a measurement for only pre-match time and not prior to kick off, during or<br />
after the match.<br />
• The ES does not include a relevant assessment of national, regional and local planning<br />
policies that are applicable.<br />
• No justification provided for what was included in the EIA.<br />
• Applicant states 'SDC provided an informal scoping opinion only' no record of this was<br />
provided and it is not clear how the public consultation has therefore informed the scope of<br />
the EIA.<br />
• Sun and shadow study does not quantify the amount of shadow that will effect North Farm.<br />
• Why is it necessary to have a stadium capacity of 5,000 if the impact of the total and full<br />
capacity is not going to be considered.<br />
• Plans incorrectly show the context around North Farm.<br />
Letters of Support<br />
T Tiley, 32 Shepherds Leaze, Wotton-Under-Edge<br />
Mrs King, 38 The Bassetts, Cashes Green<br />
R Workman, Nailsworth Church of England Primary School, Nympsfield Road<br />
K A Russell & C White, 21 Park Road, Nailsworth<br />
Mr K Hall, 19 Hopemills Park, Brimscombe<br />
C M Sutton, 6 Parliament Close, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
T J Barnard, 6 Twilley Street, London<br />
E C Holmes, 16 West Tynings, Nailsworth<br />
D H Gardner, 29 Castle Mead, Kings Stanley<br />
S Gardner, 26 Woodcock Lane, Stonehouse<br />
K & S Alexander, 16 Victoria Road, Brimscombe<br />
A King, 31 Borough Close, Kings Stanley<br />
M Woodward, 20 Wickridge Close, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
S Rodway, Lodge View, Star Hill<br />
B Moore, 8 Dozule Close, Leonard Stanley<br />
Mr M Coles, 33 Carters Way, Nailsworth<br />
Mr R Grant, 37 Carters Way, Nailsworth<br />
Mr B Fream, 2 Barnfield Avenue, Nailsworth<br />
Mr R Kerry, 27 Churchill Road, Nailsworth<br />
Mrs J Affleck, Barkey Hill, Watledge Road<br />
Mr P Vick, 9 Worley Ridge, Nailsworth<br />
Mr S Ward, 2 Foxes Dell, Nortonwood<br />
Mr N Dodd, 15 Whitecroft, Nailsworth<br />
Mr L Ostle, 93 Nortonwood, Forest Green<br />
Mr L Stewart, Ringfield Farm, Tetbury Lane<br />
Mr D Smith, Bankside Cottage, Millbottom<br />
Mr M Byrner, 3 Barnfield Avenue, Nailsworth<br />
Mr M Hudd, 2 Hillside Cottage, Newmarket<br />
Mr P Welsh, Carraville, Moffat Road<br />
R Blunt, The Rest, Shortwood Green<br />
62
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Mr N Newport, 13 Marling, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
Mr N Stratford, Hillside, Horsley Road<br />
Mr M Freebrey, 50 Borough Close, Kings Stanley<br />
Mr D Keyse, 88 Highworth Crescent, Yate<br />
G Chaffey, 70 Sandford Leaze, GL5 5PB<br />
D Hudd, Lanky Villas, Church Street<br />
Mr N Harmer, 134 Field Court Gardens, Quedgeley<br />
G J Everett, 17 Chapel Street, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
Mr M Ellis, 64 Dudbridge Meadow, Dudbridge<br />
Mr I Hall, 26 Oldacre Drive, Bishops Cleeve<br />
B Lunn, 1a Irnwell Road, Sneyd Park<br />
P Jennings, 1 The Delkin, Cam<br />
A Griffiths, The Bronx, Gloucester<br />
F King, Portway, Farmhill Crescent<br />
M Llewellyn, 59 Dudbridge Meadow, Dudbridge<br />
J Davies, Ardroo, Gunhouse Lane<br />
Mr Whiffen, 42 The Close, Coaley<br />
A Whiting, 2 Erin Park, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
I Wrixon, 83 Fairmead, Cam<br />
N Gooch, Waldeck House, Chapel Lane<br />
Mr A Durman, Clematis Cottage, Commercial Road<br />
Mr Swaine, 14 Woodpecker Walk, Forest Green<br />
Mr, Mrs & Miss Trueman, Windrush, Pinfarthings<br />
Mr P Butterworth, Quarry House, Rockness Hill<br />
Mr M Gardiner, Stonyridge, Moffat Road<br />
Mr T Swale, 24 Wasley Road, Cheltenham<br />
Mr P Jubb, <strong>10</strong>4 Longtree Close, Tetbury<br />
H J Cook, Vraiville, Middleyard<br />
Mr A Duncan, 15 Waterford Close, Thornbury<br />
Mr J Hole, 24 Besbury Park, Minchinhampton<br />
Mr R Thomas, 4 Combers End, Tetbury<br />
Mr Smith, 32 Melbourne Drive, Stonehouse<br />
Peter Joy Estate Agents, 14 Fountain Street, Nailsworth<br />
M & J Anns, Kohinia Cottage, 3 Shar Lane<br />
Mr P J Mizen, Mount Pleasant, Atworth<br />
D Allen, 3 Orchard Close, Cam<br />
A & J Brown, 85 Oakleaze Road, Thornbury<br />
Mr & Mrs King, Hillberry Lodge, Sandpits<br />
Mr A Feek & Ms C Doherty, 8 Slade Brook, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
C Fletcher, The Old Shop, Chestnut Hill<br />
Mr J Perry, Grange Cottage, Giddynap Lane<br />
Mr S Ingram, 5 Chestnut Close, Nailsworth<br />
S Hills, Melody, Dark Lane<br />
R Melinn, 6 Knowle Road, Bridgewater<br />
D Wood, 24 The Slade, Dursley<br />
R Oswell, Mandalay, Middleyard<br />
D O'Brien, Springfield, Far Westrip<br />
R Littleford, 18A Hopton Road, Cam<br />
Mr Meredith, Lyndhurst, 43 Evesham Road<br />
R Yates, 41 Liddington Road, Gloucester<br />
D Amor, 25 Snowdon Gardens, Churchdown<br />
Mr K Draper, 23 Shearwater Grove, Innsworth<br />
A & J Punshon, 18 Blake Hill Way, Abbeymead<br />
A C Packman, 36 Swift Road, Abbeydale<br />
Mr G Atkinson, 2a Hardings Drive, Dursley<br />
A Spratt, 42 Hatherop Road, Fairford<br />
63
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
R Brookes, 21 Chatsworth Park, Thornbury<br />
A Duncan, 15 Waterford Close, Thornbury<br />
M Hayes, 24 The Grove, Malmesbury<br />
P Jubb, <strong>10</strong>4 Longtree Close, Tetbury<br />
L Vick, 14 Northfield Road, Tetbury<br />
J Kerslake, 62a The Bassetts, Cashes Green<br />
D Phillips, Woodside, Woodside Lane<br />
Mr M Breeze, 9 Randalls Field, Painswick<br />
R Fry, Highfields, Highfield Way<br />
P Pearch, 20 Coldwell Lane, Middleyard<br />
J Duff, 2 Woodhouse Drive, Rodborough<br />
A Jones, 7 Thompson Road, Uplands<br />
P & J Hatch, 79 Langtoft Road, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
M Fourd, 33 Stringers Drive, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
Mr & Mrs Slaughler, 15 Woodpecker Walk, Forest Green<br />
C Watts, 1 Westward Court, 176 Westward Road<br />
J Kerry, Chase House, Upper Kitesnest Lane<br />
J, P & J Seymour, Rivendell, 52 Rosedale Avenue<br />
D Lewis, 69 The Bridle, Cashes Green<br />
N Chandler, 1 Golden Jubilee Way, Dudbridge<br />
D Nelmes, 17 Birch Road, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
S Griffin, 4 Southgate Gardens, Rodborough<br />
G Stockwell, 16 Melbourne Close, Stonehouse<br />
D Flagg, Jimuir, Bath Road<br />
D Foster, 3 Hope Mill Park, London Road<br />
R Applegate, Poundfield, Verney Road<br />
L Trott, 80 Gilbert Road, Redfield<br />
K Embrey, 51 Royal Sands, Weston Super Mare<br />
J Cross, 140 Hewlett Road, Cheltenham<br />
A Lewis, 9 Apple Walk, Heath Hayes<br />
J Warren, 7 Harrison Way, Lydney<br />
D Downs, 99 Long Lane, Reading<br />
B McAllister, 25 Castle Street, Aldbourne<br />
F Jeffrey, 23 East Sands, Burbage<br />
R Kellow, 113 Moorgreen Road, West End<br />
H Honey, 41 Royal Sands, Weston Super Mare<br />
A Bragginton, Coombe Cottage, Windsoredge<br />
R Telfer, Owls Lodge, Windsoredge<br />
M Ashford, 3 Hayesley Cottage, Windsoredge<br />
J Clapp, Lansdowne, Cotswold Lane<br />
P Ball, The Manse, Chapel Lane<br />
H Atkinson, 3 Burnt Oak, Dursley<br />
A Stanley & N McGill, Badgers Cottage, Worley<br />
J Saunders, Cottesloe, Star Hill<br />
R Kerry, 27 Churchill Road, Nailsworth<br />
Ms A Marshall, 6 The Terrace, Rockness Hill<br />
Mr P Hickerton, 37 Common Hill, Steeple Ashton<br />
Mr R Overthrow, Mandeville, Northfields Road<br />
Mr C White, 39 The Martins, Westrip<br />
Mr P Poliszewski & S Madden, The Forge, Taitshill Road<br />
Mr G Little, 57 The Bridle, Cashes Green<br />
Mr S Edlington, 98 Russell Road, Newbury<br />
Mr P Archer, Derhams House, New Road<br />
Mr C Coates, 3 Stockley Road, Wareham<br />
Mr A Jack, 23 Marlestone Road, Cam<br />
Mr N Wells, 115 Court View, Stonehouse<br />
64
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Mr P Coyle, 27 Bunting Hill, Nailsworth<br />
Mr R Cliffe, 54 Lantern Close, Berkeley<br />
Mr D Martin, 9 Twinberrow Lane, Dursley<br />
Mr N Hathaway & S Hathaway, 3 Glen Park Crescent, Kingscourt<br />
Mr A Paul, 58 Nortonwood, Forest Green<br />
Mr I Watts, Rookery Nook, The Roller<br />
Mr A Whiting, 2 Erin Park, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
Mr W Hunt, 66 Oldminster Road, Sharpness<br />
Mr T Weller, Old School House, Atcombe Road<br />
Mr Pollard, 56 Lawnside, Nailsworth<br />
Mr J Price, 14 Rosebery Park, Dursley<br />
Mr Codd, Mill Cottage, Windsoredge<br />
M Lane, 2 Glen Court, Stonehouse<br />
C Chambers, 56 Lawnside, Nailsworth<br />
P Trinder, 8 Bunting Hill, Nailsworth<br />
S Long, 7 West Tynings, Nailsworth<br />
P Coyle, 27 Bunting Hill, Nailsworth<br />
Mr M Hobdell, Vine Tree Cottage, Newmarket Road<br />
Mr J Marsden, 20 Bridge Street, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
T Walsh, 17 Woodpecker Walk, Forest Green<br />
L M & G Nixon, 30 Badgers Way, Nailsworth<br />
S Waite, 24 Park Road, Nailsworth<br />
K & C Rogers, 38 Lawnside, Nailsworth<br />
P Ind, 20 Bunting Way, Nailsworth<br />
A Delahay, 8 Tynings Road, Nailsworth<br />
S Preece, 92 Nortonwood, Forest Green<br />
S Mertens, 63 Lawnside, Nailsworth<br />
V Lord, 3 Woodpecker Walk, Forest Green<br />
Occupier, 8 Stevens Way, Horsley<br />
R Smith, 11 Colliers Wood, Nailsworth<br />
K Harvey, 20 Highwood Court, Nortonwood<br />
C Markey, 62 Lawnside, Nailsworth<br />
F Kenzie, Tynings Farm House, Fewster Road<br />
R Derry, Briar Bank, Windsoredge<br />
Mr Portch, 4 Hermitage Drive, Dursley<br />
S King, Tied Cottage, Fewster Road<br />
Mrs M Powell, 7 Orchard Springs, Newmarket Road<br />
L Fletcher, 62 Colliers Wood, Nailsworth<br />
B Poulton, Bospin Lodge, Bospin Lane<br />
C Jayes, Wayside, Horsley Road<br />
R Rilay, 1 Churchill Road, Nailsworth<br />
R Cantle, Moorsend House, Star Hill<br />
D Smith, Cranleigh, Field Road<br />
D Tyrell, 7 Kings Road, Stonehouse<br />
R & A Kerry, 27 Churchill Road, Nailsworth<br />
G Barnard, 1 Little Fishers, Kingscourt<br />
I & L Cleaver, 16 Craddock Court, Nailsworth<br />
Y Bryant, 1 Orchard Mead, Nailsworth<br />
S Pitt, 5 Hanover Gardens, Chestnut Hill<br />
J Clark, Sunningdale, Seven Acres Road<br />
R & I Porter, Valley View, Windsoredge<br />
C & S Russell, 12 Hanover Gardens, Chestnut Hill<br />
W & D Hannis, <strong>10</strong> Hanover Gardens, Chestnut Hill<br />
R Hinder, 12 West Tynings, Nailsworth<br />
A Chandler, 21 Colliers Wood, Nailsworth<br />
Occupier, Buena Vista, Nympsfield Road<br />
65
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
J Johncock, 17 Highwood Court, Nortonwood<br />
K Blythe, 17 Bunting Way, Nailsworth<br />
M Wright, 9 Nortonwood, Forest Green<br />
J Rees, 1 The Row, Watledge Road<br />
K Chappell, 9 Cossack Court, Nailsworth<br />
J Duff, 29 Hanover Gardens, Chestnut Hill<br />
B Lemon, 19 Craddock Court, Nailsworth<br />
C Peachey, 46 Lawnside, Nailsworth<br />
A Halliday, <strong>10</strong> West Tynings, Nailsworth<br />
L Roberts, 19 Inchbrook Way, Inchbrook<br />
A Chandler, 21 Colliers Wood, Nailsworth<br />
Mr A Hutt, 67 Humphreys Close, Randwick<br />
Mr J Hannis, Taveners Football Club, Horwick<br />
Mr R Senior, J Senior & K Senior, 6 The Beagles, Cashes Green<br />
Mr & Mrs A Rice, Bybrook, Downend<br />
K Palmer, Station House, Station Road<br />
J Mounsey, 321 London Road, Charlton Kings<br />
P K Shone, 9 Okebourne Road, Barntny<br />
A Thompson, 42 Seabrook Drive, Thornton-Cleveleys<br />
C Gardiner, 47 Kidnams Walk, Whitminster<br />
A Harding, 3 Eldersfield Close, Quedgeley<br />
N Brown, 32 Frome Gardens, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
N East, 41A Cam Green, Cam<br />
Mr R Berry, 24 Erica Close, Locks Heath<br />
Mr, Mrs & E Whiting, Lyndbourne, Dudbridge Hill<br />
A Whiting, 2 Erin Park, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
C Lowsley-Williams, Lanworry Cottage, Tetbury<br />
Mr J Cook & Ms M Eaves, 34 Stanley Street, Aberdeen<br />
Mr J Dutton, Ingmire, Chestnut Hill<br />
B Mills, 20 Inchbrook Way, Nailsworth<br />
J A Dent, 29 Woodpecker Walk, Forest Green<br />
E Barnes, 18 Ringfield Close, Nailsworth<br />
E Govey, 23 Bunting Way, Nailsworth<br />
Mr D & Mrs S Boulton, 15 Nortonwood, Forest Green<br />
P Caddick, 17 Hanover Gardens, Chestnut Hill<br />
V Andrews, 31 Hanover Gardens, Chestnut Hill<br />
Mrs B Powell, 24 Ringfield Close, Nailsworth<br />
J Trueman, Windrush, Pinfarthings<br />
M Roberts, 12 Hilltop View, Bussage<br />
Mr C Roberts & V Lane, 35 Fishers Way, Kingscourt<br />
R C Dunn, 15 Southgate Crescent, Rodborough<br />
J M Evans & Mr C G Davies, 24 Concorde Way, Saintbridge<br />
T Barnard, 1 Little Fishers, Kingscourt<br />
S J & B Roberts, 36 Kitesnest Lane, Lightpill<br />
A & D J Weir, Laburnum, Bowl Hill<br />
Mr J Nicholl, Kingshead Inn, Kingscourt<br />
Mr M Evans, 2 Glenpark Crescent, Kingscourt<br />
Mr C Noble, 9 Bowl Hill, Kingscourt<br />
Mr S Lock, 16 Fishers Way, Rodborough<br />
M Bindon, 38 Kitesnest Lane, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
D Norman, 11 Parliament Close, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
Mr A Nobes, <strong>10</strong> Little Fishers, Kingscourt Lane<br />
J Beard, 3 Ash Road, Lightpill<br />
Mr P Bishop, 68 Park Road, Stonehouse<br />
Mr M Daynes, 2 Warwick Close, Rodborough<br />
Mr I Weir, Kitesnest Lane, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
66
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Mr S Markey, 21 Addymore, Cam<br />
Mr R Vick, 18 Quietways, Stonehouse<br />
Mr R Moss, 5 Potters Pond, Wotton-Under-Edge<br />
L Brockighurst, 6 Thompson Road, Uplands<br />
Mr D Jarman, Parkside, Park End<br />
Mr S Farthing, 19 Wharfdale Way, Bridgend<br />
Occupier, 39 Arrowsmith Drive, Stonehouse<br />
Mr L Chapman, Sunnycroft, Farmhill Lane<br />
A Slingsby, Quinton Cottage, Upper Kitesnest Road<br />
G M Birtwhistle, Lypiatt Hill Farm, Bisley Road<br />
B Millard & R, S, S, R Willey, Millend Cottages, North Nibley<br />
Occupier, Sharlyd, Kitesnest Lane<br />
A.Hustwitt, 33, Nortonwood, Forest Green<br />
D. Hatherall, 20 Mosley Road, Cashes Green,<br />
• Improved educational opportunities for children.<br />
• Improved use of our building for school and wider community.<br />
• Further opportunities to widen community involvement.<br />
• Bringing school even further into the heart of the community.<br />
• Give a community use of the surplus playing field.<br />
• Improve highway.<br />
• Will improve road safety.<br />
• Will generate business for area.<br />
• Will aid success at the club.<br />
• Revenue will provide a springboard to achieve better things, which will benefit local<br />
businesses.<br />
• Provide a gym, creche and meeting room facilities for the area.<br />
• Allow football to remain in the area.<br />
• Provide facilities for younger people.<br />
• Would make the surrounding area more appealing.<br />
• Better parking facilities.<br />
• Roundabout would slow approaching the school from Nailsworth.<br />
• Good community use of a surplus playing field.<br />
• Enhance local facilities.<br />
• Would improve area.<br />
• Ground will be on existing land and not encroach on green belt area.<br />
• A lot of work has been done in the aim of the growth of a local club.<br />
• Will automatically be relegated - this should be determined by performance not financial<br />
factors.<br />
• Will help gain further sponsorship and interest.<br />
• Development is vital for the survival of the club.<br />
• Will lead to better road safety.<br />
• Encourage visitors.<br />
• Would improve the ground to Sport England requirements.<br />
Letters of Comment<br />
J R Howell, Sherwood, Nympsfield Road<br />
S.Robinson, The Haven, Northfields Road<br />
• Concerned with the application.<br />
• Before the development is started it is considered necessary to have improvements to both<br />
the pavements and street lighting in Spring Hill and Nympsfield Road.<br />
67
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• There are no facilities i.e. wheelchair ramps at any of the junctions on this stretch of road.<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
THE PROPOSAL<br />
This application relates to the erection of a new football stadium, access, car parking area and<br />
associated infrastructure for Forest Green Rovers Football Club. A new playing pitch is proposed<br />
as an extension to the King George V playing field off Park Road / Wood Lane. The proposals<br />
also include the provision of community facilities within the new building which would be taken<br />
from the existing football ground - The Lawn, also situated at Nympsfield Road, Nailsworth.<br />
These facilities will include a youth club, a gym, social club, function rooms, ancillary offices for<br />
the club's administration, crèche, IT suites and ancillary areas such as changing rooms, showers<br />
etc.<br />
The facilities will operate on the same basis as existing. In the case of the gym from 8 a.m. to <strong>10</strong><br />
p.m., the social club 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. Monday to Saturday and on Sunday 12 noon to <strong>10</strong>:30 p.m.<br />
The youth club will operate until <strong>10</strong>:30 p.m. with the licensed function room would operate from 9<br />
a.m. until times restricted by normal licensing regulations. The multi use area and IT suite would<br />
operate until <strong>10</strong>:30 p.m.<br />
The main building is a functional building similar to other stadia which have been erected<br />
throughout the country. The building is constructed of profiled metal cladding and blockwork part<br />
under a profiled metal roof. The colours of such would be the subject of further submissions.<br />
The stadium would include new floodlighting. The areas outside the structure would be<br />
landscaped and car-parking areas would be gravelled to provide SUDs type drainage.<br />
The need to relocate stems from several requirements. The club needs to provide better lighting<br />
from the existing 250 lux at pitch level to 350 lux.<br />
The need to relocate relates to the position of the pitch in relation to the main stand, as the view<br />
of the pitch from this area is poor. The availability of car parking on site and to generally provide<br />
better facilities on site. The current ground- The Lawn has a capacity of 5141 and the new site<br />
will be capable of holding 5074 which meets with both the existing requirements for the Football<br />
Conference and the Football League. No enlargement to the capacity of the ground is required<br />
to meet current ground grading rules. Improvements have to be made by May 2005.<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT<br />
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) and in determining the<br />
application the matters referred to in the statement have been considered along with any<br />
mitigating measures. The ES has further been reviewed by the Institute of Environmental<br />
Management and Assessment on behalf of the <strong>Council</strong> and together with the 'Further Information'<br />
submitted following comments made by the Institute now addresses the environmental affects of<br />
the proposals and provides mitigating measures for harmful effects of the development.<br />
THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION<br />
The site is in two parts. The first being the existing playing field attached to the Primary School at<br />
Nympsfield Road and the second being an area of land adjacent to the King George V Playing<br />
Field situated off Park Road, Nailsworth.<br />
The first part of the site where it is proposed to construct the new stadium is situated on the<br />
western fringes of Nailsworth and adjacent to open land and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding<br />
68
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Natural Beauty. Several dwellings are visible within the area of land fronting Nympsfield Road<br />
and a Bed and Breakfast establishment is also located on this frontage and backs onto the site.<br />
This part of the town is elevated in relation to the main core of the town where most commercial<br />
activities take place. The area is served by a variety of modes of transport and bus stops are<br />
visible in the locality.<br />
The site where the existing football pitch is located is relatively flat but the land falls away to the<br />
south of the site towards the Newmarket Valley and rises to the west in the direction of<br />
Nympsfield.<br />
The other part of the application site lies adjacent to the King George V playing field and is<br />
marked by a hedgerow and trees. It is proposed to construct a new football pitch to make up for<br />
the lost pitch at Nortonwood. The area of land will gain access via the existing entrance to the<br />
playing field which in turn links to Park Road. The land would be the subject of a cut and fill<br />
operation to construct the new football pitch but there will still be a fall from the top to the bottom<br />
of the new pitch.<br />
This area of land is within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but has been the<br />
subject of agricultural reclamation works in the recent past. The works have involved the<br />
movement of deposits to the site. The King George V playing field is a protected outdoor play<br />
space in terms of its allocation in the Local Plan as is the school playing field.<br />
CONSULTATIONS<br />
Most consultations and responses are detailed elsewhere in this report but due to the detailed<br />
response from the Town <strong>Council</strong> it has proved necessary to outline the Town <strong>Council</strong>'s response<br />
below:<br />
'This sets out the response of Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong> to the above planning applications, the<br />
accompanying Environmental Assessment, Transport Assessment, and consultation<br />
correspondence.<br />
The letter first states the Town <strong>Council</strong>'s general support for the applications, then makes<br />
comments about the appraisal, and finally sets out various items which the Town <strong>Council</strong> wishes<br />
to see included as conditions or in the Section <strong>10</strong>6 agreements with the applications.<br />
1. Support for the Applications<br />
For many years the Town <strong>Council</strong> has striven to improve facilities at Forest Green, and to retain<br />
Forest Green Rovers Football Club in the area because of the enormous community benefit that<br />
the club provides. The proposal to relocate the football club to a new site on the surplus playing<br />
fields at Nailsworth Primary School arises directly from the work of Forest Green Regeneration<br />
Group, which was set up in September 2002 to promote regeneration of Forest Green.<br />
The Regeneration Group is an informal working group taken forward by the Town <strong>Council</strong>, and<br />
attended by representatives from the County <strong>Council</strong>, <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, Nailsworth Primary<br />
School, Forest Green Rovers Football Club, community groups and youth workers in and around<br />
Nailsworth. The group has met regularly in order to find a way to enable the football club to<br />
meet national requirements for ground upgrading whilst remaining in Forest Green, to support the<br />
development of facilities at Nailsworth Joint Use Centre based at the primary school, and to<br />
ensure the development of other community facilities that cannot be provided at either the<br />
football club or the school.<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> has spearheaded an extensive process of community consultation on the<br />
proposals, with public meetings in December 2002 and October 2003, coverage on local radio<br />
and frequent articles in the local press, and consultation meetings with many local organisations.<br />
69
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
These planning applications represent the first major stage in the work of the Regeneration<br />
Group. In refining the proposals, the football club undertook intensive consultation between July<br />
2003 and January <strong>2004</strong> when the application was submitted, and the Town <strong>Council</strong> has been<br />
fully involved in the scheme. The club has gone to considerable lengths to accommodate the<br />
wishes of various parties in the detailed design within the constraints of commercial viability, and<br />
is to be commended in the extent of consultation undertaken.<br />
The second stage in the work involves improvements to Nailsworth Primary School from receipts<br />
in the sale of the surplus playing field land, and the third stage involved development of a village<br />
hall by the Town <strong>Council</strong> on land reserved as part of the development process.<br />
Application S.04/0096/FUL<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> STRONGLY SUPPORTS the full application for a New Stadium and<br />
associated works, and the application for a replacement playing pitch at King George V Playing<br />
Fields.<br />
2. General Comments about the Application and Appraisals<br />
2.1 General Issues<br />
It has been agreed that some of the proceeds to the County <strong>Council</strong> from the sale of the surplus<br />
playing field site, will be used for improvements to the school. The funds should also be used to<br />
contribute towards the construction costs of the proposed Multi-Use Games Area. The MUGA is<br />
in the south west corner of the site and is marked as "open space for possible games area" on<br />
the plans. This area should be combined with the adjacent tennis court on the adjoining <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
College site to provide the MUGA. Subject to planning approval, the adjacent tennis court on the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> College site, which is protected by a Section <strong>10</strong>6 agreement, could form part of the MUGA<br />
for the Joint Use Centre, football club, and adjoining housing.<br />
The proposal for an MUGA arises from the Regeneration Group and is strongly supported by the<br />
Town <strong>Council</strong>. The applicants have agreed to make land available for the MUGA, but it cannot<br />
be progressed as part of the current application because it involves land not under the applicant's<br />
control. The Town <strong>Council</strong> considers that the County <strong>Council</strong> should reserve some of the<br />
receipts from sale of the land to contribute to construction costs of the MUGA. Developers of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> College site would also contribute to the MUGA.<br />
2.2 New Stadium Site<br />
Layout<br />
a) The overall layout is the best compromise that can be achieved on a constrained site.<br />
b) The footpath running along the southern boundary of the site should be secured.<br />
c) There should be lockable gates between the primary school and the car park south of the<br />
primary school, so that this can serve as overflow car parking for the school. There should also<br />
be lockable gates between the primary school and the proposed MUGA.<br />
d) There is a proposed change to the application to provide an extra run-off area around the<br />
primary school pitch, in order to meet the standards for County matches. This will reduce the<br />
landscaping strip between the New Stadium and the primary school pitch from 3m to 1m. The<br />
Town <strong>Council</strong> considers that the community benefit outweighs the impact on the landscaping<br />
proposals and supports this change.<br />
Light Pollution<br />
a) The long distance impact of the floodlighting should be minimised. From most angles the<br />
floodlighting is unlikely to be significantly worse than the existing stadium, but will be most visible<br />
from below New Inn on Amberley Common.<br />
70
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
b) The combined impact of floodlighting and car park lighting on surrounding properties should be<br />
assessed.<br />
c) The impact of floodlighting on the bank to the west of the stadium should be minimised as<br />
there is evidence of badger activity on this bank.<br />
d) There should be no lighting pole in the proposed turning head adjacent to North Farm in order<br />
to minimise light pollution to North Farm.<br />
Noise<br />
a) The turning head adjacent to North Farm should be angled away from the (new) property<br />
boundary in order to minimise noise and emissions from turning vehicles.<br />
Landscape Impacts<br />
a) The most prominent long-distance landscape impacts are shown in photo-visualisations in<br />
Appendix R of the Environmental Statement. The New Stadium is likely to be most prominent<br />
from the "W" (the road leading from Amberley Common down to Nailsworth), below the New Inn<br />
on Amberley Common, and Wallow Green. All are long-distance views which reduces the<br />
prominence of the building. From these and other distant viewpoints the New Stadium will<br />
appear as part of the continuum of development of Forest Green, and will have very little visual<br />
impact.<br />
b) The effect of the proposed development on the AONB was discussed at a Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
meeting in the early stages of the proposals. <strong>Council</strong>lors agreed that any affect of the New<br />
Stadium on the AONB was minimal and would be outweighed by the very significant community<br />
benefit of the proposals.<br />
c) Local landscape impacts are considered to be acceptable given that the New Stadium<br />
replaces an existing stadium in the vicinity<br />
Habitats<br />
a) The existing scrub on the western bank has ecological and habitat value and should be<br />
protected. The extent of excavation on the bank should be minimised, and the bank should be<br />
protected by a temporary fence during construction. It is noted that the developers will undertake<br />
a reptile survey of the bank.<br />
Landscaping Design<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> notes draft landscaping drawings for the New Stadium submitted as an<br />
addition to the planning application, and has the following comments:<br />
a) The landscaping drawing shows trees planted within the car parking loop to the south west of<br />
the site. In the interests of traffic safety, there should be one-way traffic circulation round the loop<br />
so that the trees do not obscure visibility.<br />
b) The landscaping drawing shows trees planted in the middle of the MUGA. These should be<br />
restricted to the western side of this area, and to the southern boundary to allow the area to be<br />
combined with the adjacent tennis court on the <strong>Stroud</strong> College site.<br />
Architectural Treatment<br />
a) The intention to paint the upper panels of the New Stadium green is noted. However, the<br />
shade of green will be important in reducing the visual impact, and a grey-green will probably be<br />
preferable to a sharp green.<br />
Impact During Construction<br />
a) The construction impact on adjoining properties, particularly Nailsworth Primary School, North<br />
Farm and Bramble Cottage, should be minimised.<br />
Effect on Adjoining Land Uses<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> notes the extensive mitigation measures proposed for the two residential<br />
properties most affected by the proposal, North Farm and Bramble Cottage. North Farm has<br />
been offered additional land to increase the size of the garden and will be protected by a 2m high<br />
stone wall, and screen planting. However, the applicant informs the Local Authority that the offer<br />
71
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
was not accepted. Bramble Cottage will be protected by a landscaped noise bund and by<br />
closure of the adjoining car parks on all except match days. Studies indicate that there will be no<br />
shadowing of North Farm during the proposals.<br />
2.3 King George V Playing Field Extension<br />
General Comment<br />
a) The provision of an enlarged playing pitch that would accommodate a number of different<br />
sports is an improvement over existing facilities.<br />
b) Bollards should be provided at the edge of the existing car parking area to stop vehicles<br />
driving over the existing field.<br />
Management<br />
Town <strong>Council</strong> has agreed to take on the management of King George V Extension on the basis<br />
of an agreed commuted sum. Any legal costs incurred in setting up the arrangement should be<br />
borne by the applicant.<br />
Changing Room Facilities<br />
From its experience of managing the existing King George V Playing Field, and the fact that the<br />
extension will involve only a redistribution of existing activities, the Town <strong>Council</strong> considers that<br />
no additional changing facilities are required as a result of the King George V Extension<br />
Landscape Impact<br />
a) The proposed extension lies within the Cotswold AONB and will have some long-distance<br />
impact on the AONB, as it is clearly visible from the "W". The photo-visualisation in Appendix R<br />
of the Environmental Statement does not show any new fencing between the playing field<br />
extension and the remainder of the field. Post and rail fencing has been mentioned in<br />
discussions and would be satisfactory. The Town <strong>Council</strong> would in addition like to see a<br />
hedgerow of native species along the boundaries outside the post and rail fence. It must be<br />
remembered that for many years this land was part of a small tip, accessed from the Avening<br />
Road, which was unsightly, and the playing field extension is much less visually intrusive than the<br />
former tip.<br />
Habitats<br />
a) The Habitat Survey concluded that the wooded banks and hedgerows of the existing playing<br />
field and the extension are of some habitat interest.<br />
b) The hedge between the existing playing fields and the extension should therefore be retained<br />
and improved with supplementary planting.<br />
2.5 Highways and Transport Proposals<br />
Transport includes a roundabout access for the New Stadium site, a second roundabout<br />
for The Lawns, and improvements to bus access. The proposals include a 21m<br />
diameter 4-arm roundabout at the junction of Nympsfield Road and Nortonwood West to<br />
provide access to the New Stadium, and a 26m diameter 4-arm roundabout at the<br />
junction of Nympsfield Road and The Lawns. Three sets of speed pads are proposed<br />
between the two roundabouts, with associated signage, and extension of the 30mph<br />
speed limit to just west of Bramble Cottage.<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> has several comments with regards to the public transport proposals:<br />
a) The proposal that all Stagecoach services will enter the New Stadium site is welcomed<br />
because it will increase activity within the site.<br />
b) The parking of three buses overnight at the New Stadium site will reduce early morning<br />
and late evening service runs on Spring Hill.<br />
c) Buses will turn in the car park loop, which should therefore be for one-way traffic only.<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> is particularly concerned at two aspects of the proposals:<br />
72
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
a) The roundabout access to The Lawns is over-designed, and will involve pedestrians walking<br />
along the south side of Nympsfield Road in an unnecessary detour.<br />
b) There should be a pedestrian crossing outside the school for pedestrians approaching from<br />
Nortonwood East, which would enable them to avoid the new roundabout access to The Lawns,<br />
and the new access to the <strong>Stroud</strong> College site.<br />
Several items have been omitted from the TA:<br />
a) There is no discussion of traffic impacts on Tinkley Lane. Although these are likely to be slight<br />
they should be considered.<br />
b) There is no consideration of the potential impact of match attendances in excess of 3,000<br />
spectators or increases in average match attendances of around 1,000 spectators.<br />
c) There is no consideration of potential impacts of moving the employment use of the football<br />
club to a site west of the primary school.<br />
d) There is no consideration of the traffic generation of the social club, crèche and other nonmatch<br />
leisure uses at the New Stadium.<br />
e) The Stadium access roundabout is likely to be completed before The Lawns access. There is<br />
no consideration of the potential traffic problems during this interim period.<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> has the following additional comment:<br />
a) The use of the term "park and ride" is misleading and has led to unnecessary public concern<br />
about traffic impacts. The proposal is that certain organisations may use parking facilities at the<br />
New Stadium at specific times in agreement with the football club. These may include people<br />
going on coach trips to other places, members of the Chamber of Trade etc. The term "agreed<br />
community car parking" would be preferable.<br />
No transport improvements are proposed in association with the King George V Extension<br />
3. Items for Inclusion as Conditions or in the Section <strong>10</strong>6 Agreement<br />
3.1 General<br />
a) The new pitch and other work affecting Nailsworth Primary School should be complete before<br />
construction work on the New Stadium commences.<br />
b) The existing stadium should not be demolished until work on the New Stadium and King<br />
George V Extension is substantially complete.<br />
3.2 New Stadium Site<br />
a) The bank between the proposed New Stadium and western boundary of the site is of<br />
ecological value. The bank should be protected during construction and light pollution of this<br />
area should be minimised.<br />
b) The footpath running along the southern boundary of the site should be secured.<br />
c) Land in the south east of the site should be reserved for a Multi-Use Games Area. The football<br />
club will not be responsible for funding construction of the Multi-Use Games Area. The potential<br />
users of the multi-use games area are the school, the football club, the SDC Joint Use Centre,<br />
the youth club and at other times by the public as a kick about area. It is proposed that the multiuse<br />
games area will be managed by a committee comprising the Football Club, the Joint Use<br />
Centre and the Town <strong>Council</strong>, and we would wish to see a clear written agreement to this effect.<br />
There should be lockable gates between the primary school and the car parking south of the<br />
primary school, and between the primary school and the proposed Multi-Use Games Area.<br />
d) Completion of the proposed landscaping should form a condition of the permission. The<br />
landscaping scheme should include screening along the western and southern boundary of the<br />
primary school site, and screening to Bramble Cottage and North Farm.<br />
e) The car parking area to the south of the primary school site should be surfaced to allow for<br />
cycle proficiency training, when the car park is not required for parking.<br />
73
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
f) Community car parking should be permitted in agreement with Nailsworth Primary School,<br />
Nailsworth Chamber of Trade and Commerce, Stagecoach and other coach operators.<br />
3.3 King George V Extension<br />
A commuted sum should be agreed towards management of the playing fields. The Town<br />
<strong>Council</strong> should not incur any legal costs in setting up an agreement.<br />
b) Bollards should be provided at the edge of the existing car park to stop vehicles driving over<br />
the existing field.<br />
c) The hedge between the existing playing fields and the extension should be retained and<br />
improved with supplementary planting.<br />
3.5 Transport Proposals<br />
a) A pedestrian crossing should be provided to the school<br />
b) The football club should be required to provide "agreed community car parking", with local<br />
organisations including: local coach tour operators, Nailsworth Primary School, Nailsworth<br />
Chamber of Trade, and Stagecoach.<br />
The <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> is asked to note that timing is critical to make this proposal happen. The<br />
football club has to cease playing at its existing stadium by May 2005, and if there is any delay in<br />
making a decision the scheme may fail. An expedient decision is vital to its success.<br />
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS<br />
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement and Further Information in<br />
connection with such. It is a requirement of the <strong>Council</strong> when determining the application to<br />
consider the Environmental Effects of the development proposed and any mitigating measures<br />
proposed to remediate against any adverse impacts.<br />
There are no specific policies contained within the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001) which relate directly to the erection of football stadiums and the<br />
same is true regarding the policies contained within the Structure Plan.<br />
The application is therefore considered against material considerations and other policies which<br />
relate to general matters such as amenity, highway safety and the water environment. Polices<br />
also relate to landscape implications, built form (including environment), natural environment,<br />
recreation and community facilities.<br />
To this end the application is considered against General Policies G1, G2, G3, G4 and G5.<br />
Policies B1(Urban design), B12 and B13(Archaeology), B14(Historic Park), N1 (designated area -<br />
wildlife) N2 (Key wildlife site), N6 (Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), N7, N8 and<br />
N9(landscape), N12 (Landscaping of proposal) are also considered, along with T1 Transport, R1<br />
(Retention of facilities or replacement of such), R3 (Development of recreational area in<br />
educational ownership).<br />
The following Structure Plan Policies have been considered:<br />
Structure Plan Policies RE1 (deals with the retention of recreational facilities), T1 (sustainable<br />
transport), RE1 and S.5 (recreation and need for community facilities) are also relevant when<br />
dealing with this proposal. These Policies are similar to those adopted by the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> in<br />
its Local Plan but are listed below for reference purposes.<br />
Policy T1<br />
New Development and the Transport System.<br />
74
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
New development should be located so as to minimise the length and number of motorized<br />
journeys, and encourage the use of public transport, cycling and walking. New development<br />
should be genuinely accessible by these modes of transport as alternatives to the car.<br />
Policy RE.1<br />
The retention and provision of a wide range of recreational facilities in urban areas and all<br />
principal settlements, to meet local and sub-regional needs, will be supported. Local Plans will<br />
give special consideration to:<br />
(a) Areas which are deficient in recreational facilities;<br />
(b) Facilities which provide for as wide a range of the population; as possible;<br />
(c) Increased accessibility for all potential users particularly by public transport, cycling and<br />
walking; and<br />
(d) Local scale of provision of a non-specialist nature, for example local halls capable of some<br />
recreational uses, will be encouraged provided they are well related to the communities they<br />
serve.<br />
Policy S.5<br />
In providing for development, local authorities will have regard to the need for community facilities<br />
and services, including education, health, and cultural facilities, local shopping facilities, sport and<br />
leisure facilities, transport services and infrastructure, housing including affordable housing and<br />
public utilities. In determining the type, scale and location of development, the adequacy<br />
infrastructure and community services will be taken into account.<br />
Provision for development will be made where related infrastructure and community services are<br />
in place or will be provided in appropriate phases in an environmentally acceptable way.<br />
PPG's<br />
PPG 1, PPG 13, PPG 16, PPG 17, PPG 24 and RPG <strong>10</strong>, are relevant in terms of considering this<br />
proposal. PPG 17 relates to sport and recreation and PPG24 to noise.<br />
PPG 1 deals with general policies and principles and includes reference to development<br />
proposals which are in the public interest and to restrict those which are not. The expressions of<br />
support and objection to the development are material considerations. The advice given states:<br />
Private interests<br />
64. The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the<br />
activities of another, although private interests may coincide with the public interest in some<br />
cases. In fact "the public interest ... may require that the interests of individual occupiers should<br />
be considered. The protection of individual interests is one aspect, and an important one, of the<br />
public interest as a whole" (Stringer v MHLG 1971). It can be difficult to distinguish between<br />
public and private interests, but this may be necessary on occasion. The basic question is not<br />
whether owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties would experience financial or other<br />
loss from a particular development, but whether the proposal would unacceptably affect<br />
amenities and the existing use of land and buildings which ought to be protected in the public<br />
interest. Good neighbourliness and fairness are among the yardsticks against which development<br />
proposals can be measured; for example, it might be material to consider the question of<br />
overlooking or loss of privacy experienced by a particular resident.<br />
The Governments objectives for sport and recreation are set out below and are taken from PPG<br />
17:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Objectives<br />
Open spaces, sport and recreation all underpin people's quality of life. Well designed and<br />
implemented planning policies for open space, sport and recreation are therefore fundamental to<br />
delivering broader Government objectives. These include:<br />
* Supporting an urban renaissance - local networks of high quality and well managed and<br />
maintained open spaces, sports and recreational facilities help create urban environments that<br />
75
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
are attractive, clean and safe. Green spaces in urban areas perform vital functions as areas for<br />
nature conservation and biodiversity and by acting as 'green lungs' can assist in meeting<br />
objectives to improve air quality.<br />
* Supporting a rural renewal - the countryside can provide opportunities for recreation and visitors<br />
can play an important role in the regeneration of the economies of rural areas. Open spaces<br />
within rural settlements and accessibility to local sports and recreational facilities contribute to the<br />
quality of life and well being of people who live in rural areas.<br />
* Promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion - well planned and maintained open<br />
spaces and good quality sports and recreational facilities can play a major part in improving<br />
people's sense of well being in the place they live. As a focal point for community activities, they<br />
can bring together members of deprived communities and provide opportunities for people for<br />
social interaction.<br />
* Health and well being - open spaces, sports and recreational facilities have a vital role to play in<br />
promoting healthy living and preventing illness, and in the social development of children of all<br />
ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others.<br />
Other points of note from this guidance are as follows:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> For New Open Space And Sports And Recreational Facilities<br />
General principles<br />
20. In identifying where to locate new areas of open space, sports and recreational facilities, local<br />
authorities should:<br />
i. Promote accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport, and ensure that facilities are<br />
accessible for people with disabilities;<br />
ii. Locate more intensive recreational uses in sites where they can contribute to town centre<br />
vitality and viability;<br />
iii. Avoid any significant loss of amenity to residents, neighbouring uses or biodiversity;<br />
iv. Improve the quality of the public realm through good design;<br />
v. Look to provide areas of open space in commercial and industrial areas;<br />
vi. Add to and enhance the range and quality of existing facilities;<br />
vii. Carefully consider security and personal safety, especially for children;<br />
viii. Meet the regeneration needs of areas, using brownfield in preference to greenfield sites;<br />
ix. Consider the scope for using any surplus land for open space, sport or recreational use,<br />
weighing this against alternative uses;<br />
x. Assess the impact of new facilities on social inclusion; and<br />
xi. Consider the recreational needs of visitors and tourists.<br />
In addition to these general principles, paragraphs 21 - 32 below apply in respect of specific<br />
types of facilities or areas.<br />
Stadia and Major Developments<br />
22. <strong>Planning</strong> permission for stadia and major sports developments which will accommodate large<br />
numbers of spectators, or which will also function as a facility for community based sports and<br />
recreation, should only be granted when they are to be located in areas with good access to<br />
public transport. <strong>Planning</strong> permission for additional facilities (such as retail and leisure uses)<br />
should not be granted for any out-of-centre developments unless they comply with the policy set<br />
out in PPG6<br />
25. The countryside around towns provides a valuable resource for the provision of sport and<br />
recreation, particularly in situations where there is an absence of land in urban areas to meet<br />
provision. Subject to paragraphs 27-30 below, local authorities should encourage the creation of<br />
sports and recreational facilities in such areas and the development of areas of managed<br />
countryside, such as country parks, community forests, and agricultural showgrounds. Where<br />
planning permission is to be granted for such land uses, local planning authorities should ensure<br />
76
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
that facilities are accessible by walking, cycling and public transport as alternatives to the use of<br />
the car.<br />
Sports and Recreation Provision in Designated Areas.<br />
27. Designation of areas as National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty does not<br />
preclude the use of land for sporting and recreational activities, but noisy or other intrusive<br />
activities should be restricted to locations where they will have minimal or no impact on residents<br />
or other recreational users. National Park Authorities should work with other local authorities and<br />
with sports and recreational bodies with a view to securing new sports and recreational facilities<br />
in appropriate locations within National Parks.<br />
28. In Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty local planning authorities should look to meet the<br />
demands for sporting and recreational activities where the proposals are consistent with the<br />
primary objective of conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape, and the needs of<br />
agriculture, forestry and other uses.<br />
29. <strong>Planning</strong> permission for development in or near a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for<br />
temporary or permanent sporting and recreational activities, should be granted only if the<br />
permission is subject to conditions that will prevent damaging impacts on the SSSI, or if other<br />
material factors are sufficient to override nature conservation considerations.<br />
30. This relates to Green Belts and is not applicable in determining this application.<br />
PPG 13 relates to transport and the need to provide developments which are both sustainable<br />
and safe. Similar approaches have been adopted via the <strong>Council</strong>'s own Local Plan and Policies<br />
T1 and G5 relate to these aspects. Further such matters form part of the <strong>Council</strong>'s consultations<br />
with Gloucestershire County <strong>Council</strong>, as Highway Authority, when considering proposals.<br />
PPG 16 relates to Archaeology, as do Policies B12 and B13 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). In determining the proposals due regard has<br />
been taken regarding any archaeological implications. The applicant has produced both a desk<br />
top assessment and field evaluation. These have been submitted to the County Archaeologist for<br />
consideration and his response is listed under the consultation section of this report. It has been<br />
found that the proposals do not adversely affect any archaeological remains. As such the<br />
development is not at variance with these policies.<br />
Noise<br />
With regard to <strong>Planning</strong> and Noise PPG24 outlines the fact that noise is a material planning<br />
consideration and the general principles to be adopted when determining planning applications<br />
which generate noise.<br />
To this end the following extracts are relevant when considering the proposal the subject of this<br />
application.<br />
General principles<br />
2. The impact of noise can be a material consideration in the determination of planning<br />
applications. The planning system has the task of guiding development to the most appropriate<br />
locations. It will be hard to reconcile some land uses, such as housing, hospitals or schools, with<br />
other activities which generate high levels of noise, but the planning system should ensure that,<br />
wherever practicable, noise-sensitive developments are separated from major sources of noise<br />
(such as road, rail and air transport and certain types of industrial development). It is equally<br />
important that new development involving noisy activities should, if possible, be sited away from<br />
noise-sensitive land uses. Development plans provide the policy framework within which these<br />
issues can be weighed but careful assessment of all these factors will also be required when<br />
individual applications for development are considered. Where it is not possible to achieve such a<br />
separation of land uses, local planning authorities should consider whether it is practicable to<br />
control or reduce noise levels, or to mitigate the impact of noise, through the use of conditions or<br />
planning obligations.<br />
77
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
In considering this element, the views of the Environmental Health Officer have been sought as<br />
well as consideration of the applicant's own noise consultants report. The development will<br />
generate noise when the stadium is in use and it is accepted at the nearest properties this will<br />
involve a change from that which exists at present. However, the noise from match days will be<br />
limited as the stadium will not be used every weekend for matches and there were few evening<br />
matches during the last season. Such matches would be expected to finish by about <strong>10</strong>:00 p.m.<br />
Whilst a small number of properties will be affected a larger number of dwellings would be<br />
located further away from the stadium than that which exists at present. Overall, therefore, from<br />
a public perspective there will be some gain in locating the stadium to the new location where<br />
other factors such as new lighting can be provided which will be less obtrusive than the existing.<br />
Car parking can also be provided in the new location and this would result in less noise and<br />
disturbance being created in the proximity of 'The Lawn' again reducing any incidence of noise to<br />
a wider range of residents.<br />
RPG <strong>10</strong> sets out the strategy and planning policy guidance for the South West. Section 6 deals<br />
with Tourism, Culture, Leisure and Sport. It recognizes the wide and diverse range of leisure<br />
activities and these help to maintain a quality of life. Many people partake and watch sporting<br />
events and this is important for quality of life. The philosophy 'sport for all' recognizes sports<br />
contribution to the health and well being of the population. Local Authorities in their plans,<br />
proposals and policies should maximize the use of high quality managed areas of sports facilities.<br />
They should maximize the positive benefits of sport, leisure, recreation, and cultural development<br />
for the environment, local communities, local economics and visitors. Management strategies<br />
should be prepared taking into account recreational demands and the need for environmental<br />
protection.<br />
Surface Water<br />
The Environment Agency has expressed concerns regarding surface water run off and the<br />
possibility of contamination. The applicant has undertaken studies which confirm there is no<br />
presence of methane on the site and that samples of soil taken do not contain contaminants from<br />
the adjacent land which was formerly used as a tip.<br />
Surface water will be dealt with via soakaways and deep trap gullies will also be used on the<br />
access roads. These will enable clean water to be discharged into the groundwater system. The<br />
car parking areas will be gravelled to enable SUD's techniques to be incorporated into the<br />
scheme.<br />
Archaeology<br />
The County Archaeologist has requested that a site survey be undertaken to enable an appraisal<br />
to be made in respect of its archaeology. This has been undertaken by trenching the site and no<br />
significant finds or archaeology were found. Therefore the issue of archaeology is not one which<br />
would have any significant effect on restricting the development.<br />
Landscape<br />
The site (stadium) is situated on the edge of the settlement of Nailsworth and within the defined<br />
urban boundary as defined in the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001). The site is bounded by the School, a scattering of residential properties<br />
(including a guest house) and a former tip. An area of woodland lies below the site and this area<br />
has been designated as a key wildlife site. The site itself is designated as protected outdoor play<br />
space. The land generally is flat but rises to the west and falls away to the south. The boundary<br />
of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty lies to the west of the site and in the<br />
immediate vicinity this area of land within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty<br />
comprises a former tip. The land has tree screening on this boundary and an overgrown<br />
78
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
hedgerow. The development will extend built form in a westerly direction but as the land rises in<br />
this direction there will be a degree of planting which would act as a backcloth to the new<br />
building. The levels of the land in this particular area would result in the buildings not appearing<br />
overly obtrusive in the landscape. In terms of long distant views the site would be visible from the<br />
south from the Shortwood area and above but due to the existing large scale buildings on the<br />
school site, the college site and The Lawn site would not detract from the character of the built<br />
form when viewed from this direction. Naturally, there will be a change in the landscape<br />
character of the area but this will be managed and further planting will be introduced to help<br />
minimize the impact of features such as parked vehicles. The new stadium will incorporate new<br />
lighting which will enable light to be directed to specific points of the site and as such will reduce<br />
the amount of light intrusion from floodlights from the present situation experienced at The Lawn.<br />
The newly proposed extension to the King George V playing field will enable land to be utilized<br />
for recreational use and the landscape has already been significantly altered in this location due<br />
to the previous activities of the site. The area will not have any lighting and therefore the issue of<br />
light pollution is not relevant. The scheme involves cut and fill operations to provide a level site<br />
and existing landscape features are to be retained where possible. It is proposed to place<br />
conditions on any permission which require further landscaping and works which will protect the<br />
existing features of value on this area of land.<br />
In view of the above it is considered the development is not at variance with Policies N6 and N8<br />
of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Affect on residential amenity<br />
In respect of Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
June 2001) it is a requirement to consider the effect any development will have on the residential<br />
amenities of occupiers of near by properties. The proposal involves both an access and new<br />
buildings which will be visible from North Farm and Bramble Cottage on the Nympsfield Road in<br />
particular. In order to assess the effect the development will have on the occupiers of these<br />
properties the applicant has been requested to provide information in respect of noise, day<br />
lighting (including a shadow study), and light intrusion from the stadium. The effect the<br />
development will have is summarized as having an effect in terms of noise but this will be for<br />
limited periods of time and not normally late into the night / early hours of the morning. Noise<br />
would also occur in respect of traffic leaving and entering the site. Match day reports suggest<br />
that this would approach a statutory noise situation (albeit for short periods) but it is difficult to<br />
consider the situation solely in these terms. Rather it is suggested the noise aspect be<br />
considered in the context of the loss and some gain in amenity terms when all aspects are<br />
considered. In terms of public interest there is likely to be a gain in amenity terms rather than a<br />
loss. Other legislation exists to deal with noise issues, should they arise, and a balance has to<br />
be struck between the affects of the development against its positive benefits overall in amenity<br />
terms.<br />
The lighting report and plans show the nearest properties will be little affected by the<br />
development and this is not therefore considered to be an issue which would warrant refusal of<br />
permission.<br />
In relation to shadowing the applicant has provided evidence which supports the view the<br />
development will not adversely affect light to the residential dwellings and at times one is in<br />
shadow already due to its proximity to the land to the west of the site which is on a higher level.<br />
In these respects the development accords with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Car Parking<br />
79
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The development provides for car (162 spaces), motorcycle (12 spaces) and coach (3 spaces)<br />
parking on site. In addition the site is currently served by a bus company but the service curtails<br />
at 7:30pm. The club is negotiating with the bus company to provide an extended service beyond<br />
this time. The proposals allow people to walk to the site with improvements being made to the<br />
pedestrian network including a crossing point near the proposed new junction with Tinkley Lane.<br />
Secure cycle parking will also be available on site. Motor cycle parking will be provided. In these<br />
terms the site will be accessible by a variety of modes of transport and will not be solely reliant on<br />
the car.<br />
Access<br />
It is proposed to use the present access arrangement for the King George V Playing Field site<br />
and its extension which is via Wood Lane and Park Road, Nailsworth.<br />
In terms of the new stadium it is proposed to provide a new roundabout, designed to a standard<br />
required by the County <strong>Council</strong>. The new access will spur from the roundabout which will also<br />
take traffic from Nympsfield Road and Norton Wood. The roundabout will provide visibility sight<br />
lines of some 70m and other arrangements will allow the provision of a crossing point and<br />
pedestrian routes to and from the site. The introduction of traffic calming measures and the<br />
application to reduce the speed limit of this part of Nympsfield Road to 20 mph will also enhance<br />
highway safety measures over those that exist at present.<br />
Wildlife<br />
The site has been assessed from a wildlife perspective by the applicants agent. The application<br />
details have been forwarded to both English Nature and the Gloucestershire Trust for Nature<br />
Conservation. as noted in the consultation section of this report English Nature have commented<br />
on the proposals but not adversely but Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust has not responded within<br />
the allocated time frame. It is assumed therefore, the Trust has no comments to make on the<br />
application.<br />
The applicant has employed a specialist who advises the site has reptiles on it and these will<br />
need to be considered. The report recommends that the reptiles are relocated and a barrier<br />
erected to prevent harm being caused to them if they tried to enter the site. It is not proposed to<br />
move the reptiles any significant distance form their present location.<br />
Lighting<br />
The stadium will be lit by new floodlights which will have a higher lux than the lighting presently<br />
used at The Lawn but will have less light spillage due to the better direction of the lighting. It will<br />
also be possible to screen the lighting further if necessary and a condition is attached to the<br />
recommendation which allows the Local Authority to further assess the stadium floodlighting<br />
within 12 months and require alterations to be made to it, if required.<br />
The car parking areas will be lit by a mixture of column lighting and bollard lighting and these will<br />
be manually switched on and off to coincide with activities taking place at the site. The number of<br />
fittings has now been reduced from the original 75 to 47. The submitted light contour plans show<br />
there will not be any significant effect of the lighting on nearby residential properties.<br />
Recreation / Community facility / regeneration implications<br />
This project constitutes a significant regeneration scheme for the town in which the <strong>District</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>, Town <strong>Council</strong>, County <strong>Council</strong> (Education and Corporate Property) and Nailsworth<br />
School have been fully involved. The process of consultation has included the formation of a<br />
Regeneration Group for the Town, a series of public meetings as well as those which have taken<br />
place separately with key agencies. There is confidence that the residents of Nailsworth have<br />
80
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
had the opportunity to comment and become involved in the planning application and project in<br />
general.<br />
In overall terms, the <strong>Council</strong> is satisfied from a sport and leisure perspective with the level of<br />
outdoor playing space which is being provided. The additional pitch at King George V site (KGV),<br />
the upgraded pitch at Nailsworth School/Recreation Centre and the proposed Multi Use Games<br />
Area/Astro Turf which will be subject to a separate application, all considerably improve the<br />
quantity and quality of community facilities for the town. Attention is drawn to several items which<br />
should form part of the planning conditions attached to any permission.<br />
1.The order of the work should include the construction of the school playing pitch prior to the<br />
new stadium being built in line with the recommendations of Sport England.<br />
2.A new 'community use agreement' should be entered into which formalises the partnership<br />
between the FGR, the <strong>District</strong> and Town <strong>Council</strong>s and Nailsworth School. This agreement will<br />
guide the operational management of the facilities at the school site in particular but will also<br />
encourage partnership working across the community use and development of other sites like<br />
FGR and KGV.<br />
3.A financial commitment is made by the FGR to the establish a new playing pitch at KGV and<br />
future arrangements are agreed for its maintenance. This work should be undertaken prior to the<br />
commencement of the residential development at the Lawn site which conforms to Sport<br />
England's recommendation.<br />
CONCLUSIONS<br />
As with most planning applications a balance has to be struck between the benefits of the<br />
proposals and any disbenefits. Whilst it is accepted that the development will impact on several<br />
households its benefits are considered to outweigh such impacts which are not in themselves of<br />
a magnitude which would warrant the refusal of planning permission for the reasons outlined in<br />
the main body of this report.<br />
Therefore, in the public interest, the development is deemed to represent a proposal which would<br />
have a wide community benefit and enhance both the living conditions for the majority, the<br />
enjoyment of sporting facilities, provide valuable housing provision on the existing club site after<br />
the relocation of the facilities and retain and enhance facilities currently provided in this locality by<br />
the Football Club. The site will have a greater degree of accessibility in many forms and will<br />
provide a significant amount of on site car parking thereby relieving the local road network of<br />
parked cars during match times. An informal arrangement for parking cars at the site when it is<br />
not in use will allow car parking in the town centre to be utilized and bring economic benefits for<br />
the town centre.<br />
The traffic generation will not be significantly different from the existing situation and after<br />
confirmation there are no technical issues outstanding this is not an issue in terms of the stadium<br />
proposals.<br />
The interests of wildlife have been considered and it has been confirmed the methods of<br />
mitigation are suitable.<br />
The impact of the development has been considered in landscape terms and whilst short distant<br />
views will be altered long distance views will be such that the affect on the Cotswold Area of<br />
Outstanding Natural Beauty will of a scale which is not detrimental. The application is a matter<br />
the Countryside Agency has not objected to in terms of impact on the near by designated area.<br />
RECOMMENDATION<br />
81
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
It is recommended the Committee Resolve not to Refuse the application subject to the<br />
satisfactory completion of a Section <strong>10</strong>6 Agreement. The heads of the Agreement to include:<br />
1. The applicant to undertake the works and mitigation methods comprised in the applicant's<br />
submitted Environmental Statement and Further Information.<br />
2. That the development is phased so that work occurs in the following sequence:<br />
(a) The new playing field at the King George V playing field is constructed before the new<br />
stadium is brought into beneficial use and all community facilities are made available for use prior<br />
to the bringing into use of the new stadium and work commences on the demolition of the<br />
existing stadium site (The Lawn). That works be allowed to proceed on the existing site where<br />
materials are to be recycled in the construction of the new stadium and do not prevent the pitch<br />
at The Lawn for being used.<br />
(b) A management plan for the extended King George V playing field is produced and agreed.<br />
The plan to include booking arrangements and long-term maintenance of the facility. The<br />
commuted sum for maintenance to be £12,000.00 unless agreed to the contrary with the Head of<br />
Development Services in conjunction with Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
(c) That during the course of construction works on the new stadium site 'The Lawn' be made<br />
available for use by the existing users of the playing field at Nortonwood and the School, until<br />
such time as the new facilities are available for use.<br />
(d) A Bond or similar financial arrangement to be provided by the developer / applicant to provide<br />
for sufficient funds for the restoration of the New Stadium Site to its existing condition should the<br />
development permitted not be completed within twelve months of the cessation of any<br />
construction works.<br />
(e) An area of land of sufficient size to provide a MUGA be set aside from development within the<br />
site, generally in accordance with the details submitted by the applicant, and upon notification in<br />
writing by the Local Authority such land is made available for public use.<br />
SITES INSPECTION PANEL<br />
The Panel were joined by <strong>Council</strong>lor Mrs Wood and <strong>Council</strong>lor Jones. They inspected the site<br />
and were made aware of the respective positions of existing residential and commercial property.<br />
They were able to view the proposed highway works and suggested traffic calming measures.<br />
The position of the new footway linking the area outside the school to the new stadium was<br />
noted. The size and position of the new roundabout was viewed. The Panel took the opportunity<br />
of walking the playing field site and considering the relationship of the works to the existing<br />
properties and the landscape. The details of the topography were visible and the effect of the<br />
shadowing study was considered. The location of the embankment where most of the wildlife<br />
issues related to was pointed out. The repositioning of the playing field for the school was made<br />
known as well as the area which does not form part of this application but will not be developed<br />
to enable a possible MUGA to be created in the future was pointed out. The Panel viewed the<br />
KGV site and could see the area of land it is proposed to extend for a playing field. The position<br />
of the hedgerow was considered and the cut and fill operation required was shown on the plans.<br />
Members were able to consider the nature of the highway network leading to this part of the site.<br />
The Highway Authority representative confirmed there were no highway objections to the<br />
proposals and that the scheme met technical requirements and had been considered in terms of<br />
a safety audit. Questions were raised regarding the size and nature of the roundabout and<br />
whether it would be possible for it to be planted.<br />
82
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The Environmental Health Officer attended and confirmed his views were already outlined in the<br />
report submitted to Members.<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> representative spoke in favour of the development and confirmed the Town<br />
<strong>Council</strong> had been interested in the area as a whole for a long time. When the secondary school<br />
was closed it was realised more and more residential development was taking place without any<br />
further community facilities. The area developed by JJH Homes was a playing field and that area<br />
has been lost to residential development. There was a mandate from the community when a<br />
petition of over 1400 people was signed to try to prevent the college site being developed for<br />
residential purposes. A priority was to see the football club remain in Nailsworth. They are the<br />
only social facility providers, not just for sport but also for social amenities, they provide bingo for<br />
the old people and as there is no public house in this area social contact takes place within the<br />
clubs buildings. The idea to move the football club was somewhat pushed upon the Town<br />
<strong>Council</strong> but the main aim was to keep it in the town and to try to persuade the college that<br />
something could be done but that all fell through. After this the football club began negotiations<br />
with the County <strong>Council</strong> and the Town <strong>Council</strong> retained an interest to ensure there would still be<br />
sufficient community facilities. This has been undertaken for the last few years. They feel there<br />
will be sufficient community facilities with the development and the use of the school and KGV<br />
site. The Town <strong>Council</strong> have also remained abreast of the environmental statement and have<br />
employed a consultant to review these on their behalf. As a result some of the subsequent<br />
measures of mitigation such as the reduction in lighting has been as a result of this advice. It is<br />
hoped the scheme will be approved as there is benefit to Nailsworth. People are working hard to<br />
bring in funding to the area and the scheme. In relation to that part of the scheme for the<br />
extension of the KGV site measures have been discussed with the County <strong>Council</strong> for traffic<br />
calming but the main area of concern does not come from the use of the playing fields but the<br />
use of this road (Park Road) as a rat run to the commercial units. The extension of the KGV site<br />
is not a matter the Town <strong>Council</strong> required but was as a result of Sport England's' requirement to<br />
make up for the potential loss of any playing pitches generally. It is not proposed to extend any<br />
of the other facilities such as the changing rooms in this area.<br />
The invited Ward <strong>Council</strong>lor, <strong>Council</strong>lor Jeffreys, wished to defer any comments until the time of<br />
the Development Control meeting.<br />
After discussion Members were of the view the proposals were acceptable but some expressed<br />
concern regarding the nature of the highway engineering works proposed at Norton Wood.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
83
ITEM No: 11<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/0<strong>08</strong>2/OUT<br />
The Lawn, Nympsfield Road, Nailsworth, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
443<br />
Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 383971,200054<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Outline <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Outline application for residential development of former Forest Green<br />
Rovers Football Stadium. (Proposed number of dwellings up to 66<br />
units).<br />
Forest Green Rovers Football Club<br />
The Lawn, Nympsfield Road, Nailsworth, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL6 0ET<br />
J Mason Associates<br />
4 Phoenix House, Hyssop Close, Cannock, Staffs, WS11 2F<br />
John Balfe<br />
15.01.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Resolve Not to Refuse<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. Before any development is commenced, approval shall be obtained from<br />
the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority in writing of the details of the design,<br />
external appearance, siting and landscaping (hereinafter called "the<br />
reserved matters").<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the<br />
Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority before the expiration of three years from the<br />
date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
3. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the<br />
expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the<br />
expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the<br />
reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.<br />
84
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of<br />
landscaping shall be carried out in the first complete planting and seeding<br />
seasons following the occupation of the buildings, or the completion of<br />
the development to which it relates, whichever is the sooner. Any trees<br />
or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the<br />
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or<br />
diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of<br />
similar size and species, unless the Head of Development Services gives<br />
written consent to any variation.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.<br />
5. Where new or replacement surfacing, walls or fences are proposed within<br />
the zone of the protective fencing for trees shown as being retained,<br />
details of the materials for surfacing, walls and fencing and method of<br />
constructing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the health and safety of the trees on the site and to ensure<br />
continuity of the visual amenity that they provide.<br />
6. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until<br />
provision is made for the parking of vehicles on a properly made-up<br />
surface, within the curtilage of the site, in accordance with the Local<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Authority's adopted vehicle parking standards. This provision<br />
shall be maintained as such thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that sufficient parking spaces are made available.<br />
7. No other development shall be commenced until the service road<br />
carriageway serving that part of the development has been completed in<br />
all respects to at least top of base course level, to the satisfaction of the<br />
Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety.<br />
8. No siteworks shall commence until such time as a temporary car parking<br />
area for site operatives and construction traffic has been laid out and<br />
constructed within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to<br />
and agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services and that area<br />
shall be retained available for that purpose for the duration of building<br />
operations.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the access roads in the vicinity of the site are kept free from<br />
construction traffic, in the interests of highway safety.<br />
9. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until detailed<br />
85
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
plans have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services, of the method of disposal of surface water within<br />
the curtilage of the site. The development shall not be brought into use<br />
until that agreed method has been provided and is available for use.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure adequate surface water drainage is provided.<br />
<strong>10</strong>. The development hereby permitted shall be designed and laid out to<br />
provide recreational provision in accordance with the Local <strong>Planning</strong><br />
Authority's standards as detailed in supplementary planning guidance<br />
'Residential Development Outdoor Play Space Provision dated<br />
November 2000'. Such provision shall be maintained for this purpose for<br />
the duration of the development and shall include details of a<br />
management plan for such provision, details of which shall be submitted<br />
to and agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong>'s recreational policies including Policy<br />
R5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001) and to ensure the development is adequately<br />
served with recreational facilities.<br />
11. The development hereby permitted shall include a variety of house types<br />
and shall include the provision of 30% 'affordable units' in accordance<br />
with the <strong>Council</strong>'s interim policy statement and Policy H8 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Details of such provision shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by<br />
the Head of Development Services and shall include details of how the<br />
'affordable units' are to be maintained for this purpose in the longer term.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the development accords with Policies H8 and H14 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001) and to provide a variety of house types available to the wider<br />
community and character of the area.<br />
12. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until:<br />
a) A desktop study has been carried out which shall include the<br />
identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might<br />
reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information.<br />
And using this information a diagrammatical representation (Conceptual<br />
Model) for the site of all potential contaminant sources, pathways and<br />
receptors has been produced.<br />
b) A site investigation has been designed for the site using the<br />
information obtained from the desktop study and any diagrammatical<br />
representations (Conceptual Model). This should be submitted to, and<br />
approved in writing by the Head of Development Services prior to that<br />
investigation being carried out on the site. The investigation must be<br />
comprehensive enough to enable a risk assessment to be undertaken<br />
relating to groundwater and surface waters associated on and off the site<br />
that may be affected, and refinement of the Conceptual Model, and the<br />
development of a Method Statement detailing the remediation<br />
requirements.<br />
c) The site investigation has been undertaken in accordance with details<br />
approved by the Head of Development Services and a risk assessment<br />
86
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
has been undertaken.<br />
d) A Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements, including<br />
measures to minimise the impact on ground and surface waters, using<br />
the information obtained from the Site Investigation has been submitted<br />
to the Head of Development Services. This should be approved in writing<br />
by the Head of Development Services prior to that remediation being<br />
carried out on the site.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that the proposed site investigations and remediation will not<br />
cause pollution of Controlled Waters. To comply with the provisions of<br />
Policies G2 and G4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
13. Prior to the commencement of any development, a scheme for the<br />
provision and implementation of surface water limitation shall be<br />
submitted to and agreed in writing with the Head of Development<br />
Services. The works/scheme shall be constructed and completed in<br />
accordance with the plans and timetable approved by the Head of<br />
Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the provisions of Policy G4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local<br />
Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) and to ensure<br />
the development does not cause adverse conditions resulting from<br />
surface water run off.<br />
14. The development hereby permitted shall include methods of dealing with<br />
surface water in accordance with established principles of SUDs<br />
drainage. Details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing<br />
by the Head of Development Services. The details so approved shall<br />
then be implemented in full prior to the completion of the development.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the provisions of Policy G4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local<br />
Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) and to prevent<br />
adverse conditions arising from surface water disposal.<br />
15. No works shall commence on site until details of vehicular parking and<br />
manoeuvring facilities within the curtilage of the site have been submitted<br />
to and approved by the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority. The parking and<br />
manoeuvring facilities shall then be completed in all respects in<br />
accordance with those details before the development is brought into use<br />
and shall be maintained as such thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy G5 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001).<br />
16. The proposed development shall be served by an estate road (or roads)<br />
laid out and constructed in accordance with details, including means of<br />
surface water disposal, to be submitted to and approved by the Local<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Authority.<br />
Reason:<br />
87
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
To ensure that road works are completed to a satisfactory and safe<br />
standard suitable for adoption as a public highway in the interests of<br />
highway safety.<br />
17. No dwelling shall be occupied until the access road between that dwelling<br />
and the existing county highway, including footways and turning heads<br />
(where applicable), has been laid out in accordance with the submitted<br />
plans and constructed to at least base course level.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that the access road is completed to a standard suitable for<br />
occupants of the dwelling, in the interests of highway and public safety.<br />
18. No part of the development shall be brought into use until space has<br />
been laid out within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to<br />
and agreed in writing by the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority for one secure<br />
cycle space per dwelling.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the development is<br />
capable of being reached by a variety of modes of transport.<br />
19. No development shall commence until details for the upgrading of the<br />
existing 'bus flag pole stops in Nympsfield Road in the vicinity of the site<br />
to provide new shelter facilities have been submitted to and approved by<br />
the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority and no part of the development shall be<br />
brought into use until the bus stop has been provided in accordance with<br />
the approved plans.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety.<br />
20. No works shall commence on site until such time as a Traffic Calming<br />
Scheme for Nympsfield Road has been submitted to and approved in<br />
writing by the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority in consultation with the Local<br />
Highway Authority and the scheme so approved shall be implemented in<br />
full prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the Interests of Highway Safety and to comply with Policy G5 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001).<br />
21. No works shall commence on site until either (a) full engineering details<br />
for accessing the site via a roundabout located at the junction between<br />
Nympsfield Road and Nortonwood Road, have been submitted to and<br />
agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services, in consultation<br />
with the Highway Authority or, (b) a construction traffic management plan,<br />
including temporary construction access proposals has been submitted to<br />
and agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services. The<br />
scheme (a) so approved shall be implemented to at leased base course<br />
level prior to the commencement of house or estate road<br />
building/construction operations. The wearing course shall be completed<br />
upon occupation of the 40th unit and the road works completed in full<br />
prior to the completion of the development. The developer shall notify<br />
the Head of Development Services of the practical completion of the last<br />
88
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
unit on the site and that dwelling shall not be occupied until the<br />
permanent access scheme has been completed in full in accordance with<br />
the agreed details above.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of Highway Safety.<br />
22. No development shall commence until such time as a phasing<br />
programme for highway works has been submitted to and approved by<br />
the Head of Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure adequate access is provided in the interests of highway safety.<br />
23. Prior to the commencement of any site construction works vehicle wheel<br />
cleaning facilities shall be provided on site in accordance with details to<br />
be submitted to and approved by the Head of Development Services, and<br />
thereafter be maintained for the duration of the siteworks.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that mud and earth deposits are not brought onto the public<br />
highway in the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy G5<br />
of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
June 2001).<br />
24. The existing vehicular access to the site shall be stopped up at a point<br />
beyond the access to the property known as Westcroft, its use<br />
permanently abandoned beyond this point and the verge/footway<br />
crossing reinstated in accordance with details which shall have been<br />
submitted to and approved by the Head of Development Services so as<br />
provide only an access suitable to serve a single dwelling. Such works<br />
shall be completed within 1 month of the new vehicular access hereby<br />
authorised being first brought into use.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety.<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1,G2, G4, G5,<br />
H8, H14, R1, R5, of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001) and Policies S.RE1 and S.5 of the<br />
Structure Plan which seek to ensure proposals do not adversely affect<br />
the amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings<br />
by reason of overbearing effect or loss of light. The development<br />
provides a means of access to the site which is safe to both highway<br />
users and pedestrians. The proposals incorporate a level of affordable<br />
housing and would thereby make a proportion of the development<br />
available to the wider community. The illustrative layout provides the<br />
89
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
units with an appropriate level of car parking and the site is capable of<br />
being reached by a variety of modes of transport, thus making it<br />
sustainable in transport terms. The design, scale, and size of the<br />
development is capable of being in keeping with the existing<br />
surrounding property and its wider setting. There are no areas of land<br />
which contain any significant features to be incorporated into the scheme<br />
and the development is capable of providing a variety of house types.<br />
Space is available for the parking of vehicles in accordance with the<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s adopted Vehicle Parking Standards and sufficient amenity<br />
space can be provided for private use of the occupiers of the property, in<br />
accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s adopted standards as outlined in its<br />
Residential Design Guide.<br />
Policies R1 and R5 relate to matters relating to recreational provision<br />
and this can be provided within the development and secured outside<br />
the site via a Legal Agreement and a condition. The development can<br />
be seen to accord with the provisions of these policies. The same can<br />
be said with regard to Structure Plan policies RE1 and S.5 which again<br />
seek to ensure adequate provision is maintained for recreational<br />
facilities in the locality and in some instances enhanced.<br />
2. The Local Highway Authority will require the developer to enter into a<br />
legally binding agreement to secure the proper implementation of the<br />
proposed highway works including an appropriate bond.<br />
3. The proposed development shall be laid out and constructed strictly in<br />
accordance with the Gloucestershire County <strong>Council</strong>'s 'Local Guidance<br />
and Standards' as contained in their document entitled 'Highway<br />
Requirements for Development' Issue No. 2. Copies of this document<br />
may be purchased from Gloucestershire County <strong>Council</strong> (Tel. 01452-<br />
425559).<br />
4. The proposed development will involve works on the highway and the<br />
developer is required to obtain the permission of Gloucestershire County<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s Divisional Surveyor for the Southern Area 01453-822193<br />
before commencing those works.<br />
5. The Highway Authority have a preliminary design for a Traffic Calming<br />
Scheme for the length of Nympsfield Road between Nortonwood and<br />
Barn Field Road, including a School Safety Zone and an amended<br />
Traffic Regulatory Order and the developer is advised to contact the<br />
Highway Authority before details are submitted to discharge the above<br />
recommended Traffic Calming condition.<br />
6. The engineering details for the proposed roundabout shall include<br />
horizontal and vertical alignments, drainage, improvements to street<br />
lighting, signing and linning etc.<br />
7. For the purposes of this permission the applicants submitted layout plan<br />
shall be disregarded, save for the matter not reserved for subsequent<br />
approval.<br />
90
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Support: Please see main body of report for details.<br />
Environment Agency<br />
The Environment Agency has commented on the application in respect of remediation of any<br />
contaminated land, the submission of schemes for surface water disposal and foul drainage<br />
disposal, the use of SUD's techniques and adequate pollution prevention measures being put into<br />
place.<br />
Mr Charles Parry<br />
The County Archaeologist has requested a desk based assessment of the site and following the<br />
submission of this has no further requirements for investigation or recording.<br />
County Surveyor (Initial)<br />
The Highway Authority raises no objections subject to conditions which are attached to the<br />
recommendation.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Comment<br />
Mrs Ind, Westcroft, Nympsfield Road<br />
• Right of way writer has from the road to the back of Westcroft was not noted in the plan.<br />
91
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
THE PROPOSAL<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is made in outline form and relates to the demolition of the existing football<br />
stadium and the development of the grounds with up to 66 dwellings. All matters are reserved for<br />
future approval except for the means of access to the site. An illustrative plan has been<br />
submitted which shows a suggested layout of the development but this is to be disregarded so far<br />
as the precise future layout is concerned. However, the plan does allow an impression to be<br />
formed regarding the number of units it is possible to achieve on this site. The density of the<br />
development would equate to 56 units gross per hectare but it would be anticipated a large<br />
number of the units would take the form of flats.<br />
THE SITE AND ITS LOCATION<br />
The site is situated adjacent to the Nympsfield Road, at Forest Green, Nailsworth. The site is<br />
currently used for a mixture of purposes including a football stadium, sports facilities, fitness club<br />
and social club. The site is situated between the residential development in Barnfield Road and<br />
the existing <strong>Stroud</strong> College site which has planning permission to be redeveloped for residential<br />
purposes. The site is situated within the defined urban boundary of the town of Nailsworth. The<br />
site is not within any designated area such as a Conservation Area or Area of Outstanding<br />
92
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Natural Beauty but is visible from long distance views of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding<br />
Natural Beauty. With the exception of the School, College and Football Ground the area is<br />
residential in its character.<br />
The land is predominantly flat in character but at a higher level than the properties in Bunting<br />
Way.<br />
CONSULTATIONS<br />
All statutory consultations have taken place including neighbours notifications. The development<br />
has also been advertised on site and in the Local Press as 'Major Development'.<br />
Responses to consultations are listed elsewhere in this report except that of the Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
which due to the size of the representation is listed below:<br />
Application S.04/0<strong>08</strong>2/OUT<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> supports in principle the outline application for housing on the existing stadium<br />
site at The Lawns, although has reservations about the illustrative layout, the size and type of<br />
access junction proposed, and the unclear status of land for a Village Hall.<br />
Town <strong>Council</strong>s General Comments about the Application and Appraisals<br />
General Issues<br />
It has been agreed that some of the proceeds to the County <strong>Council</strong> from the sale of the surplus<br />
playing field site, will be used for improvements to the school. The funds should also be used to<br />
contribute towards the construction costs of the proposed Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA). The<br />
MUGA is in the south west corner of the site and is marked as "open space for possible games<br />
area" on the plans. This area should be combined with the adjacent tennis court on the adjoining<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> College site to provide the MUGA. Subject to planning approval, the adjacent tennis court<br />
on the <strong>Stroud</strong> College site, which is protected by a Section <strong>10</strong>6 agreement, could form part of the<br />
MUGA for the Joint Use Centre, football club, and adjoining housing.<br />
The proposal for a MUGA arises from the Regeneration Group and is strongly supported by the<br />
Town <strong>Council</strong>. The applicants have agreed to make land available for the MUGA, but it cannot<br />
be progressed as part of the current application because it involves land not under the applicant's<br />
control. The Town <strong>Council</strong> considers that the County <strong>Council</strong> should reserve some of the<br />
receipts from sale of the land to contribute to construction costs of the MUGA. Developers of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> College site would also contribute to the MUGA.<br />
The Lawns<br />
General Comments<br />
The Section <strong>10</strong>6 agreement should ensure that construction on The Lawns site does not<br />
commence until after the New Stadium, and King George V Extension are complete.<br />
Layout<br />
Where possible The Lawns development should be integrated with surrounding housing, for<br />
example by diverting the footpath to the south of the site through the new development. Ideally<br />
this development should be integrated with development on the <strong>Stroud</strong> College site to provide:<br />
a) A shared road access, and<br />
b) A direct footpath from The Lawns through the <strong>Stroud</strong> College site to the primary school<br />
Village Hall<br />
93
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> welcomes the allocation of open space for a Village Hall, but is concerned that<br />
the manner in which is it presented in the planning application does not secure the allocation.<br />
An allocation of 500 sq m should be included in the Section <strong>10</strong>6 agreement.<br />
Affordable Housing should form 30% of total units.<br />
Construction Impacts<br />
The impact of the proposed concrete crusher on surrounding residents should be minimised.<br />
Highways and Transport Proposals<br />
Transport includes a roundabout access for the New Stadium site, a second roundabout for The<br />
Lawns, and improvements to bus access. The proposals include a 21m diameter 4-arm<br />
roundabout at the junction of Nympsfield Road and Nortonwood West to provide access to the<br />
New Stadium, and a 26m diameter 4-arm roundabout at the junction of Nympsfield Road and The<br />
Lawns. Three sets of speed pads are proposed between the two roundabouts, with associated<br />
signage, and extension of the 30 mph speed limit to just west of Bramble Cottage.<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> has several comments with regards to the public transport proposals:<br />
a) The proposal that all Stagecoach services will enter the New Stadium site is welcomed<br />
because it will increase activity within the site.<br />
b) The parking of three buses overnight at the New Stadium site will reduce early morning<br />
and late evening service runs on Spring Hill.<br />
c) Buses will turn in the car park loop, which should therefore be for one-way traffic only.<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> is particularly concerned at two aspects of the proposals:<br />
a) The roundabout access to The Lawns is over-designed, and will involve pedestrians walking<br />
along the south side of Nympsfield Road in an unnecessary detour.<br />
b) There should be a pedestrian crossing outside the school for pedestrians approaching from<br />
Nortonwood East, which would enable them to avoid the new roundabout access to The Lawns,<br />
and the new access to the <strong>Stroud</strong> College site.<br />
Several items have been omitted from the TA:<br />
a) There is no discussion of traffic impacts on Tinkley Lane. Although these are likely to be slight<br />
they should be considered.<br />
b) There is no consideration of the potential impact of match attendances in excess of 3,000<br />
spectators or increases in average match attendances of around 1,000 spectators.<br />
c) There is no consideration of potential impacts of moving the employment use of the football<br />
club to a site west of the primary school.<br />
d) There is no consideration of the traffic generation of the social club, crèche and other nonmatch<br />
leisure uses at the New Stadium.<br />
e) The Stadium access roundabout is likely to be completed before The Lawns access. There is<br />
no consideration of the potential traffic problems during this interim period.<br />
The Town <strong>Council</strong> has the following additional comment:<br />
a) The use of the term "park and ride" is misleading and has led to unnecessary public concern<br />
about traffic impacts. The proposal is that certain organisations may use parking facilities at the<br />
New Stadium at specific times in agreement with the football club. These may include people<br />
going on coach trips to other places, members of the Chamber of Trade etc. The term "agreed<br />
community car parking" would be preferable.<br />
No transport improvements are proposed in association with the King George V Extension<br />
Items for Inclusion as Conditions or in the Section <strong>10</strong>6 Agreement<br />
94
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
General<br />
a) The new pitch and other work affecting Nailsworth Primary School should be complete before<br />
construction work on the New Stadium commences.<br />
b) The existing stadium should not be demolished until work on the New Stadium and King<br />
George V Extension is substantially complete.<br />
The Lawn<br />
a) The proportion of affordable housing at The Lawns should be 30% of the total.<br />
b) A site of 500 sq m for a village hall/general amenity/play area should be retained and included<br />
as provision in the Section <strong>10</strong>6 agreement, to be owned by Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong>. (See<br />
Addendum)<br />
c) Off-site education and adult play space provision should be agreed.<br />
Transport Proposals<br />
a) A pedestrian crossing should be provided to the school<br />
b) The football club should be required to provide "agreed community car parking", with local<br />
organisations including: local coach tour operators, Nailsworth Primary School, Nailsworth<br />
Chamber of Trade, and Stagecoach.<br />
The <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> is asked to note that timing is critical to make this proposal happen. The<br />
football club has to cease playing at its existing stadium by May 2005, and if there is any delay in<br />
making a decision the scheme may fail. An expedient decision is vital to its success.<br />
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS<br />
The planning history of this site predominantly relates to a commercial football club and<br />
premises. The development of this site is one that can draw comparisons with the proposals to<br />
develop the adjacent <strong>Stroud</strong> College site for residential purposes. That site has permission<br />
which was eventually both granted at appeal and by the <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> directly.<br />
Policy H 14 of the Local Plan is applicable in respect of housing issues and has to be weighed<br />
against the other material matters, which include the Inspectors findings on the adjacent site.<br />
The use of the site would comply with the terms of Policy H14 and PPG3. However,<br />
considerations regarding the re-establishment of the existing community facilities from the site<br />
are also relevant. It can therefore be reasonably deduced the site is now suitable for housing<br />
purposes, subject to the re-establishment of the community facilities.<br />
The site is situated within the urban area of the town of Nailsworth and was originally allocated<br />
for residential purposes in the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan (Draft for Deposit) 1999 (Hg 16 refers).<br />
This together with the adjoining <strong>Stroud</strong> College land had an indicative capacity for 50 houses.<br />
Due to the uncertainty of the football club moving premises at that time the <strong>Council</strong> took the<br />
decision to remove this allocation from the Local Plan.<br />
The application therefore now falls to be considered under Policies H14, R1, R3 of the Local Plan<br />
and Policy RE1 and S5 of the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review. Other material<br />
considerations contained within <strong>Planning</strong> Policy Guidance Notes 3 and 17 are also applicable.<br />
Policy H14 of the Local Plan suggests development should be considered against the following<br />
criteria.<br />
POLICY H14<br />
Within settlements boundaries, permission will be granted for residential development or<br />
redevelopment, provided all the following criteria are met where relevant:-<br />
95
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
1. The proposed housing is of a scale, layout and design compatible with that part of the<br />
settlement in which it would be located, and would not cause harm to the character and<br />
appearance of that part of the settlement;<br />
2. The density proposed is at as high a level as is acceptable in townscape and amenity terms;<br />
3. The development includes dwellings of various sizes, both in respect of physical size and type;<br />
4. It would not result in development between the settlement boundary and the existing built form<br />
of the settlement, where this would appear as an intrusion into the countryside;<br />
5. It would not cause the loss of, or damage to, any open space which is important to the<br />
character of the settlement;<br />
6. Any natural or built features on the site and worthy of retention have been incorporated into the<br />
scheme; and<br />
7. Where dwelling-houses are proposed, an appropriate area of private amenity space is<br />
provided for the occupiers of each dwelling-house. Where other types of residential<br />
accommodation are proposed, an appropriate level of amenity space to serve the scheme as a<br />
whole is provided.<br />
In isolation a scheme for residential development is considered to comply with this policy but<br />
needs to be balanced against the other material considerations of the case which are outlined in<br />
this report relating to community and recreational facilities.<br />
Policies R1 and R3 are considered to be of high relevance to this application on the basis that the<br />
recreational facilities are retained in the locality via agreement with the applicants and the<br />
imposition of a Section <strong>10</strong>6 Agreement relating to the phasing of the development. These<br />
Policies state:<br />
Policy R1<br />
Development proposals that involve the loss of existing outdoor playing space in public or private<br />
ownership, including those sites listed in Appendix 7 as Outdoor Play Space, will only be<br />
permitted if:<br />
1. Alternative outdoor playing space of at least the equivalent quantity, quality and accessibility of<br />
that lost is provided within the locality; or<br />
2. It can be demonstrated that no shortfall in accessible outdoor playing space exists in the area,<br />
or would result from the development; or<br />
3. The loss of part of a site leads to enhanced provision of outdoor playing space on the<br />
remainder of the site.<br />
4. The loss of part of a site in private ownership, and not currently available for public use, leads<br />
to public usage on the remainder of the site.<br />
Policy R3<br />
Permission will not be granted for the development of playing fields in educational ownership<br />
where:<br />
1. The loss will result in a future shortage of land for educational recreation; or<br />
2. The land could make a valuable contribution in reducing an identified deficiency in outdoor<br />
playing space provision within the community.<br />
Permission will be granted to proposals which involve the joint use of school playing fields with<br />
local communities to help meet the demand for formal sports provision.<br />
Structure Plan Policies RE1 and S5 further state:<br />
RE.1<br />
96
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The retention and provision of a wide range of recreational facilities in urban areas and all<br />
principal settlements, to meet local and sub-regional needs, will be supported. Local Plans will<br />
give special consideration to:<br />
1. Areas which are deficient in recreational facilities;<br />
2. Facilities which provide for as wide a range of the population as possible;<br />
3. Increased accessibility for all potential users particularly by public transport, cycling and<br />
walking; and<br />
Local scale of provision of a non-specialist nature, for example local halls capable of some<br />
recreational uses, will be encouraged provided they are well related to the communities they<br />
serve.<br />
Policy S.5 states:<br />
In providing for development, local authorities will have regard to the need for community facilities<br />
and services, including education, health, and cultural facilities, local shopping facilities, sport and<br />
leisure facilities, transport services and infrastructure, housing including affordable housing and<br />
public utilities. In determining the type, scale and location of development, the adequacy of<br />
infrastructure and community services will be taken into account. Provision for development will<br />
be made where related infrastructure and community services are in place or will be provided in<br />
appropriate phases in an environmentally acceptable way.<br />
Policies T1 and G5 of the Local Plan deal with issues relating to highway safety and sustainable<br />
development. The site is located within the main urban fabric of Nailsworth and is accessible to a<br />
wide range of services and facilities by a number of modes of transport. The development is<br />
therefore sustainable.<br />
The development has been designed to be served by a new roundabout (22m) which is the only<br />
measure acceptable to the Highway Authority as the juxtaposition of the new access with the<br />
existing roads would create a cross roads. Traffic calming measures are also required by the<br />
Highway Authority. The applicant, in consultation with the Highway Authority, is proposing three<br />
sets of 'cushions' outside the school and applying for a speed limit of 20 mph to be adopted. A<br />
new footway will be provided to the existing westerly gates of the school. The function and<br />
capacity of the new roundabout has been considered by the County <strong>Council</strong> and its highway<br />
consultants. The nature and capacity of the roundabout is sufficient to deal with the new housing<br />
development. In terms of traffic generation from the site and its effect on the local highway<br />
network, this has been computer modelled by the applicant and the traffic generated from the<br />
scheme is not significant when compared with the scenario which existed when the secondary<br />
school was operation pre 1991. Traffic generated at that time would have equated to <strong>10</strong>0 peak<br />
hour trips.<br />
The new development will generate 53 two-way movements at morning and evening peak<br />
according to modelling. In terms of direction of movements this is likely to result in most traffic<br />
moving in an easterly direction towards the town with approximately 6 additional movements in a<br />
westerly direction towards Nympsfield. Bearing in mind the network capacity and movements in<br />
the past when the secondary school was operational, coupled with the amount of traffic which is<br />
currently generated by the existing club site, this is not of a scale which causes concern to the<br />
Highway Authority.<br />
The proposed residential development will act as a windfall site within the established urban<br />
boundaries of the town, as defined in the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Draft for Deposit (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
At the time of the appeal on the adjacent site it was generally agreed that particular site is a<br />
brownfield site and subject to the retention of the tennis court is suitable for residential use. With<br />
the relocation of the recreational and community facilities on the stadium site similar<br />
97
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
considerations would apply to this proposal. On the basis of the facilities being retained the<br />
development would not be contrary to the provisions of Policies R1 and R3 of the Local Plan and<br />
other guidance given via PPG17 - Sport and Recreation. That guidance recognises the<br />
importance of providing space for recreation especially in urban areas.<br />
It suggests that dual uses could be made of existing facilities to provide better and readily<br />
available sporting facilities for the community. The long term needs of the community for<br />
recreational uses of land should be taken into account. In urban areas Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authorities<br />
need to balance the need for making land available for development whilst retaining sufficient<br />
land for recreational purposes. It is important that people have close and reasonable access to<br />
open areas and community facilities.<br />
The scale of the development would require the provision of 'affordable housing' and negotiations<br />
have taken place with the applicants to this effect. The development would attract the need to<br />
provide 30% of the units for this purpose and it is proposed to secure this provision via a Section<br />
<strong>10</strong>6 Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Policy H8 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
and the <strong>Council</strong>'s interim Policy Statement on this matter.<br />
The scale of the development will require the provision on site of play spaces for children and<br />
depending on the number of units eventually developed and the number of bed spaces provided<br />
the provision of LEAPs or LAPs will be required. These will have to be located within the<br />
development in secure areas and will also act as areas of open amenity land. Such provision will<br />
be secured via Condition <strong>10</strong>. It is not proposed to require either a commuted sum or provision for<br />
adult recreation subject to the replacement facilities being put into place for this purpose prior to<br />
the site being developed for housing.<br />
RECOMMENDATION<br />
In the circumstances it is recommended the Committee Resolve not to Refuse the application<br />
and subject to the completion of a Section <strong>10</strong>6 Agreement relating to phasing, affordable housing<br />
provision (30%) and the transfer of 500m2 of land to Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong> for recreational<br />
provision or the construction of a new village hall at a future date. The phasing shall be such that<br />
no residential development takes place on this site until both the new playing pitch at the King<br />
George V site is completed and the new facilities at the new stadium site are provided in full.<br />
EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1988 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
98
ITEM No: 12<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/1255/FUL<br />
Land Off, Frome Gardens Adjoining <strong>Stroud</strong>water Canal, Cainscross,<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong><br />
22330<br />
Cainscross Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 3834<strong>08</strong>,204840<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Erection of 13 dwellings.<br />
Mr & Mrs Tang<br />
5 Frome Gardens, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL5 4LE<br />
Tuffnell Town And Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
Waverley Studio, Gloucester Road, Hartpury, Gloucestershire<br />
Andrew Case<br />
<strong>10</strong>.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. The proposal by virtue of its design, massing, and siting would harm the<br />
character and appearance of this part of the settlement and the wider<br />
canal corridor, contrary to criteria 1, 5 and 6 of Policy H14 and criteria 1,<br />
2 and 3 of Policy B4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001 including housing amendments<br />
September 2003).<br />
2. The site is within an area at 'high risk of flooding', and as the application<br />
is not supported by a Flood Risk Assessment it may increase the risk that<br />
future residents will be cut off from dry land, place extra strain on<br />
emergency services and put lives at risk, contrary to Policy G4 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001).<br />
Object:<br />
Over-densification of the overall Chelbury Homes site and the subsequent effect on the Frome<br />
Gardens feeder road. There are already considerable problems on this road of overspill parking,<br />
including vehicles travelling to Frome Gardens having to be on the wrong side of the road near<br />
99
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
the bend. This has been caused by the existing new development because insufficient parking<br />
has been allocated - appreciate that new development complies with government guidelines on<br />
reduced parking standards but in effect they are unrealistic and lead to indiscriminate parking on<br />
other existing congested roads in the vicinity. We understand from an Environment Agency<br />
officer that the existing new development is undesirable so close to the canal side because of<br />
flooding problems - this part of the canal sometimes floods because of its bottle neck effect as it<br />
feeds into the river just further along in Frome Gardens. Further development will exacerbate this<br />
situation. Should the development be allowed, we would like to request significant contribution<br />
towards the cost of the provision of a ramp for disabled and other users of the right of way over<br />
the nearby canal footbridge (Rights of Way have commissioned drawings and are currently<br />
consulting with the EA who have no objection in principle). We note this area has already been<br />
cleared, in fact SDC Environmental Health Officer was obliged to attend the site last week<br />
because of nuisance caused by the way the developer was disposing of the debris and we hope<br />
that this time he will wait for permission to be completed before commencing building.<br />
Environment Agency<br />
The Environment Agency objects to the application as it is within an area at high risk of flooding<br />
and is not supported by a flood risk assessment that demonstrates the proposed residential<br />
development will not cut off future residents from dry land, place extra strain on emergency<br />
services and put lives at risk.<br />
Cotswold Canal Trust<br />
Object:<br />
The proposed dwellings, numbers 33 to 39 on the plan, are situated very close to the canals and<br />
will overshadow and crowd it.<br />
The canal and its surroundings are designated by your <strong>Council</strong> as an Industrial Heritage<br />
Conservation Area in order to preserve its historical structures and setting. Extending the recent<br />
modern, "out of keeping" development along this line would be totally contrary to the purpose of<br />
the IHCA.<br />
Should such an application be permitted it would be expected that a substantial Section <strong>10</strong>6<br />
agreement should be sought to contribute to the restoration of the canal in agreement with the<br />
Canal Company, Canals Trust and British Waterways.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
Mr S Emery, 49 Westward Road, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
• Loss of privacy - any permission will breach writers rights that are protected by Article 8 of<br />
the European Convention on Human Rights.<br />
• Intensity of development too great for the site.<br />
• Will cause noise and nuisance.<br />
• Overbearing.<br />
• A haven for wildlife.<br />
• Will remove one of the last areas of undeveloped land on this stretch of the <strong>Stroud</strong>water<br />
Canal.<br />
<strong>10</strong>0
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Site and Proposal<br />
The site is located in Cainscross, within the designated Industrial Heritage Conservation Area<br />
and fronting directly onto the passing canal. It is a relatively flat area covered in scrubby<br />
vegetation, with several large trees adjacent to the canal. It includes a raised "causeway" that<br />
links onto the estate road serving the neighbouring residential development to the west. The land<br />
rises rapidly at its northern end to the rear of residential properties. To both the east and the<br />
west of the site are narrow wedges of open land, beyond both of which is residential development<br />
tight onto the edge of the canal.<br />
The proposal is to erect 13 new dwellings, in the form of two, two and a half storey blocks each<br />
containing 6 apartments and one semi detached dwelling. The proposal would be linked to the<br />
adjacent estate road via the raised causeway.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
The site is located within a defined settlement boundary and this application is considered<br />
against Policies H14, B4, T1, R8, G4, G1 & G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001 including Housing Amendments September 2003). The<br />
relevant sections of Policies H14 and B4 require that: proposed housing is of a scale, layout,<br />
design and in materials sympathetic to that part of the settlement in which it would be located,<br />
<strong>10</strong>1
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of that part of the settlement; the<br />
density proposed is at as high a level as is acceptable in townscape and amenity terms; the<br />
development includes dwellings of various sizes, both in respect of physical size and type; it<br />
would not cause the loss of, or damage to, features of characteristic value; and where dwellinghouses<br />
are proposed, an appropriate area of private amenity space is provided for the occupiers<br />
of each dwelling-house. Where other types of residential accommodation are proposed, an<br />
appropriate level of amenity space to serve the scheme as a whole is provided; and important<br />
views into and out of the site are protected. Policy T1 requires that appropriate levels of parking<br />
are provided in accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s adopted standards and may require traffic calming<br />
or highway improvements were relevant. The development will not directly affect the historic<br />
route of the canal and the relevant section of Policy R8 and requires that development relates to<br />
the canal setting. Policy G4 will not permit development on land liable to flood or where it would<br />
increase the risk of flooding. The other policies seek to ensure that no detrimental effects result<br />
either on highway safety or the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.<br />
In and close to <strong>Stroud</strong> Town Centre the character of the canal corridor is that hard edge, built<br />
form abuts close to both sides of the canal. As you move in a westerly direction along the canal<br />
the proportion of built form decreases, and the relationship with open spaces and vegetation<br />
becomes more important. More specifically once you leave Wallbridge area there is built form to<br />
the southern side interspersed with significant open /soft landscaped areas with sporadic<br />
development to the north. Once the canal passes under the Dudbridge Road, the openness of<br />
the corridor has already been significantly enclosed by the Bridgeside Estate and further to the<br />
west by the more recent Chelbury and Bryant Homes developments. These recent<br />
developments have very significantly increased the hard edge of the canal corridor in this vicinity<br />
increasing the relative importance of those remaining open/landscaped parcels of land. The<br />
perception of the area with the proposed development would be hard built form along the entire<br />
side of this part of the canal, which is not in keeping with the more rural character of the<br />
surroundings (away from the ribbon development on the roads). This harm is exacerbated by the<br />
canal edge development being a substantial two and a half storey building with a historically<br />
uncharacteristic plan width, which results in a large dominating structure. The proposal would<br />
harm the character of this section of the canal corridor contrary to criteria 1, 5 & 6 of Policy H14<br />
and criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Policy B4. Concern is also expressed in the loss of views that would<br />
result from the canal corridor up to historic properties to the north, while these are not listed many<br />
are important character buildings in the vicinity. The proposal results in harm to views out of the<br />
canal corridor and its relationship to these buildings contrary to criteria 4 of Policy B4.<br />
The proposal would relate differently to the canal than the neighbouring development and refusal<br />
would not be warranted due to Policy R8. No response has been received from County<br />
Highways regarding the access to the site and highway safety. This response should be<br />
available and verbally presented at the committee meeting, and as such no comment is made<br />
regarding highway safety and Policy G5 at this stage. The proposed development is set at a<br />
lower level than those neighbouring properties fronting onto Westward Road, such that the<br />
proposal would have no significant affect on the amenities of their occupiers. Further the<br />
orientation and distance from other properties would not result in significant effects either by<br />
dominating effect, loss of light or privacy on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring<br />
properties in accordance with Policy G1.<br />
The Environment Agency state the site is within an area at 'high risk of flooding'. As the<br />
application is not supported by a Flood Risk Assessment the Agency objects as it may increase<br />
the risk that future residents will be cut off from dry land, place extra strain on emergency<br />
services and put lives at risk, contrary to Policy G4.<br />
Refusal is recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
<strong>10</strong>2
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 13<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1240/REM<br />
Former Hazlewood Factory, Newmarket Road, Nailsworth, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
20518<br />
Nailsworth Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 384209,199609<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Approval of Reserved Matters<br />
Approval of reserved matters application S.01/624 granted on appeal<br />
for the erection of 5 houses and 28 apartments. (Additional Plans<br />
received 25th June <strong>2004</strong>). (Revised Plans received 9th July <strong>2004</strong>)<br />
Builders Ede Ltd<br />
Marlborough House, High Street, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 2DN<br />
None<br />
Darryl.J. Rogers<br />
<strong>08</strong>.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Approval<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. No development shall take place until a materials schedule, together with<br />
samples of all external materials to be used in the construction of the<br />
external surfaces of the building works hereby permitted have been<br />
submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Development<br />
Services. Development shall then only be carried out in accordance with<br />
the approved schedule and samples.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.<br />
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until further<br />
details of all external joinery (including doors and windows), together with<br />
<strong>10</strong>3
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
the proposed surface finish, have been submitted to and approved in<br />
writing by the Head of Development Services. The approved scheme<br />
shall then be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of any<br />
residential unit to which it relates.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the appearance of the building.<br />
3. No work of any description must commence on site until details of any<br />
proposed changes in levels have been submitted to and agreed in writing<br />
by the Head of Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the health and safety of the trees on the site and to ensure<br />
continuity of the visual amenity that they provide.<br />
4. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until further<br />
details of the proposed boundary treatment to the southern roadside<br />
elevation of the development site have been submitted to and approved<br />
in writing by the Head of Development Services. The approved details<br />
shall then be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the<br />
development and maintained as such thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
These matters require further consideration in order to safeguard the<br />
visual amenity of the area.<br />
5. All existing trees shall be retained unless shown on the approved<br />
drawings as being removed. Prior to any equipment, machinery,<br />
materials or vehicles being brought onto the site for the purposes of<br />
commencing development or the demolition of the existing building, and<br />
until all such equipment, machinery, vehicles and surplus materials have<br />
been removed from the site after completion of development, all trees on,<br />
and immediately adjoining the site, must be securely protected in<br />
accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing<br />
by the Head of Development Services. Each of the trees retained must<br />
be fenced to protect the area within the crown spread, or at a radius<br />
equal to half the height of the tree, whichever is greater, unless otherwise<br />
stated in the approved scheme of tree protection.<br />
a) The protective fencing must be sited in accordance with the approved<br />
tree and landscape survey, and it must not be removed at any time<br />
during development without the written consent of the Head of<br />
Development Services.<br />
b) Within the protected area ground levels must remain as existing and<br />
no excavations must take place.<br />
c) No vehicles, materials, spoil, equipment, containers or chemicals must<br />
be placed or stored within the protected area.<br />
d) No fires must be lit within 25 metres of the canopy edge of any trees.<br />
e) Before any work commences on the site, details of all proposed<br />
arboricultural works to existing trees on or adjoining the site shall be<br />
submitted to and be approved in writing by the Head of Development<br />
Services. No works to existing trees on or adjoining the site shall be<br />
carried out without the prior written consent of the Head of Development<br />
Services.<br />
f) Any existing trees not shown as being removed on the approved<br />
drawings which die, are removed or become so damaged or diseased<br />
<strong>10</strong>4
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
within a period of 5 years from the completion of development that they<br />
have to be removed, must be replaced as soon as reasonably<br />
practicable. In practice, this will be during the next available planting<br />
season. The size, species and location of the replacement tree(s) must<br />
be agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the health and safety of the trees on the site and to ensure<br />
continuity of the visual amenity that they provide.<br />
6. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted the car<br />
parking and manoeuvring facilities shall be provided in accordance with<br />
the approved drawings and maintained as such thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that adequate car parking and manoeuvring space is made<br />
available to serve the development.<br />
7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a<br />
scheme of hard landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in<br />
writing by the Head of Development Services. The approved scheme<br />
shall then be implemented in full prior to first occupation of the<br />
development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
These matters require further consideration in the interests of the visual<br />
amenity of the area.<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order<br />
2003, the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised<br />
below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained<br />
within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The siting, design, means of access and external appearance of the<br />
proposal represents an acceptable form of infill development, which<br />
creates a string and distinctive form of urban design and thereby<br />
enhances the character and appearance of the surrounding street<br />
scene. The form and layout of the scheme is compatible with the<br />
rhythm of the existing built form and provides car parking and amenity<br />
facilities in accordance with adopted standards appropriate for this type<br />
of development. The imposed conditions further securing the on-site<br />
provision of such facilities and the final materials for the development.<br />
The proposed site access will not give rise to highway conflict with all<br />
other matters of traffic generation remaining in line with the original<br />
appeal decision S.01/624. In this manner the scheme accords with<br />
Policies H14, G5, B2, B11 and G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The acknowledged wildlife and arboricultural interests on the site have<br />
been fully considered in light of Local Plan Policies N3 and N<strong>10</strong>, with<br />
controls imposed by both conditions and the existence of more<br />
appropriate legislation contained within The Wildlife and Countryside<br />
<strong>10</strong>5
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Act 1981.<br />
2. This approval of reserved matters relates to the siting, design, means<br />
of access and external appearance only. The reserved matter of<br />
landscaping is not included in this approval and will require a further<br />
reserved matters application.<br />
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the presence of protected species<br />
on the site and the need to obtain the relevant licence before<br />
commencement of any works. The applicant is advised to contact<br />
English Nature at Bronsil House, Eastnor, Nr.Ledbury, Herefordshire,<br />
HR8 1EP or via telephone on 01531 638500 for further guidance.<br />
Object:<br />
The apartment building is out of scale with the surrounding area. We propose that the 28<br />
apartment block should have one storey removed. This would reduce the visual impact from the<br />
opposite side of the valley. A reduction in the number of dwellings would also reduce the<br />
pressure on street parking which will be inevitable given the number of spaces proposed for this<br />
site (33 - one space per each unit).<br />
On road parking could stretch from the Britannia Inn to the George Inn at Newmarket which<br />
would present a pedestrian hazard owing to the lack of pavement and lighting.<br />
At the Nailsworth end of the site, building into the bank would be necessary which could cause<br />
instability in the hillside.<br />
The traffic volume generated by 33 additional units would overload an already congested and<br />
sub-standard road and the junction between Old Market and Spring Hill.<br />
If there is no reduction in numbers we expect 30% to be affordable.<br />
Environment Agency<br />
No response received at the time of writing.<br />
Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust<br />
Comment that they hold no information regarding this site but suggest that if an ecological impact<br />
is suspected, a wildlife survey should be conducted.<br />
Mr Charles Parry<br />
Have no observations regarding this proposal.<br />
Severn Trent<br />
No response at the time of writing.<br />
County Surveyor (Initial)<br />
Raise no objections in connection with a reserved matters application.<br />
Alderley Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
<strong>10</strong>6
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
No response received at the time of writing, although members will be verbally updated at the<br />
meeting.<br />
Badger Group<br />
No response received at the time of writing, although members will be verbally updated at the<br />
meeting.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Comment<br />
Mr M Vick, Ivy Cottage, Newmarket Road<br />
Mr H Rose, Clematis Cottage, Newmarket Road<br />
• Welcomes the development and states that the mill design would blend in with the surroundings.<br />
• Comments however that an additional 33 cars will be using the existing narrow roads and<br />
requests that provision is made for the creation of a footpath along Newmarket Road.<br />
Site Location:<br />
<strong>10</strong>7
Site Report:<br />
The Site and the Proposal<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This is an application for reserved matters approval relating to the construction of 5 houses and<br />
28 apartments on land on the Newmarket Road on the outskirts of Nailsworth.<br />
The application site consists of the former Hazelwood Factory set into the valley wall on the<br />
northern side of the Newmarket Valley. The large 1960s factory building borders listed buildings<br />
to either side with the local road to the front. The three-storey building is of a plain, simple<br />
functional design set into the rising valley wall with a number of mature trees to the side and rear.<br />
At the current time the factory has vehicular and loading access on the lower level with office and<br />
factory accommodation on the three floors above. Secondary vehicular access is also available<br />
to the side of the building via the local road which also serves a small terrace of dwellings and the<br />
George Public House together with the former delivery / dispatch area for the factory. As a direct<br />
consequence of its sheer functional industrial design and bulk the building dominants the<br />
surrounding residential street scene.<br />
The proposal seeks the demolition of the building and its replacement with a 'millesque' style<br />
building with residential units across four levels with parking on the lower level with access from<br />
Newmarket Road. The building would provide 28 two-bed apartments and be of an industrial mill<br />
design and natural stone and slate construction with corresponding detailing. In addition to the<br />
main building the proposal also includes the erection of 5 three-bed dwellings to the west of the<br />
site adjacent to the existing dwellings.<br />
Relevant <strong>Planning</strong> History<br />
S.01/624 Outline Application for Residential Development Allowed<br />
On Appeal<br />
30/7/2002<br />
This appeal decision followed a previous refusal by the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority for the following<br />
reason:<br />
The proposal will result in the loss of an employment site contrary to the provisions of Policy E2<br />
of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
In allowing the appeal the Inspector stated that:<br />
'In my opinion the closure of the factory has brought significant benefits in terms of reduced traffic<br />
and that the traffic problems would be likely to return if the building were again to be used for<br />
employment at anything approaching its full capacity.........On the main issue (loss of employment<br />
land), I find there is limited evidence that the site is required to meet existing or future<br />
employment needs and some evidence to show that its no longer suitable for employment use. I<br />
therefore find that the proposal would not lead to the unacceptable loss of employment land on<br />
this site. Moreover, I consider that the previous use created unacceptable noise and traffic<br />
congestion and that if a similar use were to be resumed that these problems would probably<br />
return. I therefore find that there are demonstrable benefits to the community that outweigh the<br />
loss of the employment land in any event. I therefore conclude on the main issue that the<br />
proposal would satisfy the criteria in Structure Plan Policy E5 and in emerging Local Plan Policy<br />
E2.'<br />
The Appeal Inspector therefore accepted that the principle of residential development was<br />
acceptable and approved the outline application. Matters of siting, design , external appearance,<br />
access and landscaping were reserved for future consideration. Other matters pertaining to<br />
possible contamination, tree retention and drainage works were covered by condition.<br />
<strong>10</strong>8
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The relevant planning consideration for an application of this type is contained with principle<br />
policies H14 and G5 which seek to ensure that proposals are of a suitable design and scale when<br />
viewed in the local context and do not give rise to concerns of highway safety. In addition regard<br />
must also be had to policies B11, B1, B2 which promote the production of good design and the<br />
preservation of the setting of listed buildings, along with policies N3 and N<strong>10</strong> regarding protected<br />
species and trees.<br />
It is apparent from the history of the site and the representations received that the key issues<br />
relate to the design and scale of the proposed buildings, the corresponding traffic generation and<br />
highway implications along with the safeguarding of the protected species and trees. The<br />
principle of development was clearly established at the appeal stage.<br />
Design and Scale of the Building<br />
It is clear from the appearance of the existing building that the site makes little or no positive<br />
contribution to the Newmarket area and indeed represents something of a negative local<br />
landmark. With the removal of the building the site has a number of constraints controlling the<br />
form and scale of any replacement building, not least of which is the local topography. In light of<br />
these constraints and the general ribbon development associated with the Newmarket Valley, the<br />
design solutions for the site are restricted.<br />
In line with advice contained with Policy B2 and <strong>Planning</strong> Policy Guidance Note Number 3, the<br />
submitted scheme would create a strong and distinctive design in its own right, which in turn<br />
would enhance the appearance of the area. The use of an industrial scale of development would<br />
reflect the previous activities of the valley and enable the overall scale of the site and its<br />
associated constraints to be used in a positive manner. The creation of a distinctive style of millbased<br />
development is considered preferable to a series of three or four storey-terraced dwellings,<br />
which formed the basis of the original illustrative plans, considered at the appeal. With the use of<br />
the proposed conditions it is considered that the scheme represents a strong and distinctive<br />
urban form, which significantly enhances the visual amenity of the area.<br />
Although a number of concerns have been raised regarding the overall height of the building, it<br />
will not be unduly dominant given the impact of the existing building and the rising land levels.<br />
One of the characteristics of the Newmarket Valley is of tall building set into the valley wall, with<br />
rising land levels behind. Given the comparable heights of the proposed and existing buildings<br />
the proposal will not cause unacceptable additional harm in terms of its scale and will preserve<br />
the overall form of development in the area. The impact of the building will be significantly<br />
reduced by its location further back into the site than the existing one, thereby improving the<br />
street scene elevation.<br />
The detached terrace dwelling units are in keeping with the local vernacular and will preserve the<br />
setting of the adjacent listed buildings. Again subject to suitable controls over the final materials,<br />
an acceptable form of development is proposed.<br />
Traffic Generation<br />
One of the key factors considered by the Appeal Inspector was that the closure of the factory and<br />
the re-development of the site for residential purposes would bring with it considerable amenity<br />
and traffic generation benefits due to the nature of the existing activities. Whilst the comments of<br />
the Town <strong>Council</strong> and local residents are noted regarding traffic generation, the development will<br />
give rise to a reduction in vehicular movements both in terms of frequency and type over the<br />
authorised use of the site. At the time of the Appeal it was estimated that the factory provided<br />
<strong>10</strong>9
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
around 150 jobs with employees arriving over a two or three shift work pattern daily along with<br />
associated delivery and dispatch traffic.<br />
Although the received comments are appreciated with regard to the potential need for highway<br />
improvements along the Newmarket Road, this application is for reserved matters only. In the<br />
absence of suitable conditions on the appeal decision, it would not be appropriate or possible to<br />
require such improvements on this application.<br />
With regard to the comments of the Town <strong>Council</strong> regarding the provision of affordable housing<br />
units, the application under consideration is a reserved matters one with the original outline<br />
making no requirement for such provision. Under these circumstances it is not possible to seek<br />
affordable housing on this application.<br />
Trees and Protected Species<br />
In line with the requirements of policy N3 and N<strong>10</strong>, the applicant has submitted surveys of the<br />
bats and badger groups on the site and these are currently subject to consultation by the<br />
specialized groups. Whilst it was concluded at the appeal stage that the site was capable of redevelopment<br />
without causing harm to such species, the exact impact of a detailed scheme is<br />
being assessed and members will be updated verbally at the meeting.<br />
In terms of the protected trees on the site a detailed tree survey has been submitted to indicate<br />
the impact of the proposal on the trees with the scheme itself not requiring the felling of any trees.<br />
Issues of tree protection and retention are covered by the suggested conditions with condition 5<br />
of the appeal decision controlling any outstanding matters. It should be noted that the an<br />
additional reserved matters application will be required for the overall site landscaping prior to the<br />
commencement of the development and as such further controls can be imposed at that time.<br />
Recommendation<br />
The proposal represents a strong and distinctive form of urban development, which will enhance<br />
the character, and appearance of this part of Newmarket. The scheme will not give rise to undue<br />
traffic generation given the authorised use of the site and will safeguard the protected trees and<br />
species on the site whilst also preserving the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. The proposal<br />
therefore accords with Policies H14, B11, B1, N3 and N<strong>10</strong> of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) and conditional approval is recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 14<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
S.04/1143/FUL<br />
Land Adjacent, Etheldene Road, Cashes Green, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
1<strong>10</strong>
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
25379<br />
Cainscross Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 382868,205709<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Erection of a bungalow.<br />
Mr D Orchard<br />
14 Shepherds Croft, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL5 1US<br />
Mr Richard Wadley<br />
Byway, Kingscourt Lane, Rodborough, <strong>Stroud</strong>, GL6 8DD<br />
Andrew Case<br />
01.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be<br />
used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building works<br />
hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the<br />
Head of Development Services. Development shall then only be carried<br />
out in accordance with the approved details.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, to accord with Policy<br />
H14 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001 including Housing Amendments September 2003).<br />
3. No window or door openings shall be formed in either the walling or roof<br />
above ground floor on either the south, west or east elevations.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential<br />
property, to accord with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan,<br />
Revised Deposit Version as amended June 2001).<br />
4. No siteworks shall commence until such time as a temporary car parking<br />
area for site operatives and construction traffic has been laid out and<br />
constructed within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to<br />
and agreed in writing by the Head of Development Services and that area<br />
shall be retained available for that purpose for the duration of building<br />
operations.<br />
111
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the access roads in the vicinity of the site are kept free from<br />
construction traffic, in the interests of highway safety, to accord with<br />
Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
5. Prior to the commencement of development details of parking provision<br />
to serve the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Head<br />
of Development Services. Such provision as agreed shall be provided,<br />
and made available for use prior to first occupation of the dwelling, and<br />
similarly maintained thereafter solely for the parking of vehicles.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure sufficient parking is provided and maintained to serve the site,<br />
in the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy G5 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001).<br />
6. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until drainage<br />
works for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewage have been<br />
carried out in accordance with the details to be submitted to and agreed<br />
in writing by the Head of Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of<br />
drainage as well as to reduce the risk of flooding and to minimise the risk<br />
of pollution, to accord with Policy G2 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan,<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order<br />
2003, the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised<br />
below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained<br />
within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The site is located within a settlement boundary and it is considered<br />
against Policies H14, T1, G1 and G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan,<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001 including Housing<br />
Amendments September <strong>2004</strong>). The relevant sections of these require<br />
that development: is of a scale, layout and design compatible with that<br />
part of the settlement in which it would be located, and would not cause<br />
harm to the character and appearance of that part of the settlement; it<br />
would not cause the loss of, or damage to, any open space which is<br />
important to the character of the settlement; any natural or built features<br />
on the site and worthy of retention have been incorporated into the<br />
scheme; and an appropriate area of private amenity space is provided<br />
for the occupiers of the dwelling-house; appropriate levels of parking<br />
are provided in accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s Parking Standards; and<br />
no detrimental effect results either on the amenities of the occupiers of<br />
neighbouring residential properties or highway safety result.<br />
The proposal is of a scale, layout and design in keeping with the<br />
character and appearance of the surrounding settlement, it is not<br />
112
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
important to the character of the settlement, nor are there any important<br />
features on the site worthy of retention. The area of amenity space<br />
provided is appropriate to serve the future occupiers, all in accordance<br />
with Policy H14.<br />
One parking space is provided to serve each dwelling and it would be<br />
unreasonable to require increased provision. The proposal is in<br />
accordance with Policy T1. No significant harm would result either by<br />
loss of light, loss of privacy or dominating effect on the amenities of the<br />
occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy G1. On<br />
balance the proposal would not harm highway safety to a level where<br />
refusal would be warranted solely for this reason. The proposal is in<br />
accordance with Policy G5.<br />
2. There is a public sewer which crosses the site. The applicant may wish<br />
to discuss with Severn Trent the implications of this and apply for its<br />
diversion.<br />
Comments:<br />
We are concerned that another house will exacerbate the congestion and parking problems.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
Mrs W Thickey, 63 Etheldene Road, Cashes Green<br />
Mr & Mrs Chilcott, 65 Etheldene Road, Cashes Green<br />
Anna Burns & Dale Burrell, 1 Devonia Terrace, Springfield Road<br />
R Maller, 34 Etheldene Road, Cashes Green<br />
H D & D M Legg, 3 Devonia Terrace, Springfield Road<br />
Mr T Browning, 2 Hillcrest, Springfield Road<br />
• Access opposite writers driveway.<br />
• Narrow road.<br />
• Poor services.<br />
• Increase in traffic. Difficult to park.<br />
• Increase noise.<br />
• Overcrowding and loss of privacy.<br />
• Loss of privacy and light, if built level with the footpath. Traffic problems in an already<br />
crowded area.<br />
• Passing road is narrow and creates problems accessing the site, and is too narrow to cope<br />
with the building activity. Condition on nearby property regarding site workers car park was<br />
ignored and SDC admits in practice is often unenforceable.<br />
113
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Site and Proposal<br />
The site is a small single "allotment" located in Cashes Green. At the northern end of the site is a<br />
raised area of hardstanding, containing a single concrete block garage. The neighbour to the<br />
east has a dilapidated prefabricated garage accessed off the hardstanding on the site. There is a<br />
mature privet hedge on the northern boundary of the site with the passing narrow road, with<br />
vehicular accesses to both the garage and hardstanding. On the western boundary of the site is<br />
a 2 metre high close boarded fence, to the south 2 metre fence panels and to the east is a low<br />
chain link fence beyond which are two large sheds at the rear of neighbours gardens.<br />
The proposal is to construct a small, 2 bedroom, bungalow on the lower "allotment" at the rear of<br />
the site. Materials are proposed as white render with blue/black concrete roof tiles. The<br />
hardstanding and garage are to be retained to serve the new dwelling.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
The site is located within a settlement boundary and it is considered against Policies H14, T1, G1<br />
and G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001<br />
including Housing Amendments September <strong>2004</strong>). The relevant sections of these require that<br />
development: is of a scale, layout and design compatible with that part of the settlement in which<br />
114
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
it would be located, and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of that part of<br />
the settlement; it would not cause the loss of, or damage to, any open space which is important<br />
to the character of the settlement; any natural or built features on the site and worthy of retention<br />
have been incorporated into the scheme; and an appropriate area of private amenity space is<br />
provided for the occupiers of the dwelling-house; appropriate levels of parking are provided in<br />
accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s Parking Standards; and no detrimental effect results either on the<br />
amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties or highway safety result.<br />
The proposal is a small scale bungalow, which is set back from the passing road a similar<br />
distance to those other properties in the surrounding area. It's scale, layout and design are in<br />
keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding settlement and it would not harm<br />
the appearance of the area. The site is a small enclosed area that is not important to the<br />
character of the settlement, nor are there any important features on the site worthy of retention.<br />
The area of amenity space provided is limited, but given the small scale of the dwelling, is<br />
appropriate to serve the future occupiers. This is all in accordance with Policy H14.<br />
Policy T1 requires designated parking to be provided to serve dwellings. In this case the existing<br />
dwelling has an area of hardstanding to the front for parking a vehicle, and the proposed dwelling<br />
is served by the existing hardstanding. Therefore one parking space is provided to serve each<br />
dwelling and it would be unreasonable to require increased provision. The proposal is in<br />
accordance with Policy T1.<br />
The eaves height of the property is 2.6 metres and taken with the existing boundary treatments,<br />
so long as the development is built at the existing ground level, no significant harm would result<br />
either by loss of light, loss of privacy or dominating effect on the amenities of the occupiers of<br />
neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy G1.<br />
In relation to highway safety it is noted that the existing roads in the vicinity are narrow. However<br />
as at least two cars could be easily parked within the curtilage of the site and due to the<br />
increased use of the existing access it is unlikely the proposal would increase the likelihood for<br />
parking in the street particularly when there is presently no restriction on parking in this vicinity.<br />
Further the road serves a large number of existing properties and recently a new dwelling has<br />
been constructed in very close proximity. On balance the proposal would not harm highway<br />
safety to a level where refusal would be warranted solely for this reason. The proposal is in<br />
accordance with Policy G5.<br />
Permission is recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 15<br />
Application<br />
S.04/<strong>10</strong>67/FUL<br />
115
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Site Address: Land At, Stinchcombe Manor, Clingre Lane, Stinchcombe<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
1482<br />
Stinchcombe Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 372780,198844<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Erection of a dwelling.<br />
Blanchworth Care<br />
C/o Hoddell Asscoaites, Tickton Lodge, 8 Bellevue Road, Clevedon,<br />
Bristol BS21 7NR<br />
M B Johnson<br />
Hoddell Asscoaites, Tickton Lodge, 8 Bellevue Road, Clevedon, Bristol<br />
BS21 7NR<br />
Mark Newcombe<br />
20.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. No development shall take place until samples of the roofing and walling<br />
materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the<br />
building works hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in<br />
writing by the Head of Development Services. Development shall then<br />
only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with<br />
policies H16 and B4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001 and Housing Policy amendments<br />
September 2003).<br />
3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until detailed<br />
plans have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services, of the method of disposal of surface water within<br />
the curtilage of the site. The development shall not be brought into use<br />
until that agreed method has been provided and is available for use.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure adequate surface water drainage is provided.<br />
4. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until<br />
116
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on site to serve the<br />
development, in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in<br />
writing by the Head of Development Services, prior to the<br />
commencement of development.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure adequate provision is made for the disposal of sewage.<br />
5. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until<br />
provision is made for the parking of vehicles on a properly made-up<br />
surface, within the curtilage of the site, in accordance with the Local<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Authority's adopted vehicle parking standards. This provision<br />
shall be maintained as such thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that sufficient parking spaces are made available and to<br />
accord with policy T11 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001 and Housing Policy amendments<br />
September 2003).<br />
6. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details<br />
of a scheme of hard and soft landscaping for the site have been<br />
submitted to and approved in writing by the Head of Development<br />
Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with<br />
policy n6 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001 and Housing Policy amendments September 2003).<br />
7. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of<br />
landscaping shall be carried out in the first complete planting and seeding<br />
seasons following the occupation of the buildings, or the completion of<br />
the development to which it relates, whichever is the sooner. Any trees<br />
or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the<br />
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or<br />
diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of<br />
similar size and species, unless the Head of Development Services gives<br />
written consent to any variation.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with<br />
policy n6 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001 and Housing Policy amendments September 2003).<br />
8. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details<br />
of the proposed treatment of all external joinery (including doors and<br />
window frames) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the<br />
Head of Development Services. Development shall then only be carried<br />
out in accordance with the approved details.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the appearance of the building and to accord with<br />
Policy B4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001 and Housing Policy amendments September 2003).<br />
117
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order<br />
2003, the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised<br />
below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained<br />
within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1, G5, H14, N6,<br />
B11 and B4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version<br />
(as amended June 2001) which seek to ensure proposals do not<br />
adversely affect the amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of<br />
neighbouring dwellings by reason of overlooking, overbearing effect or<br />
loss of light. The design, scale, and size of the development is in<br />
keeping with the character of the area, it does not extend the built form<br />
into the open countryside, it would not involve the loss of an important<br />
open space, adequate amenity and parking space is provided. The<br />
design and materials compliment the character of the area. the<br />
development does not involve the loss of features of important historic<br />
or characteristic value to the Conservation Area. That the setting of the<br />
Listed Building is preserved. The proposal will not cause highway<br />
dangers.<br />
Support:<br />
<strong>Council</strong>lors do not object to the proposals providing that adjacent properties do not suffer a loss<br />
of privacy.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
Mr & Mrs Hamilton, Manor Farm, Wick Lane<br />
J R Wood, Eaves Cottage, Stinchcombe<br />
Mr & Mrs Townsend, Pound Cottage, Wick Lane<br />
D C Leach, Church Cottage, Stinchcombe<br />
• Conservation Area.<br />
• Contrary to the <strong>District</strong> Local Plan.<br />
• Should protect open grounds around an historical building in order to protect the original<br />
environment.<br />
• Will require the removal of the swimming pool and tennis courts - there is a covenant within<br />
planning consents giving Stinchcombe residents access to these facilities.<br />
• Public right of way.<br />
• Footpath would pose a security risk to residents of the dwelling and is not in keeping with the<br />
type of potential purchaser.<br />
• Motorway noise.<br />
• Out of design, scale and character of the existing buildings.<br />
• Will be a significant addition to the skyline.<br />
118
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• Will lead to urbanisation.<br />
• Tennis courts are a benefit to the children of the village.<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
This is a detailed planning application for the erection of a dwelling within the grounds of<br />
Stinchcombe Manor at Stinchcombe. The proposal would involve the removal of a small garage<br />
and garden shed and overlaps onto part of the site presently used as a tennis court.<br />
The site is within the Stinchcombe Conservation Area, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty<br />
and also within the settlement boundary for Stinchcombe as shown on the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local<br />
Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001 and Housing Policy amendments<br />
September 2003). The adjacent Manor is presently used as a nursing home and is a Grade II<br />
Listed Building. The adjacent Old Vicarage is also Grade II Listed. The proposed development<br />
would share the existing access to Stinchcombe Manor part of which is a Public Right of Way.<br />
The main issues in considering this application are whether it complies with the policy relating to<br />
development within a settlement boundary, the effect upon neighbouring properties, The effect<br />
upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the affect upon the Conservation Area, the affect<br />
upon the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings, And the suitability of the access. All these<br />
issues are contained within policies H14, G1, G5, N6, B11 and B4 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local<br />
119
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001 and Housing Policy amendments<br />
September 2003).<br />
It is considered that the proposed dwelling is of a suitable scale and design for this conservation<br />
area location and would not result in the loss of an important open area. Adequate amenity and<br />
parking space is provided for the development.<br />
The site of the proposed dwelling is fairly spacious and in character with the surrounding large<br />
dwellings. The proposal is unlikely to have any significant impact upon the adjoining surrounding<br />
dwellings being some 40m away from the adjacent Old Vicarage. It is therefore considered that<br />
there would be no detrimental affect to neighbouring properties.<br />
It is considered that there would be no detrimental affect upon the setting of the adjoining listed<br />
buildings or the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.<br />
The Highway Authority have raised concerns regarding the suitability of the access serving<br />
Stinchcombe Manor, however, it is not considered that the traffic generated by this additional<br />
dwelling would significantly increase the level of which is already generated by the use as a<br />
nursing home which would justify refusing the application on these grounds. Objectors have<br />
raised issues which include a covenant on the use of the tennis court. This is a civil matter and<br />
not one for your consideration. Other matters they have raised are dealt with in this report.<br />
Permission is therefore recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 16<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/0797/COU<br />
Land At, Cranham Lodge, Sanatorium Road, Cranham<br />
22076<br />
Cranham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 390760,213242<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Change of Use<br />
Conversion of redundant building to residential dwelling with parking to<br />
the rear.<br />
120
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The Trustees Of The Witcombe Estate<br />
C/o Carter Jonas LLP, Anchor House, 269 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2<br />
7LL<br />
Mr Ian Gillespie<br />
Carter Jonas LLP, Anchor House, 269 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 7LL<br />
Jane Breakspear<br />
16.04.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. The proposed development would be likely to result in an intensification<br />
in vehicular use of the sub-standard access serving the site to the<br />
detriment of highway safety. The proposal is therefore not in accordance<br />
with Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version<br />
(as amended June 2001).<br />
2. The site is served by a series of narrow sub-standard access roads and<br />
hazardous road junctions and, such conditions are totally unsuitable to<br />
cater for the increased traffic resulting from the proposed development.<br />
The proposal is therefore not in accordance with Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
3. The site is located within open countryside and is not served by adequate<br />
footpaths, cycleways, or public transport facilities and the development<br />
would be likely therefore to increase reliance on the private car contrary<br />
to central and local planning policy and Policy T1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Support - will enhance this somewhat derelict area.<br />
Environment Agency<br />
Support:<br />
Will enhance this somewhat derelict area.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
121
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is for the conversion of a building at Cranham Lodge to a residential unit. The<br />
building is located within the grounds of the Saw Mill and is set back from the road.<br />
The property is of traditional construction built at the base of a hill with the south and east<br />
elevations set into the hillside. It consists of two adjoining buildings that do not have shared<br />
access, the smaller east building having been constructed at a later date. It has solid dressed<br />
limestone walls beneath a pitched plain clay tiled roof and a secret lead valley separating the<br />
roofs of each building. The building is currently being used for the storage of miscellaneous<br />
domestic and saw mill goods.<br />
There is also a large timber framed outbuilding, clad in timber weatherboarding under a profiled<br />
corrugated iron roof to the rear of the property, adjoining the west building. An open timber<br />
framed lean-to beneath an asbestos cement sheet roof adjoins the east elevation providing<br />
protection over the main entrance.<br />
The building has an interesting history and the applicants have tried to have it spot listed. The<br />
site is part of the Georgian Pleasure Gardens created in 1820. Cranham Lodge was created in<br />
1869 when the estate was remodelled. It seems likely at that time that this building was adapted<br />
and windows from the main house were inserted into the building. Cranham Lodge was then<br />
122
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
used as a Sanitorium until its demolition and it was here that George Orwell proof read the novel<br />
'1984'.<br />
The building has been deemed as not being of Listable standard despite its attractive windows.<br />
The proposed conversion will create a detached three bedroom house after the removal of the<br />
poor quality addditions. The proposal has been revised following Officer advice to be less<br />
intrusive and to respect the character of the original building much more.<br />
The proposal should be considered against Policies G1, T1 N6 B15 and 16 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Due to its position and size the building is not considered suitable for reuse for commercial or<br />
business use. It is in an unsustainable location and the roads leading to the site are unsuitable to<br />
cater for additional traffic. The building is therefore more suitable for residential use than any<br />
other purpose. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy B16 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The poorer quality elements of the building are to be removed as part of the conversion scheme.<br />
The remaining building is of permanent sound construction and alterations and rebuilding is fairly<br />
minimal. The proposed conversion respects the style of the building and is in accordance with<br />
Policy B16 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
To the front of the building is the Sawmill operative's cottage. There is however sufficient distance<br />
between the two buildings to not result in a loss of amenity to either occupier. The proposal is<br />
therefore also in accordance with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The proposal has no landscape implications and will not only improve the appearance of the<br />
building but its surrounding area. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy N6 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The property is however located in an unsustainable location, remote from facilities and public<br />
transport routes. The proposal is therefore not in accordance with Policy T1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Further attempts to improve the visibility at the access cannot be achieved without significant<br />
loss of trees, which are not within the application site and would be detrimental to the appearance<br />
of the area. In addition, the roads leading to the site are sub-standard. The proposal is therefore<br />
not in accordance with Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
Despite the conversion scheme for the building itself being acceptable the location of the building<br />
makes the proposal unacceptable and therefore the application is recommended for refusal on<br />
the grounds of highway safety and sustainability.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
123
ITEM No: 17<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/<strong>10</strong>23/OUT<br />
Grid Reference: 380015,203459<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Land At Brookside, Seven Waters, Bath Road, Leonard Stanley<br />
20071<br />
Leonard Stanley Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Outline <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Outline application for 2 dwellings with new access.<br />
M Davies<br />
The Drovers, Bristol Road, Cambridge, Glos<br />
Mr Philip Hodges<br />
Tetbury Upton, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, GL8 8LP<br />
Jane Breakspear<br />
14.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the<br />
expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the<br />
expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the<br />
reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the<br />
Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority before the expiration of three years from the<br />
date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
3. Before any development is commenced, approval shall be obtained from<br />
the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority in writing of the details of the external<br />
appearance and design (hereinafter called "the reserved matters").<br />
Reason:<br />
124
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
4. Before the development hereby authorised is brought into use the<br />
proposed vehicular access shall be laid out constructed in accordance<br />
with the submitted plans with the area of access road within 5m of the<br />
carriageway edge surfaced in bituminous macadam or other approved<br />
material and similarly maintained thereafter and the first <strong>10</strong>m of this<br />
access road from the carriageway edge shall be a minimum width of<br />
4.5m.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure a satisfactory means of access is provided and maintained in<br />
the interests of highway safety.<br />
5. Before the access is brought into use provision shall be made within the<br />
site for the disposal of surface water from the driveway in accordance<br />
with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services and the works as approved shall thereafter be<br />
similarly maintained.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that surface water does not discharge onto the highway, in the<br />
interests of highway safety.<br />
6. No works shall commence on site until details of vehicular parking and<br />
manoeuvring facilities within the curtilage of the site have been submitted<br />
to and approved in writing by the Head of Development Services. The<br />
parking and manoeuvring facilities shall then be completed in all respects<br />
in accordance with those details before the development is brought into<br />
use and shall be maintained as such thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety.<br />
7. Before the development hereby authorised is brought into use a properly<br />
consolidated and surfaced turning space shall be constructed within the<br />
site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing<br />
by the Head of Development Services. Such turning space shall<br />
thereafter be maintained free from parked vehicles and other obstruction<br />
at all times.<br />
Reason:<br />
To enable vehicles to enter and leave the highway in forward gear in the<br />
interests of highway safety.<br />
8. The existing vehicular and pedestrian access to the site shall be stopped<br />
up, there uses permanently abandoned and the verge/footway crossing<br />
reinstated in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to<br />
and approved I writing by the Head of Development Services. Such<br />
works shall be completed within one month of the new vehicular access<br />
hereby authorised being first brought into use.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety.<br />
125
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
9. The proposed development shall not be brought into use until the existing<br />
frontage boundaries either side of the vehicular access have been<br />
removed and lowered to provide visibility splays extending from a point<br />
2.4 metres back from the carriageway edge along the access centre line<br />
to a point on the nearside carriageway edge at the edge of the boundary<br />
with the applicants control in each direction. Any new boundary, fence or<br />
other enclosure shall be erected on or behind the splay lines so defined,<br />
with the area in advance maintained permanently clear of obstructions to<br />
visibility at a height not exceeding 0.75 metres above the adjacent<br />
carriageway level.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that adequate visibility is provided and maintained in the<br />
interests of highway safety.<br />
<strong>10</strong>. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a<br />
scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works and the<br />
disposal of foul sewage has been submitted to and agreed in writing by<br />
the Head of Development Services. All such drainage works shall be<br />
completed in accordance with the details so agreed and maintained as<br />
such thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a<br />
satisfactory means of surface water disposal and to minimise the risk of<br />
pollution.<br />
11. A strip of land 8 metres wide adjacent to the top of both banks of all<br />
watercourses on the site shall be kept clear of all new buildings and<br />
structures (including gates, fences and walls) unless agreed otherwise in<br />
writing by the Head of Development Services in consultation with the<br />
Environment Agency. Ground levels shall not be raised within this area.<br />
Reason:<br />
To maintain access to the watercourse for maintenance or improvements<br />
and to provide for overland flood flows.<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001)<br />
which seek to ensure proposals do not adversely affect the amenities at<br />
present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by reason of<br />
overbearing effect or loss of light.<br />
The proposal should be considered against Policy H14 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001<br />
which seeks to ensure that developments are of a scale layout and<br />
design compatible with the settlement and would not cause harm to its<br />
character and appearance. The revised layout improves the proposal<br />
126
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
and the scheme can now be designed to accord with that policy.<br />
The proposal should be considered against Policy G4 which seeks to<br />
prevent flood risk as a result of development proposals and policy G5<br />
which seeks to ensure that highway safety is not compromised as a<br />
result of development.<br />
2. The proposed development will require the provision of a vehicular<br />
crossing from the carriageway and the Applicant is required to obtain the<br />
permission of Gloucestershire County <strong>Council</strong>'s Divisional Surveyor for<br />
the area: Southern 01453-822193 before commencing works on the<br />
highway.<br />
3. Floor levels should be set at least 600mm above the 1 in <strong>10</strong>0 year flood<br />
level to provide adequate protection to the new dwellings from flooding.<br />
Support:<br />
Parish <strong>Council</strong>lors support a development of two houses but would object to any further<br />
development of this site for reasons stated on S.03/373.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
F Robson, 6 Seven Waters, Leonard Stanley<br />
Mr & Mrs D Longworth, Hafren, Seven Waters<br />
Ms M Forder, 38 Seven Waters, Leonard Stanley<br />
Mrs L Niebrzydowski, 40 Seven Waters, Leonard Stanley<br />
Sarah Shaw-Maslin, 2 Seven Waters, Leonard Stanley<br />
Mr & Mrs Hinchcliffe, 32 Seven Waters, Leonard Stanley<br />
M A Mukasa, 4 Seven Waters, Leonard Stanley<br />
Mr Cooke & Ms Beckingham, 22 Seven Waters, Leonard Stanley<br />
Ms E Semadeni, 26 Seven Waters, Leonard Stanley<br />
Mr D Price, Church Villa, The Street<br />
• If permitted could leave space for 2 more dwellings which have previously been rejected - 2<br />
larger centrally placed dwellings with extra parking/garages would be more appropriate.<br />
• As no garages shown, only parking spaces, could lead to further on road parking in area.<br />
• Previous appeal dismissed less than 2 years ago. Why is this application being considered?<br />
Those reasons still apply.<br />
• Revised Plans - Remain non-central and still resemble the first phase of a 4 dwelling<br />
development.<br />
• More suitable to renovate existing house.<br />
• Similar to the refused application.<br />
• Size and position of the building inappropriate.<br />
• Poor parking provision.<br />
127
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• Dangerous road.<br />
• Sewerage and drainage problems.<br />
• Road would be unsuitable to serve more than 2 houses.<br />
• Existing property is only derelict due to neglect.<br />
• Access has already been put in.<br />
• Layout suggests further plans may be submitted for more dwellings.<br />
• Stream has been re-routed without permissions.<br />
• Concerns about construction works - when work being done previously telephone pole<br />
supports were ripped out.<br />
• Safety.<br />
• Not derelict.<br />
• Holds historical interest.<br />
• Brookside can be restored tastefully.<br />
• Part of village landscape will be lost.<br />
• Part still agricultural land.<br />
• Increase in traffic on an unsuitable road.<br />
• Access would be better placed alongside the existing access to Tannery Cottages.<br />
• Brookside should be restored.<br />
Site Location:<br />
128
Site Report:<br />
The site and the proposal<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The site lies at the edge of the village, within the development boundary located on the western<br />
side of Leonard Stanley. The application is for outline planning permission for the erection of two<br />
dwellings. The external appearance and design and have been reserved for future consideration.<br />
The site is within the curtilage of the existing dwelling, Brookside which was damaged by fire<br />
some time ago. Brookside is removed as part of this scheme and replaced with two dwellings<br />
facing onto Bath Road. The site plan shows the means of vehicular access to the site being taken<br />
to the side of plot 1 and on the other side of the stream.<br />
Relevant Site History<br />
S.00/1277. A planning application was granted on <strong>10</strong>/<strong>10</strong>/2000 which allowed the property known<br />
as Brookside, located within the settlement area, to be converted into two dwellings with<br />
parking/garaging to the rear. In granting this a new access was permitted to serve both of the<br />
resulting dwellings.<br />
S.00/1669 Erection of two dwellings on land to the side of Brookside. Refused 2000.<br />
S.02/<strong>10</strong>57 Outline application for the erection of six dwellings (two affordable) and construction of<br />
vehicular access. Refused and dismissed at appeal in May 2003.<br />
S.03/366 Outline application for five dwellings including one affordable unit. Refused 13.1.04<br />
S.03/373 Outline application for four dwellings. Refused 13.4.03.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> considerations<br />
The site is bordered on three sides by hedging and small trees. A brook runs across the front of<br />
the site and along both sides. Part of the hedge to the front of the site is to be removed to provide<br />
visibility for the new access. This has however already been permitted under S.00/1277, above.<br />
Policies G1, G2, G5, and H14 and T1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan are all relevant to this<br />
application.<br />
Policies G1 and G2 seek to prevent development which would have an unacceptable effect due<br />
to noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of day light or sunlight, loss of privacy, have an<br />
overbearing effect or be development which will create an unacceptable atmospheric or<br />
environmental pollution to water, land or air.<br />
The design of the houses is a reserved matter and therefore will be considered at a later stage.<br />
The houses fronting the road are however positioned exactly on the footprint of the existing<br />
dwelling and therefore no greater loss of amenity will exist to the occupiers of the dwellings<br />
opposite than on the approved scheme to split Brookside into two dwellings, assuming that<br />
detailed plans are submitted for dwellings of similar size, height and fenestration. The houses are<br />
approximately 20 metres away.<br />
The proposal should be considered under Policy H14. The indicative plans show two large<br />
detached dwellings. This would not normally be in accordance with Policy H14 which requires the<br />
site to be developed as densely as possible and with a mix of house types. However as the<br />
Highway Authority have objected to any increase in numbers on the grounds of sustainability, two<br />
dwellings are considered acceptable in this particular case.<br />
129
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The application site and surrounding area is at risk of flooding from the brook which surrounds<br />
the site. The Environment Agency have confirmed that the improvements to the brook are<br />
acceptable and have recommended conditions.<br />
Policies G5 and T1 seek to promote highway safety and consider the highways leading to the<br />
site. The application site is located remote from amenities and services and therefore is not in<br />
accordance with the Governments declared aims of sustainability. However permission has<br />
already been granted to split the existing cottage into two dwellings and therefore this application<br />
should be considered as a like for like replacement.<br />
The access to serve the existing two dwellings has already been allowed and therefore the<br />
highway authority recommend permission with conditions.<br />
The proposal to erect two dwellings on this site is now considered acceptable. Whilst it would be<br />
preferable to maintain and restore the original dwelling on the site the building is not of listable<br />
quality and therefore its retention cannot be required. Careful detailing and design of the two<br />
replacement dwellings will ensure a satisfactory street scene is retained and that both policies<br />
B2 and H14 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001)<br />
are complied with.<br />
The proposal is accordingly recommended for approval.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 18<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/<strong>08</strong>90/COU<br />
21 - 23 Russell Street, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Gloucestershire, GL5 3AQ<br />
4585<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 385006,205162<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Change of Use<br />
Change of use of offices to restaurant and take-away (resubmission<br />
following refusal S.03/1849).<br />
Papa Johns Pizza Ltd<br />
The Forum, Hanworth Lane, Chertsey, Surrey, KT16 9JX<br />
130
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Mr Richard Perkins<br />
Ky-Lin, Kenilworth Close, Banstead, Surrey, SM7 2BJ<br />
Andrew Case<br />
21.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. The odour filtration/extraction system detailed on drawing number<br />
PJ/STD/002/2 shall be fully implemented in accordance with those details<br />
and made operational prior to first operation of the business hereby<br />
permitted. The system shall be maintained as such thereafter in full<br />
accordance with the manufacturers instructions.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring<br />
properties, to accord with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan,<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
3. The premises shall not be open for trade or business before 7:30 hours<br />
or after 24:00 hours.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of nearby residential<br />
properties, to accord with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan,<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order<br />
2003, the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised<br />
below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained<br />
within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The application is considered against Policies S3, B17, G1 and G5 of<br />
the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
June 2001). These seek to ensure that: * changes of use to uses which<br />
will assist in enhancing the vitality and viability of the town centre will be<br />
permitted; * Replacement shopfronts are sympathetic to the<br />
architectural style and materials of the building and contributes to the<br />
enhancement of its surroundings; * No detrimental effect is had either<br />
on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties, or highway<br />
safety.<br />
131
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The most recent use was for financial and professional services and<br />
the active use of the premises will assist in enhancing the vitality and<br />
viability of the town centre in accordance with Policy S3. The existing<br />
shop front is neglected and the proposal, which retains the existing<br />
stallriser and proportions of the shopfront, would contribute to the<br />
ongoing improvements in the surrounding area in accordance with<br />
Policy B17. Subject to conditions the proposal would not have a<br />
detrimental effect on the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining<br />
properties in accordance with Policy G1. The proposal would not have<br />
a significant detrimental effect on highway safety, in accordance with<br />
Policy G5.<br />
Comment:<br />
Concern at quality of detail on proposed new shop front. Use of wooden frames with suitable<br />
detailing would be more suitable them plain glass. Would prefer eat-in facilities as well as take<br />
away, as this is greatly needed in town.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
132
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Site and Proposal<br />
The site is located on the corner of Russell Street and Station Road, with the designated<br />
Conservation Area in <strong>Stroud</strong> Town Centre. The property is three storey with the ground floor<br />
being an aluminium and glazed shop front and yellow brick above with sliding sash windows.<br />
The property has been vacant for a long period and appears in a somewhat dilapidated condition.<br />
The proposal is to change the use of the property from Class A2 (Financial and Professional<br />
Services) to Class A3 (Restaurants, pubs, snack bars, cafes).<br />
Relevant History<br />
Application S.03/1849 for "Change of use from Class A2 (financial and professional services) to<br />
Class A3 (restaurant, pubs, snack bars, cafés etc)" was refused on 9/12/2003 by Full<br />
Development Control Committee contrary to officer advice.<br />
Application S.98/131 for "Change of use from Class A2 (Financial & Professional Services) to<br />
Class A3 (Restaurants, pubs, snack bars, cafes" was approved on 28/04/1998.<br />
Application S.02/2263 for "Removal of condition 2 of permission S.98/131 preventing the sale of<br />
food or drink to be consumed off the premises" was approved on 29/1/2003.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
The application is considered against Policies S3, B17, G1 and G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local<br />
Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). These seek to ensure that<br />
* changes of use to uses which will assist in enhancing the vitality and viability of the town centre<br />
will be permitted.<br />
* Replacement shopfronts are sympathetic to the architectural style and materials of the building<br />
and contributes to the enhancement of its surroundings.<br />
* No detrimental effect is had either on the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties, or<br />
highway safety.<br />
The existing unit has been empty for a considerable period, and significantly detracts from the<br />
character and appearance of the area. The most recent use was for financial and professional<br />
services and the active use of the premises will assist in enhancing the vitality and viability of the<br />
town centre in accordance with Policy S3.<br />
On the previous application officers raised concerns regarding the design of the shopfront. The<br />
proposal retains the existing stallriser and the proportions of the shopfront. The existing shop<br />
front is neglected and the proposal would contribute to the ongoing improvements in the<br />
surrounding area in accordance with Policy B17.<br />
Environmental Health have advised the extraction system proposed is adequate, and request a<br />
condition to ensure that this is maintained as such. Opening hours on the previous approval<br />
were until 11.00pm, the applicants have requested until 12.00 midnight and as this is the closing<br />
time of a number of nearby takeaway uses it would be unreasonable to set a shorter time period.<br />
Subject to conditions the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the<br />
occupiers of adjoining properties in accordance with Policy G1.<br />
County Highways objected to the previous applications on the site, however Russell Street has<br />
double yellow lines and is therefore self regulating, Station Road has a 1 hour parking restriction<br />
and there is a large car park available in very close proximity adjacent to the neighbouring<br />
Hotel/Railway Station. There is also a permitted take away use immediately to the east of the<br />
site on Russell Street. The proposal would not have a detrimental effect on highway safety, in<br />
accordance with Policy G5.<br />
133
Conditional permission is recommended.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 19<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1421/FUL<br />
Canon Park Recreation Facility, Canon Park, Berkeley, Gloucestershire<br />
25159<br />
Berkeley Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 368546,199731<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Extension to existing community facility to provide dedicated Youth<br />
Room, Community Games/Social Room and new toilets.<br />
Berkeley Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Town Hall, Salter Street, Berkeley, Glos. GL13 9DB<br />
None<br />
Rachel Brown<br />
01.07.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
134
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
S Smith, 4 Canon Park, Berkeley<br />
Occupier, 14 Canon Park, Berkeley<br />
Mr & Mrs Kirk, 17 Canon Park, Berkeley<br />
Mrs J Hodges<br />
Mrs J Gregory<br />
G Martin, 3 Canon Park, Berkeley<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1 and G5 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001). Policy G1 seeks to ensure proposals do not have an adverse<br />
effect on the amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring<br />
dwellings by reason of loss of light, loss of privacy or have an<br />
overbearing effect. Policy G5 seeks to ensure permission is only granted<br />
for development which is unlikely to be detrimental to highway safety.<br />
• Window in the shower room will look out to writers property.<br />
• Disturbance for the people living close to the site.<br />
• Lack of parking.<br />
• Poll tax should be used to improve facilities for the good of everyone.<br />
• Waste of <strong>Council</strong> money.<br />
• Will create problems.<br />
• Should be for community use and centrally situated.<br />
• Noise pollution.<br />
Letters of Comment<br />
Mr P W Glastonbury, 1 Canon Park, Berkeley<br />
135
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is brought before Committee in view of the letters of objection received.<br />
SITE AND PROPOSAL<br />
This site is located on the outskirts of Berkeley. This site consists of an existing sports field with<br />
a football stand at the western end of the field and a building providing changing facilities in the<br />
south eastern corner of the field. The building is detached and faced in red brick and is located<br />
close to the entrance of the site.<br />
This proposal seeks permission for the erection of an extension to the existing building to provide<br />
a dedicated youth room, community games/social room and new toilets. The extension will be to<br />
the north east elevation and faced in red brick with concrete roof tiles.<br />
RELEVANT HISTORY<br />
S.<strong>10</strong>030/C - Erection of football stand - permission 12/07/78.<br />
S.<strong>10</strong>030/E - Use of pavilion by pre-school group - permission 14/03/79.<br />
S.<strong>10</strong>030/F - Extension of use of sports pavilion for community and social gathering - permission<br />
11/04/79.<br />
136
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is considered under Policies G1 and G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised<br />
Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Policy G1 states:<br />
"Permission will not be granted to any development that would be likely to lead to an<br />
unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of<br />
privacy or have an overbearing effect."<br />
Policy G5 states:<br />
"Permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to be detrimental to the<br />
highway safety of any user or any highway or public right of way."<br />
A number of letters of objection have been received from nearby residents. They object on the<br />
use of the site by the local youth club and other functions and the possible increase in trouble<br />
and disturbance associated with that use.<br />
The extension of the existing building will provide a room specifically for use by the youth club<br />
which currently uses the existing facilities on site. Therefore the use of the building will remain as<br />
it is and there is unlikely to be an increase in disturbance to the occupiers of the nearby<br />
residential properties. The building is being extended on its north western elevation facing<br />
towards the recreation field and will not extend the built form towards the adjoining residential<br />
curtilages and will therefore not lead to an increase in loss of light, privacy or have an<br />
overbearing effect on the nearby residents.<br />
No response has been received from Gloucestershire County <strong>Council</strong> with regard to highway<br />
issues. The proposal however is unlikely to lead to an increase in traffic using the site and does<br />
not effect the existing parking arrangements.<br />
Therefore in view of the above, the proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1 and G5<br />
and permission is recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 20<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
S.04/1251/FUL<br />
Land At, Whitminster Lane, Frampton On Severn, Gloucestershire<br />
137
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
Grid Reference: 375362,2<strong>08</strong>516<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
25262<br />
Frampton On Severn Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Application for the re-siting of the changing facility building (following<br />
approved application S.04/0578/COU).<br />
Mr I Palmer & Mr S Martin<br />
4 Phillimore Gardens, Frampton On Severn, Glos, GL2 7HN<br />
Mr Eric Cartwright<br />
42 Cumbria Close, Thornbury, Bristol, BS12 2YF<br />
Rachel Brown<br />
<strong>10</strong>.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. No development shall take place until samples of the roofing and walling<br />
materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the<br />
building works hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in<br />
writing by the Head of Development Services. Development shall then<br />
only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.<br />
3. The development hereby approved (including changing rooms/pavilion)<br />
shall only be used for recreational purposes incidental to the use of the<br />
land for sports activities. The changing rooms/pavilion shall not be used<br />
independently of these sports activities and shall not be used for private<br />
functions, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services.<br />
Reason:<br />
To enable the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority to retain control over the use of<br />
the premises in the interests of the public amenity of the area.<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
138
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
Support.<br />
Mr W Davison<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order<br />
2003, the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised<br />
below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained<br />
within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal, subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this<br />
permission, complies with the provisions of Policies G1 and G5 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001). These seek proposals do not have an adverse impact on the<br />
amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by<br />
reason of unacceptable level of noise and general disturbance and loss<br />
of privacy. The development would be unlikely to detrimental to the<br />
highway safety of any user of any highway or public right of way.<br />
Draw applicant's attention to HSE Guidance note GS6 (Avoidance of danger from Overhead<br />
Electric Lines, Third Edition 1997).<br />
County Surveyor (Initial)<br />
No highway objection<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
M Hazlewood, Miramont, Whitminster Lane<br />
Mr & Mrs Harding, Southfield, Whitminster Lane<br />
Mr & Mrs Hall, Brookhurst, Whitminster Lane<br />
Pip Lawson & Richard Kirby, The School House, Whitminster Lane<br />
Mr M John, Oatfield Cottages, Whitminster Lane<br />
• Noise pollution.<br />
• Greenbelt.<br />
• Poses a danger to vehicles and walkers in the lane.<br />
• Power lines present a danger to footballers.<br />
• The proposed changing facilities building is outside the village development boundary how<br />
can it be possible for them to have a permanent structure there?<br />
• Access.<br />
• Traffic will spill into the road and pose a safety issue.<br />
• Movement of the changing facilities will restrict parking spaces.<br />
• Loss of privacy.<br />
Letters of Comment<br />
139
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Mr D Turpy, Frampton Village Society C/o, Holly House<br />
• No objection.<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
This application is reported to the Committee in view of the number of letters of objection<br />
received.<br />
The site and Proposal<br />
This application site is located to the north east of the settlement of Frampton on Severn. The<br />
site consists of agricultural land with an existing access onto Whitminster lane. To the north of<br />
the site is the hamlet of Oatfield. To the south west is Frampton Cricket ground.<br />
A planning application for the change of use of this site from agricultural to football pitches with a<br />
single storey football changing facility was granted conditional permission on 01/06/<strong>2004</strong> under<br />
planning reference S.04/0578/COU following a visit by the Sites Inspection Panel.<br />
Condition (8) of the permission stated:<br />
140
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
"Notwithstanding the submitted details the development hereby permitted shall not be<br />
commenced until full details of a revised siting of the changing rooms/pavilion has been<br />
submitted to and agreed in writing to the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority. The changing rooms/pavilion<br />
shall then only be sited in accordance with those approved plans."<br />
This application seeks permission for the re-siting of the changing rooms/pavilion. The building<br />
was originally shown to be under the overhead power lines. The plans now show it to be<br />
positioned 6m away from the power cable. Materials are to be agreed prior to construction.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
This application is considered under Policies G1 and G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised<br />
Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Policy G1 states:<br />
"Permission will not be granted to any development that would be likely to lead to an<br />
unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of<br />
privacy or have an overbearing effect."<br />
Policy G5 states:<br />
"Permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to be detrimental to the<br />
highway safety of any user or any highway or public right of way."<br />
Following the previous permission the principle of the football pitches and changing facilities have<br />
been established on this site. We should therefore consider the repositioned building against the<br />
above policy advice. With regard to Policy G1 the revised position of the building is not felt to<br />
lead to an increased effect on the amenities of any residents or occupiers of adjacent land. The<br />
access details remain the same and Gloucestershire County <strong>Council</strong> raise no highway<br />
objections, therefore Policy G5 is satisfied.<br />
A number of letters of objection have been received and whilst the contents are noted and<br />
considered, these were considered when determining the previous application and the principle<br />
of the development has now been established.<br />
Frampton on Severn Parish <strong>Council</strong> Support this application and the Frampton Village Society<br />
have no objection.<br />
In view of the above and that the principle of the development has been established on the site,<br />
permission is recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
141
ITEM No: 21<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/1220/COU<br />
Grid Reference: 377029,189324<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Woodmans Farm, Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley, Wotton-Under-Edge<br />
2<strong>10</strong>15<br />
Hillesley And Tresham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Change of Use<br />
Change of use from agricultural building to stables and loose boxes.<br />
(Resubmission following refusal S.03/<strong>10</strong>42).<br />
Mr & Mrs D Joynson<br />
46 Woodlands Close, Charfield, Glos<br />
Mr R Shirley<br />
Church House, Long Street, Wotton Under Edge, Glos, GL12 7ES<br />
Jane Breakspear<br />
07.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The stables and site hereby permitted shall only be used by the applicant<br />
or successor in title for private purposes only and not for any commercial<br />
or business activity.<br />
Reason<br />
To allow the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority to retain control over the use of the<br />
site as the access is not suitable to cater for additional traffic.<br />
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be used for any trade or<br />
business operation and other than for purposes ancillary to the use of the<br />
adjacent land, known as Woodmans Farm.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that no separate additional site usage/unit is established on<br />
the site requiring further vehicular access or parking provision.<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
142
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001)<br />
which seek to ensure proposals do not adversely affect the amenities at<br />
present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by reason of,<br />
noise, general disturbance, smell or loss of privacy.<br />
The proposal should also be considered against Policy N6 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001),<br />
which seeks to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the<br />
landscape within the A.O.N.B. As there are no external changes to the<br />
building the proposal has no impact on the landscape and therefore the<br />
proposal complies with this policy.<br />
Comments:<br />
The council are not concerned about the declared proposal i.e. the change of use of the barn, but<br />
have identified other changes on the site drawing shown on the submitted plan. The <strong>Council</strong><br />
would not wish to see approval for these other changes to be given without the changes being<br />
properly described in a planning application. The changes relate to the other submission for the<br />
site, so should only be dealt with through that submission.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
Mrs H Pinch, Mr C Simkiss And Mrs & Mrs Butler, 21 Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley<br />
H Gigg, Pleasant View, High Street<br />
S M Chappell, Meres House , Hillesley<br />
J E & V J Fell, Trebaros, Hillesley<br />
Occupiers, 14 St Giles Barton, Hillesley<br />
Mr & Mrs Stanley, 5 St Giles Barton, Hillesley<br />
Mr & Mrs Hill, Cobwebs, Hillesley<br />
Mr & Mrs Burns,, Portcullis, Hillesley<br />
B N O'Brien, Kilcott House, High Street<br />
Mr W Franks, The Cottage, High Street<br />
Mr & Mrs Hibbitt, Martine Cottage, Hawkesbury Road<br />
Livy McGrath, 4 Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley<br />
Richard Davis, No Address On Letter<br />
Paul Hill & Tracey Smale, 19 Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley<br />
Mr N Young & Ms S Jeffs, 7 Reeds Row, Hawkesbury Road<br />
Occupier, Horseshoe Cottage, Hillesley<br />
C Buckley, 6 School Close, Hillesley<br />
Mrs J Barrett, 1 The Deans, Hawkesbury Road<br />
A L Doughty, The Old Manor House, High Street<br />
J Witt, Ebenezer Cottage, High Street<br />
D A Lamb, Lavender Cottage, Kingswood Road<br />
Mr J Hicks, Roseladden, High Street<br />
S Hicks & S Garland, Tuliptree Cottage, Hawkesbury Road<br />
Mrs M Plummer, Thornaway, Kingswood Road<br />
I P & J E K Dickens, Petty Croft, Hillesley<br />
143
Petition With <strong>10</strong>1 Signatures<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• Outside the village development boundary.<br />
• AONB.<br />
• Two equestrian centres nearby.<br />
• Access unsuitable.<br />
• Not a sustainable location.<br />
• Increase in traffic.<br />
• Object to additional noise and disturbance.<br />
• Entrance is totally unsuitable.<br />
• Changes to access/road will be detrimental to visual amenity.<br />
• Will involve removal of large section of hedgerow which is unnecessary.<br />
• No limits to what this may mean eg trading estates, warehousing<br />
• Prone to flooding.<br />
• Loss of view.<br />
• Loss of privacy.<br />
• Erosion of green field sites due to ad hoc development.<br />
• Light pollution.<br />
• Already have riding facilities and livery in the village so this service is already provided.<br />
• Permission given for a smaller development but was 'built wrong' so retrospective was<br />
applied for, for 'commercial size'.<br />
• Will result in sporadic commercial development on Green Field site outside the village<br />
boundary.<br />
• Noise pollution.<br />
• Contrary to Highways Policy G5.<br />
• Additional buildings inevitable to accommodate facilities needed.<br />
• Served by a single road.<br />
• Greenfield site.<br />
• One in a series of developments appears to be 'development by stealth'.<br />
• Detrimental to the village of Hillesley.<br />
• Entrance and roadside already altered without permission.<br />
• Owners live elsewhere which is unsatisfactory where the care of animals is concerned.<br />
• Previous application rejected.<br />
• Land does not comprise a farm.<br />
• When owners bought the land they stated it was only for personal use.<br />
144
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This is a retrospective application for the conversion of an agricultural building to stables and<br />
loose boxes at Woodmans Farm, Hillesley.<br />
The application should be considered in conjunction with application S. 04/1222, an application to<br />
vary a condition to allow the site to be used for trade or business.<br />
The building was originally erected for agricultural storage under the prior notification procedure.<br />
Since the land changed ownership the building has been sub-divided internally to provide loose<br />
boxes and stables for the horses which are kept on the site. A sheep pen, tack room and haystore<br />
are also included within the building.<br />
No external changes to the building are required as a result of this proposal. Therefore there are<br />
no landscape implications and the proposal is in accordance with Policy N6 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The use of this building for the stabling of horses for private use has no implications outside of<br />
the site. Permission has already been granted for a change of use of the land from agricultural to<br />
equestrian therefore the internal sub-division of this building has less impact than a new stable<br />
block.<br />
145
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The stables are sufficiently far away from nearby dwellings to have little impact on their residents.<br />
The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised<br />
Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The applicants have not provided any background information in conjunction with this application<br />
and it is not clear whether the stabling is for the applicant's own horses. To that end the<br />
application is only considered acceptable if the use of the building is conditioned to private use<br />
for the applicants horses only.<br />
Application S.04/1222 seeks to remove a condition to allow the entire site to be used for trade or<br />
business. If that permission is granted then the stables would also be capable of business use<br />
and the condition limiting use would not be required. It is therefore recommended that members<br />
do not consider this application in isolation but also consider the implications of S.04/122 when<br />
reaching a decision.<br />
The proposal is however recommended for permission with the relevant condition to control the<br />
use of the site.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 22<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1222/VAR<br />
Grid Reference: 377029,189324<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Woodmans Farm, Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley, Wotton-Under-Edge<br />
2<strong>10</strong>15<br />
Hillesley And Tresham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Variation of Condition<br />
Removal of condition 2 of permission S.00/1712 to allow for trade and<br />
business to be operated from site. Alterations to access and<br />
improvements to service roadway. (Previously known as The Mears,<br />
Hawkesbury Road).<br />
Mr & Mrs D Joynson<br />
45 Woodlands Close, Charfield, Glos<br />
Mr R Shirley<br />
Church House, Long Street, Wotton Under Edge, Glos, GL12 7ES<br />
146
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Jane Breakspear<br />
07.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. The proposal would result in a commercial development not served<br />
adequately by public transport, remote from potential client and staff<br />
bases and would thus place a higher reliance on the use of the private<br />
motor vehicle and would be likely to result in increased journey lengths<br />
contrary to the sustainability aims of central and local government and to<br />
Policy T1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
2. Notwithstanding the submitted drawings the proposal would be likely to<br />
result in an intensification in vehicular use of the sub-standard access<br />
serving the site to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal is<br />
therefore not in accordance with Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local<br />
Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
3. The loss of the length of hedgerow necessary to improve the visibility<br />
sight lines would be detrimental to the rural character of the area which is<br />
within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal is<br />
therefore not in accordance with Policy N6 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local<br />
Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Object: accept access improvements are proposed but would still prefer to see no increase in<br />
traffic to this site. Traffic could be disruptive to village and increase road hazards in area.<br />
Commercial use is inappropriate given site location above and close to village. Site has been<br />
subject to incremental development over years from single pasture field and barn to current site<br />
with large buildings, riding area and access road. Parish <strong>Council</strong> wish to see continued<br />
development stopped and note there is considerable disquiet in village by the proposal.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
Ms H Pinch & Mr C Simkiss & Mr. & Mrs. D. Butcher, 21 Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley<br />
Heather Gigg, Pleasant View, High Street<br />
S. M. Chappell, Meres House, High Street<br />
J E & V J Fell, Trebaros, Hillesley<br />
Mr & Mrs Hill, Cobwebs, Hillesley<br />
Mr Dennis Ellwood, 6 Reeds Row, Hillesley<br />
Mr & Mrs Stanley, 5 St Giles Barton, Hillesley<br />
147
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Mr & Mrs T Burns, Portcullis, Hillesley<br />
B N O'Brien, Kilcott House, Hillesley<br />
Mr W Franks, The Cottage, High Street<br />
Mr & Mrs Hibbitt, Martine Cottage, Hillesley<br />
Mr & Mrs McCoubrie, Oakfield House, Hawkesbury Road<br />
Livy McGrath, 4 Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley<br />
Mrs Janet Cadman, Hazel Cottage, High Street<br />
Alan S Clark, 25 Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley<br />
Mr R Davis, No Address On Letter<br />
Paul Hill & Tracey Smale, 19 Hawkesbury Road, Hillesley<br />
Mr N Young & Ms S Jeffs, 7 Reeds Row, Hawkesbury Road<br />
Mr Hicks, Roseladden, High Street<br />
Occupier, Horseshoe Cottage, Hillesley<br />
C Buckley, 6 School Close, Hillesley<br />
Mrs J Barrett, 1 The Deans, Hawkesbury Road<br />
J Witt, Ebenezer Cottage, High Street<br />
A L Doughty, The Old Manor House, High Street<br />
D A Lamb, Lavender Cottage, Kingswood Road<br />
S Hicks & S Garland, Tuliptree Cottage, Hawkesbury Road<br />
Mrs M Plummer, Thornaway, Kingswood Road<br />
I P & J E K Dickens, Petty Croft, Kingswood Road<br />
Ms P Glider, No Address<br />
Petition With <strong>10</strong>1 Signatures<br />
• Outside the village development boundary.<br />
• AONB.<br />
• Two equestrian centres nearby.<br />
• Access unsuitable.<br />
• Not a sustainable location.<br />
• Increase in traffic.<br />
• Object to additional noise and disturbance.<br />
• Entrance is totally unsuitable.<br />
• Changes to access/road will be detrimental to visual amenity.<br />
• Will involve removal of large section of hedgerow which is unnecessary.<br />
• No limits to what this may mean eg trading estates, warehousing<br />
• Prone to flooding.<br />
• Loss of view.<br />
• Loss of privacy.<br />
• Erosion of green field sites due to ad hoc development.<br />
• AONB.<br />
• Increased noise and pollution.<br />
• The site access is visually restricted but also opens on to a road carrying fast moving traffic.<br />
• Light pollution.<br />
• Already have riding facilities and livery in the village so this service is already provided.<br />
• Permission given for a smaller development but was 'built wrong' so retrospective was<br />
applied for, for 'commercial size'.<br />
• Will result in sporadic commercial development on Green Field site outside the village<br />
boundary.<br />
• If the business/land what trade will be carried on by the new owners?<br />
• Level of traffic means it will only be a matter of time before an accident happens.<br />
• Hedgerow a consistent theme along Hawkesbury Upton Road.<br />
• Removal of the hedgerow would have a significant impact on writers privacy.<br />
• Noise pollution.<br />
• Contrary to Highways Policy G5.<br />
148
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• Additional buildings inevitable to accommodate facilities needed.<br />
• Served by a single road.<br />
• One in a series of developments appears to be 'development by stealth'.<br />
• Detrimental to the village of Hillesley.<br />
• Entrance and roadside already altered without permission.<br />
• Owners live elsewhere which is unsatisfactory where the care of animals is concerned.<br />
• Previous application rejected.<br />
• Land does not comprise a farm.<br />
• When owners bought the land they stated it was only for personal use.<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
This application is for the removal of a condition placed on a previous application (S.00/1712)to<br />
allow the site to be used for trade or business purposes. The site is located at Woodmans Farm<br />
in Hillesley.<br />
Members may remember that a similar application was refused following a visit by the Sites<br />
Inspection Panel in January of this year. That application also included other works, including the<br />
149
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
retention of stables within an existing building. That work is now shown on a separate application,<br />
S.04/1220 which is also under consideration at this meeting.<br />
The original application was for a riding arena and the applicants were informed at that time that<br />
permission was unlikely to be forthcoming to use it for business purposes. The previous<br />
application to remove the condition was refused in January of this year on the following grounds;<br />
"The proposal would result in sporadic commercial development in the open countryside at a<br />
location which is poorly served by public transport and where there would be a high reliance on<br />
the private motor car to serve the site, As a result the development would be likely to result in an<br />
intensification in vehicular use of the sub- standard access serving the site to the detriment<br />
of highway safety and contrary to Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit<br />
Version as amended June 2001".<br />
In order to attempt to overcome this objection the applicant has proposed alterations to the site<br />
access and access road. The alterations include the removal of a length of mature boundary<br />
hedgerow to improve visibility. This hedge is visually important to the edge of the village and its<br />
loss would be detrimental to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the<br />
landscape. The hedgerow may be considered 'important' under the terms of the Hedgerow<br />
Regulations 1997 and the section of hedge is being considered against the set criteria at the time<br />
of writing. The result of this investigation will be verbally reported at the meeting. If the hedgerow<br />
is considered important then the application should also be refused under Policy N11 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version as amended June 2001.<br />
Nothwithstanding these proposals the Highway Authority still object to the proposal which is<br />
accordingly recommended for refusal.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 23<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1286/COU<br />
Grid Reference: 379209,191184<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Stable Building, Furlong Lane, Tresham, Wotton-Under-Edge<br />
16114<br />
Hillesley And Tresham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Change of Use<br />
Conversion of redundant stable building to mixed use residential/<br />
business use.<br />
150
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Mr N Kingston<br />
Furlong Farm, Tresham, Wotton-Under-Edge, Glos, GL12 7RW<br />
Roberts Gardner Limited<br />
Friars Court, College Street, Gloucester, GL1 2NJ<br />
Eleanor Jackson<br />
16.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. Policy B15 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001) states that the re-use and adaptation of buildings in<br />
rural areas to alternative uses will only be permitted if the buildings are of<br />
substantial, sound and permanent construction and are capable of re-use<br />
and adaptation without major or complete reconstruction. In this instance,<br />
the building that is the subject of this application is roofed in corrugated<br />
metal and as such does not meet the requirements of the above<br />
mentioned policy.<br />
2. Policy B16 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001) states that the adaptation and re-use of a building<br />
in a rural area for residential use will not be permitted unless every<br />
reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment or<br />
community re-use. In this instance it is considered that the applicant has<br />
failed to demonstrate that the requirements of this policy have been met.<br />
3. The site is located remote from amenities, facilities and services and is<br />
not served by adequate footpaths, cycleways, or public transport facilities<br />
and the development would be likely to increase reliance on the private<br />
car contrary to national <strong>Planning</strong> Policy and Policy T1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Support:<br />
The proposal will protect a building which adds to the specific character of Tresham, which might<br />
otherwise decay to the point that it is lost. However, the <strong>Council</strong> does have a concern about the<br />
parking provision, in that the parking space described has a very severe slope (1 in 3), so might<br />
prove to be unusable. Tresham has poor street parking provision, so the <strong>Council</strong> feel that<br />
development should not be allowed to increase this problem.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
151
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
The Site and Proposal<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The rectangular shaped application site is located within the village of Tresham and comprises a<br />
substantial stable building and sloping land to the side and rear. The building is sited on a narrow<br />
slip road to the south of the lane running through the village. The building has stone walls and a<br />
corrugated metal roof. Internally, the building has two floors, the first floor comprising of timber<br />
beams and boarding supported by a central timber post.<br />
The application proposes the conversion of the building to a two bedroom dwelling with a work<br />
space at fist floor to enable home working. The proposal involves replacing the corrugated metal<br />
roof with plain tiles and installing rooflights on the front and rear elevations to gain additional<br />
natural light to the first floor.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> History<br />
In April 1989, an application was submitted to Northavon <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> (The then <strong>Planning</strong><br />
Authority) for the conversion of the stable to a three bedroom dwelling. The application was<br />
refused because the building was considered of no special merit and was considered to require<br />
152
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
substantial rebuilding contrary to policies in the Avon County Structure Plan and Draft Northavon<br />
Rural Areas Local Plan.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
Tresham has no defined settlement boundary and the application proposes the conversion of an<br />
agricultural building to a predominantly residential use with a live/work facility. It must therefore<br />
be considered in relation to Policies B15 and B16 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised<br />
Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). Policy B15 states that the re-use and adaptation of<br />
buildings in a rural area for commercial use will be permitted subject to a number of criteria the<br />
first of which is that the building should be of substantial, sound and permanent construction.<br />
The final criteria is that the building must be capable of re-use and adaptation without major or<br />
complete reconstruction.<br />
A structural survey has been submitted with the application. This concludes that the stonework<br />
needs some repair, lintels require replacement, the first floor structure is in poor condition and<br />
would need replacing and a new ridge purlin would be required to support existing roof trusses.<br />
Although the stone walls are basically sound, the roof is corrugated iron and para7.8.9 of the<br />
Local Plan explains that substantial, sound and permanent construction does not include<br />
buildings roofed with corrugated plastic, metal or any form of sheeting. The condition of the<br />
building does not therefore comply with the requirements of Policy B15. This is also consistent<br />
with the previous refusal in 1989.<br />
Policy B16 states that residential conversion will only be permitted if every reasonable attempt<br />
has been made to secure a suitable employment or community re-use of the building. No<br />
evidence has been to submitted to indicate that the building has been advertised for commercial<br />
use. In a supporting statement the applicant appears to have dismissed the possibility of an<br />
employment reuse for the building on the basis of traffic generation and lack of parking. There is<br />
not considered demand for a community use in Tresham and such a use is not considered<br />
financially viable Residential conversion for holiday letting has been considered by the applicant<br />
but this use is not considered to offer sufficient return to justify the cost of conversion. It is<br />
therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy B16 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The Parish <strong>Council</strong> support the proposal which they consider would protect a building that<br />
contributes to the character of the village, which otherwise might decay and be lost. Concern is<br />
however expressed about the parking provision. Whilst it is agreed that the building has attractive<br />
stonework representative of the area, this is not felt to outweigh the policy objections to the<br />
proposal.<br />
At the time of preparing this report, no formal response had been received from the Highway<br />
Authority. However, given the rural location of the building it is considered that the proposal<br />
would be contrary to Policy T1 of the Local Plan in that the site is remote from facilities and the<br />
proposed use would be likely to result in additional reliance on the use of private cars.<br />
The supporting statement describes the proposal as an opportunity to increase the diversification<br />
of housing stock in Tresham through the provision of a more affordable property. It is considered<br />
that the proposal will not result in a genuinely affordable property and for the reasons set out in<br />
this report, the application is recommended for refusal.<br />
Human Rights<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
153
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 24<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/0929/FUL<br />
Grid Reference: 390743,201632<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Minchinhampton Architectural Salvage Co, Cirencester Road,<br />
Minchinhampton, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
9754<br />
Minchinhampton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Erection of an extension to existing single storey lean-to storage<br />
building.<br />
Ms D Kedge & Mr & Mrs Hopwood<br />
Wilcuma, Frome Park Road, Rodborough, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos<br />
Country Building Designs<br />
Bramshaw, Theescombe Lane, Amberley, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos GL5 5AU<br />
Jane Breakspear<br />
04.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the<br />
vehicle parking, turning and manoeuvring areas shown on the approved<br />
plans are made available for use. This provision shall be maintained as<br />
such, free of obstruction, thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that sufficient parking and turning space is made available.<br />
154
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure)(England)(Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001)<br />
which seek to ensure proposals do not adversely affect the amenities at<br />
present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by reason of<br />
noise, general disturbance or overbearing effect. The design, scale, and<br />
size of the development is in keeping with the existing buildings and their<br />
wider setting and is therefore in accordance with Policy N6 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The proposal also complies with the aims of policy E5A to retain and<br />
improve employment provision in rural areas.<br />
Object - size and appearance of extension is detrimental to site.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
L Turley, Farcroft, Cirencester Road<br />
L Sally Morgan, Orchard Barn, Peaches Farm<br />
• Condition on previous consent that no further buildings be put on the site.<br />
• Applicant does not show a need for further space.<br />
• Would add to the scatter of non-agricultural uses and buildings at Aston Down.<br />
• AONB.<br />
• Has been a significant increase in buildings on this site.<br />
• Will restrict car parking on the site and may lead to cars being parked on the main road.<br />
• Previous consent strictly for storage/distribution - the buildings are not being used as this.<br />
• At the end of the personalised consent the land will revert back to agricultural.<br />
• Application on an adjacent site refused due to sustainability.<br />
• Additional person added to the personal consent.<br />
155
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is for the erection of a single storey extension to an existing storage building at<br />
the reclamation yard at Aston Down.<br />
The site is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposed building is parallel to<br />
the road and adjacent to the field boundary at the rear of the site. The proposal is to erect a link<br />
between the original double height storage building on site and a lower, smaller store. Another<br />
extension to the other end of the store is also proposed.<br />
The land to be covered by the store is currently used for outside storage. The additional covered<br />
space will therefore have little impact and will simply allow goods to be kept dry. The parking and<br />
turning arrangement remain unaltered from the original planning application and it is not<br />
envisaged that the proposal will result in an increase in the volume of traffic visiting the site.<br />
The proposal is located at some distance from the nearest residential properties and therefore<br />
the proposal is in accordance with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The design and materials of the building is similar to the agricultural appearance of the other<br />
buildings on site and in keeping with the site's rural surroundings. The proposal is therefore in<br />
156
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
accordance with Policy N6 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
The proposal improves facilities at this existing employment site though not resulting in an<br />
increase in employment. It is in accordance with the general aim of policy E5A, to improve the<br />
rural economy by supporting local businesses.<br />
The proposal is therefore recommended for permission.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 25<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1221/VAR<br />
Land Adjoining, Charfield Road, Kingswood, Wotton-Under-Edge<br />
22588<br />
Kingswood Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 374459,192167<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Variation of Condition<br />
Removal of condition 7 of application S.03/C0296/FUL (for the erection<br />
of three industrial units) relating to the provision and construction by the<br />
developer of a footpath along Charfield Road frontage.<br />
FTC Southwest Ltd<br />
Clovers, The Drive, Charfield, Wotton-Under-Edge, Gloucestershire<br />
GL12 8RL<br />
Mr David Barnes<br />
Wistaria House, May Lane, Dursley, Glos, GL11 4JH<br />
Mark Newcombe<br />
<strong>08</strong>.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
157
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until detailed<br />
plans have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services, of the method of disposal foul sewage of surface<br />
water within the curtilage of the site. The development shall not be<br />
brought into use until that agreed method has been provided and is<br />
available for use.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure adequate surface water drainage is provided and to ensure<br />
that the development accords with Policy G2 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local<br />
Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of<br />
landscaping shall be carried out in the first complete planting and seeding<br />
seasons following the occupation of the buildings, or the completion of<br />
the development to which it relates, whichever is the sooner. Any trees<br />
or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the<br />
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or<br />
diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of<br />
similar size and species, unless the Head of Development Services gives<br />
written consent to any variation.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the<br />
development accords with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
4. The development hereby authorised shall be used for B1 purposes only,<br />
as described within the <strong>Schedule</strong> to the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong> (Use<br />
Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).<br />
Reason:<br />
To enable the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority to retain control over the use of<br />
the premises in the interests of the amenities of adjoining dwellings and<br />
to ensure that the development accords with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
5. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until<br />
provision has been made within the site for the loading and unloading<br />
and turning of service and delivery vehicles in accordance with further<br />
details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Head of<br />
Development Services, and the facilities so approved shall then be<br />
similarly retained for those purposes thereafter.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that adequate off-road parking and turning facilities are<br />
available, in the interests of highway safety and to ensure that the<br />
development accords with Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
158
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
6. Before the development hereby authorised is brought into use the car<br />
parking and manoeuvring facilities shall be completed in all respects in<br />
accordance with the submitted details and shall be similarly maintained<br />
thereafter for that purpose.<br />
Reason:<br />
To enable vehicles to enter and leave the highway in forward gear in the<br />
interests of highway safety and to ensure the development accords with<br />
Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001).<br />
7. The area of land shown for a future footpath alongside Charfield Road,<br />
as shown on the applicants submitted plan No. 2303/<strong>10</strong>/C, shall be<br />
reserved for that use and be made available, as required, for the<br />
provision of this facility.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the development accords<br />
with Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version<br />
(as amended June 2001).<br />
Informatives:<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1, E3, G2 and G5<br />
of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
June 2001) which seek to ensure proposals do not adversely affect the<br />
amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by<br />
reason of noise and general disturbance. To ensure that the<br />
development is on land allocated for employment purposes. To ensure<br />
that the development does not cause pollution, and to ensure that the<br />
development is not detrimental to highway safety.<br />
Object:<br />
Kingswood PC asked for a condition to be imposed in respect of the provision of a footway in<br />
Charfield Road for pedestrian safety.<br />
Although other units have not had this restriction, it is an intensification of the Mill complex, added<br />
to which traffic movements have increased both in size and volume.<br />
159
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
J Moss, 6 Charfield Road, Kingswood<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• Lack of footpath along Charfield Road is a concern for writer and residents.<br />
• Danger to pedestrians.<br />
• Inadequate traffic calming measures.<br />
• Would leave the department open to litigation from any pedestrian killed or injured.<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
This is an application for the removal of a condition from a planning permission granted in April<br />
<strong>2004</strong>.<br />
The original application was for the erection of three light Industrial units, extension of existing<br />
site road and landscaping.<br />
160
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The site was on land adjoining Charfield Road Kingswood.<br />
The condition which this application is to remove required that:<br />
'Before the development hereby authorised is commenced details of the proposed footpath along<br />
the Charfield Road frontage shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Head of<br />
Development Services in consultation with the Highway Authority and the footpath details so<br />
approved shall be completed in all respects in accordance with the submitted details and shall be<br />
similarly maintained thereafter for that purpose.'<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the development accords with Policy G5 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
At the time the application was originally considered, concerns from local residents and the<br />
Kingswood Parish <strong>Council</strong> were raised regarding the traffic situation in Charfield Road and how<br />
this could be improved by the provision of a footpath along the Charfield Road. To provide a<br />
suitable footpath would involve land outside of the applicants control and furthermore the<br />
Highway Authority do not feel that a safe footpath arrangement can be achieved. The developer<br />
at the time offered the site frontage of the land in their control to be used as a public footpath.<br />
The offer of this land remains.<br />
The wording of the condition requires that the applicants provide and maintain this section of new<br />
footpath before their development is commenced. The applicants feel such a requirement is<br />
unreasonable. They remain willing to make the land available but consider that the construction<br />
and maintenance of the footpath should be the responsibility of another body, such as the<br />
Highway Authority.<br />
The applicants also argue that the condition does not meet the test of reasonableness laid out in<br />
"Circular 11/95, The Use of Conditions in <strong>Planning</strong> Permission", particularly with regard to the<br />
need for the condition resulting from the new development itself and must be "genuinely" required<br />
by the users of the development. In this respect this argument is accepted.<br />
It is therefore recommended that the application be permitted and the condition replaced with a<br />
condition which requires the land for the footpath to be made available.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 26<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
S.04/<strong>10</strong>84/VAR<br />
21 Barcelona Drive, Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire, GL6 9DS<br />
161
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
Grid Reference:<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
25395<br />
Minchinhampton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
386588,200937<br />
Variation of Condition<br />
Variation of condition 17 of permission S.02/6<strong>10</strong> to allow the relocation<br />
of car parking space from back garden to drive.<br />
Mr J Dixon<br />
21 Barcelona Drive, Minchinhampton, Gloucestershire, GL6 9DS<br />
None<br />
Case Officer: Rachel Brown<br />
24.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
Informatives:<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order<br />
2003, the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised<br />
below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained<br />
within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
This seeks to ensure the proposal does not have a detrimental impact<br />
on highway safety.<br />
Object: concern about parking in area and relocation from garage would exacerbate this.<br />
Implications for on street parking in surrounding roads.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
162
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application has been brought before committee in view of the objections from the Parish<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Site and Proposal<br />
This site is located on a modern residential estate in Minchinhampton. The site consists of a<br />
detached dwelling finished in reconstructed stone. There is a single integral garage. The front of<br />
the property is open plan in nature with an area of driveway. To the rear of the property is an<br />
enclosed garden with an area immediately behind the garage designated for parking.<br />
This application seeks the variation of a condition to allow a parking area for this property to be<br />
moved from the rear garden to the front driveway.<br />
This site forms part of a development recently constructed under planning reference S.02/6<strong>10</strong>.<br />
Condition 17 attached to that permission stated:<br />
"The garages and parking spaces shown on the submitted plans shall be provided prior to the<br />
occupation of the dwelling unit to which they relate and shall be maintained free from obstruction<br />
for the purposes of parking thereafter."<br />
163
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The relevant policy advice for this application is contained within policy G5.<br />
Policy G5 states:<br />
"Permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to be detrimental to the<br />
highway safety of any user or any highway or public right of way."<br />
Minchinhampton Parish <strong>Council</strong> objects to this application. They are concerned about parking in<br />
this area and feel the relocation would exacerbate this.<br />
The maximum car parking requirement for dwelling houses is two spaces per unit. The existing<br />
garage provides one parking space and the driveway to the front of the garage provides enough<br />
room to park two cars. Therefore the maximum car parking requirement for this dwelling is met.<br />
The original condition was imposed to ensure that the minimum standards were retained. In<br />
those circumstances there can be no reason to refuse this application.<br />
In view of the above permission to vary condition 17 of permission S.02/6<strong>10</strong> is recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 27<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
Agent Details: None<br />
S.04/1197/FUL<br />
76 Coldwell Lane, Middleyard, Kings Stanley, Stonehouse<br />
25416<br />
Kings Stanley Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 381723,202945<br />
Application Type:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Development: Retrospective application for erection of a conservatory.<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Mr & Mrs Jones<br />
76 Coldwell Lane, Middleyard, Kings Stanley, Stonehouse,<br />
Gloucestershire, GL<strong>10</strong> 3PS<br />
164
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Rachel Brown<br />
07.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
Informatives:<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order<br />
2003, the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised<br />
below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained<br />
within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1 and H23 of<br />
the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
June 2001). These seek to ensure proposals do not have an adverse<br />
effect on the amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring<br />
dwellings by reason of loss of light, loss of privacy or have an<br />
overbearing effect. The size of the plot is large enough to<br />
accommodate the proposal without resulting in a cramped or<br />
overdeveloped site. The height, size and design of the proposed<br />
extension is in keeping with the scale and character of the parent<br />
dwelling. Following construction of the extension sufficient space will<br />
exist for the parking of cars in accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s standards<br />
and for use as private amenity space by the occupiers of the enlarged<br />
dwelling in accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s adopted standards as outlined<br />
in its Residential Design Guide.<br />
Object:<br />
This is a retrospective application although it was not mentioned on the forms received.<br />
It seems apparent from the PCs inspection that this development has had a considerable impact<br />
on the local scene, The conservatory is very large and my council feels that it could be an<br />
overdevelopment of the site. In my <strong>Council</strong>s opinion it creates an overbearing and unneighbourly<br />
effect and we understand that a fence has been erected by a neighbour to reduce<br />
the effect it has had. We also understand that it is brightly lit at night and this could well create<br />
an unwelcome effect on the local scene.<br />
My council understands this is matter is being referred to Principal <strong>Planning</strong> Officers and the<br />
Enforcement Officers for discussion. My <strong>Council</strong> would ask that it be referred to the <strong>Planning</strong><br />
Committee.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
165
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is brought before Committee in view of the Parish <strong>Council</strong>'s objections.<br />
THE SITE AND PROPOSAL<br />
This site is located at the end of a residential cul-de-sac on the edge of Middleyard. The site<br />
consists of a mid terraced dwelling which due to the topography of the land, is elevated from the<br />
highway. Access, which is pedestrian only, is gained via a set of steep steps to a small area of<br />
garden to the front of the property. To the rear of the dwelling the garden rises slightly up away<br />
from the property. Beyond the site is agricultural land. On the rear elevation is an existing<br />
conservatory constructed with a white upvc frame and dwarf wall.<br />
This proposal seeks retrospective permission for the erection of this conservatory.<br />
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS<br />
The relevant policy advice for this application is contained within policies H23 and G1 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). These policies<br />
seek to allow extensions to residential properties subject to a number of criteria. These aim to<br />
166
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
retain the character of the dwelling to be extended, the amenity of the site and that of<br />
neighbouring properties.<br />
Kings Stanley Parish <strong>Council</strong> has considered this application and object on the following grounds:<br />
"It seems apparent from my <strong>Council</strong>'s inspection that this development has had considerable<br />
impact on the local scene. The conservatory is very large and my <strong>Council</strong> feels that it could be<br />
an overdevelopment of the site. In my <strong>Council</strong>'s opinion it creates an overbearing and unneighbourly<br />
effect and we understand that a fence has been erected by a neighbour to reduce<br />
the effect it has had. We also understand that it is brightly lit at night and this could well create<br />
an unwelcome effect on the local scene".<br />
No letters of representation have been received as a result of neighbour notifications and the<br />
posting of a site notice.<br />
Whilst the conservatory is fairly large the roof slopes away from the neighbouring property<br />
minimising any loss of light or overbearing effect and the height of the eaves is not much higher<br />
than that of a fence which can be erected under permitted development rights. The effect of the<br />
conservatory on the neighbouring property to the north east, which is at a slightly lower level, has<br />
been inspected on site and is not felt to be unreasonable. Windows on the neighbouring<br />
properties which are closest to the conservatory are obscurely glazed and do not provide light to<br />
principal rooms. The neighbouring property to the south west is at a similar level with a much<br />
larger area of amenity land. Therefore the effect on the amenities of the occupiers of the<br />
neighbouring properties is not felt to be of a level to warrant refusing this application.<br />
Following construction of the conservatory the size of the remaining private amenity land for use<br />
by the occupiers of the enlarged dwelling, meets the <strong>Council</strong>'s standards as outlined in its<br />
Residential Design Guide. The height, size and design of the conservatory is felt to be in keeping<br />
with the scale and character of the existing dwelling.<br />
Therefore the proposal complies with the requirements of Policies G1 and H23 and permission is<br />
recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 28<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1370/FUL<br />
Fox House, The Street, Coaley, Gloucestershire<br />
21629<br />
Coaley Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
167
Grid Reference: 377244,201498<br />
Application Type:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Development: Construction of new access including conversion of dining room to<br />
garage. (Resubmission following refusal S.03/C0304/FUL)<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Case Officer: Eleanor Jackson<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Mr And Mrs J Carter<br />
Fox And Hounds, The Street, Coaley, Gloucestershire<br />
Mr Philip Hodges<br />
Tetbury Upton, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, GL8 8LP<br />
25.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001) states that permission will not be granted for<br />
development that would be likely to be detrimental to the highway safety<br />
of any user of any highway or public right of way. In this instance, the site<br />
frontage is too restricted to provide for the visibility splays necessary to<br />
serve the proposed development. In addition, the layout of the vehicular<br />
access would be likely to encourage vehicles to reverse out onto the<br />
adjacent classified road all to the detriment of highway safety and<br />
contrary to the above policy.<br />
Object:<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> still had concerns about visibility leaving the site, constituting a highways safety<br />
issue. Also that visibility was somewhat dependant on the neighbouring property keeping their<br />
hedge at a fairly low height.<br />
County Surveyor (Initial)<br />
Recommend refusal on grounds that inadequate visibility and would encourage reversing onto<br />
highway.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
168
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is brought to Committee by Cllr Janet Wood, the Ward <strong>Council</strong>lor.<br />
The Site and Proposal<br />
Members may recall that outline permission was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling<br />
on land adjoining The Fox and Hounds Public House in Coaley at the Development Control<br />
Committee on 14th January 2003 following a visit by the Sites Inspection Panel. A reserved<br />
matters application was subsequently approved under delegated powers and the dwelling has<br />
been completed.<br />
Both the outline and reserved matters applications did not included any vehicular access onto the<br />
road. This was a requirement of the Highway Authority, which advised that visibility onto The<br />
Street was inadequate. The approved house is therefore accessed from the pub access and has<br />
two designated car parking spaces within the pub car park.<br />
As part of their construction works, the applicant formed a new vehicular access onto The Street.<br />
It was initially claimed that the access was only temporary to facilitate the delivery of construction<br />
materials without causing obstruction in the pub car park. An application seeking to retain the<br />
access and to construct a single garage in place of the previously approved dining room was<br />
refused by Committee on <strong>10</strong>th February <strong>2004</strong> on the grounds that visibility was inadequate and<br />
169
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
the layout would have encouraged vehicles to reverse out onto the highway. The proposal was<br />
therefore considered contrary to highway safety.<br />
The applicant has now resubmitted the application for the access to include visibility splays in<br />
both directions. It is understood that whilst this includes land outside his ownership, his<br />
neighbours at Cherry Tree House are prepared to accept a covenant on their property to secure<br />
a reduction in height of their side boundary wall adjoining the site and the maintenance of the<br />
visibility splay in perpetuity.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
The proposal is for a new access and must be considered in relation to Policy G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001), which states that<br />
permission will not be granted for development that would be likely to be detrimental to the<br />
highway safety of any user of any highway or public right of way.<br />
The Highway Authority again recommend that the application be refused on highway grounds<br />
because the site frontage is too restricted to provide for the required visibility splays necessary to<br />
serve the proposed development. In addition, the Highway Authority again consider that the<br />
layout of the vehicular access is such that it would encourage vehicles to reverse out of the site<br />
onto the adjacent classified road, all to the detriment of highway safety. Therefore, the proposal<br />
does not comply with the above Policy.<br />
Coaley Parish <strong>Council</strong> object to the application on the grounds of the poor visibility leaving the<br />
site and are concerned that visibility is dependant upon the neighbouring property retaining a low<br />
level wall.<br />
In summary, the dwelling on this plot was approved on the basis of there being no vehicular<br />
access other than through the existing pub car park. This was for highway safety reasons. The<br />
applicant has constructed an unauthorised access onto a busy classified road, contrary to Policy<br />
G5 of the Local Plan. For the reasons set out in this report, the application is recommended for<br />
refusal.<br />
In the event that this recommendation is accepted authority is sought for enforcement action to<br />
be taken against the unauthorised access.<br />
Human Rights<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 29<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
S.04/0970/FUL<br />
Whispering Trees, Lower Washwell Lane, Painswick, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
170
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
Recommendation<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
25361<br />
Painswick Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 387<strong>10</strong>0,209965<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Erection of extensions.<br />
Mr S Bates<br />
Whispering Trees, Lower Washwell Lane, Painswick, <strong>Stroud</strong>,<br />
Gloucestershire GL6 6XW<br />
Mr Anthony Webster<br />
5 Port Terrace, Brimscombe, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL6 7ER<br />
Will Bridges<br />
07.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. No development shall take place until samples of the walling and roofing<br />
materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the<br />
building works hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in<br />
writing by the Head of Development Services. Development shall then<br />
only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area in accordance with<br />
Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> <strong>Council</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit<br />
Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure)(England)(Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposed development meets the criteria as set out in Policies G1<br />
and H23 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001). Both of which seek to ensure that the amenities<br />
of the neighbouring properties are not adversely affected by the<br />
proposal. The proposal would not result in the host dwelling having an<br />
171
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
overbearing effect or creating significant loss of light to the<br />
neighbouring properties. The size, design and scale of development is<br />
in keeping with the existing property and its wider setting.<br />
Object:<br />
The roof tiles and the extensions fenestration must match the house.<br />
Revised Parish<br />
Object:<br />
We support the reduction in size of the extension, but remain opposed to the application because<br />
of the colour of the roof tiles and wall, which should match existing.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
Mr & Mrs Watts, Fairhills, Lower Washwell Lane<br />
• Object: Materials not in keeping with the existing property.<br />
• Question design of windows to rear elevation.<br />
Letters of Comment<br />
Dr R Evans, Glebe End, Lower Washwell Lane<br />
172
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The application is brought before this Committee due to the objections received by the Painswick<br />
Parish <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
The application site is located towards the north eastern edge of the village of Painswick. The site<br />
consists of a two storey detached property finished in Bradstone. To the north east and north<br />
west of the property are similar detached dwellings with public highways bounding the south east<br />
and south west of the site. The application is made for the erection of a single storey side<br />
extension to provide a sun room to the property.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> History.<br />
None<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations.<br />
The relevant policy advice for this application is contained within policies H23 and G1 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). These policies<br />
seek to allow extensions to residential properties subject to a number of criteria. These aim to<br />
retain the character of the dwelling to be extended, the amenity of the site and that of<br />
neighbouring properties.<br />
173
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The proposed extension has been revised from that originally submitted. The extension originally<br />
extended some 7 metres from the side elevation of the existing property. This was subsequently<br />
reduced at the request of the <strong>Council</strong> to a more suitable 5 metres in depth. The reduced size<br />
extension is more in keeping with the scale and design of the host property.<br />
The majority of the objections that have been received from members of the public relate to the<br />
proposed materials that are to be used, which were to be render and clay roof tiles.<br />
After further discussions with the agent it has been agreed that the walling for the extension<br />
would be finished in either a recon. stone or Bradstone to match the main dwelling, the exact<br />
detailing will be controlled through a condition to be imposed as will the colour and type of the<br />
roofing material to be used on the extension.<br />
For the reasons set out above the application is now considered to comply with the provisions of<br />
Policies G1 and H23.<br />
The application is duly recommended for conditional permission.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1988 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 30<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
S.04/<strong>10</strong>72/FUL<br />
Site No:<br />
25393<br />
Parish: Dursley Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 375192,198640<br />
6 Woodland Avenue, Dursley, Gloucestershire, GL11 4EW<br />
Application Type: Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
Two storey extension.<br />
Mr & Mrs Butler<br />
6 Woodland Avenue, Dursley, Gloucestershire, GL11 4EW<br />
D.S.W. Design Consultants<br />
8 Spencer Close, Hucclecote, Gloucester, GL3 3EA<br />
Will Bridges<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received: 21.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
174
Recommendation Permission<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, any window<br />
proposed in the southern elevation of the extension shall be glazed in<br />
obscure glass, and maintained as such thereafter, to the satisfaction of<br />
the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring<br />
residential property in accordance with Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> Local<br />
Plan Revised Depoist Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Informatives:<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
Object: disproportionate to the size of the house/plot.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1 and H23 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001). These seek to ensure proposals do not adversely affect<br />
amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by<br />
reason of loss of light, loss of privacy or have an overbearing effect. The<br />
plot size is large enough to accommodate the proposal without resulting<br />
in a cramped or overdeveloped site. The height, size and design of the<br />
proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the parent building.<br />
Following the construction of the extension, sufficient space will exist for<br />
the parking of cars in line with the <strong>Council</strong>'s vehicle parking standards<br />
and for use as private amenity space for the occupiers of the enlarged<br />
dwelling in accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s adopted standards as outlined<br />
in its Residential Design Guide.<br />
175
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is brought before the Committee due to the objection and comments raised by<br />
Dursley Town <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
The application site is located on the northern side of the town of Dursley on a plot that falls away<br />
to the east. To the north and south of the site are the adjoining and neighbouring properties<br />
respectively. To the east is the rear garden and finally to the west is a small amount of private<br />
amenity space with the road Woodland Avenue beyond that. The application has been submitted<br />
for the erection of a part single storey part two storey side and rear extension.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> History.<br />
None<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations.<br />
The relevant policy advice for this application is contained within Policies H23 and G1 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). These policies<br />
seek to allow extensions to residential properties subject to a number of criteria. These aim to<br />
retain the character of the dwelling to be extended, the amenity of the site and that of<br />
neighbouring properties.<br />
176
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The proposed extension would effectively create an extension that would wrap around the south<br />
eastern corner of the dwelling. From the front elevation, that faces onto the highway the proposal<br />
has the form of a simple single storey side extension with a newly formed access point into the<br />
dwelling. To the rear of the property the ground level falls away, this have the effect of enabling a<br />
two storey element to be introduced to the rear, that follows the line of the existing land levels.<br />
The comments raised by the Town <strong>Council</strong> have been noted and fully considered. However,<br />
when the topography of the site is considered the proposal does not create an overly dominant<br />
addition to the property, with the maximum distance the proposal would extend from existing<br />
dwelling being some 2.3 metres. In addition there would be adequate rear garden remaining for<br />
the use of the occupants of the dwelling.<br />
The proposed extension has an acceptable height, size and design that would be in keeping with<br />
the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal would not create any significant<br />
increase in any loss of amenity or privacy. The two proposed windows to the side elevation are to<br />
be fitted with obscurely glazed glass to prevent any potential loss of privacy to the neighbouring<br />
property.<br />
The proposal complies with the relevant criteria contained with Policies G1 and H23 of the Local<br />
Plan and is duly recommended for conditional permission.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1988 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 31<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
Grid Reference:<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
S.04/1384/FUL<br />
Castle Lodge, Cheltenham Road, Painswick, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
9569<br />
Painswick Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
387614,212634<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Erection of a single storey greenhouse/store. (Existing outbuilding to<br />
be demolished).<br />
Mr And Mrs P Moody<br />
Castle Lodge, Cheltenham Road, Painswick, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL6 6TU<br />
Agent Details: Brooks Chartered Surveyors<br />
2 Princes Street, Bath, BA1 1HL<br />
177
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Tim Brookman<br />
25.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
Informatives:<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of Policies G1<br />
and N6 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001). These policies seek to ensure that proposals have<br />
no adverse affect on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of<br />
neighbouring dwellings by way of loss of light or an overbearing impact<br />
and that any development is sympathetic and in keeping with the AONB.<br />
The design, location, scale and size of the development are all<br />
considered to be appropriate. The proposed development would not be<br />
unduly detrimental to the character of the area and the AONB. The<br />
proposed materials are in keeping with the existing house and the plot<br />
size is considered able to accommodate the proposal without appearing<br />
cramped or overdeveloped. There are no neighbours in the immediate<br />
vicinity that would be affected by the development. Adequate amenity<br />
space remains for the private use of the occupiers of the property, in<br />
accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s adopted standards as outlined in its<br />
Residential Design Guide.<br />
Object<br />
The site is in a prominent position alongside the lane leading to the Beacon from the Royal<br />
William Inn. The absence of any landscaping between the site and the lane will make the<br />
proposed store very visible. The replacement building will be considerably larger and higher than<br />
the existing derelict structure. Our recommendation is that the present building be demolished<br />
and the proposed store be positioned to the south of the site, towards the Beacon, where there<br />
are various trees and bushes which would make the structure less visible from the lane.<br />
178
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is reported to the Committee in view of the objection by Painswick Parish<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
The site and Proposal<br />
The application site is a large detached dwelling that is constructed from reconstituted stone with<br />
concrete tiles on the roof and it has black PVCu windows. The dwelling is accessed via a track,<br />
which runs behind the Royal William and up to Painswick Beacon. The property is set in a large<br />
area of gardens and grounds, which slope down from the dwelling and look out over the valley.<br />
The proposal site currently contains a part stone and part rendered out building, with a flat<br />
corrugated roof, which is in a dilapidated condition. It is located away from the main dwelling and<br />
is adjacent to the lane and the walled boundary.<br />
The proposal seeks permission to erect a single storey greenhouse/store with the existing<br />
outbuilding to be demolished. The proposed materials include reconstituted stone walls to match<br />
the existing dwelling, a slate tile roof and a powder coated conservatory frame with glazing.<br />
179
Relevant <strong>Planning</strong> History<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Application S.99/901. Erection of replacement store building and retention of existing stable block<br />
following permission S.5969/Y dated 12/06/1990. Approved <strong>08</strong>/03/2000.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
The application is considered under policies G1 and N6 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised<br />
Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Policy G1 States<br />
"Permission will not be granted to any development that would be likely to lead to an<br />
unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of<br />
privacy or have an overbearing effect".<br />
Policy N6 States<br />
"Development within, or affecting the setting of the AONB will only be permitted if all the following<br />
criteria are met: the nature, siting and scale are sympathetic to the landscape; the design and<br />
materials complement the character of the area; and important landscape features and trees are<br />
retained and appropriate landscaping measures are undertaken".<br />
The objection by Painswick Parish <strong>Council</strong> is noted but the proposed design is not inappropriate<br />
and its development would not be unduly detrimental to the character of the area and the AONB.<br />
The proposed design and materials are in keeping with the rural area and they complement the<br />
existing dwelling and the setting.<br />
Therefore the proposal is in accordance with policies G1 and N6 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) and permission is recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 32<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1180/FUL<br />
Grid Reference: 376885,194060<br />
Greenhay Farm, Coombe , Wotton-Under-Edge, Gloucestershire<br />
18745<br />
Wotton Under Edge Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
180
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Proposed alterations and additions to existing farmhouse and<br />
refurbishment of existing outbuildings including swimming pool,<br />
gymnasium and stabling of livestock. (Re-submission following refusal<br />
S.03/1781).<br />
Mr & Mrs Davies<br />
Greenhay Farm, Coombe, Wotton-Under-Edge, Glos, GL12 7ND<br />
Pantecknikon<br />
Cotsal, Bisley Road, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos,<br />
Jane Breakspear<br />
26.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be<br />
used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building works<br />
hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the<br />
Head of Development Services. Development shall then only be carried<br />
out in accordance with the approved details.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.<br />
3. The hereby permitted shall only be used for domestic purposes incidental<br />
to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, and not for any<br />
industrial, commercial or business use.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the amenities of occupiers of nearby residential<br />
property.<br />
4. The development hereby permitted shall only be used for domestic<br />
purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, and<br />
shall not be converted to, or used as, living accommodation.<br />
Reason:<br />
To enable the Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authority to retain control over the use of<br />
the premises.<br />
5. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time<br />
other than in conjunction with the residential use of the dwelling known as<br />
181
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Greenhay Farm;<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that no separate additional dwelling units are established on<br />
the site.<br />
6. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects in<br />
strict accordance with the approved plans<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the<br />
approved plans.<br />
Informatives:<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal complies with the provisions of Policies G1 and H23 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001) which seek to ensure proposals do not adversely affect the<br />
amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by<br />
reason of overbearing effect, noise or general disturbance. The design,<br />
scale, and size of the development is in keeping with the existing<br />
property and its wider setting.<br />
The proposal should also be considered against Policies B15 and B16 of<br />
the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
June 2001 )which deal with the conversion of buildings in open<br />
countryside. The proposal complies with these policies which seek to<br />
ensure that the building is used for a suitable use, is capable of<br />
conversion and that the conversion is in keeping with the local building<br />
styles and design.<br />
Support: An archaeological survey should be carried out because of the likelihood of medieval or<br />
even Roman remains in this area. Records show that Elias de Coombe was granted a licence in<br />
about 1260 to build a chapel which may have been on this site.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
182
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is brought before Committee as it was originally down to 'oppose' under the<br />
scheme of delegation.<br />
This application is for various alterations and extensions to the Grade II Listed farmhouse as well<br />
as alterations to outbuildings to provide a swimming pool, gymnasium and stable block.<br />
Members may recall that a similar application was refused last year under reference S.03/1781.<br />
This application differs from the previous in that it no longer includes a dependant relatives<br />
annex. However it now also includes a gymnasium and a stable block.<br />
The house is located in open countryside on the edge of the hamlet of Coombe and within the<br />
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.<br />
The main farmhouse has an attached barn to the front which is to be converted to form part of the<br />
main house. The proposal also includes other extensions to the main house which are in<br />
accordance with Policies B9 and H23 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version<br />
(as amended June 2001).<br />
183
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The scheme involves the rebuilding and extension of a detached barn to provide a gymnasium<br />
and swimming pool. The proposal must be considered against Policies B9, B15 and B16 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001)<br />
Due to the location of the buildings in relation to the farm house as well as the road network<br />
leading to the site the buildings are clearly not suitable for any other use than as domestic<br />
curtilage buildings. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policy H16 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Part of the barn is constructed of sub-standard materials and in purely planning terms is not<br />
worthy of retention in its current form. The applicant has provided a structural survey to<br />
demonstrate the degree of rebuilding which would be necessary to bring the buildings back into<br />
use in conjunction with the farmhouse.<br />
The proposal will involve substantial rebuilding which is not strictly in accordance with Policy B15<br />
of the plan. However the refurbishment of the curtilage Listed building and its retention in the<br />
farmyard setting of the listed building are considered important in Listed building terms and<br />
therefore a greater degree of refurbishment than usual is deemed acceptable. The proposal<br />
requires less alteration than the previous proposal and the repair and retention of curtilage Listed<br />
buildings is normally welcomed.<br />
The proposal will improve the setting of the listed farmhouse and is therefore in accordance with<br />
policy B11 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The change of use of the building will preserve it as it is no longer required for the purposes of<br />
agriculture and may fall into further disrepair if the building is not brought back into use. The<br />
proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy B<strong>10</strong> of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised<br />
Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
The remaining element of the application is to reinstate another former farm building at the other<br />
side of the site entrance which has been demolished. This building is to be re-built on its original<br />
footprint to provide stabling. The reinstatement of this building will enhance the setting of the<br />
Listed building due to the sense of enclosure it will add to the traditional farmyard.<br />
All of the buildings are to be used for domestic purposes incidental to the use of the farm house<br />
and should be conditioned as such.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 33<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
S.04/1244/FUL<br />
33 Upper Queens Road, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL<strong>10</strong> 2QA<br />
184
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
25406<br />
Stonehouse Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 380789,205393<br />
Application Type:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Development: Erection of extensions.<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Mr N Jew<br />
33 Upper Queens Road, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL<strong>10</strong> 2QA<br />
Dorrel Ferguson<br />
DF CAD Services, Unit 19 The Coach House, 2 Upper York Street,<br />
Bristol, BS2 8QN<br />
Rachel Brown<br />
<strong>10</strong>.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
2. No window or door openings (other than those shown on the approved<br />
plans) shall be formed in the north west and south east side elevations of<br />
the extension hereby permitted.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential<br />
property to comply with the requirements of Policy G1 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal, subject to compliance with the conditions attached to this<br />
permission, complies with the provisions of Policies G1 and H23 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June<br />
2001). These seek to ensure proposals do not adversely affect the<br />
amenities at present enjoyed by occupiers of neighbouring dwellings by<br />
reason of loss of light, loss of privacy or have an overbearing effect. The<br />
185
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
size of the plot is large enough to accommodate the proposal without<br />
resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped site. The height, size and<br />
design of the proposal is in keeping with the scale and character of the<br />
parent dwelling. Following construction of the extensions, sufficient<br />
space will exist for use as private amenity space by the occupiers of the<br />
enlarged dwelling in accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s adopted standards as<br />
outlined in its Residential Design Guide and available for the parking of<br />
vehicles in accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s vehicle parking standards.<br />
Object:<br />
The size of the proposed development raises concern that it contravenes Policy H12 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan (Revised Deposit Version). If so, the Town <strong>Council</strong> would be unable to<br />
support this application.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
C Swain, Hilcot, 31 Queens Road<br />
• Loss of light.<br />
186
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is referred to Committee in view of the Town <strong>Council</strong>'s objections.<br />
SITE AND PROPOSAL<br />
This site is located on Upper Queens Road, Stonehouse. The property is a detached red brick<br />
dwelling with profiled concrete roof tiles. To the front of the property a 38m long garden leads<br />
down to the highway. To the rear the enclosed garden rises up away from the property. On the<br />
rear elevation of the property are existing two storey and single storey elements with an existing<br />
flat roofed single storey extension protruding beyond this.<br />
This proposal seeks permission for the erection of a ground floor lean-to extension on the rear<br />
elevation and a first floor extension over the existing single storey elements. The extension will<br />
provide utility and enlargement of lounge/dining room on the ground floor and a bedroom on first<br />
floor. External finishing materials will be to match the existing.<br />
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY<br />
There is no planning history related to this site.<br />
187
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The relevant policy advice for this application is contained within policies H23 and G1 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Policy H23 states:<br />
"Permission will be granted for the extension of residential properties, and for erection of<br />
outbuildings incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling, provided all the following criteria area<br />
met: -<br />
1. The plot size of the existing property is large enough to accommodate the extension of<br />
outbuilding without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped site;<br />
2. The height, size and design of the extension or outbuilding is in keeping with the scale and<br />
character of the dwelling to be extended, and its wider setting;<br />
3. Following construction of the extension, or outbuilding sufficient space is available for the<br />
parking or cars, in line with the <strong>Council</strong>s Parking Standards, in a way that does not detract from<br />
the character and appearance of the area, and<br />
4. Following construction of the extension, or outbuilding sufficient private amenity space exists<br />
for use by occupiers of the enlarged dwelling."<br />
Policy G1 states:<br />
"Permission will not be granted to any development that would be likely to lead to an<br />
unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of<br />
privacy or have an overbearing effect."<br />
A letter of objection has been received from the occupier of the neighbouring dwelling. They<br />
object on loss of light to the back of their property.<br />
Stonehouse Town <strong>Council</strong>'s revised objection to the proposal is on grounds of over-development<br />
of the site and they have concerns on the impact on neighbouring properties.<br />
With regard to Policy H23, the size of this plot is relatively large and it is not felt that this<br />
development will result in a cramped or overdeveloped site. The size and design of the proposed<br />
extension is in keeping with the scale and character of the existing property. The proposal will<br />
lead to a minimal increase in the ground floor plan to that of the existing property with the majority<br />
of the development being at first floor level. The substantial rear garden would remain available<br />
to provide ample private amenity space for use by the occupiers of the enlarged dwelling.<br />
With regard to Policy G1, whilst it is possible there may be an increase in loss of light to the rear<br />
of the neighbouring dwelling, it is not felt to be of a significant level to warrant refusal in this<br />
instance.<br />
Therefore, in view of the above, Policies G1 and H23 are satisfied and permission is<br />
recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
188
ITEM No: 34<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/1111/ADV<br />
Oxford Swindon And Gloucester Co Op, 26 High Street, Stonehouse<br />
Gloucestershire<br />
5835<br />
Stonehouse Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 380526,205336<br />
Application Type: Advertisement Consent<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
Erection of new signage. (Resubmission following refusal<br />
S.03/C0184/ADV).<br />
COOP OSG<br />
16 Cashes Green Road, Cainscross, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos, GL5 4JE<br />
Sign Specialists Limited<br />
46 Hockley Hill, Hockley, Birmingham, B18 5AQ<br />
Will Bridges<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received: 26.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Consent<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
Object:<br />
The first application for signage was dismissed by the <strong>Planning</strong> Inspectorate following an appeal<br />
by the applicant. The Committee consider that the resubmission does nothing to alleviate the<br />
reasons for dismissal:<br />
The number of signs overburden the front of the building to the detriment of the street scene.<br />
Excessive signage is incompatible with the low-key signage of the High Street.<br />
Illuminated signage is out of character with the traditional street scene.<br />
The signs in their illuminated form would create a prominent and intrusive feature to the detriment<br />
of nearby residents.<br />
County Surveyor (Initial)<br />
No highway objections subject to conditions.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
189
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The application is brought before this committee due to the objection and comments received<br />
from Stonehouse Town <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
The site is located within the central area of Stonehouse. The building is a large supermarket and<br />
has been constructed in two distinct phases, the older section is constructed from rendered brick<br />
work with grey composite tiles. The section to which the application relates is constructed from<br />
red brick with large plate glass windows in aluminium frames and a false pitched roof to the front<br />
elevation in composite tiles.<br />
The proposal is a revised scheme following a refusal and subsequent appeal that was dismissed.<br />
The scheme as previously submitted has been in place for some months now. This revised<br />
scheme is identical in appearance to the previous application except for the omission of the blue<br />
neon lighting element that down-lights the entire length of the fascia.<br />
Consultations.<br />
Stonehouse Town <strong>Council</strong> have objected to the application.<br />
The highway authority has no objection to the application subject to several conditions.<br />
190
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
<strong>Planning</strong> History.<br />
S.03/936 Erection of new signage - Refused (16/07/03).<br />
S.03/C0184 Erection of new signage - Refused (29/01/04).<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations.<br />
The relevant policy advice for this application is contained within policy B18 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong><br />
Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). The Policy seeks to allow<br />
advertisements that are sympathetic in style, siting and materials, location, number and design<br />
and where appropriate illumination to the building or location on which it is displayed and that it<br />
will not prejudice public safety.<br />
The addition of a new fascia in principle looks to be acceptable in this town centre location. The<br />
previous applications all incorporated both additional text signage and corporate branding to the<br />
fascia with blue neon strip lighting throughout the length of the fascia being included on the first<br />
application but subsequently removed from the most recent application.<br />
This revised application has reduced the amount of signage generally to the fascia of the<br />
property with the level of illumination being reduced as well. This would result in the illumination<br />
of the proposed signage being restricted to internal illumination of the co-op logos and the<br />
internal illumination of the text.<br />
This reduction in signage to the proposal, now has a suitable level of illumination for the town<br />
centre site and the style is acceptable and in accordance with the above mentioned policy. The<br />
application is therefore duly recommended for consent.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1988 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 35<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1362/FUL<br />
Robina, Churchend, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire<br />
21120<br />
Slimbridge Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 373834,203777<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Enlarge rear dormer windows.<br />
Mr A Bray<br />
Robina, Churchend, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, GL2 7BL<br />
191
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Agent Details: Compass Studios<br />
Church Cottage, Tortworth, Wotton Under Edge, Glos, GL12 8HF<br />
Case Officer:<br />
Tim Brookman<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received: 25.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Permission<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration<br />
of five years from the date of this permission.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Act 1990.<br />
Informatives:<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
Object:<br />
Further overdevelopment of site.<br />
Will overlook neighbouring properties.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
1. For the purposes of Article 22 of the Town and Country <strong>Planning</strong><br />
(General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003,<br />
the following reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below<br />
together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within<br />
the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:<br />
The proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of Policies G1<br />
and H23 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as<br />
amended June 2001). These policies seek to ensure that proposals have<br />
no adverse affect on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of<br />
neighbouring dwellings by way of loss of light or any overbearing impact.<br />
The design, scale and size of the development are considered to be in<br />
keeping with the existing dwelling and the wider setting. The plot size is<br />
considered able to accommodate the proposal without appearing<br />
cramped or overdeveloped. The neighbouring properties are shielded.<br />
Adequate amenity space remains for the private use of the occupiers of<br />
the property, in accordance with the <strong>Council</strong>'s adopted standards as<br />
outlined in its Residential Design Guide.<br />
192
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is reported to the Committee in view of the objection by Slimbridge Parish<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
The site and Proposal<br />
The application site is a detached dwelling located in Churchend, Slimbridge. The dwelling is<br />
finished in an off yellow render with concrete tiles on the roof and white PVCu windows. The<br />
dwelling has a reasonably sized front parking area and has a large rear garden, which backs out,<br />
onto open fields. A 2m fence and a number of large trees and bushes bound the garden. The<br />
dwelling is currently being extended.<br />
The proposal seeks permission to enlarge the two dormers in the rear elevation and to change<br />
the Velux window to a dormer as proposed in application 02/2246. The changes to this<br />
application were seen as too big a departure from the original plans to be a minor amendment to<br />
that permission.<br />
Relevant <strong>Planning</strong> History<br />
193
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
App: S.02/340. Erection of a double garage with pitched roof. Approved 17/04/2002.<br />
App: S.02/2246. Erection of a single storey extension and loft conversion. Approved 11/03/2003.<br />
Request for a minor amendment to enlarge the dormer window on the front elevation. Accepted.<br />
Request for a minor amendment to enlarge dormer windows on the rear elevation and add three<br />
light dormer at the western end of the rear elevation. Not accepted.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
The application is considered under policies G1 and H23 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan,<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001).<br />
Policy G1 States<br />
"Permission will not be granted to any development that would be likely to lead to an<br />
unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of<br />
privacy or have an overbearing effect".<br />
Policy H23 States<br />
"Permission will be granted for the extension of residential properties, and for the erection of<br />
outbuildings incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling, provided all the following criteria are met:<br />
1. The plot size of the existing property is large enough to accommodate the extension or<br />
outbuilding without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped site;<br />
2. The height, size and design of the extension or outbuilding is in keeping with the scale and<br />
character of the dwelling to be extended, and its wider setting;<br />
3. Following construction of the extension or outbuilding, sufficient space is available for the<br />
parking of cars, in line with the <strong>Council</strong>'s Parking Standards, in a way that does not detract from<br />
the character and appearance of the area; and<br />
4. Following construction of the extension or outbuilding, sufficient private amenity space exists<br />
for use by occupiers of the enlarged dwelling".<br />
The objection by Slimbridge Parish <strong>Council</strong> is noted but the proposal would not constitute over<br />
development of the site as none of building footprints are enlarged and enough amenity space<br />
would remain for the occupants. The plot size is considered able to accommodate the proposal<br />
without appearing cramped or overdeveloped. The proposed dormer enlargement and the new<br />
dormer would not be out of keeping with the area and the roof line is not altered. The extended<br />
dormers look over the field and the new dormer would be shielded by a number of trees and the<br />
neighbouring garage. It is noted that some of the garden of the neighbouring property would be<br />
over looked but the trees offer some privacy and enough private amenity space would remain<br />
around the rear and the opposite side of the property. The proposed design and materials are in<br />
keeping with the local area and they compliment the existing dwelling and the wider setting.<br />
Therefore the proposal is in accordance with policies G1 and H23 the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) and permission is recommended.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
194
ITEM No: 36<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
Grid Reference:<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details: None<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/0228/FUL<br />
Haresfield C Of E Primary School, Haresfield Lane, Haresfield,<br />
Stonehouse<br />
11741<br />
Haresfield Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
381489,2<strong>10</strong>249<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Erection of extensions and alterations to replace temporary<br />
accommodation.<br />
Head Of Corporate Property Services<br />
Gloucestershire County <strong>Council</strong>, Shire Hall, Gloucester, GL1 2TG<br />
Will Bridges<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received: 05.02.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation<br />
No Objections<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
Subject to the following conditions:<br />
Support but acknowledge that there is a concern of the height of the roof at the rear of the<br />
building raised by the householder in close proximity to the rear of the school.<br />
County Surveyor (Initial)<br />
Recommend this application be refused on highway grounds for the following reasons:<br />
RQ12: The vehicular access intended to serve the site, from Upper Green Lane, is located at a<br />
point where visibility is restricted and the construction and use of this access would be likely to<br />
introduce conflicting vehicular movements in close proximity to and existing junction all to the<br />
detriment of highway safety.<br />
N13 Note:<br />
More favourable consideration may be given if the access were to be removed from the<br />
application or relocated away from the junction and its use restricted to emergency access only.<br />
195
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Letters of Objection<br />
Mr Hart, 7 The Merryfields, Haresfield<br />
Mrs A Robinson, Dovetail, Haresfield Lane<br />
M Stone, Willow House, Haresfield Lane<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
• Loss of view.<br />
• Loss of sunlight.<br />
• Rerouting of HT Cable will pose a danger to writers property.<br />
• Noise pollution.<br />
• Parking problems.<br />
• Playground next to a dangerous road and oil tank.<br />
• Devalue property.<br />
• Materials don't match existing.<br />
Letters of Comment<br />
E Waterson, The Beeches, Haresfield Lane<br />
• Development not in keeping with existing Listed Buildings and surrounding properties.<br />
• Proportions of the construction overwhelm the site.<br />
• Road safety - entrance to the school is by the road.<br />
• Different plans submitted to those that were shown to the public during an open viewing<br />
session, the original plans were acceptable.<br />
196
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is brought before the committee due to the <strong>Council</strong>'s initial opinion to oppose the<br />
application.<br />
Site Report<br />
This application is for the replacement of three temporary classrooms at Haresfield Church of<br />
England School with a large extension to the listed, original school building.<br />
The existing buildings are located within the playground area, to the north of the original building.<br />
The proposed extension would also extend to the north of the property and provide four<br />
additional classrooms, associated areas and a multi purpose hall to the north western corner of<br />
the site. This proposal would be phased with three overall phases, to accommodate the day to<br />
day functions of the school.<br />
Relevant <strong>Planning</strong> History<br />
There are several applications relating to the site in question, mainly concerning the provision of<br />
temporary classroom accommodation with the most recent application being S.99/<strong>10</strong>05 for the<br />
retention of the Elliott Classroom that was permitted on the 13th July 2000.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations.<br />
197
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
The relevant policy advice for this application is contained within Policies G1 and B11 of the<br />
<strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). These policies<br />
seek to allow development within the <strong>District</strong> subject to a number of criteria. These aim to protect<br />
and enhance the setting of the listed building, to which the extension is to be attached, as well as<br />
preserving the amenities of the surrounding properties.<br />
The scheme as originally submitted was initially opposed by officers due to the fact that the siting<br />
and massing of the proposed extension was such that it would have dominated the listed building<br />
on the site and would have had a detrimental effect on the overall street scene. The proposed<br />
materials were also not considered to sufficiently differentiate the two elements of the site (the<br />
extension and the listed building).<br />
Revised plans have now been received which address the issues mentioned, the siting, design<br />
and materials of the proposal have all been altered. Due to the size constraints of the site it is not<br />
possible to make hugely significant adaptations. However the proposal has been altered so that a<br />
larger area is made between the listed building and the extension, this when combined with the<br />
lowering of the ridge height and the fact that the extension has been set back from the highway<br />
frontage, means that the proposal is now considered to have a much reduced impact on the<br />
setting of the listed building and provides an improved street scene.<br />
The proposed extension, as now revised, would clearly have an effect on the setting of the<br />
adjoining listed building however the need for such an extension and the overall benefit from the<br />
proposal would outweigh any negative elements. With the constraints of the site in mind and the<br />
existing situation of the school it is considered that this scheme is the most acceptable outcome<br />
of the site with both Policy G1 and B11 being satisfied.<br />
As this application is one being determined by the County <strong>Council</strong> it is recommended that the<br />
application is returned to the County <strong>Council</strong> with no observations, subject to subsequent<br />
approval of the materials. The accompanying Listed Building application will have to be sent to<br />
the Government Office of the South West for determination.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1988 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no<br />
particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that<br />
recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 37<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/0229/LBC<br />
Haresfield C Of E Primary School, Haresfield Lane, Haresfield,<br />
Stonehouse<br />
11741<br />
Haresfield Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 381489,2<strong>10</strong>249<br />
198
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received: 05.02.<strong>2004</strong><br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Listed Building Consent<br />
Erection of extensions and alterations to replace temporary<br />
accommodation.<br />
Gloucestershire County <strong>Council</strong><br />
Shire Hall, Gloucester, GL1 2TG<br />
None<br />
Chris Bladon<br />
Recommendation Refer to Government Office<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
Support.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
1. The works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five<br />
years from the date of this consent.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the <strong>Planning</strong> (Listed<br />
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.<br />
2. No development shall take place until samples of the facing brick and<br />
roofing slates to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of<br />
the building works hereby permitted have been submitted to and<br />
approved in writing by the Head of Development Services. Development<br />
shall then only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.<br />
Reason:<br />
In the interests of the preservation of the character of the listed building.<br />
199
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This application is reported to Committee in view of the initial opposition to the scheme.<br />
The Building<br />
Small Church of England Primary School dating from 1873 with various later additions. Plain tile<br />
roof with decorative patterning over red brick walls with buff and blue brick detailing. Coped stone<br />
verges and a small entrance porch at the road end with a bellcote above incorporating a carved<br />
panel depicting a hare.<br />
The Application<br />
This application is for alterations and extensions to the school. The proposal is for a phased<br />
replacement of various temporary buildings in the grounds, to accommodate the school in one<br />
permanent building.<br />
Policy Considerations<br />
These are taken from PPG 15 "<strong>Planning</strong> and the Historic Environment."<br />
200
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Paragraph 3.12, says "In judging the effect of any alteration or extension it is essential to have<br />
assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in question."<br />
Paragraph C.58 says; "the plan of a building is one of its most important characteristics. Interior<br />
plans and individual features of interest should be respected and left unaltered as far as possible.<br />
Internal spaces....... are part of the special interest of a building and may be its most valuable<br />
feature."<br />
Paragraph C.7 says, " Modern extensions should not dominate the existing buildings in terms of<br />
scale, material or situation. There will always be some historic buildings where any extensions<br />
would be damaging and should not be permitted. Successful extensions require the application of<br />
an intimate knowledge of the building type that is being extended together with a sensitive<br />
handling of scale and detail."<br />
Paragraph 2.16 of PPG 15 says Local <strong>Planning</strong> Authorities are required by the <strong>Planning</strong> (Listed<br />
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ".... to have special regard to the desirability of<br />
preserving the setting of a listed building. The setting is often an essential part of a building's<br />
character, especially if a garden or grounds have been laid out to complement its design or<br />
function. Also...the character of historic buildings may suffer, and they can be robbed of much of<br />
their interest, and of the contribution they make to the townscape or the countryside if they<br />
become isolated from their surroundings, e.g. by new traffic routes, car parks or other<br />
development".<br />
Paragraph 3.13 says, "Many listed buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration or<br />
extension to accommodate continuing or new uses. Indeed, cumulative changes reflecting the<br />
history of use and ownership are themselves an aspect of the special interest of some buildings,<br />
and the merit of some new alterations or additions, especially when generated within a secure<br />
and committed long-term ownership should not be discounted. Nevertheless, listed buildings do<br />
vary greatly in the extent to which they can accommodate change without loss of special<br />
interest."<br />
Consultees.<br />
The Ancient Monuments Society whilst not entering a formal objection were concerned (in the<br />
original proposals) about the alterations to the interior of the listed building and that the<br />
extensions presented an unacceptable challenge to the historic frontage.<br />
Conclusions<br />
This is a small late Victorian School surrounded to the North and East by a sea of various<br />
temporary buildings- classrooms and an assembly hall. The setting of the building has therefore<br />
already been significantly compromised, although immediately to the North of the listed building<br />
is the school playground, which manages to retain something of the space around the building.<br />
The proposals are to replace the temporary buildings with a permanent extension to the school<br />
and the task is compounded by a relatively small site and the need to keep some of the<br />
temporary buildings in use whilst the building operations are in progress. A phased building<br />
programme will be necessary.<br />
The originally submitted scheme caused your Officers some concern in terms of the alterations to<br />
the building and the effect on its setting. The siting and massing of the extension was such that it<br />
would have dominated the listed building. Additionally the materials were felt to be too<br />
complementary to the existing materials making it more difficult to differentiate between extension<br />
and parent building. Additionally the proposed scheme use the listed building for all the<br />
administrative functions of the school, dividing it up into a series of small spaces. This was seen<br />
as harmful to the large single space with its typical folding screen.<br />
201
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Revised plans have been submitted which have changed the siting, design and materials of the<br />
proposed extension. The size of the site makes it difficult to make major changes in terms of<br />
siting but the revised proposals have made a larger space between listed building and extension.<br />
The building has been set back from the road frontage making it less challenging to the front<br />
elevation of the listed building.<br />
The interior alterations now retain the large single space and the folding screen, thus preserving<br />
more of the character of the interior of the building.<br />
The proposed changes will permanently alter the setting of the listed building and the tight site<br />
means almost inevitably that the extensions are nearer to the listed building than might be<br />
desirable in a perfect world. However, offset against this is the considerable gain in the loss of<br />
the ugly temporary buildings. The changes in the design and materials of the extension mean<br />
that the difference between listed building and extension is emphasised and the reduction in<br />
height and changes in plan form and siting all combine to make this a more acceptable proposal<br />
in terms of the character and setting of the listed building. This is a County <strong>Council</strong> application<br />
and the Secretary of State ultimately makes the decision. You are therefore recommended to<br />
refer this application to the Secretary of State with no observations.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 38<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1294/LBC<br />
Court Moat, Stone, Berkeley, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
14079<br />
Ham And Stone Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 368462,195352<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
Listed Building Consent<br />
Retrospective application for erection of conservatory and alteration to<br />
fireplace.<br />
J Nowicki<br />
Court Moat, Stone, Berkeley, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Gloucestershire, GL13 9JY<br />
None<br />
Natalie Foster<br />
202
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
17.06.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
Support:<br />
In keeping with the property.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. The proposed works are contrary to the guidance laid out in Paragraphs<br />
3.3, 3.12, 3.13, C.5, C.7, C.37, C.47 and C.49 of PPG 15, '<strong>Planning</strong> and<br />
the Historic Environment'.<br />
The removal and subsequent treatment of the fireplace has caused harm<br />
to the historic fabric of the house and to the character and appearance of<br />
the Listed building.<br />
2. Whilst the principle of a conservatory may be acceptable, the existing<br />
building is inappropriate in terms of methods of construction, materials<br />
and design. PPG 15 is clear that the use of UPVC is nearly always<br />
unsuitable in historic buildings.<br />
The present conservatory detracts from, and causes harm to, the<br />
character and appearance of the historic building.<br />
203
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
THE BUILDING<br />
Court Moat is a late 18th century house. It was added to the Statutory List in 1952, Listed Grade<br />
II.<br />
Based on an L- shaped plan, this substantial farmhouse is brick built under a clay tile roof. It<br />
features 3- light wood mullion and transom leaded windows with segmental arched heads and a<br />
6 fielded panel front door with a 19th century gabled timberwork porch.<br />
Whilst its main frontage was designed to make a grand statement, its side elevations are more<br />
modest. The garden front has seen the addition of a wood effect UPVC conservatory, built some<br />
time after 1986.<br />
Access to the conservatory is gained through a doorway from the kitchen, created by cutting<br />
through a chimneybreast.<br />
THE APPLICATION<br />
This is a retrospective application for Listed Building Consent for the erection of a conservatory<br />
and alterations to a chimneybreast to provide access through.<br />
CONSULTEES<br />
Ham and Stone Parish <strong>Council</strong> have supported the application, stating that the works are in<br />
keeping with the listed building.<br />
204
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS<br />
Policy considerations with regard to listed building matters are given in PPG15 "<strong>Planning</strong> and the<br />
Historic Built Environment":<br />
Paragraph 3.3 states, 'There should be a general presumption in favour of the preservation of<br />
listed buildings, except where a convincing case can be made out ...for alteration or demolition.'<br />
Paragraph 3.12 says, ' In judging the effect of any alteration or extension it is essential to have<br />
assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in question.'<br />
Paragraph 3.13 says, 'Many listed buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration or<br />
extension...Indeed, cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership are<br />
themselves an aspect of the special interest of some buildings, and the merit of some new<br />
alterations or additions...should not be discounted.'<br />
Paragraph C.5 states, 'Subsequent additions to historic buildings, including minor accretions such<br />
as conservatories, porches, balconies, verandas, door dressings, bargeboards or chimneys, do<br />
not necessarily detract from the quality of a building. They are often of interest in their own right<br />
as part of the building's organic history...'<br />
Paragraph C.7 says, 'Modern extensions should not dominate the existing building in either scale,<br />
material or situation. There will always be some historic buildings where any extensions would be<br />
damaging and should not be permitted. Successful extensions require the application of an<br />
intimate knowledge of the building type that is being extended together with a sensitive handling<br />
of scale and detail.'<br />
Paragraph C.37 states, 'Modern off-the-peg doors are not generally acceptable for use in listed<br />
buildings, nor are doors with incongruous design features such as integral fanlights. Unpainted<br />
hardwood or stained or varnished softwood doors are rarely suitable.'<br />
Paragraph C.47 says, 'Paint is usually the correct finish for timber windows; staining is not a<br />
traditional finish and should not normally be used. However, early windows of oak were<br />
commonly limewashed or left unpainted and these should not now be painted but left to weather<br />
naturally.'<br />
Paragraph C.49 says, 'The insertion of factory made standard windows of all kinds, whether in<br />
timber, aluminium, galvanised steel or plastic is almost always damaging to the character and<br />
appearance of historic buildings. In particular, for reasons of strength the thickness of frame<br />
members tends to be greater in plastic or aluminium windows than in traditional timber ones.'<br />
CONCLUSIONS<br />
The subject of this retrospective application is a wood- effect UPVC conservatory, the removal of<br />
a fireplace and the creation of doorway through the chimney breast. These works were carried<br />
out without Listed Building Consent some time after 1986.<br />
Had this application been submitted prior to construction your Officers believe that it would not<br />
have been looked on favourably.<br />
In itself, the removal of the fireplace (a 1950s ceramic tiled replacement) would not have been an<br />
issue. However, the manner in which the new doorway has been formed, involving significant<br />
destruction of historic fabric, is insensitive and unacceptable.<br />
The modern stained hardwood door between the kitchen and the conservatory is inappropriate<br />
for a Listed building and clearly contrary to PPG 15 policy.<br />
Whilst the building of a conservatory may be acceptable in principle, the methods of construction,<br />
design and materials used in this case are all unsuitable. Your Officers are currently involved in<br />
pre- application discussions with the new purchasers about a possible replacement of the<br />
205
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
conservatory to be built along more traditional lines and using more appropriate and sensitive<br />
materials.<br />
The alterations that have been carried out to Court Moat have harmed the historic fabric of the<br />
building, and its character and appearance. This Application is therefore recommended for<br />
Refusal.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1988 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 39<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/<strong>10</strong>30/LBC<br />
Grid Reference: 384324,201898<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Seynckley, Culver Hill, Amberley, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
16343<br />
Minchinhampton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Listed Building Consent<br />
Internal alterations. (Resubmission following withdrawn application<br />
S.04/0320/LBC).<br />
R Curtis & M Bremner<br />
Hill House, St Chloe, Amberley, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos GL5 5AS<br />
Verity And Beverley<br />
Spencer House, 34 Long Street, Tetbury, Glos, GL8 8AQ<br />
Chris Bladon<br />
17.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Consent<br />
1. The works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five<br />
years from the date of this consent.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the <strong>Planning</strong> (Listed<br />
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.<br />
2. The existing chimneypiece (fire surround) in Bathroom 2 on the first floor<br />
shall be retained in situ and without alteration.<br />
206
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Reason<br />
To ensure the retention of an important component of the special<br />
architectural interest of the listed building.<br />
3. The carved panel above the new door location to Bedroom 1 on the first<br />
floor shall be retained in situ and without alteration.<br />
Reason<br />
To ensure the retention of an important component of the special<br />
architectural interest of the listed building.<br />
Informatives:<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
Object: detrimental to II* Listed Building<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
1. For the purposes of Regulation 2 of the <strong>Planning</strong> (Listed Building and<br />
Conservation Areas)(England)(Amendment) Regulations 2003, the<br />
reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below. In considering<br />
the application, the <strong>Council</strong> has given special regard to the desirability of<br />
preserving the building or its setting or any features of special<br />
architectural or historic interest it possesses. Where relevant, reference<br />
is made to Government policy set out in PPG 15 "<strong>Planning</strong> and the<br />
Historic Environment."<br />
The changes affect mainly C20 fabric that is not of special interest.<br />
Paragraph C.58 of PPG 15 is intended to protect the plan form of<br />
buildings, and none of the proposed alterations will cause any harm to<br />
the plan form or to features contained in those spaces.<br />
207
Site Location:<br />
Site Report:<br />
The Building<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Large detached house, Grade II* and first listed in 1960. Dating from the late C15 with two major<br />
C17 phases, one being a well-documented addition of 1698 as part of alterations to form a<br />
Charity School. Built in random and coursed rubble limestone under a stone slate roof, this is a<br />
hollow square building with a high walled courtyard forming the fourth side. Contains many<br />
surviving internal features and includes alterations of 1909 by Sidney Barnsley for Henry Payne,<br />
the stained glass artist.<br />
The Application<br />
This application is for internal alterations in various parts of the building. The Previous<br />
application, S.04/0320/LBC was withdrawn.<br />
Consultees<br />
Minchinhampton Parish object to the proposals, which they say, are "detrimental to the listed<br />
building."<br />
2<strong>08</strong>
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
English Heritage have no objections and say that the application should be "...determined with<br />
the benefit of conservation advice locally"<br />
Policy Considerations<br />
These are taken from PPG 15 "<strong>Planning</strong> and the Historic Environment."<br />
Paragraph 3.12, says "In judging the effect of any alteration or extension it is essential to have<br />
assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in question."<br />
Paragraph C.58 says; "the plan of a building is one of its most important characteristics. Interior<br />
plans and individual features of interest should be respected and left unaltered as far as possible.<br />
Internal spaces.......are part of the special interest of a building and may be its most valuable<br />
feature."<br />
Conclusions<br />
S.04/0320/LBC was a far more extensive application involving more alterations than the present<br />
proposals. This application was withdrawn and all the contentious items have been removed in<br />
this new submission.<br />
The majority of the proposed alterations involve minor changes in plan form, which occur at all<br />
three floor levels. None of the changes affect historic fabric, as the partitions being altered are<br />
mostly C20 alterations that are not of special interest. A raised platform in the ground floor of the<br />
North range will be removed, but this is again of C20 construction. None of the proposals is<br />
significant in its own right and there is no collective harm to the character of the listed building.<br />
Your Officers assume that the Parish <strong>Council</strong> comment has re iterated what they said previously<br />
without considering the impact of much altered proposals. You are therefore recommended to<br />
grant listed building consent for these alterations.<br />
As this is a II* Listed Building the application will have to be referred to the Government Office of<br />
the South West before the notice is issued.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
209
ITEM No: 40<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
Application Type:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/0404/LBC<br />
Grid Reference: 384324,201898<br />
Seynckley, Culver Hill, Amberley, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
16343<br />
Minchinhampton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Listed Building Consent<br />
Development: Extension to studio cottage in grounds of Seynckley House to create<br />
ancillary accommodation for applicant's parents. Revised drawings<br />
rec'd.13/5/04 and 3/6/04.<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
Recommendation<br />
Mr. R. Curtis And Ms. M. Bremner<br />
Hill House , St Chloe, Amberley, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Glos<br />
Verity And Beverley<br />
Spencer House, 34 Long Street, Tetbury, Glos, GL8 8AQ<br />
Chris Bladon<br />
01.03.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Consent<br />
1. The works hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five<br />
years from the date of this consent.<br />
Reason:<br />
To comply with the requirements of Section 18 of the <strong>Planning</strong> (Listed<br />
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.<br />
2. Prior to the commencement of any works for which consent is hereby<br />
given, large scale plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by<br />
the Head of Development Services showing details of the design,<br />
construction, materials, surface finish and method of glazing of all<br />
proposed windows and external doors. The details shall include any<br />
stone surrounds and mullions etc to windows and doors.. The works<br />
shall then only be carried out strictly in accordance with those approved<br />
details.<br />
Reason:<br />
To ensure the preservation of the character and appearance of the listed<br />
building.<br />
Informatives:<br />
1. For the purposes of Regulation 2 of the <strong>Planning</strong> (Listed Building and<br />
Conservation Areas)(England)(Amendment) Regulations 2003, the<br />
reasons for the <strong>Council</strong>'s decision are summarised below. In considering<br />
2<strong>10</strong>
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
the application, the <strong>Council</strong> has given special regard to the desirability of<br />
preserving the building or its setting or any features of special<br />
architectural or historic interest it possesses. Where relevant, reference<br />
is made to Government policy set out in PPG 15 "<strong>Planning</strong> and the<br />
Historic Environment."<br />
The proposed extension meets the requirements of paragraph C.7 that<br />
requires that extensions should not dominate the parent building. No<br />
harm is caused to the plan form and internal features as required by<br />
paragraph C.58.<br />
Object: Close to Seynckley house and the designs of the proposed extension would be<br />
detrimental to the site.<br />
Neighbour Contributions<br />
Site Location:<br />
211
Site Report:<br />
The Building<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Large detached house, Grade II* and first listed in 1960. Dating from the late C15 with two major<br />
C17 phases, one being a well-documented addition of 1698 as part of alterations to form a<br />
Charity School. Built in random and coursed rubble limestone under a stone slate roof, this is a<br />
hollow square building with a high walled courtyard forming the fourth side. Contains many<br />
surviving internal features and includes alterations of 1909 by Sidney Barnsley for Henry Payne,<br />
the stained glass artist. The Studio, designed by Barnsley for Payne in 1911 (copy of original<br />
drawing on file) is a curtilage building to the Grade II* house. It is built of random rubble limestone<br />
under a stone slate roof.<br />
The Application<br />
This application is for alterations and extensions to The Studio.<br />
Consultees<br />
English Heritage objected to the original submission, re iterating what they said about a previous<br />
application. They felt that the proposals were too extensive for this modest building. They also<br />
said that the applicants should establish the significance of the structure before developing a<br />
scheme more appropriate for its importance.<br />
Policy Considerations<br />
These are taken from PPG 15 "<strong>Planning</strong> and the Historic Environment."<br />
Paragraph 3.12, says "In judging the effect of any alteration or extension it is essential to have<br />
assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in question."<br />
Paragraph C.58 says; "the plan of a building is one of its most important characteristics. Interior<br />
plans and individual features of interest should be respected and left unaltered as far as possible.<br />
Internal spaces.......are part of the special interest of a building and may be its most valuable<br />
feature."<br />
Paragraph C.7 says, " Modern extensions should not dominate the existing buildings in term of<br />
scale, material or situation. There will always be some historic buildings where any extensions<br />
would be damaging and should not be permitted. Successful extensions require the application of<br />
an intimate knowledge of the building type that is being extended together with a sensitive<br />
handling of scale and detail."<br />
Conclusions<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Permission for the use of The Studio as a separate dwelling has already been granted<br />
but these proposals are alterations to create living accommodation for dependant relatives.<br />
The scale of the proposed extension has been reduced in terms of its footprint and height with<br />
the aim of ensuring that the extension was genuinely subservient to the parent building. Your<br />
Officers believe that this reduction in size has met the English Heritage objection.<br />
The applicants were asked to provide more information about the nature of their alterations,<br />
especially in respect of the works to the interior of the building, where it is essential that the<br />
important original features be preserved. The additional information received on 3/06/04 confirms<br />
that no important original features will be harmed. The alterations are largely confined to the<br />
212
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
removal of later additions, which are not of special interest. The restoration of the large glazed<br />
screen on the North elevation to the original Barnsley design will be a gain.<br />
The design of the extension is complementary to the parent building yet made distinct by the use<br />
of a glazed link. The external alterations will cause no harm to the setting of the Grade II* listed<br />
house. Accordingly you are recommended to grant listed building consent for these works.<br />
As this is a Grade II* Building the application will have to be referred to the Government Office<br />
before a decision is issued.<br />
.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
213