Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 - Stroud District Council

Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
and would not cause harm to the character and appearance of that part of the settlement; the
density proposed is at as high a level as is acceptable in townscape and amenity terms; the
development includes dwellings of various sizes, both in respect of physical size and type; it
would not cause the loss of, or damage to, features of characteristic value; and where dwellinghouses
are proposed, an appropriate area of private amenity space is provided for the occupiers
of each dwelling-house. Where other types of residential accommodation are proposed, an
appropriate level of amenity space to serve the scheme as a whole is provided; and important
views into and out of the site are protected. Policy T1 requires that appropriate levels of parking
are provided in accordance with the Council's adopted standards and may require traffic calming
or highway improvements were relevant. The development will not directly affect the historic
route of the canal and the relevant section of Policy R8 and requires that development relates to
the canal setting. Policy G4 will not permit development on land liable to flood or where it would
increase the risk of flooding. The other policies seek to ensure that no detrimental effects result
either on highway safety or the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
In and close to Stroud Town Centre the character of the canal corridor is that hard edge, built
form abuts close to both sides of the canal. As you move in a westerly direction along the canal
the proportion of built form decreases, and the relationship with open spaces and vegetation
becomes more important. More specifically once you leave Wallbridge area there is built form to
the southern side interspersed with significant open /soft landscaped areas with sporadic
development to the north. Once the canal passes under the Dudbridge Road, the openness of
the corridor has already been significantly enclosed by the Bridgeside Estate and further to the
west by the more recent Chelbury and Bryant Homes developments. These recent
developments have very significantly increased the hard edge of the canal corridor in this vicinity
increasing the relative importance of those remaining open/landscaped parcels of land. The
perception of the area with the proposed development would be hard built form along the entire
side of this part of the canal, which is not in keeping with the more rural character of the
surroundings (away from the ribbon development on the roads). This harm is exacerbated by the
canal edge development being a substantial two and a half storey building with a historically
uncharacteristic plan width, which results in a large dominating structure. The proposal would
harm the character of this section of the canal corridor contrary to criteria 1, 5 & 6 of Policy H14
and criteria 1, 2 and 3 of Policy B4. Concern is also expressed in the loss of views that would
result from the canal corridor up to historic properties to the north, while these are not listed many
are important character buildings in the vicinity. The proposal results in harm to views out of the
canal corridor and its relationship to these buildings contrary to criteria 4 of Policy B4.
The proposal would relate differently to the canal than the neighbouring development and refusal
would not be warranted due to Policy R8. No response has been received from County
Highways regarding the access to the site and highway safety. This response should be
available and verbally presented at the committee meeting, and as such no comment is made
regarding highway safety and Policy G5 at this stage. The proposed development is set at a
lower level than those neighbouring properties fronting onto Westward Road, such that the
proposal would have no significant affect on the amenities of their occupiers. Further the
orientation and distance from other properties would not result in significant effects either by
dominating effect, loss of light or privacy on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring
properties in accordance with Policy G1.
The Environment Agency state the site is within an area at 'high risk of flooding'. As the
application is not supported by a Flood Risk Assessment the Agency objects as it may increase
the risk that future residents will be cut off from dry land, place extra strain on emergency
services and put lives at risk, contrary to Policy G4.
Refusal is recommended.
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected
102