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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 retention of stables within an existing building. That work is now shown on a separate application, S.04/1220 which is also under consideration at this meeting. The original application was for a riding arena and the applicants were informed at that time that permission was unlikely to be forthcoming to use it for business purposes. The previous application to remove the condition was refused in January of this year on the following grounds; "The proposal would result in sporadic commercial development in the open countryside at a location which is poorly served by public transport and where there would be a high reliance on the private motor car to serve the site, As a result the development would be likely to result in an intensification in vehicular use of the sub- standard access serving the site to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to Policy G5 of the Stroud District Local Plan Revised Deposit Version as amended June 2001". In order to attempt to overcome this objection the applicant has proposed alterations to the site access and access road. The alterations include the removal of a length of mature boundary hedgerow to improve visibility. This hedge is visually important to the edge of the village and its loss would be detrimental to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape. The hedgerow may be considered 'important' under the terms of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 and the section of hedge is being considered against the set criteria at the time of writing. The result of this investigation will be verbally reported at the meeting. If the hedgerow is considered important then the application should also be refused under Policy N11 of the Stroud District Local Plan Revised Deposit Version as amended June 2001. Nothwithstanding these proposals the Highway Authority still object to the proposal which is accordingly recommended for refusal. 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 properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that recommended. ITEM No: 23 Application Site Address: Site No: Parish: S.04/1286/COU Grid Reference: 379209,191184 Application Type: Development: Stable Building, Furlong Lane, Tresham, Wotton-Under-Edge 16114 Hillesley And Tresham Parish Council Change of Use Conversion of redundant stable building to mixed use residential/ business use. 150
Applicant Details: Agent Details: Case Officer: Date Received: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 Mr N Kingston Furlong Farm, Tresham, Wotton-Under-Edge, Glos, GL12 7RW Roberts Gardner Limited Friars Court, College Street, Gloucester, GL1 2NJ Eleanor Jackson 16.06.2004 Recommendation Refusal Consultations/Representations: Parish / Town For the following reasons: 1. Policy B15 of the Stroud District Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) states that the re-use and adaptation of buildings in rural areas to alternative uses will only be permitted if the buildings are of substantial, sound and permanent construction and are capable of re-use and adaptation without major or complete reconstruction. In this instance, the building that is the subject of this application is roofed in corrugated metal and as such does not meet the requirements of the above mentioned policy. 2. Policy B16 of the Stroud District Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) states that the adaptation and re-use of a building in a rural area for residential use will not be permitted unless every reasonable attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment or community re-use. In this instance it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the requirements of this policy have been met. 3. The site is located remote from amenities, facilities and services and is not served by adequate footpaths, cycleways, or public transport facilities and the development would be likely to increase reliance on the private car contrary to national Planning Policy and Policy T1 of the Stroud District Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). Support: The proposal will protect a building which adds to the specific character of Tresham, which might otherwise decay to the point that it is lost. However, the Council does have a concern about the parking provision, in that the parking space described has a very severe slope (1 in 3), so might prove to be unusable. Tresham has poor street parking provision, so the Council feel that development should not be allowed to increase this problem. Neighbour Contributions 151
Page 1 and 2:
Stroud District Council SCHEDULE OF
Page 3 and 4:
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
Page 5 and 6:
ITEM No: 01 Application: S.01/436 P
Page 7 and 8:
Materials: Roof Conc int tiles Wall
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Relevant Planning History Planning
Page 13 and 14:
ITEM No: 02 Application: S.03/1451
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
POLICY B9 Planning Schedule Date: 1
Page 21 and 22:
Consultations/Representations: Pari
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Neighbour Contributions Site Locati
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100: ITEM No: 12 Application Site Addres
Page 101 and 102: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
Page 103 and 104: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
Page 109 and 110: Planning Considerations Planning Sc
Page 111 and 112: Site No: Parish: Planning Schedule
Page 113 and 114: Consultations/Representations: Pari
Page 121 and 122: Applicant Details: Agent Details: C
Page 129 and 130: Site Report: The site and the propo
Page 131 and 132: Agent Details: Case Officer: Date R
Page 135 and 136: Consultations/Representations: Neig
Page 137 and 138: PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Planning Sc
Page 147 and 148: Case Officer: Date Received: Planni
Page 149: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
Page 165 and 166: Case Officer: Date Received: Planni
Page 171 and 172: Site No: Parish: Recommendation Pla
Page 175 and 176: Recommendation Permission Planning
Page 179 and 180: Neighbour Contributions Site Locati
Page 181 and 182: Application Type: Development: Appl
Page 185 and 186: Site No: Parish: Applicant Details:
Page 199 and 200: Application Type: Development: Appl
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Date Received: Planning Schedule Da
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?