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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Site Location: Site Report: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 This application is brought to Committee at the request of Cllr. Mrs. Clifton, a Ward Councillor. The proposal is a retrospective application to retain reconstructed slates and stained timber windows contrary to a condition attached to the original permission for the buildings conversion requiring that any replacement materials matched the existing. The original permission was for the conversion of these farm buildings into two dwellings and was granted permission in June 1999 under reference 98/1338. This is a group of former farm buildings at Church Farm Hopton Road Cam. The building is within the curtilage of Church Farm which is a Grade II Listed Building. A separate Listed Building application has been made which will deal with the Listed Building issues in more detail. The main issue with this application is whether the condition on the original permission is justified. The application is considered under Policy B9 of the Stroud District Local Plan Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001), which states: 18
POLICY B9 Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 Development involving proposals to extend or alter a Listed Building, or any feature of special architectural or historic interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing, will not be permitted unless it would preserve the building, its setting, and any features of special architectural or historic interest the building possesses. It is considered that the works carried out are contrary to Policy B9 as the use of reconstituted roofing slates and stained windows, has introduced modern materials and an appearance of the converted building unsympathetic to the buildings historic construction thus harming the character and appearance of the listed building. Members will see other issues raised in the Listed Building application. These matters do not require planning permission. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused. In the event that this recommendation is accepted authority is sought for enforcement action to be taken. SITES INSPECTION PANEL The Panel inspected the site both externally and internally and noted the alterations that had taken place. The Heritage Architect explained the main differences between the approved scheme and the works now being sought permission in retrospect. This included alterations to the internal arrangements, the fenestration, the type of lintels used, the steel flue and the use of reconstructed slate on the roof. The Parish Council representative confirmed the Parish Council were in favour of the proposed changes and that the applicant was not aware that the changes required permission. The Parish's concerns relate to the external effect of the building and how the community perceived the building, rather than the internal effect. They would have preferred the original welsh slate on the building but their understanding was modern slate, an example of which is being used to the extension to the Weavers House in Dursley could also be used. The Parish Council does not object to the roof as it stands. The Ward Councillor, Councillor Hudson, confirmed he was only made aware of the application at a late stage but had the following views. He agreed with the Parish Council's comments as the man in the street is more concerned with the outside view of property. The development is a big improvement on what there was originally. The original permission was not very clear about the type of materials to be used. He supported the application. After discussion the Panel were of the opinion the proposals were not acceptable and adversely affected the character of the buildings. However, the majority of Members were of the view the roof was acceptable but the other alterations detracted too much from the approved scheme. 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. 19
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 11 and 12: Relevant Planning History Planning
Page 13 and 14: ITEM No: 02 Application: S.03/1451
Page 17: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
Page 21 and 22: Consultations/Representations: Pari
Page 33 and 34: Neighbour Contributions Site Locati
Page 41 and 42: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
Page 69 and 70:
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
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:
Consultations/Representations: Pari
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:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Planning Considerations Planning Sc
Page 111 and 112:
Site No: Parish: Planning Schedule
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Applicant Details: Agent Details: C
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Site Report: The site and the propo
Page 131 and 132:
Agent Details: Case Officer: Date R
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Consultations/Representations: Neig
Page 137 and 138:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Planning Sc
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Case Officer: Date Received: Planni
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Applicant Details: Agent Details: C
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Case Officer: Date Received: Planni
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Site No: Parish: Recommendation Pla
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Recommendation Permission Planning
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Neighbour Contributions Site Locati
Page 181 and 182:
Application Type: Development: Appl
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Site No: Parish: Applicant Details:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?