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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 The relevant policy advice for this application is contained within policies H23 and G1 of the Stroud District Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). Policy H23 states: "Permission will be granted for the extension of residential properties, and for erection of outbuildings incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling, provided all the following criteria area met: - 1. The plot size of the existing property is large enough to accommodate the extension of outbuilding without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped site; 2. The height, size and design of the extension or outbuilding is in keeping with the scale and character of the dwelling to be extended, and its wider setting; 3. Following construction of the extension, or outbuilding sufficient space is available for the parking or cars, in line with the Councils Parking Standards, in a way that does not detract from the character and appearance of the area, and 4. Following construction of the extension, or outbuilding sufficient private amenity space exists for use by occupiers of the enlarged dwelling." Policy G1 states: "Permission will not be granted to any development that would be likely to lead to an unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of privacy or have an overbearing effect." A letter of objection has been received from the occupier of the neighbouring dwelling. They object on loss of light to the back of their property. Stonehouse Town Council's revised objection to the proposal is on grounds of over-development of the site and they have concerns on the impact on neighbouring properties. With regard to Policy H23, the size of this plot is relatively large and it is not felt that this development will result in a cramped or overdeveloped site. The size and design of the proposed extension is in keeping with the scale and character of the existing property. The proposal will lead to a minimal increase in the ground floor plan to that of the existing property with the majority of the development being at first floor level. The substantial rear garden would remain available to provide ample private amenity space for use by the occupiers of the enlarged dwelling. With regard to Policy G1, whilst it is possible there may be an increase in loss of light to the rear of the neighbouring dwelling, it is not felt to be of a significant level to warrant refusal in this instance. Therefore, in view of the above, Policies G1 and H23 are satisfied and permission 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 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. 188
ITEM No: 34 Application Site Address: Site No: Parish: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 S.04/1111/ADV Oxford Swindon And Gloucester Co Op, 26 High Street, Stonehouse Gloucestershire 5835 Stonehouse Town Council Grid Reference: 380526,205336 Application Type: Advertisement Consent Development: Applicant Details: Agent Details: Case Officer: Erection of new signage. (Resubmission following refusal S.03/C0184/ADV). COOP OSG 16 Cashes Green Road, Cainscross, Stroud, Glos, GL5 4JE Sign Specialists Limited 46 Hockley Hill, Hockley, Birmingham, B18 5AQ Will Bridges Date Received: 26.05.2004 Recommendation Consent Consultations/Representations: Parish / Town Object: The first application for signage was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate following an appeal by the applicant. The Committee consider that the resubmission does nothing to alleviate the reasons for dismissal: The number of signs overburden the front of the building to the detriment of the street scene. Excessive signage is incompatible with the low-key signage of the High Street. Illuminated signage is out of character with the traditional street scene. The signs in their illuminated form would create a prominent and intrusive feature to the detriment of nearby residents. County Surveyor (Initial) No highway objections subject to conditions. Neighbour Contributions 189
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:
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: Consultations/Representations: Pari
Page 141 and 142: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
Page 145 and 146: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
Page 147 and 148: Case Officer: Date Received: Planni
Page 151 and 152: Applicant Details: Agent Details: C
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 187: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
Page 195 and 196: ITEM No: 36 Application Site Addres
Page 199 and 200: Application Type: Development: Appl
Page 203 and 204: Date Received: Planning Schedule Da
Page 213: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?