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

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