Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 - Stroud District Council
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 - Stroud District Council Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 - Stroud District Council
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 Revised plans have been submitted which have changed the siting, design and materials of the proposed extension. The size of the site makes it difficult to make major changes in terms of siting but the revised proposals have made a larger space between listed building and extension. The building has been set back from the road frontage making it less challenging to the front elevation of the listed building. The interior alterations now retain the large single space and the folding screen, thus preserving more of the character of the interior of the building. The proposed changes will permanently alter the setting of the listed building and the tight site means almost inevitably that the extensions are nearer to the listed building than might be desirable in a perfect world. However, offset against this is the considerable gain in the loss of the ugly temporary buildings. The changes in the design and materials of the extension mean that the difference between listed building and extension is emphasised and the reduction in height and changes in plan form and siting all combine to make this a more acceptable proposal in terms of the character and setting of the listed building. This is a County Council application and the Secretary of State ultimately makes the decision. You are therefore recommended to refer this application to the Secretary of State with no observations. 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: 38 Application Site Address: Site No: Parish: S.04/1294/LBC Court Moat, Stone, Berkeley, Stroud 14079 Ham And Stone Parish Council Grid Reference: 368462,195352 Application Type: Development: Applicant Details: Agent Details: Case Officer: Listed Building Consent Retrospective application for erection of conservatory and alteration to fireplace. J Nowicki Court Moat, Stone, Berkeley, Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL13 9JY None Natalie Foster 202
Date Received: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 17.06.2004 Recommendation Refusal Consultations/Representations: Parish / Town Support: In keeping with the property. Neighbour Contributions For the following reasons: 1. The proposed works are contrary to the guidance laid out in Paragraphs 3.3, 3.12, 3.13, C.5, C.7, C.37, C.47 and C.49 of PPG 15, 'Planning and the Historic Environment'. The removal and subsequent treatment of the fireplace has caused harm to the historic fabric of the house and to the character and appearance of the Listed building. 2. Whilst the principle of a conservatory may be acceptable, the existing building is inappropriate in terms of methods of construction, materials and design. PPG 15 is clear that the use of UPVC is nearly always unsuitable in historic buildings. The present conservatory detracts from, and causes harm to, the character and appearance of the historic building. 203
- Page 151 and 152: Applicant Details: Agent Details: C
- Page 153 and 154: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 155 and 156: Consultations/Representations: Pari
- Page 157 and 158: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 159 and 160: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 161 and 162: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 163 and 164: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 165 and 166: Case Officer: Date Received: Planni
- Page 167 and 168: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 169 and 170: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 171 and 172: Site No: Parish: Recommendation Pla
- Page 173 and 174: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 175 and 176: Recommendation Permission Planning
- Page 177 and 178: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 179 and 180: Neighbour Contributions Site Locati
- Page 181 and 182: Application Type: Development: Appl
- Page 183 and 184: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 185 and 186: Site No: Parish: Applicant Details:
- Page 187 and 188: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 189 and 190: ITEM No: 34 Application Site Addres
- Page 191 and 192: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 193 and 194: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 195 and 196: ITEM No: 36 Application Site Addres
- Page 197 and 198: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 199 and 200: Application Type: Development: Appl
- Page 201: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 205 and 206: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 207 and 208: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 209 and 210: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 211 and 212: Consultations/Representations: Pari
- Page 213: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
Revised plans have been submitted which have changed the siting, design and materials of the<br />
proposed extension. The size of the site makes it difficult to make major changes in terms of<br />
siting but the revised proposals have made a larger space between listed building and extension.<br />
The building has been set back from the road frontage making it less challenging to the front<br />
elevation of the listed building.<br />
The interior alterations now retain the large single space and the folding screen, thus preserving<br />
more of the character of the interior of the building.<br />
The proposed changes will permanently alter the setting of the listed building and the tight site<br />
means almost inevitably that the extensions are nearer to the listed building than might be<br />
desirable in a perfect world. However, offset against this is the considerable gain in the loss of<br />
the ugly temporary buildings. The changes in the design and materials of the extension mean<br />
that the difference between listed building and extension is emphasised and the reduction in<br />
height and changes in plan form and siting all combine to make this a more acceptable proposal<br />
in terms of the character and setting of the listed building. This is a County <strong>Council</strong> application<br />
and the Secretary of State ultimately makes the decision. You are therefore recommended to<br />
refer this application to the Secretary of State with no observations.<br />
In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human<br />
Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected<br />
properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for<br />
private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this<br />
Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application<br />
no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to<br />
that recommended.<br />
ITEM No: 38<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
S.04/1294/LBC<br />
Court Moat, Stone, Berkeley, <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
14079<br />
Ham And Stone Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 368462,195352<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
Listed Building Consent<br />
Retrospective application for erection of conservatory and alteration to<br />
fireplace.<br />
J Nowicki<br />
Court Moat, Stone, Berkeley, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Gloucestershire, GL13 9JY<br />
None<br />
Natalie Foster<br />
202