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

Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
Further, the application fee submitted is £220, the fee for a new dwelling, when the correct fee for
an ancillary extension to an existing residence would be £110. As such this application has to be
considered against Policies H14, B4 and G5 of the Stroud District Local Plan, Revised Deposit
Version (as amended June 2001). These seek to ensure that new housing development is of a
scale, layout and design compatible with the surrounding settlement, would not harm the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and would not have a detrimental effect on
highway safety.
While there is no objection to location of the proposal on Conservation Area grounds, the only
access to the site is along a very poor quality road. Two appeal inspectors have upheld refusals
on highway grounds, and the situation on the surrounding road network has not changed since
this time. While the agent may cite that ancillary accommodation would have a lower associated
level of vehicular movements than the level associated with an ordinary dwelling, the most recent
appeal inspector stated at paragraph 9 "Whilst of itself this (level of vehicular movements) is quite
modest, the shortcomings of the junction are so serious that I am satisfied that any increase in
the traffic using it should be resisted". As a result in any form the proposal would result in an
increased level of vehicular movements and is contrary to Policy G5 in that it would result in the
intensification of use of the access roads/junction leading to the property to the detriment of
highway safety.
Refusal is recommended.
SITES INSPECTION PANEL
The Panel inspected the site and considered the details of both this application and application
S.04/0936/FUL for the retention of the building already constructed. The Panel were informed of
the planning history of the site and the respective positions of the accommodation proposed,
granted consent in the past and the building already constructed without planning permission.
They were informed of previous appeal decisions for the site and that there are outstanding
appeals to be heard in August. The Panel noted the position of the access to the site, its
alignment and the visibility afforded when leaving the site.
The Parish Council representative stated the Parish were not in favour of the proposals due to
the access and once built it would be a saleable property and occupiers would be in a position to
use the access. The house itself doesn't cause concern as it does not interfere with anyone
else's amenity.
The Ward Councillor, Councillor Sinfield, sent his apologises and was not able to attend.
After discussion the Panel were of the opinion the access serving the site was not suitable to
cater for the proposals and were not in favour of either of the developments.
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.
31