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
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
ITEM No: 07<br />
Application<br />
Site Address:<br />
Site No:<br />
Parish:<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
S.04/0936/FUL<br />
Land Adjacent Hawkswood, Frome Hall Lane, <strong>Stroud</strong>, Gloucestershire<br />
18053<br />
Rodborough Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Grid Reference: 384248,204852<br />
Application Type:<br />
Development:<br />
Applicant Details:<br />
Agent Details:<br />
Case Officer:<br />
<strong>Date</strong> Received:<br />
Full <strong>Planning</strong> Permission<br />
Retrospective application for use of building as auxiliary<br />
accommodation to Hawkswood (resubmission following refusal<br />
S.03/479/FUL).<br />
Mrs Woolls-Kreamer<br />
C/o P Hodges, Tetbury Upton, Tetbury, Glos, GL8 8LP<br />
Mr Philip Hodges<br />
Tetbury Upton, Tetbury, Gloucestershire, GL8 8LP<br />
Andrew Case<br />
05.05.<strong>2004</strong><br />
Recommendation Refusal<br />
Consultations/Representations:<br />
Parish / Town<br />
For the following reasons:<br />
1. The proposal is tantamount to the creation of a new dwellling and the<br />
road serving the site is substandard and unsuitable to cater for the<br />
increase in traffic which would result from the proposed development by<br />
reason of its restricted width, poor alignment, lack of footways, lack of<br />
passing bays and substandard junctions with Fromehall Lane and Bath<br />
Road, all to the detriment of highway safety and contrary to Policy G5 of<br />
the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended<br />
June 2001).<br />
Object: Development is not appropriate to the area.<br />
32