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.
<strong>Planning</strong> <strong>Schedule</strong> <strong>Date</strong>: <strong>10</strong>/<strong>08</strong>/<strong>2004</strong><br />
This is resubmission of a retrospective for the retention of "auxillary accommodation", following<br />
the previous refusal by this <strong>Council</strong> under ref. S.03/C0479/FUL and a previous appeal refusal for<br />
very similar development on the site (ref S.02/2188).<br />
Relevant History<br />
Application S.97/267 for "Outline application for the erection of one dwelling" was refused on<br />
16/4/97 and subsequently dismissed at appeal on 3/2/1998 on highway reasons. The inspector<br />
commented at this time that no objection was raised to ancillary accommodation.<br />
Application S.98/286 for "Outline application for the erection of ancillary accommodation to<br />
Hawkswood" was approved on 7/4/1999 with both conditions and a Section <strong>10</strong>6 legal agreement<br />
restricting the use to ancillary to the main dwelling.<br />
Application 99/822 for "Erection of ancillary accommodation to Hawkswood" was substantially<br />
reduced in scale prior to the application being approved on 28/07/1999. This was subsequently<br />
detached from the main property by minor amendment.<br />
Application S.99/1882 for "Removal of Condition (4) of Permission S.98/286- Outline application<br />
for the erection of ancillary accommodation to Hawkswood. (Condition (4) states "The ancillary<br />
accommodation hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than as an extension<br />
to, and in connection with the residential use of the dwelling known as Hawkswood".)" was<br />
refused on 2/2/2000.<br />
Application S.02/1791 for "Application to remove Condition 4 of Permission S.98/286 (Ancillary<br />
accommodation to Hawkswood) to permit the ancillary house to be occupied as a separate<br />
dwelling" was withdrawn prior to decision. The agent was informed that the building which has<br />
been constructed on site is not in accordance with any approved development.<br />
Application S.02/2188 for "Retrospective application for the erection of ancillary accommodation<br />
to Hawkswood" was refused on 22/01/2003 and subsequently dismissed on appeal on 7/<strong>10</strong>/2003.<br />
Application S.03/C0479/FUL for "Retrospective application for use of building as auxiliary<br />
accommodation to Hawkswood" was refused.<br />
<strong>Planning</strong> Considerations<br />
While the application is for "auxillary" accommodation, externally it is the same external size as<br />
that previously dismissed at appeal. The scale of the building is not reduced and the very high<br />
eaves level that facilitates the large amount of first floor accommodation is retained. The internal<br />
works proposed would not constitute development and could not therefore be controlled by the<br />
planning system. Further given the applicants two previous applications to remove occupancy<br />
conditions, there appears to be little intention to use the building for ancillary purposes. The<br />
significant distance of the proposed building from the original dwelling means it cannot be<br />
considered as an annexe to the main property under Policy H24 of the <strong>Stroud</strong> <strong>District</strong> Local Plan,<br />
Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001) as it is not linked by internal door or doors to<br />
the main house.<br />
As such this application has to be re-considered against Policies H14, B4 and G5 of the <strong>Stroud</strong><br />
<strong>District</strong> Local Plan, Revised Deposit Version (as amended June 2001). These seek to ensure<br />
that new housing development is of a scale, layout and design compatible with the surrounding<br />
settlement, would not harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and would<br />
not have a detrimental effect on highway safety.<br />
While there is no objection to location of the proposal on Conservation Area grounds, the only<br />
access to the site is along a very poor quality road. Two appeal inspectors have upheld refusals<br />
on highway grounds, and the situation on the surrounding road network has not changed since<br />
this time.<br />
34