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 increased highway dangers, in accordance with Policy G5. Condition 9 on the Outline permission requires submission of details of drainage, these have not yet been submitted and there is no obvious reason why the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the environment, and it is an issue for the developer to agree with Statutory undertakers to ensure that the development has adequate sewage facilities, all in accordance with Policy G2 While at present there is sufficient play space provision in the local area to serve the population, it is relatively remote from the site and accessed by crossing the busy Cheltenham Road. As a result an area of Public Open Space (POS) has been provided near the entrance to the proposed site, to serve as a Local Area of Play (LAP). This along with an existing equipped play area (LEAP), that was provided on the previous development of ten properties, ensures that there is adequate provision to serve local residents in accordance with Policy R5. It would be unreasonable to require a larger area to be provided or additional contributions, however the applicant has advised that should Committee prefer to accept a commuted sum in lieu of the POS that they are happy to provide this. The footprint and height of the two bungalows proposed at the northern end of the site have been reduced, and the roof has been hipped. While the proposal will affect the outlook of the occupiers of 19 to 21 Windyridge, given that a two metre high fenceline can be erected under permitted development the height, massing and proximity of these dwellings would not have such a detrimental dominating effect as to warrant refusal. Further it will not affect privacy or result in a loss of light. There is a public footpath leading to the allotments that passes along the western side of this part of the site and the character and appearance from this elevation has a broken appearance that is compatible with the surrounding area. The access to these units is partly over the existing parking area serving the neighbouring bungalow and the scheme involves two tandem parking spaces to serve each of the existing and proposed bungalows. This is in accordance with Policies H14, T1 and G1 The main development: Policy H14 requires as high a density as possible to be provided, subject to townscape and amenity. While the overall density is higher than the surrounding estate and with some properties fronting directly onto the road from the main public thoroughfares the varying and broken building frontages is compatible with and will not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Concern was specifically raised by objectors to the "Leicester" type properties. The long vista down the development is now finished by standard two storey properties and in the revised positions they will be viewed at closer range and in conjunction with other buildings such that they will not be overly obtrusive. The proposal contains a good range and mix of house types and an appropriate area of private amenity space is provided to serve each dwelling. Again the application is for the approval of reserved matters and the loss of the openness of the area has already been agreed at the Outline stage. There are no natural or built features worthy of retention. The proposal is in accordance with Policy H14. The roof line when viewed up from the Conservation Area has been revised, removing the two and a half storey elements and it will now be viewed as varying two storey properties and will preserve views out of the Conservation Area in accordance with Policy B4. The scheme has been revised to ensure the 25 metre back-to-back separation distances required in the Council's Residential Design Guide have been met. In some places this has resulted in the properties being pushed nearer to the estate road but on balance ensuring privacy was more important than a large defensible space in front of the property. Also the dormer windows on the rear elevation of the "Leicester" properties have been replaced with roof lights, which should serve to reduce further any perceived overlooking. The proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy G1. 44
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 On the issue of affordable housing: 26 units in total are proposed, 30% of which is 7.8 units. The development includes 8 affordable units of various sizes and designs, a legal agreement will be required to ensure that this provision is retained in the longer term. The proposal is in accordance with Policies H8 and H9. It is recommended to Resolve not to Refuse the application subject to a legal agreement to retain the affordable housing and provide a maintenance contribution for the public open space. Sites Inspection Panel The Panel walked along the existing housing frontages noting their design, aspect and siting. The existing equipped play area close to the application site was evident. The public footpath running south west from the application site was also highlighted. The Panel proceeded by walking onto both elements of the application site. The Parish Council representative reiterated their objection. The scheme was felt to be too dense, and 22 houses would be more appropriate for this context. It was suggested that a through footpath should be created to avoid a cul-de-sac giving better community cohesion and security. Concern was also expressed about the likely volume of traffic. The ward Member, Cllr. Le Fleming sympathised with the Parish Council comments on density especially in relation to plots 9-15, which appear to have been squashed in. He was also concerned about the recreation space, and felt that there should be better provision for youth recreation in accordance with policy R5. The Parish Councillor confirmed that the village playing field is 400-500 yards away. The County Highways Officer could not attend, but is not objecting to the application. One Member of the Panel questioned whether the design was highway led and the resulting implications for pedestrians as well as the streetscene. Another Member felt that the number of houses could lead to excessive traffic and questioned the play facilities. The majority of the Panel were generally favourable towards the 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. ITEM No: 09 Application Site Address: Site No: Parish: S.04/0722/VAR Grid Reference: 387272,200546 Application Type: Waldeck, Chapel Lane, Minchinhampton, Stroud 21045 Minchinhampton Parish Council Variation of Condition 45
- Page 1 and 2: Stroud District Council SCHEDULE OF
- Page 3 and 4: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 5 and 6: ITEM No: 01 Application: S.01/436 P
- Page 7 and 8: Materials: Roof Conc int tiles Wall
- Page 9 and 10: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 11 and 12: Relevant Planning History Planning
- Page 13 and 14: ITEM No: 02 Application: S.03/1451
- Page 15 and 16: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 17 and 18: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 19 and 20: POLICY B9 Planning Schedule Date: 1
- Page 21 and 22: Consultations/Representations: Pari
- Page 23 and 24: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 25 and 26: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 27 and 28: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 29 and 30: Consultations/Representations: Pari
- Page 31 and 32: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 33 and 34: Neighbour Contributions Site Locati
- Page 35 and 36: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 37 and 38: Consultations/Representations: Pari
- Page 39 and 40: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 41 and 42: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
- Page 43: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 47 and 48: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 49 and 50: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 51 and 52: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 53 and 54: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 55 and 56: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 57 and 58: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 59 and 60: Consultations/Representations: Pari
- Page 61 and 62: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 63 and 64: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 65 and 66: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 67 and 68: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 69 and 70: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 71 and 72: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 73 and 74: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 75 and 76: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 77 and 78: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 79 and 80: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 81 and 82: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 83 and 84: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 85 and 86: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 87 and 88: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 89 and 90: Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
- Page 91 and 92: Consultations/Representations: Pari
- Page 93 and 94: 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 />
increased highway dangers, in accordance with Policy G5. Condition 9 on the Outline<br />
permission requires submission of details of drainage, these have not yet been submitted and<br />
there is no obvious reason why the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the environment,<br />
and it is an issue for the developer to agree with Statutory undertakers to ensure that the<br />
development has adequate sewage facilities, all in accordance with Policy G2<br />
While at present there is sufficient play space provision in the local area to serve the population,<br />
it is relatively remote from the site and accessed by crossing the busy Cheltenham Road. As a<br />
result an area of Public Open Space (POS) has been provided near the entrance to the proposed<br />
site, to serve as a Local Area of Play (LAP). This along with an existing equipped play area<br />
(LEAP), that was provided on the previous development of ten properties, ensures that there is<br />
adequate provision to serve local residents in accordance with Policy R5. It would be<br />
unreasonable to require a larger area to be provided or additional contributions, however the<br />
applicant has advised that should Committee prefer to accept a commuted sum in lieu of the<br />
POS that they are happy to provide this.<br />
The footprint and height of the two bungalows proposed at the northern end of the site have been<br />
reduced, and the roof has been hipped. While the proposal will affect the outlook of the<br />
occupiers of 19 to 21 Windyridge, given that a two metre high fenceline can be erected under<br />
permitted development the height, massing and proximity of these dwellings would not have such<br />
a detrimental dominating effect as to warrant refusal. Further it will not affect privacy or result in<br />
a loss of light. There is a public footpath leading to the allotments that passes along the western<br />
side of this part of the site and the character and appearance from this elevation has a broken<br />
appearance that is compatible with the surrounding area. The access to these units is partly over<br />
the existing parking area serving the neighbouring bungalow and the scheme involves two<br />
tandem parking spaces to serve each of the existing and proposed bungalows. This is in<br />
accordance with Policies H14, T1 and G1<br />
The main development:<br />
Policy H14 requires as high a density as possible to be provided, subject to townscape and<br />
amenity. While the overall density is higher than the surrounding estate and with some<br />
properties fronting directly onto the road from the main public thoroughfares the varying and<br />
broken building frontages is compatible with and will not cause harm to the character and<br />
appearance of the area. Concern was specifically raised by objectors to the "Leicester" type<br />
properties. The long vista down the development is now finished by standard two storey<br />
properties and in the revised positions they will be viewed at closer range and in conjunction with<br />
other buildings such that they will not be overly obtrusive. The proposal contains a good range<br />
and mix of house types and an appropriate area of private amenity space is provided to serve<br />
each dwelling. Again the application is for the approval of reserved matters and the loss of the<br />
openness of the area has already been agreed at the Outline stage. There are no natural or built<br />
features worthy of retention. The proposal is in accordance with Policy H14. The roof line when<br />
viewed up from the Conservation Area has been revised, removing the two and a half storey<br />
elements and it will now be viewed as varying two storey properties and will preserve views out of<br />
the Conservation Area in accordance with Policy B4.<br />
The scheme has been revised to ensure the 25 metre back-to-back separation distances<br />
required in the <strong>Council</strong>'s Residential Design Guide have been met. In some places this has<br />
resulted in the properties being pushed nearer to the estate road but on balance ensuring privacy<br />
was more important than a large defensible space in front of the property. Also the dormer<br />
windows on the rear elevation of the "Leicester" properties have been replaced with roof lights,<br />
which should serve to reduce further any perceived overlooking. The proposal would not have a<br />
detrimental effect on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in accordance with<br />
Policy G1.<br />
44
Change language