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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 The Police Authority have been consulted and they are concerned regarding the size of the roundabout proposed at the entrance to the stadium but defer matters relating to highway safety to the Highway Authority. They wish to see the development accord with the principles of 'secured by design' and have some concern regarding the location of parking spaces 97 - 110 as they will not be open to natural surveillance. Any landscaping proposals may reduce the amount of natural surveillance available to the site. They wish to see the area with lighting and would wish to comment further on the accessing arrangements for persons entering and leaving the stadium. They have been in consultation with the club. Fencing is indicated on the boundaries and this will prevent indiscriminate parking. They query areas where arrested people on match days can be detained and query the final specification for alarms on the building and the nature of any bars, gym and offices. In respect of the proposal to extend the ground at King George V site it is recommended some traffic calming be introduced to the roads serving the site. Severn Trent Severn Trent Water raises no objections subject to conditions relating to drainage works being undertaken to reduce the risk of flooding. Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust The Trust is in receipt of both the original application and the subsequent additional information. They confirm that a sufficient ecological assessment has been carried out for the site and that the relevant areas of concern have been identified. They are also of the view that the proposed mitigation measures for wildlife are appropriate and will ensure that the proposed development does not result in any significant adverse effects on species. Garden History Society The Garden History Society which comments on proposals which may affect a registered Park or Garden (Woodchester Park in this instance) has no comments to make. English Nature English Nature confirm the site is within 0.5km of Woodchester Park SSSI which is important for its populations of Bats. The Environmental Statement recognises this importance and has suggested valid mitigation measures to ensure the foraging routes of the Bats are not significantly affected in the wider area around Woodchester Park. English Heritage English Heritage considers this to be a case which can be determined by the District Council in accordance with Government Guidance, Development Plan policies and Conservation advice locally. They do not wish to make any representations. Countryside Agency The Countryside Agency has decided not to make any formal representations on this application. County Surveyor (Rich Gray) 60
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 The Highway Authority raise no objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of conditions relating to highway improvements and safety measures which are attached to the recommendation. Neighbour Contributions Letters of Objection Mr, Mrs & A Elliott, 1 The Green, Nympsfield Road P Hayward, Bramble Cottage, Nympsfield Road Mr G Gosbell, The Old Nick, Park Road J B & L M Williams, Cartref, Nympsfield Road I Wallace, Clemlia, Nympsfield Road Patrick J Mulligan, North Farm, Nympsfield Road M J Harvey, The Longhouse, Southfields Miss Sharland & Mr Novoth, 6 Carters Way, Nailsworth Mr & Mrs Stockwell, 27 Carters Way, Nailsworth Mrs V Heaven, The Cottage, Nympsfield Road Mr N Porter, 25 Bunting Way, Nailsworth M Karlsen, The Wedge, Market Street Mr & Mrs Green, 1 Walkley Wood Cottages, Walkley Wood Mr & Mrs Lannon, 46 Carters Way, Nailsworth Mrs M Daley, 13 Benton Court, Nympsfield S Gaulding, 18 Bunting Way, Nailsworth Mr P Villars, GMA Planning, Queens House • Loss of view • Access would be through a residential area with limited parking. • Is limited/no parking for the existing football pitch so additional pitch would make the existing problem worse. • Relocation from Forest Green would be a step backwards as there are least good access facilities for traffic to the existing pitch. • Additional traffic could prove hazardous to children. • Noise and air pollution. • A footpath opened at the far side of the ground to serve the Barnfield area would help spread the volume of people leaving. • Concern over the lighting in the car park 7 days a week. • Concern over the use of the car park for a park and ride scheme. • Loss of jobs • Highways - Wood Lane is single track, additional movement or parking would cause chaos for residents. • Loss of valuable facility - unfair to remove facility from outside their door to more than a mile away. • Design/scale of the proposed stadium. • Detrimental to the character of the area. • Replacement playing field on the other side on the A46 is illogical. • Implications for emergency services. • Light pollution. • Opening hours - 7am to midnight • Anti social behaviour. • House prices devalued. 61
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 19 and 20: POLICY B9 Planning Schedule Date: 1
Page 21 and 22: Consultations/Representations: Pari
Page 33 and 34: Neighbour Contributions Site Locati
Page 41 and 42: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
Page 59: Consultations/Representations: Pari
Page 99 and 100: ITEM No: 12 Application Site Addres
Page 101 and 102: Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
Page 109 and 110: Planning Considerations Planning Sc
Page 111 and 112:
Site No: Parish: Planning Schedule
Page 113 and 114:
Consultations/Representations: Pari
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Applicant Details: Agent Details: C
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Site Report: The site and the propo
Page 131 and 132:
Agent Details: Case Officer: Date R
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Consultations/Representations: Neig
Page 137 and 138:
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Planning Sc
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
Page 147 and 148:
Case Officer: Date Received: Planni
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Applicant Details: Agent Details: C
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Case Officer: Date Received: Planni
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Site No: Parish: Recommendation Pla
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Recommendation Permission Planning
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Neighbour Contributions Site Locati
Page 181 and 182:
Application Type: Development: Appl
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Site No: Parish: Applicant Details:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
ITEM No: 34 Application Site Addres
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
ITEM No: 36 Application Site Addres
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Application Type: Development: Appl
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Date Received: Planning Schedule Da
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?