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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Letter of objection Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 P & D Davis. 2 Rockfield Cottages, Lower Churchfield Road, Stroud. GL5 1EW C Mills. 70, Horns Road, Stroud, Glos. GL5 1EG Mr & Mrs R Fluck. 66 Horns Road, Stroud, Glos. GL5 1EG Mr O Cottle & S.Brooks. Marsh Villa, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos. GL5 1EQ S.& R.Kempner. 68, Horns Road, Stroud, Glos. GL5 1EG D.R.King. Hazeldene, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos. GL5 1EQ D.& P.Stevens. Fort View, 31, Bowbridge Lane, Stroud, Glos. GL5 2JP S.Allan. Gordan Villa, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos. GL5 1EQ S. Brooks, 2 Hope Cottages, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos Jill Walker, 3 Churchfield Cottages, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos, GL5 1EL. Marta Cock, 8 Churchfield Road, Stroud, GL5 1EQ. Mr & Mrs Hill, Minona, 7 Churchfield Road, Bowbridge, Stroud, Glos. S Cottle, 4 Rosebank Villas, Churchfield Road, Stroud, GL5 1EH J & M Norman, 1 Rockfield Cottages, Lower Churchfield Road, Stroud, GL5 1EW S Milner, Applewood, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos, GL5 1EQ. Mr & Mrs Jones, 1 Churchfield Cottages, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos. Mr & Mrs Habgood, Rosebank, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos, GL5 1EQ. Mr & Mrs Gleed, 56 Horns Road, Stroud, Glos, GL5 1ED. F Christie, 1 Hope Cottages, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos. M Panayotti, 2 Hope Cottages, Churchfield Road, Stroud. A Sparks, 4 Hope Cottages, Churchfield Road, Stroud, GL5 1EJ E & K Holbrow, Milford House, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos, GL5 1EQ. M Moore, 1 Rosebank Villa, Churchfield Road, Stroud, GL5 1EH D Boulton, Milford House, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos. C Baglin, 72 Horns Road, Stroud, GL5 1EG. P Screen, 74 Horns Road, Stroud, Glos, GL5 1EG. R Giles & M Webb, 4 Churchfield Cottages, Churchfield Road, Stroud, Glos. Lisa Lewis, 23 Bowbridge Lane, Stroud, Glos, GL5 2JP. Residents of Churchfield Road and Horns Road. Mr & Mrs Redstone. 66 Horns Road, Stroud, Glos Reasons • Garages currently exists on this site, replacement with new dwellings will result in a reduction of privacy and security to adjoining properties. • No site notice has ever been posted. • The loss of the garages which currently house six cars plus forecourt parking will inevitably lead to on-street parking increasing risks to children and inconvenience to highway users. • There are six windows which will overlook properties in Horns Road. • The houses will be built on land higher than No.2 and there will be no intervening screen to block the view. • The development will add to the density of what is already a crowded space. • This has further implications for the infrastructure of roads and essential services. • Churchfield Road is narrow, extra traffic will lead to congestion. • Severe doubts as to whether emergency services would be able to gain access to this area if required. • Construction traffic would obstruct access, cause nuisance and be a hazard to young children living in the immediate area. • The erection of four houses built in modern materials to a modern design is completely unsympathetic with the immediate surroundings. • The block of three dwellings are to butt up against a red brick terrace while other properties are constructed in Cotswold stone, the development would be an eyesore. 8
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004 • The address of the site is misleading as the land concerned originally belonged to properties in Horns Road. • Planning permission has been previously refused due to access onto a narrow lane in an already over developed area. Nothing has changed. • Residents require details as to what boundary walls and fences will be built. • Overload existing inadequate sewerage and water pipes. • If the proposals are accepted access to the garage at No.31 Bowbridge Lane would be denied due to changes in the line of the fence, current access is barely adequate. • The road surface is already deteriorating, the condition will only worsen. • Clarification as to who is responsible for any repairs is requested. • One writer considers Plots 1,2 & 3 acceptable, however Plot 4 is totally unacceptable situated immediately in front of existing houses and not even within the boundaries of the builders yard. • Alterations of design to Plots 1-3 will make the houses taller with more windows overlooking, causing loss of view. • Even if the developer takes down the fence to allow emergency vehicles through, where will the neighbouring people, who will lose their garages, park. • The water supply or drains for Churchfield Road aren’t big enough to accommodate more houses. • The closure of part of Churchfield Road would make this a cul-de-sac. This is already a single width road and to force traffic into using this would: cause a great increase in activity, force all traffic to exit the Spider Lane end of Churchfield, which is already dangerous. • The increased activity would cause additional noise and fumes. Particularly impacting on the 4 houses opposite the proposed turning area. • Churchfield road is already highly populated and the already narrow access would be increased further by additional houses. • Building these houses will do away with existing parking spaces, forcing people to park further away and on yellow lines. • Closing the road would double the amount of traffic along Churchfield Road, exacerbating traffic problems at the junction of Churchfield Road and Spider Lane. • It is on everyone’s deeds as a road and therefore the road should not be closed. • Three extra houses congest an already congested road further. • Site plan incorrect. • Loss of amenities. Nearby houses will be overlooked and privacy in gardens lost. • The houses that are to be erected are completely out of character to the area which is primarily made up of Victorian Houses, Cottages or Post War Constructions. The houses to be erected are very modern and will look completely out of character within the area. • The area is already densely populated with housing and building three more houses on such a small site is not going to alleviate this problem. • Loss of thoroughfare- it is totally unacceptable that the residents should have to suffer a loss of access and added inconvenience. • Overdevelopment- the increase of houses will worsen traffic problems. • The proposed turning circle will only be used as a parking bay therefore leaving no room to turn around. • The access for neighbouring properties will be adversely affected. • Access for delivery vans will be restricted. • Building on the site will cause the loss of a valuable facility- the garages. In a place where parking is already an issue, the increase in cars and the reduction of parking facilities will only serve to increase this problem. • On the land registry it states clearly that all rights of way will be available at all times. • The proposed turning area will cause an unacceptable level of noise and flashing headlights, which will shine into the rooms of the numbers 1-3 Churchfield Road. • Ice and snow in winter can make Spider Lane impassable and adverse camber makes vehicles slide into the wall. • Nothing has changed regarding the access since June 1989 when planning was refused. • The blocking off of the corner cannot be allowed and would be against the law of the land. 9
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: Materials: Roof Conc int tiles Wall
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 and 60:
Consultations/Representations: Pari
Page 61 and 62:
Planning Schedule Date: 10/08/2004
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
ITEM No: 12 Application Site Addres
Page 101 and 102:
Site Location: Site Report: Plannin
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Planning Considerations Planning Sc
Page 111 and 112:
Site No: Parish: Planning Schedule
Page 113 and 114:
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:
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:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
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?