Replacement outbuilding at 18 Bisley Old Road, Stroud

What was proposed

The application proposed an outbuilding with a pitched roof, positioned below the existing dwelling, replacing existing dilapidated outbuildings.

“The Planning Agent, Carl Challinor, spoke in support of the application and asked Members to consider the following points: • The proposal was to replace existing dilapidated outbuildings with a single replacement that sat significantly lower than the existing dwelling. • There were no technical objections to the proposal in ecology, heritage, or highways. There was no unacceptable visual impact or loss of privacy.”

“The Planning Officer introduced the Officer’s report and highlighted the following points: • The proposal was for an outbuilding with a pitched roof sitting below the existing dwelling. The recommendation for refusal was based on the design and the height. • The development would fail to appear as a subordinate and incidental structure to the host dwelling.”

Minutes

Site and planning history

The building had no previous planning history, and the applicant continued with the original design after a flat-roof scheme was considered acceptable under permitted development.

“Councillor Green requested information on the heights of neighbouring outbuildings as referenced at the sites panel visit. The Planning Officer explained that the building did not have any previous planning history and so was unable to provide the height. There was no obligation to inform the LPA of PD, and if the development was believed to be over 2.5 metres this would have to be reported and considered by Planning Enforcement.”

Minutes

Technical matters

The agent said there were no technical objections on ecology, heritage or highways, and a biodiversity survey found no protected species.

“In response to questions from Members, the Planning Officer confirmed the following: • Permissible heights under PD were variable. Within 2 metres of a boundary edge the acceptable height was 2.5 metres, however this could be up to 4 metres if further from the boundary. • Cubic metres of a PD were not relevant to outbuildings. • A biodiversity survey had been undertaken, and no protected species had been found.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The planning agent spoke in support, while the planning officer introduced the application and explained the recommendation.

The committee vote

Councillor Mathews proposed refusal, Councillor Kambites seconded it, and the motion passed with seven votes in favour and one against.

“The Vice Chair in Chair returned to Councillor Mathews for his earlier proposal of Officer recommendation to refuse the application.”

“On being put to a vote, the motion was passed with 7 votes in favour and 1 against.”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was refused in accordance with the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED That planning permission be refused as per the Officer recommendation.”

Minutes