Dcc 14 may 13

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
14 May 2013
6.00 pm – 9.25 pm
Council Chamber, Ebley Mill, Stroud

Membership:


** = Chair
* = Vice-Chair

Other Members in attendance


Officers In attendance

The Chair informed all present that Public speaking at the meeting would take the following order:- Ward Member – No time restriction Parish Member – 3 Minutes Opposition – 3 Minutes Supporter – 3 Minutes Where items were taken together the public speaking would be extended. APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Councillors Haydn Jones and Andy Read. An apology for
lateness was also given for Councillor Stephen Moore.

DC.125
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Personal and Prejudicial Interests
Councillors
Application No/
Nature of Interest Action
Agenda Item
(where disclosed)
disclosure

Schedule Item 2
Personal and non Vacated the Chair
Stephens
Prejudicial Interest
contributors to the and voting.
application.
David Drew
Schedule Item 2
Personal and non Remained
Prejudicial Interest
Schedule Item 5
Personal and non Remained
Prejudicial Interest
Knew residents in part in the discussion the Dorcas Binns Schedule Item 5
Personal and non Remained
Prejudicial Interest
Councillor knew the part in the discussion applicant. Schedule Item 2
Personal and non Remained
Littleton
Prejudicial Interest
Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992

There were none.
DC.126
RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held
on 23 April 2013 are accepted as a correct record.
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS
Representations were received and taken into account by the Committee in respect of the following applications: - ITEM 1 – APPLICATION FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION AT
WINDSOR COTTAGE, WINDSOREDGE LANE, NAILSWORTH, STROUD –
(S.12/2533/OUT)

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application for outline planning permission at
Windsor Cottage, Windsoredge Lane, Nailsworth, Stroud. The application had been
deferred at a previous meeting to allow negotiations between Officers and the Applicant in
relation to layout.
The Senior Planning Officer drew Member’s attention to the Late Pages (attached). Many
of the objections were highway safety, parking, overlooking and loss of privacy. In addition
to the Late Pages update, the Senior Planner also informed the Committee of changes in
the recommended wording of Conditions 10 and 11, as set out in Appendix a to these
Minutes.
As the application had been heard at the meeting held on 9 April 2013 only the Ward
Member was invited to address the Committee.
The Ward Member was invited by the Chair to address the Committee. Councillor Paul
Carter reiterated comments made previously and stated that the layout submitted would
only make the issue of overlooking worse for the neighbouring properties. The proposed
parking had caused concern for both residents and the Ward Member.
During questions it was confirmed that the height of the proposed dwelling would be
controlled by Condition 11 ensuring that the dwelling would be no higher than a one and
half storey building. The Senior Planning Officer responded to Members’ queries regarding
distance with a diagram showing the proximity of the surrounding dwellings.
Officers explained that the siting of the proposed dwelling was no longer a reserved matter
and would be as shown on the revised drawing.
A Motion to ACCEPT the Officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor John
Marjoram and seconded by Councillor Graham Littleton, with the amendments to the
Conditions.
It was suggested that the applicant could erect the dwelling by setting it into the earth, as
this would reduce the height. Some Members thought the proposed application was
overdevelopment, would result in unsuitable highway conditions and would cause a loss of
amenity, privacy and light.
On being put to the vote, there were 4 votes for the Motion, 3 votes against, and 1
abstention; it was declared, CARRIED.
Accordingly, the Committee

RESOLVED To PERMIT application S.12/2533/OUT subject to the conditions stated in
the report and the amendments in Appendix a to these Minutes.

At this juncture the Chair vacated the Chair.

DC.129
ITEM 2 – APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION ON LAND
OFF SWALLOWCROFT, EASTINGTON (S.13/0399/FUL)

The Planning Officer presented the application for full planning permission on land at
Swallowcroft, Eastington, Stonehouse. The application sought permission for the erection
of 30 dwellings. The Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the Late Pages, in which
further objections to the application had been raised. Members were also informed that the
proposal would provide 30% affordable housing and a contribution for off-site recreation,
library and education.
The Vice-Chair invited the Ward Member to address the Committee. Councillor Ken
Stephens raised residents concerns regarding the proposed development a number of
objections related to the massing, density, scale and the intrusion into the open
countryside.
The Parish Council were invited to address the Committee. Their representative Ian
Stewart informed the Committee that whilst the Parish Council were not opposed to
development within the village, any scheme would need to be compatible. The proposed
development was thought to be wholly inappropriate, out of character and would overlook
existing properties. The Parish Council urged Members of the Committee to refuse the
application.
The Chair invited anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application. Mr Tom Lowe
strongly objected to the proposed development, stating that town houses would not be in
keeping with the surrounding dwellings. Mr Lowe also thought that the Developer had
ignored the Parish Plan in which the top priority was retirement and affordable housing.
The Chair invited a supporter of the application to address the Committee; there were
none.
A Motion to ACCEPT the Officer’s recommendation was proposed by Councillor Ken
Stephens with the following additional reason for refusal: .
“The application site is prominent from adjacent well used public footpaths where there are
extensive landscape views, which include the Cotswold escarpment. The proposed houses
on rising land would encroach into the countryside creating an abrupt hard edge to the
village. The massing, density and height of the proposal would exacerbate the harmful
presence of houses. The proposal would fundamentally spoil the setting of the village in
the landscape, including distant village views. The proposal is therefore contrary to Stroud
District Local Plan Policy HN10 and paragraphs 17 and 59 of the NPPF.”

The Motion was seconded by Councillor David Drew.
Members agreed that the existing Swallowcroft estate was of a sensitive design with the
majority of the dwellings being of one storey. Members were also concerned that the
proposed development would be visible from the main road.
On being put to the vote the Motion was CARRIED unanimously.

Accordingly, the Committee
RESOLVED To REFUSE application S.13/0399/FUL for the reasons stated in the
report and the additional reason set out in Appendix a to these Minutes.
ITEM 3 – APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS
ON LAND PARCEL 10A AND 10B, FORMER GATE SITE, UPTON ST
LEONARDS (S.12/2595/REM)

The D.C Team Manager presented the application for approval of reserved matters on land
at Parcel 10A and 10B, Former Gate Site, Upton St Leonards. The application sought
permission for the erection of 40 dwellings. The overall application was for the erection of
50 dwellings, 10 of which were located in Tewkesbury Borough Council.
The D.C Team Manager informed the Committee of the planning history surrounding this
site. 26 units of the proposed application would affordable units. The dwellings near the
centre of the village open space would be of a larger ‘Georgian’ style with smaller
fragmented properties towards the rural edge. The slow implementation of the Section 106
Agreement had been largely due to the slow economic situation and trigger points not being
reached.
The Chair invited Ward Member to address the Committee; there were none.
The Chair invited the Parish Council to address the Committee; there were none.
The Chair invited anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application; there were
none.
The Chair invited a supporter of the application to address the Committee; there were
none.
The Members sought clarification on energy efficiency measures. The D.C Team Manager
reminded Members that the outline application (in principle) had been permitted in 2005 and
as such could not be conditioned at this late stage.
Members were concerned about the parking arrangements outside of the Georgian
properties; it was pointed out on the plans that recess bays would be installed.
It was confirmed that an additional condition would be added to require that the proposed
development would be carried out in accordance with the approved plans; this would include
the ridge heights of the properties.
A Motion to ACCEPT the Officer’s recommendation was proposed by Graham Littleton with
the additional condition and seconded by Councillor John Marjoram.
On being put to the vote the Motion was CARRIED unanimously.
Accordingly, the Committee
RESOLVED To PERMIT application S.12/2595/REM subject to the conditions stated in
the report and in Appendix a to these Minutes.
ITEM 4 – APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION ON LAND
AT PROSPECT VILLAS, COPPICE HILL, CHALFORD HILL, STROUD
(S.13/0389/FUL)

The D.C Team Manager presented the application for full planning permission on land at
Prospect Villas, Coppice Hill, Chalford Hill, Stroud. The application sought permission for
the erection of a dwelling within the domestic curtilage of an existing property. The
application also sought permission for the demolition of an existing garage.
The Chair invited the first Ward Member to address the Committee; Councillor Liz Peters
spoke in opposition to the application. Councillor Peters voiced concerns about the
removal of what was thought to be parking for neighbouring cars. The Committee was
informed that Coppice Hill could not cope with further traffic movements and the proposed
dwelling would be overdevelopment in the Conservation Area.
The Chair invited the second Ward Member to address the Committee; Councillor Debbie
Young spoke in support of the application. Councillor Young had seen the site and thought
that the demolition of the existing garage would improve the current parking situation and
road safety.
The Chair invited the Parish Council to address the Committee; there were none.

The Chair invited anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application; Liz Parsons
raised concerns regarding the parking on Coppice Hill and height of the proposed dwelling.
Mrs Parsons felt that there were other plots more suited to development. Mr Roger
Gransmore also spoke in opposition to the application. Mr Gransmore was very concerned
that if the proposed dwelling was permitted the site would be cramped and overdeveloped.
Mr Gransmore informed the Committee that a 7 metre wall would be the only outlook from
one of his windows, which enabled light into his living room.
The Chair invited anyone wishing to speak in support of the application to address the
Committee; Mrs Mikala Reid Ritzau informed the Committee that the family had resided in
the 4 storey home for almost 40 years and it was not suitable for retirement. The Applicant
stated that she had consulted the neighbours and had attended pre-application meetings.
The applicant told the Committee the proposed new parking arrangements would be safer
and that the proposed dwelling was of a modest design.
Members sought clarification regarding the ownership of the application site and the effect
of the proposal on neighbouring dwellings.
Due to uncertainty about the levels and the nature of the neighbouring boundary , there
was a call for deferment.
A Motion to DEFER the application was proposed by Councillor Dorcas Binns and
seconded by Councillor Nick Hurst. It was agreed that application would also be subject of
a further Sites Inspection Panel visit.
On being put to the vote the Motion was CARRIED unanimously.
Accordingly, the Committee
RESOLVED To DEFER application S.13/0389/FUL to seek further information and a
Sites Inspection Panel.
ITEM 5 – APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION AT THE
COTTAGE, FAR OAKRIDGE, STROUD (S.13/0360/FUL)

The D.C Team Manager presented the application for full planning permission at The
Cottage, Far Oakridge, Stroud. The application sought permission for the demolition of an
existing two-storey house with a replacement two-storey house.
The Chair invited the Ward Member to address the Committee; Councillor Daniel Le
Fleming spoke in opposition to the proposed development. The Ward Member stated that
the proposed application was in contrary to Local Plan Polices HN14, HN16, BE1 and HN8,
these polices relate to size, detracting from the surroundings, design and materials
respectively.
The Chair invited the Parish Council to address the Committee; there were none.
The Chair invited anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the application to address the
Committee. Mr Ellisinformed Members that all the residents of Far Oakridge opposed the
proposed development. The style was thought to be alien to the area and not in keeping.
The application would be contrary to Local Plan Policy HN14 as the replacement dwelling
would be 35% larger than the existing property.
The Chair invited anyone wishing to speak in support of the application; Mr Tom Miller
informed the Committee that various options had been considered prior to the current
application. The proposed dwelling would meet environmental credentials and help with
the massing on the road side.
Overlaid plans were shown to Members which outlined the comparative footprints and
siting of the proposed development.
A Motion to REFUSE the application was proposed by Councillor John Marjoram, and
seconded by Councillor Graham Littleton. The proposal was contrary to Local Plan
Policies HN14, NE8 and NPPF Paras 115, 17 and 58. The proposed development would
be too assertive and hostile to the character of the area, was too large in relation to the
original dwelling, the length of the proposed dwelling was inappropriate and it would not
enhance the AONB or the social well-being of the community respectively.
During debate some Members thought that the design of the proposed development was
inappropriate and looked too ‘agricultural’ for the setting.
On being put to the vote, there were 5 votes for the Motion, 2 votes against, and 2
abstentions; it was declared, CARRIED.
Accordingly, the Committee
RESOLVED To REFUSE application S.13/0360/FUL for the reasons stated in these
Minutes and in Appendix a.
ITEM 6 – APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION AT THE
RECTORY, STROUD ROAD, EDGE, STROUD (S.13/0065/FUL)

The D.C Team Manager presented the application for full planning permission at The
Rectory, Stroud Road, Edge, Stroud. The application sought permission for a change of
use to a care home, which included the conversion of the Coach House to provide living
accommodation.

The application had been subject to a Sites Inspection Panel visit where Members had
been able to look at the relationship between the site and the neighbouring property.
The Chair invited the Ward Member to address the Committee; there were none.
The Chair invited the Parish Council to address the Committee; Councillor Rob Lewis
spoke in opposition to the application. Whilst the Parish Council and the residents of Edge
did not wish to discriminate against the residents of the site, numerous noise disturbance
complaints had been made. Many of the complaints related to violent distressing sounds
emanating from the care home. The Parish Council were concerned about the safety of
residents as a main road passed in close proximity to the care home. The Parish Council
requested that a condition be added to the proposal relating to fixed, obscured glazing at
the rear of the property and reducing the number of residents to 6.
The Chair invited anyone wishing to speak in opposition of the application to address the
Committee; there were none.
The Chair invited anyone wishing to speak in support of the application to address the
Committee; there were none.
The D.C Team Manager informed the Committee that multiple occupancy of up to 6
residents did not require planning permission. The proposed conversion of the Coach
House would allow the care home to provide living accommodation for 8 residents and
would therefore change the classification to a C2 use. The Committee were also informed
that no formal noise disturbance complaints had been recorded through Environmental
Health.
The Head of Planning confirmed that an additional condition requiring fixed glazing to the
rear could be added should Members permit the application. This would assist with noise
both to and from the Coach House. Plans were displayed to Members showing that
windows would be located in the gable ends and to the front of the property, which could
be opened. The rear windows could be fixed shut for lighting purposes only.
A Motion to PERMIT the application with the additional condition regarding the windows
was proposed by Councillor Graham Littleton and seconded by Councillor Dorcas Binns.
On being put to the vote, there were 6 votes for the Motion, 0 votes against, and 3
abstentions; it was declared, CARRIED.
Accordingly, the Committee
RESOLVED To PERMIT application S.13/0065/FUL subject to the conditions stated in
the report and in Appendix a to these Minutes.
ITEM 7 – APPLICATION FOR FULL PLANNING PERMISSION AT 4 JOHN
STREET, STROUD (S.13/0643/FUL)

The D.C Team Manager presented the application for full planning permission at 4 John
Street, Stroud. The application sought permission for the refurbishment of the building
facing John Street with the installation new windows, doors and awning. The application
also sought permission for the resurfacing of the external courtyards, cladding of facades
and an insulated render system.
The Chair invited the Ward Member to address the Committee; Councillor John Marjoram
read a statement prepared by Councillor Andy Read. The Committee heard that the
building had been derelict prior the occupation of The Stroud Art Space. The Stroud Arts
Space had brought economic and social benefits to the town and also raised national
attention. The Ward Member stated that the application adhered to NPPF Para 65 in that
local planning authorities should not refuse planning permission for sustainable buildings
(or infrastructure) due to concerns relating to incompatibility with an existing townscape if
those concerns have been mitigated by good design.

The Chair invited the Town Council to address the Committee; there were none.
The Chair invited anyone wishing to speak in opposition of the application to address the
Committee; there were none.
The Chair invited anyone wishing to speak in support of the application to address the
Committee; Mr Jimmy McKinney informed the Committee that for every pound the Arts
Council provided, studies showed that £5 went into the local economy. The Stroud Arts
Space and the Architect had carefully considered whether the external rendering of the
building would cause any harm to the Conservation Area or to the Listed Baptist Church.
The insulation proposed would make the building 7 times more fuel efficient.
Photos of the building were shown to the Committee, in which they were able to see the
brickwork. The Head of Planning informed the Committee that under Permitted
Development rights the building could be painted without the need for planning permission.
A Motion to PERMIT the application was proposed by Councillor Dorcas Binns and
seconded by John Marjoram on grounds that the proposed development would not be
harmful to the Conservation Area or to the Listed Building.
Councillor John Marjoram as Ward Member spoke in support of the application and
provided Members of the Committee with figures relating to energy efficiency and cost
saving with the implementation of the insulating render scheme.
On being put to the vote the Motion was CARRIED unanimously.
Accordingly, the Committee
RESOLVED To PERMIT application S.13/0643/FUL subject to the condition in
Appendix a to these Minutes.



The Meeting closed at 9.25pm.
LATE PAGES FOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – Appendix A
14.05.2013
All additional letters and reports received are available to view on the Council’s website, available at http://www.stroud.gov.uk/PLO/Default.aspx ITEM No: 1
Application: S.12/2533/OUT
Windsor Cottage, Windsoredge Lane, Nailsworth
Additional letters of revised public objection:
Mr A J Giles, address unknown.
• Development closer to boundary and set at higher elevation • Precedence for further infill development Mr M and Mrs Y Hodges, Blenheim, Windsoredge Lane. • Highway safety issue with parking on Windsoredge Lane • Six out of the seven adjacent properties have strongly objected Carolyn and Allegra Etheridge, Script House, Burfords Ground, Nailsworth. • Lack of support from local residents • Reduction in natural light and privacy • Overlooking due to difference in land levels • Precedence for further infill development
Additional letter of public support:
S and J Pearce, Sunbury Holt, Theescombe, Amberley.
• Development applied for is much needed in the area
SUMMARY OF EXTRA EXTRA LATE PAGES FOR ITEM 1:

Additional letters of objection:
G & H Horscroft, The Sheiling, Windsoredge, Nailsworth
• Site remains completely unsuited to development. • Revised plans places the proposed development at the highest point on the applicant’s land. Base height will be higher. • Proposal will exacerbate the impact that it has on Kynance • Revised position will increase overlooking and have greater impact on other • Increased pressure on retaining structures – de-stabilise land • Maintain objection regarding parking and highway safety Mr & Mrs Whalley, Kynance, Windsoredge Lane • Concern remains with level of parking for existing property • Refers to photograph showing a vehicle parked outside the existing access • Reiterate that the development will have a negative impact on highway safety Mr MA Kitchen, 3 Church Row, Windoredge • Wishes to re-assert all previous objections • Issue raised with Conditions 10 and 11 • Re-iterates previous concerns with respect to the quality of the information submitted
Additional consultee comments
Gloucestershire County Highways
• Raise no objections to the revise plans. ITEM No: 2
Application: S.13/0399/FUL

Public letter of objection:
Jayne and Keith Lewis, 22 Swallowcroft, Eastington.
“We still wish to object to the new planning application for 30 houses. As per our previous
objection dated 18.3.13.”
ITEM No: 3
Application: S.12/2595/REM

Additional condition
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects in strict accordance
with the approved plans listed below, and in particular the ridge line of plots 16 to 23 shall
not exceed 9.6m at any point:
Site Location Plan received on 24/12/2012 Typical garage details received on 24-12-12 Proposed Elevations received on 02/04/2013 Bin and cycle store details received 24-12-12 Drainage and SUDS strategy received 24-12-12 To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of good planning and to comply with the Brockworth Urban Design
Code.
Additional condition
All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be
carried out in the first complete planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of
the buildings, or the completion of the development to which it relates, whichever is the
sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the
Head of Development Services gives written consent to any variation.
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. ITEM No: 5
Application: S.13/0360/FUL
Additional letter of public objection:
Jill Mainwaring, Gillyflower Cottage, Far Oakridge – details missing from Officer report.
Amendments to Item 1

Amended Condition 10:
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details and plans
showing the finished slab level of the dwelling hereby permitted, including cross sections
through the site, showing the relationship with adjoining land or highway and referenced to
a known datum outside of the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall then only be carried out
in accordance with those approved details.
In the interests of the amenities of the area and to accord with Policy HN8 and GE1 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2005.
Amended Condition 11:
Notwithstanding the submitted indicative details, the proposed dwelling shall have a
maximum ridge height of 7m taken from finished slab level.
In the interests of neighbour amenity and to comply with the merits of Policy GE1 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2005.

Amendments to Item 2
Additional reason for refusal:
The application site is prominent from adjacent well used public footpaths where there are
extensive landscape views, which include the Cotswold escarpment. The proposed houses
on rising land would encroach into the countryside creating an abrupt hard edge to the
village. The massing, density and height of the proposal would exacerbate the harmful
presence of houses. The proposal would fundamentally spoil the setting of the village in
the landscape, including distant village views. The proposal is therefore contrary to Stroud
District Local Plan Policy HN10 and paragraphs 17 and 59 of the NPPF.
Amendments to Item 3

Additional condition
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects in strict accordance
with the approved plans listed below, and in particular the ridge line of plots 16 to 23 shall
not exceed 9.6m at any point:
Site Location Plan received on 24/12/2012 Typical garage details received on 24-12-12 Proposed Elevations received on 02/04/2013 Bin and cycle store details received 24-12-12 Drainage and SUDS strategy received 24-12-12 To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of good planning and to comply with the Brockworth Urban Design
Code.
Additional condition
All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be
carried out in the first complete planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of
the buildings, or the completion of the development to which it relates, whichever is the
sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the
development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be
replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the
Head of Development Services gives written consent to any variation.
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
Amendments to Item 4 (S.13/0389/FUL).

Defer to seek more information on levels, site boundaries and for repeat SIP.
Amendments to Item 5 (S.13/0360/FUL).

Decision to refuse, contrary to officer recommendation.
Reason for refusal:
The village is characterised by its rural approaches and surroundings with houses
informally sited in large front gardens back from the road, around a small green. The
current building is set back from the road, offset at an angle and is low key. This proposal is
an overly assertive new long building, sited close to the road, which would create an
oppressive, harsh enclosure into an otherwise sedate rustic streetscene. The proposal
would harm the character of the village and its contribution to the Cotswolds AONB. It is
contrary to Stroud District Local Plan Policies HN14, NE8 and NPPF paragraphs 17, 58,
115.
Amendments to Item 6 (S.13/0065/FUL).
Additional condition
Prior to first occupation the rooflights on the rear roofslope of the coach house shall be
made non opening and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with Policy GE1 of Stroud
District Local Plan.
Amendments to Item 7 (S.13/0643/FUL).

New condition
Prior to the commencement of works, a sample panel of one square metre of the proposed
render shall be constructed on site and shall be approved in writing by the Head of
Development Services. The panel shall be constructed and protected from the weather at
least 14 days prior to inspection by the Local Planning Authority and the approved panel
shall be maintained in situ for the duration of the works. The works shall then be carried
out to match the approved panel.
To respect the character of building and its contribution to the Conservation Area.

New informative

For the purposes of Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development
Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, the following reasons for the Council's
decision are summarised below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals
contained within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:
{\b PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS - NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES}
In considering this application, the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF) have been considered as well as Policies GE1, BE5 and BE12 of the adopted
Stroud District Local Plan, November 2005 which is in conformity with the NPPF and can
still be given weight.
Policy GE1 prevents an unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes,
loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of privacy or an overbearing effect. Chapter 7 of the NPPF
stresses the importance of quality design.
Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the technical advice guide that accompanied PPS5 which is still remains in effect relates to conserving and enhancing the historic environment, it applies to listed buildings and their setting and to the character and appearance of conservation areas. It seeks to protect the significance of heritage assets and preserve or improve the setting that makes a positive contribution. Local Plan Policy BE5 is also relevant. Policy BE5 requires that the siting of development respects existing open spaces, pattern of building layout, trees and boundary treatment, and does not harm any positive contribution made to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The scale, design, proportions, detailing and materials used in the proposed development must be sympathetic to the characteristic form of area, the adjacent buildings and spaces. It should not cause loss of features of historic of characteristic value, and maintains important views in/out. Local Plan Policy BE12 protects the setting of listed buildings. The site lies behind the main John St facade. There is some render already in the area. The brickwork is not in good condition and very patchy with considerable areas of whitening which look unsightly. The proposal does not harm the character of the Conservation Area or setting of listed buildings.

Source: http://connect.strouddc.public-i.tv/document/DCC_14_May_13.pdf