Yahoo News 'Overbearing' homes bid in rural Gloucestershire rejected
Plans to build seven homes in a Gloucestershire town have been rejected. Developers wanted permission from Forest of Dean District Council to build a new estate on land off Buckshaft Road in Ruspidge near Cinderford.
The proposals for the plot of land next to Forest Lodge included homes, parking, landscaping and works including the construction of two new access points. However, the plans which a revised scheme following a similar scheme refused on the site, were rejected by councillors on Tuesday (May 14).
Councillor Bernie O’Neill (Progressive Independents, Ruspidge), who represents the area, spoke against the scheme at the development management committee on behalf of objectors. He said it has been a very stressful time for nearby residents as the plans have been in the offing for two years.
“It would result in an oppressive environment, visually unacceptable, overbearing and obtrusive,” he said. “The proposal for seven dwellings with parking spaces on this site is excessive.”
He also raised concerns about access from Buckshaft Road with the increase in traffic in recent years. During the debate, Cllr Clayton WIlliams (C, Hartpury and Redmarley) proposed granting permission for the scheme.
He said the case officer had done an excellent job and addressed all the concerns raised. “At the end of the day we do need houses,” he said.
His proposal was seconded by Cllr Gill Moseley (LD, Newent and Taynton) but this was rejected by six votes to four with two abstentions. A subsequent proposal by Cllr Dave Tradgett (G, Longhope and Huntley) to reject the scheme was successful.
He raised concerns over the density of homes proposed for the site and its overbearing nature of the homes. Cllr John Francis (I, Longhope and Huntley) said there were concerns over the density of homes and the gradients on the site.
“It’s not an easy one for the planning committee to balance,” he said. “I don’t think I’m going to support it.”
Chairman Dave Wheeler (G, Newland and Sling) said where an application requires 25 conditions to make it acceptable. “It may be that the application isn’t acceptable,” he said.
“25 conditions is a lot of conditions to try and tie it up.” The committee voted to refuse planning permission by eight votes to three.
