“We have averted disaster today,” said a parish councillor as plans to build three homes in Uley were rejected.

At a Stroud District Council committee meeting on Tuesday night councillors rejected plans for two one-and-a-half storey homes and a bungalow off The Street in Uley.

This application was a renewal request from Mr and Mrs Drew, whose similar proposal – in what is currently their large garden – was approved by SDC officers in 2014.

However, when their application lapsed earlier this year, they sought re-approval.

Back in 2007 the couple were granted approval for one large dwelling – for which some of the initial footings have been built but no further construction on the site has occurred.

Councillors rejected the plans by a vote of six for and four against, noting that the application was too dense, the sighting close to a conservation site was very sensitive and the style was not in keeping.

“We have averted disaster today,” Uley parish councillor Juliet Browne told the Gazette following the development control committee meeting.

“Uley Parish Council contends that the proposal represents an over-development of the site.

“In his report SDC officer John Chaplin says ‘it is difficult to defend an over-development argument’.

“However, in the same paragraph he says ‘the scheme is tight’, we believe these two statements to be irreconcilable and that the development of a ‘tight scheme’ is wholly inappropriate on an open space within the Conservation Area.”

Cllr Jim Dewey, the SDC representative for Coaley and Uley (Green), said that the road near the site was the main walkway for children and parents heading to the village’s primary school, as well as a regular path for those visiting Uley.

The proposed scheme did not include an on-site turning circle, and residents would have to reverse into their drives.

As it stands there is no footpath on the section of The Street which the homes would front onto (shown below).

Gazette Series:

“This would present an added danger to the children heading to school, and I wish to reject this application to protect the historic environment and the open space,” he said.

“I don’t think the parish council is necessarily opposed to development but this is overdevelopment.

“To cram three homes into this area would be quite overbearing.”

His motion to reject the application was seconded by Cllr Dorcas Binns (Conservative, Minchinhampton), who agreed that the application would represent overdevelopment.

“I think it is possible that if this application had been called in to committee in 2014 then we might have rejected it,” she said.

“This is overdevelopment, if approved this would severely overdevelop the town.

“I think we should urge the applicant to get building the house that has been approved,” she said.

“I don’t necessarily think this is a speculative application but we have to get developers to start building their approved plans.”

Cllr Chris Brine (Labour, Stonehouse) urged for the plans to be approved.

“We have got to start building sensitive houses in sensitive areas, I do have sympathy for the town but we could three more houses here for three more families.

“That could benefit not just those families but also the local school.

“We say all the time that we want our families and children to be able to stay in our towns and villages but we won’t approve plans like this.”

Speaking on behalf of the neighbouring residents, Thoss Shearer said that there is already a competition for the limited parking space in the area, and reiterated the fear for children’s safety.

“The eight council homes on Lampern View immediately facing the site were built without garages or off-street parking, and six of them front either onto a footway or onto a section of the roadway, which is too narrow to park in,” he told the committee.

“The residents therefore compete for the limited parking space in front of neighbouring properties, in the evening there is often nowhere left to park.

“This is the only pedestrian route alongside The Street, it is well used by children on their way to and from school and by elderly people.

“This would affect all residents but particularly the elderly and infirm and families with young children.”