To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andy Boddington, Richard Huffer, Cecilia Motley (Substitute: Gwilym Butler) and William Parr.

To confirm the minutes of the South Planning Committee meeting held on 1 March 2016.

Contact Linda Jeavons (01743) 252738.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 1 March 2016 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any questions or petitions from the public, notice of which has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 14.

Members are reminded that they must not participate in the discussion or voting on any matter in which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and should leave the room prior to the commencement of the debate.

Members were reminded that they must not participate in the discussion or voting on any matter in which they had a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and should leave the room prior to the commencement of the debate.

With reference to planning application 15/01819/FUL, Councillor Nigel Hartin declared that he knew of the applicant and would take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.

With reference to planning application 15/04296/FUL, Councillor John Hurst-Knight declared that he had previously expressed views against development on this site.  As local Ward Councillor he would make a statement and then leave the table, take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.

Erection of replacement dwelling following demolition of existing.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, previous layout and elevations, and the revised scheme.

Members had undertaken a site visit on a previous occasion and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Ms A Mills, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees and responded to questions from Members of the Committee.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, planning permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation.

Erection of two storey dwelling with parking.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.

Members had undertaken a site visit and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

With the permission of the Chairman, the following speakers were permitted to speak:

Mrs C Baines, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr David Coe, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 126 and in accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15) Councillor John Hurst-Knight, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement against the application.  If granted, he expressed concern regarding the potential for damage to the Oak tree and reiterated the need for the Oak tree to be protected.  He then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. 

In response to comments suggesting designation of the area as a Conservation area, the Principal Planner confirmed that this was not a matter for Planning Committee nor Development Management and reiterated that even if the area was granted Conservation Area status and an Article 4 Direction made it would not prevent any further planning applications being submitted in the future, but given the adopted Shropshire Sites Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan and the TPO he suggested that sufficient controls existed to prevent development of this site.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.

RESOLVED:

That, as per the Officers recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reason:

·         By reason of its location and siting the proposed development would prejudice the retention of the prominent oak tree at the site which is protected by The Salop County Council (Ludlow Road Bridgnorth) TPO 1974 due to the likely pressure from the occupants of the proposed dwelling for work to be carried out to safeguard their amenity and safety. The amenity and safety of the proposed dwelling to this oak tree would be impacted upon by the overbearing presence of the tree within their garden area along with a substantial degree of overhanging branches and the amount of detritus discarded by a tree of this size and maturity.  The high probability of loss or erosion by way of lopping/pruning/felling of this high value amenity and natural asset provided by this tree would not protect or enhance local distinctiveness.  In addition the siting of the proposed dwelling so close to the proposed southern boundary of the site on a raised platform would result in likely pressure to have the existing third party  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

Variation of Condition 7 attached to Planning Permission 10/00783/MAW, which replaced MB2001/0749/BR and SC/MB2006/1014/BR dated 29 April 2010 to increase the maximum permitted input over any 12 month consecutive period from 20,000 to 25,000 tonnes.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.

Members had undertaken a site visit and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Councillor R Harrop, representing Shifnal Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15) Councillor Kevin Turley, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During which the following points were raised:

·         He expressed grave concerns regarding the impact of this application on the town of Shifnal and commented that traffic restrictions that had been attached to previous permissions were being flouted; and

·         Expressed environmental concerns relating to potential contamination of Wesley Brook.

Mr M Marshall, the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees and responded to questions from Members of the Committee.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans, noted the comments of all speakers and noted that the Environment Agency and Shropshire Council Highway Officers had raised no objections.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the conditions as set out in Appendix 1 of the report, planning permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the southern area as at 26 April 2016 be noted.

To note that the next meeting of the South Planning Committee will be held at

2.00 pm on Tuesday, 24 May 2016, in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.

RESOLVED:

That it be noted that the next meeting of the South Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Tuesday, 24 May 2016 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.