To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the minutes of the South Planning Committee meeting held on 13 February 2018.

Contact Linda Jeavons (01743) 257716.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the South Planning Committee held on 13 February 2018 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.  The deadline for this meeting is no later than 24 hours prior to the commencement of the meeting.

There were no public questions or petitions received.

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 17/03774/FUL, Councillor David Turner declared that he was well-acquainted with two adjacent landowners and would leave the room and take no part in the consideration of this item.

With reference to planning application 17/03840/FUL, Councillor David Turner declared that he was a member of The Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Partnership and The Shropshire Hills AONB Management Board but had taken no part in the formulation of any representations put forward by the AONB in respect of this planning application.

With reference to planning application 17/05189/FUL, Councillor Michael Wood declared that for personal reasons he would leave the room and take no part in the consideration of this item.

Residential development of 74 Extra Care apartments and associated facilities, 6 bungalows and 58 houses; improved access.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 98, Councillor David Turner left the room during consideration of this item.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings and photographs displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, proposed access, drainage, elevations and layout.  He also drew Members attention to:

·         Further comments/concerns received from Albrighton Medical Practice;

·         Proposed amendments to Condition No. 16 regarding land contamination; and

·         An additional condition and additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

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

Mr P Collins, representing local residents, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor P Woodman, representing Albrighton Parish 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 Malcolm Pate, as local Ward Councillors, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         He did not agree with the recommendation;

·         There was already considerable traffic congestion in the area caused by the school and surgery;

·         Highways had originally objected to the scheme and he thought this was the case going forward;

·         The access via Shaw Lane would not be suitable;

·         A need for more care home places for Albrighton residents had not been identified;

·         A meeting with the doctors’ surgery had highlighted concerns regarding the lack of resources and capacity to cope with additional people;

·         He was concerned that the recommendation to permit was driven by the fear of going to appeal, but contended that this would be worth the fight;

·         He had been given to understand that the development would go no further until access from the opposite side of the development had been explored with Thompson’s; and

·         He urged the Committee to take note of the concerns of Albrighton residents and refuse the application.

Mr S Faizey, 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 regarding the proposed access arrangements.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted proposals and noted the comments of all speakers, and it was:

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred to a future meeting in order to obtain further information on the following:

·         Further information from the medical centre and the applicants regarding the impact of the development on their workload and the facilities at the medical centre;

·         Further information on the demand for station parking and the accessibility to the railway station;

·         The ability of the drainage/sewage system to cope with further development and the extent and nature of improvement works required;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

Erection of extension to existing building to create two additional residential flats (revised scheme)

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  He drew Members’ attention to the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting. 

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

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

Cllr H Claytonsmith, representing Church Stretton 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 David Evans, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement.  He then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         This application had been ongoing for some time and this current proposal was no different to the previous application;

·         Any application on this site would constitute overdevelopment, be overbearing and have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

·         It would be intrusive on neighbouring properties;

·         The area had already been overdeveloped causing traffic and drainage issues; and

·         He urged refusal.

At this juncture, the Vice-Chairman took the Chair.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members noted the existing inappropriate planting and commented that the two-storey extension would create a loss of spaciousness between surrounding dwellings, represent overdevelopment, reduce residential amenity, create further urbanisation in a semi-rural area and be detrimental to the Conservation Area and AONB. 

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·         The infilling with a two-storey extension to the building of this last remaining gap between Holmwood and the surrounding dwellings, the further expansion of hard surfacing within its former grounds and the consequent inability to establish substantial soft landscaping to compensate for previous tree clearance, in direct conflict with outstanding planning conditions, would erode the generally spacious and verdant character of the Clive Avenue street scene. Consequently the scheme would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Church Stretton Conservation Area, or safeguard the amenity of the area, contrary to Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS6 and CS17 of the Shropshire Local Development Framework Adopted Core Strategy, and Policies MD2 and MD13 of the Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development Plan.

(The Chairman returned to the meeting and resumed the chair.)

Approval of reserved matters (access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) pursuant to 13/04702/OUT erection of single-storey dwelling (outline application with all matters reserved).

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, she drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations. 

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

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

·         Outline permission had been granted for a single-storey dwelling; however, he confirmed that despite this current application being for a one and half storey dwelling he had no objections in principle but suggested that given the neighbouring barn conversions the design should be afforded some further consideration. In order that the dwelling reflected the character of the adjacent property and surrounding area he suggested the use of stone and cladding.

At this juncture, the Vice-Chairman took the Chair.

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

RESOLVED:

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

(The Chairman returned to the meeting and resumed the chair.)

Conversion of farm buildings to ten holiday units and associated parking and landscaping.

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

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

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

·         This application represented a further increase in the number of holiday lets.  If granted, it would mean 34 units in total in a very rural area;

·         She expressed concerns regarding the patio arrangements to the east and questioned why a patio should be located so close to the boundary;

·         Tourism - Norton had already fulfilled its quota;

·         The lane to the site was narrow with too few passing places and was used by loaded farm vehicles as well as other vehicles using the route as a cut-through. More passing places would be needed to minimise disruption on the lane;

·         Landscaping - the complex should not become overbearing on the surrounding landscape;

·         Lighting – light pollution was already an issue so lighting should be low voltage and kept to a minimum; and

·         Ecology – bats were valued in the area so it was important that appropriate conditions should be attached to protect them.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers, and it was:

RESOLVED:

That, as per the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be granted, subject to:

·         The conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to Conditions No. 7 and 9 being amended as follows:

7.    No development shall commence until a lighting plan has been submitted to the local planning authority in writing. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that the proposed lighting will not impact upon the local landscape and ecological networks and/or sensitive features, e.g. bat and bird boxes (required under a separate planning condition). The submitted scheme shall be designed to take into account the advice on lighting set out in the Bat Conservation Trust’s Artificial lighting and wildlife: Interim Guidance: Recommendations to help minimise the impact artificial lighting (2014).  The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the open countryside and minimise disturbance to bats, in accordance with Policies CS5, CS6 and CS17 of the Shropshire Local Development Framework Adopted Core Strategy.

9.    No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of formal vehicular passing places between the application site and Greenway Cross to the north and between the application site and Onibury to the south, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.   The approved scheme shall be implemented fully through an agreement under  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

RESOLVED: That,

The order of business be as follows:

Item No. 10 (Proposed Affordable Dwelling East of Bourton Road, Much Wenlock, Shropshire – 17/05723/FUL);

Item No. 11 (9, 10, 11 Lower Forge Cottages, Eardington, Bridgnorth – 18/00143/FUL); and

Item No. 9 (Proposed Residential Development Land to the South of Rocks Green, Ludlow – 17/05189/FUL).

Erection of local needs dwelling and associated garage; installation of package treatment plant.

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

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

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

Councillor M Hill, representing Much Wenlock Town Council, spoke for 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 David Turner, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement.  He then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         Much Wenlock town has a particular challenge in providing affordable housing for local people.  House prices and therefore, land prices, are amongst the highest in Shropshire.  People with a local connection, especially those working locally, find it exceptionally difficult to get on the housing ladder locally.  Family and social networks, and the town’s requirement for an indigenous labour force, demand local residence.  In this application there is no question as to the applicants’ eligibility in terms of their local connection and need;

·         The applicants currently live in privately rented property which is becoming increasingly unsuitable and expensive;

·         Most of the fields around the town are in the hands of two large estates and land in other ownerships with road frontage is quite limited; thus Single Plot Affordable applicants have little choice of location;

·         The current applicants originally proposed a dwelling on another small field owned by their father but Planners had deemed this to be unsuitable.  This site on Bourton Bank was the only other piece of freehold in their ownership;

·         The Shropshire Type and Affordability of Housing SPD 2012 states that exception sites for single plot affordable dwellings must be demonstrably part of, or adjacent to, a recognisable named settlement.  Each site is assessed on an individual basis and the SPD acknowledges that there are both tight-knit and loose-knit settlements which will be a  context  influencing  whether a particular  site  is  or  is  not  acceptable.    The site itself is removed from the edge of the town being sited in a field beyond an isolated farm yard with the only access to the proposed dwelling being via the working farm yard.  The Officer’s recommendation states that this is a remote location and not part of a named settlement being sited in the open countryside.  That the site is outside the Much Wenlock development boundary is self-evident.  This site could not be described as remote in a rural context.  There is another residential property 100 metres to the south, the site is 1km route distance on foot from the primary school and less than 1km to the doctor’s surgery (much closer than a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Reconfiguration and upgrade of existing cottages including erection of single storey and two storey extensions to form 3 larger dwellings (revised scheme).

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

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

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

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

·         Shropshire Council had not adopted the ‘45-degree rule’, as adopted by South Cambridgeshire District Council, and this provided an opportunity for this consideration to be ignored on this particular application; and

·         If approved, he requested an additional Condition requiring the extension to be stepped-back a minimum distance of 1.6m from the boundary between nos. 8 and 9.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted proposals and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members noted that Building Control Officers would monitor any digging-down/excavation works and the developer/applicant would be accountable for any damage as a result of any excavation work.

RESOLVED:

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

(At this juncture, Councillors Simon Harris and Michael Wood left the meeting and did not return.)

Hybrid application (part full, part outline) for residential development of up to 200 dwellings and associated infrastructure, drainage, open space, landscaping with access from the A4117 at Rocks Green (full application to involve 68 dwellings and outline application to involve up to a further 132 dwellings).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  He drew Members’ attention to the two suggested additional ecological conditions as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

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

Members considered the submitted plans.  In the ensuing debate, a Member indicated that local Unitary Councillors were in favour of the development; however, the suggested affordable housing provision of 12% fell short of the guideline maximum of 15% and he asked for some reassurance that the maximum provision of 15% would be met by the developer.  In response to concerns and questions from Members regarding highway safety and affordable housing, the Area HDC Manager South and Principal Planner explained that an extension of an existing speed limit would have to gain the support of the Police, the road layout of this current application encouraged 20 mph traffic, and the number of affordable dwellings proposed over the whole scheme (phases 1 - 3) would meet the 15% provision for affordable housing.

RESOLVED:

That, as per the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be granted as a partial departure (after expiry of the statutory period of notice for a departure), subject to:

·         The Conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report;

·         The additional Conditions as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters;

·         An additional condition requiring the developer to provide electric vehicle charging points;

·         An additional pre-commencement condition requiring submission of details for a Travel Plan; and

·         Subject to a Legal Agreement delivering:

(i)      an affordable housing contribution of 15%;

(ii)     safeguarding of land under the applicant’s control for future use as a roundabout; and

(iii)    a financial contribution of £10,000 to facilitate re-location of the 40mph speed limit to the east of the site access.

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the southern area as at 13 Marcy 2018 be noted.

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

2.00 pm on Tuesday, 10 April 2018, 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, 10 April 2018 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.