To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor David Roberts (Substitute: Tim Barker).

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 3 March 2016.

Contact Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 3 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.

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 15/05462/EIA, Councillor Tim Barker declared that he was Chairman of the Armed Forces Community Covenant Partnership and an Armed Forces Member Champion.

With reference to planning application 15/05462/EIA, Councillor Tudor Bebb stated that he knew of the applicant but had had no contact with him with regard to this application.

The Area HDC Manager (North) introduced the application.

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.

In the absence of Councillor Jane MacKenzie and in accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15), the Chairman read out a statement on her behalf (a copy of which would be appended to the signed minutes).

Mr P Marston, a local resident, spoke in support of the recommendation in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr G Glover, a local resident, 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 Ted Clarke, the local Ward Councillor, 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 had received much correspondence from residents who were concerned that a closure of New College Road at its London Road end would have a detrimental impact on other roads in the vicinity; and

·         In order that an informed decision could be made on which end to close he suggested that a six-month trial be undertaken to assess the merits of a closure at London Road against the current temporary TRO closure of the Wenlock Road/New College Road junction. 

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments of all speakers and it was unanimously resolved as follows:

RESOLVED:

That:

·         Contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, the implementation of a temporary Traffic Regulation Order and closure of New College Road for access by all motor vehicles at its junction with London Road, be refused; and

·         That a further proposal to formalise the existing temporary Traffic Regulation Order closure of the Wenlock Road/New College Road junction be submitted to a future meeting.

RESOLVED:

That item No. 7 – Proposed Affordable Dwelling, Westbury, Shrewsbury, Shropshire (16/00120/FUL) be taken as the next item of business.

Erection of 1no affordable dwelling and detached garage.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  He appraised Members of a further comment received from a local resident expressing concern regarding the safety of the access given its closeness to the crown of a bend and confirmed that Shropshire Council Highway Officers had responded and had raised no issues of concern.

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

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

Mr G Burns, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers. Members requested further clarification regarding the floor area and expressed concern regarding the access arrangements which would be located close to a bend in the road with no footpath and no lighting.  In response to comments regarding the access, the Area HDC Manager (North) informed the meeting that he had visited the site himself that morning and he too expressed concerns regarding the access arrangements given the limited visibility due to the closeness of the bend in the road.

RESOLVED:

That this application be deferred to a future meeting for further clarification to be provided on the floor area of the proposed dwelling and the concerns expressed at the meeting by Highway Officers.

Erection of four poultry rearing buildings, biomass building, ten feed bins and other ancillary buildings, landscaping including ground modelling and tree planting, construction of a surface water attenuation feature and new access.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer 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 that morning and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans.  In response to comments, the Technical Specialist Planning Officer explained that appropriate landscaping conditions to protect and ensure negligible impact upon designated and undesignated heritage assets, including Nesscliffe Hill Camp, would be attached to any permission; the application had been the subject of a Habitat Regulation Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment; and Condition No. 10 could be amended to reflect the MoD’s comments as set out in paragraph 6.4.9 of the report. 

RESOLVED:

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

·         The Conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, subject to:

Condition No. 10 being amended to ensure that external lighting is designed to minimise adverse impact on the surrounding area as well as to minimise disturbance to bats, to reflect the comments made in paragraph 6.4.9 of the report:

and the following additional Condition:

No development approved by this permission shall commence until details of existing and proposed finished floor levels have been approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reasons: To safeguard the visual amenities of the area. 

Erection of agricultural storage building.

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

RESOLVED:

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

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the Central area as at 28 April 2016 be noted.

To note that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 26 May 2016 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.

RESOLVED:

That it be noted that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee be held at 2.00 p.m. on Thursday, 26 May 2016 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.