To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tudor Bebb (Substitute: Tim Barker), Amy Liebich and Peter Nutting.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 30^th June 2016.

Contact Shelley Davies on 01743 257718.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 30^th June 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. The deadline for this meeting is 5pm on Monday 25^th July 2016.

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.

Councillor Dean Carroll declared that the applicant for planning application 16/01873/OUT – Land to the South of Annscroft, Shrewsbury was known to him.

With reference to planning applications to be considered at this meeting, Councillor Andrew Bannerman stated that he was a member of the Planning Committee of Shrewsbury Town Council.  He indicated that his views on any proposals when considered by the Town Council had been based on the information presented at that time and he would now be considering all proposals afresh with an open mind and the information as it stood at this time.

Councillor David Roberts declared that the applicant for planning application 16/01873/OUT – Land to the South of Annscroft, Shrewsbury was known to him.

The Project Manager for Capital Schemes introduced this application in relation to the proposed closure of Racecourse Lane, Shrewsbury at a point just south of the existing Lambourn Drive junction and the construction of a turning head.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew members’ attention to the location of the proposed closure and explained that this had been an ongoing issue for several decades.

It was confirmed that 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 accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor Peter Adams addressed the Committee as the local ward Councillor, during which a number of points were raised including the following:

·         The Fire and Rescue Service and Ambulance Service had confirmed that they did not have concerns in relation to access for emergency vehicles;

·         The road would be closed to motor vehicles by means of bollards and would therefore allow access for pedestrians, bicycle users, mobile scooter users and pushchairs;

·         There had been a number of ‘near misses’ on the lane; and

·         The main objection from the Oxon Primary School regarding the problem of coaches having to turn around should not be a reason for refusing the application.

In response to comments from the Committee, the Project Manager for Capital Schemes confirmed that the emergency services had been consulted during the consultation exercise and explained that there was not alternative location for the proposed turning head. It was added that the scheme would be monitored and other measures would be introduced if necessary.

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal and noted the comments of the speakers, the majority of Members expressed their support to the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee supports the introduction of the proposed safety scheme as recommended.

Outline application for the erection of 3 no. detached dwellings to include means of access.

The Area Planning Manager introduced the outline application for the erection of three detached dwellings to include means of access and confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit that morning to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. Members’ attention was drawn to the information contained within the Schedule of Additional letters and it was reported that the first sentence of the reason for refusal printed in the report was incorrect and should read:

The proposed development would provide three detached residential properties adjacent to a settlement identified by the Parish Council as part of a ‘Cluster’ within the 'Site Allocations and Management of Development' document (SAMDev).

Mr Clive Roberts, applicant, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor Roger Evans addressed the Committee as the local ward Councillor, during which a number of points were raised including the following: 

·         Longden Parish Council had a realistic view of development in the area and had put Longden forward as a ‘hub’ with other settlements as ‘Clusters’;

·         The proposal was a logical extension of Annscroft and would enable young families to move into the area;

·         Annscroft was not suitable for infill development;

·         The applicant had consulted the Parish Council and taken into account the needs of the community; and

·         The access for this site was safer than the access for the adjoining site which had been previously granted planning permission.

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal and noted the comments of all speakers, the majority of Members expressed their support for the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

1.  The proposed development would provide three detached residential properties adjacent to a settlement identified by the Parish Council as part of a ‘Cluster’ within the 'Site Allocations and Management of Development' document (SAMDev). However the site is not considered to be located within this settlement and is therefore located in open countryside for planning policy purposes. The proposal is a departure to the development plan in that the site is situated within open countryside and is contrary to policies CS5, MD3 & MD7a. 

2.  The Local Planning Authority considers that the scheme would not protect, restore, conserve and enhance the natural and built environment. This would result in the scheme being in conflict with Core Strategy Policies CS5, CS6, CS17 and SAMDev policies MD2, MD3, MD7a, MD12 & MD13. There would be significant conflict with the environmental role of sustainability. Whilst there would be limited economic and social benefits associated with the proposal, the Framework is clear at paragraph 8 that the 3 roles of sustainability should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Given that, it is considered that the proposal would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Outline permission for the erection of a dwelling.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the outline application for the erection of a dwelling and confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit that morning to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal and noted the comments of all speakers, the majority of Members expressed their support for the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused as per the Officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

The proposal for a detached dwelling would result in an incongruous development with a design and layout that is inconsistent with surrounding properties and that would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area.  Notwithstanding the outline nature of the application it is not considered that it would be possible to provide an acceptable design, layout, access and appearance and as such the proposed development is contrary to Core Strategy policy CS6, SAMDev Plan policy MD2 and the National Planning Policy Framework. The benefits of the proposal, including the provision of an additional open market dwelling within a relatively sustainable location, are acknowledged.  However these would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to the area.

Members thanked Officers for all their hard work defending planning appeals.

RESOLVED:

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

To note that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 25^th August 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, 25^th August 2016 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.