Outline application for the redevelopment of former Dana Prison into mixed use development to include student accommodation, residential dwellings, retail/restaurant, business non-residential institutions, a gymnasium and extensive landscaping works.

The Planning Consultant acting for the Council introduced the outline application for the redevelopment of the former Dana Prison into mixed use development to include student accommodation, residential dwellings, retail/restaurant, business non-residential institutions, a gymnasium and extensive landscaping works. It was noted that the application had been deferred at the meeting held on 27th October 2016 to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the reasons for refusal. The Planning Consultant drew the Committee’s attention to their responsibilities to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the conservation area and preserving listed buildings and their settings in accordance with the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Areas) Act 1990. The Planning Consultant confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit on 27th October 2016 to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and drew Members attention to the Schedule of Additional Letters and read out an objection received today from Mr David Gomersall (Copy attached to the signed minutes).

Mr Hugh Cutler, Local Resident spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire 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 15.1), Councillor Alan Mosley addressed the Committee as the local adjoining ward Councillor. During his statement, a number of points were raised including the following:

·         The heritage asset must be developed to regenerate the site but the development needs to be sensitive to avoid an adverse impact on residents;

·         The proposal was overdevelopment of the site and there was a lack of clarity of what would eventually be on site;

·         The development did not provide adequate parking provision and would have an unacceptable impact on the local area; and

·         The transport assessment does not address the issues adequately.

Mr Andrew Ryan, Agent on behalf of the Applicant spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

The Planning Consultant explained that the application was in outline at this stage to agree the principle of development and the quantum of development. A future reserved matters application for approval of details would have to accord with the restrictions imposed through the outline planning permission. He reassured the Committee that a reserved matters application that deviated substantively from the outline planning permission would necessitate submission of a full planning application instead.

Debate ensued with the majority of Members expressing the view that the proposal would generate significant traffic movements, had a lack of adequate parking and would have an adverse impact on the amenity of local residents.

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal and noted the comments of all speakers, Members unanimously expressed their objection to the proposal contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission is refused contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

1.    The site is located within a tightly built-up area within the town of Shrewsbury, characterized by dense terraced housing within narrow streets that are presently congested due to intense on-street parking. The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and diversity of uses, constitutes a form of development likely to generate a significant traffic movements. The proposed levels of parking provision available within and around the site would be inadequate to satisfy the traffic generated by the development leading to increased demand for on-street car parking in the locality resulting in further traffic congestion. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the levels of traffic generation can be effectively managed or accommodated within and around the site to avoid creating a severe local highways impact. The proposed development would, thereby be highly likely to create increased highway safety hazards and inconvenience for users of the local highway network; in particular, local residents. The proposals would, therefore, be likely to result in further adverse cumulative transport impact. As a consequence, the proposals would be contrary to Policies CS6 and CS7 of the adopted Core Strategy and MD2 of the adopted SAMDev Plan and the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The proposal, by virtue of the quantum of development, the concentration of multiple uses and the lack of adequate parking and servicing areas within and around the site, would constitute a cramped and over-intensive use of the site, resulting in a development that would be out of character with the surrounding area. As such, the proposal would constitute an over-development of the site and is considered contrary to the provisions of Policies CS6 of the adopted Core Strategy and MD2 of the adopted SAMDev Plan and the design guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. The proposed Building B at the rear of the Lancasterian School which is an important feature within the area, which is proposed to accommodate eight residential apartments over two and a half storeys, by virtue of its siting, height and massing and confined nature of the site, would be likely to give rise to an unacceptable impact upon the visual amenities of the area and the residential amenities of existing residents at the adjacent dwelling houses on Albert Street and future residents of the proposed apartments in the Lancasterian School as a result of overlooking and overshadowing of those properties. The adverse effects are compounded by the proximity and height of the building to those properties which would result in an overbearing form of development. It has not been adequately demonstrated that such a building could be designed and accommodated on this site without giving rise to the above effects. The proposed development would thereby be contrary to Policies CS6 of the adopted Core Strategy and MD2 of the adopted SAMDev Plan and the design guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.