Erection of one dwelling with garage; repair to outbuilding; erection of one pair of semi-detached dwellings with attached 3 bay garage.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  He confirmed that 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 Edgcumbe Venning, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees. 

Mrs V Bellamy, representing the Much Wenlock Civic Society, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees. 

Councillor M Whiteman, 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:

·         For many years this property has remained unoccupied and uncared for and was now in a perilous state.  Councillors have had to intervene many times to protect the safety of others from falling debris;

·         It attracted intense public interest, particularly from those who walked past it daily and the potential detrimental impact on visitors to the Town;

·         The previously proposed scheme was unsuitable in terms of scale and size and was unsympathetic to the neighbouring properties. This new proposal would provide three houses and would by sympathetic and in-keeping with the Town’s design principles; 

·         He expressed some concerns regarding the access onto the A458 but acknowledged that it could have been used daily if the house had remained occupied;

·         He was particularly concerned about the fine balance between the cost of the works to secure the fabric of the listed building and the profit that might be exacted for the development.  He was anxious that the development progress as soon as possible but not at the cost of Condition No. 3 which required certain works to be completed on the Listed Building before any occupation of the new dwellings;

·         He expressed concerns regarding the removal of materials from the site and the consequential disruption but acknowledged the requirement and agreement of a Construction Management Plan and a Traffic Management Plan prior to any development taking place.  He requested that fires on the site be forbidden given the impact of billowing smoke on drivers and nearby residents; and

·         He urged approval of the proposal.

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

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 Condition No. 12 being amended to ensure that a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste and timber resulting from demolition and construction works is submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to any development taking place.

(At this juncture, the meeting adjourned at 3.50 pm and reconvened at 3.56 pm.)