To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cecilia Motley and Madge Shineton (substitute: Kevin Turley).

To confirm the minutes of the South Planning Committee meeting held on 14 October 2014.

Contact Linda Jeavons (01743) 252738.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the South Planning Committee held on 14 October 2014, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to it being noted that the resolution at Minute No. 75 should refer to Core Strategy Policy CS5 and not CS6.

To receive any questions, statements or petitions from the public, notice of which has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 14.

There were no public questions.

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 14/03768/OUT, Councillor J Hurst-Knight declared that, for reasons of pre-determination, he would leave the room and take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.

With reference to planning application 14/02390/FUL, Councillor David Turner, declared that he was a member of the Management Board of the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership.

Outline application to include access and layout (scale, appearance & landscaping reserved) for the residential development of six detached houses; formation of vehicular access and estate roads (amended description).

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

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, which detailed further comments from Shropshire Council’s Archaeology Officers and the Planning Case Officer.

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 E Miles, representing local residents, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         His property adjoined the application land and he would find it dangerous when reversing to and from his garage;

·         The entrance would be awkward and restrictive and would necessitate vehicles driving on opposite sides of carriageway and the blind points on the highway would further impact on highway and pedestrian safety;

·         Concerned that in icy conditions vehicles would slide into his property;

·         Flash flooding would be increased if a non-pervious road treatment was installed;

·         External lighting would impact on his privacy;

·         Broseley had met its housing commitment and there was a plentiful supply of mixed housing available in Broseley; and

·         Proposal would be overpowering and incongruous.

Mr M Harris, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The Planning Officer had assessed the proposal and was recommending approval;

·         The original application had been withdrawn because of highway concerns.  These concerns had been acknowledged and accordingly the number of dwellings had now been reduced;

·         Archaeological Officers had considered the proposal and adequate conditions would be attached;

·         Any impact on amenities could be adequately addressed through detailed consideration at the Reserved Matters stage; and

·         The proposal would be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Jean Jones, as local Member, participated in the discussion but did not vote. During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         The site would be unsuitable for development and had been designated as countryside;

·         Broseley was on target to meet housing development;

·         The site would not be sustainable and Broseley had access to limited bus services;

·         Employment opportunities were limited and use of private vehicles was essential to access employment;

·         Would provide large expensive housing which was not needed;

·         Would be contrary to the NPPF;

·         Would have a detrimental impact on walkers and wildlife;

·         Access could encroach on neighbouring properties;

·         Highways and local people were against the applicant’s suggestion of a one-way system; and

·         She urged Members to consider the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the local people.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members expressed serious concerns regarding the narrowness of the streets and the potential for increased surface water run-off.  They commented that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout, landscaping, drainage and access plans.

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

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting detailing further comments from the Shropshire Council Archaeology Officers.

The meeting adjourned at 2.40 pm to enable Members to consider further information circulated at the meeting detailing objections from Sibdon Carwood Parish Meeting and further comments from members of the public.  The meeting reconvened at 2.43 pm.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor David Evans, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room and took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         Although Craven Arms was in need of affordable housing, this site was outside the development boundary and, although in SAMDev, was not supported by Sibdon Carwood Parish;

·         The site lay on a ridge to the west of Craven Arms west of the Roman Road of Watling Street on the edge of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and close to Sibdon Church and Stokesay Castle (both listed buildings).  The route of the Shropshire Way ran through a section of the site and the development would be prominent from Flounder Folly and the Roman Norton Camp;

·         There was no public footpath along the B4368, which was the shortest route into Craven Arms.  The school lay to the east of the A49 - this would not be a safe route for school children to use or to access services in the town;

·         A previous application for this site had been refused on the grounds of it not being sustainable; and

·         Would be built on good arable land, would not be sustainable, constituted overdevelopment and would negatively impact on the surrounding area.

Mrs E Holden, representing Sibdon Carwood Parish Meeting, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The site would be unsustainable due to its location to services and crossed a historic natural boundary, namely Watling Street (Roman road);

·         Affordable housing proposed would be in the wrong place and should be at opposite end of town; and

·         Would be out of scale and contrary to the NPPF and Shropshire Council’s Core Strategy Policies.

Mr S Thomas, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The site had been allocated in SAMDev;

·         Would be in accordance with CS11;

·         Affordable housing had been identified as a key priority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

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

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, which detailed further comments from Much Wenlock Town Council and indicated that they had now withdrawn their objection to the scheme, further objections from a local resident and comments from the applicant.

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 his declaration at Minute No. 83, and by virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor David Turner, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room and took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         The area attracted a substantial number of tourists and contributed to the important visitor economy.  The Shropshire Way and the Jack Mytton Way, which skirted this site, attracted many walkers and riders;

·         The proposal would be contrary to SCC3 of the adopted Neighbourhood Plan;

·         The applicant had developed a successful business around renewable energy and had created a number of jobs locally - which he welcomed.  However, on balance, planning applications for low-profile development that had been brought forward in support of the business’s growth had been supported, but he believed this was one step too far;

·         In a recent survey he had carried out of all Much Wenlock residents a clear majority of respondents disapproved of smaller turbines and an even greater majority against larger ones. This had reinforced the results of the Much Wenlock Neighbourhood Plan residents’ survey in 2012 which revealed strong local resistance to wind turbines, regardless of size;

·         Much Wenlock Town Council’s Planning Committee had made two incompatible comments illustrated by its objection in July when it described the site as being in an AONB and close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and its withdrawal from this position in October when it described the site as an industrial area.  As a reason for dropping its objection, it now cited the Neighbourhood Plan Policy concerning new business development without reference to the explicit qualification regarding harmful impacts and the Policy regarding individual and community scale energy without reference to its explicit presumption against wind turbines;

·         He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 115 and Footnote 9 to paragraph 14 of the NPPF:

·         He drew Members’ attention to the Shropshire Hills AONB Management Plan which indicated that “Proposals for wind turbines and associated infrastructure within the AONB should take account of factors including landscape character, visual amenity and recreation, biodiversity, heritage assets and their setting” and “Within 100m of buildings one or two wind turbines of up to 12m to blade tip are likely to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Residential development comprising 88 dwellings (to include affordable housing), creation of new vehicular access (off Dark Lane), open space and landscaping, attenuation pond, new surface water drain south of Dark Lane and footpath links to Birch Row and Birch Meadow.

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

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, which detailed further comments from Shropshire Council Highway Officers.

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 D Onions, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         A previous proposal had been reviewed and revised in response to objections.  The number of dwellings had been reduced thus reducing density and the individual access points onto Dark Lane had been removed;

·         Had met with Town Council and Planning Officers prior to submission of the application.  Further dialogue would be maintained; and

·         Would provide affordable housing, open and green space, CIL monies, New Homes bonus and create employment during the construction phase.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Jean Jones, as local Member, participated in the discussion but did not vote. During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         She accepted that this was a much improved scheme and consultation with the Town Council and residents had been undertaken;

·         The removal of the individual access points off Dark Lane constituted a big improvement although her concerns with the junction onto Dark Lane remained given the proximity of the school; and

·         Expressed disappointment with the reduced affordable housing provision.

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

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted, subject to:

·         A Section 106 Agreement relating to affordable housing provision, and to secure the

provision and maintenance of the open space by an appropriate body; and

·         The conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

Erection of 2 bedroom detached bungalow following demolition of existing store.

The Principal Planner introduced the application.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout, previously refused plans and elevations, and the now proposed plans and elevations.   

Members considered the submitted plans and expressed some concern regarding the close proximity to adjoining properties and the potential for disturbance to residents nearby during construction.

RESOLVED:

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

·         A Section 106 Agreement relating to an affordable housing contribution; 

·         The conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report; and

·         Planning Officers be given delegated authority to amend the Conditions as follows:

Ø  The deletion of Condition No. 8 by virtue of it being a duplication of Condition No. 7; and

Ø  In order to protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties an additional Condition be imposed to ensure an appropriate Construction Management Plan be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to any demolition or construction works taking place.

Outline planning permission for residential development to include access.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 83, Councillor J Hurst-Knight left the room and took no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.  He did not return to the meeting.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, indicative site layout and the existing and proposed street elevations. 

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting detailing further comments from the agent.

Mr M Pugh, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         A letter from local MP Nick Boles had indicated that following the submission of SAMDev for examination, SAMDev would become the over-arching planning document;

·         Shropshire Council had now demonstrated it had a 5 year land supply, so proposal would be contrary to the NPPF;

·         Would open up the floodgates for further development; and

·         Would have a detrimental impact and change the character of the Conservation Area.

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

RESOLVED:

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

·         The proposed development would have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the Oldbury Conservation Area and its setting through the erosion of the rural character of the north eastern approach to the village by built development on this site, and the loss of a visually prominent section of roadside hedgerow and trees. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Shropshire Core Strategy policies CS6 and CS17 and paragraphs 131, 135 and 138 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and these adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in terms of the site contributing to the supply of housing land in Shropshire. In addition, greater weight can now be afforded to the emerging policies in the Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) documents.

(At this juncture, Councillor Robert Tindall left the meeting and did not return.)

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the southern area as at 11 November 2014 be noted.

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

2.00 pm on Tuesday, 11 December 2014, in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.

It was noted that the next meeting of the South Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.