To receive apologies for absence.

            An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mrs J MacKenzie.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 3 April 2014.

Contact Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738

            RESOLVED:

            That the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 3^rd April 2014        be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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, statements 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 applications to be considered at this meeting, Councillors A Bannerman and P Nutting stated that they were members of the Planning Committee of Shrewsbury Town Council. They indicated that their views on any proposals when considered by the Town Council had been based on the information presented at that time and they would now be considering all proposals afresh with an open mind and the information as it stood at this time.

With reference to planning application 14/00328/EIA, Councillor D Roberts stated that he knew the applicant and, for reasons of bias, he would leave the room during consideration of this item and not vote.

Mixed residential development of 75 dwellings (including 8 affordable units), formation of vehicular access; provision of open space and associated landscape and infrastructure improvements.

The Chairman explained that the applicant had requested that the application be deferred.

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred to a future meeting as requested by the applicant.

Erection of 6 No dwellings and formation of access.

The Technical SpecialistPlanning Officer introduced the application and explained that the Parish Council had objected to the application as the site was outside the development boundary being promoted in SAMDev. In relation to objections raised regarding the proximity of plot 9 to Field House, she drew Members attention to an amended plan and additional comments on the Schedule of Additional Letters from the Agent, which agreed to move Plot 9 further away from Field House. It was further explained that the proposal was considered to be sustainable and at this point in time a five year land supply could not be demonstrated. The Technical SpecialistPlanning Officer confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and had 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, which detailed further comments from a local resident and the Agent.

Mr G Wallach, on behalf of 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:

·         The application was not supported in Bicton;

·         The application was contrary to SAMDev;

·         Shepherds Lane was a narrow road with no street lighting;

·         The access was near an accident black-spot;

·         Refuse vehicles and other large vehicles would cause nuisance to neighbouring properties;

·         The application was ribbon development; and

·         The sewage system was already overloaded.

Councillor J Everall, the local Ward Councillor, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Although he considered this was the right area for the type of development proposed, the density of the site was too high and should be reduced from 6 to 4 dwellings;

·         The proposal would surround Field House on 2 sides, which was unacceptable and would be overbearing; and

·         The access was too narrow and should be widened.

Mr N Thorns, the agent, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with the Council’s scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         The site was located in a sustainable location and had a pub, shop and a regular bus route;

·         There was a primary school within 900 metres of the site;

·         The proposal rounded off the settlement and met the three sustainability tests in line with the NPPF;

·         The low density scheme reflected the village setting;

·         The access had been agreed by Highway Officers and was wider than Holyhead Road;

·         There were no drainage issues and the puddle on site was due to impacted hardcore;

·         The scheme had been designed to avoid any overlooking to Field House; and

·         There had been discussion on site yesterday to move plot 9 further away from Field House.

 In response to questions from Members, the Technical SpecialistPlanning Officer noted that existing drainage issues had been raised by local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

Erection of two poultry sheds; associated hard standing; feed bins; dirty water storage tank and landscaping works.

Councillor D Roberts, local Ward Member left the room during consideration of this item in accordance with his declaration in Minute 166 above.

The Technical SpecialistPlanning Officer introduced the application and explained that the proposals comprised Schedule 1 EIA development and therefore a Committee decision was mandatory under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. The Parish Council supported the proposal and there had been no objections from statutory consultees. He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, elevations, proposed access and landscaping scheme.

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

Members considered the submitted plans for the proposal and unanimously expressed their support for the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

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

Outline application for residential development (to include access).

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that this was an outline application for residential development. The site was located in an area of open countryside outside the Shrewsbury urban area. He further explained that the proposal was considered to be sustainable and at this point in time a five year land supply could not be demonstrated. He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and had 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, which detailed further comments from the Principal Planning Officer in response to objections to the validity of the procedure and from the Mount Resident’s Group requesting that the site be considered as a Local Green Space.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the Council Meeting held on 27^th February 2014, Councillor P Nutting, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote. He questioned the validity of procedure as raised in the Schedule of Additional Letters and suggested that the application should be deferred to the next meeting to allow time for any objections to be received in relation to the advertisement of the departure and for the Local Green Space request to be considered. He raised concern in relation to the reservations of the Conservation Officer and questioned why an outline application had been submitted in a Conservation Area.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to the issues raised by Councillor P Nutting. He explained that the application had been advertised as a Major in a Conservation Area in the Shropshire Star on 4^th March 2014 for a 21 day period expiring on the 25^th March 2014 in addition to a Site Notice displayed on and expiring on the same day and therefore the additional advertisement was to publicise the application as a Departure from the Development Plan and would be determined under delegated powers if no new material considerations were raised. In relation to the Local Green Space issue, the Principal Planning Officer advised that this type of request should be submitted as part of the SAMDev consultation and could not be considered at this stage of the process. He added that the Conservation Officer had mentioned a number of concerns but noted that careful design would mitigate any harm and clarified that outline applications could be submitted for a Conservation Area but the applicant might be requested to provide further information. For this application the applicant had submitted an indicative plan and therefore no further information was required.  

Ms K Anderson, on behalf of local residents, CPRE and the Ramblers 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 request for the area to be Local Green Space was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170.

Erection of two residential dwellings (amended description).

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. He detailed the planning history to the application noting that the appeal decision to a previous refusal had been appended to the committee report. With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations. He also highlighted the changes to the current scheme compared to the previous application, which was dismissed on appeal.  

A number of additional letters had been received in objection to the application. The Area Planning and Building Control Managerread these out to the Committee. The objections included the following issues:

·         The narrow access was unsafe and inadequate;

·         The increased traffic would create noise and vibration;

·         The proposal was out of character and would result in loss of privacy for residents and  cause harm to wildlife;

·         The application did not address the issues raised in the previously refused application;

·         That the fence to the neighbouring property should be retained; and

·         The parking space for No. 112 London Road should be conditioned for the occupiers only and not commercial vehicles.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager reported that the application had been subject to a significant amount of objection. He added that the previous issues raised by the inspector had been largely overcome with the amendments to the revised scheme and explained that the inspector had awarded costs against the Council in relation to the refusal reason of highway safety despite dismissing the appeal.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the Council Meeting held on 27^th February 2014, Councillor T Clarke, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote. He stated that he considered the access to the site to be inadequate and still had concerns in relation to this issue.

Mr P Enticknap, on behalf of 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:

·         Local residents had raised significant concerns in relation to the proposal;

·         The previous refusal was the correct decision as appeal was dismissed;

·         The proposal was an unacceptable form of development and did not protect and enhance the natural environment;

·         The application was not appropriate in scale and constituted back-land development;

·         The proposal was in close proximity to a number of trees which might be removed in future; and

·         The proposal was contrary to Policy CS6 and the NPPF.

Ms H Ball, on behalf of Shrewsbury Town Council, 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 application had caused significant local concern;

·         The proposal constituted back-land development;

·         The lack of pedestrian access was unacceptable;

·         It would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.

Members considered the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the Central area as at 1^st May 2014.

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the Central area as at 1^st May 2014 be noted.

To note that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 29^th May 2014 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, 29^th May 2014 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.