To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Alex Phillips and Keith Roberts.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 6^th June 2019.

Contact Shelley Davies on 01743 257718.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 6^th June 2019 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 2.00 p.m. on Wednesday, 3^rd July 2019.

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.

With reference to planning applications to be considered at this meeting, Councillors Julian Dean and Nat Green stated that they were members of the Shrewsbury Town Council Planning Committee. 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.

The Chairman agreed to alter the order of the agenda to enable planning application 18/00130/EIA - Land North East of Kinton, Shrewsbury, to be the next item to be considered.

Erection of four poultry rearing buildings, nine feed bins, an agricultural workers dwelling, landscaping scheme and all associated works.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of four poultry rearing buildings, nine feed bins, an agricultural workers dwelling, landscaping scheme and all associated works 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.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the Schedule of Additional Letters which included a representation from the Case Officer explaining that the application had been recommended for refusal due to insufficient information submitted by the applicant to enable the local planning authority to assess the impact of the development. The Technical Specialist Planning Officer went on to note that following the publication of the committee report the applicant’s agent had requested that the application be deferred for consideration at a future Planning Committee to allow further opportunity for the information requested to be provided, therefore, the Officer’s recommendation had been amended to deferral of the application.

Members unanimously expressed their support for the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred to a future meeting of this Committee at the request of the applicant.

Erection of a new crematorium with associated access, car parking and landscaping.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of a new crematorium with associated access, car parking and landscaping and explained that at the Central Planning Committee meeting held on 14^th March 2019, Members resolved to defer consideration of the application to allow for a more independent need assessment and an additional noise assessment. It was confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area on 14^th March 2019.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the Schedule of Additional Letters which included representations from the applicant’s agent and noise consultant, the Case Officer, local residents, the Parish Council, Shropshire Council Highways and the applicant’s solicitor.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer referred to an email that had been sent to the Chairman from a local resident raising concern that their representation had been summarised and not included in full, it was noted that it was normal practice to summarise representations to be included in the Schedule of Additional Letters.  

A letter from the MOD which had been received this morning was read out by the Technical Specialist Planning Officer, the letter noted that the helicopter activity in the area was incompatible with the proposed use of the site and it was not possible to amend flights paths to avoid overflying the area.

Shelly Hurdley, local resident spoke in objection to the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor Alison Mullis, Great Ness and Little Ness Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor Simon Jones, Chairman of the Helicopter Noise Liaison Group spoke in objection to 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 Ed Potter addressed the Committee as the local ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, a number of points were raised including the following:

·         There had been a large amount of development in Nesscliffe and this has had an adverse impact on the area;

·         The site was not a tranquil environment for people to congregate before and after services or for families visiting memorials;

·         He considered the additional information provided did not fulfil what the Committee requested; and

·         There was no mitigation for the local community in relation to signage and traffic calming measures.

John Adams, National Association of Funeral Directors, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Matt Hubbard, 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.

In the ensuing debate, Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Erection of 5 No bungalows and associated infrastructure (amended description)

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of 5 bungalows and associated infrastructure (amended description) and explained that at the Central Planning Committee meeting held on 28^th September 2017, Members resolved to defer consideration of the application to allow the applicant the opportunity to investigate an alternative solution to protect the rooting area of the veteran Oak Tree. It was 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..

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the Schedule of Additional Letters which included representations from a neighbour, an agent for an objector and the agent for the applicant. The Technical Specialist Planning Officer advised that if Members were minded to refuse the application, he was requesting delegated authority for the Head of Planning Services to refuse planning permission subject to further consultation with the Ecology Team in relation to whether the third reason for refusal was required following the submission of an updated ecology report.  

Jackie Ingham, on behalf of the Longden Village Action Group spoke in objection to the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Councillor Paul Carter, Chairman of Longden Parish Council spoke in objection to 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 Roger Evans addressed the Committee as the local ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, a number of points were raised including the following:

·         The community and Parish Council all support the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application;

·         The proposed site was not identified as an acceptable location for development by the Parish Council; and

·         The proposal cannot be delivered as access to future residents would be denied.

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

RESOLVED:

That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning Services to refuse planning permission subject to further consultation with the Ecology Team in relation to whether the third reason for refusal was required following the submission of an updated ecology report.  

Change of use of a farm yard and buildings to holiday complex to include: demolition of buildings; siting of four glamping units and a log cabin; works to and change of use of two buildings to form office and store and leisure facilities, formation of parking areas; and installation of package treatment plant (Amended Description).

The Consultant Planning Officer introduced the application for the change of use of farm yard and buildings to holiday complex to include: some demolition of buildings; siting of four glamping units and one log cabin; works to and change of use of two buildings to form office and store and leisure facilities, formation of parking areas; and installation of package treatment plant (Amended Description) and explained that at the Central Planning Committee meeting held on 11^th April 2019, Members resolved to defer consideration of the application to allow the opportunity for the concerns raised by Members in relation to the use of the site 12 months of the year and the lack of on-site supervision to be addressed. It was confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area on 11th April 2019.

The Consultant Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to an additional representation from a neighbour which had been circulated to the Committee.

Councillor Ian Lawrence, on behalf of Sheinton Parish Council spoke in objection to 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 Claire Wild addressed the Committee as the local ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During her statement, a number of points were raised including the following:

·         The applicant had not consulted the Parish Council or local residents in relation to the management plan;

·         She referred to a previous appeal decision for another site in Sheinton which was dismissed by the inspector and queried the need for holiday accommodation in this area;

·         The proposed development would dwarf the village of Sheinton; and

·         The application would not benefit the community and would have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area.

Nick Williams, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In response to the speakers, the Area Planning Manager outlined the differences in regards to this application and the site that was the subject of the appeal dismissed by the inspector, he noted that this site was clearly in the village and as there was an existing established business on site there was no requirement for the applicant to demonstrate the need for the development as detailed in Policy CS5.

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

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 2.

Erection of first floor extensions to north east part of main building to create additional bedrooms; link corridor to additional bedrooms in roofspace with increase in height of roof and insertion of rooflights (revised scheme to include raise ridge height on approved extension to annex roof with fire escape from new first floor link bridge together with zinc roof line raised).

The Area Planning Manager introduced the application for the erection of first floor extensions to north east part of main building to create additional bedrooms; link corridor to additional bedrooms in roofspace with increase in height of roof and insertion of rooflights (revised scheme to include raise ridge height on approved extension to annex roof with fire escape from new first floor link bridge together with zinc roof line raised) and explained that at the Central Planning Committee meeting held on 9^th May 2019, Members agreed that further information was required in relation to the impact of the development on the Copper Beech tree and therefore resolved to defer consideration of the application to allow for this information to be provided. It was confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area on 9^th May 2019.

The Area Planning Manager referred to an email received from the resident of the neighbouring property in relation to there being no visitation to the tree site in relation for the survey to have taken place. The Area Planning Manager assured Members that he had discussed the issue with the tree officer and a visual assessment of the tree from the application site had been carried out appropriately.

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

RESOLVED:

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

Conversion and extension of a former Church into 9 residential apartments with associated car parking.

The Planning and Enforcement Officer introduced the application for the conversion and extension of a former Church into 9 residential apartments with associated car parking 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.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1), Councillor Nat Green addressed the Committee as the local ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, a number of points were raised including the following:

·         He noted that he was not against the application in principle;

·         His primary concern was in relation to the second floor extension to the southern elevation and requested assurance that there would not be any overlooking from the windows; and

·         He considered the materials suggested to be harsh and asked that the unlisted heritage asset be treated with respect.

Elle Cass, 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 and Enforcement Officer responded to the concerns raised by the local ward Councillor, noting that they were valid concerns and although there would be some overlooking, due to the separation distances involved the impact would not be significant enough to warrant the refusal of the application.

Having considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all the speakers, Members unanimously expressed their support for the Officer’s recommendation

RESOLVED:

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

To erect and display one pole mounted branded flag.

The Area Planning Manager introduced the application for the erection and display one pole mounted branded flag

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1), Councillor Nat Green addressed the Committee as the local ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, a number of points were raised including the following:

·         His primary reason for objecting to the application was because he did not agree with allowing advertising on a listed building;

·         The other flags shown by the Officer did not contain any advertising; and

·         He welcomed high quality retailers in the Town but considered that if this application was granted it would set a precedent.

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

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments of the Conservation Officer and considered that the proposed advert would have an adverse impact on visual amenity and adversely impact on the character and appearance of the listed building and the conservation area.

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

RESOLVED:

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

Members gave significant weight to the concerns of the Conservation Officer as set out in the officer report and considered that the proposed advert would have an adverse impact on visual amenity as it would result in harm to the designated heritage assets identified and adversely impact on the character and appearance of the listed building and the conservation area.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Shropshire Council policies MD2, MD13, CS6 and CS17 and paragraph 132 of the NPPF.

Installation of one pole mounted branded flag and associated fixings.

The Area Planning Manager introduced the application for the installation of one pole mounted branded flag and associated fixings.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1), Councillor Nat Green addressed the Committee as the local ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, a number of points were raised including the following:

•   His primary reason for objecting to the application was because he did not agree with allowing advertising on a listed building;

•   The other flags shown by the Officer did not contain any advertising; and

•   He welcomed high quality retailers in the Town but considered that if this application was granted it would set a precedent.

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

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments of the Conservation Officer and considered that the proposed advert would have an adverse impact on visual amenity and adversely impact on the character and appearance of the listed building and the conservation area.

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

RESOLVED:

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

Members gave significant weight to the concerns of the Conservation Officer as set out in the officer report and considered that the harm to the character and appearance of the designated heritage asset (a grade 2 listed building) outweighed the public benefits of the proposal.  The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Shropshire Council policies MD2, MD13, CS6 and CS17 and paragraph 194 and 196 of the NPPF.

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the Central area as at 4^th July 2019 be noted.

To consider a resolution under Section 100 (A) of the Local Government Act 1972 that the proceedings in relation to the following items shall not be conducted in public on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined by the provisions of Schedule 12A of the Act.

RESOLVED:

That under Section 100(A)(A4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded during the consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that they might involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Schedule 12(A) of the Act.

RESOLVED:

That the Planning Enforcement Quarterly Report at 4^th July 2019 be noted.

To note that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 1^st August 2019 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 August 2019 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.