To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Vernon Bushell (Chairman) (substitute: Jon Tandy), Tudor Bebb, Jane MacKenzie and David Roberts (substitute: Tim Barker).

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 16 October 2014.

Contact Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 16 October 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to it being noted that the decision at Minute No. 57 should read, “…….transport provision; the success of the small scale facilities is dependent on the entrepreneurialship of the people who run them; the safety…..”

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 application 14/03033/FUL, Councillors Andrew Bannerman and Peter 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 applications 14/00335/OUT and 14/03338/OUT, Councillor Tim Barker stated that, for reasons of predetermination, he would make a statement and withdraw from the table and take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, these applications.

Outline application (access, layout and scale) for the erection of 47 dwellings (7 affordable), school hall, car parking area and enlarged school playing field for existing school, allotments, village green and informal open space (amended description).

With reference to Minute No. 57, the Principal Planner introduced the application and explained the risks involved in refusing the applications for the reasons previously given as outlined in the addendum, he also drew Members’ attention to the location and layout.

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

Mr J Casewell, 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:

·         He urged Members to refuse this application for a second time;

·         Would be contrary to paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  A housing estate situated on the side of a small village would lead to distortion of and damage to the communities that had taken many decades to evolve;

·         Would be contrary to paragraph 12 of the NPPF.  The community had made its intentions clear – new development should be in small pockets distributed throughout the village;

·         Paragraph 111 of the NPPF required authorities to encourage the use of brownfield sites and where significant development of agricultural land was demonstrated to be necessary local authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality.  Paragraph 112 emphasised this duty and nowhere had the necessity to develop agricultural land been demonstrated and since February 2014 livestock had been grazed and two crops had been grown;

·         Concerned by the extra volume of traffic that would be generated alongside the HGVs, farm machinery and the dangerous junctions onto the A49;

·         Facilities – No-one would be solely reliant on the two shops and the reference to a plethora of other services was a wild exaggeration;

·         There were 18 mainly small businesses on the industrial estate, Farm Friends Nursery employed 16 staff.  Raising turkeys and growing potatoes was seasonal and as the latter was not labour intensive any vacancies for employment would be minimal;

·         Any need for a double classroom at the school should be addressed by the education authority and not used by the developer as justification to build an estate; and

·         Other land had been identified and the community should not be ignored.

Councillor David Lane, representing Condover Parish 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:

·         He drew attention to a recently dismissed appeal for land in Dorrington and pointed out specific similarities to this application:

Ø  The site was in open countryside, where new development was strictly controlled under Shropshire Council’s Core Strategy Policy CS5 and only limited types of development, such as accommodation for essential countryside workers and other affordable housing was permitted;

Ø  The site had not been identified in the emerging Site Allocations and Management Development (SAMDev) Plan;

Ø  The Shropshire Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement currently indicated that there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

Outline application for the erection of 35 dwellings to include means of access, together with resiting of school football pitch, provison of extended school car park and new school access (amended description).

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application and confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location.

Members noted the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further objection comments from members of the public and comments from Shropshire Council’s Highway Officers.

Mrs J Ingham, 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:

·         Longden was a rural community with small scale facilities;

·         Because of the nature of the layout of the development (a cul-de-sac) the occupants would be unlikely to interact with the community;

·         Concerns with regard to the volume of traffic that would be generated by the development, and because of the limited employment opportunities in the area this would be exacerbated with residents journeying by car to access employment;

·         It had not been demonstrated that school traffic would use the proposed access arrangements;

·         No adequate drainage proposals had been submitted;

·         A number of trees, including trees up to 350 years old would be felled;

·         Great Crested Newts had been discovered and this required further investigation;

·         Would lead to further applications; and

·         Unclear if a proper bat survey had been undertaken.

Councillor P Carter, representing Longden Parish 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 Parish Council welcomed additional housing but only if it was sympathetic to the area;

·         The proposal would not meet the needs of the community, would increase the size of the village by 40% and be contrary to Parish Plan;

·         No consultation had been undertaken and pre-application discussions would have highlighted concerns;

·         The narrow, single track road network was already busy with agricultural and school traffic. No traffic assessment had been carried out to seek the views of users. Residents would have to commute to work;

·         Inadequate bat survey undertaken and Great Crested Newts were present;

·         The proposed footpath might not be achievable as it crossed private land;

·         A significant number of mature trees would be removed;

·         Not sustainable;

·         If approved, strict control on the ecology was imperative; and

·         Any Reserved Matters application should be considered by the Parish Council and this Committee.

Mr M Parrish, 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:

·         All comments received from consultees and interested parties had been addressed and he drew Members’ attention to the information from Highway Officers as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters;

·         Discussions had been undertaken with the School Head with regard to access and associated facilities.  Any works to the school would be funded by the applicant.  Car  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Outline application (access for approval) for mixed residential development.

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

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

Councillor R Blythe, representing Ford Parish 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:

·         Ford was designated as open countryside and the site fell within the Conservation Area;

·         Access would be onto the busy A458;

·         Already insufficient parking at school and this would exacerbate the problem;

·         Inadequate ecology survey had been undertaken;

·         Concerns with regard to surface water run-off.  The brook floods and this proposal would exacerbate the problem;

·         School was already at its optimum number; and

·         This proposal would be disproportionate in scale and size of existing community.

Mr A Sheldon, the applicant, 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 proposal would be sustainable and within walking distance of the village;

·         Highways Agency had raised no objections;

·         Dwellings would be built to a high standard suitable and in keeping with the Conservation Area;

·         £25,000 would be made available to the Parish Council to overcome and mitigate traffic concerns;

·         Only two objections had been received and one of these was from Parish Council; and

·         This would be a sustainable location.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Roger Evans, as local Member, participated in the discussion and spoke against the proposal but did not vote. During which he raised the following points:

·         Following consultation, Ford had been designated as open countryside;

·         Shropshire Council now maintained they had a five year land supply;

·         Limited employment in the area; and

·         Following a survey by the Parish Council a low housing need had been identified and other applications granted in the area had met any identified need.

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

RESOLVED:

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

·         A Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing in accordance with the prevailing rate at the time of submission of reserved matters; and

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

Change of Use of former ambulance station to A1 retail including the provision of two C3 residential units and the erection of thirteen dwellings.

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

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 the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans.  They noted the comments of the Public Protection Officers and noted that appropriate conditions would be attached to mitigate any noise concerns and highway improvement works would take place at the junction with Sparrow Lane and Abbey Foregate.

RESOLVED:

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

·         A Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the affordable housing on site; and

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

Outline Application for the erection of 2No dwellings (to include access).

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

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 detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further comments from the Planning Officer and objection comments from members of the public.

Ms S Mackay, 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:

·         During the SAMDev consultation process Ryton had expressed a wish to be designated as countryside;

·         Facilities and services would have to be accessed by car;

·         This proposal would add to the existing imbalance in Ryton and would offer no community benefit;

·         Would be contrary to NPPF, CS5 and SAMDev, be socially unsustainable and encroach into open countryside;

·         Significant weight could now be afforded to SAMDev and Shropshire Council could now demonstrate a five year land supply; and

·         The proposal failed to satisfy the three dimensions to sustainable development defined within the NPPF, namely the economic, social and environmental roles.

Councillor David Lane, representing Condover Parish 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:

·         Condover Parish Council was in favour of development but had been targeted by developers;

·         Ryton was designated as countryside, so proposal would be contrary to SAMDev;

·         The two four-bedroomed dwellings would not meet the housing needs of the village and he questioned how they could be considered sustainable; and

·         He drew attention to the recent dismissed appeal for Dorrington.

Mr D Richards, 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 proposal would be in accordance with the NPPF, was in accordance with guidelines and had been assessed by Officers;

·         Would result in a visual enhancement of the site;

·         Landscaping, design etc. would be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage;

·         Highways had raised no objections;

·         Sustainable location;

·         The only objections had been from the adjacent householder and the Parish Council; and

·         Would provide additional housing.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 65 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 Tim Barker, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote. During his statement the following points were raised:

·         He reiterated that Shropshire Council could now demonstrate a five years land supply and this would be an “on balance” decision and drew Members’ attention to the three dimensions of sustainability as set out in the NPPF. 

In the ensuing debate, Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Erection of 2 no. dwellings with associated garages; formation of vehicular access.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.

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 detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further comments from the Planning Officer and objection comments from members of the public.

Mrs M Blyth, 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:

·         Site fell outside the development boundary on agricultural land so would be contrary to CS5;

·         The bridleway was a much valued amenity and well used.  No access rights existed along this route;

·         72 residents had signed a petition which demonstrated the local opposition to this proposal;

·         There had been no demonstrated need for housing in Ford and the site would be unsustainable;

·         The development would seriously impact on residential amenity; and

·         All vehicles throughout development and thereafter would pass Clifton Coach House and the noise would have a detrimental impact on family life.  As such the proposal would be in contravention of Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Mrs Z Robbins, representing the Nesscliffe Hills & District Bridleway Association, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         There was no vehicular access rights over the bridleway and recently an opening in the fence and hedge line was made to gain access;

·         No higher access rights than bridleway had been claimed or proved on this route and it was illegal to drive a motorised vehicle up a public bridleway;

·         The surfacing of a bridleway should not be to the detriment of the main users; and

·         The bridleway was the only off road through route in Ford, was a safe route and supported the initiative to get people out exercising.  It was an important link in the Humphrey Kynaston Way and any detrimental impact on this route would have an impact on tourism and put leisure users at risk and be contrary to CS16.

Councillor R Blyth, representing Ford Parish 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:

·         This was a greenfield site and agricultural land;

·         Following consultation, Ford Parish Council had been designated as countryside under SAMDev;

·         The entrance to the field had been made just prior to the application being submitted and he questioned if there was a legal right to actually use the access;

·         The principle of developing the land had been assessed for possible development but was rejected because of its detached location from the main settlement and would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the central area as at 13 November 2014 be noted.

To note that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 11 December 2014 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.

RESOLVED:

That it be noted that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee would be held at 2.00 p.m. on Thursday, 11 December 2014 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.