To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor David Roberts.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 13 November 2014.

Contact Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 13^th November 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 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.

Councillors Pamela Moseley and Kevin Pardy declared that they were Town Council representatives on Shropshire Playing Fields Association.

Conversion of the existing office space and extension to provide 50No residential apartments together with secure storage facilities and restaurant unit at ground level.

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, she drew members’ attention to the location, layout, access and elevations.

Members noted the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed a further comment from a member of the public in relation to materials to be used given the historic setting.

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 Andrew Bannerman, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote. During his statement the following points were raised:

·         He had no dispute with the principle of conversion as the proposal could make a good living space;

·         He felt that the recommendation as it stood was unsatisfactory as it was a sensitive site in the heart of an historic town and it was important to create something of architectural merit;

·         Design was key, but was something that the Committee rarely considered, although training on this issue had been requested;

·         It was not good enough to say that the design was subjective, officers should consider the views of experts;

·         He felt that more weight should be given to the opinion of English Heritage in relation to the elevational details, materials and finishes;

·         He drew attention to paragraph 6.2.4 in relation to the facades facing Princess Street and High Street, and paragraph 6.2.6 in relation to proposed solar PV Panels on the first floor elevation;

·         Led into accepting the proposal without the proper guidance and requested that a Design Review Service (eg MADE) be consulted in order to provide independent, objective, expert feedback on the design of the proposed development; and

·         He urged the Committee to defer its decision until the proposal had been submitted to a design review panel.

In response to concerns about the proposed solar pv panels on the first floor elevation of the main block, the Technical Specialist Planning Officer explained that the solar panels were included to add interest as the developer was required to retain the current ventilation apertures and that if approved a condition would be imposed requiring full details to be submitted for approval.

Concern was raised about an appeal against non-determination if the matter were to be deferred.

It was suggested that an appropriate way forward would be to form a small consensus group with the Chairman, Councillor Bannerman, English Heritage and the Planning Officers in order to oversee the discharge of Conditions.

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:

·         Officers resolving the issues contained in Condition No’s. 3, 4 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

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

With reference to Minute No. 71, the Principal Planning Officer introduced the application and explained the risks involved in refusing the application for the reasons previously given as outlined in the addendum, he also drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.

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.

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.

Mrs M Blythe, 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 in open countryside so would be contrary to CS5;

·       The bridleway was a much valued amenity and well used.  No access rights existed along this route which was too narrow to allow turning;

·       The development would cause a nuisance and a hazard to residents and would have a negative impact on residential amenity;

·       The site was unsustainable and too remote; it was a 40 minute round trip to the shop on foot; and

·       The development would damage the natural environment and would not satisfy the three strands of sustainable development set out in the NPPF.

Mr R Blythe, on behalf of 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:

·       Only vehicular farm access existed over the very narrow bridleway;

·       Access to the field had, until recently, been via a different entrance;

·       The development would impact on the surface of the bridleway, the trees and the wildlife, as well as the nearby properties;

·       Concern for the safety of riders and walkers etc;

·       Delivery vehicles would block the road; and

·       It was illegal to drive a motorised vehicle up a public bridleway.

Mr B Clyne, 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:

·       The local community were opposed to this proposal;

·       The proposal would fail the three dimensions of sustainable development contained within the NPPF, namely, economic, social and environmental roles;

·       There would be a net detrimental effect as agricultural land would be lost;

·       The site was remote and so transport was required in order to access local amenities;

·       Concern for the surface of the bridleway;

·       Impact on local residents of traffic associated with the development; and

·       The proposal did not comply with adopted or emerging policies nor the NPPF.

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:

·       Agricultural land was classified into grades according to quality with the site being Grade 3 Good to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

The Area Highways Development Control Manager (Central) introduced this application for a Traffic Regulation Order and closure of New College Road for access by all motor vehicles at its junction with Wenlock Road, Shrewsbury.

He 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 of the proposed closure.

He drew attention to the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further objection comments from a member of the public together with two letters from local residents.

Mr P Marston, 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:

·         Informal consultation was unfair;

·         The original decision was to close New College Road at London Road;

·         Requested a temporary closure at London Road to allow the impact of closure to be assessed;

·         His request for a separate access to his property had not been seriously considered;

·         He felt that this proposal overturned previous decisions; and

·         If the proposal is approved the Council should restore the plot boundaries and access to Wenlock Road for 151 Wenlock Road as they were when development was first permitted in 1951.

In response, the Area Highways Development Control Manager (Central) did not think that a signed only closure would work.  He explained that whilst not strictly in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement the proposed closure at Wenlock Road had been requested by local residents and had been discussed with the College who had no interest in where the closure was carried out.  He confirmed that the Section 106 Agreement could only be disputed by the parties involved and there was only a slight risk that the College might, in future, say it was not carried out in accordance with the Agreement.

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 Jane MacKenzie, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then took no part in the debate and did not vote. During her statement the following points were raised:

·         Aware it was a very sensitive issue;

·         New College Road was very narrow with vehicles traveling at speeds of up to 50mph;

·         Ebnal Road was wider and better able to cope with the additional traffic;

·         Only 3 objections had been received from residents of Ebnal Road; and

·         Although she appreciated the difficulties raised for a number of local residents she felt that the proposal represented the views of the majority of residents.

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 Ted Clarke, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then took no part in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Conversion of former hospital building(s) and outbuildings into 158 apartments and houses to include some demolition; formation of parking areas, courtyards and community gardens; erection of 82 dwellings with associated garages and parking; provision of new vehicular access and alterations to existing vehicular access; provision of new bowling green, associated works and pavilion; to include the felling of some trees, erection of protective netting adjacent to cricket pitch (Amended description).

The Principal Planning Officer introduced this 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, layout, access and elevations.

Members noted the additional information as detailed in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further comments from members of the public, a petition objecting to the scheme and further objection comments from Sport England.

Mrs K Pearce, representing Racecourse Lane Residents 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:

·       Concern about the density and layout of the proposal;

·       Wished to see a revised layout protecting existing facilities;

·       The proposal would lead to the loss of the junior football pitch, which, coupled with cuts to the Shropshire Youth Service, was a double blow for the children who used the facilities;

·       The proposal raised equality / deprivation issues;

·       A petition had been signed by 1060 local residents objecting to the proposal;

·       There were safety issues in relation to the proximity of the cricket pitch to proposed housing;

·       Traffic levels would become unacceptable; and

·       It would not be in the public interest to approve this application.

Mrs J Griffiths, representing the Cricket Club, 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 Cricket Club had a long standing history of some 130 years and have had to fight for the survival of the Club;

·       Access to the ground had always been through the site; concern that access had not been decided;

·       Concern that emergency vehicles would not be able to get to the ground;

·       Fencing would not reduce the impact on properties; there would be potential for injuries;

·       The long term costs to the Club were unknown; and

·       The Club had not been engaged in the process.

With the agreement of the Chairman, Mr H Thorne, the agent, was permitted to speak for up to six minutes and spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·       It was easy to lose sight of what the application was for, which was 240 houses whilst retaining the biggest listed building in Shropshire;

·       The applicants had consulted widely on the application and had held meetings with officers, the Town Council, the School and Church, had held public meetings and met individual objectors and had done its best to address any concerns;

·       Changes to footpaths and access had been made as a result;

·       The recreational facilities had been discussed with officers; a new bowling club house and car park was being proposed in a better location; the applicant had met with the Football Club who said they were going to abandon the pitch; there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Outline application for the erection of up to 39 residential dwellings; change of use of land for Community development serviced site; School drop-off / pick-up facility; with open space landscaping buffer (to include access).

The Principal 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, layout, access and elevations.

In response to a query the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that if approved it would be ensured that the lane leading to the school drop-off / pick-up facility was sufficiently wide to allow for turning and passing vehicles.

Concern was raised that the application was contrary to the SAMDev and Parish Plan and that young children would have to cross the main road in order to access the play and recreational facilities.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the location of play facilities was indicative and that the developer would enter into an agreement with the Parish Council to either maintain the existing provision or to use land put aside by the developers.  It was for the Parish Council to determine the most appropriate location for play provision.

RESOLVED:

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

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

·       A Section 106 Agreement to secure affordable housing in accordance with the prevailing rate current at the time of submission of Reserved Matters.

·       The developer being requested to discuss the preferred location for play provision with the Parish Council prior to the submission of any Reserved Matters application.

Members requested a list of all ongoing appeals and the Principal Planning Officer updated the Committee on recent appeal decisions.

RESOLVED:

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

To note that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 15 January 2015 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 15th January 2015 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.