To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Tudor Bebb (substitute: Tim Barker).

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 11 December 2014.

Contact Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738.

The Minutes of the Central Planning Committee held on 11 December 2014 would be submitted to the next meeting for confirmation.

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, Jane MacKenzie 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 application 15/00090/FUL, Councillor Tim Barker stated that as a Member of Cabinet he had been in attendance when the Shrewsbury Student Accommodation Policy had been considered.    He would make a statement and leave the room and take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.

With reference to planning applications 14/02402/FUL and 14/03259/OUT, Councillor Vernon Bushell declared that he knew two of the speakers and declared a personal interest.

With reference to planning application 14/05115/FUL, Councillor Dean Carroll stated that he was employed by a company which had an interest with one of the principle objectors.  He would leave the room and take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.

With reference to planning application 14/02402/FUL, Councillor Pam Moseley stated that she was a Shrewsbury Town Council representative on the Shropshire Playing Fields Association.

With reference to planning application 14/02402/FUL, Councillor Kevin Pardy stated that he was a member of the Shropshire Playing Fields Association.

With reference to planning application 14/00467/OUT, Councillor David Roberts stated that his wife’s family had an interest in this application.  He would leave the room and take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.

With reference to planning application 14/01802/FUL, Councillor David Roberts stated that the applicants were his brother-in-law’s stepchildren and a person employed by him lived in the area.  He would make a statement then leave the room and take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.

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 78 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 conversion of existing Estates Building to pavilion; to include the felling of some trees (Amended description following receipt of amended plans on the 16^th January 2015).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout, access and elevations.  He confirmed that the revised proposals would provide for 15 on-site affordable dwellings, which would include provision for 3 No. 2-bed conversions and not 4 as stated in the report.

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 D Kilby, representing Shropshire Playing Fields Association (SPFA), spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         He expressed support for the revised plans which had fully addressed Sport England’s and the SPFA’s objections;

·         The relocation of the existing Bowling Green to the north of the cricket pitch and the removal of plots 51 and 52 were welcomed;

·         It would create an asset for the community and would offer health and wellbeing benefits;

·         He requested that consideration be given to the dedication of the sports field as a centenary field in honour of those who fell during WW1;

·         Would be in accordance with paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); and

·         As the area to the west of Shrewsbury did not currently have a robust and up-to-date local needs assessment in place he requested that consideration be given to the implementation of one.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  A Member advised that the dedication of the field was not a planning issue and should be referred to Shrewsbury Town Council.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to Officer’s being given delegated authority to grant planning permission, planning permission be granted as per the Officer’s recommendation, subject to:

·         A Section 106 legal agreement to secure:

-       Contribution towards education infrastructure.

-       On-site affordable dwellings (15) and a commuted sum towards off-site affordable dwellings (.6);

-       Contribution to provide, and agreement with Shropshire Council to let a contract for the construction of the replacement bowling green and lighting on a like-for-like basis prior to commencement of development on existing bowling green or cessation of right to use existing vehicular access and car park.

-       Agreement with applicant to convert the existing Estates Building to provide a replacement Bowling Pavilion in accordance with the timetable for the replacement bowling green.

-       Transfer of cricket ground to Shropshire Council, who will in turn transfer this on a long-term lease to Shelton Cricket Club; and

·         Subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

Erection of Class A1 convenience store including ATM with dedicated external servicing, refuse and plant area, associated car parking and landscaping.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 88, Councillor Dean Carroll left the room during consideration of this item.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, proposed site plan 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 set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further public objections and comments of Shropshire Council’s Public Protection (Specialist) in response to a request from the agent to allow greater flexibility in respect of the delivery times. 

Mr G Heap, 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:

·         The proposal did not take into account the impact on the surrounding area;

·         Would create on road parking which would be unsafe and dangerous;

·         Highway Safety – The entrance gate to the site which was opposite his property was currently permanently locked to prevent large vehicles using this entrance;

·         Traffic – A convenience store would result in increased traffic, which would include large/small delivery and collection vehicles;

·         There was no turning facility in Tilstock Crescent, which would cause further congestion;

·         Noise – Type of delivery vehicle would result in increased noise levels and, in addition, there would also be noise from industrial fridge/freezer motors and users of the store; and

·         Would have a negative impact on the retail provision in the area.

Ms R Childs, 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 aim was to keep the public house open and for both businesses to work in conjunction with one another;

·         Had undertaken a car parking survey and the car parking provision on the site would exceed the local saved policy requirements;

·         There would be two deliveries per day and would be prepared to accept a condition regarding a Service Delivery Management Plan;

·         Highways had raised no objections;

·         The Co-op was satisfied that there was sufficient demand for a further store in this area;

·         Would create employment; and

·         Would be in accordance with policy and would be a beneficial development on an underdeveloped and used site.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Ted Clarke, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         Concerned about the increase in traffic that would be generated as a result of this development;

·         This was a residential setting and the proposal would impact on the residents of Tilstock Crescent; and

·         Concerned about over-provision of retail space and there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

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

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 88, Councillor David Roberts left the room during consideration of this item.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, drew Members’ attention to the location, indicative layout and access.  He reported a change to the recommendation and explained that Officers were now seeking to secure the provision and retention of the footpath running through Plealey Lane as part of a S106 Agreement.  He also drew Members’ attention to the following: 

·         Additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which detailed further public objections and comments from Longden Parish Council;

·         A further objection which had been received following publication of the Schedule of Additional Letters and which raised similar issues to those in the report; and

·         A letter and photographs from the residents of the Severnside Longmynd View Flats which had been circulated via email prior to the meeting and circulated in paper form at the meeting.

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 N Ingham, representing Longden Village Action Group, 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;

·         Proposal would not be necessary to meet the 5 Year Land Supply;

·         Would not be in keeping with the Village Design Statement – a smaller development would be less intrusive and retain the rural character of the village;

·         The development would extend into the countryside and would fail to accord with H3 of the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Plan and adopted Core Strategy Policies, CS4, CS5, CS6 and CS17 and MD1 and MD3 in the emerging Site Allocations and Management Development Plan (SAMDev);

·         Delineation  between the villages would be eroded and potential access points on this site would lead to expansion on this site in the future;

·         Limited employment in the area would necessitate the need to travel to find employment;

·         Suitability and safety of the proposed footpath between garages had raised concern;

·         Approved applications in the area meant that Longden had achieved its housing requirements; and

·         Highway Safety - local roads already suffered from speeding vehicles.

Councillor N Evans, 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 had undertaken consultation on three occasions to inform SAMDev, Village Design Statement and Parish Plan and the majority of residents had said no to development on the northern side of the area; and

·         Requested that the S106 should include provision for the footpath through the garages and the footpath on the western side of the site should be removed.

Ms H Howie, the agent, spoke for the proposal in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Outline application for proposed housing development (all matters reserved).

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

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

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

·         Development would generate a considerable amount of traffic;

·         Would be outside the village boundary in open countryside;

·         Would exit onto a single track lane used by horse riders, cyclists and walkers and there was no way for them to get out of the way of passing traffic other than by using private driveways;

·         There were no passing places and no option for vehicles to reverse;

·         Highways had acknowledged that Wilcott Lane was narrow;

·         Delivery drivers would not travel all the way down the Nesscliffe Bypass to the south roundabout and then come back up the old A5;

·         Would be contrary to CS4 and Parish Plan and would not be sustainable; and

·         Wilcott Lane was the only link that horse riders and cyclists could use to access off road bridleways and the country park.

.

Mr T Mennell, 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:

·         No vehicles were seen during the site visit;

·         Officers had addressed objections in the report;

·         Scale of the application had been reduced as per a request from the Parish Council and in accordance with the Village Plan;

·         Would be sustainable and in accordance with SAMDev and the NPPF; and

·         Would provide a mix of housing and affordable properties.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor David Roberts, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         The proposal would be contrary to the Parish Council’s aspirations as set out in their Parish Plan and SAMDev;

·         The Parish had put forward an aspiration of 45 dwellings and to date 230 houses had been proposed.

In response to comments, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager confirmed that the site would be situated on the edge of the existing settlement; the inclusion of bungalows could be conditioned; and reiterated that the number of dwellings referred to by speakers had not all been for dwellings within Nesscliffe but across the cluster and there had been a number of planning applications refused.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Some Members acknowledged the close vicinity of the centre of the village; welcomed the inclusion of bungalows; noted this was an outline  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Change of use from office space to student halls of residence to provide 85 units (large HMO Sui Generis use).

The Principal Planner introduced the application.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 88, Councillor Tim Barker, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         He supported the proposal.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Andrew Bannerman, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and withdrew from the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         He commented that discussions had taken place with Shrewsbury Town Council and an open evening had been held; and

·         He urged approval.

RESOLVED:

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

Installation of a 30m high wind turbine with control box and associated works.

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application and with reference to the drawings and photomontage displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location.  He drew Members’ attention to a further representation received from a resident following publication of the Schedule of Additional Letters and confirmed that the statutory notification procedures had been carried out and the site notice had been erected at the site as required.

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 C Murphy, 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:

·         Would introduce an industrial element into a rural area so would have a major detrimental visual impact on the surrounding area;

·         Would be visible from the Stiperstones;

·         There had been no consultation or engagement with the local community;

·         Would have a detrimental impact on the nearby listed building;

·         Government Planning Practice Guidance indicated that renewable energy should not override environmental protection or the planning concerns of the local community; and

·         Contrary to the NPPF which indicated that applications should only be approved if the impact was deemed to be acceptable.

Mr P Hughes, 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:

·         Family farm which had been in the family for years and diversification would ensure the farm remained viable;

·         Would produce electricity for our own use and the National Grid;

·         No objections had been raised by the Parish Council or technical consultees; and

·         Would not be detrimental to tourism in the area.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 88 and the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor David Roberts, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         Would be in a prominent place and would be seen by people travelling along the A458;

·         This would be the tenth turbine in the area so would have a detrimental cumulative impact on the landscape character of the area;

·         Residents were concerned about the impact on their ability to sell their listed building; and

·         The external colour of the turbine should be a matt off-white colour

(Councillor David Roberts did not return to the meeting.)

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 the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the Central area as at 12 February 2015 be noted.

To note that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 12 March 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 pm on Thursday, 12 March 2015 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.