To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the minutes of the South Planning Committee meeting held on 16 September 2014.

Contact Linda Jeavons (01743) 252738.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the South Planning Committee held on 16 September 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.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 15, the following public question was received:

·         Received from Mr G Jackson and answered by Mr G French, Principal Planner – copy attached to the signed minutes.

By way of a supplementary question Mr Jackson requested clarification on the following:

(i)            The specific clause in the Scheme of Delegation which referred to ‘exceptional special circumstances’;

(ii)          The criteria used to define such circumstances; and

(iii)         On which dates following the Committee’s decision had officers discussed the matter with:

(a)  The Chairman of this Committee and the local Ward Member to agree that exceptional special circumstances applied;

(b)  The applicant to agree what further information was required;

(c)  With statutory consultees, ie Highways; and

(d)  The democratically elected Town Council and the many residents who had opposed this application.

The Chairman explained that a written response would be provided.

At the request of Mr G Jackson, the Principal Planner explained that the Scheme of Delegation provided for some flexibility or discretion as to when Officers could exercise their own judgement.  It was not an exact document that was specific to every circumstance.  Following the decision and given the concerns regarding defensibility at Appeal and there being no highway objections raised, there had been an immediate dialogue undertaken with the applicant and, within a week, the Area Planning Manager had agreed, in principle, to the application being reported back to committee.  He confirmed that a more detailed written response would be provided.

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 14/02873/FUL, Councillor Richard Huffer, declared that he was acquainted with the applicant but only in his capacity as a fellow farmer.

With reference to planning application 14/02807/FUL, Councillor Cecilia Motley, declared that she was a member of The Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership and The Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership Management Board.

With reference to planning application 14/01397/FUL, Councillor David Turner, declared that, for reasons of bias, he would leave the room and take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.

With reference to planning application 14/02127/FUL, Councillor David Turner, declared that, for reasons of bias, he would make a statement and then leave the room and take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.

With reference to planning application 14/02807/FUL, Councillor David Turner, declared that he was a member of The Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership and The Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership Management Board.

Outline application for mixed residential development and formation of a vehicular and pedestrian access.

The Chairman drew Members’ attention to the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.  He explained that the Committee Members had also received numerous emails and letters relating to planning applications to be considered at this meeting, all of which had been noted and would be taken into account by Members when making their decision.

Members noted the additional information circulated in paper form at the meeting and via email prior to the meeting regarding an Overview Report of the Highway Infrastructure to the South of Bishops Castle Town Centre, Shropshire, which had been commissioned by the applicant.

The Principal Planner introduced the application. With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, access and amended layout.  He confirmed that 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.

Councillor Mrs A-M Jackson, representing Bishop’s Castle 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 Town Council had been shocked to learn that a decision to unanimously refuse an application carried no weight and expressed concerns relating to the brief time afforded to them to respond to the resubmission of this application;

·         The traffic report contained no substance, data, verified costings or topographical information. No evidence to suggest that the improvements would be achievable;

·         The confirmation of CIL monies was not within the remit of this Committee; and

·         The proposal would be contrary to policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Mr S Taylor, 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 Officer’s report outlined the reasons why this application was being reconsidered;

·         Even without the highway improvements, there were no planning issues to justify refusal;

·         He drew attention to the Cabinet meeting held on 30^th July 2014 which indicated that the improvements to the highways could now be provided without recourse to public funds;

·         Would not be contrary to policy, would result in significant benefits and, if refused, would jeopardise the provision of affordable housing on adjacent land; and

·         If granted would avoid a costly appeal.

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Mr Taylor and the Principal Planner provided clarification on the improvements planned alongside Bells Court and the covering of the culvert and the allocation and spending of CIL monies.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Charlotte Barnes, as local Member, participated in the discussion but did not vote. During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         Concerns with regard to the targeting and spending of CIL monies;

·         The Highways report had been made available on the website before she had been informed about it;

·         Expressed surprise with regard to the comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Erection of two single storey extension to side elevations; increase in roof height to allow for first floor accomodation to include insertion of dormer windows and rooflight to front and rear roofline (amended description).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit the previous day 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, elevations and tree planting and protection plans.

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

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 David Turner, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room and took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         A considerable number of local residents and the Parish Council had consistently raised objections to the changes made to what was originally a modest bungalow, which was largely hidden in a plot which contained a mixture of trees and shrubs and bounded by a low wall;

·         The boundary fence which had been permitted retrospectively had attracted many objections;

·         The property, as consented, was totally out of character in the Conservation Area;

·         The current application sought to vary the scale and appearance of the property by adding more living space into the building and the limited visual interest in the consented building would now be lost;

·         A healthy evergreen Norway Spruce would be lost; and

·         If approved, consideration should be given to the species and maturity of replacement trees.

Mrs M Morgillo, 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 would excessively increase the size of what was a two-bedroomed dwelling;

·         Would be overbearing and out of character with the area; and

·         Would impact on the privacy of neighbouring properties.

Councillor M Whiteman, representing Barrow 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:

·         Local residents and the Parish Council considered the proposal to be overdevelopment and totally out of character with the area;

·         Would impact on neighbouring properties;

·         Much work had been undertaken retrospectively;

·         The boundary fence had been erected without permission;

·         Inappropriate tree planting had taken place; and

·         An appropriate tree planting and replacement scheme should be conditioned.

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

RESOLVED:

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

·         The proposed development, by reason of its massing and inappropriate design and the loss of trees would result in overdevelopment of the site, would detract from the character and appearance of the built and historic environment and would have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenities.  The development would therefore be contrary to Shropshire Core Strategy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

Proposed extensions and conversion of existing studio building to form four residential units and one commercial unit; including demolition of part of boundary wall (amended description).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit the previous day 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 and elevations.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 69, Councillor David Turner left the room during consideration of this item.

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

Ms H Wilkins-Webb, 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 would have a detrimental impact on her property, privacy and light and would change the way she used her existing living space;

·         Would impact further on the access onto King’s Street, which was already congested and had no pavement;

·         The submitted site plan was inaccurate and did not include her studio;

·         There was no provision for garden space or any form of outside open space; and

·         The proposal constituted overdevelopment in a Conservation Area and would be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Mrs M Hill, representing Much Wenlock 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 proposal constituted overdevelopment on a small site and would be detrimental to the Conservation Area;

·         There was a need for small residential units but provision must be appropriate and in keeping with the area;

·         King Street was already congested and this proposal would increase traffic movements and exacerbate the problem; and

·         The demolition of part of the stone wall would have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area.

Mr D Myers, representing 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:

·         Would create affordable living units to a high standard with parking provision;

·         Would be sustainable and in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan; and

·         Would not exacerbate surface water and would have a greater impact on the access.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Myers provided clarification on the width of the access and explained that in order to meet the required affordable housing contribution and achieve a financially viable proposition, the application was as proposed. 

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

RESOLVED:

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

·         The proposed development, by reason of increased scale through extension and the insertion of the proposed pedestrian access within the existing stone boundary wall would result in overdevelopment of the site and would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area, neighbour amenity and public safety.  The development would therefore be contrary to Shropshire Core Strategy policies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Construction of an equestrian centre to include: main facilities building incorporating reception, offices, changing rooms, therapy room, toilets, boiler room, viewing area, stables, stores and indoor arena; outdoor manege; carriage track; paddocks; two field shelters; vehicle parking, package treatment plant; surface water attenuation pool and associated drainage; formation of access and highway improvements; and landscaping.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit the previous day 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, elevations, access, passing places and proposed junction arrangements. 

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting, which detailed further objections and comments from local residents, Much Wenlock Civic Society and Shropshire Council Archaeology Officers.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 69, 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 David Turner, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room and took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         He refuted the suggestions of the applicant’s agent which suggested that he had interfered in the determination of this planning application;

·         Both he and a number of local residents supported the provision of riding for the disabled, but expressed reservations with regard to scale, flooding and highways;

·         Scale – The proposal would be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan’s Policy GQD1, which stated that:

“The high quality natural landscape outside the development boundary of Much Wenlock will be protected from any development which adversely affects the town’s character, setting and open views.”;

“open views towards the countryside, or across open spaces should be maintained”; and

“Elsewhere, the parish is characterised by small settlements….as well as hamlets and scattered farmsteads and it is important that new development respects its rural setting and does not detract from the high quality landscape of the parish in line with CS6”;

·         The proposal would be sited only 250 yards from the boundary of the AONB;

·         Flooding – There was no quantitative assurance that the measures contained in the proposal would reduce the flow of water off the development, and, as such, would be contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan Policy RF2;

·         Highways – It is difficult to gain access to and from the lane onto the A4169 and innumerable shunts had taken place.  Although regular users of the lane were aware of the blind spots and the need to reverse for quite some distance in order to pass, and, although the proposed passing places would alleviate some of the problem, he expressed concerns that this might not be sufficient to resolve concerns given the likely increase in the number of vehicles using the lane.  As such the proposal would be contrary to Neighbourhood Plan Policy EJ3, which suggested that in supporting development it should not have unacceptable impacts on the local road network;

·         There was no reference to how users of the popular Shropshire Way and the Jack Mytton bridleway would be managed;

·         Concerns with regard to the close proximity of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Outline application for a mixed residential development (to include access).

The Principal Planner 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 set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting; and the additional information circulated in paper form at the meeting and via email prior to the meeting regarding an Overview Report of the Highway Infrastructure to the South of Bishops Castle Town Centre, Shropshire, which had been commissioned by the applicant.

Councillor Mrs A-M Jackson, representing Bishops Castle 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:

·         Public Transport provision is inadequate to meet the needs of those needing to access employment, health and leisure facilities.  As such the proposal was contrary to the Design and Access Statement which indicated that there were four bus services running from Bishops Castle;

·         Employment prospects in Bishops Castle was limited and the business park remained unoccupied;

·         The applicant had failed to acknowledge the problems associated with the stream which adjoined the development;

·         Contrary to the Bishops Castle Town Plan and paragraphs 14 and 17 of the NPPF;

·         The proposal would only make a minimal contribution to affordable housing;

·         Approval would encourage piecemeal development;

·         There were currently five applications ongoing all of which would access/egress onto Kerry Lane; and

·         This application covered only half of the site so further applications would follow;

Mr T Watkins, 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:

·         Planning Officer was recommending approval, there were no outstanding planning issues and Highways Officers had raised no objections and had indicated that the development would not result in an unsustainable increase in traffic levels;

·         In response to concerns, the applicant had appointed a consultant to investigate the potential for delivering improvements;

·         Would provide an opportunity to improve traffic issues and Bishops Castle Town Council would be involved in discussions at a later date;

·         Would help to meet SAMDev requirements;

·         No objections had been raised by Shropshire Council Officers relating to affordable housing, drainage, ecology or archaeology;

·         No pluvial flood risk had been identified; and

·         Any concerns that had been raised would be controlled by appropriate conditions; and

·         Would not be contrary to the NPPF.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Charlotte Barnes, as local Member, participated in the discussion but did not vote. During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         She expressed her concerns relating to highway issues.  Kerry Lane was already a congested road so any increase in traffic would not be welcomed.

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

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

Continued use of land for agricultural purposes and the installation of up to 6.5 MW of solar photovoltaic panels and ancillary works.

The Principal Planner 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 set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting detailing further objections from a local resident and comments from the applicant and Shropshire Wildlife Trust.

In accordance with her declaration at Minute No. 69 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 Cecilia Motley, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room and took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         Serious concerns that the site fell within the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);

·         This would be a large scale development and would include solar panels, palisade fencing, converter buildings, equipment cabins, security lighting and CCTV all of which would have a detrimental and visual impact upon the traditional and archaeology rich landscape;

·         Concerns regarding the sudden influx of applications for solar panels, given the deadline for subsidy next year; and

·         She questioned the designation of the land after the site had been decommissioned and commented that it would be important that all solar panels should be removed at the end of their design life.

Mr J Phillips, 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 supported renewable energy but this development would be in the wrong location;

·         This would constitute major development in an AONB as such it would be contrary to paragraph 116 of the NPPF

·         The Government had indicated that the focus should now be on the placing of solar panels on the roofs of commercial, industrial, Government buildings, hospitals etc; and

·         The proposal would not be appropriate in scale and would impact greatly on the landscape, as such would be contrary to CS6.

Mr J Wrench, representing Stretton Climate Care, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Support the need to take action to reduce carbon emissions;

·         The overall impact of the proposal would not be severe;

·         Appropriate planting would reduce impact and very few public viewpoints would be affected;

·         No flooding implications;

·         Solar Panels were designed to ensure minimal glint and glare; and

·         This would be a low impact proposal.

Mr A Bower, 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:

·         Site would be well screened;

·         This was poor quality agricultural land which would continue to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

The Principal Planner 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 and elevations.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting detailing further comments from the applicant and objections from a local resident and the South Shropshire Green Party; and the additional information circulated in paper form at the meeting and via email prior to the meeting regarding a letter from the applicant’s ecologist and the response from Shropshire Council’s Natural Environment Manager/County Ecologist.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 69 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 Richard Huffer, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the room and took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         This application was tariff driven, given the deadline for subsidy next year;

·         Other applications in the area were forthcoming; and

·         The site was in close proximity of the AONB and the gateway to the Clee Hills.

In response to comments, the Principal Planning Officer provided clarification on the number of proposed applications in the area.

Mr D Duijvenvoorde, representing Save South Shropshire Countryside, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         High number of people had raised objections;

·         The proposal would be contrary to the requirements of CS5 and CS6;

·         The proposal did not comply or meet the test of community benefits; and

·         He urged refusal. 

Mr R Cavenagh, 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:

·         Concerns regarding noise from inverter sheds.  He had been assured that the inverter sheds would be relocated;

·         Would disrupt the tranquillity of the area;

·         Concerns regarding toxic substances;

·         Sheep would set off alarm system;

·         Would not provide long-term employment;

·         The narrow lane would be unsuitable for large vehicles;

·         Government policy supports localism;

·         Proposal would have a negative impact on the residential amenity; and

·         Proposal would have a negative impact on tourism and the local economy.

Councillor Mrs B Ashford, representing Caynham 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:

·         Renewable energy must be introduced in a positive way with the support of the community.  The Parish Council and local residents were opposed to this proposal;

·         Contrary to Department of Environment policy which indicates that solar panels should be appropriately sited and provides opportunities for the community;

·         This was an historic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Erection of a new single storey sun room (replacing an existing side utility).

The Principal Planner introduced the application.

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 Madge Shineton, as the local Ward Councillor, left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.

Members considered the submitted plans.

RESOLVED:

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

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the southern area as at 14 October 2014 be noted.

To note that the next meeting of the South Planning Committee will be held at

2.00 pm on Tuesday, 11 November 2014, in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.

It was noted that the next meeting of the South Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.