To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors T Bebb and D Roberts.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 6 March 2014.

Contact Linda Jeavons (01743) 252738.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 6 March 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to it being noted that Councillor Dean Carroll had submitted his apologies.

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.

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 A Bannerman, P Nutting and Mrs J MacKenzie 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 14/00190/OUT, Councillor P Nutting stated that a member of his family lived in close vicinity to the application site and, for reasons of bias, he would leave the room during consideration of this item and not vote.

Outline application for the erection of 19 dwellings to include access from Falkland Road (amended description).

With reference to Minute Nos. 128 and 140, the Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that this application had been refused on 6 February 2014 (Minute No. 128) for the reasons set out at paragraph 2.1 of the report.  A report setting out the risks of refusing the scheme was put to the subsequent meeting on 6 March 2014 (Minute No. 140) but was deferred in order that a reconsultation exercise could be undertaken with all properties with a boundary adjoining the revised site boundary.  The report presented to Members at this meeting provided guidance in respect of the likely implications of refusing the application for the reasons set out at paragraph 2.1 of the report.  The report also set out further additional representations received from Condover Parish Council and Shropshire Council’s Public Protection Officers in respect of sewage treatment works.  The Planning Officer continued to recommend approval of the proposal.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.

Members had undertaken a site visit on two previous occasions and had assessed the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

Mr M Pritchard, on behalf of local residents, 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 proposed route of the new footpath would take people further away from amenities and pedestrians, including children, would prefer to take the shortcut along the pavement that ran alongside the A49;

·         The proposed new footpath would put people in conflict with vehicles where it enters the Lower Fold.  The Lower Fold was used by residents and breakdown vehicles and was barely wide enough for vehicles and had no footpath;

·         There was potential danger to children owing to the close proximity of the sewage treatment plant and a report from DEFRA stated that the planning of new residential housing should take in to consideration the location of sewage treatments plants; and

·         The access to and from the A49 was notoriously dangerous and many fatal accidents had occurred.

Councillor E Marvin, 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:

·         The proposed new footpath connects to Lower Fold via a narrow lane and constituted a serious danger, especially with an increased footfall which the new development would generate;

·         The access along the A49 was dangerous and the proposed new footpath did little to alleviate the dangers for school children going to and from school;

·         Consultation had not been achieved with people living on The Fold and the proposed footpath would cut through a resident’s property; and

·         The proposal would be contrary to the robust Dorrington Village Design Statement.

Councillor T Barker, the local Ward Councillor, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

Outline application (including access with mini island off Longden Road) for a residential development of up to a maximum of 175 dwellings; amenity space and associated works (amended description).

With reference to Minute No. 118, the Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that this application had been deferred at the 9 January 2014 meeting for further negotiations in respect of the number of dwellings, the provision of recreation and leisure facilities and highway improvement works.  Subsequently, the agent had confirmed that the scheme would now deliver up to a maximum of 175 dwellings.  The location and amount of open space would be considered at the Reserved Matters stage, and Shrewsbury Town Council had expressed an interest in developing the play and open space facilities subject to further negotiations with themselves and the developer. 

With reference to the drawings displayed, the Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the Highway improvement works.  These works included the installation of a mini island in place of a T-junction along with the installation of a traffic signal controlled crossroads with push-button controlled pedestrian/cycle Toucan crossings at the Longden Road/Roman Road island.  The results of the Transport Assessment by Mouchel had shown that the traffic signal junction would operate more efficiently than the current roundabout and was considered to be the best option when balancing out the needs of all road users, particularly students walking and cycling to the adjacent schools.  This scheme would contribute approximately £525k towards the local highway network along this corridor.  However, he explained that this was a Shropshire Council responsibility which would be required irrespective of this development.  Local residents and Members had expressed concerns relating to the timing of the traffic surveys, particularly as it had been carried out in July 2013 at a time when all Year 6 students had left.  Accordingly, the developer had conducted a new survey in February 2014 and had compared the data collected in recent surveys carried out by Shropshire Council, which had shown that the new survey had been in-line with the original.  Further consideration had been given to the potential for increased traffic movements along Stanley Lane and Meole Village.  However, the local Highway Authority had maintained the opinion that there would be no noticeable increase in vehicular movements for the following reasons:

·         A traffic calming scheme and 20 mph zone, including speed cushions, had been installed during the summer holidays outside Meole Brace School on Stanley Lane;

·         The existing constraints at Upper Road/Roman Road at peak times made this route unattractive as a ‘rat-run’.  Longden Road, whilst experiencing peak time delays, offered reliable journey times and, even if traffic signals were installed on the Upper Road junction only, the reliability of turning movements on to Roman Road would be improved.  Therefore, Longden Road would be the desired route; and

·         While it was accepted that some traffic would travel along Mousecroft Lane to access the A5 it was not considered to be as attractive due to the narrow rural nature of the lane.  However, in acknowledgement of concerns raised, it was proposed to introduce a 30 mph speed limit or a ‘Quiet Lane’ scheme.

In response to the concerns expressed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

Application for Outline Planning Permission (access for approval) for residential development and associated works.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that this was an outline application with all matters, excluding access, reserved for later approval.  The site was located in an area of open countryside on the edge of Nesscliffe, had been promoted as a Community Hub and had been allocated under SAMDev as a suitable site for 15 dwellings.  The aspiration of Nesscliffe Parish Council had been for 30 dwellings in total with developments being up to a maximum of 10 two-three bedroomed houses on any one site.  He further explained that the proposal was considered to be sustainable and at this point in time a five year land supply could not be demonstrated. He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, indicative layout and proposed access arrangements.

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

In the ensuing debate, Members acknowledged that the site had been allocated under SAMDev, but expressed concerns with regard to the junction to The Crescent and objected to the design and particularly the straight lines and sharp 90^o bends.  Members noted that the lack of Broadband was not a material planning consideration.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing and to the conditions as set out in Appendix 1 to the report, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Erection of two detached dwellings (within walled garden) to include the erection of detached garden rooms and alterations to existing vehicular access (amended description)

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  He suggested an amendment to the wording of Condition No. 6 to ensure that a schedule of work relating to the repair of the wall should be approved prior to the occupancy of any dwelling.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations. 

Mr P Anderson, Clerk to Bicton 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 development would not be sustainable;

·         The proposal would be contrary to Bicton Parish Council’s SAMDev Plan;

·         He was concerned that a further application for two further dwellings would follow;

·         Approval of the proposal would set a precedent;

·         He acknowledged the constraints Members were currently under due to the lack of a five year land supply but commented that Bicton Parish Council had worked extremely hard to produce its SAMDev policy.  He urged Members to send a strongly worded letter of complaint with regard to the five year land supply to the Secretary of State.

Mr R Mills, 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 had been amended to take account of concerns;

·         The number of dwellings had been reduced from four to two and drew Members’ attention to the comments of the Shropshire Council’s Conservation Officer as detailed in the report;

·         All external buildings, including the proposed carports had been removed, which would mean minimal change to the appearance of the external wall;

·         The access point into the wall would be handed from west to the east so as to take activity away from third parties.  The point of access from the public highway however could not be closed as it was an existing access and served other land uses.  Shropshire Council’s Highways Development Control had noted the betterment of widening the existing access;

·         The proposal constituted sustainable development as detailed in the report at 6.1.7 to 6.1.10;

·         This form of development had long been widely used to fund the retention and repair of significant heritage assets through the United Kingdom;

·         The dwellings would not be taller than the existing walls, so there would be virtually no visual difference to the setting of the walled garden within the adjacent landscape, thus ensuring that this aspect of its heritage value was not compromised;

·         The contemporary design had been achieved following consultation with appropriate Shropshire Council Officers; and

·         Significant funding would be made available through CIL and the affordable housing contribution to the benefit of other development plan objectives.

In response to questions from Members, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained that the design would be of a modern design,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

Outline application (all matters reserved) for the erection of one dwelling; creation of pedestrian access

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and explained that this was an outline application with all matters reserved for later approval.  He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, indicative layout, access and parking arrangements. 

Councillor A Mosley, local Ward Councillor, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Both he and Shrewsbury Town Council opposed the proposal;

·         The proposal would be detrimental to the Conservation Area and would impact on the visual amenities of the area;

·         Car parking was already a big problem in the area; and

·         The proposal would breach a wall of great significance in Donkey Alley.

Mr Biddlecombe, 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:

·         He was aware that this was a Conservation Area and would use appropriate materials; and

·         Hedging would be erected between the two properties and the proposal would not impact on the view for people walking across the Castle Walk,

In response to comments and questions, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained that this was a Conservation Area and any development should preserve or enhance the nature of the area; content drawings could not be requested at this stage but Members could request that any matters reserved for later approval be determined by Committee rather than be delegated to Officers; and if permission was granted any purchaser would be aware of the limited parking.

In the ensuing debate, Members expressed differing views.  Some commented and expressed concerns that the proposal would be to the detriment of the area; it was already a high density area; parking was already a problem; and at times emergency vehicles would have problems accessing the area.  Other Members supported the proposal and considered that the site would lend itself to a small property and there would be no sustainable defensible reason for refusal.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to:

·         That any matters reserved for later approval be determined by this Committee.

(The meeting adjourned at 4.31 pm and reconvened at 4.36 pm.)

Outline planning application for the erection of 2 detached dwellings.

With reference to Minute No. 144, the Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that this application had been deferred at the previous meeting in order that the implications of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) released on the 6 March 2014 could be assessed prior to any decision being made.  The PPG provided a streamlined version of other Government guidance, which had now been cancelled; however, this had not changed the status of the NPPF.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location of the site.  He confirmed that the site was located outside of the Dorrington village boundary.

Members had undertaken a site visit prior to the previous meeting and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. 

Councillor E Marvin, 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 continued to oppose the proposal on sustainability grounds;

·         He expressed concerns with the access road which was narrow and in places only one car width and used by farm vehicles and horse boxes;

·         Equestrian events attracted up to 100 vehicles per week;

·         Users of the road did not conform to the speed limit;

·         The Primary school was in close proximity to the site;

·         There was no pavement to the site;

·         The site was currently agricultural land; and

·         Condover Parish Council had produced a robust SAMDev Plan following consultation and other sites had been identified

Councillor T Barker, the local Ward Councillor, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         Other sites had been identified in the SAMDev process and none of these had come forward for planning approval;

·         The SAMDev process had been robust and based on localism;

·         The development was speculative; and

·         The proposal would not be sustainable.

At the request of the Committee, Councillor E Marvin provided clarification on the location of the proposed access. 

RESOLVED:

That, subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure an off-site affordable housing contribution and to the conditions as set out in Appendix 2 to the report, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Outline planning application for the erection of two detached dwellings (all matters reserved).

Councillor P Nutting left the room in accordance with his declaration in Minute No. 151 above and did not return to the meeting.

With reference to Minute No. 143, the Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that this application had been deferred at the previous meeting in order that the implications of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) released on the 6 March 2014 could be assessed prior to any decision being made.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location and indicative layout of the site and confirmed that the application site had been put forward by the landowner for inclusion in the SAMDev process but had been deemed to be unacceptable.  He confirmed that the Highways Agency had raised no objections.

Members had undertaken a site visit prior to the previous meeting and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. 

Mr P Smith, 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 expressed his disillusionment with the planning process and urged refusal of the application; and

·         How can planning applications outside development boundaries be approved.

Councillor E Marvin, 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:

·         This would be the third application to be considered in Dorrington, which undermined their design statement and credibility;

·         This site was originally considered by the Parish Council but rejected on the advice of Planning Officers on the grounds that visibility would be limited;

·         This application undermined the Parish Council, Shropshire Council and localism;

·         The land was agricultural land and would be lost for ever;

·         To grand permission would open up the flood gates for futher applications;

·         The proposal would not be in line with the wishes of the residents who had requested a mix of dwellings;

·         Two other sites had been identified;

·         Would create a ribboning effect; and

·         Urged refusal on the grounds of difficult access, topography, loss of agricultural land and it had not been supported by Condover Parish Council.

Councillor T Barker, the local Ward Councillor, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council's scheme for public speaking at Planning Committees, during which the following points were raised:

·         If there was such a need for housing the sites put forward in the SAMDev process would have been put forward for planning approval;

·         This was an exploratory application;

·         It would be an unsustainable development and would extend the village in such a visible way that would be detrimental to the area; and

·         This was grade 3 agricultural land.

In the ensuing debate, some Members expressed concerns with regard to the route/track passing through the estate to the Sewage Treatment Plan; poor visibility off the access onto the A49; the screening boundaries between the dwellings would be too close and would consequently impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

Erection of nine dwellings and associated garages; formation of vehicular access.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and explained that the site was located outside of the Bayston Hill Village Development Boundary.  He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning to view the site and had assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, indicative layout, access and parking arrangements. 

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 T Clarke, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote.  He commented that the proposal would be contrary to SAMDev and the site was ouside the development boundary.  He expressed concerns with regard to the site access and commented that the road was already inadequate and further dwellings would increase the number of traffic movements along this stretch of road.  The proposal would also impact significantly on Spring Cottage. 

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 Mrs J MacKenzie as the local Ward Councillor, took no part in the debate and did not vote. 

Mrs E Kay, Clerk to Bayston 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 worked hard to identify sites during the SAMDev process;

·         As the main access to Bayston Hill Pulley Lane was very busy and especially so at rush hour.  Visibility was very poor, the banks were very high and heavily covered in foliage.  The road narrowed along Pulley Lane and there were very few opportunities to park;

·         The size of the properties suggested that children would live there and this gave rise to concerns for their safety;

·         There was already a high proportion of three-bedroomed or more properties in Bayston Hill.  Smaller and affordable housing was needed; and

·         She urged refusal on the grounds of highway and access issues, there was no requirement for this type of housing and it was outside the development boundary.

In response to concerns that Officers were advising Members to determine the application “quickly”, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager explained that he was not encouraging Members to determine the application in a speedy manner but purely advising Members that if the Committee was quorate there was a duty on Councillors to discuss the proposal.

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:

·         He explained that this was a small scale development;

·         The application site was not a field or an extension into the countryside and no precedent for future extensions beyond Bayston Hill would be set;

·         The proposed access was off an existing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

Erection of two residential dwellings (amended description).

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager introduced the application and explained that he had received a request asking if consideration could be given to deferring the application in order that all parties could be represented and present during determination of the proposal.  Councillor Jon Tandy, the local Ward Councillor, was currently unavailable and he had been given an undertaking that he would be informed when, or if, the application would be presented to Committee for determination. 

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Full Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillors T Clarke and Mrs J MacKenzie as the local Ward Councillor, took no part in the debate and did not vote. 

RESOLVED:

That consideration of this application be deferred to the next meeting in order that all parties could be represented and present during determination.

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the Central area as at 3 April 2014 be noted.

To note that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 1 May 2014 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.

Members requested that the following be minuted:

·         A Member expressed his displeasure that some Councillors had referred to the Chairman by his Christian name during the meeting.

·         A Member expressed his displeasure that Members of this Committee had left the meeting prior to all applications being considered and determined. 

RESOLVED:

That it be noted that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee be held at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 1 May 2014 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.