To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor David Minnery.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the North Planning Committee held on 26^th August 2014, attached, marked 2.

Contact Shelley Davies on 01743 252726.

That the Minutes of the meeting of the North Planning Committee held on 26^th August 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 agenda item 16, Councillor Gerald Dakin declared that he would leave the room prior to consideration of planning application 13/03481/OUT due to a perception of bias.

With reference to agenda item 16, Councillor Joyce Barrow declared that she would leave the room prior to consideration of planning application 13/01393/OUT due to a disclosable pecuniary interest. She added that she would also leave the room prior to consideration of planning application 13/04845/FUL due to a perception of bias.

Outline application (access for approval) for residential development

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the outline application. She drew Members’ attention to the schedule of additional lettersand confirmed that Members had attended a site visit on Monday 22^nd September 2014 to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.The Principal Planning Officer explained that following the reduction of houses from 37 to 12 and the offers of funds to provide a footpath, Officers were now recommending approval of the application and advised that an additional condition to limit the number of houses to no more than 12 be added to any permission granted.  She also confirmed that the Highways Agency had confirmed that 12 dwellings would have no detrimental impact on the A5 and had removed their holding objection.

Mr Stephen Haworth, representing West Felton Parish Plan Committee, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         Why did the report refer to 32 houses and not 12 as stated by the Principal Planning Officer;

·         It was not clear from the Officers report whether the boundary was the fence or the stonewall;

·         West Felton did not want any private market housing in the parish;

·         SAMDev should be given substantial weight;

·         Why did the Planning Authority not know agricultural land classifications;

·         The development would impact on listed buildings; and

·         There had been no arboricultural assessment in relation to the proposed footpath through Orchard Drive and Dovaston Court.

Mr Ian Hutchinson, representing West Felton Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         Six months ago the Committee approved an application for 35 houses in West Felton against the community’s wishes;

·         The Government had since confirmed that inappropriate developments could be refused;

·         The site was classed as open countryside in SAMDev;

·         The Parish Council did not consider the application to be democratic, sensible or necessary; and

·         He urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Mr Martin Parish, agent for the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The proposal had been reduced to 12 dwellings;

·         The application would not cause any ecological harm;

·         The application preserved a grade 2 listed structure; and

·         The application would not require Holyhead Road to be narrowed and included a footpath.

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor Steve Charmley addressed the Committee as the Local Member, during which the following points were raised:

·         There had been no assessment of the woodland area;

·         The application would result in the overdevelopment of West Felton; and

·         He asked the Committee to uphold the wishes of the residents.

In response to questions raised by speakers and Members of the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed:

·      The application had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

Outline application for mixed residential use; formation of new vehicular access and estate roads and creation of public open space

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the outline application. She drew Members’ attention to the schedule of additional lettersand confirmed that Members had attended a site visit on Monday 22^nd September 2014 to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

Mr Chris Jones, representing West Felton Parish Plan Committee, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         He referred to an previous application that was refused by the Committee and urged Members to do the same for this application;

·         He stressed that West Felton had tripled in size in recent years;

·         The application was market led and on good quality agricultural land; and

·         The application was not infill or sustainable development and would reduce community cohesion.

Mr Stephen Haworth, representing West Felton Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The application would result in a loss of agricultural land, cause visual harm to the village, endanger pedestrian safety and reduce community cohesion;

·         The development would increase traffic in the village;

·         It was unclear from the report if the grass verges were adopted;

·         There had been no notification to the bus companies; and

·         Soil testing had shown the land was of a high quality.

Mr Clive Roberts, agent for the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The loss of agricultural land was not significant;

·         The agricultural land was shown as grade 3;

·         Pedestrian safety would be improved by the development and the new footpath and the Highways Officer was satisfied with the proposal;

·         The development would not cause harm to the village; and

·         The education department had made suggestions on how to overcome the issue of over capacity at the primary school.

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor Steve Charmley addressed the Committee as the Local Member, during which the following points were raised:

·         The development would narrow the highway;

·         The application would enable access to the large field;

·         If development on agricultural land continued Shropshire would no longer be a farming community;

·         The local community was against the development; and

·         The Highways Agency had not been consulted on the proposed road narrowing.

In response to questions raised by speakers and Members of the Committee, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that bus companies were not statutory consultees, the highway was adopted and the verge was a highway verge. It was further explained that the Highways Authority did not cut all verges but would have a duty to do so if required for safety reasons.  She also confirmed that the Highways Agency had withdrawn their holding objection taking in to account the number of houses now proposed in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Residential Development of 14 detached dwellings.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the outline application. He drew Members’ attention to the schedule of additional lettersand confirmed that Members had attended a site visit that morning to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor John Cadwallader addressed the Committee as the Local Member, during which the following points were raised:

·         The Parish Plan Action Group had balloted and fully consulted with the residents of Norton in Hales as part of the SAMDev process and they had agreed that the village should not be considered a hub/cluster and should remain designated as open countryside;

·         The school created additional traffic congestion in the area;

·         He was concerned about visibility splays and the cumulative impact of the proposed development and others that were in the pipeline would have on the village; and

·         There was no demand for this type of housing within the village.

Mr Paul Turner, Agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The site was unique in that it was surrounded on three sides by residential development and on the fourth by a road;

·         A good range of local services were available;

·         The local primary school would benefit through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution;

·         The proposed development would respect and reflect the architecture of the village; and

·         Amended plans had been submitted in response to concerns.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to concerns raised by the local member relating to the cumulative impact of the proposed development on the village and explained that this was the first application before members; once a decision was reached on one application that did become a material consideration in relation to others.  With regard to concerns surrounding the design of the proposed dwellings and whether they would be in keeping with the village, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that Historic Environment Officers had confirmed that the designs were acceptable.  Members of the Committee asked that Planning Officers ensured that the Conservation Officer was consulted when final details in relation to design were submitted. 

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal, the majority of Members expressed their support for the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the applicants entering into a S106 agreement to secure affordable housing at the rate relevant at the time of the submission of reserved matters, the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and a note recording on file to ensure that the Conservation Officer is consulted when the final details in relation to design are submitted.

Outline application for the erection of fourteen dwellings incorporating two affordable units (to include formation of vehicular and pedestrian access)

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the outline application for the erection of fourteen dwellings incorporating two affordable units (to include formation of vehicular and pedestrian access). He drew Members’ attention to the schedule of additional letters and confirmed that Members had attended a site visit that morning to assess the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area.

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor John Cadwallader addressed the Committee as the Local Member, during which the following points were raised:

·         Cumulative impact was an important consideration, the village of Norton in Hales could potentially see an increase of 35%; and

·         Consideration should be given to SAMDev and developing plans.

During the ensuing debate, concern was expressed at the location of the proposed development which was on the edge of the village, extending it into open countryside, the cumulative impact of the development on the village of Norton in Hales and the inappropriate scale of the development given the local context.  Whilst the Committee acknowledged the benefits in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) when there was an insufficient supply of housing land, they considered greater weight should be given to the emerging SAMDev Policies and saved local plan policies.

RESOLVED:

That Members were minded to refuse Planning Permission against the Officer’s recommendation.  The Committee acknowledged the social and economic benefits of boosting the supply of open market and affordable housing but were concerned at the cumulative impact the development would have on the village, which was covered by a Conservation Order (although it was noted that the site was not within the Conservation Area) and gave greater weight to the emerging SAMDev Policies and saved local plan policies which classified the site as being within open countryside.   They considered that the application would therefore not be in accordance with policy CS6 as it would not protect the natural built and historic environment.

A further report, on reasons for refusal would be considered at a future meeting of this Committee, in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Constitution.

Erection of 1No dwelling with detached garage (revised scheme)

(The Chairman, as the local ward Councillor for this application vacated the Chair and the Vice-Chairman, Councillor Paul Wynn presided for this item.)

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of one dwelling with detached garage (revised scheme), drawing Members’ attention to the schedule of additional letters and confirming that Members had attended a site visit that morning and had assessed the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.  The Principal Planning Officer drew Members’ attention to the need to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting in accordance with S66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservations Area) Act 1990 and Part 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Councillor Nick Barclay, on behalf of Kinnerley Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The cumulative effect of new development within Kinnerely meant that the village had already made a significant contribution to the Council’s five year housing land supply; and

·         The historic setting of the Cross Keys Inn must be protected.

Mr Charles Green, on behalf of The Cross Keys Action Committee, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The Public House was currently thriving;

·         It had been registered as a community asset;

·         The Grade II listing of the public house meant that it had historical significance and it dated from the 14^th Century; and

·         Weight should be given to paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Mr Malcolm Guest, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The loss of a section of the beer garden was offset by the fact that there was ample space for a large beer garden at the rear of the pub; and

·         Changes were required to the Public House to ensure that it remained viable.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor Arthur Walpole, as the Local Member, made a statement, and then left the room, taking no part in the debate and did not vote. During his statement the following points were raised:

·         The Cross Keys Inn had been registered as a designated community asset, which represented the extent of the effort to protect a critical asset to the village;

·         One dwelling built on the site would result in a critical loss of viability to the public house; and

·         Kinnerley did not need any more houses.

During the ensuing debate, Members expressed concern at the close proximity of the proposed dwelling and the harm that the development would cause to the public house, which was a Grade II Listed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Erection of 2 no. one bedroom retirement bungalows.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the outline application for the erection of two one bedroom retirement bungalows, confirmed that Members had attended a site visit that morning to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

Councillor Edward Towers on behalf of Wem Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The development was considered to be speculative;

·         The site was a narrow strip of land near to the river bank;

·         The removal of tree roots would affect the land; and

·         Although they acknowledged that the Environment Agency had not objected to the proposals, a storm drain in the area meant that the site was prone to flooding during heavy rain fall.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the meeting of Council held on 27 February 2014, Councillor Pauline Dee, as the Local Member, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote. During her statement the following points were raised:

·         The site was very narrow and up to the edge of the pavement;

·         The storm drain could potentially be damaged; and

·         Concern was expressed at the detrimental effect the development would have on the amenity of existing residents.

During theensuing debate, Members expressed concern at the size of the site, which would result in a cramped development and the provided limited residential amenity to future residents and was not in keeping with the character of the area.

RESOLVED:

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

The scheme resulted in development which would be cramped and contrived, provide very limited residential amenity to future occupiers and due to the close proximity to the road frontage, was not in keeping with the character of the area and was therefore contrary to Policy 6 if the Shropshire Core Strategy and H5 of the North Shropshire Local Plan.

(Councillor Vince Hunt left the meeting at this point)

Outline application for the erection of 2 detached dwellings; to include means of access

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of two detached dwellings to include means of access and confirmed that Members had attended a site visit that morning to assess the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal, the majority of Members expressed their support for the officer’s recommendation, subject to an additional condition to require submission of details showing the levels of the site before and after development.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and an additional condition to require submission of details showing the levels of the site before and after development.

Variation of Conditions 6 and 7 of planning permission 12/02314/OUT Conditions relate to protected species (Great Crested Newts) which no longer appear to be present at the site.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application for a variation of Conditions 6 and 7 of planning permission 12/02314/OUT.  Conditions related to protected species (Great Crested Newts) which no longer appeared to be present at the site.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Outline application (access) for the erection of 7 dwellings

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the outline application (access) for the erection of seven dwellings. He drew Members’ attention to the schedule of additional letters, which provided an update from Natural England, confirming that they had no objection to the application.  He confirmed that Members had attended a site visit the previous morning to assess the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area.

Carole Warner, representing Welshampton and Lyneal Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         Drainage and flooding should be given consideration in relation to adjacent properties and also the wider area;

·         The Committee should give weight to the cumulative impact;

·         The Parish Council were not against development but it should be phased and appropriate; and

·         Consideration should be given to highways concerns, as the site was close to a junction and the access was only just within the 30 mph zone;

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor Brian Williams addressed the Committee as the Local Member, during which the following points were raised:

·         The site was not a SAMDev Site;

·         Consideration should be given to cumulative impact; and

·         The site was too close to the junction and the development would impact on highways safety.

Mrs Penny Bicknall, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The development would provide additional benefits to the community, through affordable housing, highways improvements, footpath widening and the provision of a community play area;

·         The points made by the previous speaker relating to drainage were irrelevant and there would be no impact on the village in this respect; and

·         The location was sustainable.

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal Members expressed their support for the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and the applicant entering into a S106 to secure the provision of affordable housing.

(Councillors Steve Davenport and David Lloyd left the meeting at this point)

Outline application for the erection of a single detached dwelling to include access, layout and scale.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the outline application for the erection of a single detached dwelling to include access, layout and scale. He drew Members’ attention to the schedule of additional letters, which provided details of an amended Condition 5. 

Carole Warner, representing Welshampton and Lyneal Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which she briefly stated that she wished to reiterate the Parish Council’s concerns in relation to SAMDev and drainage.

Mr Justin Stevenson, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The application was for access, layout and scale;

·         The site was well screened;

·         Access to the site was from the North, along the existing road; and

·         The application would improve visibility to the North West.

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal Members expressed their support for the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the applicants entering into a S106 to provide an affordable housing contribution and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 and as amended in the Schedule of Additional Letters.

Outline application for the erection of 2No dwellings (to include access and layout)

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the outline application for the erection of 2 dwellings, to include access, layout and scale, drawing Members attention to the Schedule of Additional Letters.

Having considered the submitted plans for the proposal Members expressed their support for the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be granted in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the applicants entering into a S106 legal agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution and subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the northern area be noted.

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

2.00 pm on Tuesday 21^st October 2014, in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury.

It was noted that the next meeting of the North Planning Committee would be held at

2.00 pm on Tuesday 21^st October 2014, venue to be confirmed.

The Chairman advised that this meeting would be adjourned and reconvened on Wednesday, 1^st October 2014 to consider Agenda Item 16 and the applications contained within the report. 

This part of the meeting ended at 6.28 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 2.00 p.m. on Wednesday, 1^st October 2014.

Apologies for absence were noted from Councillor David Lloyd.

The Planning Services Manager introduced the report and provided clarification on the five year land supply issue.  He explained that under delivery on the ground would continue to erode the five year land supply figure until such a time as development activity on the ground increased, with this in mind, in some cases and to encourage submission of Reserved Matters he was recommending that a limit of one year for the submission of Reserved Matters be agreed, rather than the three years previously agreed.

65.1  Land Adjacent to Woodbury Hengoed, Oswestry, SY10 7EU (13/02994/OUT)   

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in the report to Committee of 15^th October 2013, an amended condition limiting the outline permission to a period of 12 months.

65.2  Land West of London Road, Irelands Cross, Woore, Shropshire/04483/FUL (13/02698/OUT)

Mr Dave Richards, representing Woore Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The Parish Council strongly opposed the development;

·         The proposed development would result in the erosion of the countryside; and

·         The Parish had seen a 35% growth in residential development since 2010 and consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of the development;

·         The Parish Council wrote to the Council’s Planning Policy Manager on 11^th April 2014 to say they wished the designation as a Community Hub and Cluster to be removed from the Site Allocations and Management of Development DPD and that therefore Policy CS5 regarding open countryside should now apply; and

·         This change in circumstances should be taken into account in deciding the application.

In accordance with Rule 6.1 of the Council Procedure Rules contained in Part 4 of Shropshire Council’s Constitution, Councillor John Cadwallader addressed the Committee as the Local Member, during which the following points were raised:

·         He questioned the validity of the terms of the S106 Legal Agreement, particularly in relation to Highways Condition in a letter sent to the Area Planning Manager; and

·         Requested that consideration of the application be deferred until this matter was resolved.

Mr Gez Willard, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees during which the following points were raised:

·         The development was within a sustainable settlement and the minutes of the meeting at which the application was originally considered confirmed this was the view of the Committee;

·         The S106 Legal Agreement was in place and the developer was waiting to start work on the site; and

·         The development would make a contribution to the Council’s five year housing land supply.

The Planning Services Manager advised that within the SAMDev DPD submitted by the Council to the Planning Inspectorate in July for examination, Woore Irelands Cross and Pipegate were designated as a Community Hub.

The Council’s Solicitor confirmed that the S106 agreement was signed and awaiting completion subject to the outcome of this meeting and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.