To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor John Hurst-Knight (Sub: Gwilym Butler).

To confirm the minutes of the South Planning Committee meeting held on 6 October 2015.

Contact Linda Jeavons (01743) 252738.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the South Planning Committee held on 6 October 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the amendment as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters.

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 application 15/01171/FUL, Councillor Nigel Hartin declared that he was a tenant of South Shropshire Housing Association and would take no part in the consideration of, or voting on, this application.

Councillor Cecilia Motley declared that she was a member of The Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership and The Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership Management Board.

Councillor David Turner declared that he was a member of The Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership and The Shropshire Hills AONB Partnership Management Board.

Installation of a solar park with an output of approximately 10.71MW on land associated with Upper Meadowley Farm (revised description).

The Technical Specialist Planning Officer introduced the application and with reference to the drawings and photomontages displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout, elevations, bridleway diversion, landscape designations, heritage assets and access routes.  He 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.  He further drew Members’ attention to the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated the previous day and particularly drew attention to the Planning Officer’s comments on page 3 of the Further Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting with regard to heritage assets, listed buildings and their settings pointing out the special regard to be had in relation to heritage assets.

Mr W Cash, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees and responded to questions from members of the Committee. 

Mr S Newell, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees and responded to questions from members of the Committee.

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

·         He had two potential concerns both of which he considered had been addressed.  Firstly, with regard to the proximity of Upton Cressett Hall, he expressed his satisfaction with the view of Historic England that the Hall would not be affected by this proposal; and

·         Secondly, he referred to the consequences of taking best and most versatile land out of production but acknowledged that the applicant had endeavoured to use only grade 3b land and drew the meeting’s attention to paragraph 6.2.9 of the report.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  In response to questions from Members, the Technical Specialist Planning Officer clarified that the Tasley Farm application had been refused because of its impact on heritage assets and not on the use/loss of agricultural land; and, although a proportion of the Meadowley site comprised best and most versatile land, Planning Officers had been satisfied that the applicant had submitted sufficient evidence to justify the use of such land.  Members acknowledged that there had been much support for this application, noted and had special regard to the heritage settings, and noted that there were unlikely to be other preferable sites within a 3km radius of the proposed connection point.  In order to minimise the impact on public rights of way, a Member requested that any gaps in the hedgerow be planted expeditiously and prior to any installation of solar panels.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Outline application (access, landscaping, layout) for erection of 65 dwellings (reduced from 85) and use of land for the siting of 16 holiday units.

The Chairman informed the meeting that this item had been withdrawn by the applicant.

Erection of dwelling and alterations to existing vehicular access (outline application to include means of access, but with matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved).

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings and photographs displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location.  He confirmed that Members had undertaken a site visit that morning and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.1) Councillor Heather Kidd, as local Member, made a statement in support of the proposal and reiterated that Worthen with Shelve Parish Council and the Shropshire Hills AONB had raised no objections.  She took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  

Mr P Middleton, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees. 

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members acknowledged that building on this site would be challenging; expressed concerns regarding the future maintenance and stability of the boundary wall; suggested that a timescale for the completion of the dwelling should be submitted and agreed upon; and reiterated that the scale, design and materials used should reflect and be in keeping with the street scene.

RESOLVED:

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

·         Any subsequent application for reserved matters to be considered by this Committee; and

·         That officers be given delegated authority to issue the outline decision with the following provisions to also be included on the decision notice:

                            i.        A Construction Method Statement to be submitted prior to any works taking place setting out the timescale for the construction of the dwelling;

                          ii.        A stability report regarding the boundary wall to be submitted prior to any works taking place; and

                         iii.        An informative note be included advising on the need for the design of the proposed building to respect its setting in terms of scale and design.

(At this juncture, the meeting adjourned at 3:42 pm and reconvened at 3:58 pm.)

Erection of extension to dwelling, and change of use of adjoining land to additional domestic curtilage.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 77, Councillor Nigel Hartin took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item. 

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings and photographs displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location and the proposed and existing elevations.  He 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.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Richard Huffer, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, he commented that appropriate conditions attached to any permission would address concerns.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members particularly expressed concern regarding the impact of the balcony on neighbouring properties and requested a condition be attached to any permission to restrict the use of the garage as habitable accommodation in the future.

RESOLVED:

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

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

·         An additional condition to ensure the garage shall not be used as additional habitable/living accommodation; and

·         In order to preserve the privacy of neighbouring properties, Planning Officers be granted delegated authority to approve the materials and finishing of the balcony.

Erection of residential development 12No dwellings, garages and roads design.

The Principal Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings and photographs displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  He 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.  He drew Members’ attention to a recent communication from the Shropshire Council Highway Officer which set out in more detail a breakdown of the £20,000 highways contribution and confirmed that any works would be undertaken in consultation with the local Members.

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

Councillor Mrs B Davies, representing Cleobury Mortimer Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Madge Shineton, 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 her statement, the following points were raised:

·         The Parish Plan indicated that more affordable housing was required and smaller properties for the older generation who wished to downsize.  Only 12% said more family housing was needed;

·         The proposal would be contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS11 and CS10, would not be sustainable and would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring dwellings; and

·         The development, along with outstanding planning permissions, would have a major incremental impact on the local road infrastructure and there was nothing that could be done to improve the footpath/pedestrian/cycle routes.

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

·         He concurred with the comments of both Councillor Madge Shineton and the Parish Council;

·         The SAMDev Plan developed in consultation with the community had reached the same conclusion as the Parish Plan;

·         Over 300 homes, including executive homes in Tenbury Road, had been permitted in the last 10 years;

·         Many older people wanted to downsize and remain in Cleobury Mortimer; and

·         A diversity of the type of homes was required.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members particularly expressed concern with regard to the access, the incremental impact of the development on the road network; and the high number and type of dwellings proposed which would be contrary to the Parish Plan.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of this application be deferred to the next meeting, with Members minded to refuse the application on the basis that the proposal:

·         Will be detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring residents;

·         No such need for this type of dwelling has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the southern area as at 3 November 2015 be noted.

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

2.00 pm on Tuesday, 1 December 2015, in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.

RESOLVED:

That it be noted that the next meeting of the South Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Tuesday, 1 December 2015 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.