To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tudor Bebb and Peter Nutting (Sub: Tim Barker).

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 10 September 2015.

Contact Linda Jeavons on 01743 252738.

RESOLVED:

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Central Planning Committee held on 10 September 2015 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 planning applications to be considered at this meeting, Councillor Andrew Bannerman stated that he was a member of the Planning Committee of Shrewsbury Town Council.  He indicated that his views on any proposals when considered by the Town Council had been based on the information presented at that time and he would now be considering all proposals afresh with an open mind and the information as it stood at this time.

With reference to planning application 15/03580/FUL, Councillor Dean Carroll stated that he was the Chairman of the Student Accommodation Task and Finish Group and reserved his right to vote on this item.

With reference to planning application 15/00779/REM, Councillor Roger Evans stated that he had been present during discussions with residents and had attended and given evidence at a Public Inquiry.

With reference to planning application 15/03019/COU, Councillor Jon Tandy stated that his Brother-in-Law owned the neighbouring farm.  He would make a statement and then leave the room prior to consideration of this item.

Erection of 2 no. dwellings with formation of vehicular access off Kingsland Road and associated landscape and open space improvements.

The Team Manager – Development Management introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and access. 

Members had undertaken a site visit on a previous occasion and had viewed the site and assessed the impact on the surrounding area.

Members considered the submitted plans and some expressed concern regarding the loss of a large portion of the green corridor and questioned the adequacy of the visibility splays.  Other Members acknowledged that highway, drainage and flooding issues would be addressed by appropriate conditions and the principle of development on this site had been established as a result of a recent appeal decision.  In response to questions, the Team Manager – Development Management explained that a S106 Legal Agreement would ensure an appropriate affordable housing contribution, and provided clarification on the proposed landscaping/planting and the footprint and layout of this and the previous application.

RESOLVED:

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

·         A Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure an appropriate affordable housing contribution;

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

·         The following additional condition:

No construction and/or demolition work shall be undertaken outside of the following hours: Monday to Friday 07:30 - 18:00, Saturday 08:00 - 13:00. No works shall take place on Sundays and bank holidays.

Reason: to protect the health and wellbeing of residents in the area.

Erection of three (4-storey) blocks of student accommodation; one (3-storey) block of management and post-graduate accommodation; new/altered vehicular access; cycle parks; and ancillary works.

The Team Manager – Development Management introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and access. 

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

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

In accordance with the Council Procedure Rules (Part 4, Paragraph 6.2) Councillor Claire Wild spoke in support of the proposal but did not vote.  During which she raised the following points:

·         The University would be a welcomed addition to Shrewsbury and had been well supported and embraced.

·         There had been only 17 objections to this application;

·         Her only issue was with the façade but she acknowledged that this would be conditioned and could be “worked-through” with the Architect; and

·         She urged approval.

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Andrew Bannerman, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement, 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 welcomed the University which would be an asset to the town of Shrewsbury;

·         He questioned why Councillors had not been involved or given the opportunity to view plans during the pre-application stage and his request for any plans to be considered by a Design Review Panel had been denied;

·         He questioned if the accommodation in its entirety would be required by September 2016 and even if there was an increase in take-up he doubted whether all the accommodation would be needed so soon; and

·         The integrity of the streetscape would be compromised and he suggested deferral so that more consideration could be afforded to the design.  The Civic Society had raised concerns regarding the design which could have been addressed by a Design Review Panel.

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  Members acknowledged and welcomed the benefits that a University would bring to the area but expressed concerns regarding the design of this accommodation (and made specific reference to the frontage and side elevations) and its impact on the streetscape; the proposed location and number of bin storage areas; and the lack of short-stay parking and a managed drop-off area.  In response to questions/comments from Members, the Team Manager – Development Management explained that the timetable for the development of the accommodation would not be a planning consideration and conditions relating to bin storage, vehicular access, parking and demolition/working hours could be amended or added.

RESOLVED:

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

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

·         Condition No. 10 to be amended to ensure that the Travel Plan Statement covers appropriate vehicular access during the ‘dropping-off’ and ‘picking-up’ period;

·         Bin store provision to be re-assessed and placed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Approval of Reserved Matters (appearance, landscaping, layout, scale) pursuant to outline permission 13/03920/OUT for mixed residential development of 175 dwellings; construction of estate roads; formation of open space, wildlife corridor and play area.

The Team Manager – Development Management introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and access. 

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 the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of all speakers.  The Team Manager – Development Management provided clarification on the proposed use and location of the open space; reiterated that CIL monies would contribute towards the provision of education and infrastructure; and explained that the size and location of affordable housing had been agreed with the Housing Association and the aspiration of ‘pepper-potted’ affordable housing might not be the most practical solution from a management perspective.

RESOLVED:

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

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

·         The following additional condition:

No development or clearance of vegetation shall take place until a Wildlife Protection (mitigation) plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The plan shall include:

a)      An appropriately scaled plan showing 'Wildlife/habitat Protection Zones' where construction activities are restricted and where protective measures will be installed or implemented;

b)     Details of protective measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid impacts during construction;

c)     A timetable to show phasing of construction activities to avoid periods of the year when sensitive wildlife could be harmed (such as the bird nesting season);

d)      Persons responsible for:

i)     Compliance with legal consents relating to nature conservation;

ii)    Compliance with planning conditions relating to nature conservation;

iii)   Installation of physical protection measures during construction;

iv)   Implementation of sensitive working practices during construction;

v)    Regular inspection and maintenance of physical protection measures and        monitoring of working practices during construction;

vi)   Provision of training and information about the importance of 'Wildlife protection        zones' to all construction personnel on site.

All construction activities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timing of the plan unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason:  To protect features of recognised nature conservation importance.

(At this juncture, Councillor David Roberts left the meeting and did not return.)

Change of use from ancillary residential accommodation and stabling to form two holiday let properties.

In accordance with his declaration at Minute No. 62, Councillor Jon Tandy left the room during consideration of this item.

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 the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15.1) Councillor Tim Barker, as local Ward Councillor and on behalf of Smethcott Parish Council, made a statement, left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement the following points were raised:

·         Would result in overdevelopment of the site resulting in minimal amenity space.

Mr T Hunt, the applicant, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

The Team Manager – Development Management introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and access. 

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

RESOLVED:

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

RESOLVED:

That the Schedule of Appeals and Appeal Decisions for the Central area as at 8 October 2015 be noted.

To note that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee will be held at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 5 November 2015 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall.

RESOLVED:

That it be noted that the next meeting of the Central Planning Committee be held at 2.00 p.m. on Thursday, 5 November 2015 in the Shrewsbury Room, Shirehall, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND.