Erection of a detached dwelling.

The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer introduced the application for the erection of a detached dwelling and confirmed that the Committee had undertaken a site visit when the application had previously been to Committee on 5^th February 2019. Members’ attention was drawn to the information contained within the schedule of additional letters which referred to additional representations received from Ellesmere Rural Parish Council and a technical note that had been submitted by the planning agent.  The Area Planning and Enforcement Officer reported that the technical note had been forwarded to Shropshire Council’s Conservation Officer and their comments were reported.

Councillor Graham Dyke, on behalf of Ellesmere Rural Parish Council spoke in support of the proposal in accordance with Shropshire 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 Brian Williams, 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 their statement, the following points were raised:

·         Referring to the recommended reasons for refusal, these were the opinions of officers and not the Local Planning Authority (LPA);

·         The local parish council and residents of Lee did not feel that proposed development would have any adverse effect on the surrounding area; and

·         The existing agricultural building was scruffy, the proposed dwelling would improve the site and be visually beneficial.

Amy Henson, 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 the ensuing debate some members commented that the site was not particularly tidy, the layout and orientation of the proposed development was in keeping and not incongruous and the overall design would be appropriate in scale and character in relationship to the surrounding landscape and built environment.  Furthermore, the Committee considered that the proposed development would not cause any additional harm to the significance of the designated and non designated heritage assets.  It was considered it would lessen the harm currently caused to the heritage assets by the existing building on the site, and therefore met the requirements of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The Committee considered the development was not considered to be in open countryside, was in the settlement and could be said to be infill therefore in compliance with the Council’s adopted policies.  It was also noted that there was strong local support for the proposed development. 

Having considered the submitted plans and listened to the comments made by all of the speakers, the majority of members expressed their support for the proposals, contrary to the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted, contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reasons:

The Committee considered that the proposed development would not cause any additional harm to the significance of the designated and non designated heritage assets.  It was considered it would lessen the harm currently caused to the heritage assets by the existing building on the site, and therefore met the requirements of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The layout and orientation of the proposed development was in keeping and not incongruous and the overall design would be appropriate in scale and character in relationship to the surrounding landscape and built environment.

The development was not considered to be in open countryside, is in the settlement could be said to be infill therefore being in compliance with the Council’s adopted policies.

That authority be delegated to the Planning Services Manager to agree the wording of appropriate conditions as detailed below;

·         Time limit

·         Plans

·         Materials – to be submitted.

·         Landscaping plan prior to works

·         Visibility splays to be set out as shown on plans prior to occupation

·         Access and parking area to be satisfactorily laid prior to occupation

·         Access apron constructed to current Shropshire specification prior to occupation

·         No gates within 5m of the highway

·         Ecological clerk of works for newts

·         1 bat box & 1 bird box.

·         No external lighting without approval

·         Joinery details (windows and doors)

·         Metal rainwater goods

·         Exterior services

·         Roof construction