Erection of two residential dwellings (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 detailed the planning history to the application noting that the appeal decision to a previous refusal had been appended to the committee report. With reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations. He also highlighted the changes to the current scheme compared to the previous application, which was dismissed on appeal.  

A number of additional letters had been received in objection to the application. The Area Planning and Building Control Managerread these out to the Committee. The objections included the following issues:

·         The narrow access was unsafe and inadequate;

·         The increased traffic would create noise and vibration;

·         The proposal was out of character and would result in loss of privacy for residents and  cause harm to wildlife;

·         The application did not address the issues raised in the previously refused application;

·         That the fence to the neighbouring property should be retained; and

·         The parking space for No. 112 London Road should be conditioned for the occupiers only and not commercial vehicles.

The Area Planning and Building Control Manager reported that the application had been subject to a significant amount of objection. He added that the previous issues raised by the inspector had been largely overcome with the amendments to the revised scheme and explained that the inspector had awarded costs against the Council in relation to the refusal reason of highway safety despite dismissing the appeal.

By virtue of the amendment made to Shropshire Council’s Constitution, as agreed at the Council Meeting held on 27^th February 2014, Councillor T Clarke, as the local Ward Councillor, made a statement, took no part in the debate and did not vote. He stated that he considered the access to the site to be inadequate and still had concerns in relation to this issue.

Mr P Enticknap, 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:

·         Local residents had raised significant concerns in relation to the proposal;

·         The previous refusal was the correct decision as appeal was dismissed;

·         The proposal was an unacceptable form of development and did not protect and enhance the natural environment;

·         The application was not appropriate in scale and constituted back-land development;

·         The proposal was in close proximity to a number of trees which might be removed in future; and

·         The proposal was contrary to Policy CS6 and the NPPF.

Ms H Ball, on behalf of Shrewsbury Town 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 application had caused significant local concern;

·         The proposal constituted back-land development;

·         The lack of pedestrian access was unacceptable;

·         It would be detrimental to the green character of the area;

·         Although there was no right to a view there was a right to privacy;

·         The proposal was in close proximity to a number of trees; and

·         The proposal was contrary to Policy CS6.

Councillor J Tandy, local Ward Member, 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 application was still unacceptable despite the amendments to the scheme;

·         Utilizing residential gardens was an inappropriate form of development;

·         Over 73 objections to the development had been received; and

·         The access would be difficult for emergency and commercial vehicles to enter.

In response to a question from a Member, the Area Planning and Building Control Manager stated that the concerns of the access had not been overcome completely but the removal of one dwelling had addressed most issues and a condition in relation to the proposed material of the driveway to reduce disturbance to neighbouring properties had been included.

In the ensuing debate, Members expressed the view that although they had concerns regarding the access and the loss of amenity/privacy for local residents they accepted that the amended scheme had addressed a number of previous concerns and considered that there would be no defensible reason for refusal.

RESOLVED:

That The Area Planning Manager be given delegated authority to grant planning permission, subject to:

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

·         Additional conditions in relation to construction hours and restricting the displaced car parking space for occupiers; and

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