Shrewsbury & Atcham
Borough Council

Members are respectfully reminded of the following planning procedure adopted by the Council:

1. The Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee will refer to the Planning Committee for determination:

1. any proposed refusal of deemed planning permission or the reference back to the Cabinet of a decision to seek planning permission;

2. and with reasons, any application for planning permission where the Committee is minded to approve the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation and where, if approved, the application would be a significant departure from the policies of the development plan.
3. any controversial application which this committee has failed to determine.

1. That in the event of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee recommending the determination of an application for planning permission contrary to a development plan then the reason for so doing shall be minuted.
2. That where the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee is minded to refuse an application for planning permission contrary to the officers recommendation then:

1. the Committee shall specify as fully as possible the proposed grounds for refusal;
2. the Solicitor in conjunction with the Development Control Manager shall be asked to consider whether any of the grounds for refusal are lawful and sustainable;
3. If one or more grounds for refusal are lawful and sustainable the application shall be refused on the grounds stated;
4. if none of the grounds are considered to be lawful and sustainable, the application shall be referred back to the Committee for determination at the next meeting with a report from the Solicitor.

4. That all correspondence received by members on current or forthcoming planning applications be forwarded to the Planning Department for details to be included in the officers’ report or schedule of late letters before return to members.

1. MINUTES – 3^rd February 2004

Recommendation:

That the Minutes of the meetings of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 3^rd February 2004 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declarations of members’ interests in any matters which are to be considered at this meeting and to receive any dispensations which will be relied upon.

(a) Personal (b) Personal and Prejudicial

When members are declaring a personal interest, or a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of which they have dispensation, they should specify the nature of such interest. Members should leave the room if they have a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of which they do not have a dispensation.

To consider the schedule of applications for development submitted by the Director of Development Services.

The Chairman will propose that with regard to applications on the schedule of applications for development submitted by the Director of Development Services on which there is no debate, the recommendations of the Officers be deemed to have been accepted without any modifications.

The following decision of the Planning Inspectorate has been received by the Council regarding appeals against a decision to refuse to grant planning permission.

(a) 44 Oak Street Shrewsbury - Appeal against refusal of planning permission Ref: 03/0651/F for the erection of a rear dormer window and amended wall and roof to the kitchen.

Decision: Appeal dismissed - 30/01/2004

Summary: The key issues in this case were the impact on the Conservation area and the living conditions of neighbouring properties with respect to overlooking and loss of privacy.

The inspector considered the dormer to be visually dominant and neither respect the scale and character of the house nor harmonise with its design. The materials proposed would also be out of keeping with the more traditional materials found elsewhere in the conservation area.

The proposal would create an additional point of overlooking from a large window over adjacent properties. Significant harm would be caused to those dwellings. In conclusion them proposal was detrimental to the area and the residential amenity of neighbours.

(b) Land at Gorse Lane, Bayston Hill Shrewsbury - Appeal against the serving of an enforcement notice for the erection of a telecommunications mast requiring the removal of the mast. Ref APP/03/0224/ENF.

Decision: Appeal allowed and the enforcement notice quashed, planning permission granted 30/01/2004.

Summary: The original structure was erected under the telecoms prior notification procedure in 1999, but subsequent case law and planning decisions concluded that the mast was unauthorised due to its overall height being greater than 15 metres.

The key issues from the Inspector were the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and whether the harm was outweighed by operational need.

The mast could be seen clearly from the surrounding area including the by-pass. It was an alien feature in its setting with some limited tree screening. The need for the development was identified by the operator and many sites in the area had been investigated. Mast share was also not possible. Due regard had been paid to the reduction in the environmental impact consistent with the operational needs of the applicant. A full account of the health concerns of residents was also considered by the inspector but accepted that the mast met all current exposure guidelines.

In conclusion he accepted that the mast detracted from the character and appearance of the locality but it was designed so as to minimise its visual intrusion.

(c) Site at the Dairy The Spinney Plaish - Appeal against refusal of planning permission for change of use of former dairy to a mixed use res/business and raising of the roof to form additional accommodation (retrospective) Ref 03/0905/F.

Decision: Appeal allowed with new conditions.10/2/2004

Summary: The main issue was the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the property, and its surroundings, having regard to its location in an AONB.

The Inspector compared the building with the approved plans and that the roof was to be raised in any event but the external appearance of the new roof was greatly improved due to the use of clay tiles and the brick features. The building was well screened and was now more in keeping with the surroundings.

Overall the alterations had not resulted in the over-domestication of the building and it was still a plain utilitarian building, which had retained its character as a former agricultural building.

The Inspector did not consider that allowing the appeal would set a precedent for similar actions as there were statutory powers available to prevent them, though it was regrettable that the works had gone ahead without permission.