Contact Us
Frankwell Quay
Shrewsbury
SY3 8HQ
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Meeting to be held in the Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Frankwell Quay, Shrewsbury on Tuesday 29th June 2004 at 5.30 p.m.
Site Visits from The Guildhall at 10.00 a.m. (light refreshments will be provided for Members and Officers in the Staff Room from 5.00 p.m.)
Membership: Councillors: Banks, Bebb, Bushell, Chaplin, Freestone, R. Jones, Owen, Price, Rees, Thurston, Townsend, Mrs Williams and Ms Wild.
Substitutes: Councillors Mrs Allaway, Cooke, Evans, Mrs Jones.
(Subject to confirmation at Annual Council on 24th June 2004)
Committee Officer Responsible: Liz Sidaway – Tel. 01743 – 281032
|
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:
2. 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. 3. That where the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee is minded to refuse an application for planning permission contrary to the officers recommendation then:
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 additional letters before return to members. |
A G E N D A
1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN
2. APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
3. MINUTES -
25th May 2004Recommendation:
That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 25th May 2004 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.
4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTES
5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST AND DISPENSATIONS
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.
6. APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT
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 Development Control Manager on which there is no debate, the recommendations of the Officers be deemed to have been accepted without any modifications.
7. COMMUTED SUM FOR LOSS OF BOWLING GREEN AT EX WELSH HARP PUBLIC HOUSE, WELSHPOOL ROAD, SHREWSBURY
To consider a Joint Report by the Development Control Manager and the Leisure Services Manager.
Recommendation:
That the sum of £30,000 received as a commuted sum under planning application 03/1011/F be spent on recreation uses/facilities/equipment as set out in 3.0 (a) - (c).
8. ERECTION OF 2 NO. DWELLINGS, FORMATION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS, FOLLOWING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE (AMENDED DESCRIPTION), LAND ADJACENT TO 265 MONKMOOR ROAD, SHREWSBURY
To consider a Report by the Development Control Manager.
Recommendation:
The proposed amendments are relatively minor and do not detrimentally alter the proposed development either in relation to the adjoining properties or the street scene in general and therefore should be approved as working amendments to the previous planning approval.
9. STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
Recommendation:
That the recommendations set out in paragraphs 2.1 - 2.16 of the Report be recommended as this Committee’s changes to the consultation standards for the Development Control Service.
10. ADVERTISEMENT HOARDINGS IN SHREWSBURY TOWN CENTRE CONSERVATION AREA
Recommendations:
1. That the Civic Society be thanked for undertaking the survey; and
2. That Officers seek to secure the removal of advertisement hoardings having an adverse affect on the character or appearance of the Town Centre Conservation Area through the negotiation or the use of enforcement or other powers.
11. NOMINATIONS FOR ATTENDANCE AT A PLANNING SUMMER SCHOOL
As part of the Planning Delivery Grant, an amount of funding has been set aside for Member Training. A Councillors’ Planning Summer School is to be held at Reading University from Friday 3rd September to Tuesday 7th September 2004 at which two places are available. Nominations are sought for attendance at the Summer School.
12. PLANNING APPEALS
The following decisions of the Planning Inspectorate have been received by the Council regarding appeals against a decision to refuse to grant planning permission:
(a) 1 Oakley Grange, Oak Street, Shrewsbury - TPO appeal against the Council’s refusal to allow the removal of 2 Liquidamber trees and their replacement with appropriate species.
Decision:
Allowed 1 April 2004.Summary:
The Inspector considered the key issues to be the impact of the trees on the streetscene, boundary wall, the dwelling in the future and on the conservation area. Additionally the quality of the trees was considered. The conclusion was that they were reasonable trees but were not acceptable in the longer term and more appropriate specimens that would not exceed around 10 metres in height would be better. The Liquidamber were to be replaced within the garden in more sensitive locations which would be of benefit to the area and the dwellings nearby. In conclusion he felt that in terms of their future spread and proximity to the wall, direct damage would be caused and the amenities of residents would be affected. The replacement of the trees elsewhere on the site and appropriate replacements were an acceptable alternative.An associated application for costs against the Council was dismissed on the grounds that the council had properly made the TPO and had defended their case with appropriate evidence.
(b) Land at Grafton House, Grafton - Erection of a detached house Ref: 03/1030/F
Decision:
Appeal Dismissed 19 May 2004Summary:
The key issue in this case was the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The Inspector agreed with the Council in its assertions that though the site was in Grafton, a policy HS4 settlement, its particular location meant that it was in an isolated group of dwellings and even if this part of the settlement qualified for HS4 status, he was not convinced that it lies wholly within the main body of the settlement. In addition he did not believe that the existence of a mobile shop, school bus service and walk in excess of 300metres to the school qualified this part of the settlement as complying with the HS4 strategy; additionally other services in other villages were well beyond walking distance of the appeal site. Finally the appellants reference to an appeal decision in Halfway House which was dismissed was not comparable to this appeal .The new dwelling was therefore in countryside without proper justification contrary to policy LNC3 and to national guidance in PPG7 which both seek to control new development in the countryside for its own sake.(c) 40 Longnor Street, Shrewsbury - Erection of 10 dwellings in two blocks with parking after demolition of the existing structures on site Ref 03/0943/F
Decision:
Appeal allowed 20 April 2004Summary:
The Inspector considered the main issues were the impact of the proposal on the conservation area and on traffic congestion in the locality.With regard to the conservation area the small difference in height between the existing and proposed and adjacent houses and the style of the windows would enhance the locality especially compared to the existing Tower flats. In addition the 3 storey development would aly itself visually to the new Council buildings nearby and the building would provide a visual link between the adjacent developments.
On the highway issue the scheme would provide adequate on site car parking and a turning area at the cul-de sac for general use. Compared to the previous use as a builders yard the scheme was likely to generate less traffic.
In conclusion the development would not have a materially harmful impact on the highway network. The concerns of the tenants of Tower flats regarding displacement was also referred to but this matter was covered by other legislation. Matters raised relating to disturbance during the construction of the flood wall and likely noise from this scheme were not accepted and the distance between the new dwellings and existing would not result in substantial or significant overshadowing.
(d) 39 Ryelands, Radbrook, Shrewsbury - Erection of 1st floor extension over existing garage and rear conservatory Ref 03/0825/F
Decision:
Appeal part allowed (conservatory) part dismissed (first floor extension) 25th May 2004Summary:
The key issue in this case was the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area. The Inspector found no concerns with the conservatory as it had no impact on the character of the area. The extension at first floor however would result in a detrimental terracing effect as there was no gap to the boundary and it extended in front of and behind the neighbouring properties. The personal medical circumstances of the applicant were not given much weight as only exceptionally should personal circumstances be material to the consideration of a planning application. He also considered that the concerns of the neighbour relating to saleability of that property and possible overhanging/impeding of access for repairs, were not planning but legal matters.(e) Land at The Old Swan Montford Bridge - Appeal against an enforcement notice served in relation to the unauthorised change of use from a field to camping site. Ref 00/164
Decision:
Application for costs against the council is not justified 10 June 2004Summary:
The key issues were whether the council had acted unreasonably in withdrawing the notice prior to the determination of the appeal. The Inspectorate considered that the council had served the notice correctly at the time based on the evidence it had gained. The council had also been in discussions with the appellants planning consultant regarding his intention to submit a certificate of Lawfulness based on the evidence they had about the breach. The certificate was not forthcoming and the council did not act unreasonably in serving the notice. when the council were presented with later evidence that cast some doubt on the validity of the notice the council withdrew the notice promptly so as not to cause any undue further work for the appellant.In conclusion ,in the light of the changed circumstances before the council and their prompt withdrawal of the notice, an award of costs in favour of the appellant was not justified.
(f) Land at the former Bath Arms, Station Road, Minsterley
– erection of 2 semi-detached dwellings (03/0624/F)Decisions:
Appeal Dismissed 15 June 204Summary:
The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of adjacent occupiers. The site is within the village development boundary and largely screened from Station Road hence no adverse effects on the character of the area. Given the relationship of the proposed 3 storey dwellings to Station House, the occupiers of that dwelling would suffer undue dominance of their garden area. Similarly the gardens of nos 7-9 Bath Mews would be dominated to an undue extent from the new houses and therefore unacceptable.- 6 Thornhill Road - Erection of a 2m high fence.
Decision: Appeal dismissed 15 June 2004
Summary:
The fence is visually prominent from both Thornhill Road and Westwood Drive. In this area front gardens are generally open which contributes considerably to the generally pleasant street scene. The roadside fence causes substantial harm to the appearance of the area.- EXEMPT ITEMS
The Chief Executive will report that the following items relate to exempt matters under Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Committee will be asked to consider passing the following resolution:
RESOLVED:
That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the remaining items on the grounds that they could involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 13 & 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
14. ERECTION OF A FENCE AND OTHER WORKS AT 2 ALEXANDRA AVENUE, MEOLE BRACE
To consider the Report of the Development Control Manager.Recommendation:
The recommendation is detailed in the exempt report.
15. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: MONITORING
To consider the Report of the Development Control Manager.Recommendation:
The recommendation is detailed in the exempt report.
Guildhall, Shrewsbury 21/06/04
Copies of the attached reports are available in large print on request from the Committee Section at The Guildhall, Frankwell Quay, Shrewsbury, SY3 8HQ Tel. 01743 281032