Shrewsbury & Atcham
Borough Council

1. MINUTES - 29^th June 2004

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Control and Environmental Protection Committee held on 29^th June 2004 be confirmed as a correct record and be signed by the Chairman.

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE/NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTES

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 Development Control Manager on which there is no debate, the recommendations of the Officers be deemed to have been accepted without any modifications.

To consider the Report of the Development Control Manager.

That the uses as set out below be agreed as acceptable in accordance with Condition 16 of the planning approval (ref: 04/0140/F) : -

The building would be used for those who currently use the Church Hall (senior citizens, pram club, children's holiday club, Sunday School, youth congregation, alpha courses and Parish Council Committee meetings). The building will also be used for developing Community uses such as adult education, health and social service clinics, lunch clubs, youth clubs, drop in sessions, school use and local clubs and associations. Wedding receptions would only be held when the ceremony has taken place in the Holy Trinity Church.

To consider the Report of the Development Control Manager.

Recommendations

1. That planning permission be granted to application number 99/1009 subject to standard conditions and the erection of a boundary fence to delineate the residential curtilage.

2. That planning permission be granted to application number 99/1012 subject to standard conditions and the retention of the existing landscaping around the tennis court.

To consider the Report of the Development Control Manager.

The Council raises no objection to the loss of the 16 payphones though regrets the loss of the rural payphones where no other such phone exists within walking distance.

To consider the report of the Planning Policy Manager.

That the five existing Article 4 Directions in Belle Vue, Mountfields, Castlefields, Cherry Orchard and St Julian's are replaced with a Direction under Article 4(2) of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 withdrawing permitted development rights as set out in Annex C

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) 18 Sunfield Park, Shrewsbury - Tree preservation order Appeal against the refusal to allow the removal of 2 trees under TPO Sunfield Park No 2. Ref 03/0754/TPO

Decision: Appeal partly dismissed and partly allowed 22nd June 2004

Summary: The Secretary of state agreed with his Inspectors recommendation that there was a possibility that the tree T6 a single upright cedar tree of 25metres height may have suffered some damage due to the installation of underground electricity cables nearby and its replacement was acceptable. The other tree T2 a Pine tree of 24 metres in height was of healthy and normal density and contributed to the visual amenity of the area. The removal of this tree was not supported.

(b) Land at Old ROC Post Church Road, Dorrington, Shrewsbury - Appeal against an enforcement notice requiring the demolition of a single storey building previously approved as a stable/coachhouse Ref 99/054/ENF

Decision: Appeal dismissed 2 July 2004.

Summary: The appeal was on 4 grounds called b c d and f:

Ground b- the building and driveway/path did exist as stated and the appeal on ground b failed.

Ground c- The building had been constructed to a different standard than the 1982 approval and later 1997 amendment. Cavity walls had been constructed, domestic glazed front door, standard domestic windows and other minor changes including a driveway and path. These cumulative changes resulted in the erection of a building of very different character to that approved in 1982.The appeal therefore failed on ground c.

ground d- This dealt with whether the building had been substantially completed prior 29th October 1999 and therefore be exempt from enforcement control. The inspector considered the proposition that the original stables/coachhouse during construction had at some point become an uncompleted dwelling. He referred to the "Sage" appeal case which was remarkably similar to this including later applications to change the use of the structure to a holiday cottage. The councils expert witness gave advice on stables construction and this evidence was given great weight. On the balance of probability the building had not been substantially completed for its intended purpose prior to 29 Oct 1999 and the appeal failed on this ground.

Ground f- The requirement to remove the driveway and path was accepted by the inspector as an essential part of the overall building operation. The whole building was in breach of planning control. Furthermore the building which was started in time (the 1982 permission) also does not now have permission to be used for its original intended purpose. The requirement to remove the building was therefore acceptable and the appeal on ground f failed.

An application for costs by the Appellant against the Council was dismissed as the inspector considered the notice to comply with all the requirements and was appropriately defended at the inquiry with expert witnesses.

(c) Land at The Fields, Off Beehive Lane, Kingsland Road, Shrewsbury - Erection of a dwelling with access after demolition of the existing garage. ref 03/1337/F

Decision: appeal dismissed 5 July 2004

Summary: The key issues were the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the living conditions of adjoining properties. The inspector did not consider the building to cause undue harm to neighbours due to its position and design. he did however believe that the position and design was such that the plot size was inadequate and lead to the coalescence of development due to the upsetting of the balance between buildings and open space in the locality. The design was inappropriate due to the detailed elevational treatment which was out of keeping with the area. In conclusion the proposal would cause serious harm to the conservation area by virtue of the plot position, size and design of the dwelling.

(d) St Annes, South Hermitage, Shrewsbury - Erection of a 2 storey side extension ref 03/1351/F

Decision: Appeal allowed subject to conditions.

Summary: The key issue was the impact of the extension on the amenity of neighbours by virtue of overshadowing. In this case the extension would not be unduly visually intrusive and the existing tree screening would break up the new brickwork and roof. The hipped roof design would also help to reduce the visual impact and help to reduce any overshadowing. The position of the extension and its relationship to Park House is such that there would be some overshadowing but not enough to create a significant problem. The principal room windows were on different elevations and the patio would not be in use all year round. The existing garage to Park House would also create more shadow than the proposal. The extension would actually improve the visual impact of the dwelling in the street scene.

This application was refused contrary to officer recommendation.

(e) Land at Ruckley Barn Ruckley Nr Shrewsbury - Construction of a new dwelling ref 03/1572/F

Decision: Appeal dismissed 13 July 2004

Summary: The key issue in this case was the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance on the area. The inspector considered in some detail the fact that the building had been approved for ancillary storage and garaging for the dwelling and was under construction. The site was in open countryside and no evidence was provide to show that it was for affordable housing or an agricultural worker. As a garage it was not a rural building and therefore the conversion policy was also not appropriate. Policy HS16 was a relevant consideration as it related to adaptation of buildings as well as re-use. The proposed external alterations would have a significant adverse effect on its character and appearance. Also its use as a separate dwelling with the associated domestic laying out of the garden, car parking etc would change the appearance of the site. The approved structure had a simple form which the new proposal did not. In conclusion the development would detract from the rural character and appearance of the area and conflict with established planning policies for the area.

(f) River Heights, 7 Darwin Gardens, Mountfields - Application to pollard a Lime tree under TPO Mountfields 2002. ref 03/1246/TPO

Decision: Appeal dismissed 13th July 2004

Summary: The key issue was whether the pollarding of the tree would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. the tree was mature and had a significant impact in the locality and to views from further afield and contributed to the character of the conservation area. It was a healthy tree and some limited pruning was necessary to prevent future problems. However the significant pollarding that was proposed would remove most of the tree's public amenity and was not acceptable and the appeal was dismissed.

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:

That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the remaining item on the grounds that it could involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 13 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

11. ENFORCEMENT OF ARTICLE 4 DIRECTIONS IN CONSERVATION AREAS

To consider the report of the Planning Policy Manager.

The recommendation is detailed in the exempt report.

The Guildhall, Shrewsbury

19/07/04

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